Sexism

This is the thread to talk about sexism. Let’s leave the Ben Thread alone. Please, carry on with the discussion.

Be respectful. Do not mock people.

I’m interested in discussing sexist ideas/sexism and come up with strong arguments to combat those sexists ideas.

I’m not interested in dividing the community. I’m interested in uniting the community. So by all means, let’s discuss sexism. However, in order for this to work, we all need to be on the same page. After thinking about it, I thought it would be best to start by focusing on certain phrases that we know are considered sexist.

Let’s start with the phrase “women can’t drive.” I agree one shouldn’t generalized. There’s some women who can drive while there’s some others who cannot. But the same applies to men. There’s some men who can drive and some who can’t.

So,
can someone explain why the phrase is sexist?

Is it still sexist if it’s said by a woman? Why?
Does it sound more sexists if it’s said by a man? Why?
Is there another meaning to the phrase “woman can’t drive” ?
Is that phrase implying that men are better drivers?

After we finished discussing this phrase, someone else please jump aboard and highlight another phrase. We can discuss about that phrase and so on. Once we finished with that phrase, we move onto another.

It’s a stereotype plus it is sexist. For me personally I heard much more men say that than women. And if you look at the statistics in many places around the world, men cause more car accidents than women even when taking into account that men drivers are more.

Also I think this thread is gonna be interesting :) Nice idea Luce!!

Like you said the phrase is generalizing an entire group of the population.

When someone says women can't drive, it implies that all women are incapable of driving. This also implies that men are the better drivers by the process of elimination.

The statement is sexist - so it doesn't matter if it's said by a man or a woman, it's still sexist. It does sound a bit more sexist when said by a man, and that's because when men say statements like that, they usually hold more sexist views and are sexist. We live in a patriarchal society, with men being afforded certain rights/powers/privilege that women don't have, so when men say sexist remarks, it helps perpetuate a patriarchal society, and the same is true when women say sexist remarks, it's normalizing the idea that women aren't as capable as men.

The default state of thinking should be that women are just as much capable as men are, that men aren't inherently better than woman, so when people say remarks that are sexist in nature, I think it's fair to say they are sexist. Because they shouldn't be entertaining those thoughts in the first place, but having grown up in a patriarchal society, it's so commonplace to be raised with remarks like that being norm, some people might not think twice of it until they're called out by someone else, and they learn from it. I'd almost illustrate it as a person coughing and sneezing saying they're not sick, it's only just a cough/sneeze, but they're only doing that because their sick, and it won't go away till they get better. Not the best metaphor, but you get the gist of it.

If statistical data shows that women have more accidents than men, does it then make the statement fact and therefore not sexist? The critical thinker in me thinks this is so.

As a bit of an edit:

The assumption that society is inherently patriarchal is a misconception, the scales on which to balance the discussion shouldn't be held under such an absolute. Its often used to describe how unfair society is towards women in terms of pay and promotion prospects, past that it doesn't hold much weight. Our Societies are simply hierarchical as in most species in nature, they have been since we grew legs and walked out of the sea, the impulse is so ingrained into us we developed it before we could recognise a tree's.

That's not to say sexism, racism and alike are not rife but I do feel like to have the discussion seriously such things should be noted or "a flag be planted" to highlight such notions.

When you hear people talking about this sort of thing it isn't often that you hear people suggesting that we need more female trash people, or female bricklayers etc

Just food for thought.

It's still a sexist statement, though. Not to mention the many factors that are involved in car crashes. Even if statistics clearly outlined how and why women CAUSED more crashes than men, talking down to women or implying that they are not capable is just reaffirming sexism. It's such a blanket statement and when remarks are said like this, the times I've heard them in daily life, have been subtle ways to undermine women. When I had an office job, we had lots of women in the office who kickstarted a lot of important efforts in our organization. They were recognized, but the manager simply in passing (and I didn't even see him much) would make uncomfortable remarks in an attempt to be "funny" and "joking" about these things. So even if his intention was to highlight how much work these women did by making side comments about how women would usually be perceived, it came across as condescending. They never have to be blatant remarks like "women need to be in the kitchen" or "it's a woman's job to raise the kids", though those statements are still being made I'm sure. Personally, in my immediate family, these remarks have been used with the sheer purpose of using all of a woman's mistakes, then saying that "well you're always like that", and shifting blame by bringing up every past issue and snowballing it into "it's women's problems", "they're all the same" kind of talk.

Even with the statistics saying that men have more accidents, I wont say men cant drive. That would be me saying that all men cant drive. It’s the same if it’s the other way around. And it would still be sexist.

“Women cant drive” “Men cant drive”
^ Both those statements can never be a fact.

Like mentioned earlier and in the other thread, I believe statistical data shows that men have more accidents than women when it comes to driving. But even so, context matters, and how things are said matters.

For instance, take:

"You shouldn't be driving, women can't drive, they get into more accidents while driving, it's a fact."

versus

"Be safe out there, I've read that women are more likely to get into accidents while driving".

Tone, inflection will play a role as well, but just from text alone, wouldn't you agree with me the second statement doesn't come across as aggressive/sexist?

So to answer your question, if women were to have more accidents than men, would it make the statement 'women can't drive' true and free of sexism? No, it wouldn't.

I see what you're saying, the problem is that when people say "can't drive" do we take it literally as in they can't actually drive (which would just be silly) or are they inferring that women have more accidents? It's often the intent on what people are saying rather than the actually words themselves. I hate cabbage as an example, well I don't actually hate cabbage, its a vegetable and I can't really hate them but I do rather dislike the taste.

Just FYI my comments on the thread are only to thought provoke and not to provoke harmfully.

"Its often used to describe how unfair society is towards women in terms of pay and promotion prospects, past that it doesn't hold much weight."

What about society regulating women's bodies? Numerous states, and countries have banned abortion, limiting what women can and can't do with their bodies.

"When you hear people talking about this sort of thing it isn't often that you hear people suggesting that we need more female trash people, or female bricklayers etc"

You also don't hear people suggesting those as careers for males either. Physical jobs and trades as a whole tend to get overlooked as viable career options for all.

Here’s what I feel like contributing to this conversation:

To test whether or not men or women are better drivers, we have to use the scientific method. So that means first defining what “better driver” means. Does it mean getting in statistically significant fewer accidents? Fewer DUIs? If either of these are used as definitions, then here’s the data already available:

https://www.bensonbingham.com/examining-the-women-can-t-drive-stereotype/

“The stereotype is not just old – the available data suggest that men are the greater menaces on the road. Men incur traffic citations at 3.4 times the rate of women, and they are involved in triple the number of driving under the influence arrests. The stereotype itself even seems to lack staying power – one survey found that a majority of women self-identified as the safer group, compared to a minority of men. [8]”

“Men account for more than 7 out of every 10 traffic fatalities. [9] An average of 2.5 men are killed in fatal car accidents per 100,000 miles traveled, compared to 1.7 women. (That’s a difference of 47 percent.) For teen drivers (ages 16 to 19), the figures are 9.2 teen-male deaths per 100,000 miles traveled and 5.3 teen-female deaths; that means that teen males are more than 74 percent more likely to be killed in an automobile accident as their female peers. [10] This gender gap has not gone unnoticed by the sector that profits from noticing these kinds of trends: the insurance industry. Women pay an average of 9 percent less than men for comparable auto insurance policies. Over the course of his lifetime, a man might pay $15,000 more for insurance coverage than a woman. [11] (Of course, women are estimated to earn some $530,000 less in wages over their lifetimes, so you might say that the premium gap more than works itself out… [12]).”

Now I’m on another tangent, bear with me. Do any of you listen to Hidden Brain, the podcast? It’s entertaining and educational. I listened to “Playing the Gender Card” yesterday. There are quite a few episodes on gender, sex, sexism, and related topics.
The first 20 minutes or so of the aforementioned episode is about stereotype threat. Stereotype threat is “the threat of being viewed through the lens of a negative stereotype or the fear of doing something that would inadvertently confirm that stereotype” (Steele, 1999). When activated, stereotype threat causes persons to perform worse on assignments than they might otherwise. This reaction is neurobiological in nature - the perceived threat stimulates cortisol production in the brain having the effect of reducing the available working memory for completing tasks.
Stereotype threat affects members of any group about whom there exists some negative stereotype. The effect is variable across different groups and situations.
In the episode, stereotype threat is talked about in the context of poker, a male-dominated game.

Interestingly, there have been experiments conducted to test if stereotype threat can impact women drivers/their driving performances. It can.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457507001522

“Women who were reminded of the stereotype that females are poor drivers were more than twice as likely to collide with jaywalking pedestrians than women who were not reminded of this stereotype.”

I’m drawing attention to this for two reasons: 1) If your anecdotal experience has been that women are “bad drivers,” it could be because something you said, even in jest, activated stereotype threat. If the women in your life perceive that you believe they are bad drivers (because they’re women), then they’ll likely drive more poorly with you around. Something to consider. 2) If women really were definitively worse drivers than men, how would you interpret that gender difference? How people interpret gender differences stems from their beliefs about gender/sex. Would you chalk it up to biological brain differences? What part of the brain? Would you chalk it up to sociocultural influence? Stereotype threat? Would you seek to find the underlying reason(s) or would you assume it’s just one more great example of the inherent and rightful superiority of men? It seems to me that the stereotype, “women are bad drivers,” tends to fall in line with suggesting this latter, sexist pattern of thinking - that women are mentally inferior in some way that inhibits their ability to drive as well as men.

To me sexism, racism, ageism and any other fight for equal rights means equal rights and opportunities for everyone. It is not an excuse to gain one-upmanship or payback for previous unfair treatment which can sometimes be the case.

I think what starts arguments is when people stereo type groups of people and assume that because someone is in a particular group be it male or female, black or white, gay or straight etc. that everyone they meet from that group conforms to their perception of how people in that group think and behave.

So to answer your questions:

I think its how you approach and react to what you are presented with.

"Women can't drive" Possibly about thirty years ago it was men using it as an excuse to put women off driving. Since then things have moved on and in some cases women are earning more money and driving better cars than men. So if a man were to say it today to me then I would think either he has car envy or he's using it as an excuse to provoke a conversation / get a rise and in most cases a woman will give back as good as he gives. The other way of looking at it is that women and men think and drive differently so they are rarely going to agree on who is the best driver.

If a woman said it would it be sexist? If anyone makes a sweeping statement like all men or all women are bad drivers you know that it is factually incorrect so cannot be taken seriously. My retort would be "Speak for yourself" However what we should be asking is if she said "Men can't drive" Would men then consider her to be sexist towards them? or would they believe that she was just trying to provoke a reaction / debate an excuse to strike up conversation? The same as a man in the same situation?

So in short is the statement sexist? I feel in the past it was sexist but nowadays its more a case of someone blindly stereo- typing or a deliberate attempt to initiate a debate or rise from someone. If it is still considered to be sexist (different countries / cultures have different levels of sexism) then it has to be considered equally sexist for both sexes

P.S (I only have had three car accidents one - an 82 year old lady turned right on a dual carriageway causing an 8 car pile up. An angry male estate agent fast reversed from an empty petrol pump hitting my stationary car and then there was a male neighbour who hit my car several times whilst trying to reverse park his camper van. So in my experience two out of three drivers that have hit my car were male) :)

I'm sorry i spent ages on a reply and it disappeared so ill be brief but hopefully not terse.

The statement you highlighted first starts with a throat clearing, please read again. As for the abortion thing, I guess it depend in what states and countries you are talking about as there are many states and countries that it isn't illegal. Personally I think the choice should be the womans, most countries that it is illegal in have outlawed it for religious reasons/arguments although I understand why people are against it ethically, however I myself am not.

I am interested though, do you think men should be able to relinquish his responsibility as a father without society labelling him as lower than a snakes belly? Or are you of the opinion that women should be thenonly ones who get to opt out of parenthood.

"You also don't hear people suggesting those as careers for males either. Physical jobs and trades as a whole tend to get overlooked as viable career options for all."

I'm sorry but this is simply not true, these people make a killing and are essential for the maintenance and further development of societies infrastructure, in almost all Western countries and many in the East there are more and more people in these growing sectors.

I'm on mobile so can't say everything I want to, but I guess I genuinely don't understand why and how you believe it to be a misconception, a patriarchal society that is. You mention wage differences, which is still a current issue to my knowledge, but even if it was just one inequality that was documented, I would think and hope it would hold just as much weight and significance as anything else. Can't link right now but there have been studies and articles that articulate the bias against women in many areas, that it wasn't that men were more suited for a role or position, or that women were less intelligent or had less potential, but that there was an obvious bias in place. I don't know the history of power dynamics and male supremacy that well, and I really should, but my question is if much of it can be unbuilt and unlearned? I don't know if it's always been around, but to suggest that it's merely hierarchical seems to imply that there is no responsibility or accountability needed. Or that since it's "always been in place", that we can only change so much, which feels rooted in sexism too, that we would just accept that.

In my last job ten years ago there was a huge drive in the UK to get women into senior positions. Whilst I believe strongly in equality and it was great seeing deserving women finally moving up the ladder it also had a down side because in the drive to get the specific percentage of women's bums into seats they gave some positions to completely undeserving women over hardworking men who really deserved the promotion. So that is one of the reasons I think sexism needs to be considered from both sides of the fence. Fairness and equality for everyone is the ideal aim.

Thats so true, often one sides inability to listen to another's is the beginning of the end, the equality of opportunity is the only way to handle job allocation between genders, the myth that equality of outcome is desirable is a huge problem, when men and women are given all the same opportunities they actually lean more towards traditional career paths as in, brodly speaking women tend work more communicative and personal careers and men more "things" orientated. This is very low resolution but what's important is that people acted in the complete opposite of what was expected when given the choice and whats more interesting is that the conversation about x amount of women nurses or x amount of male plumbers is almost moot. Fascinating. Humans are mental.

You're implying that diversity could ever a downside. While, sure, a lot of corporations may only have their own image and interest in mind, and may hire or promote more candidates to appear inclusive (because are they really creating and editing policies that can benefit their employees? we may not truly know), I would think it would still be better than nothing. Unless you know someone personally who was not qualified enough, how can we know if someone was or wasn't? I feel like that sparks the harmful stereotype of "well you just got promoted/hired because you're ____", meaning it was only because of them being a woman, or a certain ethnicity, that got them that position. Even if that may be the case here or there, because, being in a capitalist society here, companies rarely care about their workers or HOW to combat inequality, it's still rooted in sexism/racism.

Also, fairness and equality for everyone, sure. But that's not realistic. There are current policies, laws and institutions that still unfairly treat people of color and don't give them the same level playing field as other races. That's systemic racism. That's been proven. True equality can't really exist until sexism and system racism are addressed. You'd have to rebuild society to have that happen, since there is a plethora of institutions in place that actively oppress others. Until then, you technically can't give everyone the same chances, since there's so many other factors, economical and social, that play into this.

Equal opportunity is not enough. It doesn't mean equality.

Now that I'm at my computer, I found this article that specifies the difference between "equity" and "equality" which I had kind of forgotten about:

https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/

Thought this note from the article was especially important to remember:

"it’s critical to remember that social systems aren’t naturally inequitable — they’ve been intentionally designed to reward specific demographics for so long that the system’s outcomes may appear unintentional but are actually rooted discriminatory practices and beliefs."

That's why you can't just give the same resources to all groups and wash your hands of it, and say, there, "I've done my part".

So equality would be about everyone having the same resources, but equity would be about distributing those resources based on specific needs so a fairer outcome can be achieved.

From my understanding, we really want to work towards equity. Since equality could lead us to treating everyone the same and ignoring crucial differences and unique needs, "equity" is focusing on giving what's proportionate to one's own circumstances, addressing the disadvantages.

There's some Youtube videos and a few TED talks I just found that I'll watch later tonight and share.

Only watched this one so far that is helpful in breaking down the meanings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0N22PMdF1U

Equity - about access and opportunity
Equality - assuming we all have the same starting point

And this would never mean less rights for others. I've often heard that gross claim, when people are vocal about supporting certain groups of people. No one's rights are being taken away. We NEED to focus on specific groups who are facing discrimination in any way.

How can you even ascertain that men and women would choose the more traditional career paths? Biological factors have little to nothing to do with it in my opinion, and thinking they do, that men will more likely choose these jobs or those jobs, and same with women, creates even more stereotypes and is inherently sexist in my opinion. I think it's called biological determinism where it refers to men and women's "respective" positions, where it's believed their roles were already established and determined based on the differences of each other's sex. Like women are more genetically predisposed toward certain traits, which can perpetuate sexist ideas and attitudes. A woman's behavior or a man's behavior is not controlled by their genes. This goes into the idea that "oh, well men will be men", ridding them of any accountability to step up and address their behavior, and instead writing if off as "genetic".

"when men and women are given all the same opportunities they actually lean more towards traditional career paths as in, brodly speaking women tend work more communicative and personal careers and men more "things" orientated."

I think what you take away from this is different than what I take away from it. You think this is down to innate, biological differences, right? I think this is a direct result of sociocultural influence and a patriarchal society in which gender roles/ideas are deeply embedded and interwoven. There is a lot of fear, pressure, and influence involved in what career paths women and men choose... it's all extremely complicated. I suggest the book Testosterone Rex by Cordelia Fine. It's an absolutely brilliant, scientific look into debunking the extremely fragile evolutionary theory/argument of gender.

I don't know why, but I just remembered something that I want to share with you all.
There was an experiment in which men were asked to either braid the hair on a mannequin or braid a thick rope. After being randomly assigned one of these tasks, they were given the opportunity to choose their next task: Punch the crap out of something, or engage in a brain teaser. Men who were tasked with braiding the mannequin's hair (which is a stereotypically "feminine" behavior) wanted to punch something, while men who were tasked with braiding rope (a stereotypically "masculine" behavior) chose the brain teaser. Men felt their masculinity was threatened by engaging in the "feminine" activity, and sought to restore their masculinity through physical aggression.

Okay, back to career paths. What's interesting is how we define what career paths are more "feminine" or more "masculine." Nurses, for instance, used to be ONLY men. Through the efforts of Florence Nightingale in the mid-nineteenth century, nursing was established as a women's profession (Hus, Chen & Lou, 2010). Nightingale's image of the nurse as subordinate, nurturing, domestic, humble, and self-sacrificing, as well as not too educated, became prevalent in society.

MA, yes!! Yes and yes! I agree fully with both of your last two posts that I just read. You hit so many nails on the head. Equity, not equality -- this concept that we can just "treat everyone equally and everything will be all better" ignores the historical context of inequality, and the lingering outcomes of that history. I'm reminded of when people say, "I don't see color," when talking about race, and how that's actually very harmful to BIPOC. Alright, I have to get back to work, but one more thing: I mentioned Testosterone Rex by Cordelia Fine above and MA, I think you would love it. She uses logic and science to throw the theory of biological determinism in the trash can where it belongs. The book can be a little academic, but it's fascinating!

Thanks for the recommendation, Jane! I'll have to put that on my to-read list. I think this thread, and discussion in general, will be a great starting point to read more in-depth about sexism and its history, and everything that goes with it.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating.

I quickly read through all the comments. I haven’t been able to read through the links but so far I like that everyone is being respectful and bringing interesting points to the thread.

Just one thing though, I know it’s hard, but please try to remain within topic. If you want to bring other topics it’s fine so long as you are able to come back to the topic at hand.

I see the thread shifting towards wages and abortion. It’s good to talk about those topics but we can talk about those after we finish addressing the phrase “women can’t drive”

What I am getting out these conversations is that one end believes the phrase is sexist no matter how it’s used. Another believes that it might not.

I am going to take more time to read Jane’s comment and digest the info. I hope we can continue sharing views respectfully.

Sorry Everlasting, we've really gone all over the place, haven't we? Haha!

EDIT: This is seriously a great thread.

What I meant was that I am an older lady. I have experienced sexism throughout my working life especially in the beginning of it. Women in those days were expected to marry have kids and stay at home. Few even even took driving tests and few were expected to have a career. I had to work twice as hard to be taken seriously. Yet through hard work I ended up being an IT / Facilities Manager at a time when only men were interested in computers. I received more grief from the women at that time for being a geek and not being girlie enough (I was more practical and down to earth) yet once they realised I knew my stuff I got a lot of respect and support from men in the industry.

As a manager I always filled my vacancies based on ability to do the job, attitude, willingness to learn and personality fit. Which meant sometimes men in traditionally women's roles and the opposite. People of all ages and different backgrounds.

When I saw the move to get more women into higher management it was a great moment for women because there certainly was a glass ceiling.

However though the process was necessary and long in coming. There is a thin line of balance between creating equal opportunities for women and giving giving someone a job just because they are of a specific gender (in this case a woman) regardless of whether they can do the job or not because that makes us no better than the men who did the same for generations.

I think equality needs to be taught in schools so that children grow up understanding that it's ok to be different and differences be valued. Marketing has certainly made a big difference to adults and still can do more

It's definitely more widely accepted in larger more successful companies that in order to maximise sales to the widest audience you need a diverse sales team with men and women of different demographics. So there is no getting away with the fact that sexist views are out dated and gradually equality is becoming the norm.

It's all about education and balance. Society has changed dramatically over the last fifty years. A lot of men in my agegroup have seen their roles change from what they started out as believing was normal. To something they could never have imagined. I've lived through that hearing the struggles of both sides.

Changing ingrained belief systems isn't an over night demand. It takes time and patience to instill, digest and accept. Though with technology I think change happens more quickly nowadays.

"How can you even ascertain that men and women would choose the more traditional career paths?"

Because the results are already in, it isnt me who ascertains it, it is the clinical psychological community who does and it surprised them all, this was not the reaction that was expected but it is what happened?

The replies are very telling.

You miss Jane's point: Traditional careers is more than anything else a sociocultural phenomenon. Just because the results conform with your understanding of tradition does not equate to a gender specific role.

Women bear children; men sire children. These are about the only gender specific roles that are truly defensible.

Archeology has turned up surprising evidence that the "traditional" division of hunters (men) and gatherers (women) was not actually true.

I suggest the following links to scholarly works on this topic:

On the distinction between assumption and evidence:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9N1cCM1HgPAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA169&dq=hunter+gatherer+gender+stereotypes&ots=tyk2vrM_iH&sig=yQr-0nm0d2gvMW9zNUtnjhwNqL4#v=onepage&q=hunter%20gatherer%20gender%20stereotypes&f=false

Dispelling the premise that women are more likely to be better fitted for gathering activities:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002209659992492X

On the manner in which stereotypical expectations become self-perpetuating:
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719

"Just because the results conform with your understanding of tradition does not equate to a gender specific role"

Forgive me for sounding defensive but the results don't conform to my understanding of traditional roles, the results amongst hours of reading and debate on this subject with people with 20 plus year in the field have definitely changed my perception on them. But as previously stated, what happened when men and women were given full reign to choose their career paths was exactly the opposite to what was predicted. My thinking on this isn't a solid state, I am open to evidences that show otherwise but those seem to be scant at best. I briefly read through the other post and obviously reading this one which is why I shared these points as a discussion can't seriously be had on any topic without exploring all side of a subject, I merely post for the other side of things.

But when people talk of society being patriarchal etc it is such a low resolution way of looking at things it hinders the conversation.

Almost everything is sociologically influenced because that is the nature of humans we are social creatures, however it does depend which society is being discussed and biology does indeed influence more than woman giving birth and men siring, it is a fascinating world to explore.

I appreciate the links though and will definitely read through them when I have time :)

Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the feedback. Thank you once again for being respectful and sharing interesting points.

To be honest, there’s lots of info and it’s hard to make sense. So I ask you to please, try to stay within topic. What I actually had in mind with this thread, it’s to focus on phrases and narrow down important points about sexism. If we start discussing about wages, abortion, etc we are going to be bombarded with lots of information and ultimately we might not know what to do with it. There could be some room for learning but I’m interested in staying in the same page and perhaps come up with a bullet list of how to identify a sexist idea.

So I thought that if we start small and with a “less sensitive” phrase per se, perhaps we could move forward towards more sensitive aspects of sexism’s.

For instance,

Like I mentioned, some believe the phrase “women can’t drive” is sexist no matter how it is said or the circumstances. Others, think otherwise.

So can we perhaps share scenarios (made up if you want), and discuss why this scenario could be seen less offensive than the other or why not.

I’m interested in exploring at what point the phrase becomes offensive. I’m also interested in exploring at what point should one intervene and point out that a phrase is sexist or should we always pointed out? Why or why not?

Something I got so far, it’s that something can be sexist if it’s generalized.

To be clear: Sexism is not a vibe. It’s not a thing that comes and goes and morphs with variables and who says what.

It is systemic. It works as a system. Patriarchy is built into every structure of power in society. Individuals can never be the sole driving force behind ideologies that are oppressive. Maybe an individual man making a sexist comment is not harming all of womankind. But he is part of a SYSTEM that relies on that.

Do women say mean and unfair things about men? Of course. Do women have the power to structurally harm men as a class? No. In fact, the closest women can come to doing that is by perpetuating the norms conditioned by patriarchy to serve itself again: “you're so weak, be a man, earn more money, etc”. Feminism is there for everyone's benefit because everyone is a victim of patriarchy.

So, reverse-sexism (women’s sexism to men) is not real. A vibe, sure, if you want, but it doesn’t constitute a system of oppression. Any form of oppression that needs “reverse” in front of it is not real. Oppression only works in one direction, from the oppressor to the oppressed.

To conclude:
A man or woman saying “women can’t drive” = reinforcement of a system of oppression against women by perpetuating patriarchal norms that everyone has been conditioned in
A woman or man saying “men can’t drive” = men’s feelings might get a bit ouchy (or not even a bit ouchy: being men, they have the privilege of resisting the absorbance of these kinds of comments made by women, they wouldn't believe it of themselves)

Interesting,

The ideas that we are seeing in this thread is that

1. Sexism happens just towards women
2. Sexism happens equality against both men and women
3. Sexism is born with the intention of oppression

Jane, sorry for the late reply.

I’m trying to read through all the post and reply but toddlers keep me busy.

First of all, I love your replies. Specially, the mentioned of the experiment. When I was dating my husband, he attempted to braid his daughter’s hair and while he was frustrated because he just couldn’t do it, the hair kept slipping out of his hands, he continued trying but not even once did I see him trying to punch anything. So if he would have done the experiment, I’m not sure what he would have chosen. Perhaps, to punch to relieve his frustration because the hair was so slippery. Or the brain teaser to relax his mind and re-focus.

“If women really were definitively worse drivers than men, how would you interpret that gender difference? How people interpret gender differences stems from their beliefs about gender/sex. Would you chalk it up to biological brain differences? “ by Jane

I have always thought that what makes a better driver is that some are more passionate about it just like anything else. For instance, I see a car as a means to get to a destination. I know how to drive, I just don’t like it.

So whenever I hear, “women can’t drive,” I associate it to “yeah, most of the women aren’t really into cars.” Men usually consider their cars as their babies.

Also, what do you think about this article?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/europe/climate-carbon-gender-differences-study-scn-intl-scli/index.html