Sexism against men

[Cephei Mordred]

I've not read through this topic.

How much of it is bullshit of either the "Sexism against men is highly exaggerated in this misogynist society" or "It's okay or at least understandable for women to be sexist against men because of the past" or perhaps even the really annoying "Women portrayed as humorless killjoys on sitcoms is sexist against women too."

I mean, I'm one of those people who believe that both men and women are humans and thus should be judged by the same standards, regardless of silly technicalities like "gender" or "circumstance" or "history."

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Men being sexist is always a bigger thing because it usually involves brute force, which people respond to a lot more than, say, a women getting a man to do what she wants in exchange for sexual favours, because she knows most men cant resist.

I for one would like equality between both sexes, and do try to go into every situation with those intentions, but it's very hard when you work at a place where almost every women is literally just interested in earning extra money from tips, and couldn't give a rats arse about helping out anyone else. I know this to be true, it's all they talk about other than how badly they think the place is run.

In short: both sexes need to put in the effort for any balance to be worked out, but people are often too stubborn and self involved to care.

How can a women rape a man, they wouldn't be hard, and if they were it wouldn't be rape.

It's not just about rape, also it doesn't have to involve physically pinning someone down and having your way, it could involve threats or blackmail. Plus, men have a tendency to get an erection at any time.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

Dammit, Sexisms towards men is MISANDRY!!! Anyways, I look at very righteous, men hating, women loving feminists...not the rational ones who actually want equality, not to wear the jackboots, the insane ones in the same way I look at asshats because if they're anything...

I go with "an asshat will never admit that his hat is made of ass no matter how much you tell him". A feminist will always say she wants equality even when she hates men and will never admit to hating men unless approached by someone else who hates men and then only to talk about how much she hates men.

Now, I'm not anti feminist, I'm anti hypocrite and anti heretic. People who believe what they believe can't be anything else but the truth no matter what evidence is brought to them and force it upon other people and hate those that don't agree and well. That is what if I may quote my self for a bit the "righteous, men hating, women loving feminists" do. Normal people and the more sane and rational feminists who can produce a thought greater and more in depth then "men suck, I hate men" tend to be more around the "equality for all genders" area. Though this is through my personal experiences of meeting people. I could be totally wrong...

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I don't get why women pull the "we've been oppressed for thousands of years" as an excuse for things when they weren't alive during those years and live in a society that has more equality than back then.

Plus they are being sexist to people that weren't in the past either, so really those women would be completely in the wrong.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh ok so it's not as bad to promote sexist bullshit as long as it's new sexist bullshit.

I didn't say that. Were you deliberately knocking down a strawman, or do you just not understand the fact that most issues are more complicated than black and white?

Woman have all the same legal rights as men do in the U.S. so kindly cut that bullshit.

When it it actually becomes true, I'll be glad to. Until then, kindly cut that specious, FALSE "reasoning."

 

[Togs]

Oh ok so it's not as bad to promote sexist bullshit as long as it's new sexist bullshit.

I didn't say that. Were you deliberately knocking down a strawman, or do you just not understand the fact that most issues are more complicated than black and white?

I cant see the straw man, Father Time quite accurately summed up the blatant message in your post- past mysogyny is no excuse for present misandry, you seem to to subscribe to that line of thinking that beacuse some men treat womenly badly women should therefore be able to treat all men similarly and it be ok.
Dont blame all men for the moral transgressions of some.

 

[Something Amyss]

I cant see the straw man, Father Time quite accurately summed up the blatant message in your post- past mysogyny is no excuse for present misandry, you seem to to subscribe to that line of thinking that beacuse some men treat womenly badly women should therefore be able to treat all men similarly and it be ok.
Dont blame all men for the moral transgressions of some.

Except I didn't say that it was an excuse.

I said equating the two was false. Those are not the same.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy of trying to equate two "wrongs" as equal when they are not. That is what the OP did. Tried to equate two things without context to make them seem like equal "wrongs."

Condemning that in no way means that I am excusing misandry or promoting the same. That's a blatant lie, not my blatant message.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't get why women pull the "we've been oppressed for thousands of years" as an excuse for things when they weren't alive during those years and live in a society that has more equality than back then.

Because for some reason, things didn't magically change.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

All I'm saying is that there has to be a double standard. Otherwise, men will be being called perverts if they so much as glance at a woman. Plus, you do realise that men are raped too? Why isn't THAT big news?

Heh, my eyes and I do whatever the hell I want with them. Next they'd be telling me that fantasising about them is wrong too.

Also rape is overrated. It's the next worst thing after being made a cripple and/or murdered. It's still a terrible thing, but not as bad as some other things out there. And really it all really depends on how you deal with the aftereffects. Nobody says you have to lead a broken life after the fact. It all depends on you.

 

[Archedgar]

Errrm.


It's funny how in the first page a woman complains that there is still sexism and talks about a man oogling her chest and even admitting it, that's not sexism that's just called being a man.
That's exactly the problem these days, anything men do is viewed as surprising and inappropriate, where women have all the advantage and men only have the token benefits that women have given.



Who gets custody of children ? women
Who pays alimony ? men
If a woman hits a man, does the law make a sound? no
If a man hits a woman... yeah...


My mother was a hardcore feminist who taught me to treat women fairly and how everyone should get a fair shake. Back when women didn't want to have an edge but rather just wanted the same opportunities as men; get that? THE SAME, NOT MORE, NOT LESS. Nowadays the cards are stacked so heavily in favor of women that any real feminist views these new "feminists" with harsh contempt.



It's a woman's world. We just live in it.

 

[Togs]

[

Except I didn't say that it was an excuse.

I said equating the two was false. Those are not the same.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy of trying to equate two "wrongs" as equal when they are not. That is what the OP did. Tried to equate two things without context to make them seem like equal "wrongs."

Condemning that in no way means that I am excusing misandry or promoting the same. That's a blatant lie, not my blatant message.

You may not of meant it but thats the way your post sounded, and in which case what were you actually trying to say?

And please keep the jargon to a minimum- it doesnt make you sound more intelligent and nor will it intimidate me.

 

[Something Amyss]

You may not of meant it but thats the way your post sounded, and in which case what were you actually trying to say?

And please keep the jargon to a minimum- it doesnt make you sound more intelligent and nor will it intimidate me.

I think the fact you would imply the intent was either to sound intelligent or to intimidate you indicates you may have an ax to grind, more than any offense on my end.

Suffice to say, I did just explain myself. In the very message you quoted. I said exactly what I meant. What's so hard to understand, especially if my "jargon" doesn't make me sound "more intelligent?"

Jargon or not, the initial claim was false equivalency. I'm sorry I actually know a real term for "pretending to equate two acts as equal when they are not," but I even explained that in my last post.

I was criticising a false equivalency, not supporting "misandry."

If your problem isn't with my stance but my diction, I have explained the first term and used the second only after it was introduced by...Well, you.

And lastly, this has nothing to do with "all men" being blamed for the actions of some.

Putting words in my mouth does not make you sound more intelligent, either. It's just dishonest. Damn dishonest.

 

[Togs]

I think the fact you would imply the intent was either to sound intelligent or to intimidate you indicates you may have an ax to grind, more than any offense on my end.

Suffice to say, I did just explain myself. In the very message you quoted. I said exactly what I meant. What's so hard to understand, especially if my "jargon" doesn't make me sound "more intelligent?"

Jargon or not, the initial claim was false equivalency. I'm sorry I actually know a real term for "pretending to equate two acts as equal when they are not," but I even explained that in my last post.

I was criticising a false equivalency, not supporting "misandry."

If your problem isn't with my stance but my diction, I have explained the first term and used the second only after it was introduced by...Well, you.

And lastly, this has nothing to do with "all men" being blamed for the actions of some.

Putting words in my mouth does not make you sound more intelligent, either. It's just dishonest. Damn dishonest.

No axe to grind just interested in getting some information on a perspective that seems to disagree with my own, but you seem incapable of sharing yours plainly or civilly, but then I guess we all have our foibles.

Your arguement seems to consist of -

"Mysandry and mysogyny are not equal"
"Mysogyny is worse because its gone on longer/is more prevalent"

And then you stop dead, ignoring any implications and offering no conclusion, as well as giving no reasoning to your second statement, this is what Im after as in my thinking the second statement can have no reasoning- both are wrong to the same degree as prevalence does not affect how morally wrong something is; it just makes it more of a problem.

And I was going on about "dont blame the many for the crimes of the few" because in what is admittedly a piece of armchair psychoanalysis the only motivation I can think of for making such a claim is sharing a belief that seems common amongst modern radical feminists that past mistreatment demands revenge.

And I accused you of hiding behind jargon as in my experience the fancier someone talks the more likely it is that they're just trying to dazzle and distract away from what they've said, often because they haven't thought it through sufficiently, this was most likely an unfair assumption on my part but I was erring on the side of caution.

So can you please explain your arguement a little better?
I'm trying to see if there's something in it I'm missing, Im not trying to be confrontational or aggressive Im genuinely interested.

 

[ApophisMP]

This is the product of the Feminist movement of the early 60's

 

[Vault Citizen]

From what I understand the reason that rape or abuse against men isn't as touched upon an issue as violence against women is that it isn't as widespread an issue. I might be wrong but statistically speaking I think abuse against men is quite rare while in the UK about one third of women suffer abuse from their partner (and those are just the women who report it).

To put them both on an equal platform would say that they are both equal problems and I think the evidence suggests that violence against women is much more prevailant.

 

[Something Amyss]

Your arguement seems to consist of -

"Mysandry and mysogyny are not equal"
"Mysogyny is worse because its gone on longer/is more prevalent"

False. Your argument seems to consist of putting words in my mouth.

And then you stop dead, ignoring any implications and offering no conclusion, as well as giving no reasoning to your second statement, this is what Im after as in my thinking the second statement can have no reasoning- both are wrong to the same degree as prevalence does not affect how morally wrong something is; it just makes it more of a problem.

What more, perchance, do you want from me? You make up my statements and then complain they don't go far enough.

And I was going on about "dont blame the many for the crimes of the few" because in what is admittedly a piece of armchair psychoanalysis the only motivation I can think of for making such a claim is sharing a belief that seems common amongst modern radical feminists that past mistreatment demands revenge.

In other words, you further assumed a false stance on my end.

And I accused you of hiding behind jargon as in my experience the fancier someone talks the more likely it is that they're just trying to dazzle and distract away from what they've said, often because they haven't thought it through sufficiently, this was most likely an unfair assumption on my part but I was erring on the side of caution.

Except I explained myself. Both in "jargon" and in plain English. It just. Doesn't. say. what. You. Need. It. To. Say. So. You. Disregard. It.

You randomly go off on what you think I mean, and then expect me to defend it. That's ridiculous. I am not responsible for what you infer, nor should I have to defend your inferences from you.

Stop and think, instead of continually struggling.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, I forgot women still couldn't vote...

Nice quip, but substance is lacking. In fact, it kind of proves the point. Even after the vote was given to women, things didn't magically change.

You know, Stephen Colbert has spent a couple of years actively parodying this logic by saying racism ended when Obama got elected. One change, even a series of changes, doesn't magically nullify everything that's happened.

If you want to pretend you are born on an inherently equal level because of changes like suffrage, that's your own problem, I guess. Doesn't make it true, though.