Sexism

[whitebaron]

Injustices or unfairness regarding men are often fixed quickly because people in positions of power are still overwhelmingly male, so there is no need for rallies or publicity to fight for change like women have to do.

I was told to shut my mouth on things that only concern women, since I am none.

 

How can you be so sure there, never having been a man? There#s plenty of stuff that needs fixing, for males and females, but it tends to be presented very onesidedly. Thus I am very much in agreement with AnanoKimi that males are faced with a lot of sexism too, and thats nothing someone powerful and male will fix - as that's a gender bias, too.

[Fuzzbucket]

I was told to shut my mouth on things that only concern women, since I am none.

 

How can you be so sure there, never having been a man? There's plenty of stuff that needs fixing, for males and females, but it tends to be presented very onesidedly. Thus I am very much in agreement with AnanoKimi that males are faced with a lot of sexism too, and that's nothing someone powerful and male will fix - as that's a gender bias, too.

"Powerful and male" does kind of....

 

But I agree that men get discriminated against too. Paternity leave is unheard of in most countries, for one thing. (And male politicians, to be honest, do tend to have the view that childcare is a GIRL thing so there's no NEED for it !) And there are still far too many women who expect a man to support them for life - because "that's what men do".

 

And I confess that it was a man I asked to haul down a massive thing in IKEA that I could not lift the other day. I couldn't not lift it because I am a woman, BTW - I once could have easily (though the height of their shelves makes it pretty hard for anyone...) - but now that I am 69 years old, - well age has its effects )

 

And it is APPALLING that ANYONE looks down on a man who cries. I was delighted when a doctor I know cried when giving a patient a terminal diagnosis - and she was pleased, too; it showed she wasn't just a number to him.

 

As for "My dad will sort you out" - don't even GO there.....

[InugamiZERO]

I'm with fuzzbucket on the crying thing I was brainwashed as kid with the boys don't cry crap

its very hard to brake, I still don't like crying around other people

even when its one of my little rats that have died, through I do cry at the vet when I have to do what's best for them

[High Lord November]

The problems are actually pretty 50/50 its just the problems women have are given more attention and are spoken of a bit more because, well, we're women. There are many problems men face but they are seen as things men can deal with because, well, their men. The advantage we have as women is we can come out and yell to the world there is something wrong because we are women, we will let the world know something is wrong one way or another. We are comfortable showing emotion and displeasure/dislike at something. On the other hand, men can't really come out on many of the topics that can be an issue because, "You're a man you gotta deal with it. Man up" and personally to me that is unfair, biased, and definitely sexist.

I would not say the problems are 50/50. I find the issue here is when no one talks about the problems men have, which is a huge issue in itself; they do have problems. Being told to man up with abuse, rape, and emotions. Their problems are usually swept under the rug. It still doesn't compare to what women and other minorities have to deal with, though, so they should be allocated more attention comparatively. Just because we're loud doesn't mean our problems have been fixed. And that's just in the more developed worlds; go mostly anywhere else, and the problems become absolutely ridiculous.

 

But yes, it's important to recognize that men also really do have problems, because often I find they get ignored. Just not to the same extent as women or minorities.

Edited January 27, 2014 by High Lord November

[MysticTiger]

I was told to shut my mouth on things that only concern women, since I am none.

 

How can you be so sure there, never having been a man? There#s plenty of stuff that needs fixing, for males and females, but it tends to be presented very onesidedly. Thus I am very much in agreement with AnanoKimi that males are faced with a lot of sexism too, and thats nothing someone powerful and male will fix - as that's a gender bias, too.

I agree that it's not just a female-only fight. Just the other day I read an article where two gay men were being ridiculed for having children because that's not a man's job. Which I consider utterly ridiculous.

 

But, you have to admit that a lot of the female gender problems come from men and their expectation of what "women are". And a lot of the male gender problems ALSO come from other men. It's not a woman's perspective of the world we need to change. Just look at how men are portrayed in romance movies. Women WANT men to be sensitive. Women WANT men to be into hobbies that would generally be described as "girly things" like Cooking or Fashion. Women WANT men who are great fathers and aren't afraid to play princess with his little girl. Now look at most action movies. Men want women who are ditsy big boobed sex toys. Who constantly wear skimpy clothing. Who are constantly needing approval or saving.

 

What i'm saying is, men need to stop getting or pushing these ideals on other men. That's the problem. Yes, there are some problems over in the female perspective side, but you can't say they haven't generally been created by men. Once men stop being "YOU CAN ONLY BE A MANLY MAN WHO LIKES CARS, BEER AND NAKED CHICKS AND NOTHING ELSE", a LOT of the problems will be fixed and a lot more will be fixed gradually over time.

 

Basically, men need to start accepting they are human. And not a predetermined stereotype.

Edited January 27, 2014 by MysticTiger

[Syaoransbear]

I was told to shut my mouth on things that only concern women, since I am none.

 

How can you be so sure there, never having been a man? There#s plenty of stuff that needs fixing, for males and females, but it tends to be presented very onesidedly. Thus I am very much in agreement with AnanoKimi that males are faced with a lot of sexism too, and thats nothing someone powerful and male will fix - as that's a gender bias, too.

If you are talking about the abortion thread, it wasn't because you were a man, it was because you were incapable of having children. And I don't believe people were saying you shouldn't have an opinion, it's just that they found it unfair that your opinion has equal weight in law making through voting as someone who could have their lives ruined by the outcome while you are largely unaffected by the outcome. Kind of like me(as a canadian) getting to vote in the US election.

 

I see most of men's problems stemming from women's problems and society's low opinion and value of women. If you act at all like a woman or want to engage in roles that were traditionally filled by women, it's a negative thing because being a woman is considered a flaw or a weakness. Men have trouble getting custody of children or getting parental leave because most of the people in power are old men who think "But that's women's work! Don't be like women!"

 

I believe that a lot of men's problems would be fixed by fixing women's problems and society's view of women as inferior. If it wasn't such a negative thing to be a woman or to be like a woman, men wouldn't be so restricted when it comes to parenting, traditionally female interests/roles/expectations, clothing options, etc. If women were truly viewed as equal it would be as acceptable for men to emulate women as it is for women to emulate men.

[whitebaron]

I do not emulate women or act like women. Still, love my daughter and have seen a lot of female sexism directed towards me because I was alone with our child.

 

I think being male is playing only a small role in this, though. If women are the only ones responsible for raising kids, why dont they raise their boys better? They are not all some stupid dumb barbie-dolls, or oppressed.

 

My answer to this is simple: change takes time. 80 years ago, it was typical for males to work and females to stay at home and raise the kids. Historically, the reason is mostly the amount of pregnancies and kids would not allow much else. 80 years is not much time to change a society. There are many people still alive, who were born then.

 

What I really hate though: the idea that men are responsible for that (mostly or alone) and that its because we "men" (maybe all of us) think women are inferior and force that on our kids.

[MysticTiger]

I do not emulate women or act like women. Still, love my daughter and have seen a lot of female sexism directed towards me because I was alone with our child.

 

I think being male is playing only a small role in this, though. If women are the only ones responsible for raising kids, why dont they raise their boys better? They are not all some stupid dumb barbie-dolls, or oppressed.

 

My answer to this is simple: change takes time. 80 years ago, it was typical for males to work and females to stay at home and raise the kids. Historically, the reason is mostly the amount of pregnancies and kids would not allow much else. 80 years is not much time to change a society. There are many people still alive, who were born then.

 

What I really hate though: the idea that men are responsible for that (mostly or alone) and that its because we "men" (maybe all of us) think women are inferior and force that on our kids.

Hold the phone there. "If women are the only ones responsible for raising kids"? No. It is BOTH parents responsibility to raise the children. This stupid archaic notion that only the female can raise the kid while the man goes out and works and then has absolutely no responsibilities when they come home is ridiculous. It is BOTH parents job to raise the kid. Gender of the parent DOES NOT MATTER. (I'm not referencing same-sex couples because they always seem to understand this ideal better than different-sex couples)

 

Also, you can raise your son really great, but he's going to make his own decisions as well. AND THEY ARE INFLUENCED BY THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM- MOSTLY OTHER MEN. Unfortunately, you can raise your son to be the best person in the world but if he falls into the wrong crowd, he can become that stereotypical womanizing d-bag.

 

80 Years ago would be 1934, the middle of the great depression. No one was working. But, your ideal is also wrong even if you didn't pick an era of unemployment. Women weren't (and still don't) make as much as men. It was pointless for a woman to go out and be the "bread maker" of the family because the man would always be able to make more. It was less about raising children and more about who could make more money to support the family. And, yes, society can change really quickly when forced to adapt. Mind you, the decade before Women got the right to vote. Pretty sure people got over that once it became a law.

 

Also, women's working facilities were deplorable compared to men's. In fact, in my state, women in that era protested so much that they actually changed a lot of things- including giving higher raises, shorter hours and providing uniforms for employees in what was back then, the equivalent of today's Wal-Mart.

 

A man may not force that ideal, but the general male population does. I don't think there are any women out there telling their children that girls are inferior to boys. Unfortunately, most countries still practice on the belief that women are second best to men. Yes, i'm speaking most of the middle-eastern countries.

Edited January 27, 2014 by MysticTiger

[Syaoransbear]

What I really hate though: the idea that men are responsible for that (mostly or alone) and that its because we "men" (maybe all of us) think women are inferior and force that on our kids.

See, but I didn't say it was men, you are assuming things again . It's all of society. Plenty of women think women are inferior too.

 

As for people not raising their kids properly: parents really don't spend very much time one on one with their children compared to how much time kids spend in school and with their friends. And the media is everywhere all the time unless you live in the woods with no human contact. Even at the grocery store where there are magazines piled at the tills all with pictures of airbrushed women with tips on how to look better or "how to please your man".

 

And when kids are really at the age to understand sexism they don't want to spend time listening to their parents. The media(that has a huge affect on society's values) is still controlled by people who were born in times when women were very openly considered inferior. You are right that it will take time. It's probably not a good thing that humans live so long.

 

But my SIL's children, who are raised by feminists, still have concepts of "This is what girls do and this is what boys do" even at ages 6 and 3. I think you'd have to really shelter a kid if you wanted it to have only your values and morals.

[Kith]

Part of the problem in some Middle Eastern countries is that gender roles are so strictly enforced. It is the husband who is financially responsible for his wife and children, and must provide them with the means to live. Even if his wife has income or assets, a man must go out and work, and if his income is not enough to provide his brood with food, shelter, and clothing, he can be legally punished.

 

Not that I'm saying a woman wouldn't use her assets and income to provide for her family, but she's not legally required to, and her husband is. Thus arises the issues of men being considered first for such things as jobs and medical care, even if a woman is more qualified for the job or more in need of a doctor.

 

Note: This is not to say that this is the only thing going on, that women are not seen as inferior or that their behavior is not restricted, but it is a contributing factor to certain ways in which men are generally favored over women by those societies.

[KageSora]

I think being male is playing only a small role in this, though. If women are the only ones responsible for raising kids, why dont they raise their boys better? They are not all some stupid dumb barbie-dolls, or oppressed.

Probably because unless you lock your child away from the world and leave them with no contact to the outside world, you CANNOT avoid society influencing them.

 

Society tells them one thing, and if their parents tell them another... Not everybody is inherently strong enough as a person to stand up to society and say "No, my parents are right. You are wrong. I will be a better person than you tell me I need to be, because I was raised better than that."

 

The other problem is, as you said, it takes time. Parents who were raised with the views of society imprint them on their kids. Sometimes those kids realize that there are things that are different now, and will pass those changed views to their own kids. Then in time these kids might realize things are different as well, and will pass on their own altered views.

 

But that also doesn't always happen. Not all women realize the problems females face. Because they're content in the roles they took on, they don't understand the idea that other females have problems with it.

 

 

However, if we want things to change more quickly--and they can, when the groups that have been building up to the forced change have had enough--we need to be loud and get the message out there. We need to be more aggressive in getting our voices heard (not, however, necessarily more aggressive towards other people--just because somebody has a penis doesn't mean I'll attack them for it, I'll attack them if they're being a jerk who deserves it regardless of what's between their legs)

[whitebaron]

 

However, if we want things to change more quickly--and they can, when the groups that have been building up to the forced change have had enough--we need to be loud and get the message out there. We need to be more aggressive in getting our voices heard (not, however, necessarily more aggressive towards other people--just because somebody has a penis doesn't mean I'll attack them for it, I'll attack them if they're being a jerk who deserves it regardless of what's between their legs)

Agression always hurts the cause. This is true for feminists as well, as radfems and the like easily can "force" people to oppose them on principle, not just because of some differing opinions.

 

 

You can't force change, peacefully. Where there's agression, there'll be more opposition. And thus, agression will slow down the progress, not enhance it.

[KageSora]

Agression always hurts the cause. This is true for feminists as well, as radfems and the like easily can "force" people to oppose them on principle, not just because of some differing opinions.

 

 

You can't force change, peacefully. Where there's agression, there'll be more opposition. And thus, agression will slow down the progress, not enhance it.

No, it doesn't.

 

We need protests, we need people to publicly speak out when something is wrong, we need to be loud so people don't think we'll just quietly let them talk over us.

 

Just sitting around going "Well, things need to change..." without doing jack doesn't help at all.

 

And people are starting to get more aggressive in the movement all the time--not in the violent sense, but in the "I'm not going to sit around and wait for the 'right time' to have a voice--I'm gonna get out there and scream above the people who want to drown out my voice and I'm gonna keep doing it until they have to listen" kind of sense.

 

People are taking a more aggressive stance on the matter--they're more intent on spreading information, on actively engaging people who oppose them. They're doing less sitting around waiting to be given a chance to speak and more taking that chance.

 

 

And, honestly, I fail to see how that's hurting the movement.

[whitebaron]

And, honestly, I fail to see how that's hurting the movement.

Being "loud", "scream" and "agressive" is anything but a positive language on what you want to do.

 

 

Yes, you should not be intimidated and speak out for yourselves. But this kind of language is archaic, and forces confrontations even where there is none. Also, many people take that literally, and see what it gets you to just scream.

[KageSora]

Being "loud", "scream" and "agressive" is anything but a positive language on what you want to do.

 

 

Yes, you should not be intimidated and speak out for yourselves. But this kind of language is archaic, and forces confrontations even where there is none. Also, many people take that literally, and see what it gets you to just scream.

So... I should quietly talk with like-minded people who already agree with me? I shouldn't raise my voice when those who want to prevent change attempt to drown me out?

 

I should wait until I have the perfect time and place, rather than seeking it out, or making it the right moment?

 

 

Is that what you're basically saying?

[TikindiDragon]

So...  I should quietly talk with like-minded people who already agree with me?  I shouldn't raise my voice when those who want to prevent change attempt to drown me out?

 

I should wait until I have the perfect time and place, rather than seeking it out, or making it the right moment?

 

 

Is that what you're basically saying?

No, but talking reasonably without anger gets your point across a lot better.

 

Although I will note that this does, generally, seem to be down to cultural differences. It's considered far more appropriate in the States to be loudly emotional and/or angry than it is in Europe. Many of us over here were taught that raising your voice (being angry and shouting) automatically puts you in the wrong, regardless of what you are angry about.

 

Edit to add: I, also, feel that anger hurts a cause. Most people I know do not respond well to agression, and having someone snap at me is more likely to make me simply avoid them and/or that subject totally than it is to make me do some research and/or support their position. I believe I have mentioned this before. Anger is more likely to push people that are on the fence *away* from you than it is to draw them closer.

Edited January 28, 2014 by TikindiDragon

[Fuzzbucket]

Although I will note that this does, generally, seem to be down to cultural differences. It's considered far more appropriate in the States to be loudly emotional and/or angry than it is in Europe.

 

Have you ever seen an angry Italian in full flow ???

[KageSora]

Ah, I see what the problem is. I probably could have used a better term than "aggressive".

 

I meant it not so much in the sense of attacking others, but in the sense you'd use with the idea of an "aggressive marketing campaign". You're not going out and attacking them, but you're making your presence and voice known, and making sure that people hear you and your message, that they're very aware of you.

 

Being "loud" not necessarily in the literal sense, but in the sense of generating enough attention to your ideas that you're heard. Though there ARE times when you need to be loud because others are drowning you out more literally.

[Shienvien]

It's a matter of semantics, me thinks. "Aggressive" in essence can be nothing more than the antonym of "submissive" - and in that sense, being aggressive can be good.

 

Hostility and violence, however, are never the solution.

[KageSora]

It's a matter of semantics, me thinks. "Aggressive" in essence can be nothing more than the antonym of "submissive" - and in that sense, being aggressive can be good.

 

Hostility and violence, however, are never the solution.

That's the much more the sense I meant it in. There's not one strict meaning to the word, much like most any words.

 

Though I suppose I could have picked a better term that would have been more clear.

 

 

But agreed that being hostile and violent doesn't generally help, but I will argue that sometimes it IS the solution. Typically when the other party starts it and you need to retaliate to defend yourself and your position. But it's not usually the first thing to try to get anywhere.

[TikindiDragon]

 

Have you ever seen an angry Italian in full flow ???

Well, yes, okay. Your point is taken. Maybe I've just spent too much time around stiff upper lip types.

 

@Kage - Yeah, that's probably where the disconnect was coming in. I don't think any of us are suggesting that people shouldn't speak out, just that showing open anger is counter productive.

[whitebaron]

But agreed that being hostile and violent doesn't generally help, but I will argue that sometimes it IS the solution. Typically when the other party starts it and you need to retaliate to defend yourself and your position. But it's not usually the first thing to try to get anywhere.

no, it never is. It just goes on to show that you are unable to solve troubles in a civilised way, and thats important, too - hitting back/retaliating is far too important for many people, instead of acting on their supposedly core values.

 

Most of the time, I consider it to be conceited to strike back. It serves no purpose except to but to serve ones own pride. It helps nothing. Deescalation should be your first motto, not striking back.

[Likewise]

What if the other party doesn't want deescalation? What if they just want to kick your butt? What if they want to kill you?

[KageSora]

no, it never is. It just goes on to show that you are unable to solve troubles in a civilised way, and thats important, too - hitting back/retaliating is far too important for many people, instead of acting on their supposedly core values.

 

Most of the time, I consider it to be conceited to strike back. It serves no purpose except to but to serve ones own pride. It helps nothing. Deescalation should be your first motto, not striking back.

Did I ever say that it should be your first move?

 

No, no I did not. But there ARE times when you HAVE to strike back--generally it's a defense thing. Because, quite honestly, there are people in this world who don't listen to words. You don't necessarily have to go out and hit a person--but sometimes just talking and taking less passive actions doesn't work.

 

 

And, as Likewise said, there are times when you DO need to lash out because the other person is getting physical with you. It's a matter of defense--in times like that violence and yelling can be required. Not just to make your point heard, but for your own good.

[whitebaron]

 

And, as Likewise said, there are times when you DO need to lash out because the other person is getting physical with you. It's a matter of defense--in times like that violence and yelling can be required. Not just to make your point heard, but for your own good.

There are NO times at all you have to get physical or lash out, strike back, or whatever your lingo is.

 

The proper way to act is to dodge, let others,make a foolnout of themselves. Deescalation is the best way to attain peace, violence the most likely to start another war.