Yes, ladyfoxfyre is right. That is essentially what I meant.
Post 162, where Aqua says that sexism is: “the systematic oppression of women and the privileging of men”. If that’s what sexism is, men cannot face it as a source of damages.
Upon seeing your explanation at 8:40, would you say that it’s impossible for a white to be a victim of racism?
One doesn’t need to think that it’s of the same severity to think it is of the same kind. There can be mild sexism all the way to egregious sexism.
Yes, I found it. And responded to it here.
Yes. I explicitly said that we should not be worried about the women who are raped. Quite clear. Now, if I could just find that post somewhere…
I’m not attempting to draw that parallel. I would say it is possible for whites to be the victims of racially motivated crimes, or actions, but holding to the prior definition if whites have never been viewed culturally as the inferior race I’d say it’s more difficult to make a case that they have been a victim of racism.
But it largely depends on the culture, I suppose.
No, Jimmy, what’s devastating to feminism is that it’s nearly impossible to have a conversation about the oppression of women without a chorus of men’s voices derailing it because men have it bad too, why look at all these TV ads where we can’t use a toilet brush. ;_;
Misogyny is devastating because of the power structure behind it. Men can be discriminated against, but they are not subject to the same entrenched and institutionalized disempowerment that women are. You’re acting as though we are close to a post-misogynist society. If we were, then it would be irresponsible to dismiss the (few) instances of discrimination against men. But the fact is that we’re nowhere near equal. Yes, it’s a problem if men can’t get hired as dental hygienists (although no one has actually been able to provide support for the idea that this actually happens). I think some people in this thread are responding with derision to these (very minor, in comparison) acts of individual discrimination against men, specially because they are so often held up as being equivalent to what women face. They aren’t, and it’s laughable to pretend that they are.
Equality is the goal, yes, but in order for us to be equal, then the group that has the floor the vast majority of the time needs to shut the hell up for five fucking minutes. Pay me as much as a man for the same work, then I will worry about the fact that sitcom husbands are dumb.
Also, I have always really liked you, but I don’t really care to hear you, a man, lecture on The Right Way and The Wrong Way To Do Feminism. K thx.
We are just working with different definitions of inherence, ladyfoxfyre. I agree with everything that you’re saying but for that, and I otherwise can’t explain why you don’t agree with what I’m saying.
The quote is the one you identified.
My point being, again, that notwithstanding some of the horrible examples that have been introduced in this thread, the idea that an individual example of discrimination against a man is necessarily trivial compared to a similar example of discrimination against a woman is an idea that is in the long run harmful to gender equality. The punchline, I suppose, is that I think this attitude has the effect of legitimizing victimization of women. Discrimination against women is worse because it’s in fact worse, not because it’s against women. The problem with comparing male discrimination to female discrimination isn’t that individual instances of discrimination don’t cause problems for individual males (as in the programmer/elf who wanted to be a dentist), it’s that it’s entrenched much deeper and happens in far greater scope and depth to women. And the way it gets entrenched and gets bigger in scope is that more individual instances occur. Just like it’s very important to me to maintain the argument that a society that is less discriminatory toward women is not necessarily more discriminatory toward men, it’s important to me to acknowledge that just because a society is incredibly discriminatory toward women, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily working to the benefit of all men. To couch it in your translated terms, what I’m saying is that we can be 100% sexist toward women and still be sexist toward men. Hell, I think it’s probably easier that way. There’s room for a lot of prejudice.
All of which is to say that there are a hell of a lot of reasons to be more vigilant when it comes to misogyny than misandry, but I think that’s very different from being vigilant about actually denying “reverse” discrimination, which I think hurts everybody involved.
“Lecture.” Huh.
I think the point there is that horrors men face in dating is not comparable in any way- not in quality, not in magnitude- to the reasons why people are concerned about dowries… Which are two institutions that a previous poster explicitly drew an equivalence between.
Right, everyone should make a point to acknowledge that this discrimination is of the same kind – and worse of all, it’s discrimination against men! The clear worst kind of discrimination! Due to how obviously significant lame mass-media discrimination against men is, versus the free ride these freaking women have enjoyed for so long in the mass media.
But, like, sorry, I should shut up. This is a thread to hear straight white dudes and their important opinions, opinions the rest of us would never hear otherwise (we literally never hear them, you understand). I should shut up to let you guys lecture us, because we lits have no idea what you have to say and it’s totes enlightening to hear you guys’ viewpoints.
I don’t disagree with much of what you’ve said here, but I do disagree with your original premise that because many of us have jumped on those poor examples for being poor examples that we are somehow rationalizing the existence of gender discrimination against men. That isn’t what it happening. Yes, I am sure it occurs in some circumstances. But the fact that it does not rise to the point of being systematic is the reason it can’t be treated the same as gender discrimination against women. It’s not intended to minimize the discrimination that is occurring, but rather perhaps to put it into perspective against centuries of extraordinarily harmful sexism against women. It is important to expose it when it occurs regardless of the gender being affected by the discriminatory practices.
The reason many of the women in this thread have taken offense is because 1) a lot of the examples being posted were obviously not discrimination of any harmful sort, so to have that brought up as a comparison for why a men’s rights movement might gain momentum is frankly demeaning to many of the sexist practices that prior generations of women (and the current generation of women) had to endure, and 2) many of us have been or can imagine ourselves being in situations where gender discrimination can work to our detriment, and it is still more culturally acceptable to discriminate against women than against men.
The schoolteacher and child mentor examples are good examples of gender discrimination against men. We could have had a very long discussion about that issue and what can be done to change cultural mindsets about having men in positions where they are currently having more difficulty attaining. But instead we had to spend 5 pages arguing about why alimony isn’t discrimination, and other worthless suggestions put forth. I think a lot of us (myself included) find that defending against those parallels to the systematic sexism our gender has suffered through the years is more important to us personally than discussing the 1 out of 100 examples put forth that was actually an example of gender discrimination.
[QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood]
All of which is to say that there are a hell of a lot of reasons to be more vigilant when it comes to misogyny than misandry, but I think that’s very different from being vigilant about actually denying “reverse” discrimination, which I think hurts everybody involved.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, look: one dude to another: the fact that misogyny hurts dudes indirectly is the shittiest fucking reason there is to be opposed to it. Yes, our misogyny hurts us too: so the fuck what? It hurts women vastly more, so speeches about how much misogyny indirectly affects men are not really useful.
But, like, whatevs. I’m totally interested in your cases of “reverse discrimination.”
I should have been more clear about what my original premise was. It wasn’t that many of you who jumped on the poor examples were rationalizing anything, just that a couple specific posts were denying what I thought was a good example (in a thread dedicated to actually seeing if there were good examples) on really specious grounds. I guess it was kind of silly to think I could comment on a little piece of the thread without it seeming like a commentary on the whole thing (even though I was in early on the BS-calling, damn it).
mister nyx, you’re fighting the good fight and everything, and that’s cool, but you have not remotely approximated anything I’ve said, so here’s me kind of shrugging.
The idea that men being depicted as being bad at housework in commercials somehow represents discrimination is absolutely absurd, and it reflects the awful, privileged attitudes of men that complain about it. They are also absolutely absurd. For the reasons I’ve already given.
I am totally crying here about the fate of white teenagers. I lived through that time and all I can say is how terrible it was. We suffered every day. ;_; Especially that time we got kicked out of a Wal-Mart at 3:00 am when we stuck our diminutive friend Faun in a shopping cart and ran as fast as we could down the aisles. We got kicked out of the store in our tiny-ass community.
This was yet another horrible example of discrimination against men. ;_;
Is it that you can’t or don’t want to make non-hyperbolic arguments? If you want to vent, the Pit is a great place to do just that. Pit me if you want.
I was responding directly to what you said. If you find that hyperbolic, perhaps you should examine what you said.
Yeah, I get that in an SDMB context, you count as actually on the side of light.
Which is sort of depressing.
Um, I never said that you should be crying. I said it pisses me off. I realize it is nowhere near to the level discrimination women face (not sure where you got me and my friends being white from, though I am, some of my friends aren’t). It’s like a first world problem; yes, there are far, far worse things happening to other people, but this is something that bothers me personally, and I thought this was an appropriate place for it. The fact that it’s relatively minor doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, or isn’t aggravating. I look forward to seeing how you misinterpret my post.
I never said nor implied that the worst thing about it was that it was discrimination about men.
I never said nor implied that discrimination against men is the worst kind of discrimination.
I never said nor implied that lame mass-media discrimination against men is obviously significant.
I never said nor implied that these freaking women have enjoyed a free ride for so long in the mass media.
I never said nor implied that others would never hear the opinions of straight white dudes otherwise and that they are literally never heard.
I never said nor implied you should shut up and lets us guys lecture you.
I never said nor implied that you have no idea what we have to say.
I don’t think you were responding directly to what I said.
The fire marshall called. He said this thread is a fire hazard due to all the strawmen.
Seriously, at least half of you just need to read the damned posts you’re responding to and stop pretending people are saying things they’re not.
Also, the OP asked for examples of men being discriminated against. Perhaps people who want to discuss this topic should remain in this thread and everyone who wants to talk about how women are discriminated against can start a new thread (or several)?
I can’t help the fact that you said things you can’t stand behind (or, more particularly. that you can’t stand behind their consequences.)
But, in context, I’m sure plenty of other unappealing men will tell you you were in the right to say what you said.