SAMAS said:
Strawman. She's not saying women are powerless, she's saying that modern society is still largely male-dominated, and as long as that remains so, institutionalizing misandry or prejudice against Men is impossible.
In defining sexism as prejudice+power and saying that there is no such thing as sexism against men, the only conclusion is that women have no power or that women have no prejudice. Otherwise, there would be several instances and institutions in which sexism against men could and would crop up.
Not only do women hold significant societal, legislative, and corporate power, but most males are not operating sexists. Just there being men in power doesn't automatically make sexism happen. It has to be prejudice+power and if she believes that all men in power are also sexist then she's being sexist herself. Additionally, sexism is so demonized (correctly so in my opinion) in society that the hands of those who would practice sexism are tied, rendering their prejudice effectively powerless whereas sexism against men is often ignored because of a seldom discussed notion that we somehow deserve it because men before us sure did have it good (sarcasm).
Furthermore, you need to accept that men are also sexist against other men. So even with men in control, sexism against men is entirely in place.
What I would have to put to Anita is the question of what exactly she means by institutional power if that's even what she meant (because she didn't say that and acknowledged that individual sexism is a form of sexism without recanting the statement, so you're taking a leap when inserting institutional power). Why is it relevant if the government ratio is stilted towards men if the CEO of GM has the power to only hire women and make her male workers dress up in chip and dale's outfits if she so pleases? Is she saying that the power in the US is only one institution or is it built on a multitude of micro-institutions all playing their role in the larger scheme of things? Seeing as women are the majority of voters (both registered and those who actually vote), are the elected officials not employed only at their will and liable to not be reelected should women catch wind of sexism? If all female voters and male voters decided to vote in opposite directions, women would win. They hold the most power a gender can hold in a democracy. They hold the votes and have for some time now. But they, just like men, aren't all one unanimous voice.
This ambiguous all-controlling "power" just doesn't exist. We are not a conglomerate of beings all grouped together to form a fist against women. We are all wholly individual with unique and personal goals. Many males actively work towards feminist causes with far many more men viewing it as a necessity even if they aren't on the streets supporting it. Of those who do bad regarding sexism are likely to be doing so unconsciously. Those who have an active agenda to suppress women likely aren't in power or won't be in power for much longer once discovered. There is a reason why discrimination against women is illegal. Because the powers-that-be pushed for it. That's not prejudice+power. That's power+fairness.
When just a person alone is being racist, they're just being an asshole. It might kill your buzz, or at worst ruin your day for a few hours.
Being a racist or sexist is being an asshole, yes. That doesn't make what they're doing less racist or less sexist. The person on the receiving end of racist or sexist slurs has every right to call that racism or sexism and any attempts to defraud victims of the ability to call it such just because it didn't have "power" behind it is meaningless. It's all bad. It's the mentality that is the bad thing. Not the power. Power is fine until used for bad purposes. Adding power, a neutral force, to it being racist or sexist is an entire misdirect from the problem.
When it has the weight of Law behind it, when you are denied or stripped of basic rights, up to and including Free Speech, Property, or even basic Citizenship, that kind of thing can and has ruined and ended lives.
Well, good thing that the Law has been steadily pushing towards equality in all these areas for our nearly 240 years as a nation. Starting off with legalized slavery and ending up where everyone has fair and equal access to the system is pretty damn nice.
Is Anita claiming that the government is stripping females of free speech, property, or an of these other things now?
Now, how would you describe a Hispanic female manager that only hires females into the higher positions and of those mostly only other Hispanics or minorities? Do you believe that she isn't demonstrating institutional power on a scale that is higher than mere asshole-ness? Because that's what I experienced in real life. A government contractor I worked for that only hired three white males to work in the mail room with all the rest being female and minority except for a few white females who (except for one) left during my time there. Silly me, I didn't realize there was no opportunity for me to move up in the company. Someone, a female coworker I was friends with, had to explain it to me. That's what I get for being a rube who grew up with friends of all colors and genders and didn't automatically suspect others of such evil discrimination. These kinds of issues aren't typically address. They aren't generally brought to court because people look unfavorably on white men that would complain about unfair hiring practices.
Since access to representative positions are elected by people and the government has largely made it illegal to discriminate against in institutions of any size that have power, then the prejudice+power aspect doesn't really fall to them. It ends up falling to more local institutions. Local companies, police departments, governments. Sexism committed against women is generally favorable. Police will let females off the hook more frequently. Courts will give women lighter sentences and men harsher ones. That's only accounting for the people who are found guilty as there's some evidence that jurors will let women off of fairly solid charges more frequently than men. However, that's got to be a bit more subjective evidence since I'm unsure how the study I read evaluated "solid charges". Companies are frequently beginning to higher women into management positions to show how forward thinking they are and in several countries women actually make more than their male counterpart between the ages 20-30 which actually shows institutional sexism against males. In the US ages 24-34 have women at 93% of men's pay despite all the reasons people give for why women generally get paid less and women have better access to scholarships which is leading to them graduating from college than men.
Have we considered that the system is fixed and time is now needed for the system to reboot/flush itself out? That it's going to take time for women to enter traditionally male industries and obtain comparable experience to the male management that were part of those industries since inception?
Heck, maybe the system is actually broken in the other direction now and time will show the disparity going the other way. That would be fun.
But again, those are individual cases. A man fired by a misandrist boss, if he has proof, can take her ass to court and sue for wrongful termination. And nowadays, vice versa.
Is the boss not exhibiting prejudice+power on an individual basis? Anita did not say that she was talking about broad sexism either. Note her tweet from the next day where she talks about various forms of sexism including individual sexism without saying that she wasn't talking about individual sexism. Like she can't admit that men face it too.
But that wasn't always the case. Only a few decades ago, a woman trying that would get told "Of course he did silly girl! You're a woman, you can't do that job as well as a man!"
Do you think Anita was talking about historical sexism or modern sexism? Because I'm talking about modern sexism. Today, a person saying those words would be laughed at, scorned, and people would potentially demand they be fired from their own job depending on who the person is.
Instances of Institutional Sexism and Social Sexism:
-Men are expected to be the one who pays for date nights even though women have full access to income now.
That's a
cultural tradition founded on centuries of a patriarchal society. That is to say, Men are traditionally the breadwinners. As a part of the mating ritual known as "dating", we paid for stuff to show that we were capable of providing for our prospective mate and future children.
"Cultural" is an institutional power. It can lose people their jobs, it can form a lynch mob, it can readily impact people's actions and harm their lives. To dismiss cultural power as impotent would be to err. Just because it is a tradition doesn't make it not sexist.
It ain't sexism, it's called "Paying the Cost to be the Boss". If you can't pay, why are you taking the woman out? Even nowadays, we men are still the primary breadwinners more often than not. And otherwise, it still shows that we're capable of taking care of ourselves.
First off, you're sexist if you think a man is the boss just because he was born with a dick and that the woman isn't since she wasn't born with external genitals. Men and women both work now. Both of my supervisors are female and more than 50% of my coworkers are too. I work in computer tech. It is sexism if the man is expected to pay for dinner for both of them just because he is male. Also, when the woman in the relationship is the boss, she is still not expected to pay. Soooo, Sexism. Gender based discrimination. Men are automatically expected to keep less of their pay in society just because of the ol' twig and berries. No longer because they're the ones with the job.
Now, if you're looking for a woman to take care of you, go ahead and insist she pays for everything. But many women are just fine taking care of their half of the tab. But let's be honest, the percentage of women looking for a man to raise is pretty damn low, and even then you may not like the price.
Oh, I don't personally care. I'm a full grown man with a family. I paid the fucking bill and I don't have a problem with it so you should check your assumptions about me at the door. But I do sympathize with the young up and comers who are making the same amount and sometimes less than their female counterparts and are still expected to fork it up.
I also didn't say that women should be expected to pay for men. If the world weren't sexist, they should pick up their own tab. But as is, society still expects it of men.
-In some countries (UK, for the most recent example) and certain industries, men ages 20-30 make less than their female counterparts without any explanation besides sexism. This is largely ignored because the disparity flips at older age ranges as other factors start to take effect.
In the immortal words of Wikipedia: [citation needed].[/quote]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11240532/The-gender-pay-gap-has-fallen-to-a-record-low.html
Interesting, it actually says that women in their 20s and 30s make more than males on average. I thought it was just 20-30, not 20-40.
This is indicative not only of a system that is fixed but of one that may now be broken in the other direction. The thing we have to understand about the fixes we take in place is that it isn't a hard reset. Men who have been working in a traditionally male industry for the last 40 years don't magically lose that experience or all the pay raises they've gotten along the way. As they continue to retire and as women gain more and more experience we will see that disparity continue to diminish. However, why are the men now being paid less? Does it mean the adjustment was too far on one side? Are sexist practices against men being overlooked there in similar ways to how they're being overlooked here? Is there a culture where bringing up a claim of sexism/racism makes people think of you like you're just a bigot trying to get back at women or minorities?
-Men are commonly shown less compassion than females starting at an early age.
Excuse me? Are you actually trying to claim that we Men, who have culturally held ourselves to higher standards than women, are not getting coddled enough?
First off, a child has not culturally held themselves to shit. They are being treated differently on the basis of gender. This mentality of men deserving less compassion floods into other areas of society and regularly leads to life just being tough for men and women getting a free pass because they managed to squeeze out a few tears. It absolutely happens and if you're honest about this you'll acknowledge it. Women use the available compassion to their advantage and men are condition not only not to try to utilize compassion but not to bestow it on other men. I'm sorry if you don't see that as a significant disparity in how one gender is treated over another. Have you considered that this is victim blaming you're perpetrating here?
-A blind eye is frequently turned towards men who suffer from domestic violence regarding women who hit men while a spotlight is shone on men who hit women. (I have been in an abusive relationship where the girl would full-out punch me, knowing that even though I am immensely stronger than her that I would not strike back because of gender roles. It is not socially acceptable for me to acknowledge it or that it does hurt both emotionally and physically even though it may not hurt as much physically as a dude my size taking the swing)
I didn't see you respond to this one. I guess men in domestic abuse situations in which their significant other takes them to task are just shit out of luck.
-Men are expected to work longer hours,
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1244752_o.gif
85.5% of male workers in the US work more than 40 hours per week as compared to 66.5% of women. In Canada the difference is 68.8%/36.3% (men/women who work more than 40 hours in a week).
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/the-state-of-the-40-hour-workweek/
So yeah, men are expected to work more hours per week than women. It seems to be a trend across the world too.
Keep in mind, I am in a salaried job. Many of the 40+ hours per week jobs are. While my regularly hourly wage is pretty damn nice. My overtime is something they called "chinese overtime" in jest or because they didn't have any other word for it. I'm not sure any of us know exactly how it's calculated but the first hour is less than half a regular hour and each additional hour brings down the amount per hour of overtime to the point where it can easily reach less than minimum wage. Other departments don't even get that overtime at all yet it seems like they're always here.
relocate more frequently,
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/1244766/unbelievable-bullshit-o.gif
https://books.google.com/books?id=jZF5AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=men+relocate+for+work+more+frequently+than+females&source=bl&ots=uYP4DcRQsL&sig=Y3FvR5RSUx-nbaQV0RGUKo4I8UA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SmOQVO_1MIaggwT5wICoAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=men%20relocate%20for%20work%20more%20frequently%20than%20females&f=false
That link should resolve to a book "Women and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender Issues at Work". Start at the bottom of page 275 with the title: Promotion, Mobility, and Salary.
Basically, males relocate more frequently and receive better pay for it. It's one of the reasons for why women get filtered out of the system when it gets to the upper levels of management.
take on more dangerous assignments,
Chivalry, which I remind you comes from the assumption that a woman is incapable of handling said loads. That's why so many feminists hate it so much.
And yet this sexism against men still exists.
FYI, in some cases women can't handle said loads. Men have 40-50% more upper body strength on average than females with 20-30% more lower body strength. A woman would have to double her strength to get to the average male's level and in jobs where the demands require athlete status like the military reaching the strength of male peers is a tremendous challenge. Then there's the fun of having less bone density and a wider pelvic angle that makes impacts more dangerous and mobility more difficult. There's a reason why sports and athletic events are separated.
I am merely citing things which are not equal. I quite agree that men should be expected to take on more dangerous assignments unless there's a particular reason why any of the females vying for the assignment would be equally or more qualified. I accept that we are a sexually dimorphic species and that males have evolved to handle tasks requiring extreme strength or endurance at a higher level than females. But that's just facts and not opinion.
That's a common setup for a dual-income household. One check to handle the day-to-day stuff, the other for extras and saved for emergencies. And back in the day, your paycheck would've had to handle both duties. That's not sexism, that's basic financial sense.
Sure, but in a lot of households the bank accounts aren't as freely shared. I have two cards, one for my account, one for my wife's and she has two as well. I've been kinda shocked to learn that this isn't as common as I'd assumed where spouses regularly have to ask permission to use money from the other account even though they're both contributing. So imagine if I were expected to pay the bills and then to use only what remains for myself and our date nights while my wife got to keep all of her income without me having access to it? My quality of life would be extremely disparate.
-Men are required to sign up for military draft and women are not.
First, there is no draft.
All men between the ages of 18 to 25 are required to sign up for selective service. Even transgendered females must sign up for selective services. Should a draft ever take place, they will be in the running for forced enlistment. Women are not required to sign up.
Secondly, women have been fighting for the right to get into combat duties as it is, due to the conception that they can't handle combat. Sexist yes, but not against us.
The ability to get into combat duties is not the obligation to sign up for the possibility of being drafted. The right to be able to do something is different from it being illegal not to do something.
The ability for a soldier to get into a combat assignment is not the same as a civilian being legally required to agree to let the government draft them should the need arise again.
If a man fails to sign up for it, they can be fined up to $250,000 and serve 5 years in prison. They are ineligible to receive college loans or grants. If immigrants they will be denied citizenship if they arrived before their 26th birthday. They are ineligible to work in any federal job.
If a woman fails to sign up for it. They can have all the benefits men can only get with signing up for it with none of the penalties.
Why should a woman not have to sign up for the draft? Surely, even if they weren't deemed fit for combat they could serve perfectly well in any number of support positions like they do now. So why maintain sexism?
Again, I personally hold the view that men have a natural physical advantage. So I understand and was proud to sign up for selective service and would gladly have served if called. But there are really so many other positions in the military that strength isn't necessary for, especially when we no longer shove men into the sausage grinder, that this shouldn't be the case anymore. If a draft ever happened, the government could then discriminate based on the types of jobs they needed filled. But at least everyone would be signed up for it.
-Men are expected to risk their lives in situations of confrontation or danger to protect others and are considered cowards if they fail to do so.
That's called being The Man. Being the traditional Provider and Protector came (and comes) with certain Duties. Again, you Pay the Cost to be the Boss.
Again, sexism. You are literally just saying, "Yeah, that's sexism but..." and then all the rest of your explanations just don't make that untrue and are just red herrings in the wind.
And again, women have been calling for the right to put themselves on the line for some time now.
Sure, for the right to seek jobs in military combat. But that's not the only thing and that doesn't change what the average Joe is expected to do when he comes across a mugger on the street taking a girl to task. A man is expected to intervene. A woman is expected to call for help.
Again, I understand the why of it. I'm just explaining that men are stereotyped into having to be the strong courageous one even if they're neither. Don't get me wrong, I have intervened in such an event and felt like a total badass. But if the guy had knife or gun? I wouldn't be here and the girl who called the cops would.
-Men have fewer scholarship opportunities than women to the point that women graduating with degrees now outweigh males graduating with degrees.
Once again, if you make a claim, back it the hell up.
Yes yes, I made the claim so the burden of proof is on me. I just assumed this stuff was common knowledge.
Researching it online again, I see why there is some confusion. Some sources are citing a lot of studies from the 70's and 80's which really did have more scholarship opportunities for men. That changed somewhere between '89 and '95. Here's the most recent study I can find on the matter from 2001 but it really only shows the start of the switch and isn't the 2007 or so one I remember reading in which the gap just went further and further towards women:
http://publications.nasfaa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=jsfa (table 3 on page 7)
In 1989, men were getting more in scholarships at an average of $2,718 to females at $2,593. By 1995 the disparity had flipped to males getting $4,145 and women getting $4,486. The total dollars awarded to both genders increase from 1989 to 1995 81% for males and 137% for females.
Think about it, there are almost no areas where organizations are actively trying to get more men into. But areas of study like STEM are pumping money into the system specifically to acquire more female candidates.
http://publications.nasfaa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=jsfa (a 2014 study on federal grant recipients in Kentucky)
Page 8, Table 1 (Characteristics of Kentucky Federal Pell Grant Recipients by Public
Institution Level, 2010-2011 (n=97,356)
So, of a sample size of nearly 100,000 Federal Pell Grants, women got 58.3% of the grants for 4-year universities and 67.1% for 2-year universities.
From all the other studies I'm seeing, even the ones that are really close to equal still show the average female getting hundreds more than the average male in addition to getting steeper tuition discounts that generally make the cost of college less.
While it isn't as huge a change as regarding minorities (African Americans get a much larger number per student than their white counterparts), it is still a disparity and women actually make up the majority in schools.
That being said, when I was still in college I ran community for student government in which I was tasked with setting up a discussion board regarding the epidemic levels in which black males aren't attending college despite significant increases in black females taking courses. It is possible that there is a significant enough number of female minorities attending college to offset the numbers some. But I wouldn't think by enough to shift the average for more than half of the students by hundreds of dollars each. Especially not when the overall college population is comprised of around 60-70% whites with all minority categories filling in the remaining amount.
The issue isn't that women are getting more of the pie. They are attending in larger numbers. The issue is that they are getting more money per female simply for being female while being given a steeper discount per female than per male simply for being female. This is institutional sexism. At least with minorities there is a legitimate need to push for at least an equal proportion of the demographic to attend college when compared to the proportion of whites who attend. But with females already in the majority, it doesn't makes sense for universities and the federal government to give them preferential treatment based on gender. They aren't the minority.
-Aside from just domestic violence, it is more socially acceptable for violence to occur against men than it is against women (For example, GTA 5 was not taken off the shelves of target and kmart because of violence against people, it was removed for violence against women even though GTA's story-based violence is almost entirely against men if not entirely so. This sends the message that Target and Kmart are ok with violence against men)
Dude, the whole world is okay with violence against men. Roughly a third of our traditional gender rules are based on the following sentence:
"Men can take it, Women can't."
And that was
MEN who said that.
Ergo, you are admitting sexism against men that is systemic. Every time you say "but that's the cultural norm" you are basically conceding the point that it is an acceptable sexist policy.
Keep in mind that
I did not say that it is acceptable to commit violence against men or women. It is all reprehensible. So this consideration that it is more acceptable to harm me merely because of my gender is sexism being committed by the powers that be.
-Women get preferential treatment in custody hearings and divorce settlements.
Hmm, didn't see you respond to this clear and blatant form of institutional sexism committed against men.
-Males are expected to be taller, smarter, more athletic and make more money than his spouse and is thought less of when he fails in any of those areas.
Because we Males proudly declared ourselves to be so. Well, maybe not the taller thing. That was genetics (and there are always exceptions). Don't go whining about it now.
? Any reason why you're stereotyping all men? Gendered stereotyping, hmm, there's a term that describes what that is... (hint: it's sexism)
-Males are conditioned to not admit weakness or express emotions.
And women are expected to have no control over their emotions at all.
Through empirical studies, women demonstrate less emotional stability than men.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought
That study is over 10k adults in sample size. 50.1% female, 49.9% male. Men demonstrated significantly more emotional stability than women.
Now, whether this is biological or culturally/environmentally driven would likely be impossible to find out. The truth is likely a combination of the two as with most things.
But while women are expected to have less control over their emotions through common experiences (aka, stereotyped), they are not conditioned to or told to be that way. In fact, aside perhaps from crying and maybe not even that, most emotional outbursts receive negative feedback.
But I digress. You're red herring the argument again. I am not claiming that women don't get stereotyped. I am claiming that, contrary to Anita's claims, that there are strong forms of sexism and stereotyping at a macro level that are levied against both sexes. Her attempt and the attempt of others to rob male victims of sexism from calling it as such is shameful and in many ways victim blaming. "Oh, someone didn't hire you because you're male? Well of course they didn't, enough men have job. Why, that's not even sexism, that's just gender-based prejudice..." Absolutely shameful of them to imply that society does not have deep institutional and cultural sexism perpetrated on both sides and by both sides too. Women also bear sexist notions against each other just as men do against other men.
-Males are significantly more likely to commit suicide than females (4 times more likely). Most of the reasons for this disparity are generally considered social pressures and expectations that place men at a disadvantage where seeking social support is concerned.
Once again, we took that load upon ourselves. And once again, we did it as a point of "innate superiority" over women.
I did not take any load upon myself. Quite stereotyping me with these sexist comments. This load was put on my shoulders by a society who taught me that to be a man I had to behave this way. And I do. I'm a good little camper that does his best to walk around with brass balls like I was taught and likely wouldn't seek help if I needed it. I just happen to be lucky that I don't. I don't necessarily regret having been raised this way. I don't want to be a pushover and I don't want to look weak. But I'm smart enough to realize that those desires are part of the training boys go through and aren't necessarily helpful to me in certain situations. But I am what I am now and there's no changing that.
But you espousing the sexist values as "deserved" or "earned" because of what some males have said or done is just furthering my point. That you don't see the hypocrisy in your points is astounding.
-Male on male violence is treated as a sport and men who don't participate in it are frequently looked down on by their peers.
Meanwhile, female on female violence is treated as titillation. Yeah, I think we got the better part of that arrangement.
Two things: 1. One again you have admitted another point of sexism that exists against men. Please remember that showing sexism against women does not disprove my argument. I'm anti-sexism of any kind against both genders.
2. Both are considered titillation. However, titillating is more commonly used with the connotation of sexually stimulating so I'm going to assume that's what you're talking about rather than just excitement (you'll note that most definitions of the term say something like to excite in an often sexual way). However, deriving pleasure when someone gets hit particularly hard is more devious than hoping that one girl rips the other girl's shirt off. Most people do not actually want to see the females hurt each-other and there is certainly no obligation for women to physically fight one another. I wonder though, do females find men fighting in any way titillating?
Oh wait, it seems you stereotyped women in assuming they don't/can't also find men fighting titillating. Perhaps because the peers you spoke to most frequently were males. Oh well, I'd better cite it or shut it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/why-mandy-watches-billy-fight-last-week-another-boxer-michael-bentt-was-warned-that-he-risked-permanent-brain-damage-if-he-continued-to-fight-its-hard-enough-to-understand-why-men-enjoy-boxing-why-women-want-to-watch-it-even-harder-1431896.html
"These women, I discovered, are nothing to do with the mink-and-diamonds brigade portrayed in movies. Most of them are family supporters - there for husbands, brothers, sons or lovers. And every one I interviewed contradicted the opinion
(endlessly repeated by men) that women aren't tough enough to cope with boxing."
"She feels that she changes when she gets to a fight. 'It's that powerful aura surrounding the ring: the people, the faces, the expectations. It's live, it's raw, it's powerful. Those half-naked bodies are an instant turn-on.They send out body messages, body heat, the sweat trickling down their backs - I feel an excitement deep within myself. It's like an orgasm only more so - the violence, the ecstasy, the terror.' "
If you run a basic search on why X or Y gender enjoys watching X or Y gender fight, you'll see a large number of forums and articles dedicated to the topic.
The reason why men and women like to see each other fight is not entirely dissimilar. But men are still the ones obligated to do it as sport rather in random confrontations. Women are not thought less of for not joining the lingerie football league or going into women's UFC fighting.
-While males do suffer rape (particularly in prison), there is even more stigma towards males admitting it than females due to the additional societal demand of males not showing weakness.
Go look up the word "Honor Killing", and see who still holds the short stick on rape.
Well, seeing as one of my degrees allowed me to specialize in Islamic studies I think I'll forgo waltzing over to wikipedia to look up a commonly covered topic. Yes, Muslim women in countries under sharia law often have the most extreme form of oppression. I'm glad we agree on that. For the sake of this discussion, I am talking about first world countries like the US in which such morality-based religious killings are obviously institutionally condemned and diligently pursued in court. Americans as a culture also outright abhor such things. The conditions in America are not so different between genders whereas in the Middle East as well as other countries the disparity is so severe that sexism against males can't even be reached without immediately addressing the egregious inequality women face. However, that still doesn't mean that there isn't sexism committed against men. It's just so non-consequential in those countries when compared to the plight of the females that it has to take a back seat. But in the US, the things we're complaining about are the same thing. Not getting a job because of gender or being treated one way or another because of stereotyping. These are similar and in some cases are far worse against males like in the instances where courts are involved.
But why do you feel the need to belittle victims of rape by saying they don't have it as bad as victims of rape who are killed? Is it important to you to one-up male victims rather than acknowledging deep seeded societal sexism levied at them as also being a problem? One side having a problem does not make the other side's problem any less. It does not weaken it or dismiss it. Rather, it shines like on the scale of an overall problem that needs to be addressed. Isn't it better to just acknowledge that rape is a terrible crime and demonize it in all it's form?
FYI, men are also victims of honor killing in regions practicing sharia law. Including in the rare circumstances in which they are raped. But it is interesting to see you bring up third world countries crazy anti-women policies as a point in a conversation that has mostly been about the developed world like the US where attention to equality has been given. Clearly I haven't been comparing a US male or female's plight to that of the Muslim world's equivalent.
-There are certain jobs that men are still looked down on as being feminine, very similar to jobs that women are culturally discouraged from taking. (I have a personal story to tell you about the time I made straight-As in premed before announcing that I was interested in becoming a Nurse for a few years before going full-doctor. It may be telling that I am now in computer sciences as to how that announcement turned out)
And there are still certain jobs that are looked upon as masculine, with women looked down upon and discouraged from trying to take.
Ok. So we agree that sexism is happening against both genders. Great! So I'm right and Anita was wrong. We could have finished this all in one paragraph then.
-Light forms of male subservience (helping others carry heavy objects, opening a door, etc) are seen as chivalrous/gentlemanly and not generally required to be reciprocated.
And chivalry itself is often seen as sexist. By
women, mind you, for reasons I explained above.
Great, so we go on a date one night and the girl bad mouths us for holding the door open and go on another date the next night and get bad mouthed for not doing so. Boy oh boy is that fun. What's extra confusing for me personally is that I hold a door open for anyone, men and women. So screw anyone that bitches at me for doing so. They're just being sexist anyways.
Once again, you are acknowledging sexism exists against men but merely pointing out a red herring.
