I would have hoped that the intentional extreme hyperbole was obvious to all.
Yes indeed. And my response was to those who are suggesting that because women have had it worse for longer, men shouldn’t complain so much. I responded with a sarcastic exaggeration because there’s no reasoning away such reactions. Hell, read pretty much any response by mister nyx in this thread.
Yes, some of the male responses have been ridiculous (and one in particular). That doesn’t negate all the rest that weren’t.
Perhaps the continued domination of the lower ranking positions along with the fact that women also now make up a large majority of new doctors, lawyers and most other of the professions, is an example of sexism against men.
Or for existing, which one of my coworkers did just two weeks ago. She’s 44, my own age, and according to her anybody who’s ever been sexually assaulted (to any degree) is “a whore”.
Apparently and based on further questioning she’s an Equal Opportunity Bitch when it comes to having been a sex-abuse target/victim. If you’re female you’re a whore, if you were a boy you’re a whore and if you were a man it didn’t happen.
Yeah, don’t go there blindboyard. If men are discriminated against for certain roles…then that’s an example of sexism. The end. There’s no need to compare it to anything else.
The positions of women and black people are in no way analogous.
Black people can be shown to be disadvantaged by facts and statistics. They have lower levels of educational attainment, higher levels of unemployment, higher levels of homelessness, higher rates of suicide, higher levels of incarceration, higher levels of criminal victimisation, higher levels of involvement in dangerous or manual occupations and lower rates of entry into the professions, obviously there are negative stereotypes of black people being violent and so on, they get longer sentences for the same crimes and people get shorter sentences for committing crimes against them, and of course they eventually die prematurely having a shorter average lifespan.
You know what group labours under literally none of those disadvantages? Clue: not men.
Why is it that when the women complain of sexism, they get to draw from the entire global population of women and the entirety of human history to make their complaints, but when men complain of sexism, it has to be in 21st century America?
Why is “Women were treated as property, to be bought and sold,” valid but “Men are literally forced against their will to take up arms to go kill other countries’ men” invalid?
Ladies, I don’t want to play the “who has it worse” game, but since some of you do, let me know when a Western culture starts mutilating your daughter’s genitals at birth and then signing them up to be bullet sponges. Then maybe you can come to the table.
Well, because women are still bought and sold both literally (in other countries) and figuratively (look earlier in this thread when someone suggested he has to pay for access to women). Also, to your second point? You’re right. That’s awful and shouldn’t happen. I personally am an anti war activist who is adamantly against the draft, so of course I agree that what you just pointed out is wrong. Pleasantly enough though, there hasn’t been a draft in a very long time— now we just need to do away with selective service.
No one here is saying that women have it bad because in the 1600s we weren’t allowed to vote and were effectively the property of our husbands. The things most of the women here are talking about are very much the reality within the last 50–or even 20-- years. Now, many of the things men are talking about are the exact same reality and add strongly to the discussion. A few things mentioned though are just trivial though and aren’t adding at all to the idea that there’s a necessity for a men’s rights revolution.
Why is it that people who complain that selective service is wrong because it only drafts men and not women (and don’t get me wrong, it is. I’m not arguing that.) never seem to want to acknowledge that this whole structure came about because of the general attitude that women are too weak to serve, both physically and mentally. You guys frame this as if this imbalance exists because of a bias against men. It doesn’t.
Because nearly every person to bring forth examples of “sexism against men” has confused it for bringing examples of “things which are unfair to men”. Selective service is sexist. Against women. Because it excludes them based on the idea that they are too weak to depend on.
The OP asks for “actual examples of misandry or discrimination against men.
Valid examples that would justify a mens’ rights movement.” and doesn’t mention sexism. You also have to be aware that your conception of sexism is restrictive and that the word “sexism” can be used more broadly than that. I’ve looked it up in several dictionaries to make sure and yours is only one definition of the word.
You say “nearly every person” but according to your definition, it has to be every single person because, according to you and Aqua, there can be no such thing as sexism against men.
As for the issue of bias, it’s strange to hear feminists say that bias has to be in the intent rather than the intent or effect. I thought the idea that bias and discrimination need not involve intent was an important gain for feminists. Would you like to roll back the disparate impact doctrine? Remember, according to you, bias has to come from intent and cannot come from effect.
Women have for years and years been denied the right (by men) to serve in the military. Now that more women are able to serve, the military is an increasingly hostile place for them (made that way, by and large, by men). And then men turn around and whine that the burden of service falls overwhelmingly on their shoulders.
I know that the men in this thread did not themselves create the system, taking the big picture view, it’s pretty fucking ironic.
It’s only ironic if you think that people should have the same opinion because they’re of the same gender. I think they’re individuals and that the fact that two individuals have contrary opinions doesn’t imply irony or internal contradiction even if they share an involuntary characteristics, whether it’s gender, skin color or right-handedness.
Now, if the same individuals were hostile to women in the military and whined about women not being drafted, they would be gits.
I say nearly every person because there have been instances where examples brought up constitute real gender discrimination that disadvantages men as a whole. Such as, like I have mentioned many times now, men not being hired for roles that traditionally deal with young children. This is discriminatory and is based on an unfair and damaging gender stereotype that many men are pedophiles.
I don’t care if the OP doesn’t specifically say sexism, and yes I agree with the idea that sexism isn’t something that can be directed at men. **This is not the same as saying that they can’t be the victims of gender discrimination. **
I’m also not saying that the effect isn’t relevant when coming to the determination of gender discrimination, so don’t put words in my mouth and then demand that I defend that stance. But if the example in question is the draft, an institution implemented by men directed at men at the exclusion of women because they were perceived to be too weak physically and mentally for military service, I have a very hard time accepting this as demonstrative of systematic gender discrimination that negatively impacts men based on any perception of men as the weaker or inferior gender. Not all unfairness is discrimination.
Look, the thing of it is that getting angry that this practice is unfair to men is not going to solve anything. Intent is important because without examining the intent how are you going to get to the root of the problem to fix it?
Do you understand? Saying, well, men are being discriminated against in this case may be factually accurate, but so what? Divorced of the context, separated from the why it’s happening to begin with - how do you expect to fix it? You have to acknowledge that this system is in place because of the biases against women. This is an instance of where a system oppressing women and privileging men is hurting men too.
You fix the actual problem (the bias against women) by allowing women to serve and doing whatever you can to change cultural attitudes that women are weak and unfit and gee, what happens? Women are serving alongside men. There is equality. The discrimination here against men is gone. Not saying that is easy, but this is why it’s not helpful to just flatly state that men being drafted is so unfair to men.
In addition, per the link Myrnalene posts, fixing that problem is a long road. Trying to reframe things so men are the real victims (which I’m sorry, is how threads like this always come across) instead of looking at the whole picture is working against trying to fix things!
I want to make sure I understand, are you saying that a perception of a particular gender as the weaker or inferior gender is a necessary condition of discrimination?
Even if some people have brought up instances of real gender discrimination that disadvantages men as a whole, that still wouldn’t be sexism according to you.
So why say “Because nearly every person to bring forth examples of “sexism against men””. On the one hand, the use of “nearly” suggests there have been examples of sexism against men. On the other, there cannot be sexism against men using the definition you use.
I’m saying it’s a necessary factor for sexism, not gender discrimination. What exactly would the thought process behind selective service that speaks to a gender stereotype of men that is harmful? The thing about any type of discrimination is you can always trace it back to a belief in the inherent existence of a negative trait that is inescapable by the class being discriminated against. With women, it’s weakness, emotionality, psychological frailty. Historically racism against blacks has been based on the perception of lower intelligence, lesser forms of culture, violence, etc. If you want to classify all those things as the belief of an inherent inferiority, yes I would agree with that depiction. At least that there are traits in that class that are inherently inferior in terms of being suited to something.
When men are being denied the opportunity to work with children, it’s because of gender stereotypes that men are predatory, not in control of their own sexual behavior and opportunistically inclined to victimize.
What negative trait is being identified through the implementation of selective service?
Because based on definitions I have expanded upon earlier, the charge of sexism (in my view) requires that it be institutionalized in some way and based on some negative gender stereotype.
I mainly used the term “sexism against men” because it’s what had been thrown around throughout the thread and although the actual word “sexism” wasn’t used in the OP, several posters continued the discussion with the assumption that’s the premise they were trying to prove. You’re harping on semantics without addressing the crux of my point. I feel legitimate examples of gender discrimination have been provided. I feel most of the examples provided have not been gender discrimination at all. I also am in agreement with Aqualung’s analysis of the term sexism as it relates to this discussion and my subsequent attempt to flesh out what he was saying. Make sense?
All I can say is, look the word up in a dictionary, and then ask yourself why it is so important to you that this term should only apply to one gender, and why we should use “gender discrimination” instead.