(no subject)
Joss Whedon writes about sexism here.
Somewhere a long time ago a bunch of men got together and said, "If all we do is hunt and gather, let’s make hunting and gathering the awesomest achievement, and let’s make childbirth kinda weak and shameful." It’s a rather silly simplification, but I believe on a mass, unconscious level, it’s entirely true.
This is only the most glaring nonsense in the linked piece. In the first place, it makes sexism merely contingent: women just "forgot" to get together and say, "If we're the only ones who can give birth, let's make childbirth the awesomest achievement, and let's make anything else just a prop for that." Mr. Whedon rejects the notion that women are too saintly to do such a thing, and doesn't want to suggest that they're inferior. So why did men come up with sexism first?
Furthermore, it misplaces the start of gender inequality. From what we know of hunter-gatherer societies, they weren't particularly sexist (perhaps because, contrary to Mr. Whedon's impression, women were gatherers too). This is awkward in so far as it leads to questions about how sexism survived the change to agriculture. At this stage, hunting increasingly became a privilege of the powerful, while gathering was at best supplemental to the main work of sustenance - work that was carried out by men, women and children grouped together in extended kin-groups. For that matter, we'd want to further question how sexism on the basis of "awesomest-ism" survived the industrial revolution and creation of the nuclear family, as even farming as a proxy for gathering became increasingly irrelevant to human life.
Mr. Whedon doesn't provide any of this, simply because he is an idealist - not the happy, strongly-believing-in-ideals kind of idealist, but a believer in the independant causal efficacy of ideas. For an idealist to consider the material conditions would be pointless: what do they have to do with anything? Instead, he is concerned with disappearing the myth of women's inferiority, on its own, by the method of having his readers "do something". In fairness, however, Mr. Whedon comes close to being helpful by remarking that, "learning enough about a subject so you can speak against an opponent eloquently makes you an unusual personage," and advising his readers to, "Start with that."
Still, as he doesn't seem to be able to do more than make the suggestion, it's doubtful that Mr. Whedon has taken his own advice on the subject at hand.
Those interested in exploring a non-idealist conception of sexism could do considerably worse than to read some Marlene Dixon. Her essential perspective is laid out in, "On the Super-Exploitation of Women," though if you're more immediately interested in checking out how she came to that view, try starting with, "The Rise and Demise of Women's Liberation: A Class Analysis".
Somewhere a long time ago a bunch of men got together and said, "If all we do is hunt and gather, let’s make hunting and gathering the awesomest achievement, and let’s make childbirth kinda weak and shameful." It’s a rather silly simplification, but I believe on a mass, unconscious level, it’s entirely true.
This is only the most glaring nonsense in the linked piece. In the first place, it makes sexism merely contingent: women just "forgot" to get together and say, "If we're the only ones who can give birth, let's make childbirth the awesomest achievement, and let's make anything else just a prop for that." Mr. Whedon rejects the notion that women are too saintly to do such a thing, and doesn't want to suggest that they're inferior. So why did men come up with sexism first?
Furthermore, it misplaces the start of gender inequality. From what we know of hunter-gatherer societies, they weren't particularly sexist (perhaps because, contrary to Mr. Whedon's impression, women were gatherers too). This is awkward in so far as it leads to questions about how sexism survived the change to agriculture. At this stage, hunting increasingly became a privilege of the powerful, while gathering was at best supplemental to the main work of sustenance - work that was carried out by men, women and children grouped together in extended kin-groups. For that matter, we'd want to further question how sexism on the basis of "awesomest-ism" survived the industrial revolution and creation of the nuclear family, as even farming as a proxy for gathering became increasingly irrelevant to human life.
Mr. Whedon doesn't provide any of this, simply because he is an idealist - not the happy, strongly-believing-in-ideals kind of idealist, but a believer in the independant causal efficacy of ideas. For an idealist to consider the material conditions would be pointless: what do they have to do with anything? Instead, he is concerned with disappearing the myth of women's inferiority, on its own, by the method of having his readers "do something". In fairness, however, Mr. Whedon comes close to being helpful by remarking that, "learning enough about a subject so you can speak against an opponent eloquently makes you an unusual personage," and advising his readers to, "Start with that."
Still, as he doesn't seem to be able to do more than make the suggestion, it's doubtful that Mr. Whedon has taken his own advice on the subject at hand.
Those interested in exploring a non-idealist conception of sexism could do considerably worse than to read some Marlene Dixon. Her essential perspective is laid out in, "On the Super-Exploitation of Women," though if you're more immediately interested in checking out how she came to that view, try starting with, "The Rise and Demise of Women's Liberation: A Class Analysis".