you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Silverhatband[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Post:

posted by MelMarieCurebee in WomensLiberation

Back when I heard about the Feminist Amendments to the Equality Act, I thought the overall idea was perfect - provide an alternative to the Equality Act that is more progressive, actually protects women, and use that as something to advocate to our senators and representatives in Congress (in the US) instead of merely opposing the Equality Act.

But it's been months since I heard about it and I'm still reluctant to encourage specific people to sign onto it, and every time I explore why that is I come back to the fact that I am ambivalent about protecting people from "sex stereotyping" - ambivalent because I've been the victim of sex stereotyping, and I'd love protection from that, but at the same time I fear what trans activists/men will do with this term. It came to a head when I was reading the following quote from this recent post to Ovarit.

"Up until now, it has been uncontroversial that we exclude all males, including all the innocent ones and the majority of reasonable people, on the basis that we want to exclude a few malfeasant people. That has been perfectly well understood that it was never a character reference. It was never supposed to say that all males were bad because they clearly are not."

Sex stereotyping is defined in the Feminist Amendments as:

the expectation that individuals will manifest behaviors, dress, appearance, grooming, etc. traditionally associated with their sex and refrain from exhibiting those associated with the other sex. and has the caveat that:

At the same time, the Feminist Amendments provide that sex stereotyping discrimination does not include merely recognizing or referring to the sex of an individual. This is essential to allow for meaningful protection against sex discrimination.

Laws have a habit of working their way into lay public consciousness, and I worry that in lay hands, we're still going to see a lot of trans women claiming it's discrimination to keep them away from women's awards and competitions and stuff. I'm not trying to give up on the idea of getting protection from sex stereotyping for myself and other women just to keep it from men and trans women specifically, but I am worried about things like online moderators saying I was "sex stereotyping" when I tell a guy that (despite them being trans), they're behaving just like every other guy I've come across online.

Is this not a risk? Is it "worth it" for the benefit we get from "sex stereotyping" protections? Do other people share my concerns and fears? Does anybody else have a better idea for how to clarify (whether in the law or for the general public) the difference between the bad kind of sex stereotyping and the kind that is necessary for women to describe the nature of social dynamics?

Using the trick I often do to evaluate things, and swapping in race for sex, I imagine that prohibitions against "race stereotyping" would never be considered, and would possibly have less-than-helpful consequences if they were. Race stereotyping is considered racism. Race stereotyping (like with "black" names being selected out in job applications) is usually subtle and hard to prove. And the flip side is that claims to social differences between whites, blacks, and other groups would be subjected to "racial stereotyping" claims. ("All Lives Matter"/"Not All Men" evoke the idea of anti-stereotyping attitudes and beliefs run amok). Should we just stick to the parallel goals of the Civil Rights movement and just call it sexism and leave it there? I know sexism is a poorly understood term, that it's dulled through misuse and necessary overuse, and doesn't carry the bite of "racism" in people's minds, but isn't that what we're actually worried about? The power dynamics that make the stereotyping oppressive, not the fact of stereotyping? (Again, not trying to make it so trans women can get kicked out of jobs because they defy masculine stereotypes, but rather that perhaps we should just call that "sexism", since a powerful party is discriminating against somebody on the basis of their sex, just like the rulings on same-sex marriage came through as discriminatory on the basis of sex).

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know sexism is a poorly understood term, that it's dulled through misuse and necessary overuse, and doesn't carry the bite of "racism" in people's minds, but isn't that what we're actually worried about? The power dynamics that make the stereotyping oppressive, not the fact of stereotyping?

Sorry, I disagree. I think "the fact of sex stereotyping" is harmful to both sexes, albeit often in different ways and to different extents. If feminists want girls and women not to be subjected to sex stereotyping, we've got to be equally adamant in opposing the imposition of sex stereotypes on boys and men as well.

As for this idea that it's the "power dynamics" behind or associated with sex stereotyping and other forms of prejudice animus against groups that makes them "oppressive," damaging and morally objectionable - not the stereotyping, prejudice and animus themselves - the fact is that there are different kinds of "power" - and "power dynamics" operate across all sorts of axes, often in combination.

People who make the argument that stereotyping and prejudice are only objectionable and harmful when combined with a power advantage often overlook the complexities and contradictions that come into play in individual situations of stereotyping and prejudice - which is what originally was meant by "intersectionality."

People who take this view often overlook one of the most basic and centrally-important power imbalances of all: the one between big people and little people, adults and children.

One of the reasons stereotyping and prejudice are so engrained and harmful is that a lot of stereotyping and prejudice is heaped on us all when we are very young by adults and older kids who wield enormous authority and power over the less developed, less clued-in and basically defenseless much smaller people.

Sometimes the stereotypes and prejudice that children are exposed to during their most impressionable years come from adults or older kids of different sexes, races, religions and so on - such as a female teacher scolding a little boy for being a sissy; adults or older kids of one race or ethnicity using slurs about a particular race or ethnicity in earshot of little kids of that race or ethnicity ("chinks," "hymies," "spics," "coons," "wops," "Paddys," "towel heads" and so on); a minister or imam preaching that everyone of other religions are damned to burn in hell; or much-admired men who produce and make music with lyrics that debase girls and women and characterize us all as hoes, sluts, gold-diggers and trash. Sometimes these sorts of harmful stereotypes are heaped on children not by individuals, but by powerful faceless collective forces such as advertising and entertainment media, and the manufacturers of children's toys, games, clothing, bicycles, sports gear, etc.

But just as often, the people who are most effective at filling the heads of defenseless children with stereotypes and prejudices that can do lifelong harm to those children are the children's own parents, grandparents, older siblings, aunts, uncles, etc. Some of the most racist, self-hating ideas that people from disadvantaged racial and ethnic minority groups acquire in their formative years are taught to them by their own families. Often the racist, self-hating beliefs kids pick up from their families are the most damaging of all coz they have been accompanied by all sorts of physical abuse. These harmful ideas have been literally beaten into kids by persons of their own race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion etc who supposedly love and care for the kids.

I don't buy the idea that when women and girls are sexist towards men and boys, it doesn't really count coz females in general don't have power over males. I also don't buy the idea that members of racial and ethnic groups with histories of oppression and minority status can't really be racist, coz racial animus and prejudice only qualifies as "real racism" when it comes from the people with the most or a great deal of power in any given society.

People who are raised from early childhood to have healthy self-esteem, a respect for their own sex, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality etc, and a realistic view of the world and the variety of people in it, tend to react with a good measure of resilience to the sexist, racist, ethnic and other forms of stereotyping, slurs, animus, prejudice that they might encounter later in life. Yes, being treated as second-class and subjected to stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination in adolescence and adulthood is disturbing - and it can knock even resilient people off their feet.

Still, I believe that what primes adolescents and adults to be most vulnerable to and deeply injured by the stereotyping, prejudice and animus they experience in adolescence and adulthood are the psychic wounds inflicted in childhood. People raised from early childhood to have self-esteem tend not to be utterly destroyed by such experiences, coz they have a healthy core sense of self, self-worth and perspective that will help them weather the slings and arrows they encounter later in life. The people who are most vulnerable to being utterly destroyed by sexism, racism and other forms of prejudice in adolescence and adulthood are those who first internalized negative ideas about their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, class, disabilities, etc very early in life as children - and who learnt those negative ideas at the knees - and often the hitting, punching, beating hands - of the adults who raised them and supposedly loved them with all their hearts.

[–]Silverhatband[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

:) I had a visceral reaction to this post. Glad I brought it here, for discussion. (I am Not the Ovarit poster.)

(My own preference is EA defeat, not amendments. Gender Identity is too nebulous to be enshrined into law, IMO.)