Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

19 Nov 2013, 2:26 am

Guys, please do us all a favor and actually read the article before responding (or don't respond).

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-responses ... rc=fanpage



mds_02
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,096
Location: Los Angeles

19 Nov 2013, 5:23 am

I agree with the list, each of those responses do make things worse.

But I have a problem with the it.  See, the entire article is based on the assumption that "women objectively have it worse, every day, everywhere."  And I don't think we can just take that for granted.  I've pointed out, over and over again, areas where men are at an extreme disadvantage compared to women (and I'm referring to stuff a lot more serious than "western women are b*****s for not touching my wiener") and  have never gotten an explanation as to why, taking those things into account, it is taken for granted that women's issues are more serious and that all discussions about sexism should focus on sexism directed toward women.

The problem is that it affects the slant of the rest of the article.

For example, the first response listed is "not thinking of it as your problem."  But in the first paragraph of that section he makes the statement I quoted above, and throughout the article he refers only to those forms of sexism that affect women.  Both the tone, and the focus on only one genders issues, make it clear that there is one form of sexism that he does not (and, by extension, thinks his readers should not) consider to be his (their) problem; sexism directed at men.

He's even more blatant in his comments on the second response "not questioning institutions."  While, again, I agree with the basic sentiment, just look at the way he chooses to illustrate it.  To paraphrase "it's bad that there are some professions that have fewer women than men.  But that's not just because men hate women, but also because only men are greedy and assholeish enough to get into those professions in the first place.  And also, those professions dominated by women are all honorable and underappreciated."

It goes on this way through the whole article.  And I find it extremely hypocritical.  His responses to anti-male sexism are exactly those he discourages when it comes to anti-female sexism.

The whole article is, I think, detrimental to the cause of combating sexism.  Firstly, going by the tone, it seems likely to appeal only to those who already agree with his views and is dismissive of those he is trying to convince.  And secondly, by promoting the whole "men=aggressors, women=victims" mentality which, aside from being untrue and unfair, only causes greater division between the sexes.

I'd hope that those who (like he does) consider sexism to be a one way street would set aside for a moment their preconceived notions of what constitutes sexism, reread the article, and not respond to sexism against any gender in any of those ways.


_________________
If life's not beautiful without the pain, 
well I'd just rather never ever even see beauty again. 
Well as life gets longer, awful feels softer. 
And it feels pretty soft to me. 

Modest Mouse - The View


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

19 Nov 2013, 7:37 am

I want to thank you, mds, for a thoughtful reply and for having actually read and considered the article in question.

What do you think of the feminist assertion that much of the sexism against men - for example, the carte blanch assumption that men are not as good at caregiving for their children as women are - is actually a facet of the same gender stereotypes that women have been fighting?



mds_02
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,096
Location: Los Angeles

19 Nov 2013, 8:58 am

I'd agree insofar as I believe that sexism against anyone is harmful to everyone. Same thing happens the other way too, there are plenty of things women are considered incapable of only because they've traditionally been men's jobs. I mean, it seems obvious to me that a positive stereotype about one gender generally implies a corresponding negative stereotype about the other.

But where I disagree with feminists is in how I think the problem is best dealt with. Many seem to believe reducing the rigidity of women's gender role will automatically result in a reduction in the rigidity of men's. I don't believe that's the case. I don't think that we can fix things for everyone by focusing on one group. And the last few decades have, if not proven, given strong evidence for that belief. If it were true that by eliminating stereotypes of women we would also eliminate those of men, then I'd expect the changes in men's roles to have kept pace with women's, but the fact is that society's concept of masculinity is evolving much more slowly than its concept of femininity.

Also, thank you too. You've always shown a willingness to at least listen to and consider opposing viewpoints. Very few, no matter what their opinions on the matter, are that reasonable when discussing these kinds of issues.


_________________
If life's not beautiful without the pain, 
well I'd just rather never ever even see beauty again. 
Well as life gets longer, awful feels softer. 
And it feels pretty soft to me. 

Modest Mouse - The View


Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,944

19 Nov 2013, 9:21 am

LKL wrote:
I want to thank you, mds, for a thoughtful reply and for having actually read and considered the article in question.

What do you think of the feminist assertion that much of the sexism against men - for example, the carte blanch assumption that men are not as good at caregiving for their children as women are - is actually a facet of the same gender stereotypes that women have been fighting?


I dont know about your country, but around here feminists are fighting for equal rights for men and women when it comes to caregiving, while its a typical conservative/non-feminist announcement, that childcare should be womans stuff. So here leftwing/feminist parties even created a law, that gives you additional favors, if both parents care for a kid after birth, instead of only one parent, to support men doing baby-holidays.



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929

19 Nov 2013, 10:38 am

Great article!



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,042
Location: Stendec

19 Nov 2013, 10:41 am

mds_02 wrote:
... the entire article is based on the assumption that "women objectively have it worse, every day, everywhere."

Agreed. The entire "Anti-Sexist" article has a definite sexist slant, in that it depicts women as not just victims of sexism, but the only victims of sexism. Simultaneously, it depicts men as not just a source of sexism, but as the only source of sexism.

But the bottom line is this: The article came from the writers and publishers of Cracked Magazine - a soul mate of The Onion - so nothing it says should be taken seriously.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,128

19 Nov 2013, 1:26 pm

Is sexist behavior in men really so greatly influenced by homophobia? And if so, does that mean all women should be interested in promoting gay rights, for their own sake?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,042
Location: Stendec

19 Nov 2013, 1:42 pm

Sexist behavior in men seems influenced mostly by hormonal and societal factors, just as homophobia seems to be. Sexist behavior and homophobia may have the same root causes, but one does not seem to cause the other.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


Sharkbait
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 478
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

19 Nov 2013, 2:54 pm

LKL wrote:
Guys, please do us all a favor...

I read it. Your opening statement is sexist.

Edit: I should probably clarify that this was just a playful jab.



Last edited by Sharkbait on 19 Nov 2013, 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

19 Nov 2013, 3:39 pm

Fnord wrote:
But the bottom line is this: The article came from the writers and publishers of Cracked Magazine - a soul mate of The Onion - so nothing it says should be taken seriously.


I disagree, Cracked is a humor site, but it's not a news satire site, and I've never had a problem finding verification for information found there. This sounds more like an opinion piece anyways, so I think the defining feature should be weather or not you think it's a sound opinion, rather than the provenance of the site it came from.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,212
Location: San Jose

19 Nov 2013, 3:52 pm

My suggestion would be punching the sexist person in the face and telling them to shut up with their stupidity but i suppose that works too. :lol:


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,697
Location: Reading, England

19 Nov 2013, 5:10 pm

Fnord wrote:
mds_02 wrote:
... the entire article is based on the assumption that "women objectively have it worse, every day, everywhere."

Agreed. The entire "Anti-Sexist" article has a definite sexist slant, in that it depicts women as not just victims of sexism, but the only victims of sexism.

You mean when it linked to an article about men not being taken seriously when they report rape?
Quote:
Simultaneously, it depicts men as not just a source of sexism, but as the only source of sexism.

I'm not sure that's true either- it talks about the media, which certainly isn't exclusively male, for example. At one point it explicitly targets "everyone" for not standing up to sexism enough.
Quote:
But the bottom line is this: The article came from the writers and publishers of Cracked Magazine - a soul mate of The Onion - so nothing it says should be taken seriously.

Comedians are no longer allowed opinions?

Ad hominem- attacking the character rather than the content.

Anyway, my response:
5) I agree that "woman's issues" are nearly always "people's issues", and everyone should be concerned. I disagree that "men are defined as normal", but maybe that's a bias of my perspective. I don't think the pressure to look like Henry Cavill is "pressure to look stronger than women", but rather "pressure to appear attractive to women".

4) Since when do we glorify investment bankers? Seriously, they're somewhere between "international terrorists" and "benefit cheats" in the popularity stakes.
The problem is assuming money=glory.

3) I don't know about this example. I don't think the print media being perceived as more legitimate than self-published works on the internet is an issue to do with sexism. But I agree that issues are sometimes framed poorly.

2) Hmm. On one hand, it is more socially acceptable for women to wear revealing outfits than it is for men, so that's a plus for women (I am not asking for the right to wear revealing clothes btw...). The issue is objectification more than anything. Either that or not pressuring men to change their sexist behaviour enough. I don't think requesting to cover up is bad in itself, it is just an indication of two bigger issues. If you don't have those issues then covering up is not an issue.

1) I agree that we should always challenge sexists.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

19 Nov 2013, 6:32 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
5) I agree that "woman's issues" are nearly always "people's issues", and everyone should be concerned. I disagree that "men are defined as normal", but maybe that's a bias of my perspective. I don't think the pressure to look like Henry Cavill is "pressure to look stronger than women", but rather "pressure to appear attractive to women".

A lot of what men say that they do 'to appear attractive to women' is actually done to impress other men/gain status with other men. For example, football, body building... I know that I can't generalize from myself to every other female, but the waxed neanderthal look never really did it for me and I know I'm at least not alone in that. Likewise, a lot of what women do to appear attractive is for status amongst other women, as opposed to directly aimed at men.
As far as men being defined as 'normal:' a gender-neutral name on the internet, it is almost always assumed to be male. Most newbies here assume that I'm male unless they check my status. Movies with casts composed entirely, or almost entirely, of me are considered movies for general consumption, whereas movies with a female lead, or more than two women, are considered 'chick flicks' for women only.
The Bechtel test for movies:
One point: the movie has more than one woman.
Two points: The women talk to each other.
Three points: The women talk to each other about something other than men or sex.

An awful lot of block-busters and 'general-audience' movies don't even make it to one point. For that matter, a lot of kids' movies and cartoons don't even make it to one point. Madagascar?

I'm trying to think of a Bechtel test for men:
1)The movie has more than one man
2)The men talk to each other
3)The men talk to each other about their feelings or caring for their families (unrelated to romance)
?

It's hard to find a movie, even a 'chick flick,' that doesn't at least make it to a 1 or 2.

Quote:
4) Since when do we glorify investment bankers? Seriously, they're somewhere between "international terrorists" and "benefit cheats" in the popularity stakes.
The problem is assuming money=glory.

It would be more accurate to say that we reward investment bankers with our social structure of rewards and taxation.

Quote:
3) I don't know about this example. I don't think the print media being perceived as more legitimate than self-published works on the internet is an issue to do with sexism. But I agree that issues are sometimes framed poorly.

There has been a little bit of a kerfuffle amongst the literati in the last several years about women authors being reviewed less frequently at, for example, the NYT, and receiving fewer of the prestigious literary prizes.

Quote:
2) Hmm. On one hand, it is more socially acceptable for women to wear revealing outfits than it is for men, so that's a plus for women (I am not asking for the right to wear revealing clothes btw...). The issue is objectification more than anything. Either that or not pressuring men to change their sexist behaviour enough. I don't think requesting to cover up is bad in itself, it is just an indication of two bigger issues. If you don't have those issues then covering up is not an issue.

I'm not so sure that it's 'more acceptable' for women to wear revealing clothing. There are still a lot of places where a man can go around shirtless and a woman will be arrested for doing so. There's a lot of pressure on women to wear suggestive clothing that emphasizes their sexual attributes, but that's not quite the same thing as 'accepting revealing clothing.'

Quote:
1) I agree that we should always challenge sexists.

yes. Sometimes, though, it takes more energy than you have.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,697
Location: Reading, England

19 Nov 2013, 6:51 pm

If I remove something it is because I agree with it entirely, 100%, all the way.

LKL wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
5) I agree that "woman's issues" are nearly always "people's issues", and everyone should be concerned. I disagree that "men are defined as normal", but maybe that's a bias of my perspective. I don't think the pressure to look like Henry Cavill is "pressure to look stronger than women", but rather "pressure to appear attractive to women".

A lot of what men say that they do 'to appear attractive to women' is actually done to impress other men/gain status with other men. For example, football, body building... I know that I can't generalize from myself to every other female, but the waxed neanderthal look never really did it for me and I know I'm at least not alone in that. Likewise, a lot of what women do to appear attractive is for status amongst other women, as opposed to directly aimed at men.

Oh, I never realised that.

Autism :shakes fist:
Quote:
As far as men being defined as 'normal:' a gender-neutral name on the internet, it is almost always assumed to be male. Most newbies here assume that I'm male unless they check my status.

Oh yeah, that's a great point.

Relate anecdote: when I was at school there was a careers fair. One of the advertised speakers was a doctor, who shared their name with a sociology teacher. I asked another sociology teacher if the doctor was a relative of the teacher, and she said yes, she was. As they shared a surname, I deduced male relative. Everyone has a father, so I guessed father; brothers are more common than uncles or cousins with the same surname, so I guessed brother next; then I took a stab in the dark with cousin. Nope, she's his (unmarried) sister... and I'd made myself look like a misogynist who supposed women couldn't be doctors, when actually I was playing the statistics (and assuming marriage) :oops:

Quote:
Movies with casts composed entirely, or almost entirely, of me are considered movies for general consumption, whereas movies with a female lead, or more than two women, are considered 'chick flicks' for women only.
The Bechtel test for movies:
One point: the movie has more than one woman.
Two points: The women talk to each other.
Three points: The women talk to each other about something other than men or sex.

An awful lot of block-busters and 'general-audience' movies don't even make it to one point. For that matter, a lot of kids' movies and cartoons don't even make it to one point. Madagascar?

I'm trying to think of a Bechtel test for men:
1)The movie has more than one man
2)The men talk to each other
3)The men talk to each other about their feelings or caring for their families (unrelated to romance)
?

It's hard to find a movie, even a 'chick flick,' that doesn't at least make it to a 1 or 2.

The Hunger Games springs to mind, based on the book (I haven't seen the film).

Madagascar, too, because it has no men with significant roles, only animals. And Ice Age...

I'm also not sure a lot of action films are considered "general consumption", they're as targeted at young men as romance films are at women.


Quote:
I'm not so sure that it's 'more acceptable' for women to wear revealing clothing.

If most men wore low-cut tops, they'd be told to cover up because nobody wants to see their hair.

But I definitely see where you are coming from, it's more acceptable for a man to walk around shirtless on a hot day than it would be for a woman to walk around in her underwear, particularly if they were both carrying a bit of weight.