I'd say that if there is, then yes, content which keeps the idea alive is sexist to an extent. (Unless you're writing non-fiction) And the existence of the adtech, and ideas like brand awareness, and catchy jingles, and recent fake news is a decent example that society is relatively easy to influence just by constant repeating and enforcing of information.
However, I think the interesting point is that this is the culmination of 100,000 plot descriptions. At that point, it's not a reflection of bias in an author, it's a culturally accepted position on the roles of genders. (whether right or wrong)
...or I guess it could be a bunch of biased wikipedia editors :D
More broadly, this is a case of "right for the wrong reason". Many books mentioning slavery will be racist because many books of all sorts were racist, but we're asking whether this is informative or just a base rate fallacy.
It's true that correlation is not causation. It's true that books that use the words 'black' and 'slave' doesn't say anything about whether they're racist. Nobody in this thread was saying otherwise.
It's also true that the history we actually have is one filled with real racism and writing about real racism. It is not one that had a majority of John Brown writing about the evils of slavery. This isn't speculation, we have a historical record and this has already been demonstrated.
Bigger picture, @artursapek asked an interesting question, is a body of literature sexist if it accurately reflects society? Men do commit more crimes, is it sexist for there to be more writing about men committing crimes than women?
@zebrafish answered with an interesting answer -- we might consider it somewhat sexist because our society is still somewhat sexist. If the degree of sexism in literature and in society are the same, then is the literature sexist on it's own? Maybe it is.
Both are hypotheses, and in my book it's perfectly fine to ponder hypotheses. Neither one said something I would presume to call "wrong".
racist ==> "black" correlates with "slave"
"black" correlates with "slave" =/=> racistIts not just about slavery, and I'm not sure how this analysis would even begin to comprehensively find these currently unfavorable descriptions of people.
- I want to be at the top of the pyramid society
- I want there to be no consequences for promiscuity
- I want a calming mind altering drug that has no side effects
- I want peace and stability to focus on my intellectual tasks
Brave New World accomplishes that.
What would that mean? That men commit more aggressive crimes or that the users of the language perceive it that way? Also, what would then be seen as a crime or as violence?
The point I am trying to make is that there is probably a cultural factor in this as well. (How the culture perceives things to be.)
Gender isn't "made up" in the same way that words aren't "made up"; it is an aspect of society, but unlike words, gender is with some relation to observable physical biological expression, usually termed as 'sex'. But the concept of gender as I have seen it used is certainly depending on society, rather than physical sex.
Variations within sex (such as intersex) is another question and is unrelated to gender, as far as I know.
I believe that denying these differences is sexist, as it results in laws that affect males and females unequally. Should sentences for violent crimes be shorter for men because higher testosterone levels make them more biologically prone to violence? This is dangerous political territory bordering on eugenics but an interesting question nonetheless.
I would say most of the research in this area is in abusive relationships. Where only heterosexual abuse from man to woman is noticed and acted on, which greatly distorts reality and cultural expectations.
Many men are physically abused by women, and this is underreported.
Gay and lesbian relationships also produce a power dynamic, which has also gone underreported, as they were already either marginalized, or collectively too busy trying to make all LGBT relationships seem completely benign so that their neighbors wouldn't marginalize them.
Do I have enough quantitative evidence to disprove your "by far" statement? No, but thats not the point. There is something about HUMANS that we should enlighten ourselves about.
Still, doesn't change the fact that most violent agressors (and victims of violent crime) are men.
will a human being pumped with testosterone and upper body strength be violent? a human being with a Y chromosome? thats currently what culture suspects given the reported information available in crime statistics.
I'm telling you that such reductionism isn't an absolute, as there is enough evidence from marginalized people and power dynamics to warrant altering the cultural assumptions. The culture alone (and the stories written in these cultures) is what perpetuates a lack of further insight into this.