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

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

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

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

Steve

Related posts:

1. Boys Adrift? A friend recently told me about the book Boys Adrift,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It is time for change, and we believe that change begins in small ways during everyday conversations. We created this blog to encourage you to take action—by responding to sexist remarks whenever possible and appropriate and then sharing what works so that we can end the use of sexist remarks in the future. 

Below we share our thoughts about sexist remarks and our reactions to related current events. We hope that you will respond to those or post your ideas about effectively addressing sexist remarks. 

Get involved today. Together we can stop sexist remarks. (Launched November 7, 2008)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A lot, unfortunately, it turns out. 

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

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

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

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

Steve  

Related posts:

1. Where Sexism Begins About 25 years ago, I asked a long-time battered women’s...
2. Marching to Gender Equality March 2009 is Women’s History Month, and March 8th was...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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

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

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

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

Steve

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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

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

Steve

Related posts:

1. Tough Question of the Week: Have You Ever Responded to a Sexist Remark and the Person Who Made the Remark Suggested a Better Way To Do That in the Future? Have you ever received feedback from someone about your response...
2. A Story About Stopping Sexist Comments at Work This week we’re linking to a story on another blog...
3. Stopping the Bullies There has been a lot of talk recently about children...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia

Democratic National Committee 

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

Republican National Committee 

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

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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

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

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

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

Cynthia

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

Related posts:

1. Boys Adrift? A friend recently told me about the book Boys Adrift,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.