Anita Sarkeesian states that sexism against men is impossible

[WhiteNachos]

As mentioned last time this came up here, she is very clearly talking about institutionalised sexism. Yes, she's having trouble expressing a complicated issue inside the confines of twitter.

Not true. She never made another post clarifying her tweet so there's no reason not to take her words as written.

E: In fact she even appears to double down

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533771760873635840

 

[IceForce]

She never made another post clarifying her tweet so there's no reason not to take her words as written.

You're wrong.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As mentioned last time this came up here, she is very clearly talking about institutionalised sexism. Yes, she's having trouble expressing a complicated issue inside the confines of twitter.

Not true. She never made another post clarifying her tweet so there's no reason not to take her words as written.

I would draw your attention to this post from a page ago:

She clarified her statement right after that tweet; "The system of Patriarchy privileges men as a social group, however a byproduct of that system is that men and men?s humanity is also harmed." and "?Men are not exploited or oppressed by sexism, but there are ways in which they suffer as a result of it.? - bell hooks" and "Even when I point out how one of the consequences of patriarchy is that it harms men & men?s emotional capacity, I?m accused of hating men."

She's saying that men are negatively effected by the "patriarchy" in a different way than women are. I'm not looking to get into this whole argument but at least look at all of her tweets that day and not just one bullet point from a whole statement she was trying to make.


Sources:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533446372574625793
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533448102867664896
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533456958112948225

EDIT: Beaten to it by IceForce, who might get a low content warning there.

 

[WhiteNachos]

She never made another post clarifying her tweet so there's no reason not to take her words as written.

You're wrong.

No I'm right

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533771760873635840

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Christ. You know what? I'm honestly starting to wonder; if Anita gets crowned empress of the solar system and begins shipping all men off to work as slaves on mining colonies, will this be anything more than people deserve?

I know this is far from a fresh observation, but here's a news flash for you: Anita is famous and influential because people wouldn't shut up about her. And if people continue to frantically shit themselves inside out and flood every gaming forum every time she makes a post, she'll only get more famous and influential.

She's just some person with some rather silly opinions, why do we insist on making her the biggest talking point in gaming?

As much as i disagree with her on many things, I really have lost all sympathy towards her detractors. It's hard to empathize with people who continually punch themselves in the face before crying about the bruises. And yes, the hypocrisy that I am now adding to the post count of this thread is not lost on me...

 

[WhiteNachos]

As mentioned last time this came up here, she is very clearly talking about institutionalised sexism. Yes, she's having trouble expressing a complicated issue inside the confines of twitter.

Not true. She never made another post clarifying her tweet so there's no reason not to take her words as written.

I would draw your attention to this post from a page ago:

She clarified her statement right after that tweet; "The system of Patriarchy privileges men as a social group, however a byproduct of that system is that men and men?s humanity is also harmed." and "?Men are not exploited or oppressed by sexism, but there are ways in which they suffer as a result of it.? - bell hooks" and "Even when I point out how one of the consequences of patriarchy is that it harms men & men?s emotional capacity, I?m accused of hating men."

She's saying that men are negatively effected by the "patriarchy" in a different way than women are. I'm not looking to get into this whole argument but at least look at all of her tweets that day and not just one bullet point from a whole statement she was trying to make.


Sources:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533446372574625793
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533448102867664896
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533456958112948225

EDIT: Beaten to it by IceForce, who might get a low content warning there.

Yeah I saw that cherry picked post. I'm still right

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533771760873635840
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533460936431271937
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533768948185972736

In the last one she endorses an article saying that sexism and "gender based prejudice" are not the same thing.

Can't get more clear than that.

Your posts about "the patriarchy can hurt men" don't contradict the idea that women can't be sexist. I've seen plenty of feminists try to argue that all the double standards that hurt men are actually the result of sexism against women.

You can find another link from Anita about how sexism against women can hurt men.

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533433568840536064

 

[WhiteNachos]

I find this to be terribly sexist. Implying that all women are powerless and all men are in power

That's not what she said. She said that society, as a whole, has tended to favor men being in power.

No. She said "There?s no such thing as sexism against men"

Why do you feel the need to backpedal on her behalf? People can be wrong once in a while.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Christ. You know what? I'm honestly starting to wonder; if Anita gets crowned empress of the solar system and begins shipping all men off to work as slaves on mining colonies, will this be anything more than people deserve?

Nah, it's illegal to claim territory outside the Earth, they made that a law.

But yeah, I tend to agree with what she says, but she's not saying anything particularly new or insightful. She should be just another person talking about games, only with bigger earrings.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Prejudice without power isn't really the same thing at all. The whole thing reminds me of this:
[tweet t=https://twitter.com/sweatpantspapi/status/539259309214162945]
EDIT: just to clarify, the "early hours" being referred to are after the Ferguson grand jury decided not to indict. Black people fear being killed by cops who won't even go to trail, white people fear being called "mayonnaise boy". It reminds me of that old Margaret Atwood quote: "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."

If calling someone a tar baby is racist than so is calling someone mayonaisse boy. Arguing that it's not racist because it's not as bad as getting murdered is like saying "a broken arm is no big deal, I knew a guy who had his legs bitten off by a shark".

Anyway Margaret Atwood doesn't have a clue what she's talking about

You ever heard the expression "don't stick your dick in crazy"? The meaning is that if you have a relationship/sex with a crazy woman she can cause serious damage to your life. People worry about getting in touch with a crazy women for more than just being insulted.

I actually feared for my life once when dealing with a woman.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Christ. You know what? I'm honestly starting to wonder; if Anita gets crowned empress of the solar system and begins shipping all men off to work as slaves on mining colonies, will this be anything more than people deserve?

Nah, it's illegal to claim territory outside the Earth, they made that a law.

But yeah, I tend to agree with what she says, but she's not saying anything particularly new or insightful. She should be just another person talking about games, only with bigger earrings.

As much of a bitter rant as my post came off, i really did have a good laugh when i read the tread title.
Anita Sarkeesian states that ...

It reminds me of those trashy celebrity magazines that produce articles every time someone buys a new pair of shoes, or takes their dog to the park.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Uuuuuugh, mygod. >_<
*deep breath*

Okay, let's talk about literal vs. practical definitions of words for a sec. Because generally speaking, if you're turning to a dictionary to make an arguement about social issues, there's a good chance you've missed the point.

Having seperate bathrooms for men and women is TECHNICALLY "sexist". But calling it such has no PRACTICAL purpose, because we all know that that's not the kind of thing we're trying to get across about when we identify something as "sexist". When someone says that we are living in a sexist society, they're not saying that we live in a society that has gender-specific bathrooms, they're saying we live in a society that oppresses people based on their sex. And a group that is in power (in this case, men) cannot be oppressed by the group that it is oppressing.

It's a very complex world, it's very possible for a bigoted female judge or cop to unfairly target men. And if that's not good enough how about the draft? It's institutionalized sexism that hurts men.

But she didn't say "society can't be sexist against men" she said sexism against men can't exist. The word sexism gets applied to individuals or pieces of media all the time.

Using that logic, can we understand why it's reasonable to say that women can't be sexist towards men, or black people can't be racist towards white people, or the poor can't be classist towards the rich?

Nope, still completely unreasonable.

 

[WhiteNachos]

She's right, even if it was worded a bit funny (140 character limit and all that). Individual cases of sexism against men can exist, however, these incidents do not have any effect on men on a systematic level.

How the hell can someone simultaneously believe this AND believe that video games can cause real life sexism without openly endorsing sexist beliefs (like having damsels in distress or whatever)?

Anyway [citation needed]

 

[ThisNickname]

Highly debatable, society isn't ruled by a specific gender with power, if that was the case there wouldn't be female presidents anywhere. Society is ruled by stigmas and said stigmas can give a specific subject power over other subject depending on the environment the subjects are living in.

Take for instance a man working as a nurse in a hospital where all the other nurses are women, by your logic he cannot be oppressed by the women working in the hospital. However in reality he represents the minority in that specific environment and as a result he's going to be picked on for being the odd one out.

Yes, it is possible to create a microcosm within our society in which women hold the power and the men are mistreated because of it. This only serves to reinforce the point, however, that only the advantaged members of a group can enact discrimination that is of any great consequence.
Unless you take exception to the assertion that affluent, white men are the most advantaged members of our society, I'm not actually seeing that we disagree on anything here.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I disagree with that statement emphatically. I also think it's a good demonstration on why ideas requiring nuance and tact are not to be expressed via twitter, at least in absolutes like this.

 

[Bat Vader]

I was at the bookstore today, and it just so timed that a lady was coming in the door right behind me.

I did not hold it open for her (dont wana becsexist after all)
And yes, i did think it through and come to that conclusion in the second it took to think about it.

Let them stew in the world they created.

Why didn't you just think of her as a person? Why think of her as a feminist? Explain to me how this woman personally wronged you. For all you know she could hate or couldn't care any less about Feminism. Why generalize an entire gender just because some people in that gender say or do things you dislike?

I hold the door open for men and women. They all say thank you.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I was at the bookstore today, and it just so timed that a lady was coming in the door right behind me.

I did not hold it open for her (dont wana becsexist after all)
And yes, i did think it through and come to that conclusion in the second it took to think about it.

Let them stew in the world they created.

That's rude, you should hold the door open for everyone.

It's insanely petty to take the time to think "no, this is a woman, I had better be rude to prove some inane point to myself."

 

[WhiteNachos]

Highly debatable, society isn't ruled by a specific gender with power, if that was the case there wouldn't be female presidents anywhere. Society is ruled by stigmas and said stigmas can give a specific subject power over other subject depending on the environment the subjects are living in.

Take for instance a man working as a nurse in a hospital where all the other nurses are women, by your logic he cannot be oppressed by the women working in the hospital. However in reality he represents the minority in that specific environment and as a result he's going to be picked on for being the odd one out.

Yes, it is possible to create a microcosm within our society in which women hold the power and the men are mistreated because of it. This only serves to reinforce the point, however, that only the advantaged members of a group can enact discrimination that is of any great consequence.
Unless you take exception to the assertion that affluent, white men are the most advantaged members of our society, I'm not actually seeing that we disagree on anything here.

"Advantaged" makes your statement redundant and meaningless. Having that power to enact discrimination of great consequence is an advantage.

Saying sexism or even "prejudice + power" can't happen against men is just objectively wrong.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I was at the bookstore today, and it just so timed that a lady was coming in the door right behind me.

I did not hold it open for her (dont wana becsexist after all)
And yes, i did think it through and come to that conclusion in the second it took to think about it.

Let them stew in the world they created.

Why didn't you just think of her as a person? Why think of her as a feminist? Explain to me how this woman personally wronged you. For all you know she could hate or couldn't care any less about Feminism. Why generalize an entire gender just because some people in that gender say or do things you dislike?

I hold the door open for men and women. They all say thank you.

I was at the bookstore today, and it just so timed that a lady was coming in the door right behind me.

I did not hold it open for her (dont wana becsexist after all)
And yes, i did think it through and come to that conclusion in the second it took to think about it.

Let them stew in the world they created.

That's rude, you should hold the door open for everyone.

It's insanely petty to take the time to think "no, this is a woman, I had better be rude to prove some inane point to myself."

I think you are missing the point. While i don't agree with the general thinking of this statement, this isn't a new idea being expressed here, and it isn't about being rude towards women for some imagined crimes of feminists.
What it's about is the fact that some feminists do consider holding the door open for women to be sexist (it implies they can't do it themselves/implies that women need to be protected/other long held gender conceptions), and as such some people do get rather offended by it.
Even as somewhat of a misanthrope myself, is still hold the door open for anyone, when ever practical, and am yet to be called sexist for it. So i would regard this jumping at shadows, at best.

Again, not my opinion on the matter, just clarifying what i believe the general idea behind the post was.

 

[Bat Vader]

I was at the bookstore today, and it just so timed that a lady was coming in the door right behind me.

I did not hold it open for her (dont wana becsexist after all)
And yes, i did think it through and come to that conclusion in the second it took to think about it.

Let them stew in the world they created.

Why didn't you just think of her as a person? Why think of her as a feminist? Explain to me how this woman personally wronged you. For all you know she could hate or couldn't care any less about Feminism. Why generalize an entire gender just because some people in that gender say or do things you dislike?

I hold the door open for men and women. They all say thank you.

I was at the bookstore today, and it just so timed that a lady was coming in the door right behind me.

I did not hold it open for her (dont wana becsexist after all)
And yes, i did think it through and come to that conclusion in the second it took to think about it.

Let them stew in the world they created.

That's rude, you should hold the door open for everyone.

It's insanely petty to take the time to think "no, this is a woman, I had better be rude to prove some inane point to myself."

I think you are missing the point. While i don't agree with the general thinking of this statement, this isn't a new idea being expressed here, and it isn't about being rude towards women for some imagined crimes of feminists.
What it's about is the fact that some feminists do consider holding the door open for women to be sexist (it implies they can't do it themselves/implies that women need to be protected/other long held gender conceptions), and as such some people do get rather offended by it.
Even as somewhat of a misanthrope myself, is still hold the door open for anyone, when ever practical, and am yet to be called sexist for it. So i would regard this jumping at shadows, at best.

Again, not my opinion on the matter, just clarifying what i believe the general idea behind the post was.

I get the point. I just find it to be incredibly silly. Same with someone getting offended because someone is just offering a polite gesture.