Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible

[TheMysteriousGX]

Oh look, Anita said something stupid and wrong again. Who cares?

Again? Naw, this is the same one. I swear this twitter post has spawned 3 different threads so far. I actually remember counting the characters in there last time this came up.

It's almost like some people just can't stop talking about her. Picking over everything and rehashing old grievances whenever they need their fix. Obsession like that is unhealthy.

 

[Entitled]

I am, however, leery of her lack of...I don't know...using a simple "(1/2)" or something similar at the end of her tweet, then continuing/expounding upon the thought in a second one.

Or, eliminating extraneous words, like "that's because," and replacing them with relevant terms like "institutionalized" to properly convey the idea the first time around.

I'm pretty sure, that the point is exactly that seism *is* institutionalized, by the virtue of being a social system.

Basically, she is providing a definition that her earlier usages of the word "sexism" referred to the overall patriarchal system that might hurt either men or women, but primarily exists as power for men.

The latter posts might have added details to this, but even the first made it clear that she is providing some dort of definition, which is really not a matter of debate.

Like the post right above you said:

You are basically saying "what she is saying is wrong and offensive based on my definition of the word she used, even though she just stated that she is using a different definition of the word and in no way stated she would agree with her statement while using the same definition I chose to use in place of her's."

Yeah, no. It doesn't work like that. When someone clearly states that they are using a specific definition of a specific word, you can't simply attack her argument based on a different definition of the same word. If I said "people suffering from depression cannot be happy, because happiness is a prolonged period of contentment with your life overall, whereas depression is a prolonged period of discontentment with your life overall." You cannot then go on to argue that I stated it is impossible for depressed people to experience even brief periods of contentment simply because you choose to equate contentment with happiness.

 

[Entitled]

One of my mates was on a short domestic flight and the way the tickets/seating worked out he was placed next to an unaccompanied child.

My mate (male btw) was forced to move from his seat coz rules on that airline apparently say men cant be seated next to unacommpanied children.

Perfectly fine for women to be put next to said children tho.

Yeah, that's a good example of men being hurt by patriarchal stereotypes, just like Anita mentioned in her tweets.

The issue is whether we should call this "sexism against men", or there is only one overall sexism, that is aimed against the less empowered gender, and this is just a consequence of that.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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

First half true, second half not in my experience.

Anita is wrong. Simply put. And many feminists would agree with me. Patriarchal values damage men and women by restricting what roles each should fill, shunting those who dont want to into an acceptable target for shame and mockery. Id say the damage to men is sometimes a result of the damage to women (IE its embarassing to wear make up as a man because its woman-like but trousers are A ok because they are manly) but the "men are poor child carers" one is entirely based on the idea that the child carer role isnt for men and thus they are inherently worse at it.

I feel the need as a rational feminist to post in all these frankly irritating threads. Simply to remind people that I exist.

 

[xPixelatedx]

I always love Anita's tweets about Men's privilege and power, because according to her logic that rambling homeless man on the street with no money, shelter, healthcare or safety-net of any kind is somehow in a better spot then a regular women who may have all the basic necessities and luxuries of life from the moment she was born (you know, like Anita herself). But no, he's very powerful, you just don't understand! At night he goes to his secret sewer penthouse and talks through video skype with other male politicians about how they rule the world.

She's wrong. According to the Merriam-Webster, sexism is "unfair treatment of people because of their sex." At no point does it say it has to include power. I'm a feminist, but I'm a feminist who knows how to look things up in a dictionary.

"We don't have the power, so we can hate anyone we want" is basically how people (using the banner of morality) justify prejudice without having to admit they're horrible people. Having a generally negative attitude against someone you don't know just because of what's between their legs is being a sexist, and the hilarious thing is it's being displayed right there in Anita's tweet. The lack of self awareness is outright astounding.

 

[Entitled]

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

First half true, second half not in my experience.

Anita is wrong. Simply put. And many feminists would agree with me. Patriarchal values damage men and women by restricting what roles each should fill, shunting those who dont want to into an acceptable target for shame and mockery.

Any feminist would agree with you about Anita being wrong? That's so true that even Anita agreed with you, right in the next tweet.

"The system of Patriarchy privileges men as a social group, however a byproduct of that system is that men and men's humanity is also harmed." https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533446372574625793'

The first one hasn't said anything about whether men are "harmed by sexism", it was about a distinction between that claim, and society being "sexist againt men".

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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

First half true, second half not in my experience.

Anita is wrong. Simply put. And many feminists would agree with me. Patriarchal values damage men and women by restricting what roles each should fill, shunting those who dont want to into an acceptable target for shame and mockery.

Any feminist would agree with you about Anita being wrong? That's so true that even Anita agreed with you, right in the next tweet.

"The system of Patriarchy privileges men as a social group, however a byproduct of that system is that men and men's humanity is also harmed." https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533446372574625793'

The first one hasn't said anything about whether men are "harmed by sexism", it was about a distinction between that claim, and society being "sexist againt men".

Many is a different word than any. Some people would definitely disagree with me and anita.

Although that second tweet did clarify somewhat.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I thought after she blamed that school shooting on men everyone declared her batshit insane and decided to stop talking about her.

Guess not.

Indeed, she blamed it on "toxic masculinity", not men.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

I've heard that comment in relation to racism, that white people can't suffer from racism which was also wrong. Of course that comment also assumes that white people are one uniform group which hold power everywhere and don't discriminate against other white people based on ethnicity.

It's not that white people don't suffer from racism, but that white people suffer from, is racism against black people.

As it was already mentioned this thread, Anita followed up the first tweet directly with describing the ways in which men suffer from the patriarchal culture. The point is that there is only one culture, and that is patriarchal, even if harm to men can be it's consequence.

There are white Eastern European people in Ireland who would question your belief that they don't suffer from racism. Likewise, Irish people in 19th Century America would question the idea that they didn't suffer from racism. And it's not just white people, Japanese and Chinese people haven't always gotten along that well. The Hutus and Tutsis, both black, murdered each other on massive scales they hated each other that much. So saying black people can't be racist or white people can't suffer from it is just wrong. You might say that's ethnicity and not race but really they aren't that different. Race isn't a biological thing either. The idea of race is socially created, it's a way to create an 'us' and an 'other', it's something I wish we could move past at this stage. Unfortunately we don't which is why racism exists, which is a shame.

Now I understand what she's saying but I disagree with her. I'd define sexism as discrimination based on sex, it impacts men and women. Sexism as an institution also impacts men and women, men get certain benefits and disadvantages in society as do women. You could say overall men tend to be in a better position and yeah you'd be right, they are. But just because women have it worse than men doesn't mean the problems men suffer from aren't real. To say men can't suffer from sexism comes across as dismissive of the problems men face. Both are bad, both should be dealt with. Just because what women face is worse doesn't mean what men face isn't bad.

The idea also involves a grand narrative view of the world which you see in theories like Feminism and Marxism and while those theories do have valid points I question trying to make everything conform to one grand theory even when it might not be entirely applicable. It's also somewhat dismissive of human freewill, that individual actors aren't that important just the social structures they're part of despite the fact that said structures are made up of those very individuals.

 

[Entitled]

There are white Eastern European people in Ireland who would question your belief that they don't suffer from racism. Likewise, Irish people in 19th Century America would question the idea that they didn't suffer from racism. And it's not just white people, Japanese and Chinese people haven't always gotten along that well.

But in those contexts, the prejudice + power formula still applies.

OK, you got me, the "white people suffering from racism is a result of racism against blacks" statement is only true in a U.S.A. context, but the principle itself can be applied to many different societies.

For gender roles, there aren't any alternative non-patriarchal societies to talk about. If there would be a continent where women expressing political, economical, and cultural power over men has a thousand year tradition, then in that context, we could say that men are sexist against women.

What hardships men suffer, (more military casualties, more homelessness, etc.), are just as true in Iran as in Sweden, and in Ancient Rome as in Victorian England. They are not examples of some quirky reverse sexism, but fit tightly into different degrees and severities of a general attitude that could be described as a "patriarchy", and which Anita seems to equivocate with "sexism" in her own terminology here.

And the ones that DON'T fit into it, or go against it, for example saying that "men shouldn't be allowed to vote" are about as irrelevant on a social level as saying that "coffee drinkers shouldn't be allowed to vote". It might be a wrong thing, but so unrelated to real injustice that it's not really part of any meaningful "-ism".

Now I understand what she's saying but I disagree with her. I'd define sexism as discrimination based on sex, it impacts men and women. Sexism as an institution also impacts men and women, men get certain benefits and disadvantages in society as do women. You could say overall men tend to be in a better position and yeah you'd be right, they are. But just because women have it worse than men doesn't mean the problems men suffer from aren't real. To say men can't suffer from sexism comes across as dismissive of the problems men face. Both are bad, both should be dealt with. Just because what women face is worse doesn't mean what men face isn't bad.

Even when sexism is not "institutional", it's still "social" enough that we treat all discussions of it as a matter of "social justice".

For those who care about the evils of social injustice, looking for an equivalence between individual hardships regardless of context, can come off as denying that such injustice itself exists too.

Not hiring someone because you don't like his eye colors, and not hiring someone because he is gay, are equally shitty personal level, but to simply say that "both are problems" can feel like denying the special problem of the latter.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'm pretty sure, that the point is exactly that seism *is* institutionalized, by the virtue of being a social system.

Basically, she is providing a definition that her earlier usages of the word "sexism" referred to the overall patriarchal system that might hurt either men or women, but primarily exists as power for men.

The latter posts might have added details to this, but even the first made it clear that she is providing some dort of definition, which is really not a matter of debate.

Er. Except that isn't what she said in the initial tweet, nor is it the point that comes across in any sense, which was the problem that I was referencing and attempted to correct to some extent.

Sexism is the general term. Institutionalized sexism is a subset. The italicized bit distinguishes the two from one another. Simple. Easy. Efficient. Not done here for some reason.

You can't just apply your own meaning to a word then assume anyone reading it can or will fill in whatever qualifying term or subtext you had in mind, especially when dealing with terminology that already has an agreed upon definition, ie. dictionaries.

And she is not 'providing some sort of definition.' She's adding qualifications to an established word/concept in an effort to distort its meaning.

I did see that post you quoted too...and I disagree? It isn't my definition for the term. It's the definition.

"Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender."

The above is the definition anyone reading it, with a certain level of literacy, is working from.

Edit: Snipped the picture. Came off more mean-spirited than I meant it to. :/

[small]Aside: This is...troubling, but when did all these online dictionaries add on this "especially against women" bit to the definition of sexism? It had to have happened in the last 5 years or so, because I sincerely don't remember it from previous arguments on the interwebs...but I may just be going crazy.

Regardless, the "updated" definitions do not exclude men.[/small]

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

snip

snip

I clarified my earlier post on page 3, 5 posts down. If nothing else, check out the hilarious image in the spoiler.

 

[Dizchu]

So Anita said something ignorant and oversimplistic. Wow this is new.

Many definitions of sexism tend to downplay the sexism men face. In fact, sexism has historically had a female bias (in feminist theory many examples of "sexism against men" is regarded as "benevolent sexism towards women").

It's an approach that does more harm than good. It's nothing new.

Can we just disregard Feminist Frequency and allow them to rot in the annals of history along with fundies saying Pokemon and Harry Potter are demonic and Jack Thompson saying that video games cause more violence than guns?

 

[Thaluikhain]

in feminist theory

Again, there is more than one of those. You can say in the theories of certain forms of feminism, but there's no monolithic whole.

 

[RJ 17]

However, I don't see any discussion value. "Someone on the internet said something stupid. In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet. Film at eleven."

Oh but you don't understand! The topic's title has "Anita Sarkeesian" in it! That therefor means that it must get a couple hundred responses and numerous multi-person arguments! Despite the fact that the internet is comprised of random jackasses braying mindlessly at one another, we're supposed to actually care about what this particular random jackass has to say. Why? Because "reasons".

OT: Seriously, is there going to be a topic every time Anita opens her mouth? How has this not gotten old and crusty by now? Ahhh, Sarkeesian...the (mindless/pointless) controversy that just keeps on giving.

And before all you social psychos jump on my case, I'm all for gender equality in games. I just don't like Anita as a spokesperson nor the methods she employs or her questionable credibility. I also dislike the attention that we as a community keep throwing at her...particularly those that out-right hate her.

 

[Thaluikhain]

OT: Seriously, is there going to be a topic every time Anita opens her mouth? How has this not gotten old and crusty by now? Ahhh, Sarkeesian...the (mindless/pointless) controversy that just keeps on giving.

Given that this is in response to something she said almost a month ago that we've already discussed on the forum...yes.

OTOH...why not? Let's all each go pick one tweet she's made, and make a thread about it. Turn this into the Sarkeesian forum and be done with it.

 

[Dizchu]

Again, there is more than one of those. You can say in the theories of certain forms of feminism, but there's no monolithic whole.

I'm hoping you understand what I mean when I refer to "feminist theory". Like any kind of theory, there are aspects that form the basis that ends up being built upon in further iterations. I'm not attempting to discredit feminism, "benevolent sexism" is a legitimate idea that forms the basis of a lot of feminist literature.

I mean we have "music theory", but we also have many different forms of music and the fundamentals of music theory is what is used to identify and characterise certain features. But just because "music theory" exists, doesn't mean everyone has to follow it. The same with "feminist theory". I'm sure there's plenty of disagreement but in terms of the collective feminist literature, you'll see certain ideas recur such as patriarchy, androcentrism, male gaze, glass ceiling etc.

I am not even against the idea of "benevolent sexism", however I find the gynocentrism of a lot of gender discussion to be harmful (which is my main point, really).

 

[RJ 17]

OTOH...why not? Let's all each go pick one tweet she's made, and make a thread about it. Turn this into the Sarkeesian forum and be done with it.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't give them any ideas!

 

[GundamSentinel]

Feminism is getting some piss-poor representation lately, with insane, bigoted, and frankly WRONG statements cropping up all over the place.

I want to learn what feminism is about, I really do, but fuck me raw if people like her don't do everything in their power to convince people that feminism is hypocritical bullshit through and through.

Well, if the sensible ones stopped calling themselves feminists and started calling themselves egalitarians (you know, people who actually want equal rights and opportunities for everyone), maybe there would be a distinction between people I can have a decent talk with and hypocrites.

 

[ForumSafari]

Gaming Discussion: "Here we go again: Anita Sarkeesian and the gaming community"
Off-topic Discussion: "Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible" (this thread)
Religion and Politics: "More Damning Evidence Indicating Anita Sarkeesian is a Fraud"

Escapist, what the hell happened to you?

That's about par for the course with the Escapist; one big issue dominates for a year or two then it's all change.