What's a Sexist?
So, when I think of a sexist, I usually think of someone who more-or-less explicitly thinks that members of one of the sexes are morally inferior to members of the other sex. "Morally inferior" is lingo that's sometimes used to try to make it clear that not just any old beliefs about any old kind of inferiority make you a sexist. So, for example, I believe that women as a group are inferior to men as a group with regard to strength, but that, according to most sane people, does not make me a sexist.
What if, however, Smith doesn't have any explict beliefs about the relevant kinds of inferiority in the other sex? Suppose, even, that Smith explicitly believes that the sexes are morally equal. Roughly: their lives are equally valuable. And Smith isn't just saying the words--Smith really believes it.
Now: what if Smith is, however, more sympathetic towards members of Smith's own sex. Say Smith is more readily moved to action by images of members of Smith's own sex suffering than by images of members of the other sex. Say Smith on average gives $50 to charities that run ads featuring the former kinds of images, but only $35 to charities that run ads featuring the latter kind.
Is Smith a sexist?
So, when I think of a sexist, I usually think of someone who more-or-less explicitly thinks that members of one of the sexes are morally inferior to members of the other sex. "Morally inferior" is lingo that's sometimes used to try to make it clear that not just any old beliefs about any old kind of inferiority make you a sexist. So, for example, I believe that women as a group are inferior to men as a group with regard to strength, but that, according to most sane people, does not make me a sexist.
What if, however, Smith doesn't have any explict beliefs about the relevant kinds of inferiority in the other sex? Suppose, even, that Smith explicitly believes that the sexes are morally equal. Roughly: their lives are equally valuable. And Smith isn't just saying the words--Smith really believes it.
Now: what if Smith is, however, more sympathetic towards members of Smith's own sex. Say Smith is more readily moved to action by images of members of Smith's own sex suffering than by images of members of the other sex. Say Smith on average gives $50 to charities that run ads featuring the former kinds of images, but only $35 to charities that run ads featuring the latter kind.
Is Smith a sexist?
posted by Winston Smith at
5:30 PM
5 Comments:
It is natural to feel more empathy toward someone with a shared experience than toward someone with an entirely different background. And having more empathy for one person does not imply apathy toward all other people. Smith's natural tendency to identify with those of Smith's gender does not imply that Smith doesn't care about the other gender, nor that Smith thinks the other gender is worth less than Smith's gender. It just means that Smith identifies with Smith's own gender more easily. That's natural, given the tendency of gender to coincide with certain societal expectations, behaviors and interests (whether socialized or biological), and experiences. I'd bet Smith is not identifying with these charities based truly on gender, but because of these other shared characteristics.
Since charitable giving is often compelled by a sense of empathy, it seems reasonable to expect Smith to give more to people with whom Smith identifies, e.g. charities that aid people of Smith's gender.
On the other hand, there are many reasons to empathize with someone, and Smith is short-sighted if gender is Smith's primary reason for empathy. Furthermore, if Smith's gender is generally at an advantage in a certain society, and yet Smith only gives to charities that aid Smith's gender, Smith seems to illustrate a lack of concern for those who are generally at a disadvantage. In this case, Smith is probably sexist. But if men and women face the same hardship in similar degrees and Smith donates to the charity that aids Smith's gender, I don't think we can blame Smith.
The fact that Smith does give to both genders implies that Smith is probably not sexist. As for the difference in percentage, it might be explained by the empathy stuff above, or even by coincidence. Say Smith gives $50 to a charity that helps refugees who happen to be men, and $35 to a charity that helps crack addicts who happen to be women. The disparity might only imply that Smith thinks innocent victims ought to be a financial priority over those whose victimhood is at least partly a result of their own bad decisions.
Regardless, Smith, like us, cannot be all things to all people, nor can Smith give to all charities. I say Smith's giving at all, even to one that benefits someone similar to Smith, is going above and beyond. Criticizing Smith for being sexist in this case is like criticizing the cooking abilities of someone who donates a meal, while those who do not donate anything escape criticism entirely.
-Taylor-
The question seems to be whether Smith can have a more sympathetic reaction to his own gender than the other gender and still be able to claim that be believes that both genders are morally equal.
On the one hand, having specific sympathies based on experience (friends, family) seem completely reasonable. On the other, whether it be race or gender, having sympathies for a group that you do not know, and is only similar to you insofar as their color or genitalia, is, well, kind of stupid. Morally wrong, not sure, but certainly intellectually lazy.
In short, exploring the origin of one's sympathies and trying hard to articulate the reasons (or at least emotions) seems to me that sympathies such as Smiths will dissolve. That is, identification with a group according to race or gender alone, with no other context, just seems rather thoughtless, and therefore, not what we should be striving for as humans. To be sure, context is everything, but in your example, there doesn't appear to be any.
So Smith may or may not be a sexist. Smith is certainly simple, and he needs to explain to himself and to me where his sympathy originates.
I think it depends in part on whether Smith is a man or a woman. Right or wrong, our culture stereotypes women as more in need of help, and men as more independent. Smith has grown up his or her entire life in this culture, and can't help but have incorporated some of this stereotyping into his or her belief structure at some point in time. So if Smith is male, he has probably had to consciously work to view his own sex as more sympathetic/in need of help than the opposite sex. He may value both sexes equally, but if his sympathies have tilted contrary to cultural presumptions, it may be due to some subconscious resentment of women, or a counterreaction to what he perceives as unfair favoritism toward women (i.e., a belief that the cultural presumption is false or even propagandistic). Given that there seems to me a significant amount of evidence in support of the perception that women suffer numerous disadvantages in our society, this suggests to me a strong possibility of Smith being a sexist.
On the other hand, if Smith is a woman, then she may be guilty of no more than incorporating into her belief structure the widely held and frequently repeated notion that women are more disadvantaged than men. Personal experience of disadvantage may give her empirical reason to favor charities that emphasize her own sex.
High Google and Yahoo link popularity can be yours,
Hey, I was searching blogs, and came onto yours, and I like it. I kinda landed here on accident while searching for clear pores, but nice blog.. I got you bookmarked.
If you got time , go visit my site, it?s clear pores. It pretty much covers clear pores and other similar topics available.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home