Sunday, May 26, 2013

The Invisibility of Modern Sexism (Final Draft)

Dear Modern Sexist of America,

In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter, sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with civil rights. The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based upon aspects of a person that either can not be changed or can not be changed easily.

Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" point of view has prevailed, even after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less frequently to "solve" each conflict that arose.

The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. I feel that this recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.

There are many people like yourself who would have us believe that sexism is no longer an issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention "[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman". Clearly this is an indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this survey was conducted in 2011. I implore you to do your own research regarding sexist attitudes towards more than half of the population, as well as to simply be more observant of your behavior and the behavior of those around you. It is obviously a bizarre state of affairs when a group that is in no way a minority is treated as if they are one. It is wise to assume that even if you are not female, that the equal treatment of women will only serve you, since it would reduce the incidence of anger in these women, making it easier to improve your relationship with them. 

Sincerely,
Rachel Meisenheimer  

2 comments:

  1. Dear Rachel,
    You have an interesting draft here on an important topica and you have some good logos, but I think this is light on research and could be developed using a bit more ethos. I also think that by zeroing in a specific claim and audience, you can improve this draft and create a more cohesive and convincing argument. You start out very general with a claim that relates to biology, but the most effective part of your letter, in my opinion, is when you explain the stubborn prevalence of traditional gender roles in cleaning advertisements and, in your next TEA, your own personal experience as a house mate. Your final paragraph has evidence, but the source is unclear to the reader (what does AIDS have to do with sexism?) and "two thirds" is not explained. Two -thirds of what group exactly? I'd like you to consider what I think would be the easiest way to improve this letter, which is to narrow your audience to "male housemates"
    Perhaps some statistics/data that back up your claim about how many people are now living in shared housing would support why this topic matters so much (and I believe it absolutely does!). Perhaps addressing this to: Male Housemates, would help you better focus your argument. With this specific audience in mind, consider what ethos, pathos and logos can you use to persuade this audience? The third paragraph has two topics: commercials and how costly rent creates the need for shared housing. Why not start with this to set up the problem? You could incorporate more personal experience on this topic, I'm sure, and you could better focus your argument on a specific problem: that although men often claim to be feminists when it comes down to dishes and laundry, women are still the ones toiling away. I hope these suggestions help you to revise and focus your points. I see GREAT potential here!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good details and evidence you put into your paper. i totally understand what you're saying about sexism. i'm sorry the world is like the way it is. in time im sure it will change for the better.

    ReplyDelete