The notion that a woman cant be sexist?

[HillsnSpills]

I hear some feminists state that a woman can't be sexist? Where does this idea come from, and is this a widely held view?

It is as BoneyBack said - about oppression.

But that's utter bollocks obviously.

Yes utter bollocks that women are oppressed.

Because now we have equality. We earn the same as men, 50% of our elected representatives and senior board directors of companies are women, 50% of all board directors of charities and public institutions are women, 50% of judges and senior lawyers are women, 50% of rape victims are men, women and men have the same amount of leisure time and do the same amount of work, men and women are sexually harassed and threatened with violence and suffer from violence in the same numbers, the work that is done mainly by women is valued at exactly the same rate as the work done mainly by men, women account for 50% of all news presenters, main characters in films and TV programmes, women's opinions are sought wiht the same regularity as those of men and are treated with the same respect, women are no longer examined for how satisfactorily they meet patriarchal beauty standards, etc.... oh, wait.

I didn't mean it was bollocks that women were oppressed. You misunderstand me. Perhaps I should have cut and pasted from the post I was referring to. I meant the argument that women cannot be sexist towards men, or that black people cannot be racist towards white people purely because in order to be the victim of sexism or racism you must come from a recognised oppressed group. Which does not include men, and white people, obviously.

That is the bit that is bollocks. IMHO.

do you really think that's bollocks hilly (sorry, is v long name to quote)?

I think there is such a massive difference between isolated, individual and largely toothless examples of racism or sexism against the privileged group(s) and the sort of systemic, deeply ingrained structures of inequality and oppression that to use the same or equivalent words (like misandry as a counterpart to misogyny) for both is just silly at best and quite dangerous at worst.

Women being sexist about men make not a blind bit of difference to men's status and power.

Men being sexist about women contibutes to the disadvantage women face every day.

Black people bering racist about white people, makes not a blind bit of differences to the power structures which advantage white people.

White people being racist about black people contibute to the disadvantage faced by black people.

Etc.

disagree. Women being sexist about men only reinforces their status and power - as in, can't expect them to operate (domestic) machinery, control their emotions, think about where they shove their dick etc

Basil anD Alameda That's not really the point though is it? The question was do some Feminists have a view that women cannot be sexist, and why.

The simple fact is that some women do have sexist attitudes and thoughts about men, (a typical example is the distrust of men working in close proximity and in a caring capacity to very young children - the assumption being that they lack the capacity to be nurturing and responsible, and that they may, in fact, all have latent paedophile tendencies) and some non-white people do have racist attitudes towards white people (an example off the top of my head being the common case of ostracisation of a daughter of British Asian parents when she marries a white man even if she has been born and brought up in Britain, or the recent cases of Asian men using and abusing white girls for sex because they were seen as lesser beings who were not worthy of respect by dint of being white and non-muslim.

The fact that neither of those situations threatens to depose men or the white race from their supposed positions of power in the western world is neither here nor there. That is a separate issue.

I think it is a question of semantics. Some feminists use the word sexism in a different way to the mainstream usage.

It doesn't mean that they think no woman in the world has ever said 'men, chuh! they just can't see dirt/work washing machines/put nappies on the right way.'

finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/

For many feminists it works like this;

sexism = power + prejudice.

no power = no sexism

Therefore women (who do not control power structures) can be prejudiced but not sexist.

It is a nuance that is used as a tool for political analysis (its origins are in the analysis and writings of people of colour and the Civil Rights Movement and it is analytical tool that is used by many marginalised/oppressed groups).

And I think it is an important nuance.

Sexism harms women, it doesn't harm men - therefore it is kinda important to make this nuance.

Sexist:
The free dictionary:

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Sexism:
Merriam-Webster:
: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2
: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Oxford Dictionaries online:
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex:

So that's yes from dictionaries. Women can be sexist.

"The simple fact is that some women do have sexist attitudes and thoughts about men"

So what?

If it doesn't threaten the power structures, so what?

"The fact that neither of those situations threatens to depose men or the white race from their supposed positions of power in the western world is neither here nor there"

It is exactly the here and there. The unequal power relations is exactly the reason those situations do not have the corrosive impact that they have when inverted. If racism or sexism or homophobia didn't tap into structural inequality and injustice, it would just be one simple-minded idiot being nasty to another person. It wouldn't actually matter if they were being nasty to them because of their skin colour, their gender, their choice of trousers, or their shoes. The nastiness would be the issue and all the cultural, social and economic nuances around that, would not exist. So it wouldn't matter.

The reason it matters, is because of unequal power relations. Where there is no issue of unequal power relations, it's simply people being nobs to each other and it's not that interesting.

although obviously can imagine and understand the appeal of pretending things work both ways

exactly as when there is any discussion about domestic violence, it has to be said that women do it too even though the body count is nothing like the same, not even close

Precisely Basil.

And although the world we live in is far from perfect, the above political phenomenon that you describe so well, is recognised in many discrimination laws.

Yes Alameda, it is just another version of 'women do it too'.

Sexist:
The free dictionary:

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

In fact, the idea that only men can be sexist is itself sexist.
Some people have invented their own special definition of the word sexist, which is... interesting.

I think women are sexist too, against other women.

It isn't inventing their own definition - it is a political analysis. One that applies the politics of oppression - it is therefore logical that it is different to the one found in the mainstream/status quo.

You are free to disagree with it if you find the analysis flawed.

I assume you disagree with it for people of colour, homosexuals and other marginalised groups too then?

I find it interesting that the dictionary definition uses 'gender' rather than 'sex'.

Sounds like a rather muddled definition to me.

There was a thread on here about whether 'mysandry' existed. Perhaps that is what you are referring to? The consensus was I think that it doesn't. But mysogyny isn't the same thing as sexism. Of course women can be sexist.

"Sexism harms women, it doesn't harm men "

No, it might not harm 'men' but it can harm any given individual man, in a way that is more significant than mere rudeness. If a man was refused a job in a childcare setting, inspite of being eminently qualified and experienced for the role, because some people think men shouldn't change nappies or plaster scraped knees, that's sexism and will damage that man IMO.

Also I think a lot of the time two very different notions get conflated;

a) "women are prejudiced" (no shit - our entire society is prejudiced , women are not immune to socialization).

b) "patriarchy hurts men too" (agreed - but that isn't something women have power over or control.)

that sort of sexism is obviously not a good thing although overall you can see how it benefits men as a group, they are free to be cabinet members instead of nursery nurses

but it is not the same sort of bad thing, on the same scale or anything like as injurious, as the inequalities and violence that women experience is it? think it is unhelpful to reduce sexism to that sort of example or to suggest that the lesser form is a variant of the same thing when it just isn't?

"to suggest that the lesser form is a variant of the same thing when it just isn't?" Yes it is. It is a perfect example of sexism. And for that individual man it isn't 'lesser' at all.

Agreed Ormiriathomimus - I was talking at a social level and should have said so.

I agree that an individual man being refused a job on the basis of his sex, in the example you give, will harm that individual man - I class that under b) though (patriarchy hurts men too).

Also, there are, quite rightly, laws to protect both men and women from such situations.