Stop Sexist Remarks

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

Erin Andrews of ESPN appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show last week in her “one and only interview” regarding the illegally filmed video of her that was posted on the internet earlier this year. Millions of people had flocked to an array of sites to watch the video of a naked Andrews getting ready for work in at least two different hotel rooms. 

Andrews was incredibly poised during the interview—especially given the circumstances—and yet also appeared somewhat anxious despite her years of on-camera experience. And who wouldn’t be after such an incredible violation of their privacy? As Oprah asked, how many of us would care to be filmed leaving the shower or bending over the bathtub during private moments? 

What happened to Ms. Andrews after the pictures were posted, however, was almost worse. Several networks showed pictures from the video, blurring out the more personal parts and yet provoking further interest. Female colleagues made inappropriate remarks about the situation, and some people suggested that Andrews staged the event to further her career. While woman media professionals often are expected to walk a fine line between beauty and substance, there is a profound distinction between someone capitalizing on their attractiveness and being stalked with a video camera. To suggest otherwise is simply tarring the victim, a game that we seem to play with ever-increasing fervor in the internet age. 

Ms. Andrews participated in the interview with Oprah to tell her side of the story and to announce that she would be resuming her role as sportscaster. She says that she is doing so as much for other young women as for herself. She is not going to let this horrifying experience beat her. 

So we are taking a break this week from posting answers to the tough questions about sexist remarks to salute Erin Andrews for her gracious performance on Oprah, her refusal to engage in the media frenzy that typically follows such incidents, and her courage in returning to the already tough (for women) field of sports journalism. Through these actions, Andrews will serve as a role model for all young women, and most especially those who find themselves violated by a culture that uses sex in myriad forms to demean women professionally and personally. 

As for the rest of us, the internet is and will remain a fact of life in this century, but how we use it says something about our nature and our character. I am sorry that so many people could not resist the urge to watch the illicit video of Andrews—taken and posted without her knowledge or consent. We need to do better. 

Cynthia

It’s never easy to predict what reaction you will get when you respond to a sexist remark. What do you do when things go badly? How do you repair the situation? This week we explore that question.

Steve and Cynthia

It’s one thing to have a plan for taking on sexist comments in a positive, constructive way and quite another to do so in even the toughest situations.

What are the hard choices related to sexist remarks that you run into? When do you find it most difficult to respond effectively? This week we tackle that that question.

Cynthia and Steve

Top performers in many fields often say that it’s not enough to want to succeed at what you endeavor—you have to prepare to succeed. That’s no less true in learning to respond well to sexist remarks, so this week we share how we prepare to do so.

Steve and Cynthia

How does one get started addressing sexist remarks? For example, are there particular types of situations in which it is easier to practice responding to such comments? Then, once you get started, what makes it possible to expand the circumstances in which you are willing to speak up? Read about how we got started responding to sexist remarks, and then share your experience.

Cynthia and Steve

Ever struggle with when to respond to sexist remarks and when to ignore them? Read about how we make those decisions under the question, How do you know when to respond to sexist remarks and when to let things slide? Then post your ideas.

Steve and Cynthia

Dealing with sexist remarks—or any negative or demeaning comment—is never easy. Whether those comments are made in the workplace or other community institutions, in the neighborhood, or at social events, they create tension and make people (especially the recipient) feel uncomfortable. 

Since launching this blog, we have witnessed firsthand the struggles that people face in deciding how (and perhaps whether) to deal with sexist remarks. We also have noticed that while the site has had a fair amount of traffic given that it is fairly new and not connected to a national organization, only a handful of people have left comments or ideas about how to respond effectively when confronted with a sexist remark. 

We realize that there are no simple answers to the tough questions about sexist remarks—dealing with sexist comments is not a one-size-fits-all type of strategy. Every time that you encounter a sexist remark, you are required to assess myriad issues fairly quickly. Those include the time and place, the overall circumstances, the people involved (and around you), your perception of the intent of the person making the comment, the odds that responding will generate some positive outcome versus the potential risks of speaking up (especially on the job), and your own style and level of comfort. 

The fact that it is challenging to deal effectively with sexist remarks is all the more reason for us to work together to do so. We therefore created a section of the blog called Answering the Tough Questions About Sexist Remarks and left the spaces for the answers empty. We had planned to post the responses to the questions provided by visitors to the blog, but to date no one has filled in the blanks. 

So beginning this week, we will share our initial thoughts about how we would answer the questions, beginning with number 1 and working our way through the current list. We will post an announcement on the main page as we answer each question, with a reminder that we have left a spot for each of you to do the same. Remember—there are no correct answers, so just share your experiences under the question that we are highlighting that week. Tell us about what has worked for you in dealing with sexist remarks, tell your stories, or simply raise related questions. 

Answering the tough questions about sexist remarks—toward the goal of ending sexist comments altogether—will be a little easier if we all work together. 

We look forward to hearing from you. 

Cynthia and Steve

In light of a recent poll, we have quite a distance to go in erasing sexist attitudes about women in leadership. In an August 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center, fully 21 percent of the U.S. public said that men make better leaders than women. Another 69 percent said that men and women make equally good leaders, and only 6 percent said that women make better leaders. 

Those findings are particularly surprising given recent episodes in our political and corporate cultures. In 2002 at Enron, it was a woman accountant, Sherron Watkins, who stood up to the company’s male leadership to point out that the company’s accounts were fraudulent. In the late 1990s, the female head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley Born, tried unsuccessfully to warn Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair Arthur Levitt that the government’s failure to regulate the trading of collateralized debt obligations was a ticking bomb that could bring down the financial system. (The run on derivatives and resulting financial collapse of 2008 showed that she was right.) And last week, the Washington Post reported that a female lawyer at the SEC, Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to warn her male superiors that Bernard Madoff’s accounts did not make sense and that the agency should investigate.

We also now know that at least four of our male political leaders (Presidential candidate John Edwards, governors Elliott Spitzer and Mark Sanford, and Senator John Ensign) allowed their pursuit of extramarital liaisons to put their leadership responsibilities and the interests of their constituents at risk.

Keep those episodes in mind next time that you hear (as I have) suggestions that men are better natural leaders than women, that women who disagree with the conclusions of their male colleagues are just “having a bad day” (and cruder suggestions), that men should not be supervised by women, and other such remarks. 

In light of recent events, the idea that men are better leaders than women turns out to be not just untrue, but dangerous to our nation’s economic well-being and governance. There are many ways to support our country, and it’s not a stretch to say that challenging remarks that deride women’s leadership and decisionmaking abilities is a small act of patriotism. The nation is well served when we stand up and confront misguided notions about women’s capacity to lead. 

Because if our country is to get back on course, we need fewer yes-men and more talented leaders—women and men—whose decisions are based on reality and not on ideology, personal interest, or short-term gain. 

Steve

Much has been written (too much, some might suggest) about the legacy of Michael Jackson since his unfortunate death in June. As is true whenever someone famous passes before their time, there is enormous conjecture about what was and what might have been. Their lives, already under the microscope, are further dissected, often with the intent of uncovering the more sordid details of their history.

In Jackson’s case, few would question his contributions as a musician; the man, however, is not so easily categorized. By all accounts, he was a gentle soul, contributing generously to charities—most notably by writing “We are the World” with Lionel Richie to help famine-relief efforts in Africa. Conversely, he was accused of abusing young boys at his Neverland Ranch. Jackson settled one case and was acquitted in another, but revelations during that trial—compounded by his often quirky behavior—left many of us feeling uncomfortable.

Jackson’s father allegedly abused him physically and emotionally beginning at a young age, and if we have learned anything during the past two decades it is that child abuse is damaging. Abused children often drink and take drugs to excess, develop eating disorders and other body issues, and can be developmentally delayed—staying childlike in many behaviors and decision-making processes, while progressing normally in other life areas. The effects of early trauma, as we now more readily understand, can be lasting—it is in many ways a small death, often leading to increasingly destructive behaviors over time.

If his allegations about being abused are true, as most people close to him believe they are, Jackson may indeed be the poster child for the need to more effectively intervene when children are being mistreated. Yet rarely, in the weeks that have passed since Jackson’s death, have I heard the issue of his alleged abuse during childhood (or his alleged victimization of others) discussed in relation to the need to break the cycle of child abuse that permeates our communities.

So what on earth, you might ask, does this have to do with sexist remarks? One only need look at the language that is used when violence occurs against women and children to consider that a sexist and patriarchal perspective has influenced our response to abuse. We ask why women stay with their abusive partners, even as research tells us that they try to leave—often numerous times—despite the financial and cultural difficulties they encounter when they do. Supposedly well-educated judges have publicly questioned the clothing and demeanor of very young girls who were sexually abused by adult males—as if to suggest that they provoked the attack. “Provocation” is in fact often mentioned when women and children are the victims of abuse.

How we discuss child abuse impacts our ability to create effective prevention, intervention, and treatment approaches, and quite obviously blaming the victim is not the answer. When all the hoopla that has surrounded his passing subsides, perhaps Jackson’s real legacy will be to cast a light on the need to change the way we talk about and address child abuse in this country. If we are wise enough to learn that lesson, we might be ready to explore how sexist language helps to perpetuate some of the other destructive elements of our culture.

Cynthia

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has offered at least one lesson on gender stereotypes. 

In case you missed it, Senator Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) has implied that Judge Sotomayor may be a “bully judge” and, referring to her demeanor, says, “There’s a character problem; there’s a temperament problem.” He has questioned her fitness for the High Court based on those characteristics. 

Temperament may be a fair criterion on which to assess the fitness of a Supreme Court nominee. But if so, are we using the same standards for men and women in assessing temperament? 

Apparently not, according to a June 15 story on National Public Radio. Journalist Nina Totenberg did more than report what supporters and detractors say about Sotomayor’s temperament. She and her team listened to oral arguments in two cases for which Sotomayor was one of the sitting judges. For the first case, Totenberg tallied the number of questions and interruptions made by Sotomayor and her colleagues during presentations by the opposing lawyers. Sotomayor asked 5 questions, and her colleagues an average of 4.7. She interrupted the lawyers 7 times, and her colleagues an average of 5.1. (Totenberg points out that Sotomayor was participating by teleconference, and it was clear that some of her interruptions were the result of not being able to hear.) For the second case, Totenberg compared the tenor of Sotomayor’s questions with those of sitting Supreme Court justices. She concluded that Sotomayor’s questions were tough but that her cross-examinations of lawyers were no more or less aggressive than those typical of Justices John Roberts and Antonin Scalia. 

We are left to ask, then, what is the real basis for criticism of Sotomayor’s temperament. It’s not hard to figure out: women in leadership face a double standard in which assertiveness is perceived as aggressiveness and decisiveness as domineering behavior. It’s the same double standard applied to  Hillary Clinton during her Presidential campaign and  countless other women leaders. Of course, if women leaders are not assertive or decisive, they then are called weak. It’s the temperament trap, in which sexist labels are applied to strong women leaders that would never be applied to men who perform similarly. 

What’s the lesson? Perhaps we should react a bit more skeptically the next time someone tells us that they find a certain female leader or manager unfriendly, overbearing, or hard to work with. We might ask, “Would you make the same observation about her behavior if she were a man?” “How does her behavior compare with that of men in her position?” and, most important, “Is she effective?” (which is often the only criterion used to judge the character of men in leadership). 

That conversation might help clarify where the problem really lies. 

Steve 

I am back from vacation and during that otherwise marvelous trip, I saw two comedians perform who used the most incredibly old-fashioned sexist humor that you can imagine. My husband and I actually walked out of one show when it began with a joke about the comedian’s mother’s t%ts and quickly went downhill from there. The other comedian, who was billed as performing “observational humor,” was less lowbrow but insulting to women nonetheless. It was not that his observations about the differences between women and men were totally off base; rather it was the way he spoke in a high-pitched, nagging voice when mimicking his wife or other women. While men didn’t fare much better, being portrayed as laughable boobs, “momma” was a highly organized, humorless scold, bent on keeping her husband in line (read: not having any fun). 

These are not the women I know and work with, and frankly most of the men I hang out with aren’t quite so feckless. And yet the audience laughed (women included), while I sat with my jaw in my lap. 

Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge fan of a good laugh but why does so much humor have to be at someone’s (often women’s) expense? And why are we laughing at humor that perpetuates old stereotypes like the nagging wife or over-involved mother-in-law? Could it be that much of the audience response was the nervous laughter of women and progressive men who did not know how to respond otherwise without appearing humorless? 

Sound familiar? You bet it does. The greatest challenge we face with regard to stopping sexist remarks is our inability to challenge the status quo. While we know that tolerating sexist remarks isn’t helpful in changing the culture, we often endure those comments (teeth clenched) in myriad settings, and it is time to figure out why. 

I suspect that it would be easier to routinely stand up to sexist remarks if we were certain that we had the immediate and unwavering support of colleagues and friends (or for that matter, any intelligent stranger happening by), policymakers, and cultural leaders. So why haven’t more of us banded together to challenge the all-too-prevalent use of language that demeans women? 

If you are reading this post, it is likely that you care about stopping sexist remarks. So you tell us—how do we begin to create a network of people who will speak up when sexist remarks are made? What can we do to convince everyone of the need to take the impact of sexist remarks more seriously? 

Send us your ideas, and we will share those on this site. Then take action to ensure that stopping sexist remarks is on the radar of those with the power to support positive change. For example, you might write to Valerie Jarrett, who is heading the White House Council on Women and Girls, to encourage her to address the effects of sexist language on women and girls are in this country. Or contact Terry O’Neill, the new President of the National Organization for Women (NOW) or your local NOW chapter leaders and ask them to focus on stopping language that undermines women’s power and potential. You also might reach out to leaders at your local schools and universities and community and religious institutions to ask them to create policies for eliminating the use of sexist remarks in their arenas. 

Keep us posted on what you do to create your own local network for stopping sexist remarks and the responses that you receive from national organizations—because we have a much better chance of challenging the status quo if we join together to do so. 

Cynthia

A story in my local area illustrates what can happen when workplace managers fail to create an environment that is free of sexist remarks and other forms of sexist behavior. 

Four female corrections officers who worked in our county jail have filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the county sheriff’s office. They say that they were subjected to sexual jokes and innuendo by male co-workers, retaliated against when they filed complaints with managers, and denied promotions.

The women’s charges have been given added weight by a report from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluding that that the evidence supports their claims that they experienced sexual harassment, degrading treatment, and a hostile work environment. 

I find troubling our sheriff and county administrator’s response to the suit. The sheriff responded, “I can tell you that we adamantly and feverishly deny all of the allegations and can’t wait for our day in court. The sooner the better.” And our county administrator has declined comment. Obviously, the defendants are innocent until proven guilty. But what our local leaders did not say is revealing: “As county leaders, we oppose discrimination and harassment in county offices. We do not tolerate sexist behavior, and we have policies in place that prevent sexual harassment and discrimination.” 

The costs of our county’s lack of leadership on gender equality now include the end of the careers of four women and a possible cost to county taxpayers of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Workplace leaders who believe that sexist comments are harmless and that women should simply “laugh them off” are setting the stage for other forms of sexual harassment. When organizations treat sexist comments as routine and ignore complaints about them, they create an environment that makes even worse treatment of women possible. 

Those who stand up to sexist comments and other forms of harassment are the canary in the coal mine. Their efforts to end sexist remarks are a warning that an organization is not taking gender equality seriously enough. But unlike the mining’s industry’s canary, no one has to die to fix this problem—it just requires leaders who are willing to put an end to sexist behavior.

Steve

Increasingly, I feel as if the prevailing cultural norm is “winning at any cost.” This is evidenced by, among other things, the verbal sparring among politicans and by media pundits that accompanies every emerging issue or situation. Whatever happened to civilized dialogue—to polite debate during which we focus our comments on substantive issues rather than attacking the character of the (perceived) opposition? Too often today, when we disagree, we hurl invective—including sexist remarks—designed to shatter the credibility of our opponents rather than engaging them in thoughtful discourse. 

The most recent example includes calling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist on the basis of a comment that she made when discussing discrimination (which was, of course, presented out of context). Whether you agree with her statement or not, we all need to object to this latest example of vitriolic name calling. Words matter, and statements designed simply to incite—rather than educate—the public are dangerous. Calling a woman a racist on the basis of one comment does not further the discussion; it simply serves to inflame those engaged in it. This isn’t a partisan issue, with voices on both the left and the right using inflammatory language during public debates. 

I therefore decided to revisit the idea of a proper debate, skimming through a few websites with information on debate strategies. The prevailing guidance included the following: avoid exaggeration, refrain from telling the other person that she or he is wrong, watch the tone of your voice, and admit when you are sharing an opinion rather than a fact. Further, the basis for a debate is described as using logic and evidence to build a case (an apparently lost art). Moreover, to constructively debate, you must listen, assess, and then respond politely and effectively to your opponent’s remarks. These are not bad principles to consider applying to our daily discourse. 

I am left thinking that the best advice I’ve heard came from Steven Covey, the management guru, who said “Seek first to understand.” In other words, even when we disagree with someone, we should pause, ask questions, and really listen to their answers—not simply react. By trying to understand how others feel and think, we might just learn something that hadn’t occurred to us. Using that information, we can begin to create real conversations where the goal is to generate a positive exchange of ideas for each participant’s delight or enlightenment (is there really any other reason to talk?). In situations in which we are considering how to deal with critical issues, this type of conversation can yield mutually agreed-upon strategies for positively resolving our challenges. When I have applied Covey’s principle (and trust me, it takes work in a culture that rewards you for winning), the outcomes are always better. 

Maybe it is time that we demand that our elected leaders and the media choose more dignified and helpful ways to engage the American public in assessing important national decisions. Call or write your elected officials and national/local media executives and tell them that on important matters, you want: 

1. An objective presentation of the facts (in context)
2. Any relevant historical information
3. Their analysis, guidance, or wisdom, with the caveat that it represents their opinion
4. Truly fair and balanced coverage during public forums and on television and radio news shows, in which both sides of an issue are explored by advocates with similar qualifications, skills, and experience
5. An immediate reduction in the use of language intended to generate controversy (read: language intended to raise money/generate high ratings)

Let’s face it: we shouldn’t be surprised that we are still dealing with sexist remarks in our personal lives when much of what we hear on the news or from our elected leaders is far worse. So reach out today and encourage your elected officials and the media professionals you regularly watch to kick their hysterical rhetoric to the curb. 

Cynthia

A friend recently told me about the book Boys Adrift, whose thesis is that boys today are faring substantially worse than girls in school. Its author, Leonard Sax (a psychologist and family physician) claims that several barriers are keeping boys from achieving their potential and that as a result, boys are faring substantially worse in school. Sax calls for a complete overhaul of the educational system to accommodate the needs of boys, including giving parents the option of sending their children to single-gender public schools.

The book has received a lot of attention since its release in 2007. Sax is presenting his ideas at medical schools, giving speeches at education conferences for public school teachers, and doing workshops for parents. In March, he appeared on the Today show. 

While I was interested in my friend’s enthusiasm for the book, I confess to being uneasy about the general alarm being sounded about the welfare of boys. I want children and young people of both genders to succeed. But while I am encouraged by the long-overdue gains that women have made in the last 20 years, the remaining disparities make the attempt to rearrange the world for boys feel like part of the backlash against feminism that has been going on since the seventies. 

So I hope that Dr. Sax and those who support efforts to reform school systems on behalf of boys are equally troubled by (and willing to help address) the obstacles that girls have long faced in school. These include sexist comments about their abilities in math, science, and computers and  teachers’ stereotypes about girls’ ability in math and science, which affect their test performance. 

Because students of both genders deserve to have adults advocate for the removal of barriers to their success, where those exist. I suspect we all want both the boys and girls we know to get what they need to achieve their academic potential. So if you know people involved in efforts to help boys in school, suggest that they also consider taking action on behalf of girls by promoting an environment that is free of sexist remarks and that offers equal opportunity and encouragement in the range of areas that can broaden their life choices.

Steve

About 25 years ago, I asked a long-time battered women’s advocate whose work I respected why eliminating sexism appeared to be so much tougher than dealing with other forms of socially based discrimination. Her response bears repeating: “Because messages about sexism usually begin at home.” 

She went on to explain that addressing sexism requires each person to examine the culturally defined, gender-based roles that they play in their most important relationships (parent/child, marriage/partnership, brother/sister). In other words, challenging the status quo with regard to sexism does not simply mean signing a petition, attending a rally, or otherwise speaking out. It means taking a good hard look at our own lives and the roles we have chosen (or had foisted upon us), and therefore, the ideas about women and men that we are passing on to our children. At the time that I asked the question, it meant taking risks with a partner or family member as you pushed beyond socially defined limits to negotiate the paths less traveled by your gender. 

Times have changed (thank goodness), and I delight in the new young fathers I see pushing their babies in strollers around the neighborhood, tackling the responsibilities of daycare, and showing up for school outings. I am thrilled that so many young women have taken advantage of the educational and workplace opportunities provided by the first and second waves of feminism. 

Yet sexism remains, playing out in the way women are portrayed by the media; in films, television, and advertising; and of course, through sexist remarks. More subtly, in many homes, the traditional gender roles remain firmly in place, with dad washing the car or mowing the lawn, mom cooking dinner, grandpa cutting the turkey at Thanksgiving, and grandma shopping for the new grandbaby. 

Even if you love every one of the “more traditional” roles that you have adopted in your family of origin or creation, it may be time to reflect on how watching you in those roles may impact your children’s choices. Will your daughter grow up to design new, and hopefully ecologically sound, automobiles if she never develops a passion for cars? Will your son learn to cook if he witnesses Dad tying on the apron only for a backyard barbecue? Does Uncle Bill suggest that the women clean up after a family dinner while the men retire to watch the football game? Do you encourage your daughters and nieces to join them? 

As a country that appears more interested in whether Michelle Obama bares her arms at political functions than in her amazingly dignified and engaging performance as First Lady, it seems that we still have a ways to go where sexism is concerned. And changing outdated sexist ideas begins at home. So start by asking yourself the following questions: 

1. If I have chosen the more traditional male or female roles at home or work, do I expose my children to successful and happy men and women who have made different choices? 
2. Do I actively (and visibly) support my partner, family members, and friends when they make choices that do not fit neatly into traditional gender roles?
3. Do I consider how my comments about women and men might affect my children’s thinking about the choices they have available to them (or the value that we place on girls and boys)?
4. Do I talk with my children about the value to our community (and the world) of encouraging women and men to use their skills or otherwise contribute in ways that go beyond traditional gender roles?
5. Do I address the sexist remarks my children encounter—at school and family events, or in other situations—either in the moment or with them later privately, as appropriate?

Then decide to make a change, if you need to (and I suspect most of us do), in the messages that you convey to your children about women and men—through both what you say and what you do. Because if sexism begins at home, then home is where we need to stop it.

Cynthia

How does one respond effectively to sexist remarks? The original intent of this site was to explore options and present women and men with strategies for addressing those types of comments during everyday conversations. The overall goal, however, was not simply to build a list of catchy retorts—although those can be very helpful and I particularly like the list that Steve put together in his post “Setting Boundaries in 15 Words or Less”—but rather to educate people about the need to stop sexist remarks. 

What we really need is prevention. Simply responding to sexist remarks is akin to scooping water out of a sinking boat rather than checking the boat for leaks before leaving the dock. It doesn’t mean that we should stop figuring out how to respond effectively to sexist comments because those situations present incredible learning/teaching moments, as Steve discussed in his last post. Simultaneously, however, we need to focus on the bigger goal of creating environments—at work, home, and school, and in the business, political, educational, and religious arenas—that are free of sexist remarks and other forms of gender discrimination. 

This means, as prevention always does, taking action on the front end. We need to help community and private institutions (and family members and friends) to train or educate those with whom they are engaged about why sexist remarks are inappropriate (damaging actually, as some of the research Steve has highlighted in his posts suggests). And we need to encourage them to set limits through policy and practice (including everyday conversations) that clearly defines acceptable language for talking to or about women and girls. 

Check out the Take Action section of this site—where we provide detailed strategies for getting started—and decide today to broach the subject of ending sexist remarks in a setting where you (or those around you) encounter such comments. And watch for new information on taking action to prevent sexist remarks in other settings—we will let you know when that becomes available.

 Because in stopping sexist remarks, an ounce of prevention just might be worth a pound of cure. 

Cynthia

It’s a fact of history that bigotry in its various forms—sexism, racism, homophobia—is a potent tool for diverting the attention of people who are vulnerable. In the South, white-owned corporations used racism to divide the white and African American working classes and prevent unionization. At the height of the Dust Bowl and Great Depression in Oklahoma, voters elected a governor who had run on a platform of moving Jewish people and African Americans out of the state for allegedly stealing jobs and resources that could benefit poor whites. And as Susan Faludi argues in Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, some of the backlash against feminism by working-class American men has been the product of misplaced anger at shrinking wages, layoffs, and a world they perceive to be moving on without them.

That understanding helps me to have a bit more compassion in handling sexist remarks. Why compassion? After all, not everyone is being manipulated by someone else, and we do make choices about what we think. But we are also shaped to a large degree by our experiences, and we all would be different people if we had someone else’s background. 

The authors of the 1997 book Encountering Bigotry argue that change happens when we are able to have real conversations with people who express bigotry. They think that real conversations have two parts. Part 1 consists of being genuinely curious about why the other person has chosen to express themselves in a bigoted way. As offensive as we find their expression, this means asking questions like, “I’m curious why you would say something like that?” “What is that based on?” “What experiences have led you to think that way?” Part 2 consists of communicating your values, expressing in personal terms why equality is important to you. Why do you care about sexist remarks? How do such comments affect people you care about—your daughter, your sister, your wife, you? 

When asked why I care about stopping sexist remarks, I talk about having witnessed discrimination against my mother in a church that we belonged to when I was in high school. At age 16, I and a few friends my age had been asked to serve on a committee, one that my mother happened to lead because she’d been asked to do so by the lone progressive-minded church leader. It was the first time that a woman had taken a leadership role in our church. She had clear leadership abilities—people commented on her public speaking skills and her ability to facilitate a committee discussion and bring a group to consensus. But the backlash soon came—a male member of the committee was unhappy that a woman was heading up the committee, and told her so. He rounded up support from other men who believed that it was not appropriate—based on their religious understanding, they said—for a woman to be in a leadership role.

Ultimately, enough people respected my mother’s skills that she stayed in her role until the committee’s work was finished. But the injustice of it offended my friends and me—how could men oppose someone so clearly gifted only because she wasn’t the right gender? 

We all have key experiences that help explain why we care about stopping sexist remarks. If we can share those experiences, and listen to the stories of those making sexist remarks, it’s possible to create change one conversation at a time.   

Steve

If sexist beer advertisements were a sign of the decline and fall of America, our cities would have been reduced to rubble years ago. Fortunately, there is enough else going right in the country that predictions of our demise are probably premature. But here’s one recent ad that I couldn’t let pass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIutgtzwhAc

So women love high heels, and men love beer. That such a cliché could still be considered funny indicates how far we have to go.

But there are subtler forms of typecasting by gender that people perpetuate in everyday conversation. The following are sentiments that I’ve heard expressed, even by people I consider egalitarian-minded:

1. Women are neat/men don’t clean or care about appearance.
2. Women and girls express aggression verbally/men and boys express aggression physically.
3. Women like talking about feelings/men don’t know how to express feelings.
4. Women are chatty/men don’t like to talk.
5. Women need someone to take care of/men are independent and not good caretakers.
6. Women like to shop/men hate shopping.
7. Women are better at multitasking but can’t finish tasks/men can’t multitask but finish the job.
8. Women are sensitive/men are insensitive.
9. Women are good listeners/men are self-centered and don’t listen.

Are these just harmless observations about the differences between women and men? Not likely. The “innocent stereotypes” that we hear daily in our culture affect our thinking and therefore behavior. For example, there is now a substantial body of research documenting that women perform worse than men on tests when participants are led to believe that the results will differ by gender. In contrast, women and men perform equally well when the participants are told before the test that the genders typically perform equally well.

I suspect the same holds true for women and men regarding expressing feelings or cleaning or shopping. People behave according to the cultural expectations regarding each of these characteristics. (Even so, among the people I know, gender is a poor predictor in these areas.) When sexist cultural stereotypes go unchallenged, it reinforces the rigid gender roles that keep both women and men from reaching their potential.

As Cynthia noted in her last post, we can start to break down these roles by becoming more aware of our own presumptions about gender. And then we can address those when we hear them.

When enough of us do, the beer advertisers who depict men as boobs and women as bimbos will wake up one day to find they’ve lost their audience.

Steve

On Earth Day this year, I made the decision to really “go green.” My husband and I already do our bit for the environment. Neither of us drives to work, and we keep the heat down and use air conditioning sparingly. We turn off the lights when we are not in a room, and I recycle paper by printing on both sides. Because we choose to live in a city, we have a small condo, which keeps us from “over consuming” simply because we do not have room for lots of new things—many of which would eventually make their way to the landfill. 

I did however have a penchant for using paper towels. And because we take our lunch to work, we tended to use plastic baggies and to reuse the plastic grocery store bags as lunch sacks. Not anymore; I am now conscious of every paper towel that I use. Paper napkins are a thing of the past, and I have begun exploring non-plastic alternatives for storing our lunch items. We are going green, and once I made that decision, I began to reassess my every action. When you pay attention, you notice the waste and harm that you can do without ever intending to. 

From the myriad articles that I read about Earth Day, that simple message emerged—there is power in raising people’s consciousness. In my neighborhood, everyone carries cloth grocery bags to the store; two years ago, that simply wasn’t true. Little actions make a difference, as we keep being told—especially when you multiply those by millions of people. 

Funny, but wasn’t consciousness-raising the initial goal of the feminist movement? Perhaps if we commit to taking small actions to stop sexist remarks, we might raise our overall consciousness about how language (and the ideas defined by it) affects women and girls in our culture. You know, doing the equivalent of carrying a cloth grocery bag, or turning off the lights, or driving less. 

So pick one day each week for the next six weeks—and on that day, be more conscious about how you think and talk about women and girls. It is amazing what you can discover about yourself simply by paying attention. Maybe if we all change our own thinking, and therefore our language and behavior, we will begin to make a difference in how women and girls are viewed and treated in our culture. 

Because while going green is about creating a healthier and more sustainable environment, stopping sexist remarks is about creating a more gender equal—and therefore more sustainable—world. 

Cynthia

Many years ago, I was with a group of people when someone made what they thought was a funny remark about a person with a disability. Many people laughed. Then one woman spoke up and said, “I don’t find that funny.” Everyone stopped laughing, and people looked at each other, embarrassed and uncomfortable. It was an awkward moment, but everyone knew who was responsible for their discomfort—the person who had made the offensive remark.

I admire what she did that day—with five words, she had changed the direction of the conversation. Similarly, addressing sexist comments requires forethought, judgment, and courage, and it often works best when we keep our response simple. Consider using statements like the following to let people know you find sexism unacceptable:

1.  ”What do you mean by that?”
2. “Do you really think that?”
3. “It doesn’t seem like you to say something like that.”
4. “No, I don’t think about it that way.”
5. “I don’t find that funny.”
6. “That doesn’t sound nice to me.”
7. “Would you want to have that said to/about your wife, daughter, or sister?”
8. “I would rather not talk that way about women.”
9. “I don’t like to think about women that way.”
10. “That type of remark about women makes me uncomfortable.”
11. “I’m sure you don’t realize it, but that comment sounds like a put-down of women.”
12. “Wow, I didn’t know you felt that way about women.”
13. “That sounds sexist. Is that what you intended?”

A book I recently read, Encountering Bigotry, refers to sexist, racist, and homophobic remarks as “invitations.” The authors write that “an invitation is a call to participate in something, whether it is an invitation to a wedding or an invitation to laugh at a joke. The listener is forced to respond in some way.” When people make sexist remarks, they are inviting us to cross a boundary into their world, one in which women are perceived as less than equal.

A simple declaration that addresses sexism helps spread an alternative vision of the world, one where people are judged on character, not on gender. Sharing that vision is a gift to those around us—both those who know that equality is the better path, and those clinging to old ways of thinking.

What other simple declarations have you used to stop sexist remarks and let people know that you stand for equality?

Steve

There has been a lot of talk recently about children who bully their classmates. You likely remember those kids from your own school days; for some reason (their own insecurities, behaviors learned at home), they used size, fear, or violence to get what they wanted. 

I am not sure why we remain so startled by the schoolyard bully. Today’s children are exposed to an ever-increasing array of bullies parading as pundits and talk show hosts. Parents at peewee softball games yell and carry on when the coach doesn’t play their child in a choice position. People post comments on the Internet that are designed at a minimum to provoke or insult authors or a fellow commenter. Reality show participants are more likely to stick around if they have trouble getting along with the other members of their house or island; they are deemed interesting by virtue of their prickly or abusive nature. 

If someone behaved this way at your dinner party, you wouldn’t invite them back. So why do we keep tolerating the behavior of bullies in our communities? 

Since our children really are just windows into the souls of the adults around them, our first course of action in dealing with schoolyard bullies might be to take a good long look in the mirror. How often do we use power or threats to get what we want? How often do we direct anger and frustration at someone, in front of our children, over relatively silly matters? (One need only drive in traffic to witness this type of behavior.) And how often do we use words to describe others that we likely would prefer not to hear directed at ourselves? 

Because isn’t that what sexist remarks really are: a form of bullying? Mean words designed to make women feel intimidated or small—just like back on the schoolyard. Demeaning language intended to make women feel less powerful in the workplace. Bullying language used by otherwise seemingly intelligent men to end talk show debates with female colleagues that they cannot win on the merits. 

Creating a shift in how we interact will take some doing given all the challenges we face and the expanding influence of pundit journalism (read: angry and argumentative). But we each need to do what we can—so start small by opting for any of the following: 

1. Remembering that our children learn more by watching what we do than by listening to what we say.
2. Trying to turn each interaction with others into a win-win situation for everyone involved.
3. Turning off the television and radio rather than listening to media personalities who criticize and attack instead of offering solutions (and especially when they do so using sexist language). 

Most important, let those in power—including your community leaders and media executives (and the advertisers who support them, often while looking the other way)—know that you want a kinder, gentler nation. Let’s work together to create a country in which we choose not to bully others with our words or behavior. Let’s make ours a nation in which children don’t know how to behave as bullies—simply because they have never seen one. 

Cynthia

When Men Confront Men About Sexist Remarks in the Workplace

I worked several years ago with a senior manager in a mid-size company. I was a junior staff person who did not report to him. We were on friendly terms. 

As I walked down the hall one day, I met a woman colleague headed in the opposite direction; I passed her and then walked by the manager’s office, where he was standing in the doorway. “Nice a__,” he remarked to me, nodding in her direction. I turned around and said to him, “That sounds pretty sexist,” and kept walking. 

I thought that my woman colleague had heard his remark and wanted to see what she thought. When I asked her a few minutes later, she said that she hadn’t heard, and then she said, “Oh that’s just [name].” Her assessment was accurate. I found out later that he regularly made sexist remarks to women in the office and continued to do so even after they’d objected. Though I found his behavior disturbing (and later found the company’s failure to take action to end his behavior even more troubling), I liked my job, my work colleagues, and the goals of our work and so never considered leaving the organization over this issue. 

Over the next few days, the manager was noticeably less friendly to me (passing in the hallway without greeting, for example). But he gradually thawed, and eventually we were on the same terms as before. But I never spoke to him or anyone else about the incident. 

Before this happened, I’d not thought much about sexist remarks (but I strongly opposed expressions of prejudice in all their forms). Though I hadn’t considered what I might do when confronted with sexism, I found it impossible not to speak up: he was directing his comment to me and asking for my participation. Saying nothing would indicate my approval. 

I suspect there were many reasons that I didn’t talk to anyone after the incident. The reaction of the woman who was the target of the remark made me think that I was overreacting. If this kind of thing didn’t bother the women with whom I worked, why should it bother me? My conclusion was natural but showed I didn’t know much about how sexist remarks create a hostile work environment and that women sometimes laugh them off as unimportant to cope with an untenable situation. 

That and other insights have made me better able to respond effectively next time in another professional setting, and strengthened my willingness to do so. I would speak up because I understand the importance of challenging sexist remarks and that change often comes from the bottom up. That said, I also would need to consider the organizational culture and the position and power of the person making the remark so as not to casually jeopardize my own employment situation. 

But I am willing to challenge sexism even if it means putting my opportunities at risk because I cannot support an organization that tolerates a sexist environment. (And if it does, I’m willing to pursue my legal options.)

Taking on sexism also means expanding society’s assumptions about what it means to be a man. In the eighties, there was a funny little song by Christine Lavin going around about “sensitive new age guys.” I remember laughing too, but there was a disturbing undertone to that song. Its message (and the joke) was that men have changed from the hard-drinking tough guys who fought World War II and were the heads of their homes to patsies who wear loafers, drink latte, and care about what women think. 

Is it possible to care about sexist remarks and not be booted out of the Guy Club? I hope so. I am some of the things described in Lavin’s song—I don’t eat red meat, I do think men should share responsibility for child care, and I listen to my partner (most of the time, hopefully). But I also watch and play sports, don’t cry at weddings, and don’t much like talking about feelings. I know the song was meant to be fun, but it perpetuates a terrible idea—that there is one way to be a man and if you break one rule, you’re out of the club. 

Men have the capacity to be many things at once, with one of them being that we stand up to sexist remarks. I took heart when I told a World War II-generation male relative about this site. After he listened, he said, “That’s an important project. I hope that I haven’t been making sexist remarks.” It wasn’t what I expected from him, and it was exactly what I needed to hear.   

Steve

Last year, as the war in Iraq raged on and the nation’s financial infrastructure began to crumble, Steve’s response to those who asked what he wanted for his birthday was “good news” (which by the way, is a great gift for anyone). I spent some time on the Internet and located a few sites that send you daily messages of hope and stories of people performing good deeds around the world. I forwarded those to Steve and signed myself up as well (doesn’t everyone need a little extra good news now and then?).

Lately, I have been really glad that I found those sites. Since launching this blog, I have spent considerable time tracking sexist remarks. The unfortunate side effect of this work is the need to live and breathe the sexism that is happening around the world. I find myself wondering why so many people appear to see women as lesser beings deserving of verbal assaults on their looks and character. And why aren’t more people rising up to challenge the persistent sexist commentary in the media? When you focus on sexism on a daily basis, it is impossible not to become angry, a little sad, and quite frustrated with the slow pace of change.

So last week, when one of my “good news” sites referenced the positive effects of the simple act of being grateful, I read on with interest. According to the DailyGood, research has shown that “when we think about someone or something we really appreciate and experience the feeling that goes with the thought, the parasympathetic—calming-branch of the autonomic nervous system—is triggered. This pattern when repeated bestows a protective effect on the heart.” (Not to mention your spirit.)

Given the recent onslaught of sexist remarks, I figured that I could use a little “calming.” So here goes—I am grateful for:

1. The early feminist leaders who set us on a path to gender equality.
2. Women and men who stand up to leaders in the business, media, entertainment, and political arenas when they use language that disparages women and girls.
3. The fact that the media bullies who target women with insulting remarks are increasingly being held accountable for their actions—and all the media watchdog organizations, like Media Matters, who help us to do so.
4. Men, like Dave Heuschkel (see Steve’s post  below), who work in (still) primarily male-dominated industries and are willing to go out on a limb to call out their colleagues when they make extraordinarily sexist comments.
5. Men, like Steve, who spend their own time (and money) on actions that promote gender equality—like this site.
6. All the women who work for social justice in myriad arenas, even as the fight for their own equality continues.
7. The women and men who e-mailed to tell us how much they appreciate what we are doing via this blog, who shared our site with their friends, who blogged about or linked to us, and especially those who left a comment about how to deal effectively with sexist remarks.

Because maybe the more we talk openly about what is wrong with sexist comments, the quicker we can stop them for good. Now that would be something to be grateful for.

Cynthia

Supporting Journalists Who Challenge Sexist Remarks

Dave Heuschkel, a columnist with a Sports Illustrated blog, is finding out what it’s like to be a journalist who takes on a sexist remark. He wrote his February 7 column about statements made by a commentator for the NBA’s Orlando Magic regarding Violet Palmer, the league’s only woman referee.

Richie Adubato, in criticizing one of Palmer’s calls during a game between the Magic and Indiana Pacers, suggested that she should be coaching in the professional women’s league, the WNBA.

In his column, Heuschkel pointed out that there was nothing wrong with Adubato criticizing Palmer’s call. But he noted that it was offensive to suggest that she didn’t belong in the NBA. Commentators often disagree with male referees, but Adubato managed to simultaneously attack both Palmer’s credentials and the level of professionalism in the WNBA.

Heuschkel’s column drew a large response from blog readers. A few were supportive, but most disagreed with him. Some personally attacked Heuschkel, others attacked the idea of a woman referee, and some directed sexist posts at post-ers who defended Heuschkel. The consistent theme of the negative posts was, “She’s a bad referee, and she should be subject to the same criticism as male officiators. If she can’t be criticized because she is a woman, then that is ‘reverse sexism.’”

This misses Heuschkel’s point. He doesn’t take the commentator to task for his negative assessment of Palmer’s call. Women’s performance should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as that of men, and pointing out a mistake by a woman in a highly public role is perfectly legitimate.

But if when a woman is criticized, it’s implied that she should be working in a “woman’s arena” because the expectations are lower, that is sexist. (In this case, the commentator alleged that she should be refereeing in the WNBA because, according to him, the women’s league has lower standards.)

We can help encourage journalism that challenges sexist stereotypes by supporting writers like Dave Heuschkel who do so. We can also ask media executives to tell their personnel who use sexist remarks that such behavior won’t be tolerated. I’ve written to the Sports Illustrated blog to thank them for running Heuschkel’s column about Violet Palmer (you can contact them here). I’ve also written to the Magic’s owner (whom you can contact here). Sample e-mails to both the blog and the Magic are here. I hope you’ll do so too.

Steve

Recently, we began writing to prominent people working on women’s issues and in the business, media, and entertainment arenas. We are asking them to share their experiences in dealing effectively with sexist remarks in their lives and careers. 

We look forward to hearing from these leaders but suspect that you have great advice about responding to sexist comments that you learned from the person who lives next door, works across the hall, or runs the local drycleaner or coffee shop. 

So let us hear from you. We created this blog to provide a place where women and men could come together to create strategies for responding to sexist remarks. 

We love comments. So tell us what you think about our posts, describe what you have learned about dealing with sexist comments, or let us know what you would like to see on the site. Most important, share your thoughts on how we can all work together to end sexist remarks. 

Cynthia and Steve

March 2009 is Women’s History Month, and March 8^th was International Women’s Day. This month is a time to reflect on both the positive contributions made by women here and around the world and the challenges to achieving gender equality that remain. 

A priority is ensuring that women feel safe—both physically and emotionally—this is critical to achieving the type of equality that will enable us to benefit from the strengths and contributions of both genders. An easy starting point is working to end sexist remarks that demean women and diminish their accomplishments. So let’s focus our energy this month on promoting the idea that women deserve to be treated respectfully by: 

1. Insisting that media executives put a stop to sexist commentary on their airwaves 
2. Asking our leaders to take a stand against sexist remarks in the business, government, and political arenas 
3. Working with our schools and universities to ensure that they set a good example for our children by eliminating sexist remarks from classrooms and campuses 
4. Helping to educate others—friends, family, colleagues—about the importance of ending sexist remarks 

March—it comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could say the same for how we think and talk about women this month?

Cynthia

A friend told me recently that she was surprised when she got my e-mail about starting this blog. “I thought it might be something you were doing for your wife,” she said. “I didn’t quite get why you are part of it.” I took her to mean, “Why is a man interested in helping to stop sexist remarks?” 

I explained that the sexist comments directed at Hillary Clinton during her campaign (which went unremarked by other political leaders and most of the media) had challenged my assumption that openly sexist comments were a thing of the past. I also noted that my personal experiences in responding to sexist expressions (not always well) convinced me that there must be other people interested in sharing solutions for responding appropriately. 

I should have added this: In May 2008, researchers at two universities reported that at least three-quarters of girls in their study reported having been the target of sexist comments. Among the study’s findings was that open recognition that a comment is sexist is a crucial first step in overcoming discrimination. “Otherwise, it is more likely that individuals [girls] attribute failure to their lack of ability rather than to the obstacles in their environment,” according to study co-author Campbell Leaper. 

That is, when girls are the targets of sexist comments and those around them don’t acknowledge what is happening, the girls absorb the negative message and blame themselves for feeling bad. Sexist remarks are not harmless relics—they undermine girls’ self-esteem. It’s not just that my niece or a friend’s daughter are going to be told that there are certain things they can’t or shouldn’t do; it’s that they well may believe it. 

Given that possibility, it is not a question of whether men should be involved in efforts to stop sexist remarks: we are already involved if we make remarks that diminish women or stand idly by when others do. It’s a question of whether we will commit to defending equal treatment for women in our daily interactions by both changing our own behavior and encouraging change in the behavior of others.

Steve

One of my progressive college professors once told me that “all pioneers get arrows in the ass.” Today, women breaking new ground must endure the slings and arrows of those of us who stand on the sidelines critiquing their performance. This includes the media, bloggers, and the ever-expanding number of “regular” people who are commenting on the Web.

It is not easy being first, with all eyes upon you, the living embodiment of an entire gender’s hopes and dreams and expectations. We want the women who go first to be perfect, represent us well, and prove that women can be and do anything.

I suspect that no one can live up to those expectations, especially not when performing their new role in the public eye on a daily basis. They are bound to stumble, miss the mark occasionally, or simply fail to meet our insistent need for them to not only succeed, but to do so spectacularly. This is, in fact, why it is critical to have more women (not one woman) at the table, so to speak; the burden of representing all of us is simply too great.

Our women pioneers are going to continue to get arrows in the ass; it just comes with the territory. But isn’t it up to the rest of us to lower our unrealistic expectations of them just a bit, support them when they stumble, and cheer them on when they succeed?

Next time you see a woman who is “being first,” let her know that you appreciate what she is doing for all of us.

Cynthia