Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible
- Thread starter Lightknight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
I believe they're referring to this tweet:MysticSlayer said:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533768948185972736
She posted this in response to everyone's shock that she would say men can't be victims of sexism carried out against them. She didn't say, "Oh, I was talking in generalities". No, she bunkered down and reinforced it with some bogus "Finallyfeminism" article like it was Merriam Fucking Webster. But I guess dictionaries are hard, am I right?
She is literally saying that gender based prejudice is only sexism if you were born as a member of the gender that she believes is in power. How is the sexism of this not immediately apparent. This DOES mean that women can't commit sexism, that they can only ever commit "gender based prejudices" and that is somehow different to her for some reason. It entirely ignores the idea that there are nigh-infinite different institutions all with their own distinct power distributions rather than some vague faceless system under which everyone silently obeys. What's more is the "institution" has been able to put laws in place to counter most institutional prejudices by making doing so illegal and the ramifications enforceable. It begs the question of exactly how prejudiced a system is when the system makes various forms of discrimination illegal.
I love how the people defending her on this are bending backwards to redefine what she "might have meant" with that tweet instead of reading the tweet as it stands there.
She didnt mention any institutional sexism, she didnt mention any special kind of sexism. In her very first sentence she flat out stated: "There is no such thing as sexism against males" End of story. The rest of her post was just a backwards logic attempt of justifiying her braindead opinion.
And people like that get to air on mainstream media in the US... that shit is priceless....
The biggest nation in the world... and people like her air on the news. Bravo US of A
She didnt mention any institutional sexism, she didnt mention any special kind of sexism. In her very first sentence she flat out stated: "There is no such thing as sexism against males" End of story. The rest of her post was just a backwards logic attempt of justifiying her braindead opinion.
And people like that get to air on mainstream media in the US... that shit is priceless....
The biggest nation in the world... and people like her air on the news. Bravo US of A
I think anyone that's using the "institutionalised" or "prejudice + power" definitions are missing the point.
Sexism IS NOT the prejudice of one gender by another. It is any kind of gender-based prejudice.
I am of the belief that most sexism towards males comes from other males (as men, for one reason or another have the greatest effect on western culture, though you can dispute that if you wish).
Similarly, women can be sexist towards other women (something I see frequently in sex-negative forms of feminism, for example).
People trying to divide sexism up just makes the problem more difficult to identify and address. Sexism breeds sexism, you won't be able to get rid of it unless you take a holistic approach to it.
Sexism IS NOT the prejudice of one gender by another. It is any kind of gender-based prejudice.
I am of the belief that most sexism towards males comes from other males (as men, for one reason or another have the greatest effect on western culture, though you can dispute that if you wish).
Similarly, women can be sexist towards other women (something I see frequently in sex-negative forms of feminism, for example).
People trying to divide sexism up just makes the problem more difficult to identify and address. Sexism breeds sexism, you won't be able to get rid of it unless you take a holistic approach to it.
I already went into this in my response to the original post, going through the institutionalized sexism and her overemphasis on it. If you want more, that post is on the first page I believe, but I don't have time to restate everything again.Lightknight said:
And you took my comment out of context. I said this in order to point out that the meaning behind her comment should be clear enough if you follow feminist writing, as it turns up a lot there. I did not say it in order to defend her position, only that others should put more effort into understanding it, as it doesn't require a lot of effort to begin with.
In this case, "power" is holding a place in society where the prejudice can do actual damage to people, and right after that she points out that men possess far more power than the other genders. Both you and WhiteNachos have pretty much left this out of any response to her comment, and considering its importance to her comment, you aren't so much addressing her as your version of what she says.
Note: Acting kindly is not a sign you aren't a sexist.
After that, this is another place, where I've already responded to it. I'll just place it here, since this is the second time I've had to bring it up:
Yeah, I ramble a little bit, but I don't have time to clean it up.Me said:
Thanks. I'll try to get around to that later. Again, I don't have much time right now. Hopefully, I have time later. (Sorry, end of semester. You can probably imagine what my schedule is like now, but I don't want to leave people hanging.)Lightknight said:
I think it would be awesome if one day all the people that didn't like Sarkeesian just stopped paying attention to her.
No more rape threats, no more copy-pasting her blogs.
No more acting like she had any impact on the gaming industry.
No more gamers shitting themselves over the looming threat of EA bringing her in for Mirror's Edge 2.
No more pointless petitions.
She's a pundit, same as Bill o' Riley. And like Papa Bear, she feeds off of hatred. Hatred makes her famous, the hate is where most of her attention comes from. Ever hear the old saying, "Don't feed the troll"?
No more rape threats, no more copy-pasting her blogs.
No more acting like she had any impact on the gaming industry.
No more gamers shitting themselves over the looming threat of EA bringing her in for Mirror's Edge 2.
No more pointless petitions.
She's a pundit, same as Bill o' Riley. And like Papa Bear, she feeds off of hatred. Hatred makes her famous, the hate is where most of her attention comes from. Ever hear the old saying, "Don't feed the troll"?
A quick visit to my local Larousse (my French dictionary) only compounds that fact.Queen Michael said:
I'm not the manliest of men, but I'm not exactly gayer than a tree full of chickadees, either. I'm a guy who wears his emotions more openly than most other men, a 31 year-old guy who's unashamed to say that he has at least two or three good crying sessions per year. I can't "man up" so much as I can repress whatever's causing me distress, but I WILL need to let it out at some point. It's always been natural to me.
The problem is, being a guy who's moved by certain movies or albums or who was moved to tears after watching "Cosmos: A Spacetime Oddyssey" is perceived as weird by most other guys. I don't fit in with my cousins' hockey-watching, beer-swilling, casual gay slur-tossing routines. I'm not a "guys' guy" or a man's man.
Try getting a job in manual labor with that kind of attitude. Try discussing what matters to you with people that have more concrete considerations. Worse still, just try and sell the concept of Higher Education as being masculine in a context where most of everyone in my maternal family barely has their high school degree.
Guys can be targeted by sexism, believe you me. If you're a guy and you don't happen to reinforce the standard tenets of a Man's Man without having the excuse of having come out or of being observably gay, in my experience, you're stuck in a social No Man's Land where only other socially awkward types ever qualify as decent friends.
Lately I can't even browse these forums without seeing some kind of Anita or GG thread that goes on for several pages. My site visits have dropped off dramatically as a result.
This is not the stereotype, no one explicitly believes that. The stereotypes is that it is women's role to take care of the household and children, and men's to do everything else, so if one would choose the former, there is something wrong with him.WhiteNachos said:
Maybe he is just gay (which is one step removed from pedophile, anyways). Or generally very submissive. In either case, it's weird and icky and not to be trusted.
The implication that he must be a pedophile, is one step removed from that.
The airlines are not doing this because they expect female passengers to take care of other people's children. It's because they are afraid the men might molest the kidsEntitled said:
Edit: Wikipedia has some good sources on this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_sex_discrimination_policy_controversy