How do I know if a concept is sexist or not?

There are little inconsistencies in your explanation that allow for misinterpretation by others.

Due to this, society traces its lineage through matrilineal lines.

By semantical definition of "sexism", this is sexism. It somehow considers your mother more definitive to your identity than your father.

Note that it's only sexist if men contribute. If, as an extreme example, every child is a genetic clone of its mother, and men do not actually contribute to the child's genes, then a human's genetic lineage is purely matrilineal (but genetic lineage is not always the same as lineage, e.g. consider that you still want to trace who the father is, or even just adoption).
If you're looking for hereditary diseases and only look at the matrilineal line, then you're not being sexist. You're simply excluding the father's line because the child didn't inherit any genes from them. You're not excluding the father because you think men are unworthy.

However, someone has told me that this concept is sexist toward women because it suggests that a female's only worth is her fertility

That is a logical fallacy. Your concept states that a woman's fertility is valuable. Your concept does not state that a woman's fertility is the only valuable thing about her. It doesn't even state that it's the most valuable thing about her.

and that having kids is the most important thing to them

The same argument applies here, it's a logical fallacy.

I really want to keep my left hand. I'm right handed, so my left hand is not the most important thing to me (obviously, my right hand is more important). The fact that I'd rather not lose my left hand does not mean that my left hand is the most important thing to me.

Is that accurate or am I overthinking it?

It's not accurate. Whoever pointed out the alleged sexism has applied wrongly inverted logic.

How would I know this for a fact when something is prejudiced or not?

That's a broad question. I'd hazard a guess to say that this is the #1 question that the (western) world is currently trying to find an objective and universally applicable answer to.

Prejudice is not black and white. While we can coin a definition that applies in most common cases, those definitions becomes less clear for fringe cases. Keep in mind the definition of discrimination:

1. Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
2. Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

When we say call things like racism or sexism discrimination, we are referring to definition 2. WHen definition 2 applies, so does definition 1. But the opposite isn't true: there are cases of (gender) discrimination where definition 1 applies, but not definition 2. For example:

• A gynaecologist refusing to book an appointment for a male patient.
• A nurse who writes down the gender of a patient on the patient chart.
• Segregating bathrooms/locker rooms by gender.
• An animal that only eats human testicles (since it inherently attacks men, not women).

All of these examples are cases of gender discrimination, yet they are not labeled as immoral behavior.

So how do I detect sexism?

Simply put, randomize all the genders in your story. Does the story still make sense? Does changing two people's gender (MM, MF, FM, FF) inherently change their relationship or power dynamic?

If changing the genders changes something that is not related to the physical differences of the genders; then it's sexist (definition 2). Some examples:

"I changed the gender of my main character, and now the story doesn't work because they don't need to go out to buy tampons and thus don't run into the story villain who (for some unexplained reason) is a tampon salesperson."

That's not sexism. That's related to the physical difference between men and women. Weird story arc, but not inherently sexist.

"I changed the gender of my main character, and now the story doesn't work because they don't need to go out to buy tampons because men don't do the shopping; and they therefore don't run into the story villain who (for some unexplained reason) is a tampon salesperson."

That is sexism.

"I changed the gender of my main character, and now the story doesn't work because women can't rule a nation".

That is sexism.

"I changed the gender of my main character, and now the story doesn't work as well because "Bling Queen" doesn't rhyme like "Bling King" does".

That's not sexism. The rhyme (or lack thereof) does not in any way change the fact that someone rules the nation. It simply means that you have to find a different name that works for the same reason ("Sheen Queen").

I understand that the examples are simple, but examples are inherently supposed to be clear-cut for the sake of clarity.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Flater‭

45 reputation 0 6 9 0

Sexism is fine in a story WHEN it is a part of the story's world, or a character's personality, and NOT the lesson of the story itself.

It's lazy to say that a story is "sexist" unless the story itself is trying to encourage sexism, which isn't the case if sexism is simply a part of the world the story is exploring (just like it's apart of ours.)

An example: A Handmaid's Tale. Is the story sexist? No. The world in the story is. The male characters in the story certainly are. But neither the book, nor Margaret Atwood, would be (or should be) considered "sexist."

Now, of course, if your writing a story who's moral is "men are better than women" or some bullshit like that, then yes, there's a serious problem. But that's something else entirely. As another example, the Turner Diaries. Now, that book is an example of racism, not sexism, but the concept still stands. The message of the Turner Diaries is "all black people should be killed" and that makes the books themselves, and by extension the author, despicable and vile.

Simply bear in mind the lesson you want the story to put forth and the lesson your reader will perceive you're putting forth.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Jonathan Kuhl‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

It is not sexist. Thinking it is sexist requires some mental gymnastics, and actively searching something to nitpick about is, I would say, in my humble opinion, everything wrong with postmodernism. Building on @user49466's answer, I will expand on why this concept is far from sexist.

• Reproduction is generally a good thing for our species and society, otherwise we wouldn't be here today. If you can accept as an axiom that perpetuating our existence is good, we can continue to the next point.
• Not being able to reproduce is not so good. Naturally, genetic replication isn't the only way someone has to contribute to society, so lacking that ability is far from an impedance to being useful to society. In fact, even if you happen to be unable to continue your genetic line, you can still continue your memetic line by mentoring someone else, usually a child. Ultimately, memes are what make society, so I would argue laying good foundations via implanting the thoughts you are so proud of is way more important than continuing your genetic imprint. Thing is, being able to reproduce is good for us as species, as it is the only way we have to let the human race continue existing, but individually speaking, it is not so important as trendsetting is, which can have a much bigger impact on the way mankind will develop. Doubly so if you are powerful enough to reach many people and greatly impact society, like a witch.
• Sometimes, reproducing is not so good. Some people may have faulty genetics with grave incurable diseases that make them suffer in life. In those cases, deciding not to reproduce genetically may be beneficial, and would benefit much much more, both as individuals and to society, if they decided to reproduce only memetically.
• Assuming any woman can become a witch through study and practice, and it is not some exclusive magical trait only certain genetic lines have (which would have probably led to extinction very early on, as their mechanics do not seem fit for the perpetration of their genes), they may decide that their extraordinary memetics can be more valuable for the world than their probably more average genetics, thus opting for changing the world with their actions than adding yet another "regular" person to the already overcrowded pool. Long story short, they have the ability to choose whether they value more their genetics or their memetics; having a choice, as commented by @user49466, is objectively superior.
• For these witches, losing their reproductive abilities is actually an upgrade with downsides, not a downgrade. They have decided they preferred either the altruistic path of perpetrating their memes through a sacrifice, or the more "egoistic" (but still completely respectable, and not necessarily evil in any way) path of living a better life by sacrificing something they did not consider vital to them, which is something we do on a daily basis in less extreme instances.
• Just like many women nowadays choose not to have children to purse their career (which may be highly memetic), these witches decided not to have children for this same reason. In the case of witches, there is no going back on the choice and no other way around; in the case of modern women, there may be going back, but sadly, sometimes there is no other way around, but that's a topic for another day.
• The long story short is witches value who they are and how they live over who their potential genetic offspring will be, which means these are really confident and empowered women, and probably the opposite of the concept of mysoginy. Some of these women may even have chosen to change the world with their actions, which is the epitome of empowering.
• Assuming these women become useless for not being able to reproduce IS sexist. Luckily, we can safely affirm these women have acquired the potential to have more impact in society and history than if they just decided to have children, and it was entirely their own choice.
• Likewise, assuming losing the ability to reproduce is not a handicap (albeit a really small one) is disingenous. Losing any ability is bad, as useless as it is, since it limits agency, which may be vital or not. If we were to explain it with a dumb analogy, it would be like cutting your arms off in exchange for psychic powers: you may lose the ability to sense with your arms or grab things like you were used to, but you will probably still have the ability to move things or even operate objects, probably more effectively than before; likewise, witches have lost the ability to reproduce their genes, but they have gained the ability to reproduce their memes more effectively than before. Consider it a sidegrade if your genes truly are exceptional (betcha no matter how exceptional, they can't beat having witchcraft powers, anyway), an upgrade with penalties otherwise.

I would say this implies women can do things better than reproducing, and still be respected and venerated for it. If anything, I would say you found a subtly feminist detail for your setting. Personally speaking, I would say genetics pale in comparison to the power of memes, so I find it fascinating that these witches are valued for their memes, rather than their genes, which more or less seems to reinforce my personal opinions.

As a bonus suggestion, I would consider exploring the possibility of letting these witches have adoptive children. If some of them happen to have a maternal drive, they will probably want to take care of children, which is now only possible by adopting. Having "spiritual" daughters may be a way of perpetuating the memetics of the witch clan, which I assume they will want to do, so either schooling young girls in their arts and philosophies, or even taking them as daughters may be just the logical thing to do.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

HorriblePerson‭

20 reputation 0 4 4 0

I am a woman, and I don't find this sexist. It is only sexist if the implication is that women are somehow inferior because this process renders them infertile. I don't read that into this idea; merely that there is a cost for summoning a familiar.

You could think of it this way: if males can't summon familiars, then is that sexist towards males that they can't be magical in the first place? Also, the question is not if it's sexist in our society, but in the society in your universe. Many historical or fantasy novels have very sexist environments, but as long as you are not condoning that, then you're simply describing your world.

Honestly, I feel that it's a very interesting idea and I think that it is fine.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Jane S‭

15 reputation 0 2 3 0

You have a very real world example here on Earth to provide insight into this.

Consider Monks and Nuns. Many religious orders of this sort require chastity of their members.

Then ask yourself the following rhetorical question. "Is it sexist towards men/women when a Monk/Nun enters a monastary/convent and effectively gives up his/her fertility?"

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

dgnuff‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

Assuming you aren't a woman yourself, I would suggest talking this idea through with several women to see how it strikes them. It can be difficult to see through the eyes of a group you don't belong to, and all too easy to overlook your own biases.

On the other hand that doesn't mean you need to take every piece of feedback as gospel truth. "Women" are not a monolithic group, and it's quite possible for something to bother one person for idiosyncratic reasons. But if you're consistently hearing that something is offensive, it would be a good idea to pay attention.

With that said, it may not be an all-or-nothing situation. You might talk the idea through with your reader to see if there's a way you can present it that isn't as problematic (from her point of view). Ultimately you'll need to make the choices that serve the story. But given that your concept is so closely bound to notions of female identity, you'll want to make sure you get female input.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Chris Sunami‭

1355 reputation 13 171 261 0

This is why many people laugh at feminism.

Yes, saying that losing one's fertility is a price that some are reluctant to pay implies that fertility has value. Duh. Who in his or her right mind would say that fertility does NOT have value? It is perfectly possible and rational to say that the ability to bear children is a good thing, without for a moment implying that it is the only good thing that a woman can do or even the most important thing.

In my state, if you don't pay your taxes or if you fail to pay court-ordered child support, the state can take away your drivers license. Apparently they see this as a deterrent: people will be afraid to violate these rules because they don't want to lose their drivers license. Does that mean that the state thinks that the only value I have as a human being is that I can drive people around in my car? That if I lose the ability to drive, that my life will no longer have any value or any meaning? Of course not. I certainly don't think that's the only thing of value in my life, or even a particularly important thing. But being able to drive has value, and I do not want to lose that.

In this case, the vast majority of actual women in the world want to have children. Of course there are some who don't and some who don't see it as particularly important, but they're the minority. Most men in the world want to have children also, by the way, though it's not the same. Your story idea seems realistic in its implications to me.

All that said, it's undeniable that there are people in the world who will say that your story idea is "sexist". The question becomes, Are they a big part of your audience?, and, What can you do about it?

If this idea is a small add-on to your story, perhaps you can just throw it away and do something else. (If you said that men perform this magic spell and every time they do it drains their strength, so that they get weaker and weaker, would people say that it is sexist because it implies that men are only good for their physical strength? But whatever.)

If this idea is central to the story and throwing it out would mean writing a very different story, you have two choices: (a) do something to mute the sexism charge, or (b) say too bad and plunge ahead.

How to do (b) is pretty obvious, I'd think. You just do it.

As to (a), you could have characters say things that make clear that no one supposes that this is the only thing that makes a woman's life of value. Like, as someone else suggested on here, have a woman say, "So what? I don't want children anyway." Or have a character say how terrible it is that this takes away a woman's only purpose in life, and then someone else say, "Don't be ridiculous. There are many things a woman can contribute to the world other than children." Someone could contrast the loss of child-bearing ability to the value of the magic power. Etc.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Jay‭

1055 reputation 1 97 207 0

Sexism isn't a yes/no kind of thing, and it's a mistake to treat it as such.

Saying that a story or an idea is "sexist" is shorthand. What it means is that it creates, encourages, or reinforces sexist stereotypes, and that those stereotypes have real-world consequences.

So, a good way to come at this issue is to use these:

Guiding Questions

• What are the stereotypes that my story is relying on, conforming with, or playing into?
• Is my story repeating and reinforcing a particular viewpoint, bias, or narrative?
• Is it a viewpoint, bias, or narrative I support and stand behind? Or am I reinforcing this "by accident" or "because it's convenient"?
• If it's not a viewpoint, bias, or narrative I explicitly support:
  • Is it one I oppose? Is it harmful? How harmful is it?
  • Is there any change I can make to change things up, and avoid reinforcing it?
• How central are these stereotypes to your story?

Let's try those questions with your particular example: A matriarchal witchcraft-based culture, where the most epic power is giving birth to a magical familiar, at the price of not ever bearing a human child.

1. What are the stereotypes that my story is relying on, conforming with, or playing into?

I can point to several:

• The emphasis on "using up" their fertility plays into real-world views of prizing women for fertility and child-bearing. It could imply that a woman's fertility is her most valuable asset -- and in this setting she has a new way to spend that very valuable coin.
• The requirement never to have conceived before can play into real-world pressure for women to remain chaste and virginal. Even if in your story, protecting a woman's virginity is important for an entirely different reason, the theme of "a woman shouldn't have sex outside of total and utter commitment" is very (pardon the pun...) familiar.
• Treating losing one's fertility as a "price" can be dismissive of both the choices of people who don't want children, and the struggles of people who can't. (How prominent among witches are women who just never wanted kids at all? Is that going to be portrayed as callous or self-serving of them?)
• Magic/power is dependent on biological sex at birth. This implies that a trans or non-binary witch has avenues which are entirely sealed to them, which places a great deal of cosmic, metaphysical significance on their biological sex at birth. "The universe cares what you were born as."

2. Is my story repeating and reinforcing a particular viewpoint, bias, or narrative?
3. Is it a viewpoint, bias, or narrative I support and stand behind?

We've noted multiple stereotypes, so the answer here is to varying degrees.

It also depends very strongly on how, exactly, you portray different facets here. If, say, your portray witches hoping to birth familiars as generally turning to lesbian relationships which don't risk pregnancy, then you've definitely avoided falling into the "isn't it important for women to not have any sex" narrative!

Or, for example, you might worldbuild a society with underlying sexism -- and then note and criticize that sexism. In this case, you're repeating the sexist viewpoint -- but you're not aiming to reinforce it; you're interested in deconstructing it instead.

Even so, you should understand: choosing such a fraught and sex-dependent element, you're necessarily entering those conversations.

And, obviously, the degree to which you agree with any or all of these broad stereotypes is something only you can answer! e.g., Maybe you do think people who don't want kids are very rare and, at some level, selfish. In which case I might disagree with you personally on that issue, but on the level of craft, I will encourage you to follow your own convictions, rather than try and artificially conform to viewpoints you don't share yourself.

4a. How harmful are these stereotypes?

Again -- each one would need to be examined in its own right. And, finding the nuance between what you are willing to portray, and what you aren't, is very valuable in and of itself.

For example, "women shouldn't have sex" is extremely prescriptive and direct, as opposed to the much fuzzier "women's fertility is a really important thing". On the other hand, "women's fertility is the most important thing about them" is pretty awful.

Likewise, "people born with male genitals cannot become pregnant" is not a controversial position. Whereas "the ethereal realm responds only to people born with female genitals" is more iffy, because that's implying cosmic significance to birth-assigned gender. Or consider, "yeah, the ethereal realm responds only to people born with female genitals, and actually that's kind of tragic?", which is one way to kind of thread the needle -- or at least try to. Here's Neil Gaiman's Sandman back in 1991:

Also note that different people will have different opinions on everything, and different people will have different takes on whether (and how) something is harmful. The 1991 Sandman example I just gave is considered somewhat problematic today (e.g. 1,2)-- whereas in 1991, seeing it in mainstream (and even prestigious) comics was immensely significant. These things are complicated and have many facets.

You're not going to please everyone -- but at the same time, don't write hurtfully out of mere ignorance.

4b. Is there any change I can make to change things up, and avoid reinforcing it?

There always is.

Maybe the ethereal realm is fine with trans women, and they can totally do the ritual! Maybe in your story, trans witches are just as much a conduit between the mortal and ethereal plane as cis witches, and they become magic-pregnant.

Maybe the brightest of witches are working hard to discover new ways to summon familiars -- and then it'll be their smarts that are most valuable, not their uterii.

If getting a familiar and then serving society with your newfound powers is seen as altruistic, not power-hungry, then that's no condemnation of people who don't want kids.

And so on. Each one of these is a change to your story, and you might not want to adjust what you had in mind, merely to avoid reinforcing stereotypes that are all around us anyway. That's your own judgment call. Just recognize that even not making a choice, is still a choice -- conforming to existing social norms is also shaping your story, as surely as avoiding them would be.

5. How central are these stereotypes to your story?

The more central an element is, the more care it needs. (On the other hand, the less central it is, the easier it is to just make whatever adjustments make it "safe" and then forget about it.)

In your case, this is the access ticket to epic power, and it's something everybody knows, that informs all of society and its social structure. So... pretty important to get this right, I'd say :P

(This doesn't mean your social structure needs to be a good, kind one. Maybe it's a really sexist society! But then, you probably want to make your criticism of that sexism evident to the reader...)

That's how you do the analysis. You look at what your story is saying; how it's saying it; what the consequences and the implications are.
You also look at how much it would "cost" you to change it. And, maybe you wind up saying "you know what, there's some sexist undertones here, but I can't change it without telling a completely different story, and I think this story is a worthwhile one." That's OK! Not every adventure novel is a paragon of gender equality! Some subgenres have at least a little sexism or bias baked right in! Sometimes you're exploring gender issues specifically, and can't avoid stepping on some people's toes! Sometimes, "forgiving" some sexism is a choice you make -- but it helps if you make it deliberately, consciously, owning up to it, rather than doing it just because you didn't know any better.
And, being aware of the issue in the first place will probably make your writing better at this than it would have been otherwise.

These are all your calls to make -- once you know how to make them.

Which brings me to one last and crucial point: In order to recognize stereotypes and biases that you suffer from (along with a whole lot of the rest of society), you need to get outside input. You're not going to know how you might reinforce sexism without learning about sexism. Ditto for racism, gender issues, religious identities, ethnicities and any subculture that aren't your own. Learn about these things in general; learn about the topics you're touching directly in particular, and for elements featuring heavily in your book -- get appropriate readers who can point out issues that you'd never have guessed.

Hope this helps -- all the best!

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Standback‭

680 reputation 38 269 122 1

In general, bigotry is calling or assuming something inherent to a trait (gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, language spoken) that, even if it is true, does not have any rational basis for being associated with that trait. For example there is no rational basis for assuming skin color has anything inherent to do with intelligence, promiscuity or morality. Any mental trait attributed as inherent to skin color, even if true, should be assumed to be traced to social factors (including racism resulting in poverty or wealth, good schools or bad, ample opportunity or a paucity of it, etc).

Even if women DO highly value having children, there is no rational reason to think that is inherent in women. Many women do not value it at all, are they suffering from some birth defect in some way? Or is the high value a result of cultural (including religious) brainwashing that this is their purpose in life, to be mothers?

In fact, in the current American culture men are far more sexually promiscuous than women, and can father far more children than any woman can mother. If "must have children" was inherent in women, wouldn't they outrank men in promiscuity and get themselves pregnant early and often?

You can't really know how another group will take something, even interviewing them may do you no good. Minds change. Your safest bet is to make the cost something that plausibly impacts both males and females equally; even if it is only females that will pay the price.

Edit to address arguments in commentary; since this is on-topic as to what is sexist:

It is brought up that Infertility affects both men and women. I believe the question is whether men would value "descendants" as much as a woman does, and that is not implied by the story or clear to readers. In modern culture our stories suggest differently; young men in books and stories routinely risk (and lose) their lives and nobody thinks of the loss as "the loss of a potential father".

Our modern culture focuses on females as reproductive vessels; hence the phrase "women and children first", implying men of any parental status are expendable. It's why young men form the vast majority of our combat troops and women still must struggle to fight on the front lines or in elite ranks.

However, while it is appropriate for adults to decide for children that do not have fully formed brains, note that in "women and children first" the men are also deciding for the women as if they do not have the necessary cognition to decide for themselves; i.e. the statement implies that adult females are incapable of thinking for themselves. That is sexist, it is part of treating women as dumb livestock that exists to bear children. It doesn't make a difference if this on occasion benefits women by putting them first in a rescue or not letting them join front line warfare, it harms them through the far more widespread subjugation of women in everyday life as being less capable of making good decisions than men, less capable of leadership and making the tough decisions about life, death and nations going to war.

It was argued "women and children first" was not about childbearing but chivalry; but chivalry comes from the same sexist root: That women need the protection and guidance of men. It defines a clear cultural value of women over men, for one and only one reason: Women have wombs and are not as expendable as men. If your tribe loses 45 of its 50 men in battle, the remaining 5 can impregnate all 50 of your women. The next generation is full. But if it loses 45 of its 50 women in battle, the next generation isn't even viable to keep the tribe going. Read "Is There Anything Good About Men? How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men", a book by Roy Baumeister.

Another commenter then claims the adaptive fitness of 'desires children' is so much higher than 'doesn't desire children' that it would be more surprising for it not to be inherent; and another agrees that there is every rational (evolutionary) reason to think that is inherent in women.

No, there is no rational reason to think it is any higher in women than it is in men; and rational reason to believe otherwise: Modern humans capable of anticipating the future far enough in advance to picture themselves in a completely different life (with children vs. without) are likely the only animal that can plausibly evolve to "want children", and we've only been around about 50,000 years. All the rest of the animal kingdom wants sex, and nearly universally males are evolved to want it more than females due to the greater cost and risk to females.

Thus it is far MORE likely that men's greater desire for sex has evolved into a greater desire for children, because fatherhood has no inherent biological costs to bear: No pain, disability, risk of death or even responsibility. Nothing prevents a man from fathering a child in a few minutes and walking away forever, putting all the risk and costs of parenthood on the mother. Those risks to the woman's health and life are considerable; and includes a biologically driven imperative to devote years of raising her children for years to an age where they can fend for themselves. The total energy cost differential, between women and men creating a viable human that can fend for itself, is about a million to one.

Thus, if anything "evolved" as a desire for children, it should be much stronger in men than it is in women, because for a man the cost is trivial and has no penalties. Literally a few minutes of enjoyable effort versus several years of hard labor for her. In rational evolutionary terms motherhood is (on average) far more heavily penalized than fatherhood, and that far greater cost to women should lessen her desire "to have children." (I'm not saying that is the case, but that it is plausible.)

Back to the story: For an author that does not want to appear sexist, it is best not to attribute emotions to just one gender when there are (for readers in the real world) many examples of the opposite being true. In this story, because the witches are all female, there is a heavy risk of this, especially since lineage is determined by matrilineal lines instead of paternal lines; creating a penalty (in this fictional world) for women that men do not have (but IRL men would have; "passing on their [sur]name" and thus honoring their male ancestors).

A preferred penalty would be something that readers think clearly applies to men as well as women, both in the matrilineal fiction and in real life.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37