Sexism is a set of beliefs that can be embraced by either sex. — frank

What set of beliefs?

There's no doubt that beliefs are passed down generationally. — frank

I don't think that's the case in any literal sense. There is cultural influence, though, of course.

Structuralism says that transcultural symbols reveal the structure of the human mind. — frank

What empirical evidence is that based on, exactly?

Beliefs are usually related in some way to body of symbolism embraced by a society. — frank

It's clear enough that they'd be correlated so that symbols are produced that reflect something about beliefs.

Structuralism says that transcultural symbols reveal the structure of the human mind.
— frank

What empirical evidence is that based on, exactly? — Terrapin Station

None as far as I know. It works better as an approach than as a doctrine.

I started this thread because I was trying to understand why I'm seeing more overt expressions of sexism than I once did. I don't think it's anything about the structure of the mind. I think it's more likely that it has many causes, one of which is aggressive and thoughtless progressiveness.

After years of reading various books, magazines, internet forums, this forum, public radio talk shows, and the like, I am heartily sick of hearing about sexism and racism, homophobia, body elitism, classism, and so on and so forth.

It isn't that I like, approve of, and practice crude racism and sexism, homo hatred, body elitism, classism and every new "----ist" oppression. I don't. What I dislike intensely are the frankly highly imaginative ways that extremely esoteric offenses are put forward as crimes against humanity. I hate the "non-negotiable demands" of the craptivists who seek out these imaginary offenses which are, frankly, just self-righteous tantrums in many cases. Frankly, the academic demonstrators yowling about sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. are not compelling. They are repellent.

Discrimination based on race and sex seems to be declining, even if it hasn't begun to disappear, and when it occurs it's usually not symbolic. It's material. For instance...

There is nothing symbolic about financial institutions targeting poor neighborhoods (black, hispanic, native American, white) for exclusion from home loan programs. There is nothing symbolic about bad schools in core urban areas. There is nothing symbolic about the high and rising rates of HIV, AIDS, and STDs in the gay black, gay hispanic populations. There is nothing symbolic about 1% of the population controlling more wealth than 99% (or however the percentages are distributed). There is nothing symbolic about women who work 8-10 hours a day on the job also doing 85% (or more) of work at home. And so on.

The most intense, and harmful forms of discrimination boil down to discrimination based on class. People with very little -- or no -- wealth are severely discriminated against by very wealthy people. This is just plain old classism. One could rightly say,"When it comes to discrimination, the only war is the class war."

Those who have the most wealth have the most power, and they clearly intend to keep both their wealth and their power. THEY are not going to share their wealth or their power with US. THEY are going to keep US as oppressed and powerless as is convenient. The overthrow of the class system (of highly disproportionate wealth and continual exploitation of workers) is the SINGLE most important cause -- the key "site of resistance".

(Sure environmental disaster is important too -- and the means of making more and more CO are in the hands of the ruling class. So again, the only war is the class war.)

Workers of the world unite, etc.

"When it comes to discrimination, the only war is the class war." — Bitter Crank

Money is the great equalizer. When it becomes concentrated, the masses scramble for what's left. It's then that doors are closed to advancement.

The self-righteous tantrum comes from ignorance of the deeper causes? Or maybe not ignorance. The stress turns into misanthropy. Things get irrational.

So you agree that spews of frustration over the minimal, distract from real problems? The real problems are rooted in economic structure. But since there probably isn't much that can be done about that, it's better to celebrate the good that's in this day and grieve about what's sad in a soulful sort of way.

BTW, do you remember Andy Warhol? What did you think of him?

My goodness; it's been such a long time since the days when I hung out at The Factory and I taught Mr. Warhola everything he knew. :rofl:

I enjoy observing artistic figures at a distance. Had I at a young age been dropped into the middle of Warhol's life I am pretty sure I would have fled in horror. Could I use a time machine to take my present self back to the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s New York City (and dear god, I wish I could) I'd find it fascinating -- the beats, Warhol and Company, Mapplethorpe -- all those and many more. At the time they were doing their thing in New York (and elsewhere) I was living a life of arrested development (really!) in the backwater provinces of the upper midwest. In my life, a Campbell soup can label was a Campbell soup can label and not an object of pop art.

Just a few years ago I read Alan Ginsberg's poetry and other beat works with appreciation for the first time. When I was a young man I was too stupid to get it. I tried, but was developmentally way worse off than a day late and a dollar short. I didn't start catching up until later.

One goes along the road of life and one often comes to a forking road. Maybe a fellow traveler urges one to take the road into the dimly lit side street where a lot of interesting things seem to be going on, but the other road is well lighted, familiar, and safer. I tended -- not always but often -- to stick to the safer fork. It was probably a good thing. Plunging into all the interesting things going on in the side street would probably have led to either an early death or an early awakening... One has to keep one's bearings, though.

So I like the Warhol prints I've seen in museums, and in books. I've seen a couple of documentaries about Warhol and he was an impressive worker.

Your opinion about Andy Warhol, please.

Sexism is not a man who hates women. Sexism is a set of beliefs that can be embraced by either sex. — frank

The way I define sexism is expecting certain behaviors of someone that has nothing to do with their sexual morphology - like females/women wear dresses, long hair, make-up and shave their legs.

In this sense, both the left and the right are sexist as they have adopted the same ethnocentric view that what is means to be a woman is to wear dresses, make-up, long hair and shave your legs. The only difference is that the left has redefined "gender" as something other than "sex" in order to make themselves not "sexist" when reinforcing their ethnocentrism. They are still engaging in stereotyping, and have simply moved the goal-posts.

Gender and sex are the same thing. We have been using the terms interchangeably and the man/woman to male/female relationship is no different than the buck/doe to male\female relationship. We aren't referring to differences in cultural constructions when using "man" and "woman" as opposed to "male" and "female". We are referring to differences in males and females between species. So "man" and "woman" aren't social constructions either. They refer to the real differences not just between males and females, but the real differences between males and females of different species.

If we really want to eliminate sexism, then addressing ethnocentrism is the way to go.

I started this thread because I was trying to understand why I'm seeing more overt expressions of sexism than I once did. — frank

What are some examples of that for you?

Could I use a time machine to take my present self back to the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s New York City (and dear god, I wish I could) I'd find it fascinating -- the beats, Warhol and Company, Mapplethorpe -- all those and many more — Bitter Crank

As soon as I get mine working, I'll swing by and pick you up. I've had weird dreams and done weird art since I started getting into Warhol. I read that his own comment on his work was that "it gives me something to do." I think he had asperger's or something. Do you think consciousness can be fluid enough that a person can get a sense of what it's like to be autistic? Maybe art could be a doorway into it?

In this sense, both the left and the right are sexist as they have adopted the same ethnocentric view that what is means to be a woman is to wear dresses, make-up, long hair and shave your legs. — Harry Hindu

I think you're alone on that. The alternative to sexism is not that everyone should be exactly the same. It just seems to some people that making everyone the same would undermine the possibility of sexism. I could go on about that, but I don't think it's necessary. The best way to get past sexism (if you're a man) is to learn to think of gender or sex as superficial. Learn to see the person.

What are some examples of that for you? — Terrapin Station

James Damore and incel culture. What's striking about both is that the proponents are young.

James Damore and incel culture. What's striking about both is that the proponents are young. — frank

Insofar as that stuff might have increased, I think that developments that people see often see as positive are just as much to blame--namely, social justice activism that heavily focuses on race and gender. Those movements are so obsessed with racial and gender categories and abilities related to the same that they encourage everyone to start parsing things in those terms, and that doesn't always lead to the conclusions that others want. Plus activism that winds up penalizing anyone in some way will always have a backlash.

When I was a kid in public school and at university, people didn't focus on those categories the way they do now. The movement only started picking up traction towards the end of my time at university.

But I think it's also just a factor of the Internet--how it's possible to make a lot of noise online and get attention. That tends to give the impression that various things are more common than they really are.

That tends to give the impression that various things are more common than they really are. — Terrapin Station

Women's proclivity to say no, more than any other force, has shaped our evolution into the creative, industrious, upright, large-brained (competitive, aggressive, domineering) creatures that we are — Jordan Peterson

There is a jello-ish quality to Peterson's sexism. He basically creates a dog whistle for sexism in his book about order and chaos.

And that's characteristic of what I'm talking about. It has a reactive, rising-from-the-depths quality.

I think you're alone on that. — frank

I'm not. While I may be in the minority on this left-leaning forum, I'm certainly not alone here, nor the minority outside of this forum. It's just that some people choose to live inside bubbles and don't bother looking at alternative views.

Oh, and Darwin was alone as well.

The alternative to sexism is not that everyone should be exactly the same. It just seems to some people that making everyone the same would undermine the possibility of sexism. I could go on about that, but I don't think it's necessary. — frank

You're right. It isn't necessary because I never advocated for treating people the same, so it would be a straw-man anyway.

What I said is that sexism entails putting people in certain ethnocentric boxes. What these cultures do is attribute some transcendent idea about sex - above and beyond what one's sex entails (one's morphology as it relates to function and behavior) - and then essentially makes this category error by associating this arbitrary image with the real thing. It limits behaviors based on some transcendent notion of sex that doesn't exist outside of their own minds.

The best way to get past sexism (if you're a man) is to learn to think of gender or sex as superficial. Learn to see the person. — frank

Wait, I thought it wasn't about treating everyone the same - as a person?

What you are really implying is that to be treated as a "person" is to be treated "equally" - correct? That is fine. I'm not arguing against that. I'm actually arguing for that. I'm saying that there isn't anything inherently male or female in wearing a skirt, make-up, or having long hair. Men in other cultures wear skirts, make-up, and have long hair. It has nothing to do with one's sex. Claiming that it does is sexist.

We can treat people differently and that doesn't mean treating them unequally. It means recognizing REAL differences within a certain context (like when you go to your gynecologist - not when you are voting), and not making VALUE judgements based on those REAL differences ("inferior" vs. "superior").

Do you think consciousness can be fluid enough that a person can get a sense of what it's like to be autistic? — frank

As far as I know I am not autistic, but one winter I became obsessed with readability and how to engineer it. I developed a plan which required compiling a list of basic, simple English words. I went through the dictionary 3 times, writing down lists of words that fit the scheme -- maybe 20,000 (including 8,000 words with Anglo-Saxon origin) in all, then typed them up to plug into a computer program which I later wrote. (I was using a Mac Plus; the external hard drive had a whopping 20 meg of memory.)

The point is that this project required a narrow focus like someone on the far side of the autistic spectrum for several months. I've needed that kind of focus since that project but haven't been able to build up a suitably autistic head of steam again.

I’m not sure you actually believe all this socialist stuff. I’m not sure you’re not a man in a black suit with a crew cut fishing for leftist extremists. But, I do have quite an imagination.

As far as I know I am not autistic, but one winter I became obsessed with readability and how to engineer it. — Bitter Crank

How did you come to be obsessed with that?

What you are really implying is that to be treated as a "person" is to be treated "equally" - correct? That is fine. I'm not arguing against that. I'm actually arguing for that. I'm saying that there isn't anything inherently male or female in wearing a skirt, make-up, or having long hair. Men in other cultures wear skirts, make-up, and have long hair. It has nothing to do with one's sex. Claiming that it does is sexist. — Harry Hindu

I see what you're saying. We're on the same page.

I’m not sure you actually believe all this socialist stuff. — Noah Te Stroete

That's a good observation. Sometimes I'm not sure either. What I do believe is that Justice has an economic basis (as do most forms of Oppression). We can not achieve justice without altering the economic determinants of lives. Capitalism is a satisfactory system for some (maybe many) people and Socialism would be a satisfactory system too. The main problem is, "How do we get from capitalism to socialism?"

Then there is the social / political system. There are freer and more open social / political systems, and there are more authoritarian and closed systems. One can have either system with either economic system, and we have had, at various times and places.

At the very least, a freer and more open social / political system requires a redistribution of wealth--not all wealth, but certainly the big and really big piles. There are civil mechanisms for doing this, but if the ultra-wealthy have a tight grip on the political systems...

Socialism has some attractive features, but it is the destruction of the capitalist system that is the problem. How do we do that without veering into the Soviet experience?

How did you come to be obsessed with that? — frank

It started with the early days of AIDS. I was involved in producing educational material for high risk gay populations and straight youth, some of whom were quite literate, and some of whom were not at all. At the time, Public Health information tended to be pitched in a more literate, formal language. The readability levels were too high for poorer target populations more at risk.

So, it occurred to me that what health education writers (and others) needed was a readability measure which could offer easier words to use. I put together the easy-to-read-word-list and the program which would sort a text into two lists: the easy-to-read words and the more-difficult words. Then writers could peruse the word lists for alternatives.

Testing various texts showed that the more words that composed a text derived from Anglo-Saxon and common words (based on word-frequency studies) which entered the language from French around 1066 to 1400, the easier it was to read. (Why? Well, Anglo-Saxon and early French borrowings (forming Middle English) compose the core of the language and most people who speak English use these words a lot.

Educated people decorate their language with more difficult terminology derived from early-modern and modern language, in which many words were coined from Latin and Greek roots. the 16th and 17th centuries were a hot-bed of more difficult abstract-word creation.

The upshot was that I learned a lot about how to write easy to read text. The people I targeted for writing improvement persisted in their feeling that their intelligence had been insulted by the whole discussion and that I could go to hell.

The other thing (some of us) wanted to do was create sex-positive educational texts. Public health professionals aren't necessarily enthusiastic about the details of sex-positive educational material -- because it is... you know, enthusiastic about sexual activity as such. They found sex-positive material to be too scandalous for government funding. (Some of our stuff was pornographic--by design.)

Stuff handed out in bars might be dropped on the sidewalk (it happens) and the next day some child might pick it up (it happens) and show this piece of shocking unwholesome safer sex material to her mother (it happens) who would then call a local elected government official to complain (it happened).

So not only was it nicely illustrated, but the terminology was easy to read, all of which added up to SMUT and FILTH in the mind of the mother and elected official. We would hear about it a few days later.

That's how it happened.

Things work out that way quite often.

Sexism is a category of many things all and which things are defined by interpretation, which things fit into this category is determined by interpretation. The rules for what is sexism and what isn't is determined by interpretation and whether sexism is defendable or not is argued using interpretations.

Any prevailing understanding of sexism is simply a dominant interpretation. It became dominant because it resonated with the right people or the right amount of people. The authority of a dominant interpretation is determined by interpretation.

Behind these interpretations is the truth which was interpreted. Which might be that men and women are biological disposed towards or nurtured towards particular beliefs and these result however they result. Those results are interpreted to mean various things.

Behind how we interpret what those various things mean, there are real consequences and difficulties for people to overcome. Truths which serve as obstacles for the accomplishment of particular goals which could be interpreted to be reasonable and pragmatic. They are what most people want.

What causes these obstacles should not be called sexism, this category says nothing, it's useful only for demagogues and generalisations.

I'm not saying all these things to be difficult or because I think you don't agree. The reality is that there is not actually any such thing as "sexism" and what sexism is, is completely subjective.

Of the things sexism refers to or can be interpreted as sexism, some are problems that you face because of how others perceive your sex.

So there's sexism (an interpretation) and the reality (which is interpreted) and then the reality as it is an obstacle which can be measured to some extent.

Have you ever written this as a magazine article or as a book? It's fascinating. (And hilarious)

Sexism is a category of many things all and which things are defined by interpretation, — Judaka

I agree. The same is true of racism.