Disclaimer: Now, I’m no scholar, or philosopher, or political scientist, and I don’t consider myself well-broached in topics beyond Feminism 102 stuff, so the claims I am about to make about sexism maybe are not accurate. I welcome clarification and correction from people who actually do know about it, and hope that I get my point across even if I misuse terms or flat-out miss important arguments in the global conversation about sexism.
There are two phrases you often hear in these long, complicated, heated discussions within comments sections and discussion boards about sexism:
1. The patriarchy hurts men.
2. Sexism hurts men.
I agree with the first. The patriarchy, by creating and policing gender roles and punishing the people who defy them, does hurt men. But these damaging aspects of the patriarchy have not resulted in an underrepresentation of men in the active skeptical community, so I will leave this conversation for someone else to conduct.
I disagree with the second. Sexism does not hurt men.* Sexism hurts women, full stop. There is no special kind of shit that magically rolls uphill, even if the patriarchy hurts men too. Sure, maybe there are individual men who receive negative treatment or are victims of individual, prejudiced women, but that’s not sexism. There’s no social sanction for it, and the very next woman that man encounters is not very likely to repeat the behavior (unless he’s stumbled into a coven of manhaters who have taken over the whole town). Suffering a personal insult from one person is not suffering from sexism. Earning less money than a female coworker at the same position is not sexism against men. A selection committee making extra effort to schedule women speakers at a conference is not being sexist against men. Until men are being harmed as a group and can prove it, with laws of averages and stuff backed up by surveys and data from longitudinal studies and evidence like that, and can frame it as a coherent narrative with lots and lots of quotes from women that reveal how they consider men an underclass and why there are perfectly rational (perhaps biological) reasons to perpetuate the difference in political power between the two groups, stop claiming that sexism hurts men. Bad things happen to men, sure, but when a woman treats a man badly for no other reason than that he is a man, she is prejudiced. Someone being mean to a man does not signal systemic oppression.
*Racism does not hurt white people, either, and classism doesn’t hurt rich people. Homophobia doesn’t oppress straight people, undocumented residents aren’t displacing citizens, and the disabled are not successfully shoving their accommodationist agenda down abled people’s throats.
Don’t collect personal anecdotes of all the times women have been mean to you to argue about the validity of women’s experiences of sexism, particularly when they are explaining their experiences of sexism within the skeptical community as a deterrent to membership after you’ve asked them what’s holding them back from active participation. Don’t try to shut them up by calling them hypocrites because regular sexism is just as bad as reverse sexism, and thus all people within skepticism are on an equal footing and women demanding special treatment are being unreasonable. There is no reverse sexism. And if individual people have been mean to you, deal with it when they are being mean to you and move on. Either brush it off and forget about it because you don’t really care what strangers say to you, or call them out for it because you are fed up or relish confrontation, but don’t nurse the grievance as ammunition you can use to shoot down arguments of the people trying to dismantle the status quo. If you really cared about how the patriarchy was really hurting men (cared more about that then how the patriarchy mostly benefits men, that is), you’d acknowledge that fighting one-way sexism is one strategy for dismantling the patriarchy.
Racism does hurt white people. And, homophobia and classism are not the same as racism as sexism. The suffix of -ism does not automatically ascribe them to the same category.
Sexism is discrimination, or prejudice of any kind based on sex (gender). Male or female. It is not confined to the collective. It is created by individual instances, which form to a collective.
This article sounds more like you are trying to wish really, really hard that sexism for men doesn’t exist. Instead of just admitting it does, so we can try to bring about equality for all people. Humanism. Equalism. Equality for all, regardless of gender, race, beliefs, et cetera.
Also, it was a bad idea to include:
“Earning less money than a female coworker at the same position is not sexism against men.”
Not only does it make you look stupid, but it makes you look like a hypocrite since this is feminism’s biggest argument.
Good day, and please wake up.
Hi Justin, sexism and racism work against oppressed groups of people, not against dominant groups of people. It is far more likely that privileged groups of people are blind to social issues where oppressed groups of people can see them because people in oppressed groups must deal with the consequences of these issues. A once-off instance of a man earning less money working the same position as a woman does in a climate of men being more employable and forming the majority in high-power, high-paying positions does not constitute sexism.
Here are some neutral websites and articles i’ve found that you might not know about, They are things like a state study of men vs women pay rates don’t by the state and the labor department that show women get paid more than men, Also a state study that shows domestic abuse is 45-50 percent women to men abuse, to where because of shelter laws men can not take children to escape even though it is 50/50 against them and really if anything the children shouldn’t suffer. Also I’ve included a 3rd party look at how feminist legislators have geared laws toward letting women have children after the divorce whether they are fit or not and letting them blackmail the children back to the husband for money. Just some common myths about oppression women go through that once they are taken out of feminist organizations and the studies are done by a state firm show very different results. I hope in the spirit of honest and teaching people the truth about things you can show how today is a brave new world for the new interdependent women of the new generation and old myths should be put to bed.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/measuring.htm
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=5013
http://family-law.lawyers.com/visitation-rights/Parental-Alienation-Syndrome.html
Bob, that’s nice. You have posted some links from “neutral” places on topics that have nothing to do with the content of my post (which does not address partner violence in any way). Just read above where I said that the patriarchy hurting men too is not sexism, and go read the “About” page, where I explain that the purpose of this blog is for other people to listen to–and not argue with–what the experiences of this woman in skepticism are are like, so that they may learn something about another person. You have not done this at all. If you are not interested in making the skeptical community more welcoming for women based on my advice, just move along.
Karen I’m very sorry that you feel I meant any of that in an unwelcoming way, I know it is hard to hear these things coming from a man but I the information wouldn’t be any different if I was a woman. The single most important thing I want to do is provide people with the information needed to create an equal, loving and safe environment. If you don’t believe that showing places were men are being hurt by laws and social prejudice set forth against men as being relevant to an article that is titled “Stop complaining about “reverse sexism.” It doesn’t exist.”. No offense but people come and see blogs like these where the general theme is the discrimination against men is ok. By changing Webster’s definition of sexism from discrimination and prejudice because of someone’s sex to the sole discrimination against women it can open up doors that any sexism is ok. I just fear that without access to actual studies done and no opinions and made up statistics people form judgments that can be very harmful to society and the legislation that is pushed forward by people believe age old myths. I did read the blog and the parts where you you talk about being a welcoming skeptical community and part of any welcoming skeptic should be being open to all information available. Information that shows sexism toward men have set forth terrible precedence in the legal systems and in general that thinking is ok to be sexist toward anyway is just horrible. This isn’t my blog and I do applaud you for at least publishing the links, which are not from any men’s rights websites or blogs but actual studies conducted. I have also read the part where you mention that you are no scholar and I hope people take this for what it is, opinions without factual basis.I know I will not sway your mind but these are facts, sexism toward anyone is bigotry and promoting that is hate speech. I hope these are not things you stand by.
Bob rouse, I’m sure that Karen forgives you for the feelings that you think that she’s feeling. Perhaps, seeing as you’re interested in the topic of the sex-based treatment of people in skepticism, then you could start your own blog documenting abuses of men to women in the community, and those of women to men, ensuring that you report the figures to be equal? That way, you could be sure that you’re not misrepresenting facts, because everything is equal.
You are all so polite in your postings, but I know there are daggers coming out of everyone’s eyes.
We reserve our eye-daggers while arguing online. If we let them out here, then all that we’d do is damage our computer screens.
I need to disagree, sexism DOES hurt men. And reverse sexism DOES exist. Do these sound familiar?
“All men are pigs.”
“Men only want to get in your pants.”
“Men are afraid of commitment.”
“Men can’t communicate.”
“They all act like little boys.”
I’m sorry, but these ARE prevalent attitudes, and ones women act on. Assumptions are made, even about men one has never met before. And, more importantly, women ACT on these assumptions, and they treat men differently BECAUSE of them. If a person treats someone differently because of race, color, gender, sexual affiliation, or whatever, there is bigotry going on there, even if that person is the ONLY one acting that way.
It also restricts how men can behave–because women are (in a sexist world) emotional, weak, compassionate, emotional, prone to tears, and incapable, it means to be a man one must be the opposite. He must be strong at all times, with no weakness shown, ever. This has led to the “macho” man, homophobia, and in extreme cases an inability to compromise. Because he cannot be compassionate, he must instead be without mercy, or at least dole out that mercy stingily and be the stern, unbending, dominant, “father knows best” figure. He must bottle any of the weaker emotions and give vent only to aggressive ones, anger, competitiveness, ambition, raucous joy, and, in a strange pairing of both ends of the spectrum, stoicness, especially when in pain. That he must never cry is a given. And, to care for the incapable little woman he must be hyper-capable, a super-provider. His focus must be on his job more than his family, working long hours and coming home too exhausted to do much more than flop onto the couch and eat dinner. Because his job takes him from them so often he misses much of their lives, but it’s all supposed to be worth it to him to know they are safe, protected, and provided for.
This is the very pinnacle of the 1940′s sexist ideal and, as far as women have come in realizing the cultural chains that have shackled them, men haven’t come nearly as far. Even as they rebel against the societal norms that hold them in these roles, it is a minority of men that seem to fully grasp what it is they’re rebelling against. And even feminist moms will still hold their sons to these standards, telling them not to cry when injured, dismissing their emotions when something is troubling them because “boys are tough,” or enrolling them in sports when the kid may be more interested in chess. Or ballet. They are treated differently simply because they are boys, even though their needs are essentially the same as that of a little girl.
Men who fall short of these standards are often judged, harshly. They are bullied in schools, dismissed by potential dates, passed over for promotions and raises (yes, still, unless the industry caters to certain “unmanly” traits like intelligent geeks, though even them men who are more manly will get the goodies–ex: a tall man will be promoted more quickly than a short one and get better raises), and generally considered a “lesser” man than, say, the local football hero.
And as for big strong men–men don’t get raped. Ever. Ask anyone.
But the fact is, men do. Men get raped by other men and, yes, by women, but when it happens they have even less recourse than women for finding help. They are–and you wouldn’t think it possible–MORE belittled, more dismissed, and even admitting it happened aloud opens them to mockery and shame. There aren’t even accurate statistics on how often it happens because most men are so ashamed at their failure in being that stereotypical man that they never even report the crime.
There is a reason feminist after feminist has thought that the liberation of women will lead to the liberation of men–because once “feminine” is no longer a dirty word, a lesser set of traits and needs associated only with weakness, then men of every walk of life will be free to embrace without shame more than one small sliver of their personality.
(And yes, I am well aware of exceptions to all this, I tend to befriend men who are exceptions. But an exception does not negate the rule, and cultural change for men has been almost shockingly slow.)
There is no chain that shackles one person but it, in turn, shackles the other. To keep slaves means you must become paranoid, sleep with one eye open in case they turn on you. To hate race means keeping down people for an accident of skin color and denying yourself and the world all they might accomplish–for example, imagine what the world would be like if the black man who created blood transfusions was left alive to make new life saving devices instead of dying while being refused his own breakthrough just because he was black. To hate gays you must deny any possibility of being gay or bisexual in yourself or your family, and risk losing your sons or daughters or other precious people because of it, or risk your own mental health as you deny what you are. And to be sexist means you must define yourself as the polar opposite of the other gender and work to minimize or eradicate “undesirable” traits, even often when those traits would not just make your life easier and make you a better person, but could in fact benefit the whole world.
Sexism DOES affect everybody. Feminism is not a race or a zip-thud contest to see who has suffered the most, but, in it’s purest form, is a call to heal pain on BOTH sides, no matter how deep it goes. No one has the right to discount the suffering of others just because they’re hurting as well. Just my take on it.
These are all damaging stereotypes that harm men, but they aren’t examples of the world being sexist against men. When men are systemically shut out of sources of real power–leadership in government, finance, business, et cetera–either directly at the hands of women or indirectly as a result of social and cultural structures that inhibit them, then we can talk about sexism against men.
But yeah, some men have faced discrimination from some other people. Maybe all men at one time or another, for any number of possible reasons.
Go away, MRA.
Facing tough times does not equate to facing oppression. When the masculine is constructed as something that is powerful and to be feared, this privileges men and it harms women. Also, when we construct the masculine such that it is optional to behave as a responsible grown-up, or to instead behave as an unaccountable youth, then this also privileges men and harms women. Men might say that they don’t like the masculinity that has been assigned to them – some of the time – but the reality is that masculinity privileges them, benefits them and keeps them raised above women as a class within society. That’s the whole point of the masculine/feminine dichotomy.
The oppressor class are NOT harmed by inflicting oppression on others. EVER. It is NOT harmful to white people when we’re racist against people of colour, men when they’re sexist against women, straight people when we’re homophobic against homosexual people, able-bodied people when we discriminate against disabled or alter-abled people, and so on. Oppression HARMS the oppressed and BENEFITS the oppressors.
Overall, like myriad people before you you’ve understood sexism at a very basic and inaccurate level. Sexism only occurs when you’re doing something that works to keep one group of people up based on their sex, and another group of people down based on their sex. Men as a class occupy a privileged, superior position over women as a class within our society. (That’s what makes it a patriarchy.) If you do something that keeps men/males up and women/females down, then you’re doing something sexist. If you do something that judges men based on your stereotypical understanding of men and masculinity, then you’re NOT being sexist against men, and you’re in fact probably still being sexist against women (see the first paragraph to understand how).
Wandered onto here googling around for “sexism against men doesn’t exist”.
Saw the comments, and wanted to balance out the hatred. Lovely article =)
Short, quick, to the point, and (before I read the comments, I honestly thought) almost impossible to misinterpret.
The author is obviously from a white, wealthy family. I don’t even know her and I can tell. It’s pretty funny when a member of society’s MOST PRIVILEGED class (wealthy white females) complains.
That is all.
So what problems should be solved before wealthy white women can complain about their problems? And how will they know when it’s OK to speak up for themselves? Will you let us know, Walt?
Damn, KarenX, your comments section gets hit by a lot of MRAs. Because it totally makes sense to analyse society and then say that ANY group of females can be the “MOST PRIVILEGED class” within it. Fact is, ALL girls and women are oppressed in society just for being female, and ALL boys and men are privileged for being male. Males may be oppressed due to race, class, sexual orientation, body ability and so on, but boys and men ALWAYS experience sex-based privilege over girls and women. ALL women need to be able to analyse and resist against sex-based oppression – even the richest ones with the fairest skin and the prettiest dresses.
Uh, throughout history A HUGE AMOUNT of men n women were oppressed under tough rule. No institutional sexism against men? Conscription ring any bells? Just how more oppressive does a government need to be towards its men to take away their freedom by forcing them into a war? Conscription when it doesn’t include females is a female privilege, it’s absolutely impossible to deny that fact. You can argue men have more privileges but don’t act like females have none. There are protections afforded in history towards women that men were not given, even current society has a disproportionate level of awareness for female victims of DV whilst simultaneously ignoring vast amounts of male victims n not giving adequate support of them.
Sexism against men exists, trying to argue that sexism against men is like arguing racism against whites is absolutely foolish because they’re VASTLY different issues. Furthermore it’s extremely insulting to try compare gender issues with racial issues so please drop the silly analogy. Unless I have missed them, there are NO laws which harm white people more than others but there ARE LAWS which harm MEN and MEN alone.
“Damn, KarenX, your comments section gets hit by a lot of MRAs.”
Denying sexism against men exists is a sure-fire way to stir them up, stating it doesn’t exist when it’s very easy to prove the existance throughout history of institutional sexiam against men makes the author appear to be ignorant. I understand from the disclaimer the author isn’t a scholar on the topic so I hope my comment can point the author in the right direction.
“I disagree with the second. Sexism does not hurt men.* Sexism hurts women, full stop. There is no special kind of shit that magically rolls uphill, even if the patriarchy hurts men too. Sure, maybe there are individual men who receive negative treatment or are victims of individual, prejudiced women, but that’s not sexism.”
Conscription, circumcision, disproportionate funding for fighting violence (including Domestic violence n sexual abuse funding), gendered domestic violence programs using the sexist duluth model, selective service where men who don’t sign up can be denied government funding and fined whilst women face none of that. None of this means that men have it WORSE in regards to institutional sexism, but just that it DOES EXIST.
NO I am not an MRA, nor feminist, I am egalitarian minded but I dislike the labels because they tend to attract big fights that are useless. What I also find useless is denying sexism against men exists when clearly it does, so people please stop denying it and do some research on the matter. There’s absolutely no need to deny it, nor is there a reason to play oppression olympics, fight sexism whereever you find it wether it be misogyny or misandry.
“A selection committee making extra effort to schedule women speakers at a conference is not being sexist against men.”
Being told you have to goto war, or goto jail IS SEXISM. Being denied funding because you didn’t sign up to selective service because you have a penis IS SEXISM.
I feel many people fail to realize that most/all men also can be oppressed by a few men, conscription is a great example of this. Men AND women in power keep those sexist laws, etc around which do not affect women as they affect men, how is that not sexism against men?
“Someone being mean to a man does not signal systemic oppression.”
But conscription, etc DO signal systemic oppression. In the U.S Conscription has ended but selective service does still exist with the threat of fines and/or jailtime if you do not sign up. How is that not systemic oppression? It’s a law which ONLY applies to the male gender, women are EXEMPT from it. The initial reasons for conscription of men are BOTH misogynous (women too “weak” to fight, etc) and MISANDRIST (a man’s life being less valued, disposable male, etc).
“There is no reverse sexism”
Reverse sexism doesn’t exist, it’s simply called SEXISM.
“you’d acknowledge that fighting one-way sexism is one strategy for dismantling the patriarchy.”
You cannot dismantle the patriarchy by fighting only one gender’s sexism, it has to be a team effort. Is this really such an alien concept? Gender roles, sexism in all forms need to be addressed that includes giving a damn about both women’s AND men’s issues.
“When men are systemically shut out of sources of real power–leadership in government, finance, business, et cetera–either directly at the hands of women or indirectly as a result of social and cultural structures that inhibit them, then we can talk about sexism against men.”
These are not the only issues where institutional sexism exists….
I really have to ask, why do some people try so hard to explain away sexism against men when it’s absolutely clear that sexism against men exists? Is there a threat in admitting there is sexism against men? Is it just seeing the world through a lens of only seeing how women are harmed? The author and Qvaken speak about “one off’s”, do you both not understand history or even the present day with regard to one of the most harmful oppressions in existance(conscription)? I am seeing you both show blindness to these major issues that have plagued humankind probably since the very early days. This continued attempt at portraying men’s only issue as being “one off’s” is pretty sad, it’s as silly as me suggesting the “one off’s” of women being catcalled on the street doesn’t mean sexism against women exists, it’s either ignorant or purposely dishonest to think men’s issues of prejudice only exist in “one off’s” when even today men (in countries that don’t have both genders conscripted) face conscription, selective service etc.
“Males may be oppressed due to race, class, sexual orientation, body ability and so on, but boys and men ALWAYS experience sex-based privilege over girls and women.”
Would you still argue this to be true in times of major war? Males in those times can be the most oppressed gender, females experiencing a major privilege in protection whilst men forced to fight or face jail/worse. You aso forgot to mention that males can be oppressed DUE TO THEIR GENDER which doesn’t have to mean they are the MOST oppressed.
Pushing these myths of no institutional sexism against men existing is harmful to men, how exactly is it going to help society be better? Ask yourself would people take you seriously if you continue to flat out deny easily proven instances of sexism against men?
Who here actually identified as MRA? Sounds like an attempt to point out the STRAWMRA to discredit some commenters views on the subject. Considering how often I’ve seen feminists complain of the straw-feminist comments, how exactly is saying “Damn, KarenX, your comments section gets hit by a lot of MRAs. ” helpful at all? Would you like to hear someone say “Damn feminists are ignorant”? (No I don’t believe that).
Oh my goddess Archy, write your own blog post.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the army has also historically been exclusive of females, that is, females haven’t been allowed to participate. Not having a choice is not female privilege. Recently, women have been allowed to participate in the army, and they then face severe woman-hatred from their male “colleagues” including men using sex-based slurs against them and raping them, which equates to women not really being allowed to participate in it anyway.
Having said that, with females being allowed to participate in war, you have aptly pointed out that, war being a negative and inhumane construct born of Patriarchy and colonialism, this amounts to a big win for exactly nobody who is actually participating in it. So you have correctly argued that men are pawns and victims of the system and of the ruling class just like women are, but you have failed to argue that this therefore means that women somehow enjoy privilege based on our femaleness. You have failed because “female privilege” doesn’t exist – so in all fairness, you were fighting a losing battle there.
And bro, fighting against women’s rights and against women’s liberation in favour of men, including where that person concedes that women experience sexism (“…but it’s not as bad as they say it is, and besides, men face it too!”), is exactly what MRAs do. You don’t have to self-identify by the title, but you are an MRA.
Also:
“I understand from the disclaimer the author isn’t a scholar on the topic so I hope my comment can point the author in the right direction.”
I’m sure that the author is eternally grateful to you for educating her with your manly insights.
“Bro”, How am I fighting against women’s rights? I favour neither gender. I favour both genders being proportionately supported where needed, both getting help for all forms of violence, both getting support for any pay gap issues (which most likely are against women most/if not all the time), etc.
Do you believe men should be equal to women and women to men? You don’t have to self-identify by the title but you are both an MRA and a feminist, they’re the same thing pretty much in a different title. Both have subsets with different beliefs but the core ideals are that of equality.
This isn’t a zero-sum game of advocating for men limits women nor the reverse, you’ve assumed I am somehow against women’s liberation yet you and the author are both denying sexism against men exists when clearly it does, are you against equality of men? You’re also using a very steroetypical and bigoted view of what an MRA is, do you also get annoyed when “MRA’s” speak in anti-feminist talk?
“In case you hadn’t noticed, the army has also historically been exclusive of females, that is, females haven’t been allowed to participate. Not having a choice is not female privilege. Recently, women have been allowed to participate in the army, and they then face severe woman-hatred from their male “colleagues” including men using sex-based slurs against them and raping them, which equates to women not really being allowed to participate in it anyway. ”
Yes there are huge problems of sexism in the military, against BOTH genders, conscription plagues mainly males although some countries have both genders doing national service. Not being forced into war is female privilege, regardless of choice, men being able to SERVE willingly in the military would be considered a privilege but in times of conscription that is not a choice. Your continual attempts to explain away sexism against men is strange, why do you need to do it? The existence of sexism against men does not mean sexism against women is somehow less important or lower, BOTH are important, both need support in a proportional manner. If men only have a few issues then they only need a smaller portion of time n resources to fix them vs women. There are more male victims of rape in the U.S Military (perpetrated by other military members) than there are female victims (15% of total victims are female), sex-based slurs occur to both genders and there are major issues with bullying of both genders, and the U.S military is opening frontline positions to women so your argument that women are not really allowed to participate is dropping fast. I believe quite a few other countries already allowed this, Australia has allowed women to apply for special forces. This varies of course country by country but it’s a myth that women are “not really” being allowed to participate in the military.
“You have failed because “female privilege” doesn’t exist – so in all fairness, you were fighting a losing battle there.”
A losing battle? You don’t think sexism exists against men and are showing bigoted views to those who dare advocate for men, meanwhile the actions I am taking are also feminist in nature. You do realize that some parts of feminism advocates for ending gender roles against both genders, and supports male issues right? Yet here you are using the MRA label as a strawman and an attempt to be insulting as if I inherently wrong for daring to speak about male issues.
Where have I said women do not experience sexism as bad as they say? Women have a lot of sexism to deal with, men have SOME, this varies greatly on time period (eg times of war have greater levels of sexism towards males than times of peace, not saying greater than what females experience btw), culture/society a person is in.
Denying sexism against men existing is absolutely disgusting behaviour, denying female privilege though is foolish when there are things in existence like selective service where women’s privilege is that they don’t need to register in order to receive funding, aren’t in threat of fines or jailtime for failing to register. If you cannot understand a simple concept that female privilege exists (albeit in a smaller proportion to men, so yes men are more privileged) then is there much point in this debate? Women as a gender experience a few privileges based solely on their gender in some countries, you can try explain those away but it doesn’t change the fact that they are real privileges. The existence of negative aspects does not remove a privilege if it has a positive, remember that women DO serve in the modern U.S military but still aren’t forced to sign up for selective service, that is a female privilege. It doesn’t make them more privileged than men.
I’d appreciate you not use dishonest arguments against me to try imply I am somehow against women’s liberation for criticizing and correcting a false view of men not facing sexism. I could say you’re acting like the typical “feminist” some mra’s talk about but what is the point? It generalizes about a group that varies greatly and is utterly useless in trying to make a better world for both genders to live in. Feminists n MRA’s need each other to help change this world, both have a lot of egalitarians who simply want sexism gone but denying sexism against one gender is just silly don’t you think? It’s not a zero-sum game!
Oh my goddess Archy, write your own blog post.
“I’m sure that the author is eternally grateful to you for educating her with your manly insights.”
Are you assuming I am a man? What does my gender have to do with this debate? Dismiss my opinion if you wish as being “MRA” or “manly”, add some snark for spice too. Doesn’t change the fact sexism against men exists and female privilege exists.
Archy,
If you don’t like the advice I give, ignore it. If you have specific advice on a different strategy that will increase the number of women actively participating in skepticism, share it. A specific strategy, mind you. Describe what specific change you’d make in the culture. Otherwise, I’m not sure what you hope to gain from splaining and splaining stuff. I am a woman. I actively participated in skepticism. I had experiences. I have some ideas for people who want to increase the number of women participating. If you have no interest in that, save your breath or write somewhere else. You’re off topic.
It’s off-topic to talk about reverse sexism which you talk about here? I talked about the topic at hand which was sexism against men and your flat out refusing it exists, which is an insulting and misandrist statement. You talked about the very topic in the comments yet for some reason I am off-topic. What changes would I make in the culture? Maybe respecting that sexism affects both genders would be a start? You write an article dismissing sexism against men exists and thus get a bunch of people telling you differently, what did you really expect? Then you accuse me of being off-topic for trying to inform you that sexism against men/misandry actually does exist even institutional sexism?
Is this comment not appearing on an article titled “#15 Stop complaining about “reverse sexism.” It doesn’t exist.”? Does men complaining of sexism against men existing stop women entering the skeptic community? If so then the problem would be with the women for denying it exists in the first place so my advice would be for those particular people, male or female, who deny sexism against men exists should quit denying it and then maybe there will be more participation? Funnily enough I know plenty of women who understand sexism against men exists, would they have trouble participating in the community? How about not denying sexism which has been directly involved with the deaths of many many many millions of men?
So your advice to people trying to increase the number of women actively participating in skepticism is to tell them that sexism against men exists. Duly noted. Perhaps one day someone will run a recruiting experiment using your strategy as a control (because that is a point of view already held within skepticism and there aren’t a lot of women actively participating) and my strategy as the change and we’ll see if there is any measurable effect.
“You write an article dismissing [that] sexism against men exists.”
“Those particular people, male or female, who deny sexism against men exists…”
“I know plenty of women who understand sexism against men exists.”
Note those verbs. People can either “dismiss” or “deny” “that sexism against men exists”, or they can “understand” that it does exist. You’re very confident and assertive about your own analysis of sexism, women and men, and you’re very condescending towards women who disagree, but unfortunately, having greater confidence in your own opinion and lesser confidence in the opinions of women who disagree with you doesn’t guarantee that your opinion will constitute a greater reflection of reality.
Your military example has failed. It’s not good when the government conscripts men to the army, however it does not reflect a reversal of the sexed hierarchy of male over female upon which our society and our culture are based. It is exploitation of men by ruling class Capitalists and colonialists – the ruling class being a group that is overwhelmingly male, by the way – but it is not sexism against men. Sexism, as has been explained, refers to acts that reinforce the societal and cultural hierarchy of male over female. “Sexism against men” cannot and does not exist.
Also:
“I know plenty of women who understand sexism against men exists.”
And I’m sure that some of your best friends are women. MRA.
And like Karen said, off you go now to write your own blog post about what you think will make the skeptic community more welcoming to women.
Ooh, actually, I went and had a shower and thought about this one some more:
“I know plenty of women who understand [that] sexism against men exists.”
(I had forgotten to include the “[that]” in my previous comment.)
In this statement, you also assume that women exist in a natural state of not understanding things. That we’re rather stupid and lacking in knowledge and experience, up until the point when a dude does what it takes to ensure our “understanding” of certain things. The implication here is that Karen and I should see the light and start agreeing with you that “sexism against men exists”, so that we can be as clever as those “plenty of women” that you “know”, who act as absent models for the behaviour of your ideal women.
It also serves as a minor threat. As I mentioned above, to “understand” something, someone must go from being in a state of “not understanding” it to “understanding” it. This could also mean that they go from having the “wrong” opinion as per your ideal and your expectations, to having the “right” opinion. When a person expresses that they “understand” what you want them to “understand”, does it necessarily mean that they actually think that, or does it just mean that, by whatever means, you successfully got them to say what you wanted them to say?
There are so many interesting elements to condescension in speech and writing, especially when you factor in societal hierarchies and stereotypes about marginalised groups in society – in this case, male over female, and stereotypes about women.
Now, have fun writing that blog post.
“So your advice to people trying to increase the number of women actively participating in skepticism is to tell them that sexism against men exists.”
My advice would be to not deny sexism exists when real-world examples are given.
““I know plenty of women who understand sexism against men exists.”
And I’m sure that some of your best friends are women. MRA.”
Mra, used as an insult to discredit my views? The women I refer to are actually feminists, so try again. Are you also trying to dismiss the views simply as “MRA”?
“Sexism, as has been explained, refers to acts that reinforce the societal and cultural hierarchy of male over female. “Sexism against men” cannot and does not exist.”
Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex, behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Why are you under the assumption that sexism only exists in one direction? Men can be sexist to other men, laws can be made by men and still sexist.
“You’re very confident and assertive about your own analysis of sexism, women and men, and you’re very condescending towards women who disagree, but unfortunately, having greater confidence in your own opinion and lesser confidence in the opinions of women who disagree with you doesn’t guarantee that your opinion will constitute a greater reflection of reality.”
I would say the same thing to those who are male, female, or those whom don’t identify as either gender. Why are you trying to make this as condescending towards women? I really don’t care either way what gender a person is but I did respond to your jibe about “manly insights”.
When I said “If so then the problem would be with the women” I was referring solely to those women who denied sexism exists, not all women and furthermore I’d say the same to men. You have a different opinion of sexism, so be it, but I still wonder how you could come to that conclusion. Your version of sexism differs greatly to the version of sexism I hear regularly talked about by feminists.
“however it does not reflect a reversal of the sexed hierarchy of male over female upon which our society and our culture are based.”
You don’t need to make a matriarchy to have sexism against men, and I disagree with your idea of what sexism is.
“In this statement, you also assume that women exist in a natural state of not understanding things. That we’re rather stupid and lacking in knowledge and experience, up until the point when a dude does what it takes to ensure our “understanding” of certain things. The implication here is that Karen and I should see the light and start agreeing with you that “sexism against men exists”, so that we can be as clever as those “plenty of women” that you “know”, who act as absent models for the behaviour of your ideal women.”
Actually I said it because of the “manly insights” jibe. Assume all you want of what I think but I don’t think women are stupid, I don’t think you are stupid, you are reading way too much into my comment and seeing something I neither intended nor even thought.
I find it interesting you call my comment condescending when your responses have been quite condescending, insults accusing me n others of being an MRA as an insult from what I can gather. You call me confident, assertive n condescending in regards to my view of sexism yet you hold the say condifence, assertive n condescending behaviour in saying sexism against men doesn’t exist to the point of using the MRA label as an insult showing prejudice to that group.
Would you prefer me to say “I know plenty of men n women who also agree sexism against men exists ranging from egalitarians, feminists, mra’s, to those who identify as nothing”? You confidently assert sexism against women exists so if I denied it’s existance what would you say to me? (I believe it exists btw).
“who act as absent models for the behaviour of your ideal women.”
I would prefer people not deny sexism of either gender but it’s nothing to do with wanting people to be my ideal man or woman. I felt that you were trying to suggest my thoughts were that only a man could have, if I am mistaken I apologize but I said that to show there are males n females who have them. Feel free to prove me wrong about the existance of sexism against men but you have failed to do so, only an attempt to try portray sexism only affecting the least privileged. What do you call gender-based prejudice against men?
The author also confidently, assertively and in a condescending matter tells us that sexism against men does not exist, says outright sexism does not hurt men, only women. She is telling men to STFU about sexism against men, stating for a fact it does not exist. Did you say to her she was being condescending to men or do you save that just for special ol me? I am speaking to a person with the nickname of qvaken, I have no idea if you are male or female nor do I care. I spoke my opinion on the matter, take it as you will, I guess we agree to disagree.
Huh. A woman asked you to leave her space – her blog – and to go off and write somewhere else, and to stop bombarding her with thousands upon thousands of words saying “I’m just right because I’m right and your refutations are just wrong because I’m just right”, and what do you do? You bombard her with thousands of words again, saying exactly the same thing. I’m beginning to wonder if Karen should start another blog about how we can make women feel safe in their own spaces, such as their own online spaces.
You’ve been ignoring her words from the start. Now you’re ignoring her “No”. What does that remind you of?
Oh wow, someone just compared a blog post to rape, well you know you have no real argument when you have to resort to that… says it all really.
Is rape the godwins law of feminism?
Nope, I compared repeatedly violating somebody’s space to rape.
I was actually ignoring this post after speaking my peace, but seriously, this entire line of argument deserves a *facepalm*.
SO what I have seen here was an entire blog post trying to explain how sexism only happens to one gender. People disagreed. One in particular thought enough about the situation to write, not one, but SEVERAL in depth, well thought out posts. I’m not saying that their arguments were right or wrong, mind, only that they cared enough about the topic at hand to try to use logic, reasoning, critical thinking, and attempt to have a somewhat civil discussion about the whole matter–as civil as any disagreement gets anyway. In other words, not a troll, but an intelligent person who was trying to discuss an issue with someone they apparently believed to be equally intelligent.
In return they were repeatedly dismissed out of hand (“oh my god, go write your own blog post”), asked to leave for being off topic–an accusation I still don’t get since every post I read was simply defending their argument that sexism exists to a greater or lesser extent for every gender, which was a direct reply to the argument that certain genders enjoy NO sexism at all, which seems reasonable–they were name called/labelled (MRA, used dismissively and possibly as an insult), and finally had their very presence here equated to rape.
If there is no room for disagreement, it would probably be best to lock the comments in the future. That way the larger audience of the internet will realize that this is simply a flat statement of the author’s beliefs instead of an interactive discussion. Otherwise, people get the wrong idea and start swinging ideas around, and then all that follows is pandemonium and anarchy.
And, apparently, blog rape.
By the way, I’m not often offended by rape comparisons, but I AM offended by this one. One of the most horrific life experiences many women have suffered was reduced to being used as a blunt weapon to guilt and shame away a commentor whose only crime was, quite simply, making points someone else disagreed with. It was a cheap pot shot, and frankly, beneath the utterance of anyone but a hard-core undereducated Republican.
Now, was that commentor something of a pest? Perhaps, perhaps not. But a much more effective way to get rid of someone you don’t want around would be to state–like the mature adults we all are–”We’re simply going to have to agree to disagree” and leave it at that. And if the commentor comes back again, DO NOT ENGAGE. Do not speak to them. Do not make snarky comments, call them names, or argue why you’re right. Every time you do, you are opening up a dialogue, especially on the internet where words are all we have to interact with. This is basic internet etiquette 101.
Also, for the record, I find it hysterical that anyone who disagrees with the post must ipso facto be an MRA; shoddy logic if I ever heard it. An awareness of the issues all sexes face–men, women, cis, pan, etc–makes one a compassionate human being who believes in HUMAN RIGHTS, not a narrow minded one who believes in only one gender’s rights. It also makes one well studied and well read, something I highly recommend everyone try to be. I certainly recommend it before one either passes judgment on an entire gender or attempts to engage in a philosophical debate.
Now I’m going to go back to ignoring the hell out of this thread again, because not only is it woefully underinformed and showing a distinct tendency to go “I’m not listening lalalalalalalalala!” while having fingers stuck in ears, but it has now degraded into the just plain silly.
Blog rape. Seriously?
Ah. For the record, I previous appeared as Kat, above. I’m…not quite sure what’s up with the musical log-ins, but the identity change was purely accidental.
“I’m not often offended by rape comparisons, but I AM offended by this one. One of the most horrific life experiences many women have suffered was reduced to being used as a blunt weapon…”
Yeah. “Many women” have suffered this horrific life experience. Like, say, me. So if you would kindly list the comparisons that I’m allowed to make which won’t offend you, then that’d be a big help. Because then I can discard them and continue understanding and discussing rape based on my own experiences, and on the experiences of scores of women who I’ve spoken to about the issue. That is, that it’s a deliberate violation and is a consequence of men’s conscious choice to disrespect women, women’s choice, women’s words and women’s boundaries.
Thanks for all the other advice, too, and especially thanks for the indignation at the women here and our refusal to accept that men make cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out arguments and that our responses are only silly, trivial, and are indicative of our intellectual and social inferiority.
Women like Karen are very scared and hurt under their rough exterior of emotions when they rationalize double standards and one-sided sex-isms. When you look at people’s transparency, it’s very clear. Actions over words, my friends.
Strong, independent women (and men) could care less about the gender war garbage because they have nobility, virtues and decency to treat others equally. They are hard to come by these days, but they do exist.
Most of these pride-filled women who hide behind one-sided feminism and corrupted laws generally know little about feminism, its roots or how it came to be. Sadly, most don’t care. With the way women act nowadays, Susan B. Anthony would be turning over in her grave. She fought for women AND MEN.
Thankfully, more men AND WOMEN are starting to stand up against the twisted social norms of corrupted feminism. Some people refuse to bow their heads to Baal. Some people want to be happy and could care less about the tit-for-tat wars that have almost destroyed modern families and our Western culture. I can admit my mistakes and take responsibility for my OWN actions, can you?
The biggest sign of a brittle heart is one who can’t practice what they preach, victim or not.
Characterising a woman as inappropriately emotional, and only having developed her opinions out of her inappropriate emotions, is the oldest misogynistic tactic in the book.
“Pride-filled women”. As though we’re just being proud and stubborn if we have our own opinions and our own life experiences as females who experience particular treatment from men daily, and if we refuse to follow men’s rules, or alter our stories to suit them, when discussing our experiences.
Once again, you’re referring to MRAs, not Feminism. MRAs say that they stand for Feminism – but not the kind of Feminism where women question and analyse women’s position in the world, where women question and challenge Patriarchy, and where women fight for women’s rights or for women’s liberation. MRAs stand for the kind of Feminism that suits men, that ensures equal focus on men’s troubles (even though these men are currently advantaged in a male-focused world and don’t need equal consideration to oppressed groups), and that keeps men happy and doesn’t threaten them or their institutions. If it started with men and is based on men’s preferences, men’s opinions and men’s view of the world, then yeah, they’re all for it.
But this doesn’t get Feminism very far. It reduces us to a status quo-style movement, where we support and promote exactly the same things that the current system supports and promotes, ergo, we keep everything the same as it is. What’s the point? Instead of following an anti-Feminist movement, MRAs should become liberationists. They should follow women’s lead in analysing the current system, and in recognising what are the institutions and structures that keep oppressed people oppressed and privileged people privileged. They should always put the analyses of oppressed people before their own privileged analysis. This would get us a lot further in uprooting a sick, hierarchical, well-to-do white het male culture, in favour of an egalitarian one.
I just read over this and had to laugh… Sorry.
The real kicker in this whole thing for me was this:
“…especially thanks for the indignation at the women here and our refusal to accept that men make cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out arguments and that our responses are only silly, trivial, and are indicative of our intellectual and social inferiority.”
More specifically: “refusal to accept that men make cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out arguments.”
Now, if I said that I refused to accept that a womann could make a cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out argument, what would that make me?
Maybe I misread that sentence and interpreted what was meant as two dependent clauses as two INdependent clauses, and if so, please correct me.
But if not, I’d like to know how refusing to accept men’s agruments on the basis that they’re men’s arguments is anything but sexist.
Rob: That last post of yours was just plain condescending. Quit it. Because dude, that ain’t right. I was going to put this at the bottom, but it occurred to me you might not read that far, so here ya go. There are a couple of gems in your rant, but I refuse to agree with them because the rest was so rude, and because you seemed to use those gems to JUSTIFY being rude and condescending. You want to get your point across, try rephrasing things, and if you want to rant at the emotionalism of others, lose yours. Just saying.
Qvaken: Yes, women who have been raped, like you. And like me. I will not pretend to speak for the many woman I also know who have been raped, molested, sexually assaulted, or otherwise suffered a sexual predatory attack because there are as many different reactions and responses to those incidents as there are women. I only speak for me.
However, when rape accusations or rape insinuations start being used as as a weapon, ESPECIALLY as a weapon in an area where rape is not feasibly possible, where rape threats or even sneakily implied rape threats have not occurred, and where in fact the topic isn’t even hovering around rape or sexual assault, I feel it starts cheapening the fight so many of us are in to get our voices heard and to be taken seriously. I feel it strengthens the (utterly false) argument–made by men AND woman–that women who cry rape will do so at the drop of the hat and that they will point to situations like this as working examples of the phenomena. Plus, yes, the accusation made in this manner was kinda creepy.
If the argument had been made for misogyny, for male privilege rearing it’s ugly head, for intellectual arrogance, for social awkwardness, for a stubborn refusal of the commenter to see facts (BACKED by said facts, mind), or any other number of sins, I could see where a case might be made. But to start implying the guy had the earmarks of a sexual predator and maybe a rapist just because he was overzealous in trying to get across his point of view across…no. Just NO.
And not just because it was an out-of-place accusation in context to the argument.
That is the DEFINITION of an ad hominem attack–attacking a person’s character in an attempt to undermine their argument–and it is slanderous to boot. Now, acceptable would have been to tell said commenter where one stood; “I am feeling as if you aren’t taking me seriously, that your constant attacks on my arguments are a way of discrediting me, and I am not comfortable with this thread so I will either revisit it after I can get a little space and perspective” and/or “…I need it to end here, or for you to change your tone. I’m sorry.” See? Respectful to others, NOT slanderous, and a reasonable request. And if he comes back with anything but an “I understand,” HE becomes the asshole. But, when ad hominem attacks are made (and those attacks are caught by others) then the person MAKING the attacks is the asshole. Also, those who notice those attacks will cease to take the arguer seriously, even when that person has really good ideas. Why? Because people root for underdogs, and the person being slandered is automatically the underdog. Simple human psychology.
Also:
“Thanks for all the other advice, too, and especially thanks for the indignation at the women here and our refusal to accept that men make cogent, well-educated and well-thought-out arguments and that our responses are only silly, trivial, and are indicative of our intellectual and social inferiority.”
Once again, logical fallacies abound here. One could call this a “to quoque” attack–avoiding a real response by attacking a criticism with another criticism, thus trying to put your intellectual sparring partner on the defensive and making them look bad. However, really, that is a “strawman” argument because it is an utter misrepresentation of what I said.
Clarifying, in case it was legitimately missed, I spoke for ONE man, the above commenter (not Rob, the other one). And I never said he was completely in the right, only that he WAS making an effort, which frankly, on the internet, will make me give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt. With the amount of trolls, flamers, haters, and generally disruptive people who seem to overpopulate the net, anyone who makes an effort to be respectful, literate, and is concentrating on the topic at hand is generally a gem in comparison. Those are the sorts of people blogs and social sites WANT around, because they generally know how to behave like they weren’t raised in a barn. That doesn’t make them perfect, or even right, but it does make them pleasant company, especially in the midst of an intellectual debate.
And yes, he DID have every reason to believe that this topic was open to intellectual debate.
You also implied that I called all women–especially all woman on this thread–”…silly, trivial, and [our responses] are indicative of our intellectual and social inferiority.” Which I never said. NOT ONCE.
I did disagree with THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT, strongly, and I still do. There have been reams of studies I have read that are behind my opinion, and I have also been heavily into reading about the challenges men face, as I have a fourteen year old son. While I am a very strong feminist, with male family it also behooves me to know what my son faces so I can help him avoid the pitfalls of a hyper-masculine culture. And yes, sexism DOES go both ways, and it DOES hurt both genders; as well as those of two genders, or no gender, or flux genders.
I also disagreed with the attacks on the commenter, which I felt were happening BECAUSE of his gender. I feel if he had been speaking as a self professed female instead of a male, he might have been listened to more or, at the very least, the attacks themselves would have taken a different form. Certainly I don’t think a woman, even one behaving the same way, would have had the implication that they were creepy sexual predators lobbed at them.
I also didn’t like the name calling and labeling that allowed the dismissal of anyone else (male OR female) who disagreed with the original supposition, as I also saw that as a bullying tactic, and, again, a slanderous “ad hominem” attack, and one where the “burden of proof” (another logical fallacy) would be on those accused of the label to prove they were not, thus derailing the thread from the original topic and effectively silencing their arguments.
It’s also why I replied, very specifically, that if this were not up for debate, that should have been stated in the original blog post or comments should have been closed completely. The internet is a place of billions of different opinions and, like it or not, if an opinion is stated out here in the wilds of the web, there will inevitably appear voices who disagree. If the reaction to those who disagree is to simply dig in harder and claim the original argument is the only feasible one, then generally that means that it was never up for debate to begin with. So, in those cases, the best thing to do is make a statement, close comments (either to close friends of close them off completely), and leave it at that. No shame in it; everyone is allowed to have an opinion. But leaving a place for open-ended discussion is just inviting responses that include disagreement. That’s just kinda how the internet works, and it won’t stop working that way just because one person wants it to.
Also, there IS middle ground between MRA and the brand of feminism espoused here. There has to be, otherwise this isn’t a movement of diverse opinions and a discussion of possible futures, but simply a regime. And the last time Feminism started leaning in that direction it damn near killed it. I want to hear ALL voices, even male, even trans, even LGBT, even minority, even foreign. Because the gender wars are bigger than us, bigger than our country, bigger even than our sex. They’re worldwide, and we need big, diverse, workable solutions that encompass just as much ground, not to draw into ourselves and hiss at strangers and strange ideas. And, to me, that’s where the real fight begins.
But again, in that, I only speak for me.
[…] I explained, as well as one can in a tweet, that this was a sexist term and that even worse, sexism against men is dismissed, explained, excused or even claimed not to exist. […]
Howdy! This blog post could not be written much better!
Going through this article reminds me of my previous roommate!
He continually kept talking about this. I am going
to forward this post to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read.
I appreciate you for sharing!
So even when it’s sexist against men it’s men’s fault.
Yeah, yeah. I’m getting really fed up with this feminism. It has really lost its way. I wonder what Emma Goldman would say to all this nonsense. I know a lot of you will come from the Anarchist Memes facebook page so there will be a few of you here: you really ought to brush up on Emma’s critique of feminism. And that was *then*! Imagine how rough her criticism would be today!
Today’s western feminism is more about female privilege than it is about equal rights. Now, I’m a staunch lefist and I consider myself a feminist but I refuse to consider myself one of these hyper-sensitive pseudofeminists.
Let me quote an article by Kyle Smith about a recent book by Helen Smith:
“How did society reach the point where, a lawsuit filed this week alleged, a man working at the desk of Planet Fitness on Bay Shore, Long Island was too afraid of repercussions to enter the ladies’ room to administer CPR to a dying woman? “He said he didn’t know what to do and that he wasn’t allowed to go into the ladies’ bathroom,” a witness said in an affidavit.
A poll conducted on behalf of a British children’s charity reports that many men refuse to join because they fear being labeled pedophiles. A British Airways passenger sued the airline because he was forced to change seats in accordance with the carrier’s policy that no man be allowed to sit next to a child, even one accompanied by his parents. (Don’t worry, there’s a perfectly great middle seat for you in the last row, guys. Next time, take the bus.)
In Illinois, 28-year-old Fitzroy Barnaby was convicted of “unlawful restraint of a minor,” a sex crime, and placed on a sex-offender registry after he grabbed the arm of an 14-year-old girl to lecture her on not dashing into the street in front of a moving car, as she had just done. On a blog called Parent Dish, a reader said he stopped coaching girls soccer after an 8-year-old player told him, “I don’t have to listen to you. I can get you in trouble just by telling people you touched me.” In England, a man passing by 2-year-old Abigail Rae, who later drowned, declined to help guide her to safety because he feared being labeled a pervert.
Everywhere you look, men are AWOL. Have they declined to show up or have they been kicked out?
Both, says Helen Smith in a new book citing these alarming examples and others. “Men on Strike” notes that men have disappeared from campus (where nearly 60% of undergrads are female), from the workplace (the percentage of men employed hit an all-time low last fall, down from 87% to 70% in the past 65 years) and from the family (the American birth rate is just above an all-time low, and more than half of women under 30 giving birth are unmarried). Tired of being labeled defective women, wary of the financial traps of marriage and fatherhood, hammered by the disappearance of construction and manufacturing jobs, disgusted by the presumption that their sexuality is a scary disease, men are shrugging and turning away.
The rules of the game have tilted against men in every field this side of coal mining (black lung being one of the few male privileges the ladies are happy to cede). Family courts hold men financially liable even for children conceived by women who falsely claimed to be using birth control, while at colleges the presumption of innocence has been withdrawn from men accused of sexual misbehavior.
“Uncle Tims” — male feminist lapdogs eager to curry favor with their female and feminized masters — are everywhere, Smith notes. Yet one man quoted in the book reports dropping out of college after being accused of “maladjustment” and subjected to horrified looks when he said he might buy a gun someday. A video-gaming blogger notes of fellow enthusiasts, “It’s bizarre how some of them are in their 20s, have graduated from good schools, and have simply zero interest in women.”
Needless to say, there is not a renowned and powerful National Organization for Men to lobby against these grim and worsening realities, and if there were it would be treated by a joke by those who didn’t dedicate themselves to eliminating or feminizing it the way they destroyed so many traditional all-male associations.
Helen Smith was once a feminist, when that stood for equality and fairness. “Now it means female privilege,” she writes, “and I believe discrimination against men is every bad as discrimination against women.”
She concludes by urging men to speak up more, to get their point of view across in public forums, to stand up for their rights in courts and on campus. But as a psychologist she has intimate knowledge of fractured relationships from people she has counseled, and she advises women that they also have much to gain by keeping men from fading out of the picture. It’s a myth that men won’t talk about their feelings, she says: If they’re silent, it’s because they think they won’t get a fair hearing. Listening without judgment, focusing on his positive aspects, and resisting the temptation to complain about him (especially to third parties) can be useful in keeping a man around.
Polls show that women’s happiness has steadily declined over the last five decades, even as women enjoy unprecedented success in educational and career terms.
But if men catch a cold, society sneezes. We tell “men they are worthless perverts who reek of male privilege while simultaneously castrating them should they act in a manly manner, and now women are upset that men are becoming more feminized?” Smith writes. “You reap what you sow.”
You know, one of the issues with today’s feminists is that they never seem to read anything that criticises their ideology, ever. Much like religious fundamentalism. The similarities are in some people scary.
I agree; I have problems with the relevance of it. The discussion is mainly semantic: sexism is towards women, even if the ideological framework that supports it destroys all-genders lives with no distinction. Ok, understood, next. Because the actual destruction we’re talking about is much more urgent than this little defining stop. I have another problem: feminism defends women against its oppressors, not ideas of “the feminine” and much less any kind of idealized feminine supremacy. It’s important because parts of feminism (as of the gay movement) have developed in parallel to the worst bourgeois utopian nightmares alla Ayn Rand, so many liberal women associate their own feminism with some kind of apotheosis -which is sexism in disguise, and yes, it’s still towards women. But it seems pretty academic and absurd to explain “You know, this still means that sexism is towards women” to a boy covered in blood by his loving classmates, or to a man that’s looking where to live after he’s been fired again because he doesn’t meet the company’s gender standards, or to a father that has lost his kids because a judge can’t risk his political status. It’s true, but narrow, insufficient. I don’t think you can usefully separate sexism from patriarchy or even other connected forms of oppression that work all together in every concrete situation. If this over-focusing leads some people to think that men in gender-related agonies are baby-crying, it’s not working -for its own ends.
So the men came out to tell you that it does exist. How different. Sigh. It’s quite like the feminist posts on the anarchy page – all the trolls come out to say feminism doesn’t have anything to do anarchy. And of course when it doesn’t, it’s really manarchy.
Pretty great post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I
have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I will
be subscribing in your feed and I hope you
write again soon!
“There’s no social sanction for it…”
Are you a psychopathic moral retard? Your blog post and the plethora of others like it–you know, the ones claiming that men can’t be victims of sexism, are socially sanctioned. It’s socially acceptable for you and your fellow psychopathic moral retards to make such blatantly sexist claims about men. It’s perfectly acceptable socially for you to discriminate against the suffering of men, to minimize it as a “one-off,” to make fun of the suffering of men, so long as you wrap your psychopathic lack of empathy in a wrapper of a perceived and wrongheaded notion of inequality. So long as you can lump men into the category of “The Patriarchy,” it’s perfectly fine to discriminate against men.
Fuck that, you morally retarded psychopathic supercunt.
There’s a point where all this overthinking hurts EVERYONE. Social construction this, systemic oppression that. My parents lovingly fucked and then I was just born here. What more is there really to it? Don’t blame your corrupt, jaded, insecure, selfish, adult world on me. Haven’t you heard that life isn’t fair? It has never been fair. Different people in different ages have all had their problems. Not fair for me, not fair for you. So what if some people can reasonably agree I have the slight advantage under all these lucky stars? I’m gonna die all by myself just like you, man, woman, or trans. I’m just trying to live and be myself.
The author is 100% right that sexism does not exist for men in the academic sense, in the state-sponsored way that is going on in most of the world. If that was the the strict limit of her posting, I would give a quiet thumbs up. However, the author, it seems, is trying to get away with more than that. I find the tone rude and the claims presumptuous. This may not be sexism, but this pigeonholing of men is a “hostile” and “oppressive” pattern that is not new to me. But hey, we’re all just horny, scared, humble little humans. I am not terribly offended and I don’t think you are a bad, evil person. I just think the way you are speaking is intimidating and discourages reconciliation and understanding among humans (you are not the only person to do that! This is a common thing! MANWOMANWHATEVER).
I don’t want political power, influence, money, or any of the other “perks” of Patriarchy you listed. I actively do not want those things. Despite what you might think you know about me, I don’t have any of those, either.
What I want is a woman who will touch souls with me and who will forgive me for being my animal self (as I will for her), as I dare to trust my instincts in a world that takes me so far from my primal roots that I sometimes barely know who I am.
I can look at this smoking ball of wreckage we call a planet and agree 100% that men are responsible for the war, greed, and mismanagement. But, I can only do this if at the same time I also ask: “where were women to stop them?” Why didn’t women DO something? Because they couldn’t? Because men were too strong? Those answers don’t satisfy me. Women are equal to men, yet had no power to stop all the evil (and I am serious, EVIL) deeds men did? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. One thing I’ve learned from being born on the male stereotype farm is that for better or worse, “might” is “right.” Whatever happens indeed happens, because only those who make things happen will do it. Fuck society, folks! It will never get itself right! A life that is (completely) satisfied with society is no life at all. To be yourself is all that you can do.
*Before this goes on too long, I apologize for the guy above me who called you such horrible names. I think that’s rotten, (and ungentlemanly) regardless of the situation.*
Yay, feminism. Yay, masculinity. I’m certain this author’s heart is in the right place. My only issue is that the terms we’re stuck with encourage smart-alecky-ness and bratty self-righteousness. We are trying with mixed success to make academic and political truths inextricable to the most basic and impartial truth: sex. Our current terms make it so easy for a man to fall into the same category of perception as the fatcats, rapists, and control freaks. I morally abhor such actions, and am personally (but not alone in this!) insulted when these crimes are hinted at as being intrinsic to my gender or myself, simply because I have a disagreement with a woman on a gender issue.
Don’t think for a minute that we aren’t all in this together. Alone, but together.
I know this website presents qality based articles
and other stuff, is there anny other sijte which
offers these kinds of information in quality?
Just a few thoughts….I used to be a very senior staff nurse mainly in palliative care, nurse education, acute respiratory and orthopeadic rehabilitation
for about 16 years. I was constantly bullied by female co-workers for being a man. In the end I quit nursing to look after my children, but also because the job had become intolerable owing to sexist attitudes.When I tried to complain about the bullying to management, I was not taken seriously and I feared being further ostracized in the workplace by contacting my union. Interestingly, I never experienced sexist comments from women over 50 and was respected especially by female patients from the war generation. I never experienced any ill treatment from other men.
I now look after my two children full-time (while my wife works full-time)and often find sexist attitudes are prevelant from women. My 6 year old son has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, and was almost hospitalized last year as his condition got so acute. Medical opinion is that his school didn’t listen to concerns I had, because I was a man, and this led over time to a critical point. Apparently, if I’d have been listened to, things would have been easier for my son.So I do complain about reverse sexism, as it effected a little boy’s health and that’s very difficult to just ‘brush off’.
I am going to attempt to remain civil as there is very little that is civil about this argument.
Let me preface this by stating that I am a 16 year old white male with no biases based on race, sexual orientation or gender. I have never showed prejudice in my life and in general, I am a very accepting person.
Here is my interpretation of your opinion, “The term ‘Reverse sexism/racism’ is fundamentally flawed because like terms can only apply to groups/people who are or have been oppressed. White males are the oppressors.”
As a high school junior, I have never shown prejudice against anybody based on their race/gender/sexual orientation (I can’t emphasize this enough). My first day of middle school, I went to talk to the principal because as an insecure nerdy kid, I was worried sick. She told me that all boys were messy slobs that there is no hope for. A year later I went to talk to her because I was omitted from any advanced classes. She told me that there was no room left in the classes for me. At the time, I had a friend in the advanced courses and he complained daily about how the girls (who made up 80% of the class) were always cruel to him because he was a boy.
Again, I am 16 years old currently and have never judged a person based on race/gender/sexual orientation. It has become the stereotype that all white men or boys are scum that will hinder other races/genders at every chance. I have NEVER been an “oppressor” and I was treated as one before I even had a chance to refute my apparent scumbaggery.
Currently in high school, I have been told by my science teacher that I should not even apply to colleges because as a white male, I have no chance of making it into a good school despite a straight A transcript.
As an outspoken feminist I’m sure that you have been on the receiving end of gender biased stereotypes and harassment. It makes a person feel like shit (Pardon the language) doesn’t it? Well this extreme feminism is turning into sexism (not reverse sexism). Stereotypes about white males are being perpetuated and younger generations of fresh faces are being subjected to them. Speaking of middle school, do you remember the golden rule? If your sexist experience was excruciatingly harmful, don’t make others go through it regardless of if they are male, female, white, black, gay or straight. In its current state, this argument is so rife with hypocrisy that you aren’t realizing the damage you are doing to future generations.
I think a more appropriate title to this may have been “Men have not yet earned the right to complain about sexism to women”. Just my opinion.
Also, the very definition of sexism is discrimination based upon gender; be it male, female or transgendered. It is wrong and considered sexism no matter which gender is being discriminated against.
[…] (I must respectfully disagree on this point with numerous commentators and bloggers, such as this one and this one and this […]