I've made that point as well. If all these people who claim they are not sexist would actually rebuke those comments, they would decrease. I don't recall saying the particular comment in the original post was anything more than a typical remark in this forum. My whole point is that you can't claim to oppose sexism and still allow that such comments.
Anyone who has paid attention to my posts over the years knows that, if people don't respond, my comments on the situation will decrease to the occasional reminder. A lot of what drives these exchanges is the cognitive dissonance in the people who are heavily invested in sexist culture, and want to reassure themselves they really are fair-minded and not at all sexist.
If you are interested in making that argument, is my posting interfering with that somehow? If you are not, why do you think it's a good thing to tell me how to argue? Based on the history of this message board, is there any reason to think a more general would be more persuasive? When I pointed out more general conditions in the other thread, were you jumping in to support those notions (not much, to my recollection)?
Telling people that they need to make their argument another way, so you can be more comfortable with it, is just another variation on "just shut up".
I'm not telling you how to argue or trying to silence you in any way, implicitly or otherwise. I'm simply suggesting an explanation of why this thread failed to induce any kind of meaningful discussion. But this is getting tedious. I'll try to state my opinion on the matter, and maybe it'll lead to an interesting discussion.
I must start with a complaint on the perspective and arguments of American liberals. While liberals see that many conservative opinions seem to be purely religious and without basis in reality, they fail to see the same thing in themselves. It is curious how similar the opinions of liberals are on almost every topic. How can that be? Have they all reached some type of enlightened state of pure knowledge that I'm unaware of? I'm not sure if that applies to you personally. For example, when we had our recent debate on abortion, I don't recall you dismissing me as just another sexist male trying to oppress women. And that has happened in pretty much every other debate on the subject that I've had. But since I think the only valid knowledge is objective knowledge, I must ask that we define our terms and what we're trying to accomplish.
I'm defining sexism as any gender based categorization that does not stem from a physical necessity. So the view that it is more appropriate for girls to have long hair is sexist. The view that men should only wear certain style of clothing, while women wear another is sexist. Designing clothing that accommodates physical differences between the two genders is not sexist as it stems from a physical necessity. Similarly, giving women time off to deal with advanced pregnancy is acceptable.
In my definition, the liberal idea of women's liberation is also sexist. It is divisive in its very nature, as it acknowledges the validity of categories such as women's right and other arbitrary gender based groupings. In a non-sexist society, all issues that affect half of the human population must be regarded as human issues. I feel the same way about pro-homosexuality arguments that use natural inclination as a justification (the "it's not a choice" argument). That argument similarly validates the idea that what is right or wrong depends on whether something is a naturally emergent property, or a cultural construct.
Given that definition of sexism, I think the best approach would be to first normalize sexual content in common daily experiences. Right now, sex is still largely seen as a negative by the vast majority of Americans, including liberals. Sure many will talk a lot about how natural and wonderful sex is, but they still hold an incredibly large array of arbitrary sexual restrictions, like the opposition to sexual displays in widely accessible media. Without that, sexism will be very difficult to eradicate. Secondly, those who want sexism gone must actively object to all sorts of gender inspired expressions. That means little girls should not be encouraged to play the role of princesses, and boys should not be discouraged from home-making play or any other supposedly gender appropriate behavior.
On the other hand, simply prohibiting people from saying sexist terms is useless. If someone thinks women are irrational or that men should be protective of women, then pointing out a sexist phrase to them accomplishes nothing (other than you not having to hear something upsetting). It conveys no useful information to them as the statement itself is born of a far more entrenched cultural norm. Those ideas must disappear because they no longer have a place in the societal worldview. Not because they are impolite to say in public.
So before we can discuss sexism, we must make sure we know what the other is talking about. And we should also explore whether we both want the same thing when we say that we want a sexism-free world. Otherwise, we're just talking past each other. And I'm too busy for that.
