I’ve been accused of being a fringe that wants to “completely change the system”. Anon@2:05 AM, if you’ve been reading anything I said, I’m merely asking every individual to simply consider his or her actions, and refrain from engaging in sexism and misogyny. Is it too much to ask that we don’t make rape jokes that allow rape to be taken less seriously, or use language that demeans people of either gender (in the same way that we generally don’t use language that demeans people of any race)? I haven’t suggested anything remotely resembling “completely changing the [Greek] system” – unless by saying that everyone just reflect more on what they do and say is asking for a major overhaul that will be incredibly politically unpopular.

Nor have I called anybody a rapist. I don’t believe that Dartmouth is “off the charts” in terms of rape – but consider that according to the Cleary Act Report, there were 53 forcible sex offenses in the past 3 years (53 too many). In fact, Dartmouth is probably one of the safest places that I’ve been (I hail from Southeastern Virginia, where gang violence is a huge problem). I don’t believe that any single institution or person on this campus would go about about actively condoning rape, and I have certainly not in any of my previous comments painted an entire gender as rapists. I’m also certain that many men do have good intentions, like Mr. Mandel, and would not tolerate standing by if they were to observe anyone being coerced into sex. But this does not change the fact that Dartmouth is PART OF a rape culture. This isn’t even particularly Dartmouth’s fault – we like to think Dartmouth is a bubble, but it’s not. Rape culture, which is a culture that casually tolerates sexism, prefers to accuse rape victims instead of the rapist, objectifies women into mere sex objects, etc., is endemic to our entire society (as I have said many times in my past comments). But simply because everyone else is doing it doesn’t mean that Dartmouth, an institution that prides itself on its ability make social change happen, should be inactive. Sure there is booze on this campus, and not all the 53 forcible sex offenses in the past 3 years are necessarily a stereotypical rape scenario (innocent girl, malicious guy). But I do believe that when we tolerate sexism while we’re sober and out of the frat basement, then we are probably more likely to be more oppressive when drunk. We are increasing the PROBABILITY that rape will happen if we accept sexism and misogyny. Rape culture doesn’t mean all men are rapists at all – simply that our institutions, our attitudes, and our behavior facilitate and enable violence. I honestly believe that if we were to make an honest effort to identify and change the parts of our behavior which are sexist, then we’d probably see fewer sex offenses on the Cleary Act Report, and more mutually consensual and satisfying sex in the bedroom. And judging from the outraged reactions to my use of the term “rape culture”, I don’t really think that “rape culture” can be classified as a buzzword.

And also, Anon@2:05 AM: I’m not a “feminist”, I’m a feminist without the quotation marks. Also, that’s “Zhang” with an “a”, not an “e”.

Great post, Mr. Luxon.

**52 forcible sex offenses in the 2010 Cleary Act Report.

I think Mr. Luxon has a point, though, that Dartmouth fraternities get a disproportionate amount of recognition and respect for promoting the fact that all human beings are worthy of dignity (compared to, say, the combined efforts of all of OPAL and the many student groups on campus that promote awareness of gender, sexuality, class, and race issues).

Mr. Dreisbach,

I agree with you that the problem is drinking and a hookup culture, not fraternity. However, please choose a definition to apply to the word, either being (paraphrased from Webster) an organized group of people with similar interests or a group of men, as it would change what you’re saying.

If you chose option 1, an organization of people with similar interests, then no, it is not impossible to promote fraternal relationships without discriminating as to members. As you have pointed out, there is always the co-ed option. In my experience, they have been able to foster fraternal relationships without discriminating based on gender.

If you picked option 2, a group of guys. Then yeah, build your clubhouse and put up the sign “no girls allowed.” But don’t think that doesn’t change the atmosphere in that social space.

To just about everyone else. Please stop posting as anonymous if you’re going to be so belligerent. It’s different fighting someone face to face. Anyone can hide in the shadows and stab you in the back. Sure, this is a touchy subject, but I doubt you’ll get much flak for what you say because lets be honest, not many people are good in a face to face match. Own up.

On that note, thanks Mr. Dreisbach for affording me the opportunity to address you as such.

Having been a member of a national co-ed service “fraternity,” I respectfully disagree with Mr. Dreisbach that it is impossible to promote fraternal relationships without discriminating. Although my organization’s roots were male-only, and though some chapters remain that way, every member, male or female, was treated equally as a “brother.” Our “discrimination” for membership was based upon one’s commitment to the organization’s service focus—if you weren’t able to participate in service events, there was no need for you to be a member. We still partied and “hooked up” (thought we didn’t call it that), but we never felt compelled to host events to affirm our non-gender bias or mutual respect for others. Though some of our members were part of the official greek system, for the most part we attracted those who specifically did not want to be a part of the gender-segregated organizations on campus. By and large, we sought the camaraderie of a “fraternal” organization without the baggage of sexism and elitism.

When exclusionary practices are the foundation for an organization, discrimination and disrespect of others are hard to keep at bay. And yes, that can be true of academic institutions as well.

Some of you have misunderstood my words. I refer to fraternity and fraternal relationships in the Latin sense… male, brotherhood, not sisterhood (i.e. Option 2 above). Masculine things are a part of the common interest. In this sense, a co-ed fraternity is an oxymoron.

I have a biological brother, and various fraternity organization brothers. That has nothing to do with promoting disrespect for women, or wanting misogynist social spaces. It is a mistake to equate the two. That was my point to Tom Luxon.

Because several men want to share bonds of common interest, including their masculinity, it does not imply that they are gay, or anti-gay, or anti-women, or anything more.

Is there also a place for mixed-gender organizations, mixed residential communities with a sense of family, and open social spaces… absolutely.

For the students posting here, I sense organizational “discrimination” is viewed as pejorative. Can you answer my question as to Dartmouth’s discriminatory admission policy? Why is it not OK to discriminate based upon gender, but OK to do so based upon IQ?

You all are missing a sense of history. And, you are not up to date on the latest data.

Data first: in 2009, Harvard reported 20 cases of forcible sexual assault; Princeton reported 11; Dartmouth reported 10. You can plot the data over time, and the stats show substantial decreases. So all the hyperbole about a unique-to-Dartmouth ‘rape culture’, and complicity of Dartmouth frats, or even causality attributed to Dartmouth frats, is frankly BS. 1) It’s not unique to Dartmouth; 2) to the extent there has been a problem, the problem appears to be diminishing, and will continue to diminish as long as proper attention is paid to it.

History: Dartmouth was all-male until 1972, later than every other Ivy. You want to talk about ‘rape culture’, or ‘hookup culture’, you must go back to the early 1900s, and talk about the evolution of Carnival, of bringing dates up to Hanover on the train from all-female colleges. Which evolved into the ‘road trip culture’ in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. After 1972, the 3:1 ratio of men to women on-campus perpetuated unequal relationships between men and women. I doubt whether either the Campus Police, or Hanover Po, have statistics about ‘forcible sexual assault’ dating back to those periods, but if they do, it would be instructive to bring them to light.

The change in the drinking age from 18 to 21 in the early-to-mid-80s also had a tremendous effect on both alcohol consumption on-campus (on every campus), and on sexual relationships.

Once the ‘ratio’ became 1:1, roughly, around that time (or just before), the faculty passed (by wide margin) a vote to eliminate fraternities (and the few sororities then in existence). Prof. Luxon was I believe on the English faculty at the time, and will remember Prof. Jim Epperson, who led the effort to abolish frats and sororities. (Prof. Luxon therefore has a dog in this hunt, and his opinion cannot be unbiased.)

In the late 80s through the 90s, faculty and staff and students began to note the emergence of the ‘hookup culture’, and took steps to bright it to consciousness among students. This effort was not, in my mind, very successful: faculty and staff, whose own teenage and collegiate relationship experiences were forged and colored by the atmosphere of sexual revolution of the late 60s and early 70s, had difficulty communicating with students twenty years later, about the pluses and minuses of that revolution, and how those pluses and minuses could inform the ‘hookup culture’: how modern students could learn from it.

Now here we are, another 15-20 years down the road. Two generations removed from The Summer of Love. ‘Free love’ and (at Dartmouth) ‘road trip culture’ morphed into ‘hookup culture’, morphed into ‘rape culture’. Yet, if anything, relationships are far more open and self-conscious today than they were 15-20 years ago; and 15-20 years ago, they were more open and self-conscious than in the late 60s-early 70s.

The cold, intellectual what-appears-to-be-anger of Ms. Zhang; the condescension of Prof. Luxon; are either uninformed, or have a different agenda. Ms. Zhang would’ve been quite at home and successful in the 70s, but her approach only polarizes today; Prof. Luxon, I suspect, still believes the Trustees did not act properly on the faculty’s vote on frats ‘way back when; his suggestion of making all Greeks open to men and women is, I suppose, a positive step toward making continued improvements, but his comments contain an undercurrent of animosity, which is unhelpful.

Everyone needs to take a step back, look at the history (don’t take my word for it, either), look at the progress, and instead of pissing on each other, and polarizing each other… work to make it better.

Mr. Mandel has taken a positive step forward. He’s not completely right (e.g., the chip on his shoulder isn’t helpful), but he’s mostly right. His father (at least, I think it’s his father) is chair of the Board of Trustees, and was a decent person as an undergraduate, to my recollection, in terms of his relationships with women. I expect Mr. Mandel (the author here) was raised in an environment of mutual respect in terms of male-female relationships. So beating up on him is, hmm, kinda unproductive, from many points of view. Better to make him an ally.

Finally, some College administrators (esp. those who are male, who are Dartmouth graduates from the 70s, and who were in fraternities) have long recognized the transformation that occurs in most men (and some women) between freshman Fall and the end of sophomore Summer. It’s called ‘maturity’. The faculty in Psychology and Brain Sciences use fMRI to study the relationship between brain structure and behavior, as evidence of ‘maturity’. It’s not an excuse, but 18-25 year-olds (most men, and some women) just don’t think the way adults do. That thought difference results in behavior difference. And it’s no different today, than it was two generations ago.

I submit it is this ‘behavior’ which posters here are mis-naming ‘rape culture’, or (in the past) ‘hookup culture’ or ‘road trip culture’. (To call it ‘culture’ at all, I find to be completely off-base, even offensive. Culture implies a pervasiveness which 1) I think doesn’t exist, and 2) is impossible to prove quantitatively.)

I further submit, faculty, administration, and students could work together, to use the knowledge gleaned by P&BS faculty (and by auto insurance actuaries, frankly: why do men 18-25 pay the highest auto insurance rates?), and try to figure out successful ways to work on the behavior — ways which are positive and collegial, and which do not alienate or polarize.

Mr. Mandel’s remarks, and the discussion thread here, is a first step. But people like Mr. Mandel and Ms. Zhang are going to have to find a way to meet together as colleagues and not opponents, if it’s really going to work. And by ‘meet’, I mean, ‘meet with an open mind’, and ‘don’t expect your point of view is the only one which is valid.’ That kind of hubris will derail any train before it even leaves the station.

“A report released this week by Insite Security is sure to shake parents’ confidence. The security firm analyzed crime statistics on and around the campuses of the eight Ivy League colleges as well as Duke, Stanford, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago. This study was intriguing because it looked not only at the on-campus statistics that colleges are required to report, it also took into account crime in the areas where students socialize off campus. (The off-campus statistics were drawn from the F.B.I.’s uniform crime report.)

The Insite report, whose data goes only to 2008, said three-quarters of the colleges and their surrounding areas had sex offense rates that were 83 percent higher than the national rape average, with Dartmouth having the highest rate. It said that Harvard had the highest rate of burglary among the 12. "

from the New York Times on September 10, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/your-money/11wealth.html

Excellent summary, anon 3:31. Let’s declare this a world health issue and get Jim Kim and his administration on it pronto. It’s about time. Dickey and Kemeny didn’t have the science to work with back then.

The key difference between gender discrimination and discrimination based on intellectual achievement and promise is this: Dartmouth explicitly states that it does not and will not practice the first in the administration of its programs and policies.

Prof. Tom: With all due respect, that is not an answer, or at least is a circular one. “B is OK while A is not because we practice B while stating we do not condone A”? Why does gender discrimination at a fraternity generate disrespect for women any more than the same at Wellesley does for men?

The insitesecurity ‘report’ is a crock, and the NYT article citing it is deeply flawed for having missed the reports flaws. The report does not define ‘rate’, in either the main article (on the insite site), or its Appendix. Also, it compares ‘rates’ of forcible sexual assault, to ‘rates’ of rape, which is likely comparing the numbers of all citrus fruits to the numbers of a rare kumquat: Clery Reports do not break out rape, but I’m all but certain none of the 10 incidents of forcible sexual assault at Dartmouth in 2009 rise to the level of rape. (And, yes, they’re all wrong; but it’s like comparing assault to murder, and saying they’re the same). It’s a lazy report, designed to get fearful parents to spend money on insitesecurity; and, it’s lazy reporting the part of the NYT.

Stick with the problem, which is forcible and unwelcome sexual interaction/advances/assault, mediated by alcohol consumption by one or both ‘partners’, in the charged context of a college ‘social’ environment. Comparing it to rape in general society deflects the focus from where it belongs. They are different problems, with different solutions.

Anon@3:21 PM: As I have mentioned (several times before), “rape culture” is hardly unique to Dartmouth – it’s a characteristic of our entire society. I would also like to mention that simply because the statistics on rape show a decline doesn’t at all mean that rape culture is abating. The characteristics of rape culture (which I have enumerated in my previous comments) – objectification of women, tolerance of sexism, heteronormativity – are still quite pervasive in modern society, if you pay even the slightest attention to modern media, or even conversations on campus. Sure, we’ve come a long way since when women did not even have a legitimate space in the workplace or in higher education. But my purpose in commenting is not to pat ourselves on the backs on what has been accomplished, but to recognize what still needs to be done. My main issue with Mr. Mandel’s argument is that declaring, “I’m not a rapist!” and taking the problem of sexual assault personally is NOT the answer. Again, as I have said MANY times in my past comments, the first step is: be conscious of casual sexism, and don’t tolerate it. Is that so much to ask?

Ms. Zhang,

We could talk for days about this; but, there are several logical fallacies in your position.

First, you equate rape culture with the combination of objectification of women, casual sexism, and heteronormativity. This equation is false. It is a huge leap from casual sexism to rape, especially because what you deem to be casual sexism, is not agreed to universally; whereas, there is universal agreement on what constitutes rape. Similarly with objectification of women, and heteronormativity. (You are not so aware of it, but the progress made at Dartmouth over the past five decades in these areas is enormous.)

Second, after making this equation, you then seek to imply there is a causal relationship between the existence of forcible sexual assault at Dartmouth, and the existence of rape culture at Dartmouth. Causality here cannot be proven; at best, you might be able to establish correlation, but correlation does not imply causality. Furthermore, there are other factors — inappropriate use of alcohol (proven to play a role in sexual assault), the charged environment of a college campus in terms of relationships in general, and sexual relationships in particular, the unusual character of a college campus age-wise, the (proven) relationship between 18-25 year-old brain structure and behavior — which are far more likely to contribute to forcible sexual assault than the three factors you put forth.

Implicitly, you seem to ascribe the existence of rape culture to men. You imply women have no role to play in rape culture, other than as victim. If these are your implications, then they are false. And I am not ‘blaming the victim’ here: I am talking about perception and intention in relationships in general, and sexual relationships in particular. Both parties to a relationship, casual or intimate, sexual or not, bear equal responsibility for ensuring they each understand both perception and intention. Most people (let alone most students) fail to understand this essential requirement.

Teaching students, each and every year, about perception and intention, might be a way to cut through the fog, and get to the heart of the matter; get to what really matters, and what everyone agrees upon, namely: how can forcible sexual assault be eliminated from relationships at Dartmouth? Because all agree that, first, forcible sexual assault is wrong, second, its frequency can be measured, and third, if its causes can be understood, then through communication with open hearts and minds, it can be eliminated.

What I’m trying to say is this: your perspective on casual sexism, objectification of women, and heteronormativity is unique to you and a few, and not shared by many. You want Mr. Mandel to open his mind to your perspective; but you must do the same, in return. Short of doing so, the task of getting an entire campus of intelligent and sensitive peers — let alone society at large — to agree with your perspective, becomes daunting, overwhelming. On the other hand, if you (and Mr. Mandel, and everyone) focus on the specific issue of forcible sexual assault, I believe firmly you all will be satisfied with the result. Take and make that first step, and perhaps more progress can follow. But, one step at a time.

Anon@3:51 PM, it really does appear we could talk for days. First of all, there obviously isn’t a universal agreement on what constitutes rape. Certainly, everyone agrees that “woman gets raped by a stranger in a dark alleyway” is rape. But people’s definitions of “rape” get fuzzier beyond this point – this should be obvious just from observing what other people have said during this very discussion thread. Furthermore, I recognize that progress has been made. But my purpose isn’t to gloat over past progress, but to look at what still needs doing.

It’s not a huge leap from casual sexism to rape culture, which is (as I have explained before) simply a culture that encourages sexual aggression. I may have been misleading when I named only “three factors” that constitute rape culture. I think this website (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html" has a fantastic explanation of what rape culture is in much greater detail. Certainly there are other factors that contribute to forcible sexual assault incidences on campus (e.g. alcohol, being in a college at all, the ages of parties involved, etc.) but rape culture, as I have stated before, isn’t limited to the frat basement, or even Dartmouth campus, but pretty much everywhere – whether you are sober or drunk, whether you are in the company of 18-25 year olds or not, whether you are on a campus or not, etc. It also seems that you think I believe (wow, how convoluted) that rape causes rape culture. Quite the contrary, rape culture causes rape.

Agreed, rape culture is also not solely the province of men. Rape culture makes sexual aggression sexy, (again, see the link above for clarification on what rape culture is), and rape can be performed by women too. However, I will say that the rape of women is still far more prevalent than the rape of men. When you say, “Both parties to a relationship, casual or intimate, sexual or not, bear equal responsibility for ensuring they each understand both perception and intention,” to me it seems that there really is an element of “victim-blaming” here. Sexual assault, like you said, is never okay, and the victim may have made bad choices (such as not communicating effectively), but ultimately the fault is ALWAYS the rapist’s, whether the rapist is male or female.

You’re right. “Teaching students, each and every year, might be a way to cut through the fog” – but that by definition means cultivating mutual respect, which is not compatible with sexism. And you’re absolutely right that we should be taking this one step at a time. And I still hold that the first step is not tolerating sexism. Part of the reason why hate crimes and speech are not prevalent on this campus is because there isn’t much tolerance for racism on campus. Just look at the outcry when the email about President Kim (I believe it called him a rice farmer) was made public – and that email wasn’t even written in seriousness. So why don’t we hold ourselves to the same standard when it comes to rape jokes or sexist language (e.g. “Damn, I’d totally bang her”)? The issue of forcible sexual assault doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It doesn’t begin when the first cup of booze is consumed, or as soon as the party begins at 11 PM Friday night, or with the invitation to the bedroom, or even when the victim first says “no”. The issue of forcible sexual assault begins long before then. So why not address it there?

I don’t expect everyone to agree with me (as they clearly haven’t). But if by “open hearts and open minds” you mean, “Admit you’re wrong and stop talking”, then I’ll pass on that one.

“Damn, I’d totally bang her” isn’t a rape joke or sexist language. It’s a carnal desire. I wish you’d stop saying “rape culture.” There isn’t a rape culture at Dartmouth.

You know how to avoid this problem? Don’t participate in the frat scene. Sexual Assault will never be eradicated and some guys will never care about whether they participate in this behavior. So take yourself out of the equation. And also, its not all guys, girls do this too.

First of all, I appreciate Tom Mandel actually taking the time to write this. Also: eff yes Angela Zhang.

To elaborate on what Angela said about rape culture: it does not refer to a culture where people explicitly encourage rape, but to a culture that is structured in a way that makes rape more likely to occur. E.g.: how men are considered more manly if they have more sexual conquests, how women are considered “impure” if they enjoy casual sex, people belting out the words to top 50 tunes that casually objectify women’s bodies (see: Low by Flo Rida, Soulja Boy, I’m in Miami Bitch by LMFAO).

Rape culture isn’t a personal insult. It isn’t about pointing at specific individuals and accusing them of being rapists. It’s a criticism of society as a whole and the way that it operates. If you’re making efforts to combat these negative structures, Tom? Good for you. On the other hand, talking about how OMGoffended you are and asking for your hurt feelings to be nursed? That just takes attention off the actual problem at hand and makes it all about you. AGAIN. Because, considering you’re right when you say frat brothers have the most social power, most of the time it is already all about you.

Rape culture definitely isn’t something that is specific to Dartmouth, it’s a general problem, but I really don’t see why that makes it less worthy of our attention. If anything, the pervasiveness of it makes it even more worthwhile to fight against.

Mr. Mandel,

I find the basic conceit of your article fundamentally flawed in its self-importance. Beginning with your statement that “the one group on campus that has the most power to solve the sexual assault problem is fraternity brothers,” you proceed to promote the idea that the frats, as an isolated and superior body, define our social mores. I don’t want to believe this is entirely true, but if it is, therein lies the problem of inequality between social groups at Dartmouth. In bestowing the “power” to control sexual assault upon the frats, you automatically create an atmosphere in which frat bros have the upper hand—the very kind of atmosphere in which these bros can exercise their will—be it sexual or poetic—unopposed, over other disenfranchised individuals.

You then bring up the fact that you, personally, hosted a forum, as a positive example of combating sexual assault at Dartmouth. What is the point of mentioning this? The forum’s debatable effectiveness aside, it seems that your employment of this example serves primarily to promote your own name and that of your fraternity, emphasizing your Frat>campus approach to this issue. Although you don’t even include sororities in the elite group capable of ending sexual assault, you refute the idea that the frat social order is inherently sexist, claiming “gender has nothing to do with loyalty to one’s fellow Greek members.” Be that as it may, frat loyalty, when it supersedes the obligation a brother feels towards larger the Dartmouth community, is precisely the reason sexual assault goes unaddressed within these groups. And, let’s be honest, at Dartmouth, frat allegiance supersedes pretty much everything.

The scope of your article reveals itself to be truly skewed when, in condemning the Expecto Patronus (sp?) blitz, you say that you “feel truly awful for anyone who heard the song when it was blitzed out and didn’t have context for it. What would a ’14 think upon receiving this message about despair and sexual assault…?” You know what, I feel truly awful for anyone who has been a victim of sexual assault on our campus. I hope that no ’14 expects to be sexually assaulted when she enters Dartmouth, and pray that she never acquires a “context” through which to understand this violation of basic human right. The blitz didn’t traumatize anyone. Sticks and stones.

Furthermore, the mocking image you conjure of “some poor girl to become terrified, clutching at her skirt whenever she enters a fraternity” serves only to reinforce the misconception that sexual assault is simply a male/female, bro/chick question. It is also, in itself, backwards and demeaning of all Dartmouth women, who, it assumes, cannot exercise their own judgment in a social setting.

You conclude by asking us to “please, in the future…not be so quick to dismiss the entire fraternity system as one massive political organization rooted in apathy and conservatism.” That becomes a tall order, as your whole argument has so far worked towards presenting the frats as an all-powerful oligarchy that carries the entire weight of this issue on its shoulders. This assumption, which many are willing to accept as true, is why campus dialogue is always inefficient at Dartmouth. Your argument asserts basically that the frats, in their divine wisdom, will eventually curb sexual assault. You’re working on it. This sounds pretty damn apathetic to me. And to imagine that your social sector is the only one with the capacity to solve this problem reflects the same arrogance that it takes to assault another human being.

well i think we can all agree that the most effective step we can take toward solving this problem is to continue a flame war on a college newspaper bulletin board.

Ms. Zhang,

You raise the issue of ‘fault’.

With respect to rape, everyone agrees, 100% of the fault lies with the rapist.

We are, however, not talking about rape here. We are talking about forcible sexual assault. If you think rape is equivalent to forcible sexual assault, then the conversation is ended, because I do not agree.

Fault, in forcible sexual assault, is not clear-cut as in rape. It is not clear-cut, because perception and intention, on behalf of each person in the relationship, are not in agreement. Unless the word ‘No!’, or even ‘no’ is uttered, fault is not either-or. Neither is it 50-50. But, both people in the relationship bear, not only responsibility, but (if the relationship ends in forcible sexual assault) some measure of blame and fault.

Especially for relationships that are intimate and sexual, the goal MUST be to get to a clear YES or NO. And if a partnership doesn’t get to YES or NO, then both bear responsibility, both are at fault — equally or unequally, would depend on the specific instance.

Alcohol fogs the relationship dynamics. What everyone needs to learn, IMO, is that a state of inebriation, on behalf of either partner or both, is no excuse for failing to get to YES or NO.

Almost certainly, you will not agree. Which is why trying to start with eliminating casual sexism (which is still more indefinite and diffuse in nature) makes no sense, to me.