nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Micky Dolenz

Following on from the male feminist thread, why is it so hard to discuss the topic in a clear reasonable manner?

Just to be clear, if you wish to express an opinion here it must be done in a non confrontational manner. You will not be given the benefit of the doubt.

Any use of "man hater, mansplaining, feminazi, and all other negative descriptions will see you thread banned.

If you want to discuss the topic, you are most welcome. If you want to troll and flame. You will be banned. This is the only warning.

Let's see how it goes.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Millicent

Feisar, if this thread is still open when I get home from work, I will give you a detailed response to how sexism has affected my life.

AngryLips

This is really part of a broader question about when it is appropriate to pre-judge / apply bias and when it is not appropriate to do so. It's like asking to draw the line between national stereotyping and racism. What's interesting is that different standards apply to the same concept; what might be deemed inappropriate in the context of differences between the sexes might be perfectly acceptable if the same point were applied to the differences between nationalities. How that's determined comes down to the sensitivities of the offended party ...so while almost everyone accepts that it's okay to bash "dumb Americans", for example, it's less okay to knock "stingy Israeli's".

Ultimately, it's stupid to take political correctness to heart and neglect to bring your experiences to bare on any given situation. And that stupidity is only trumped by failing to account for the persecution complex in the offended party. Of course, none of this will excuse an overreaction on the part of the offended either.

--Kaiser--

Millicent wrote: »

I think it can't be discussed because there are still posters here who refuse to accept that there is any need for feminism or that women's rights issues still exist. You can't discuss something with someone who refuses to believe or place any worth on your standpoint or perspective. It's a lost battle before it's begun.

I admit, in my modern western society I don't see many womens issues but I do see issues with men being discriminated against every day from low grade ("You didn't cook that, did you? You're a guy!") through mid-grade (women only club, men only club not allowed) to high grade (unqualified and inexperienced woman being hired over experienced and qualified male becasue the hiring manager was female and part of the women only club).

So, for me, egalitarianism is the way forward. Gender quotas and the like are just big steps backwards

Ickle Magoo

TheZohan wrote: »

Because sometimes people find it difficult to step back and look at the bigger picture.

In this thread a poster asks would you propose to your OH, only 25% of women polled said that they would. That's 75% of women that would prefer if their boyfriend would, yet everyone wants equality. (I'm not for one moment suggesting there's anything wrong with women wanting the guy to propose either)

Actually, let's look at that again...

Hmmm, 26 women polled wanted their man to propose - 26.

It should surely go without saying but that doesn't equal 75% of "women" - it doesn't even constitute 75% of women who post in AH....nor does such a pathetic number give anything close to grounds for dismissal of every topic and subject where folks are "wanting equality"...I think it's precisely this kind of sweeping dismissal based on such ridiculous points that causes some of the issues.

smash

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

we should be adult enough to discuss any subject in a respectful and open environment.

That will never happen with sensitive subjects. It's happening more and more often, single mother threads etc.

Anyway, my viewpoint on this matter is:

Women's rights = fighting for equality
- no problem, fight for rights!

Feminism = fighting for equality + sexism + sexism to the extreme
- no problem, fight for rights!
- Sexism is wrong. Workplace bullying etc.
- Sexism to the extreme. Well it's all subjective, you might have a perception of someone being objectified but it's an opinion and it's not going to stop. Some things might offend you but they wont offend others, and there are more than enough people willing to be what you call 'objectified' and that's their prerogative in which case you have no right to object. And if you don't hold the same opinion on this matter as a feminist, then you're sexist apparently.

Feisar

Just so people know where I'm coming from I'm male.

I was amazed at the last thread, both camps were so vehement!

I didn't realize it was still such an issue. I work in the construction industry (or what's left of it) and I treat would treat a female engineers opinion the same as a males. I don't see myself as being sexist however I've noticed when greeting female coworkers I'm more inclined to smile and say hello as opposed to the nod the lads get.
Does that make me sexist because I'm treating females differently based on their sex? I suppose it does.
Is it harmful? There is an argument that in a minor way I'm contributing to the status-quo.

In my personnel relationship I do the cooking 90% of the time, a task that would traditionally be seen as female. I do my own washing etc but I not as tidy as herself so she does more cleaning.
I'm also not upset/insecure about the fact that she earns more than me.
At night though I'll always pop down to the shop rather than her for safety reasons. Unlikely but you never know. That again is sexist I think

I can't see how I have been "inherently privileged" due to my sex. The argument "oh but its part of the privilege that you don't realize" doesn't stack up in my mind. That's just a cop out to absolve the requirement of proof.

So, am I a sexist pig or fairly alright?

Can someone from the feminist camp outline how their or others lives have been negatively effected by sexism?

Zulu

With respect to the previous thread, I believe ad homenim attacks didn't help, but essentially it's what people reply to, and how they reply.

A pertainant point ended with a flippant comment about how people clearly have issues, tends to provoke only one reaction - and it's not to address the pretainant point.

Also, addressing the trolls, or addressing the outlandish comments while ignoring the more balanced ones, doesn't encourage the balanced poster to report.

Chuck Stone

It's easier to focus on equality than sexism. In many areas women face prejudice and discrimination and in some areas men do.

Also there are degrees of prejudice and discrimination against different female identities.

Women who choose to stay at home and raise children might get criticised by other women as copping out. I, personally, find this abhorrent - surely raising children is the most important and difficult job in the world? Didn't Mary Robinson describe women who choose to raise children over a career as 'cop outs' once? (paraphrasing).

There are also sub groups of women who face a greater intensity of prejudice i.e. black women, Traveller women, Muslamic women etc.

SheFiend

+1 to BipolarJoe.

There's sexism on both sides of the fence.

Some posts I've seen from women seem to show that some women think sexism against men = feminism, and being against sexism towards men is anti-feminism.. as if it's a woman's right to hate men because she feels oppressed by society's conditioning of females / sterotypes of women etc.

If a man is offended by this (false) idea of feminism, and says so, then it's also offending women who are not man-haters, but are being tarred with the same brush, and they react aggressively.

That's fuel for a heated debate.

Scanlas The 2nd

44leto wrote: »

Men as the power in the dynamic do not understand or see anything is wrong, they are understandably conservative because they hold the power. So anyone challenging that position is a man hater, because what other reason would they challenge the status quo.

I wonder was it the same during the Civil Rights struggle in the US when the African Americans challenged the separate but equal legislation.

If the African Americans claimed equality of race to be the priority for them yet never campaigned for whites if there were numerous cases of discrimination against whites then eyebrows may have been raised that equality was the priority for them. As far as I'm aware it wasn't the case that whites were discriminated against. It is the case that men are discriminated against. Some say then why not let the men campaign for men's rights. That's fine. But if you claim equality is your priority which according to my sources it is under feminist principles then you would expect feminists to campaign for men's rights if it means bringing about equality between the sexes which is supposedly their primary goal.

I believe in the right of people to campaign for any demographic they want, be it only women, only men or only kangaroos. But why claim equality is the prime goal.

As far as I can tell people who call themselves feminists seek to improve women's rights for which there is nothing wrong. But when that is done in te name of "equality" when it's only one sided it's bound to make some people raise an eyebrow.

[Deleted User]

hooradiation wrote: »

"I don't experience it so why should I care" is a probably a bit more accurate, if less socially acceptable.

i've seen a few "i've never seen it, it doesn't happen anymore"

Millicent

I think it can't be discussed because there are still posters here who refuse to accept that there is any need for feminism or that women's rights issues still exist. You can't discuss something with someone who refuses to believe or place any worth on your standpoint or perspective. It's a lost battle before it's begun.

WindSock

Because Micky Dolenz has tits in his avatar

pickarooney

Because in order to contribute to a debate thread you're obliged to take a side, even if you don't necessarily feel all that strongly about the subject.

Because most people are essentially looking for a row, regardless of the subject matter.

Because people tend to take offence when none is meant, mostly for the above reasons.

Because people prefer to throw about pointless definitions, statistics, studies and jargon rather than say what they really mean in plain English.

Because people are perfectly willing to discard everything they know about other posters, about men, about women, about life and about reality in the name of scoring points. Points that can't be traded for anything.

Because you're either with us or against us.

Lady Chuckles

TheZohan wrote: »

Because sometimes people find it difficult to step back and look at the bigger picture.

In this thread a poster asks would you propose to your OH, only 25% of women polled said that they would. That's 75% of women that would prefer if their boyfriend would, yet everyone wants equality. (I'm not for one moment suggesting there's anything wrong with women wanting the guy to propose either)

I'm sorry. How is that poll a bigger picture? And what is it a bigger picture of?

Women prefers if their special someone proposed to them, that means women.... ?

hooradiation

bluewolf wrote: »

because

- i dont experience it so it cant exist

"I don't experience it so why should I care" is a probably a bit more accurate, if less socially acceptable.

Micky Dolenz

Corruptable wrote: »

This is AH, right? Go to Humanities or some other dark corner of Boards if you want to discuss such issues sensibly.

Yes, this is AH. It is more of a reflection on what you perceive AH to be as opposed to what AH actually is. We are a community, we should be adult enough to discuss any subject in a respectful and open environment.

Bipolar Joe

Corruptable wrote: »

This is AH, right? Go to Humanities or some other dark corner of Boards if you want to discuss such issues sensibly.

There's bits of Boards that aren't AH

?

Any who, it's mostly because of what Bluewolf said, and the inability / unwillingness to see things from a different viewpoint. You see that sh!t all the time from both sides of the fence. Both got it bad.

Bannasidhe

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

This doesn't help much. I'd love to hear more from Millicent but the above is already starting to circle the wagons and what we don't really need here.

That is not how it was intended. Millicent expressed the view that she saw no point in participating in this discussion as it would be just history repeating itself. To me that means those who, she felt, attacked her personally, would have succeeded in shutting her up. Encouraging someone like Millicent, who have proven herself to be both reasonable and fair, to continue to voice her opinion is not 'circling the wagons' - it is supporting a poster one admires to continue to speak her mind sure in the knowledge she will do so rationally and with respect for those who rationally debate with her.

You assured us the flaming and name calling prevalent previous threads on related topics would be swiftly and decisively dealt with, if that is the case I see no reason for wagons to be placed in any formation whatsoever.

Super-Rush

Corruptable wrote: »

This is AH, right? Go to Humanities or some other dark corner of Boards if you want to discuss such issues sensibly.

No, we'll discuss it here.

44leto

Men as the power in the dynamic do not understand or see anything is wrong, they are understandably conservative because they hold the power. So anyone challenging that position is a man hater, because what other reason would they challenge the status quo.

I wonder was it the same during the Civil Rights struggle in the US when the African Americans challenged the separate but equal legislation.

--Kaiser--

pissblast wrote: »

. the positions in my job are gendure based ie 50% of posts must be filled by both sexes. such things like this have helped no end in giving women an equal standing.

Gender quotas are inherently sexist, yet you claim it makes things more equal? Do you not see a cognitive dissonance here? This is the type of stuff that gives feminism a bad name and why it's thought to be discriminatory towards men

TheZohanS

Because sometimes people find it difficult to step back and look at the bigger picture.

In this thread a poster asks would you propose to your OH, only 25% of women polled said that they would. That's 75% of women that would prefer if their boyfriend would, yet everyone wants equality. (I'm not for one moment suggesting there's anything wrong with women wanting the guy to propose either)

Millicent

Corruptable wrote: »

This is AH, right? Go to Humanities or some other dark corner of Boards if you want to discuss such issues sensibly.

Why? Other social issues get discussed here all the time. Why should sexism be shunted off to some "corner" of Boards?

Shanotheslayer

Confab wrote: »

My ex used to think I got erections deliberately. That's what men are up against.

I see why shes you're ex, I Lol'd reading that.

hondasam

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Following on from the male feminist thread, why is it so hard to discuss the topic in a clear reasonable manner?

We are all human and have different opinions, it's easy to get caught up in the heat of the debate.
There will usually be a few who are more vocal than others and the argument just goes round in circles.
If you don't agree with the majority then no one cares or values your opinion.

Scanlas The 2nd

People generally speaking strongly identify with their gender, any implication of a bad word said about their gender becomes a personal insult because gender becomes part of their ego.

Add to that the fact the people don't seem to be willing to change their opinion so it becomes pointless really as neither party listens to the others arguments. A lot of people seem to think they are somehow a lesser person for being wrong so won't even entertain the idea that they are wrong.

WindSock

It's not just sexism, it's any other ism that is difficult to discuss when there are people posting their personal experiences and viewpoints there always going to others who counteract it in whatever way they wish as it doesn't suit their preconceptions or agenda.

The reason why sexism gets more heated is because people are not posting from an abstract stance, like racism for example. Any thread on racism, you will have people saying why they think X is wrong or racist, rather than a select group who actually experience it everyday.

And in so, challenging people who actually experience it often leads to snide remarks etc. On both sides.

Unfortunately if the rational posters kept cool heads and didn't rise to being challenged in such a fashion, but instead just replied to the posts worth replying to there wouldn't be such a mess.

Although it is difficult when someone's words are manipulated, paraphrased wrongly and they defend themselves and then get called the playing the martyr / victim for doing so.

My advice is do not rise to it. Being defensive will only go so far. Move on and reply to the posts worth replying to that make for decent discussion and report the strawman / flame / provocative derailing posts.

Corruptable

This is AH, right? Go to Humanities or some other dark corner of Boards if you want to discuss such issues sensibly.

Millicent

bluewolf wrote: »

because

- i dont experience it so it cant exist
- my problems are worse than yours
- are you on the rag
- i find it funny and thats what matters
- so what if someone was sexist why didnt you magically make it stop it's all your fault
- you obviously just hate the other gender

This post is spot on. Describes it down to the ground.