My take on the internalized sexism issue
surreallis started a discussion on her LJ about internalized sexism. Because she did not understand the point of view I was trying to express in my comments to her post, she encouraged me to make my own post on the subject. So, here I am, whacking at weeds off in left field. If no one wants to join me out here, that's okay. But I hope to explain why I'm here, and hopefully in a way that might make some sense.
Before really getting into it, however, it might be beneficial to establish a definition of internalized sexism: "Internalized sexism is the involuntary internalization by women of the sexist messages that are present in their societies and culture. It [is] also the way in which women reinforce sexism by utilizing and relaying sexist messages that they’ve internalized."
Next, I think I need to explain a couple of basic premises upon which I base my arguments. And I'm getting ready to use some gross generalizations here, but I just wanted you to be aware that I know I’m generalizing.
First, I believe that there are genetic differences between men and women that affect our behavior. You see this in animals of many species, and I think that humans are no different. Remove the sexism from any human culture, and I think you'd still see men and women behaving differently. It has to do with different levels of testosterone and estrogen. It has to do with differences in the way our brains are wired. Furthermore, these differences have nothing to do with the environment in which we are raised. Men are not the same as women, and women are not the same as men. We are different, and because of this, we behave differently.
Second, this is true of our physical traits, as well. For example, women, in general, aren't as physically strong as men. This, too, has an effect on our behavior. (Do I really need to spell out how it affects our behavior? Just picture lots of heavy objects and imagine who is better suited to moving them: a hulking guy or a woman who doesn't outweigh the objects to be moved...) Historically, this has affected (and still affects) our respective gender roles in society.
Third, I believe that humans have different personalities, and that these personalities are strongly influenced by genetics (in studies of twins separated at birth, the greatest similarities between them seem to center around personality). So, in humanity, you have a spectrum of personalities that scholars have tried to define in various different ways, but which I will briefly say incorporate a number of traits. These traits have a range, or degree to which they are expressed in individuals, for example extroverted to introverted, dominant to submissive, Type A to Type B, or whatever other personality trait(s) you wish to plug in there. The relevant point is that not only does gender affect behavior, but personality does, too.
Lastly (but not least), I believe that environment plays a huge role in influencing behavior. That's the underlying assumption behind the internalized sexism argument, so I won't rehash it here. It's there, let's go with it.
Okay, so I've established my premises. Why are they important? Primarily because I believe that environment (and internalized sexism) is not the only reason that men and women behave differently and have different traits. There are genetic causes, too. So, in essence, I believe that there really is some truth to the idea that there are "feminine behaviors/traits" and "male behaviors/traits" and that these definitions are not purely environmental constructs. In other words, women may behave in certain ways because they are women, not because society has taught them to behave that way. And I state it here because my understanding is that this is a potentially controversial statement.
I bring in the personality issue to illustrate the difficulties in determining precisely which behaviors are genetic and which are behavioral. I think we can make a pretty good stab at it in a lot of cases (for example, wearing a burka is obviously a culturally enforced behavior), but when it comes to other issues, it may be more difficult to tell. Are women naturally more submissive than men? How much of aggression is driven by testosterone levels? How much of it is personality (since some men are more submissive than others)? Can you answer those questions? I can't. I think testosterone definitely has an influence. How much of personality is driven by biological chemistry? I don't know. I just know it's a factor.
But the conclusion is the same: women and men are different, and at the genetic level, we can't change that fact.
(Here I am, in left field, waving at you).
Men and women behave differently, and, at some level, perhaps we can't really change elements of those differences.
(Yes, out here in left field, women may actually have a tendency to be more submissive than men, and it's not just because of internalized sexism. But I won't stop there; it gets better.)
Men and women behave differently, and, at some level, perhaps we can't really change elements of those differences. And maybe we shouldn't even try!
(Zing!)
Now, I present my position this way because I think these statements are potentially controversial. For example, when discussions of women being submissive arise, typically the conversation goes somewhere along these lines: women are submissive, being submissive is a bad thing, so women need to overcome their internalized sexism and become less submissive. In other words, they need to grow a pair (male inference deliberately intended). And here I am saying, hold on a minute, maybe not.
See, I take issue with how society values male and female behaviors/traits. Traditionally, higher value is placed on those things associated with male behaviors and traits. Strength is accorded higher value than weakness. Aggression is accorded higher value than submission. Greater height is associated with greater status, etc. etc., etc. You name a masculine behavior or trait, and almost guaranteed, our society will accord it higher value. And this is so ingrained in us that if I ask, "Is being assertive better than being submissive?" almost everyone would say "yes."
What I would like to do is call into question that value system. Is it really true that being assertive is better than being submissive? I can think of lots of instances where it is not. So why this assumption? My answer is simple: sexism. Without sexism, all those messy physical and behavioral traits that are traditionally associated with women would be accorded equal value. The cause of sexism isn't the way women behave or our physical traits, it's the value assigned to those traits and behaviors.
Men (and male traits) are assigned higher value in our society, and therefore they have greater power. This greater power allows them to reinforce the existing value system and perpetuate sexism to the degree that women internalize it. If the root/genetic/behavioral traits and differences between men and women were held in equal value, men and women would be held in equal value (and consequently hold equal power).
I'm just whacky enough to suggest that being physically weak (or weaker than men ) is not something that should be considered of lesser value than being strong... that being submissive is not something to be ashamed of... that women really are of equal value as men, despite that we are not the same as men. But we have to change the value system of society before that will be accepted.
The question arises as to how we can overcome sexism. I'm sure that every feminist scholar in existence will have their own answer. My own answer is pretty simple: you have to change the value system of society. Unfortunately, this isn't simple to do.
First, you have to understand what sexism is and how it influences our value system. Realizing how we internalize it is useful. Trying to determine to what degree it influences our behavior helps us evaluate particular behaviors. Is this behavior learned or is this behavior innate (or is it potentially a combination of factors)? Is this a behavior we should change because it is destructive and harmful to us, or is this behavior a natural extension of our personality that is superficially devalued by a sexist society? Those are the conversations I think we need to have.
For example, Surreallis asks, "Is it internalized sexism that leads us to believe that when women MUST express an opinion they must do so in a 'nice' manner? (Yes.)"
This is a great place to start. I might argue that more than internalized sexism is in play here, but, really, it doesn't matter. Let's focus on the behavior: when women express an opinion, they do so in a "nice" manner (nice being Jenn's word, not mine). And a couple of specific traits were tossed out there as examples: women communicate in a non-confrontational manner; when expressing a differing opinion, they begin by apologizing (ie. "I'm sorry, but I disagree."); they ask people to do things for them rather than issue orders. These are all very concrete.
I haven't followed all the comments to the post, but the general consus was one of agreement. There were more examples provided. There was much discussion about points not related to communication. There were suggestions that we needed to change how we communicate (stop prefacing sentences with "I'm sorry.").
But not a single person questioned the fact that we are seriously talking about how there's something inherently wrong with being "nice" in the way we communicate. I am the only person who sees this as being somewhat skewed? No one bothered to ask, "Why is being nice bad? Why is it bad to apologize for expressing a different opinion?" Because men don't? Because apologizing makes us weak? Uncertain? If it's done to be less confrontational instead of a more direct approach such as, "You're wrong, and here's why," is this automatically a bad thing? Why is the latter more desirable than the former?
Call me crazy, but I think we should be proud of being "nice" in the way we communicate. At the very least, I think we need to discuss if maybe, perhaps, it's good to communicate nicely. I would suggest that we examine if this is something to which we should assign high value, instead of lesser value. Maybe the female way of communicating is better. Maybe, instead of changing to communicate more like men, men should change to communicate more like women... (It's a radical thought, I know.) It's a subtle shift in the conversation, but a key one, because without it, we can't consciously start placing higher value on those things that are defined by society as "feminine."
Next, I'm going to go all philosophical on you. There is a Buddhist saying, "The only way to bring peace to the earth is to learn to make our own life peaceful." I think this applies on many different levels but essentially boils down to this: if you want to affect change, the best place to start is within yourself. If you wish to change a value system, you need to start with your own values. My suggestion is that we need to make a conscious effort to start assigning higher value to our own female traits and behaviors. Instead of operating under society's sexist assertion that submissiveness is a sign of weakness and therefore bad, maybe we should redefine it as something positive and good. Maybe we need to place higher value on what we have and do, rather than on what we don't have and don't do. Maybe we need to value what we are more than what we aren't.
I'm not saying that we should accept our unequal place in society and be happy with it. And I'll be the first to agree that some behaviors are unhealthy and need to change (the tendency to stay in abusive relationships, for example). I'm not advocating acceptance of the status quo, and I'm not arguing that we shouldn't change anything.
I'm having trouble putting this into words, but we have to believe in our own equality before we can possibly expect to be treated as equals. There is a certain strength that comes from being okay with yourself, from valuing both your strengths and weaknesses. When the conversation turns to changing this and that about ourselves, it's indicative that we haven't yet reached that comfort zone. When we're constantly trying to change who we are and what we do and how we behave, it means that we still view something about ourselves as "not right."
Take body image for example. Most women believe that we're too fat, too ugly, too thin, too tall, too this, too that... no matter what we are, the majority of us believe that our appearance is somehow flawed. But are we flawed, really? Only in the context of society's (sexist and extreme) values of beauty. We will never, ever escape this cycle until we learn to ignore external (sexist) messages about what constitutes beauty, and learn to think of ourselves (warts and all) as beautiful.
Consider that for a minute. If you could change the conversation, change the context, and internally redefine the definition of beauty to include yourself, wouldn't that be a powerful thing? If instead of saying, "I would be beautiful if I looked like a supermodel," you could say, "I'm beautiful just the way I am," wouldn't that be more healthy? How different would the world be if every woman believed that she was beautiful just the way she was? How would that affect our behavior? How would it affect men's perception of us? I suspect the changes would be profound and transformative. The same applies to every other sexist message that is leveled at us.
When the conversation reflects a firm set of beliefs (being a woman is good thing, and here's precisely why), it has power. If we defined feminine traits as good things, and we believed that feminine traits were good things, we would convince others of it. We'd teach this set of beliefs to others, we'd teach them to our children. Some of us might even find the strength of conviction to reject the negative sexist messages that we are bombarded with daily. We would eventually change the value system of society. Yes, we're different than men. But different does not mean we're flawed, and it does not mean we're of lesser value. Imagine if we all really believed that. Imagine if we could make it true by changing what we value in ourselves.
Before really getting into it, however, it might be beneficial to establish a definition of internalized sexism: "Internalized sexism is the involuntary internalization by women of the sexist messages that are present in their societies and culture. It [is] also the way in which women reinforce sexism by utilizing and relaying sexist messages that they’ve internalized."
Next, I think I need to explain a couple of basic premises upon which I base my arguments. And I'm getting ready to use some gross generalizations here, but I just wanted you to be aware that I know I’m generalizing.
First, I believe that there are genetic differences between men and women that affect our behavior. You see this in animals of many species, and I think that humans are no different. Remove the sexism from any human culture, and I think you'd still see men and women behaving differently. It has to do with different levels of testosterone and estrogen. It has to do with differences in the way our brains are wired. Furthermore, these differences have nothing to do with the environment in which we are raised. Men are not the same as women, and women are not the same as men. We are different, and because of this, we behave differently.
Second, this is true of our physical traits, as well. For example, women, in general, aren't as physically strong as men. This, too, has an effect on our behavior. (Do I really need to spell out how it affects our behavior? Just picture lots of heavy objects and imagine who is better suited to moving them: a hulking guy or a woman who doesn't outweigh the objects to be moved...) Historically, this has affected (and still affects) our respective gender roles in society.
Third, I believe that humans have different personalities, and that these personalities are strongly influenced by genetics (in studies of twins separated at birth, the greatest similarities between them seem to center around personality). So, in humanity, you have a spectrum of personalities that scholars have tried to define in various different ways, but which I will briefly say incorporate a number of traits. These traits have a range, or degree to which they are expressed in individuals, for example extroverted to introverted, dominant to submissive, Type A to Type B, or whatever other personality trait(s) you wish to plug in there. The relevant point is that not only does gender affect behavior, but personality does, too.
Lastly (but not least), I believe that environment plays a huge role in influencing behavior. That's the underlying assumption behind the internalized sexism argument, so I won't rehash it here. It's there, let's go with it.
Okay, so I've established my premises. Why are they important? Primarily because I believe that environment (and internalized sexism) is not the only reason that men and women behave differently and have different traits. There are genetic causes, too. So, in essence, I believe that there really is some truth to the idea that there are "feminine behaviors/traits" and "male behaviors/traits" and that these definitions are not purely environmental constructs. In other words, women may behave in certain ways because they are women, not because society has taught them to behave that way. And I state it here because my understanding is that this is a potentially controversial statement.
I bring in the personality issue to illustrate the difficulties in determining precisely which behaviors are genetic and which are behavioral. I think we can make a pretty good stab at it in a lot of cases (for example, wearing a burka is obviously a culturally enforced behavior), but when it comes to other issues, it may be more difficult to tell. Are women naturally more submissive than men? How much of aggression is driven by testosterone levels? How much of it is personality (since some men are more submissive than others)? Can you answer those questions? I can't. I think testosterone definitely has an influence. How much of personality is driven by biological chemistry? I don't know. I just know it's a factor.
But the conclusion is the same: women and men are different, and at the genetic level, we can't change that fact.
(Here I am, in left field, waving at you).
Men and women behave differently, and, at some level, perhaps we can't really change elements of those differences.
(Yes, out here in left field, women may actually have a tendency to be more submissive than men, and it's not just because of internalized sexism. But I won't stop there; it gets better.)
Men and women behave differently, and, at some level, perhaps we can't really change elements of those differences. And maybe we shouldn't even try!
(Zing!)
Now, I present my position this way because I think these statements are potentially controversial. For example, when discussions of women being submissive arise, typically the conversation goes somewhere along these lines: women are submissive, being submissive is a bad thing, so women need to overcome their internalized sexism and become less submissive. In other words, they need to grow a pair (male inference deliberately intended). And here I am saying, hold on a minute, maybe not.
See, I take issue with how society values male and female behaviors/traits. Traditionally, higher value is placed on those things associated with male behaviors and traits. Strength is accorded higher value than weakness. Aggression is accorded higher value than submission. Greater height is associated with greater status, etc. etc., etc. You name a masculine behavior or trait, and almost guaranteed, our society will accord it higher value. And this is so ingrained in us that if I ask, "Is being assertive better than being submissive?" almost everyone would say "yes."
What I would like to do is call into question that value system. Is it really true that being assertive is better than being submissive? I can think of lots of instances where it is not. So why this assumption? My answer is simple: sexism. Without sexism, all those messy physical and behavioral traits that are traditionally associated with women would be accorded equal value. The cause of sexism isn't the way women behave or our physical traits, it's the value assigned to those traits and behaviors.
Men (and male traits) are assigned higher value in our society, and therefore they have greater power. This greater power allows them to reinforce the existing value system and perpetuate sexism to the degree that women internalize it. If the root/genetic/behavioral traits and differences between men and women were held in equal value, men and women would be held in equal value (and consequently hold equal power).
I'm just whacky enough to suggest that being physically weak (or weaker than men ) is not something that should be considered of lesser value than being strong... that being submissive is not something to be ashamed of... that women really are of equal value as men, despite that we are not the same as men. But we have to change the value system of society before that will be accepted.
The question arises as to how we can overcome sexism. I'm sure that every feminist scholar in existence will have their own answer. My own answer is pretty simple: you have to change the value system of society. Unfortunately, this isn't simple to do.
First, you have to understand what sexism is and how it influences our value system. Realizing how we internalize it is useful. Trying to determine to what degree it influences our behavior helps us evaluate particular behaviors. Is this behavior learned or is this behavior innate (or is it potentially a combination of factors)? Is this a behavior we should change because it is destructive and harmful to us, or is this behavior a natural extension of our personality that is superficially devalued by a sexist society? Those are the conversations I think we need to have.
For example, Surreallis asks, "Is it internalized sexism that leads us to believe that when women MUST express an opinion they must do so in a 'nice' manner? (Yes.)"
This is a great place to start. I might argue that more than internalized sexism is in play here, but, really, it doesn't matter. Let's focus on the behavior: when women express an opinion, they do so in a "nice" manner (nice being Jenn's word, not mine). And a couple of specific traits were tossed out there as examples: women communicate in a non-confrontational manner; when expressing a differing opinion, they begin by apologizing (ie. "I'm sorry, but I disagree."); they ask people to do things for them rather than issue orders. These are all very concrete.
I haven't followed all the comments to the post, but the general consus was one of agreement. There were more examples provided. There was much discussion about points not related to communication. There were suggestions that we needed to change how we communicate (stop prefacing sentences with "I'm sorry.").
But not a single person questioned the fact that we are seriously talking about how there's something inherently wrong with being "nice" in the way we communicate. I am the only person who sees this as being somewhat skewed? No one bothered to ask, "Why is being nice bad? Why is it bad to apologize for expressing a different opinion?" Because men don't? Because apologizing makes us weak? Uncertain? If it's done to be less confrontational instead of a more direct approach such as, "You're wrong, and here's why," is this automatically a bad thing? Why is the latter more desirable than the former?
Call me crazy, but I think we should be proud of being "nice" in the way we communicate. At the very least, I think we need to discuss if maybe, perhaps, it's good to communicate nicely. I would suggest that we examine if this is something to which we should assign high value, instead of lesser value. Maybe the female way of communicating is better. Maybe, instead of changing to communicate more like men, men should change to communicate more like women... (It's a radical thought, I know.) It's a subtle shift in the conversation, but a key one, because without it, we can't consciously start placing higher value on those things that are defined by society as "feminine."
Next, I'm going to go all philosophical on you. There is a Buddhist saying, "The only way to bring peace to the earth is to learn to make our own life peaceful." I think this applies on many different levels but essentially boils down to this: if you want to affect change, the best place to start is within yourself. If you wish to change a value system, you need to start with your own values. My suggestion is that we need to make a conscious effort to start assigning higher value to our own female traits and behaviors. Instead of operating under society's sexist assertion that submissiveness is a sign of weakness and therefore bad, maybe we should redefine it as something positive and good. Maybe we need to place higher value on what we have and do, rather than on what we don't have and don't do. Maybe we need to value what we are more than what we aren't.
I'm not saying that we should accept our unequal place in society and be happy with it. And I'll be the first to agree that some behaviors are unhealthy and need to change (the tendency to stay in abusive relationships, for example). I'm not advocating acceptance of the status quo, and I'm not arguing that we shouldn't change anything.
I'm having trouble putting this into words, but we have to believe in our own equality before we can possibly expect to be treated as equals. There is a certain strength that comes from being okay with yourself, from valuing both your strengths and weaknesses. When the conversation turns to changing this and that about ourselves, it's indicative that we haven't yet reached that comfort zone. When we're constantly trying to change who we are and what we do and how we behave, it means that we still view something about ourselves as "not right."
Take body image for example. Most women believe that we're too fat, too ugly, too thin, too tall, too this, too that... no matter what we are, the majority of us believe that our appearance is somehow flawed. But are we flawed, really? Only in the context of society's (sexist and extreme) values of beauty. We will never, ever escape this cycle until we learn to ignore external (sexist) messages about what constitutes beauty, and learn to think of ourselves (warts and all) as beautiful.
Consider that for a minute. If you could change the conversation, change the context, and internally redefine the definition of beauty to include yourself, wouldn't that be a powerful thing? If instead of saying, "I would be beautiful if I looked like a supermodel," you could say, "I'm beautiful just the way I am," wouldn't that be more healthy? How different would the world be if every woman believed that she was beautiful just the way she was? How would that affect our behavior? How would it affect men's perception of us? I suspect the changes would be profound and transformative. The same applies to every other sexist message that is leveled at us.
When the conversation reflects a firm set of beliefs (being a woman is good thing, and here's precisely why), it has power. If we defined feminine traits as good things, and we believed that feminine traits were good things, we would convince others of it. We'd teach this set of beliefs to others, we'd teach them to our children. Some of us might even find the strength of conviction to reject the negative sexist messages that we are bombarded with daily. We would eventually change the value system of society. Yes, we're different than men. But different does not mean we're flawed, and it does not mean we're of lesser value. Imagine if we all really believed that. Imagine if we could make it true by changing what we value in ourselves.