Questioning Neosexism
“A man is a man, is a man, is a man, is a man.”
Reading Sach’s post on her experiences at the hands of “male chauvinists” was thought provoking. Even in the pro-feminist era men are still to come to terms with the fact that women are their equals and not their sex objects.
Centuries of conditioning doesn’t help either. In this light it is pertinent to examine the issue of sexism in today’s context.
This post does a lot to examine the idea of male chauvinism. However, there appears to be a perception that male chauvinism is about “getting some”. This in itself is an inherently sexist notion that stereotype men in general. This is not to say that men are not like that but rather to point out that chauvinism need not necessarily be limited to that. The simple view that women are inferior to men is the starting point of this type of chauvinism and may manifest itself in many different ways. For example one need not have sex permanently on their minds to be sexist.
Women no doubt will have a lot to say about the above assessment.
But then life in the pro-feminist era is heavily complicated. Simple statements are easily misconstrued. Its the era of Reverse Sexism.
While appreciating the value of the feminist movement it is also important that women use this tool with commonsense. There is little use of being feminist in a non-feminist situation. For example, at the forum theater at Checkpoint (last year) this writer was amused to find women clamoring to hear the wives speak as it was patently obvious that the resolution of the drama lay with the men. That was a shortcoming of the stock scene but my point is that while feminism is appreciated it must be used with commonsense.
Failing to do so would result in a loss of credibility for the movement. Women have to deal with many issues as a result of their sex and this type of unnecessary promotion of feminism will only further this divide.
This is not to say that Feminism is bad but rather to point out that any kind of position of power must be used with commonsense for that position to be maintained.
Where then do men stand on this? It is this writer’s firm belief that men need to move on with the time. We are no longer the uncivilized Neanderthal and times do change. Failing to appreciate this fact will only serve to widen the divide between the sexes.
At the same time however it is important to establish the principle of equal rights. This is what the feminist movement based itself on.
But then after centuries being the “traditional woman” is being “equal” to man good enough?
anki said,
March 18, 2007 at 10:36 pm
there are so many different versions of sexism I’ve given up on even comprehending what it’s all about. The biggest and most heated debates about feminism are between feminists themselves, with the most radical among them railing against pregnancy, or the ‘foetal invasion.’ One of my friends has a theory about feminism though. He argues that self destructive tendencies must emerge from time to time arise within human communities so as to direct society to reevaluate it’s foundations, and get back to basics. The less said about this the better, or at least in this forum. Maybe over a drink mate….
anki said,
March 18, 2007 at 10:39 pm
*different versions of feminism. Sorry, freudian slip.
Negligible Minoritist said,
March 18, 2007 at 11:09 pm
he he Anki… the feminist cat fight.
An interesting argumentative point your friend makes though. Perhaps we could explore it soon.
In the middle of my exams at the moment mate so will have to put that particular drink on hold for the time being.
Thanks for the comment though…
Regards,
anki said,
March 18, 2007 at 11:39 pm
noticed your comment on the other blog. Do you really think saying “a woman wants it badly” among drunk friends is a problem? I don’t think you really agree with that.
take care mate, study hard. catch you sometime.
Negligible Minoritist said,
March 19, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Hey Anki,
In a break so will answer your comment. It actually depends on the context. Re Sophist’s point on Sach’s blog.
Do I have a problem with what guys say when they get together to drink – no. Guys say and do a lot of things when they get together over a drink . And I’m pretty certain you can testify to that as well. And while I need not necessarily agree with the sentiment i can’t really have a problem with what is said and it would be silly for me to base my reactions on statements made in that context.
However, do I have a problem with guys saying that in a more open and sober context with the intention being literal – yes. The point I make on Sach’s blog.
Hope that answers your question. Thanks for raising the point though.
Regards,
Archangel said,
March 20, 2007 at 12:28 am
I see ‘Anky’ has already made the point about feminism and the wide spectrum of reading required for one to even profess to understand it. I am tempted to attach some links to jump start your learning; however as exams are a hindrance, another time perhaps.
Just to comment on your views on equality amongst men and women, I must say agree with you completely. However, there is one conceptual difficulty you seem to have got yourself entangled in. It is the independence between the two concepts equality and the freedom of expression. To put things simply and avoid verbosity, it means that men and women ARE (as in a current state of being) equal. Thus the views of one group of individuals will not impinge on equality. Equality resides in reality, not in recognition. The true notion of equality is however strongly questioned when women complain about treatment men would not under ordinary circumstances complain about. It’s time women embrace their equality rather than expect men to recognize and respect it for them.
Also, I noticed that you use the term “neosexism” as to mean “new sexism”. This is a common mistake. Neosexism is a term given to the current debate involving the conflict between prejudices against women and working within an egalitarian framework. It does not necessarily refer to new forms of sexism. So I suggest you amend your title as it is misleading.
For further information please read on Difference Theory under the Radical school of Feminism. (When you have the time)
Thank you for reading.
anki said,
March 20, 2007 at 7:45 am
good point. ADD also made this same point, it all depends on whether the comments were made in in public or private among a group of friends. The writer doesn’t give us that info. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with the content. The acceptability of the comment is largely determined by the context in which they were made.
all the best, keep at it.
Negligible Minoritist said,
March 20, 2007 at 11:47 am
Archangel:
Thank you for the points you make and I will read further on Difference Theory under the Radical school of Feminism after i’m done with these exams.
A point I do wish to make is that I do not believe that I have got entangled between the two notions of equality and freedom of expression. Yes equality rests on reality and not on recognition. However the issue I raise at the end of my post is as to whether this reality is in a sense really equal. Or like the point you make in your post are we merely being politically correct?
Thus while I appreciate the principle of equal rights my question is as to whether after years of discriminatory treatment is what women are given presently equality or is there a need for men to give in more to women in order to address the centuries of inequality. This brings the whole affirmative action debate in to focus.
So then where does equality lie? Does giving women equal rights at present give parity to women in reality? Or does more have to be done?
PS : If i have misunderstood the point you make in your comment please excuse me. Brain fry at the moment.
ranil said,
March 22, 2007 at 10:32 am
This feels like a chat over a drink!!!!
anyways about a point Archangel made, (supprisingly enough a point made sans much verbosity) is that equality, and recognition are seperate, and that equality “resides in reality, and not in recognition”…mate, recognition must derive from reality, to be equal, you must be treated as equal, and feel as equal, and untill that feeling is gained, equality is not acheived. to imply that recognition exists in a vacume, and that reality would imply one point, but does so sans recognition, is absurd… Perhaps Archangel should put a tad bit more effort into his arguments, than into stuffing his essays with as many big words as possible!
Women, Arfican Americans, indians in Engalnd, Jews in Turkey, what ever the group, sex or situations, thos who claim discrimination, do so due to a perception that discrimination exists, that perception is derived form their experiences. Their experiences are derived from how they are recognised by people who are NOT like them. A balck man will feel discriminated, how ever much health care he gets, or job opportunities, or whatever, cos he feels discriminated.
To be recognised as equal, is to a great extent, to be equal.
Negligible Minoritist said,
March 22, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Ranil:
Thank you for your comment. I like the distinction you make between reality and recognition. And thinking about it now I would have to say i agree.
The question I would like to pose to you then is what of those who are contributory to those experiences? How is it possible to know what has to be done to change a perspective in this case on say that women are inferior to men? I ask because you make the point that it is up to the party being discriminated to make the call about equality.
Also would you agree with the view that while on the surface most would feel equal a person’s conditioning plays a great role in defining reality? Thus though it is unwitting and things seem “equal” is reality perhaps slightly beyond that? For example if I still have the same knee jerk reaction to a USA sympathizer am I truly beyond the recognition of equality?
Looking forward to your opinion. Anki, Archangel- any thoughts?
Regards,
Archangel said,
March 27, 2007 at 12:59 pm
My comments on equality was made in terms of where it “resides”, not how it is “demonstrated”. That distinction must be appreciated. Ask yourself why we recognize human rights? One reason is because we are equal. The basis for this stems from natural law whether it be a notion of “being made in God’s own image”, or its secular counterpart of “inner morality”. If equality is contingent on one group recognizing another as their equal, we are utterly dependent on such recognition to form a rational for lobbying for our rights. The starting point therefore must be that we are equal. Not that we should be recognized as equal. This dichotomy between “is” and “ought” must be fully comprehended and appreciated in order to understand what Anki and I have attempted to state here.
Thank you for reading.