I really don't know what else to say about this story. Kentucky passed a law requiring the state to acknowledge the role of God in protecting the state's security. It's a move that dumbfounds me.
As an atheist, my first instinct is to be mortified, but the story is too weird. Kentucky's legislature violated the Constitution for basically no reason. They couldn't honestly believe that acknowledging God could have any material effect, could they? And even if it were universally accepted that God played a vital role in national security, this particular law seems theologically shaky. I'll admit, I don't fully understand how divine intervention is supposed to work, but I thought that you were supposed to act as if you didn't expect any help at all, and then be grateful if and when you got it. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the most religiously respectful way to handle national security is to be completely worldly with the preparations, and then allow individual citizens to express their spiritual graditude in whatever way they see fit.
Some people have commented that, since this law has no material effect, it doesn't actually violate anyone's rights. It's true that it doesn't actually oppress many Kentuckians (although, it does oppress some - if I worked in Kentucky's Department of Homeland Security, I would feel as if the law required me to express a belief I don't actually hold, as a condition of my employment), but its triviality is exactly what's wrong with the law.
It introduces religion into the statute, but it doesn't actually do anything. The law is completely gratutitous. Some policies that blur the separation of church and state have an actual purpose to them. Religious schools provide children with education. Grants to "faith-based initiatives" at least provide useful charitable services. Even laws that require the teaching of Creationism at least attempt to alter a substanitive policy. This particular law serves no purpose besides making those that don't share the lawmakers' views uncomfortable.
What's worse, is that it isn't even a vague, contentless, ecumenical reference to God. It actually refers to God in a way that different demoninations would dispute - not everyone who believes in God believes that He directly intervenes in human affairs. Some believe that issues like homeland security are the provence of human free will, and that God would not help protect one nation from attacks by another.
So, even if you are of the belief that the founding fathers never meant for the first ammendment to apply to non-Christians, it still stands that this law favors one interpretation of Christian theology over the others, and thus, is exactly the sort of law that the first ammendment was written to forbid. The state of Kentucky is not only not secular, it's not non-denominational.
This is the sort of thing that should unite Christians and atheists. Everyone who values any form of religious freedom should oppose this law. It is not just a bad law, it is a spectacularly, uselessly, unbelievably bad law. As an atheist, I'm stunned by its insensitivity, but I imagine that if I were a Christian, I would be profoundly embarrassed by its utter uselessness. Having pride in one's religion is one thing, but I always imagined that pride in the even-handedness and seriousness of our nation's laws was a value that united us as Americans.
Sadly, I don't think this is the neccessarily the case. So far, I've mostly seen the conversation framed as yet another front in the eternal battle of atheists vs Christians. The cynic in me has a dark suspicion that atheist-bating was the unspoken purpose of the law from the very beginning.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Obama/Hillary '08
Ah, another day in the world of politics. One comment I've been reading frequently on various news message boards is "Obama should've chosen Hillary to be his running mate." These writers assume that Obama made some kind of terrible miscalculation by choosing Biden to be Vice-President. I happen to think they're wrong.
I'll admit, the sentiment sounds appealing at first. After a tightly contested primary, the two rivals put aside their differences and form a political dream ticket to take back the country from the forces of reaction. It's a pleasing, emotionally satisfying image, but it would've been a bad decision.
Why? Because: The Vice Presidency of the United States is a political Booby-Prize. This used to be a widely acknowledged truth. The whole job is to sit quietly and avoid embarrassing the administration while waiting for the President to die. Oh, and occasionally casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. It's not a job you give to a dynamic politician. It's a job you give to a functionary. Or to someone unelectable. Or to a promising up-in-comer. Or to a faithful partisan who's approaching the end of his or her political career.
In other words, not Hillary. How was that conversation supposed to go? Congratulations. You gave me a run for my money and proved yourself a charismatic, effective politician with a national following. Will you now please shut your trap for the next four years and leave the governing to me?
Hillary knows the score. She knows that being Barak's VP would've silenced her as an independent political voice for at least four years, or more likely, eight. Even if Obama didn't win re-election in '12, it's unheard of for a VP to run against an incumbent President.
By not choosing Hillary as his VP, he keeps a popular, influential Democrat in the Senate (rather than politically neutralizing her), where she can help advance his liberal agenda. Furthermore, Biden is a classic VP choice. He has name recognition, but wasn't a serious contender for President. He plays conventional, experienced Washington insider to Obama's unconventional, talented political outsider. In other words, he "balances the ticket." Vice-presidential SOP since forever.
When Hilary started running for President, I was skeptical. I knew she was the political equal of Bill, but I assumed the baggage of being a former first lady would be too much. I was wrong. She's been very effective in establishing herself as a separate figure. If Obama had chosen her, there would have been the perception, whether merited or not, of dueling egos, and it would've overshadowed the campaign. The potential drama would've been too juicy for the media to resist.
Obama did Hillary a favor by not choosing her. She gets to keep her individual voice and can make a credible run in 2012, if she still wants to. More power to her if she does.
I'll admit, the sentiment sounds appealing at first. After a tightly contested primary, the two rivals put aside their differences and form a political dream ticket to take back the country from the forces of reaction. It's a pleasing, emotionally satisfying image, but it would've been a bad decision.
Why? Because: The Vice Presidency of the United States is a political Booby-Prize. This used to be a widely acknowledged truth. The whole job is to sit quietly and avoid embarrassing the administration while waiting for the President to die. Oh, and occasionally casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. It's not a job you give to a dynamic politician. It's a job you give to a functionary. Or to someone unelectable. Or to a promising up-in-comer. Or to a faithful partisan who's approaching the end of his or her political career.
In other words, not Hillary. How was that conversation supposed to go? Congratulations. You gave me a run for my money and proved yourself a charismatic, effective politician with a national following. Will you now please shut your trap for the next four years and leave the governing to me?
Hillary knows the score. She knows that being Barak's VP would've silenced her as an independent political voice for at least four years, or more likely, eight. Even if Obama didn't win re-election in '12, it's unheard of for a VP to run against an incumbent President.
By not choosing Hillary as his VP, he keeps a popular, influential Democrat in the Senate (rather than politically neutralizing her), where she can help advance his liberal agenda. Furthermore, Biden is a classic VP choice. He has name recognition, but wasn't a serious contender for President. He plays conventional, experienced Washington insider to Obama's unconventional, talented political outsider. In other words, he "balances the ticket." Vice-presidential SOP since forever.
When Hilary started running for President, I was skeptical. I knew she was the political equal of Bill, but I assumed the baggage of being a former first lady would be too much. I was wrong. She's been very effective in establishing herself as a separate figure. If Obama had chosen her, there would have been the perception, whether merited or not, of dueling egos, and it would've overshadowed the campaign. The potential drama would've been too juicy for the media to resist.
Obama did Hillary a favor by not choosing her. She gets to keep her individual voice and can make a credible run in 2012, if she still wants to. More power to her if she does.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Misogyny - Take 2!
There was a definition of misogyny I failed to consider. If you honestly believed that the mental differences between men and women were radical and significant (I happen to believe they are at most subtle and irrellevant, but that's a subject for a different time), then an ideological opposition to sexist double standards would be a form of type 4 sexism. Under this paradigm someone who supported equality to the detriment of women (and taking women out of their "natural roles" would be to their detriment, probably) would be a misogynist.
I happily and eagerly admit to being this type of misogynist. Sorry ladies, you're no better than I am!
I happily and eagerly admit to being this type of misogynist. Sorry ladies, you're no better than I am!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Misogyny of the Left
I don't normally follow politics. Whenever I do, I read something that upsets me, and I wind up dwelling on it. I eventually lose sleep, become physically ill, and wind up just generally depressed and angry, both at the world for being such a fucked up place and at myself, for lacking the ability to change it.
I hate being angry. I just don't have the constitution for it, so usually I go out of my way to avoid reading anything political. This helps some, but I usually feel guilty after awhile, like I'm neglecting my duties as a citizen. So I dip my toe in the waters from time to time, despite the risk of being swallowed whole.
I recently started following the election. Not much point really, because there's no way I was going to vote Republican, and I'm pretty sure that as a registered socialist, I'm not eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. Nonetheless, I'd like to feel that my reflexive decision would be the same as my informed decision. So I started reading the coverage on http://www.salon.com/. Perhaps more importantly, I started reading the letters that responded to the coverage.
Inevitably, in the letters section of more or less every Sarah Palin article, someone would respond with some variation of "this reveals the left's hidden hatred of women." Now, I'm fairly sure that these comments are just random flames. As far as I can recall, the main criticism of the left's handling of women's issues has historically been that they care too much. I would just dismiss these comments as partisan name-calling, but some of the coverage of Palin has seemed pretty sexist - http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/.
Now, generalizing about a group from the actions of individuals is a pretty well known fallacy. You can't argue that the left is sexist because some people who identify as left politically happen to be sexist. Similarly, you can't use a characteristic of a group to infer the traits of an individual member of the group unless that characteristic is a necessary condition of group membership. Because bananas have peels, you can infer that each individual banana must have a peel, but you couldn't infer that every individual leftist is non-sexist just because the left as a group opposes sexism.
But I don't want to stop at just calling out a fallacy. I'm a strong believer in confronting one's dark side. It may be impossible to eliminate bias completely, but it is important to identify one's prejudices, and to compensate accordingly. Let's assume the accusation has merit. What is sexism? What is misogyny? And is the left guilty of either?
I've actually thought about this a lot over the years, and I don't think this is a bianary issue. I don't even think it's a continuum. Rather, I think there are several undesirable behaviors that get lumped together as sexism, each of which must be considered separately.
1. The Habitual Exclusion of Women from Male Priveleges
This behavior is perhaps the most obvious form of sexism, though it can sometimes be indirect and subtle (by, for example, excluding not "women" but "people under six feet tall"). The direct form of this "You can't do it because you're a girl" is pretty much universally reviled, and no person, left or right, who supports it can claim to have mainstream political views. I think this would be an unfair, not to say delusional, accusation to level against most modern Americans.
The inderect form is a bit trickier. It usually manifests as occupational standards (a candidate must have a certain amount of strength to perform a certain job). Oftentimes, these standards can seem straightforward and non-ideological, but conflict can arise when people believe them to be unneccessarily strict (and, as a result, "soft" discrimination). Consider - there are numerous, obvious advantages to having lighter, smaller fighter pilots. If the military set the maximum weight for pilots as 100 pounds, there would be no overt gender discrimination - both men and women can achieve that weight, if they have the right build. Yet, with that standard, many men are excluded from being pilots. Does the maximum really need to be that low? What are the performance differences between a 100lb pilot and a 150lb pilot? How much performance loss is acceptable for the sake of fairness?
Often, these are highly technical issues. Sometimes they are the result of a random guess by the powers in charge. Still, I think it is fair to say that the left as a group is not especially guilty of this type of sexism. Usually, when these issues come up, the side arguing for relaxed standards is portrayed as liberal if the relaxation would break with tradition and conservative if the relaxation would help preserve tradition.
1a. The Habitual, Unconscious Exclusion of Women
Sometimes a person in charge will make a series of decisions that, while not individually sexist, will attain the same result as conscious exclusion. If a male candidate and a female candidate have the same qualifications, choosing between them is completely arbitrary. Yet, if after filling 100 positions, the same person hires 80 men and 20 women, then it's a pretty safe bet that some aspect of the decision-making process favors men.
Most people are against this type of sexism, but it's a difficult thing to prove, and as often as not, the person doing it doesn't even know they're doing it. Because it's unconscious, it is by definition non-ideological. Liberals are often accused of seeing this type of sexism where it doesn't exist, but it would take a dedicated study to determine whether that makes them more or less likely to committ it. My intuition is to say that they are less likely to do so, if only because they are more likely to overcompensate.
2. Double Standards
Double standards come in many forms, but the traditional moral double standards are pretty much discredited across the entire political spectrum. Some reflexive, unconscious double standards still exist, but few with mainstream sensibilities will consciously defend them (I've never heard anyone seriously argue that sexual promiscuity is worse for girls than for boys, even if they in practice treat it as more serious). Contrast this with past societies where "Male virtue meant participation in the public world of politics; female virtue meant withdrawal into the private world of the family." (http://s99.middlebury.edu/FR385A/Romans/pauletvirginie/Hunt.htm)
The other relevant double standard is affirmative action. Holding women to a lower standard of performance is a sexist double standard in its own right, and enables a reactionary double standard where a woman who does as well or better than a man has her achievements discounted because she was "part of a quota." I'm fairly sure that most liberals support affirmative action because it's a practical counter to type 1 sexism, and not because they believe that women actually need the extra help, but my aim is not to play liberal appologist. Leftists, at the very least, risk the appearance of sexism by supporting affirmative action.
3. Informative Stereotypes
Also known as "prejudice," this is the practice of matching the known characteristics of an individual to a stereotype and thus inferring the unknown characteristics of that individual. The political problems this can cause are obvious. Unfortunately, this is proably a fundamental aspect of how the human mind works. The field of psychological heuristics seems to suggest that the same processes responsible for racial and sexual prejudice are neccessary for humans to function at all.
Indeed, when Palin referred to herself as a "Hockey Mom," she was invoking an informative stereotype. Presumably, the statement was meant to convey more than the fact that her children play hockey. Presumably, by labeling herself a "Hockey Mom," she intended to communicate to her audience something about her attitudes and character.
Informative stereotypes become sexist when they employ a double standard. When a person's moral or intellectual character is, through a stereotype, connected to a gender, that stereotype is sexist. "Boring Engineer" and "Slutty Cheerleader" may both be equally false, but the boring engineer can be either gender, whereas the slutty cheerleader is almost certainly not male (male cheerleaders are subject to another sexist stereotype).
Probably because they are so fundamental, only the most unflattering and demonstratably false stereotypes will discredit someone politically. Only rarely will someone object to a stereotype used approvingly. "Soccer Mom" is a compliment. "Conniving Shrew" is an insult. Both are equally sexist.
People of all political persuasions use informative stereotypes all the time, but the question of sexist stereotypes crosses party lines. A hallmark of feminism is an opposition to sexist stereotypes. A hallmark of ideologically inflexible feminism is an opposition to "positive" sexist stereotypes. While feminists are usually identified with the left, there are feminists of the most inflexible type even among the right wing. While it is unfair to accuse the entire left of relying on sexist sterotypes, being a feminist is not a necessary precondition to being a leftist. Some leftists believe sexist stereotypes.
3a. Prescriptive Stereotypes
A characteristic trait of virtue ethics, the prescriptive stereotype is a model for moral behavior. By emulating the stereotype, one becomes virtuous. There's nothing spectacularly wrong with this theory of ethics, but when combined with a restrictive informative stereotype, it can opress on a very basic level.
This interacts uniquely with sexism. All sexist ethical systems rely on ethical double standards, but only virtue ethics can be sexist without harming its basic elegance. A sexist rule-based system must have two sets of rules. A sexist consequentialist system must value men and women differently. But a virtue-based system relies on the emulation of role-models, and sexism does little to change that.
Sexist prescriptive stereotypes were common in the past (if a woman was not a good wife and mother, then she was a complete failure), but appear today mostly when people get nasty. When someone suggests a career-focused woman would be happier if she had a couple of kids or accuses a stay-at-home mom of being a useless bimbo, they are invoking sexist prescriptive stereotypes.
From what I've seen, conservatives are more likely to embrace these stereotypes as a positive (praising a stay-at-home mom as automatically more virtuous and a better parent than a working mom), but liberals are more likely to be accused of sexism on this issue.
Feminists, particularly liberal feminists, rightfully attack the notion that being a "homemaker" is some sort of signpost of female virtue. However, they all too frequently either go too far (being a homemaker isn't automatically villainous, either) or fall into the trap of attacking the stereotype by attacking the people who appear to fit the stereotype. This opposite extreme is, indeed, a form of sexism, but I believe that is an unintended side-effect of the real fault - seeing the world through ideological blinders. I don't think many liberals are type 3a sexists, but there are undesirable traits besides sexism.
4. Ignoring Physical Differences
Liberals get accused of this a lot, but I am not referring to opposition to the subtler form of type 1 sexism (i.e. the belief that women would be just as good as men at physical jobs). I am actually referring to the steadfast refusal to apply a double standard when a single standard is detrimental to one sex.
For example - an insurance plan that does not cover medical treatment related to pregnancy. Technically, it's even-handed because it doesn't give men pregnancy benefits either. Realistically, it's sexist because it omits a common female need, but doesn't force men to endure similar shortcomings. Another example would be a building with an abnormally low ceiling. Because men are generally taller, they would be disproportionately negatively affected. The ceiling manages to discriminate, despite being a static, inanimate object.
In general, I don't think liberals are very vulnerable to accusations of this type of sexism. "Suck it up, life's not fair" is not an attitude that is frequently associated with the liberal mindset. In any event, it would be absurd to accuse them of using this type sexism in a way detrimental to women. If anything, they could be accused of neglecting men's issues, and even then it's probably an unconscious oversight, rather than an ideologically-based decision.
5. The Use of Sexist Rhetoric as a Form of Attack
This is one type of sexism of which many leftists are sadly guilty. Its use actually has little or nothing to do with the other types of sexism or with issues of sexual politics, except as inspiration. This type of sexism comes from the awareness that sexist slurs are hurtful. It is directed towards someone who is for unrelated reasons disliked.
The progression is not at all difficult to see. You have a person who is disliked. You have words of established hurtfulness. The ugly, but ideologically non-specific desire to hurt someone you don't like comes into play. And before you know it, sexism happens. This is especially frustrating because I do believe that most leftists are strongly oppossed to sexism in general, and when the fog of this election clears will be disgusted with the environment of anti-pc permisiveness they rashly helped create.
So, in conclusion, do I think the left is sexist? Sometimes, but usually benignly or accidentally. Do I think the left is misogynist? Clearly not. In my opinion, a misogynist is someone who embraces all five types of sexism to the active detriment of women. That is an accusation I would hesitate to level against even my worst conservative foe.
Finally, a personal appeal to any sympathetic liberals who might be reading this blog. I know there is a visceral satisfaction in visciously insulting someone. I know it can be difficult to articulate your core values in written form. I know that long-winded, nuanced essays persuade precisely no one. But I sincerely believe that the political left is the responsible, moral position. No matter how high tempers might rise during this election, we shouldn't forget this and we should act accordingly.
I hate being angry. I just don't have the constitution for it, so usually I go out of my way to avoid reading anything political. This helps some, but I usually feel guilty after awhile, like I'm neglecting my duties as a citizen. So I dip my toe in the waters from time to time, despite the risk of being swallowed whole.
I recently started following the election. Not much point really, because there's no way I was going to vote Republican, and I'm pretty sure that as a registered socialist, I'm not eligible to vote in the Democratic primary. Nonetheless, I'd like to feel that my reflexive decision would be the same as my informed decision. So I started reading the coverage on http://www.salon.com/. Perhaps more importantly, I started reading the letters that responded to the coverage.
Inevitably, in the letters section of more or less every Sarah Palin article, someone would respond with some variation of "this reveals the left's hidden hatred of women." Now, I'm fairly sure that these comments are just random flames. As far as I can recall, the main criticism of the left's handling of women's issues has historically been that they care too much. I would just dismiss these comments as partisan name-calling, but some of the coverage of Palin has seemed pretty sexist - http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/.
Now, generalizing about a group from the actions of individuals is a pretty well known fallacy. You can't argue that the left is sexist because some people who identify as left politically happen to be sexist. Similarly, you can't use a characteristic of a group to infer the traits of an individual member of the group unless that characteristic is a necessary condition of group membership. Because bananas have peels, you can infer that each individual banana must have a peel, but you couldn't infer that every individual leftist is non-sexist just because the left as a group opposes sexism.
But I don't want to stop at just calling out a fallacy. I'm a strong believer in confronting one's dark side. It may be impossible to eliminate bias completely, but it is important to identify one's prejudices, and to compensate accordingly. Let's assume the accusation has merit. What is sexism? What is misogyny? And is the left guilty of either?
I've actually thought about this a lot over the years, and I don't think this is a bianary issue. I don't even think it's a continuum. Rather, I think there are several undesirable behaviors that get lumped together as sexism, each of which must be considered separately.
1. The Habitual Exclusion of Women from Male Priveleges
This behavior is perhaps the most obvious form of sexism, though it can sometimes be indirect and subtle (by, for example, excluding not "women" but "people under six feet tall"). The direct form of this "You can't do it because you're a girl" is pretty much universally reviled, and no person, left or right, who supports it can claim to have mainstream political views. I think this would be an unfair, not to say delusional, accusation to level against most modern Americans.
The inderect form is a bit trickier. It usually manifests as occupational standards (a candidate must have a certain amount of strength to perform a certain job). Oftentimes, these standards can seem straightforward and non-ideological, but conflict can arise when people believe them to be unneccessarily strict (and, as a result, "soft" discrimination). Consider - there are numerous, obvious advantages to having lighter, smaller fighter pilots. If the military set the maximum weight for pilots as 100 pounds, there would be no overt gender discrimination - both men and women can achieve that weight, if they have the right build. Yet, with that standard, many men are excluded from being pilots. Does the maximum really need to be that low? What are the performance differences between a 100lb pilot and a 150lb pilot? How much performance loss is acceptable for the sake of fairness?
Often, these are highly technical issues. Sometimes they are the result of a random guess by the powers in charge. Still, I think it is fair to say that the left as a group is not especially guilty of this type of sexism. Usually, when these issues come up, the side arguing for relaxed standards is portrayed as liberal if the relaxation would break with tradition and conservative if the relaxation would help preserve tradition.
1a. The Habitual, Unconscious Exclusion of Women
Sometimes a person in charge will make a series of decisions that, while not individually sexist, will attain the same result as conscious exclusion. If a male candidate and a female candidate have the same qualifications, choosing between them is completely arbitrary. Yet, if after filling 100 positions, the same person hires 80 men and 20 women, then it's a pretty safe bet that some aspect of the decision-making process favors men.
Most people are against this type of sexism, but it's a difficult thing to prove, and as often as not, the person doing it doesn't even know they're doing it. Because it's unconscious, it is by definition non-ideological. Liberals are often accused of seeing this type of sexism where it doesn't exist, but it would take a dedicated study to determine whether that makes them more or less likely to committ it. My intuition is to say that they are less likely to do so, if only because they are more likely to overcompensate.
2. Double Standards
Double standards come in many forms, but the traditional moral double standards are pretty much discredited across the entire political spectrum. Some reflexive, unconscious double standards still exist, but few with mainstream sensibilities will consciously defend them (I've never heard anyone seriously argue that sexual promiscuity is worse for girls than for boys, even if they in practice treat it as more serious). Contrast this with past societies where "Male virtue meant participation in the public world of politics; female virtue meant withdrawal into the private world of the family." (http://s99.middlebury.edu/FR385A/Romans/pauletvirginie/Hunt.htm)
The other relevant double standard is affirmative action. Holding women to a lower standard of performance is a sexist double standard in its own right, and enables a reactionary double standard where a woman who does as well or better than a man has her achievements discounted because she was "part of a quota." I'm fairly sure that most liberals support affirmative action because it's a practical counter to type 1 sexism, and not because they believe that women actually need the extra help, but my aim is not to play liberal appologist. Leftists, at the very least, risk the appearance of sexism by supporting affirmative action.
3. Informative Stereotypes
Also known as "prejudice," this is the practice of matching the known characteristics of an individual to a stereotype and thus inferring the unknown characteristics of that individual. The political problems this can cause are obvious. Unfortunately, this is proably a fundamental aspect of how the human mind works. The field of psychological heuristics seems to suggest that the same processes responsible for racial and sexual prejudice are neccessary for humans to function at all.
Indeed, when Palin referred to herself as a "Hockey Mom," she was invoking an informative stereotype. Presumably, the statement was meant to convey more than the fact that her children play hockey. Presumably, by labeling herself a "Hockey Mom," she intended to communicate to her audience something about her attitudes and character.
Informative stereotypes become sexist when they employ a double standard. When a person's moral or intellectual character is, through a stereotype, connected to a gender, that stereotype is sexist. "Boring Engineer" and "Slutty Cheerleader" may both be equally false, but the boring engineer can be either gender, whereas the slutty cheerleader is almost certainly not male (male cheerleaders are subject to another sexist stereotype).
Probably because they are so fundamental, only the most unflattering and demonstratably false stereotypes will discredit someone politically. Only rarely will someone object to a stereotype used approvingly. "Soccer Mom" is a compliment. "Conniving Shrew" is an insult. Both are equally sexist.
People of all political persuasions use informative stereotypes all the time, but the question of sexist stereotypes crosses party lines. A hallmark of feminism is an opposition to sexist stereotypes. A hallmark of ideologically inflexible feminism is an opposition to "positive" sexist stereotypes. While feminists are usually identified with the left, there are feminists of the most inflexible type even among the right wing. While it is unfair to accuse the entire left of relying on sexist sterotypes, being a feminist is not a necessary precondition to being a leftist. Some leftists believe sexist stereotypes.
3a. Prescriptive Stereotypes
A characteristic trait of virtue ethics, the prescriptive stereotype is a model for moral behavior. By emulating the stereotype, one becomes virtuous. There's nothing spectacularly wrong with this theory of ethics, but when combined with a restrictive informative stereotype, it can opress on a very basic level.
This interacts uniquely with sexism. All sexist ethical systems rely on ethical double standards, but only virtue ethics can be sexist without harming its basic elegance. A sexist rule-based system must have two sets of rules. A sexist consequentialist system must value men and women differently. But a virtue-based system relies on the emulation of role-models, and sexism does little to change that.
Sexist prescriptive stereotypes were common in the past (if a woman was not a good wife and mother, then she was a complete failure), but appear today mostly when people get nasty. When someone suggests a career-focused woman would be happier if she had a couple of kids or accuses a stay-at-home mom of being a useless bimbo, they are invoking sexist prescriptive stereotypes.
From what I've seen, conservatives are more likely to embrace these stereotypes as a positive (praising a stay-at-home mom as automatically more virtuous and a better parent than a working mom), but liberals are more likely to be accused of sexism on this issue.
Feminists, particularly liberal feminists, rightfully attack the notion that being a "homemaker" is some sort of signpost of female virtue. However, they all too frequently either go too far (being a homemaker isn't automatically villainous, either) or fall into the trap of attacking the stereotype by attacking the people who appear to fit the stereotype. This opposite extreme is, indeed, a form of sexism, but I believe that is an unintended side-effect of the real fault - seeing the world through ideological blinders. I don't think many liberals are type 3a sexists, but there are undesirable traits besides sexism.
4. Ignoring Physical Differences
Liberals get accused of this a lot, but I am not referring to opposition to the subtler form of type 1 sexism (i.e. the belief that women would be just as good as men at physical jobs). I am actually referring to the steadfast refusal to apply a double standard when a single standard is detrimental to one sex.
For example - an insurance plan that does not cover medical treatment related to pregnancy. Technically, it's even-handed because it doesn't give men pregnancy benefits either. Realistically, it's sexist because it omits a common female need, but doesn't force men to endure similar shortcomings. Another example would be a building with an abnormally low ceiling. Because men are generally taller, they would be disproportionately negatively affected. The ceiling manages to discriminate, despite being a static, inanimate object.
In general, I don't think liberals are very vulnerable to accusations of this type of sexism. "Suck it up, life's not fair" is not an attitude that is frequently associated with the liberal mindset. In any event, it would be absurd to accuse them of using this type sexism in a way detrimental to women. If anything, they could be accused of neglecting men's issues, and even then it's probably an unconscious oversight, rather than an ideologically-based decision.
5. The Use of Sexist Rhetoric as a Form of Attack
This is one type of sexism of which many leftists are sadly guilty. Its use actually has little or nothing to do with the other types of sexism or with issues of sexual politics, except as inspiration. This type of sexism comes from the awareness that sexist slurs are hurtful. It is directed towards someone who is for unrelated reasons disliked.
The progression is not at all difficult to see. You have a person who is disliked. You have words of established hurtfulness. The ugly, but ideologically non-specific desire to hurt someone you don't like comes into play. And before you know it, sexism happens. This is especially frustrating because I do believe that most leftists are strongly oppossed to sexism in general, and when the fog of this election clears will be disgusted with the environment of anti-pc permisiveness they rashly helped create.
So, in conclusion, do I think the left is sexist? Sometimes, but usually benignly or accidentally. Do I think the left is misogynist? Clearly not. In my opinion, a misogynist is someone who embraces all five types of sexism to the active detriment of women. That is an accusation I would hesitate to level against even my worst conservative foe.
Finally, a personal appeal to any sympathetic liberals who might be reading this blog. I know there is a visceral satisfaction in visciously insulting someone. I know it can be difficult to articulate your core values in written form. I know that long-winded, nuanced essays persuade precisely no one. But I sincerely believe that the political left is the responsible, moral position. No matter how high tempers might rise during this election, we shouldn't forget this and we should act accordingly.
Um, I guess I'm Blogging!
Oh, wow. I feel so fashionable, so connected to the main thread of contemporary culture. Like, I'm typing words into this mysterious Black Box and somehow the electricity demons are carrying those words to other people who can magically read them. It's quite thrilling, the raw power. I'm doing the thing I read so much about, like I'm a character in somebody else's story.
And here comes the crash. I may be riding the white steed of the internet to tilt the lance of logic at the windmills of muddy thinking and prejudice, but I'm still tilting at windmills. And to top it off, my crusade isn't even genre appropriate. At best, I can hope to be a minor footnote in someone else's story. Ah, you know, that one guy.
It's enough to fill me with despair. That's what you, reader, need to know about me. I live in my head, and am almost, but not quite, in charge. Black moods will seize me, and my fickle temper will combine with my reflexive introspection to render me powerless. Or at least petulant. Certainly impassive. And most definately not as cooly Byronic as I make it sound.
I am a socially maladjusted nerd. I'm doughy and pasty and cowardly. Conflict makes me sick to my stomach and stress causes me to shut down. My personal life is completely at odds with my highest ideals. I'm basically a weak person who wants nothing more than to stay as comfortable as possible while the world moves around him.
I say this not to elicit sympathy or as any kind of excuse. I say it because I plan on writing about some pretty controversial subjects, and I want to deal with all potential ad hominem in one fell swoop. I am, in many ways, a pretty contemptible person. I freely and openly admit it. Pointing that out won't impress me, and it won't change my mind. I really hope to get some lively activity in the comments section, and I freely and eagerly invite everyone to point out problems with my facts or my reasoning. I'm not writing this blog purely to vent my opinion. I also hope to learn a thing or two. Clear arguments will be answered with respect. Comments of the "Pacificists Love al Qaeda" variety will be mercilessly mocked.
Here's a breakdown of my background. I graduated from Mesa State College with a degree in Mathematics and about 30-40 unneccessary credits in Political Science and Philosophy. I was a terrible student, but I had a knack for logic (A's in all three of the logic courses I took, none of which was below the 200 level and one which was quite advanced). I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but I know enough to avoid the obvious traps (and if you catch me in one, feel free to point it out - I should know better, but I'm not immune to sloppiness or ideological bias). I'm an atheist, feminist, pacificist, and while I identify more closely with liberals than conservatives, I would actually catergorize myself as a novel form of Marxist (closest, perhaps, to the Russian Menshiviks, though my familiarity with the nuances of their positions is limited.)
And here comes the crash. I may be riding the white steed of the internet to tilt the lance of logic at the windmills of muddy thinking and prejudice, but I'm still tilting at windmills. And to top it off, my crusade isn't even genre appropriate. At best, I can hope to be a minor footnote in someone else's story. Ah, you know, that one guy.
It's enough to fill me with despair. That's what you, reader, need to know about me. I live in my head, and am almost, but not quite, in charge. Black moods will seize me, and my fickle temper will combine with my reflexive introspection to render me powerless. Or at least petulant. Certainly impassive. And most definately not as cooly Byronic as I make it sound.
I am a socially maladjusted nerd. I'm doughy and pasty and cowardly. Conflict makes me sick to my stomach and stress causes me to shut down. My personal life is completely at odds with my highest ideals. I'm basically a weak person who wants nothing more than to stay as comfortable as possible while the world moves around him.
I say this not to elicit sympathy or as any kind of excuse. I say it because I plan on writing about some pretty controversial subjects, and I want to deal with all potential ad hominem in one fell swoop. I am, in many ways, a pretty contemptible person. I freely and openly admit it. Pointing that out won't impress me, and it won't change my mind. I really hope to get some lively activity in the comments section, and I freely and eagerly invite everyone to point out problems with my facts or my reasoning. I'm not writing this blog purely to vent my opinion. I also hope to learn a thing or two. Clear arguments will be answered with respect. Comments of the "Pacificists Love al Qaeda" variety will be mercilessly mocked.
Here's a breakdown of my background. I graduated from Mesa State College with a degree in Mathematics and about 30-40 unneccessary credits in Political Science and Philosophy. I was a terrible student, but I had a knack for logic (A's in all three of the logic courses I took, none of which was below the 200 level and one which was quite advanced). I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but I know enough to avoid the obvious traps (and if you catch me in one, feel free to point it out - I should know better, but I'm not immune to sloppiness or ideological bias). I'm an atheist, feminist, pacificist, and while I identify more closely with liberals than conservatives, I would actually catergorize myself as a novel form of Marxist (closest, perhaps, to the Russian Menshiviks, though my familiarity with the nuances of their positions is limited.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
