Image by John Torcasio
Can you believe it? In just two more weeks, 2020 will finally be a thing of the past.
And I do mean finally. Personally, I can’t wait for it to end, and I’m looking forward to what 2021 might bring. Although, I’m sure some felt that very same way going into 2020!
Still, there’s no way 2021 will be as bad as 2020. Right? I mean, it’s been bad. And I’m not just talking about the killer hornets, no fans at sporting events, or the fiasco that was the election.
It’s been a year stained by tragedy. Major plane crashes in Iran and Pakistan. The sudden death of Kobe Bryant. Wildfires in Australia and the U.S.
It’s been a year plagued by suffering. Over 1.5 million have died worldwide from COVID-19 with the U.S. accounting for almost 20% of the deaths. Over 22 million Americans lost their job, and only half have returned to work. And mental health is a major crisis.
And if all that weren’t enough, it’s been a year marred by injustice. We’ve all heard the names Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd. But there were many others. Too many.
Remember Jonathan Price? Do you know Casey Goodson? Did you know police have shot and killed 1,009 people this year so far with Black people being disproportionately affected?
I’ll admit, much of my attention this year has been on racism. Learning about it. Talking about it. Trying to expose it. But the truth is there are many –isms (ableism and ageism just to name some others), all of which demand attention. And to be antiracist is to actively oppose any injustice, not just when it comes to race.
But opposing injustice isn’t just an external exercise where we only call others out. It’s also an internal one and involves us calling out ourselves. It requires us to examine our own biases.
And that’s hard. Even for me. I don’t get things right all the time. I mess up. And, honestly, there are times when something outrages me so much that I want to immediately jump into action. But then there are other times when I’ll witness something very similar (maybe even the exact same thing!), and I’ll find myself ambivalent and even question if people are overreacting.
But that’s the thing! Rarely are things black and white. Our awareness and understanding of things is often very gray, and the same goes for our own beliefs and our opposition to –isms. And there’s one –ism in particular we’re all familiar with that I think illustrates just how fickle and inconsistent we can sometimes be.
Sexism.
Just like racism, I think most would say that in no way, shape, or form are they sexist. And if asked the following, I think most would quickly and confidently answer yes.
Should women be given equal access, opportunity, and treatment as men?
Unfortunately, like racism, I think most would say they’re not sexist rather than antisexist. And, like racism, sexism isn’t black and white. And to me, this question shows just how gray our thinking can be when it comes to sexism. It can reveal how we, as people, often like the idea of something but may not actually believe it wholeheartedly or unequivocally. In other words, there are things we probably should believe, but if we really examine our beliefs, we might discover we’re not as definitive and confident as we’d like to think. Even when it comes to things like affording equal access, opportunity, and treatment for men and women.
And for this particular discussion, let’s consider the question solely through the lens of cis-gender men and women. This is not meant in any way whatsoever to elevate cis-gender people, nor is it meant to minimize anyone transgender or who identifies as non-binary. All people are deserving of equal dignity, equality, and inclusion. And conversations about those identities are critical and necessary to have. However, in my opinion, some people use transgender and non-binary identities as reasons to hold (maybe even justify) sexist ideas. And I believe it’s possible to expose sexist ideas when only considering cis-gender people. And from there, it only stands to reason that sexist ideas would be magnified as additional gender identities are included.
So, with all that in mind, here’s the question again.
Should cis-gender women be given equal access, opportunity, and treatment as cis-gender men?
If you said no, or if you tried to add clarifiers to the question, or if you hesitated even slightly before answering, those are all probably indicators and something you may want to think about.
If you said yes, awesome! But I have to ask, do you truly believe that? If so, then I imagine you have no objections to Sarah Fuller playing on Vanderbilt’s football team, right?
If you haven’t heard, Fuller made headlines a few weeks ago when she kicked off the second half for the Vanderbilt football team against Missouri. And this past weekend she scored two extra points against Tennessee. Many may not know that Fuller isn’t the first female to play college football. Several have, even dating back to the 1990s. I even remember in middle school when a 7th grade girl played on the team. Shout out to Jane L. if you’re reading this! But Fuller was the first to play and score points for a Power 5 school, in the SEC no less! Yet, some are angry.
Do you think Fuller should be given equal access and opportunity to play football at Vanderbilt?
When it comes to access, remember that it’s not a matter of a female wanting to leave the female’s team for the men’s team. There is no female football team! There is only the football team. Which means, for a female to play football, there is only one option.
You wouldn’t deny females access to jobs or other things for being female, right? So why deny females access to football simply because of their gender? What makes it different?
It’s also worth mentioning that this wasn’t Vanderbilt picking a random female as the kicker. She was a goalkeeper on Vanderbilt’s national championship soccer team. And she actually didn’t even ask to play on the team. The team asked her. They needed a kicker and reached out to her. In other words, they believed she was qualified and deserving of the opportunity.
What are your thoughts on giving females equal opportunities for open positions? Do you believe all qualified individuals are to be given a chance? Don’t you want the best candidate?
These may be difficult and uncomfortable conversations for some, but they’re necessary if we’re ever going to break through gender barriers that still exist in 2020. Because while there may be some engaging in constructive dialogue and celebrating her achievement, sadly there are also those mocking, attacking, and ridiculing Fuller. Just look at some of the comments left on SportsCenter’s Facebook page after they applauded Fuller. Warning, some are obscene.
Why are people so hateful? Why are people so angry? Do you identify with those sentiments?
At this point I can hear many saying that the issue should be obvious by now. It’s not a matter of equal access or opportunity when it comes to females. It’s a matter of [un]equal treatment. Is it?
Is it meant to say females don’t have the “toughness” gene like men which allows them to play football? Is it meant to say females are unable to pass some “strength” test proving they’re capable of playing football? What about all the female rugby teams in college?
There’s one final argument I’ve heard. It has to do with how game dynamics would change because men might hesitate or hold back before coming into contact with Fuller on the field. And, honestly, I think they’re right. But while this may seem like the end of the argument for many, it actually confuses me even more. And two questions immediately come to mind.
First, could that behavior and those beliefs be the result of decades, even centuries, of reinforced sexist beliefs that say women aren’t capable or to be considered and treated as equals to men?
Second, and this is the single most important question raised by all of this in my opinion, if we don’t want to subject women to such treatment, why are we ok with subjecting men to it?
Are we not equally as worried about the physical safety for all people, regardless of gender?
I realize that things are rarely black and white. More often than not, they’re gray. But this is about women being given equal access, opportunity, and treatment compared to men.
What does it mean for genders to be equal yet treated differently?
How is that not an expression of sexism?
What do you think?
I’ll start the conversation. It’s pretty straight forward for me.
Should cis-gender women be given equal access, opportunity, and treatment as cis-gender men? Yes.
But the conversation veers immediately after this answer.
Are men and women “Equal”? No. Men and women are different. So how can you say they are equal? Can you say that Blue is a better color than Red? You may prefer one over the other, but that doesn’t mean one color is better.
I watch my wife take care of my newborn son and I am in awe. I realize she has capabilities and skills that I could learn, but could not duplicate to her ability. She is also much better at interpersonal skills. We are different, and I love her for that.
Men were created differently than women and we have different roles to play. Some may describe these roles as “stereotypical”, but there is a reason for that. Our bodies were designed to excel at different tasks.
Sports is an entirely different topic. I saw the Sarah Fuller kick and I thought that was super cool (not so much the Twitter comments). Honestly, I think we should stop there. I don’t think integrating women into male contact sports would end well. Men’s bodies are built differently. Testosterone. Bone structure. When it comes to physical activities, women can be extremely talented physically, but they are by design not competitive with men.
Imagine this. A boxing title match between Laila Ali (in her prime, the greatest) and Mike Tyson (in his prime, the greatest). Would you pay $50 PPV to watch this spectacle of “women’s empowerment”? If you did, I would expect that very shortly into the match you would be embarrassed and ashamed to be taking part. It would not end well. I don’t think this should happen and I don’t think this is a sexist opinion, but I am open to having a conversation!
I’ve been thinking about your comment for a few days. I’ve been trying to find the right words to reply with. I’m still not sure I’ve found them but the least I can do is try since you were willing to share!
First, I agree with much of what you said, especially when it comes to men and women being designed differently. And I agree with your analogy of Laila Ali and Mike Tyson. I would not want to see that, nor do I think it would end well. And before anyone says they fought in different weight classes, I wouldn’t want to see her fight Roy Jones, either!
My intent with referring to Fuller wasn’t to imply I think we should group women with men in sport. Because, again, women and men are designed differently. I’ll be the first to admit there are some incredible female athletes, and I’m sure Laila Ali could defeat some male boxers just as Maya Moore could beat some male basketball players in a game of 1on1. But, in my opinion, those are examples of exceptionalism (and I think you’d agree). Generally, men are bigger, faster, and stronger.
Hopefully, that doesn’t sound like it conflicts with the post. Rather, I mentioned Fuller to illustrate how, even when females are able to compete at such a high level, they are still not only subjected to differential treatment, they are given unequal value (as depicted in the social media comments). And I posed the third to last question in the post for this very reason, in an attempt to examine this idea.
What does it mean for genders to be equal yet treated differently?
I’ve been wrestling with that for awhile now. And I ask it in terms of society as a whole. Your example of whether blue is better than red is one’s personal preference. I’m asking how/why/if we, as a society, have decided to value men more than women?
Because again, when it comes to sports, society doesn’t just think men are different. They are better. To me, it’s evident when comparing game attendance, ratings, and fan interest between male and female sports. And it holds true whether looking at professional sports (NBA vs WNBA) or at amateur levels (NCAAM vs NCAAW, high school, etc.).
So, if men are better, how can that not result in unequal value?
Because to me it’s obvious we prescribe better value to males compared to females in athletics. We can see it when comparing revenue, ratings, and even salaries.
And some might say it’s just sports. So what? What’s the big deal? Does it really matter?
I would say, yes. And it’s caused me to ask a question that I can’t seem to answer. And if I’m honest, my inability to answer it doesn’t sit well with me.
So, if men are objectively better when it comes to sports, is there any profession/skill/category/attribute where society considers women to be objectively better than men?
And the answer can’t be, women are better mothers. That’s like saying women are better better female athletes than men. Mothers are a sub-type parents, and I don’t think we would say mothers are better parents than fathers. Like you said, they’re different. I also don’t think it’s fair to say women are better when it comes to jobs like being a nurse in a Labor and Delivery hospital unit or at being nurturing. Those are all subjective opinions (and worth their own debates!). When it comes to sports we can use science and metrics to say men are better than women.
And also, this is a matter of value. So, even if a someone conducted a study that determined females are better drivers than men, society wouldn’t elevate the value of women for their driving ability. However, being a successful [male] athlete comes along with some very significant celebrity, fame, and status.
So, is there anything where society believes women are better than men and it gives women more value and worth than men?
And that’s the question I can’t seem to answer. I can’t think of one single thing. And I don’t like that. It makes me feel some kind of way. There has to be something!
Because, even if sports are the only example of a disparity like this between men and women and the two are equal when it comes to every other comparable category under the sun, that would still mean that men are better than women because they’re equal in everything except for the one thing that men are better at. Right?
That doesn’t sit well with me. And that’s the question or idea I was trying to get at with the post. And that’s what I was referring to in the second to last question. How is that not an expression of sexism?
As I think through all this and even read through this reply again, it seems like I left out quite a lot from the original post in between those two final questions! And, as usual, this reply to your comment is way longer than I anticipated. I suppose those who know me know that succinctness is not my superpower! But I think it also shows how gray much of this is and how conversations are so important. Nevertheless, I owe you a thank you for your comment because it forced me to do some more contemplating and to try and put these thoughts into words.
We might still disagree, and as always that’s totally fine! But hopefully this sheds just a little light on what I was thinking.
I agree with what K.R.is expressing. and his most important statement was in bold “Men and women are different”. We should stop trying to make women equal to men, because its an impossibility. There is a reason the Equal Rights Amendment never passed into law. It’s because, in the end, it would have created so many unintended consequences that it would have been a disaster for our country. Just one such example is that it would have required women to register for the draft at 18, and perhaps serve side by side with men in combat.I’m sure there are plenty of women that could do that now, but they choose to do it. But think about the many millions of women that couldn’t do that, but might be forced to do it if equal rights were enacted. There would be many other unintended consequences. Women are women, and men are men. We should stop trying to make then equal – it can’t be done.
My comment about Sarah Fuller is this. She was an OK soccer player filling in for a woefully terribly team. She did a squib kick of 20 yards and directly ran off the field in order to avoid contact. I’m thinking that the coach directed her to do that because she wasn’t physically able to defend herself – rightfully so. But, the media went wild – putting her on a pedestal. She even made the SEC Special Team Player of the Week. The media completely destroyed her by making her an equal to any male player on the team. Then twitter, facebook, and other social media outlets lit into her because many saw the hypocrisy of it. Jason Whitlock of Outkick (formally of ESPN) wrote about the Sarah Fuller incident, and he blamed the media. A good read if you want to look for it.
I would finally like to take issue with your statement below:
“So, is there anything where society believes women are better than men and it gives women more value and worth than men?
And that’s the question I can’t seem to answer. I can’t think of one single thing. And I don’t like that. It makes me feel some kind of way. There has to be something!”
I read, and re-read this statement and am thinking that you didn’t quite get your thoughts across as you intended. If you stand up for your comment, I’d sure like to see you make this statement to a room full of women. And good luck to you. 🙂
Take care, and happy new year.
Alex,
It appears we agree on some things and disagree on others.
We agree women today are both deserving and capable of serving in our military. And that women are different than men (though I refer to anatomical differences and don’t know if you refer to things beyond that).
But one doesn’t have to be the biggest, strongest, or fastest to be successful in the military. Battles aren’t won or lost with hand-to-hand combat or by physical prowess. Rather, the military requires pilots. Drivers. Advisors. Technicians. Logistical organizers. Data analysts. Medical personnel. The list goes on.
And since anatomical differences between men and women aren’t new nor are they vital to serve in any of those capacities, I don’t consider women any less effective or qualified to serve in the military, not today or 50 years ago.
So forgive me, but I disagree that it would have been a “disaster for our country” had women been randomly chosen along with men via the selective service system. And I’d be curious as to what differences you think exist[ed] that make it so?
You mentioned women now can [choose to] serve side by side with men now but “couldn’t do that” in the past. I don’t think I understand. Is it meant to say, since women can choose today, it wouldn’t be a disaster to randomly select them today, even though men weren’t given the choice with selective service but randomly selecting them ensured a more adequate and non-disastrous military?
I’m not sure I’m qualified to speak to Sarah Fuller’s ability as a soccer player. Or as a football player for that matter. Rather, I mentioned her to show how ignorant and hateful people were at the mere idea of her playing football. And the screenshot I shared in the blog post was actually from before her playing in a game. Which means those comments were by people before any media outlets commented on her ability to kick a ball. I do wonder, though, if you had a sister or a daughter or a niece who played in Sarah Fuller’s place, would you respond in this same way to them?
As for your last point and taking issue with my statement, I completely understand. And that’s another thing you and I both agree on! Because, as I said, I don’t like how that idea makes me feel. It doesn’t sit well with me. And I really do want there to be something!
Notice I didn’t make the statement, “I don’t think women are as good as men…” or anything of the sort. Because, clearly, that’s not true. Just look at my comments here about women in the military.
Instead, I asked a question, which was, “So, is there anything where society believes women are better than men and it gives women more value and worth than men?”
Granted, she isn’t a room full of women, but I did ask my wife before I published the initial blog, and she couldn’t think of anything where society believes women are better than men at something, either.
If there are any women you know and trust enough to ask the question, I’d be very curious to hear their response(s).
Because I really do want there to be an answer to the question. As I said, there has to be something! I really don’t want to believe society values men more than women.
So if you have something, I do hope you’ll share.
Jeff, since you asked me specific questions, I felt compelled to answer.
“And that women are different than men (though I refer to anatomical differences and don’t know if you refer to things beyond that).”
I do believe that the differences between men and women go FAR beyond anatomical differences. Books have been written describing the differences. I wouldn’t dare try to enter into that area of discussion, but to only say that women, in general, possess certain skills that men do not, and never will have. I thank GOD that he made a man and a woman, because it takes both to make this world what it is. They both have different bodies, brains, and heart.
I again post your quote: “So, is there anything where society believes women are better than men and it gives women more value and worth than men?
And that’s the question I can’t seem to answer. I can’t think of one single thing. And I don’t like that. It makes me feel some kind of way. There has to be something!
You said you were just asking the question, but you also answered your own question by saying “I can’t think of one single thing.” Do you really believe that!!! It’s a pretty sexist statement. Please ask your wife to re-read your statement and have a discussion. I’d be interested.
On to Sarah Fuller: I think it’s really great to have women and men compete in the same arena. I’d like to see more of it. I applaud Sarah Fisher for helping out the men’s football program. I say again, the media blew this story up, and made her the laughing stock in social media. The media made it seem as if she was an equal to all the men that went through the huge effort to be on that field too. She wasn’t even close to being their equal.
So forgive me, but I disagree that it would have been a “disaster for our country” had women been randomly chosen along with men via the selective service system. And I’d be curious as to what differences you think exist[ed] that make it so?
Lets just say, for sake of debate, that the equal rights amendment had passed, and women and men were equally drafted. You mentioned that that there are plenty of “support” roles for women. That’s great, no problem. Lets just put all the men on the front lines, and keep the women behind the lines as support. Lets just let the men get shot at. That’s not equal rights. Equal rights means half the women would be on the front lines. It does sound silly though, I admit. But it would happen, given the legal ramifications of “equal rights”.
So lets go to sports with equal rights. Women will demand 50/50 representation on ALL professional sports teams. After all, why should men get all the high salaries. If you say they aren’t strong enough to compete equally, then lets change the rules and requirements so they are equal.
Lets go to business with equal rights. If there isn’t 50/50 representation on, lets say, nursing jobs, then restructure them and make sure sure all companies hire 50/50 for every position everywhere.
It sounds ludicrous, but the court system will have no choice but to abide by the equal rights amendment. This is why I made the statement that it would be a disaster for our country to try and enforce equal rights.
Enjoying the discussion. Stay healthy and happy new year.
I was scolling the comments after listening to a few podcast. I have a question for Alex. Why do you say that the question Jeff asked about is there anywhere in society that a women is valued more than a man is sexist? I was also wondering were the “support” roles as you quoted came from for women in the military. Just curious.
10 units of semaglutide for weight loss
10 units of semaglutide for weight loss
can cymbalta cause erectile dysfunction
can cymbalta cause erectile dysfunction
metronidazole krem
metronidazole krem
does zoloft work right away
does zoloft work right away
lexapro drug class
lexapro drug class
gabapentin urinalysis
gabapentin urinalysis
duloxetine weight gain reviews
duloxetine weight gain reviews
cephalexin 500 mg como tomar
cephalexin 500 mg como tomar
cheapest sildenafil 100 mg online
cheapest sildenafil 100 mg online
fluoxetine pregnancy
fluoxetine pregnancy
keflex and grapefruit
keflex and grapefruit
escitalopram addictive
escitalopram addictive
ciprofloxacin for fish
ciprofloxacin for fish
cephalexin vs ciprofloxacin
cephalexin vs ciprofloxacin
bactrim for cellulitis
bactrim for cellulitis
bactrim dose for uti 3 days
bactrim dose for uti 3 days
can you get amoxicillin over the counter
can you get amoxicillin over the counter
drug bank of ezetimibe
drug bank of ezetimibe
depakote iv
depakote iv
valacyclovir and contrave
valacyclovir and contrave
does flexeril cause constipation
does flexeril cause constipation
diltiazem side effects
diltiazem side effects
flomax emedicine
flomax emedicine
what is diclofenac sodium
what is diclofenac sodium
desmopressin ddavp stimate
desmopressin ddavp stimate
augmentin wiki
augmentin wiki
increasing citalopram dose 10 to 20
increasing citalopram dose 10 to 20
cozaar recall
cozaar recall
effexor horrible side effects
effexor horrible side effects
abilify aripiprazole
abilify aripiprazole
how much amitriptyline for sleep
how much amitriptyline for sleep
how much aspirin can i give my dog
how much aspirin can i give my dog
allopurinol metabolism
allopurinol metabolism
how long does celexa take to work
how long does celexa take to work
ashwagandha review
ashwagandha review
how long does buspar take to work
how long does buspar take to work
celebrex 100 mg para que sirve
celebrex 100 mg para que sirve
dosage for baclofen
dosage for baclofen
celecoxib
celecoxib
actos mj
actos mj
qsymia and semaglutide
qsymia and semaglutide
formulation and evaluation of repaglinide microspheres
formulation and evaluation of repaglinide microspheres
robaxin vs baclofen
robaxin vs baclofen
zantac vs protonix
zantac vs protonix
how does remeron work
how does remeron work
what is considered a high dose of abilify
what is considered a high dose of abilify
acarbose vidal
acarbose vidal
sitagliptin weight loss reddit
sitagliptin weight loss reddit