Stamping out sexism
Stamping out sexism
Posted Jul 29, 2009 3:47 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)In reply to: There's one final comment I want to make here. by Baylink
Parent article: OSCON keynote: Standing out in the crowd
Sexism is *NOT* recognising that men and women are different and may require different facilities or courtesies. It is *not* sexist to ask for those facilities to be provided, or for those courtesies to be extended.
Sexism and other such -isms consist in *behaviour* which *creates* a disadvantage for a class of people. Not behaviour which ever-so-slightly inconveniences a privileged group in order to accommodate a disadvantaged one.
Pretending everyone is the same, or that everyone "ought to" make do with one-size-fits-all facilities and courtesies, doesn't prevent sexist behaviour. Indeed, it stops you from recognising it when it happens.
The only way to "stamp out" sexism is to prevent sexist behaviour. You can't ignore it at the same time as preventing it; you have to recognise it, you have to label it, you have to say it's not acceptable, and you have to call the perpetrators on it.
To say all that is too hard and you'd prefer to pretend there is no problem -- well, that's your privilege. If you're not personally disadvantaged, that is.
Now if "affirmative action" is making a point of calling people on their bullshit when they say or do something that discriminates against women -- well then I see every reason to take that affirmative action. It's not a dirty word.
(I understand "affirmative action" to mean something different and altogether more revolutionary -- an attempt to redress a historical imbalance with a temporary modern one in the opposite direction in order to end a "minority problem" -- and it still isn't a dirty word, though it isn't always appropriate, mainly because a virulent knee-jerk backlash to it is likely and may become a bigger problem than the historical one you're attempting to correct)
