# What is Sexism? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 16, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853 "2013-04-16T18:06:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/181 "2013-04-18T15:26:12Z")
> [@Bob Ducca](#): > > Here are a couple decent articles about sexism against men. > > This [one is a business blog for women](http://www.thejanedough.com/sexism-men/), with an interesting interview with a professor of philosophy on the topic. > > This one is [just a well written take](http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/sexism-against-men/) on the subject. Oh, well as long as we are posting blogs as articles, here is a good one on the subject: > **[FAQ: What is “sexism”?](https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/)** > > Short definition: Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination. Given the historical and continued imbala… > [@](#): > > Now that that’s out of the way, let’s look at why feminists make a distinction between sexism and gender-based prejudice when the dictionary does not. A running theme in a lot of feminist theory is that of institutional power: men as a class have it, women as a class don’t. Obviously the power dynamics do shift around depending on the culture and the time period (not to mention the individual, the other privileges that the person does/does not have, etc etc), but ultimately the scales remain tipped in favor of men in general. > > What this imbalance of power translates to on an individual level is a difference in the impact of a man being prejudiced towards a woman and a woman being prejudiced towards a man. While both parties are human, and therefore have the same capacity to be hurt by the prejudice, whether they like it or not, the men have a whole system of history, traditions, assumptions, and in some cases legal systems and “scientific” evidence giving their words a weight that the women don’t have access to. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/182 "2013-04-18T15:50:46Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Given that I don’t have access to JSTOR or other current scholarly journals, this is all I can provide to you via google scholarly search: > > [Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism](http://474miranairresearchpaper.wmwikis.net/file/view/Glick_Fiske%5B1%5D.pdf/215805276/Glick_Fiske%5B1%5D.pdf) Peter Glick and Susan Fiske, American Psychological Association > > [Overt, Covert, And Subtle Sexism > A Comparison Between the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism Scales](http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/21/1/103.short) > > Janet K. Swim > Laurie L. Cohen > Pennsylvania State University > > [Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Sexism, and Prejudice Toward Women in the Workforce](http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/32/1/65.abstract) > Andrew N. Christopher1 > Mark R. Wojda1 > Department of Psychology, Albion College. I can’t open the first one at work because it’s a pdf-I’ll get to it later. The second one talks about The Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS), _which is designed to measure sexism against women._ It just doesn’t adress any other sort of sexism at all, let alone that it isn’t possible. Your third link again discusses sexism against women, but doesn’t get into whether there can _only_ be sexism against women becausethat is not the topic of the article. Both of the articles come from Psychology Of Women Quarterly, which explains why they focus on sexism as it pertains to women. Using these article to address the issue of whether anyone other than women can experience sexism is akin to using articles from Cat Fancy Magazine to show that only cats can make good pets-the magazine doesn’t talk about dogs as pets because that is not the purpose of the magazine. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/183 "2013-04-18T16:08:54Z")
I think the problem with this thread is that **ladyfoxfyre** is stating the feminist definition of sexism whereas **Czarcasm** is asking about the dictionary/general usage of the term. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/184 "2013-04-18T16:08:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I can’t open the first one at work because it’s a pdf-I’ll get to it later. > The second one talks about The Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS), _which is designed to measure sexism against women._ It just doesn’t adress any other sort of sexism at all, let alone that it isn’t possible. > Your third link again discusses sexism against women, but doesn’t get into whether there can _only_ be sexism against women becausethat is not the topic of the article. > Both of the articles come from Psychology Of Women Quarterly, which explains why they focus on sexism as it pertains to women. Using these article to address the issue of whether anyone other than women can experience sexism is akin to using articles from Cat Fancy Magazine to show that only cats can make good pets-the magazine doesn’t talk about dogs as pets because that is not the purpose of the magazine. I’m demonstrating to you that in all the articles I could find, the default definition of “sexism” is that it’s an institution specifically discriminatory against women. Which is what you asked for, scholarly articles that define sexism as being only against women. If you’d read the actual article, rather than blowing it off because of the journal it was printed in, you’d see that. The second article specifically calls the scale the “Attitudes Toward Women Scale” because it measures sexism. It isn’t talking about sexism “specifically aimed at women”, it is by default aimed against women. Which is stated in the abstract, and frankly pretty obvious. If I were to say “this is a scale of racism, I call it the 'Attitudes in Culture Pertaining to Discrimination Against Non-Whites”, would you talk about how unfair that was because it only talks about racism against non-whites? That’s the point! So, I have one article done by the American Psychological Association. One research paper by Pennsylvania State University. And another from the Department of Psychology from Albion College. But because they were printed in a journal called “Psychology of Women Quarterly”, it’s disregarded. Who do you think is compiling articles on sexism if not groups focused on women’s issues? You seem to be confused as to why I can’t find an academic article saying the specific thing you want a research paper to say. The problem is, nobody is in the business of “defining sexism” because that was done decades ago. They’re researching sexism and its impact on the workplace, on partner violence, on gender norms, on hiring practices, etc. There aren’t entire papers on the definition of sexism because it has a working definition. If you want to redefine it to include men, you have to take out both the “power dynamic” and “institutional” aspects of the definition, which makes it “gender discrimination”, which is already a thing. I’m arguing that the power dynamic and institutional aspects of the definition are central to the definition of sexism as opposed to gender discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/185 "2013-04-18T16:23:21Z")
I read the articles I could open at work, and they focus on the issue of sexism against women-not surpprising considering where you found them. There is nothing innacurate with them as far as I(a layman) can tell, but they do _not_ point out that sexism pertains only to women. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/186 "2013-04-18T16:34:24Z")
The reason it’s investigating discrimination against women is because it is assumed from the definition that sexism is against women. You’re just engaging in circular logic. Do you have anything to say about my first cite? The one that says this: > [@](#): > > Sexism is indeed a prejudice, but in this article **we argue that it is, and > probably always has been, a special case of prejudice marked by a deep ambivalence, rather than a uniform antipathy,toward women**. Our goals are to: (a) reveal the multidimensional nature of sexism, (b) offer a theoretical and empirical analysis of the sources and nature of men’s ambivalence toward women, > (c) compare our conception of ambivalent sexism with other theories of ambivalence (including ambivalent racism), and (d) provide a validated measure of ambivalent sexism. Perhaps you would like to provide your own definition, specifically the difference between sexism and gender discrimination? Backed up by academic citations. But only ones that I like, please. :rolleyes: You know, I just don’t understand this deep seated desire to prove that men are or can be direct victims of sexism. I would never go anywhere and try and claim that I am a victim or could be a victim of racism in this country. Racial discrimination? Sure. But racism? Hell no, it would be embarrassing of me to claim that because it diminishes the real examples of racism that non-whites have actually experienced. “But what about when somebody called me a cracker once?” No, that’s still not racism, because the difference between racism and racial discrimination requires a power dynamic and institutionalization of prejudice that simply does not exist against whites. The same thing exists here, two different things, one of which can apply to any group, the other of which by definition can only apply to one. Did you even read the last paragraph in my previous post or no? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/187 "2013-04-18T16:46:42Z")
1. Please stop accusing me of not reading things you’ve posted. it is possible to read and understand something and still disagree with it. 2. “The reason it’s investigating discrimination against women is because it is assumed from the definition that sexism is against women.” This only tells me that they accept a definition of “sexism” that supports their position, then they proceed from there. _That_ is circular logic. Their research supports their definition, and their definition is designed to support the research. Now, there may be more to it than that in the actual article itself, but as I have already stated I can’t access that first article until I get home tonight, and I much rather have withheld any comment until I read the whole thing like I did with the last two articles linked to in that post. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/188 "2013-04-18T16:51:16Z")
If anything what you’re talking about is a “faulty premise”. But I am open to academic articles detailing why sexism is not specifically an institution against women. Or, for the second time, your working definition on the difference between sexism and gender discrimination, and why the power dynamic and institutional nature is not necessary for the definition of sexism. I have provided examples of academic articles on the subject which presume the definition of sexism to be against women only. You argue that they only do so to further their purpose, which evidently is to point out incidence of gender discrimination against women. So, find examples to the alternative. I’m sure they won’t be difficult to obtain. I eagerly await your thoughts on the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/189 "2013-04-18T17:02:18Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > If anything what you’re talking about is a “faulty premise”. But I am open to academic articles detailing why sexism is not specifically an institution against women. Or, for the second time, your working definition on the difference between sexism and gender discrimination, and why the power dynamic and institutional nature is not necessary for the definition of sexism. I eagerly await your thoughts on the issue. My thoughts on the matter, which I _have_ previously stated, is that if a non-standard definition of “sexism” is to be used by the moderators there be good reason to do so. I think the definition you have provided describes a very real problem, but that problem is not “sexism” in the common use of the word. When all the non-biased cites I can find give a common definition of the word, I am under no obligation to search out “academic articles detailing why sexism is not specifically an institution against women”-it is the default position to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/190 "2013-04-18T17:15:23Z")
The [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) definition of the term and the academic definition of the term are not the same. If you want the board to be moderated based on the [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) definition, that’s fine. We have gone back and forth on this issue where you ask me to “say specifically for this board” and then “now go outside the board for a second”, and respond to me on the opposite of the one I’m talking about at any given moment. It’s annoying and makes you look incredibly disingenuous to ask me for academic citations proving that my definition _is_ common and understood only to say well it’s not the common definition as I understand it so it doesn’t matter. Instead of acknowledging that in academic spheres of people who research and write extensively about gender dynamics and gender issues, the definition of sexism is one that requires power dynamics and institutionalization to move beyond gender discrimination. But because those sources research and write about gender issues, they’re not unbiased according to you. But whatever. What a phenomenal waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/191 "2013-04-18T17:30:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I read the articles I could open at work, and they focus on the issue of sexism against women-not surpprising considering where you found them. In addition to everything that **ladyfoxfyre** has said about how you’re representing your position, there’s something else that needs to be said about this. What you’re doing is, effectively, dismissing all of the people specializing in this area of study because, well, duh!, of course they think that way because they are feminists/ women’s studies people/ women / etc. That’s like me dismissing your links about evolution being a thing because they are from scientific journals— scientists are known liberals with a bias against creationism, dontchaknow. If you can’t find me scientific journals with legitimate articles about my position, creationism, then you can’t win. By insisting you provide citations from non-specialists in the field, I’m creating an impossible discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/192 "2013-04-18T17:37:20Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > In addition to everything that **ladyfoxfyre** has said about how you’re representing your position, there’s something else that needs to be said about this. What you’re doing is, effectively, dismissing all of the people specializing in this area of study because, well, duh!, of course they think that way because they are feminists/ women’s studies people/ women / etc. That’s like me dismissing your links about evolution being a thing because they are from scientific journals— scientists are known liberals with a bias against creationism, dontchaknow. By insisting you provide citations from non-specialists in the field, I’m creating an impossible discussion. I didn’t dismiss them because of who they were-I dismissed them because they did not address the issue at hand: Is it only possible to be sexist against women? The studies provided were exclsively focused on sexism against women, and there is absolutle _nothing_ wrong with them as far as I can tell…but they do not address the central issue here. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/193 "2013-04-18T18:01:29Z")
If only we could find scholarly journals that have articles which answer the specific question I have in my mind right at this very moment, instead of having to read articles on the subject and make inferences about the operational definitions they are using based on the fact that they are not saying “sexism against women”, but rather “sexism”, and the topic of the study is “about women.” If you’d like to find out if sexism is possible against men, find some studies saying so. She’s provided you with three, where one specifically defines sexism as unique to women. You’re ignoring that in favor of asking for an article that proves a negative. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/194 "2013-04-18T18:23:39Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Racism is inherently beneficial for whites in the US, and has been detrimental for people of all other races (most prominently blacks but certainly other races as well). So, while whites can be victims of racial discrimination by non-whites, they are not victims of racism, because it does not fit into the broader context of institutionalized discrimination. Maybe that’s a sloppy analogy. No, I think the analogy is pretty good.\* I’m not convinced I agree to the terminology being used the way you propose, but I see the distinction that you are trying to make and why you wish to separate terms. So I would point out [post 178](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16206925#post16206925)by Czarcasm: > [@](#): > > What I think I’m saying is that **ladyfoxfyre** has described something that is a very real problem that should be fought against, both on this board and in the larger world, but what she has described may need to be called by something other than “sexism” since that word seems to already have a definition that does not correspond to hers. I think we all agree that there is a general and historical embedded bias against women in attitudes, social roles, power structure, etc. I think we all agree this is bad and we should be taking steps to change this, to bring the subconscious elements into the light, and to bring more attention to this with respect to discussions and comments on this board. I think the disagreement hinges on what word we use to describe this imbalance, and whether the word “sexist” is inherently focused on this one-sided cultural imbalance, or whether the word “sexist” is broader than the context of our current society and this one-sided imbalance. I would submit that **Czarcasm** sees sexism as something that can apply in any power dynamic situation, such as a message board run by women for discussing “Women’s Studies”, but that he would agree that in the prevailing society the bulk of sexism that is experienced as been anti-women. Thus the parts of the academic community trying to address sexism have started by addressing the most prevalent and hugest imbalance - anti-women sexism. And I believe a similar argument could be made against the parallel case you mentioned of _racism_, that because of the historical and social backdrop, _racism_ has largly been white against everyone else. But if you went to Japan, _racism_ there would not be white against black, it would be Japanese against everyone else, whites included. I don’t believe that citations of definitions are bringing us any closer to agreement or furthering understanding. I would also argue that “gender discrimination” brings to mind a different sort of emphasis than “sexism”. “Gender discrimination” strikes me a referring to _actions_ taken against someone because of their gender. Whereas “sexism” refers to the _mindset and attitudes_ that drive behavior. So, to go back to the analogy, I might be a racist bigot, but until I actually _discriminate_ against blacks, I’m merely an asshole and not doing something illegal. I could be sued for taking an action that _racially discriminates_, but not for being a racist. I could be sued for gender discrimination if I block hiring of women, but not for sexism if I merely think women don’t deserve the same opportunities I’m forced to give her. It’s not the attitude that is discrimination, it is the actions. The attitude is summarized by “sexism”, and that attitude can just as easily be women sexist against men. Though as a whole, our society has been sexist against women and those ideas are culturally ingrained. > [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > When this first started, I would say that my experience has only been on the side of being exposed to sexism. I really don’t see a widespread issue of gender discrimination against men in the postings on this board, but I could be wrong. I would say that I have not witnessed or experienced widespread sexism against men, at least not that has caught my attention either, so I don’t think it is as much of an issue as sexism against women. But the sexism against women has been brought to my attention, especially in these last few days. > [@XT](#): > > There are racist and sexist attitudes that are so deeply ingrained and embedded in our collective thinking that a lot of the time we don’t even notice it until it’s pointed out. … > > As for the topic of this thread though, I don’t think we need special rules about sexism or racism beyond the ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule. … Hopefully, this thread will have them rethinking some of the things that people are sensitive too wrt derogatory comments concerning women. I know that I’ve flagged posts that I thought were derogatory and was told that attitudes and language different from my own. I certainly hope the awareness increases and shifts the moderating stance, whether it gets stated as official “rules” or through interpretation of existing “don’t be a jerk” rules. I also understand that, like racism, there is a competing interest between allowing free expression of unpleasant ideas for the purpose of illuminating and dissecting them and the allowance of distasteful remarks and attitudes to pervade the board and lower the quality of experience for some or most of the members. > [@Zoe](#): > > 1. I was never an insult to be called a “tomboy.” I think that is a bit too much of an exaggeration - I believe there was a time when “tomboy” was something of an insult to girls, intended to chide them into behaving “properly”. But that said, I think the insult has largely been gone for a long time, and now it is merely descriptive. > [@](#): > > 1. “If you don’t hush, I’m going to make you sit with the girls!” (Fate worse than death.) That’s not necessarily an implication that the boy is acting like a girl or being a girl, it is merely the recognition that most young boys and young girls are not particularly interested in each other or each other’s interests. > [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](#): > > Does it not? “Dick” carries the connotation of “asshole” or “jerk”, i.e. a mean or rude person. “Dick” is typically applied to men (though I won’t swear there isn’t a population that freely applies it to women). I suppose the underlying implication might be that the person is mean _because_ he is male and thus has the apparatus stated, but because of the societal issues that **ladyfoxfyre** mentioned, there’s no social penalty associated with being a male. Whereas calling a male a “pussy” is ramping up the derogatory from the word “sissy”, not only implying the male is acting like a woman, but using a slang term for the female anatomy to accomplish this. And because of the historical social implications of being a woman, that is an additional factor beyond the accusation of not being male enough. From my experience, “cunt” is a word that would not be applied to men the way “pussy” is, rather it is reserved for women and takes the place of the way “bitch” used to be used, back before that word was changed to mean “subservient lackey” or whatever it currently means. YMMV. So I certainly would say that “cunt”, “pussy”, and “bitch” in both forms carry a sexist underpinning that may not be overtly thought about by people using those terms. Further, I’ll add “bastard” into the mix. Back when it referred to “legitimacy”, it was less a slam against the person’s father and more of a slam against the person’s mother, because of those social imbalances and power structures. When “legitimacy” ceased to be a concern for anyone, it changed to be another term that refers to a mean, rude, dastardly cruel person - typically men. Rough scale of insult/level of meanness involved: jerk \< asshole \< bastard * * * \*With regards to analogies, they are challenging things to use in debates. By definition, analogies are inherently different things - otherwise they wouldn’t be an analogy, and they wouldn’t have any explanatory power. How do you clarify a term by restating it? How do you clarify a situation by repeating it? So while they can often be useful tools, in debates they tend to be less effective precisely because one can focus on the similarities and try to understand the point, or one can focus on the differences and claim the analogy is insufficient or inaccurate. Thus it is too easy to dismiss them in debate when one is motivated to not accept the other’s position. That said, I think your analogy in this case is pretty sound. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/195 "2013-04-18T19:46:41Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > In addition to everything that **ladyfoxfyre** has said about how you’re representing your position, there’s something else that needs to be said about this. What you’re doing is, effectively, dismissing all of the people specializing in this area of study because, well, duh!, of course they think that way because they are feminists/ women’s studies people/ women / etc. That’s like me dismissing your links about evolution being a thing because they are from scientific journals— scientists are known liberals with a bias against creationism, dontchaknow. No; it’s more like in an argument over evolution “dismissing all of the people specializing in this area of study” because the ones being linked to are all creationists. A definition of “sexism” that says that men cannot be the targets of sexism goes against the common understanding of the word to such a degree that it is outright deceptive. As well as being clearly tailored to justify bigotry against men, and based on falsehoods. Being a male does not automatically put you in charge or make you immune to oppression or worse. If an army rolls into a town and kills all the men, the proper response is not to lecture the male corpses about how privileged they are. The homeless, imprisoned, crime victims, and extremely poor are not disproportionally male because males are all evil subhuman scum who deserve whatever happens to them. Women are not superior beings, nor are men demons. Defining sexism like that also means that only a really foolish man (or a dishonest opportunist) will support the person doing so, since it is grossly insulting and amounts to a declaration of war against men. It amounts to an announcement that the person using that definition isn’t interested in fairness or equality, but in stomping on men are hard as possible while demanding they stay silent because they don’t _deserve_ to complain. The sort of person who will lie, cheat, steal and kill when it comes to men, because “by definition” nothing done to them is unfair. And even in the event that’s not how they mean it, that’s how it will be taken by nearly everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![zweisamkeit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zweisamkeit/32/4360_2.png) [@zweisamkeit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zweisamkeit)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/196 "2013-04-18T19:50:53Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I think the problem with this thread is that **ladyfoxfyre** is stating the feminist definition of sexism whereas **Czarcasm** is asking about the dictionary/general usage of the term. Bzzzt! More accurately, **ladyfoxfyre** is using the _sociological_ definition of sexism. I find it fascinating that the SDMB welcomes pedantry and precision and places high value on academic or scholarly research… Until we discuss discriminatory \*isms like sexism or racism. Then, suddenly it’s the height of ridiculousness to use clear scholarly definitions since that’s not how THEY understand it. But golly, they’re Just Asking Questions to learn about it! **Czarcasm** , I don’t see you ever enjoying _receiving_ treatment and questions similar to what you’re _giving_ in this thread when it comes to, say, I dunno… atheism. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/197 "2013-04-18T19:56:01Z")
> [@zweisamkeit](#): > > I find it fascinating that the SDMB welcomes pedantry and precision and places high value on academic or scholarly research… Until we discuss discriminatory \*isms like sexism or racism. Then, suddenly it’s the height of ridiculousness to use clear scholarly definitions since that’s not how THEY understand it. Because they aren’t clear in this case, they are deceptive. They are tailored to support a particular bigoted position, a highly sexist position by the definition that the overwhelming majority of people use for “sexism”. It’s a classic trick of bad or dishonest scholars and political activists; they create a new definition for a common word that is wildly different than the common one, and use it to sow confusion. This is a example to the extremes of “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery”. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/198 "2013-04-18T19:58:58Z")
Oh good, **Der Trihs** is here to shit up the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/199 "2013-04-18T20:07:15Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Oh good, **Der Trihs** is here to shit up the discussion. Says the person who claims that men can’t be the targets of sexism. I’d have to work hard to come up with anything as offensive as that. I’m reminded of a feminist I came across back in the late 80s who claimed that there was no moral problems with a genocide against men, because _you can’t be violent against men_ because of the “power structure”. Therefore, the killing of all men would not qualify as a violent act. Which is the same logic that you are using. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853/200 "2013-04-18T20:09:19Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Says the person who claims that men can’t be the targets of sexism. I’d have to work hard to come up with anything as offensive as that. > > I’m reminded of a feminist I came across back in the late 80s who claimed that there was no moral problems with a genocide against men, because _you can’t be violent against men_ because of the “power structure”. Therefore, the killing of all men would not qualify as a violent act. Which is the same logic that you are using. The fact that you believe my statement to be sexist in nature shows how little you actually understand the discussion, as usual, by providing your commentary which is worth less than zero on this particular subject matter. But hey, you talked to a feminist once! She told you some mean things about men! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-sexism/655853.md?page=11)