Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Feathers · 17-02-2012 01:00AM

later12 wrote: »

Sorry but no; that's quite explicitly not a case of someone defining feminism as something pursued in a female's interest.

I asked who had defined feminism as the promotion of gender equality without reference to sex?, to which you said many

OK, I'm not 100% on the difference that you're drawing between gender & sex here, so I probably read your first post wrong, sorry. Though I'm unclear as to how you can have gender equality in favour of someone.

later12 wrote: »

For example?

As has been said extensively, we are not dealing with a rights issue, we are predominantly dealing with an issue of social structures & social norms.

These can affect men and women, indeed, but often in different ways. And again, it is natural that those individuals whose interests have been shaped by the societal deficiencies pertaining to one specific grouping will feel more passionate toward the cause of that group than any other.

We were talking about rights in the bit that you quoted me on, but even in a wider issue on perception, surely gender stereotypes affect both genders — like children playing with toys as was mentioned earlier.

I'm still failing to see how ironing out the inequality against one group is not doing the same for both.

People may feel more passionate for their group, but it depends on how they define their groups to begin with.

later12 · 17-02-2012 01:01AM

smash wrote: »

but can we? Because there seems to be a call for examples from men

Examples of an anti sex bias? Only by the minority I think. I suspect (if I'm not mistaken I have actually read) of other feminists fully recognizing that anti male bias exists toward men in some regards, and that social condiitoning can affect them to a similar extent as it can for women.

then they're dismissed and the issues brought back to women having it worse off.

Again, I don't think most feminists are saying that women have it "worse off". It's rather impossible for anyone to walk in both shoes, and any comparison is invalid.

This again grows from the fact that really, everyone's out for themselves

Everyone is not exactly out for themselves, but everyone is fighting the issue about which they feel most strongly.

One would be doing a gross dis-service acting as mouthpiece to any movement which technically falls under the egalitarian male-female banner, but about which one does not really feel impassioned or motivated (fine & honourable a cause as it may be).

I would much rather that men who feel passionate about mens' mental health services, for example, stuck to what they were good at, than try to come on board with women pushing for gender quotas in politics, and muddying all issues and ending up with a semi- reluctant and halfarsed campaigning strategy,despite the fact that both movements can come under the heading of gender egalitarianism.

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:02AM

smash wrote: »

My point is, that's the reason it's difficult to discuss.

I think part of that may be a knee jerk reaction to the fact that whenever a specific women's issue comes on AH, there's a chorus of "but this happens to men", despite the fact that the thread is not about that. I haven't seen the same on threads on men's issues.

All that being said, though, I am enjoying this thread and it is a thread specifically on sexism, which of course affects both genders. If there are any issues specifically pertaining to men that you feel are not being discussed here or have been dismissed, please do bring them up. I would love to discuss them.

17-02-2012 01:03AM

smash wrote: »

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

Really there is no need to be aggressive

That wasn't aggressive.

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

dealt with to death on this thread but of course its wrong.

Most of the women problems have been dealt with to death too. Don't dismiss it when it's a male problem. You asked for examples.

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

again as a recent poster stated has been rectified

So have most women's issues to do with equality but they're still brought up.

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

Hmm i think thats more a male on male crime

I don't think so

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

No i adhered to it and its was only and may i add stupidly rising to a previous posters vile comment (he was banned for it and rightly )

No, you instigated it and worse than that it was in retort to a she, not a he !
geniuely shocked a woman said that and funny i do find ur overuse of !!!! Fairly aggresive :-
And in fairness wouldnt of adhered to it if the poster hadnt said what they said .
Happy to leave it at that.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 01:04AM

Originally Posted by Millicent
I don't think that's what she means by unsafe though. Unsafe is "afraid you're going to be raped", by someone you know, no less, not just a psycho in some back alley.

smash wrote: »

You're basing that on personal experience though. I can safely say that I don't know any women who feel like this.

You really don't know any woman who has ever feared she was about to be raped - not just when out alone at night - but by someone she knows? Possibly in her own home? Really????

The various articles I have read state that 1 in 5 women worldwide are victims of rape at least once in their lifetime and 90% of the rapes are perpetuated by someone the victims knows...
http://www.womensaid.ie/policy/natintstats.html
http://www.rcni.ie/uploads/RCNINationalRapeCrisisStatisticsAndAnnualReport2010.pdf

I was raped by a guy I had known for years - apparently he believed it would 'cure' me of my lesbianism....

smash · 17-02-2012 01:05AM

PrincessLola wrote: »

Do you not see the effort women on this thread have made to empathise with men and their issues? Do you ever see men get shot down and told 'get back in the garage'? We're really trying and at least we acknowlege that men face problems too.

But have you (or other detractors) even admitted that women face double-standards and descrimination? You won't even TRY to empathise with how women feel. Why is that?

Maybe it's because I was replying directly to a comment about how men face sexism. I never said I don't empathise. I've also stated in previous threads that I don't know any women in the real world who suffer from 99% of the issues raised here which to me suggest that while the issues are there for some, they're really on the way out very fast!

PrincessLola wrote: »

A movement that draws attention to womens issues is not taking away from men.

I didn't say it was.

PrincessLola wrote: »

We are not going to walk on eggshells around oversensitive people who get offended at the slightest hint of feminism.

But the thing is that men have to. Because it appears that a difference of opinion is branded sexist.

Millicent wrote: »

It's not in built though, IMO. It's a learned response. Judging from some of the "getting drunk around a man, no wonder she was raped" type responses on another thread recently, there is still at least a minority of people who blame the victim still in rape cases. Rape statistics still aren't great here. It's shockingly under-reported too.

But these people are idiots. Why give them the time of day?

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:09AM

smash wrote: »

But these people are idiots. Why give them the time of day?

Idiots, perhaps, but a part of society and a larger part than you might think. Found a statistic when looking for something else here that said 22% of the rape victims the Rape Crisis Centre counselled were raped by their husband. That's a pretty sizeable statistic for rape cases and horrifying that someone who knows the victim intimately, is supposed to love and care for and protect their wife, sees no issue with raping them.

amacachi · 17-02-2012 01:10AM

Millicent wrote: »

Sorry (seriously tired and dopey!), I had meant to link you to the press release of the study. Link to the full study from there. Link

I have to give it a proper read tomorrow again to see about the overtime issue.

Interesting nugget from that page, there's just over 200k women in "professional occupations" compared to less than 150k men. Give it about 10 years as those workers mature and see where the paygap is.

I don't know that it does favour females, tbh, or males for that matter. I would love to see more mixed schools instead of single sex ones to give a wider variety of subject choice to students as I think single sex schools tend to gender subjects. That's unfair on both sides, I think.

It's only a slight bias towards girls IMO, not enough of an excuse for anyone.

I wouldn't agree with that FÁS action either. It's a band aid solution and is really tackling gender divide across the job market at its beginnings. I'd rather see primary school aged kids (both boys and girls) being exposed to different subjects and possible job choices, without any judgement on either side. It's all well and good telling a girl she can be an engineer or a boy he can be a nurse, but if other kids are going to slag them off so much they're tormented for it, what's the point?

I don't think it should be down to government to change that. I don't know any girls who got amazeballs high points in the LC so none were encouraged to be doctors. Very few did economics or physics (physics was offered in my sister's school, usually there weren't enough to make a class, same with economics). That's in an all-girl school, it was offered, they didn't want it, what more should be done? It would be pretty retarded of a guidance teacher to advise someone on track for ~400 points to try to be a doctor. Looking at the LC results and college intake it seems that in medicine etc. the proportions are split along the same lines suggesting girls are just as encouraged as boys to go for medicine etc.

later12 · 17-02-2012 01:10AM

Feathers wrote: »

OK, I'm not 100% on the difference that you're drawing between gender & sex here, so I probably read your first post wrong, sorry. Though I'm unclear as to how you can have gender equality in favour of someone.

No I mean gender as a synonym as sex. Who is referencing feminism as a term meaning gender equality without reference to anyone's gender. You suggested many people are doing so. I'm asking who?

In every discussion on feminism, you will see that there is an acceptance that the feminist deals mainly with the promotion of the rights and expectations pertaining to women and girls, and the allusions to gender equality are largely theoretical (anticipating that male deficiencies will be addressed elsewhere).

I'm still failing to see how ironing out the inequality against one group is not doing the same for both.

Partially because inequality affects individuals in separate ways.

But it's not just that sexism affects both sexes in different ways, but that both genders cannot relate uniformly and bilaterally to both male and female forms of discrimination. It is natural that they sometimes feel aligned to one movement more than another based on their experiences.

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:10AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was raped by a guy I had known for years - apparently he believed it would 'cure' me of my lesbianism....

Jesus, because sexual trauma is likely to make you want to repeat that experience. I am so sorry to hear that. That's awful.

smash · 17-02-2012 01:19AM

Millicent wrote: »

Smash, if you're interested, there's a good dissection of both sexual and domestic violence rates for 2010 here.

But I'm not interested in reading it. I know it happens, it's a fact that it happens. I also know that most sexual and violence crimes go unreported. More so when it happens to men.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You really don't know any woman who has ever feared she was about to be raped - not just when out alone at night - but by someone she knows? Possibly in her own home? Really????

I know 1 women who actually was raped but she still wouldn't sit there among male friends and be afraid of them or in fear that something would happen. Trust issues resulting from past experience will leave you living in fear forever.

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

geniuely shocked a woman said that
And in fairness wouldnt of adhered to it if the poster hadnt said what they said .
Happy to leave it at that.

You retorted with an aggressive flippant comment aimed at all the males on the thread because you thought the poster was male, now you find out they were female and you're happy to ignore it. Nice :rolleyes:

Millicent wrote: »

Idiots, perhaps, but a part of society and a larger part than you might think. Found a statistic when looking for something else here that said 22% of the rape victims the Rape Crisis Centre counselled were raped by their husband. That's a pretty sizeable statistic for rape cases and horrifying that someone who knows the victim intimately, is supposed to love and care for and protect their wife, sees no issue with raping them.

But this has nothing to do with your original comment does it?

""getting drunk around a man, no wonder she was raped" type responses on another thread recently, there is still at least a minority of people who blame the victim still in rape cases"

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 01:21AM

Millicent wrote: »

Jesus, because sexual trauma is likely to make you want to repeat that experience. I am so sorry to hear that. That's awful.

It was awful - but the really hard thing to overcome was that I became very reserved around male friends and I had always preferred the company of men for some reason - yet I found myself wary, watchful and frankly scared at times when there was no need for me to be.

I am fortunate to have some bloody great male friends - from screaming queens to big butch hairy swordy types - thanks to whom I learned to relax - mostly. But I must admit, that little nugget of fear has been there 30 years and it will always be there.

When I was 16 I was fearless. By 17 I knew fear. At 47 - I'd take their ****ing head off.

It is hard to read about the amount of 'lesbian corrective rapes' happening in South Africa at the moment http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/lesbian-corrective-rape-south-africa

17-02-2012 01:27AM

You retorted with an aggressive flippant comment aimed at all the males on the thread because you thought the poster was male, now you find out they were female and you're happy to ignore it. Nice :rolleyes:

no sigh :cool: u insists on misinterpretating anything i have written . for further clarification read my posts wouldnt care if it was male or female truely horrible thing for that poster to say end of . clear enough for u?

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:29AM

smash wrote: »

But I'm not interested in reading it. I know it happens, it's a fact that it happens. I also know that most sexual and violence crimes go unreported. More so when it happens to men.

But you seem to imply that it's only a few idiots. That link shows that it's not.

smash wrote: »

But this has nothing to do with your original comment does it?

""getting drunk around a man, no wonder she was raped" type responses on another thread recently, there is still at least a minority of people who blame the victim still in rape cases"

It kind of does, in that just because these aren't the views that people seem to have on their surface, they are actually more common than might be believed without experience of it. Just as you would hope that the "she got drunk so she deserved it" beliefs are rare, you would hope the "my wife is my property" beliefs would be too. My point was, these things are not as rare as you might think and that it's often perpetrated by someone who should be trusted and knows the victim well enough that the thought should never enter their heads.

hatrickpatrick · 17-02-2012 01:32AM

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

geniunely interested in actual cases of sexism against men in ireland (apart for parental rights and the diet coke ad they have
been used ad nausem) please ?

A 15 year old boy has consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.
He is a "rapist", she is a "victim", despite them being the same age and it being consensual. Apparently boys are always the abusers and cannot be the abused in such cases.

This is one which absolutely enraged me and probably played a large part in creating my men's rights agenda, as it horrifically affected people very close to me, without going into any details.

If we're equal, then we're equal. Such laws are an absolute abomination in a supposedly equal society.
The government then comes up with some tripe to justify it, saying "Boys need a deterrent, girls have pregnancy to deter them" as if (a) pregnancy and jail time + criminal record + being a registered sex offender are the same thing, and (b) as if boys weren't also affected if their girlfriends get pregnant.

It's absolutely, mind numbingly sickening.

smash · 17-02-2012 01:34AM

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

no sigh :cool: u insists on misinterpretating anything i have written . for further clarification read my posts wouldnt care if it was male or female truely horrible thing for that poster to say end of . clear enough for u?

Ehh but you did care. If you knew the poster was female, your retort wouldn't have been directed at the men! get it?

Millicent wrote: »

But you seem to imply that it's only a few idiots. That link shows that it's not.

No, it's a few idiots who have the belief "getting drunk around a man, no wonder she was raped". And that has nothing to do with domestic violence or abuse figures.

Millicent wrote: »

It kind of does, in that just because these aren't the views that people seem to have on their surface, they are actually more common that might be believed without experience of it. Just as you would hope that the "she got drunk so she deserved it" beliefs are rare, you would hope the "my wife is my property" beliefs would be too. My point was, these things are not as rare as you might think and that it's often perpetrated by someone who should be trusted and knows the victim well enough that the thought should never enter their heads.

But again you're introducing domestic abuse into an argument about idiots who believe a woman was at fault for getting drunk. They're completely separate issues!

K-9 · 17-02-2012 01:37AM

dark crystal wrote: »

Do you have any idea how many man hours it would take to follow up on every phone call made about men 'out and about'?

The police would have to use cop on. The police certainly wouldn't have to fully police the streets with a curfew on males as was originally suggested. You think a male curfew would mean the police patrolling every street?

Police were merely giving well intentioned advice, trying to reduce the risk of women being attacked or killed - they certainly didn't deserve to be denounced for being sexist!

Indeed.

I see it as more a societal issue. The default response was women should stay inside, not women. That was 30 years ago and different times though. The police generally don't do that now. Don't think they did during the riots?

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:37AM

smash wrote: »

No, it's a few idiots who have the belief "getting drunk around a man, no wonder she was raped". And that has nothing to do with domestic violence or abuse figures.

But again you're introducing domestic abuse into an argument about idiots who believe a woman was at fault for getting drunk. They're completely separate issues!

They're not really. There is a large perception that a woman who was raped had some part of the fault. There are also some men who still believe that it's not rape in marriage, it's conjugal rights. They are not separate issues; they are related in how the victim is perceived by others.

ETA: To the bolded part, it's not domestic violence I'm referring to in marriage, but rape.

And I only included the domestic violence link as it has a good section on rape in Ireland. Couldn't find a better link with just the rape statistics.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 01:37AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A 15 year old boy has consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.
He is a "rapist", she is a "victim", despite them being the same age and it being consensual. Apparently boys are always the abusers and cannot be the abused in such cases.

This is one which absolutely enraged me and probably played a large part in creating my men's rights agenda, as it horrifically affected people very close to me, without going into any details.

If we're equal, then we're equal. Such laws are an absolute abomination in a supposedly equal society.
The government then comes up with some tripe to justify it, saying "Boys need a deterrent, girls have pregnancy to deter them" as if (a) pregnancy and jail time + criminal record + being a registered sex offender are the same thing, and (b) as if boys weren't also affected if their girlfriends get pregnant.

It's absolutely, mind numbingly sickening.

Who is disagreeing with you? Absolutely that is wrong.

2 15 year olds have consensual sex - seriously, what do you expect? No crime.

A 37 year old and a 15 year old have 'consensual' sex - statutory rape by the 37 year old - regardless of gender.

17-02-2012 01:38AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is one which absolutely enraged me and probably played a large part in creating my men's rights agenda, as it horrifically affected people very close to me, without going into any details.

.

It's absolutely, mind numbingly sickening.

not it any way being condescnding but as you have said yourself this has created your stance on male rights . a place of hurt and anger may not be the best place to start .

smash · 17-02-2012 01:39AM

Millicent wrote: »

They're not really. There is a large perception that a woman who was raped had some part of the fault.

Earlier you said it was a minority who thought like this.

Millicent wrote: »

There are also some men who still believe that it's not rape in marriage, it's conjugal rights. They are not separate issues; they are related in how the victim is perceived by others.

But like I said. It's idiots who think like this! And they are a minority!

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:39AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A 15 year old boy has consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.
He is a "rapist", she is a "victim", despite them being the same age and it being consensual. Apparently boys are always the abusers and cannot be the abused in such cases.

This is one which absolutely enraged me and probably played a large part in creating my men's rights agenda, as it horrifically affected people very close to me, without going into any details.

If we're equal, then we're equal. Such laws are an absolute abomination in a supposedly equal society.
The government then comes up with some tripe to justify it, saying "Boys need a deterrent, girls have pregnancy to deter them" as if (a) pregnancy and jail time + criminal record + being a registered sex offender are the same thing, and (b) as if boys weren't also affected if their girlfriends get pregnant.

It's absolutely, mind numbingly sickening.

The Romeo and Juliet law is disgusting and on the other side of the coin, it paints girls as delicate little flowers who don't have the ability to be complicit in sexual activity with a minor of their own age.

It's a nasty, nasty law.

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:40AM

smash wrote: »

Earlier you said it was a minority who thought like this.

But like I said. It's idiots who think like this! And they are a minority!

But those idiots are still contributing to sexual violence against women. Just because they are idiots, doesn't make them less dangerous.

hatrickpatrick · 17-02-2012 01:40AM

neuro-praxis wrote: »

But let me tell you. My egalitarian ways can be put to the test. I work with male-only sex offenders. And I love the work (and dare I say it, I love the men). And something they tell me over and over is that for them, women were just things. "An object with holes" as one fella put it a couple of weeks ago. And therefore they did not need to be cared for, nurtured, respected etc.

That is horrific and I find men with such attitudes absolutely abhorrent in every possible way, and in all honesty I would advocate the toughest penalties for such offenses.
But tell me, have you ever worked with a "sex offender" whose 'crime' was having consensual sex with his underage girlfriend OF THE SAME AGE, for which she received not punishment, but help?
For me that situation was a catalyst for many of my equalitist views. The law should not enforce any double standards whatsoever. None.

smash · 17-02-2012 01:41AM

Millicent wrote: »

But those idiots are still contributing to sexual violence against women. Just because they are idiots, doesn't make them less dangerous.

No, bit it still makes them a minority which is a contradiction to the phrase "large perception"

hatrickpatrick · 17-02-2012 01:43AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is disagreeing with you?

The people on this thread, and others, who claim men are not seriously discriminated against under the law.

And of course the Irish legal system, which apparently doesn't afford young boys the same sympathy as young girls.

2 15 year olds have consensual sex - seriously, what do you expect? No crime.

Not according to the Irish statute books.

A 37 year old and a 15 year old have 'consensual' sex - statutory rape by the 37 year old - regardless of gender.

100% agreed.

later12 · 17-02-2012 01:43AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A 15 year old boy has consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.
He is a "rapist", she is a "victim", despite them being the same age and it being consensual. Apparently boys are always the abusers and cannot be the abused in such cases.

That's true, and I don't know a single human being who agrees with it; male or female. There are also other blatantly sexist provisions, including the fact that the maximum penalty for incest which can be passed down on a woman is 7 years, whereas for a man it is life.

But I don't want to be rude here, but what has this got to do with feminism?

You yourself said you have a mens' rights agenda, as have I in some specific respects... so what's the problem? Feminists do not seem to deny these problems faced by men, and as a man I certainly do not... but I'm just not sure how relevant this is to feminism any more than womens' inferior pay statistics might be relevant to your mens' rights agenda.

As has been said countless times, people speak most convincingly on matters about which they feel the most informed and passionate about... there's nothing wrong with that.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 01:43AM

Millicent wrote: »

The Romeo and Juliet law is disgusting and on the other side of the coin, it paints girls as delicate little flowers who don't have the ability to be complicit in sexual activity with a minor of their own age.

It's a nasty, nasty law.

It is a nasty law. As if teenage girls arn't as awash with horny hormones exactly the same as teenage boys are and they have to be coerced or persuaded against their will.

The whole thing seems to me to be predicated on the male as sexual instigator and the female as unwilling participant - as if females don't have a sex drive and never, ever, instigate sex :rolleyes: .

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:44AM

smash wrote: »

No, bit it still makes them a minority which is a contradiction to the phrase "large perception"

Oh, the large perception is part of a large minority. Sorry, I misunderstood you.

That point was fuelled from research like this from the Examiner:

That 41% believe that a woman is partially or totally responsible for being raped is she is drunk or takes illegal drugs, that 37% believe she bears some responsibility if she flirts extensively with a man, and
26% if she wears sexy/revealing clothing, is a wake-up call to Irish society and the Irish Government.

Amnesty link.

smash · 17-02-2012 01:46AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The government then comes up with some tripe to justify it, saying "Boys need a deterrent, girls have pregnancy to deter them" as if (a) pregnancy and jail time + criminal record + being a registered sex offender are the same thing, and (b) as if boys weren't also affected if their girlfriends get pregnant.

Not entirely true

"The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A person who is convicted of this offence and is not more than two years older than the victim is not subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This means they will not have their name placed on the Sex Offenders Register."

But still a very sick law.

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments