This is an interesting point about the sexist dialogue trope where a man tells a woman, “You can’t do that” and she says, “Why? Because I’m a woman?”. The man replies with, “No, because everyone who tried that ended up dead” or something like that. The reason this could be considered sexist is that paints him as the rational man and the woman as the irrational paranoid feminist. The post below expands on this. What do you think?
The problem is that sexism is too often assumed, in a modern world where sexism has steadily been getting killed off. Not every objection a man makes to the actions of a woman is sexist; and yes, there is a degree of irrationality to assuming sexism without proof. That’s not necesarily calling someone overtly irrational, it’s merely declaring that in that instance, rationality has taken a back-seat to a reactionary response; which is something we’re all guilty of, regardless of gender, from time to time. So it’s not lambasting someone for calling out sexism; it’s lambasting someone for assuming sexism without even the least attempt to reasonably clarify that sexism is actually happening.
It’s an unfortunate truth that too often, very irrational patterns of thought get rubber-stamped because they claim to be based in moral concern, when in fact they’re based in paranoia and an assumption of the other as enemy irrespective of the facts. The belief that every word out of a man’s mouth that calls a woman’s actions into question is automatically going to be sexist is one of those ideas. Often these days, the man’s disapproval is founded solely in good sense. Once, that was frequently not the case; but the world has changed, and sexism now simply cannot be rationally assumed without solid evidence of it being present.
Tell me you’re the author who’d use this trope without saying you’re the author who’d use this trope.
I have news for you, your BS about “Often these days, the man’s disapproval is founded solely in good sense” and “but the world has changed, and sexism now simply cannot be rationally assumed without solid evidence of it being present” shows exactly how little you are paying attention to the world and society. Because, when you get down to it, every time a woman is calling something out for being sexist, it’s because they’ve had that experience at least once.
First of all, it’s not BS to say that things assumed to be sexist often aren’t… any more than it’s being sexist to call out women for doing exactly the same thing in terms of male objectification that they claim they hate men doing in terms of female objectification. Once, sexism was largely universal; now it isn’t. Sure, there are plenty of times when it’s present; but plenty of times is not EVERY time, or even close to it. Beware what you project onto the world; it may not reflect the actual truth of what’s there.
Secondly, having had an experience once, or even a hundred times, that was based on sexism does not mean that every similar instance for the rest of your life is going to be based on sexism. Assuming that it will be is utterly illogical; there are a million ways for events to be shaded, and assuming that the worst shading is the one that will always prevail is both paranoid and rather disturbed thinking. It’s also a great way to shoot the possibility of finding allies in the face, as it leaves you treating everyone who accidentally offends you as if they did it with deliberate malevolence. No-one likes having their motives misconstrued so blatantly and offensively, and they’re definitely not going to want to be friends with someone that does so repeatedly.
And thirdly: yes, these days objections from men to women are often founded in good sense. Women are just as capable of screwing up as men are, after all, and nowadays are freer in their ability to enter the same fields as men and do the same jobs. Ignorance and sloppiness are universally human traits; and arrogance is found wherever there’s contempt for those one party deems lesser than themselves. The woman who looks down on the man offering them advice without even considering that advice is being no less contemptuous than the man who gives advice solely on the basis that the hearer is a woman and therefore to their mind less competent. Sure, that advice might be sexist; but it also might NOT be. Show contempt without even considering it, and you may well be damning yourself. Better safe than sorry.
Now, would I use this trope in a fiction? Sure I would; just as I’d use the trope of the idiot kid who thinks they know more than the expert and gets a kicking for it. Or the trope of the woman advising a sexist man and not being listened to, then the man suffering in consequence for their sexism. No trope is bad, when used for the right reasons and to broadcast the right message: that being a jerk out of a perceived superiority over the person advising you is never a good idea. That it pays to actually listen, and then judge the advice on its soundness rather than the identity of its speaker, should be the message of any good tale. And sadly, that’s a message that all too many political activists have difficulty absorbing.
To be honest, don’t bother to write loooooong texts like that when you started with « The problem is that sexism is too often assumed, in a modern world where sexism has steadily been getting killed off » that shows how little you are aware about the sexism that still remains
People making assumptions about assumptions… oof.