FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Question: What is sexism?"
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) |
SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
First we should talk about justice because sexism can be easily defined as injustice inflicted on the basis of sex. To know what is just or unjust, we should define it. We're going to consider a few different potential definitions of justice. It might be frustrating to worry this much about a definition of sexism, but we want to be dealing with the best definition of sexism to review the Church's standards and also to evaluate sexism in the future. We want to be sharp moral thinkers. | First we should talk about justice because sexism can be easily defined as injustice inflicted on the basis of sex. To know what is just or unjust, we should define it. We're going to consider a few different potential definitions of justice. It might be frustrating to worry this much about a definition of sexism, but we want to be dealing with the best definition of sexism to review the Church's standards and also to evaluate sexism in the future. We want to be sharp moral thinkers. | ||
| − | We often think about justice in terms of ''stuff'' or ''opportunities to get stuff''. For instance, if two children come to | + | We often think about justice in terms of ''stuff'' or ''opportunities to get stuff''. For instance, if two children, one a boy and the other a girl, come to a person's door on Halloween and that person can intend to give both children candy but deny giving candy to one of the children when they see that that child is a girl. This would be an example of injustice and sexism. Similarly, we can deny one of the genders the opportunity of playing sports and competing for awards. Thus we can discriminate with stuff or opportunities to get stuff. Following these examples, we can define sexism as "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or denying stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex." Let's call this definition "DS1" (definition of sexism #1). Important to note is the separation between the ''belief'' and the ''action'' based in that belief. I can believe that women are inherently of inferior moral worth but still give them stuff out of pity or benevolence. That is perhaps the correct definition of what is often called "benevolent sexism." |
| − | + | Following DS1, it will be soundly argued that it's sexist for the Church to, for example, limit women from going topless but allowing men to when they go to the beach or swim. Indeed, many argue that it's unjust for society to expect this and protest by going topless. | |
| − | But even DS2 might not be an entirely satisfactory definition of sexism. Let's consider things like scrunchies, bras, or panties for women. We typically provide all those things for women but not for men. Why? Because men typically don't want those things. Or, returning to the candy example, say that all that we have as candy for the children are Heath bars. What if the girl simply doesn't want a Heath bar and refuses us giving it to her? Under DS2, a person not giving the bar to the girl anyways might be considered sexist. Thus we can define sexism as "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted." We can call thus "DS3." | + | But let's consider this deeper and go back to our candy example. Say that the two children come to the door and the person simply doesn't have enough candy to give to both of them. They have one piece for one child and no more for the other. They don't have time to go to the store and get more because their wife suddenly went into labor and they need to get her to the hospital. Would we say that the person has done something sexist to the little girl? Of course not. And it's patent nonsense to even try to argue otherwise. Of course, it ''does'' '''suck''' for the little girl; but we wouldn't hold that person morally accountable for not giving that child candy. They didn't have any other option. The author is sure that we wouldn't say that that person has done something unjust or sexist. Thus another way we could define sexism is "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible." We can all this "DS2." |
| + | |||
| + | But even DS2 might not be an entirely satisfactory definition of sexism. Let's consider things like scrunchies, bras, or panties for women. We typically provide all those things for women but not for men. Why? Because men typically don't want those nor even need those things. Or, returning to the candy example, say that all that we have as candy for the children are Heath bars. What if the girl simply doesn't want a Heath bar and refuses us giving it to her? Under DS2, a person not giving the bar to the girl anyways might be considered sexist. Thus we can define sexism as "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted." We can call thus "DS3." | ||
DS3 has a deficiency even though minor. Sometimes things are ''needed'' to preserve our health or life. Say there are two people, one male and the other female, that are stranded in the desert in need of water to survive. They stumble upon me and I have water to give to them. I give water only to the male and not female. Clearly something we would consider an example of sexism. Thus DS4 can be "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted or needed." | DS3 has a deficiency even though minor. Sometimes things are ''needed'' to preserve our health or life. Say there are two people, one male and the other female, that are stranded in the desert in need of water to survive. They stumble upon me and I have water to give to them. I give water only to the male and not female. Clearly something we would consider an example of sexism. Thus DS4 can be "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted or needed." | ||
Revision as of 15:22, 17 April 2022
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Question: What is sexism?
| This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page. |
Introduction to Question
It has become increasingly common from feminist critics of the Church to assert that many things about its practice, belief, and history are sexist. In order to adequately respond to this criticism, it will be necessary to define sexism so that we can all be sharp moral thinkers about important issues. Having something called sexist is a serious accusation to face and Latter-day Saints should be prepared to respond intelligently but also sensitvely to those that have faced sexism and perceive it in the Church.
In the October 2017 General Conference of the Church, Elder M. Russell Ballard taught that "[w]e need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism. Let it be said that we truly believe the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are for every child of God."[1]
The Book of Mormon boldly declares that God "inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."[2]
Sexism is condemned by the Lord.
With that in mind, let's explore the definition of sexism philosophically. Doing so may help ameliorate some concerns that women and men have regarding the Church and the perceived sexism within it.
Those who believe that they have substantive philosophical or scriptural objections to the argument presented in this article are free to make them to FAIR editors at this link.
Response to Question
First we should talk about justice because sexism can be easily defined as injustice inflicted on the basis of sex. To know what is just or unjust, we should define it. We're going to consider a few different potential definitions of justice. It might be frustrating to worry this much about a definition of sexism, but we want to be dealing with the best definition of sexism to review the Church's standards and also to evaluate sexism in the future. We want to be sharp moral thinkers.
We often think about justice in terms of stuff or opportunities to get stuff. For instance, if two children, one a boy and the other a girl, come to a person's door on Halloween and that person can intend to give both children candy but deny giving candy to one of the children when they see that that child is a girl. This would be an example of injustice and sexism. Similarly, we can deny one of the genders the opportunity of playing sports and competing for awards. Thus we can discriminate with stuff or opportunities to get stuff. Following these examples, we can define sexism as "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or denying stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex." Let's call this definition "DS1" (definition of sexism #1). Important to note is the separation between the belief and the action based in that belief. I can believe that women are inherently of inferior moral worth but still give them stuff out of pity or benevolence. That is perhaps the correct definition of what is often called "benevolent sexism."
Following DS1, it will be soundly argued that it's sexist for the Church to, for example, limit women from going topless but allowing men to when they go to the beach or swim. Indeed, many argue that it's unjust for society to expect this and protest by going topless.
But let's consider this deeper and go back to our candy example. Say that the two children come to the door and the person simply doesn't have enough candy to give to both of them. They have one piece for one child and no more for the other. They don't have time to go to the store and get more because their wife suddenly went into labor and they need to get her to the hospital. Would we say that the person has done something sexist to the little girl? Of course not. And it's patent nonsense to even try to argue otherwise. Of course, it does suck for the little girl; but we wouldn't hold that person morally accountable for not giving that child candy. They didn't have any other option. The author is sure that we wouldn't say that that person has done something unjust or sexist. Thus another way we could define sexism is "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible." We can all this "DS2."
But even DS2 might not be an entirely satisfactory definition of sexism. Let's consider things like scrunchies, bras, or panties for women. We typically provide all those things for women but not for men. Why? Because men typically don't want those nor even need those things. Or, returning to the candy example, say that all that we have as candy for the children are Heath bars. What if the girl simply doesn't want a Heath bar and refuses us giving it to her? Under DS2, a person not giving the bar to the girl anyways might be considered sexist. Thus we can define sexism as "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted." We can call thus "DS3."
DS3 has a deficiency even though minor. Sometimes things are needed to preserve our health or life. Say there are two people, one male and the other female, that are stranded in the desert in need of water to survive. They stumble upon me and I have water to give to them. I give water only to the male and not female. Clearly something we would consider an example of sexism. Thus DS4 can be "belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted or needed."
There's one final deficiency to account for in order to have a satisfactory working definition of sexism. Philosophers often make a distinction between what we call need-based justice and merit-based justice. Need-based justice is giving everyone equal stuff as it is needed. Merit-based justice is giving everyone equal stuff when it is earned. Our thoughts about justice don't need to be mutually exclusive. For instance, we all agree that, in competitive sports, there is a winner and loser. The winner gets trophies and medals and the loser doesn't. Denying someone an award or medal when they haven't earned it can't be unjust. Thus, DS5: Belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted, needed, or, when appropriate, merited.
To review:
- DS1: Belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or denying stuff to people on the basis of sex.
- DS2: Belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or denying stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible.
- DS3: Belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or denying stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted.
- DS4: Belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted or needed.
- DS5: Belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders and/or not giving stuff or opportunities to get stuff on the basis of sex when giving that stuff or those opportunities is possible and when that stuff or those opportunities for stuff is wanted, needed, or, when appropriate, merited.
Notes
- ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "The Trek Continues!" Ensign 47, no. 11 (November 2017): 106.
- ↑ 2 Nephi 26:33