Stop Sexist Remarks

I was about to write a post on the need to focus on the upcoming presidential campaign now if we are going to end sexist remarks on the campaign trail (think Donald Trump as a candidate). Then I tripped across a wonderful column in Newsweek entitled “How to be a Real Man.” I have written a lot on this site about the need to stay positive so I decided to practice what I preach. Instead of giving any ink to outrageous remarks this week, I direct your attention to the author of “How to be a Real Man,” Dan Mulhern, husband of Jennifer Granholm, the former governor of Michigan.

Apparently, after reading Newsweek’s April 26^th cover story about how the current recession has left many men feeling shamed and powerless, Mulhern composed a letter to his son Jack, which was printed in the May 1^st edition of the magazine. He talks poignantly about what happens when a couple’s career paths shift from the traditional model, as theirs did, sharing both his initial feelings of vulnerability and the ensuing “tremendous gains.”

I’d say more—but the fact is—I can’t say it better than Mulhern, as exemplified by the following statements from his letter: “You need not fear strong women, or dismiss gentle men,” and “A strong man, Jack, is not threatened by others’ greatness. He’s comfortable with his own.”

Mulhern closes his letter to Jack by saying, “It is a great time to be a man.” I love his positive conclusions about the value of evolving gender roles, and I am going to seek out more examples of courageous men to share on this site. In fact, this might be an approach worthy of our consideration—spending less time responding to the sexist commentary of the small-minded, the misinformed, or the intentionally cruel—and more time supporting the men who understand that real equality for women will only exist when there are also new life choices for men.

The women’s movement had (and continues to have) a powerful and positive impact on the lives of women and girls here and around the globe. Now men like Mulhern are hoping to do the same for the boys.

Cynthia

p.s. Mulhern writes about leadership at danmulhern.com; see his site for information on his new project: StrongMenSpeak.

Do traditional attitudes about who should be children’s primary caretaker affect women’s career chances in this recession? One study indicates the answer is a resounding yes.

Two sociologists from Wichita State University released an analysis in 2009 of men’s and women’s employment after a layoff. It turns out that women have a harder time getting a job after they’ve been let go than do men. But some women do worse than others. Single women without children fare about as well as men, according to the study. But women with children, in the words of the researchers, “have a greater burden to prove that they’re committed to their job as opposed to being committed to their family.” And it appears that employers are holding women—but not men—to that criteria.

Could it be then that some of the most damaging forms of sexist expression are those that imply that women have primary responsibility for child care? That men shouldn’t have to think about the impact on their careers when making decisions about child bearing? That when a couple does have a child, it’s the woman who should compromise? It’s those ideas that give rise to books like this one asking whether women might be better off to choose early in their lives between having a child or a career. That is the wrong (and quite sexist) question—the right one is why it’s only women who have to decide.

Keep the Wichita study in mind the next time you hear a cutting remark about couples that have stay-at-home dads (right now, such couples make up less than 1 percent of the total; couples with stay-at-home moms comprise at least 19 percent). People who take seriously the idea that both fathers and mothers can assume the primary caretaker role are setting an example that is essential to improving opportunities for our country’s women and girls. And since many men might prefer to spend more time with their children, they’re also widening the choices available to parents of both sexes.

Steve

On April 9, Michael Toole, a Pennsylvania judge convicted on corruption charges, was sentenced to 2½ years in prison. After the sentencing, an incident occurred involving another judge that hasn’t gotten much play. Judge Ann Lokuta, who works in the same court, happened to walk past a group of the convicted judge’s supporters in search of a bathroom. One of the supporters was court employee Jim Dougherty, who allegedly yelled to Lokuta, “The men’s room is over there.” According to a witness to the event (a newspaper reporter) everyone in the group laughed. Judge Lokuta has filed a complaint with the state Supreme Court judge for an inappropriate sexist comment by a court employee. Judge Lokuta said that the motive for Dougherty’s comment is longstanding animosity directed at her by Toole and his allies.

Such slurs directed against women in power are all too common. We heard them when Janet Reno was head of the Department of Justice. We heard sexist brickbats of all types directed at Hillary Clinton. Rush Limbaugh called Senator Mary Landrieu a “high-class prostititute,” and Senator Harry Reid called fellow Senator Kirsten Gillebrand the “hottest member of the Senate.”

No one doubts that these accomplished women can ignore such comments and move on—they wouldn’t be where they are if they hadn’t endured a career of rising above demeaning remarks. Comments like these happen every day in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and families. And they do real damage—a study last fall found that when it comes to female politicians, for example, slurring the candidate with sexist names such as “ice queen” and “mean girl” undercuts her political standing far more than does criticism of her policies.

So if what happened to Judge Lokuta occurred as reported, then someone in that crowd should have had the courage to say, “No, that’s inappropriate,” “Hey, that’s not cool,” or “Hey, leave the sexism at home buddy.”

Judge Lokuta is standing up for herself, but she shouldn’t have to do that alone. Every time that someone else has the fortitude to speak up, it gives another person the courage to follow their example the next time. And conversely, it makes potential perpetrators more fearful of launching  a sexist slur—because next time, they just might find themselves as the object of disfavor.

Steve

Recent events have made it strikingly obvious that something needs to be done to change how women and girls are treated in America (not to mention so many other places around the globe). This includes violence against women, women’s reproductive health care being used as a bargaining chip during budget negotiations, and the ongoing parade of sexist commentary in movies, on television, in political campaigns, etc.

We have encouraged visitors to this site to find their voices when confronted with sexist comments, but we acknowledge that might be a lot easier said than done. So this week, we offer up a few suggestions for taking action that don’t require you to directly confront anyone for making a sexist remark:

For one year, put a nickel in a jar every time you hear someone makes a sexist comment. At the end of each year, tally up the money and write a check for the amount to the National Organization for Women (or your favorite women’s group) and send it off with note asking them to use the money to help end sexist remarks.

Write to your elected leaders, who have a legal and moral obligation to represent both genders equally and fairly, and let them know that you want them to put an end to sexist remarks during campaigns, media appearances, and when they are governing.

Talk to your kids (in a manner appropriate to their age) about the harmful impact of sexist remarks on girls (their sisters, themselves, their friends). We may not completely stop sexism in our lifetime, but we certainly can put our hope and energy into the next generation being able to do so.

These are three simple things that you can do without risking a friendship, a job, or family relationships. Choose one or all three and get started today. Take action!!

Cynthia

I have been thinking a lot about abortion this week. First, Congress used Planned Parenthood (and the issue of Federal funding for abortions) as a bargaining chip during this month’s budget standoff (visit Think Progress to read about how Senator Kyl’s (R-Arizona) staff admitted that his statements about the amount of money Planned Parenthood spends on abortion “was not intended to be a factual statement” and read 5 Myths about Planned Parenthood in the Washington Post). Then the Susan B. Anthony List launched a campaign against Planned Parenthood, basically calling the organization a fraud. Their radio and television spots claim that Planned Parenthood runs abortion clinics rather than providing women’s health and reproductive services (Read more about the campaign at Huff Post.)

Regardless of your position on abortion, don’t you find it odd that a woman’s right to choose is so often positioned as the central wedge issue during government budget negotiations, and political and organizational campaigns, fundraising, and other maneuvering? It is an effective strategy because abortion is such an emotionally charged word. More than a decade ago, a group of famous women ran an ad that displayed their names under the heading: “I had an abortion.” The goal of the campaign was to make the word less powerful when used to define women in relation to a highly personal decision that most do not make lightly.

We have said it before and we will say it again—words matter. This is especially true when they are used to divert attention from more important issues (e.g. focusing budget negotiations on funding for abortion rather than what is needed to restore our country’s crumbling infrastructure) or to divide us into opposing factions with little opportunity for compromise. Apparently our leaders believe that women’s control over their lives is a legitimate bargaining chip, and their use of emotionally-loaded language to talk about abortion does little to advance thoughtful discourse on an issue they claim to care about.

Our congressional leaders need to learn that negotiation does not mean war and that doing your job correctly does not mean letting tasks slide to the last possible minute and then creating diversionary tactics as a cover for poor performance. Just imagine your supervisor’s reaction if you and a colleague declared yourself at an impasse and felt it best to let the work of the company come to a grinding halt. Most important, they need to learn that good governance, like all good leadership, requires more than highly charged rhetoric.

We can change this—starting with the seemingly small but oh so powerful act of speaking up when someone around you makes a sexist remark. We can change this by demanding that our leaders use responsible language when discussing sensitive issues rather than inflaming the sensibilities of everyone around them. We can change this by holding elected officials accountable for doing their jobs and letting them know that we want a lot less speechifying and a lot more positive action.

We can change this. Let’s start now.

Cynthia

We’ve gotten accustomed to periodically being shocked by yet another tragic mass shooting in yet another apparently safe venue. College campuses are no exception—especially since the tragedies in 2007 and 2008 at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, students and campus staff well know that the picture of universities as safe cloisters of learning is no longer a reality. So today, administrators are scrambling for ways to prevent future tragedies.  

Doing something about easy access to automatic weapons might help. But failing that, one academic has an idea for another place to start. Michele Paludi, Director of the School of Management at New York’s Union College, thinks that schools need to take a new approach to violence prevention. 

Paludi believes that incidents of intimidation and violence on campus have reached epidemic proportions—one of every 20 college women is raped, and 20 percent of college students experience intimate partner violence, for example. Her research argues that those acts, and crimes like mass shootings, become more common when “lower order” forms of campus violence—like sexual harassment, sexist remarks, hazing, and bullying—are ignored. She notes that 20 to 80 percent of college women report being targets of sexual harassment by peers or faculty. 

Prevention, she argues, requires that colleges establish safe, nonretaliatory reporting procedures—effective and enforced policies about things like sexual harassment and sexist remarks, and training programs for the entire campus, including faculty. (Those ideas are especially pertinent since the Obama administration’s recent announcement of new requirements for colleges and universities regarding preventing sexual harassment and sexual violence on campus.) 

If you’re considering working with your campus to establish policies designed to stop sexist forms of expression, you might consider drawing on her research. Her book Ivory Power: Sexual Harassment on Campus received the 1992 Myers Center Award for Outstanding Book on Human Rights in the United States. 

If Paludi is right that ignoring sexist remarks, harassment, and other forms of intimidation makes violence more likely, then faculty and administrators ignore it at their peril. 

Steve

Can you imagine not being able to vote, buy your own home, or control your money? Those concepts are unthinkable in today’s America (but certainly are still true for some of our sisters around the globe). As Ellen Chessler, Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, says in her March 2011 article, “How Women Became Citizens”:

“It’s hard to fathom today, but for most of human history, and even into our own time, it was simply assumed that women had no need to acquire identities or rights of our own — except, of course, those enjoyed by virtue of our relationships with men.”

Chessler’s article is worth reading for its brief history of women’s rights and to remind ourselves of how slowly the wheels of change turn. She helps us to understand that some of our earlier (and most important) victories were cloaked in the concept of protectionism—focusing on taking care of women rather than  promoting their rights—to ensure acceptance of the changes.

Most important, Chessler’s article reminds us that we stand on the shoulders of women like Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Margaret Sanger, who dared to speak about women’s rights in a time when it was unimaginable to do so. I second Chessler’s impassioned plea that we must not let them down by allowing current political forces to turn back the clock.

We stand in the middle of so many generations of women—our powerful predecessors who took enormous personal risks to help redefine the roles of women, and our daughters who  never knew a time when women were not allowed to go to school or work outside the home. We need to seize this moment to keep the dream of gender equality alive.

Imagine that it is 1848 and you believe that women should have the right to vote. Stanton did and she launched the suffrage movement. Then imagine what might happen if you decided today (almost 200 years later) to speak up about sexist remarks—either in the moment that they happen or by working with other women to create change in the educational, religious, and political institutions and systems that influence our lives.

Just imagine.

Cynthia

End note: As I was writing this post, I heard that Geraldine Ferraro had passed away (March 26^th). I remember the night in 1984 that she was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Democrat party (almost unimaginable at the time). I sat on my sofa, with tears streaming down my face (as I later learned so many women across America did), thrilled at the very sight of this smart, articulate woman and excited about what her candidacy meant for all women. I got choked up again today at the loss of her. But Ferraro’s life reminds me of the power one woman has to change the world—living as if we can is the best way to honor her legacy.

The February-March issue of Bust magazine ran a story about the experiences of five women bloggers who have, as the article puts it, “written honestly about their sex lives” on their sites. Now, you and I may not be comfortable spilling details about such an intimate topic, but these women do. As the article notes, however, these are not pornography sites—while a few are salacious, they often treat the topic thoughtfully and seriously. 

Of the five women profiled in the article, all five lost their jobs, one is in a child custody battle, and all were the target of volumes of hate mail. Women speaking openly about their sexuality is a sure ticket, it seems, to discrimination and abuse. 

And how does that compare with the experiences of men who do the same? As the article notes, male sex blogger Tucker Max has been exempted from such treatment. And try reading Norman Mailer or Henry Miller sometime—their graphic, if literary, descriptions are as explicit as it gets. 

That situation mirrors what happens in another arena: the unequal treatment of men and women involved in the sex industry. The women caught in the trade are routinely prosecuted at far higher rates than their male customers. In 2007, for example, Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter was found to have been a client of a prostitution ring. He was never prosecuted and still doesn’t admit to doing anything illegal. But Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the madam who ran that ring, faced five to six years in prison after her conviction—she committed suicide before she could be sentenced. 

There’s a word that captures that double standard, one so often employed to degrade and delegitimize women—the word “slut.” That it’s only applicable to women indicates that it’s a proxy for the different treatment afforded to men’s and women’s sexuality. And when it’s used, it has real-world consequences for women and girls, as the Bust article shows. 

So if we hear that word, I propose that we respond much as we would if we heard the “n” word as applied to race: “You know what? That’s a really offensive term.”

I’m a fan of words, but this one has to go.

Steve

Apparently sexist remarks are alive and well in public schools. In recent weeks both a young woman (see Steve’s post from last week) and a mother wrote asking for help in dealing with sexist comments at their respective schools. It might be time to step up our game and focus on the places where young girls learn—especially if they are learning that they aren’t very important. 

It occurred to me while reading the mother’s post that often what we think we want and what we really need are two very different things. The post-er wrote: 

“i was called a silly woman by a teacher at my sons high school. I made a complaint to the school. he admitted it. he also told me i was driving to slow for him as he was behind me on the rd . but i want an apology from him in person. and I want more done.  what shall i do now, as i feel the school have brushed it under the carpet.”

First off, there are very few things worse (language-wise) than being called a “silly woman.” That type of remark—tinged with 50s era sexism—can be hard to get past. While the facts of this situation from the teacher’s perspective are unknown to us, we can pretty much assume that calling people names is out of line for most professionals. And referencing a person’s gender in doing so is particularly inappropriate (just imagine the teacher calling someone a silly black person).

The problem is that while asking for an apology may make the post-er (or us) feel mildly better in the moment—isn’t it better in the long run for her to work with the school to ensure that sexist comments are not acceptable under any conditions? This is particularly important if the school is choosing to look the other way, as our post-er suggests.

Shifting from a focus on what we want (a remedy for our own hurt feelings, and yes, sexist comments can be very hurtful) to what we need (systemic changes in the language used to describe women) can be liberating. We no longer need to waste time or energy worrying about what people will say to or about us when we respond to a single sexist remark. Instead, we can take on the more important challenge of helping community institutions create positive environments for women and girls. Let’s face it—it is far easier for someone to mock you privately or in a small group for challenging their sexist comments than it is for them to stand up at the next PTA meeting and argue against a policy that will protect young girls (their daughter, perhaps).

We therefore encourage the post-er to check out the Taking Action in Local Schools section of this site. She might begin by reaching out to like-minded women in her neighborhood, building a community of parents and teachers who are interested in exploring how to end sexist language at the school in question. We also hope our readers will share their ideas for dealing with the post-er’s situation and take a closer look at the school environments in which their daughters, nieces, or granddaughters are growing up.

Accepting an apology that you are due can make you feel like a million bucks. Creating a sexist- free zone for girls in schools across the globe: priceless.

Cynthia

This week we received two comments from a young woman seeking advice on dealing with a sexist remark from one of her teachers. I’m sharing her comments below with a response and invite your thoughts.

Comments:

My school has many sexist teachers but the thing is they’re mainly female. Today my teacher told us we were ‘bad’ at cricket so we should learn from the pros–the boy’s–so she addressed them as the experts the entire time. It was so degrading that I cried my eyes out because of it.

My sports teacher is very degrading to our team And coos over the boys and puts US down in shame, what do I do to stop this I feel powerless?

The worst thing about sexist remarks is how alone we often feel. We wonder—did that bother anyone else? Am I crazy to think that wasn’t appropriate? Should I go back and let the person know how angry I am and why what they did is wrong?

As our post-er did, it’s a great first step to reach out for advice. Then we can try a tag-team or group approach: do we know someone who cares about equality who we can talk to about the incident? Those might be friends, a parent, a relative, or in this case, other woman teammates. Together we can figure out whether the comment was sexist (based on this description, it certainly sounds that way), talk about why it bothered us, and come up with a plan of action to carry out together.

In this case, since it appears the sexist behavior was directed at the entire team, it might be good to talk to some trusted woman teammates and see what they thought. Together, the group could develop a plan for stopping such behavior by teachers or students so that episodes like this don’t happen again.

To support that process, here are links to resources on this site that might help (organized into planning and action steps):

Planning
Getting prepared
Knowing when to respond
Attracting allies
Figuring out whether a comment is sexist

Action
Taking Action in Schools
Nicely telling people what you want
Raising consciousness
Appealing to a person’s better side
Responding in 15 words or less

There is strength and often wisdom in numbers, so I’d invite any of you to share additional thoughts about the situation of our post-er. And kudos to her for thinking about what to do next—that’s an essential step in making things better for herself and other girls and women. 

Steve

I was sickened by the violent attack on reporter Lara Logan in Egypt in late February, and my heart goes out to her and her family. Sadly, women continue to be the victims of sexual violence around the world. 

That violence takes a terrible toll on the women and their families (and all women). Read the Washington Post article by the woman jogger who escaped the man recently convicted of the murder of Chandra Levy for a glimpse into the life of a survivor of a violent attack.

Logan apparently has vowed to return to work, and her strength and resilience takes my breath away. Whatever she eventually decides to do, we need to honor the women—here and abroad— who suffer what can only be characterized as catastrophic violence. The best way to do that is to help end the violence, and stopping violent language against women is a crucial first step.

Some might challenge my assumption that violent or sexist words beget violent behavior. I firmly believe, however, that words give license to behavior. If a female candidate for President can be called terrible names in public settings (including major media outlets), then how far a leap is it to assume that it is okay to denigrate women in other ways?  

Challenging negative comments about women obviously isn’t easy. Many of the post-ers to this site ask for ways (smart comebacks, witty retorts) to say something about sexist comments without risking the apparently inevitable backlash that they have reported via our polls (including being called humorless, overly sensitive, and worse).

But the truth is that most things worth fighting for involve risk and require personal courage—albeit much less than is needed to recover from a sexual assault or to learn to live without fear after someone attacks you on a running trail.

Years ago, when I was just beginning to work in the social justice movement, my colleagues and I used to take risks when confronting establishment thinking. None of us had much money, and the thought of losing our jobs easily could have put us in check at times when we most needed to argue for change. Instead, whenever one of us expressed fear about the ramifications of taking action in the face of a confirmed injustice, we used to invoke the phrase: “Hey, this isn’t South Africa,” referencing the days of Apartheid. It served to remind us that the risks we were taking were nothing compared to those being taken by the people working to end years of discrimination in a country with little tolerance for difference or change.

So the next time that someone insults you, the women around you, or women in general, think about Lara Logan. Honor her by asking your friends, family members, and colleagues to be respectful of women with their words. Let go of the fear of speaking up—because that is exactly what sexist remarks and violence are intended to instill in you—and just do it.

Cynthia

For those who doubt the value of protest marches (sometimes including me), the last month has been a bit of a jolt. By getting out in the street, Egyptians and Tunisians brought down their authoritarian regimes and put the fear into dictators throughout the region. Union marches in Wisconsin are putting front and center the question of workers’ right to bargain collectively. Now unions in Indiana, Ohio, and other states are following their lead.

There was one protest that didn’t receive as much attention—in Italy, women went into the streets to ask for an end to Prime Minister Berlusconi’s ongoing degrading treatment of women, and his resignation. On February 13, more than 100,000 women (and many husbands and boyfriends, according to press reports) jammed Rome’s central square, while Aretha Franklin’s “Respect” boomed from speakers. In support of the demonstration, woman protesters showed up on the island of Sardinia and as far away as Paris to demand justice.

Though Berlusconi’s education minister responded by labeling the protesters “the usual snob heroines of the left” (ah name calling—the last refuge of people who’ve abandoned logical argument), I’d guess that Berlusconi won’t go out of his way to antagonize female voters anytime soon. But no matter what he does, the march was a lesson for young women everywhere that we simply don’t have to go along when those with influence peddle offensive views of women.

In this country, here’s who I’d like to march against—GoDaddy. Did you see their Super Bowl ads? Five years running, the company has paid for spots involving nearly naked women selling its brand, a fact of which CEO Bob Parsons is proud. But since a street protest isn’t likely, we can do second best—stop giving them our money by joining the GoDaddy boycott.

Sexist ads, according to Parsons, “work for them [GoDaddy].” It’s past time that they didn’t. While we can continue to make the world better one conversation at a time, we also can join others to change the behavior of those who influence how our culture treats women and girls as a whole.

Steve

When I was in college, I was one of four women in my program of study and we were training to work in what was primarily a male arena at the time. I have lost touch with those women, but I remember them fondly. We sat together in class and supported each other in a male-dominated environment.

The four of us were feminists, outspoken—and some might say outlandish. Women were pushing the boundaries of gender roles back then, and we sometimes took to extremes to make our point. When one of us spoke up in class, the rest of us backed her up, especially when she was challenging the status quo—which at the time meant men in power and women in the kitchen. It was a wonderful, and difficult, time; women were taking new paths and speaking up about their wants and needs, not to mention their rights. It was a shared experience—we had each other’s back in the face of none-too-subtle sexism—and that felt good.

Steve’s recent post, “Standing Together against Sexist Remarks,” and the article he linked to, made me happy for the same reason that I smile when I think of my undergraduate compatriots. Someone else is talking about how sexist comments negatively affect women—there are others taking up the baton and marching by my side—and that feels good. But the article also highlighted how women still worry about the negative reaction they likely will receive if they speak up about sexist remarks.

I suddenly realized that I didn’t worry so much back in the day—because there was strength in numbers. I was emboldened by the presence of other women who shared my experience entering a man’s world and who sought to make the trip a little easier. When someone tried to perpetuate sexist ideas, we all challenged them together.

Not a bad formula for change. So look around you this week and reach out to the women and men around you—at school, at work, or in other social settings—who might share your desire to stop sexism. The women’s movement began when women—so many of them believing they were alone in their experience of the world—started talking. Go for coffee, out to lunch, or hang out at the Saturday morning soccer game. Start by asking questions and sharing your own experiences with sexist comments, and go from there (and please let us know about your conversations).

Then stop thinking about what people might say if you respond to their sexist remarks, and use the time to build a network of friends, family members, and professional colleagues who agree to stand together for equality. Trust me, the next time someone utters a sexist comment, you won’t worry so much about the consequences of speaking up— because you will not be alone.

Cynthia

Late last month, the Guardian published this essay on why sexist remarks matter. It’s the kind of long-form, thoughtful commentary on the issue that I’ve been waiting to see in a major American paper, and it’s well worth the read.

Several women interviewed for the piece mentioned a common dilemma: wanting to stand up to sexist remarks but worrying that doing so will get them labeled as “killjoys,” “office grouches,” “old  fashioned,” or “too feminist.”

Those sentiments are proof positive that there’s been a backlash against equality—it is now the people speaking up who seem to worry about their reputations rather than those making sexist comments. The same dilemma, of course, doesn’t often exist in relation to racist remarks—prejudiced comments are nearly always seen as out of step and offensive, and the people who confront them as standing up for what’s right.

But through everyday conversations, we’re pushing back. As discussed in another of our posts, it’s important that even if we’re not able to speak up ourselves, we be willing to support those who do take on sexist environments and forms of expression. Because when we have strength in numbers, we’ll get to a tipping point. When we reach it, the cost of making those offensive comments will be so great that men will choose to keep these to themselves—and sexist remarks will be as unthinkable to our children and grandchildren as are Jim Crow laws today.

Steve

A visitor to the site had the following to say in response to my recent post about the challenges of dealing with changing gender roles:

“That first sentence caught my eye, as just the other day as I was coming to work through a lobby with two sets of doors. A man I don’t know opened the outer door for me, so I returned the favor by opening the inner one for him, inadvertently sparking a battle of wills as he refused to walk through the door I was holding open, insisting that I go first. Have any of you experienced something like this?”

Coincidently, the day that I read her post, my husband and I went to our local big box store to pick up a new computer keyboard. As we were leaving, I held the door for a man who had a shopping cart full of equipment. After he exited, I waved another man through and he looked at me dismissively and said, ‘No, you go.” He stood there, eyes defiant, refusing to budge until I exited the store and let the door shut in his face.

I confess to being befuddled by this type of behavior. In some instances, I suspect men are just trying to be polite—and may be confused by changing cultural mores. In the situation that I described above, there was a different quality to the encounter. It was as if he was refusing to allow me (a woman) to help. Power and control can indeed lurk in subtle places.

So all I can do is ask our male readers to help us understand why some men refuse to accept our small acts of kindness. If we are moving toward equality in all aspects of life—not to mention trying to maintain some basic level of manners—it will require us to rethink the style of our everyday interactions. And as women step up and take their rightful seat at the table, maybe men will need to find the grace to enjoy us pulling back their chairs.

Cynthia

This week we received a thoughtful comment from someone who said that she was hoping to find on this blog more examples of “comebacks”—quick, effective replies—to sexist remarks. She pointed out how effective it can be to respond in the moment when that’s possible.

The challenge in offering a laundry list of effective replies is that sexist comments happen in so many settings involving such a range of types of people—from a grandparent during a family dinner to a boss at an office party. That means that no approach is always appropriate—we have to each decide both the level of risk that we’re comfortable with and what’s likely to be effective in a given situation.

That’s all to say that there is a menu of options for how we respond. Some of those options are described in the following links to previous posts on this site:

• Stopping a sexist remark before it starts
• Responding while appealing to a person’s better side
• Nicely but clearly saying what you want
• Responding to a sexist joke
• Responding in 15 words or less

As we have noted in elsewhere on this site, one of the best ways to be prepared to respond effectively is to, well, prepare. Some suggestions on that appear here.

It’s inspiring to hear from those of you determined to change the people and places where you encounter sexism, one person and one conversation at a time. As you do that, please share your experiences and ideas, because like every other change effort, ours needs to learn and adapt. We do that best when we talk to each other.

Steve

One of our male readers recently posted a message about his frustration with women who proclaim that they believe in gender equality and yet fail to open the door for him, buy him a drink (after he has bought one for them), or take him out on a date. He felt that he was raising an issue that most men would agree with—but are afraid to speak up about. He suggested that women talk about their desire to be treated equally, while continuing to treat others (men) unfairly.

Point taken—although I believe that the complexity of gender equality—especially when played out in life rather than simply in theory—runs a little deeper than the post-er’s examples. Manners matter, and opening or holding doors for the person behind you, regardless of gender, is a simple courtesy. Deciding who pays for what—not to mention the dynamics of dating and relationships—is a bit more complicated and requires some thoughtful decision-making about how to handle changing gender roles (which I suspect each generation does a bit more naturally than the previous one).

I once knew an ardent feminist who was dating a man who shared her belief in gender equality. When their relationship became serious, they talked about what getting married would mean to them. Once they agreed that they were ready for marriage, she shared her desire for her boyfriend to “surprise” her with a romantic proposal. From her perspective, this was the perfect blend of feminism (not waiting around for the man to decide her future) and her desire for the fantasy proposal.

What works for one couple might not work for the next. But isn’t that the point? Achieving gender equality requires women and men to communicate about what they want and need, even when it falls outside the bounds of what is traditionally expected of us. And while changing the power differential between men and women was and remains central to feminism (and is important to anyone who believes that power and domination are not the best models for personal interactions, not to mention world peace), we can push that change forward by making small adjustments in our own behaviors.

So with regards to manners, remember the golden rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. It is that simple really, regardless of gender-related issues.

And when moving about in the world, we might increasingly try to live from a “what works best” perspective,” letting go of the traditional ways that bound us in silly gender roles of control and submission. If the guys in the group buy the first round, the women might step up and pay for the second.

Equality does work both ways, and we need to acknowledge that the process of changing gender roles also affects men—and from their perspective, not always in positive ways. While not having a door opened for you is significantly less important than not receiving a promotion or having access to certain opportunities because of your gender, sometimes the small things matter. Women can soften the blow by helping men to understand the advantages of a culture in which women and men both contribute and benefit equally and by walking the talk in everyday ways.

Cynthia

Public relations specialists have long known that it’s easier to sell a positive message than a negative one. That’s one of the challenges with a campaign to stop sexist remarks—how do we tell people what we want instead of what we don’t? What are we for? 

Here’s one truth we should stand on: giving girls and women equal opportunities and fair treatment makes organizations and society work better. That’s the message from a conference of global political and business leaders and world-class researchers at the conference “Closing the Gender Gap: The Business Case for Organizations, Politics and Society” at Harvard in October. Davia Temin’s coverage of the event for Forbes Woman.com captured the conference’s takeaway messages:  

• “There is irrefutable, verifiable evidence that women in greater than token proportions improve decision-making, improve shareholder value and lower risk-taking. It’s not just opinion, and it’s not just desire. It’s not just our American goal of fair play at work. It is fact!” 
• “Closing the gender gap is . . . not only a human rights issue, it is a verifiable business imperative for our society’s well-being.” 

Some other highlights from research presented at the conference, as summarized in the Forbes piece: 

• “The more complex the issue, the more diversity improves the correct outcomes of decision-making. This applies to gender diversity, racial diversity and international diversity. And while the same conclusion does not hold true for simple decision-making, so much of what matters today is so complex that diversity has got to be a benefit for business, politics and every aspect of human interaction.” 
• “Women tend to make less risky calls than men in investing. Therefore you might miss some of the upside potential, but you also miss some of the downside, while overall performance remains equal. For my money, that is an attractive scenario . . .” 
• “Quotas do work! In India, where there are gender quotas for female chief councilors in the villages, strong evidence shows that ‘villagers who have never been required to have a female leader prefer male leaders and perceive female leaders as less effective than their male counterparts’. . . [Note: That is, villagers who have never been required to have a female leader perceive female leaders as less effective the first time that they are exposed to them than they do the second time.] Exposure to a female leader . . . weakens stereotypes about gender roles … and eliminates the negative bias in how female leaders’ effectiveness is perceived among male villagers . . . After 10 years of the quota policy, women are more likely to stand for and win free seats in villages that have been continuously required to have a female chief councilor.” 

When we confront sexist remarks effectively, we can turn the conversation away from the outdated question of whether women can be as effective as men in leadership and other roles. Instead, we redirect attention to this question: What kind of organization or community do we want to be? Do we want to take fewer needless risks, make better decisions, and be more successful? 

If so, we need women leaders. It’s just common sense. 

Steve

There are consequences to speaking up in the face of the sexist remarks—most of them not so positive according to visitors to this site. The results of our polls in 2010 spoke volumes about how difficult it can be to fight gender injustice, even when the weapon of choice is only words.

While we know that we need to keep confronting those who use words to hurt women—it isn’t always easy or painless to do so. Most of the people who responded to our polls indicated that when they addressed sexist remarks, the results were negative (e.g., they were teased as being oversensitive).

For that reason, we all need a little inspiration now and again. I found mine at the beginning of 2010 in the form of an article on the website of The American Prospect. In Making Good on the Girl Effect, Courtney E. Martin reminds us to stay in the game. She believes that a series of events in 2010 demonstrated that promoting the advancement of women is good policy—but that we have to remain vigilant if we want to turn that ideal into action.

So this year, take a page from Martin, who says, “We’ve fought an ideological battle over the last decade and won. Let’s dedicate this new one to making good on our glory.”

I think 2011 is the perfect time to start.

Cynthia

At a time when the amount of sexist innuendo directed at our national woman leaders is headed in the wrong direction (see Cynthia’s post last week), it’s easy to think that our individual actions can’t change things. So just when I needed it this week, I ran across the White Ribbon Campaign, a worldwide effort started by and directed at men to end violence against women.

The campaign’s executive director wrote a passage in their current newsletter that’s a great reminder about the importance  of addressing sexism in our daily conversations:

“Every time you speak up about violence against women—it gets a little bit easier.

I see this phenomenon in action when we are working with young people in the classroom. When we are training teachers how to address these issues. When I return to a community to do a speech, and find some of the men I spoke with months earlier are now volunteering at a women’s shelter. When I look out at a crowd of 700 men in women’s shoes, walking to end violence against women. When I am tying my skates in my own hockey dressing room, thinking back to my first days in this work almost five years ago, and I had the responsibility to speak up.

Every time a man has the strength to speak up it gets a little bit easier. Every time one man speaks up, there are other men within hearing range who may be saying ‘If he can say something, I can too.’ Every time a young man or boy hears a man he respects speak up, that action pays it forward. Every time a woman hears a man speak up, she might be saying ‘we can work together to make a change.’

Never underestimate the power of saying something, for only when we break the silence around violence against women, will we see the end of it.”

I’ve ordered a white ribbon, and I’d invite the men who read this blog to do so too (and our female readers might share this with the men in their lives). Violence against women and sexist remarks are both attacks on the freedom of women and girls to express themselves and pursue their dreams. Wearing a white ribbon could be a great way to start a conversation with people about what our world could be like if it were free of sexism in all its forms.

Steve

It was the hideous sexism of the 2008 Presidential election cycle that prompted the creation of this site. Steve and I had both encountered sexism in the workplace and other arenas, but that campaign put a magnifying glass on the problem.

I had hoped that this year’s election would be less sophomoric. Oh well. The Name It. Change It. campaign of the Women’s Media Center identified this year’s worst offenders via their “Would You Say That to Your Mother?” awards. Take a look at Sarah Seltzer’s recap in The 7 Sleaziest Sexist Moments from the 2010 Elections, posted on AlterNet. The awards went to, for example:

Ned Cantwell of the Los Alamos Monitor, who apparently described the New Mexico gubernatorial race between two female candidates as full of “bitch-slapping” and “mud-wrestling.”

The Todd and Tom show on Boston’s WRKO, where the hosts apparently talked about a State Treasurer candidate’s “tight little butt” and “banging little body.”

We aren’t talking subtle innuendo here—rather these remarks are the blatant sexualizing and caricaturing of women running for elective office.

Thanks to the WMC for tracking and reporting on these types of comments during the 2010 election cycle. You can help the center change media coverage of women by asking your local media professionals to take the WMC media equality pledge.

And, the good news from Seltzer is that apparently female candidates who stand up to sexist attacks get a bounce in their poll numbers. So perhaps there is a reward for speaking up in the face of sexist remarks.

Cynthia

I recently heard New York Times columnist Gail Collins speak about her new book, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present. At one point in the Q&A portion of her talk, she noted that while she hopes women will someday soon achieve real equality, a significant obstacle remains: the well-known pay gap between men and women.

What caught my attention was her observation that young women do almost as well as young men in pay before they have children but that it’s when women have children that their salaries fall behind. And that, she says, is because the research shows that it’s rare—still!—for men to do an equal share of the child care and housework, and for couples to make decisions around the man’s career rather than his partner’s. Both of those make it harder for women to prioritize work and therefore keep pace with men’s salaries.

Collins’ point about the disproportionate demands that women still face at home is disturbingly reinforced by a new survey by Esquire magazine finding that attitudes toward women and careers appear to be worsening among younger generations of men. According to the survey . . .

More 20-year-old men than 50 year-old-men (about 20 percent compared to 14 percent) would rather their wives stay at home and take care of the children than maintain a separate career outside of the home.

Only about 47 percent of the 20-year-old men, compared with 55 percent of 50-year-olds, believe their female partner “should do whatever she wants” in making the choice to work or stay at home.

Only 1 percent of 20-year-old men and 3 percent of older respondents would choose to stay at home while their wife brings in the primary income.

The notion that women should be the primary caretakers of children and that men’s careers should come first are shaped by attitudes, which in turn are shaped by ideas in the broader culture—sexist ideas. And our young men are absorbing those ideas from many sources, not the least of which are comments and jokes about women’s roles that they hear from colleagues, neighbors, and family members.

As we’ve mentioned before, commentary and jokes about women’s roles, then, are anything but harmless—they reinforce a system that keeps women from reaching their potential. When we address those remarks and ideas, we are standing up to more than the offensive notion we’re confronting in the moment—we’re helping to ensure long-term opportunities for women and girls, and a fairer, stronger nation.

Steve

On the heels of Steve’s recent posts providing guidance to men about how to decide whether it is appropriate to compliment a woman, I had a disturbing experience. I was walking home from the store in the middle of the day with a bag of groceries when a man sidled up to me on the corner while I was waiting for the light to change. He said, “I don’t know what you are wearing but you sure smell good.”

To say I was startled was an understatement (and ironically, I was not wearing perfume at the time). I started to respond, and then stopped myself—fortunately the light changed at that moment, and I was able to move away quickly. I am sure that the look on my face discouraged any further interaction—and when I turned around after crossing the street, the man was gone. Trust me, that didn’t stop me from looking over my shoulder several times on the way home.

Lest you think I am overreacting—I live in a city where serious crimes occur even in the middle of the day, where the trial of the person charged with killing Chandra Levy is about to get underway, creating daily reminders that it is not safe for women to run in the park by themselves. I live in a country in which hundreds of women are raped every day (according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes that were not reported to the police).

So Memo to Men—approaching a woman on the street, who you don’t know, to share your thoughts about her looks, clothing, or scent, is absolutely always inappropriate. While you might believe that you are being complimentary, friendly, or flirty, in reality, you are invading her personal space and creating worries about her safety.

Cynthia

In my last post, I promised to address the issue of whether it’s ever ok to comment favorably on a woman’s looks.

I think most of us would say it’s appropriate when the other person has given clear signals that they’re open to that type of interaction and the setting is appropriate (i.e., not in a business setting). For example:

If we’re in a setting in which it’s clear that flirtation is an appropriate activity—a speed dating activity or a singles outing, for example—we’re indicating our interest in appropriate flirting by virtue of our presence in those situations.

If the other person’s demeanor or language convey clear romantic interest in us, they are showing their intentions and inviting a response.

Of course, signaling is a murky business, and universal rules almost always have exceptions.

But keep these suggestions in mind when you’re considering when it’s appropriate to compliment a woman’s looks. And when a woman communicates in words or behavior that she’s uncomfortable with your attention—stop, apologize, and move on. Because male or female, the one thing we all want is respect.

Steve

This week, the Women’s Media Center and numerous other organizations are hosting the SPARK Summit at Hunter College in New York City. SPARK, which stands for Sexualization Protest: Action, Resistance, Knowledge, is both a Summit and a movement. It is “designed to push back against the increasingly sexualized images of girlhood in the media and create room for whole girls and healthy sexuality.” It is being held in response to the American Psychological Association Task Force’s report on the sexualization of girls and its sponsors hope it will launch an intergenerational movement “to support and stand with girls.”

SPARK leaders say that the Summit will engage girls in being part of the solution and give them the tools they need to be involved in a movement to stop the increasingly sexualized images of girlhood in the media. The October 22^nd event will include a virtual Summit so that women and girls around the country may participate.

For more information on the Summit or to register, please link to the event site: Spark a Movement.

Cynthia

“We in the Senate refer to Senator Gillibrand as the hottest member.”

–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, introducing Senator Kirsten Gillibrand at a September 20, 2010, fundraiser

MEMO TO MEN

If you’re like me, you grew up learning that we should generally treat people as we’d like to be treated.

So maybe you saw Senator Reid’s quote and wondered what all the fuss is about. “I wouldn’t mind if a woman complimented my looks,” you might be thinking. “Why would Senator Gillibrand?”

It turns out that when it comes to comments about women’s appearance, the Golden Rule isn’t very helpful for men. I suggest that’s because most of us have no idea what unwanted sexual attention feels like.

Most of the women I know well have been subjected to comments like Senator Reid’s, and without fail they tell me one of two things (or both). First, remarks about their looks—especially in but not limited to professional settings—bring them unwanted attention and make them embarrassed and uncomfortable, as is logical when they’re trying to make an impression, meet people, or just have a good time in a gathering of colleagues, potential clients, or friends. Second, those comments reduce them to objects of sexual attention, making it a lot easier for the people present to take them less than seriously.

Now, you can take women at their word or not. If you still don’t, try this analogy. You’re in sales, and you’re at a cocktail mixer full of potential clients you’re trying to impress. You’re pulled into a circle of particularly important people, and a CEO you know is going around introducing everyone. When he gets to you, he says, “This is Joe, who’s the senior sales rep at Widget Incorporated. But as a gay man, I can tell you that what’s really important are his great legs.”

One caveat to this illustration. I use the example of a gay man here only because this is the one situation in which some heterosexual men seem to fear being on the other end of sexual comments. (Witness the outrageous logic of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy,” which aims to shield hetero-male soldiers from their own possible discomfort in the presence of gay men, all in the service of “troop cohesion.”) In my experience, gay men actually are less likely than straight men to say something sexually suggestive in a setting like this, given the homophobia that’s alive and well and that has a track record of morphing into violence.

That qualifier aside, if you’d feel undermined and demeaned in the situation described, then congratulations—you’re able to understand something of what women experience. Remarking favorably on a woman’s looks in public—and most of the time in private save quite specific circumstances that I’ll address in a future post—is not a compliment.

And if you’ve made a remark like this and now need to repair the situation, what should you do? Apologize. That’s you, Senator Reid.

Steve

I like people who take action—especially those who do so when facing tough situations, political challenges, or seemingly hopeless (yet appropriate) causes. These are the people who leap in when they sense something is wrong and create positive change in the world. 

Lynette Long of Chevy Chase, Maryland, is such a person. When visiting the U.S. Capitol last fall, she noticed that few women were depicted in the statues in the halls of Congress. Apparently, each State is allowed to honor two of its famous citizens with statues, and Kansas had voted to replace its existing ones with new figures of the 34^th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart. Eisenhower’s statute was commissioned and placed in 2003, but Earhart’s hometown couldn’t raise the money for hers. 

Long—unhappy that there were only nine women in Statuary Hall—took action. She formed “Equal Visibility Everywhere (EVE),” a nonpartisan organization dedicated to featuring more women on our nation’s symbols (e.g., building and street names, coins, stamps, etc.). She believes that the sins of omission have a negative impact, telling the Washington Post that “We send subliminal messages to young girls that say you don’t matter.” 

Long’s organization now has permission from the Kansas governor to raise funds to design and commission Earhart’s statue and is exploring other ways to put women on the map, so to speak. Check out how you can help EVE ensure that young girls see their history in the public images before them and believe in all the possibilities that lie ahead. 

And the next time you doubt that you can make difference, think about Long’s work, and take action. 

Cynthia

A few weeks ago, two grassroots organizations—the Older Women’s League (OWL) and Social Security Works—called for the resignation of former Senator Alan Simpson as co-chair of President Obama’s debt commission because of what they said was a sexist and offensive comment. Simpson’s remark came in an e-mail reply to OWL’s executive director, Ashley Carson, following an article critical of him that she’d written in the Huffington Post. After denigrating Carson’s article and career in insulting terms (and not responding to its substance), Simpson closed his e-mail by comparing Social Security to “a milk cow with 310 million tits.” 

I found Simpson’s remark—in fact, the whole tone of his reply—offensive on two levels. First, it was aggressive and crudely worded, certainly not befitting the co-chair of a major federal commission. And second, it denigrated a federal program on which millions of Americans will rely to retire (and, by the way, have paid into), showing little of the thoughtfulness and ability to empathize with the less well off that we should expect from our leaders. 

But was the milk cow reference sexist? 

It made me think again about how I define a sexist remark. I think it’s a useful question, because a loose, overused definition could well undermine our attempts to change things. 

So for the consideration of our readers, here are a few proposed questions to test whether a remark is sexist: 

1. Is the remark designed to make women (but not men) uncomfortable?  
2. Does the remark limit women’s (but not men’s) freedom of expression or behavior?  
3. Is the remark likely to make those who hear it take women less than seriously because of their gender?  
4. Could the remark also be applied to men and make sense?  
5. Does the remark make generalizations about individuals based on gender?  

Obviously not all of these are answerable in or applicable to every situation. But maybe they’re a place to start to get a feel for how we’re reacting to something that’s been said. 

And since men can’t always know the answers to some of these questions or what a particular remark might feel like to a woman, it can be helpful for men to think about how our wife/daughter/niece, etc. might answer these questions or be affected by the comment. Better yet, we can ask them. 

So is the Simpson quote sexist? It’s certainly crude, small-minded, and aggressive (and Cynthia thinks it is sexist). Given the context—an e-mail to the leader of an organization representing older women—I suspect that it is because the “cow” reference is such a common slur directed at women that it appears specially designed make OWL’s leader feel uncomfortable and demeaned. 

Of course, the only way to know the intent for sure would be to ask Senator Simpson, which perhaps Carson did. So when a comment is made that we think is sexist, initiating a conversation with the person making it about their intentions, and the remark’s impact on us or women in general, can be a good approach (when that’s possible and appropriate). 

But I’d love to hear reactions and other perspectives from our readers, both about this situation and how you decide whether a remark is sexist.

Steve

I was well on my way to posting another message about the subtle sexist remarks that lurk among us when I was struck square between the eyes with the most recent “woman media professional in a football locker room incident.” In a nutshell, some players apparently made catcalls during a visit to the New York Jets locker room by a female reporter representing a Mexican television network. 

To its credit, the NFL conducted an investigation and will, according to Commissioner Roger Goodell, implement a training program for players on proper conduct in the workplace. The training will be developed in consultation with the Association for Women in Sports Media and underwritten by Jets owner Woody Johnson. Good for them. 

Yet the reporting on this incident suggests that we may still have a ways to go. In a letter to Johnson (according to the NFL site), Goodell said that “there seems little doubt that passes were thrown in [the reporter’s] direction at last Saturday’s practice.” He went on to say that “it is also clear that she was never bumped, touched, brushed against or otherwise subjected to any physical contact by any player or coach.” Goodell also stated that other reporters in the locker room described the atmosphere as “juvenile, immature, high school,” but “not over the top.” 

Don’t get me wrong, I am thrilled that the NFL and the Jets owner responded quickly and affirmatively. I am also pleased that Goodell clearly stated that this incident will in no way affect the decision to allow women reporters in the locker room (although frankly, I believe that eliminating locker room interviews with men in various stages of undress might be the best way to go). 

What concerns me is the lack of consequences for the men who played a role in making this particular reporter uncomfortable (either by participating or standing idly by). I urge the NFL and the Association for Women in Sports Media to link the new training to players’ job performance (e.g., how they treat women reporters and other female staff—and apparently, the sports media professional associations might take note of the need to train their members in this regard). Simply providing “sensitivity training” is not enough. There need to be rules and consequences (fines, suspensions) for players who forget what they learned once they return to the field, the locker room, etc. 

The NFL is off to a good start on this one—let’s hope they use this opportunity to create real change. 

Cynthia

Political parties in two southeast Asian countries have taken bold steps toward stopping sexist remarks directed at women leaders. They show what’s possible here at home.   

Last month in South Korea, a major party expelled a legislator who hinted that a female student seeking a career path as a news anchorwoman needed to be willing to provide sex to producers or TV executives if she wants to be hired. The media also reported that the legislator is the target of considerable public anger for additional sexist comments he made about specific female anchorwomen during a public dinner a few days later. 

And last year in Malaysia, one of the three political parties in the government’s ruling coalition (Wanita MCA) announced a commitment to ending sexism in public settings. The party leader announced that her group would go all out to stop sexist remarks about women from being used in Parliament, state assemblies, and local councils and lobbied for a suspension of between 2 and 6 months for elected legislators who used sexist language or demonstrated sexist behavior. She also called for heavier penalties for repeat offenders and for elected representatives to attend gender sensitization courses. 

If courageous stands like those are possible in southeast Asia, can we change the sexist portrayals of women leaders in our country? You bet–and three groups have launched an effort to do just that. 

The Name it. Change it. project is a coordinated, rapid-response network designed to decrease incidences of misogyny in the media directed at women running for office. The campaign will monitor and hold media outlets accountable for sexist coverage, provide resources to reporters promoting balanced reporting, and give them the opportunity to take an equality pledge not to engage in sexist attacks. 

But to do that well, they need all of us to get involved. You can sign up for their action alerts, report incidents of sexist coverage, and urge your local reporters to take the campaign’s pledge. 

Raising the bar for our media is a critical step toward greater representation of women in political leadership. By holding journalists accountable, we can show our politicians that when they have the courage to emulate what’s happening in places like Malaysia and South Korea, we’ll have their back. 

Steve

Studies have consistently shown that people simply don’t like change. Even when facing life and death consequences, we apparently do not want to alter our behavior. People who need to change their diets or take medicine to save their lives, for example, often fail to make those adjustments. It seems that maintaining the status quo is just easier. 

Perhaps this is why so many helping professionals now recommend that we try “leaning into change.” Simply put, it means that we shouldn’t try to change everything overnight, a process that has proven to fail time and again. Instead, we should lean into the change, making smaller adjustments, taking baby steps if you will, toward our goals. 

If you decide that you want to become a vegetarian, for example, you might begin by introducing vegetarian entrees into your meal plan one or two times a week. This allows both your mind and body to adjust to the new approach to eating and reduces the chance that you will be overwhelmed by the process of change (e.g., deciding what to make, shopping for new types of food, etc.).

I think the concept of leaning into change is particularly applicable to our efforts to stop sexist remarks. We might not be able to speak up every time that someone makes a sexist comment, but we can choose to do so in certain situations. We can lean into the change by deciding to respond to sexist remarks in circumstances in which we feel comfortable doing so—whether that is at work with a supportive boss, with family members who appreciate being alerted when they slip up and say something “old-fashioned” about women, or when we are surrounded by long-time friends who always have our backs. 

By deciding to lean into the change, we can avoid tackling too much all at once. Over time, our experience in the few situations in which we choose to speak up will give us greater insights about the best ways to do so in various arenas and with different types of people. We also can focus on how challenging it might be for some people to adjust their ideas and language to meet our needs, giving us a more compassionate perspective about how everyone struggles with change. 

In the process, we may find that “change” becomes us. As Steve mentioned in his most recent post, whenever we talk about our experiences, we touch other women (and men) who are struggling with similar situations. Each time we challenge a sexist remark—no matter the immediate reaction of the people directly involved—we do make a difference. 

So as we leave the lazy days of summer behind us, let’s agree to lean into the change. Pick a time or a place that is safe for you to respond to sexist remarks—because in the final analysis, every baby step matters when we are working to create a culture of equality. 

Cynthia

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

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Produce a series of educational films:

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

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

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

Cynthia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia and Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia and Steve

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

We look forward to hearing from you!! 

Cynthia and Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia

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

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

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

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

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

Steve