MysticSlayer 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.
Sure, and I'm still going to continue pointing out that this coming up from time to time doesn't make it right or somehow different from what she said or that we're saying she said.
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.
We didn't leave that out. We have touched on this directly by pointing out that women absolutely oversee positions of power in which their actions of sexism against males would entirely meet Anita's "Power+Prejudice" definition. However, the context and followups she provides indicates that she summarily dismisses that possibility because she views society as a whole to be male dominated and sexist against women. The article she linked to indicated that a woman could not be sexist if she is in a system which is sexist. She could posses gender-based prejudice, but Anita's claim is that this couldn't be sexism which most sane people would scoff at.
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?
Note: Acting kindly is not a sign you aren't a sexist.
? I was literally saying that they were being sexist by showing kindness, aka preferential treatment towards one sex over another. So of course I get that acting kindly isn't a sign that someone isn't sexist.
I'm not entirely sure, but it probably comes from the way discussions regarding sexism and racism have shifted. Racism and sexism often don't describe single acts of discrimination. They are describing how institutions (i.e. society) leaves certain groups at a disadvantage. The problem with this element of racism and sexism is that it is significantly harder to deal with, since you can't simply point at a few people and say, "Don't give them power and we'll never deal with sexism again." If racism and sexism are ingrained into the society, then everyone in that society potentially has discriminatory viewpoints, and it is on everyone to analyze their own worldview and actions and deal with discriminatory aspects of them.
Racism and Sexism often do describe single acts of discrimination. "Racist" and "Sexist" are terms thrown around like harpoons all the time every time we see individual examples of it. How are you claiming that it is not commonly used both for specific situations as well as the loftier philosophical but not-necessarily specific topics?
Both are common usages and Anita is specifically trying to redefine sexism by women as gender-based prejudice rather than sexism. She is redefining the specifics rather than merely the loftier institutional form.
The thing is, then it isn't to justify Anita's position. If sexism is a problem with society's view of women, then you aren't far from finding a way to justify saying that men can't face it. Yes, men can face the problems associated with sexism, but the sexism itself, at least as society is concerned, is directed towards women.
No, society absolutely directs sexism towards both men and women. Again, here are a few ways that men deal with sexism as reinforced by society:
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 or that it does hurt both emotionally and physically even though it may not hurt as much physically 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, this is a common practice in which males may not have as ready access to their partner's bank account as I do)
-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 outweigh 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 and is thought less of when he fails in any of those areas.
-Males are conditioned to reject expressing their feelings in traditionally feminine ways.
-Males are significantly more likely to commit suicide than females (4 times more likely). Most of the reasons for this disparity are generally considered social pressures and expectations that place men at a disadvantage where seeking social support is concerned.
-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.
-There are certain jobs that men are still looked down on as being feminine, very similar to jobs that women are culturally discouraged from taking. (I have a personal story to tell you about the time I made straight-As in premed before announcing that I was interested in becoming a Nurse for a few years before going full-doctor. It may be telling that I am now in computer sciences as to how that announcement turned out)
-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).
Men and women are both on the receiving end of sexism by our culture. Pretending like it's all just one sided is showing an extreme case of ignorance towards it. I think it is also ignorant to stereotype men as being privileged just because of their gender. In most cases, wealth is a far greater indication of privilege than gender.
Now, there is a lot of merit in understanding the underlying problems in society and viewing discrimination as more of a society problem rather than just "Y said something bad about X." It at least gives us an underlying explanation to the discrimination that we see in studies. With that said, activists like Sarkeesian are so shit at explaining this that no one would actually know that's what they are talking about. Instead, they choose to use terms that have one meaning in one circle and a different meaning in another, and it just leads to confusion like this.
Taking a grand view at sexism is missing the trees for the forest. A society problem is just a set made up of all of those "Y said something bad about X". The forest does not exist without the trees and to say that society has no prejudices towards men is wrong.
But with all that said: Yes, a woman can show hate towards a man under the simple pretext of him being a man. But no, that does not mean that we just suddenly act like sexism, as far as society is concerned, is somehow just as bad for men. It's incredibly gendered, and men, as a whole, are in a significantly better position than the other genders. Granted, the fact that we are now starting to see the way men are harmed by sexist views of women may do some good in getting more men to care about these issues.
Listen very carefully to this if you don't pay attention to anything else (not that I'm accusing you of not paying attention, just stressing the importance of this point of clarification of position): I am in no way trying to say that men have it exactly as bad as women or worse nor would I even know how to evaluate whether or not that is the case. I am not trying to trivialize sexism in any way and fully believe that sexism is a problem.
What I am saying, is that a popular feminist has crossed the line in saying that sexism towards men does not exist. If you can focus on that sentence then maybe you can evaluate whether or not we are talking past each other and agree. Perhaps you're concerned that agreeing with me somehow detracts from feminism or the need to pursue equality. I feel like acknowledging that anyone can face it should only add to the gravitas of the problem elevate the need to strive for social equality.
Otherwise, what good can come of me advocating for women's rights if all the same stereotypes and obligations placed on men are just going to stick around for me at the end of the tunnel? At this point, all I have to go on is that it is the right thing to do and that is enough for me personally. But to hear feminists regularly trivialize sexism and racism we face? Shame on them, those who claim to struggle in the name of equality.
It's incredibly gendered, and men, as a whole, are in a significantly better position than the other genders.
It would be interesting to evaluate this in terms of modern institutions and regulations. Are men in a better position simply because they are men or are the current statistics a remnant of an culture that is only a few decades removed by regulation and hard fought legal battles. For example, when we look at the wage gap in the tech industry do we take into account that just a couple decades ago computer enthusiasts were stereotyped as "gross neckbearded male nerds" and that those are decades where the males grew in experience and training that women who entered late have to catch up to? Perhaps women being so close and in some ways out earning men into that 20-30 year-old demographic is more of an indication that the playing field is currently level as equal access to education and training are now available to all as well as general public acceptance of personal career choices. Perhaps as this generation grows we will see the nearly non-existent gap grow with us.
Additionally, how would we begin to evaluate what constitutes a "better position"? I would consider legislation and general societal pressure to hire a more diverse workforce and to give minorities and women preferential treatment to be a sort of advantage. I would consider a wider range of access to scholarships to be an advantage. I had to earn my scholarships through my grades and SAT scores. I only got my current job by passing an exhaustive 2-hour long aptitude test and was immediately hired as the only person that passed it in the time frame needed. So I will refute the claim that I was in a better position merely because I am male.
See, this is an issue. This is stereotyping in assuming that men have a better shot at things just because we're male. For some things, that's statistically true but that's also statistically true for women in other areas. Women have the public sector and social work in spades, for example, which is cited as a major reason in the UK why women ages 20-30 were out earning their male counterparts.
So assuming that just because my genitals are external that life is my oyster just hasn't been my experience. In most cases I've been treated badly for my gender rather than positively. Maybe this was the case for my father and men before him. But I just haven't seen it, I'm sorry and I think that's worth closer scrutiny before moving forward.
Lightknight said:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533768948185972736
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.)
It is that time of year and I certainly remember the stress. Good luck on your papers/tests/etc.
