Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible

[Atmos Duality]

Most of us do not agree with her definition because it absolves women of any responsibility for sexist acts that should be reprehensible when they are committed by either gender.

That's all there is to it.
When your movement requires making special exceptions for the most elementary definitions of words to sound more important, it's time to leave that movement in the dust.

It's farcical to even insinuate you're about "equality" when your own definition DELIBERATELY CREATES AN INEQUALITY.
And no number of strawmen, or invocations of "institutionalized" will change that.

The definition is stupid because discrimination isn't just a binary state applied to an entire demographic.
It occurs at many levels (gender, race, age, criminal background, political background, wealth) and in many different contexts; most of which intersect each other in different times and places.

Want to fix discrimination at its source? Don't discriminate.
Meaning: Don't try to make special exceptions to literary definitions.

EDIT:

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.

No, it's a hard pill to swallow because it's completely fucking stupid.
I have no idea what backwards standards the academics are imposing in political science these days, but if what you say is true, I weep for our future if this nonsense is what's being taught.

Seriously, this negates the most basic, root meaning of the word sexism.
If it catches on with the public, it will be leveraged to impose or excuse all sorts of horrible shit (towards men, or whatever fill-in-the-blank majority you imagine).
Nothing will really change; it's just the shoe will just be on the other foot.

 

[brtt150]

First of all, there's no reason for her to back down from the statement. It is a common academic viewpoint. Secondly, I would love to never see a thread about Anita again.

 

[Lightknight]

I hope somebody rapes her.

*sigh* Why? Because she said something that hurt your feelings?

That is simply a terrible thing to say and only feeds into the notion that those who disagree with her do so on the basis of some sort of terrible hatred of her rather than genuine criticism of her sexist comments and poor logic.

I've reported you and should you see this before or after getting banned you should consider why you'd think this was appropriate to say. You should be ashamed. If, in some world you just get a suspension or warning, try not to advocate real harm to real people when you get back.

 

[Lightknight]

First of all, there's no reason for her to back down from the statement. It is a common academic viewpoint.

It's a fully and commonly accepted academic viewpoint?

No, it's espoused on a few blogs from what I've seen, like the one Anita cited and it is rhetoric that some people have picked up. But it has not entered dictionary definition by any standard nor would it entering there somehow dispel the primary definition of the term and how everyone uses it. Likewise, there are several feminists who strongly disagree with this use and fully understand why it's pernicious to try to use.

Even if it were fully accepted and used in academia, that doesn't make it any less wrong or any less sexist. Also, you forget that academia will view and present viewpoints from a multitude of sources. Courses will assign controversial and outright offensive reading material to provoke thought and discussion. That doesn't mean that they full accept or espouse the notion.

But hey, bigots exist anywhere, so why not academia like they always have anyways?

Secondly, I would love to never see a thread about Anita again.

That's more up to her than you. If she comes out with a more sexist statement like she just did then this is going to be talked on. Sorry that people talking about something on the internet upsets you.

But hey, if you don't like this topic recurring you don't have to post (from the code of conduct):

If you don't like a thread, the people in it, or anyone involved then don't post in it. If you feel the need to deride the reappearance of an old topic or particular sore subject, then don't post. See "Don't Be A Jerk," above, for details." [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct]

Thankfully, you did contribute something of worth with your first point and I appreciate you doing so.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

You know, I'm surprised that no one has thought to come at her statement from a gamer standpoint, but...

The Temple of Dibella in Markarth from the game Skyrim disagrees with Anita's opinion.

 

[Lightknight]

You know, I'm surprised that no one has thought to come at her statement from a gamer standpoint, but...

The Temple of Mara in Markarth from the game Skyrim disagrees with Anita's opinion.

In which it is controlled only by females?

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

You know, I'm surprised that no one has thought to come at her statement from a gamer standpoint, but...

The Temple of Mara in Markarth from the game Skyrim disagrees with Anita's opinion.

In which it is controlled only by females?

It is a temple devoted only to women, and only women are allowed to enter the innermost sanctum. I also edited my own post, as I double checked my goddesses to ensure I had the right one. Sure enough, Mara's temple is in Riften and Mara is the goddess of love while Dibella's temple is in Markarth and Dibella is the goddess of beauty.

 

[Karadalis]

I hope somebody rapes her.

That's horrible. :l Nobody deserves to be raped, no matter how much you disagree with them.

Your attitude speaks of someone who's never known someone who has been raped or, more likely, you didn't care.

I think said person is simply trolling and doesnt care, or just wants to derail the thread.. with that rather pitifull attempt.

OT:

Again as i said before with this "what she could have meant"... seriously people Anita isnt some mythical bible figure or Asian Wise man that speaks i riddles.

She wrote it down word for word, clear as crystal that she thinks that there is no such thing as sexism against males.

End of discussion. It doesnt matter how desperatly you try to justify her opinion... it is still a sexist opinion in on itselfe.

Anita Sarkesian is not a Feminist, shes a manhater... you know.. a mysandrist. She obviously is not for equality between males and females, shes obviously for superiority of the female gender. That would also explain why she never ever speaks about the many prejudices males have to face in our modern world because shes to absorbed in the mindset that somehow her priviliged ass is being opressed even thought she enjoys more freedom and priviliges and rights then over half the female population of the world.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[GalanDun]

Well, that's sexist.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

 

[brtt150]

It's a fully and commonly accepted academic viewpoint? No, it's espoused on a few blogs from what I've seen, like the one Anita cited and it is rhetoric that some people have picked up. But it has not entered dictionary definition by any standard nor would it entering there somehow dispel the primary definition of the term and how everyone uses it. Likewise, there are several feminists who strongly disagree with this use and fully understand why it's pernicious to try to use.

Even if it were fully accepted and used in academia, that doesn't make it any less wrong or any less sexist. Also, you forget that academia will view and present viewpoints from a multitude of sources. Courses will assign controversial and outright offensive reading material to provoke thought and discussion. That doesn't mean that they full accept or espouse the notion.

But hey, bigots exist anywhere, so why not academia like they always have anyways?

That's more up to her than you. If she comes out with a more sexist statement like she just did then this is going to be talked on. Sorry that people talking about something on the internet upsets you.

But hey, if you don't like this topic recurring you don't have to post (from the code of conduct):

If you don't like a thread, the people in it, or anyone involved then don't post in it. If you feel the need to deride the reappearance of an old topic or particular sore subject, then don't post. See "Don't Be A Jerk," above, for details." [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct]

Thankfully, you did contribute something of worth with your first point and I appreciate you doing so.

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.

 

[Snotnarok]

The issue is Anita has no interest in equality, her agenda simply falls under let's censor things so it doesn't offend people.

Beware of using the term "censor" when discussing Anita. That automatically turns other people off as Anita has been very mindful of not using censorious language and has actively denied wanting to censor games (such as saying she just wants developers to consider what they're doing before automatically jumping on the sexist bandwagon). You and I likely agree that claiming that these games cause harm to society the inevitable conclusion is the same as Jack Thompson's claim that violent games reinforce and perpetuate violent behaviors, stopping the harm, but Anita has not directly advocated that so much as indirectly by claiming harm. But see, me even bringing up Jack Thompson has a similar impact as you saying the word "censor".

I strongly agree with your comments on the hostile nature towards men in these discussions. That any attempt to weigh in is automatically deemed as "mansplaining" regardless of content. It is a truly sexist environment and women do have control over the discussion in this way in most places the discussion is being had.

There's really a lot of garbage being flung from both sides and terrible sexism and stereotyping is being born from it.

p.s. The "wage gap" is a myth. The frequently-debunked study you're citing did not account for the number of hours worked, the type of work, or any other variables that affect income.

In a sexually dimorphic species there may also be tendencies one gender has compared to another that gives and advantage regarding advancement in the workforce. Variances in risk aversion and aggression are commonly cited differences between men and women.

We've also got areas of the industry that women weren't traditionally part of until more recently. In those industries we would typically see a significant amount greater experience on the male side of the equation with few women matching or exceeding the norm. That's not going to go away until those males start to retire and them being rewarded for having more experience isn't sexism as long as any females that have commensurate experience make similar incomes.

However, I wouldn't necessarily call it a myth without also seeing a study that deals with it. It would be nice to see legitimate studies that tackle the issue more head-on by accounting for those contributing factors. Since the gender wage gap for people ages 20-30 is almost nonexistent and in some countries like the UK is actually reversed, we may actually have a scenario where the goal has been accomplished and time is going to take care of the issue (since the people in that age group are more likely to have similar education, training, and experience due to less opportunity to gain an advantage there that time grants).

This is an absolutely fascinating subject. I'd love to read more about it from objective sources.

I'm surprised, I was honestly expecting someone to disagree and chew me out for that whole rant considering just how touchy this subject is, infact I wasn't going to post that because of the expectations.

I know she chooses her words carefully but the fact she's demanding people change what they want to create to fit some bizarre world of political correctness to me is censorship and could very easily be explained as such by a much better writer. Again, the best thing I think instead of trying to force people to change- you encourage girls to do what they want instead of the gender roles thing. I think it benefits anyone to have a open upbringing and encouraging girls to become educated in technology, writing or the arts would vastly improve this situation.

What's been going on now is many apparently have been struggling to find a relationship since there's so much of this anti-men thinking going on. It's making men less inclined to seek out female companionship and women more resilient to the notion of being approached by a man. I literally got this glare and "I can open the door myself thanks, sir." for holding a door open for a girl, I do it for everyone. Maybe if I came out and blurted I'm Asexual, calm down I'm not trying to get in ANYONES pants, that may have ...well made the situation more awkward- but here we have prejudging just because I held the door open instead of letting it slam shut in someones face.

So if anything, in my limited experience it's just making people sexist because no one wants to take shit from anyone with this touchy subject. Every gesture is driven by the lust for sex, any depiction of women in a sexy light- is sexist.
There is genuine sexism in the world, not everything is-...I apologize, I'm more ranting at this stage than discussing, especially since you agreed. There's so many little things people fight about, including game hardware that people play on, now it's down to gender and everything done or said is sexist and no arguments 'cause I said so? Augh. |:

 

[AgedGrunt]

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.

A hard pill to swallow? You're distinguishing sexism from prejudice. Do you even understand how prejudice is a collective attitude? Do you not see how the definitions of -isms (racism, sexism, ageism, etc.) all have in common prejudice and unreasonable opinions and discrimination of a type of people? Sexism is just defining this along gender lines, so if you are prejudicial of gender, that's called sexism. How can an accepted academic viewpoint (at least how you describe it) lack an understanding of a dictionary?

This sounds like academia institutionalizing a completely fucked-up idea of what sexism is and isn't, affording full sensitivity toward women and only acknowledging men with insignificance. In other words, it fits the feminist stereotype to a T.

If what you're saying is a hard pill to swallow, then what we have are academics eating rocks. There really are people who do this, but who is going to kill themselves trying to digest the indigestible? This stuff isn't supposed to be eaten, it's getting rightfully spit out by most of us with common sense, and that's something a university can't teach.

 

[springheeljack]

Honestly most "sexism" against men is caused by men and the patriarchal society in which we live in. It does not really involve women at all. When women are sexist against men(and I think it does happen) it simply does not affect us the same way that sexism against women does. That is because this is still very much a male dominated society

 

[springheeljack]

Honestly most "sexism" against men is caused by men and the patriarchal society in which we live in. It does not really involve women at all. When women are sexist against men(and I think it does happen) it simply does not affect us the same way that sexism against women does. That is because this is still very much a male dominated society

When I see something like this I like to invoke a fun mental exercise.

Imagine this imgur.com/a/4VOcx with the genders reverse. Which side would be considered the victim and which side would be supported by the press?

Its rather like how those men getting death threats and whose carers people like Alexander Leigh have openly boasted about destroying dont' count and its not because the "patriarchy" misfired, as if that invalidates anything anyone has gone thought.

Are you talking to me? Because it doesn't really seem like you are talking to me at all. What does that have to do with anything that I just said?

 

[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.