I guess it's somewhat situational, but more times than not there will be different behavior amongst heterosexual males just because of that. So yeah, the guy might be doing other things because the other party is a woman. What if it's just to look good in front of women, despite not being interested in them? I've seen that happen. Some guys just feel good on the attention that may be gained. They aren't necessarily sexist.

You've basically just said there "Someone isn't a sexist because they are doing sexist things", I hope you see the contradiction there

If you are doing a thing for one gender that you are doing because they are that gender then it is, by definition, a sexist act because you are applying discrimination with regards to your actions based on gender. As to if it is a problem or not depends on the act, the intent and the outcome but it is still by the definition a sexist act.

I guess the point is that, in many small ways, we all do sexist things even if it is as simple as sexual preference in partners - the problems arise when those things are done which cause others problems be they physical or mental issues. Even something as small as holding open a door for a women, if you only do it for women, has the underlying issue that you seem to think they can't do it for themselves which might, if someone constantly witnesses this, cause issues. (I'd also argue that not holding open a door for everyone makes you a bit of a dick ;))

I guess it's somewhat situational, but more times than not there will be different behavior amongst heterosexual males just because of that. So yeah, the guy might be doing other things because the other party is a woman. What if it's just to look good in front of women, despite not being interested in them? I've seen that happen. Some guys just feel good on the attention that may be gained. They aren't necessarily sexist.

You've basically just said there "Someone isn't a sexist because they are doing sexist things", I hope you see the contradiction there

If you are doing a thing for one gender that you are doing because they are that gender then it is, by definition, a sexist act because you are applying discrimination with regards to your actions based on gender. As to if it is a problem or not depends on the act, the intent and the outcome but it is still by the definition a sexist act.

I guess the point is that, in many small ways, we all do sexist things even if it is as simple as sexual preference in partners - the problems arise when those things are done which cause others problems be they physical or mental issues. Even something as small as holding open a door for a women, if you only do it for women, has the underlying issue that you seem to think they can't do it for themselves which might, if someone constantly witnesses this, cause issues. (I'd also argue that not holding open a door for everyone makes you a bit of a dick ;))

I see your point on the door holding thing, but I was just making a really simplistic example. That being said, yea I do see the contradiction, but as you said, then the vast majority of people would probably have done something sexist (this includes both guys and girls) at some point in their lives. Ah well, intent is what matters.

This is intended at nobody in particular, but aren't we now basically grasping at really really small things in the debate of sexism?

On a side note, I just realized that this thread has gone on for 11 pages and nearly a couple of weeks....

This is intended at nobody in particular, but aren't we now basically grasping at really really small things in the debate of sexism?

Well, this is a kind of an aside from the main discussion just to counter the points brought up in the post I initially quoted.

I guess the point is that, in many small ways, we all do sexist things even if it is as simple as sexual preference in partners - the problems arise when those things are done which cause others problems be they physical or mental issues.

Well, maybe this implied "definition" is so generic that it renders the word meaningless.

I guess we lift the concept straight from "racism", where treating a person differently due to their race is racism, but I don't think it applies 100% to genders. Treating a person differently based on race *is* racism, because there is nothing that logically or morally justifies different behaviour to peoples of different race. What kind of different behaviour does different melanin levels in the skin warrant? Interacting with people of different genders in a different way *is* very naturally justified in the context of mating, as long as it happens with respect.

Simple example: A woman giving the "green" light to a man that sees in the bar, by looking at him in a "certain way" or whatever, and the man approaching her asking "hello, what is your name", starting a flirting game that might lead to sex or a relationship. There isn't any reason to pretend we're not dealing here with 2 adults that are looking for lovers of a specific gender. So, yeah, if those persons aren't bisexuals, the woman wouldn't give "that look" to another woman, and the man wouldn't approach another man. So, this flirt game is now a series of sexist actions? If we define "sexism" to include such interactions, and divide it into "bad sexism" and "good sexism" then it becomes so generic and meaningless we might as well define it as "the acknowledgement that sexes exist".

I think a more valid definition would be "sexism is treating people as if their worth as a person is in some way connected to their gender". Pursuing different (respectful) interactions with people of different genders is not sexism, it's just...mating. Treating a female coworker as *only* a potential mate *is* sexism. Treating a female coworker as a potential mate(if the interest is mutual), in addition to being a fully respected colleague is not sexism, just because you don't treat the male coworkers as potential mates too!

Except that ISN'T the definition of sexism... when the definition changes to what you want it to change to then fine, you'll be correct, however as it stands the definition is what the definition is namely that treating someone different because of their sex is sexist.

The fact the word has such a negative connection to it seems to be what is causing you (and others) issues in this side discussion causing contorted logical to try and redefine actions which are different dependent on gender as not being sexist when, by definition, they are.

Except that ISN'T the definition of sexism... when the definition changes to what you want it to change to then fine, you'll be correct, however as it stands the definition is what the definition is namely that

treating someone different because of their sex is sexist.

The fact the word has such a negative connection to it seems to be what is causing you (and others) issues in this side discussion causing contorted logical to try and redefine actions which are different dependent on gender as not being sexist when, by definition, they are.

I'm curious, where exactly did you get the definition "sexism is when you treat someone different based on their sex", that you so insist is the correct one, and led you to make up extra terms like "bad sexism" and "good sexism"(!), to compensate for the fact that basically your "definition" boils down to "people acting as if different sexes exist" ?

Merriam-Webster defines it as follows:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

The point is to take the other person's point of view into consideration;

This sums up why we are even having this discussion still in 2015, and why it explodes into over 10 pages threads quickly. People don't do that. A lot of them. They just care for themselves, and try to force THEIR view on others.

IMO, both the extreme feminists, as well as the extreme anti-feminists fail to take the other sides PoV into consideration, leading to all this messy business. Did the guys that are pissed about Sharkeesians criticism try to see what she is pointing at from her PoV? A general female PoV?

How do you feel when the group you belongs to gets belitteled all the time for no good reason? When you get treated like a second class citizen because of your foreign name, your skin color, your disabilities? Would you care if this abuse was directed at you, or was just executed indirectly via a movie or game?

On the flip side, could it be some extreme feminists (I am not pointing at sharkeesian here, don't know her enough to make that call) completly missed that from a male point of view, what they are preaching sounds more anti-male than pro-female? Which cannot be what feminism should be about, it should be striving to improve life for women, not make mens life miserable.