I would love to hear people's thoughts on a phenomenon I have encountered with a few of my women friends. I have some friends who, when I bring up issues related to gender, sexism, or feminism act very dismissive. They will say things like, "Well I've never experienced sexism. I get paid the same as the men at my job, and I've never been denied an opportunity because I'm a woman." They never come right out and say that they don't think sexism exists, but they indicate that they are skeptical and dismissive of other women's complaints, and they think sexism certainly doesn't apply to them.
These responses leave me flabbergasted. I want to scream, "Are we living in the same world!?" Now, I certainly don't want to be in the business of trying to convince someone she is oppressed, but I wish I had some kind of good, diplomatic response. Has anyone else encountered this? How have you responded? Do you have any thoughts on this phenomenon?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Women Who Deny Sexism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15868
I would ask them if they are happy with their bodies, feel safe walking alone at night or have never been worried about being called a prude/slut.
Those are some of the most common things I've noticed that women tend to have accepted so much so that they miss the apparent sexism involved.
HFS.
I worry about walking outside, day and night. You might get jumped for your wealth or just because.
And both men and women have body issues.
And guys have another problem beside the sluts/prude thing going on... they are just assumed to be sluts.
Hell, I have even been sexually harassed at work.
And I know your rebuttal, how much worse it is..., try being female..., so forth and so on...
Invalidating other peoples experiences to validate yours.
Nobody is saying men don't experience those things! Your experiences are valid, and certainly have a place in a feminist forum.
BUT I bet if you did a poll of women and men and asked "how afraid are you to walk alone at night" (or "how often do you walk alone at night"), you would see some differences. Just because you are afraid of assault does not mean that my additional fear of sexual assault (which is felt much more strongly by women and queer folks than men, in general) is not important. I'm not invalidating your experiences, I'm just saying that women's experience in this regard is different from men's on average, and that this difference needs to be recognized as a form of sexism.
Similarly, both women and men have body issues. Men's body issues are ALSO a manifestation of sexism -- why should men have to be muscular to be considered masculine / sexy? But overall, just like walking alone at night, I bet if you asked a large group of men and women, "how often does your discomfort with your body make you sad? Make you less likely to be outgoing in a social situation? Make you less likely to enjoy sex?" etc... you might get some different responses. The fact that women, on average, are more concerned about their bodies and let their body image problems interfere with their lives and self esteem more than men is a form of sexism.
I could say the same about the other things you mentioned... sexual harassment, the slut/prude problem, etc, but I'll spare the lecture.
I'm not saying "boo hoo, it's worse for women." But if you are going to come on a feminist forum and say "everybody suffers from these things, quit your whining" ... then you REALLY need to check your privilege.
I was responding to the notion that Wonderwall seems to have that men go through the world jumping from cloud to cloud.
I did not say stop your winning... I was not trying to imply stop your winning. I was trying to adjust Wonderwall's apparent positive idealization of the masculine existence and negative idealization of the feminine existence.
You responded to a comment that was not there. Maybe you are use to being told to be quiet and shut down so you guessed were the conversation was going.
I was responding to the notion that Wonderwall seems to have that men go through the world jumping from cloud to cloud.
Really? You got all of that from Wonderwall's comment?
It's funny because you say Lily responded to a comment that wasn't there, but that's just what you did to Wonderwall.
You said Wonderwall seems to think that men go through the world jumping from cloud to cloud...but they never said any such thing. You saw their comment as an attack against your experiences somehow when Wonderwall was just describing many women's experiences. They never said a single thing about men's experiences. Not a thing.
Steven, you said:
And I know your rebuttal, how much worse it is..., try being female..., so forth and so on... Invalidating other peoples experiences to validate yours.
I wasn't responding to something that wasn't there. I was responding to the "rebuttal" that you claimed someone would give, and I was explaining why that rebuttal is actually legitimate. By saying that we shouldn't tell you about women's experiences ("how much worse it is... try being female") you basically told us to quit whining. You ridiculed women for sharing their experiences and explaining how they may be different from yours... before we even shared them.
You may be well intentioned (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I've seen you participate constructively on other posts here), but your post was really disrespectful.
Please see: Derailing for dummies, especially "But that happens to me too." You should also have a look at the Finally Feminism 101 Blog, especially "What’s wrong with saying that things happen to men, too?"
I am familiar with the linked articles.
And I think that they support a large amount of the group think that is floating about, insulates ideas from introspection.
I see personally see a pattern of feminist positively idealizing masculine existence and negatively idealizing feminine existence.
The next level of sophistication is the subversion of those idealizations, making the positive a negative, and the negative a positive.
But the increased sophistication is not an improvement. Because you are still working with the idealizations, drastic overstatements of reality.
The derailing for dummies (lets be realistic, that is not there to be convincing, it is someone parading before the group think), the linked FAQ, all protect the idealizations.
Lets also return to the original topic. Women who don't see sexism.
With the issues mentioned by Wonderwall (body image, safety, sexual morality) the fact that the stuff happens to men is important... that is why some women don't see it as sexist.
It could be hating on fat people. Anyone could worry about their safety in public, and both sexes have judgment passed on them regarding the number of sexual partners they have.
And alot of women do see that it happens to both men and women. And they don't have the same idealizations, positive and negative.
"Women who don't see sexism"
and apparently men who dont see sexism. Steven perpetuates the cycle of women not seeing their experiences individually from mens experiences because the women only reflect on themselves through a males myopic privileged gaze. So therefore if a man doesnt recognize female sexism then it simply doesnt exist to them, in spite of its existence.
This is where we can get to constructive things. My comment was short and extremely to the point. I threw a quick thought out there based on my experience talking with people who deny sexism. I could not, unless I was super-de-dooperly amazing with words, sum up all the complexities in two sentences.
Next time, instead of tearing down someones comment and derailing the thread, ADD something. ADD instead of totally attacking what I said or what you (wrongly) thought I would say. I do think you mean well and are thinking critically but just seem to be looking for a fight.
I am not really looking for a fight.
The thing is, when I first started off here I did all that stuff. I tried to add and I was still blasted.
I saw how the conversation devolved time after time. I know how it is going to go. Maybe not the role every actor is going to play but there is a formula that plays itself out.
People on the site will even disregard the stuff I try to add to the conversation as lies to mess with their heads.
They have learned not to trust anything men say, they say.
There is a line between being ready for a fight and picking one and sometimes it gets blurry.
You are correct, my invalidation comment was not about what Wonderwall stated in her commnent.
I was looking forward to where the conversation was going to go, because we have walked it before. I meant to make that clear with when I wrote:
And I know your rebuttal, how much worse it is..., try being female..., so forth and so on...
Wonderwall suggest questions to ask disbeleiving women to convince them of sexism... questions that pre-suppose a differnce based on sex.
A dude says he has the same problems. Most the feminist say "teh porrr MEnz! Try being a woman"
Someone else comes along and says "Patriarchy hurts men too"
So forth and so on.
Woah, your derail was way out of line.
The post was asking about WOMEN and so I responded particularly to WOMEN. I said absolutely nothing about men or their experiences. For goodness sakes.
We all know that patriarchy sucks for everyone. Playing the oppression olympics does not do anything productive. Stop trying to make a fight where there is none.
This is disingenuous. If you make a claim that women are afraid walking home at night because of sexism, this implies that men do not feel afraid of walking home at night. Otherwise, if both genders are afraid of walking home at night then it isn't sexism, its merely a mutual fear of unsafe conditions and not sexism.
In order for something to be sexist it requires disparate treatment, thus you cannot make claims that something is sexist against women if you are not making a claim that men do not experience it.
Further the whole argument is a diversion. When most people think of sexism they are not thinking about a lone criminal who might do something evil. They are thinking about systemic sexism in the legal system, in their employment, something which is held true by a sizable minority of people, if not a majority. What you are arguing is that sexists and evil people exist, but from the OP they didn't claim otherwise.
This is ridiculous.
OP wrote, “Has anyone else encountered this? How have you responded?”
I responded that, in my experience, those are issues that people can easily understand and identify with. I am not arguing anything remotely close to what you are saying and would appreciate people not putting words in my mouth.
For people who are not aware of sexism or who deny it, I find it best to start off with things that are very recognizable and that we all have some idea of. From there you move on the systematic stuff you want to argue about.
And there is systematic sexism involved in all three issues I used as examples. The bodies and prude/slut examples should be pretty clear, but on the nighttime one you talk about… women do get disparate treatment when assault prevention is aimed mostly at women. I am not saying at all that women SHOULD feel afraid walking alone at night – I am saying that women have most likely come across the message to be afraid walking alone at night. We see it in schools where they talk about how not to get raped. They sell pink mace. Tons of self defense classes are available specifically for women. Those icky mass e-mails are forwarded - “if you care about the women in your life, give them these tips to not get attacked!”. And on and on and on. That fear message is disproportionately given to women.
There is a huge difference in pointing out differential impacts of certain issues based on sex and the dichotomous underpinnings to your original comment.
Your first comment presupposed that women overlook them as sexist because they are so accepted.
But women also overlook them as sexist because they see the same things affecting men as well...and 'if the same thing happens to men then how can it be sexist?' is the reasoning used.
Which needs to be addressed in its own way.
So my two sentences were not complete enough for your liking. As I posted above, add something instead of attacking.
I am not wrong that (some) women overlook sexism because it is so prevalent and accepted. You are not wrong that some women may overlook it because men experience it to.
Add something to build off my comment, or ask me to further my thoughts, or say ‘my experience has been different in this way”, etc. Just stop with the misdirected attacks.
Right, guys experience legit sexism (and not just the uncomfort of a system they started) as much as I experience racism because I'm white person (which is zero).
"But women also overlook them as sexist because they see the same things affecting men as well"
Yeah right! Seriously steven, youve been on this site too long to be talking this stupidly. And anyways for that to be right, you'd be stating that we dont live in a patriarchy (which isnt true and would be impossible anyways even to make your claim right).
You claimed it was an issue of sexism, therefore it is very much about what women experience and what, by virtue of it being sexism men do not experience (at least not in the same amount) So I did not put any words in your mouth, I merely described what you said. For the difference that you claim between the perception of danger to the actual danger you should note people on both sides of this issue interpreted this as an issue of the actual danger. You were sufficiently vague to merit either discussion.
Now that you've clarified it as primarily about the fear mongering which satisfies the issue of it being more systemic but does not on its own show inherent sexism. Certainly I can remember the campus safety lecture in my first year of university which told everyone to walk home in groups and reminded the girls specifically. And that could be pointed to as sexism against women, of course the people there would also remember the addition to that for the guys to walk girls home because (and this was explicitly stated) "we don't care what happens to you".
As far as the Slut/Stud perceptions, things are changing my freshman year the guy and girl who had shacked up the most were viewed in pretty much equal terms. Some guys were considered man sluts although far more common was for them to be considered sketchy.
RIght, cuz men fear walking home at night because theyre going to get raped by a woman. Nope, sorry, your leveling doesnt take into account the realities of patriarchy, misogynistic precedent and misogyny in society. If youre a mugger who are you going to go after; the big man, or the little woman in high heels? She has to worry about the same things he does + rape and sexual assault IN A PATRIARCHY . Not the same.
How long have you and steven been on this site? Too long to still be this stupid.
If a criminal attacks a man, and gets caught, he will receive a lighter sentence than if he attacked a woman. Something many criminals do take into consideration.
Whats more men are simply more likely to be assaulted or murdered by strangers. Although neither the UCR nor the NCVS properly accounts for male victims of sexual assault we can assume they are lower than for women, despite this overall assault/murder rates are much lower for men than for women, and much more likely to be committed by strangers for men.
Also, where did you get your assumption about my gender from?
Youve claimed youre male before. Your name is also steven.
Gopher, Wonderwall was replying to Steven about him assuming their gender was female.
Woops! Thanks for the clarity! Was typing on only 2 hours sleep before classes!
I got my assumptions about your sex from your other profile page, comments and post.
"Wonderwall seems to have that men go through the world jumping from cloud to cloud."
You created that erroneous dichotomy. It was no where implied in her post.
" I was trying to adjust Wonderwall's apparent positive idealization of the masculine existence and negative idealization of the feminine existence."
THAT IS TRUE
Cure: check your privilege
Steven - now you know very well that there is a difference!
Some men fear walking outside at night - usually very paranoid White men who watch way too much TV and are afraid that Black guys are going to rob them.
Those fears are generally paranoid and silly - not to mention racist.
Many women - of all races - fear walking outside at night because they fear that some guy will rape them.
Those fears are well founded, reasonable and reflect the very widespread reality of rape in our society.
I'm sure you also know as well as I do that only men who are unusually skinny or extremely fat get body shamed - but ALL women are constantly subject to an intense, constant and incessant barrage of criticism of their body size, no matter what size they are - and that criticism comes from the media, their family, their friends and even complete strangers on the street.
There is a huge difference here - and you know it.
Some men have experienced sexual harassment at work - often man on man harassment that's more homophobic hazing than actual demands for workplace sex.
Almost all employed women have been sexually harassed at work - either with demands for sex in return for job benefits (raises, promotions ect) or with bombardment with sexist commentary, images and verbal abuse.
So, workplace sexual harassment has happened to a handful of men - and most women.
There is a huge difference here - and you know it.
And just because your narrow personal experience may have varied from this general social reality does not in any way negate the broader context of how society treats women as a group.
But... but... THE MEN!!!
I mean, if ONE MAN has a fear about being robbed by a scary black dude, isn't his fear far more important than the scores of women who fear being raped by men? So important that every single thread about violence against women must have a very long derail nitpick argument in which the terrified minority of men must be addressed, coddled, and comforted... shouldn't we guarantee that the second someone brings up the problem of violence against men that we immediately throw the problem with violence against women off of a cliff so that we can get down to the really important problem of men's fears of violence?
I was thinking about not taking part in that discussion, BUT some of your facts seem to be way out of line.
For once men are more likely to be victims of violent crime and far more likely to be victims of crimes by a stranger. So if men have fear (and I do have it, too) this is not paranoia.
Secondly according to statistics about rape the minority of cases are actually cases that include stranger rape. Most of the times, the victim is someone women know. The first factoid from wiki tell me it is 2%.
So this turns your conclusion upside down.
Your factoids about sexual harrassment at work seem to be a bit out of the line as well. Almost all...I see. Willing to share where that factoid comes from?
Lets talk about some actual statistics, a man is far more likely to be assaulted, and far more likely to be murdered, and both are far more likely to be done by a stranger than by someone they know than for women. In fact if you look strictly at who is more likely to be attacked by a stranger, it's a man.
But you conclude it is paranoia for a man to be cautious when walking home at night. Because your own sexism dictates that is how a man should act.
I also really don't want to derail this thread anymore than it has been but I really feel the need to point out that while men and women can be the victims of violence, men are still overwhelmingly the perpetrators of these crimes. It's not a contest of who is suffering more- the point that's being missed about these crimes is that they're mostly being carried out by men. Men who live in a patriarchal society and a rape culture that normalizes this aggression and makes everyone suffer. That's the sexism that jennyknopinski wants to point out to her female friends and what the original post was concerned with. The discussion should have stayed with that.
Every man's experience of violence or sexual abuse is completely valid. However, I don't see the point in screaming "sexism!" at a less privileged group who isn't at fault. Clearly, the issue is with men and how masculinity is framed by our society. And you must acknowledge that society still leans heavily in favor of men. Men being attacked by other men has not changed the fact that we live in a patriarchy.
Uh, no. Women have far more body issues than men, try looking it up. A man will never be jumped by a woman because she is going to try and rape him and because we live in a patriarchy that thinks mens bodies belong to women. If men and women have to worry about being jumped for what they have on their bodie (ie, money) then a woman makes an easier target because she is smaller AND she has to worry about sexual assault. And NO, men are assumed to be studs, not sluts. What are you, an MRA? Next we'll be hearing about how Homer Simpson is an example of the oppressive matriarchy we live in (eye roll).
Congratulations on derailing an otherwise interesting and productive conversation. You really can't stand to see a discussion on any topic except WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?! can you?
I make a distinction between responding the the original post and responding to a comment on that post.
If the comment addresses a different set of issues, directly or indirectly, then it is fair game to address those issues.
Some may or may not follow that convention, or they pick and chose which exceptions they want to allow.
No, you completely derailed. When I saw this post had more replies I was hoping to hear more stories of people talking about the topic at hand, and it was just more of the off topic conversation. You changed the whole tone of the topic, to the point of it being a complete derail. This topic has gone from talking to women who deny inequality to about the issues men. If you want to talk about that then make your own post on the community blog or your blog at this. Please don't reply, I don't want to be part of this derail, I just needed say that.
Seriously? The conversation could be summarized as this:
Topic: Some women do not see sexism, what are some ways to show sexism which might convey it in a way they would agree with.
Argument: Issue Y is demonstrative of sexism in society (Necessary & Sufficient Condition: Issue Y is experienced at different rates for women compared to men)
Counter Argument: Issue Y is experienced by men at similar rates as women disproving the hypothesis of sexism
Do you not see how arguing the basis of what is or is not evidence of sexism is germane to the conversation of demonstrating sexism? Or do you always simply cry derailment when someone disagrees with you? Now in fact this conversation, your comment included, is in fact actual derailment so lets just leave it there.
Some women are so invested in believing that sexism doesn't exist that they are blind to it. Very privileged women often fall into this category- to admit the existence of sexism/patriarchy would so disrupt their world view they simply can't do it.
Now, if you think your friends might be willing to seriously look at sexism, I suggest starting with advertising- Killing Us Softly is a great place to start. I think advertising is more overtly sexist than other things in our lives. Below is a link to a Killing Us Softly video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FpyGwP3yzE
Good luck with your friends.
Joan
I just had this conversation with a female friend the other day. She went more for the "At least you have a job and can vote!" angle. When I mentioned the pay gap, she claimed to have known about it and was okay with it because "its better then Iraqi!" I just boggles my mind that people can think like that. I just wish I had come up with a better reply. I really don't know what causes people to think like that.
*Iraq
Most women I know are like that- they don;t totally deny it, but they'll acknowledge it and then say well who really cares, even though it affect them. Apathy is the word I believe. I have heard a Canadian parlimentarian say that though- and she was on the status of women comitee. Not shcoking that the conservsatives changed the women's funding rules from the status of women.
I usually ask them about children's toys and if they can honestly tell me there is no difference between toys marketed for boys and girls, or the roles men and women are expected to fall into according to most magazines and sitcoms (e.g., women want to get married and go shopping, men want to watch ball games and have lots of sex). Then we usually get in long conversations about gender and biological essentialism.
Whether or not someone believes in sexism, they would have to be completely oblivious to not see that men and women are perceived differently in our society (and other genders are not perceived at all). If you can prove that gender stereotypes are sexist (not hard) you can prove that sexism exists.
But I don't see what that proves because yeah, everyone realizes men and women are looked at differently - but that's because men and women are a different gender. So 99.9% of the people think it's totally normal and expected that they should be treated differently. They believe men and women are inherintly different and thus see nothing wrong with them being treated differently.
And I don't totally disagree with that. I mean, I don't want men and women to be exactly the same either, that's completely boring. I want more diversity not less. Equal opportunity and equal treatment to all is what I want. And most people will agree with this because it's almost impossible not to. However this view doesn't mean men and women need to be looked at the same in every sense possible. There can still be differences between the genders and yet have both be equal. This is what most men and women want.
Recommend you wait for a clear example of where it happens to them personally and point that out and use that to start the conversation.
I agree with you to an extent, but I'd rather people be treated different based on their individuality rather than gender especially since gender isn't necessarily binary or absolute.
Well, that's why I said it usually ends up as a conversation about biological essentialism. People will go on about how it's just Natural that little Jane likes Disney princesses and I'm like, really? You think she was born with an innate desire to like a specific brand name that just so happens to be marketed towards her age and gender? and so on.
I very much disagree with the 'we need gender because we want more diversity, not less' argument. Not wanting gender roles IS about having more diversity. Diversity doesn't happen between huge groups of people that make up 50% of the world's population (or other huge groups that make up less, for that matter). Diversity is something that exists at every level of our world, and of our selves. It includes knowing that all of us can be alien even to our own minds. It is the ability to recognize change and difference as a beautiful and necessary part of everything in this world, not just in one group vs. another.
And gender stereotypes mess that up. A lot. They teach us that everyone is either x or y, not x or y or z or a or xyz or xzy+a-b, and more. That's the sort of shallow diversity we need to step away from - yeah, maybe appreciating both men and women in their most stereotyped form is better than only appreciating men, but it's only slightly better. It still leaves out way too much, and limits our imaginations and our souls.
Some of us are just luckier than others, I guess. Or more oblivious. Personally, I'm also in the 'do we live in the same reality' reaction camp with female vs. male gamers, but usually from the other side--I don't doubt that many girls have had negative experiences with their male peers, but it's not something that I've ever experienced. A couple years ago, if you'd asked me about sexism in gaming, I would have responded in the negative myself.
I suspect that for other women like me, who have never really felt defined or limited by their gender, the idea that there's still sexism in the world is a bit foreign, because it really doesn't exist in our corner of reality.
I just had this conversation on Friday! My new acquaintance is really accomplished and had to get a divorce in order to be so. Then, she said that she is not a feminist, to which I replied, "I am." She said, "Why would you want to be something that everyone hates?" I said, "People who hate women also are the people out to make a bad reputation for feminism. The sexist mindset wants to deny life choices to women in favor of one, narrow possibility, but feminism wants women to be treated as individuals who make their own decisions about their lives." She said, "I like that." :-)
I think it's related to the idea of victim blaming. To pull a bit from wikipedia, The just-world phenomenon, also called the just-world theory, just-world fallacy, just-world effect, or just-world hypothesis, refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is "just" so strongly that when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it.
Some of it is a backlash to the way Feminism has been smeared by conservative attacks. Some of it is a desire to seem even-handed rather than strident. I think most of these people mean well and that they shouldn't be condemned off hand for what they believe; if they were informed of the limitations of what they believe then their eyes might really be opened.
I don't know what to say to women who insist this.Unfortunately, this rebuttal is offered broadly across social movements, whether it's the vehement denial that racism still exists, or that human rights violations are occurring. It's the "I've never had a problem with the way things are so nobody else should have a problem either" attitude. It strikes me as being underwritten by a complete inability or refusal to empathize with others.
I wanted to amend this a little. I believe the mentioned attitude is morally reprehensible in so much that it embodies a lack of empathy, but the attitude itself isn't as simple as just that.
Many of the previous posters have already stated some of the factors, "the just world" view, internalized sexism, a blame the victim mentality.
It's hard for me to understand other women who feel this way. Because I absolutely cannot relate. Even before I called myself an actual "feminist" I KNEW sexism existed. I didn't want the label, but I never denied that we needed a revolution (or something). So that's just an area where I'm like UHHHHH?
I agree. My idols in elementary school were Susan B and then later in Middle School alot of the female singers that emphasized feminist principles. I went through a phase in high school in which I wouldntve identified as a feminist but I never denied sexism existed. Its just given such a negative association. PR campaign for feminism to reverse this public image!!
Really? Never?
Never had a male talk to the man only when his female partner is RIGHT there. Never have someone say "does your husband agree?". Never faced the expectation that the parent who should stay at home to mind the kids is, by default, the male. Never seen a movie based on a book, that now includes a male character, otherwise it might be a "girl's movie". Never was discouraged away from math and science, Never was inundated with pink things and cooking toys and babies to dress up. Never was asked to do more housework than a brother, never attended church services conducted by males while the majority of the unpaid work was done by women, never did all the cooking and then had a penis holder carve a turkey to applause deserving of an open heart surgery save? Never?? Never catcalled, never suggested to be secretary at committees again by default, never had to cede courtspace to the boy's team, etc etc etc. Lucky her.
Never was discouraged away from math and science
This is actually getting pretty rare. In fact considering the massive number of math programs, science program, entire academic courses open only for girls in order to get them to participate in math, science, etc. I find it pretty taxing to believe any girl in my various schools was discouraged from math and science.
Why do you think they instituted those female-only courses and encouragement programs in the first place? It's not enough to simply drop official restrictions on women being in a certain field. The boys-only club doesn't open its doors easily.
Then there's the consideration that there may be high numbers of enrollment of women in math and science programs, but what about retention?
The boys-only club doesn't open its doors easily.
That boy's only club has dropped its restrictions very easily. Many of the problems faced by these programs are not an issue of discouragement but are partly issues that cannot be easily addressed (such as the fact that if there are fewer women in a field, women are less likely to consider the field) or the fact that women seem more responsive to grades then guys which discourages them from fields which grade more harshly even if they were at a higher percentile in the class itself.
So yes, stating that it is an issue purely of sexism is not simply overly simplistic it is a clear attempt to cram a single analysis into a situation that it does not fit. Why, if these fields are so sexist, do they go to such lengths in increase the number of girls? Why do many of the supposedly anti-women professors take time out of their lives to teach young girls (but not young boys) their field with the hopes that one day some of them might consider entering their field?
You are presuming that the discouragement is from teachers. I am talking about the more insidious discouragement in daily life.
The fields of math/science are in no way sexist, but the history and cultural stereotypes behind them are. Lots of young girls are dicouraged from pursuing math and science because they believe in the stereotype that it is a "boy thing". And when all those girls have only Einstein, Darwin, Mendelev, etc. to look up to in our current science curriculum (instead of, say Rosalind Franklin, or Marie Curie), that stereotype is further reinforced. Math is even worse with this. Lack of role models isn't the only reason; like 76cents said, there are more insidious forms of discouragement. For example, most female characters in the books/movies/tv shows targeted at young girls today prefer art/language/humanities over math/sciences, and they somehow conclude that the two groups are polar opposites (like art is all creativity and fun and math is all cold facts)
And there is definitely a significant gender gap in math and science education and careers today. (I did a paper on this last year) Just look at the male to female ratio in any science/engineering tech school--it will most likely be horribly skewed.
I usually don't challenge the assertion of never experiencing sexism directly because it tends to shut down dialogue and put the other woman/women on the defensive. I twist it a bit and say, "It's great that you feel you've never experienced sexism, but there are a lot of other women out there who are not as lucky as you, myself included. Please don't act as if my experiences didn't happen just because they didn't happen to you. Someday I hope all women can live without sexism, but that's not the way it is for now." Usually from their a discussion ensues. Sometimes not, but I always get the impression they will think about it later.
That is a good recommendation - I like it! I would guess that a lot of women who deny sexism have experienced it but don't recognize it. So perhaps from saying, "I've experienced sexism in X, Y, and Z situation" they will notice some of the common sexism that perhaps they hadn't seen as sexist before.
I always suggest something small that gets them thinking about wider implications. Usually something about gendered toys, media depictions of women, slut/stud dichotomy and teh recent reaction by the public about Rihanna and Chris Brown. I've also defended my point by saying that if homophobia exists then so does sexism. Making fun of a gay man for being 'effeminate' (even if he isnt) or a lesbian for being too masculine is an imbedded extension of a deeper example of misogyny in culture.