Is it human nature to be sexist?

[aelf]

I'm pretty sure they are.

Valuing the looks of a person, not what she does -> Objectification.
Valuing the money of a person, not what he does -> Objectification.

That's not what you said. You said "look at the female body" and "look at men's wealth", which seem pretty much in line with bhavv's earlier strawman about naked women constituting objectification. Those are not sufficient conditions for objectification unless they exclude everything else that makes the person a person.

On the other hand, valuing a person exclusively for what he/she does can also be objectifying the person.

 

[Ryika]

That's not what you said. You said "look at the female body" and "look at men's wealth", which seem pretty much in line with bhavv's earlier strawman about naked women constituting objectification. Those are not sufficient conditions for objectification.

On the other hand, valuing a person exclusively for what he/she does can also be objectifying the person.

So define your version of objectification please?

And a few questions for further clarification:
- If I watch pornography, am I objectifying the people who are depicted?
- If I watch pornography and before the actual fun starts there is a 20 Minute interview with the female star where I get to know more about her character and I really enjoy getting to know what she thinks and I value her thoughtfulness, am I still objectifying her when I watch the fun part?
- If I decide to have sex with a woman and the two of us don't know each other beforehand and then say goodbye without really having a discussion, are we objectifying each other? (And if so, is that bad?)
- If I have standards that say: "I will only date women that are at least a 7 out of 10 and I don't care for the character of the women who are below that.", am I objectifying the women I'm dating, and/or am I objectifying the women I'm not willing to date purely on the basic of them not looking as good as I'd like them to look?
- Same question for a woman who says: "I'll only date men who are at least this rich!".

 

[bhavv]

That's pretty weak when it comes to strawmen.

You're pretty weak when it comes to sarcasm.

 

[aelf]

So define your version of objectification please?

And a few questions for further clarification:
- If I watch pornography, am I objectifying the people who are depicted?
- If I watch pornography and before the actual fun starts there is a 20 Minute interview with the female star where I get to know more about her character and I really enjoy getting to know what she thinks and I value her thoughtfulness, am I still objectifying her when I watch the fun part?
- If I decide to have sex with a woman and the two of us don't know each other beforehand and then say goodbye without really having a discussion, are we objectifying each other? (And if so, is that bad?)
- If I have standards that say: "I will only date women that are at least a 7 out of 10 and I don't care for the character of the women who are below that.", am I objectifying the women I'm dating, and/or am I objectifying the women I'm not willing to date purely on the basic of them not looking as good as I'd like them to look?
- Same question for a woman who says: "I'll only date men who are at least this rich!".

For the last two, definitely.

All the other examples might include objectifying women, but I don't think they are bad in and of themselves.

You're pretty weak when it comes to sarcasm.

Lol, no. That's not sarcasm either. I was saying it to you directly.

 

[Ryika]

For the last two, definitely.

All the other examples might include objectifying women, but I don't think they are bad in and of themselves.

But are the last two bad? It seems to me that a women who is a 9/10 will not care that the man doesn't want to date women he deems sub-par, the same will probably be true for men who are rich.

 

[aelf]

Probably, because the women who are not 7/10 and non-rich men would care.

But I don't care about individual views as much as structural concerns. Racism and sexism by individuals may not be desirable, but it's true that you can't eliminate them entirely. Where they cause concern is where they affect society structurally. I suppose if mainstream culture only values women for looks and men for wealth, then that would be bad as it would dictate the dynamics of social interaction among many individuals, curtailing their agency. If only a minority of individuals value women solely for looks and men for wealth, then I think nothing needs to be done.

So the question is how do we prevent such views from affecting society as a whole? The first and less onerous step would be to wage a campaign of ideas against them, encouraging people to shy away from them. But apparently that is already too much for the anti-PC brigade.

 

[Ryika]

Probably, because the women who are not 7/10 and non-rich men care.

Does that apply to all standards? If I don't want to date fat people, am I basically discriminating against them? Or if I don't want to date transgender people? If I don't want to date gay people? I don't think the fact that the people who don't meet our standards care should really be of any concern.

I don't care about individual views as much as structural concerns. Racism and sexism by individuals may not be desirable, but it's true that you can't eliminate them entirely. Where they cause concern is where they affect society structurally. I suppose if mainstream culture only values women for looks and men for wealth, then that would be bad as it would dictate the dynamics of interaction among many individuals, curtailing their agency. If only a minority of individuals value women solely for looks and men for wealth, then I think nothing needs to be done.

Well, I agree that a society that only values women for looks and men for wealth would probably be a rather bad society. But...

So the question is how do we prevent such views from affecting society as a whole? The first and less onerous step would be to wage a campaign of ideas against them, encouraging people to shy away from them. But apparently that is already too much for the anti-PC brigade.

...I actually don't think that's a scenario that could even occur. The fact that there's only so many people who can be rich and that only so many women are "objectively beautiful" prohibits that by itself. Our "perfect man/woman" will certainly be extremely good looking and very successful, but obviously for most people that will be a dream. Most people have to settle with someone who's on their level, comparably.

I don't see anything wrong with having ideals though. Seeing that supermodel X is super-beautiful and aspiring to be like her is not a bad thing, as long as people are realistic about it.

 

[aelf]

Does that apply to all standards? If I don't want to date fat people, am I basically discriminating against them? Or if I don't want to date transgender people? If I don't want to date gay people? I don't think the fact that the people who don't meet our standards care should really be of any concern.

Yes, you are obviously discriminating against fat people (but probably not when it comes to sexual orientation, which is likely not to simply be a preference), though I've already talked about whether that's a bad thing or not.

...I actually don't think that's a scenario that could even occur. The fact that there's only so many people who can be rich and that only so many women are "objectively beautiful" prohibits that by itself. Our "perfect man/woman" will certainly be extremely good looking and very successful, but obviously for most people that will be a dream. Most people have to settle with someone who's on their level, comparably.

I don't see anything wrong with having ideals though. Seeing that supermodel X is super-beautiful and aspiring to be like her is not a bad thing, as long as people are realistic about it.

That's a very shallow way of looking at it. While 'settling' is of course an inevitable result, as you probably know well, there could be a lot of unhealthiness associated with such views, whether or most people actually 'settle'. For example, it can cause men and women to enter into abusive or exploitative relationships. Even if that may strictly speaking be their choice, the pressure of socially conventional views on what is to be valued in men and in women can cause them to make such choices despite the fact that those choices are ultimately bad for them. Or such views can cause individuals to adopt bad habits or practices in order to attain the 'ideal' standard, such as eating problems or workaholism.

Sure, you can play the classic libertarian card and say that as long as physical force is not involved then there's nothing wrong. But I struggle to see why people would want to live in unhealthy societies dominated by such power dynamics unless they are the beneficiaries of such dynamics.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, you are obviously discriminating against fat people (but probably not when it comes to sexual orientation, which is likely not to simply be a preference), though I've already talked about whether that's a bad thing or not.

So you're saying that I could choose to find fat people attractive?

That's a very shallow way of looking at it. While 'settling' is of course an inevitable result, as you probably know well, there could be a lot of unhealthiness associated with such views, whether or most people actually 'settle'. For example, it can cause men and women to enter into abusive or exploitative relationships. Even if that may strictly speaking be their choice, the pressure of socially conventional views on what is to be valued in men and in women can cause them to make such choices despite the fact that those choices are ultimately bad for them. Or such views can cause individuals to adopt bad habits or practices in order to attain the 'ideal' standard, such as eating problems or workaholism.

Which is once again a problem of people giving things too much meaning, not an issue with standards in general. You're objectifying women more than anyone else by talking about them as puppets that are influenced by society, what you should do is encourage people to think for themselves and find out what is important to THEM.

Sure, you can play the classic libertarian card and say that as long as physical force is not involved then there's nothing wrong. But I struggle to see why people would want to live in unhealthy societies dominated by such power dynamics unless they are the beneficiaries of such dynamics.

No, I don't say that at all. Social pressure can be a real problem, but social pressure will not go away by declaring that "Society is X and that's bad!". If we don't value X anymore because we see it as bad, we'll start valuing Y more to make up for the hole that was left by X and the beneficiaries will change, but we will still have "winners" and "losers". As long as people are looking to value themselves by what society dictates - and most people do that, otherwise the whole thing would not work - they help keeping the system running, it's that simple - the only way out of social pressure is personal change of attitude.

 

[aelf]

So you're saying that I could choose to find fat people attractive?

In essence, yes? I'm no expert at this, but from what I know there is highly likely a biological dimension to sexual preference and orientation. I haven't heard anything like that about not liking fat people.

Which is once again a problem of people giving things too much meaning, not an issue with standards in general. You're objectifying women more than anyone else by talking about them as puppets that are influenced by society, what you should do is encourage people to think for themselves and find out what is important to THEM.

That is an elementary error in understanding the concept of objectification. It's also a strawman to boot.

I have not suggested that people are puppets, especially since I have already suggested that agency is something that people should have. But you would have to be delusional to think that social forces and culture do not have a huge impact on how people think, behave and interact with one another. It's so basic a concept that only idiots and extreme libertarians do not acknowledge this.

My sense is that you're very underexposed to any kind of knowledge or literature concerning identity, culture or even the related philosophical fields. I'm probably not a good person to learn from if you are a complete newbie, so I don't think it would be of any use carrying on with this conversation further.

No, I don't say that at all. Social pressure can be a real problem, but social pressure will not go away by declaring that "Society is X and that's bad!". If we don't value X anymore because we see it as bad, we'll start valuing Y more to make up for the hole that was left by X and the beneficiaries will change, but we will still have "winners" and "losers". As long as people are looking to value themselves by what society dictates - and most people do that, otherwise the whole thing would not work - they help keeping the system running, it's that simple - the only way out of social pressure is personal change of attitude.

Such declarations are probably not going to be sufficient, yes, but as I said earlier it's the first step. If we are not even allowed to take this first step then nothing is going to be done. Are you sure you are not a hardcore conservative, since you seem to be a fan of not doing anything most of the time?

Either way, I think we're pretty much done here. Whatever I say will not be of any use.

 

[Andree Thorp]

I guess it is natural to be sexist, the thing that is unnatural is how one deals with the thoughts of sexism.

 

[Akka]

In essence, yes? I'm no expert at this, but from what I know there is highly likely a biological dimension to sexual preference and orientation. I haven't heard anything like that about not liking fat people.

Are you just grasping at straws to not concede a point, or seriously arguing that people can "chose" who they find attractive ?

/facepalm

 

[aelf]

Are you just grasping at straws to not concede a point, or seriously arguing that people can "chose" who they find attractive ?

/facepalm

Uh? People can 'choose' (in this instance anyway) insofar as they are not already biologically determined to think a certain way. The operative phrase was "in essence". I thought it would have been obvious given that I specifically talked about biology.

I never said that it would be a choice that can easily be made, and I did say that such discrimination is not bad in and of itself, so I don't see what the issue is.

I think I'm the one who needs to facepalm at this point in the conversation.

 

[Akka]

Uh? People can 'choose' (in this instance anyway) insofar as they are not already biologically determined to think a certain way. The operative phrase was "in essence". I thought it would have been obvious given that I specifically talked about biology.

I never said that it would be a choice that can easily be made, and I did say that such discrimination is not bad in and of itself, so I don't see what the issue is.

The issue is that it's completely stupid to claim someone can "chose" to like something. Biology or not is completely beside the question : it's not about "easily made" or not, it's about taste having absolutely nothing to do with conscious decisions.

I think I'm the one who needs to facepalm at this point in the conversation.

A self-facepalm then.

 

[aelf]

Indeed. After seeing your assertion made with no supporting argument whatsoever (perhaps other than the enlightening phrase "completely stupid"), I facepalmed.

If you're going to make that assertion, then I suppose people also cannot choose what they prefer in a partner if social conventions have told them what to value. I never argued that, though. I merely stated that social pressure has a huge impact on choices and behaviour. If anyone is arguing that people are mere puppets, it's Akka.

 

[Ryika]

In essence, yes? I'm no expert at this, but from what I know there is highly likely a biological dimension to sexual preference and orientation. I haven't heard anything like that about not liking fat people.

This seems to be rather nonsensical to me. Even if we assume that our preferences for thin people are mostly societal and ignore the fact that we're probably hard-wired to leaning towards "healty bodies that look like they'd be good at making sure that our genes survive" that doesn't change anything about the fact that I can't just rewire what I find attractive. Or are you telling me that you could find this attractive?

(Slight warning: Picture of a person with extreme annorexia below the spoiler)

Spoiler :

Not to say that even IF we could just change our preferences at will, I don't see how we would manage to get them all on an equal level. We will always have preferences.

And of course the very idea that society should change to not "sexually discriminate" towards fat people instead of fighting the root causes of why people get fat to help them not getting fat and avoiding the negative consequences of being overly fat is a rather silly approach to this "problem" in my opinion. But to be fair, I acknowledge that I was the person who used fat people as an example and that the situation is different for people who are less sexually desirable because of things that are not in their control.

The whole watering down of words is just silly. If me having preferences is "discriminating" against people, then frankly I don't give a damn about discriminating against people. I think anyone who uses the word "discrimination" in a context where nobody does anything with bad intentions is just causing problems for people who really are discriminated against.

That is an elementary error in understanding the concept of objectification. It's also a strawman to boot. I have not suggested that people are puppets, especially since I have already suggested that agency is something that people should have. But you would have to be delusional to think that social forces and culture do not have a huge impact on how people think, behave and interact with one another. It's so basic a concept that only idiots and extreme libertarians do not acknowledge this.

And valuing social engineering over helping people to make informed decisions is unfortunately the other extreme of that scale. It's great that you can see the idiocy of one extreme side, but you don't seem to realize how off-center you are on that scale.

My sense is that you're very underexposed to any kind of knowledge or literature concerning identity, culture or even the related philosophical fields. I'm probably not a good person to learn from if you are a complete newbie, so I don't think it would be of any use carrying on with this conversation further.

Yes, people who disagree with your solution to a problem must obviously be uninformed and stupid.

Such declarations are probably not going to be sufficient, yes, but as I said earlier it's the first step. If we are not even allowed to take this first step then nothing is going to be done. Are you sure you are not a hardcore conservative, since you seem to be a fan of not doing anything most of the time?

A first step towards what? It's social engineering in it's most obvious form, that's not a first step, that's making a huge jump into territory that many people are not okay with.

Either way, I think we're pretty much done here. Whatever I say will not be of any use.

I agree, but that's because we both have different solutions and you've already decided that yours is the right one. You're basically saying: "Society uses pressure to lead us, I don't like where society leads us so let me use pressure to lead us somewhere else!" - I'm saying: "Instead of choosing where to lead society, let's vaccinate people so they can choose their own destination."

Yes, your solution may very well be the more direct way to a better future - or it's the direct way into a society that nobody wants to live in. That's always the risk of engineering societal changes on a grand scale instead of just informing the public and letting them decide where to go. Don't pretend you're anything other than an ideological dictator.

 

[Akka]

Indeed. After seeing your assertion made with no supporting argument whatsoever (perhaps other than the enlightening phrase "completely stupid"), I facepalmed.

I've basic reality supporting the FACT that people don't have the ability to change their preference through conscious will. That's enough of an argument, even if you just keep to your usual arrogance to try to blindly run through it.

If you're going to make that assertion, then I suppose people also cannot choose what they prefer in a partner if social conventions have told them what to value. I never argued that, though. I merely stated that social pressure has a huge impact on choices and behaviour.

Huge impact on choices and behaviour, that's a given. That's not the point I was speaking at all though, as I was speaking of preferences.

If anyone is arguing that people are mere puppets, it's Akka.

Puppets have no free will. My entire point is that preferences are disconnected from free will. You manage to twist that into "people have no free will".
You might facepalm again at your own inability to graps what is said. Unless it's just a way to try to make a childish one-liner so might imagine you win at the Internet.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I've basic reality supporting the FACT that people don't have the ability to change their preference through conscious will. That's enough of an argument, even if you just keep to your usual arrogance to try to blindly run through it.

Thats definitely incorrect. People evidently change their preferences over time through cultivation of their capacities. Thats at least in part a conscious process.

 

[Akka]

Thats definitely incorrect. People evidently change their preferences over time through cultivation of their capacities. Thats at least in part a conscious process.

Cultivation of a capacity is a conscious process. It might alter preferences as a byproduct, but that part isn't conscious.

For example, I can consciously read and learn and educate myself and get a wider point of view of the world. This which will change my outlook on people I previously liked but now perceive as ignorant and narrow-minded, but that part is a consequence which is beyond my conscious control.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Cultivation of a capacity is a conscious process. It might alter preferences as a byproduct, but that part isn't conscious.

For example, I can consciously read and learn and educate myself and get a wider point of view of the world. This which will change my outlook on people I previously liked but now perceive as ignorant and narrow-minded, but that part is a consequence which is beyond my conscious control.

But when you find that doing A gives you B. Then you know how to get more B regardless if you have the complete understanding of how it works out within your sub(un)conscious existence.