Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
X-ism does not mean oppressing based on X. It merely means making a distinction based on X. It isn't automatically a negative thing.
What you've described here is exactly discrimination. You seem to be treating the word as if it is describing something unfair, and that's not what it means. It just means taking that attribute into account when deciding how to treat someone. Discrimination based on things other than ability or performance is often (not always) unfair, but discrimination based on how well one can do the job is perfectly appropriate.
I'm afraid that the mismatch between your personal definitions and the customary and "correct" definition is going to mess up most discussions you want to have on the topic, and that's a shame. People probably would agree with you wholeheartedly if you could find common vocabulary.
|
I feel that most people attach some kind of negativity to the words "discrimination" and "sexism"... but I suppose not everyone will. When the claim was made that all-girls teams were "sexist" to men, I assumed the "sexism" was being considered unfair... otherwise why bring it up? You seem to want to remove the negative connotation from those words -- and that's fine if you want to define it that way for yourself. Just keep in mind that when
I used those words, I meant for them to retain that connotation. My main point was simply to say that not ALL exclusion enforces cultural
hegemony (is that a good enough word?).
So, to clarify: when I talk about sexism and discrimination, I'm referring to acts which contribute to a society-wide culture of oppression. Using my definition, is it sexist to exclude men from using the women's bathroom? Most people would probably say no because it serves a practical need for privacy. Is it sexist to exclude men from women's sports teams? Most people would probably say no, because the purpose is to make sure that the players have similar physiques/ability levels. Is it sexist to run an all-girls FIRST team? No it's not, because all-girls teams also serve a practical purpose -- to combat the problem of female underrepresentation in STEM fields. These restrictions aren't sexist to men, because men
already have their own bathrooms and sports teams and (over)representation in STEM. The above examples exist not as manifestations of women wielding cultural advantage over men, but as practical solutions to problems.
--Jaine
ETA: I have gotten some feedback that this reply was too harsh-sounding. I really didn't intend for it to come across that way, I only meant to clarify what I meant to you and others. If I have sounded abrasive in some of my posts, I apologize; it's hard not to get defensive when it seems as if my experiences are being minimized and dismissed.