Originally posted by
Sarahfeena
Even if you can't call it sexism, you might still wonder why a person might give up equality in a relationship, and whether or not it comes from a healthy place. But either way, is there some reason inequalities in a man/woman relationship SHOULDN'T be called sexist, just because that dynamic can't exist in your relationships? There IS sexism in this world, and plenty of it. The fact that inequities and unfairness can exist for a lot of other reasons too doesn't mean there isn't.
I really don't know what to say, because that isn't how I view relationships. I can see people, assumptions, institutions and actions as sexist, but if two people are
agreeing to a particular relationship I don't see how that makes the relationship itself sexist.
Well of course if it was the woman in charge and the man making no decisions it would still be sexist. It's a difference based on sex...that's the definition of sexism. And, this doesn't sound like a TPE to me, because of exactly what you say here...that it's based on the gender of the participants, and not on their personal desires or proclivities.
If two people decide that they want to do something and they both want to do it, I don't see how that's sexist. If it's in the context of them not having a choice, that's different. Of course that's sexist. But differences between the two when they're of the opposite sex doesn't automatically translate into sexism. Differences will arise in relationships and in a heterosexual relationship, by definition, those differences are going to be between two people of different genders. But that's because they're straight and thus partnered with someone of the opposite gender. That's different than the differences being
based on sex.
Say a man and woman are married. She hates to cook, so he does all the cooking. Sexist? He hates spiders, so she crushes them all. Sexist? She really enjoys being the aggressor in the bedroom, so he stays more passive. Sexist? Yes, these differences are between two people of opposite sex and yes, they chose one another and this relationship based on sex because of their orientation, but the differences between them are differences between individuals, not the sexes. They're making these choices based on mutual desires and those mutual desires include heterosexuality, meaning all their desires for a partner will involve someone of the opposite sex. You can't label all differences or inequities between them as sexist. It's more nuanced than that.
I'm not arguing that the FLDS setup isn't sexist. It absolutely is. But I see a distinction between the organization and the power of each individual to make their own choices. I don't know enough about the Brown family to say that, yes, absolutely their lifestyle is sexist. It probably is, but I don't like making snap judgments.