Difference between revisions of "Question: What is sexism?"

Revision as of 17:16, 11 May 2022

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Question: What is sexism?

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]

See also: Question: Are the scriptures misogynistic/sexist?

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.

DS1

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.

DS2

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."

DS3

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."

DS4

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."

DS5

Another 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.

DS6

The last thing that we need to add to our definition its something about misogyny and misandry in connection to sexism. Misogyny is defined simply as the hatred of women generally. Misandry is defined as the hatred of men generally. If you have a hatred of all men or women, you are a misogynist or misandrist. If you have a hatred of a particular person because they are a man or woman, your are a misandrist or misogynist. If you have misogyny or misandry in your heart as an attitude towards women or men, you will, by definition, also believe yourself as superior to women or men which is sexism. You will also likely (but not necessarily) deny them opportunities on the basis of their gender. You will be slightly more likely to commit acts of violence against them or verbally hurt them. There are times when people can have misogyny or misandry in their heart that we can empathize with even though that misogyny or misandry is still wrong. For example, some man may have some misogyny in his heart because he has been hurt too many times by women who he has dated. He can exclaim loudly his disdain or hatred of women. His hatred will come with a reason that he's conjured in his mind. "I hate women!" "Why do you hate women?" "They're liars and cheaters!" We have a categorical statement from the man. All women are liars and cheaters.

Now, the vast majority of people who are in this type of situation quickly recognize that they've made a passionate and obviously wrong claim as they talk through their frustrations with someone. However, it still remains a fact that this man made a claim about women that comments on their moral worth as human beings and gives a reason for that perceived lesser worth. Misandry or misogyny is necessarily sexism. These people's hatred of women or men and the necessarily sexist beliefs they'll adopt because of that hatred are of course still wrong, but we can empathize with that misogyny/misandry and sexism to an appropriate degree and seek, with love and by the Spirit, to heal their hearts of the pain they've felt that is causing the very generalized, disdainful attitude of and belief about men or women. Thus we get DS6: Belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders, misandry or misogyny, 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.

The Connections Between the Belief, the Attitude, and the Action

We have this separation now between a belief (of an increase or decrease in inherent moral worth), an attitude (misogyny or misandry), and a particular kind of action (denying stuff or opportunities for stuff) given certain circumstances. Here are the logical connections to keep in mind about them.

1. The attitude necessarily entails that someone holds the belief.
2. The attitude will likely carry someone to the action but not necessarily. They may refrain from the action but still carry the attitude.
3. The belief does not necessarily entail that someone has the attitude of misogyny nor will take the action given circumstances.
4. The particular action given circumstances necessarily entails that someone has the belief and suggests but does not necessarily entail that someone has the attitude.

Review

To review:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. DS6: Belief in the increase or decrease of inherent moral worth between the two genders, misandry or misogyny, 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.

Deriving Other Definitions from This Analysis

What's interesting is that one can substitute the word "races" for the words "two genders", "hatred of a particular race" for "misandry or misogyny", and "race" for "sex" and have a very coherent, very defensible definition of racism.

One can substitute "people of a homosexual sexual orientation" for "two genders", "hatred of a person or group of people on the basis of homosexual sexual orientation" for "misandry or misogyny", and "homosexual sexual orientation" for "sex" and have a very coherent, very defensible definition of homophobia.

One can do similar substitutions for every other kind of unjustified prejudice and come up with very coherent, very defensible definitions of those terms.

Conclusion

It's the authors belief that many of the concerns that men and women have about perceived sexism in the Church will be helped by recognizing that certain opportunities may be denied them because of higher moral goods that supersede either their wants, needs, or merits. FAIR will likely author future articles under this definition of sexism as it seems to make sense of many accusations of sexism against the Church. Hopefully, this argument will continue to hold philosophically and this definition of sexism will help us to become sharper moral thinkers and be more intelligent as well as sensitive defenders of the Church.

Notes

1. ↑ M. Russell Ballard, "The Trek Continues!" Ensign 47, no. 11 (November 2017): 106.
2. ↑ 2 Nephi 26:33