[zozbot234]

> Although his conclusion may have been wrong, it sounds like he was ahead of his time in predicting some consequences of sexisim that many feminists point out exist today.

ISTM that he's predicting some very real social frictions, but that calling them "consequences of sexism" may be a bit silly-- unless you posit that literally any institutional dynamic that might disadvantage women in some way is per se structural/institutional sexism, which is really just a matter of semantics. They're consequences of forcing people presenting with very different gender roles (male vs. female) to interact in a newly diverse environment. This will always involve some compromising of values.

[whatshisface]

The absolute last debate I want to get in to is what the definition of sexism is, so I'll just say that I meant it as "anything that's bad, psychological or sociological in nature, and related to gender."

[pessimizer]

"Gender roles" seems obviously institutional. Who exactly assigns them, and why would it be silly to say that the portions that aren't clearly biological are likely sexist?

[jtbayly]

Are you saying it’s not clearly biological for men to behave differently around women?

That it’s not clearly biological for a man to place a high priority on seeking a woman for “individual sexual or romantic gratification” in a way that can cause him to view other men as competitors at the expense of “group loyalties and shared destiny”?