One could argue that it is dogmatic to assign that anyone who doesn't answer this question as being closed minded. I've given my reason for not wanting to answer the question for instance - that it is purely subjective and there isn't a scientific way to say which is worse since there isn't a way to measure the total human suffering at the hands of one or the other. I also claim it's dangerous because the answers does risk elevating one above the other. Let me give you an analogy in return. As I am sure you are well aware, in quantum physics one of the things that arise is that particles can exist in multiple states in a paradoxical way - the most famous of which is Schrodinger's cat - where based on the experimental set up a poison is delivered to the cat when an atom decays - an event that cannot be predicted. So until you open the box, you don't know if the cat is alive or dead. You can state that the cat is either alive or dead, but you can't say with any certainty that it is one or the other. In other words, it's absurd to make a determination, and in fact in physics, the cat is said to exist in both states simultaneously - both dead and alive. Similarly, it is impossible to determine which is worse - sexism or racism. I'm not saying they are equally bad, just that any effort to try to quantify one as being more severe than the other is an absurd exercise. Now, the question of which has hurt you more, sexism or racism - is completely different because you are talking about one's own personal experiences. Your question wasn't "Which one - sexism or racism - had a worse impact on your life" - so the black woman wasn't actually answering a different question than the one you posed. And science doesn't seek to answer subjective questions. By its very nature science avoids these things - whether it's a social scientist or a physicist because the nature of science is based on objective observation. A study done on whether people say racism or sexism is worse isn't going to be anything more than a dressed up opinion survey and in no way can actually answer the question. If your goal is to provoke thought in your students, that's fine. But then by admission you aren't seeking to actually answer the question and are in fact admitting that the question is absurd and merely a thought experiment ala schrodinger's cat
no. only one person so far. There's a difference between a REFUSAL to consider the question and a RELUCTANCE to respond born of the cognitive dissonance the question creates. you are far more open-minded in at least considering the question--and your reasons for not responding--than is the dogmatist who simply throws up his hands and says "you're stupid!" (I paraphrase.) good comparison, all up to the point where bring in "absurd." Lots of things are absurd and merit our attention and thought--life itself is a good example. The existentialists following WWII had a hard time thinking life had much meaning after they had seen so much death. And philosophy for 2500 years has itself been considered "absurd" by its detractors. As has often said, "philosophy always asks questions, but it never answers them." So either there is conceptual confusion here about the meaning of the term "absurd," which I'm willing to accept and move beyond for the sake of discussion, or else everything is absurd, in the existentialist's sense, in which case I'm cool with that too. the personal experience questions lead to the deeper philosophical value questions. There's a sort of iterative process by which philosophizing about life (and nature) proceeds. I don't think much turns on the distinction so long as the philosophical reflection is allowed to occur. spoken like a physicist. that is a joke, btw, I think you should talk to a food scientist about the hard-wiring of "taste" and the unpredictability of peoples' food preferences. I think science seeks answers to all KINDS of questions. in the history of science that's a fairly positivist conception of the role of science. There are other theories of science. but that would be the difference between a social scientific survey and actual philosophical analysis. just a quick search on the philosophical question turns up things like the following: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43246457?seq=1 Haven't read it; can't vouch for it. But in philosophy if someone can ask the question, the question is worth asking. no, what I may be admitting is that the question ultimately is unanswerable--but that's a very, very, VERY different thing than saying "the question is absurd," at least in the way which you and the other guy are using the term "absurd." But in fact I also don't think the question is unanswerable. I actually think there might be grounds to say that sexism is worse than racism because it is more perniciously hidden than racism--less "real" to many people--which makes it all that much harded to combat and to fight. I think it's easy for people to say "race isn't real," or at least that it's only "real" on a cultural level . . . which may make racism easier to fight and to solve as a social problem over time. Whereas sexism has a sort of lingering persistence in biology. I don't think there are many people out there arguing that biological "sex" isn't real (or that "gender" isn't real to use the more current term). Hence all the squabbles about transgenderism and sex roles in military etc. Perhaps sexists believe they have "science" on their side in a way that racists no longer do. Again, these are philosophical issues, informed by our knowledge, scientific or otherwise. There's nothing about the subject that's "absurd." That is, except for absurd responses. and I appreciate your thoughtful responses.
My point is: it's not equal. You see that, right? You're saying women really should not be in combat, am I correct? I'm saying, maybe some women want to do everything men do in the military, including win the Congressional Medal of Honor. But they can't. This is still true today. No woman has won the Congressional Medal of Honor in over 150 years. That is because of sexism of people like you, frankly. You state there is a good reason why women are not equal in the military? Can you state it again please?
I see your point and I don't think this is a useless question to ask. To follow up though on what Sweet Lou is saying this type of exercise is bound to failure in terms of anything definitive. Following on using quantum physics as an analogy there is very much a Heisenberg effect as the mere observation changes the outcome. Using Schrodinger's Cat the idea was that all possible realities of collapse into what is the observed reality once the box is open. At that point it's either a live cat or a dead cat but up until then both realities existed simultaneously. Applying this to what is worse racism versus sexism both exist and both are bad. Barring any quantifiable hard data to show that one is worse than the other. It does come down to what the particular person being asked the question at that time thinks. In other words you as the observer are trying to collapse the possibilities so someone who doesn't the answer the question is essentially keeping your from opening the box. It's fair to say that is a bias as claiming no bias is a position but that still is a null or inconclusive result is always a possibility. Another issue though with how you've framed this question. With any research or philosophical question you still have to consider apriori starting conditions. In terms of asking it here this board skews heavily male so a subjective question regarding sexism versus racism as an honest exploration is already tainted from the beginning.
I'm not saying women shouldn't be in combat. I'm stating the fact that there weren't a lot of female US casualties because women weren't allowed into combat. That's not an opinion that is a historical fact. If your argument is that women should've been allowed in combat in Vietnam that is a different matter but that has nothing to do with that people did or didn't feel bad about the US troops that died there. It had nothing to do with that mostly men died why so few women died. There were massive protests against the war yet you keep on saying people don't care because of sexism. That's a very odd argument that doesn't fit with actual history. Is your argument that more women in the US military should've died in Vietnam?
I'm confused. Are you arguing that the lack of women in combat is sexism against women or sexism against men?
At best you're comparing chocolates to strawberries. At worst, you want people to compare chocolates to novels. Comparatively speaking, racism is far more easier to categorize than sexism. With sexism, it's not only physical traits, but also sexuality, our cultural norms of masculinity and femininity, and the other's sexual attraction. There's now transgenderism in the mix, which tries to make it even more of a social than a purely physiological construct. It seems like every generation has it's own wave or definition of feminism. Despite all that Hillary Clinton accomplished early in her life, millennial women and younger didn't respect or feel deeply obligated to vote for her. Here's a chocolate comparison...which is the "better feminist", a female college educated professional worker or a female college educated homemaker? Maybe the difficulty on common agreement is because the societal demands are different as well as each period's power dynamics? Does the ideal level of feminism work well in the dating scene? If I were to believe the patriarchy was wholly responsible for society's problems and aggression is a symptom of toxic masculinity, would acting the reverse make me more attractive? Are these traits that are found desirable as a lover the same for a leader? Are we still talking about the same issue? I realize after all this that we've tended to simplify messaging on sexism to the point where it's a binary decision (you either are for X or you're not). Maybe we're so far away from respecting women that it has to be that way, but it's extremely easy to cross messages especially in a society dominated and driven by aspirational marketing. So I'll also take a pass at answering the question.
Sexism is sexism: it's bad for both sexes. Judoka, I'm talking about now, not yesterday. Everything is in the past, including Vietnam. Vietnam is an example. Here is a statistic from a few moments ago: Congressional Medal of Honor Winners Men: 3472 Women: 1 Judoka, there weren't a lot of women in combat because of sexism. It's the same now.
I think the difference we have is that I approach this from a scientific standpoint and you are seeing it as a more philosophical one. I am not a philosopher and my experience is mainly limited to logic classes and just exposure to it from a college education that was decades ago. In other words, I'm nearly at my intellectual limits of how deep I can take this discussion. In regards to the word absurd, I mean by that word to say it's nonsensical. Fruitless from a scientific value standpoint. That no empirical answer can be obtained from that question. It's absurd as saying for instance - what came before the big bang. Sure, you can ask it, but there is no answer because time itself didn't exist before the big bang. By the same token, you can ask the question which is worse - sexism or racism, but there is no empirical answer. It's purely based on speculation or a unsubstantiated theory at best. Is it worth asking? Not from a standpoint of producing actionable insight or a result that bring clarity. Maybe from an exercise to students but the end lesson should demonstrate that there is no good answer in fact. As for science and subjectiveness, let's look at your taste analysis for a food scientist. What they are trying to determine isn't whether something tastes good or not, which is entirely subjective, but rather is there a pattern in what tastes good based on identifiable independent variables. For example, there are genes that affect how certain molecules bind to your tongue and how your brain interprets them - in other words - taste that have evolutionary implications. It's totally legitimate science to use a subjective measure such as taste to look at an objective criteria. But the question of racism vs sexism which is worse?, doesn't have an objective basis like taste does. It is by your own description purely philosophical. You are right, anyone who attempts to answer the question you pose (not for themselves but for humanity) is risking revealing biases that could inherently be damaging to themselves. If a black male says racism is worse and a white women says sexism is worse - ok, that makes sense but makes those people seem self serving. But if a white man says one is worse than the other in front of other people, they are going to definitely provoke others for something that they may not even being putting that much thought into and is purely an academic exercise. I just think instead of making this comparison is to enumerate the negative impacts of each one and let the comparison be more indirect and voluntary.
glad you picked up on the chocolate example. I actually think it's not comparing chocolates to strawberries. A better explanation is I'm comparing milk chocolate to dark chocolate--which is a distinction I introduce in the chocolate taste test I described above when I introduce Chocolate C, which is the dark chocolate, after students taste, compare, and evaluate Chocolates A and B, which are milk chocolates. We might think in terms of what are called "comparison classes." Within the comparison class of milk chocolate, it makes sense to compare chocolates A and B as within the comparison class of milk chocolate. So we are comparing like with like, or apples with apples. When we compare A and C, however, we are now no longer within the comparison class of milk chocolates, so we are comparing unlikes--make this an apples/oranges comparison, or as you say, a chocolates/strawberries comparison. But, we are still within the broader comparison class of chocolates writ large. Which is to say that we can use a list of subjective quality distinctions students generate during the first taste test--which they intersubjectively discuss, compare, and evaluate in an objective manner--and then apply those characteristics and evaluative criteria to the evaluation and comparison of Chocolate A (milk chocolate) to Chocolate C (dark chocolate), to see how they compare. We even push the epistemological/ontological question of value upon them by asking again, Which is better chocolate? A or C? that's an excellent question and deserves its own thread. of course when you ask an individualistically specific question about "a" female professional versus "a" female homemaker, that will influence/taint the responses you get. The terms "professional" and "homemaker" are also obviously loaded with all kinds of connotations--so you'd have to figure out how to deal with that aspect to get better results. This is by the way the reason social scientists get paid the big bucks. in a lot of ways, remaining "agnostic" on these kinds of philosophical questions is often the most intellectually responsible position to take. But it's after arriving at that agnosticism after genuine deliberation that is admirable, versus someone who simply says "I don't want to think about it." Sometimes it is better to travel than to arrive. I'm reminded of a favorite passage from Bertrand Russell. In An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, he wrote: Here, as usually in philosophy, the first difficulty is to see that the problem is difficult. If you say to a person untrained in philosophy, “How do you know I have two eyes?” he or she will reply, “What a silly question! I can see you have.” It is not to be supposed that, when our inquiry is finished, we shall have arrived at anything radically different from this un-philosophical position. What will have happened will be that we shall have come to see a complicated structure where we thought everything was simple, that we shall have become aware of the penumbra of uncertainty surrounding the situations which inspire no doubt, that we shall find doubt more frequently justified than we supposed, and that even the most plausible premises will have shown themselves capable of yielding implausible conclusions. The net result is to substitute articulate hesitation for inarticulate certainty. I believe articulate hesitation is objectively better than inarticulate certainty.
I can agree that there weren't in combat because of historical sexism. Women in combat is only a recent phenomena so chances are there will be more female Congressional Medal Winners. If you're talking about now I'm not sure how that applies or why that means people did or did not care about Vietnam. I'm not sure how that was bad for both sexes.. Yes more men died but women actually did want to fight and in the military combat duty is how people advance make more money, and get more prestige in the military. That is one reason why groups like blacks were willing to volunteer to fight in the US military even though the military excluded them. I mean if your argument is that sexism is bad because of historic sexism you could just as easily say racism is bad because of historic racism and cite that there were no black officers in the Civil War. You could argue that racism was bad for both races because many more white soldiers died than black soldiers died in the Civil War.
I'm a bit pressed for time, but let me make one observation . . . and that is you are yourself now doing philosophy of science. I.E., thinking about and ruminating on the nature of science--its methods, its aims, its purpose. which reminds me of an essay Dave Papineau wrote a few years ago for TLS: "Is philosophy simply harder than science?" enjoy. https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/philosophy-simply-harder-science/
What I think he's saying and he can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, is that sexism is bad because it meant more men died in Vietnam than women whereas if there wasn't sexism likely a more even amount of each gender would've died. In other words sexism is bad towards men too.
Am I the ONE? And to be clear @Os Trigonum , my initial reaction was seeing this thread after you posted a joke that saying "milking" now days is sexist in the AOC thread. It seemed like you were being bothered with PC on sexism and I initially thought this was a thread to discredit sexism at first. Questions like these are often used in a politically tactic way to say "See everyone one agrees this one is the really bad one, the other one isn't THAT bad like people make it out to be", therefor the question it's self scares me in the sense that it will be used undermine harm. Genuinely I don't think it's a question that could ever be answered objectively on a worldwide basis, and especially on a historic basis. I appreciate the question/thread as an opinion poll and thought exercise, just again am overly cautious about how questions like these can be weaponized.
