Earlier today I did a sexist headline and didn't stop myself. The headline was I bet the girls are better-looking in the 'sphere of deviance.'" I'm phallocentric, I admit it. Adam Horowitz has wisely censored/edited me on a couple of occasions. This time Horowitz was traveling, and Sarah Anne Minkin, who generally likes this site, busted me:
I mean, talk about being within the sphere of consensus!
Was it offensive, Sarah Anne?
spheres of consensus, legitimate debate and deviance exist in multiple
worlds. What you wrote was well within the sphere of consensus, which is
as sexist as our society. So we've got sexist assessment happening here
on two levels: 1) women are judged according to a measure that is
narrow and pits them against each other (some are "better" looking,
whatever that is) and 2) women are used as symbols of the value of
structures or spaces and, as such, all women are objectified (the
better-looking women represent your sphere, showing that it's better
than the others; but who's in that sphere with you? Am I in there? And
as what – one of the symbols or one of the sphere participants?).
not saying that women and men's attractiveness is something we
shouldn't talk about. I'm all for attraction. But using women and their
looks in the casual way you did subtly limits the roles that women can
and do play in our public life, and it also reveals who (you) is in a
position to remind us of the rules that marginalize and delegitimize
women's contributions.
Articulate, forceful. Thanks. I've changed in many ways over the years in sexist and racist connections. I'm not sure I will change here because I'm not entirely sure I want to, at least when throwing off a joke. Also: while I'm in the "sphere of deviance" on Palestinian stuff, I might simply be too traditional/essentialist with respect to male/female differences. The sphere of consensus, as Minkin observes. But I've registered the affront. So: apologies to those who were offended, I'll try to keep it under wraps.
(Phil Weiss)
