A key tip for seeing sexism is setting your radar to catch popular excuses proffered when someone is told his/her behavior is sexist because these "defenses" not only act as blinders to seeing sexism but are oppressive and sexist.
Part 1, SpiritSisters: Tips for Seeing Sexism, Owning it, & Allying Against Sexism, focused on tips for seeing general types of sexism, pointing out we all engage in sexism because it is institutionalized and systemic. We are socialized to not recognize sexism, rendering it invisible and often accepted as the "norm."
Please remember sexist behavior does not equal sexist person, and does not mean the man/woman is a bad person. It simply means the person exercising sexism should listen to the woman who was offended and own it with apology.
Tip #1: There are no excuses for sexism.
Accepting there are no excuses opens the door to allying with women in our fight against sexism because if we do not see sexism, then we cannot fight against it.
Excuses share common features:
One: Excuses function as proclamation that man is decider of whether his conduct is sexist. This proclamation may be obvious on the face of the excuse. Other times, exploration of the excuse shows all roads lead back to this proclamation.
The man's point of view is uninformed about women's lived experiences. When this pov is used, then "offenders" determine whether their behavior constitutes sexism.
Men cannot determine what constitutes sexism. Period. Just like non-Black folks can't tell Black folks what constitutes racism, and non-Indians can't tell Indians etc. Only members of the targeted group determine what constitutes an ism.
Two: Excuses are interconnected with the systemic and institutional discrimination and oppression of women that "normalizes" sexism. Our herstory is the dominant culture determined the laws, defined acceptable values, and created the institutions, and political and legal mechanisms to accord men agency and women subordination. Tools of oppression were created to give men privileges and advantages over women never earned and often invisible. A system built on sexism (and other isms).
The system uses sexism to oppress women while also determining that conduct used to oppress women is not sexism. One example is the paternalistic legal doctrine of parens patriae, or "father of his country," granting the state power to protect children in our juvenile injustice system because literally "father knows best." It alone speaks volumes that a doctrine for children applies to women. Judges often will impose harsher sentences on women than men and incarcerate women for crimes not charged against men. Women/girls will also be charged for "crimes" of "violating" the system's sexist/racist and paternalistic expectations of "appropriate behavior." For example, they wanted to incarcerate me for the "crime" of being "uppity" when I was preteen. The injustice system believes it must protect women/girls from ourselves by stopping what it views as "misconduct."
Three: Excuses attempt to create privileged "exceptions" to effectively eliminate sexism.
A legal doctrine explains how exceptions can swallow up or disappear a general rule prohibiting unlawful conduct. For example, a constitutional doctrine states police cannot use in courts evidence obtained from an illegal search. However, court opinions created exceptions to this general rule, disappearing the rule piecemeal by allowing more tainted evidence in court, which then reduces the total universe of conduct previously established as unconstitutional.
Many accept a general rule: Sexism is wrong and should not be tolerated. Excuses function to create "exceptions," pronouncing specific conduct no longer constitutes sexism.
For example, racist/sexist microaggressions are difficult for outsiders to see. A privileged exception could say microaggressions are not sexist. This is a sham elimination because words alone don't wipe out the reality of isms. The exclusion of microaggressions as a recognized type of sexism/racism would exist only in the words of the excuse, and not actually eliminate the sexism/racism inflicted daily onto people.
Excuses mean women and our allies must work harder to educate about sexism, going back to re-establish conduct once recognized as sexism remains sexism, just like women's rights we thought were established years ago, like abortion, we fight for today. It takes women backwards.
Four: Excuses have a privileged purpose of "protecting" men from the "hurt" of being told his conduct is sexist. Excuses focus on the dominant culture's wants rather than the reality of harm to women.
Five: The conversation is hijacked to sham issues raised by the person claiming defenses, deflecting from the real issue of oppression and marginalization of women and the potential for educating people on sexism and building more allies.
Tip #2: But other women say not sexist!
A frequent, popular excuse is when men say the communication is not sexist because he can find women who agree with him. The false "excuse" of another "woman said it's okay" is so common it's on the Geek Feminism Wiki list of "excuses for sexist incidents," noting this excuse is based on "male privilege to choose which woman's opinion is more convenient" to support his determination of his conduct as not sexist. It can also be seen as blaming women: "But women say these words, too!"
Finding a woman agreeing with a man's decision of no sexism is easy because "feminism" is not a single monolithic ideology and women are not interchangeable. In fact, a typical ism "defense" is the person's conduct is not sexist/racist because he/she can ferret out other people in the targeted group who agree. The Washington football team used this "defense:" When people objected to the racism of the R-ds—n name, the team responded "but some Native Americans say word ok!" We also see this at DK when people cite to Black folks who oppose, disagree or refuse to accept a position or policy adopted by President Obama.
This is an issue where, unless the woman is claiming sexism with no factual, historical, legal, contextual or other support, like trying to say a picture of a blue moon is sexist, then the man needs to respect our voice by accepting our voice.
Tip #3: A common false trope is man "disagrees" with woman's assessment his conduct constituted sexism, and his disagreement puts the matter to rest because he …is …the …man after all, the one our society has crowned as the "decider."
When a man says he "disagrees," it's back to his privileged entitlement of decisionmaker telling women what constitutes sexism.
Women recognize sexism based on our personal knowledge and daily lived experiences but for men, it's academic, book learning. We get and feel it before it hits a man's radar screen. The fact a man does not see it does not mean it is not sexist. It simply means the man needs to listen to the women he offended and learn.
The Ninth Circuit rejected this excuse. When sexist conduct at work (or occupational sexism) reaches a certain level, it then becomes sexual harassment sexism.
The key question is did the man's mistreatment and sexism of the woman constitute sexual harassment. The man "disagrees" with the woman that his conduct was sexist. So, she goes to court.
Often courts "disagreed" with the woman too, finding the man's mistreatment "trivial." Courts often "disagreed" because the standard for judging whether his conduct was sexism was the reasonable man test (later called reasonable person standard), but still a test based on a man's pov (whether analyzed by men or women) to evaluate whether the mistreatment constituted sexism.
In 1991, the Ninth Circuit switched to a reasonable woman standard. The court recognized that when it "disagreed" with the woman about whether the man's conduct constituted sexism, it was an inherently biased finding:
"We adopt the perspective of a reasonable woman primarily because we believe that a sex-blind reasonable person standard tends to be male-biased and tends to systematically ignore the experiences of women." Moreover, "Conduct that many men consider unobjectionable may offend many women." Thus, "Adopting the [women's] perspective ensures that courts will not "sustain ingrained notions of reasonable behavior fashioned by the offenders. Congress did not enact Title VII to codify prevailing sexist prejudices."
Tip #4: There is no equivalence between dominant culture and women. When members of the dominant culture evaluate whether X is sexism, but then think, "well, a similar thing happens with me," so it must be ok and not sexist, then please stop there. Men do not have the herstory of institutional and systemic oppression, prejudice and discrimination imposed on women. The social structures and institutions supporting and giving life to domination and oppression of women also give sexism benefitting men, whether a man wants those benefits or not. Men may face individual discrimination but not institutional. Individual discrimination against the privileged is not the same as institutional and systemic prejudice or discrimination against the oppressed. There is no equivalence.
Tip #5: Woman-making-false-accusation excuses: crying wolf and woman scorned sexism.
SpiritSister moviemeister76 wrote an excellent diary on Hey, have you heard? Women "cry wolf" or make false accusations of sexism. As she said: "You are not my ally if you slyly imply that women just lie about the way some men treat us."
A similar excuse is women scorned sexism, based on sexist assumptions women are irrational, engage in child-like tantrums, overly emotional and sensitive, and less capable than men of reasoned thoughts and decisions. The sexist "myth" is if a man pisses off a woman, then she seeks revenge by accusing him of sexism or mistreatment. The man's "defense" is he scorned the woman so her "accusations" are lies, and presto, he was not sexist! This defense is often used when a relationship (social friends, lovers, or business colleagues) ends, even when she objected to his behavior before the relationship ended.
Women scorned sexism also arises with complete strangers. President Carter's female consumer advisor criticized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber President responded by attacking her as a woman scorned. Nineteen government officials objected to his sexism.
"'Woman Scorned' Defense" is argued in court to "prove" a woman is not a reliable witness because she was "jilted." It's used to attack the judge's honor and reputation as "acting like a 'woman scorned'" because litigants "jilted" the judge by not filing an action in her court. It's used in politics to provide a scapegoat for Gov. Christie's bridge lane closures by painting his "former deputy chief of staff, as an overwhelmed, possibly scorned woman who was … so devious … she, alone, masterminded the scandal."
Tip #6: The speaker's intent is irrelevant to whether communication is sexist.
A common excuse is "but I did not intend my comment to be sexist and therefore, it was not sexist!"
The speaker's purpose, motive, intent, or ignorance does not alter whether or not behavior is sexist, just as a person's lack of intent to toss a Frisbee in another person's face does not change the fact that he/she hit the other person in the face:
You don’t know me, but I walk right up to you holding a Frisbee.
I wind up – and throw the disc right into your face.
…my response?
“Oh, I didn’t mean to hit you! That was never my intent! I was simply trying to throw the Frisbee to my friend over there!”
Visibly upset, you demand an apology.
But I refuse. Or worse, I offer an apology that sounds like “I’m sorry your face got in the way of my Frisbee! I never intended to hit you.”
Sound absurd? …
Yeah.
So why is this same thing happening all of the time when it comes to the intersection of our identities and oppressions or privileges?
However, absence of intent can be "mitigating" factor.
Tip #7: There is no de minimis exception to sexism. Here the entire communication (diary, comment, movie) was not offensive and pretty darn good. Why let the inclusion of sexist words or pictures comprising a small part of communication taint the entire communication?
Because it does taint the entire communication. This excuse says the sexism was minimal, trivial, or, de minimis. Courts say "there is no de minimis exception to the Equal Protection Clause [because] Race discrimination is never a 'trifle.'" Similarly, sexism is never a trifle.
Feminists are familiar with the de minimis argument: For example, years ago, "when feminists began to push for gender-inclusive language, they received a fair degree of ridicule, including … “How can using ‘she’ as well as ‘he’ change anything? Why are you making such a big deal over such a little thing?” Because this "little thing" renders women and girls invisible nonpersons, who don't have "little things" like human rights.
Sanctioning "trivial" sexism sends the message this "trifle" is not "real sexism," which is one of the tools used to embed, spread and "normalize" sexism.
Sanctioning any sexism begets more sexism. As Markos stated: "Uprating personal insults is as bad if not worse than making the insult itself because this rewards the insulters and encourages them to continue the same behavior."
Tip #8: Liberals, progressives or feminist allies don't get a pass on sexism.
This "defense" is based on presumption: The desired inference (did not engage in sexism) is assumed to be true based on the existence of facts (he/she is a liberal, leftie, progressive, democratic, socialist or feminist/ally). The proposition is liberals and progressives are allies with women, POC and LGBTQ communities and therefore do not engage in isms. Thus, there is sometimes a reaction of shock or indignation when his/her conduct is pointed out as sexist. A liberal or lefty might truly oppose sexism, and frequently stand up against sexism, but still not see all the sexism.
Women have seen this dynamic play out. This man discusses When Men on the Left Refuse to See Their Sexism:
I want to discuss in a broader context: sexism and misogyny from men in Leftist spaces and their refusal to hold themselves accountable, even when they are called out on it. What does it mean when a man speaks in defense of feminism, but then, after being informed of his sexism, rejects being an ally in order to absolve himself of any accountability? What are the implications for women who self-identify as feminist when men can easily reject feminism or disassociate from it to excuse and normalize their own sexism?
Whether we are men who self-identify as anti-racist, advocate against homophobia, hold leadership positions in radical movements, rightly express outrage against right-wing misogynists and patriarchy at large, write articles that condemn all forms of injustice, or all of the above, none of this gives us a free pass on sexism… .
Liberal and progressive men have an extra duty or responsibility, particularly if self-identify as allies, to not use excuses to "justify" their sexism because then it can
"legitimize his sexism" in the eyes of others.
Tip #9: Refusal to own it with apology is more excuses, disrespect and sexism.
This man recognizes how owning up with apologies are a matter of justice:
When we are told that the impact of our action, inaction, or words is hurtful and furthers oppression, we can start by apologizing without any caveats.
Refusal to apologize implicitly says the communication is not sexist, it's a man's right to decide, and harm to women is not worthy of acknowledgement, discussion or apology.
We need ownership, not excuses; listening, not dismissing; discussion, not dictatation; apology not shutting down responsibility.
How not to react: A tech company used a display of "naked, painted women" to sell hard drives. When women objected to the sexism, the company refused to apologize, digging its heels deeper into sexism in typical ways: It ignored the issue of sexism, stated it's conduct did not warrant apology, made the issue about them and raised the some women say ok "defense."
DK bloggers write about the offensiveness and BS of GOP refusing to apologize for sexism or racism.
The difference is some liberals will sincerely apologize, as respected environmental writer David Roberts did when he reflected upon his sexist twitter post in White Liberal Dude Privilege Syndrome: An apology:
Thus, the first instinct of the WLDPS sufferer, when confronted, is to be dismissive or cavalier.
When that doesn’t work, the second instinct is to mansplain that there was no sexist intent and thus no crime. “That’s not what I meant!”
When that doesn’t work, the third instinct is umbrage and aggrievement, …
…Women, people of color, LGBT folk, they have meanings and identities imposed on them every day. It is no great imposition on your White Dude autonomy just to be f’ing respectful.
This man nicely summarizes my tips and their interconnections:
"Being called out on your sexism is not always easy, but that is how you learn to unlearn: "When you are called out on your sexism, apologize,
listen, and hold yourself accountable. Take responsibility for it …. Do not get defensive and say that what you did “wasn’t sexist” or “wasn’t patriarchal.” Don’t make this about you “being a good man” or that “you had good intentions” or that you have women friends who “don’t see you as sexist.” Don’t attack the “tone” of the people calling you out on it either. ….We all make mistakes and we are going to continue making them. It’s how we respond to those mistakes and actively work to correct them that matters. Listen to the people you have offended, hurt, discriminated against, marginalized, etc."
| Excuses and refusal to apologize minimize, invalidate sexism.
Think how many apologies are offered every day for wide range of occurrences, like stepping on someone's toe. Yet, some don't see women's rights as having even the value of a hurt toe.
Taking the time to see sexism, and not making excuses for it, is about respecting women, it's about being our ally.
|
Women are united around the world with our courage, strength, power, unity. We want to live in our way in our voices.
