1. “Let not men then in the pride of power, use the same arguments that tyrannic kings and venal ministers have used, and fallaciously assert that woman ought to be subjected because she has always been so.” (Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, p. 38). Though she doesn’t use the term, Wollstonecraft here refers to what has been called the naturalistic fallacy (See TB 1D, Section 1.7). Could a sexist effectively counter this charge by arguing that the subjection of women has had better consequences than any alternative? Why or why not? In your thinking, consider the possible role of human rights on this topic.

2. Racists usually argue that one race (theirs) is superior to others. Sexists don’t always argue that one sex (theirs) is superior to the other. Is this fact relevant to the moral assessment of racism and sexism? If so how? If not, why not?

3. Do common male/female stereotypes (see Section 2.5) perpetuate sexism? Some people think such stereotypes are true, others think they’re false, and still others think there’s a measure of truth to them. What do you think? Accepting these stereotypes might lead people to think that men should dominate women. But doing so might also lead people to think that men should give women special consideration. The first view is clearly sexist. Do you think the second is sexist as well? (If you are a woman, would you have been offended at being offered a seat on a lifeboat as the Titanic sank?)