Stop Sexist Remarks

Entrepreneur Derek Sivers gave an entertaining 3-minute talk at the Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) conference in April about how to start a movement. It’s a great little illustration of how one person can change what’s acceptable. But as he says, when starting something, the first few followers are just as important as the leader. In particular, the very first follower is key to building critical mass. 

I was talking to someone this week about this blog. She mentioned that when she first heard Anita Hill speak at Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearing back in 1991, she’d started crying. She’d thought she was alone all those years and that when men cat-called to her on the street or made lewd come-ons in other settings, that was just the way the world worked and she had to learn to live with it. Anita Hill showed her she wasn’t alone and didn’t have to stand for degrading treatment. 

How many girls and women around the world have been told, overtly or implicitly, that sexism is just part of the way the world works? In their workplaces, their classrooms, their social settings, they see that men can demean women and face few if any consequences. 

Then one day, one person says “stop.” And if they find supporters, things can change, sometimes fast. But it takes the courage to both lead and follow. As Sivers says, “When you find a lone ‘nut’ doing something great, have the courage to stand up and join in.” 

Steve

Nine out of ten women have experienced some form of sexual discrimination in the workplace, says a new study from the University of Michigan. The study surveyed women in two predominantly male professions: the U.S. military and federal legal practice. The results of the study appear in the Springer’s Journal of Law and Human Behavior. (Kudos to the study team—Dr. Lilia Cortina, Emily Leskinen, and Dana Kabat—and the university for focusing on how sexism and sexist remarks affect women.) 

Just imagine—90 percent of the women surveyed had experienced at least what the study team called “low-level sexist behavior,” which included offensive remarks about being female or the woman’s appearance, body, or sexual activities (but did not involve the direct sexual advances experienced by ten percent of survey respondents). The researchers found that even these “low-level” forms of gender harassment negatively affect women in the workplace—both their job performance, and therefore opportunities, and their physical and emotional health. 

The findings are not surprising to anyone who has worked in a situation in which their male colleagues’ inappropriate remarks went unchecked by the company. Having worked for an organization in which a senior supervisor frequently suggested—in front of the company’s female (feminist) owners—that we put on kneepads and get to work raising capital (a veiled reference to getting down on our knees, etc.), I can attest to the fact that gender harassment takes place even in situations in which you might not expect it. 

What so many companies apparently fail to consider is that ending gender discrimination—in all forms—is in their own best interests. Women who work in a hostile environment simply cannot contribute to a company’s goals as effectively as they might otherwise. When gender harassment becomes either sexual harassment or “inappropriate work place behavior,” the associated costs become more obvious (consider the recent Hewlett Packard situation in which the CEO resigned after admitting to a personal relationship with a female contractor and the company’s stock plunged.) 

Clearly, ending sexist remarks/harassment in the work place is both morally right and fiscally sound. Watch this blog for a new “Take Action in the Workplace” later this fall. 

Cynthia

Yale psychology professor Marianne LaFrance is studying the effects of “subtle sexual harassment” on women in the workplace—situations in which men create a hostile work environment through insid­i­ous forms of sexism. These include graf­fiti, pic­tures, sounds, ges­tures, casual remarks, and jokes that take place at what she calls a “low level.” 

These forms of sexism, she says, rarely meet with cor­po­rate action or legal redress. As a result, the vic­tims of such harass­ment usually are left one option—figure out a coping strategy. They ignore the offen­sive behav­ior, physically mov­e away, avoid circumstances in which they’ll likely encounter it, or try to defuse the situation by “becom­ing one of the boys”—plac­ing them­selves in the role of aggres­sor rather than of vic­tim—and prov­ing they can take the joke. 

LaFrance also points to data indicating the cost of being the target of such behavior: a higher likelihood of depres­sion, irri­tabil­ity, anx­i­ety, and con­fu­sion, and lower levels of achievement, self-esteem, gen­eral life sat­is­fac­tion, and basic opti­mism about per­sonal relationships. (So much for the abominable idea that sexist remarks are a form of “free speech,” which we addressed here and here.) 

As a result, the study indicates that  we should not try to convince ourselves that subtle sexism doesn’t matter. Whether we choose to respond in the moment, go away and figure out a response at a later time, or decide that under the circumstances the costs of responding are too great, acknowledging the importance of subtle sexism is the first step toward doing something about it. 

Perhaps most important, it’s helpful to remind ourselves of this truth: sexist remarks are the problem; our reaction to them is not. Doctors used to tell patients who complained of low energy and a general feeling of malaise that the problem was “all in their head” or that they were hypochondriacs—until researchers discovered chronic fatigue syndrome. Sexist remarks are a symptom of a serious malady—an attempt to hold back equal opportunity for girls and women. When we choose, we can respond to those who discount our reactions to sexist remarks the way that patients finally did to these doctors regarding their ailments—insisting, quietly but firmly, that they are real, serious, and worthy of attention. 

Steve

A friend recently wrote bemoaning the lack of thoughtful consideration of most issues these days. His comment struck a chord with me because I increasingly find the fast-paced, argumentative nature of our culture—perhaps most exemplified by Internet tweeting, blogging, etc.—more taxing than helpful. 

It appears that we have reached a new high (or is it low?) in knee-jerk reactions to complex situations (e.g., the recent Department of Agriculture fiasco) and the smug critiquing of everyone else’s looks, actions, and ideas (e.g., reality television and the comments posted on so many blogs). 

All the chatter feels like over-stimulation without a cause. I often sense that we are sharing our perspectives, but not really listening to each other—thereby reducing our chances for resolving serious problems. 

Suffice it to say that my friend’s e-mail got me thinking about the role of this blog and how we can focus on positive solutions to the problems of sexist remarks. One option is to create support for the individuals and organizations who have independently decided to avoid sexist comments in their lives and work. Let’s face it—boycotts work, but so does supporting people and places that support you back. 

So here goes. I have written in the past about comedians my husband and I have seen while traveling—you know, the ones who are still telling mother-in-law jokes or bemoaning their wives’ shoe collections (and those are the less degrading aspects of gender-based humor). There are, however, plenty of comedians out there who find humor in situations—and not at the expense of women. Jake Johannsen is one of them. 

My husband and I try to see Jake whenever he is in town. He is hysterically funny, and his humor covers the waterfront, from the personal to the political. More important, he is funny without taking shots at anyone’s race, gender, etc. After he married a few years back, he integrated into his act new material about married life and the differences between men and women—but he did so without trashing his wife or regurgitating misogynist stereotypes. In fact, many of his stories are self-deprecating and seem to come from a place of awareness and respect for what women bring to the world (and to men). All of that and he is still funny—imagine that?!! 

So the next time he is in your town, check out Jake Johannsen. He is proof that you can be funny while maintaining respectful boundaries. 

I am willing to bet that he can make you laugh . . . and not at anyone’s expense. 

Cynthia

This week while attending a conference, I was reminded of another reason why sexist remarks matter. A speaker reminded us of several studies that have documented the unequal treatment that judges and prosecutors mete out to girls who commit status offenses (acts that are not offenses when committed by an adult, like running away from home, truancy from school, or curfew violations). That is, girls who commit status offenses are treated more harshly than boys who commit the same offenses.

One study found that girls are twice as likely as boys to be detained for these offenses, with detention lasting five times longer than for boys. And the more time these girls spend in juvenile detention for status offenses, the greater the likelihood that they’ll get involved in real crime later. The speaker noted that criminologists who study the issue have concluded that judges and police treat girls more harshly because they consider status offenses like running away as more normal for boys and deviant for girls, and therefore more deserving of punishment.

In other words, the roots of our unequal treatment of girls are gender-based expectations that are shaped by how we talk about girls and boys. Here then is another reason to pay attention—and counter—the seemingly innocent comments we hear that reflect assumptions about both young people and adults (we previously addressed some of these here). Words matter—words shape people’s attitudes, and those in turn affect the real decisions made by people who have in their hands the power to alter girls’ lives for good or ill.

Steve

Recently, the Swiss government decided not to extradite Roman Polanski to the United States. For those of you who live under a rock and therefore have managed to escape the continuing saga of Mr. Polanski, here it is in a nutshell.

In 1977, Polanski was accused of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in Los Angeles. He was charged with rape, pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, and fled the country when he learned that the judge on the case might not honor the original plea bargain. Quite frankly, running away is an understandable, if not honorable, action—most people facing jail time probably would do the same if they had money and opportunity. Fear and the loss of freedom are powerful motivators.

Fast forward to September 2009. Polanski was arrested by Swiss police while trying to enter Switzerland to pick up a lifetime achievement award from the Zurich Film Festival. He was placed under house arrest in his Swiss chateau until that government’s recent decision not to extradite him.

To understand more about the Polanski case, I watched the documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” and admittedly felt some sympathy for the man regarding how his case was handled. But that is about all the concern I can conjure for him.

Even if we assume that Polanski was misguided or caught up in a Hollywood subculture of privilege, sex, and violence (and those are rather big assumptions that in no way suggest that what he did was acceptable), we still need to take a measure of the man after he was confronted—by the law, by society, by the victim—with the terrible reality of what he had done.

Did he regret and publicly apologize for his actions (and for his subsequent remarks about having sex with young girls)? Did he choose to contribute his time and talent to helping others avoid the terrible mistake he made? Did he support services for young women who have been similarly victimized? In other words, did he seek to make amends (and not just monetarily, although I hope his victim received a considerable sum)?

Nope. Instead, as the Huffington Post said earlier this year, Polanski has “cultivated the image of a sympathetic victim who has been unfairly exiled from the U.S.”

I have watched this story unfold from the perspective of how we talk about women—particularly those who have been abused by men in some form or another. While I do not profess to understand the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office’s focus on the Polanski case so many years after the alleged crime, I am even more perplexed by the Hollywood elite who recently rose to his defense. Are we to believe, as the petition signed by numerous famous directors might suggest, that talent negates the need to obey the laws, to treat women with respect, or to protect children?

While I have no interest in Polanski’s arrest or detention—I doubt that the costs of his trial or confinement would serve us well at this juncture—I do want to stop the sexual abuse of young girls. It seems to me that Polanski, if he is sorry for actions (which he certainly must be now that he has a daughter of his own), has the talent, resources, and connections to make a substantial contribution to that cause.

And therein lies the potential for a positive outcome from this sad story—to explore how we might better use the laws at our disposal to prevent future crimes of a similar nature. Couldn’t we have sentenced Roman Polanski—apparently one of the most acclaimed directors of his generation—to make restitution to the victim and to support efforts to end sexual violence against women?

Los Angeles—here is an idea that you might consider in wrapping up this case. Offer Polanski a plea agreement in which he stipulates to the crime and agrees to do the following under the supervision of key national woman’s organizations:

Talk openly about the circumstances that lead men to victimize young girls—and seek to promote a new culture in which that no longer occurs.

Produce a series of educational films:

For young girls, emphasizing their value, teaching them how to avoid adult males who do not have their best interests at heart, and telling them where to go for help should they need it

For young men, emphasizing that non-consensual sex is wrong in all situations (and for adult males, sex with underage girls is always non-consensual), promoting a culture of equality, and teaching them to be respectful of women

 If Polanski is genuinely sorry for what he did in LA close to 30 years ago, let him use his talents to ensure that it no longer happens in 2010.

Cynthia

A few weeks ago, over at the British blog “Mumsnet: For Parents by Parents,” Tabouleh shared this story about what happened when she addressed a sexist joke made by a leader of her professional society during his speech to members. We encourage you read her account—it’s an example of the good things that can come from addressing a sexist remark. 

A few things stand out about the story. Tabouleh’s response to the remark at a followup meeting had three key elements: 

First, she said that she found the joke inappropriate for our current time and especially coming from someone in an official capacity. 

Second, she appealed to the better side of the leader by telling him that she knows that he supports women in her field. 

Third, she explained why sexist remarks matter (language shapes behavior). 

It turned out that others who heard the joke had also found it sexist and inappropriate but didn’t say anything (we wrote about this phenomenon here). In fact, after Tabouleh challenged the leader about the joke, he tried to undermine her with another sexist comment but was shouted down by his male colleagues. 

By challenging a sexist remark that took place in a public setting, Tabouleh raised the bar for men in that organization. Key members are now on notice that there is no support (at least not publicly) for sexist jokes and remarks—they do not fit within the organizational culture. I second the respondent to her post who wished she could give Tabouleh a medal for “extreme courage.” Tabouleh went for it (her words) and changed her corner of the world for the better as a result. 

One more thing—we were encouraged to hear that she was inspired to take action because of this blog. Thanks to those of you who participate by sending your comments and helping to make this a place to get support and ideas. 

Steve

Recently, a post-er described a challenging social situation in which a neighbor made several sexist remarks during a backyard barbecue—directed first at his wife and then at her. (See her post under the “General Comments” link). She asked for suggestions about how to deal with her sexist neighbor, and we hope that you will post your ideas. In the meantime, we share our thoughts below.

Cynthia: If I had a dollar for every time that I wished I had a snappy retort for a sexist heckler, I would be living on easy street. It is especially challenging in situations in which you are invested—for example, at work (your job), at home (in the nice neighborhood that you don’t want to leave), or with a favorite circle of friends (which can be ruined if a flagrant teaser goes unchecked). Moreover, unless it is your personal style, coming up with a witty remark isn’t easy under normal conditions, let alone stressful ones. Here are my top three suggestions for our post-er (and others) about dealing with a sexist neighbor (see also Steve’s thoughts below):

Be prepared: Since helping to launch this blog, I decided that I needed to be as prepared as possible to respond to as many of the sexist remarks that I encounter (i.e., setting an example, living up to my own blog’s mission, and all that). Just making that decision and taking the time to decide how I will handle such comments has taken the pressure off in really challenging situations. It also has made it possible for me to speak up more often than not and to know my own limits. So decide when, where, and how you choose to address sexist remarks—you will be more likely to speak up at times when your words might have a positive effect and less likely to feel bad when they don’t. Steve has come up with two lists of great one-liner responses to sexist comments. Check those out under Setting Boundaries in 15 Words or Less and Responding to Sexist Jokes.

Engage your husband: Talk with him about how he felt about your neighbor’s comments, explain how you felt, and ask for his support in the future. My husband is one of the least sexist men I know but when we first hooked up, he did not challenge the sometimes overtly sexist remarks made by the people around us. So, I asked him to be more aware of the kinds of comments that are designed to make women uncomfortable and to either speak up directly or to actively support me when I do. Because he cares about me, he was willing to pay more attention and over time has become more sensitive to, and therefore more willing to challenge, sexist remarks.

Husbands also are a great source of information about how to connect with other men. My husband has taught me a lot about when to keep it light, when to set firm boundaries, and when to walk away. Most important, I feel like I have a teammate in my quest to more effectively respond to sexist remarks.

When all else fails, simply tell people what you want: I wrote a post about this awhile back because many women have trouble simply asking for what they want (we are raised to think first about the needs of others). Here is a piece of what I wrote that applies to our post-er’s situation:

If you find yourself socializing with people who make inappropriate comments about women, for example, nicely tell them that you would prefer that they not share their sexist jokes when partying with you. If someone is calling you “honey” in a setting that makes you uncomfortable—quietly tell the person that you would prefer to be called by your name. 

Will some people react badly? Sure they will, but as I heard Oprah say recently, maybe it is time to start believing what people tell you about themselves. When friends and colleagues are unwilling to honor our clear and specific requests about how we prefer to be treated, their behavior is the problem, not ours. 

So make it easy on yourself in 2010. Rather than trying to come up with the perfect response to every possible type of sexist remark that you might encounter—simply ask the people making those comments to stop. 

Steve: Cynthia makes great points above. I’d just add that men have a special responsibility to speak up when, as in the case of the post-er’s husband above, the man making the comment tries to enlist their support. My experience has been that men who make these comments are looking for some kind of validation through gender identity. Odd as it is, they’re trying to use sexism to build a bond (the underlying message is, “we buddies have to stick together against these women who are [fill in the blank]”).

It often just takes one clear statement to stop those comments for good (stories here and here). In fact, I’ve sometimes spoken up because I want to nip that kind of conversation in the bud so it doesn’t show up again at an even more awkward time.

I also find it easiest just to be honest about why I don’t think the way the other guy does. In the case of our post-er’s husband, it could be enough just to say (if true): “I like to think of taking care of my kids as part of being a good father,” or “It doesn’t really work that way for us—taking care of our kids is something we both do” [or whatever best describes the arrangement].

But as Cynthia says, maybe taking a prevention approach is even more important than being able to think on our feet. To that end, men in a relationship can support the women in their lives by asking what they need in those circumstances (see more discussion of this here in our “Answering Tough Questions” section).  

Help us out readers. Share your thoughts and ideas for how you’ve handled sexist remarks in your neighborhoods.

Cynthia and Steve

Last week, we responded to a message from a post-er who told us that addressing sexist comments is an attempt to muzzle free speech. Of course, a critical element of legal decisions about the regulation of speech is whether a comment or statement  does real damage—for example,  freedom of speech does not include the right to incite insurrection or yell “fire” in a crowded theater. 

In fact, recent research indicates that sexist remarks change behavior and result in actual harm. For the benefit of those of you who encounter the “free speech” argument as an excuse for sexist remarks, here are brief summaries of three recent studies about the effects of sexist expression: 

A 2008 study that appeared in the journal Child Development found that at least three-quarters of the girls in the study ages 12 to 18 reported having been the target of sexist comments. Among the findings was that such comments make it more likely that girls will attribute failure to their lack of ability rather than to obstacles in their environment. 

A 2007 study by a researcher from Western Carolina University found that sexist jokes can lead to toleration of hostile feelings and discrimination against women. The study showed that sexist humor allows men to feel comfortable with behavioral expressions of sexism and to not fear disapproval from their peers. 

A 2007 study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that sexist comments are more likely to be directed toward women who are perceived to break traditional gender roles. The study indicated that men, especially in male-dominated professions, appeared to use harassment and sexist comments to protect their disproportionate access to power.  

Those who claim that the First Amendment gives them the right to say what they like need to consider that claim in light of these studies—and the women they know (daughters, mothers, nieces, and so forth). It’s clear that if we value free speech, we’ll also take seriously the responsibility that accompanies it. 

Steve

We recently received a comment from a guy who called us “idiots” and suggested that freedom of speech and political correctness cannot co-exist. We beg to differ with his theory, and we also do not consider responding to sexist remarks to be an attempt to enforce political correctness. 

It is our understanding that the intent of our country’s founders regarding freedom of speech was to ensure that citizens were able to speak their minds about important matters (how the country is governed, for example) without fear of recrimination. To us, that is vastly different than having the freedom to spew hateful (and unfounded) sentiments about an entire segment of the population (be it about race, gender, or sexual orientation). 

We also do not believe, as our post-er suggested, that we want to say what we think but do not want others to have the same privilege. We simply believe that public discourse should be the exchange of ideas designed to create positive outcomes for all involved. The freedom-of-speech concept was never intended to provide people with an opportunity to be hateful or demeaning to others. 

One of our favorite quotes in response to the “anti-political correctness police” has already been posted on this site, but perhaps it bears repeating here. During a 2006 speech, Professor Jack Russell of the University of North Dakota explained why sexist and other hateful comments inhibit women students’ opportunity to get an education:

When you cultivate hateful acts, you interfere with [your colleagues’] ability to get an education as well as your own because you contribute to an environment of alienation and fragmentation. In the school context, the right to respect, the right not [to] be offended, trumps the right to free speech, because you are part of a voluntary association that promises an equal opportunity to education to all who join. And if you hide behind the veil of the “politically incorrect,” you are not only interfering with the rights of others, you are also doing it in a dishonest and cowardly way. You are being hateful and lacking the courage to admit it.

We suspect that many other cogent arguments have been made about freedom of speech and political correctness—ones that didn’t begin with words like “idiots” or end with phrases like “grow up.” And we generally have chosen not to give voice on this site to those who opt for the low road with regard to public dialogue. 

This time, however, we felt compelled to respond because our current poll is showing that overwhelmingly respondents are greeted with negative reactions or silence when they respond to sexist remarks. So far, no one has reported receiving a positive reaction. 

It is experiences with people like our recent post-er that make it difficult for women to respond to sexist comments. Such people have an angry tone, and if you challenge their sexist words, no matter how gracefully or intelligently, they will simply attack you—sometimes using issues that matter, like freedom of speech, to silence you. 

We will not be silenced. Nor will we tolerate sloppy arguments, filled with rage, that so often simply serve as cover for a person’s inability to present their ideas in a logical manner. Instead, we will look with disdain at those who use arguments about political correctness as a weapon or who present a point of view that seeks to harm rather than help our growth as a people and a nation. 

We will continue to speak up in the face of sexist comments. We hope that you will join us. 

Cynthia and Steve

Last week, California Senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina was caught on an open mic mocking one of her opponents, sitting Senator Barbara Boxer. Fiorina said, “[a friend] saw Barbara Boxer briefly on television today and said what everyone says, ‘God what is that hair?’” Fiorina then laughed and added, “Sooo yesterday.” 

When initially asked about her remark, Fiorina said, “My goodness, my hair’s been talked about by a million people, you know? It sort of goes with the territory.” Really? I didn’t know that trashing women’s looks was a central part of the electoral process. 

To her credit, during an appearance on a Sunday talk show, Ms. Fiorina said, “I regret this whole situation. I gave people the opportunity to talk about something petty and superficial. This is a very serious election year about serious issues.” 

What I wish she had done next (as I so often want our “leaders” to do) was to use her mistake as a teaching moment. She could have stressed how easy it is to slip into old habits of thinking or speaking. She could have talked about the importance of language and how sexist comments (whether made by men or women) create negative and limiting images of—and therefore beliefs about—women. She could have been a role model, showing young women how important it is for us to support one another—and certainly not to do each other harm. 

Carly, if you are listening (and if you are running for elected office, you should be), please use this election cycle for more than your own personal gain. You have the chance to campaign in a way that promotes greater respect for women leaders. Accomplishing that would be the real victory. 

Cynthia

This week I came across this commentary in a college newspaper by a male writer asserting that sexist jokes are sometimes acceptable. The writer makes clear that he opposes discrimination. He goes on to say that sexist jokes aren’t offensive because we all agree, for example, that the idea of determining the right to vote based on gender is absurd. And, he says, “as humans, we laugh at the absurd.”

Implicit in his argument is the idea that the post-modern liberal audience that predominates on some college campuses shares a set of assumptions about equality. But if that’s so, why are post-modern racist jokes not funny or acceptable to this group? Maybe because most educated liberals agree that racism is still alive and well in America.

And here is the key, I think. Many educated, liberal men appear to believe that our country has moved beyond sexism. Maybe that’s why men are more likely to tell people who confront sexist remarks to “lighten up.” Most women—post-modern or not—know better.

Steve

That was the headline of the “Ombudsman” column on May 23^rd. The article discussed reader reaction to sexist language in the newspaper, examples of which included:

• A review of a television interview with former President Bill Clinton in which The Post’s television critic said about the female journalist co-conducting the interview: “She looked as though she would have been much more comfortable in Clinton’s lap.” The critic later said that he was simply “talking about cozying up, nothing more sinister than that.” Hmm, wonder how often he uses that expression to signify cozying up when the interview involves two men?
• A review of an interview with Rielle Hunter (the mother of former Presidential candidate John Edward’s child) in which she was described as speaking “blondely.” To take a page from Saturday Night Live—“Blondely—Really? Really?!!”
• A description of former Vice Presidential candidate Sara Palin “sashaying” into a room. Let’s just imagine Vice President Joe Biden’s reaction to a reporter describing his entry into a room in that manner.

Ironically, Andrew Alexander’s Ombudsman column appeared the same day that The Post chose to run the following headline over an article by Robin Givhan, who writes about fashion:

“Elena Kagan’s artful plumage: D.C. frump”

I don’t know about you, but frankly I do not care how Elena Kagan dresses. My hope is that she has a brilliant legal mind, a compassionate heart, and the experience to know when and how to apply both during the challenging (and important) cases that come before the Supreme Court, should she be confirmed. And while I don’t like that we are focusing on her clothing, if we must do so, is it necessary to be so mean about it? I doubt that is how we would describe a man in similar circumstances.

All in all, it was an interesting juxtaposition of good intent (keeping his Ombudsman eye on The Post’s use of language to describe women) and bad headlines (well, in my mind, a bad storyline). What was even more interesting, however, were the statistics cited in Alexander’s column, which came from the report on The Post’s own newsroom study issued in 2008:

 “. . . a content analysis of roughly 1,200 Post stories found that women were the focus of only 18 percent of them, although they comprised more than half the area’s population.”

“. . . men are quoted almost three times as often as women in the paper.”

The study recommended that The Post should “produce journalism that creates an expectation among female readers that the paper is being published with them in mind.” It does not appear that the editors of The Post learned much from that study.

Fast forward to 2010, when Alexander tapped Deborah Tannen, a Professor of Linguistics at Georgetown University and best-selling author (You Just Don’t Understand, among others) for advice about how journalists can become more sensitive to gender-based language and images. Tannen suggested, “After you’ve written something, stop and ask yourself: Would I have put it this way for a man? If not, is it going to be damaging?”

Robin Lakoff, a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, echoed Tannen’s sentiment, offering The Post (and all those involved in journalistic endeavors) some good advice. “It’s the duty of important papers like The Post to set an example…to be a force for change,” she said. “Every choice you make in the area of gender, as in the areas of race and class, makes a difference.”

Cynthia

We received a comment last week that I’m posting here with some additional thoughts. That’s because it’s a response that you may well have heard when you’ve tried to address a sexist remark or taken action to end these comments at home, school, or work: 

Sexist remarks can also be made by women towards men. In fact, it’s my belief that women are more likely to get away with being sexist, because it’s more carefully played, not as obviously detected, nor do men feel the need to call it out as much. If you look up sexist in any dictionary, it does not exclude women from being sexist nor should it. 

I agree that it’s possible for women to make sexist remarks about men, though the impact of those remarks is far different from those targeting women (more below about this). We’ve said elsewhere that accepting and communicating stereotypes about men (even teasing jibes such as those that assume men don’t like to clean or talk about feelings) perpetuates sexism. And if the reader who sent us this note is a man who has felt he’s been the target of sexist comments by women, we hope he can use this site as a place to share ideas for ending sexist remarks, whatever their genesis. 

In my experience, comments that belittle men’s abilities and character based on their gender are quite rare. (In fact, the only studies that I could locate about sexist comments directed at men focused on comments made by straight men about gay men.) Most important, sexist comments about men that are designed to call into question their competence for positions of authority are rarer still. 

Take the 2008 Presidential campaign—a contest for perhaps the most powerful position in the world. There were 15 candidates across the two parties: 14 men and 1 woman. If sexist comments really did work both ways, you’d expect the record to show 14 times as many sexist comments directed at male versus female candidates. Of course that’s not what happened. I invite our readers to submit evidence of a single sexist comment, joke, or product directed at the male candidates and will happily stand corrected if one is identified. By contrast, Hillary Clinton was subjected to at least 25 sexist slurs, according to the National Organization for Women’s excellent catalog here. (NOW’s count is conservative since they included only comments by the major media—they didn’t document the numerous sexist products, comments, and signs that supporters of the other candidates directed at Clinton.) 

Why the imbalance? It’s blindingly obvious: sexist comments are used to frame women in a negative light so as to challenge the legitimacy of their holding positions of authority. 

If the day comes that we have a U.S. Senate made up of 83 women and 17 men, 44 consecutive female Presidents, 487 female CEOs running the nation’s 500 largest companies, and men earning 78 cents on the dollar compared with women, I will happily join efforts to address sexist comments directed at men. Because then those remarks will be doing real damage to men’s equal access to opportunity. Of course, the reality today is exactly the reverse.

I’d love to hear from readers about how you handle responses along the lines of “women can be sexist too,” especially when they are used to challenge your attempts to address a sexist remark.

Steve

When we started this blog almost two years ago, our goal was to promote a dialogue about how to respond to sexist remarks during everyday life. We agreed from the start that our primary role was to create a platform for exchanging ideas—we never presumed to have all (or the best) answers for dealing with sexist comments. We believed that if we posted our thoughts, others would chime in, sharing their experiences and perspectives. In other words, if we built it, they would come. 

And they have—people from around the world have spent time on the site, a number of people visit regularly, and some have left comments. Recently, a visitor to our site named Kate suggested that we needed to start an “Internet protest” against sexism/sexist remarks. We agree, and we created this site to be the very kind of place where the Kates (and Kevins) of the world could unite in protest against gender-biased messages that hold young girls and women back. 

So let’s get this party started!! Help us make this site a place where women and progressive men can figure out how to most effectively respond to sexist remarks during everyday conversations. Click on the comment button below to tell us what we can do to make this site more useful to you and others. Feel free to answer any or all of the following questions, or simply share your thoughts about how we can work together to end sexist comments.  

• What do you like about the site, and what do you think we should change? 
• What can we do to encourage a greater exchange of ideas among visitors to the site? 
• How have you used the information on the site to help end sexist remarks? 

We look forward to hearing from you!! 

Cynthia and Steve

Several weeks ago, we got a post from Mike, a bartender, about how he handles sexist jokes in his establishment. He’s got a unique challenge: he needs to keep the party atmosphere going to sell drinks but also wants to maintain an environment free of sexism. So he has a stock phrase that he uses when someone tells, or is about to tell, a sexist joke: “Hey, let’s keep it classy, ok?” And then he moves on.   

There may be situations in which we decide that the costs of a potentially uncomfortable interaction outweigh the benefits of addressing sexist “humor” directly. In those cases, an in-between solution like Mike’s may be an alternative to doing nothing. (As always, keep in mind that the person who tells the joke is responsible for the discomfort, not us for responding to it.)

I did some online research to see what responses people have developed to these situations. A number of the approaches discussed are inappropriate (such as making a joke that belittles the joke teller, which simply perpetuates the climate of personal attack). But others may convey our intended message while moving the conversation beyond the offensive joke. Here are a few possible introductions to use before redirecting the conversation to another topic:

• Ouch.
• Could we elevate the conversation?
• Yikes.
• Now that the sexist part of the conversation is over, can we move on?

You may or may not find these appropriate to the situations you encounter. Whatever response you choose needs to be consistent with your values, intended outcome, and comfort level.

Of course, sexist humor is no laughing matter. Several studies (such as this one) show the link between sexist humor and hostility and discrimination toward women. The quote (author unknown) that best captures the damaging effects of sexist jokes for me is this: “Discrimination is made up of tiny acts that position women as less than human. It is not about men with cigars meeting to decide ‘Hmmmm, we hate women, how can we keep them down today?’”

As always, we’re interested in your ideas. Tone is everything when our intention is to deliver a graceful quip—light enough not to interrupt the flow of conversation but serious enough to communicate that sexist jokes hurt girls and women. Let us know about approaches that have worked for you.

Steve

Recently, the feminist blog Strong Girls picked up my post Where Sexism Begins, which focused on the need for us to to examine the culturally defined, gender-based roles that we play in our most important relationships—with our partners and other family members. Strong Girls asked its readers whether they felt that their family’s opinions and gender roles affected their stand on gender, saying: “Yes, we all are victims to tradition, but this is a new day and age where men are beginning to be granted parental leave when their child is born and more than 50% of women are now working outside the home.”

I appreciate the blog’s authors promoting our site—even if we might have a slight difference of opinion about how far we’ve come (or the effect of family influence). In the post that they linked to, I wasn’t challenging the idea that women have made great strides, for example, that they are working outside the home in greater numbers than in times past. Rather, the post (I hope) emphasized the importance of what women (and men) do inside the home, keeping in mind that children tend to model what we do, not simply do what we say.

I wrote that post because while I value the gains that the feminist and progressive movements have achieved, I also know how much more remains to be done before true gender equality exists around the globe. The week that the post was picked up, in fact, a visitor to our site submitted a sexist joke about women (which we, of course, declined to post). Meanwhile, women running for elected office or being appointed to positions of power (think Kagan), female athletes, and others in the public eye continue to be battered by a seemingly never-ending array of sexist commentary. So much for how far we’ve come.

Which raises for me again the issue of maintaining a balanced perspective about social change. It seems to me that while it is critical to honor all that we have accomplished, we cannot lose sight of the mountains yet to be climbed.

Even the results of our most recent poll, which asked, “How often do you respond directly to sexist remarks?,” provide evidence of what we have achieved and the need for change that remains. Seventeen percent of the people who responded to the poll said that they addressed every sexist remark they encountered, and 35 percent said that they did so most of the time. On the other hand, 22 percent of respondents said that they did not respond to sexist comments very often, 17 percent said they did so occasionally, and 9 percent said they never respond to sexist remarks. While 52 percent of our readers responding to sexist comments at least most of the time is pretty darn good, 48 percent of such remarks are still being addressed on a hit-or-miss basis.

That so many of us continue to feel uncomfortable speaking up in response to sexist comments (and that those comments still exist) might suggest we still have a ways to go toward achieving equity for women. Perhaps what keeps us silent are the responses we typically receive when we respond to sexist remarks. Let us know what you think by taking the new poll on this page: When you’ve addressed sexist remarks, what has been the most typical response of the people who made them?

When each of us better understands what makes us uncomfortable about addressing such comments—for example, anticipating a particular type of response—we can develop new strategies for overcoming our discomfort. We then have a better chance of speaking collectively to stop sexist remarks.

Cynthia

On this blog, we’ve discussed a range of settings in which women and men can take action to combat sexist comments, such as in the family, at school, and in the media. But there’s another venue in which nearly all women have been the target of sexist comments: on the street. 

There’s no reason that we should accept sexist remarks in public spaces as though they were an unavoidable fact of life. The effects of street harassment (a category of abusive behavior that includes sexist remarks) are pernicious. A 1993 article in the Harvard Law Review, for example, summarized the results of several studies: “. . . street harassment severely restricts the physical and geographical mobility of women. It not only diminishes a woman’s feelings of safety and comfort in public places, but also restricts her freedom of movement, depriving her of liberty and security in the public sphere.” The fact that restricted freedom of movement is the kind of thing you find in despotic regimes and prison camps conveys a sense of just how seriously street harassment affects women’s autonomy. 

But this year, one country may do something groundbreaking to end street harassment. In January, Egyptian parliamentarians introduced a law that if passed, would impose a year in prison and/or a fine of 1,000 Egyptian pounds on men who sexually harass women in public places. The legislation came about through the efforts of the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights, a grassroots organization started in 1996 by six women from Cairo. In 2005, the Center launched a campaign against sexual harassment, culminating in a 2008 study involving interviews of 2000 women. The Center’s investigation revealed that in Egypt, 83 per cent of Egyptian women and 98 per cent of foreign women had been sexually harassed, usually on the street or public transport. The study raised the profile of the issue, igniting a debate among Egyptian academics and policymakers about what should be done. Today, the proposed law is supported by both the ruling National Democratic Party and the opposition Muslim Brotherhood and so is expected to pass.   

If Egypt can get this close to enacting a law to end street harassment, imagine what’s possible in our country. For those wanting to take on this issue, there’s a new resource you might check out: the Stop Street Harassment blog, which offers statistics and stories about street harassment, strategies for responding to and reporting perpetrators, and information on getting involved in efforts to end harassment in public places. The blog’s author, Holly Kearl, also has a book coming out in August: Stop Street Harassment: Making Public Places Safe and Welcoming for Women. 

When men and women convey a clear message that sexist remarks won’t be tolerated in public, it can strengthen our efforts to stop them in other settings too. 

Steve

On the news the other night, a local female television anchor presented a segment on how First Lady Michelle Obama is raising her two daughters in the White House. From what I saw, Obama is teaching her children about the joy of learning and the need for responsibility and accountability (no television please until that homework is completed), while balancing those lessons with spirited fun and the occasional indulgence (think dessert). She is a wonderful role model for mothers (parents, actually) around the country if not the globe. 

So imagine my surprise when the anchor summed up the segment with, “Oh boy, and my kids think I’m mean.” I am not sure when it became mean to teach your children the value of balancing discipline and indulgence in everyday life—but I do know that we are quick to judge mothers, and not in a good way. 

The “mean mother” and the “shrewish mother-in-law” are staples of our culture (and far too many comedic routines). Mothers are blamed for a host of ills, many of which stem from their primary role as family caregivers. Once while hiking, I saw the father of a two-year-old watch as his child toddled dangerously close to the edge of a steep ravine. When the mom came running over to grab the child, he smirked and called her overprotective, a common complaint about mothers. 

Let’s see, overprotective versus concerned (and in the case above, correct about the somewhat unbalanced toddle of a two-year-old), meddlesome or the family planner, over involved or genuinely interested? Isn’t it curious how often we lean toward the negative option when talking about mothers (women)? 

The fact is that Michelle Obama sounds like a wonderful mother to me. Do I suspect that she might be tough if you left your clothes in a pile on your bedroom floor? Sure, but probably rightfully so, and I have also seen her hula hoop with a group of kids; plant a garden to help refocus Americans about what they should be feeding their children; and read, laugh, and sing with youngsters from an array of backgrounds and neighborhoods. She is America’s mother and, from my vantage point, one who is doing us proud. 

So with Mother’s Day approaching, let’s be watchful of the language that we use to describe the Moms of the world. Stopping sexist remarks about them is one sure way to honor mothers and to create a world where the roles women play—whether in the home or on the job—are valued and spoken about with respect. 

Cynthia

Several months ago, someone posted a comment on our site expressing frustration with the reactions of other women and men to her attempts to address sexist remarks. She felt she was the only one speaking up in response to these comments and that the people around her failed to offer support; on the contrary, they told her that she shouldn’t say anything.

I sympathize. It’s easy to feel defeated when you’re taking risks to do what is right but don’t perceive that anyone is with you, even those who should be on your side.

As we’ve written elsewhere, whenever we stand up to an injustice, there often are bystanders who agree with us but aren’t willing to take action themselves. Often they have valid reasons for not doing so. If it’s a work setting, they could be in a precarious financial or employment situation. They may have had a bad experience when they tried to speak up to a sexist or bigoted remark in the past. Maybe they find the costs of speaking up too great for now and have decided to wait for a time and place in which the risks aren’t so high.

Given those realities, it’s important to be deliberate about how we interact with people who are not ready to join us in addressing sexist remarks. Here are a few ideas to keep in mind in gaining the support of “bystanders”:

Take the high road. The demeanor we adopt in confronting a sexist remark matters a great deal. I once saw a television debate between two people on an issue that I care about. The person whose point of view I shared continually interrupted the other, breaking in on his answers six times during a 10-minute interview, by my count. The host of the program warned her repeatedly to let her opponent finish. She won the substance of the argument but lost on grace, making her opposition sound moderate and reasonable.

People are more prone to like those who are polite and respectful, a guideline that would be banal were it not routinely ignored. Those qualities are seen as signs of confidence, maturity, and a well-thought-out position. Noelle Nelson, a longtime consultant to trial lawyers and author of several books on persuasion, writes that in studies and reports of how the great trial lawyers work, the words ‘polite’ and ‘respectful’ are repeatedly mentioned. If people like you, you will be more able to persuade them. Being polite does not mean abandoning your argument or tolerating mistreatment. It means being assertive respectfully, whenever that’s possible. (Of course, if you’ve tried to politely stop sexist remarks and a person continually ignores those requests over a period of time, you might decide that a different approach is called for.)

Assume you have allies, not enemies. Unless you have reason to think otherwise, treat people who don’t take action as potential allies, rather than as fence-sitters or enemies. If you suspect that someone may be on your side but isn’t speaking up, you can consider asking them (privately and confidentially), what they think.

You could begin by inquiring how they felt about a specific incident involving a sexist remark or about the issue generally. Listen closely, paying attention to how they feel about sexist comments and how they think it is best to address them. Hearing what they think is critical to establishing common ground and identifying areas of difference (the currency of persuasion). Respond by agreeing with their content to the degree that you can while still being truthful, and acknowledge how they feel. Once you understand them, share why you handle sexist comments in the way that you do. Once a person feels acknowledged at a basic level, they are more willing to listen to your perspective.

Respect what other people are able to contribute. Let people take whatever role they are comfortable with in addressing sexist remarks. If that’s no more than being willing to support you privately, accept that for the moment, and realize that once people get invested in an issue, they tend to become more involved, not less.

***

Those who choose to address injustice know that often we have to take the long view. To that end, we need to be more open to people’s ideas and issues and less dogmatic and disapproving than those who defend sexism. Our approach to persuading people that sexist remarks matter should be rooted in some principles inherent to the idea of greater equality—like empathy, honesty, and respect for differences—because those values are at the heart of what we stand for.

Steve

Last May, I decided that I was going to write a post in response to Elizabeth Edwards’ comments about Rielle Hunter, the woman with whom her husband, John Edwards, admitted to having an affair. At the time, Elizabeth was making the circuit promoting her new book, which included a description of her reaction to the affair. I was distressed by early reports that Elizabeth’s comments regarding Hunter, whom she chose not to name in the book or during interviews, were harsh. I opted not to finish that post then because I did not want to sit in judgment of Elizabeth during such a difficult time in her life. 

After the recent flurry of stories about famous men caught cheating on their wives—and therefore the media’s (and the public’s) fascination with those wives (and mistresses)—I decided to revisit my earlier post. I felt a need to address the very public and sexist re-victimization of the women involved with men who cheat—a process, by the way, that begins before the media ink documenting the man’s confession is even dry. 

In each case, the focus on the women involved is different, yet similarly critical. During the early phase of the Edwards situation, Elizabeth’s words and actions were analyzed and challenged in every venue imaginable, her motives were questioned, and her ambition was referenced. She was called a tragic victim, a power-seeking spouse living vicariously through her husband, and a mean-spirited feminist who should know better than to trash the other woman. Eliot Spitzer’s wife was chastised for standing by her man while he resigned from office after paying a prostitute for sex. Tiger Wood’s wife continues to be stalked by the paparazzi while taking her children to school or running errands. Meanwhile her husband resumes his career under the protective umbrella of the Masters’ organization. 

And wow, the fallout that awaits the other women. The story of Hunter as an “evil seductress” to John Edward’s innocent, “old-fashioned” man doesn’t ring true for me. More recently, the women involved in affairs with the likes of Woods and Jessie James have had their personal lives trampled and their character assassinated. 

So why do we judge these women so much more harshly than we judge the cheating men? What drives much of the public response to men who cheat is power and money (which most of these men have far greater access to than the women with whom they chose to cheat). The golf industry suffered financially while Tiger was down, and they are thrilled to have him back. According to some sources, the moneyed supporters of John Edwards found it easier to pay to hide his paramour than to lose their candidate. 

As for the women, we question their choices (should she stay or should she go?) on the basis of snippets of information about their lives and circumstances. We parse their every word, looking for absolute meaning in complex situations. We judge them, applying tough standards, while knowing little of their lives or their hearts. 

What strikes me most in all of this is how judgmental we all have become. You see, I believe that no one wants to be the other woman, any more than we want our hearts to be broken by infidelity. People cheat (and lie, and otherwise hurt each other) for myriad reasons—none of us are perfect. And women forgive their men for reasons that most of us will never understand because marriage is complicated—as are all relationships and life in general. 

Moreover, shining the light of public scrutiny on the women involved with men who cheat is just sexist—and the language used to describe them is the worst form of sexist remarks. So starting today, let’s try not to judge the wives for not “behaving” perfectly in the aftermath of their husbands’ infidelity, which undoubtedly caused them great pain and embarrassment. And let’s stop judging the women who get involved with married men because we know little about why they found themselves making bad choices with such publicly difficult results. 

Cynthia

The study that Cynthia posted about last week indicates the harmful effects of sexist remarks on women who are “bystanders” when those comments are made. This post concerns legal options that may exist for women who are the indirect targets of sexist comments and behavior in the workplace.  

In January, the U.S. 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that women who work in a place where gender-derogatory words and conduct are used have grounds for asserting that their work environment is hostile, even when the behavior at issue is not directed specifically at them.  

In the case before the court, a female employee working in a male-dominated field was subjected to her coworkers blasting sexually explicit radio shows in shared workspaces, displaying pictures of naked women on computers, and using derogatory terms to refer to women generally. Even though the coworkers never directly insulted or threatened the plaintiff (at least not in her presence), the Court held that their actions created an objectively hostile work environment for any woman. 

The 11^th Circuit is not alone; many circuit courts now have held that a hostile work environment may be created even when a woman is not individually targeted by sexist remarks and behavior. If you are exploring with your company’s management team how to stop sexist remarks in the workplace, you might share these legal precedents. Because as this case shows, it is in a company’s best interest to put into place policies and training that prevent sexist remarks. 

Steve

Witnessing a sexist interaction harms more than the intended target of a sexist remark. That may be something you already knew, but it has been confirmed by two researchers at the University of Connecticut.

Stephenie Chaudoir and Diane Quinn’s goal was to determine how women felt when they observed—but were not the direct recipient of—a sexist comment. The research team asked 114 female undergraduate students to watch a video and imagine themselves as bystanders to a situation in which a man either greeted another woman (no sexist language involved) or directed a sexist catcall at a woman. The participants then completed a survey regarding their feelings of identification with the woman in the video and their anger or fear toward men, and as a result, whether they were likely to “move against or away from” or men.

Turns out that women (again, no surprise here) consider themselves part of a gender group and don’t particularly like it when men direct sexist remarks to other women. In other words, the participants in the study viewed the situation as something that was harmful to women in general—not just the woman who was the victim of the sexist catcall.

In essence, the study showed that sexist comments hurt all women, including those who are the targets and those who just happen to be in the room, so to speak. And as some who reviewed the study have pointed out, if sexist remarks result in women feeling that men are harmful to women in general, then those comments hurt men as well.

The study findings got quite a bit of media play here and across the pond (thank goodness) after being published in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research (which according to its publisher, Springer, is an “interdisciplinary behavioral science journal offering a feminist perspective”). The findings are a great tool for women and men who want to stop sexist remarks in the office, so file this away for that moment when you decide to take action at your place of work. Because any smart business owner, corporate executive, or human resources manager will need to consider the implications of this study’s finding when dealing with sexist comments in the work place.

Cynthia

You wouldn’t think it would still be considered risky to challenge traditional gender boundaries. Sadly, it turns out it is—and there are myriad ways that those resisting change try to punish gender role transgressors. 

One of those was documented in a 2007 study in the Journal of Applied Psychology. “Sexual Harassment of Uppity Women” looked at whether sexual harassment (the study defines sexist comments as a subset of sexual harassment) is primarily directed toward women (1) whom harassers find sexually desirable or (2) who are perceived to break traditional gender roles. What makes this study interesting is that it’s commonly believed that male desire is at the root of sexual harassment and that men harass women they find attractive. 

The study’s researcher found that it is women who break traditional gender roles who are the most likely to be harassed. She showed that women with personality traits traditionally defined as masculine (measured using a well-respected instrument for assessing traits defined as traditionally masculine or feminine) were more likely than others to be sexually harassed at school, among friends, or at work. Another part of the study indicated that women who violated gender roles by working in male-dominated occupations experienced more sexual harassment than did women in female-dominated ones. (The research controlled for the lower proportion of men in the second setting.) So men in male-dominated professions, which are higher paid than those in which woman predominate, appear to use harassment and sexist comments to protect their disproportionate access to power. 

So if traditional boundaries are to be redefined so that women have equal access to opportunities, those of us who want to build something better will need to provide a little leadership. An organizational development specialist friend of mine says that in any group “leaders are by definition those who set the boundaries” (which includes redefining existing boundaries). In this sense, leadership is an informal role—it can be adopted by anyone who chooses to take it on. Addressing sexist comments, in part, is boundary setting—helping to define for a group what is acceptable behavior. When we challenge sexist comments, we are doing far more than standing up for ourselves or someone else; we are creating the future.   

The risks of boundary setting can be high—being criticized, being perceived as too harsh and rigid, losing standing, status, and opportunities—and so we have to decide, in each setting, whether we’re willing to take on that leadership role. But one thing is likely: when we’re setting boundaries regarding sexist remarks, we are making it a little easier for those who come after us, both women and men. 

Steve

One summer night soon after I had graduated from college oh so many years ago, I settled into my favorite chair to talk by phone with the man I was seeing. We were in the final throes of summer, the weather was warm, and light had begun fading a little earlier each evening. The windows of the small house I was renting were open, the shades flapping gently with the breeze. As dusk descended, I glanced up from our engaging conversation to see what looked like a man staring in one of my windows.

My friend told me to hang up, call the police, shut all the windows and then call him back; he would stay on the phone with me until the police arrived. The lone male officer who showed up did a quick tour of the perimeter of my property and returned to my front door to report that he hadn’t seen anyone and if there was someone at the window, they must have moved on. As he was leaving, he turned around and said, “You probably shouldn’t sit around your house wearing shorts like those.”

I was startled then and I am angry now when I think about that remark. If a man broke into my home, was I to believe that I caused him to do so because I was wearing running shorts in the privacy of my living room? Was I not allowed to leave my curtains open because to do so was an invitation to others to come onto my property to watch what I was doing? (It should be noted that you could not see into my living room from the street.) When I think about that comment, it reminds of the importance of the work we are doing to stop sexist remarks.

The messages that we send to women by suggesting that they adjust their behavior in light of the potential actions of others is dangerous. It establishes boundaries that women must live within to be safe or acceptable and therefore—oh so subtly—sets limits on almost all the life choices they will make.

I wish that I could say that times have changed and that those types of messages were a thing of the past—but they are not. We hear them daily, and they seep into our consciousness—the judge who calls attention to the clothing of a young girl who was victimized, the scholar who suggests that girls aren’t good at math or science, and the pundits who describe a woman politician as not attractive enough (or the female newswoman as too attractive). They rob us of our freedom to be who we are, to make the most of our talents, and to select from an array of options when deciding how we want to live our lives.

Sexist comments are not harmless “slips of the tongue” or teasing remarks that we need to “get over.” Sexist comments are serious messages about women that help to define our culture, and we ignore them at our own risk.

Cynthia

Here’s a sexist notion that you can get ready to challenge next time you hear it: women aren’t as good as men as math, and it’s because of biological differences. You may remember then-Harvard President Larry Summers’ suggestion to that effect at a Harvard conference back in 2005. After being confronted with contrary evidence and the anger of faculty and donors, Summers eventually admitted he was wrong on the science. But the overriding media myth is that he was the victim of “political correctness” for speaking the truth (for example, see this column by the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus). 

Maybe we can dispel that myth forever. In January, Science Daily reported on an international study of boys and girls’ performance on math tests and attitudes toward math. It turns out that girls around the world are not worse at math than boys. On average, there were only small gender differences in the test results between boys and girls. 

But the size of the differences between boys and girls varied a great deal depending on what country they were from. For example, in countries that had more women in research-related positions, the girls were more likely to do better in math and feel more confident of their math skills. And the study indicated that despite overall similarities in math skills, boys felt significantly more confident in their abilities than girls. The study’s lead author said the study “shows us that while the quality of instruction and curriculum affects children’s learning, so do the value that schools, teachers and families place on girls’ learning math. Girls are likely to perform as well as boys when they are encouraged to succeed.” 

With that in mind, a healthy skepticism is probably the best response to bigoted remarks wrapped in the guise of science. At a recent Thanksgiving dinner, a guest said he thought that urban poverty was largely explained by an article on intelligence differences between whites and African Americans that he’d read in Slate magazine; it suggested that white advantages were related to their higher intelligence. When I asked the guest whether he’d looked at any of the substantial evidence countering that idea, he hadn’t. A week later, a devastating rebuttal appeared in Slate that showed that the original author’s sources were members of a white supremacist group. Both the author and Slate’s editor apologized. 

When people trot out “evidence” that supports male privilege, we should be ready to ask tough questions. “Have you considered the arguments on the other side?” is a place to start. Time and again, “facts” about male superiority are found to be based on an author’s worldview rather than a dispassionate look at the data. 

Steve

Movements are often borne of passion—launched as the result of an injustice that teaches us to raise our voices in protest and to argue our cause with great emotion. It is that passion that both energizes and sustains us as movements ebb and flow. 

For any movement to create change, however, it obviously must be based on logic and reason. Despite understanding this obvious sensibility, I confess to being stirred by passionate voices. I have long believed that helping people to understand a new issue or to reconsider a long-held belief required passionate appeals that grabbed them by the throats and jump-started their hearts. That is until now. 

The “aha” moment happened to me on an airplane reading “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” by Theodore B. Olson, which appeared in the January 18, 2010, issue of Newsweek. Some of you will remember Olson as the lifelong Republican who argued for George W. Bush during Bush v. Gore (and won, sending Bush to the White House)—he seemed an unlikely advocate for gay marriage. He has in fact stunned the conservative community by teaming with David Boies, his friend and former adversary in the 2000 Presidential case, to argue on behalf of two gay couples. Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the Federal case challenging Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative making same-sex marriage illegal in that State. (The first stage of the case is over, and final arguments are expected to begin in March.) 

I was surprised to find Olson involved in the case, and I was curious why someone I never considered an ally was suddenly taking on his own political party regarding one of the most emotion-laden, rhetoric-driven issues of this decade. Our political leaders understand too well how fear drives elections and passion sells—which is exactly why it is so critical that we learn from Olson’s involvement in this case. This post is not about gay marriage—but rather about the calming effect that occurs when public debate of this or any issue is predicated on asking questions (which Olson did of his many friends and colleagues), examining real-life experiences, and exploring and then sharing the facts. 

I cannot adequately convey the sense of peace that came over me when reading Olson’s article. Certainly the fact that a distinguished legal scholar could not find a single convincing argument against gay marriage (even among his conservative friends and colleagues) gave me hope that justice would prevail in the California case. But it was more than that—it was the very deliberate manner in which Olson struck down each of the so-called arguments against gay marriage. His reasoning is straightforward and without angst or hang wringing. When I finished the article, I felt better—about my own perspective, about our ability to work together to address critical issues, and about our chances for making positive change for the right reasons. 

The Washington political players could take a page from Olson as they wrangle over health care reform this week. As might those of us who are trying to convince others that sexist remarks have no place in our culture. Olson’s basic principles are easy. Believe in equality and justice, keep an open mind, ask questions, listen, and then present your case in terms that resonate with others not because of your passion but because of your dispassionate logic and simple truths. 

Cynthia

Surely there must be some aspect of American culture unaffected by our unease with people who blur traditional gender roles. Let’s say . . . your choice of mixed drinks—what could that have to do with gender? 

A lot, unfortunately, it turns out. 

According to an article in online entertainment magazine The Insider, in a man’s mixed drink, “You can’t have anything that looks even remotely pastel or pink,” sugar and syrup “have absolutely no place in a man’s drink,” and “manly drinks” don’t come with straws or maraschino cherries, ever. The blog “Man’s Take” shares these pearls: “if the drink is made with grain alcohol, it’s manly” and “you can turn a Black Russian into a White Russian by adding some milk, but . . . then you’d be a drinking a girly drink instead of a manly drink.” Perhaps worst, former Cosmopolitan fashion editor-turned-bartender Ty Wenzel, in her 2004 memoir Behind Bars, chronicles her attitudes toward men who dared order gender-bender drinks. “There is nothing quite so disheartening for me as to see a rugged hulky man swagger in, take a seat, and grab the girly-drink menu.” After delivering a “girly” cocktail to one male customer,  Wenzel “made it known to him that I have no regard for him as a man.” 

How do we say no to the gender role police who are watching what we drink? The best policy, if someone comments on how your mixed-drink choice relates to your gender, seems to be to take the remark as seriously as it is meant—not as a joke. As trivial as they appear, commentaries like, “Wow, a guy drinking a margarita, that’s a new one,” and “That pina colada’s going to affect your testosterone” are meant to limit our freedom to stray beyond traditional gender roles and to remind us that our fitness as a member of our gender is continually being assessed. 

So if these asides arise, you can smile and ask, “Why?” or “What do you mean by that?” or “Do you really think that?” With any luck, you’ll get to some better understanding of the source of the other person’s stereotype, and they will learn more about your determination not to be hemmed in by sexist boundaries. Or, if you’re really not in the mood, “Geez, what century do you live in?” might do too. 

After all, if Jimmy Buffett can take a trip to Margaritaville, then so can the rest of us men (minus the wasting away). 

Steve  

How Often Do You Encounter Sexist Remarks? The Results of Our First Poll

Recently, we checked the stats for our Question of the Month (which truthfully has been running longer than a month). As of this week, 60 percent of those who took the poll reported that they encounter sexist remarks nearly every day. An additional 19 percent encounter sexist remarks once a week and 12 percent have that experience monthly. 

We know that our poll is not a representative sample; only a small percentage of visitors to the site actually responded to the Question of the Month, and those who visit our site likely are looking for support in dealing with sexist comments. But the fact that respondents to the survey encountered sexist remarks so frequently is astounding. 

We also suspect that other women face sexist remarks just as often and that many women have learned (out of necessity) to adapt to the sexism around them—much of it articulated via teasing or jokes on the job or in social settings, subtle jabs at professional women’s appearance or performance, and the television commercials we all passively sit through during each year’s Super Bowl. 

All we can say is WOW—we have our work cut out for us. So the new Question of the Month is “How often do you respond directly to sexist remarks?” Add your response to the new poll (above right), and then share more about your experiences by adding a comment under this post. Tell us: 

• How you got in the habit of responding to sexist remarks, or
• How we (and our readers) can help you respond to such remarks more often 

Because if we aren’t addressing the sexist remarks that we encounter, we are not creating the change we need through everyday conversations. If each of us speaks up more regularly when faced with sexist comments, it becomes more likely that others will feel comfortable doing so. 

Let’s begin by sharing our own experiences and supporting each other in more clearly and effectively speaking up about sexist remarks—every time that we encounter them. 

Cynthia

You’ve probably heard the idea, sometimes offered by people who give work advice, that women’s best strategy in dealing with sexist comments is just to ignore them and move on (especially at work). That’s certainly understandable. We’ve written about the importance of carefully considering how to address sexist comments at work and the risks of confronting them.

A few weeks ago, a former Philadelphia TV news anchor, Larry Mendte, weighed in on the issue of whether women running for office should learn to adapt to the sexism they will confront. He was responding to a December article by Washington Post writer Anne Kornblut with advice for women candidates. Two of Kornblut’s suggestions were that woman candidates should prepare their families to be the target of criticism because, unlike the families of male candidates, they are considered fair game. She also suggested that “attractive” women candidates should “expect them to hate you because you’re beautiful.” Kornblut’s tips are well intentioned but, like so much advice for women that appears in the media, leave out the other part of the equation. Mendte points this out on his blog:

“. . . women candidates should not change the way they are to appease a sexist electorate and media. Instead, the electorate needs to change to respect female candidates, and the media should lead the charge by treating both men and women candidates equally.”

Mendte knows of what he speaks. His wife, a former Fox news anchor, is considering a run for office, and already she’s been subject to a sexist slur by a law professor who is a columnist on a popular local blog.

When we hear the suggestion that women need to adapt to the reality of sexism if they’re going to succeed, we may want to offer an alternative solution regarding just who or what needs to change. (Here’s an earlier post from Cynthia about this issue as well.) Had we followed similar advice in dealing with racial discrimination, Jim Crow laws, “separate-but-equal” schools, and poll taxes might still be alive and well.

Steve

Lindsey from the blog “Starting Out in Your 20s and Beyond” had an interesting post recently about an issue that we took on last year: how to respond when a person about to make a sexist remark announces in advance what they’are going to do. This takes forms like “Some of you women are going to find this sexist. . .,” “I’m not trying to be sexist but . . .,” or “Ok, I’m going to say something sexist but . . .” That introduction is designed to shift the burden from the speaker to the listeners: if they find what is said offensive, the problem is theirs, not the speaker’s. 

Lindsey suggests that when someone says “I know I shouldn’t say this, but . . .,” we might just interrupt to say, “Then I don’t want to hear it. No, really, if it’s going to make me mad, don’t say it.” Another response might be “Since you recognize that what you’re going to say might be offensive, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t say it.” Both of those approaches are in keeping with Cynthia’s suggestion two weeks ago that when confronted with sexist comments, we might just nicely tell people what we want. 

Those statements quickly shift responsibility right back to the speaker where it belongs. As Lindsey says about people who make these remarks, “They know better than that; they admitted it themselves.” By speaking up, you are giving them the chance to stop long enough to choose their better selves. 

Steve

Comedian and political satirist Bill Maher has a segment on his show called “New Rules,” in which he simply declares something like, “Californians need to learn how to drive in the rain,” or “Just because a country elects a smart president doesn’t make it a smart country.” The subsequent analysis is both insightful and funny as hell. Well today I am taking a page from his book and declaring some new rules. 

New Rule #1: Do not support any politicians who make or ignore sexist remarks on the campaign trail. An incident during the recent Massachusetts Senate race brought back memories of the 2008 Presidential campaign, during which too many political leaders ignored the (sometimes horrific) sexist comments made about candidate Hillary Clinton, then a sitting U.S. Senator and now Secretary of State. 

In case you missed this latest instance of sexism on the campaign trail, it took place during a rally for now Senator-elect Scott Brown, who was running against Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In the middle of Brown’s campaign stump speech, during which he was calling Coakley’s negative campaigning “malicious,” someone yelled “Shove a curling iron up her butt!” According to numerous accounts of the incident, Brown smiled and returned to his campaign cheer, “We can do it.” (It should be noted that the remark was a reference to the charge that Coakley’s office failed to aggressively prosecute a sexual abuse case involving a curling iron. You can read the Boston Globe for more information on that story. But let’s be clear: disagreeing with Coakley’s approach in the case is fine—using vulgar and violent language to attack her is not.) 

Brown later told reporters that he didn’t hear the remark, that it was “inappropriate,” and that he would have “said something” had he heard it. I have watched a video clip of the rally, and the audio isn’t completely clear to me—so I can’t fault Brown for not responding immediately. But I am disturbed that when given a chance to address the issue after the fact, he chose not to do more than call the remark inappropriate—particularly given its violent nature and Brown’s stated distate for negative campaigning. 

So, New Rule #2: It is no longer sufficient for politicians to say that they “didn’t hear” their followers (or staff) make a sexist (and in this case, violent) remark about a professional colleague (or that they misunderstood it, etc.). When politicians are told that such comments have been made in connection to their campaign, they should quickly, publicly, and specifically repudiate the remarks. They need to lead by example, including using campaign events as teachable moments through which they can inspire and inform. In this instance, Brown should have talked about how sexist and violent attacks on women are not merely “inappropriate;” they are way out of bounds and lead to a culture of inequality—something I am sure he doesn’t want for his two daughters. 

Which brings us to New Rule #3: In the future, women and progressive men should support only those political parties that mount candidates willing to run campaigns that focus on the issues and avoid using (or capitalizing on) negative gender-based campaign strategies and sexist remarks. 

We can put this final rule into play today by telling the leadership of the major political parties that our continuing support (including financial contributions) will be based on their willingness to set boundaries with regard to how women candidates will be talked to and about during future political campaigns. Call or write them at the numbers/addresses noted below. 

Let’s make 2010 the year in which we take a stand against sexist campaign strategies.

Cynthia

Democratic National Committee 

Mailing Address:
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: 202-863-8000
E-mail: http://www.democrats.org/contact.html 

Republican National Committee 

Mailing Address:
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: 202-863-8500
E-mail: info@gop.com

I love good advice, and recently a visitor to our site reminded me of a fairly straightforward way of dealing with sexist remarks. She was discussing a difficult work situation with her son—one in which the term “guys” was often used to refer to groups that clearly included women. He suggested that she consider redirecting people by telling them what she wanted. In other words, if you want people to stop referring to you as a guy, then tell them what you want to be called instead. 

It’s a simple act—telling people what we want or need—but one that clearly eludes a lot of us in many situations. Yet it works, so maybe we need to stop trying so hard to come up with a great retort to sexist jokes or comments and focus instead on calmly—without emotion or exaggerations—telling the people involved what we want. 

If you find yourself socializing with people who make inappropriate comments about women, for example, nicely tell them that you would prefer that they not share their sexist jokes when partying with you. If someone is calling you “honey” in a setting that makes you uncomfortable—quietly tell the person that you would prefer to be called by your name. 

Will some people react badly? Sure they will, but as I heard Oprah say recently, maybe it is time to start believing what people tell you about themselves. When friends and colleagues are unwilling to honor our clear and specific requests about how we prefer to be treated, their behavior is the problem, not ours. 

So make it easy on yourself in 2010. Rather than trying to come up with the perfect response to every possible type of sexist remark that you might encounter—simply ask the people making those comments to stop. 

Cynthia

Here’s an encouraging sign for those of you looking for examples of the type of unambiguous policy about sexist remarks that we should expect from our colleges and universities. Last month, the University of North Dakota established a fan code of conduct for events in its sports arena. The rules are the school’s response to sexist and abusive comments hurled at a female news commentator and others traveling with an opposing team during a recent hockey game. One of the items on the list of prohibited activities reads as follows:

Abusive language or disorderly conduct is unacceptable and unwelcome. Profanity, racial or sexist comments or intimidating actions directed at the student-athletes, coaches or officials will not be tolerated.

Other good things apparently are happening at the university. Here’s the text of a 2006 speech to law students by Professor Jack Russell that explains in plain language why sexist and other hateful comments inhibit women students’ opportunity to get an education. (The speech was unrelated to the new policy for the university arena.) It’s his response to those who claim that school rules prohibiting hate speech (including racist and sexist remarks) stifle free speech. As he eloquently notes: 

When you cultivate hateful acts, you interfere with [your colleagues’] ability to get an education as well as your own because you contribute to an environment of alienation and fragmentation. In the school context, the right to respect, the right not be offended, trumps the right to free speech, because you are part of a voluntary association that promises an equal opportunity to education to all who join. And if you hide behind the veil of the “politically incorrect,” you are not only interfering with the rights of others, you are also doing it in a dishonest and cowardly way. You are being hateful and lacking the courage to admit it.

If you find the foregoing helpful in addressing sexist remarks on campus, you might also check out Taking Action in College and University Settings, which offers a range of ideas for administrators, staff, professors, and students for addressing sexist remarks.

Of course, our best resource is each other. Share what you’re doing to provide a campus environment for students that is free of sexist remarks so that we can pool our ideas about what works and support each other’s efforts.

Steve

As we say goodbye to 2009, it is a good time to reflect on the progress we’ve made with respect to sexist remarks. Although at a national level, our country experienced something of a reprieve this year from the relentless sexism that permeated 2008’s political campaign, sexist comments continued unabated on the air, in the office, and in social settings. 

The good news is that there appear to be more feminist bloggers who are countering sexist comments and suggesting new approaches for dealing with people who seek to keep women in their place. (Or maybe we are just more aware of feminist bloggers this year.) Their blogs provide a place where progressive women and men can jointly struggle with the challenges inherent in redefining our culture, and we are proud to count ourselves among them. 

Quite frankly, we launched Stop Sexist Remarks: Creating Change One Conversation at a Time because we were astounded at how sexist language remained so permissible during the last decade. We decided that we needed both a top-down and bottom-up approach to creating change in the way we talk about women and girls because no feminist organization, national or otherwise, could do this alone. Change really does begin with each of us—particularly with regard to redefining gender roles and opportunities by choosing new and more positive ways to interact with one another. 

Since the site’s inception in November 2008, we have posted our stories, your stories, and strategies for dealing with the sexist remarks that we all encounter in everyday life. People from more than 30 countries have stopped by the site, and we have a small but loyal following on Twitter (a special thanks to Jennifer, who has been with us since our early tweets). 

During the past year, we reached out to groups that share our vision of a culture that values women and men equally. The very sweet site helpothers.org, which calls itself a “portal dedicated to small acts of kindness,” agreed to include our strategies for stopping sexist remarks (more gently labeled on their site as “negative comments”) in their list of “kindness ideas.” And a contributing writer for BlogHer posted an article that shared our Top Three Things You Can Do to Stop Sexist Remarks. 

More recently, our post Setting Boundaries in 15 Words or Less was picked up by two feminist blogs in the United Kingdom (The f word: Contemporary UK Feminism, and the Penny Red Blogspot), the latter saying: “An exciting-looking new blog, Stop Sexist Remarks, is here to help, with tips to challenge bigotry and stop sexist jibes in their tracks.” More important, their readers left a trail of comments dissecting our strategies for responding to sexist remarks and suggesting new ones. 

We have learned in the past 2 years that we may not always agree with each other about what works in responding to sexist remarks—you need only take a look at the comments about our post on the f word blog to know that we approach life’s challenges in different ways. Yet we also know that each of us makes a difference every time that we question sexist comments, in whatever style works best for us in the moment. 

Which brings us back to where we started—the creation of Stop Sexist Remarks as a site where we can work together to figure out how to change the socially pervasive notion that it is all right to demean women through subtle humor (“Lighten up, I was just joking”), teasing (“Oh, don’t be so sensitive”), and directly offensive comments (with media personalities often being the worst offenders). As Steve pointed out last week, humor is not the intent of sexist jokes, and teasing generally is not intended to make people feel good. 

So resolve to speak up this year—forget about the feelings of people who don’t seem to be concerned about yours (you will never make everyone happy, and 2010 is as good a time as any to stop trying), and engage those who do care in a conversation about how to stop sexist remarks. Then come back and share your ideas with us. 

Thanks to everyone who visited our site this year—we hope that you will visit often during 2010. 

Happy New Year!! 

Cynthia and Steve

The Female Science Professor blog has a post this week that is must reading. 

Let’s just dispense with the obvious right away. Humor is not the intent of sexist “jokes.”  They have a few key (and malevolent) purposes–to draw a cordon around the in group (men), send a message that women do not belong, and make it difficult or impossible for women to succeed. (Of course, in the blog writer’s case, the “joke” turned into something much worse when it became clear that no one would stop the perpetrator.) 

As a result, if we decide to challenge a person telling a sexist joke, the most important step might be to reject the premise that it is a joke at all and to ignore claims that its intent was harmless. The best way that to do that might be to calmly say, “That isn’t a joke, and I don’t find it funny.” As appropriate, we can then simply move on. If the behavior continues, we might say something like, “If you’re not willing to interact in a professional way, I’ll take the steps needed to move forward with [the task].” If the behavior continues, simply leave. Following that, you might consider some of the ideas found here in question 4 of the “Answering Tough Questions” section of our blog. 

Why do sexist remarks and sexist jokes matter? This female science professor’s story shows why. Sexist expression is the point of the spear for a system designed to keep women out—out of male-dominated fields, out of leadership roles, and out of the networks where valuable connections are made. Left unchallenged, these remarks and jokes often do not go away—rather, they morph into open harassment and intimidation. When we stand up to the people making them, especially with a group of supportive colleagues, we have a chance of upending the whole sexist culture of a place. 

Steve

It’s time to acknowledge the obvious: liberals have a sexist remark problem. It started, of course, with the many sexist slurs directed at Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign by liberal commentators like Keith Olbermann and Maureen Dowd. Earlier this year, there was Democratic governor Brian Schweitzer praising then-Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe as someone who, “when there’s a bump in the road, he’s not going to cry like a girl and quit.” Then a few weeks ago, Olbermann was back, calling right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin “a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” (As Air America points out, once every 24 minutes in this country, a woman is killed as a result of domestic abuse, making Olbermann’s comment both sexist and macabre.) Finally, last week, New York Senator Chuck Schumer used the “b” word (to fellow New York Senator Kirsten Gillebrand, no less!) to refer to a female flight attendant who committed the sin of asking him to turn off his cell phone like everyone else on his flight. 

Political conservatives have deftly used these incidents to call liberals hypocrites on gender issues. (In fact, the Schumer episode was reported to the press by a Republican aide who was on the flight.) Of course, conservative leaders are the ones who banned funding for international family planning programs, support court decisions that uphold gender discrimination in the workplace (like the Supreme Court’s Lilly Ledbetter decision), and oppose laws requiring equal pay for equal work. And of course, the sexist comments from right-wing politicians and commentators directed at woman political leaders fly thick and fast (and are ignored by the same conservatives who decry liberal sexism). 

There’s a reason why sexist remarks are crossing party lines—our culture tolerates them. 

Stopping sexist remarks is not tangential to working for equality. It is critical to creating a world in which girls and women believe that they have the same opportunities to succeed as men because they don’t continually hear demeaning language directed at women. This is especially important for boys and girls growing up today, who are watching our example. 

We might all benefit from sustained training on responding to sexist remarks—so that our actions start to match our beliefs. (In fact, a recent research project found that children—both boys and girls—can learn to respond to sexist comments.) But until that kind of resource is widely accessible, we have to offer training in the moment, every day, by being willing to stand up to sexist remarks, especially those made by people who are on our side politically—whatever our political leanings may be. 

Steve

This week we’re linking to a story on another blog here about someone who confronted sexist (and otherwise insulting) remarks at her workplace. While people adopt different approaches to addressing sexist comments at work (or decide not to do so because their circumstances make it too risky), this story illustrates two lessons.

First, sexist remarks don’t go away when they are ignored—more likely, those making them feel emboldened, and the comments escalate. Second, people on the sidelines (in this case, also in management) often know that what’s happening is wrong, and when called on it, are willing to support women (and all) employees’ right to a workplace free of sexist comments.

We will be discussing more in a future post the issues involved in stopping sexist remarks in the workplace, so stay tuned.

Steve

One reason I watch sports is that occasionally it provides terrific unscripted theater. The end of the college football game on Saturday between the universities of Florida and Alabama provided one such moment. With a minute to go and the game out of reach for Florida, their brilliant quarterback Tim Tebow, a Heisman trophy winner who hadn’t lost a game in 3 years, broke into tears on the sidelines. 

Watching a star football player weep seems to be an invitation to many fans to hurl gender-based insults. After the game, web post-ers wondered why Tebow had“cried like a girl,” said he “didn’t take the loss like a man,” and called him a “drama queen” and worse. 

I certainly think there are better things to cry about than losing a football game. Losing your job, say, or losing a loved one, or even losing a Presidential election, especially if you worked hard for your candidate. So I understand the argument that Tebow’s response was overblown. Then again—a college football player’s life is football, and losing a big game really does mean fewer opportunities, from fewer endorsement contracts to less national exposure to a smaller salary when they turn professional. So a whole lot was at stake for Tim Tebow. 

There’s nothing wrong with suggesting that there are inappropriate times to cry. But the idea that it’s wrong (or girly) for men to cry is sexist and offensive. It’s time to discard the limited view that permits only a certain range of behaviors to men. So give Tim Tebow a break. After all, on the album 1970’s album Free to Be You and Me, the song “It’s All Right to Cry” was performed by none other than pro football star Rosy Grier.   

Steve

Last week, we were treated to Newsweek’s sexist photos of Sarah Palin (see Cynthia’s piece below). This week, a few media outlets have chosen Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat from Louisiana, as the target of a sexist attack. 

Forget about the fact that Premiere Radio Networks, which employs Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh, took no action after those two hosts publicly labeled Landrieu a “high-class prostitute” (Beck) and “the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitution” (Limbaugh) because she asked for more Medicaid funding for Louisiana in the health care bill in exchange for her vote to move the legislation to the Senate floor. Landrieu’s move is known as “logrolling,” in which legislators horse-trade their votes so that they each get something they want in bills; like it or not, it’s a practice as old as our political system and one of the ways that legislation gets passed. Of course, it’s perfectly legitimate for Beck and Limbaugh to criticize Landrieu’s bargain. But when they go after a female leader, it’s par for the course for them to use sexist language in doing so (for example, see Limbaugh’s sexist attack on Senator Olympia Snowe several weeks ago). 

No, what’s more disturbing is that Mark Halperin of Time picked up on Beck and Limbaugh’s slander and ran a doctored photo of Landrieu that is supposed to remind us of the Cameron Diaz character in the movie “There’s Something About Mary.” (In the movie, Diaz’ hair is held together with semen.) It’s a great example of what happens when the talk show media’s worst sexist offenders pay no price for repeatedly diminishing elected female leaders—it makes it safe for members of the mainstream media to get in on the action. 

Let’s tell those responsible for giving Limbaugh, Beck, and Halperin their platforms that we won’t tolerate their supporting media personalities or journalists who continue to demean woman leaders (and most important, that we won’t subscribe to their radio network or buy their magazine until they take action): 

1. Premiere Radio Networks: Contact Charlie Rahilly, President and Chief Operating Officer, Premiere Radio Networks: barker@premiereradionetworks.com
2. Time: letters@time.com 

Steve 

P.S. If you need any more encouragement to write to Newsweek in response to Cynthia’s post last week, just read Newsweek editor Jon Meacham’s unapologetic official statement in response to the criticism.

By now, most of you have seen the cover of Newsweek on which Sarah Palin is depicted wearing running shorts. The photo was originally taken for the June 2009 issue of Runner’s World, for which shorts were the appropriate attire. As Palin has said, and I believe her, she would never have posed in shorts for a national news magazine. 

What possessed Newsweek’s editorial staff to approve this picture for the cover of their magazine is quite frankly beyond me. While some pundits on the right have suggested that the photo reveals Newsweek’s political partisanship (which is clearly possible), I don’t remember seeing Newt Gingrich or Bill Bennett’s thighs when they were out flacking their books. If the move was a partisan decision, it also was a stupid one, designed to alienate any thinking woman. 

It is clear that the Newsweek staff don’t think much of Palin, asking the question, “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?” and letting us know that “she’s bad news.” And that is fine with me. Palin chose public life and is conducting a carefully orchestrated book tour full of interviews and book signings. She is fair game with regard to her experience, her political point of view, and even her apparent disinterest in taking responsibility for anything that happened during the 2008 presidential campaign (see any of her recent interviews for examples of how someone else is almost always to blame). So why was it necessary for Newsweek to take the low road when it came to selecting Palin’s cover photo? 

Since the cover first appeared, I have read any number of editorials and web postings by both men and women who suggest that the Newsweek cover photo of Palin is simply representative of the media’s current style of political coverage. I beg to differ—it smacks of sexism to me (albeit sexism as a means of inflicting political damage). Anyone who was awake during the 2008 presidential campaign knows that women leaders are judged differently—often on their looks, their voices, and their hair and clothing choices (although in this case, Palin’s choice of clothing was apparently made by the Newsweek staff). 

I must confess that I find it difficult to defend Sarah Palin when she is the target of sexist remarks (or photos) because in my experience she doesn’t appear to play for the feminist team—except perhaps when it serves her own purposes. She is, in my opinion, one more example of women who benefit from the tremendous gains made by feminist leaders and yet refuse to acknowledge the value of the movement.  

But defend her I will because sexism as a means of taking down your political opponents is still sexism. All is not fair in love and war, and winning electoral battles while ceding the moral ground is no victory at all. Sexism in political and professional settings, and as used by the media to undermine women in both arenas, is unacceptable in this day and age. Newsweek owes Palin (and the rest of us) an apology. 

Cynthia 

p.s. You may write to Newsweek to express your concern about the November 23, 2009, cover at: 

Newsweek Domestic Edition
Letters to the Editor for the U.S. print edition: Letters@newsweek.com

Mailing Address:
Newsweek
395 Hudson St.
New York, NY 10014

A few weeks ago, we received a post from Naomi, who noted that she is on a personal crusade to rid the world of the phrase “like a girl” used in a belittling way. She notes that people would never tolerate that type of language if it had to do with race. 

Naomi is right. Her post also made me start paying closer attention to similar sexist language that appears to now be considered acceptable, even among people who otherwise seem to care about equality. While two of the following three terms are considered vulgar, that’s not as important as the sexist stereotypes they convey: 

1. The offensive “pussy,” apparently the new “sissy,” used in otherwise progressive liberal venues to mean “weak, indecisive, lacking courage.” For example, last year on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart referred to Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives as “throwing a pussy party” after they voted to continue funding for the Iraq War.
2. “Having balls,” “being ballsy,” and variations apparently are meant to convey  boldness and staying power. Rush Limbaugh recently drew on similar terms to insult Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine after her vote with the Democrats on health care: “She is the voice of the new castrati, those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage.” (Attacks like Limbaugh’s show how brave  Snowe’s vote actually was.)
3. Using “she” to refer to a man, intended as an insult. I saw Christopher Hitchens recently use this in a debate, referring to male moderator Jay Diamond: “I appreciate devious questions, but I wish she would have the guts to put some of those to my opponent . . .”

Language matters because it shapes attitudes and therefore behavior. What ideas do girls form about themselves when they hear both male and female anatomical references used to devalue women? So when we hear these terms, it might be time to ask people, “Why’d you say that? What does lack of guts or weakness have to do with women?” (And even, “Ever heard of Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, and Eleanor Roosevelt?”)  

Yes, this type of language is edgy. In fact, it’s so edgy that it’s over the line, and I’ve started calling foul when I hear it used.

Steve

While speaking up about sexist remarks can empower people around us, occasionally our attempt to intervene is rejected by the person targeted by the remark. What do you do when the woman targeted by a remark repudiates your help or becomes distant afterward? This week, we answer that question. 

Cynthia and Steve

Here’s an idea if you’re ever feeling discouraged or need inspiration about the importance of ending sexist remarks. Go back and listen to a few songs from “Free to Be You and Me,” the ground-breaking music album, storybook, and then television show put together by Marlo Thomas in 1972. She created the record to teach her then-young niece about life; specifically, Marlo wanted an entertaining way to show her and other children that the gender stereotypes in many children’s books do not represent the way life has to be. (At the time of a 1998 study, for example, books for kids still were frequently portraying girls as “sweet, naïve, conforming, and dependent” while boys were depicted as “strong, adventurous, independent, and capable.”) Though the primary audience of “Free to Be You and Me” is children, the album’s messages are at least as important for the adults who shape children’s behavior and outlook.

My siblings and I grew up with the songs on that old “Free to Be You and Me” LP. We didn’t know at the time that the message at the heart of those songs was truly radical: that liberty isn’t just about the freedom to assemble, to express opinions, and the like. It’s also freedom from gender stereotypes and gender roles—that if boys are so inclined, they should be encouraged to enjoy dolls and if girls are interested, they should pursue engineering. That both fathers and mothers are responsible for taking care of and spending time with children. That housework is the province of both men and women, girls and boys. On the album, star NFL defensive lineman Rosy Grier sings about it being all right for boys to cry. Diana Ross and Michael Jackson do a song about being comfortable with who you are, that boys don’t have to be tall and girls don’t have to be pretty. And the title track lays out the vision of a world of limitless possibilities: “There’s a land that I see where the children are free . . . And you and me are free to be you and me.”

“Free to Be You and Me” helps remind us what the effort to end sexist comments is all about. When we stand up to those remarks, we model for those around us, and our children, the kind of society we want to have—where gender is a component of a child’s makeup but should never constrain their choices or ability to express themselves. It’s often said that America is a place where people can achieve their dreams as long as they’re willing to work for it. Getting beyond sexist remarks and gender discrimination is a key piece of allowing our country to truly be a place where people’s potential is limited only by their imagination.

Since the album was released, I haven’t seen any products for children that have quite so clearly and entertainingly communicated a vision for a gender-bias-free society. (Though there are quite a few children’s books that depict strong girls and women—see the Women’s National Book Association’s annual list here.) So over the last few years I’ve been buying “Free to Be You and Me” for all of the children in my life—you can do so too by visiting the Free to Be You and Me Foundation’s website here.

Steve

Recently I came across a message that I wrote more than two decades ago to a group of advocates who were working to improve services to battered women. The message bears repeating today in relation to our work to end sexist remarks, promote gender equality, and create a safer world for women and girls. During October, which is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we are printing an adapted version of the original text; it appears below.

Cynthia

It is difficult not to become frustrated with the apparently insurmountable tasks that lie ahead. The ideal world that we envision—where equality prevails and women and men live in partnership and mutual respect—seems so far away. The desire to bring about gender equality in our lifetime can be overwhelming, and despite all the changes we have seen, they are not enough. There is so much work to be done, and the need to continually challenge the entrenched attitudes and values that hold women back can sap our strength. In the final analysis, however, achieving our goals is both possible and profoundly necessary, and it is our idealism and hope that keep us going.

It is important therefore to remember that historically we have made significant strides. Women vote, go to college, and play vital roles in government, business, and industry, and men have become more involved in parenting and family life. Young girls are active in sports, watch their mothers achieve success in myriad arenas, and are taught that they have choices, many of which simply were not available to their grandmothers. Life will be easier for the young women of tomorrow because some of the toughest battles lie behind us.

This is not to say that we should become complacent, but during Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we need to celebrate our achievements. We make a difference every time that we educate another person about how sexist remarks negatively affect women and girls. We change the status quo every time that we stand up for women who are the targets of sexist actions. We save lives when we encourage women to get the help they need to leave abusive partners and when we insist that the criminal justice system address domestic violence responsibly.

So this month, as Domestic Violence Awareness activities draw to a close for another year, take pride in what you do to stop sexist remarks, support gender equality, and end woman abuse—because remembering our accomplishments will give us the strength to tackle the challenges that remain.

Because men are nearly always those making (and benefiting from) sexist remarks, men who care about sexism have a particular obligation to respond to sexist forms of expression. But how can we do so in the way that best supports women? We address that question this week. 

Steve and Cynthia

We all would like the outcome of our efforts to address sexist remarks to be positive—for all parties to go away understanding why stopping sexist expression in everyday conversation matters and feeling respected and heard. How do we make a positive interaction more likely? This week we offer our perspectives on that question.

Cynthia and Steve

Have you ever received feedback from someone about your response to a sexist comment? This week we answer that question. We’re interested in whether you’ve had that experience and what you learned.

Steve and Cynthia

Have you ever been the beneficiary of someone’s intervention regarding a sexist remark? How did you and others react? If you’ve been the target of a sexist remark and were supported by someone else, we’d like to hear from you. This week we answer that question ourselves.

Cynthia and Steve