Summary of the 9 May Meeting
of the HKPC's Kowloon Branch
Topic: Is Sexism Inevitable?
Introduced by Steve Palmquist
Moderated by Austin Caffrey
After passing around a handout
(the section of Immanuel Kant's book, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of
View, entitled "On the Character
of the Sexes"), Steve began his introduction by saying he dislikes
"isms", because they tend to be used as labels to predetermine or
even override our empirical judgments. This makes him inclined to give a simple
"no" answer to the question at hand. If these negative implications
of the "ism" are put to one side, however, a more complex response is
needed. Steve then read a dictionary definition of "sexist" as "discriminating
in favor of members of one sex; assuming a person's abilities and social
functions are predetermined by his or her sex." Noting the double meaning
of the word "discriminate", he argued that this definition implies two
basic types of sexism: "type 1" sexism involves treating a person unfairly on the basis of their sex; "type 2" sexism involves
believing there are natural differences between males and females, but without regarding
one sex as necessarily better than the other. The first type is always wrong
and can be avoided; the second type can be right, if the differences assumed
are grounded in genuine natural differences and if exceptions are permitted. He
then pointed out various places in the handout (i.e., in Kant's Anthropology) where Kant makes obviously "sexist" comments.
Kant's basic point is that females have two natural differences from males:
they bear children and they more of a tendency to "enculture" through
the refining or moralizing effect they have on men. Steve concluded that this
makes Kant a type 2 sexist, not a type 1 sexist. He then summarized his own position
by concluding that sexism is wrong because of the "ism", not because
of the "sex", and that sexism is inevitable because of the
"sex" not because of the "ism".
Tom opened the question time
by asking whether Kant was married. Steve said "no", in response to
which Simon observed that his analysis of husband-wife relations was obviously
not based on experience. Steve countered that Kant was a keen observer of the
empirical world and could easily have gathered his data from observing interactions
between other married couples.
There followed a series of
questions attempting to pin down the exact nature of "type 1" sexism.
Steve gave two illustrating examples: a male nurse being rejected for a nursing
job because he wouldn't fit in with the existing all-woman staff, even though
he is well qualified in all other respects, or a female secretary being paid less
than her male colleague, even though she has the same or better qualifications
and experience, would both be cases of unfair treatment based on sex.
Jörn noted that the term
"discrimination" implies judgment and suggested that a better term
might be "distinction". The latter term does not imply that the
difference is bad: "viva la difference!" Steve agreed, noting that
this is precisely the point of distinguishing between type 1 and type 2 sexism.
Noting that
"unfairness" is the key factor distinguishing these two basic types
from each other, Pia asked whether some degree of unfairness is inevitable whenever such distinctions are made. Steve replied
that it depends on what you mean by "unfair". Austin asked why making
value judgments should be unavoidable, to which Jörn replied: because we
cannot avoid being subjective. But, Pia reminded us, philosophers such as
Heidegger have denied the necessity of subjectivity. Jörn claimed that to
deny this would be to deny our humanity, for we are born with selfishness as a
built in tendency. Simon took this even further, claiming that selfishness is
not only natural and necessary; it is a virtue. Pia argued against such claims and
concluded by asking Simon whether he admits to being a sexist. Simon replied that
sexism is an "anti-concept".
Austin observed that making
distinctions between different types of people, as in sexism, is actually quite
common, as in the tendency to favor one's own family over others. Maureen asked
how important it really is to make such distinctions. For example, why do we
feel so uncomfortable when we make a mistake in identifying a person's sex? Julian
observed that a baby's sex is often very difficult to distinguish. Parents tend
to dress them up in ways that the culture has learned to associate with being
"male" or "female", and these cultural cues are often the
only basis on which we can judge. One woman observed that when interacting with
people on the internet a person's sex often plays no role whatsoever. Steve
observed that in cases such as academic discussion lists this might be because in
everyone assumes you are male.
Rose asked whether such
assumptions are natural or cultural. Steve argued that making such distinctions
is a natural tendency, but turning them into an "ism" that causes
people to treat others unfairly is not inevitable. He noted a dubious comment
Kant makes in one place, to the effect that some women seem to carry books around
as if they were ornaments to enhance their attractiveness to men. Jörn said
that sort of sexism has changed. Men have learned through the suffragette
movement in ways that many women have not.
Rob asked whether there are
basic emotional differences between male and female that go beyond the purely
physical differences. Steve replied that the second of Kant's two basic
principles of sex differentiation seems to fall into this category: women are
the principal force behind the creation of culture, and they do this primarily
through the emotional impact they have on men. For example, this seems to be
the origin of the institution of monogamous marriage. Men agree to this because
of the emotional sway women have over them, even though it goes against their
basic instinct to spread their seed as widely as possible. Although this is not
exactly the way Kant portrayed the situation, Steve claimed that it follows
similar lines. Simon said he regards such an explanation as an "old wives'
tale". And Yvonne pointed out that sexism actually tends to be much worse
in woman-to-woman relations than in woman-to-man relations.
At this point Austin
suggested we break up into small groups and focus on the role power plays in
the whole issue of what constitutes sexism and whether or not it is inevitable.
After the groups back together, Austin asked for volunteers to share insights
that came up during their discussions.
Rob shared that his group
regarded male and female roles as highly organized and therefore as not rooted
in natural differences. Our basic natural qualities are all human, not male or female. They questioned whether sex
roles might be entirely the result of social conditioning, so that no such
differences actually exist in "nature". Rose commented that some
basic human qualities tend to be interpreted or evaluated in opposite ways,
depending on whether a male or a female displays them. A brief discussion followed
of whether or not this tendency is natural. Jörn, for example, claimed
that when selecting partners women tend to look for financial stability in men,
whereas men tend to look for character in women.
Kou Li warned that type 1
sexism can often be disguised as type 2 sexism: a person who claims to be merely
observing a difference may inadvertently treat, or lead others to treat,
members of one sex unfairly as a result. Jenni agreed, adding that Hong Kong is
a very sexist place.
Simon pointed out that we
have been focusing so much on the body so far that we have excluded considering
the role our minds play in all of this. Where does rational choice come into
the picture? A women who think they are being treated unfairly are always free
to quit their jobs and look others, or to defend themselves if they really
believe they have been discriminated against. Jenni responded that humans may
not be as rational as Simon's position portrays them as being. Several other ladies
also voiced disapproval of Simon's remarks.
Yvonne predicted that there
will be a closing of the gap between men and women as civilization develops.
But she warned that this could ironically lead to more discrimination, not less. Steve replied that he sees
this as one of the most profound points Kant is trying to make: that sex differences
are necessary and (if properly developed)
ultimately beneficial to human beings; they are built into our nature for the
good of the whole species, so we ignore them only at our own peril.
Julian suggested that the
purpose of acknowledging gender differences is to promote greater cooperation,
not to engage in a power struggle. Jenni (who had arrived during the small
group discussions) dismissed such arguments as merely subtle justifications for
sexism. Julian agreed that in some contexts, such as in Afghanistan, this is
true, but such extremes can be avoided. Steve, after drawing attention to the
distinction between two types of sexism, given in his introduction, agreed that
such arguments do justify sexism, but only type 2, not type 1. Jörn
emphasized that "difference" need not be regarded as a negative
concept; it can be a way of promoting complementary relationships and hence quite positive. Steve claimed
that Kant is defending the same kind of cooperation and increased
self-awareness between sexes, and seemed even to be suggesting that women have
a hidden power over men that often goes unnoticed. Jörn noted that in the
Bible even God is portrayed as having male and female natures, so that sex
differences could be regarded as part of the "image of God" in all human
beings.
Jenni said it all comes down
to choice: if a culture's conception of sex differences prevents her from
choosing whether or not she can go to a coffee shop, then it is wrong. Simon
agreed that all male-female relations should be based on respect for similar
values, not on power or dominance of one sex over the other. Steve observed at
this point that he was very pleased that the women had dominated this
discussion far more than usual.
Kou Li asked what the ideal
goal should be: should we each try to be half male and half female? Austin
replied that he did not think this was the direction Jung was heading. Steve
agreed, suggesting in conclusion that we should all aim to be
"whole-whole" (that is, all male and all female). He portrayed this as a potential antidote
to any type 1 sexism that might be perceived operating in some of Kant's writings;
whereas Kant says a man who displays female characteristics is
"imperfect", we ought to all for the possibility that such a person
is learning to integrate his "feminine side" into his overall
personality.
++++
Austin asked for suggestions
for June's topic. Among the suggestions were:
- Artificial
reproduction / patenting genes
- Is
human cloning moral?
- What
is the best life-span?
- Why
are there so many unmarried philosophers?
- Is
philosophy sexually satisfying?
- Is
genetically modified food acceptable?
- Social
engineering
- Falun
Gong: What is freedom of religion?
In discussing several of
these options, we eventually selected the last option, with the proviso that
the title be more general, focusing on something that highlights the interface
between religion and politics. Jörn agreed to introduce the topic and will
consult with Steve on the exact wording.
This page was placed on this web site on 3 June 2001.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.