It is along those lines (the ‘good feminists’ part is becoming less and less meaningful as time progresses).* Unnamed is right to point out the prominence of bias in anti-sexist thinking: ‘fight fire with fire’ comes to mind, though I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an anti-sexist put it that way.
Anti-sexists are sometimes prone to thinking sexism cannot negatively affect men, but thankfully that’s less and less common these days. (It helps that men who are being discriminated against on sexist grounds generally tend to want to be feminine, which is not very threatening.) Anti-racists, who share much of the same philosophical backing (and support) are much more ready to claim racism cannot negatively affect whites, or if it does, it’s not worth worrying about. (That’s not a LGBT issue, but I need to disclose that as there’s a chance I’ll conflate the epistemological sloppiness of anti-racists and anti-sexists and paint a picture of anti-sexism that’s a shade too dark.)
A large difference between the sex-blind and the anti-sexist view is that sex-blindness is what they focus on. There’s a great story about how the percentage of female orchestra members jumped after candidates began playing behind screens during auditions (and so were being judged almost entirely on their ability to play). The sex-blind view would celebrate the increased efficiency in the judging process- better orchestra members were selected because bias was lower- even if it resulted in less female successes. The anti-sexist view would celebrate the increase in female success, even if it resulted from making the process less efficient.
I think I would characterize anti-sexists as sexists, just with new values, whereas I would characterize individualists as seeking a third option.
*Edit: because feminist values are growing more and more diverse as time progresses, and so there is more and more disagreement over what makes a ‘good’ feminist.
It is along those lines (the ‘good feminists’ part is becoming less and less meaningful as time progresses).* Unnamed is right to point out the prominence of bias in anti-sexist thinking: ‘fight fire with fire’ comes to mind, though I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an anti-sexist put it that way.
Anti-sexists are sometimes prone to thinking sexism cannot negatively affect men, but thankfully that’s less and less common these days. (It helps that men who are being discriminated against on sexist grounds generally tend to want to be feminine, which is not very threatening.) Anti-racists, who share much of the same philosophical backing (and support) are much more ready to claim racism cannot negatively affect whites, or if it does, it’s not worth worrying about. (That’s not a LGBT issue, but I need to disclose that as there’s a chance I’ll conflate the epistemological sloppiness of anti-racists and anti-sexists and paint a picture of anti-sexism that’s a shade too dark.)
A large difference between the sex-blind and the anti-sexist view is that sex-blindness is what they focus on. There’s a great story about how the percentage of female orchestra members jumped after candidates began playing behind screens during auditions (and so were being judged almost entirely on their ability to play). The sex-blind view would celebrate the increased efficiency in the judging process- better orchestra members were selected because bias was lower- even if it resulted in less female successes. The anti-sexist view would celebrate the increase in female success, even if it resulted from making the process less efficient.
I think I would characterize anti-sexists as sexists, just with new values, whereas I would characterize individualists as seeking a third option.
*Edit: because feminist values are growing more and more diverse as time progresses, and so there is more and more disagreement over what makes a ‘good’ feminist.