Why Sexism Is Wrong From A Logical Standpoint

(For extra material on the subject, click here)

(For another type of prejudice I find irrelevant on Philosocom, click here)

(Background music)

*************************

Sexist Thoughts Can Hide in Plain Sight

Sexist thought is prejudice against people based on their sex, and assumes it to be true. It does not have to be against women exclusively, and it can even be used in a "positive" context as well.

For example, the "gentleman" archetype is often seen as a positive thing. A gentleman is someone who opens doors for women, lays his coat in the mud so that a woman doesn't dirty her shoes, and always pays the full price in a restaurant. He is seen as noble and courteous because of the assumption that this is how a proper man should behave.

However, this is also sexist. According to sexist philosophies, men and women have different, objective roles in society that define them. Do you see the contradiction? Society defines them, and yet these roles are objective, AKA, independent of relativity.

The more a person fits into this stereotyped role, based on their sex, the more they might be seen as manly or feminine. It really is that simple.

I purposefully started with this point in the article to show you my desire to be unbiased. It is obvious to me that sexism has a negative side as well. How can it not be obvious to me when women have been the victims of such prejudice for thousands of years? I do not have an agenda in this to promote a viewpoint of mine. My point is to clarify reality, as a philosopher should.

Why I See Individuals, Not Genders or Races

In truth, when I speak to people, online or offline, their gender does not matter to me. It does not matter to me because men and women are more than their sexes. They are, first and foremost, individuals with thoughts and personalities of their own. Women aren't more irrational than men, just because they are women, and I don't think men are much more into sports because they are men.

How come? I have spoken with women who are as rational as anyone else is, and I am aware that anyone can be into sports. You may say that men are naturally stronger than women, yes? But I'm not sure if you are aware of the fact that anyone who is physically capable can become a bodybuilder.

I am not a feminist because I disagree with the very term that is used. To desire gender equality is to not take gender that close to heart. Why? Simple. Making irrelevant distinctions based on gender is sexist, whether it's done negatively or positively. It's just like the example I presented at the beginning of this missive.

For a true world devoid of sexism to exist, we need to act in accordance to the world we want to exist. Through our behavior we can lead by example and inspire others to follow our behavior. We need to be role models for the world we want to see in the future.

The same logic applies to race. I don't care that I'm white, and your race or nationality does not really matter to me when it comes to individuals. Yes, I may speak of specific countries and regions of the planet, but that does not mean I accept the notion that we are entirely a product of these backgrounds. We are more, for we are, at the root of it all, different individuals either way.

I know my analytics. I write to people across the globe. Your gender, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to me. I'm a philosopher; I am occupied with reason. I am not a technical expert on men or women. I strive to look at things mainly from a logical perspective, and one can be a philosopher whether they are male or female.

A woman even wrote to me an excellent piece once. Assuming that women cannot be good philosophers like men, just because philosophy has historically been male-dominated, sins in "The Way Things Are" fallacy.

A good philosopher would not gatekeep others from knowledge so unjustly. He or she would share their findings and would not really mind the fallacies that lie, by default, within human thinking.

I have no desire to gatekeep my thoughts on unfair discriminations people can't do anything about. I personally am not fond of psychopaths, for example, but it's just a personal preference. I do not think all psychopaths are cartoonishly evil, because I do not want to resort to generalizations. As such I won't gatekeep my content from psychopaths because logic and personal taste are distinct. A good philosopher must be able to disagree with themselves.

Do you know where generalizations exist? In sexist philosophies. It is, in fact, a variant of a fallacy called the Hasty Generalization fallacy. If I'm correct, a hasty generalization is a product of induction. Of concluding on the general, based on individual examples... Even if said examples number in the hundreds or thousands. Please keep in mind that we are, globally, billions.

When you see countless women who are weaker than you physically, and you're a man, perhaps you will jump to the conclusion that women are always weaker. If you've seen people of average height thus far, then you might deny the fact that there are extremely tall people -- even women -- just like there are and were men whose height is less than a meter.

Sexism is wrong, logically, for the same reason any generalization is wrong, dear readers: There are exceptions to the rule which traditionally define what is being generalized. Even in theory. Do you believe that the desire to procreate is embedded in all human beings? There are genuine asexuals out there, and there are genuine people who do not want to have families for whatever reason. You're reading the words of such an example right over here.

Why Sexism Doesn't Make Sense

Now, perhaps there are functions that are certainly exclusive to distinct sexes. You might say that women cannot grow facial hair, but there are who can. A rare condition, possibly hormonal imbalance. Perhaps males cannot get pregnant, but male seahorses certainly can.

We do not have knowledge about every human that has ever lived. Why? Because events can be lost in history. It's one of the reasons we can never know everything for certain. In other words, perhaps there were male humans that had the capacity to get pregnant, but we never got to know them!

Our knowledge of the past is never absolute, and maybe it never will be. However, with enough dedication to content preservation, we sure can avoid any disappearances of information and knowledge.

(We don't have full knowledge of the future, either. It could mean that we are not fully aware of the human biological potential).

And it does not contradict the fact that some women might never be able to have children anyway. Does it mean they are male? Does it mean they are necessarily masculine? Of course not...

It is not necessarily the role of men to provide for their families when women can work and earn even more. Gender does not have to play a role in this. It is not universally the role of women to tend to their families when men can be househusbands as well, and be good at it, themselves. In certain hunter gatherer societies, women might've used to be hunters as well.

Who said skirts are exclusively feminine? Roman soldiers are associated with masculinity and they wore skirts. Are business suits exclusively masculine? Not all business suits were made with men in mind.

Since reality is dynamic, our beliefs should also be dynamic if we are interested in a better understanding of reality; one that isn't attached to our potentially-incorrect philosophies. I think that is the best reasoning I can give against sexism and against generalizations in general.