Is sexism against men real?

[Schengen]

Is it real?

[Quail]

I feel like I should probably just delete this thread because it's not going to end well. But, since you seem to be struggling to understand how sexism works, I'll bite.

No, sexism against men isn't real. We live in a patriarchal society which overall benefits men. Men and masculinity have privilege, and women and femininity do not. However, although men benefit overall, by being taken more seriously, by not having to worry about harassment and sexual violence as much, by earning more than their female counterparts, etc. ... gender roles (i.e. the way that men and women are supposed to act) are limiting for everyone. Men do suffer under patriarchy, just nowhere near to the same extent that women do. Feminism and fighting for liberation from patriarchy therefore benefits everyone.

[The Feral Underclass]

Clearly Schengen is a troll from reddit here to instigate bullshit discussions about "misandry."

This thread should be trashed.

[Quail]

I'm keeping an eye on it. It's just that this topic seems to come up a lot, so even if the OP is a troll, I thought maybe it would be a good idea to explain why he's wrong for the benefit of other people who might be reading. Maybe we need a sticky or something.

[Zoop]

Sexism against men is about as real as heterophobia, and just as insignificant.

The source of the problem is the power imbalance at play in society, which is patriarchal in nature. Women are subjugated and are forced into a position of subordination and submissiveness. Degradation, humiliation and abuse are rife, precisely because of this patriarchy. Now, what you perceive to be sexism against men, well, isn't. Men do have problems. This is self-evident. These problems though are engendered by patriarchy, and if you don't acknowledge this, then you're missing the whole point, and you're no closer to abolishing sexism.

[Faust Arp]

No it isn't, since sexism isn't a prejudice merely existing in peoples' heads, but a social structure which is very clearly onesided. Sure, there are women who hate men (but who represent an insignificant force compared to the patriarchy embedded in society), but that exists only as a reaction to structural sexism. The same is true for "reverse racism" or "heterophobia".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Of course sexism against men is real. Every day I live in terror of hordes of Amazon feminazis from the planet Misandron kicking my door in and chopping my dick off. No, wait, I'm a crazy liar, none of that happens.

Sexism, if it's to mean anything other than people being dicks (which is not a political problem), is systematic material oppression. And I realise that this is difficult to appreciate in a period when the internet is filled with liberal cultural critics complaining that this or that aspect of popular culture is "oppression", but we aren't talking about twerking or whatever, we're talking about actual proletarian and impoverished women being forced into low-paying jobs, being forced to preform domestic labour without any recognition or compensation, being raped, being beaten and killed, being forced to give birth... none of this happens to men because they are men. Case closed. I could go on about the details for hours, but the point is: if you think sexism against men exists, you're either talking about something completely irrelevant, or you've gone off the deep end.

[Varroun]

Are there people who have unhealthy views towards men? Yes, and I'd wager these people probably had something happen to them to bring about these feelings.

Is their systemic or institutional sexism against men? No, unless you mean gender roles, but that applies to everyone.

[Schengen]

Let me explain why sexism against men is real.

Definition of sexism: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

Yes, it says typically against women, and yes, I admit that sexism against women is more prominent then sexism against men, and yes, we do live in a patriarchal society (although it is getting less extreme), but it doesn't say sexism only happens to women.

Some of the biggest types of sexism that men face are to do with double standards, for example, if I made a joke about a women getting raped, everyone would be flipping their shit, but if a women made a "Don't drop the soap" joke, people would be acting like she's the next Louis CK. And I have nothing against that; I it is after all, just a joke; she wasn't saying "ALL MEN DESERVE TO BE RAPED!", she was making a joke about prison rape. But what does bother me is the fact that even though the women telling the male-on-male rape joke was funny, the man telling the male-on-female rape joke is treated like a sexist asshole.

Sexism against men is a very real thing, and while it may not be as prominent as sexism against women, it does exist, and I would say that it is getting bigger.

I'm not going to say that I am a feminist, because I am not (honestly, I think that third wave feminism has many flaws to it), but I ultimately just want people to be equal; I don't care if you're white, Asian, male, female, transgender, cisgender, agender, I ultimately want everyone to escape from the classist bullshit and capitalism that ravages the earth.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Let me explain why sexism against men is real.

Definition of sexism: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

So we're back to "sexism is people being dicks". And I mean, hey, you can use terms as you please, but individual people being dicks is not something that interests revolutionary socialists.


Some of the biggest types of sexism that men face are to do with double standards, for example, if I made a joke about a women getting raped, everyone would be flipping their shit, but if a women made a "Don't drop the soap" joke, people would be acting like she's the next Louis CK. And I have nothing against that; I it is after all, just a joke; she wasn't saying "ALL MEN DESERVE TO BE RAPED!", she was making a joke about prison rape. But what does bother me is the fact that even though the women telling the male-on-male rape joke was funny, the man telling the male-on-female rape joke is treated like a sexist asshole.

I don't know where you get the idea that "people would be acting like she's the next Louis CK"; I imagine most people would be uncomfortable at a vaguely homophobic joke targeting America's (I presume you're from America) large prisoner population.


I'm not going to say that I am a feminist, because I am not (honestly, I think that third wave feminism has many flaws to it), but I ultimately just want people to be equal; I don't care if you're white, Asian, male, female, transgender, cisgender, agender, I ultimately want everyone to escape from the classist bullshit and capitalism that ravages the earth.

Well it's nice that you don't care, but society manifestly cares, and closing your eyes and going "lalala" won't fix things.

[Faust Arp]

Let me explain why sexism against men is real.

Definition of sexism: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

Yes, it says typically against women, and yes, I admit that sexism against women is more prominent then sexism against men, and yes, we do live in a patriarchal society (although it is getting less extreme), but it doesn't say sexism only happens to women.

Some of the biggest types of sexism that men face are to do with double standards, for example, if I made a joke about a women getting raped, everyone would be flipping their shit, but if a women made a "Don't drop the soap" joke, people would be acting like she's the next Louis CK. And I have nothing against that; I it is after all, just a joke; she wasn't saying "ALL MEN DESERVE TO BE RAPED!", she was making a joke about prison rape. But what does bother me is the fact that even though the women telling the male-on-male rape joke was funny, the man telling the male-on-female rape joke is treated like a sexist asshole.

Sexism against men is a very real thing, and while it may not be as prominent as sexism against women, it does exist, and I would say that it is getting bigger.

I'm not going to say that I am a feminist, because I am not (honestly, I think that third wave feminism has many flaws to it), but I ultimately just want people to be equal; I don't care if you're white, Asian, male, female, transgender, cisgender, agender, I ultimately want everyone to escape from the classist bullshit and capitalism that ravages the earth.

You are being very bourgeois with that definition, comrade Schengen.

[Counterculturalist]

Some of the biggest types of sexism that men face are to do with double standards, for example, if I made a joke about a women getting raped, everyone would be flipping their shit, but if a women made a "Don't drop the soap" joke, people would be acting like she's the next Louis CK.

"Don't drop the soap" jokes are, unfortunately, quite common. Where you go wrong is to suggest that their appeal is because of prejudice against men. The reason that they are considered funny, and that it's considered insulting to suggest that a man might be raped, is rooted in homophobic and misogynistic prejudice. "Haha, if you get raped, you're either gay or like a woman or both." The implication is that these are undesirable traits for a man. In other words, a man who is the butt of a prison rape joke is subject to "guilt by association" with allegedly undesirable "feminine" characteristics, not anti-male bigotry.

[Rafiq]

I propose a ban on all those who prattle of reverse sexism or reverse racism. I also propose that come the revolution, he who makes a political gesture that involves the word "reverse", he who tautologically, self-ironically and opportunistically plays these games, drown in his own blood.

[Zoop]

Let me explain why sexism against men is real.
This is gonna be a laugh.

Definition of sexism: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."
Appealing to dictionary definitions. Minus one point.

Yes, it says typically against women, and yes, I admit that sexism against women is more prominent then sexism against men, and yes, we do live in a patriarchal society (although it is getting less extreme), but it doesn't say sexism only happens to women.
Because we all know that the dictionary holds the answers to societal problems regarding sex and gender.

Some of the biggest types of sexism that men face are to do with double standards, for example, if I made a joke about a women getting raped, everyone would be flipping their shit, but if a women made a "Don't drop the soap" joke, people would be acting like she's the next Louis CK. And I have nothing against that; I it is after all, just a joke; she wasn't saying "ALL MEN DESERVE TO BE RAPED!", she was making a joke about prison rape. But what does bother me is the fact that even though the women telling the male-on-male rape joke was funny, the man telling the male-on-female rape joke is treated like a sexist asshole.
Because those problems stem from patriarchal expectations of how men and women ought to conduct themselves and behave. By missing this point, you inevitably blame women for this "sexism" against men.

Sexism against men is a very real thing, and while it may not be as prominent as sexism against women, it does exist, and I would say that it is getting bigger.
It definitely is getting bigger. A couple of years ago I only got smacked on the arse once a week, but now I can't go out for a walk without women constantly catcalling me ,smacking and pinching my arse, grabbing my penis, and asking me if I want sex. It's awful.

I'm not going to say that I am a feminist, because I am not, but I ultimately just want people to be equal
That's, like, the very definition of feminism.

[Cliff Paul]

I also propose that come the revolution, he who makes a political gesture that involves the word "reverse", he who tautologically, self-ironically and opportunistically plays these games, drown in his own blood.

Ayyy scrappy-doo

[The Feral Underclass]

Let me explain why sexism against men is real

Obvious troll is obvious.

[PhoenixAsh]

Some of the biggest types of sexism that men face are to do with double standards, for example, if I made a joke about a women getting raped, everyone would be flipping their shit, but if a women made a "Don't drop the soap" joke, people would be acting like she's the next Louis CK. And I have nothing against that; I it is after all, just a joke; she wasn't saying "ALL MEN DESERVE TO BE RAPED!", she was making a joke about prison rape. But what does bother me is the fact that even though the women telling the male-on-male rape joke was funny, the man telling the male-on-female rape joke is treated like a sexist asshole.

What am I even reading? Are you fucking serious? This is your basis for arguing sexism against men is real? WTF is wrong with you?

[Alet]

What am I even reading? Are you fucking serious? This is your basis for arguing sexism against men is real? WTF is wrong with you?

This is sadly a very common argument among antifeminists. They actually think videos like this one prove 'reverse sexism':

dtVHnZX8E50

What it tries to imply is so provoking, it makes me wanna puke...

[Cliff Paul]

Some of the biggest types of sexism that men face are to do with double standards, for example, if I made a joke about a women getting raped, everyone would be flipping their shit, but if a women made a "Don't drop the soap" joke, people would be acting like she's the next Louis CK. And I have nothing against that; I it is after all, just a joke; she wasn't saying "ALL MEN DESERVE TO BE RAPED!", she was making a joke about prison rape. But what does bother me is the fact that even though the women telling the male-on-male rape joke was funny, the man telling the male-on-female rape joke is treated like a sexist asshole.

So what I gather from this post is that you perceive that women are allowed to make "funny" jokes about male-on-male rape ("it is after all, just a joke") but you think that it's terribly unfair that men can't make jokes about male-on-female rape without being labeled as sexist assholes...

Poor men - can't even make jokes about women being raped without the pc police accusing them of being sexist!

[Redistribute the Rep]

Here's my advice to men worried about 'reverse sexism'

http://i.imgur.com/AdiBPrO.jpg

[StromboliFucker666]

I am a man yet I am not oppressed for my gender, and neither are you. So suck it up and stop acting like a child.

Nowhere (at least that I know of) are men oppressed. If by sexism you mean posting stuff like #killallmen then you are too sensitive. How is a hashtag and not being allowed into a place FOR WOMEN even comparable to the institutionalized sexism that women face?

[#FF0000]

What are we complaining about if that's the "sexism" we have to deal with?

[Cliff Paul]

What are we complaining about if that's the "sexism" we have to deal with?

What is this, the oppression Olympics?

Look these are all big issues we need to deal with - the fact that being a female comedian is so much easier than being a male one (like all they have to do to become the next Louis CK is make a joke about male prison rape) and most importantly the fact that male comedians have less potential material to work with (seriously - what's funnier than women being raped?)

[#FF0000]

What is this, the oppression Olympics?

Look these are all big issues we need to deal with - the fact that being a female comedian is so much easier than being a male one (like all they have to do to become the next Louis CK is make a joke about male prison rape) and most importantly the fact that male comedians have less potential material to work with (seriously - what's funnier than women being raped?)

all i know is that the female domination of the entertainment industry needs to end

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

This is sadly a very common argument among antifeminists. They actually think videos like this one prove 'reverse sexism':

dtVHnZX8E50

What it tries to imply is so provoking, it makes me wanna puke...

I don't see how this video ties into sexism. Sexism is not some kind of gender neutral word. It's a word that started being used during the women's lib movement of the 60's and 70's to combat the really existing and gross social problem of discrimination against and stereotyping of women. Violence, domestic abuse is a separate social problem, which again women are completely disproportionate victims of. Do women hit men? Sure. We live in a very violent society. But to try to direct the flow of public conversation and concern for relatively insignificant social problems amounts to nothing but fascist agitation. Any such reactionary futile attempts to change the course of history's progress should find no room in this forum! Like Rafiq points out, these agitators should cherish their days of freedom.

[Cliff Paul]

all i know is that the female domination of the entertainment industry needs to end

I know every time I turn on comedy central, all it is is women joking about men being raped.

It's not like comedy central actually employs comedians like Daniel Tosh, a person who consistently uses female rape as material for his routines...wait a second...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

One thing that's pretty obvious is that many men can't imagine how it is to be a working or poor woman, and if they could, they would cry like someone took a tire iron to their nads.

Here's a hint: it's not about listening to stupid jokes. It's about those jokes referencing something you or someone you know are likely to experience.

[Working Class Hero]

I mean, misandry is real, but it's pretty irrelevant because we live in a misogynistic, patriarchal culture.

[#FF0000]

It's real in the sense that anyone can have prejudice against anything but I think it's silly to suggest it's an actual social force.

I do think there are issues that specifically affect men and boys though. I think that calling this "misandry" is inaccurate though since we're talking about men and boys being harmed in some for or another for not adhering to society's standards of masculinity

[G4b3n]

Holy fuck 5 people believe that shit.

[Alet]

But to try to direct the flow of public conversation and concern for relatively insignificant social problems amounts to nothing but fascist agitation. Any such reactionary futile attempts to change the course of history's progress should find no room in this forum! Like Rafiq points out, these agitators should cherish their days of freedom.

Yup. As for the video, it is not about the violence itself but rather about the people around. For antifeminists it 'proves' the 'double standard' of the society. They just ignore the fact that this 'reverse sexism' (God, I hate this word) is based on the same prejudices as sexism against women.

[Invader Zim]

Of course sexism directed against men is real, and some of the comments here to the contrary miss the point. The issue is not whether it occurs, but whether it is systematised and structurally ingrained. And the answer to that is no.

[PhoenixAsh]

There is a valid discussion to be had about the negative effects of patriarchy and gender roles on men and how it affects views on men as a group and as individuals.

But using the difference between a man or a woman making a rape joke as an argument is beyond comprehension.

Sexism against men obviously exist in predominantly men and to a lesser extent in women, whether people here want to acknowledge it or not, most of it is non institutional some of it is (specific jobs/victim status/parenthood), overall it is mostly contextual (varying on topic and geography/legal system) and doesn't affect the power dynamics of the patriarchal system or on a general level is as serious as what the system does to the position of women...buy it exists within that system as an inherent feature otherwise the system wouldn't function.

[Ele'ill]

i think the difference is great enough that the word sexism implies a systemic element which isn't appropriate to use regarding men, but my point isn't to criticize word usage it is to reestablish that the difference is not in fact a grey area but is very easy to define and distinguish

[PhoenixAsh]

i think the difference is great enough that the word sexism implies a systemic element which isn't appropriate to use regarding men, but my point isn't to criticize word usage it is to reestablish that the difference is not in fact a grey area but is very easy to define and distinguish

Gender roles are a systemic element however...and those gender roles define that men can't be raped, can't be the victims of domestic violence, that male on male violence is normal, can't perform in certain jobs (or face both social stigma and repercussions including violence), emotional repression is normal, have reduced parental rights, need to take greater health risk, or their behavior needs to fall into well defined norms.

Those are examples of systemic elements. Elements which are inherited in the system of patriarchy and which that system needs to function in order to create a system of dominance and power.

Sexism is however a useless umbrella term.

And it does well to make a very clear distinction between what is institutional sexism (power and/OR (!!) prejudice) and what is non institutional sexism (prejudice)....and when you do that then institutionalized sexism against men, while real, serves the function of maintaining the position of power within patriarchy over women who, as a group hold no position of power...and consciously affects only certain men, certain groups contextually and not men in general.

[Black Panther]

Of course it's real. We have it everywhere in capitalist countries. For example, prices to visit some events are lower for women and higher for men.
"Todays party is free for girls" Isn't that a sexism against men?

[Quail]

Of course it's real. We have it everywhere in capitalist countries. For example, prices to visit some events are lower for women and higher for men.
"Todays party is free for girls" Isn't that a sexism against men?

Yes, because this is totally comparable to having to travel to another country to get an abortion, or being absurdly likely to have been a victim of sexual violence, or being discriminated against at work because you may or may not have a baby in the near future.

Unless I've totally missed the point of this post and you're being sarcastic :o

[Counterculturalist]

Things like Ladies' Night exist to entice male club-goers to pay full-price to go to a club that will presumably full of women.

If there is a sexist root of this phenomenon, I would wager that it comes from notions of chivalry, "ladies first", etc. - which itself grows out of the idea that women are helpless damsels in distress.

So if you're looking for an example of systemic prejudice against men, try again.

[MethodMania]

"Ladies' Night" is the club selling a housefull of women as a product.

[Comrade Jacob]

No, it's not real.
LOLZ women's night is a thing, Y THer No man's knight?????? Revese sekizm!!!!!

[Zoop]

People who say there is sexism against men are akin to those who think that racism against whites exists. The reverse racism believers. We don't take them seriously, and rightly so.

Just think first before spewing this nonsense. You look and sound exactly like the idiots promulgating 'reverse racism' shite.


Also, I'm glad there are no man's night events. They sounds boring as fuck.

[Black Panther]

Yes, because this is totally comparable to having to travel to another country to get an abortion, or being absurdly likely to have been a victim of sexual violence, or being discriminated against at work because you may or may not have a baby in the near future.

Unless I've totally missed the point of this post and you're being sarcastic :o
No sarcasm, I just wrote what I got in thoughts on the fly ;)

[Zoop]

Leaving aside the horrors women face as a result of patriarchy, let's consider these instances of supposed "sexism" against men.

When considering this issue, it's important to understand the real source of the problem, and in this case, instances of "sexism" against men stems from repressive, patriarchal expectations regarding the behaviour and conduct of the sexes. Perhaps the most notable example of how certain men suffer under patriarchy are those men whose gender deviates from the "acceptable" gender promulgated by patriarchy. Not only is it sexist, obviously, but it is inherently transphobic.
The surge of the alpha/beta male worldview, which both men and women adhere to, is a result of patriarchal expectations. It is a worldview grounded in sexism, which manifests as a vile form of bigotry and transphobia. Homosexual and bisexual men too, are victims. Homophobia is intermingled with sexism, which not only despises them for having different sexual preferences, but for acting contrary to societal, patriarchal expectations.
These examples are the most palpable, but other, much more mild, examples, such as the existence of a ladies night, which was brought up earlier (pahaha!), is also a result of the same patriarchal power dynamics at play.

These things don't emerge out of a vacuum. They are a result of structural, systematic, institutionalised forms of bigotry and prejudice, and in this case, it is patriarchy.

So it does harm men, but to call this sexism misses the point, and it diverts our attention away from the real source of the problem: patriarchy. Women don't exhibit sexist behaviours towards men in any significant or oppressive way, and to say that women are the cause of the problem is obscene, which is exactly what "reverse sexism" claims. It's dangerous to ignore the true source of the problem, because then patriarchy just continues to exist undetected, wreaking havoc. As I've said earlier, reverse sexism (eurgh), is akin to reverse racism (eurgh again), because they are completely oblivious to the power dynamics and relations at play in society.

Anyway, I think I've said everything I want to say on this topic.

[Cliff Paul]

When considering this issue, it's important to understand the real source of the problem, and in this case, instances of "sexism" against men stems from repressive, patriarchal expectations regarding the behaviour and conduct of the sexes. Perhaps the most notable example of how certain men suffer under patriarchy are those men whose gender deviates from the "acceptable" gender promulgated by patriarchy. Not only is it sexist, obviously, but it is inherently transphobic.
The surge of the alpha/beta male worldview, which both men and women adhere to, is a result of patriarchal expectations.

I mean masculinity has negative effects on all men as well. Boys in school are encouraged to act out and not express any enjoyment in schoolwork or reading. This is probably contributes to the higher high school graduation rates of females vs. males.

Also, many men grow up unable to express their emotions in a healthy way because crying or merely acknowledging you have feelings is "non masculine". This ends up hurting women in the long run, since sometimes men will have no healthy outlet to express themselves. (I've seen this happen way too many fucking times...)

There's the whole "you are not a man until you've had sex with a woman" (Sic Transit Gloria, Glory Fades anyone...?). Obviously this hurts women by viewing them as sexual object, but it also creates a weird existential dread in teenage boys about masculinity and whether or not you can be a "man" and be a virgin.

[Sibotic]

Firstly, 'sexism' and the stigma around it are related to similar portrayals of 'racism,' which post-WWII and etc. did tend to be primarily portrayals of something as emotional or particular views, and in this sense it's not necessarilly sufficient to state that 'sexism' or people's objections to it had to do with its really being a structural term and etc., when it's generally brought up in an atmosphere of its being merely particular bigotry or anger or whatever rather than anything of the sort. In this sense it would be applicable either way, although that need not be the whole story. Secondly, feminism, especially the more recent movements drawn on and more associated with the term 'sexism,' was not an exclusively socialist movement but overlapped quite heavily with bourgeois tendencies, if they rip off our language for a separate movement then that's an issue rather than a benefit. Obviously, the reverse of sexism is seriousness.

[BIXX]

Gender roles are a systemic element however...and those gender roles define that men can't be raped, can't be the victims of domestic violence, that male on male violence is normal, can't perform in certain jobs (or face both social stigma and repercussions including violence), emotional repression is normal, have reduced parental rights, need to take greater health risk, or their behavior needs to fall into well defined norms.

Those are examples of systemic elements. Elements which are inherited in the system of patriarchy and which that system needs to function in order to create a system of dominance and power.

Sexism is however a useless umbrella term.

And it does well to make a very clear distinction between what is institutional sexism (power and/OR (!!) prejudice) and what is non institutional sexism (prejudice)....and when you do that then institutionalized sexism against men, while real, serves the function of maintaining the position of power within patriarchy over women who, as a group hold no position of power...and consciously affects only certain men, certain groups contextually and not men in general.

Lol k


Cause we haven't been over this 10000 times that sexism means, very specifically, prejudice and power. Not just bigotry. But I'm not surprised go see you qualify "sexism against men" as sexism.


I guess I could say that there is racism against whites, using your logic.

[PhoenixAsh]

Lol Cause we haven't been over this 10000 times that sexism means, very specifically, prejudice and power. Not just bigotry. But I'm not surprised go see you qualify "sexism against men" as sexism.


Yes and 10.000 times you were absolutely dead wrong in your conclusions because of shoddy analysis and lack of understanding how the system works. But did you actually have an argumentative contribution? Or perhaps you want to take a throw to define power and predjudice here so we can finally abandon the two dimensional models you apply to society. And perhaps while you are at it you may want to put this into context of your idea how community is form of coercion.

[BIXX]

And perhaps while you are at it you may want to put this into context of your idea how community is form of coercion.

Perhaps you should stop dragging shit from other threads into this one seeing as this is t really relevant to the discussion at hand.


So let me get this straight, you seriosuly believe that it can be called sexism against men when someone legit hates all men? Give everyone here an example of what sexism is so it can be shat on ITT.

I shouldnt be surprised that you believe sexism against men is a real thing but I kinda am.

[#FF0000]

No sarcasm, I just wrote what I got in thoughts on the fly ;)

ah okay. you're just wrong, then.

[RA89]

Yes of course it's real, by the actual dictionary definition that is. I've looked up several definitions and none of them require for it to be structural/institutionalised. This requirement for it to be structural/institutionalised is something made up by revleft users. Does it make you more revolutionary to do this?

Anyway sexism against men is so minute it's almost insignificant. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.


Yes, because this is totally comparable to having to travel to another country to get an abortion, or being absurdly likely to have been a victim of sexual violence, or being discriminated against at work because you may or may not have a baby in the near future.

Unless I've totally missed the point of this post and you're being sarcastic :o

And lots of oppression women face in western countries is nothing compared to female genital mutilation...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

[PhoenixAsh]

Perhaps you should stop dragging shit from other threads into this one seeing as this is t really relevant to the discussion at hand.


So let me get this straight, you seriosuly believe that it can be called sexism against men when someone legit hates all men? Give everyone here an example of what sexism is so it can be shat on ITT.

I shouldnt be surprised that you believe sexism against men is a real thing but I kinda am.

Actually it is very relevant...but you just don't wish it to be since it is inconvenient to you and shows the inherent flaw in your criticism here.

The concept you hold is that community is coercion and coercion, as you know, both is as well as relies on a form of power. This means that your conceptualization of power is fluid, purely contextual and based on the idea that everybody holds power over everybody else depending on the group construct of a given set of people (community) as a sub set of society and therefore can hold different rules and power dynamics than that society as a whole.

Which logically means that you are contradicting yourself here or in the other thread. And that is very relevant.

So if you post a post which barely contains another argument than that sexism is, according to you, prejudice and power...and your concept of power is contextual in one thread...then don't try to be cute and edgy and dodge the question that is validly being asked what the hell you mean this time when you use the word power when you apply it contrary to your previously held definition.

Now this doesn't even begin to mention the fact that you seem to have double standard in which systemic power is attributed to individual gender regardless of the contextual reality in which the power is present and in which individual....you know....intersectionality. Which again...means that you seem to use a different definition of power when it suits you. Be consistent.

On top of that...the post you previously replied to contains the explanation given to your question which you are asking now. It was very clear and concise. So perhaps, seeing as you failed to understand what was being said there, you should read that post again....and then you should feel very stupid.

[G4b3n]

I mean masculinity has negative effects on all men as well. Boys in school are encouraged to act out and not express any enjoyment in schoolwork or reading. This is probably contributes to the higher high school.

It seems more plausible to me that women advance in bourgeois education more easily than men because the nature of the educational system is more accustomed to accommodate a women socialized within and living up to the standars of patriarchy, which is a system of rabid obedience to authority. I have heard many more middle class men than women saying things like "college just isn't for me". Which is of course a legit excuse but why isn't it for you? But it has nothing to do with men not being able to express a love for the intellect. I find myself very free in that regard.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Yes of course it's real, by the actual dictionary definition that is. I've looked up several definitions and none of them require for it to be structural/institutionalised. This requirement for it to be structural/institutionalised is something made up by revleft users. Does it make you more revolutionary to do this?

The term has been used mostly in fields like sociology, which study organizations and institutions. It's only recently that people have begun to use it to mean any vague form of discrimination, regardless of context.



And lots of oppression women face in western countries is nothing compared to female genital mutilation...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

It's not simply that the "oppression" of men is relatively less severe. It's that it simply does not exist at all. A man being discriminated against based on his gender is a categorically different circumstance than one in which a woman is discriminated against. It is either an anomaly or a type of discrimination that serves to reinforce the structures that oppress women

[#FF0000]

Yes of course it's real, by the actual dictionary definition that is. I've looked up several definitions and none of them require for it to be structural/institutionalised. This requirement for it to be structural/institutionalised is something made up by revleft users. Does it make you more revolutionary to do this?

Well, no, it's not just "made up by revlefters". The "power + prejudice" definition is the one used in social sciences. This sociological definition is the one that people use when talking about sexism or racism or etc. etc. etc. on a social scale. Source: literally the first thing they teach you in any public high school sociology class.


And lots of oppression women face in western countries is nothing compared to female genital mutilation...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

It's not even a relative thing though -- men simply don't face structural and systemic sexism like women do. There simply is no comparison.

[#FF0000]

Wait, RA89, didn't we have this conversation before? Are you the one who is repeatedly introduced to this sociological definition, only to ignore it over and over again, or is that another user?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Not to be a dick, but you basically just reworded my post? I think I at least deserve some rep for that

[Mr. Piccolo]

Men do face certain problems, such as higher incarceration rates, a greater stigma associated with depression and other forms of mental illness (which often leads men to never seek help), higher suicide rates (although women attempt suicide more often, men more often actually succeed at it), and higher rates of homelessness.

Sometimes Men's Right's Activists speak up about these issues but they always blame feminism and "sexism against men" instead of blaming capitalism which only sees men as worthy so long as they are functioning as workers. This is the real source of "male disposability." I would add that men perpetuate these problems themselves as part of the patriarchal "man up" culture, so again its not so much sexism as much as certain attitudes related to economics and certain cultural attitudes that seem to have developed especially after World War II (for example, the unrealistic ideal of the Ward Cleaver husband and father who knows everything and is completely put together emotionally and economically).

[RA89]

Well, no, it's not just "made up by revlefters". The "power + prejudice" definition is the one used in social sciences. This sociological definition is the one that people use when talking about sexism or racism or etc. etc. etc. on a social scale. Source: literally the first thing they teach you in any public high school sociology class.



The term has been used mostly in fields like sociology, which study organizations and institutions. It's only recently that people have begun to use it to mean any vague form of discrimination, regardless of context.


Are these definitions universally agreed upon? Seems to me that that's a whole different debate altogether. There are people in the field who do not use the definitions you are using.
In any case I don't think it's honest to use such meanings which are in dispute, it's simply picking and choosing to suit your agenda.




Wait, RA89, didn't we have this conversation before? Are you the one who is repeatedly introduced to this sociological definition, only to ignore it over and over again, or is that another user?

If we did I probably forgot to check whichever thread it was again because I've not heard that argument before. Could do with a notification system.

[Thirsty Crow]

Are these definitions universally agreed upon? Seems to me that that's a whole different debate altogether. There are people in the field who do not use the definitions you are using. The matter of the degree of agreement is secondary at best. What is at stake here is whether the "definition" is productive or not, which questions and insights it allows for and which it excludes from the very start.

Any definition that would erase the crucial distinction between prejudice and sexism - between beliefs and attitudes held by individuals and very specific such beliefs that are actual social tendencies with heavy repercussions - is to be rejected on such grounds since it would universally focus on the personal aspects of the problem (and at best, depoliticized and ahistorically conceptualized interpersonal relationships such as friendship and romantic-sexual affairs).


In any case I don't think it's honest to use such meanings which are in dispute, it's simply picking and choosing to suit your agenda. This is a naive viewpoint.
In social issues, it's pretty much safe to assume that dispute is the bread and butter of everyday conversation, activism, and scholarly debate. That is, the way we talk about the world can also reveal our own position in it and associated interests. Not only that it doesn't make sense to say this isn't honest, it's practically necessary if one were not to commit themselves to silence out of honesty.

[#FF0000]

Are these definitions universally agreed upon?

In that field yeah.


There are people in the field who do not use the definitions you are using.

No, there aren't.


In any case I don't think it's honest to use such meanings which are in dispute, it's simply picking and choosing to suit your agenda.


:rolleyes:

How about this. We'll call it "systemic sexism" for the purposes of this thread. Do men face systemic sexism, as women do?

[PhoenixAsh]

How about this. We'll call it "systemic sexism" for the purposes of this thread. Do men face systemic sexism, as women do?

That is a comparative qualifier....and changes the question.

"Can you drive?" is a substantially different question as "Can you drive as well as the Stig?"

In other words...your rewording of the question doesn't answer the question that was asked in the thread title.

[#FF0000]

That is a comparative qualifier....and changes the question.

Yeah my intention wasn't to add a qualifier to that question. My question is "Do men face systemic sexism". The "as women do" part is affirming the part that we (I think) all agree on -- that women face systemic sexism.

[Counterculturalist]

I honestly don't care if people use terms like racism or sexism as synonyms for garden-variety bigotry/assholery in everyday conversation or whatever.

The problem, though, is that almost invariably, people who insist on using non-systemic definitions of sexism and racism when the conversation is clearly about the systemic definitions are doing so for asinine reasons - ill-informed at best, deliberately obtuse with the intention of discrediting anti-sexist or anti-racist struggle at worst.

The person who started this thread did so in response to conversations elsewhere about systemic sexism. They tried to create a "gotcha" because they either truly do believe that anti-male sexism is systemic, or because they don't believe that women are subject to systemic sexism. It's a game we don't have to play.

[BIXX]

Actually it is very relevant...but you just don't wish it to be since it is inconvenient to you and shows the inherent flaw in your criticism here.

The concept you hold is that community is coercion and coercion, as you know, both is as well as relies on a form of power. This means that your conceptualization of power is fluid, purely contextual and based on the idea that everybody holds power over everybody else depending on the group construct of a given set of people (community) as a sub set of society and therefore can hold different rules and power dynamics than that society as a whole.

Which logically means that you are contradicting yourself here or in the other thread. And that is very relevant.

So if you post a post which barely contains another argument than that sexism is, according to you, prejudice and power...and your concept of power is contextual in one thread...then don't try to be cute and edgy and dodge the question that is validly being asked what the hell you mean this time when you use the word power when you apply it contrary to your previously held definition.

Now this doesn't even begin to mention the fact that you seem to have double standard in which systemic power is attributed to individual gender regardless of the contextual reality in which the power is present and in which individual....you know....intersectionality. Which again...means that you seem to use a different definition of power when it suits you. Be consistent.

On top of that...the post you previously replied to contains the explanation given to your question which you are asking now. It was very clear and concise. So perhaps, seeing as you failed to understand what was being said there, you should read that post again....and then you should feel very stupid.
this whole post is responding to an assumption of what I mean when I say community is coercion, not what I actually mean (and have explained), so yeah you're wrong.

[Sharia Lawn]

Men are harmed in certain ways by gender norms but not as much as women are. I am automatically suspicious if people are talking about sexism against me, because it generally means people are blaming women for something that victimizes them more.

[PhoenixAsh]

this whole post is responding to an assumption of what I mean when I say community is coercion, not what I actually mean (and have explained), so yeah you're wrong.

This whole post is a summary of the absence of political arguments in this thread as well as the bankruptcy of the coherent nature of your fragmented ideological position as you prove elsewhere. That position, as is increasingly obvious, is grounded in contrariness and oppositionalistic tendencies.

So instead of one liners perhaps actually bring arguments to the table for a change?

[Cliff Paul]

So instead of one liners perhaps actually bring arguments to the table for a change?

I live life a quarter mile at a time

[StromboliFucker666]

this thread is like watching a train wreck fix itself and then wreck again.

[Luís Henrique]

Simply put, holding and using the whip does hurt the hand of the slaveholder. But this isn't a case of "slavery against the slaveholder", it is a case of a collateral effect of slavery against slaves.

Thankfully in my first language the question doesn't even make sence, as "machismo" is not a sexually neutral word.

Luís Henrique

[Troika]

Yeah my intention wasn't to add a qualifier to that question. My question is "Do men face systemic sexism". The "as women do" part is affirming the part that we (I think) all agree on -- that women face systemic sexism.

Why waste your time arguing with a dishonest, anti-intellectual MRA? They're clearly a brocialist reactionary. This person has been told over and over again what the term means within the academy but keeps defaulting to the dictionary definition as if this were some third grade book report. They can't even understand what you're saying

I mean, they claim to be studying law. While the concept of patriarchy being damaging to men is slightly complex if you're very new to sociology, grasping this should be easy for them, especially since it's been laid out so clearly in a variety of ways by you and others. I'm pretty well convinced they're either a troll or being just willingly obtuse.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeah my intention wasn't to add a qualifier to that question. My question is "Do men face systemic sexism". The "as women do" part is affirming the part that we (I think) all agree on -- that women face systemic sexism.


The question is not whether men face sexism like women do....neither scale nor intensity is relevant.

The question is whether men face sexism.

Regardless of the definition used the answer is yes. Men face both prejudiced sexism and sexism from the aspect of power + prejudice. Sexism against men is even inherent in the structure of patriarchy and it can not function without it...and it is exactly how gender roles are enforced.

Saying it doesn't exist or denying it is an issue is faulty analysis and an entirely incorrect understanding of the nature of patriarchy and how it works.

[Sinister Intents]

It's incredibly simple that men don't face what women face PA. Any sexism against men pales in comparison because it's not enforced by the capitalist system. Have you encountered misandry and sexism PA? I certainly haven't, and I'm not even make, I've received threats and harassment for being trans

[Zoop]

It's incredibly simple that men don't face what women face PA. Any sexism against men pales in comparison because it's not enforced by the capitalist system. Have you encountered misandry and sexism PA? I certainly haven't, and I'm not even make, I've received threats and harassment for being trans

This seems to be a straw man, honestly. He never said that men face what women face just as intensely. Evidently, they don't. When he talks about sexism against men, he seems to be suggesting that patriarchy hurts men, as it expects them to act in certain ways according to conformist, patriarchal standards. This is true.* It's what I've been saying, and I've been getting a lot of thanks for it, which shows a lot of people agree with this too. We are however, talking about the same thing, it seems, but we're just using different labels. He's calling this "sexism". I don't think it's particularly useful to call it sexism, but the label we use to describe a fact is irrelevant. It seems like you're just concentrating on a tiny aspect of what he's saying, whilst ignoring the reasoning behind the post, and the rest of it.

I don't want to speak for him though, and I may have misunderstood things he has said.

*edit: A good example of this is the way in which male rape victims, and male victims of domestic abuse are treated. This is due to patriarchal standards, and the expectation that males need to be dominant.

[Sinister Intents]

Your edit is also a feminist issue. I asked for sexism HE'S faced

[Zoop]

Your edit is also a feminist issue. I asked for sexism HE'S faced

I know it is. You don't have to tell me.

By asking him if he's faced "sexism", you've shown that you've completely missed what he seems to have been saying, due to the straw man you've erected. Why should it be relevant? He has the potential to be a victim of patriarchal standards and values even if he hasn't.

And there are plenty of males who suffer under patriarchy, as patriarchy lies at the core of homophobia, biphobia, transphobia etc.

[Sinister Intents]

The only argument I made was that the sexism men face isn't anything like what women face daily.

[Zoop]

The only argument I made was that the sexism men face isn't anything like what women face daily.

And you're right. The problem is that you assumed he was saying those things, when he palpably wasn't, but whatever, I can't be arsed with this thread.

[PhoenixAsh]

It's incredibly simple that men don't face what women face PA.

That however is NOT the question. The question isn't comparative...The question is whether or not men face sexism. And ypu give the answer here:


Any sexism against men pales in comparison

So yes. They do face sexism. Any OTHER qualifier is not inherrent in the question and applying them shows a defensive attitude that serves a basic level of fear for a debate and or false analysis being applied


because it's not enforced by the capitalist system.

Really? So men can be raped, can be a abused and when that happens they face no structural problems? Men can wear dresses and make up and will face no prejudice or systemic repression? Men are not systematically discriminated against in paternity suits nor face extra penalties in certain job chose or life style choices? Men are not systematically discouraged from seeking psychological help? Nor do they face extra charges on life insurance, or medical insurance?

So yes...those are examples of sexism men face...that are systematically enforced. Both by the capitalist system as well as by patriarchy which extends beyond capitalism.

Now you may want to deny that being an issue because...agenda....but they are a very real essential part of the "system" and denying them shows a lack of understanding of how patriarchy functions and affects both sexses. It may not affect them equally but for the question whether not men face sexism this comparison is irrelevant.


Have you encountered misandry and sexism PA? I certainly haven't, and I'm not even make, I've received threats and harassment for being trans

Yes I have. Misandry btw is intra personal and not structural. But I experienced both.

Transphobia is by the way a form of sexism as described by Serano rather than a phobia.So yes, yes you have experienced sexism.

[PhoenixAsh]

This seems to be a straw man, honestly. He never said that men face what women face just as intensely. Evidently, they don't.

I specifically addressed this in an earlier post.So yes...

[Rudolf]

Both men and women are brutalised by patriarchy but it differs in many ways. As a general rule men are brutalised insofar as they transgress given gender norms. Yet this isn't so much the case with women as women get brutalised regardless of whether or not they transgress. I think considering both as being sexism even with the caveat that one is worse/more prevelant doesn't work as it ignores the fundamental distinction which is not in its quantity but in its quality.

Tbh, if you want to call how patriarchy brutalises men and how it brutalises women sexism, be my guest i don't care enough about words for that, but you've got to make the qualitative distinction.

I'm reminded of a related question:

Is transmisandry real like transmisogyny is or is it more accurate to consider it transphobia?

[PhoenixAsh]

Both men and women are brutalised by patriarchy but it differs in many ways. As a general rule men are brutalised insofar as they transgress given gender norms. Yet this isn't so much the case with women as women get brutalised regardless of whether or not they transgress. I think considering both as being sexism even with the caveat that one is worse/more prevelant doesn't work as it ignores the fundamental distinction which is not in its quantity but in its quality.

That is rather nonsensical to make a qualitative difference. This is a slippery slope. Would one be more of a slave if the quality of slavery is less than that of another slave? And would it then still be sexism if the position of women in one country is substantially better than that in another country?

The definition is based on both prejudice based on gender and sex...


I'm reminded of a related question:

Is transmisandry real like transmisogyny is or is it more accurate to consider it transphobia?

the qualifier as a phobia is not based on any psychological definition of phobia. Transphobia is generally not based on anxiety....and that is what makes something a phobia.

Instead Sorano and others argued that transphobia and homophobia are rooted directly in sexism. Both oppositional or by applying the sexist discourse to either.

[Rudolf]

That is rather nonsensical to make a qualitative difference. This is a slippery slope. Would one be more of a slave if the quality of slavery is less than that of another slave? And would it then still be sexism if the position of women in one country is substantially better than that in another country?

The definition is based on both prejudice based on gender and sex...

You're trying to make it a quantitative difference when my point is over quality hence your talk of more and less. It's not that something is less than something else but that it is different. That's my point.

Using your slavery example... if the quality of that slavery differs to another, say for example one kind of slave is able to gain their freedom while another is not we should recognise that distinction as it could have real effects not only on the lives of people but on any liberation movement.



the qualifier as a phobia is not based on any psychological definition of phobia. Transphobia is generally not based on anxiety....and that is what makes something a phobia.

Instead Sorano and others argued that transphobia and homophobia are rooted directly in sexism. Both oppositional or by applying the sexist discourse to either.

You're obviously missing the point

[Troika]

Really? So men can be raped, can be a abused and when that happens they face no structural problems? Men can wear dresses and make up and will face no prejudice or systemic repression? Men are not systematically discriminated against in paternity suits nor face extra penalties in certain job chose or life style choices? Men are not systematically discouraged from seeking psychological help? Nor do they face extra charges on life insurance, or medical insurance?

So yes...those are examples of sexism men face...that are systematically enforced. Both by the capitalist system as well as by patriarchy which extends beyond capitalism.


As you yourself said, that systemic oppression is rooted in patriarchy. It is derived from sexism against women. Is classism an issue for the bourgeoisie? It's the same as if a rich man were to dress in rags. He would be demeaning himself in the eyes of his class. If a man dresses in women's clothes he is "demeaning" himself just the same. Femininity is seen as less-than. It's not a sexism against men though it is a sexist experience that includes men.

It's like saying white people have to deal with racism. Even though some whites are negatively impacted by the existence of racism it's not a racism against whites that's the problem.

All of your confusion is basically just predicated on your refusal to accept the terminology that the academy uses in favor of a terminology that you're making up yourself on the fly.



the qualifier as a phobia is not based on any psychological definition of phobia. Transphobia is generally not based on anxiety....and that is what makes something a phobia.


No, when someone talks about transphobia it is not rooted in anxiety. Again, you're appealing to dictionary definitions rather than academic definitions.

If you would accept the definitions literally everyone but yourself is using you would be able to understand what people are actually saying. Men, whites, and the bourgeoisie do face instances of prejudice, but it's not misandry, reverse racism, or whatever Fox News is calling "reverse classism" these days (probably terrorism). Those things refer to the subjects of systemic oppression, not the collateral damage.

Believe me, I'm a man who has endured some pretty awful shit that you've described in other posts. I wouldn't call it sexism I'd call it patriarchy because that's what the words mean.

[PhoenixAsh]

You're trying to make it a quantitative difference when my point is over quality hence your talk of more and less. It's not that something is less than something else but that it is different. That's my point.

I am not talking about quantity....I am talking about quality and my examples are those of quality as well. There is a substantial qualitative difference between the position of women in the west and in some other countries. This per the logic of making the distinction about quality, as you do, the comparison would mean that women in the west do not experience sexism in that equation. Hence why I am calling the addition of the quantitative element nonsensical and besides the point.

Sexism is not about quality nor quantity. It is about a prejudice based on sex and gender. Neither the quality of this prejudice nor the quantity of it matter.



Using your slavery example... if the quality of that slavery differs to another, say for example one kind of slave is able to gain their freedom while another is not we should recognise that distinction as it could have real effects not only on the lives of people but on any liberation movement.

But we do NOT call one a slave and the other something else. They are both slaves...and THAT is the point. Which is an example serving as the basis for my further rejection of this statement you made in the original post I reacted to:


I think considering both as being sexism even with the caveat that one is worse/more prevelant doesn't work as it ignores the fundamental distinction which is not in its quantity but in its quality.


You're obviously missing the point

That maybe...perhaps you should clarify your point then.

As it stands now...my position is that transphobia = sexism so the distinction between transmisandry or transmisogyny isn't a thing for me because I don't consider them to be something else than oppositional sexism and conversely a rather narrowed down descriptor of misandry and misogyny in general.

[PhoenixAsh]

As you yourself said, that systemic oppression is rooted in patriarchy. It is derived from sexism against women.

No it is not. That is my entire point.


Is classism an issue for the bourgeoisie? It's the same as if a rich man were to dress in rags. He would be demeaning himself in the eyes of his class. If a man dresses in women's clothes he is "demeaning" himself just the same. Femininity is seen as less-than. It's not a sexism against men though it is a sexist experience that includes men.

You are looking at it from the wrong angle because you are reversing the experience. Rather the gender identity created around the notion "man" is the sexist notion and is a social construct instilled on men to which they are molded, often violently, from a young age. NO man naturally gets born into the gender identity "man". This is enforced. THAT is the sexism. Men from a young age experience it in the same amount as women...who are also NOT born towards the female gender identity and are forced into it. This force and policing continues throughout a life time. The rewards however for achieving the gender identity are different. This however does not mean that there are sexist notions which all men face regardless of performing to gender identity standards.


It's like saying white people have to deal with racism.

Racism is substantially different from patriarchy.


Even though some whites are negatively impacted by the existence of racism it's not a racism against whites that's the problem.

Except "white" does not rely on behavioral patterns such as gender....which is why racism is comparable only with a large amount of caveats to patriarchy.


All of your confusion

There is no confusion. The problem is your lack of understanding how patriarchy operates and how it is a system which is enforced on both men and women.


is basically just predicated on your refusal to accept the terminology that the academy uses in favor of a terminology that you're making up yourself on the fly.

Actually I am explicitly using academic terminology. Now let us examine YOUR concept of that language and terminology.

Let's for example use the academic notion of sexism: prejudice + power.

This after all is THE academic notion of sexism....as I have shown that means men face sexism. Simply put their treatment in cases of paternity, rape and abuse are institutional and systemic treatments and therefore rely on both the prejudice and power concept based on sex and gender. Which qualifies according to the academic definition as sexism.

Try again.


No, when someone talks about transphobia it is not rooted in anxiety. Again, you're appealing to dictionary definitions rather than academic definitions.

Again...your notion about the academic definition is rather weird since the academic position on Transphobia is that it is not a phobia and rooted in sexism....

So you do not have a point here.


If you would accept the definitions literally everyone but yourself is using

Aside from the fact that this is an argumentum ad populum it is also based on the false concept that I am using a different definition rather than the academic one.


you would be able to understand what people are actually saying.

I perfectly understand what they are saying. And regardless of the fact that many, many people are saying it this does not negate the fact that they are wrong and basing their arguments on false analysis and the wrong conclusions.


Men, whites, and the bourgeoisie do face instances of prejudice

Well...I am just going to say that you are throwing a whole range of terms here on the same argumentative heap without making sure that these terms are actually synonymous and comparable. There is a little hint: they are not.

Racism is an entirely different system than patriarchy. Classism is basically the same. Neither of the two are comparable to patriarchy.


, but it's not misandry,

I said this before. Misandry is an interpersonal and not a systemic notion. Neither is sexism against women equal to misogyny. The qualifier (academic) for both misogyny and misandry go beyond prejudice....and do not have anything to do with power (necessarily)

So when somebody says that women are particularly well suited to take care of children....this is sexist...it is however not necessarily misogynistic. The same goes when society says that men should not work with children because of the risks they pose...this is sexist...not necessarily misandry.


reverse racism, or whatever Fox News is calling "reverse classism" these days (probably terrorism). Those things refer to the subjects of systemic oppression, not the collateral damage.

See above.


Believe me, I'm a man who has endured some pretty awful shit that you've described in other posts. I wouldn't call it sexism I'd call it patriarchy because that's what the words mean.

I don't think you know what patriarchy means.

Now....feminist theory by the way (lets drag that into the debate)...defines patriarchy as a system of oppression that is oppressive, prejudiced and hierarchical to both men and women.

Hell; some feminist streams even originate classism with patriarchal development. Both these definition would automatically void your position. Now I would suggest that you read some Hook and Leger (especially the last one) which specify patriarchy of a fictive system in which some men hold power over both men and women. Then of course we have Kyrarchical theory and intersectionality which pretty much void the one dimensional identity of patriarchy you seem to hold here where all men are always dominant over all women.

So no. We do not agree.

[Troika]

There is no confusion. The problem is your lack of understanding how patriarchy operates and how it is a system which is enforced on both men and women.

lol I think you need to reread everything everyone has said if this is what you've gotten out of it.





This after all is THE academic notion of sexism....as I have shown that means men face sexism. Simply put their treatment in cases of paternity, rape and abuse are institutional and systemic treatments and therefore rely on both the prejudice and power concept based on sex and gender. Which qualifies according to the academic definition as sexism.

I don't think you really understand what prejudice+power is supposed to mean.



Again...your notion about the academic definition is rather weird since the academic position on Transphobia is that it is not a phobia and rooted in sexism....

Again, you need to reread what I actually said.





Aside from the fact that this is an argumentum ad populum

Oh jesus, another internet logician. See, it would be an ad populum if it weren't for the fact that the whole point of language is to communicate. If you make up your own terminology that's distinctly different from the terminology everyone else uses (and I mean most people within academia, just so you don't spin off into another pedantic rant) and and you refuse to speak in a way that can be understood then you're not really doing language.





I perfectly understand what they are saying. And regardless of the fact that many, many people are saying it this does not negate the fact that they are wrong and basing their arguments on false analysis and the wrong conclusions.

You've demonstrated that you don't really know what anyone is saying to you here time and time again. It's honestly really weird.



Racism is an entirely different system than patriarchy. Classism is basically the same. Neither of the two are comparable to patriarchy.

Either you've misunderstood the entire point of the simile or you don't understand what prejudice+power actually means.





I said this before. Misandry is an interpersonal and not a systemic notion.

And everyone has accepted that some men face prejudice because of patriarchy. We're beyond that now. Also lol @ using the term "misandry" in a serious way that's hilarious.



I don't think you know what patriarchy means.

Now....feminist theory by the way (lets drag that into the debate)...defines patriarchy as a system of oppression that is oppressive, prejudiced and hierarchical to both men and women.

How do you not understand the words you're using? Holy shit. Are you a troll?



Then of course we have Kyrarchical theory and intersectionality which pretty much void the one dimensional identity of patriarchy you seem to hold here where all men are always dominant over all women.

If you think intersectionality voids any of this then I think you're misunderstanding that entire body of work as well. Nobody said all men are always dominant over all women.



So no. We do not agree.

That's nice, your lordship. Seriously, you need to work on that reading comprehension. This entire thread really is predicated on your inability to understand what anyone is saying.

I'm like almost certain you're some kind of troll. Like, you're mixing intersectional theory with MRA talking points and talking at people as if you were having a conversation with your imaginary friend that nobody else can hear. It's so weird. So you're either a troll or English is not your first language and your ESL teacher played some kind of hideously cruel joke on you.

[PhoenixAsh]

lol I think you need to reread everything everyone has said if this is what you've gotten out of it.

I don't think you really understand what prejudice+power is supposed to mean.

Again, you need to reread what I actually said.


None of these actually contain any form of argument other than "well that is not what I actually said" when it is in fact exactly what you said.

Patriarchy, other than what you seem to understand { based on how you argue and what you say when you said this: As you yourself said, that systemic oppression is rooted in patriarchy It is derived from sexism against women. } is not a system exclusively designed to suppress women. It is a system which is designed in order to create a social hierarchy based on the forcible transformation of people, both male and female, into rigidly designed social constructed notions of behavior which is harmful, hierarchical and uses soci/economic/cultural power to enforce this against both men and women.

This is feminist theory one on one.....for dummies.

And while women suffer quantitatively and qualitatively more then men, patriarchy is both sexist towards men and women. This system is enforced by the ruling elite, by society at large (both men and women) even though it is mainly male driven and epoch dependent in how it expresses (meaning that sexism now is substantially different from sexism in feudal society).

As I explained in another post in this thread sexism against men predominantly occurs by men as an institutional concept but can be enforced on social level by both men and women...

Your understanding of patriarchy is limited, based on false analysis and lacks academic insight. Academic btw a word you introduced here in order to lend some sort of credibility to your statements.


Oh jesus, another internet logician. See, it would be an ad populum if it weren't for the fact that the whole point of language is to communicate.


Really? Because YOU introduced a notion of sexism which goes beyond the common use of the word and explicitly introduced the academic definition as the only one being valid. Now aside from the fact that I have in previous post simply shown that based on both the common use definition and the academic definition men do face sexism....as well as how feminism defines patriarchy...your position about " OMG it can't be an argument ad populum because of communication" is complete and utter bullshit in and of itself.

An ad populum argument is exactly what you make when you question the validity of my arguments as well as my level of comprehension of the debate matter based on what everybody else is saying....which is exactly what you did in your post.

What I am trying to get through to you is that I perfectly understand what everybody else is saying and that what everybody else is saying is wrong.


If you make up your own terminology that's distinctly different from the terminology everyone else uses (and I mean most people within academia, just so you don't spin off into another pedantic rant) and and you refuse to speak in a way that can be understood then you're not really doing language.

Except I am using exactly the definitions everybody else is using...you simply refuse to accept the fact that your arguments are wrong.


You've demonstrated that you don't really know what anyone is saying to you here time and time again. It's honestly really weird.

I do know what they are saying...they are saying rather a large amount of bullshit which is both agenda driven and stems from a complete misconception of what we are actually talking about.


Either you've misunderstood the entire point of the simile or you don't understand what prejudice+power actually means.

I understand perfectly. You do not seem to understand that racism =/= patriarchy =/= classism. these structures are qualitatively different and can't be compared or used as examples of each other without making a huge amounts of caveats.

So when you say men don't face sexism just like whites don't face racism...this is NOT because the structures are the same and comparable this is because you
do not seem to understand that racism and patriarchy are different systems which operate in a very distinctly different manner.


And everyone has accepted that some men face prejudice because of patriarchy. We're beyond that now.

Actually we are not beyond that because the entire point you are making here is that while men face prejudice they do not face sexism because it lacks a structural nature embedded in a power position.

This has no factual basis and in fact goes against feminist theory about the nature of patriarchy.


Also lol @ using the term "misandry" in a serious way that's hilarious.

Well...do you deny that some men and women positively hate men in general? Because that is what misandry is....the hatred of one individual for another based on their male sex.


How do you not understand the words you're using? Holy shit. Are you a troll?

I do. And this reaction shows you are neither familiar with feminist theory nor with the nature of patriarchy. Now I suggest you go do some reading and come back when you actually know what the hell you are talking about.


If you think intersectionality voids any of this then I think you're misunderstanding that entire body of work as well. Nobody said all men are always dominant over all women.

Really? Because that is exactly what voids your notion of sexism because that is what your academic definition entails when you reject a structural aspect to sexism against men ;)


That's nice, your lordship. Seriously, you need to work on that reading comprehension. This entire thread really is predicated on your inability to understand what anyone is saying.

I'm like almost certain you're some kind of troll. Like, you're mixing intersectional theory with MRA talking points and talking at people as if you were having a conversation with your imaginary friend that nobody else can hear. It's so weird. So you're either a troll or English is not your first language and your ESL teacher played some kind of hideously cruel joke on you.

Hmmm...well so far I have yet to see one argument from you which actually contains any form of knowledge and understanding. The main point you are making "you don't understand what anybody else is saying" which you repeat consistently.

You do this to show that I am somehow wrong and do not comprehend the subject matter and to invalidate the arguments without actually needing to address them....which is basically the textbook definition of an argument ad populum....as well as a sign of trolling especially considering that you seem to want us to believe that I am somehow using different defintions rather than using the exact same definitions as well as citing several well known feminists to back up my assertion (which you so far have failed to take note of).

Now unless you actually attach some substance to your posts and/or address the arguments I am making directly...I think we can both agree that so far you have failed to provide any basis for your arrogant demeanor which isn't warranted by your complete lack validity and knowledge so far.

[#FF0000]

you know overseers in the plaintations sometimes really hurt their hands while whipping slaves so you see slavery hurts slave and overseer alike. the fact you don't see that just demonstrates that u don't understand slavery

[Troika]

My money still says uninspired troll. It's creative and potentially inflammatory to mix MRA ideas with feminism but the execution is pretty bland.

[PhoenixAsh]

you know overseers in the plaintations sometimes really hurt their hands while whipping slaves so you see slavery hurts slave and overseer alike. the fact you don't see that just demonstrates that u don't understand slavery

Well yes because men are slave owners which totally warrants the equation. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

My money still says uninspired troll. It's creative and potentially inflammatory to mix MRA ideas with feminism but the execution is pretty bland.

Yes but your money would say that because you are in fact an idiot....and one who doesn't seem familiar with feminist theory.

Now let's recap. The OP question is whether or not men face sexism. The answer to this question is that they face sexism according to both the academic and common parleance definition. Any other qualifier for this which compares this with the sexism women face, both in quantity and quality, is irrelevant for the answer to that specific question. So far you have been unable to come up with any argument which refutes the examples I have given or refutes them being systemic and essential to and inherent in the system of patriarchy. Nor have you adequately addressed the fact that feminist theory about patriarchy specifically defines the system of patriarchy as hierarchical, harmful and repressive against both men and women which is something that further substantiates my arguments.

What you so far managed to write up is a rather pathetic collection of "you don't use the correct definition" and "you don't understand what is being said" and "you don't understand the material" and "you don't understand what everybody else is saying" and "OMG MRA" all serving to discredit arguments without actually addressing them with any substance. So far you have yet to mention anything resembling an argument that is not in some way based on a specific debate fallacy which attacks the one making the arguments rather than the arguments.

[PhoenixAsh]

Man, he's still going.

Of course after all I replied to your contribution in this thread in which you directly addressed me...which makes this a posts which shows a level of intellectual dishonesty that is beyond pathetic. Which should not be really surprising given your complete and utter inability to actually formulate an argument which isn't entirely based on a rather juvenile "omg MRA hurrdurr" and ignores feminist theory completely of which I named Hook, Leger, Sorano specifically.

Now of course you are more than welcome to actually try and formulate an argumentative and substantial position based on what is being said rather than trying to discredit the poster rather than the post. I doubt you have the theoretical knowledge or understanding seeing as you seem to be under the impression that racism and patriarchy are entirely comparable and interchangeable and that the the PKK is a staunch anarcho communist organization.

But please....have an actual go at that. Because right now you are merely trolling.

[PhoenixAsh]

Oh, he's been raped. No wonder. Yeah, men who've been raped do go through a lot of bullshit. I've been raped and sexually assaulted a bunch by both men and women and it can really fuck with your head.

Masculinity is a really fragile thing. The slightest little nudge can shatter a typical man's masculinity so a man who's not versed in gender theory/feminism can be completely emasculated by that kind of shit. Emasculation isn't the worst of what it can do to you (suicide is among the worst, maybe not the worst), but it's still a problem. It's not sexism against men that does it though. It's patriarchy. I mean, it's so clearly patriarchy that it's not even worth debating. You would need a radically different sociology to describe such a thing as misandry.

It's sad to see a victim being played so thoroughly by the MRA propaganda machine. They talk all this mad shit about how they're in it for the victims, but they do literally nothing to help anyone and their ideology is totally bankrupt and anti-intellectual.

The manosphere is, in its very essence, men who are scared and in pain because of that same toxic, fragile masculinity. Ironically their anxieties are due to patriarchy. Shit, the cure for many of these anxieties is the shit they claim to hate (without, of course, understanding what any of it really is). Feminism, gender studies, queer theory, all of that kind of stuff is very liberating for men who have issues with their masculinity.

Makes more sense now. Poor guy is hurting and confused and grasping at anything that will give him some kind of relief. Male rape is a serious issue that's not really being addressed by society at large but it's something that feminist groups and theory does cover.

Shit can get very dark. Like, the possibility for permanent neurological damage dark. Like literal delusions dark, not that he's delusional. PA can't help it. I'm sorry that happened to you, PA. It can get better. It just takes time and being gentle with yourself. If you can survive the aftermath that's all that really matters. PTSD is hell.

Wauw. Are you fucking kidding? You just seriously used the fact that I was raped as a means to discredit my arguments and draw into question my mental sanity. Just...wauw.

[Rudolf]

Sexism is not about quality nor quantity. It is about a prejudice based on sex and gender. Neither the quality of this prejudice nor the quantity of it matter.

I think it does matter. Using race as a comparison, someone could presumably be prejudiced against white people yet this is fundamentally different to if this prejudice is targeted towards PoC. We recognise this distinction theoretically and practically.




But we do NOT call one a slave and the other something else. They are both slaves...and THAT is the point. Which is an example serving as the basis for my further rejection of this statement you made in the original post I reacted to:


We do acknowledge the distinction though and we use different terms... hence the terms debt bondage or indentured servitude.




Oh, he's been raped. No wonder. Yeah, men who've been raped do go through a lot of bullshit. I've been raped and sexually assaulted a bunch by both men and women and it can really fuck with your head.

Masculinity is a really fragile thing. The slightest little nudge can shatter a typical man's masculinity so a man who's not versed in gender theory/feminism can be completely emasculated by that kind of shit. Emasculation isn't the worst of what it can do to you (suicide is among the worst, maybe not the worst), but it's still a problem. It's not sexism against men that does it though. It's patriarchy. I mean, it's so clearly patriarchy that it's not even worth debating. You would need a radically different sociology to describe such a thing as misandry.

It's sad to see a victim being played so thoroughly by the MRA propaganda machine. They talk all this mad shit about how they're in it for the victims, but they do literally nothing to help anyone and their ideology is totally bankrupt and anti-intellectual.

The manosphere is, in its very essence, men who are scared and in pain because of that same toxic, fragile masculinity. Ironically their anxieties are due to patriarchy. Shit, the cure for many of these anxieties is the shit they claim to hate (without, of course, understanding what any of it really is). Feminism, gender studies, queer theory, all of that kind of stuff is very liberating for men who have issues with their masculinity.

Makes more sense now. Poor guy is hurting and confused and grasping at anything that will give him some kind of relief. Male rape is a serious issue that's not really being addressed by society at large but it's something that feminist groups and theory does cover.

Shit can get very dark. Like, the possibility for permanent neurological damage dark. Like literal delusions dark, not that he's delusional. PA can't help it. I'm sorry that happened to you, PA. It can get better. It just takes time and being gentle with yourself. If you can survive the aftermath that's all that really matters. PTSD is hell.

what the fuck? How can you go and dismiss someone because they were raped? That is all kinds of fucked up.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think it does matter. Using race as a comparison, someone could presumably be prejudiced against white people yet this is fundamentally different to if this prejudice is targeted towards PoC. We recognise this distinction theoretically and practically.


The problem is that racism isn't comparable to patriarchy because the latter imprints a specific identification of what is considered a proper gender based on sex that is completely unreliable on natural expression and in fact limits that natural expression to a certain set of aspects which are socially defined per epoch.

That means that when a child is born that child is molded, through force in the broadest sense of the word, to conform to that set of expressions which is favored. This relies on a set of prejudices against both men and women in favor of the gender stereotype. This stereotype is enforced by that system (patriarchy) in order to maintain control.

It is exactly this gender stereotype enforcement which is in its very nature sexist and rather harmful to both (all) sexes but also exactly this instrument which creates a system of the illusion of sex superiority (which is more accurately gender superiority) in which men are supposed to be superior to women and women inferior to men. This however is not the case and rather it is meant a specific type of man is superior over all others both male and female.

This leads to the situation in which all men are forcibly and often violently molded into a specific set of behavioral patterns which is highly damaging in and off itself but which requires continuous violent an forcible policing throughout and is often unmaintainable for the majority of men. Failure to adhere to a specific gender role leads to a set of social and/or economic repercussions through force (in the broadest sense of the word...and may or may not include violence). The perceived benefits over women however also come with a structural and enforced prejudice against men which directly harm men but are required of them or in which men are not supposed to operate and are actively discouraged from operating in.

Feminist theory historically recognizes the harmful, prejudiced and structural effect on men from patriarchy as well as the fact that this directly leads to structural sexism against men of which we already discussed transphobia (but also homophobia) but also the severe psychological and physical health damage this causes which men are not supposed to question. When they do they do face structural (power) repercussions based on their sex (prejudice). As well as several factors in which men are structurally placed at a disadvantage based on sex as well as gender. Notable modern feminist authors on these subjects are Hook, Leger and Sorano (but most definitely not limited to them) who all wrote extensively on these subjects.

Patriarchy effectively is a system of structural sexism against both men and women. While it affects women much, much more than it affects men it does in fact affect most if not all men either consciously or subconsciously.



We do acknowledge the distinction though and we use different terms... hence the terms debt bondage or indentured servitude[I].


Eh no. Indentured servitude is a specific contractual position overwhelmingly voluntary in which rights were (marginally) protected. It is very distinct from slavery in that it is a temporary contractual obligation in exchange for a previous service granted. Slavery is permanent, involuntary and at the whims of the owner entirely.

But aside from that it is not what I meant. Some slaves had a better position than other slaves; were acquired for different tasks in which living conditions were qualitatively better. This does not make them something else but a slave. Which is why I said that the quality doesn't matter.


****

Edit: I am going to address a point here which I realize you didn't make. So this part doesn't address you directly, Rudolf.

The position of many people here is that talking about the position of men in patriarchy and how it harms men in general is often considered MRA. This comes, IMO, from a certain amount of fear for MRA as well as from a misunderstanding of the basis of origins of the argumentation. Where MRA argue that sexism against men exists, they do so from the perspective that a feminist agenda creates this sexism and see the root cause of the position of men from a loss of perceived privilege. In essence MRA defend the system of patriarchy. Ironically some of the arguments used by MRA are directly related to and borrowed from feminist theory and then used against feminism.

However the sexism is inherent in patriarchy itself. And this is a feminist position. Most of the MRA concerns have traditionally been core business for feminist movements but with the emergence of the MRA and its internet expression on the different fora this has been largely forgotten on this forum because "OMG MRA".

The substantial difference is that the modern MRM actively persues patriarchal relations and attributes sexism towards the erosion of male rights in respect to the idea of feminism and the women's liberation movements...where as feminists simply originate it in patriarchy.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm locking this tread for obvious reasons. The discussion has run its course, nothing really productive will come from this at this point... What a train wreck. Some really unacceptable things have been said. I'm trying to look for evidence of some accusations.

A log of what I've found in this thread:
- user Troika repeatedly telling another user (SI) to kill themselves, clearly crossing the lines, and will definitely be infracted;
- user Troika accusing another user (SI) of rape apologism, I couldn't find that, but Troika is absolutely convinced this happened, so I invite them to send me a PM with explanation and evidence;
- Further, user Troika commenting on the psychological state of a rape victim to dismiss this persons arguments, which isn't rape apologism, but I think it crosses the line. Obviously Troika disagrees, I hope they can calmly explain themselves in a PM also.

^
Logging it in this way gives the false suggestion that Troika is at the heart of all the drama. This is the result of the ensued drama, and those things I noticed as unacceptable. Maybe I've missed something? PM me then.

[Quail]

Just to add: I've trashed most of the horrible posts.