Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible

[Vivi22]

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

I assume you can back up this claim with evidence?

It's hard to say that a cause like feminism holds an extreme view as the consensus view when people who identify as feminists or hold feminist ideals are as diverse as they are and there's no singular uniting doctrine which they all subscribe to to some degree or another besides "sexism is bad."

 

[Cowabungaa]

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.

More reason why I'd love to see Twitter burned to the ground.

However, I still sort-of disagree with her; sexism goes both ways when certain stereotypes of genders are enforced. That's possible with bad masculine stereotypes as well. Certain men can suffer from other men's stereotypes regarding masculinity and what's supposed to be 'male behavior'.

Of course it has to be noted that in society as a whole, women obviously have it worse. But a statement like one in that Twitter message above is sort of silly. But that's as much Twitter's fault because you just. Cannot. Discuss. Such complex issues. In goddamn 140 characters.

Anita even, if I recall correctly, says that sexism hurts men, but based upon the definition above they don't technically face it.

See, that's the practical problem I have with the argument that sexism has to include power. Your italics just show me that it boils down to semantics. So guys suffering from masculine stereotypes reinforced throughout society is in practice and perceived moral wrongness equal as reinforced female stereotypes, but it's not technically sexist? Sounds a bit useless to me. If both are equally morally reprehensible what then makes the distinction useful?

And even if you apply the "sexism has to include power" argument, why wouldn't individual men be able to suffer under patriarchal rules? And if they can, doesn't that mean that sexism can affect men too?

 

[jklinders]

Can we just say that Twitter is a terrible forum to discuss anything more complicated than bowel movements rather than talk about what she "meant" to say here?

She either means that statement word for word in which case she is utterly wrong and batshit insane as well or she meant to say something more complicated but couldn't fit it into the character limit. In that case she used the wrong forum to say it. That is just stupid. It's also possible that she is trolling as God forbid she actually fall off the radar for five fucking minutes. In none of these scenarios is she doing anything constructive at all.

 

[Silence]

This just muddles the term "sexism" and deprives it of all meaning.

Either sexism is purely institutionalised sexism, then I can't be sexist at all, because I am not in power (And don't tell me I am a participating part of a patriarchy, that is hogwash).

Or I can be sexist. But then this definition is blatantly false.

Of course it is something else if you talk about institutionalised sexism. But then you NEED the "institution".


Don't ever try to change the meaning of a term, so it can benefit your own agenda. In philosophy, if you don't have a term that fits, create a new one.
But then you couldn't use the old term to mean the one thing one time and the other thing another time. And believe me, that happens even real academic philosophy. And is a real bad habit.


About Anita on this forum: That is why i hate ideologists. Even if a discussion is to be had, extremists poison the well for some time. And poisoning is much easier then cleaning.

 

[Signa]

I was at the bookstore today, and it just so timed that a lady was coming in the door right behind me.

I did not hold it open for her (dont wana becsexist after all)
And yes, i did think it through and come to that conclusion in the second it took to think about it.

Let them stew in the world they created.

Bro, that was a dick move. There's no way to know her feelings on this subject. Just treat her as a person, and hold the door for males and females alike. No need to be so vindictive about it (even if it is what the internet seems to be telling us they are asking for).

 

[Lunar Templar]

Oh look, she said yet another stupid, and incorrect thing.

How is this note worthy again? It's a stupid person continuing to be stupid. Nothing special about that.

Besides, if you really don't like her, stop giving her the attention she clearly after with asinine comments like this.

 

[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.

Anyway, I disagree with her interpretation of the term sexism. Now you might talk about how it's institutionalised sexism but that still has things that negatively impact men like the conscription laws in a lot of countries for example. Sexism is discrimination based on sex and it's bad regardless of who suffers from it.

 

[Story]

I was at the bookstore today, and it just so timed that a lady was coming in the door right behind me.

I did not hold it open for her (dont wana becsexist after all)
And yes, i did think it through and come to that conclusion in the second it took to think about it.

Let them stew in the world they created.

e-e
You know, I'm a women and I hold the door for anyone behind me. I don't know, I just like being polite.

OT:
I'm not sure what to say about Anita at this point. I will say that Tweeter is one of the worst places to have conversations on such complex issues.
I also wish there was another high-profile feminist in the video game industry that actually has some sense to them. Ah well.

 

[Tono Makt]

In case she ever decides to back down and delete it:
"There?s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society."

It is quite possible that there is a definition of Sexism that she can point to in order to justify that statement. I don't happen to care enough to do the research myself, but I am quite confident that there is a definition that would justify the statement.

Why do I say that? Because when I was back in university in 2013, a course I was in (a human Geography class) introduced a definition of racism which defined racism as an ideology created to justify the African slave trade. Created by European and people of European descent specifically to create the notion that Africans - universally dark skinned - were not human or not human enough to be treated as human beings and as such it became acceptable to treat them as literal farm animals. It included systems being set up which allowed for the state to systematically deny their humanity by way of laws and regulations surrounding the treatment of Africans in the Americas, not just the culture of prejudice. Under that definition it is impossible for anyone to be racist against a non-African person, nor is it possible for anyone who is not a White person of European descent to be racist; you can't have a person of African descent being racist against a Latino or Asian, for example, nor can a person of European descent be racist against an Arab or someone from the India subcontinent.

Most of us here would call shenanigans on that definition of racism, but there are people - Academics who are teaching in major universities, in this case - who are pushing that definition of Racism on their students as recently as 2013. And quite likely today as well. So the idea that someone may have a definition of sexism that makes it impossible for anyone to be sexist against men is something that I am quite confident exists, regardless of how idiotic it may actually be in a general or non-academic setting.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

snip

snip

When I read the OP I was quite familiar with the statement in Sarkeesian's tweet. I have already read it elsewhere from others, phrased slightly differently but conveying the exact same content. Sarkeesian herself isn't the originator of the idea, she is simply writing in accordance to theory that she learned. In this case, Sarkeesian's feminism is the feminism taught in universities. There have been some posters in this thread that have indicated that Sarkeesian's statement is at odds with their own personal understanding of sexism. She also got some twitter comments disagreeing with her along similar lines. Ultimately this is a semantic argument, in other words, it is an argument about what the word "sexism" should mean. According to academic feminism there is, by definition, no such thing as sexism against men. If nothing else, we should at least applaud her honesty.

You will notice that she didn't get any meaningful pushback from her tweet, which came out in mid November, and certainly no pushback from within feminism. Her star is still rising, including a [a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment"]glowing cover story[/a] for a recent issue of Business Week. To put it another way, Sarkeesian's tweet is unremarkable and poses no obstacles to her career of any kind. For a woman allegedly fighting the power structure she seems to be having a pretty sweet ride.

Her follow up tweets basically boil down to "patriarchy hurts men too" which, as Lightknight has already pointed out, has really nothing to do with whether there is such a thing as "sexism against men". In no way did she walk back on the tweet in the OP. Whether or not you share her ideas of patriarchy is neither here nor there.

 

[irishda]

Then how would you interpret her words. That "there is no such thing as sexism against men"?

If I granted you the possibility that this was her intention and assumed that she actually meant "institutional sexism" instead of mere sexism like she said, then that first part still wouldn't make sense.

What's more is that men being the dominant gender in society doesn't mean that sexist men are the majority or that the sexism they wield can't be against males.

The difference between the sexism against men and the sexism against women is the same thing as the difference between racism against white people and racism against black people. The former is dealt with.

Is there sexism against men? I'd say there is. But context is important to remember, it's certainly not to the same degree as it is against women, and, as it is easier for men to make changes than it is for women, male issues are dealt with before women's. Why do you think there are prescription erectile dysfunction commercials every two seconds, but a woman's labeled a slut by asking for birth control to be covered under insurance?

Take a look at this sign:

Spoiler: Sign from 1959 Memphis, Tennessee at the zoo

If your response is, "That's discriminatory to white people", you're right but at the expense of the much, MUCH bigger issue.

 

[ThisNickname]

Uuuuuugh, mygod. >_<
*deep breath*

Okay, let's talk about literal vs. practical definitions of words for a sec. Because generally speaking, if you're turning to a dictionary to make an arguement about social issues, there's a good chance you've missed the point.

Having seperate bathrooms for men and women is TECHNICALLY "sexist". But calling it such has no PRACTICAL purpose, because we all know that that's not the kind of thing we're trying to get across about when we identify something as "sexist". When someone says that we are living in a sexist society, they're not saying that we live in a society that has gender-specific bathrooms, they're saying we live in a society that oppresses people based on their sex. And a group that is in power (in this case, men) cannot be oppressed by the group that it is oppressing.

Using that logic, can we understand why it's reasonable to say that women can't be sexist towards men, or black people can't be racist towards white people, or the poor can't be classist towards the rich?

 

[AetherWolf]

She's right, even if it was worded a bit funny (140 character limit and all that). Individual cases of sexism against men can exist, however, these incidents do not have any effect on men on a systematic level.

But keep crying about how Anita is some evil greedy manipulative witch who's out to brainwash the masses. It's cute. <3

[small]Edit: Didn't realize that this topic revolved around a single tweet she made over a month ago. Shouldn't have bothered giving this thread even a fraction of my time. Ugh.[/small]

 

[IceForce]

[small]Edit: Didn't realize that this topic revolved around a single tweet she made over a month ago.[/small]

LESS than a month ago. The tweet is dated November 15, and we've not yet reached December 15.
It's LESS than a month ago.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Anita Tweeted this last month and it does not appear to have been covered so I thought I'd bring it up for discussion:

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533445611543363585

[tweet t=http://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533445611543363585]

In case she ever decides to back down and delete it:
"There?s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society."

This can mean either two things:

One she's gone full SJW (or tumblr feminist for those of you who take issue with that).

Two: "I'm not in the news for some reason, time to fix that"

There's no defending this. None. That's not what sexism means, there's not a single fucking dictionary in existence that says so, period.

And even if that was the definition that could still mean sexism against men is a thing. Like drafts that only effect men or the fact that men get longer prison sentences than women for the same crimes.

I've noticed other individuals begin to start inserting the "power" bit as being necessary to be sexist or racist. It's about as nonsensical as claiming that Hispanic individuals can't be racist against black individuals because they're not in power. Of course racially based hatred and gender based hatred can come from anyone of any race or gender. How bigoted to claim otherwise, seriously.

I heard that definition is used by sociologists when talking to other sociologists so they don't have to say "institutionalized" when they talk about institutionalized sexism/racism. Never seen a source for that though.

But other than that, it's used exclusively by assholes to say "it's not Xism, when these people do it". Seriously they'll twist the definition of power just so they can right in saying it never happens to their group.


Now I haven't read the rest of this thread but my gut feeling is that some of the regulars here will be defending Anita. If that's you please just stop. She is objectively wrong here. That doesn't mean she's wrong about anything else she's said, but it means that hopefully people will take what she says with salt.