Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible

[Dizchu]

Can we please stop calling Anita a feminist, when it seems abundantly clear that she is a feminazi?

The term "feminazi" has extremely problematic connotations (and origin). But despite that, Anita doesn't really show any "Nazi-like" features (apart from her relationship to criticism, I suppose? At a stretch?) She, and many others think that her approach is more radical than it actually is. She's indeed a feminist but she's a feminist spouting old-fashioned ideas that have either been disproven or are just woefully inadequate to account for the complexities of gender studies.

She's the equivalent of concerned mothers getting upset at violence and Satanic imagery in video games. Nothing much more than that.

 

[Lightknight]

Well it looks like you're right about what she says, and I'm not interested in condemning invalid arguments. Yet I still can't totally condemn Anita. When I think about it, I have no investment in trying to equalize the balance of power between the sexes. I am not even in a position to fully assess it - notions of institutional or sexual power were not recognized until recently in history, so who knows what other forms of power will come to be known in the future? All species have imbalanced power roles by sex and I don't see that as good or bad, but we are somehow an exception. Do I as a man like the fact that women hold almost all the sexual power? Of course not, and I'd probably change it if I could. And many women would try to stop me. Maybe that's the kind of loop we're all stuck in. If I were in Anita's position I would almost certainly act the same way.

What position do you think Anita is in? (thanks for having a real conversation with me, by the way, hard to come by in here)

It's a commonly accepted academic viewpoint. I didn't say it is THE only viewpoint. Although, it is a major viewpoint that most academics conform to.

By most "academics", are you referring to a certain group or waving your hand towards all of academia? My guess is that you'd have a pretty hard time backing this claim up were I to enforce the "you made the claim, burden of proof is on you" response.

But regardless. Academics also held that black men were animals beneath white men before racial enlightenment came to grow in America. Why should it be any sort of surprise that some of them hold some other form of prejudice now?

The power aspect doesn't mean sexism can't exist against men. It means, in the current state of society, it only exists towards women because men have institutionalized power.

Ok, first and foremost, you need to acknowledge the fact that men are also sexist towards other men. By that token alone your statement is false even if I were to accept that the world is a power vacuum in which only men have entered.

Next, you should acknowledge that society has established gender roles that absolutely negatively impact men and in many ways obligates men into subservience to defer their own interests for the interests of women (such as holding a door open, giving up a seat, paying for meals/entertainment, being expected to physically confront other males in the event of a conflict, etc).

So whether Anita sees males as being in charge of some cosmic power she sees as controlling humanity or not, there are either areas where men have enacted policies to ensure fair treatment of women or simply areas in which they (this mythical super man group) have no control.

Now then, here's the question. What cosmic power is she talking about? Is she saying that males control all of government and that the government is sexist? Is she saying that males control all of our social media and general public opinion? Is she saying that males control all business? Is she saying that all of these institutions have a central power source that is entirely controlled by males rather than the much more likely fractured regional powers and microcosms of institutions that we actually have?

You see, the concept of power was left ambiguous because any time you start to scrutinize any single source of power you'll quickly begin to notice that not only do women have legitimate power in those arenas but the powers that already exist there have put rules and regulations in place to the point that interaction by women has drastically improved because the system has righted itself. Females in congress have risen by nearly 200% since the 90's and even the last election cycle saw 6 more women get elected and 5 less men. Keep in mind, if men were really in power and were abusing it to 'hold down the women folk' then this tipping of balance wouldn't be happening. Instead, the balance of power is properly left in the hands of society and there are more women voters voting than male. So women even have more power in elections.

Tell me, at what point do we accept that women have legitimate power in society? At what point can the poor and downtrodden female CEO's of major companies like GM, IBM, HP, and PepsiCo finally recognize that they can use their power to cause harm? When will the poor and oppressed female justices in the supreme court finally be able to wield legitimate power?

They already can, and they already do.

 

[Hyrist]

I find it difficult to give Anita proper credence when it comes to statements such as this.

While it is fair criticism to state that institutionalized sexism leans heavily against women, it is not, in fact universally so, even within this society.

Ask any male attempting to gain employment socially deemed a 'woman's job' and you'll understand that there are pockets of 'lady's club' mentalities within our society.

What I find most appaling about Anita's stances while claiming feminism is that she so distinctly draws issues strictly on cis gender lines, which I feel contributes directly to what I'm quickly realizing is the real problem here: The grievances that many misled feminists appeal to is not merely just against females, but against the feminine disposition in general, regardless of birth gender.

If some part of you is female, be it in physicality, choice, or spirit, then society deems you are a lesser and/or something is wrong with you.

Sadly, Anita actually contributes to this problem by referring to anything masculine as a negative 'other' which I feel contributes heavily to the very problems she should be helping to solve. Gender inequality is a chasm between the genders that should be bridged, not a line in a battlefield to fire across. I get the distinct feeling of the latter from Anita.

 

[Lightknight]

Can we please stop calling Anita a feminist, when it seems abundantly clear that she is a feminazi?

The term "feminazi" has extremely problematic connotations (and origin). But despite that, Anita doesn't really show any "Nazi-like" features (apart from her relationship to criticism, I suppose? At a stretch?) She, and many others think that her approach is more radical than it actually is. She's indeed a feminist but she's a feminist spouting old-fashioned ideas that have either been disproven or are just woefully inadequate to account for the complexities of gender studies.

She's the equivalent of concerned mothers getting upset at violence and Satanic imagery in video games. Nothing much more than that.

While I agree with your statement that "feminazi" is a term of extremely problematic connotations and the origin is downright a blight on any who would wield it, I think the ambiguity of the term may provide a sort of lens through which both of you could be right.

A lot of people took the term to refer to feminists who aren't just out for the noble goal of gender equality but are also out for gender control over men. Feminists who cross the line into misandry. If VoidWanderer sees her in that camp as wanting to put women above men then the term isn't entirely off point.

However, I think the matter is a bit more complex than that. On the one hand, I don't believe Anita has explicitly stated anything that would suggest that she believes women should be in control or that she feels men are specifically evil. You know the rhetoric I'm talking about, "Men have had their turn, it's our turn now". That's the extra step she'd have to take and I haven't seen that as much depending on how you view her comments about the patriarchy.

But in scenarios like this where she denigrates the suffering of men to ensure that men who actually suffer from sexism can't also accomplish relief from the cause that's supposed to be for equality then I start to fear that she's gone that way. Where men don't matter as much as women do.

I'm not going to use the term. I consider it a breach of Godwin's Law, first of all. But I am concerned that Anita is espousing doctrines that places the needs and wants and issues of a woman as being more important than a man's. Individually speaking. That Tom is not as valuable a human being as Sara. The quote that started this thread certainly seems to indicate that sort of outright sexism against men and that's fairly problematic if so.

I'll wait for more of a smoking gun on the matter before tipping the scale all the way. This particular quote is a smoking gun of sorts. It does cause me to place her in the sexist category at the very least. But much like a broken (non-digital) clock being right at least twice a day, so too does this fail to mean that her other comments and points are necessarily false. It just means she's a sexist.

 

[Dizchu]

But in scenarios like this where she denigrates the suffering of men to ensure that men who actually suffer from sexism can't also accomplish relief from the cause that's supposed to be for equality then I start to fear that she's gone that way. Where men don't matter as much as women do.

I'm not sure if she did it intentionally or not. I personally just think she's an idiot, she's not aware of the suffering men face because she's grown up in echo chambers that constantly reiterates "Feminism for Dummies". You can see it in her videos, she's happy to pick and choose feminist quotes that she likes to back up her arguments instead of using evidence. She barely even sounds confident when saying this stuff, deliberating for hours (according to her) over single tweets that end up having the flimsiest of logic.

I just think she's convinced that there's all these magical bonuses that men get that women don't, like getting the special edition of a game while she's stuck with the original retail version. The proverb "the grass is always greener on the other side" comes to mind.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm not sure if she did it intentionally or not.

I didn't say that she did. It's really irrelevant in light of the fact that she did say it using precise language "There is no such thing as sexism against men" and that she proceeded to firm up and defend that once challenged. So the intention would only have been relevant had she recanted.

I personally just think she's an idiot, she's not aware of the suffering men face because she's grown up in echo chambers that constantly reiterates "Feminism for Dummies". You can see it in her videos, she's happy to pick and choose feminist quotes that she likes to back up her arguments instead of using evidence. She barely even sounds confident when saying this stuff, deliberating for hours (according to her) over single tweets that end up having the flimsiest of logic.

I don't know if I'd call that idiocy so much as an attempt to cater to one's audience. She has made some pretty significant mistakes that a dictionary would have helped her avoid (like accidentally defining objectification with the definition for the grammatical object of a sentence). But if her goal was to use pretty language that painted a negative image then she still succeeded at her goal. She has made a career of it. That's not idiotic. That's business savvy.

I just think she's convinced that there's all these magical bonuses that men get that women don't, like getting the special edition of a game while she's stuck with the original retail version. The proverb "the grass is always greener on the other side" comes to mind.

This is what she thinks life is like for us:

<youtube=EC21NF5rbSk>

 

[Siege_TF]

It became obvious she was an idiot when she tried to get published on some vague ideals, then had to plead to Kickstarter, then floundered around for a while, then produced some bland-as-gruel videos worth maybe 1/2 of a Jimquisition episode despite having all the money. I dismissed her somewhere around the second step of this cavalcade of mediocrity, and she would have faded into the oblivion she deserved if not for the whole damn Internet pointing and howling like a colony of pod-people (albeit for different reasons).

Still, idle curiosity compels me to check up on how things are going in the Sarkeesian-verse every now and again.

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

Except it's not, and they can oppress men because there are women in positions of power. Minority leader of the House is a woman; CEO of Pepsi is a woman; One of the richest monarchs in the world is a woman. And you do not even have to be in position of power in order to be a sexist because the only requirement for the title is maltreatment of an individual because of their gender.

The success of individual women inside a system of male supremacy does not invalidate the existence of that system, any more than a handful of wealthy black folks means racism is over.

Individual analyses of what are fundamentally class-based social systems are doomed to failure.

Again, sexism is discrimination against people because of their gender. A teacher giving you a bad grade because of your gender is sexist. A homeless person assaulting you because of your gender is sexist. You don't have to be wealthy, or be a part of the so called "patriarchy" in order to discriminate.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Well it looks like you're right about what she says, and I'm not interested in condemning invalid arguments. Yet I still can't totally condemn Anita. When I think about it, I have no investment in trying to equalize the balance of power between the sexes. I am not even in a position to fully assess it - notions of institutional or sexual power were not recognized until recently in history, so who knows what other forms of power will come to be known in the future? All species have imbalanced power roles by sex and I don't see that as good or bad, but we are somehow an exception. Do I as a man like the fact that women hold almost all the sexual power? Of course not, and I'd probably change it if I could. And many women would try to stop me. Maybe that's the kind of loop we're all stuck in. If I were in Anita's position I would almost certainly act the same way.

What position do you think Anita is in? (thanks for having a real conversation with me, by the way, hard to come by in here)

To be honest I've only a layman's knowledge of what's been going on. I thought she was upset at the inequalities between the sexes in gaming.. that men get better portrayals. It's not the case for the games I play but she seems to prefer games like Mario and console stuff so maybe it's worse over there. If I were a fan of girly romance books I guess I'd probably be upset that men are shown as meat-headed cash registers with penises. As it is, I just avoid those books altogether and read the ones I like.

 

[Lightknight]

Well it looks like you're right about what she says, and I'm not interested in condemning invalid arguments. Yet I still can't totally condemn Anita. When I think about it, I have no investment in trying to equalize the balance of power between the sexes. I am not even in a position to fully assess it - notions of institutional or sexual power were not recognized until recently in history, so who knows what other forms of power will come to be known in the future? All species have imbalanced power roles by sex and I don't see that as good or bad, but we are somehow an exception. Do I as a man like the fact that women hold almost all the sexual power? Of course not, and I'd probably change it if I could. And many women would try to stop me. Maybe that's the kind of loop we're all stuck in. If I were in Anita's position I would almost certainly act the same way.

What position do you think Anita is in? (thanks for having a real conversation with me, by the way, hard to come by in here)

To be honest I've only a layman's knowledge of what's been going on. I thought she was upset at the inequalities between the sexes in gaming.. that men get better portrayals. It's not the case for the games I play but she seems to prefer games like Mario and console stuff so maybe it's worse over there. If I were a fan of girly romance books I guess I'd probably be upset that men are shown as meat-headed cash registers with penises. As it is, I just avoid those books altogether and read the ones I like.

Well, she dislikes violent video games so she personally would likely prefer games like Mario as far as a non-violent or non-realistic violent sort of game.

She seems to dislike the roles women are given in games and criticizes tropes like the damsel in distress mechanic when levied against females because she believes it reinforces the notion that women are weaker than men (a notion that I maintain is true, that men and women have evolved with a power difference that is significantly disparate, but that's just scientifically true). She actually cites Mario as a prime example of the damsel in distress trope. I have several criticisms about this complaint but I'll save that for another thread.

However, she has responded to individuals who say, "then just don't play it if you don't like it", she believes that these games are harmful to society and reinforce/maintain sexism. So she's right at the top of the hill, all that potential energy built up just before finally tipping into the realm of censorship without actually being there just yet.

 

[KingDragonlord]

So many people are thread hating. If you don't want to discuss this, then don't but clearly some people are invested in not letting anything be discussed that might make Anita look bad.

I think that's telling.

She said what she said, trying to spin it into something more acceptable just shows your damn bias!

I think it is important for us to at least consider that she could have mentioned something else. But her wording is pretty damning to say the least. There is no easy way to extrapolate a positive message it could mean and even through the most arduous of hurdles we still see sexism on her part. It's pretty bad.

There's nothing ambiguous about how she worded this.

Besides, she is a media personality now and her whole job is media criticism and carefully analyzing the messages in things. She never lets anyone off the hook when even an unintentional message crops up in or can be read in to their work. Why should she get charity that she is not willing to grant to anyone else. If unintentional messages are still harmful, then that works both ways. Especially when this is not even subtext, this is text. But something tells me this is exactly what she believe and she's not going to back off of it.

 

[SAMAS]

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."

What she is trying to talk about is that because she views men as having the power in society that sexism against men doesn't exist if sexism is to be defined as power+gender-based prejudice. The implication being that women do not hold institutional power. This is an attempt to redefine a term in a way that prevents people from being able to use it if they were born male. The attempt to redefine it to rob male victims of sexism as being able to call it such should be seen as atrocious.

I find this to be terribly sexist. Implying that all women are powerless and have no control over government or society while all men are in power and have absolute control is not only stereotyping individuals but making the insane claim that gender-based hatred that we call sexism only exists if you were born one way.[/quote]

Strawman. She's not saying women are powerless, she's saying that modern society is still largely male-dominated, and as long as that remains so, institutionalizing misandry or prejudice against Men is impossible.

By that specific definition, she... kinda has a point. Now if you disagree with that definition, well... you can. It's not exactly the dictionary definition, after all.

It is somewhat disgusting that this hasn't been covered in media, honestly. This is a significant step away from gender equality into misandry. This kind of sexism in all it's forms should be reported on and despised by civil society. This doesn't harm the cause of equality itself, but it should certainly tarnish her own personal reputation.

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. And members of all races and genders can absolutely have enough power to negatively impact others base on their prejudices. How bigoted to claim otherwise, seriously.

There's a reason people do it.

When just a person alone is being racist, they're just being an asshole. It might kill your buzz, or at worst ruin your day for a few hours.

When it has the weight of Law behind it, when you are denied or stripped of basic rights, up to and including Free Speech, Property, or even basic Citizenship, that kind of thing can and has ruined and ended lives.

The attempt to redefine terms like sexism or racism to meet one's own condition is crazy. Sexism is not defined as one having power. It is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." (google search: Sexism definition) Simple as that. If you are stereotyping, prejudiced for/against, or practicing discrimination towards an individual based on their sex, then you are sexist. You could be a female CEO of a massive corporation or some guy in a trailer park with no legs and still accomplish being a sexist bigot. Institutional sexism which does require power can be accomplished by anyone against anyone under which they have control. A female manager can choose not to hire a person because they're male just as easily as a male manager can do the opposite and both would be easy examples of institutions in which power+prejudice are accomplished.

But again, those are individual cases. A man fired by a misandrist boss, if he has proof, can take her ass to court and sue for wrongful termination. And nowadays, vice versa.

But that wasn't always the case. Only a few decades ago, a woman trying that would get told "Of course he did silly girl! You're a woman, you can't do that job as well as a man!"

What's more is that men commit sexism against other men. That is the most blatant contradiction for Anita. Some laws and regulations are absolutely in place to harm men. That's direct institutional power. There are also significant cultural/social stereotypes and prejudices that negatively impact real people's lives all the time.

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.

That's a cultural tradition founded on centuries of a patriarchal society. That is to say, Men are traditionally the breadwinners. As a part of the mating ritual known as "dating", we paid for stuff to show that we were capable of providing for our prospective mate and future children.

It ain't sexism, it's called "Paying the Cost to be the Boss". If you can't pay, why are you taking the woman out? Even nowadays, we men are still the primary breadwinners more often than not. And otherwise, it still shows that we're capable of taking care of ourselves.

Now, if you're looking for a woman to take care of you, go ahead and insist she pays for everything. But many women are just fine taking care of their half of the tab. But let's be honest, the percentage of women looking for a man to raise is pretty damn low, and even then you may not like the price.

-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.

In the immortal words of Wikipedia: [citation needed].

-Men are commonly shown less compassion than females starting at an early age.

Excuse me? Are you actually trying to claim that we Men, who have culturally held ourselves to higher standards than women, are not getting coddled enough?

-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,

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1244752_o.gif

relocate more frequently,

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1244766/unbelievable-bullshit-o.gif

take on more dangerous assignments,

Chivalry, which I remind you comes from the assumption that a woman is incapable of handling said loads. That's why so many feminists hate it so much.

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)

That's a common setup for a dual-income household. One check to handle the day-to-day stuff, the other for extras and saved for emergencies. And back in the day, your paycheck would've had to handle both duties. That's not sexism, that's basic financial sense.

-Men are required to sign up for military draft and women are not.

First, there is no draft. Secondly, women have been fighting for the right to get into combat duties as it is, due to the conception that they can't handle combat. Sexist yes, but not against us.

-Men are expected to risk their lives in situations of confrontation or danger to protect others and are considered cowards if they fail to do so.

That's called being The Man. Being the traditional Provider and Protector came (and comes) with certain Duties. Again, you Pay the Cost to be the Boss.

And again, women have been calling for the right to put themselves on the line for some time now.

-Men have fewer scholarship opportunities than women to the point that women graduating with degrees now outweigh males graduating with degrees.

Once again, if you make a claim, back it the hell up.

-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)

Dude, the whole world is okay with violence against men. Roughly a third of our traditional gender rules are based on the following sentence:

"Men can take it, Women can't."

And that was MEN who said that.

-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.

Because we Males proudly declared ourselves to be so. Well, maybe not the taller thing. That was genetics (and there are always exceptions). Don't go whining about it now.

-Males are conditioned to not admit weakness or express emotions.

And women are expected to have no control over their emotions at all.

-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.

Once again, we took that load upon ourselves. And once again, we did it as a point of "innate superiority" over women.

-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.

Meanwhile, female on female violence is treated as titillation. Yeah, I think we got the better part of that arrangement.

-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.

Go look up the word "Honor Killing", and see who still holds the short stick on rape.

-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)

And there are still certain jobs that are looked upon as masculine, with women looked down upon and discouraged from trying to take.

-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.

And chivalry itself is often seen as sexist. By women, mind you, for reasons I explained above.

 

[Homey C-Dawg]

I've seen people trying to do this a lot over the past few years. They are attempting to force a semantic change by adding "plus power" to the definition of "sexism".

Imo it's a pretty clear and obvious attempt to try to create an environment where it is acceptable to treat men in a sexist manner while simultaneously condemning the same treatment of women.

Why else would she even make such a tweet? We already knows she believes that society acts out what they see in media.

 

[immortalfrieza]

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.

The thread is really pretty much answered right here. I can't really imagine why it's 300+ posts long.

It's because it doesn't matter if Anita was talking about institutionalized sexism or not, she's still factually wrong regardless. It doesn't matter what definition of sexism she was using because men can and have been victims of of all versions of sexism. The reason this thread has reached 300+ posts is because people around here are actually trying to defend what she's said despite the fact that it can't be defended.

 

[Hyrist]

I have to wonder on the intentions of many of those writing in defense of Anita. Just out of curiosity, is it the argument or her you're defending? Sadly, with her, there is always multifaceted intentions on all ends of the argument in my opinion and I think the personal viewpoint of the woman is undue-fully distracting the larger issue.

I don't feel it is wrong at this juncture to be critical of her statement in isolation. In this particular case, the statement itself without her is a hot topic and can be argued and often is.

The fact that it is Anita saying as such only compounds the argument, but should not distract the discussion of what it was said.

I'm of the very strong opinion that Sexism is a social plague that effects both sexes far more deeply than most individuals who enter into the argument are aware of. I don't claim to understand the full depth of it, but it feels that many of those who are most vocal on the subject, most especially with ties to the gaming industry, seem very shallow in the arguments they are making.

The impression I get often in these arguments is that the viewpoint of acceptance for anything, be that the conduct of men, or the conduct of women is unnecessarily narrow - and counterproductive to the concept of equality of the sexes.

Sexism in all conceived forms is both possible, and does exist, on the basis alone that Sexism is an idea and mode of thought. I also feel it is most exposed in the discussion of sex and sexism. Biases and personal ideals are exposed on all ends and often the act of defending the rights of or exposing the failings of any particular sex often does result in the act of sexism and sexist statements itself. Mainly because by the time the conversation ignites itself at least one party feels as if they have already been wronged and must express their personal feelings on the matter, inadvertently (or intentionally) wronging others in the process.

Tender feelings and insecurities are heavily trod upon on both sides in a blundered attempt to seek acknowledgement, awareness and acceptance - a rather sad ordeal for a spectator such as myself to witness. It's simply not possible to full extract one's self from a subject as deeply rooted in the human condition as sex and sexuality.

I do feel that Anita does not acknowledge that when striving for her goals in her own way. Or perhaps she feels that such feelings /must/ be struck against in order to make progress. Given the amount of negative reaction she receives on accounts she may feel justified in her brash reactions. However, I find myself in opposition of both prospects. As I said before, this matter should not be treated like warfare, but rather more like an epidemic - a disease fatal to our progress as a human society. It needs be treated with empathy and acceptance, not with social attacks on all fronts.

If we can but make that first step, the acknowledgement that this divide is something requiring both sides to be open and welcoming to close, then the rest will really begin to fall into place.

 

[AgedGrunt]

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.

The thread is really pretty much answered right here. I can't really imagine why it's 300+ posts long.

Probably has something to do with how she was not at all clear in what she was talking about, and the way people continue putting words in her mouth and reinforce her position with insane academic resource.

That and people like this:

Discrimination against oppressors is one of the only real ways to equal things.

Men lost the right to complain about gender discrimination after thousands of years of refusing women their rights.

"Today's men are responsible for the actions of their ancestors and must endure generations of women seeking retribution for suffering they did not endure" (I suppose they couldn't call it slavery reparations).

Equality will never happen when those in power use all of their privilege and the oppressed have to play fair. They have to follow rules written by the very people oppressing them. That's bullshit.

"Men wrote the rules and women have to follow them; I can't explain any of these magic rules, but women shouldn't have to live by them."

As a man, I've checked everywhere, I was never given a list of rules that benefit me or membership in the privileged society club. Going to call my bank, mostly run by women, to confirm this. I'll also call my former teachers, a majority of women, and I think I still know the name of the female surgeon I was recommended a while back by my family's doctor, who works in a practice, like many, full of other women.

I'll probably not call the many service and delivery people, all men, that come around to my home. They just look like working class stiffs doing jobs women won't do.

Gosh, I can't understand how this turned into a whole thing. It's totally simple once you accept everything you're told on a subject by people who look like they never leave a campus and cannot function in the real world without being surrounded by others who think like they do.

 

[ngl42398]

This is why people take issue with people like Anita and others commonly refereed to as "Third Wave Feminists".

It's an incredibly toxic statement that adds nothing more than to prove how out of touch this is with any form of humanity.

Could not have set it better myself. Every time I even consider listening to these people's points of view, I hear something like this from Anita or some super-condescending comment from Bob's twitter.

 

[MeTalHeD]

Snippy McSnippington

While I can't comment too much about the first batch of responses, I must admit that I haven't met many women (or men for that matter) who complain if you hold the door open for them. I once saw a young woman decline a seat on the bus when a young man, who was looking to gain her favour, offered his seat to her.

Also, I understand all that, and you're both offering interesting views. The question is, what do we do about it? How do we move toward that Utopia where men and women of all races somehow get along? If we oppress former oppressors, it continues the cycle of oppression. If a victim refuses to let go of their victimhood, they will demand "justice" (or reparation) for eternity. What happens when the perpetrator refuses to repay anything? You don't get very far. Few justice systems are able to handle the demands of proper restorative justice on a small scale, never mind trying to wipe away sexism by trying to fix a large scale societal imbalance. We've never even seen it balanced to begin with.

I was once a community journo who interviewed a woman who ran a crisis centre at a police station. They often deal with women who have reported rape and they help them overcome the immediate hurdles, such as getting an HIV test and reporting the matter to the police. Even she said staying in "I am a victim" mode means you never move on. You stay stuck in the past and, in some cases, expect special treatment for being a victim. The ideal would be to overcome the incident (through lots of therapy, for example) and some women empowered themselves so they could help others empower themselves too. Those are the success stories, such as when one woman forgave her attacker and setup a therapy centre for rape victims. Usually, though, they're able to lead normal lives again.

The central theme seemed to be forgiveness. Not saying what happened to them was okay, but actually not allowing any incidents of past oppression to hinder their freedom. This meant they let go of what hurt them and they were able to empower themselves, move on and create success without oppressing anyone else. Forgiveness seems to be in short supply these days because so many people claim victimhood when it can benefit them. Others claim it as a matter of principle because they identify with people who were victimised. I still don't get it though. I mean, who actually agrees that it's okay to oppress someone for being black, white, male or female or everything inbetween? Who agrees that discrimination is okay? No one - not publicly anyway.

I don't know of many instances where the oppressors were actually able to return or repay the people they oppressed, to their satisfaction. This is either because they were unwilling to, such as stolen land never being returned, or they were unable to (Batman's parents are not coming back to life no matter what he does to the killer, for example).

So what should oppressed people do? Hope the oppressor changes? Tell them to give back the power they took? This usually leads to them holding on for a long time, hoping the oppressor will change, and they never do. Here in South Africa, black people are still waiting for white people to care enough about what happened in Apartheid to actually help...it's been 20 years and they're still stuck in poor townships, desperate for a better life. The white folk aren't in a hurry to give up their comforts and help those in townships. To make matters worse, it seems many black folk still believe they do not have the power to change their own fate because of institutionalised racism. But knowing that institutionalised racism exists hasn't changed their circumstances. At some point you have to do something about your circumstances, especially when you're waiting on equality that never seems to come.

I know it's not an either or situation, but there must be SOME way forward? I like the forgiveness idea, but I don't know how many people are keen to forgive their oppressors, even after they're free from them. But, I just don't see people solving their problems by seeing others as more empowered than they are. There are enough stories where women or impoverished people have beaten the odds to become successful. There's gotta be a lesson in there somewhere. There has to be some hope beyond "the reason I am suffering is because of you, now do something about it or I will keep reminding you of your past transgressions against me and my people!"

 

[Nurb]

"You can't be racist/sexist against ____" is a flimsy excuse to hate someone based on race or sex.

 

[Homey C-Dawg]

"You can't be racist/sexist against ____" is a flimsy excuse to hate someone based on race or sex.

Indeed. That's why some people are trying to change the definition of both racism and sexism to include "plus institutionalized power" (many of these people think that power is gender based instead of class based). The goal is that it would allow people to be as sexist/racist as they want towards whatever class of people (white males in this case) that they want to without being called sexist/racist in return.

Just look at how wikipedia and various online dictionaries entries for both sexism and racism are a complete mess (especially the discussion areas). The articles are full of random, out of context statements about things only applying to women/minorities shoehorned into random paragraphs, contradicting other fact based areas of the articles. Most of these articles/descriptions have numerous flags for neutrality, cliquishness, and so on.

As i mentioned in my last post, they are simply trying to force a semantic change to make the definition of sexism more, well, sexist.