I am genuinely curious how this qualifies as sexist. My understanding, based upon my own experience as well as some of the research I have read, is that there is something to the distinction Atwood brings up in this article. Whether or not such a distinction is fact though, I would like to think there is a way to discuss such possibilities without offending reasonable people.
Is the issue that he claims a distinction? The way he values the qualities he ascribes to either sex? Something else?
More importantly, is he wrong? Without a doubt utterly wrong, or is there room for debate? At the end of the day that is what strikes me as most important.
Thank you for the clarification. Would it be legitimate for me to rephrase your position as "stating generalizations about peoples' behavior, based upon sex, is sexist"? For example, if I were to say "men, in general (though not in all cases) are more risk-seeking than women", would that be sexist?
I am not sure that I can accept your definition of sexism. What if that generalization is true? I can concede that the specific generalization I made above is debatable, but I don't think it can be argued that it is without a doubt false. The connotation of the term "sexist" is that the thing being labeled so is morally wrong. I cannot accept a stance that labels certain beliefs as blatantly immoral which are (at least debatably) true.
To propose a different definition of sexism, I would like suggest that making such statements is only sexist if one refuses to acknowledge that there are exceptions, or if one refuses to acknowledge such exceptions as morally acceptable. For instance, refusing to fund a startup founded by a woman because one assumes no woman is capable or because one thinks it is wrong for any woman to do so.
There are a few things I would like to note about my definition. First of all, it does not state what sort of legislation should be passed to prevent sexism. Indeed, I consider it quite probable that there could be instances of sexist behavior that, while immoral, would also be immoral or at impractical to legally prevent. Second, it does not require a person to be 100% accurate when applying generalizations. Third, you do not need to be all things to all people; you can choose to market to only those people who fit the generalization. Just be aware that, especially with the advent of the internet, it is quite easy to market to only those people who are the exception.
I could go on, but I hope that is a sufficient explanation of my position. If you are still following this thread I would like to hear your critique.
Is the issue that he claims a distinction? The way he values the qualities he ascribes to either sex? Something else?
More importantly, is he wrong? Without a doubt utterly wrong, or is there room for debate? At the end of the day that is what strikes me as most important.