More about sexism and division of labor

[cindysphynx]

Judy wrote:

> Suppose that, in the Wizarding World (WW for short), only men 
could be
> athletes, and only women could be musicians.  <snip> Would this 
>make people less happy than if both genders could choice these 
>roles?  Yes -- there would be a lot of frustrated female athletes 
>and male musicians, not to mention that audiences would be deprived 
>of watching and hearing these people perform.  So, it would be a 
>bad policy.
> 
> But, would it make the WW sexist?  I'd say no, because it wouldn't
> favor one gender over the other, assuming that being an athlete or
> being a musician were equally well paid, etc. It would just be a
> stupid way of assigning jobs to people. 

Very, very interesting discussion.

I'm not sure I totally agree that sexism requires that there be 
favoritism of one gender over the other, though.  (Boy, I hope I'm 
not distorting what Judy is saying -- correct me if I did, Judy.)

Let's say the government adopts a policy that only men must fight in 
wars (or, if you like, men must fight and women must fill support 
roles).  Is this sexism?  Well, if we ask whether this policy favors 
men over women or women over men, we might not agree on an answer.  
Whether a policy favors a particular group can be quite subjective, 
I'd say, so it probably isn't the most reliable definition 
of "sexism."

So in Judy's example, I have to question the assumption that pay is 
the only (or even the primary) measure of determining whether two 
jobs are equivalent.  If athletes are accorded more respect, if the 
work is more interesting, if the careers of athletes are more stable 
and secure, then those who are allowed to be athletes *are* being 
favored over those who are allowed to be musicians.  And, of course, 
for the individual who would like to be an athlete simply as a 
matter of taste and personal preference, the objective equality of 
athlete and musician is small comfort.

Judy:


> 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.  <snip>  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. 

I think each of part of the definition is compelling.  In fact, 
people who engage in assumptions based on gender may, if given the 
chance, take the next step to discrimination. 

But making assumptions about a person's abilities based on gender 
can be equally insidious and harmful.  This is particularly so in 
the areas of gender and race, where the assumptions regarding women 
and people of color are frequently negative and unkind.  For 
example, the assumption that a woman are more emotional and 
therefore are less likely to be tough lawyers can lead to exactly 
the same place as simply discriminating against women by deciding 
outright not to hire women lawyers.  The assumption, in my mind, is 
sexist.  I mean, if that assumption isn't sexist, then what is it?

 
> 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.  

Well, I'd say racism also includes unfounded assumptions (about 
preferences, tendencies, predispositions and the like) about people 
based on skin color.  

> 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?  

Mmmm, I'd call it gender discrimination.  After all, when we talk 
about "racial discrimination," we usually mean that one race is 
being discriminated against.  In other words, treated worse.

>If there is no term that specifically refers to mistreatment of 
>women, then won't that problem become invisible?

Well, no.  I see "sexism" as a broad term that encompasses 
preconceived notions about individuals based on gender and can 
include discrimination that results from those preconceived 
notions.  It can also include plain old misogyny and resulting 
discrimination or mistreatment, IMO.


> 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?  

I think it says that no one should have their options limited to 
traditionally female roles due to societal expectations or 
barriers.  It says that in the past, many women *were* confined to 
these roles for all the wrong reasons.  

And it also says that, in my experience, there are many 
traditionally female roles that haven't been valued all that much by 
society (using the measures I mentioned above, such as pay, status, 
stability) -- which suggests that society has long been sending a 
message that traditionally female roles aren't valued all that 
much.  Many traditionally female roles *were* underappreciated, and 
many traditionally female roles *still are* underappreciated, IMO.  
So perhaps the focus on women achieving in traditionally male roles 
hasn't changed society's message about traditionally female roles 
all that much.


>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."  If men and women still largely occupy different 
>roles (which is the case in the US), then the net effect may be a 
>reduction in the respect women receive.  

I don't know about this.  

Let's say 100% of women used to be nurses, and this traditional 
female role was accorded little respect.  Now only 50% of women are 
nurses, and 50% have moved on to the traditionally male occupation 
of doctor.  How is there a net effect of a reduction in the respect 
women receive?

Judy:

> 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. <snip>  However, if
> women are being kept off of Quidditch teams while men are being 
>denied the chance to be musicians, then I'd say N.O.W. should skip 
>that issue, and focus on cases where women are being mistreated. 

In that instance, I'd say that N.O.W. has twice as much work to do 
to set things right.  Arbitrary restrictions on opportunity *are* a 
form of mistreatment, in my mind, anyway.


>In other words, if both men and women are being
> limited, why should fixing the problem be considered women's
> responsibility?  

It isn't.  It's society's responsibility.

I don't doubt that there are life and death issues all over the 
world involving gender.  But I really do think we can try to improve 
the lot of all women facing any form of gender discrimination or 
inequity without spreading ourselves too thin.

Using racism as an example, apartheid existed in South Africa at a 
time when African Americans in the U.S. were fighting for things 
like integration of schools and workplaces.  The fact that the 
plight of South African blacks was far more dire than that of 
African Americans wouldn't have struck me as an especially 
compelling reason to ignore racism or racial discrimination in the 
U.S. at the time.

Cindy