Defining sexism is difficult because whether feminists view sexism in terms of women\u2019s oppression or male privilege they face serious difficulties, such that neither definition is preferable to the other. Each of these methods neglects important issues and combining the two definitions leaves further issues unaddressed. This paper will outline the difficulties associated with defining sexism in terms of women\u2019s oppression, the difficulties with defining sexism in terms of male privilege, and explores issues that must be considered when creating a constructive definition of sexism.<\/p>\n
Defining sexism in terms of female oppression victimizes women. Regardless of the reality of the barriers women face, Marilyn Frye\u2019s analogy of the birdcage labels women victims of systemic pressures (Frye 4). Rather than seeking solutions and trying to improve women\u2019s position, society, primarily men, is blamed for the way women are treated. Women view themselves and are viewed by society as helpless. Their potential to create change is not recognized nor is their agency encouraged. Sexism becomes women\u2019s problem and there is no motivation for members of society at large to make changes in their attitudes or behaviour.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Defining sexism in terms of male privilege is also inadequate. Men are targeted as \u2018the enemy\u2019. As hooks says, previously \u201clabeling men \u2018the enemy\u2019 or \u2018male chauvinist pigs\u2019 was perhaps an effective way for women to begin making the critical separation that would enable rebellion to begin\u201d but now hooks acknowledges the importance of including men if any sort of lasting transformation of society is to occur (hooks 127). hooks considers the importance of open communication between men and women (hooks 130). Labeling impedes communication development. In order to progress to a post-sexist society it is important to move beyond an \u2018us\u2019 and \u2018them\u2019 mentality.<\/p>\n
If sexism is defined in terms of male privilege, any improvements are credited to patriarchal ideals. Any improvements are linked to changes in men\u2019s behaviour, and not as resulting from women\u2019s agency. Men\u2019s own status is raised by anti-sexist gestures and activities, whereas women\u2019s agency to end women\u2019s oppression raises women\u2019s status. Implicit in these definitions of sexism is that only a finite amount of power is available and any increase in women\u2019s power results in a decrease in men\u2019s power. Competition develops regarding who is or was responsible for change rather than a communal sense that change benefits everyone. Any acts of change rooted solely in patriarchal culture would likely be superficial, for example in employment or mentoring opportunities rather than alleviating the systemic oppression that Frye describes (Frye 3). Fully eliminating sexism from society requires more than hiring more women in non-traditional jobs or teaching women how to act like male managers. Sexism is experienced from birth and its elimination rests on removing gender labels, not emphasizing them. Frye discusses the relationship between socialization and sexism, suggesting that social pressures mold us, but that we are malleable and changeable (Frye 37). Oppression or privilege based on sex is therefore something that is changeable.<\/p>\n
Defining sexism in terms of women\u2019s oppression or men\u2019s privilege implies blame for the situation and ownership of the problem. If sexism is based on women\u2019s oppression then women\u2019s oppression is something that women have allowed to occur. Men cause women\u2019s oppression so therefore men must change. If sexism is defined based on men\u2019s privilege then men are the root of the inequality because men experience male privilege. Therefore, again men must change. Root responsibility and blame are imbalanced when calculating which group is responsible for change. Neither focus requires women to be responsible for their situation. Defining sexism in either of these terms requires either that men cease their oppression, forfeit their privilege, or both. It is important to consider the connection between theory and practice and reflect on whether it is preferable to assign blame or to take action towards ending sexism. Accusations of blame raise defenses, which can lead to aggression, which can result in events like those of the Montr\u00e9al Massacre where14 women were killed because of their sex. In order to create lasting change cooperation, not alienation, is required. Cooperation does not result from labeling, or continual complaining.<\/p>\n
Listing, analyzing and categorizing women\u2019s problems or disadvantages becomes paramount when there is a focus on women\u2019s oppression or men\u2019s privilege. Instead of creating bonds between like-minded dynamos who want to educate and transform society, pity-gathering becomes the focus. Change is scary. Women who identity themselves as victims are fearful of change because change requires constructing a new identity and this is difficult. It is safer and easier to maintain victim status than to change. Frye calls this a double bind situation, where a woman has no real choices (Frye 3). In this case, women can stay victims and continue being oppressed which is familiar or they can choose to act in uncharacteristic ways, asserting themselves for change, which can be scary especially when they are not guaranteed success (Frye 3). <\/p>\n