Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
People wonder why I get offended at sexist comments (except @Chaz, he doesn't care)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Your post mostly reminds me that directing a discussion of sexism into a discussion about the disadvantages of some men is itself a sterling example of sexism.
Yup, just like that.
It might have been this open letter from Estelle Tang via the Guardian:
An open letter to all my male friends
And I totally agree that things like this are an eye-opener, bringing to light things we tend not to notice, either because we're so accustomed to them or because our relative privilege blinds us their existence, primarily due to the fact that what we call 'privilege' manifests itself as a lack of discrimination that isn't always readily apparent until we take a broader look at society as a whole.
For me, part of growing up, maturing, or whatever you want to call it, is becoming more aware of, and sensitive to, these kinds of realities, seeing that things like patriarchy, racism, sexism, etc. exist and permeate our culture and society in negative and harmful ways, realizing that even the most seemingly innocuous things we do or say can and do carry the seeds of patriarchy, racism, sexism, etc. without us ever knowing it because it's hard to see the big picture (i.e., history; the multitude of psychology and cultural mechanisms that are at play; the types of discrimination and violence that still exist, even if only in verbal form; etc.).
Reading something like this, it's easy to say, "Well, that's not me. I'd never do that." But that doesn't mean we don't do or say things that, unconsciously on our part, help to propagate these kinds of attitudes. And even when we are aware of it, it can be hard to admit. I know that I certainly don't like admitting to myself that I've done and said things that were less than enlightened, that I've said racist and sexist shit even though I didn't see it that way at the time.
And even if we don't think and act in this way, do we consistently challenge it when we come into contact with others who do? Sometimes, perhaps. But maybe sometimes we're afraid to confront the person. Maybe we think we're too busy or think it's none of our business. Maybe sometimes we think it's funny. Whatever the case, by not challenging it when we know it for what it is, we give it space to grow. Our non-action helps to preserve an environment that allows this to continue to happen. Reading this, the most important message I get is, "Please help me to create an environment that makes it unacceptable because I can't do it alone."
I think her letter is well worth reading, and her advice well worth following.
Yup, thanks @Jason, that's precisely the article I was referring to. And it's really worth taking a look at the links SHE posted in her letter.
>
^^This, this, this, this this. ^^
Of course anyone is entitled to an opinion. But I in my life have grown tired of one and one thing only. It's called 'them vs us.'
I grew so tired of my own country, whenever a big soccer cup came up with Netherlands vs Germany. The Dutch would be very heavily anti German, they would bring up the nazi's and such. But then I tell them the Dutch did bad stuff while colonizing stuff.
It's never one evil vs good. Sure males do bad but there's females that do bad to. But there is also systems in society that cater more to one or another. I am left handed, should I start on how much society discriminates left handers? But surely a left hand can serve a purpose to, in boxing for example a left hander is less common and can be a bit of a advantage.
There is never pure evil vs pure good. There is never only one victim. Sure sexism is a problem but it is not a one way straight. I had girls in my school that would hit and flirt on nerds just to joke and play around with them and they're feelings... Of course guys bully girls to, and girls bully girls and guys guys.
I just am tired of the pure evil vs pure good, everyone has a story and differences.
@Rhodian, could I respectfully suggest you quit while you're behind.
You just are not getting it.
Would you like to know what Nazis did to jewish women, specifically, that Jewish men were never subjected to?
It's not a subject for this thread. In fact, it's not a subject anyone should be privy to.
And your idea of sexism in school is so far removed from the reality of the broad spectrum in the big wide world, I just can't address it.
That's not sexism.
That's normal teen behaviour.
When you are subjected to the same undignified, insulting behaviour women are subjected to on a daily basis, then I'll listen.
but right now, dearest - you have NO idea.
Honestly, you really don't.
Read the article in Jason's thread. Read the link at the bottom of that article.
Read and learn.
It's not about "pure evil vs. pure good"; it's about recognizing systematic inequalities and power dynamics. Sure, individual women can do mean things just as individual men can; but on a broader scale, gender inequality still exists and favours men. The same with things like racism, etc.
One of the main reasons I think it's necessary to talk about sexism, for example, is how easily obscured the existence of patriarchy is. It's hidden in plain sight, as is its considerable influence, despite the fact that evidence of it is literally everywhere (even our language is permeated by it).
Most people don't seem to understand patriarchy, how it works, where it comes from, and why it's worth struggling against. In Western society and culture, for example, patriarchy can be traced back to the earliest parts of recorded history; and even today, it pervades huge swaths of our culture, religion, politics, and economic relations.
The role of women in public life in ancient Greece and Rome, from where Western society can arguably trace its roots, was practically nonexistent. Their primary roles were as child-bearers and homebodies. Women (at least aristocratic women, i.e., non-slaves and prostitutes) in Greece were hardly even seen in public, and then usually only when accompanying a man. Being single wasn't acceptable. Education was primarily something men received. Gender roles were strictly defined. Men dominated all spheres of life. In Rome, things were slightly better and less restrictive for women, but not by much.
(As a side note, one of the more radical and impressive aspects of Plato's Republic was his argument that women should share in the education and tasks of their male counterparts. This includes arguing for female guardians (soldiers) and rulers at a time when women were 'kept at home' and mostly restricted from public life, which really surprised me.)
Another point of entry for patriarchy in Western society was the male hierarchy of Christianity. While some aspects can be seen as radical and egalitarian in nature, there are aspects that, when Christianity was adopted by the Roman world, reinforced patriarchy and women's submissive role in society. A few examples are: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord" (Eph 5:22); "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (1 Cor 14:34); and "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" (1 Tim 2:12).
Fast forward through centuries of male-dominated society and you have the birth of America, in which initially only white, male property owners could vote, with women only winning the right vote in 1920, 50 years after blacks and 144 years after the country's founding. And if you think winning the right to vote was the end of gender discrimination, you're sorely mistaken. Women are still battling against rigid gender roles, prejudices, and hierarchies that we've been conditioned over time to subconsciously (and even consciously) adopt and maintain.
These material and ideological pressures, albeit weakened, continue to exert their influence on our society and its structure, informing our perceptions of the world and our conceptions of gender norms. Women are still widely seen as and/or expected to be child-bearers and homebodies, providing the free/uncompensated labour of literally reproducing the labour force and supporting the reproduction of labour power via nurturing husbands and children emotionally and materially (e.g., cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc.). They're still expected to provide a certain kind of emotional labour, even in the workforce. They still make up the majority of 'nurturing' professions like nursing and teaching. They still tend to make less than their male counterparts (roughly $.80 to the dollar according to one study). They're often seen and portrayed as 'bitchy,' 'cold,' etc. if they're assertive and not nurturing/emotionally receptive and giving. The list goes on.
But this doesn't just affect women, it affects all of us. Due to the gender roles imposed upon men and women within our society, neither are free to fully be and express themselves (to say nothing of those who fall outside of this historically accepted gender binary). Men, for example, aren't given as much space as women to be 'caring,' 'nurturing,' etc., it not being 'manly' to show too much affection or emotion. And an argument can be made that the prevalence of male privilege embedded in our predominately patriarchal society and the negative aspects of socially-constructed, male gender norms (what some call 'toxic masculinity') are at least partially responsible for the prevalence of male violence, particularly gun violence.
In addition, a recent study published in the journal Psychological Science found that "both men and women see images of sexy women's bodies as objects, while they see sexy-looking men as people," which I think demonstrates that such a gender bias exists in the perception of both men and women; and the study's conclusion further reinforces my belief that sexism and the objectification of women is a broader symptom of a society that's practiced patriarchy for centuries, as well as corroborating evidence that patriarchal ideology has become so ingrained into our collective psyche that even women are conditioned to objectify women in the same way as men.
Feminism isn't about declaring men to be wholly bad or inferior, nor women to be wholly good or superior. It's about confronting the reality that patriarchy exists and permeates our culture and society and challenging that reality in order to create a more free and egalitarian world.
@federica
Could be a truth, I am just saying I am tired of blind hate or the portraying of all Germans as evil because of a nazi past. And there have been many Germans in Germany that fought against nazi's and did good things the Weiße Rose for example. I just do not believe in generalizing.
As for sexism that is not my idea it was a example in kids. Let's be fair our childhood makes up a great deal for us. That's why I look at that. Besides that I am a male and cannot really say anything about sexism. I never think I was wrong towards a female, and I don't think I have ever been wronged by a female.
I just do think female and male have differences, differences does not mean bad or worst. Females get medical problem x or z earlier than males, but males might get problem T or Y earlier... In that regard even nature is sexist by making breast cancer more common within females.
I just do not see a lot of sexism around me, and might just be blind. The only place I really see sexism is the internet, but then again the internet is not really a source you want to use for your everyday life. I see people on the internet well, let's just say behind a keyboard we can all feel like a strong superwoman/man.
The example reminds me of the line, "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
@Rhodian, Read Jason's post, above.He is so well-informed on the subject, I am embarrassed by my own ignorance.
And read the book I mentioned earlier.
@Jason: That's good - do you know who 'said' it...?
It was Margaret Atwood.
And this is where I found reference to her quotation.
My god.
I feel that no matter what the issue - especially a big one like this - that forums IRL or on-line, is the precise opportunity to hear what everyone has to say and be patient and kind - within reason / without being namby-pamby - because it's the only place...it's like the eye of the storm. We're all participants in society and as those who have keen interest in Buddhism (and are following along as best we can), recognize it for the wonderful opportunity it is to wrestle with these big issues. Fwiw.
I'm not wrestling with it at all.
I'm wrestling with those who have decided that it's no big deal and consider it to be an unreasonable protest.
>
Certainly. You have nothing to wrestle with - you know what you've lived with and you know your own beliefs and feelings about it, but I guess none of us really live within our own heads...for instance, you suggested in so many words that we as individuals do what we can to nip it in the bud when we witness it. Just sayin'.
I stand quite far from woman, with all due respect due to my personality disorder. I will always live alone, I am 23 and never had a relationship nor feel the desire to do so. For me a woman is different than a man in looks and nature. But I do not see a difference in us as humans.
It just might by my personality disorder that renders me without seeing an difference in the regards of human department. Knowing that I do not have a full range of emotions. I never felt pressure being with a woman. I just want peace and quiet that's all I want.
So I might not understand the issue at all. Maybe females do never talk about it to males..... I just don't think you can put away all of the male's as a scary body of ill will. I do think it's way to judgemental to judge someone on his/her sex.
Only by talking and sitting down and listening to each other can you solve such problems. But I do not have the time to talk to every male and female. And not everyone is willing to listen if I did so.
I think you're on to something, here.
Now THAT is very interesting, and provocative! The 'wisdom keepers' of the culture we're born into are steeped like old tea in misogyny, and they even, most of the time, 'mean well'.
And then Fede says:
I agree. It's like noticing air, which we rarely do unless it carries a bad odor or lacks oxygen.
How fascinating it is, how we absorb information without questioning it. Talk about a an uphill task, becoming 'mindful' of this mechanism at work, realizing what you've 'downloaded' over a life time, where you've betrayed yourself and your loved ones, due to unquestioned input.
As for "how unBuddhist is this, we should just be aware of it but not make a big deal out of it" -- I call that a cop out. I call that misuse of Buddhist doctrine -- not because it is some deliberate act of 'badness' but because misunderstanding Buddhist doctrine happens often. We try to 'act out' these high flown 'ideals' of Buddhism as if they were hats to put on, or scripts to follow in a play. They aren't, they are FELT, they are organic and they just arise. It's like a kid wearing her mother's cocktail dress and jewelry -- the reason it's humorous is the contrast between what she IS and what appearance she'd like to portray.
No different a person sniffing and saying 'well, that's not very Buddhist, we aren't supposed to be 'attached' to some idea or other'. What a load. Be here now.
Indeed.
Understanding our attitude and nature independent of our gender and even species is a very practical implementation of Buddha Mind.
Sexism exists in dharma, no reason for us to dance to such Hinyana/lesser wheel teachings . . .
By being aware of our tendencies to denigrate based on form, we also learn how to empower or address, in order to redress any imbalances in the Middle Way.
I would humbly suggest that the formless sitter is aware of no gender affiliation and also aware of the nature of sexism, racism, buddyism [sic], etc.
>
It was a dynamite article...and keeping the link.
Fwiw - nobody would want to have walked in my moccasins from the time I was small, and I don't feel anyone conversing about this topic in any kind of forum should be alarmist...it's only words on a page, or caring and concerned voices in a room. All voices in this setting need to be respected, especially if they've never been affected by such things personally and/or appear and/or claim ignorance about it...at least they're there and express genuine concern.
Yeah, young children and women are very vulnerable to violence in this world. I know for my own self and I also transcribed probation court reports for 27 years. Nobody has to tell me what the score is.
To me, keeping a cool head as often as possible, in all situations is the order of the day.
A man who is laughed at is no man at all (thus goes the reasoning to avoid being laughed at). No man at all might as well be death, so I can see some relativity between the sexism between sexes.
Let me say I'm grateful in a WHEW!! kind of way to be female. All the ups and downs of being in a female body are well known to me. At the same time, I look with concern and sympathy at what MEN are subjected to, and what they do to themselves.
I experience freedom of expression where men in my culture do not. And vice versa.
But I'm not going to claim 'it's all relative' because it is by far not. The proof is in the pudding, we live in a patriarchal world. As I grew up I realized that patriarchy so intent on putting and keeping me in my place was ALSO plaguing and pressuring men to hate themselves. There's nothing like an emotionally vulnerable man, you know? It takes a mature man to allow this expression of himself. For those less fortunate, that self-hatred of 'vulnerability' turns outward and becomes abusive and exploitative behavior. In BOTH sexes, I might add, but the pressure is much greater on men.
It's how bullies somehow 'feel better' after tearing someone else down. They hate their 'weakness', they are disgusted and horrified by it, and work hard to disown it.
Unfortunately human psychology hates vaccuums and must acknowledge that vulnerability somehow -- by acknowledging it and abusing it in another person.
Christian church emphasis on this wrecked my first marriage. I thought it was the way a marriage worked - "the man should wear the trousers". I subsequently read this for myself. It is prefaced by:
For some reason, this verse never seems to get the same prominence
An example of how long this has been going on comes from Proverbs 21:9 (difficult to date but seems to be between 6 and 10 centuries BC):
No disagreement permitted ...
More up to date is our dear PM, David Cameron, to a woman who joined in with general heckling:
"Calm down, dear"
-- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/27/david-cameron-calm-down-dear
Can't image him saying that to a male MP ...
ps: @Jason - helps me with the various bits you have quoted from the Epistles that a lovely male vicar I had just wrote St Paul off as a "bigoted misogynist". Makes sense to me
Remember, these words are from someone who persecuted Jesus and not from the gospels.
It terms of biblical criticism, I was talking to one of the lady's on a local church's pastoral council, and she mentioned that some of the more negative things said by 'St. Paul' may not have been said by him at all. While some may be authentic, with Paul being a product of his time, she said that scholars now believe letters like 1st Timothy are falsely attributed to him. But whatever the case, I have no problems taking the good stuff from the Epistles and laying aside those that I find contrary to the compassionate and egalitarian spirit of the gospels.
I know for my own self and I also transcribed probation court reports for 27 years.
My first proper job was as a Probation Officer and I had to write a lot of those reports! But yes, being involved in the criminal justice system is a real eye-opener, the mad, the sad and the bad.
You're right. I used to find sexist or racist humour a tricky one, I suppose not wanting to be seen as a politically correct kill-joy or something. It doesn't worry me now, but I do understand why people are sometimes reluctant to say something, particularly when everyone else in the room is laughing.
PS Irish people have been known to tell English jokes...
>
It takes a special person to be a 'good' PO.....having to meet, greet and listen to them whether they're contrite or fos...I often wondered how the divil the officers remained so calm, knowing what's in some of those reports.
>
You know, I realise that sometimes, I would hold my tongue and say nothing, because of fear of ridicule, or derision, or that people would 'shout me down' for being over-sensitive or prudish.
Well, needless to say, I'd rather risk all that now, than be silent, and kick myself later for not having stood my ground.
I make every attempt to not be rude, offensive or to belittle those whose words I find objectionable - but I do strive to make my point lucidly and in an unambiguous fashion...(occasionally though, I admit i probably fail....
And I bet they're funny too....
^^^ Excellent point. I try to point out what bothers me about what someone said.....not personally insult. I never call anyone a ______. I take issue with the words....not the 'person'. That 'person'/ego is what they feel they have to defend.....and most of the time you can never get past that to teach, once that feeling/need to defend kicks in.
I once heard a Teacher say....when you feel someone is checking you/pointing out something negative about you/your words....accept that they are half right. That leaves room for your ego to be still, but also leaves room for insight and some self examination into what they might be talking about that you, yourself might not see or recognize.
I've never been one to hold my tongue....hahahaha, so that's never my issue....haha... I've just gotten better at the speaking up as my practice has gone on AFA more productive and skillful. Most people just don't know.....and if the understanding can happen and listening is there....it can plant seeds for the future change.
On both sides....
When you set out to teach, two people learn.
When you set out to preach, nobody learns.
And Mr Crowe helps to prove part of the argument....
Derp.
Dear @Rhodian:
Given your own history of enduring discrimination in your personal life, -even if it is not relevant to the subject of this thread- I can only imagine the courage it must have taken for you to try to participate in this debate.
You have been out of your depth here, but your effort does not go unappreciated.
We like you very much
@Federica said:
Honest question here; If you don't 'stand your ground', what are the meanings of that? Or the 'results' (the arisings)?
What is impacted if you don't stand your ground? I'm asking this in commiseration with you, as opposed to a challenge.
>
The personally-perceived result ('arising') for me, in my eyes, is two-fold: one, the "offender" continues, in 'ignorance' to hold, and put forth, the same views, which I perceive to be tactless, insensitive and unskilful; and two, I succumb to the 'cowardice' of thinking about myself - MY safety, MY image, MY opinion, and that if I say nothing, I disgrace myself, and betray my Principles.
>
The perpetuation, continuation and support (all unintentional and unconscious, perhaps, certainly, but nevertheless, evident) of the ideology that it's perfectly OK to continue in this vein, and maintain the established PoV that this kind of prejudice is acceptable.
Where do we draw the line?
For example there was a post recently over in the Techno thread:
Although I'm sure this was meant in good humor, it does get painfully close to being blatant sexism. In fact, it may be just that. It's definitely casting gender in a questionable light. It's difficult to guage intent from an online post.
I've always felt that sexism is a sword that cuts both ways. But is it an absolute, or a subjective assessment?
Tough call.
Not tough at all.
While sexism is a sword that cuts both ways, I think you'll find the side of the blade which cuts our way, has been a lot sharper, for a lot longer.
Men have only recently been complaining of sexist behaviour from women.
While I am in no way implying they are wrong to do so, it's only recently that women have been able to find voice to act that way.
And of course, such behaviour is relatively limited to 'first-world' western countries.
Someone asked this question:
>
My response was as follows:
>
>
>
So this is about who has the biggest bruise?
Sometimes these things are subtle. My car club has an annual ladies drive where only the women in the club are invited. No men allowed by policy. The guys can't even ride along and let the ladies do the driving.
Ladies "only"? Sexism in action. I sometimes wonder what might happen if we called for a guys-only outting. The sword swinging in the other direction.
Last summer I volunteered for a safety crew at a "ladies only " track day event at a local race track for the region's Porsche club. Late in the day, a guy went out in a GT# car and bottomed-out on a bump, ripping open the oil sump and spilling 8 quarts of oil over a quarter-mile of track surface. Big mess. The club didn't have anywhere near enough oil-dry to clean up the mess, so the event was called early. Everyone stood around complaining that a "guy" was out on "their" track, rather than asking the more pertinent question, which was why there wasn't enough oil-dry to return the racing surface to a safe condition, and just what they were going to do about it, because the event was responsible for cleaning the surface.
A sexist attitude and environment was more important than the safety of others.
I work with other racing concerns where if women were excluded from competition with the men, the proverbial shit would hit the fan.
I don't think there's anything deliberate going on. It just is what it is.
No, it's about us getting verily peeved at the fact that we've had it for longer, and it's still continuing in virtually every strata of society.
Have you checked the links in the thread?
>
>
Private clubs make up their own rules. If you don't like the rules, or find they're implemented with one thumb on the scales, then challenge them.
Have you any idea how many private clubs in the UK STILL exclude women?
Many. Many, many, many.
Just one example.
And as private institutions, the only changes can be implemented from within.
>
>
Rubbish. The same thing would have happened if the accident had happened to a woman.
The argument is irrelevant.
>
And rightly so.
>
And as long as some men take this view, nothing will ever change, and women will still get the sharper edge of the sword, and be subjected to closet, covert, subtle sexism.
Perhaps, and it would still be sexist in nature.
And that, in itself, is a sexist comment, though it's likely you'll disagree.
Perhaps you should change the title, again, this time say "People wonder why I get offended at sexist comments against women."
Wow. Great thread!
We're getting to see how just barely touching on the subject of abuse, attitudes and violence against women, specifically, and actually making a point (or 2 or 3...) can be very much like nailing Jello to the wall.
Diminishing sexism against women by claiming equal sexism against men is, itself, one of the most tedious and odious forms of sexism. It shows an unbelievable lack of empathy or understanding of the issues.
It reminds me of the white assholes who respond to "Black Lives Matter" by saying, oh no, that's racist, ALL lives matter!
Give me a break.
For the record, I changed the title. I felt @federica's initial title of "People wonder why..." was perhaps too timid by omitting the contentious point, and wanted to see it made very clear what we were talking about.
Should we on this forum not cultivate mindfulnes. And try to not fall into heedless talk like this?
Free enlightment for everyone and it's solved.
@Rhodian what is heedless about it? It is a discussion point. Mindfulness doesn't mean shutting up and saying nothing.
If anything THAT is heedless.
@Federica 'White assholes' does sound judgemental or am I wrong? By all means, if the Dalai lama would go saying around 'aah those damn chinese assholes took our Tibet.' I do not think that is very mindful it just creates more frustration and anger, which are always bad emotions.
It's a description of people who themselves are mindless and unskilful in their thought and speech.
People who sanctimoniously try to pour oil on troubled waters, by being holier-than-thou and apparently neutral, yet only succeed in demonstrating, via their poorly-thought-out arguments, how shallow they are.
Trust me, I have personally heard a certain Lama, say far worse.
And as neither you nor I have any idea what HHDL thinks in private, that will simply have to remain unanswered.
Maybe you should change it again?
Thanks for this post @federica (and @Jason for his additional comments).
I've grown up in a very macho male dominated country and have the negative habits to show for it.
It is something I am working on and reading things like this (and the article posted by the fellow Australian girl in the Guardian) help me to remember to not treat women as objects for my own pleasure. Like all negative mental habits it is one that will take time to remove but I am on the right track.
Keep up the good work!!
To what? And why? I think it adequately conveys the intention and topic of this thread.
@federica
Skillful speech begins by refraining from lying, slander, profanity, and harsh language. We should avoid language that is rude, abusive, disagreeable, or malicious, and we should abstain from talk that is foolish, idle, babble, or gossip. What remains are words that are truthful, kind, gentle, useful, and meaningful. Our speech will comfort, uplift, and inspire, and we will be a joy to those around us.
I do think calling out white assholes is profanity, rude and in a way a word that is used when people are frustrated or angry. Or do you call the people you love, assholes? Now I cannot speak for the Dalai Lama, and you might disagree with the definition of skillful speech that is cool. We all have our own interpretations.
I am now going to tactically retreat from this thread. As I feel that is the most skillful thing for me to do.
May all living beings be happy and peaceful.
It was meant as a perfectly innocent joke, and the other party understood it as such and LOLed it accordingly.
Which is more than can be said of disrespectful people who use the LOL button to express condescension and sarcasm towards other members when he disagrees with their comments.
I live in a male-majority household and LOVE men.
To bits.
We all learn something new every day.
If your comments teach me personally about Right Speech, hopefully other comments in this thread have taught you about how women have been treated for millennia, in pretty much the same, abusive, disrespectful, ignorant way, and have sometimes paid with their lives.
Learn and grow, learn and grow, that's the way we should all go.