Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

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.

longer stuff thats backroundy in the spoilers


and why is that the case? Because of the idea that
1. women are intrinsically better at caring(because uterus?) for Kids and also
2.are less violent and delicate.
Also
3.because maleness is linked to sexual virility, advertisement and culture suggest that a man has to be able to fuck all(literally) and must want it all the time, always horny

Spoiler

(therefore the idea is a man cannot be raped by a woman-only if he is a child maybe. Even in some of those cases, young boy, early teens, one doenst try to search long to read or hear a "you should be lucky, having sex with a hot woman"
Or worse, laughter because a man must be strong, therefore if he was not strong enough to fend her off, he must have wanted it.(which is fucking disguisting victimblaming suick bullshit.)

, while women are more romantic and need to be persuaded for sex, upp to the point of being asexual and only doing it for love (unless they´re sluts..)*, their viginity often(depends on society) of worth to them, something not given lightly, the first time important while some guys i´ve done tried to just get it over with bu feel "like a man".



add to that medias intererest in scary guys like fritzel(such stuff sells well) and cases where neglecting children lead to very bad shit and you have this case, where people think" better safe than sorry"
(but thats not discrimination. Ist distrust and must feel like shit, but he wasnt barred from using that service, or legally forbidden to use it..)

Add to that that a really big number of known/reported childrapits and else are by fact men( but I assume higher numbers than reported for female abusers, especially in the case of children. The mothermyth is a pretty real thing, assuming that your mother hates you, harms you is very taboo.
-but one can gauge, by measuring the extremes of shock displayed by media everytime a mother kills her children, how deeply ingraind the idea of mother=angelic warm and caring asexual thing is. (which is deeply.)




BUT.. as i asked-

please tell me, where does it come from? Is it something "feminists" said?
-well, some, yeah.

Spoiler

-> there is a subgroup of feminism which is a bit esotheric, mother nature and such stuff, spirituality and talking about female essence, which might subscribe to such stuff. Also very early feminists also positioned themselves in that way, fighting for the right to be considered citizen, but not necessary equality.

but the mother myth, the woman as sensitive, empathetical otherworldly thing ("the other." there is a recurring motif in that btw) comes out of old books, the idea of the woman as the caring, often sacrificing, altruistic empathetical being, existing to be there for their men and children, not being intelligent or such, but being important because of feelings(while men are important because of ability) is an old idea you find in roman society and then like from 17something, (earlier religious scholars)authors and philosophers wrote books about the nature of women..(well i read only about some german ones. scary enough.Like rousseaus idea of the ideal woman in a book is pretty scary shit. Kant and schiller wrote some tacky stuff as well, but I dont have the book in which the page and title are noted. so only rousseau, hes a bit known for that stuff.

Spoiler

like "but let mothers deign to nurse their children, morals will reform themselves, nature?s sentiments will be awakened in every heart, the state will be repeopled!(emile, on education, i regarded as the first philosophy of education for the west, i think.) or his idea that women should be ?passive and weak,? ?put up little resistance? and are ?made specially to please man.?(s 385) or ?Always justify the burdens you impose upon girls but impose them anyway[...]They must be thwarted from an early age[...]They must be exercised to constraint, so that it costs them nothing to stifle all their fantasies to submit them to the will of others.?

Rousseau changed a lot. His insistance on motherhood, breastfeeding etc lead to the development of the mother, at home caring for her children (well earlier the parents often gave the children away to nannies or shippe them away to relatives, gave them to the church or such.) That helped for this mothermotif
Also nice was reading the opinon which Thomas Henry Huxley "Darwin's bulldog", wrote privately to his friend, geologist Charles Lyell "Five-sixths of women will stop in the doll stage of evolution, to be the stronghold of parsonism, the drag on civilisation, the degradation of every important pursuit in which they mix themselves ? intrigues in politics and friponnes in science."

so. this idea is an idea that men instilled, in time where men wrote book, did art, did the thinking. (well women started, if they had the privilege of money. Women did a lot of things too. But got forgotten quickly.)




*

Spoiler

yeah, like earlier it was the other way around. religious figures in christianity said the women was sexual, deviant, uncontrollable, not intelligent or mature, capable enought to have herself under control, so the man, head of the house, the entity which was capable of showing restraint to the lower carnal pleasures needed to marry the woman to control her. isnt that a lovely thought...

this idea that a man cant control his urges and a woman doenst like sex and shit isnt as old.

The motif of the slut who uses sex to fulfill her own lust for power is really old.
The female temptress, lilith, succubus, sirens, witches, the female vampire(well the female virginal victim became lustrous and dangerous, one bitten->deflowered..)jezebel, skylla, the sphinx, the femme fatale, the tempting enchantress, mohini, daij,salome, yakshi, qarînah, melusine, undine,(mermaids work on a different level) yuki onna, and and and..

every fucking culture in the world, in every fucking time had monstrous, murderous women, who used their sexuality to control men. that is a really really really old archetype and those are names and concept I remembered, and there are even more. (btw, the kitsune often showed up as a hot woman. There are for example, a lot of female demons in that list.
If I would search for men who use their sex as power, well I´d probably would find womanizing gods of greek and roman and norse pantheon-and surely there would be more in other as well, but those fuck for fun, they take women, like zeus took europa(and a lot more)or like the pans and satyrs who just like to have fun,
while the female figures often are out to destroy their victims, seldom they fall in love and get outed(like melusine) as "the other"woldsly being they are-which leads to either their death or the death of their lovers/family or else...

so well, for a long time it was the other way around... But not really better. sadly.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

I am getting into this argument late, so please forgive me if I am missing some context here when I respond to this point. I agree with you that the power part is important to her statement but that it's also a big reason why her statement is utterly wrong. The presumption that men can't/don't face institutionalized sexism because other men are in power is flat out, provably false. Just as women can be sexist against women, men can be sexist against men. "Her version" of what she says is wrong no matter what way you interpret it, whether one thinks she means any kind of sexism, institutionalized sexism or some other form of sexism. There is simply no kind of sexism that men do not face. Now we could discuss how various forms of sexism affect the sexes, what ways they are similar and different and bring out statistics to show what impact sexism might have on a person of given sex in a given situation, but the statement Anita made cannot be defended with any of that. Her statement is misinformed and sexist no matter which way you slice it.

Again, if I've missed something reading over the pages and the various talking pints, I do apologize. I do not intend to antagonize you by misrepresenting your point. Please correct me if I've done so.

 

[Rosiv]

The quote reminds me of the phrase i hear about how: "Black people cant be racist because they are not the dominant race in society."

Even if its true by definition, similarly to Sarkeesian's quote, I think when people claim someone is being racist or being sexist, they really mean someone is being an arsehole.

I would disagree with that.

If I am randomly prejudiced against blonde people, I might be an asshole, but I'm not going to get attacked for being "haircolorist", because generally, there is no system called haircolorism with any power behind it, it's just me being an asshole.

The very reason why sexism, racism, religious bigotry, classism, homophobia, and similar issues are considered "social justice" issues, and spoken of as great evils, is that they are not invented by individual assholes, but examples of deep-seated historical injustices and oppressions.

If anyone would try to reverse them, and be a "heterophobe" or a "misandrist", or a "black supremacist", that might be an asshole, but it's JUST an asshole, and not really an example of a similar trend.

The whole "prejudice + power" thing is not just semantic, but an attempt to match the term with it's intuitive usage that is about social injustice, not random asshole behavior.

So to your quote above, why even focus on power when to prove power it can only be done contextually. Am i misunderstanding, because the way i parse it out, if a white gay man calls a black straight man a "n-word", where is the power difference in this scenario? Are we to assume that since the gay man is white, people will be on his side, since more of the USA is white. But how does that then take into the context of neighbors/people where the population is more heavily sided on black people. Or the prejudice that people have towards gay people, white or black?

The concept of power in my opinion is too arbitrary to be a focus in discussing any -"ism", and we should focus on the prejudices instead, for that we can combat with logical thinking. An obvious example would be, it is prejudice to assume that because a few black, or Muslims or gay people commit criminal act X, that most of their respective co-groups would do criminal act X. And that can be fixed by using proper logic to cut the fact from the "fiction" so to speak. I don't see any solutions to the concept of power dynamics here though.

I'm not well versed in Sociology, or whatever field race/gender/sexuality/identity "isms" fit into, so if I am getting anything basic wrong I apologize.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

I am inclined to agree with the thrust of your post here and I agree with the spirit of it, to be sure. I am not so inclined to agree that most sexism against men comes from other men. I would say that sexism is a cultural issue that infects most people. Sexism is such a broad thing that is so ingrained into so many people that any discussion of sexism has to come with specific context. This is why statements like the one Anita made are so wrong-headed. There are lots of different contexts in which her statement can be proved false and none (that I can think of) in which her statement could be considered correct.

Sexism is one of those things where any discussion has to involve people talking about it in the same scope. That's why it can be so hard to find meaningful discourse.

 

[Dizchu]

I am not so inclined to agree that most sexism against men comes from other men. I would say that sexism is a cultural issue that infects most people.

That is a very valid disagreement. I don't think men are more sexist than women, rather I think they're more likely to explicitly pressure men into fitting a certain form of masculinity than women are. You won't often see women beat the shit out of a man for "being a pussy" (though rest assured, that does happen sometimes).

 

[Lightknight]

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.

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.

 

[Gorrath]

I am not so inclined to agree that most sexism against men comes from other men. I would say that sexism is a cultural issue that infects most people.

That is a very valid disagreement. I don't think men are more sexist than women, rather I think they're more likely to explicitly pressure men into fitting a certain form of masculinity than women are. You won't often see women beat the shit out of a man for "being a pussy" (though rest assured, that does happen sometimes).

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "explicit." You may be able to show that you won't often see a woman beating the shit out of a man for not being "masculine" enough. But what you may find are other forms of coercion more commonly employed by women when they don't think a male in their life is acting according to a sexist standard they hold for that man.

A mother may not strike her son, or even belittle him for not fitting into a certain role she has for him, but she may find other ways to coerce the boy into doing things the way she thinks a boy "should." A girlfriend may not beat on him but she may degrade him verbally. His buddies may give him a shove and laugh at him. An enemy may beat him up and call him a pussy. All of these people are expressing their dislike of his behavior explicitly but differently and all of them are doing it because they have a certain standard of behavior they expect from him that's based on a sexist view. The more violent of these acts may not even be the ones that hurt him the most.

That's why I don't think it's so much a case that men are more or less often to experience sexism from other men but rather everyone is likely to experience sexism in different ways depending on context. The man who gets a harsh jail sentence from a male judge isn't just being subjected to the sexism of the judge but also the pervasive sexism inherent in society. The judge sees the male criminal different than the female criminal because of how a great deal of society views men and women both. This is why I don't buy into definitions of sexism that try to make it out to be a problem caused by a certain gender and their power or only experienced by a certain gender and their lack of it. Every case has its own context, its own scope and its own power dynamics.

 

[Lightknight]

I am not so inclined to agree that most sexism against men comes from other men. I would say that sexism is a cultural issue that infects most people.

That is a very valid disagreement. I don't think men are more sexist than women, rather I think they're more likely to explicitly pressure men into fitting a certain form of masculinity than women are. You won't often see women beat the shit out of a man for "being a pussy" (though rest assured, that does happen sometimes).

It seems to happen in other ways and has for some time. There have been major case studies regarding the great depression where women harassed and publicly shamed their husbands for not being good providers and suicides soared.

We're regularly on the receiving end of sexism from both genders. Asshole men demanding we be what they imagine a man to be like you said, but women too. Women who expect us to pay for date night and automatically assume we're just in it to get into their pants. We live in a society where some women consider us sexist bigots for holding a door open and other women who consider us ungentlemanly for the same. I've had women ask me for help carrying things one day only to get onto me for holding the door open the next (funny thing is that I was holding it open for my friend that was behind her, but whatever, still would have done so for her). I regularly see women poking and prodding men, even physically assaulting them under the assumption that they won't hit back and, honestly, they're usually right.

My experience at the hand of sexism have been far more regularly dealt by women than by men. But, that is only my experience. Do you as a man or woman disagree?

 

[ryukage_sama]

This doesn't harm the cause of equality itself, but it should certainly tarnish her own personal reputation.

This is a semantic argument. And this is relevant to her professional reputation, not personal.

 

[Lightknight]

This doesn't harm the cause of equality itself, but it should certainly tarnish her own personal reputation.

This is a semantic argument. And this is relevant to her professional reputation, not personal.

An argument being about semantics, or the field regarding meaning, does nothing to trivialize the necessity of the discussion.

If a person is a racist, it impacts both their personal and professional reputation. Here, Anita has revealed herself to be a sexist.

 

[Dizchu]

snip

Well I'm working on the assumption that men have historically had a broader societal influence than women, however your points aren't invalid. Maybe it's a matter of perspective and interpretation as sexism is difficult to quantify, really. As you said, there's physical assault but also more subtle forms of coercion that can be just as damaging.

My experience at the hand of sexism have been far more regularly dealt by women than by men. But, that is only my experience. Do you as a man or woman disagree?

I can't really argue with personal anecdotes but I don't doubt you. Personally, most of the harshest gender expectations I've had is from men BUT the most condescending, disrespectful person that has berated me was a girl. She went on a long tirade about how I "should be a real man and stop dressing like a woman" before storming off and severing all ties with me. It was pretty hurtful, not gonna lie.

 

[Rattja]

Alright I may just be an idiot here, but I am having a hard time understanding what exactly it is that she wants and expect to happen.
Is it total equality?

Someone mind explain it to me? Because all I get out of her videos is "Man, she sounds not interested at all why should I care? I thought she burned for this"

Also, why does she have to change the world and everyone in it to fit her own picture anyway? Can't she just go to where she fits in and the like minded people are?
I think going together with everyone that agrees with her and making this own little society or something would be far easier that what she is currently trying to do.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

Found this on google image search:

source: tumblr [https://www.tumblr.com/search/there%20is%20no%20such%20thing%20as%20reverse%20sexism]

 

[Entitled]

So to your quote above, why even focus on power when to prove power it can only be done contextually. Am i misunderstanding, because the way i parse it out, if a white gay man calls a black straight man a "n-word", where is the power difference in this scenario?

It's not about the person's power, but the idea's power. Both of the men in your scenario, are capable of citing powerful words that can greatly degrade the other, through the invocation of a historical oppression and it's present day supporters.

That's what everyone also misses when they go on about how patriarchy isn't real because some men are powerless and some women are powerful.

It's not that, say, a random reddit poster calling a female politician "ugly whore" is such a badass that he will utterly annihilate the whole politician, but that the phrase itself still invokes a lot different ideas, than, say, some other poster there who calls everyone other than herself "cis scum".

The latter is a bit like those trolls who signed a petition for Target to stop selling Bibles. It's not even just that they were sarcastic, it's that they would have been practically incapable of being anything other than sarcastic, because forcing a major store to stop selling the holy book of the dominant religion of the land, or hating all non-transsexual people, are both so out there, that it satirizes itself.

If some by chance a person meant it seriously, it's still not in the same ballpark as the reverse.

The concept of power in my opinion is too arbitrary to be a focus in discussing any -"ism", and we should focus on the prejudices instead, for that we can combat with logical thinking.

That's a nice starting principle for not being a raging dickbag, and you should definitely do that. But it's not an either/or decision.

Once you got the "prejudice is bad" principle covered, you might also want to get involved with analysis of how major historical prejudices got formed, what effect they had on society, and how their effect can get indirictly reflected on us often in unexpected manners.

(for example, like in my parallel discussion with WhiteNachos on how a "women are caretakers" stereotype ended up codifying the belief that a man who wants to travel alone with a kid, is creepy deviant. "Maybe I shouldn't unfaily stereotype men" is a nice starting sentiment, but sometimes people also want to understand the bigger picture.

 

[totheendofsin]

Found this on google image search:

source: tumblr [https://www.tumblr.com/search/there%20is%20no%20such%20thing%20as%20reverse%20sexism]

Forgive me if I find Tumblr to not be a very good source

in fact, find me a dictionary, just one dictionary that uses the 'power+prejudice definition' WITHOUT ALSO INCLUDING 'discrimination or prejudice based on gender'

too many people these days seem to forget that words can have more than one meaning, and that meaning can change depending on the context, in the context she used in her tweet it was clear she was talking about institutionalized sexism, which I'm not sure I'd agree doesn't affect men, it certainly does, just in different ways than it affects women

 

[Tony2077]

i really don't understand how some people so readily shoot themselves in the foot

 

[Rosiv]

So to your quote above, why even focus on power when to prove power it can only be done contextually. Am i misunderstanding, because the way i parse it out, if a white gay man calls a black straight man a "n-word", where is the power difference in this scenario?

It's not about the person's power, but the idea's power. Both of the men in your scenario, are capable of citing powerful words that can greatly degrade the other, through the invocation of a historical oppression and it's present day supporters.

That's what everyone also misses when they go on about how patriarchy isn't real because some men are powerless and some women are powerful.

It's not that, say, a random reddit poster calling a female politician "ugly whore" is such a badass that he will utterly annihilate the whole politician, but that the phrase itself still invokes a lot different ideas, than, say, some other poster there who calls everyone other than herself "cis scum".

The latter is a bit like those trolls who signed a petition for Target to stop selling Bibles. It's not even just that they were sarcastic, it's that they would have been practically incapable of being anything other than sarcastic, because forcing a major store to stop selling the holy book of the dominant religion of the land, or hating all non-transsexual people, are both so out there, that it satirizes itself.

If some by chance a person meant it seriously, it's still not in the same ballpark as the reverse.

The concept of power in my opinion is too arbitrary to be a focus in discussing any -"ism", and we should focus on the prejudices instead, for that we can combat with logical thinking.

That's a nice starting principle for not being a raging dickbag, and you should definitely do that. But it's not an either/or decision.

Once you got the "prejudice is bad" principle covered, you might also want to get involved with analysis of how major historical prejudices got formed, what effect they had on society, and how their effect can get indirictly reflected on us often in unexpected manners.

(for example, like in my parallel discussion with WhiteNachos on how a "women are caretakers" stereotype ended up codifying the belief that a man who wants to travel alone with a kid, is creepy deviant. "Maybe I shouldn't unfaily stereotype men" is a nice starting sentiment, but sometimes people also want to understand the bigger picture.

First off, are you calling me a "raging dickbag"? Cause if so i don't like being called a raging dickbag, if that wasnt somehow clear. If not then disregard, and apologizes for misunderstanding.

Secondly, i still don't get this "idea of power". What does invoking negative emotions based on historical greviences have to do with someones "idea of power"? I understand your scanrio with how the patriarchy still exists even though there are women in power.

But i do not see the relation between a man calling a women a "whore", and then the "idea of power", the notion of a woman being a "whore" then upsetting/degrading the women? The mere act of a man insulting a women could do that in general though, as a white person insulting a black person. Any negative interaction between people who historically were in power and those disenfranchised by them could fall into the "idea of power" scenario. Is it unreasonable to assume a white slave whip cracker would not berate his slaves with words other than the "n-word", such as stupid or dumb?

Just because the "n-word" and "whore" were popularized doesn't make them the only "idea of power" , unless there is some magnitude that could be correlated with the popularization of a words use and then i dont know how one could compare which insult is more damning/powerful, for that seems to be a subjective thing.

For the transgender or just cisgender women calling others "cis scum", are you saying that the concept of a transgender or cisgender women hating cisgender people is so nonsensical that it becomes satire? I dont understand if that is the case, for i always equated it to black people calling white people cracker. Unless black people calling white people cracker is suppose to be satire as well?

In closing, i don't see how the "idea of power" is any less arbitrary than power, for both are purely contextual. And then if power is not only purely contextual, but vague(at least i see it as vague, or maybe I'm just slow) then it should be the case that we should focus our efforts on fighting prejudice instead. We don't have to solely fight prejudice, but to try and attack vague/abstract notions in my mind is a waste of effort,again bearing on the concept of them being vague i suppose.

Sorry if this is turning combative, from my post history I can be that way and i feel that this is my best attempt not to be as combative as before while keeping a level head.

 

[NiPah]

You know there's a really interesting conversation to be had about sexism, feminism, gender equality, all those types of topics. If only we could stop giving one single iota about Sarkeesian's Twitter account for just a moment. It's like no one wants to have an actual conversation about anything, they just want to stay within the preconceived boxes they have, and in this case Sarkeesian = baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad, and anything outside that box just should not be discussed.

I haven't been on Escapist now for a week or perhaps two, because this is how it is. Instead of having a discussion on sexism, and how it effects people in the gaming sphere (seeing as how this is a gaming site), and does it exist for males on the same level as it does for women, or whatever you want to talk about, it turns into a hate fest against Sarkeesian again, and if anyone puts up any kind of "well here, lets talk about this" argument it's shot down by "BUT LOOK AT HER TWITTER!"

I think I shall just retire from Escapist for good. Peace.

Ah dang, it looks like you won't be seeing this, but I actually really agree with this.

I've never agreed with the idea that sexism is prejudice+power, following that logic leads to the very real possibility that a group that is seen to have all the power cannot be the victims of sexism. Following that, there is also the issue that in many circumstances power maybe switched (also what would be the definition of power in the first place?).

In gaming one could make the argument that men are often in the seat of power, be it through leadership or majority, but in the real world this is not always the case, women make up a huge segment (some studies find them to be the majority) of the market, and there are many amazing high level programmers/producers/writers ect in the gaming market (although administration to my knowledge is still a "boys club".

There is also the case of males being sexist against other males, or females against female, the dialog that can be had (and really should be had) about sexism in the gaming world is big...

But like you said it's just not a thing that really happens...

 

[blackrave]

Sad really, the more I read and learn about her and other particularly loud feminists the more I pity them.
They give a vibe of totally not understanding people.
It would be really interesting to find out what their childhood and teens were like.
I'm fairly sure there would be certain moments when other people hurt them (more or less).

 

[VikingKing]

And once again, Twitter is the place where people go to post things they'll regret tweeting for years to come. Sometimes I wonder if the site is run by Satan....