Sexism against men

[Hagi]

Great post. My thanks and respect for sharing that. Overall I agree with you but there's one point I want to make.

Feminism:
- the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
- a movement for social, cultural, political and economic equality of men and women.
- a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.

That's what feminism is. That's English. If you use the word feminism and are not referring to these definitions then you aren't speaking English.

Anyone who feels men are the enemy is, by definition, not a feminist. Feminism means social equality, if men are viewed as the enemy while women are not then there's no social equality and therefore it's not feminism.

Anyone who feels being male is a bad thing is, by definition, not a feminist. Feminism means cultural equality, if being male is bad while being female is not then there's no cultural equality and therefore it's not feminism.

Anyone who feels all men oppress women is, by definition, not a feminist. Feminism means political equality, if all men are viewed as politically the same while all women are not then there's no political equality and therefore it's not feminism.

Everyone who feels women deserve more rights of any kind or special treatment of any kind is by very definition not a feminist. They can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't make it so. I can call myself a communist all day long but if I support private property whenever possible then the only thing I am is a hypocrite.

That's what these women who call themselves feminists and view men as the enemy and oppressors and male as bad are, hypocrites. They are possibly misandrists as well. What they're certainly not is feminists.

Misandry: The hatred or dislike of men or boys.

 

[Hamish Durie]

well this reminds me of the thread awhile back where 3 year 11 girls held down and stipped a year 8 bot and they received no punishment
now had the sexs beem reversed well the boys wouldn't see the light of day again
but

You ever try and balance a pencil on your finger?

 

[retyopy]

And I stand by my point that just because its on a smaller scale, it can't be ignored. But I see what you're coming from.

I was about to come take your side until I saw you settled it peacefully.

Anyway, I agree with you, it pains me to see incredibly ignorant and aggressive "feminists" who more rightfully suit the definition of "supremacist."

No, no, no, you're seeing it wrong, I'm not saying that feminists are like that, (although some are), not at all. I agree with feminism, I just think there actaully is a lot of sexism against men.

 

[retyopy]

Snip

What does this have to do with anything? I understand that stereotypes have been brought up, but try to link it to the thread in some way.

Because stereotypes largely underlie the sexist acts that we are debating.
The stereotype of men as poor parents has led to a bias against awarding men custody. A lingering lack of respect for women has left many fields male dominated.

To address the third world, the men there are justified in forcing sex upon women, in some cases. I knew a Kenyan woman who said you could be caned in the street for anything a man felt like caning you for. That isn't sexism, that is complete lack of human rights enforcement, and the physically superior have forced their will in the absence of a dominant legal body to change it. I don't mean that women aren't violently and disgustingly oppressed, its just not the same situation as first world countries and the solutions are wildly different.

Also, until my full 19 years of life as a straight white male is transferred directly to someones brain, I will continue to disregard claims of privilege. I am poor as dirt, the only help I get for college is grants, based on my(SMALL) income. I haven't been taunted in the streets or caned, but then again I don't know an American woman who has been either. In fact, if I look around, I know a LOT more men working 3 minimum wage jobs trying to make child support, than I do women who even get called names. Hell, the RM for my store? Female. 5/7 of my managers at all? Female. Bosses at previous jobs? ALL female. And I live in nothing like an enlightened area.

Then why didn't you just say that? No need to overcomplicate.

 

[retyopy]

As usual, I blame the neuro-typicals for these idiotic social prejudices and how hard it is to have a decent discussion about them.

The problem that always comes up in these debates is that there are two fundamentally different types of sexism that we need to separate in order to get anything done.

1.) Institutional discrimination. Laws that explicitly favor one gender over another, imbalanced hiring and promotion practices, unequal pay, etc. This has mostly been corrected (note the word "mostly", neuro-typicals often seem incapable of understanding it) in the past several decades, and what remains (in the US, anyway) is primarily a bi-product of social prejudice rather than actual policy. This can cause problems for both men and women (fewer women in technology and executive positions, men have a hard time getting jobs working with children or touching people). This is not usually what people are talking about in thread like this.

2.) social discrimination. Prejudices held by the majority of society. These mostly take the form of stereotypes which are propagated through the mass-media. they often inform peoples' actions and can effect everything from hiring practices to the outcomes of trials. Both genders have advantages and disadvantages distributed about equally in this area, although problems for women receive the lions-share of media and academic attention (this is a side-effect of the movement to end the severe institutional discrimination against women, which produced the terminology with which we have these discussions). This is what people are talking about in these threads (if they aren't retarded).

I would also like to remind everyone that we high-functioning autistics, regardless of gender, face more and worse discrimination than either gender and receive absolutely no attention or sympathy for it.

That out of the way, I would like to say that a double standard absolutely exists in media, although it is sometimes in favor of men and sometimes of women, depending on the situation. The imbalance comes from the fact that people have trained themselves to be far more alert and sympathetic when the bias is against women.

To give a relatively recent example, last year there was an episode of the TV show "Castle" in which the running joke was that no one would rape a man because "all you have to do is ask", implying that no man would ever refuse sex. This would have never been allowed to air if the genders were reversed in that situation. As someone once said (I forget who it was or where I read it) "if you're watching a movie and a man rapes a woman, he's the worst bastard ever and Bruce Willis will put a bullet through his head in the third act. If a woman rapes a man, then you're watching a wacky romantic comedy". Regrettably, it's accurate far more often than not.

This is not to say that women don't also face serious problems as a result of double standards, just that they are not unique in being subject to them. The problem is further compounded by the fact that people tend only to notice discrimination against them or in favor of another, never discrimination against another or in favor of them.

Edit: Also, "feminism" is not a meaningful term in a contemporary context. What was once a semi-unified movement has fragmented and spread into a myriad of conflicting ideologies all claiming the same name (not unlike some religions). There is no longer any reasonable standard by which we can define what is or is not "feminist", so the term has become empty and subject to a range of interpretations to wide to be useful in anything but misdirection. Stop using it if you want people to understand you.

*laughs* I like your style (that quote about Bruce Willis is the funniest thing I've heard all week). And you make very astute points about institutional discrimination and social discrimination, the latter of which is infinitely more complex and lands in the messy but fascinating field of "culture, gender, and sexuality."

I know this really isn't that kind of thread, but I feel like you deserve one of those "YOU WIN THREAD!" distinctions.

Why the hell do we need a disticntion? YOU WIN THREAD!

 

[RedFortune]

(First post! Yay!)

Adding my two cents here, probably just rambling, and anything following is opinion.

There are problems with gender roles in modern society. Both genders face unrealistic and quite frankly stupidly powerful expectations as to what kind of person they should be.
There is a lot of very intriguing debate on nature versus nurture in the development of personality, and I find some merit in the claim that the sexes do have inherent biological influences on their psychological development, but the role of social interaction is the major driving factor on who we turn out to be (this is just my opinion, remember).

While there are many concerning expectations of girls, I am much more frightened with the impacts of our society's social state on the personality of adolescent boys and ultimately their traits as men. It is percieved as desirable that a man does not show any emotions externally; stoicism and strong will are certainly desirable traits, but the way it works in the school system is much different, as it turns into more of an emotional barrier to meaningful development. Naturally, this is perpetuated in school environments, but ultimate driving forces are elsewhere in media and deep in history.

The problem is that this masking leads to the development of men who aren't emotionally intelligent at all, knowing only the rules on how to display oneself in front of peers. It can manifest, then, in several different ways: a huge amount of bottled emotion can lead to an unstable and insecure person, prone to breakdown, or violent outbursts, and it can also make a man become dulled to emotions in general. The second of those two is more scary, to me: you end up with someone who may feel much empathy or feeling, and doesn't understand that as such... In the extreme, you now have a psychopath.

Psychopathy is defined as a person who feels little empathy or emotional connection with others, while externally seeming normal; that alone is obviously concerning, as such a person is not beneficial to the overall social health of society, but when put into circumstances of opportunity to do things we consider wrong and evil, restraint is lacking. This, I believe, is how "evil" men continue to be what seems prevalent in our culture. The fact of the matter is, though, that it's not necessarily these peoples' faults... They don't know any better, it's what they've learnt. Do people who do bad things really look at themselves in the mirror and think "Haha, I'm doing no benefit to anybody in society! I am a horrible person! I am the greatest!" at the end of the day? No. Life isn't a novel, or a movie.

After going on that tangent I don't know much else to say. I'd like to verify that I do not believe it's something simple that applies to all men. I also do not state that the same pressures never occur on future women, either. I just find the ancient social constructs such as this to be something we really need to cast off, as there will always be people who will fall prey to these rather shallow expectations.

I know it's not really about sexism against males... But I felt it needed to be said. It's a valid, negative impact on men and the health of our culture, and can create the kind of chauvinistic idiots we deplore today and throughout history.

Oh my god it's late.

 

[spartandude]

People justify the double standards that exist against men with two words "Man up"

for some reason while it is fine to help women who are suffering (which it is right to help them) it isnt right to help a man (they also need help)

 

[derbt]

Women fought for equality for 50+ years. And yet a women still gets priority over a child in a devorce.

That is actually to do with sexism against women, but negatively impacts men as well. A woman's primary role is still seen to be that of a mother. Women are supposedly the care-takers, while men are not, and being a mother is a woman's role in life. (Please note - I do not believe this at all. It's just the general opinion.)

Also, regarding the issue of rape, very few rape cases are publicised. Most rapes are not reported, and even those that are, are kept mostly quiet. Only rape stories considered 'sensational' tend to receive media attention. The assertion that stories of male rape not being publicised is false - have you heard any Church news lately? Priests fiddling with boys is quite a popular topic.

 

[LightspeedJack]

Woman cuts off a man's penis she is applauded and called "fabulous" by the morons on the view (Not making this up) and his crime? He wanted to divorce his wife.

Switch the gender roles. Yes sexism is alive and well.

 

[Simonism451]

In concerning male rape, while they are both terrible, you hear about male rape a lot more as it is easier for a man to rape. Women who rape often get worse sentences because it requires them to probably drug the man and be more tactical.

They do? I'm kind of sceptic on the "get worse sentences" part, since this would be the first time I heard about it (though admittedly I'm not an expert on rape),but if you have sources, I would be genuinely interested.

Edit: A fine example of Double Standards can be found on this thread here http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.305166-Poll-Female-babysitter-charged-for-having-sex-with-14-year-old-boy?page=26#12266364
(I'm not that upset about the case itself, since here in germany age of consent is fourteen anyway, the reactions along the line of "Since she's hot and a girl it's okay and she is only needs to find some boys her age (at least mentally followed by something along the lines of 'like myself')" just show perfectly how deeply rooted the stereotypes of the always horny male are. (Bonus points for the unfortunate implications, that the only thing the girl needs 'is a good stiff one' to adjust her sexual preferences. Imagine someone saying that the only thing a (male) child molester needs is some good quality pussy to show him the right way. Okay, I got distracted.

 

[LuckyClover95]

In concerning male rape, while they are both terrible, you hear about male rape a lot more as it is easier for a man to rape. Women who rape often get worse sentences because it requires them to probably drug the man and be more tactical.

They do? I'm kind of sceptic on the "get worse sentences" part, since this would be the first time I heard about it (though admittedly I'm not an expert on rape),but if you have sources, I would be genuinely interested.

I'm afraid I don't have sources, my friend just said that, I trust her to be right but I can't find sources.
If I came across as saying that female rape is worse or something by the way, I didn't mean to. I only said this because the OP said you never hear of women raping. I think all rapists are rapists, and all rapists are equally bad, however it would be interesting to see whether people thought deceptive, planned rape (which is the rape most women rapists do, even if it's rare) or grab-a-passer-by rape was worse. Also I don't consider rape with consensual underagers rape, I think it's a different matter.
Don't know if you live in the UK but you might have heard of this guy, caused a lot of controversy - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/justice-secretary-rape-clarke

 

[Simonism451]

I'm afraid I don't have sources, my friend just said that, I trust her to be right but I can't find sources.
If I came across as saying that female rape is worse or something by the way, I didn't mean to. I only said this because the OP said you never hear of women raping. I think all rapists are rapists, and all rapists are equally bad, however it would be interesting to see whether people thought deceptive, planned rape (which is the rape most women rapists do, even if it's rare) or grab-a-passer-by rape was worse. Also I don't consider rape with consensual underagers rape, I think it's a different matter.
Don't know if you live in the UK but you might have heard of this guy, caused a lot of controversy - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/justice-secretary-rape-clarke

No, you didn't come across as that, it was just the first time I heard about it and the general opinion of the people seems to be along the lines of "Lol, give him (the raped) a high five for scoring" or "Boy, what a pussy for getting owned by a chick" and since judges are only people too and far away from standing above prejudices I would have expected milder sentences.
Is consentual sex with minors actually considered "rape" in the UK? (As far as I know, the german (which is where I live) juridical system counts it as an own sort of crime.)

 

[LuckyClover95]

I'm afraid I don't have sources, my friend just said that, I trust her to be right but I can't find sources.
If I came across as saying that female rape is worse or something by the way, I didn't mean to. I only said this because the OP said you never hear of women raping. I think all rapists are rapists, and all rapists are equally bad, however it would be interesting to see whether people thought deceptive, planned rape (which is the rape most women rapists do, even if it's rare) or grab-a-passer-by rape was worse. Also I don't consider rape with consensual underagers rape, I think it's a different matter.
Don't know if you live in the UK but you might have heard of this guy, caused a lot of controversy - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/justice-secretary-rape-clarke

No, you didn't come across as that, it was just the first time I heard about it and the general opinion of the people seems to be along the lines of "Lol, give him (the raped) a high five for scoring" or "Boy, what a pussy for getting owned by a chick" and since judges are only people too and far away from standing above prejudices I would have expected milder sentences.
Is consentual sex with minors actually considered "rape" in the UK? (As far as I know, the german (which is where I live) juridical system counts it as an own sort of crime.)

I don't know too much about the laws surrounding sex with a minor in the UK, however I have heard the rather amusing term "consensual rape" being used.
And as to your previous point, I can imagine that happening. Back to double standards here

 

[Terminally Chill]

Say what you want about the feminist movement, but without it, we wouldn't live in as nearly an equal society as we do now.

I'm a woman, and I understand I'm in the minority here, and yes, I do understand that there is a degree of oppression of men - being forced into armed conflict being the most prominent one. But despite that, every single society on earth is dominated by males. Very, very few companies have female leaders, and the same can be said for countries and states. Women have been oppressed by men in almost every society in the world for thousands upon thousands of years - and now just because within the past few decades a lot of us are equal to men and the media sometimes portrays things in a female favour, we're suddenly the oppressors? Bullshit.

I love men, I honestly do. All I want is equality between all people. But I still see sexism all the time - and honestly, it's still far more often than not a man towards a woman. And I'm not saying it's right when a woman is targeting a man, it's never right. But to say we live in a world where men are on average more disadvantaged than women is rubbish.

 

[Hagi]

Say what you want about the feminist movement, but without it, we wouldn't live in as nearly an equal society as we do now.

I'm a woman, and I understand I'm in the minority here, and yes, I do understand that there is a degree of oppression of men - being forced into armed conflict being the most prominent one. But despite that, every single society on earth is dominated by males. Very, very few companies have female leaders, and the same can be said for countries and states. Women have been oppressed by men in almost every society in the world for thousands upon thousands of years - and now just because within the past few decades a lot of us are equal to men and the media sometimes portrays things in a female favour, we're suddenly the oppressors? Bullshit.

I love men, I honestly do. All I want is equality between all people. But I still see sexism all the time - and honestly, it's still far more often than not a man towards a woman. And I'm not saying it's right when a woman is targeting a man, it's never right. But to say we live in a world where men are on average more disadvantaged than women is rubbish.

I generally agree with you. What I think causes this is that unlike women, whom I do believe are more disadvantaged, men generally don't get much recognition for the sexism that does happen to them.

When it's remarked that there's still a lot of violence directed at women in the form of abuse and rape it's immediately admitted that this is sadly true. A lot of people go right back to what they were doing and don't actually do anything about it but at least they do admit that there's a lot of sexism going on towards females.

But when it's remarked on how there's quite a lot of men who are emotionally abused by their spouses they're often told to man up and not be such a wimp. They don't even get the recognition of their problems that women do receive. It isn't even admitted that there is a problem, let alone any serious attempts to fix it.

Also I have to ask, what is the relevance of women having been oppressed for thousands of years? It's a sad fact of history, but it is history. I'm just over 20, I wasn't around for those thousands of years. I don't know how old you are but I'm pretty sure you didn't suffer those thousands of years of oppression either.

 

[inquisiti0n]

Women have been oppressed by men in almost every society in the world for thousands upon thousands of years - and now just because within the past few decades a lot of us are equal to men and the media sometimes portrays things in a female favour, we're suddenly the oppressors? Bullshit.

The genders roles were different back then. It's unfair for you to project the values we currently hold in society to the ones they had back then (called presentism I believe). There's a reason why that a lot of the dissidents against feminism (when it first started) were other women, and no, it's not because they were forced by men to think that way. A lot of women simply thought they had a pretty good deal. I'm not saying that it was right, or that I want society to revert back to that time, but it's so arrogant when people act like they know what people, who lived centuries before they were born, should want. And alot of the "oppression" is simply overblown, or at the very least, misinterpreted. Voting for example, had more to do with wealth than it did with gender.

example of voting laws & subsequent amendments in the UK:

In 1800, the right to vote was based on wealth and gender (male). Less that 3 adults out of every 100 could vote. Since then, there have been some significant changes to the voting regulations:

1832 Reform Act. Extended the right to vote to certain leaseholders and householders. 5 adults out of every 100 could vote.

1867 Second Reform Act. Further extension of the voting regulations in counties and boroughs. 13 adults out of every 100 could vote, but still based on wealth.

1872 Secret Ballot Act. Introduced voting by secret ballot.

1884 Representation of the People Act. Any male occupying land or property with an annual rateable value of £10 could vote. 24 adutls out of every 100 could vote.

1918 Representation of the People Act. All males over the age of 21 were given the vote. Women over 30 got the vote. Women could sit in the House of Commons as MPs. 75 adults out of every 100 could vote.

1928 Representation of the People Act. Uniform voting rights were extended to all men and women over the age of 21. 99 adults out of every 100 could vote.

1969 Representation of the People Act. The voting age was reduced to all men and women over the age of 18.

1985 Representation of the People Act. Voters who, at the time of an election, are abroad, either working or on holiday, may apply for a postal vote.

2000 Representation of the People Act. Introduced changes to electoral registration and extended postal vote provisions.

^So the actual time difference between the majority of men voting isn't that far off from when women were allowed to vote. The same applies to most other countries.



Secondly, the sexism against men today doesn't mean that men are oppressed (actually don't recall anyone here making that claim) but it's interesting to see how indifferent the majority of feminists (who supposedly are for equality) are towards sexism against men, going as far as to say that misandry isn't an issue at all until all forms of misogyny are erased, which is just really stupid and hypocritical.

 

[Blueruler182]

Men have their own image problems they have to live up to, and they're just as damaging, we just don't whine about it so publicly. My back and neck are fucked up because I've tried to be the strong man all my life, and for the most part I've succeeded, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm typing this while ignoring a massive migrain at the base of my skull. Women have groups and PR to be strong independant feminists, all the while expecting the man to be exactly as he's been told to be.

I mean, c'mon, a girl can kiss a girl and it's slightly erotic, nothing else. A guy can't even hold hands with another guy without, at best, it turning into a gay joke. And before anyone brings up the whole 'girls get called sluts' thing, that word has both been retaken as a symbol of strength for women, used as an example to motivate women, and has been used insultingly on men. So zipit.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Snip.

Misogyny, my good man, misogyny.

Beyond that... Both avenues of sexism are fairly well traveled, so ignore, keep walking, and occasionally laugh at the extremists in either direction.

There's a big difference between being pro-something and being anti-something else. Misogyny is an anti-female stance.

I do not wish to close the avenue of discussion by shouting 'Semantics!' and leaving, but I'm not sure I see your differenciation. If one is Pro-Life, then one is by necessity Anti-choice.

Not entirely, someone who is Pro-Life could be someone who is opposed to abortions in the sense that they want more ease of access to birth control methods and better sexual education as to remove their need, but not speak out against their use. Is that a common stance in discussion about abortions? No, but it doesn't mean that it can't exist.

Anyways, that is apples and oranges. Some things, like racial superiority for example, have no real divergence of stances, it's either for or against. Others, like reactionary movements, can either be pro-opposition or anti-subject. Unless you're implying that, following your apples and oranges method, in order to be pro-homosexual you need to be anti-heterosexual.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

You ever try and balance a pencil on your finger?

Go get a pencil, but put it on your finger really lopsided (but don't let it fall).

Then try to adjust it to balance it out.

What happens? The pencil ends up leaning the other way, doesn't it? It's now unbalanced, but in the opposite direction.

And when you try and put it back, the same will happen.

After some deliberation, you'll finally have it balanced on your finger... but it'll always wobble to and fro.

Think of sexism like that.

Go to your freezer and see if you can find an ice lolly (or a 'Popsicle' if you're American). Unwrap it, but don't eat it. Imagine you're going to give this ice lolly to a friend of yours.

But oh no, it's very cold! Too cold to eat comfortably. Instead of giving it to them as is, try to warm it up for them. You can hold it in your hand and let your body heat melt it a bit, but that might get you sticky. So instead, you could get a hair-dryer and use that to melt it for them.

But if you put the setting too high... oh dear, it's now just a sugary puddle on the ground.

Think of condescending metaphors like that.

... How, exactly, is that condescending? I'm not talking to him like he's an idiot. I'm putting it in a metaphor because I couldn't think of a better way to explain it. Only condescending person here is you.

You are talking to him like he's an idiot. Five-year-olds understand the concept of equilibrium, you don't need to explain it like: "go get a pencil! Very good! Now put it on your finger... But be careful it doesn't fall off! ^_^"

Besides, it doesn't even hold up too well as a metaphor. Upper class (white) men have always been in power throughout history. What upper class white men decide is politically correct might swing back and forth like a pencil, but the balance of power certainly doesn't.

 

[Username Redacted]

Are there seriously people who don't believe a man can be raped by a woman if he gets a boner? Good. Fucking. Christ. Physical arousal can be instinctive and unavoidable during rape - it's the body's natural reaction to sexual activity of any kind. It does not make the experience wanted or enjoyable for the victim on any level. This idea that physical arousal that literally can't be helped = consent is one reason rape victims can experience shame and confusion about their trauma...so yeah. Hope everyone saying "ITS NOT RAPE IF YOU ENJOYED IT LOL" feels great about that.

I would like to direct you to the other trending thread in OT at this moment in which ~49% of the respondents to the poll don't believe that statutory rape is statutory rape if the adult in the situation is female and hot. In short there are a lot of stupid people who don't have a particularly good idea how the world at any level actually works.