Tit for tat sexism...

Zulu

Aren't men allowed argue blatant sexism by suggesting "if the roles were reversed"?

(see thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617730&page=15 from post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61121379&postcount=219 onwards)

Why do some people (male and female) feel that need to chip away at a legitmate complaint from the other sex?

My answer: I believe that young westren white males have been fair game for some time now, and are starting to feel threatened. I believe they've been fair game, because they are whats left of "the man".

Macha

Well, I suppose it's important to ascertain whether the complaint is genuine or not, for either side. There is most definitely the "siege" or victim mentality whereby everything is viewed through a certain lens, offense is always taken etc etc.

Plus there's the fact that it's a lot easier to understand/relate to what's happening with your gender. For example, I would never have seen how the stereotyping of men was a problem until I got involved in a few discussions on here, especially with you Zulu and Dragan and a few others. On the other hand, I have buckets of personal experience in the downsides of female stereotyping.

ChocolateSauce

In my own personal experience (as a young white male) I've seen no such thing. There have been one or two extremely isolated instances of a woman acting sexist towards me, to which I made extremely sexist remarks until they stopped or went away.

In short, I've no time for sexism from either side, and thankfully almost never see it.

WindSock

Zulu wrote: »

Aren't men allowed argue blatant sexism by suggesting "if the roles were reversed"?

Yes of course you are. But not if that's your only argument.
It's kind of like me walking onstage at the MOBO awards and saying 'well YOU wouldn't like it if WE had a MOWO (or similar) style award show'...

Why do some people (male and female) feel that need to chip away at a legitmate complaint from the other sex?

I don't chip away at legitimate complaints. I chip away at petty complaints that aren't backed up by much except for the tit-for-tat, because as far as I am concerned, tit and tat are not the same unless you have a decent argument to convince me otherwise.

My answer: I believe that young westren white males have been fair game for some time now, and are starting to feel threatened. I believe they've been fair game, because they are whats left of "the man".

Pretty much, yes. Western White Middle Class Males haven't suffered institutionalised and every day discrimnation/ism as much as everybody else.
As a white middle class woman, I can say whatever racism I have encoutered has been water off a ducks' back, because I still know I get treated 'more equal' in general than if I were not white. Because I live in a world where whitey rules.

Stereotyping is used all over the place, and I don't really consider it as being a form of sexism. Its just that people are too lazy to deal with individuals (despite their own desire to be treated as such).

I haven't seen to much sexism being applied to women over the years. Either in the working environment nor in personal life. I've never had much time for it, so I've tended to shoot it down when i have seen it. Simply because sexism towards women tends to encourage sexism towards men.

On the flip side, I have seen more than a bit of sexism applied towards men, especially in the last 5 to 10 years. And not only applied by women, but also by men themselves. As if they're seeking to score points with women, by being so fair & balanced. :rolleyes:

I guess it really boils down to what you consider sexism to be. From my stance, jokes or chance remarks don't really factor in. That just counts as crude humor used by both sexes. Sexism in the workplace is trod down pretty hard regardless of who's on the receiving end, so I haven't seen any of that.

My on gripe which i would relate to sexism is the aspect of equality. The whole thing of women expecting to be treated the same (or better) as men, but holding on to the older traditions which are considered good manners. I can't remember too many times a woman has held the door open for me after she has gone through, but its frowned upon if I don't. Or walking down the street with three women in a group oncoming totally taking up the footpath, and forcing me on to a busy street (If i stayed on the footpath I'd be run over by the group).

I guess i get confused between the whole equality issue and sexism. Are they separate issues?

Zulu

WindSock wrote: »

Yes of course you are. But not if that's your only argument.

Why not? It's valid. In attempting to de construct and destroy a discrimination, one need to accept that it works both ways. To ignore to do so is ignorance on par with the original discrimination.

I don't chip away at legitimate complaints. I chip away at petty complaints that aren't backed up by much except for the tit-for-tat, because as far as I am concerned, tit and tat are not the same unless you have a decent argument to convince me otherwise.

In your opinion. Define "tit-for-tat". Do you agree it's essentially "whats good for the goose should be good for the gander" as described? If so you are guilty of disregarding a logical, valid argument just because you feel it threatens your point of view. If you can't see the blatant hypocrisy there you've bigger problems; if you can't see the blatant hypocrisy there, how can you expect anyone to respect your argument credibly. You are guilty of the exact same thing, and your only standing is tantamount to "well we got here first!".

Pretty much, yes. Western White Middle Class Males haven't suffered institutionalised and every day discrimnation/ism as much as everybody else.

So it's ok for them to suffer it now?
This is very interesting: it appears from this your post that you condone a minority being oppressed/discriminated against because of the sins of their fathers & mothers; because they previously oppressed/discriminated against others. Do you think that attitude would have brought peace to the north of ireland?
Equality will never be reached through revenge. For how long would you feel it's acceptable for white men to be discriminated against before they've have paid for their parents sins?

As a white middle class woman, I can say whatever racism I have encoutered has been water off a ducks' back, because I still know I get treated 'more equal' in general than if I were not white. Because I live in a world where whitey rules.

And your ok with this? Discrimination is ok for you so long as your not bottom of the pecking order?

To be honest Windsock, have you thought this through?

Zulu

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't remember too many times a woman has held the door open for me after she has gone through, but its frowned upon if I don't. Or walking down the street with three women in a group oncoming totally taking up the footpath, and forcing me on to a busy street (If i stayed on the footpath I'd be run over by the group).

I'd say hat more manners really, or lack there of.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

I'd say hat more manners really, or lack there of.

Aren't we taught to show good manners to women by our parents and society? How many of the gestures we show to women are also expected to be shown to men?

Its commonplace for me to see women totally ignoring the same kind of manners that men show to women on a daily basis. Not all women, mind. I'm not going to make that kind of generalisation. Still, I have to wonder why men are expected to show difference to women, when they're our equals? there isn't the same difference shown to men by men... Or women to men... Just men to women..

WindSock

Zulu wrote: »

Why not? It's valid. In attempting to de construct and destroy a discrimination, one need to accept that it works both ways. To ignore to do so is ignorance on par with the original discrimination.

Like I said, back it up with a decent argument. You can't compare like with like so easily, just like with my example of MOBO.

Define "tit-for-tat". Do you agree it's essentially "whats good for the goose should be good for the gander" as described?

Like I said, tit isn't tat. I always say I don't believe in double standards, as you cannot apply the same standard to each. Tit and tat have different experiences from each other. Both must back up their points rather than throwing out old sayings.

If so you are guilty of disregarding a logical, valid argument just because you feel it threatens your point of view.

Like I said, it's not an argument, it's a saying. There is truth in the saying of course but I hate when it is bandyied about without argument. It's a lazy approach.

If you can't see the blatant hypocrisy there you've bigger problems; if you can't see the blatant hypocrisy there, how can you expect anyone to respect your argument credibly. You are guilty of the exact same thing, and your only standing is tantamount to "well we got here first!".

I don't think you are getting my posts. What sort of big problems have I? Not sure what you mean by that last bit. Who got where first?

So it's ok for them to suffer it now?

What? Where did I say that?

This is very interesting: it appears from this your post that you condone a minority being oppressed/discriminated against because of the sins of their fathers & mothers; because they previously oppressed/discriminated against others. Do you think that attitude would have brought peace to the north of ireland?

I don't condone anyone being oppressed or discriminated.
Who is this minority you speak of me condoning oppression?
There's peace in NI? As far as I am concerned, there will always be tit for tat killings from both sides.

Equality will never be reached through revenge. For how long would you feel it's acceptable for white men to be discriminated against before they've have paid for their parents sins?
And your ok with this? Discrimination is ok for you so long as your not bottom of the pecking order?

Who is discriminating against white men here? The media? I certainly amn't. I don't condone it. What I was saying from my posts is - that to me, racism toward me is water off a ducks back, as I am in a majoritivley white favoured world. I am not a minority.
I cannot speak for male experiece though, as I am not one. But I refuse to believe as many are truely offended by something only for the offence of the tit for tatism.

To be honest Windsock, have you thought this through?

Yes.


Are you accusing me of not thinking now? You seem to have accused me of an awful lot your post. If I were more sensitive I would be offended.

Zulu

true i suppose, but in adult life, common decency would dictate to hold the door for someone behind you - male of female. the same would hold true to women - I'd have thought.
But holding doors aside, I get your point. People are happy with old outdated traditions when it suits.

WindSock

Deleted User wrote: »

Aren't we taught to show good manners to women by our parents and society? How many of the gestures we show to women are also expected to be shown to men?

No. I was taught by my folks and society to be mannerly to everyone.

WindSock

Zulu wrote: »

People are happy with old outdated traditions when it suits.

Such as?

Zulu

WindSock wrote: »

Like I said, back it up with a decent argument. You can't compare like with like so easily, just like with my example of MOBO.

Sure you can. If something is so blatant, like for like can easliy be drawn.
What of your example of the MOBOs?

Like I said, tit isn't tat. I always say I don't believe in double standards, as you cannot apply the same standard to each.

What? You MUST apply the same standard to EVERYONE, other wise it's not equality.

Tit and tat have different experiences from each other.

So? Discrimination is what it is. All of society should be protected from it regardless of their "different experience". I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

Both must back up their points rather than throwing out old sayings.

...or else you won't consider them? What's wrong with simply pointing out a basic, blatant hypocrisy. It's clear to all as the noses on our faces? Why do you require further back up? Why do you refuse to acknowledge a basic, simple, fact, in it's truest from?

Like I said, it's not an argument, it's a saying. There is truth in the saying of course but I hate when it is bandyied about without argument. It's a lazy approach.

So what if you don't like it's lazy approach - it's true. To ignore that is to be ignorant.

What? Where did I say that?

Perhaps I misinterpreted, but
when I suggested:

zulu wrote:

I believe they've been fair game, because they are whats left of "the man".

you responded:

windsock wrote:

Pretty much, yes. Western White Middle Class Males haven't suffered institutionalised and every day discrimnation/ism as much as everybody else.

Well you kinda are when you disregard a valid point because it's dressed in a manor you find "lazy".

But I refuse to believe as many are truely offended by something only for the offence of the tit for tatism.

I'm sure that attitude was fairly prevalent back in the past: "sure they only want the vote because we have it", " they only want more rights because we have them".

...but you don't want see the parallel, do you?

WindSock

There is a difference between discrimination and hypocrisy.
As for MOBO, yes I could go into the place and say 'Oh you black people are all hypocrites, you wouldn't like it if....' But why would I? I am not really offended by the MOBO's.

Zulu wrote: »

I'm sure that attitude was fairly prevalent back in the past: "sure they only want the vote because we have it", " they only want more rights because we have them".

...but you don't want see the parallel, do you?

Don't Want? There you go assuming and insulting me again. If you cannot make a single post without making these assumptions toward me then we will have to leave it.

Zulu

WindSock wrote: »

There is a difference between discrimination and hypocrisy.

Indeed there is. Whats your point?

As for MOBO, yes I could go into the place and say 'Oh you black people are all hypocrites, you wouldn't like it if....' But why would I? I am not really offended by the MOBO's.

Indeed, you're not offended, so you don't. Good for you. However, you would well be within your rights to - regardless if you were offended or not. You would be right to.
You don't need to be personally offended to know if something is right or wrong, and you don't need to be offended to stand up for what's right.

Don't Want? There you go assuming and insulting me again.

I've insulted you twice now? Please report any post I've insulted you in.

Do you not recognise the parallel I have pointed out?

Zulu wrote:

"I'm sure that attitude was fairly prevalent back in the past: "sure they only want the vote because we have it", " they only want more rights because we have them".

WindSock

There is a difference between discrimination and hypocrisy.

Indeed there is. Whats your point?

Do you not recognise the parallel I have pointed out?

Yes. Not being able to vote and having rights. How are these anything to do with hypocrisy?

I'm sure that attitude was fairly prevalent back in the past: "sure they only want the vote because we have it", " they only want more rights because we have them".

Indeed, you're not offended, so you don't. Good for you. However, you would well be within your rights to - regardless if you were offended or not. You would be right to.
You don't need to be personally offended to know if something is right or wrong, and you don't need to be offended to stand up for what's right

Isn't that just rocking the boat for the sake of it then?

Zulu

no, its protecting the right of others. It's standing up for whats right.

"Evil prevails when good people do nothing".

WindSock

Zulu wrote: »

no, its protecting the right of others. It's standing up for whats right.

"Evil prevails when good people do nothing".

?

So if I had no problem with the MOBO's I could still go up onstage and complain about them because it is right to? Who's rights would I be protecting there?

WindSock

Look, I am not having a go here at men being hard done by. I understand that some men feel under threat from the media. I think we don't understand each other here. For a start I think you miss the point I have from reading the title of this thread and your original post.

I actually don't know what tit for tat sexism is. (or what you mean by it)

Zulu

well please review the other thread then.

PS: it comes from your own post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61122459&postcount=234 (I think you coined the phrase!)

WindSock

WindSock wrote: »

I actually don't know what tit for tat sexism is. (or what you mean by it)

I have to look at your sig. A link to a Ladies lounge. I have to wonder why there isn't a gent's lounge... Even 10 years ago, if there was any such lounge only for men (even the concept, regardless of whether women could post or be there) either on the internet or otherwise, it would have been ripped to shreds by women decrying sexism...

edit. lol. now that i logged in its gone. must be an ad for boards. but the point stands, even if its not directed towards you.

WindSock

Zulu wrote: »

PS: it comes from your own post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61122459&postcount=234 (I think you coined the phrase!)

I did, I called it tit-for tatism. I didn't say sexism though??

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to look at your sig. A link to a Ladies lounge. I have to wonder why there isn't a gent's lounge...

Please See:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055527817

Also- Beer Guts and Receding hairlines, Mens health and most other forums here are dominated by male users.

Even 10 years ago, if there was any such lounge only for men (even the concept, regardless of whether women could post or be there) either on the internet or otherwise, it would have been ripped to shreds by women decrying sexism...

Really? are there any women there in that link ripping apart the idea and crying sexism?

edit. lol. now that i logged in its gone. must be an ad for boards. but the point stands, even if its not directed towards you.

No, it is in my signature, you just have sigs turned off in your settings.
I requested there be a forum for women on boards 2 years ago, as I felt we had nowhere to voice ourselves specifically, as women are a minority on boards. People didn't take to the idea at first, but now it has become one of the most popular forums on the site.
There are no restrictions on males posting in there either.

So your tit-for-tatism has been disproved

fair enough. I stand corrected.