She posted it almost a month ago, mind. People posted about it at the time on this forum and then forgot about it.NeutralStasis said:
Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible
- Thread starter Lightknight
- Start date
She is using a reconfigured definition for racism. The definition has been expanded to multiple concepts, however if often criticized and scrutinized. I believe the definition came into being in the 70's (I cannot remember who originally coined it). It is a very limited way to look at "isms" though.Queen Michael said:
Old news to me.
I've seen that political re-mix of "sexism" before in a couple of my requisite humanities (poli-sci) courses, and it's just as bullshit now as it was then. To show how flimsy that line of reasoning is, just replace the operating discriminator "Sexism" with any other "ism" identifier and it makes just as little sense.
By adding the Power requisite to the definition, it effectively changes any definition into "Only minority power holders are victims", or by taking its inverse form produces "Majority power holders cannot be victims."
Either form is factually untrue, and anyone that asserts to the contrary is either very dishonest, or very ignorant of human history. (Probably sort of person that would insist the February Revolution and associated extermination of the Russian Czar's family was just a wild party gone too far. Or that the French Revolution was just the Aristocracy mistaking Guillotines for barber poles.)
So, Anita is either an ignorant fool, or a bold faced liar...also old news to me.
I've seen that political re-mix of "sexism" before in a couple of my requisite humanities (poli-sci) courses, and it's just as bullshit now as it was then. To show how flimsy that line of reasoning is, just replace the operating discriminator "Sexism" with any other "ism" identifier and it makes just as little sense.
By adding the Power requisite to the definition, it effectively changes any definition into "Only minority power holders are victims", or by taking its inverse form produces "Majority power holders cannot be victims."
Either form is factually untrue, and anyone that asserts to the contrary is either very dishonest, or very ignorant of human history. (Probably sort of person that would insist the February Revolution and associated extermination of the Russian Czar's family was just a wild party gone too far. Or that the French Revolution was just the Aristocracy mistaking Guillotines for barber poles.)
So, Anita is either an ignorant fool, or a bold faced liar...also old news to me.
An astute observation. It certainly reinforces the notion that Sarkeesian's relevance is driven by her professional victim status rather than her arguments.Verlander said:
Specifically, victims of something that they've defined as requiring the victimisers to be powerful.Atmos Duality said:
No that was just the most obvious refutation of the idea that institutionalized sexism against men can't exist. If you want a current example there's the fact that women get longer sentences than men for the same crimes.DataSnake said:
Anyway I haven't said either side has it worse, just arguing that institutionalized sexism (which is different than regular sexism) against men can exist and has existed.
One thing that I haven't seen brought up is that if she thinks you need power to be sexist then doesn't that mean that a video game cannot be sexist?
A video game cannot oppress anyone or hurt them in anyway so that would mean it's impossible for them to be sexist under her definition.
A video game cannot oppress anyone or hurt them in anyway so that would mean it's impossible for them to be sexist under her definition.
Except that such a line of reasoning undermines either equality under the law (when applied by relevant authorities), or the crucial concept of reciprocity that buttresses egalitarian moral systems and makes society work. Also, humans being human, any mindset that applies, to an ongoing problem one spends a great deal of time thinking about, the notion that 'this group is more victimized as a whole, therefore I will concentrate on them' will through habituation eventually devolve on the subconscious level into 'this group and the injustices done toward them are more important, and I will ignore the other'.DataSnake said:
Do you mean the "latter" is dealt with? Racism against white people and Sexism against males are both often faux pas to even bring up. Racism against black people just recently forced a man to sell his business, belief in traditional marriage just recently forced a man to leave his job, and purported sexism against women recently got Uber's Exec in a lot of trouble. These are the things that covered by the news and dealt with.irishda said:
We absolutely care about these issues and society reacts strongly to them whenever we find them. So I'm going to assume you meant "Latter" instead of "Former" there. But please correct me if you honestly belief that racism against white people or sexism against males are regularly fought against and elevated to anything of this level. Most white guys wouldn't even consider bringing a discrimination lawsuit to court. I worked in a place that only hired 3 white males in the entire agency to work in the mail room. It was a government contractor. Everyone in the real jobs were female and of the 50+ of them only two were white females. The highest paid jobs were all Hispanic Females (Hispanic Lawyers, Management, and Hispanic Accountants). Obviously sexist and racist hiring practices beyond any doubt due to the large number of employees and consistent overturn that kept seeing the same thing happening. Three white males, all stuck in the mail room? Was that supposed to be a subtle joke playing on the word "mail/male"? But when we found other jobs we moved on out and didn't bring a law suit. Then other whites were hired to replace us and still weren't allowed to move up in the company. Had the situation been reversed, there would have been a law suit and it would have been successful.
Then we are in agreement. Men do face sexism and Anita was wrong and that should be the end of it. To rob victims of victim-hood is particularly egregious of Anita and she should be ashamed of her bigotry. In fact, she should be ashamed of her sexism against males. Sexism she claimed does not exist.
Are you trying to rationalize sexism against males by saying that the context makes it ok or irrelevant? Do you believe that because women face sexism that it's OK for men to face sexism and that it's no big deal? Is a man who isn't hired for a position because he is male less harmed than a woman who isn't hired for a position because she is female? No. Both are harmed and both situations are wrong. Trivializing either impact is prejudiced and wrong.
Who suffers more is entirely on individual experiences. The vast majority of discrimination against women has become either socially unacceptable to an extreme degree where public faces are largely shamed for making the slightest comment or outright illegal and strictly enforced. Because we, our generation, has grown up to abhor bigotry and rightly so. We grew up in a world where our classmates were black, white, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, gay, straight, and everything else. The people who hate them are regularly written as the villains in our media from games, to novels, to movies, to even actual news media. We very much see bigots as the "bad guy" and that should be a golden star sticker on our society. So when it crops up, it's going to be reported in droves and mobs will rise up against the evil, whether imagined or real depending on the case by case basis.
Some men suffer more from institutional sexism than some women. Some women suffer more from institutional sexism than some men. I'm really not sure that we can assume that women still face worse institutional sexism anymore. We can absolutely accept that bigotry is still a problem but it has been framed as the bad guy and the vast majority of institutional power cannot legally continue to do so. It still happens, yes. But to both genders and to different degrees.
That one I'll outright disagree with. Male issues generally aren't dealt with at all. Women's issues are the important hot-button topics that political candidates love to use to gain those votes. Racism and Sexism against white people and males largely goes untouched because to defend them would often paint the individual as a bigot. It's a no win for them to do it. I mean, let's be honest, if a white male politician tried to make Affirmative Action include language that also explicitly prohibits discrimination against white males what would you think? I'd have to be honest, I'd suspect them of being racist or sexist and would be greatly concerned that the changes they'd make would throw us back into the 60's where the law is concerned (I think socially we've made discrimination sooo taboo as to make actual reversion to that time far less plausible). So if I, a white male, would be suspicious then that's why it's a no win for such a candidate because white people aren't going to respond to the threat of discrimination against minorities or women with warm and fuzzies. We're going to spearhead counter movements against them just like we already do.
Because companies that own Viagra and cialis and whatever else like money? Same reason there are frequent birth control commercials like with Yaz and whatever that ring thing was. You have produced a false dichotomy here.
Because insurance companies and businesses that have to pay for the insurance like money? They have also scoffed at condoms even though those have the additional impact of reducing the risk of STI's.
Look, all racism and sexism is wrong. I would actually have responded that this is a picture of something that is discriminatory against everyone but moreso against black people here because I would guess that the sign is to protect white people from black people, not to prevent entry of white people like it says. That is a racist Zoo that has days where certain races could or couldn't enter the park. As you're alluding to, most of the other days the Zoo was in operation likely didn't allow black people in it at all so this was a lesser evil in the grand scheme. All of it was bad and all of it should have been and was stopped.Take a look at this sign:
If your response is, "That's discriminatory to white people", you're right but at the expense of the much, MUCH bigger issue.
But you are providing a false example. It isn't like males are handed awesome jobs every day of the week because they've got external genitals and one day of the year is "hire a woman" day.
Is this how people envision our lives are like?
<youtube=EC21NF5rbSk>
Look, males deal with all the same things and I'd appreciate it if people would stop stereotyping us. We deal with poverty and shitty jobs. We deal with being passed over for jobs based on our gender and skin color (as I've explained I can attest to personally). We deal with various expectations and gender roles.
Do you really want to know who is privileged? The rich. The rich are privileged. A rich woman or rich male, it doesn't matter. Money is privilege here. A poor man isn't privileged just because he can easily pee standing up.
Instances of Institutional Sexism and Social Sexism:
-Men are expected to be the one who pays for date nights even though women have full access to income now.
-In some countries (UK, for the most recent example) and certain industries, men ages 20-30 make less than their female counterparts without any explanation besides sexism. This is largely ignored because the disparity flips at older age ranges as other factors start to take effect.
-Men are commonly shown less compassion than females starting at an early age.
-A blind eye is frequently turned towards men who suffer from domestic violence regarding women who hit men while a spotlight is shone on men who hit women. (I have been in an abusive relationship where the girl would full-out punch me, knowing that even though I am immensely stronger than her that I would not strike back because of gender roles. It is not socially acceptable for me to acknowledge it either or that it does hurt both emotionally and physically even though it may not hurt as much as a dude my size taking the swing)
-Men are expected to work longer hours, relocate more frequently, take on more dangerous assignments, in addition to keeping a smaller portion of their check due to common obligations (for example, I pay my household's bills out of my paycheck while my wife's paycheck is for spending and savings)
-Men are required to sign up for military draft and women are not.
-Men are expected to risk their lives in situations of confrontation or danger to protect others.
-Men have fewer scholarship opportunities than women to the point that women graduating with degrees now outweighs males graduating with degrees.
-Aside from just domestic violence, it is more socially acceptable for violence to occur against men than it is against women (For example, GTA 5 was not taken off the shelves of target and kmart because of violence against people, it was removed for violence against women even though GTA's story-based violence is almost entirely against men if not entirely so. This sends the message that Target and Kmart are ok with violence against men)
-Women get preferential treatment in custody hearings and divorce settlements.
-Males are expected to be taller, smarter, more athletic and make more money than his spouse.
-Males are conditioned to reject espousing their feelings in traditionally feminine ways.
-Male on male violence is treated as a sport and men who don't participate in it are frequently looked down on by their peers.
-While males do suffer rape (particularly in prison), there is even more stigma towards males admitting it than females due to the additional societal demand of males not showing weakness.
-Light forms of male subservience (helping others carry heavy objects, opening a door, etc) are seen as chivalrous/gentlemanly and not generally required to be reciprocated.
-Men who commit the same crime a woman commits will face harsher punishments.
-Males are expected to forgo basic comforts so that women can enjoy them (sitting down, going first in line or through a door, and various small but still existent things).
(I got most of this list from a huffington post article some time ago, I can no longer find the page though)
Now, women absolutely have their own list, too, and the utmost care must be taken to explain that men suffering from sexism does not mean that women don't too. We both suffer from it and it's important not to dismiss either like Anita has so wrongfully done here and you should be ashamed of her saying this every bit as much as we're ashamed of Donald Sterling making racist comments or whatever.
Not really, she could maybe find a book that tries to define it that way but that doesn't change that real definitions from word defining sources actually exist. The thing she appears to be trying to say is institutional sexism which does require power by definition. But even that absolutely exists against men on multiple levels so any way you look at it there is no legitimate definition that would say that men don't suffer at the hands of sexism. She tried to walk it back later by saying that while men don't face sexism and cannot face sexism, they suffer because it exists. Like the latter somehow exonerates her from the absolutely false former.Tono Makt said:
Obviously any victimizer obviously has some sort of power to leverage.thaluikhain said:
But the problem here is that it only emphasizing overt power, not potential.
It assumes the entire victim's demographic is always powerless.
But that isn't necessarily true. Power shifts DO occur, sometimes rapidly.
(It still happens today. Arab Spring, anyone?)
That's because there is overt power, and there is potential power.
The former is easier to comprehend and measure than the latter, yet, the latter definitely exists and that potential contradicts that ugly exception-by-privilege angle the re-definition is trying to push.
If you want to get technical, that re-definition is just another form of the Relative Privation fallacy.
(e.g. "First World Problems")
" has it good enough already, so my problems with are justified/more important."
" has it good enough that cannot have problems."
Lightnight said: "Implying that all women are powerless and all men are in power."WhiteNachos said:
Anita said: "Men are the dominant gender with power in society."
OK, maybe he can hide behind the word "Implying", but it still shows incredible ignorance regarding the feminist view on the issue. Feminists say things like this all the time, and it is always in relation to the general trend, not some universal rule that says women can't make it anywhere in society. There is little reason to believe Anita is saying anything different, especially since her comment might as well be a copy/paste with how often it comes up in other feminist writings.
And yes, I will point out faults with Anita's comments when they are warranted. I've done so plenty of times, even on this site. What I am not going to do is join people in twisting her words because they can't form a reasonable argument against what she is actually saying. If people actually address what she is saying, then I might take their criticism more seriously. Otherwise, I'll continue to point out how they are twisting her words to fit within their own narrative so that they can address her in that narrative rather than in reality.
I could tell you but we'd have to go somewhere weird.IceForce said:
You unlock this place with the key of triggers.
Beyond it is another dimension, a dimension of shouting matches, a dimension of dog piles, a dimension of oppression. you're moving into a land of social justice and sexism. Of artistic censorship and hypocrisy. you've just crossed ovr into the tumblr zone
Beyond it is another dimension, a dimension of shouting matches, a dimension of dog piles, a dimension of oppression. you're moving into a land of social justice and sexism. Of artistic censorship and hypocrisy. you've just crossed ovr into the tumblr zone
What we have is, through her as proxy is a war of ideologies, unintentional but the more or less us or them mentality of the gender politics people have caused a lot of folks to go up the neutral tree and take fling acorns for the side whom they think will end it the fastest or have attacked them the least.
I'm personally not surprised McIntosh got her to say this, her image revolves around controversy, she feed on these sorts of things because this happens. more word of mouth, it keeps the wound open and the butt sore of some people and she uses that as fuel to declare this or that when she wants to. It's admirable, really, a actual internet hate machine, but it's probably been piddling off, most channers haven't cared about her since 2012.
But she did get a lot of butt hurt when she blamed the Ottawa shooting on "hegemonic masculinity" even MM was angry and that guy is really damn calm.
Why do it then in the first place, this is just like the hegemonic masculinity comment.thaluikhain said:
And why not just use her channel for this, her backers require a hell of a lot more videos and they are really god damn late at this point.
And why say something so inflammatory further more, this shit just bring in the hate because other people believe it wholeheartedly.
You think she would have learned not to do this by now.
She linked to an article in a follow up tweet saying that gender based prejudice is not the same thing as sexism. So she's redefining the term sexism. But even under her wrong definition saying "there's no such thing as sexism against men" is still not true. If she wanted to say that there isn't as much institutionalized sexism against men she should've said that, but saying "there's no such thing" means there is 0 institutionalized sexism against menMysticSlayer said:
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.Atmos Duality said:
I'm not going to go around searching for the tweet and article. Mind providing a link since you already know what you're talking about?WhiteNachos said:
She said that there is no such thing as sexism against men. If there is no such thing then there must be no institution in which women are in control or else sexism against men would exist. Furthermore, and I will clarify this every time I respond to this part of the discussion, I utterly reject her notion that sexism requires power. An utterly powerless man, a hobbo on the street with no legs, can be sexist against a woman just as easily as anyone else. To follow her insane definition of sexism would be to rule out genuinely sexist individuals who have no personal power whenever we look into the situation any deeper on any meaningful level.MysticSlayer said:
That doesn't justify them or her saying it. This is you committing a fallacy. Feminists also reject the notion that sexism can't go both ways. This is because feminism as a movement is a massive group with different perspectives and beliefs. The ones that believe males can't receive sexism or are trivializing the sexism they face are being sexist.
She is saying that sexism against men isn't a thing. It's impossible because their dick-brethren have power even if they don't personally have power. She is being sexist here and you really shouldn't be defending her.
She said, that there is no such thing as sexism against males. That males cannot be on the receiving end of sexism. She then goes on to try to backtrack by saying that males still suffer because sexism exists (because it is genuinely harmful to society, something I do agree with), but still maintaining that males do not or cannot face sexism.
It's insanely bogus. This would be like saying that black people can't be racist against Hispanic people because they're a minority. You don't have to have power to hate, have prejudices, stereotype, or discriminate. What's more is that individually, a lot of women do have power over others whether in managerial positions or government or so many other areas. To say that they can't use their power in preference to other females or antagonistically against males is ridiculous and sexist itself. Nobody wins from this rhetoric. Saying that males are sometimes on the receiving end of sexism doesn't take away from the fact that women are too. All denying this does is rob victims of their victimhood, perhaps even going so far as to justify it when it happens to them. It's a polarizing rhetoric that just serves to perpetuate taking sides on the issue of sexism when we should all be against sexism across the board. Seriously, shame on her.
Ok, two things:
1. How are we twisting her words? She says that there is no such thing as sexism against men. You have to twist her words for it not to be that. In followup to her tweet she continues to justify that men (individuals) still suffer because sexism exists even if they can't be on the receiving end of sexism themselves. How do you think it is being twisted when she backs up what she said?
2. What do you believe she is actually saying? That society itself, the powers that be, are sexist against females and not males? That because there are more males in power that sexism can only lean towards females even though males routinely act kinder towards females at the cost of other males?
The same conclusions are easily reached regardless of whether you take her words to be sexism generally or institutional sexism which is the only form that actually requires power to be had but not the words she used. In both situations and in all conditions it is absolutely wrong and unethical to believe that men can't be and aren't on the receiving end of sexism. What's more is that in the face of this complaint of terminology she reinforces the claim and sites articles she's found to back her up that uses the same sort of logic that would claim that any member of a minority is incapable of being racist because they're not a member of the majority when we all absolutely know that racially based discrimination can happen to anyone and by anyone.