SEXISM! What's with the standards?

[Sperium 3000]

Well, finally someone points out what I always thought. I'm sorry for your friend. If that's really how it happened, then that woman needs some daily doses of the chill pill.

In any case, my theory is that a large portion of the so called feminism (note, not all, a large portion) are a bit misguided. It's true that nowadays woman can do a lot of stuff they couldn't before, and that's great, more power for them. But what we see nowadays is not much of gender equality as it is gender inversion. Just look around you and list the double standards (the story of this topic being one of them). Of course there are some double standards that bite the women in the behind, like the old "Men that have several women are admired but women that have several men are whores" (Which I also think is BS, btw), but I could list pages of double standards that favor women over men.

 

[intheweeds]

Radical does not equate to extremist. Radical feminists are those that basically happen to believe that sexism is very deep rooted in society, so it will take much restructuring to get rid of it.

Um don't all feminists believe that? I mean really, you are saying that sexism is not 'very deeply rooted in society'? Or that society doesn't need to 'restructure' to fix it? Why do you think these type of threads go on so long? Sexism is a current issue (that is to say, one that is not 'in the past') that people are restructuring around as we speak. In fact we are working on it by just talking about - RIGHT NOW!

I agree that the dictionary definition of 'radical' does not equate to extremism, but in the context of the conversation I was having, I was referring to the term the guy I was conversing with used to describe the individuals who lean so far to one side that they have become unreasonable. He calls them 'radical feminists'. We both used the term during conversation to describe who we were talking about. If you don't have a real complaint, don't waste time arguing pointless semantics. Our conversation was very polite and clear, though we disagreed. You should read it, you will notice my choice of words held no bearing on my being understood by anyone.

 

[intheweeds]

Radical does not equate to extremist. Radical feminists are those that basically happen to believe that sexism is very deep rooted in society, so it will take much restructuring to get rid of it.

Um don't all feminists believe that? I mean really, you are saying that sexism is not 'very deeply rooted in society'? Or that society doesn't need to 'restructure' to fix it? Why do you think these type of threads go on so long? Sexism is a current issue (that is to say, one that is not 'in the past') that people are restructuring around as we speak. In fact we are working on it by just talking about - RIGHT NOW!

I agree that the dictionary definition of 'radical' does not equate to extremism, but in the context of the conversation I was having, I was referring to the term the guy I was conversing with used to describe the individuals who lean so far to one side that they have become unreasonable. He calls them 'radical feminists'. We both used the term during conversation to describe who we were talking about. If you don't have a real complaint, don't waste time arguing pointless semantics. Our conversation was very polite and clear, though we disagreed. You should read it, you will notice my choice of words held no bearing on my being understood by anyone.

No, it really does refer to the extremist side, at least from a sociological standpoint. Sociologically a Radical feminist is a feminist who sees men as the enemy, they wish for a separate society from men and believe that only then they will be free from oppression by men.



Although that is a rather broad term given that there are some radical feminist who believe slightly different versions of this.

Okay. I'll bite. What exactly do the other 'normal' feminists believe, then? I didn't realize you were such an authority. Here I was thinking a university minor in women's studies and you know actually being a woman had taught me something about feminism...

I'm not trying to be a jerk , sorry, I really don't follow your logic.

EDIT: Okay forget any of this that I just said. I followed your logic so poorly because it didn't speak at all to my response. My response was twofold:
1) if extremist feminists believe sexism is rooted in society, then what makes them more extreme than any other feminist? You sort of answered. But you answered by agreeing with everything I said before you jumped in about my choice of words. "radical feminists" are on the extreme end where they have become unreasonable. You just agreed.
2) I argued that there was nothing wrong with my choice of words 'radical feminist' to describe extreme feminists. That was the whole reason you quoted me to begin with. Basically you start off by quoting me to tell me my choice of words is poor, but then in this post you say:

No, it really does refer to the extremist side, at least from a sociological standpoint. Sociologically a Radical feminist is a feminist who sees men as the enemy, they wish for a separate society from men and believe that only then they will be free from oppression by men.

Okay - so my choice of words was fine and we agree that radical feminists or extreme feminists (or whatever you want to call them) take a good thing (equality) and push it into another type of oppression. What do you want from me, man?

 

[Mallefunction]

I find it rather amusing how you're trying to lecture someone with a degree in Sociology about the way society society functions in regards to women. I would say more but the guy below me has pretty much said it all.

And yet you still can't tear yourself away from the default gaze to see how unfair things are for people who are not white and who are not male in society despite the 21st century rolling in.

 

[Mallefunction]

....You're joking right?

Please say that you're joking, because guess what 'sister' women are not enslaved, they are not brought and sold like property in the free world, they are treated as equals in most modern life and put up on a fucking pedestal in most of our mainstream media.

This messed up sense of victimization that you so proudly degrade others for having seems to have stuck so deep inside your warped mind that your ignorant ass actually believes it.

Here's a hypothetical situation: A man and a woman are standing in a plaza, the man is standing there while the woman is slapping him, punching him and pulling his hair. do you.

A: Ignore it he probably deserved it.
B: Stop her she's assaulting him.
C: Cheer her on for asserting herself.

If you've picked anything but B then you are either so ignorant towards modern society that no amount of arguing with you will help or you are a troll, either way this conversation is over.

And the 'male gaze' what are you six? Men don't have some biological imperative that makes us immediately only see what we want to see in regards to data and sociological test results. Men see pretty much the same thing women see. There's no deep seated hatred and need to control and put down women that you seem to think men have.

Men, like women, are human beings, stupid, fallible, human fucking beings with all the potential for kindness and hate that either gender posses. ignorant lumps of carbon, we don;t have some sort of hive mind to unify us in hatred towards a gender that we are biologically compelled to like, get over yourself and look around. There are millions of people in happy stable relationships with each other.

Do you really think that if all of those women, all of them, were being oppressed, put down and enslaved by the 'evil men' that someone wouldn't notice. We change the acceptable word for 'black' every other weekend and you think that no one would take note that fifty percent of the population is living as slaves.

My god even Oprah would pick it up the ignorant air head that she is.

Modern women are not being enslaved. That was not my point. My point was that in the past we HAVE been treated like property, abused, and enslaved and as a result we should not be forced to ACT as though none of that history has never occurred (and thus has not effected the CURRENT world). The guy I responded to was basically saying that sexism doesn't exist as if being given the right to vote eliminated all sexism. My comparison was to say, "oh, like how racism was eliminated after blacks got their rights?". History colors the present viewing of various groups and if you deny those years of misogyny and act like they are "no big deal" then you are clearly blind.

Male gaze is actually a real term if you actually took the time to look into the REAL definition instead of assuming I meant something totally biological. It refers to the idea of what men can see in their limited view on the world, specially those that are heterosexual. There is a female gaze too, but male gaze is the default in our society and it's the reason why most women's issues are pushed aside as "not being relevant to the mainstream". It's the same way that the white gaze has become the default. I don't see how using the term makes me appear to be six years old, but whatever that's not important enough for me to bother arguing.

I am not denying that men and women are flawed. My ORIGINAL point was that you guys need to get out of your own little comfortable "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" treehouses and look around. The advantages for the most part are in the courts of men, disregarding a few key issues (and even then, that's due to the male gaze as well). Know why men get blamed for physical violence in a domestic relationship while many women walk free? Because our male dominated society still views women as too weak and kind to do anything like that. While men are statistically more likely to be violent than women, usually this violence is directed toward other men.

Even then, I think that's unfair and that the guilty should always be punished, but to say that women have it SO easy now is to ignore the real facts of the matter. How many women are in government? How many are in the media who aren't young and beautiful while the men get to be old and fat? How many female CEOS are there? It's not that women aren't trying, it's that people tend to pass down power to others like them and thus our society is dominated by white men.

Yes we are being oppressed, but you wanna know something? People who grow up in oppression RARELY realize it until they have been shown something better. Even then it's hard. Girls are being conditioned to expect less pay because that's how it is, that they will never be as smart as the boys, that they will only be valued for their looks, that if they choose to wear shorts that they are a slutty slut who sluts, that if they are old that they have no value in society anymore, that if they get raped and tell someone they will be accused of leading him on or being at fault. How do you know you are being oppressed if you are never allowed to see anything else? That's why there isn't some big uprising like in the 60s. It took the violation of our reproductive rights in order to get people to open their eyes.

I think you need to actually do some fucking research into this topic before you go slinging shit. Nice ad hom by the way. Much appreciated.

Are you for real?

Girls are being conditioned to expect less pay? Where the hell are you from?
Serious question. That actually sounds awful.
We got constantly reminded of this in high school and how we have to change that.
Where is this "conditioning" you're talking about coming from?

Again, in highschool we did statistics for Boys and Girls in the education system, and we were always told girls did better (Girls develop faster during early teens).
The media LOVES portraying men as goof balls and morons while the Women as the sensible one's. I won't argue the Male gaze in the media, but even that's REALLY changed in the last 5 years.
So where are you getting this from? Again, what bloody country is this?

Slutty Slut who Sluts? Okay, I'm guessing your just angry posting there, but we all do it sometimes, so it's alright.
I won't comment much on this, as this is defiantly subjective to everyone's own experiences in life.
I can't say I approve when a girl dresses in shorts with her arse hanging out. I wouldn't call her a slut for that, but it's not exactly going to leave a good impression.
At the same time, I'd say the same thing if I saw a guy walking around without his top on, or those guys who wear those loose pants around there knees.

I agree with you on the mistreatment of older women. That pisses me off.
But at the same time, it's a generational thing that IS dying off. I bet we won't see it nearly as much, if at all by the time we're older. Thankfully.

And again, the Rape matter is really dark, so I'd rather avoid those waters.
But suffice to say, I think it's a little more grey then you're making it out to be.
It's not a black and white issue where only women are abused (either physically or via exploitation of the law).

I hope I don't come across as antagonistic, because at the heart of it, I think we're on the same page (we both want the best for everyone, and equality).
I'm just confused as to where the victim mentality is coming from.
Your using the word oppression all over the place, and that's where you're losing me. Women aren't being oppressed (unless you're from out in the middle east).
They've got all the same rights as men.
Culturally, both genders are treated as equals.
The media certainly represents women well enough.
I can't speak from firsthand about the situation in the business & politics sectors, but again, that older generation is on the way out. Most businesses have polices to make sure they DO have a fair representation of women.

I'll admit, I may be speaking from a position of ignorance, but I've lived many places and met alot of people, from one side of the globe to the other.
I've never really seen this "oppression". A dismissive attitude, sure. Casual Misogyny, yup.
But things are improving rapidly.

Hell, if anything, the over compensation has gotten out of hand.

I hope you respond, because I'd be interesting in debating, and trying to understand your perspective on the issue. Maybe I'm missing something.

The conditioning is not this big government conpiracy (which is what most people think of when the word is used). What was referring to was how we as a society view and present women (thereby affecting how women view themselves). Women have been doing better, don't get me wrong. The US has made many strides over the past few decades and we are loads better than many 3rd world nations in terms of civil rights for all, not just women. But women are still making a lot less than their male counterparts (women of color, even less so) for the same jobs and rather than be assertive for their pay, we are being put down with the threat of being labeled as a "*****". Look at how almost all women in power are labeled in the media. When Hillary Clinton ran, all the headlines were about what a ***** she was (not for her policies mind you, but because she was trying to assert herself in a professional manner) For the record, I am not a Hillary fan myself, but does the term "*****" really need to be applied here?

XD I actually was angry, but it was mostly at the tone of the person's post because it was so patronizing ("You women don't know anything about gender! You're equal now so just sit in the corner and eat your cornflakes!" was the vibe I got). However, Slutty Slut who Sluts is in reference to both the Slutwalks and the recent topic of insurance coverage for birth control where Rush Limbaugh called a woman a slut because she was in favor of birth control. Her argument didn't even touch on the sexual use of it (her friend lost an ovary to cysts that could have been treated with birth control) but Rush called her a slut because he assumed that if she wanted birth control that she was having tons of sex and it was free game to call her a slut. It's not as bad as it used to be as said before, but the whole virgin/slut dichotomy still exists for women. If you have sex or look like you have sex, you're a slut and you should be ashamed of yourself. If you get raped and you happen to be wearing a mini-skirt it was your fault. There are actually trials from just this year where judges and police have either let rapists off easy or publically blamed the girls for their own rape because they "were willing" or "asking for it". I can bring up a list if you want.

Another problem with the slut thing is it makes men try to play the victim by blaming a girl for being a slut if she says the sex wasn't consensual. Now there are plenty of men who have been wrongly accused of sexual assault; that is indeed an abuse of the system. However, most women know EXACTLY how big of a charge that is. There is the reason why so many rapes go unreported and it's because of slut-shaming and fear. After all, if the police won't believe you and let your rapist go free because you've been labeled as a slut, why bother?

Ironically, it's exactly the same reason why men won't go to the police for domestic violence if they are the victims because "how could a woman abuse a man?"

Yes, men do get judged for what they wear as well, but assuming someone is a slut (and villainizing them as a result) is not fair. When I say villainizing I am talking about the double-standard that it's ok for men to have as much sex with as many partners as they want while women are seen as dirty, used, and gross for it.

Onto older women:
I honestly don't see it dying off any time soon. News anchor teams still seem to consist of an old fart dressed in a suit and what appears to be his 4th wife with full-view cleavage.

I would love to see the change though because as a woman, I want to see more diversity. You guys can have your super models sure, but is it that hard to ask for more than just the same body/skin/hair type over and over in just about every form of media?

Rape is a gray area. However, women are much more likely to be raped in their lifetime and it is most likely going to be from a man. The case I did mention is quite common too. I "friendzoned" a guy a few months back and he immediately blamed me as if he had to be rewarded for

No you aren't antagonistic. You're asking questions and I get that.

The oppression for women is not one of chains which is why I think many people are so ready to dismiss it and why so many people think I'm "overreacting" to the issue. But all you have to do to see the hints of it is get a group of mixed sexes together and then ask them how they prevent themselves from being assaulted sexually on a regular basis (not what they WOULD do, but what they already do), then ask them how much time they spend putting themselves together in the morning and ask why they take so much time. These aren't genetic and biological differences between men and women, it's societal norms that have been given to us as kids. Women have to care about things that men don't and men don't know about them because they for the most part don't have to worry about it. They are the default, they are the standard for society.

As for rights, well I think you should look into the recent birth control and abortion debates. We are actually having many of our reproductive rights stripped from us by old white men who don't even understand how contraceptives work. In Virginia now, you HAVE to have an ultrasound ($300-$1200 out of pocket for the woman) before you can get an abortion. Because you know...women somehow don't understand that it's a baby in there (facepalm). And if you had a miscarriage and are getting an abortion to remove the baby, you still have to get it and listen to the doctor talk to you about how your baby died. I could name other cases if you want, but I'm cutting off here because my message is getting ridiculously long.

Culturally, I don't think we are treated as equals. Women are still the prizes of men. When you see powerful men, you see them with women on their arms as if the women are just like the car behind him or the money in his pocket. We're seen as things to be obtained by men rather than people and it's evident just through most Hollywood films, games, magazines, etc. Women who are powerful don't have men on their arms. Now men don't need to be objectified in order for us to be equal, but we women need to be less objectified.

I suggest watching one of the "Killing Us Softly" videos. The collection of ads where women's bodies are used as objects or to sell COMPLETELY unsexual things is rather astounding.

Even with those policies, women still are underrepresented the higher up the ladder you climb in a company. That's why I'm complaining about this. Trust me, things have gotten a LOT better for women, but we still have a long way to go seeing as Middle Eastern countries have more women in government than us (and have had female prime ministers too).

Casual misogyny is misogyny nevertheless. That's like saying casual racism is ok. What's sad is that these things are still considered "funny". What's funny about saying shit like, "Get back in the kitchen?" I still don't fucking have a clue but apparently it's funny as fuck and I'm being a buzz kill.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Ya'll need to start using "snip" when you quote these walls of text. We're going to be down to 3 posts per page soon at the rate this is going.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

OP if you were a witness to the event why didn't you give evidence in court?

 

[balanovich]

1-I would like to know why it is that any female claiming sexual harassment gets the IMMEDIATE AND UNQUESTIONABLE benefit of the doubt, simply for being female.

2-While we're on this topic, why is it that any MALE claiming sexual harassment is pretty much told to man-up and quit being a fucking pussy?

3-I thought both genders were supposed to be EQUAL, yet every time I turn around, I see another example of inequality based on gender alone

1-Because historically, out of sexism or lack of care towards female employees, sexual harassment where often dismissed or ignored. Now none dares dismiss or ask "are you sure you're not overreacting?" or do anything but be on the woman's side out of fear of being called misogynist.

2-because sexual harassment is seen as an attack to a the weaker sex. If a man makes such a complaint, it equals to admitting that manhood can be sexually weaker than womanhood. And that, no man wants to admit. It's irrational, and testosterone driven, but there it is.

3-Blame the stupid feminists! not feminism though. Feminism should have been women demanding equal respect. For the work they do, for what they contribute to society, their potential as human being is as great as the men's.

What feminist got wrong is that they said "we can be as respectable as men because we can do what they. There is no place a man has gone, that a woman can't." I'm fine with that, it's true, they can run businesses and have careers. But they implicitly did what many men did out of sexism; they devalorised stay at home moms and the VERY IMPORTANT work that was traditionally bestowed to women. They didn't restore the woman and here place in society. They just said "women can be men".

So now we're stuck with two way of treating women. Firstly, like women, with all the gallantry and the consideration that comes with it. And also with the partly true clichés like women are better with children or more compassionate or more sensitive.
Secondly, treat them like men, with all the respect and authority that comes with it. But doing both at the same time is contradictory, so we are stuck with half half way of dealing with things. It's often worse than sticking with either. And it results in compensating unfairness and inequalities, some of which are natural, with more unfairness and inequalities. Through in jurisprudence and people trying to get the most out of the system and you get a crappy social system.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

And? It would be true: stay-at-home dads have to fight with social stigmata to this day. Also, thank you for making my point - OF COURSE it is a financial and political issue. OF COURSE it is a matter of correlation. Nobody is suggesting ?they are poorer because they are women?.

Then you belong in the camp that seems to think we need to legislate the correction of social and financial disparities in our society. That?s simply not going to happen, so why bother railing for it?

Are you quite daft? Look, nobody is trying to argue from a pure gender perspective here.

One look at this thread would indicate otherwise.

What I am saying, however, is that there is - as you yourself state - a gap between the fact of legal equality and the socio-economic reality which is a result of certain epistemes.

Then you admit the gap has nothing to do with gender beyond a correlation to those who currently wield it and more to do with their status within the contextual society they reside?

My problem with the OP is that he presupposes the existence of a socio-economic tabula rasa when in fact, the cultural reality is heavily skewed towards favouring one side.

Not really; both your issues is that you?re arguing from within the contexts that favor your arguments. Each gender had advantages and disadvantages within specific contexts. Even society as a whole still requires an established context; which you admit but fail to put any value in. Case in point?

Really? Wow, I did not know that; I thought every society had the same norms; I was just reading the Summa Theologica, and thinking to myself, "yeah, women's rights in 13th Century Italy are JUST THE SAME as they are today." Tell me, how is sociology 101?

Your sarcastically driven Ad Hominem?s do little to support your intellectual credit. Would you prefer an academic discussion or a flame match? Cherry picking statements in the attempt to alter their meaning outside context is a political maneuver, and a poor one at that. The point was that you are confusing cause and effect.

Yeah, but we ARE talking about an actual system, not a hypothetical matriarchy. And in OUR society, social and historical factors have put men in charge. The fact that it doesn?t have to be so means precisely squat.

There is a distinct difference between ?doesn?t have to be? and ?shouldn?t be?. One doesn?t need to go to every society and require they change to suit the needs of those that, whether socially or historically, haven?t been the prevailing controlling demographic. There is nothing preventing women from assuming any power within society that is based on anything other than those currently in power not wishing to change the status quo. The status quo has little if anything to do with gender; it?s about power and influence. In our capitalist society; those with money will continue to dominate. You, obvious yet again here, are continuing to presuppose that socio-economic power is gender regulated.

Not to mention that being a white guy meant - means - you ruled over pretty much the entire world. The precise collocation of that discourse gets a bit muddy when the group in question just so happens to conquer the world.

And to the conqueror goes the spoils? Please, the ?white man? hasn?t subjugated the entire world to his will. You?re gaps in knowledge of basic world history has colored your racial bias. Allow me (and/or wiki) to briefly educate you? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_countries_and_empires_spanning_more_than_one_continent
?and in today?s day and age, economic power governs the rule of the world, not race or gender. Although I?m sure the fact that men also dominate the economic elite of the world means, according to you, that true equality hasn?t been reached because of equal female representation is lacking. Women also fail to represent themselves in professional football, we should probably do something about that.

 

[dobahci]

Yawn. 50% chance your story is entirely made up and 50% chance you have completely misrepresented what really happened. And of course entirety of this forum instantly jumped onto a women-bashing bandwagon, but I don't expect any different from fucking gamers.

So, yeah. The fact that you don't really have very many details at all, and are giving us a highly editorialized, telephone-game version of events, as speculated, is pertinent information.

Not to mention that from later comments we can clearly deduce that he is extremely misogynistic and antagonistic towards women's rights. Boys crying on the internet because of perceived victimization towards their precious lives = me loling forever. Chuck some peanuts and move along.

Yes, this.

I'm nauseated everytime I visit this part of the forum. Just seems to be entitled straight boys pissing on about how sexist these horrible entitled women are towards them.

There sure as hell is a sexism problem in online gaming forums, and it's not due to "femi-nazis". Grow up.

You know how they say that sometimes your enemies make your point for you better than you ever could? Sometimes I feel like that when it comes to feminism.

If it weren't for dozens of men posting things on the internet about how TERRIBLE feminism is, and how unfair it is to men, and what a double standard it creates, and how feminists are entitled bitches who demand special treatment, I probably wouldn't be anywhere near as interested in or supportive of feminism. I see those posts from gamers and other people I thought to be part of a relatively reasonable, intelligent, progressive community, and then I see other posts agreeing with them, and ALL of those posts are incredibly sexist and the posters don't even seem to realize it. And that's the worst part. They don't even seem to know. And to me, that's one of the best arguments for feminism there ever could be.

So many of these posts claim that they're opposed to feminism but they support equality. That comes up all the time, EQUALITY. Really convenient word. It's almost a mantra, and it smacks of disingenuousness, like a white man saying "Some of my best friends are black." They tell you, no, they're not misogynists, they don't hate women and aren't prejudiced against them, they just think the goals of feminism are wrong because it (allegedly) wants to give the advantage to women, and that women's efforts should be directed towards EQUALITY.

If you have to repeatedly insist that you believe in EQUALITY... you probably don't.

 

[dobahci]

There should be no "advantage" and it's just wrong to think that women should have "it", this is why we harp on about equality because neither gender should have an advantage.

That's just the point though. Feminism doesn't want to give the advantage to women, nor does it think there should be an advantage. But it does argue that an advantage currently does exist, and men are the ones who have it.

And if you're in denial of that, then you are biased. There's really no other way to put it. If you claim to be interested in equality, then a good starting point is to recognize that male privilege is real and work from there. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is not interested in equality at all, no matter how much they might claim to be. They're interested in their own strange definition of equality which doesn't upset the cultural norms that cushion them.

EDIT: I just thought of what that word equality reminds me of. It reminds me of that classic quote from Animal Farm. You know the one I'm talking about.