More about sexism and division of labor

[naamagatus]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
<snip>
> 
> I just looked up sexism in a dictionary, and it was defined as 1)
> discriminating in favor of members of one sex; or 2) assuming that 
> a person's abilities and social functions are determined by his or 
> her sex.  (Well, actually this was the definition of sexist; sexism 
> wasn't listed separately.)  In other words, it lists two different
> definitions. I prefer the first one, which defines sexist as the
> mistreatment of one sex relative to the other.  The second 
> definition refers specifically to the gender division of labor (and 
> other behaviors), which seems to be the other definition that 
>people are adopting here. 

But these two definitions are hardly independent of each other, are 
they? Historically, women were discriminated against *because* it was 
thought that their "abilities and social functions" were of a certain 
(inferior) nature. Generally speaking, discrimination is an external 
description. It is on the basis of our belief in equality that we can 
discern discrimination. But a male chauvinist *believes* that women 
are inferior to men in certain ways, and *therefore* he will actively 
discriminate against them. 

> 
> Maybe the right question  is *why* do I prefer definition #1 to
> definition #2? Well, I feel a definition of sexism should: 1) help
> feminists (who I'd say can be either male or female) decide where 
> to focus their efforts in helping women; 2) help people tell if the
> treatment of women in a particular society is improving or not; and 
> 3) help people develop hypotheses of why some societies treat women
> better than other societies do. 

Don't you think that understanding the cultural image of the sexes 
would give more insight to question 3, at least? 

<snip>
> 
> I'd actually say that my preferred definition of "sexism" parallels
> the way the term racism is used, while the "gender division of 
> labor" definition of sexism does not. When people talk about racism 
> (at least in Western societies), they are almost always referring > 
to racial  minorities being treated worse than the White majority. > 
If there is a claim that whites are being treated worse (as is  > 
often made in debates  over affirmative action), this is given a > > 
different name, such as "reverse discrimination."  In other words, > 
the very term "racism" implies that some races are treated worse > > 
than others, not just that each race is treated differently.  

Hmmm. You don't think that a society in which members of a certain 
race are *limited* to certain occupations is deeply racist? I do. The 
fact that Jews, for instance, were debarred from many, many 
occupations (both in the Christian and the Muslim worlds) was not out 
and out discrimination? 
Also, I cannot think of an example of a society where such limits 
were symmetrical - i.e., where one race is limited to certain 
occupations and another race to a different bunch of occupations, 
*and* where each group of occupations has more or less the same 
social prestige. 

> If we use the term "sexism" to refer to any case where men and 
> women are expected to act differently, then what term will we use  
> to refer to women being treated worse than men are?  If there is no 
> term that specifically refers to mistreatment of women, then won't 
> that problem become invisible?

I'm looking forward to a state of affairs when such a question will 
become relevant. So far, when women and men have been expected to act 
differently, the brunt of most of the restrictions and sanctions were 
on the women. 
> 
<snip>
> 
> I want to point out another reason why I am unhappy with a focus on
> women achieving in traditionally male roles.  What does this say 
> about the importance of traditionally female roles?  If there is a 
> parallel emphasis on how great it is for men to take on  
traditionally female  roles, fine.  But, that is almost never the 
case.  Women who take on traditionally male occupations are lauded; 
men who take on traditionally female occupations are (at best) 
ignored.  Perhaps the intended message is "People of either gender 
can take on any role,"but the message people may perceive is 
"Traditionally male occupations are important; traditionally female > 
occupations are unimportant."  

I have a bit of a problem with this attitude (which I've encountered 
many times) because I think there is a certain naivetee to it. It 
sounds very well. Why should traditionally male roles be viewed as 
more important than traditionally female roles? Isn't being a mother 
and home maker an enormously important role? Well, it is in a way. 
But in another way ... no, it isn't. *Economically*, it isn't. In 
terms of power, money, social influence - it isn't important. What 
you call "traditionally male roles" are those social functions that 
are important in these "worldly" aspects. Aren't we, in a sense, as 
important as the amount of money/assets that we own? Women (in 
western society, at least) have been traditionally denied access to 
those roles that carry with them social power. That's why I'm really 
not impressed with the post modern feminism with it's emphasis on 
equalising the value of female roles vs. male roles. The bottom line 
for me is that, in the long run, you can't dissociate cultural values 
from economic values. 

<snip>
> 
> If men are allowed to do anything they want, while women are
> restricted to a limited number of occupations, then, yes, that is
> sexist and the N.O.W. (National Organization for Witches) should do
> something about it. (I actually doubt that there are any societies 
> in which women are excluded from some professions, while all 
> professions are open to men. It just doesn't seem to work that > 
way.)  

Well, men can't give birth and find it very hard to lactate, so in 
all societies it is the women who nurse babies. Other than that?  In 
Taliban Afghanistan, women could not leave the house without a male 
relative escorting them. Girls were denied education of the most 
basic sort. Other than domestic work, women could do nothing. On the 
other hand, I haven't heard that men were not allowed to clean, cook 
or take care of a child. This is an extreme case, but from the little 
I know, women are similarly restricted in other Muslim, conservative 
societies (Saudi Arabia? Yemen?).

<snip>
 
> Moving from Hogwarts back to the real world, I'd say that fixing 
> the gender-based division of labor is a good cause, but it's not 
> something that I think women's organizations should be expected to 
> do.  
> Women's organizations have their hands full with domestic violence, 
> the feminization of poverty, female infanticide in Asia, genital
> mutilation in Africa, and far too many other problems.  They just
> don't have the resources to also tackle problems where men and 
> women are impacted equally.  In other words, if both men and women 
> are being limited, why should fixing the problem be considered > > 
women's responsibility?  

I'm far from being an expert on any of these issues, but... isn't 
domestic violence easier to deal with when the woman is capable of 
earning enough to supporting herself and her children? And from the 
little I've read, female infanticide in Asia is *directly* linked to 
economic considerations. Feminization of poverty - is that not 
related to the ways and means in which women can earn a living? 
I don't know enough of these issues to make a positive statement 
here, but it certainly seems to me that labor division is not 
unrelated to them. 


Naama