Is This Sexist?

[MysticSang'ha]

Testosterone increases aggression, and on that basis alone, it seems to be a significant advantage for someone whose job is to kill other human beings. Besides I think there are a whole host of other reasons why men make more effective killers than women.

I'm sure that argument will go over well with Mens Rights Activists. Given that they present an argument that women can be just as violent - if not more so - than men.

My take on testosterone is that it does not exist in a vacuum. If a man has heightened testosterone in his system, but he has a more highly developed OFC of the brain that increases self-restraint, he does not experience chronic stress and trauma from abject poverty or institutional social injustice toward his peer group, and if he has been conditioned to seek more restraint as portraying more of a definitive "masculinity" than verbal or physical confrontation, I don't think the argument for men being better soldiers and killers is nearly as strong.

 

[dawny0826]

I think it's important to differentiate between inherent gender-based differences and culturally ingrained ones.

Maybe. What's important is to differentiate between those who acknowledge and even appreciate certain gender roles from those who impose exclusive gender concepts upon others.

AnI wouldn't say it would be impossible for both to overlap, but in this case, I'm not aware of any biological difference between males and females that makes the latter more inclined toward liking sewing or being particularly efficient at it.

We're not talking about biological attributes that would make someone more suited or inclined for an activity.

We're talking about an activity that, perspectively, has been ENJOYED (not coerced) by people who happen to be, by majority, women.

There's no negative connotation here at all.

So it seems to me that sewing supposedly inherently being a primarily "feminine" hobby or profession is a cultural thing.

Maybe in some circles. In my peer group, women typically enjoy needlework and/or pay more attention to detail than their husbands. In example, my Dad is on the go and can't be bothered sewing back on a button. Why? Because he doesn't freaking want to. He's rather play golf. If my mother doesn't sew it, it doesn't get sewn. However, there's an important thing to understand here...she ENJOYS it, whereas my father doesn't have the attention span for it and is uncoordinated as hell. Threading a needle is just not something that he has the patience to do.

My grandmother, my former mother in law, my sisters, myself - we enjoy sewing. It may have been introduced to us within the auspices of culture, but, we we wouldn't bother with it, unless it was something that we wanted to do. We'd tell someone to kiss off before we'd do something that we didn't want to do.

Every quilt I own was made for me by a Great Aunt, because she loved me and wanted to leave me with pieces of herself - her art - before she died. I have cousins who have done the same. So, this is why I associate sewing first and foremost with femininity - I see my beautiful Aunt Cleo quilting with her sweet hands. That's feminine to me.

I don't believe you're sexist, but I do think that many people who support and defend notions of prescribed gender roles, including certain aspects of what they perceive to be "feminine" and "masculine," are sexist, misogynistic, and sometimes even misandrist (because I believe that such notions can be just as harmful to men as they are to women in certain cases).

And this isn't what I was talking about at all. There are feminists, in particular, who want me to feel guilty for embracing my femininity because certain aspects of my femininity may be have been influenced in some way.

I embrace my feminity and harbor no guilt for enjoying specific characteristics within myself that mirror classical gender roles.

 

[Father Heathen]

How do we define femininity and masculinity, and how to we apply such traits in a way that's not regarded as sexist? Is striving for androgyny supposed to be the ideal?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Maybe. What's important is to differentiate between those who acknowledge and even appreciate certain gender roles from those who impose exclusive gender concepts upon others.

I agree that's also important.

We're not talking about biological attributes that would make someone more suited or inclined for an activity.

We're talking about an activity that, perspectively, has been ENJOYED (not coerced) by people who happen to be, by majority, women.

There's no negative connotation here at all.

Well, I think biological attributes are relevant when discussing why most members of a particular gender seem to prefer an activity more than members of another gender do. If there are no biological attributes that can account for that preference, then it seems reasonable to me that one should ask to what extent it is culturally instilled rather than being inherent and whether such cultural instillation can have any negative effects that would be avoided by abandoning traditional cultural views of how members of a given gender should act or what they should have preferences for.

Also, what I'm saying here doesn't necessarily apply to just one activity (like sewing) or behavior; I think it is generally reasonable to question why traditions exist instead of just accepting them, even if most people who embrace them aren't coerced.

Maybe in some circles. In my peer group, women typically enjoy needlework and/or pay more attention to detail than their husbands. In example, my Dad is on the go and can't be bothered sewing back on a button. Why? Because he doesn't freaking want to. He's rather play golf. If my mother doesn't sew it, it doesn't get sewn. However, there's an important thing to understand here...she ENJOYS it, whereas my father doesn't have the attention span for it and is uncoordinated as hell. Threading a needle is just not something that he has the patience to do.

My grandmother, my former mother in law, my sisters, myself - we enjoy sewing. It may have been introduced to us within the auspices of culture, but, we we wouldn't bother with it, unless it was something that we wanted to do. We'd tell someone to kiss off before we'd do something that we didn't want to do.

Every quilt I own was made for me by a Great Aunt, because she loved me and wanted to leave me with pieces of herself - her art - before she died. I have cousins who have done the same. So, this is why I associate sewing first and foremost with femininity - I see my beautiful Aunt Cleo quilting with her sweet hands. That's feminine to me.

I think it's great if people do things they enjoy out of choice as long as they don't harm anyone else. I don't see what the problem is with someone taking up sewing because they find it enjoyable (as long as they don't assume that their concepts of "femininity" and/or "masculinity" necessarily apply to everyone else).

And this isn't what I was talking about at all. There are feminists, in particular, who want me to feel guilty for embracing my femininity because certain aspects of my femininity may be have been influenced in some way.

I embrace my feminity and harbor no guilt for enjoying specific characteristics within myself that mirror classical gender roles.

I disagree with them, then, because I'm not a fan of trying to make people feel guilty for doing something (harmless) completely of their own volition.

For clarification, though, you don't believe that your views of what constitutes femininity and masculinity as well as the characteristics thereof necessarily apply to other people, correct?

 

[dawny0826]

I agree that's also important.

I don't undermine the importance of attempting to understand inherent or cultural influences upon gender perception and characteristics attached to or associated with gender perception. I also don't believe that people should feel pressured to gain such understanding.

My opinion remains that the greater concern is HOW an individual projects their thoughts on gender and perceived/accepted characteristics and how such projections impact other people.

Well, I think biological attributes are relevant when discussing why most members of a particular gender seem to prefer an activity more than members of another gender do.

Preference should only be one facet to this analysis, should it not? Shouldn't we also consider biological ability?

If there are no biological attributes that can account for that preference, then it seems reasonable to me that one should ask to what extent it is culturally instilled rather than being inherent and whether such cultural instillation can have any negative effects that would be avoided by abandoning traditional cultural views of how members of a given gender should act or what they should have preferences for.

I'm not obligated to evaluate my views on femininity or masculinity and wouldn't have reason to most of the time. I'm not arrogant enough to impress upon anyone else an "importance" to consider whether biology accounts for certain preferences and views on perceived gender characteristics.

Also, what I'm saying here doesn't necessarily apply to just one activity (like sewing) or behavior; I think it is generally reasonable to question why traditions exist instead of just accepting them, even if most people who embrace them aren't coerced.

Generally resonable to those who want to question why traditions exist. I have no desire to question why I do certain things habitually and attribute these habits to my womanhood and characteristics that I consider feminine. What's important to me is that I enjoy these habits and they make me feel good and/or empowered.

I think it's great if people do things they enjoy out of choice as long as they don't harm anyone else. I don't see what the problem is with someone taking up sewing because they find it enjoyable (as long as they don't assume that their concepts of "femininity" and/or "masculinity" necessarily apply to everyone else).

This was precisely my point, DS.

I disagree with them, then, because I'm not a fan of trying to make people feel guilty for doing something (harmless) completely of their own volition.

This is commendable, in my opinion.

For clarification, though, you don't believe that your views of what constitutes femininity and masculinity as well as the characteristics thereof necessarily apply to other people, correct?

Of course not. I also offer no apology for my own perceptions of gender characteristics even if it annoys some people.

 

[Penumbra]

Sounds like it is far more important for it to be known the nature of the specific genotype that is referenced in the article, while race remains a poor statistical correlation and inadequate means for timely diagnosis.

In that case it's primarily skin-color related because skin color is how that Vitamin D adaptation happened.

Here's a related example. In the last blood test I had, there was a measurement of some blood thing that, like other measurements, gave a quantitative range for "normal" next to what my number was. But unlike the others, this one said, "if non-African American, it's ___" and "if African American, it's ___". Now if I was reading that and it said, "if you you have gene X745 it's ___" and if you have gene Y084 it's ___" then I would have no idea which one applies to me.

Similarly, some sort of race is useful for demographic information, is it not? Suppose polls occur in a city and find that a far lower percentage of black women get screenings for breast cancer compared to white women, controlled for economic status. The questions would then become, "What factors are leading to this discrepancy?" and "How can we improve this discrepancy?"

But if researchers say race doesn't exist and don't ever ask that question, then they never get to know about that discrepancy and it continues unaddressed. Because cultures, racism, and other factors, do occur, even if people say race isn't real.

 

[Penumbra]

That's certainly a valid view. However, this isn't the attitude I'm talking about or experiencing. I've actually heard more than one women, all in their 20's, talk about how they don't do those tasks because it's demeaning. Some of these are the same one's that have their husbands/boyfriends do it, because it is somehow not demeaning for men to do it - I guess since there isn't a history of these tasks being associated with men being subservient.

I'm sure some people say that. You didn't mention anything about what ratio say that that, though.

Personally I don't mind that stuff. I just wouldn't want to be expected to do it due to gender. I do most of the cooking and at least half of the cleaning in my relationship.

Testosterone increases aggression, and on that basis alone, it seems to be a significant advantage for someone whose job is to kill other human beings. Besides I think there are a whole host of other reasons why men make more effective killers than women.

Well but then you go from a hard fact to a subjective interpretation, because you have data for the first part but not for the later part.

If someone's job is to kill other humans, like a professional soldier, then personally I would expect patience, control, and discipline to be more important traits than aggression. One could even argue that aggression is a liability; a risk of killing inappropriate targets, or excessively, or out of irrationality. But see that's a subjective guess too.

We'd need more data on that for something resembling an objective conclusion. Like, if men and women are given entirely equal positions, which group has the higher correct kill count, the lower problematic kill count, the lower disciplinary action count, or some more difficult measurements like overall tactical effectiveness, mission success rates, etc.

 

[Penumbra]

How do we define femininity and masculinity, and how to we apply such traits in a way that's not regarded as sexist?

Subjectively if at all, imo. The more precisely it is defined, the more exceptions that will occur.

The way I view it, masculinity and femininity are things that bring to us common mental archetypes. Masculinity is like, strength, assertiveness, hardness, coarseness, solidarity. Femininity is like, beauty, grace, fairness, curvature, gentleness, compassion. Most people get those types of images when hearing those words, masculine and feminine. They can refer to physical attributes (muscular angular build, vs softer more fluid build, for example) but in this thread and elsewhere it often references activities and behaviors (being a soldier vs liking to sew, for example).

But then the way I view that, is I take that rough spectrum of masculinity/femininity, and separate that from gender and sex entirely. So masculinity is a shared archetype about those types of traits we picture, but not linked in any way directly to men. Femininity is a shared archetype about those other traits we picture, but not linked in any way directly to women. The only indirect links would be that due to some combination of social and biological factors, statistically women end up further on the feminine side and men end up further on the masculine side as far as we use those terms.

A problem is that the etymology of the words "masculine" and "feminine" directly relate to the sexes. "Mas" means "male" and "femina" means "female". But in common use they refer to behaviors, ways of being, that can usually be adopted by either sex. So that's an ancient problem that persists with the words themselves- this idea of describing behaviors in terms of the sexes, rather than separating the classification of behaviors from the sexes, while still possibly observing that sure, the sexes do statistically concentrate in some behaviors more than others.

So I think that's antiquated, and that the spectrum of masculine and feminine still has some limited descriptive value for behavior and appearance, but not in a way that should necessarily reference the sexes directly. That way, if I'm a woman with 12 years of full-contact kickboxing and submission grappling experience, if people consider that to be "masculine", they don't have to directly mean, "like a man" or "unlike a woman" which would be sort of alienating to women (either by basically saying that a woman that does it is unwomanly, or reinforcing the notion that women shouldn't do these things). But instead simply share a thought about an archetype of behavior (hard, powerful, aggressive, whatever) that can apply to either men or women.

And even that's highly limited because a person could easily be, say, hard and powerful, but highly compassionate and gentle. The spectrum is nothing more than a quick description rather than anything deeply useful, if we must. Like if someone says, "he is effeminate", then I know probably not to picture in my mind a muscular cigar-smoking lumberjack of a man. That can simply refer to behavior and modes of appearance rather than having to be linked semantically and culturally to the sexes, though.

A related example would be height. Men tend to be taller than women, but we don't universally consider tallness to be related to men and shortness to be related to women. Like, a man is not suddenly "like a female" just because he's short. A tall female model is not suddenly "like a man" just because she's 5'11". He would simply be a short man, and she would be a tall woman. We could have had a historical situation where the etymology and semantics of the word(s) for height also directly referenced the sexes, but they do not. Similarly, words that describe archetypes of behavior, also don't/shouldn't link directly to the sexes in terms of semantics.

So overall my answer personally would be, why do we need to define feminine and masculine, and why do we need these broad umbrella words for traits? And if we think of them as an overly simplistic spectrum that brings to mind shared mental images of behaviors, then apart from etymology of the words as the currently are, why must we link those archetypes to the sexes?

Is striving for androgyny supposed to be the ideal?

I don't think so. I value the differences I observe between women and men as a whole; I just don't try to define it or institutionalize it. In fact it would be more accurate to say I value differences between something like masculinity and femininity, without necessarily linking masculinity to men and femininity to women. I'm glad for the diversity of life and character, but not glad about firmly linking certain traits to certain sexes with these excessively broad words.

I don't need to define sewing as a masculine or feminine behavior. But that doesn't affect that I can appreciate diversity of appearance and behavior between people.

 

[Alceste]

That's certainly a valid view. However, this isn't the attitude I'm talking about or experiencing. I've actually heard more than one women, all in their 20's, talk about how they don't do those tasks because it's demeaning. Some of these are the same one's that have their husbands/boyfriends do it, because it is somehow not demeaning for men to do it - I guess since there isn't a history of these tasks being associated with men being subservient.



Testosterone increases aggression, and on that basis alone, it seems to be a significant advantage for someone whose job is to kill other human beings. Besides I think there are a whole host of other reasons why men make more effective killers than women.

I rejected cooking and dish washing, but not because it was demeaning. It was because, growing up, all the males - including my brother - lounged around in the living room chatting or watching TV while all the females, including me, did the cooking, served the food, and washed the dishes. If I decided I'd prefer to lounge around doing nothing with the men instead of cooking and washing dishes, I'd be called in to help while my sibling continued to lounge around undisturbed.

You probably know how siblings are with fairness and equal treatment. The unfairness was intolerable to me, and so cooking and cleaning also became intolerable by association. Even now, I can only get into it if I put a frilly apron on, and I prefer baking because it is associated with more equitable childhood memories. (Helping grandma bake cinnamon buns was a delight for all her grandchildren, male and female.)

My husband loves cooking, so it's all good. I make dinner once in a blue moon to give him a break or because I feel like eating something in particular that isn't in his repertoire. It's not demeaning to cook, it's offensive (though not degrading) to be EXPECTED to do the cooking just because I don't have a penis.

I agree with the link between testosterone, aggression and killing. One can make a rational argument that men in general might be better suited to killing, but perhaps not an argument that being good at killing is all there is to being a good soldier.

 

[dust1n]

In that case it's primarily skin-color related because skin color is how that Vitamin D adaptation happened.

Here's a related example. In the last blood test I had, there was a measurement of some blood thing that, like other measurements, gave a quantitative range for "normal" next to what my number was. But unlike the others, this one said, "if non-African American, it's ___" and "if African American, it's ___". Now if I was reading that and it said, "if you you have gene X745 it's ___" and if you have gene Y084 it's ___" then I would have no idea which one applies to me.

They are genes rs4588 and rs7041. It's not really important the ease at which patients read quantitative results. What's important is that doctors recognize the presence of these genes, because they may or may not be present in patient. Not everyone is clearly black or white skinned. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with cystic fibrosis, as an extreme example. It might be important to determine why an inadequate vitamin D test is yielding a specific result in a patient.

Similarly, some sort of race is useful for demographic information, is it not? Suppose polls occur in a city and find that a far lower percentage of black women get screenings for breast cancer compared to white women, controlled for economic status. The questions would then become, "What factors are leading to this discrepancy?" and "How can we improve this discrepancy?"

I can see how race would be useful in this particular instance.

But if researchers say race doesn't exist and don't ever ask that question, then they never get to know about that discrepancy and it continues unaddressed. Because cultures, racism, and other factors, do occur, even if people say race isn't real.

When the human proteome project is complete, it will matter very little what color one's skin is when diagnosing a patient. I guess that is suppose to be about 8 more years away though. Race isn't a useless concept as long people act upon its fictitious notions. At least not too useless considering the researcher did the study using a couple premises, one being that black people look vitamin D deficient on current tests, and that the genes in question pertained to vitamin D.



Do I really know how to get off topic, or what?

 

[ChristineES]

I don't think it's sexist, either. People are just too darn sensitive nowadays. We have to have a thick skin

 

[Alceste]

I don't think it's sexist, either. People are just too darn sensitive nowadays. We have to have a thick skin

I do think it's sexist, but I don't think the opinion that a comment is sexist is the same thing as being hurt or having an inadequately thick skin.

It is funny though how people jump directly to the assumption of emotional sensitivity whenever casual sexism is pointed out. I liked the way Emma Stone dealt with it, though. "I'm not offended, I'm asking you why you think sewing is feminine".

 

[Amechania]

I do think it's sexist, but I don't think the opinion that a comment is sexist is the same thing as being hurt or having an inadequately thick skin.

It is funny though how people jump directly to the assumption of emotional sensitivity whenever casual sexism is pointed out. I liked the way Emma Stone dealt with it, though. "I'm not offended, I'm asking you why you think sewing is feminine".

Yes she handled it perfectly and he seemed to immediately go on the defensive, trying to justify his comment with what to my mind were further sexist remarks.

 

[Alceste]

Yes she handled it perfectly and he seemed to immediately go on the defensive, trying to justify his comment with what to my mind were further sexist remarks.

Yeah, I think the accusation of thin skins and oversensitivity is often just psychological projection. A says something sexist, B points out that the comment is sexist, A gets his or her knickers in a knot and accuses B of being emotional and oversensitive, then goes on the defense. That exchange in the article was a great example.

I remember my mom sewing my brother's first Spiderman costume - she hated sewing and she was annoyed and frustrated the entire time. In retrospect, she should have said "Spiderman made HIS OWN costume- maybe you could too!"

 

[dust1n]

Yes she handled it perfectly and he seemed to immediately go on the defensive, trying to justify his comment with what to my mind were further sexist remarks.

I thought it hilarious. I rightly support anyone to more often question statements of dubious stature, especially when my amusement increases.

I hope he hears my advice of replacing "feminine" with "emasculating."

 

[Penumbra]

I don't think it's sexist, either. People are just too darn sensitive nowadays. We have to have a thick skin

There's a difference between pointing out a discrepancy or asking for clarification, and being emotionally attached to the issue in any way.

Stone politely asked him what he meant. What does this have to do with sensitivity?

I do think it's sexist, but I don't think the opinion that a comment is sexist is the same thing as being hurt or having an inadequately thick skin.

It is funny though how people jump directly to the assumption of emotional sensitivity whenever casual sexism is pointed out. I liked the way Emma Stone dealt with it, though. "I'm not offended, I'm asking you why you think sewing is feminine".

Exactly.

She was very straightforward about asking what he meant. Things can be discussed to point out bad usage of words, improper assumptions about things, without being "sensitive" to it.

Thick skin is not the same as never being willing to call people on things or asking them to clarify potentially problematic remarks. Because all that would lead to is stagnation; a lack of improvement of the status quo.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't undermine the importance of attempting to understand inherent or cultural influences upon gender perception and characteristics attached to or associated with gender perception. I also don't believe that people should feel pressured to gain such understanding.

I disagree. I think in some cases, gaining such understanding is necessary for intellectual responsibility, because there are cultural and social norms that arise out of baseless statements about gender roles. In some parts of the world, women are basically required to have a man's permission before traveling for any reason, as an example. Such laws are still in place largely due to the perception that men are supposed to be the "leaders" and women are expected to be "protected" by them.

We're talking about a harmless hobby/profession here (sewing), so not gaining an understanding of whether or not there's any inherent difference between men and women that makes the latter seemingly like it more isn't really a significant issue. However, in other cases, things are very different, and I think it is absolutely crucial to question traditions in those cases and even actively try to change them in any ways one can.

My opinion remains that the greater concern is HOW an individual projects their thoughts on gender and perceived/accepted characteristics and how such projections impact other people.

Sometimes people don't necessarily come right out and meddle in other people's lives because of what they believe about gender roles, but I think things are broader than that. If a person has misconceptions about what men and women are "ideally" supposed to be like, then there's a good chance that they'll raise any children they have to believe the same things—I know a lot of people who have done so. And if those children believe the same things, they also transfer them to their own children, and so on.

At what point do we really say that holding such beliefs has "impacted others" when instilling inaccurate beliefs in one's children can already be a way of diffusing misconceptions even further? We can talk about how harmful someone's beliefs are and criticize their beliefs without forcing him/her not to act on them; would that really count as forcing that person to do anything?

Preference should only be one facet to this analysis, should it not? Shouldn't we also consider biological ability?

Of course. Is there any difference in inherent biological ability between males and females when it comes to sewing, though? If the answer is no, then I don't think it's an aspect of this discussion; it has to be existent before we can talk about it as an actual element here.

I'm not obligated to evaluate my views on femininity or masculinity and wouldn't have reason to most of the time. I'm not arrogant enough to impress upon anyone else an "importance" to consider whether biology accounts for certain preferences and views on perceived gender characteristics.

I think whether or not one has an obligation to weigh their views against known scientific facts depends on the potential effect of holding those beliefs as well as the scope of their implications in general. As I said above, it seems to me that, in certain cases, doing so is necessary for intellectual responsibility. Holding uninformed beliefs and/or ones that are contradicted by established facts can definitely be something to criticize and try to change in a lot of cases.

Generally resonable to those who want to question why traditions exist. I have no desire to question why I do certain things habitually and attribute these habits to my womanhood and characteristics that I consider feminine. What's important to me is that I enjoy these habits and they make me feel good and/or empowered.

Again: Like I said above, we're talking about a relatively harmless hobby/profession here; the same doesn't apply when we talk about traditions that are used as justification for forcing women to act as second-class citizens to men. Many women also support such traditions, but those who don't usually can't do much because of how unprivileged their social position becomes due to the existence of baseless and irrational traditions.

Of course not. I also offer no apology for my own perceptions of gender characteristics even if it annoys some people.

You're entitled to your opinions, of course, just as other people are entitled to criticize them as they see fit. Being entitled to something doesn't mean it is considerate or even advisable, but that's kind of the point: you don't have to like something to tolerate it or listen to it. That's what freedom of speech is about.

Just for clarification: I don't really think the perceptions of gender characteristics you have admitted to holding here so far are very harmful. My arguments extend to prescribed gender roles and notions thereof in general, which do contain a lot of harmful misconceptions, in my opinion.

 

[ChristineES]

There's a difference between pointing out a discrepancy or asking for clarification, and being emotionally attached to the issue in any way.

Stone politely asked him what he meant. What does this have to do with sensitivity?


Exactly.

She was very straightforward about asking what he meant. Things can be discussed to point out bad usage of words, improper assumptions about things, without being "sensitive" to it.

Thick skin is not the same as never being willing to call people on things or asking them to clarify potentially problematic remarks. Because all that would lead to is stagnation; a lack of improvement of the status quo.

I am not talking about her being sensitive, but to all the people who reported it in the first place (she proved very well that she was not sensitive). Even if it was sexist, it wasn't newsworthy by any means. People worry too much about what others say. People are going to say things, and it's about time we not let it bother us. It is something I have had to do in my life as I was overly sensitive for a long time.

Edited to add: Of course, there are some things that shouldn't be said, things that truly do affect others. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about something really superficial as believing that sewing is something only girls do.

 

[Alceste]

I am not talking about her being sensitive, but to all the people who reported it in the first place (she proved very well that she was not sensitive). Even if it was sexist, it wasn't newsworthy by any means. People worry too much about what others say. People are going to say things, and it's about time we not let it bother us. It is something I have had to do in my life as I was overly sensitive for a long time.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree to some extent. Some people are far too easily offended. OTOH, I didn't get that impression from this example. I saw Emma Stone challenging a sexist comment with charm and decorum, and a blog post recommending her approach to others who challenge sexist remarks and are consequently unfairly accused of being over-emotional.

I've used that approach myself, to counter racist comments. Just asking questions. Not making accusations, not introducing any drama to the conversation. A good example was when I lived in rural England - a place where almost EVERYONE is ethnically English - and people regularly talked about how "immigrants are stealing our jobs" because they'd read it in the tabloids. I'd ask questions like "which immigrants, specifically?" or point out that I was an immigrant myself, and ask whether they were upset that I was working on a job that might have otherwise gone to an English native.

They weren't bothered at all by me though, despite the fact I immigrated and "stole" a job from an English person. They were just being racist, because racism is a safe water cooler topic in rural England. But asking the question caused them to think about it a little, rather than just gargling out racist bollox out of habit, unchallenged.

 

[ChristineES]

I hear what you're saying, and I agree to some extent. Some people are far too easily offended. OTOH, I didn't get that impression from this example. I saw Emma Stone challenging a sexist comment with charm and decorum, and a blog post recommending her approach to others who challenge sexist remarks and are consequently unfairly accused of being over-emotional.

I've used that approach myself, to counter racist comments. Just asking questions. Not making accusations, not introducing any drama to the conversation. A good example was when I lived in rural England - a place where almost EVERYONE is ethnically English - and people regularly talked about how "immigrants are stealing our jobs" because they'd read it in the tabloids. I'd ask questions like "which immigrants, specifically?" or point out that I was an immigrant myself, and ask whether they were upset that I was working on a job that might have otherwise gone to an English native.

They weren't bothered at all by me though, despite the fact I immigrated and "stole" a job from an English person. They were just being racist, because racism is a safe water cooler topic in rural England. But asking the question caused them to think about it a little, rather than just gargling out racist bollox out of habit, unchallenged.

I do admit that Emma Stone handled it quite well, too. She did perceive as a sexist statement and responded in a very admirable fashion.

(I was was in the Navy, and I witnessed a lot of men sewing, so sewing isn't for ladies only )