{"id":9429,"date":"2017-05-11T21:59:36","date_gmt":"2017-05-12T05:59:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=9429"},"modified":"2017-05-11T22:22:29","modified_gmt":"2017-05-12T06:22:29","slug":"on-the-meaning-of-sexism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=9429","title":{"rendered":"On the Meaning of Sexism<\/q>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

In a previous entry<\/a>, I noted that the original definition of racism<\/q> was a theory or an adherence to a theory that merit is in part intrinsically a function of race<\/span>.<\/span> It was exactly by analogy with the word racism<\/q> that the word sexism<\/q> was introduced in 1968, thus referring to a theory or an adherence to a theory that merit is in part intrinsically a function of sex<\/u><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>

Now, here is where matters get tricky. In any case in which one rejects<\/em> sexism, it is regarded as an inappropriate response to the sex of people<\/span>; and, in particular, the treatment is likely to be seen as unethical<\/em>. A very great many folk employ the concept of unethical<\/u> response to the sex of people<\/span> as if that were the very definition<\/em> of sexism<\/q>. That notion is going to operationalize<\/em> very much like the actual definition whenever and wherever the issue at hand is one of ethics and ethics actually call for neutrality — for a rejection of the relevance<\/em> of sex to the issue. But nearly all of us regard people of one sex as better suited to some<\/em> rôles that are of importance. For example, if I presume that sexism<\/q> must refer to something unethical, then I am compelled either to associate sexism<\/q> with something other<\/em> than neutrality of a sort, or as a matter of justice to try to entertain thoughts of accepting a man<\/em> as a potential spouse for myself. (People are led astray by the analogy with racism<\/span>; the cases in which sex is<\/em> relevant to selection loom larger because of the importance of reproduction.) And the substituted notion is not going to operationalize at all<\/em> like the original definition exactly when someone believes that merit is<\/em> a function of sex in a far wider range of cases than do folk such as I; then the substitution is going to get things almost perfectly twisted around. He or she will label anti<\/em>-sexism as sexism<\/q> and will label some sort of sexism<\/span> — perhaps quite an intense<\/em> sexism — as anti-sexism<\/q>.<\/p>

The spurning of a claim of relevance<\/em> is the maintenance or adoption of indifference<\/span>. This indifference is an equality<\/em> of one sort — and we often see the words equal<\/q> and equality<\/q> used in antonymy to sexism<\/q> — but it is not an equality of various other<\/em> sorts. Advancement of a conflicting<\/em> equality would itself be sexist<\/em>. Such conflicting equalities can arise when the equality sought is equality of outcome<\/em>. If people, regardless of sex, may be presumed to respond to a framework in essentially identical ways, and we observe markèdly different outcomes for one sex compared to those for another, then this difference is prima facie<\/span> evidence that the framework is sexist<\/span>. But if it is recognized that people of one sex behave differently in that framework, then the presumption that the framework is sexist<\/span> does not follow from the mere presence of a difference. If we say that the different behaviors must be treated as of equal merit because otherwise a difference in outcomes emerges, then the merit that is ascribed to the behavior is treated as a function of the sex of the people who engage in that behavior; that prescription is itself intrinsically sexist<\/span>.<\/p>

For example, the rates at which men<\/em> are arrested for, charged with, and convicted of criminal behavior of various sorts are much higher than the corresponding rates at which women<\/em> are arrested, charged, and convicted. We cannot conclude simply from these differences that the system of criminal law is sexist<\/span>, because it may be that men simply engage in that behavior more often; indeed, most of us are fairly sure that this latter case holds. If we insist that the behaviors themselves must be decriminalized in order to reduce the rates at which men are arrested, charged, and convicted, then we are inferring the relative merit of the behavior from the sexes of those who engage in it. The very same sort of analysis would apply to hiring practices and to the wages or salaries paid to those in various occupations.[1]<\/span><\/p>

(Many people, including certainly me, would argue that an unfortunate sexism prior<\/em> to whatever exists in the legal system is one<\/em> factor contributing to greater criminality by men, but few-if-any people propose that part of an appropriate response would be an adjustive sexism<\/span>, giving more tolerance to male criminalized behavior than to female criminalized behavior. Likewise, some of us assert that an unfortunate sexism prior<\/em> to whatever exists in the jobs market is one<\/em> factor leading to different career outcomes for women, but we don't propose an adjustive sexism<\/span> attempting to compel employers to pay women more than the expected values of their marginal products.)<\/p>

The confused presumptions that only an unethical<\/em> discrimination can count as sexism<\/span> and that sexism<\/span> is found where there is some sort of inequality other<\/em> than non-neutrality<\/span> — an attention to sex<\/span> — causes people in all sincerity to misapply the word sexism<\/q> and to fail to see legitimate application of the word, perhaps to their own attitudes and actions. If substitutions of these sorts are not recognized<\/em> by those who use the word sexism<\/q> in accordance with its definition, then interactions will be characterized by mutual incomprehension, quite possibly enraged. Attempts to employ logic<\/em> and facts<\/em> won't be persuasive because one of the two groups will actively misunderstand a word<\/em> central to any communication<\/em>. Additionally, there are people who implicitly believe that ethical significance clings to symbols<\/em>, such that by changing labels what was wrong may be made<\/em> to be right and vice versa<\/span>. In dealing with them, the principal point that ought to be made is not<\/em> that words cannot be redefined, but that, if we should for any reason redefine sexism<\/q>, then whatever case was made against what was originally<\/em> called sexism<\/q> isn't thereby logomantically transformed<\/span> into a case against whatever is now to be called sexism<\/q>, nor is a case against something that was originally called sexism<\/q> somehow invalidated by ceasing to call it by that name.[2]<\/span> Of course, there are also those who effect the substitution as a device of unconscious projection<\/em>, and others who opportunistically seek to sow further confusion.<\/p><\/div>

[1]<\/span> In the absence of a coherent explanation otherwise, if any population really could be hired at bargain rates, then not only should we expect all members of that population to be hired before any members of any other population; we should expect employers to bid-up the wages and salaries of this less expensive population to the point that they matched those of other populations, before hiring any members of those other populations. If there is some occupation<\/em> such that the cost of hiring workers for it is notably less than the expected values of their marginal products, then we should expect employers to increase their hirings for those occupations, and in doing so (each in competition with the others and in the face of otherwise ever more reluctant workers) to bid-up the wages or salaries of those workers until the difference disappears.<\/p>

[2]<\/span> The same principle of course applies to efforts to redefine racism<\/q><\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In a previous entry, I noted that the original definition of racism was a theory or an adherence to a theory that merit is in part intrinsically a function of race. It was exactly by analogy with the word racism that the word sexism was introduced in 1968, thus referring to a theory or an […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,117,318,4],"tags":[947,91],"class_list":["post-9429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-communication","category-ethics-philosophy","category-public","tag-definitions","tag-sexism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9429\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}