I agree with the ideas you stated about social psychology & sociology. What people want is shaped by other people their encouragement. Thanks for stating it, I'm noticing I have a lot of implicit assumptions lying around there.
So it is indeed hard to separate cause and effect, I'm wondering if we need to, since cause and effect might go both ways here in a feedback loop. I'm very inclined to believe this myself (one of my implicit assumptions, perhaps even a bias). Cultural notions reinforces what people want, which reinforce the culture. So allowing to reframe yourself to want something different is definitely a course of action that one could take. As is changing other people their behavior (although it has some really difficult challenges IMO, it's easier to change yourself in my experience).
'feminism is not concerned with who "contributes" what to sexism' <-- do you mean all forms of feminism? Or just the 3rd wave? I have the feeling that there are forms of feminism that do look at this, since various feminist views can also disagree with each other (2nd wave vs 3rd wave for example). I wouldn't know which forms of feminism do look at this though, it's more of a heuristic: since there are so many forms of feminism there must be a few of them doing this.
"can they later be said to be contributing to their own subjugation?" <-- Perhaps I have a different idea of what "contribution" means. Even if someone would be brainwashed and completely programmed to destroy the world, then IMO that person would still contribute to destroying the world if acted towards that goal. I do acknowledge that the initial intent was never there and this person was completely reprogrammed (assume a The Matrix scenario, where someone is plugged in and reprogrammed). Nevertheless, a non-intentional behaviour is still a contribution. Even zombies contribute to cultural notions of society (if they'd exist). So I don't think it's the person's fault for being this way, it's the fault of the programmer. But if the person (now destroyer of the world) would realize this and try to stop it, that would be great.
A pragmatic form of feminism that I have experienced myself is that feminists need to take care of their own personal development. This also means that people who are aware of sexist actions and view the need to change it, need to change themselves if they have habits conforming to old views. In that sense, feminism is concerned with who contributes (behaviorally) to sexism, because it gives a lense to look within oneself to change behaviour contributing to sexism. Knowing your gender role and in which way you conform to it is a handy tool to have in general for self-reflection.
"and when we say that some action is sexist we mean that it contributes to sexism; the action itself can be completely free of any ill intent." <-- Thanks for the clarification. I do admit that my understanding of sexism is not as laser focused as I'd like it to be.
> do you mean all forms of feminism? Or just the 3rd wave?
Different forms of feminism differ in their views on specific issues, not on the basic idea that women are allotted less power in society. Differences stem from various sources. One is historical or circumstantial: when women were overtly discriminated against by the law, targets and priorities were clearer. Another is awareness: leaders of movements for change always tend to be among those who are relatively most powerful in their group. They can therefore be blind to the plight of those who are qualitatively less powerful than them. Yet another is that inherent difficulty in interpreting wishes in a society which shapes them. I'll just note that some anti-feminist views that try to simplify things, say stuff like, why not just assume that everyone has free will and everyone's choices are equally free? The answer to that is that research has clearly shown this is not the case.
> Even if someone would be brainwashed and completely programmed to destroy the world, then IMO that person would still contribute to destroying the world if acted towards that goal.
Absolutely, but there is no clear programmer and programmed. We are all equally programmers and programs, and equally “emotionally” innocent of the situation. Everyone, of course, is responsible for their own actions, but they’re actions at once are shaped by others’ and shape others’. The only relevant distinction is that some have power and some don’t, and as change is better carried out by those with power, they carry most of the responsibility. OTOH, those with power, of course, are less interested in changing the situation. Not just because they don’t want to yield power, but also because they don’t see the problem.
> A pragmatic form of feminism that I have experienced myself is that feminists need to take care of their own personal development.
Of course, and this, BTW, is something that often gets them a lot of scorn. But it is important to realize that change is only accomplished when those who work for it attain enough power. That power could be in numbers or in changing the mind of the powerful.
So it is indeed hard to separate cause and effect, I'm wondering if we need to, since cause and effect might go both ways here in a feedback loop. I'm very inclined to believe this myself (one of my implicit assumptions, perhaps even a bias). Cultural notions reinforces what people want, which reinforce the culture. So allowing to reframe yourself to want something different is definitely a course of action that one could take. As is changing other people their behavior (although it has some really difficult challenges IMO, it's easier to change yourself in my experience).
'feminism is not concerned with who "contributes" what to sexism' <-- do you mean all forms of feminism? Or just the 3rd wave? I have the feeling that there are forms of feminism that do look at this, since various feminist views can also disagree with each other (2nd wave vs 3rd wave for example). I wouldn't know which forms of feminism do look at this though, it's more of a heuristic: since there are so many forms of feminism there must be a few of them doing this.
"can they later be said to be contributing to their own subjugation?" <-- Perhaps I have a different idea of what "contribution" means. Even if someone would be brainwashed and completely programmed to destroy the world, then IMO that person would still contribute to destroying the world if acted towards that goal. I do acknowledge that the initial intent was never there and this person was completely reprogrammed (assume a The Matrix scenario, where someone is plugged in and reprogrammed). Nevertheless, a non-intentional behaviour is still a contribution. Even zombies contribute to cultural notions of society (if they'd exist). So I don't think it's the person's fault for being this way, it's the fault of the programmer. But if the person (now destroyer of the world) would realize this and try to stop it, that would be great.
A pragmatic form of feminism that I have experienced myself is that feminists need to take care of their own personal development. This also means that people who are aware of sexist actions and view the need to change it, need to change themselves if they have habits conforming to old views. In that sense, feminism is concerned with who contributes (behaviorally) to sexism, because it gives a lense to look within oneself to change behaviour contributing to sexism. Knowing your gender role and in which way you conform to it is a handy tool to have in general for self-reflection.
"and when we say that some action is sexist we mean that it contributes to sexism; the action itself can be completely free of any ill intent." <-- Thanks for the clarification. I do admit that my understanding of sexism is not as laser focused as I'd like it to be.