Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible

[Blood Brain Barrier]

To be honest, I don't know what she's saying. I just don't think it's that sexism, as an event, never happens to men. Perhaps to her, sexism is not an event but a phenomenon applying to sexes as a whole by which they are deprived of opportunities in equal measure to the other sex. That would make more sense. Everyone in this thread has assumed that by sexism she is referring to particular instances of sexual discrimination against individuals of a particular sex, while she may be talking about deprivation of the female sex as a whole - something which can't necessarily be rebutted by talking about the existence of female supreme court judges.

This would only matter if there were no examples of social or institutional instances of sexism against males as a gender. As I stated in the in the original post, there are many.

Anita created several followup tweets in response to the storm of angry responses to her sexism. None of them were "I'm not talking about individual sexism, I'm just talking about upper level institutional shit"

She doubled down by saying citing Bell Hooks:

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533448102867664896]

She says that men are not exploited or oppressed by sexism but rather are harmed by it.

So what do you think? If she had not intended to apply it to all forms of sexism including individual sexism, do you think she could have maybe mentioned that? Looks like she went on to discuss other forms of sexism too and acknowledges personal sexism. But again, I must stress her words: There is no such thing as sexism against men.

A social group trying to enact a system by which suffering I face at the hand of prejudice cannot be named the same way that suffering they face because they want to make sure that my suffering isn't taken as seriously. That I and my needs should be second class to theirs... kinda sounds oppressive if you think about it.

Well it looks like you're right about what she says, and I'm not interested in condemning invalid arguments. Yet I still can't totally condemn Anita. When I think about it, I have no investment in trying to equalize the balance of power between the sexes. I am not even in a position to fully assess it - notions of institutional or sexual power were not recognized until recently in history, so who knows what other forms of power will come to be known in the future? All species have imbalanced power roles by sex and I don't see that as good or bad, but we are somehow an exception. Do I as a man like the fact that women hold almost all the sexual power? Of course not, and I'd probably change it if I could. And many women would try to stop me. Maybe that's the kind of loop we're all stuck in. If I were in Anita's position I would almost certainly act the same way.

 

[peruvianskys]

Sexism is an institutional system, not a collection of individual slights. Women can be mean to men, they can be jerks to men, they can hate men, but they can't oppress men.

 

[Michel Henzel]

Sexism is an institutional system, not a collection of individual slights. Women can be mean to men, they can be jerks to men, they can hate men, but they can't oppress men.

Even if they don't/can't oppress men those types of women are still sexist women.

 

[totheendofsin]

Sexism is an institutional system, not a collection of individual slights. Women can be mean to men, they can be jerks to men, they can hate men, but they can't oppress men.

1. every dictionary on earth disagrees with you

2. there are many things on an institutional level that do affect men negatively, rape for one, if the way society treats female rape victims (largely victim blaming if feminism is to be believed) sexist then how is the way it treats male rape victims (from the butt of a joke to FLAT OUT SAYING IT DOESN'T HAPPEN) not sexist?

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

Sexism is an institutional system, not a collection of individual slights. Women can be mean to men, they can be jerks to men, they can hate men, but they can't oppress men.

Except it's not, and they can oppress men because there are women in positions of power. Minority leader of the House is a woman; CEO of Pepsi is a woman; One of the richest monarchs in the world is a woman. And you do not even have to be in position of power in order to be a sexist because the only requirement for the title is maltreatment of an individual because of their gender.

 

[peruvianskys]

Except it's not, and they can oppress men because there are women in positions of power. Minority leader of the House is a woman; CEO of Pepsi is a woman; One of the richest monarchs in the world is a woman. And you do not even have to be in position of power in order to be a sexist because the only requirement for the title is maltreatment of an individual because of their gender.

The success of individual women inside a system of male supremacy does not invalidate the existence of that system, any more than a handful of wealthy black folks means racism is over.

Individual analyses of what are fundamentally class-based social systems are doomed to failure.

 

[spartan231490]

Are you actually surprised that she's a misandrist? Seriously, she's been in the public eye for how long, and you hadn't figured this out before? Why do we even need to talk about this? Reactions should be a sage nod, and continuing to ignore her petty attention-whoring.

 

[prpshrt]

Is she retarded or is it just that she feels like she's not getting any attention? I'd really like to sit down and have a civil discussion with her. I really do. I want to see for myself if she can keep a straight face or if she's genuinely is this deluded.

 

[rorychief]

mistake. fuck me I'm drunk

 

[Dizchu]

Sexism is an institutional system, not a collection of individual slights. Women can be mean to men, they can be jerks to men, they can hate men, but they can't oppress men.

Sexism is not a system. Certain societal structures like patriarchy can be considered a "system", however sexism is merely gender-based prejudice. Sexism does not require the use of oppression either, but even if it did the idea that "sexism against men is impossible" would still be flawed (if we take for granted the assertion that women are an oppressed gender). People can be sexist towards others of their gender. Men can oppress other men with unfair gender expectations, therefore men can be just as victimised by sexism as women, even if you remove the possibility that women can be sexist.

 

[crypticracer]

It's not a double standard. All things being equal, it would be. Women start from a place of disadvantage. Discrimination against oppressors is one of the only real ways to equal things. You say play on an equal playing field but the field is not equal form the get go.

White people are not allowed to says the N-word because they lost that right after hundreds of years of slavery and oppression. Men lost the right to complain about gender discrimination after thousands of years of refusing women their rights. Equality will never happen when those in power use all of their privilege and the oppressed have to play fair. They have to follow rules written by the very people oppressing them. That's bullshit.

If you don't agree, then tell me how we can have equality when the oppressors refuse to give up their privilege.

(Also, while I am gonna apologize for how I have said things. Along with all the stuff thats been going on in politics in the real world, I have been in a fowl mood. But that's my problem, not youse all.)

 

[Tsun Tzu]

It's a commonly accepted academic viewpoint. I didn't say it is THE only viewpoint. Although, it is a major viewpoint that most academics conform to. The power aspect doesn't mean sexism can't exist against men. It means, in the current state of society, it only exists towards women because men have institutionalized power. In a hypothetical society where women have the bulk of the power then sexism could exist against men. Women can be prejudiced against men left and right if they want to. But they can't be sexist. I know that's a hard pill for some to swallow.

Which academics? In what fields?

And do you agree with this idea?

To me, it comes across as desperate in its attempt to subvert the established meaning and is in no way representative of the accepted definition of the term.

It's just layering on 'requirements' in an obvious effort to diminish or stamp out use of said term to describe one gender's bigoted behavior so as to normalize/lessen the inherent awfulness of such behavior...which is, by definition, sexist.

It's not a double standard. All things being equal, it would be. Women start from a place of disadvantage. Discrimination against oppressors is one of the only real ways to equal things. You say play on an equal playing field but the field is not equal form the get go.

White people are not allowed to says the N-word because they lost that right after hundreds of years of slavery and oppression. Men lost the right to complain about gender discrimination after thousands of years of refusing women their rights. Equality will never happen when those in power use all of their privilege and the oppressed have to play fair. They have to follow rules written by the very people oppressing them. That's bullshit.

If you don't agree, then tell me how we can have equality when the oppressors refuse to give up their privilege.

(Also, while I am gonna apologize for how I have said things. Along with all the stuff thats been going on in politics in the real world, I have been in a fowl mood. But that's my problem, not youse all.)

So it's the "Sins of our Fathers" route then?

I can't agree with that, on basic principle.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It's not a double standard. All things being equal, it would be.

It absolutely is a double-standard. The re-definition creates an exception no matter how it is applied.
You cannot weasel out of this. Simple logic disproves you.

Discrimination against oppressors is one of the only real ways to equal things.

"Equal things". Ha! You seriously believe that? Who are you trying to fool here?
Equality through discrimination is like war without casualties. It's a nice-sounding concept that only exists as pure fantasy in one's head.

The cold hard truth is that discrimination will never end so long as we keep invoking it.
Enact discrimination against men "for the cause", and you perpetuate the very problem you claim to be against.
It's hypocrisy of the worst kind and you should be ashamed of trying to justify it.

If you truly want equality, for your oppressors to give up their privilege, then just fight your oppressors, rather than anyone that happens to share incidental attributes with them.

Frankly you and everyone else that accepts the bullshit redefinition sound less concerned with establishing equality, and more about establishing your own basis for abuse.

 

[Michel Henzel]

It's not a double standard. All things being equal, it would be. Women start from a place of disadvantage. Discrimination against oppressors is one of the only real ways to equal things. You say play on an equal playing field but the field is not equal form the get go.

White people are not allowed to says the N-word because they lost that right after hundreds of years of slavery and oppression. Men lost the right to complain about gender discrimination after thousands of years of refusing women their rights. Equality will never happen when those in power use all of their privilege and the oppressed have to play fair. They have to follow rules written by the very people oppressing them. That's bullshit.

If you don't agree, then tell me how we can have equality when the oppressors refuse to give up their privilege.

(Also, while I am gonna apologize for how I have said things. Along with all the stuff thats been going on in politics in the real world, I have been in a fowl mood. But that's my problem, not youse all.)

So only black people that are descended from slaves or all black people? Cause black people are just as guilty of colonial time slavery as white people as it was black people that sold other black people into slavery to white people in the first place. But it's irrelevant as every race on the planet has practised slavery or has been enslaved.

But what you are essentially arguing for is fighting discrimination with more discrimination. Yeah that does not sound like a good idea.

But as LostGryphon already said, it's some Sins of the father/Guilty by association fallacy type shit, and I'm going to be very blunt. This kind of behaviour is beyond disgusting and I have no respect for anyone going that route.

 

[NemotheElvenPanda]

It's not a double standard. All things being equal, it would be. Women start from a place of disadvantage. Discrimination against oppressors is one of the only real ways to equal things. You say play on an equal playing field but the field is not equal form the get go.

White people are not allowed to says the N-word because they lost that right after hundreds of years of slavery and oppression. Men lost the right to complain about gender discrimination after thousands of years of refusing women their rights. Equality will never happen when those in power use all of their privilege and the oppressed have to play fair. They have to follow rules written by the very people oppressing them. That's bullshit.

If you don't agree, then tell me how we can have equality when the oppressors refuse to give up their privilege.

(Also, while I am gonna apologize for how I have said things. Along with all the stuff thats been going on in politics in the real world, I have been in a fowl mood. But that's my problem, not youse all.)

Then who are these aforementioned oppressors, because it sounds like you're blaming white men as a demographic, as a group, for the issues women and non-whites face. You forget that in those hundreds and thousands of years of history, most people had no power at all. Those who established most of the structures we currently are trying to unravel were a small, usually wealthy, and powerful elite who lived hundreds if not thousands of years ago that had almost complete control over things like education, law, religion, philosophy, trade, and other cornerstones of a society that defined how people thought and worked. Your average individual, be they male or female, white or black, had little to no say on how things turned out or what rights they could enjoy whether they benefited or not. While some groups were obviously propped up at the expense of others, both were fenced in by these structures that they had no choice to not abide by. Just because you're part of a privileged groups doesn't mean you support the systems that benefit you at the expense of other human beings. I didn't make the decisions that make life difficult for people who happen to be female, non-white, or genderqueer anymore than your average heterosexual did when it came to my lack of rights and privileges as a gay person. If anything it's heterosexual support of gay rights that's helped things like DATD come to an end and the fast legalization of gay marriage in this country. More often not, that's how change happens.

You don't get equality by discriminating, that's like saying you get peace by nuking. Equality is gained when the privileged willingly change their laws and structures to include groups that those systems discriminated against. Most whites are not racist, most men are not misogynist, most heterosexuals aren't homophobic, and most cisgender people aren't transphobic. You can certainly argue that people in power tend to be prejudiced at worse or ignorant at best, but you're hard-pressed to find people that actively think things like women should be subservient to men, or that blacks belong in the back of the bus. Such attitudes are unacceptable by pretty much any demographic, be they in power or otherwise. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have all these straight, white, heterosexual, cisgender men making all these laws for the past hundred years to fix the wrongs of the past. Association by sharing a common phenotype or chromosomes or pronouns or brain chemistry is not endorsement of oppression, and accusing people of such a thing is only going to make them defensive and less likely to, as Tumblr would say, "check their privilege" that would push them to help others in the first place. Such an attitude only hinders progress.

 

[carnex]

It's not a double standard. All things being equal, it would be. Women start from a place of disadvantage. Discrimination against oppressors is one of the only real ways to equal things. You say play on an equal playing field but the field is not equal form the get go.

White people are not allowed to says the N-word because they lost that right after hundreds of years of slavery and oppression. Men lost the right to complain about gender discrimination after thousands of years of refusing women their rights. Equality will never happen when those in power use all of their privilege and the oppressed have to play fair. They have to follow rules written by the very people oppressing them. That's bullshit.

If you don't agree, then tell me how we can have equality when the oppressors refuse to give up their privilege.

(Also, while I am gonna apologize for how I have said things. Along with all the stuff thats been going on in politics in the real world, I have been in a fowl mood. But that's my problem, not youse all.)

First prove me that there is a privilege, then prove that that privilege is unfairly gained on behalf of prejudice or collusion to unfairly advance one group over another. And I don't mean historically, not even 20 years ago. I mean now, at the place you live in.

Than we can have a discussion on that subject.

What I can say is that in western societies, some more than others, there are at least a few institutionalized rules that disadvantage men even when they go totally against established facts.

So name yours, I'll name mine. Then we both try to rationalize others examples, not as discrimination/sexism/whatever negative, but something else. Then we have a discussion on our views of those subjects.

In the end of that, one might not be moved an millimeter from their position but still be the wiser due to the argument absorbed.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

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.

The thread is really pretty much answered right here. I can't really imagine why it's 300+ posts long.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Can we please stop calling Anita a feminist, when it seems abundantly clear that she is a feminazi?

 

[Darknacht]

Sexism is committed against males, females, and everyone in between. It is committed by most people regardless of sex. It exists to keep everyone in their 'societally appropriate' role whether they like it or not. Only when people realize this and fight what it really is will there be any chance of ending it.

 

[carnex]

Can we please stop calling Anita a feminist, when it seems abundantly clear that she is a feminazi?

Well, that would not be true. Since those sentiments of her go neatly as a part of general hypotheses based on whom we have those wonderful things like predominant aggressor policy (even if the intimate partnership research has shown that it's pretty much even and that lesbian couples are arguably most abusive couples of them all), that rape is strictly gendered, male do - female suffer, problem (even when depending on gender neutral definition of rape up to 40 percent of rape victims are male and up to 30 percent of rapists are female), that male victims of domestic abuse are refused shelters, that mother are prefered partner to gain primary and sole custody of children (even if biological mothers are predominant group of in family child abusers (again depends somewhat on definition used)) etc.

Her view IS mainstream view of feminist academia. If it wasn't we wouldn't have all of these (and more examples are out there) frankly despicable policies.