Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible

[Korica]

snip

It isn't just Anita saying this, this is the consensus within feminism.

As a feminist ... no. No it isn't.

And saying that it is as just as detrimental to feminism as the people who say stuff like this. Which is why I only mostly support Anita. Most of the time she's spot on, and then sometimes she says crap like this.

 

[silversnake4133]

Will someone just give her the "D" already so she can shut up about nonexistent female oppression and we can all go back to living happy gamer lives? Either that or someone needs to smack her privileged make-up and hoop earring wearing face and tell her that life shits on everyone, not just women. Perhaps that simp McIntosh should be the one to do it, after all he's pretty much her slave at this point, although given his pathetic track record I think his balls have all but reformed into a v-zone.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Er...no, that's not it at all. The idea simply seems to be that the problems are different when the weight of society is behind them.

Except that's not what's being said here.

There's a difference between saying "There is inequality in consequence between and in general" and "Existing inequality says consequence cannot happen to <X/Y>."

I also find it a dangerous attitude to encourage, but I won't bore you with what is effectively a slippery slope.

EDIT: Well, I wasn't going to demonstrate the slippery slope, and now I don't have to.

The reason many like to use the Anita versions of sexism is because their opponents. Most of you. Use terms like sexism and racism simply to further devalue the arguments of minority groups.

This definition of Sexism (and similarily Racism) is used by many. The right co-opts these terms to lessen their impact and make sure they read to include those in power. Basically, no one is allowed to have anything, even an -ism, if the poor white male can't have it. You taking the term makes it more difficult for groups to fight against institutionalised prejudice. There are real battles out there to control the meaning of words.

Would you have been fine with her post if she had just added instituional? No. You still would have been upset about it. Your argument would have been slightly different as you couldn't have gone with the weak argument of semantics, which achieves only to deter real discussions.

The sexism that permeates culture today was created by, and to benefit, men.

In an alternate world where there is just one man and one woman, then sure. It's possible for a woman to be sexist against men. But that's not the world we live in. The majority of power (by far) is in the hands of men all over the world (and throughout history) and any prejudiced ideologies that work against men, were created by other men as continued sexism against women. Men weren't sent to war to deny them something. Women were not allowed to go to war because they would be a liability to the men. So that is an example of sexism, against women.

There are real reasons why this definition of sexism deserves to be the most used. Same with racism. But since you have no desire for equality you will simply continue to argue semantics in an attempt to make all conversations about your problems. That's your right. But don't pretend it's to fight inequality.

Right here, this is the exact kind of presumptuous, misinformed, and disgusting attitude that I'm warning against.

This is what happens when you indulge self-pity to the point where you can only feel indignant self-righteous anger at anyone that even RESEMBLES your opposition; regardless if they've actually done anything to you or not.

At that point, there are is only "Them" and "Us". "Those people".

That's why, right from the start, there's a sweeping presumption of blame and guilt; even where it's self-contradictory.

Notice the accusation of "you have no desire for equality" is being used as support for an argument THAT ITSELF IS CREATING AN INEQUALITY IN ITS OWN DEFINITION.

That's insanity.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

As mentioned last time this came up here, she is very clearly talking about institutionalised sexism. Yes, she's having trouble expressing a complicated issue inside the confines of twitter.

Then she shouldn't try and talk about it on Twitter. She has any number of other means on the internet to talk about it, so why use Twitter if she thought that her point would lose something due to the character limit?

That's not what she said. She said that society, as a whole, has tended to favor men being in power. That doesn't mean women can't get into power or that men can't be in unfortunate situations, but as a whole, society tends to put men in a better place. Acting like her words are suddenly a claim that women can never reach power isn't that different than people claiming that scientists are claiming it will never get cold anywhere on Earth because of global warming.

She's boiled it down to a math equation, mate. If prejudice + power = sexism, and women can't be sexist towards men, then they either lack the ability to be prejudiced, or they lack any power.

She never said that there there couldn't be misandry. She said that that prejudice means very little in the absence of power.

That's an awfully caustic way to think. Such strong, negative thinking isn't somehow better because the one doing it isn't in a position to affect people on a large scale.

How is it misandry? OK, with your twisted version of what she said it might come across as misandry, but like I said, you're twisting her words, so it doesn't mean much.

But you're adding so much more to what she said when she deliberately used a medium that has a low character limit. Just because she didn't use a lot of words to say it doesn't give her words any more depth than what we can see in black and white.

I'm not entirely sure, but it probably comes from the way discussions regarding sexism and racism have shifted. Racism and sexism often don't describe single acts of discrimination. They are describing how institutions (i.e. society) leaves certain groups at a disadvantage. The problem with this element of racism and sexism is that it is significantly harder to deal with, since you can't simply point at a few people and say, "Don't give them power and we'll never deal with sexism again." If racism and sexism are ingrained into the society, then everyone in that society potentially has discriminatory viewpoints, and it is on everyone to analyze their own worldview and actions and deal with discriminatory aspects of them.

I see what you're getting at, but the terms 'institutionalized racism/sexism' is more what you're looking for. That's when racism/sexism is ingrained in a culture/society/whatever.

But with all that said: Yes, a woman can show hate towards a man under the simple pretext of him being a man. But no, that does not mean that we just suddenly act like sexism, as far as society is concerned, is somehow just as bad for men. It's incredibly gendered, and men, as a whole, are in a significantly better position than the other genders.

At least as far as this Tweet is concerned, that was never the issue. She said, in no uncertain terms, that sexism towards men doesn't exist. Not that women suffer more frequent consequences of it, or that it's more institutionally ingrained towards women. She said that it doesn't exist for men. Absolutes are a pretty dangerous thing, but she seems pretty eager to use them.

Granted, the fact that we are now starting to see the way men are harmed by sexist views of women may do some good in getting more men to care about these issues.

I think I know what you're trying to say here, but that logic still brings everything back to "sexism towards men doesn't exist."

Think of it like this: I've seen discussions of domestic violence towards men. Some of the main problems discussed are the tendency of first-responders to assume that the male was the aggressor, to say nothing of the very-real possibility that they simply won't respond to calls from a man reporting domestic abuse. And similarly, that there's virtually no formal safety net for men in situations like that. There's no 'Battered Men's Shelters' or anything like that, at least not in any numbers worth noting. But at that point in the discussion, someone declared that (and I'm paraphrasing as best I can) all of those things are more signs of the plight of women in a sexist society, that there are no shelters for men because society thinks women only need them because they're the weaker sex, and that police responding to domestic violence calls never assume the woman was the aggressor because they're so set in the mindset of women being weak and submissive.

It's around that point when I can't help but compare the person writing to...well, the aggressor in a case of domestic violence who, after viciously beating their significant other, angrily screams, "Look what you made me do!"

I realize that this is anecdotal evidence and you're free to disregard the event itself on that basis, but at least think if you've seen similar cases. Or if the perspective I was trying to paint makes any sense.

 

[totheendofsin]

-snip-

my apologies, I didn't see your earlier post and misinterpreted your other post to mean you agreed with the picture

anyway back on the topic of Anita's tweet, people say the character limit was what caused this confusion?

institutionalized sexism does not affect men, because men are the dominant gender in society

got it in less than 100, I find it hard to believe she didn't mean exactly what she said

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Yep, twitter is the tool of the devil (along with instagram, you know it's true)

I'm a firm believer of "don't say shite", this is a prime example.

 

[ryukage_sama]

Who says sexism has to come from the opposite sex? Men can be sexist against men and women can be sexist against women.

I've commented earlier that this is a semantic argument. Sarkeesian, who is not alone in academic circles, wants a narrower definition of this particular -ism. She doesn't propose that men can't be treated unfairly, simply that such slights don't fall under her proposed narrow definition of sexism, which would require that such unfair practices be entrenched and systemic rather than isolated events. The only change to your statement would be that "sexist" be replaced by "prejudiced" in some cases. As I said previously, the draft is sexist. Sarkeesian would agree since this policy extends from the entrenched male power structure. Of course, feel free to disagree with her diction.

So to be clear, even under Anita's definition we agree that sexism against men is possible?

Under Sarkeesian's definition it is theoretically possible in a female-dominant society. The U.S. does not meet that standard. The vast majority of positions of power are occupied by men, be it business, elected government or military. Under her definition prejudice is possible and, presumably, real. Under her definition men can be/are sexist and prejudiced against women and/or other men; women can be/are prejudiced against men and/or other women.

I don't think that language she proposes is effective since it causes so much confusion, but I do believe the prejudice against men is far less systemic and pervasive than the prejudice women regularly face. It is useful to recognize that distinction when seeking solutions to either problem.

 

[crypticracer]

The reason many like to use the Anita versions of sexism is because their opponents. Most of you. Use terms like sexism and racism simply to further devalue the arguments of minority groups.

This definition of Sexism (and similarily Racism) is used by many. The right co-opts these terms to lessen their impact and make sure they read to include those in power. Basically, no one is allowed to have anything, even an -ism, if the poor white male can't have it. You taking the term makes it more difficult for groups to fight against institutionalised prejudice. There are real battles out there to control the meaning of words.

Would you have been fine with her post if she had just added instituional? No. You still would have been upset about it. Your argument would have been slightly different as you couldn't have gone with the weak argument of semantics, which achieves only to deter real discussions.

The sexism that permeates culture today was created by, and to benefit, men.

In an alternate world where there is just one man and one woman, then sure. It's possible for a woman to be sexist against men. But that's not the world we live in. The majority of power (by far) is in the hands of men all over the world (and throughout history) and any prejudiced ideologies that work against men, were created by other men as continued sexism against women. Men weren't sent to war to deny them something. Women were not allowed to go to war because they would be a liability to the men. So that is an example of sexism, against women.

There are real reasons why this definition of sexism deserves to be the most used. Same with racism. But since you have no desire for equality you will simply continue to argue semantics in an attempt to make all conversations about your problems. That's your right. But don't pretend it's to fight inequality.

 

[chadachada123]

In an alternate world where there is just one man and one woman, then sure. It's possible for a woman to be sexist against men. But that's not the world we live in. The majority of power (by far) is in the hands of men all over the world (and throughout history) and any prejudiced ideologies that work against men, were created by other men as continued sexism against women. Men weren't sent to war to deny them something. Women were not allowed to go to war because they would be a liability to the men. So that is an example of sexism, against women.

There are real reasons why this definition of sexism deserves to be the most used. Same with racism. But since you have no desire for equality you will simply continue to argue semantics in an attempt to make all conversations about your problems. That's your right. But don't pretend it's to fight inequality.

To use this example specifically, I would counter it with childcare and the like, which is very largely against males, both by the courts and in employment.

Ignoring the draft, but thinking of war in general, women are still very much kept from the frontlines and men very highly kept from children who aren't theirs (and in most custody cases, even their own children, yada yada).

As a broad generalization, the important thing, and why this definition is argued about, is because feminism is focused primarily (if not solely) on the former type of issue, while calling anyone who wants to change the latter an MRA (as a derogotive term; talk about calling the kettle black).

 

[Vault101]

There are real reasons why this definition of sexism deserves to be the most used. Same with racism. But since you have no desire for equality you will simply continue to argue semantics in an attempt to make all conversations about your problems. That's your right. But don't pretend it's to fight inequality.

I think there's this tendency to view every single thing as having an opposite (and equal) counter-point because *kinda* makes sense to us

but things aren't always black and white, anyway I agree with pretty much all you've said here

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2bt7rm/help_me_understand_sexism_prejudice_plus_power/

The conversation on that page says it better than I can. Look at that, Reddit was useful for something.

can't access it at work but I'll definitely check it out

As a broad generalization, the important thing, and why this definition is argued about, is because feminism is focused primarily (if not solely) on the former type of issue, while calling anyone who wants to change the latter an MRA (as a derogotive term; talk about calling the kettle black).

the problem is that some MRA's (or otherwise) buy into the fiction that the tables have "shifted" and it is the men who are now oppressed, and that the Femenists are in control of everything (like..the military....wut?) the points are pretty much the same, that ideas about masculinity (toxic masculinity) are harmful to men under the whole "gender roles suck" umbrella [footnote/]though to me it seems that whatever MRA's think is good/bad shifts depending on how much of a dig they can take at femenists/women.. .like is are expectations related to masculinity bad now? or is "being a real man" (ie sexist BS) being taken away from you? just my opinion of the whole MRA thing[/footnote] , a lot of feminists would agree and also say that's why men can call themselves feminists too

what I'm saying is they would be on the same page in a lot of cases except (in some) the base assumption about who fundamentally has it "worse"

now weather or not Feminism should or does focus SOLEY on woman's issues is....a debate for someone for more knoweldagble in Femenism than I...given that stuff like "gender roles" goes beyond women or even looking at the fundamentals of society (capitalism) that for some are incompatible with true gender equality

 

[crypticracer]

To those who agree with OP and disagree with "power + prejudice" you should understand that the primary principle in understanding this definition is to prevent people who are part of an oppressor group from ignoring their association with the oppressor group and the associated privileges.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2bt7rm/help_me_understand_sexism_prejudice_plus_power/

The conversation on that page says it better than I can. Look at that, Reddit was useful for something.

To use this example specifically, I would counter it with childcare and the like, which is very largely against males, both by the courts and in employment.

Ignoring the draft, but thinking of war in general, women are still very much kept from the frontlines and men very highly kept from children who aren't theirs (and in most custody cases, even their own children, yada yada).

As a broad generalization, the important thing, and why this definition is argued about, is because feminism is focused primarily (if not solely) on the former type of issue, while calling anyone who wants to change the latter an MRA (as a derogotive term; talk about calling the kettle black).

At the time it was not against men. The idea was that men did not want to care for their child. Leave it to the woman.

Women are kept from the frontlines because men didn't want them their. That is against woman not men.

Because the latter should also solve those issues. MRA is used as a derogatory term because the first groups to use it, were not fighting for any rights. They were fighting to keep and gain privilages. Kind of like how North Korea cals itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" when the republic isn't the peoples nor is it in any way democratic.

 

[Rai^3]

The fact that I nearly wound up homeless because the only shelters within ~20 miles were women-only shows that statement to be a massive load of bullshit.

 

[CthulhuMessiah]

So she's literally a tumblr feminist that has a larger megaphone than the other ones. Hah.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Who says sexism has to come from the opposite sex? Men can be sexist against men and women can be sexist against women.

I've commented earlier that this is a semantic argument. Sarkeesian, who is not alone in academic circles, wants a narrower definition of this particular -ism. She doesn't propose that men can't be treated unfairly, simply that such slights don't fall under her proposed narrow definition of sexism, which would require that such unfair practices be entrenched and systemic rather than isolated events. The only change to your statement would be that "sexist" be replaced by "prejudiced" in some cases. As I said previously, the draft is sexist. Sarkeesian would agree since this policy extends from the entrenched male power structure. Of course, feel free to disagree with her diction.

So to be clear, even under Anita's definition we agree that sexism against men is possible?

Under Sarkeesian's definition it is theoretically possible in a female-dominant society. The U.S. does not meet that standard. The vast majority of positions of power are occupied by men, be it business, elected government or military. Under her definition prejudice is possible and, presumably, real. Under her definition men can be/are sexist and prejudiced against women and/or other men; women can be/are prejudiced against men and/or other women.

I don't think that language she proposes is effective since it causes so much confusion, but I do believe the prejudice against men is far less systemic and pervasive than the prejudice women regularly face. It is useful to recognize that distinction when seeking solutions to either problem.

I don't see how it matters whether or not the vast majority of politicians are male. They've always been in the US and we've still had systematic discrimination against men.

It really just feels like a way to say "when it happens to me it sexism, when it happens to men it's not" hence the twisting of the meaning/significance of power.

 

[WhiteNachos]

To those who agree with OP and disagree with "power + prejudice" you should understand that the primary principle in understanding this definition is to prevent people who are part of an oppressor group from ignoring their association with the oppressor group and the associated privileges.

Just calling them the oppressor group is wrong headed, sexist and misandrist. Men are oppressing you? Even the male feminists? I'm a guy, I'm not an employer so I'm not responsible for women who may or may not be paid less, and I don't support any anti-women laws. So who am I oppressing?

Also I could easily argue women have privileges too. In the US men get longer sentences than women for the same crimes, so that's a female privilege right there.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2bt7rm/help_me_understand_sexism_prejudice_plus_power/

The conversation on that page says it better than I can. Look at that, Reddit was useful for something.

At the time it was not against men. The idea was that men did not want to care for their child. Leave it to the woman.

Women are kept from the frontlines because men didn't want them their. That is against woman not men.

And yet when the men clearly didn't want to go on the draft it was still kept men only. Some men hated the idea of the draft so much that they caused riots. And yet it never changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

Also I want a source for the part about men not wanting their children.

 

[WhiteNachos]

The reason many like to use the Anita versions of sexism is because their opponents. Most of you. Use terms like sexism and racism simply to further devalue the arguments of minority groups.

This definition of Sexism (and similarily Racism) is used by many. The right co-opts these terms to lessen their impact and make sure they read to include those in power. Basically, no one is allowed to have anything, even an -ism, if the poor white male can't have it.

Oh you poor thing, not getting to exclude people based off their sex or skin color. Oh damn these people not just rolling over and letting you do whatever you want.

added instituional? No. You still would have been upset about it. Your argument would have been slightly different as you couldn't have gone with the weak argument of semantics, which achieves only to deter real discussions.

Discussions over the definition of a word ARE semantics. And even if she said institutional sexism her statement would still be wrong.

The sexism that permeates culture today was created by, and to benefit, men.

Oh yeah the fact that men get longer prison sentences than women and have been forced to fight in wars is a HUGE benefit to men.

The majority of power (by far) is in the hands of men all over the world (and throughout history) and any prejudiced ideologies that work against men, were created by other men as continued sexism against women.

So when a female employer gets sued for being discriminating against men it was really men who created those thoughts? Man and I thought women were independent thinkers not mindless robots.

Men weren't sent to war to deny them something. Women were not allowed to go to war because they would be a liability to the men. So that is an example of sexism, against women.

That's just speculation. Another theory is that men are expendable. If you have a tribe and a large percent of your population gets wiped out, it's much easier to repopulate if most of the losses were men.

There are real reasons why this definition of sexism deserves to be the most used. Same with racism.

Real in the sense that they're reasons people actually use (as opposed to straw men reasons) but none of them are good reasons.

 

[Michel Henzel]

Sexism is a gender natural term, and saying stuff like what she said is actually pretty damn sexist.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

This needs a new thread pointing out right from the start what she probably meant to say: That only when men are no longer the beholders of institutional power, will sexism against men be possible. Mind you, I would still disagree. An employer giving a job to a woman because he thinks she's sexy or more equipped (being a woman) to deal with children is an example of sexism against men and of power wielded by a woman. There are many instances of sexism against men; perhaps most in the world are against women, but that's not the issue here.

 

[Lightknight]

I would have appreciated it if you'd actually responded to my points rather than just making a vague soap box response. But seeing the sexist and racist rhetoric you've been using an honest discussion with you may not be viable. I'll keep trying though.

The reason many like to use the Anita versions of sexism is because their opponents. Most of you. Use terms like sexism and racism simply to further devalue the arguments of minority groups.

You mean because people call out sexism and racism when it is happening to people who aren't minorities too? Do you think a white guy not getting hired because he is male or white is OK because he happened to be born both of those things? Do you honestly think that someone in the power to hire a male who doesn't because they are male isn't showing a system in which power+prejudice is being executed? Clearly the government pursues cases of sexism and racism against minorities and women but has historically been pretty lax on discrimination against whites and males. So wouldn't that imply an institutional prejudice that would favor Anita more than males? That's not even bringing up other institutional preferences like divorce and custody hearings or even how men face longer sentencing than females for committing the same crime. Now, keep in mind, I understand the reason for this preferential treatment is because of a tradition of white males having authority and that this is to help level the playing field. Something absolutely needed to be done. But you have to understand that in practice, this absolutely can and is being used against people because of how they were born rather than to help people regardless of what they were born as. What does a child have to do with the sins of his ancestors? Why would it be OK to give anything less than an equal opportunity to a white boy born ten years ago because society didn't really start growing up until the 60's? Can you explain why he should be held accountable? I grew up in a world where men and women of all races were in the same place and were equal. Where we didn't even consider seeing a black kid as different because we'd never been taught to and so it wouldn't even occur to me to tell my parents that the kid I was bringing home was black because they wouldn't care. I grew up in a world where the teachers made sure that girls knew they could do everything that boys could do and we saw them competing with us in races and sports and everything else. I literally grew up in a world where the racists and the bigots were the villains in my media. They were the evil nut jobs that had to be stopped.

So I've got to think that if that was my childhood, what about younger kids? Wouldn't they be even less conscious of race or gender or even wealth?

The world has changed. It isn't your grandfather's world and really isn't even your parent's world anymore and might not be yours depending on your age. It is our world and that world is multi-cultural and anti-prejudice. You should be ashamed of supporting prejudice in any form against any group.

But you've got to answer this, why is pushing for equality and anti-discrimination for women mutually exclusive for pushing for equality and anti-discrimination for men too? Why are we automatically seen as opponents of females if we are pushing for equality on both sides of the fence? I think you're discriminating, you are being prejudiced here and her definition helps prevent you from being called a sexist or a racist because of those acrobatic defining of terms. What's sad is that you're fighting against the wrong people if you believe in equality. You need to be fighting against the people who don't believe that sexism is happening to women or needs to be stopped. Not the people who simply think sexism is a major problem that needs to get stopped. We are literally with you in the fight against inequality and somehow you are deciding we can't be if we care about equality for all groups. That's pretty bad and you should give that some serious thought.

To those who agree with OP and disagree with "power + prejudice" you should understand that the primary principle in understanding this definition is to prevent people who are part of an oppressor group from ignoring their association with the oppressor group and the associated privileges.

Part of an oppressor group? We are oppressors because we were born male or born white? God forbid Anita ever claim racism being enacted against her since she was born white and is therefor part of the oppressor group. That would be just as prejudiced as thinking of a black person as part of the "murderer group" just because the black population accounts for 72.5% of homicides.

You can't do that, not ethically. You have to evaluate people based on their own actions and their own efforts. People are not guilty by association. That is pivotal to justice in this country and central to anti-discrimination. You are basically explaining to us what their motives are and that they are racist. They don't want us to be able to use the term sexist or racist because we were born male or white. That's them being sexist (classically defined). They are literally just trying to disenfranchise us on the basis of race or gender. This is text book prejudice.

How in the world are you not seeing this as racist and sexist rhetoric. I am not responsible for other people. I do not support racism or sexism and I actively support equality. If you think I'm part of the "oppressor" just because I was born a certain way then shame on you. That kind of rhetoric will only harm the cause of equality. You don't achieve equality by supporting inequality.

Have you considered that in order to be part of the "oppressor group" that you first and foremost have to oppress? Have you forgotten so quickly that the definition of sexism that Anita used is Power+Prejudice and if either of those are absent then you aren't sexist by her standards? I don't have power and I don't give a fuck what you look like or where your genitals reside. On the macro institutional level I have already explained that minorities and women have significant power and also support from many males who can make a difference. This is how things like affirmative action, the emancipation proclamation, the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments, and any other pro-equality things are in place. Us humans working together to stop the oppressors.

This anti-man rhetoric is sickeningly sexist. We are not oppressors merely because we are men. I acknowledge fully that white males still hold the majority of power. Seeing as around 72.4% of the nation identifies as white (64% if you don't regard white hispanics like Cameron Diaz as being part of the white population you deem oppressive), I'm not shocked that they'd be the most represented. As far as the "males" side of that equation where congress is concerned, that is a problem and it has been improving nearly every election cycle as more women continue to get elected. They've increased 192% from 1991 to 2012. This past election alone saw 6 more women elected to congress and 5 less men elected. Regardless though, I'll remind you that more women vote in elections than men. Barring rigged elections, those men are elected only because women allow it.

So at what point are we going to start acknowledging that women do have meaningful power and are increasing in power? That the system is largely fixed and is correctly adjusting with time?

 

[Lightknight]

This needs a new thread pointing out right from the start what she probably meant to say: That only when men are no longer the beholders of institutional power, will sexism against men be possible. Mind you, I would still disagree. An employer giving a job to a woman because he thinks she's sexy or more equipped (being a woman) to deal with children is an example of sexism against men and of power wielded by a woman. There are many instances of sexism against men; perhaps most in the world are against women, but that's not the issue here.

The original post cites her first and then immediately begins to explain that women DO have institutional power. Should I have attached bells and whistles with some sort of a neon sign on it or do you just mean I should clearly state what she is saying in plain text? I'll go do that.

In agreement with your other comments:

Women are governors, senators, representatives, Supreme Court Justices, CEOs, managers and nigh everything else. There will likely be a female president before too long but we've had precious few elections since women have really had a legitimate shot at running (until recently, there'd also been a significant bias against women running for office that has now largely changed). I'll also remind everyone that since women make up 51% of the US population that they have the ability to vote anyone in if they so please. In fact women not only register in larger numbers than males but also actually go and vote in higher numbers than men (Link to CAWP (Center for American Women in Politics) study regarding voter turnout by gender [http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/genderdiff.pdf]). Laws are routinely made to fight discrimination and sexism and this can only be done with the support of men who also believe in equality so even that there are men in power doesn't mean that they're all 100% sexist or some such nonsense. Any time people of any significant power or influence are caught expressing racist or sexist opinions we see a tremendous public outcry thanks to significant media coverage and the mass of Americans like myself gathering in anger at them. People like Donald Sterling are forced to sell their businesses in shame for it for example. Corporations routinely pride themselves on hiring females and minorities in high level positions as a sign of their diversity and market it accordingly.

So the claim that minorities and women haven't gained significant institutional and social power is ridiculous. Basically, it is socially unacceptable to be sexist or racist against women and minorities but somewhat acceptable or overlooked for it to be done against males and whites. While I believe that is another problem, the reason I'm making this point is to explain why Anita is absolutely bonkers if she thinks that institutional sexism can't or doesn't get levied at men. By other men and other women. It's just the easiest "gotcha" to her argument to point out that men can be sexist towards other men.