Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    The American Heritage Dictionary defines sexism as:
    
    Discrimination of one sex against another, esp. by men
    against women, based on the assumption that one sex is
    superior.

    Jim

    Back in the dawn of the first version of this file, a woman
    entered a problem she had.  She had had an accident and cut
    open her face (if I remember correctly).  At the hospital
    emergency room, she had a choice of doctors to sew her up again.
    One was a middle-aged woman, and the other was a young man.  She
    chose the woman on the grounds that she was old enough to have
    received training in needlework in her youth, and would therefore
    do the best possible job of sewing repair.
    
    She therefore had the uneasy feeling that she had engaged in
    sexism, and wanted to know if the Womannoters (no gender restriction)
    felt that she had, or had not.
    
    I quickly replied that she had not engaged in sexism, but in
    Holmesian deduction.  Others agreed immediately, and she was
    quickly relieved of her worry.
    
    Now, if it is hard for the person doing the thinking to distinguish
    between a rapid evaluation and synthesis of data (that Holmesian
    deduction) and an unconscious assumption (sexism), imagine how
    difficult it is for someone on the outside to do that.  I could
    do it because she explained her line of thinking, and *I* decided
    that it was no more sexism than Holmes, by deducing that his impending
    client was an American because his visiting card announced him as
    being named for an American president, was engaging in national
    chauvinism.
    
    As I wrote in an entry yesterday, some women sometime ask for
    responses from only women -- on specific topics.  What I did not
    specifically state was that they did it because they *had already
    deduced* that a male response would not be 1) welcome ior 2) useful.
    
    Since the women who wish response restriction on a particular
    case invariably indicate that this is a *conclusion* which they
    have reached as the *result* of a thought process, I think that
    it would only be courteous to assume that they are not lying.
    Therefore, one should refrain from suggesting that they have not
    really done any thinking, but are actually spewing out sexist
    assumptions.
    
    All this follows from my implied assumption that sexism generally
    operates *from* the unconscious level.  So, how good do you [all]
    think this assumption is?
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  The surgical repair turned out very well.

    
    For those who haven't read them yet, I refer you to 95.46 and 95.48 for
    a couple of comment on this topic.

    Re: .2
    
    Since the decision was based on the doctor's age, it couldn't have
    been sexist.  Now, had she chosen the woman doctor as more likely
    to be more attentive, nurturing, sympathetic, or otherwise 'motherly,'
    THAT would have been sexist.
    
    Part of the difficulty with the taboo isms of today is the word
    "discriminate."  It can mean "to distinguish between" or "to treat
    unfairly."  The first interpretation is important to Valuing
    Differences, the second is antithetical.  Tricky sometimes.

    Oh boy, here's a rathole.  What is the difference between "sexism"
    and stereotypes?  We all use stereotypes to help classify things
    in a very complex world to at least give a base classification to
    something we know nothing about.  Sometimes this works out reasonably
    well until you get to know a particular person; sometimes it
    perpetuates a fallacy since you don't even bother to get to know
    a person's real attributes.
    
    Now, the example given in -.1 regarding the "motherly" charactistics of
    women doctors being sexist.  I wonder if this would be really sexist
    or if it could be based on past experiences.  For example, this
    is not totally unlike my having an opinion that female managers
    are more "people oriented" than male managers.  Is this sexist?  Maybe,
    but when you are looking at a job with limited information you have
    to make a lot of educated guesses based on past experience.  Of
    course, most people after a while realize that these stereotypes
    really don't hold very well and shouldn't be used.  Until then,
    stereotypes and past experience are all you have to go on.
    
    So, I guess that stereotypes (and hence "sexism") might be viewed as
    negative only if the person with those views refuses to alter them
    when presented with new evidence.
    
    Jim    

    Actually, I prefer to look at the situation more in the light of:
    will this affect the person's quality of life, earning power, status
    in the community....that type of thing.
    
    If the doctor was getting paid anyway, I don't see it as a big deal.
    If you choose a GP because she's a woman and you relate better to
    women in that type of situation, fine. No big deal. If you go to
    someone by virtue of the fact that they *are* something, period,
    then we can start talking sexism. 
    
    But suppose you go to someone by virtue of the fact that they are
    male, and you are having prostate problems. Maybe you're shy about
    talking over these problems with a woman. That's *not* sexist.
    
    Suppose you go to a male doctor, and encourage your family and friends
    to go to a male doctor because "women just don't have the brains
    or skills to be good doctors." Now that, sportsfans, is sexism.
    
    Big difference between: "I am more comfortable in a doctor-patient
    relationship with a <gender> doctor."
    
    And: "<gender> doctors are just not as good as <other gender> doctors."
    
    --DE
    

    Re: .5
    
    >Sometimes this works out reasonably well until you get to know a
    >particular person; sometimes it perpetuates a fallacy since you
    >don't even bother to get to know a person's real attributes.
    
    That's the difference between stereotyping and bigotry.  A bigot
    refuses to let go of the stereotype.

'Holmesian inference that the woman was better'

That situation seems prefectly reasonable by itself...

Now the question is, what happens when it is a repeated pattern? What happens
when it is always the case that a man is better qualified and gets the job? Is
that still Holmesian inference, or is it sexism?

"some women sometime ask for responses from only women ... because they *had
already deduced* that a male response would not be 1) welcome ior 2) useful."

Doesn't #1 just beg the question?  It sounds to me like saying 'we don't
want you here because we don't want you here'.

"Useful"?  I don't know... quite possibly *less* usefull then female responses.
But not usefull at all? No.  Unable to contribute something unique? Positively
not.

I think that when the preference of one sex over the other comes out in such a
wideranging basis, something is wrong, whether that basis has any truth in
reality or not. 
    
Think of your Holmesian inference, and think of a time when men had the majority
of the experience in say construction.  Wouldn't it still be sexist to refuse a
woman a job even though by Holmesian inference the men are better suited?

I would agree that sexism is usually from an unconscious level. (no conspiracy
plots from me! :-))

Jim. 
                                      

    Let's see, Jim.
    
    You take a case where a woman writes, ~I do not wish to hear from
    men.~ and write (essentially) that she has to be mistaken.
    
    Now, since she wrote it down, she had to have thought about it,
    since fingers don't type by themselves.  You are therefore indicating
    that her thinking is wrong ior that her statement is false.  So,
    your statements say (This may not be what you intended them to
    say, of course.) that a woman who says, ~I do not wish to hear from
    men.~ is 1) deluded, 2) stupid, or 3) lying.
    
    I think that you think that what you were saying is that different isn't
    necessarily bad.  Fine.  HOWEVER, what I am saying is that there
    are times when, uh, novelty is not welcome.  I'm talking "No
    flamenco dancing in the sickroom!" here.  Does the analogy of a
    sickroom make my (and others') stance more understandable?
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  You wrote, "What happens when it is always the case that
    a man is better qualified...?"
    
    "Always"?  Other than sperm donor, what job did you have in mind?

    Re: .8
    
    >But not usefull at all? No.  Unable to contribute something unique?
    >Positively not.
    
    Depends on the subject.  There are some facets of being female that
    are beyond the realm of experience for males, and vice versa.  For
    instance, men do not know how it feels to be female.  They can have
    an intellectual understanding, but not empathy.  They do not *know*
    the sense of vulnerability that the idea of rape can conjure.  They
    do not *know* the pain and frustration of dysmenorhea.  They do
    not *know* the frustration of being sent to take a typing test despite
    having a college degree.  Not all women know these things either,
    and it's probably best for them not to contribute either.  For while
    their contributions might be interesting or even unique, they would
    not be germane.

"You take a case where a woman writes, ~I do not wish to hear from men.~ and
write (essentially) that she has to be mistaken."

Hmmm... I could have sworn that I said that I didn't understand her reasoning,
that I found, 'male replies are not welcome because I do not wish to hear from
men', to be circular reasoning and meaningless.   That's an entirely different
thing then saying that she doesn't know what she is talking about (her own
feelings).

""Always"?  Other than sperm donor, what job did you have in mind?"

Strike that 'always'...  the rest stands.  I was thinging of situations where as
in your Holmesian example a decision which is apparently sexist, has a good
reason behind it, but when applied on a large scale becomes detramentally
sexist.

"There are some facets of being female that are beyond the realm of experience
for males, and vice versa."

True, but, there have been plenty of times where a man has heard of some advice
for a situation under discussion which he could not have any first hand
experience with from another woman. 
 
JMB

    re: .10
    
    I am deeply disturbed by the idea that I have to have experienced
    something in order to sympathize, understand, care about, or help
    someone who has experienced that thing. 
        
    Understanding, sympathy, compassion, help -- all these things can
    come from a different perspective.  The ability of human beings to
    communicate their emotions across the gaps of body and mind that
    separate us is one of the things that makes us human, not animal. 

    You don't have to have experienced rape or birth or discrimination
    or the joy of a new love to care that another person is in pain or
    be glad for their joy. 
    
    --bonnie 

    Re: .12
    
    >I am deeply disturbed by the idea that I have to have experienced
    >something in order to sympathize, understand, care about, or help
    >someone who has experienced that thing.
    
    That's not what I'm saying.  I believe I stated that you can understand
    or sympathize, but you do it at the intellectual level.  That's
    the difference between sympathy and empathy.  Depending on the request,
    sympathetic responses might not be germane.
    
    >You don't have to have experienced rape or birth or discrimination
    >or the joy of a new love to care that another person is in pain or
    >be glad for their joy.
    
    Right.  You can recognize their feelings.  However, you will be
    less successful in giving them useful answers if they ask "How do
    I cope with these feelings?" because you lack the experience.

Hello again,

  This weekend I had a conversation with a person who claimed that 
the definition I placed in the base note of this topic lost something 
from the original definition in that it implied that sexism could
apply to someone thinking the OTHER sex was better.  They maintained
that the original definition of the word was reserved for people who
felt that their own sex was superior.

  Being a "youngin'" I never knew this before this weekend.  I'm still
not sure that it is true, but if it is it would account for the
reaction I got when I called three woman in this conference sexists
for wanting the opinion of women only at certain times.  I cringe as
I think what they thought when I reread my reply with my new view of 
the definition of "sexist."

  Just wanted to formally apologize in our community if that's what 
these woman thought I was saying about them.  It honestly was not my
intention.

    re: .0
    
    
    
    
    
    
                       Sexism is a social disease.