Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 04:19PM

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

Ok, what seems to be the issue here? I don't get it. I honestly don't get it.

Instead of complaining about feminism; why can't you people just take action? Why don't you form some sort of association and just go for it? Instead of complaining that feminists, who look out for women's issues, should do all the job for you!

Men's issues need to be looked after, so then why don't men go look after those issues? I don't think there would be any woman standing in your way - I'd go as far as to say I think you'd even get support! I honestly think men need to treat men nicer and support each other in important matters.

Also, since this thread is about sexism: I think it's ridiculous that whenever someone says they've been treated in a sexist manner, there will be a poster instantly saying that such never happens. It clearly did so why deny it? Why can't we just condemn sexism no matter who it happens to? It's a lot nicer than to play the game of "who has it worse"!

I for one never said I cared about men's issues. So I wouldn't think anyone should expect me to do something about it.

smash · 17-02-2012 04:19PM

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

why can't you people just take action?

What do you mean You People?

Lady Chuckles · 17-02-2012 04:26PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I for one never said I cared about men's issues. So I wouldn't think anyone should expect me to do something about it.

Never said I meant you either.

smash wrote: »

What do you mean You People?

You people - whom it may concern :P

neuro-praxis · 17-02-2012 04:28PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

No. Because I work with adults, not children. I have tried to look up statistics on statutory rape convictions and can't find any. I'm guessing that custodial sentences for statutory rape between minors are relatively non-existent. Also if you are a minor too, as previously stated here, you don't go on the sex offenders register.

But...

later12 wrote: »

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.

You replied with this:

hatrickpatrick wrote:

I'm responding to the posters here who claim that men do not have legitimate grievances, specifically to a post which asked "Honestly, can you cite one area in which men are discriminated against?"
There's one, and one with the potential to utterly ruin people's lives, as I've seen first hand.

I haven't noticed any posters who claim that men do not have legitimate grievances. Since you raised this topic, every feminist has come on board to support your position. What more do you want?

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

It was feminists that put pressure on legislators to amend the law in such a fashion. It was feminists that did not care that it was leaving boys open to criminal prosecution for an act that girls would be immune from being prosecuted for. This is why people have an issue with Feminism, because they see that when feminists get into prositions of power, they are capable of causing such inequality in our society. There is ample evidence that feminists are cocerned with their own end and not too bothered if there is an assocaited knock-on of inequality for the oppoiste sex, in many areas of society, not just this one.

Mr.Biscuits, I am not disagreeing with you. But could you back this up with something please? Who lobbied for this legislation, who drafted it, and when? Also, how many male minors have been adversely affected by it?

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I don't believe that increased women's rights has given rise to increased male suicide but thier is more to feminist politics than the pursuit of equality , it's quite clear that traditional male charechtetistics are Seen as problematic by the feminist movement ,manly pursuits and traits Are potrayed as violent and inherently
dysfunctional , feminists see men as broken and in need of rebuilding , this has resulted in the latest generation of men suffering from an identity crisis , they are bombarded with messages of how maleness should be surpressed and how they should be more in touch with thier feminine side , it's no wonder so many are confused and commit suicide , I said earlier that feminism had a lot in common with Marxism , it's goal is to completely destroy society as we once knew it

This is proof to me that you have read nothing about feminism. Could you please list the authors who espouse this nonsense?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I for one never said I cared about men's issues. So I wouldn't think anyone should expect me to do something about it.

Now this. This really takes the biscuit. You argue around and around for 50 pages about how feminists aren't really in favour of equality because they allegedly don't fight enough battles on behalf of men's rights and then admit you couldn't give a crap about men's rights?

So not only are you wrong in your central point which you have iterated and reiterated ad nauseum, you don't even care? No wonder you are incapable of seeing the opposing point of view.

...and I'm done.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 04:32PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I for one never said I cared about men's issues. So I wouldn't think anyone should expect me to do something about it.

But you seem to really care that feminists aren't doing something about men's issues.

So - let me get this straight - you are a man. There are issues that negatively affect your gender but you don't care enough about them to actually do something about it. It does bother you that female feminists do do something about the issues that negatively affect their gender but believe they don't do enough about the issues that negatively affect your gender.

:rolleyes:

py2006 · 17-02-2012 04:36PM

Sexism is a vile trait in both men AND women.

Double standards infuriate me and I see it a lot on Boards with this issue.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 04:37PM

neuro-praxis wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

No. Because I work with adults, not children. I have tried to look up statistics on statutory rape convictions and can't find any. I'm guessing that custodial sentences for statutory rape between minors are relatively non-existent. Also if you are a minor too, as previously stated here, you don't go on the sex offenders register.

But...

later12 wrote: »

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.

You replied with this:

hatrickpatrick wrote:

I'm responding to the posters here who claim that men do not have legitimate grievances, specifically to a post which asked "Honestly, can you cite one area in which men are discriminated against?"
There's one, and one with the potential to utterly ruin people's lives, as I've seen first hand.

I haven't noticed any posters who claim that men do not have legitimate grievances. Since you raised this topic, every feminist has come on board to support your position. What more do you want?

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

It was feminists that put pressure on legislators to amend the law in such a fashion. It was feminists that did not care that it was leaving boys open to criminal prosecution for an act that girls would be immune from being prosecuted for. This is why people have an issue with Feminism, because they see that when feminists get into prositions of power, they are capable of causing such inequality in our society. There is ample evidence that feminists are cocerned with their own end and not too bothered if there is an assocaited knock-on of inequality for the oppoiste sex, in many areas of society, not just this one.

Mr.Biscuits, I am not disagreeing with you. But could you back this up with something please? Who lobbied for this legislation, who drafted it, and when? Also, how many male minors have been adversely affected by it?

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I don't believe that increased women's rights has given rise to increased male suicide but thier is more to feminist politics than the pursuit of equality , it's quite clear that traditional male charechtetistics are Seen as problematic by the feminist movement ,manly pursuits and traits Are potrayed as violent and inherently
dysfunctional , feminists see men as broken and in need of rebuilding , this has resulted in the latest generation of men suffering from an identity crisis , they are bombarded with messages of how maleness should be surpressed and how they should be more in touch with thier feminine side , it's no wonder so many are confused and commit suicide , I said earlier that feminism had a lot in common with Marxism , it's goal is to completely destroy society as we once knew it

This is proof to me that you have read nothing about feminism. Could you please list the authors who espouse this nonsense?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I for one never said I cared about men's issues. So I wouldn't think anyone should expect me to do something about it.

Now this. This really takes the biscuit. You argue around and around for 50 pages about how feminists aren't really in favour of equality because they allegedly don't fight enough battles on behalf of men's rights and then admit you couldn't give a crap about men's rights?

So not only are you wrong in your central point which you have iterated and reiterated ad nauseum, you don't even care? No wonder you are incapable of seeing the opposing point of view.

...and I'm done.

I didn't give my position on men's rights yet you are assuming I don't care.

I never claimed that equality of gender was my goal to achieve. If I did and only campaigned for one sides unfair disadvantage I'd be a hypocrite. I've heard countless times in the media from feminists about the virtues of gender equality.you see my point?

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 04:39PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I didn't give my position on men's rights yet you are assuming I don't care.

I never claimed that equality of gender was my goal to achieve. If I did and only campaigned for one sides unfair disadvantage I'd be a hypocrite. I've heard countless times in the media from feminists about the virtues of gender equality.you see my point?

I can quite honestly say that from my perspective if you ever had a point you managed to disguise it very well.

neuro-praxis · 17-02-2012 04:41PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I never claimed that equality of gender was my goal to achieve. If I did and only campaigned for one sides unfair disadvantage I'd be a hypocrite.

No, it would make you an advocate.

You don't know what a hypocrite is!

(Argh, you lured me back.)

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 04:44PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If I did and only campaigned for one sides unfair disadvantage I'd be a hypocrite.

Feminists focus on issues where they feel women are at a disadvantage.

They attempt to reduce those disadvantages.

In doing that they are attempting to find equality among the genders.

You are using pedantic arguments of what "equality among the genders" means to try and undermine that. And it's getting silly.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 04:45PM

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I never claimed that equality of gender was my goal to achieve. If I did and only campaigned for one sides unfair disadvantage I'd be a hypocrite.

No, it would make you an advocate.

You don't know what a hypocrite is!

(Argh, you lured me back.)

I'd be claiming gender equality is my goal yet my actions would contradict my claims by ignoring one gender's lack of rights. That is hypocritical as far as I'm aware.

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 04:52PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'd be claiming gender equality is my goal yet my actions would contradict my claims by ignoring one gender's lack of rights. That is hypocritical as far as I'm aware.

It's not hypocritical. It's pedantic.

Feminists, by their very definition, focus on women's rights. That context should be taken into consideration when they say they want equal rights among the genders.

It's not that difficult.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 04:52PM

later12 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

By seeking to make women equal to men you are seeking to make men equal women.

I really don't know how many more times this can be stated or how many times you need to be asked who is using the above definition.

Whilst feminists argue for increased rights (and not just legislative rights) for women using men as a reference point in some specific areas (i) feminists are not always using men as a reference, they simply want more adequate conditions for women (ii) many feminists feel unhappy about the conditions and rights applicable to men in society, but may feel that their cause should be championed by someone with a greater interest in and awareness of the deficiencies pertaining to those rights and conditions.

You come on here again and again and again and insists that feminism = gender equality without any reference to gender, and there is no indication whatever of anybody calling themselves a feminist using that interpretation on here.

Why are you still doing it?

Are you just going to keep on doing it regardless?

I've asked feminists numerous times what is more important under feminist principles, increasing female rights or gender equality?

None have answered the question so you can see why I would think gender equality is the goal since it also states that it is the goal on wiki.

I will ask you.

What is more important to feminists, gender equality or increasing female rights?

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 04:53PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is more important to feminists, gender equality or increasing female rights?

The reason you don't get an answer is your question is flawed.

It's a false dichotomy.

They could be of equal importance, or they could be one in the same.

Micky Dolenz · 17-02-2012 05:04PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I've asked feminists numerous times what is more important under feminist principles, increasing female rights or gender equality?

None have answered the question so you can see why I would think gender equality is the goal since it also states that it is the goal on wiki.

I will ask you.

What is more important to feminists, gender equality or increasing female rights?

You have been going in circles a while now.A womens movement group want more rights in certain areas. What's the problem there?

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 05:05PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is more important to feminists, gender equality or increasing female rights?

The reason you don't get an answer is your question is flawed.

It's a false dichotomy.

They could be of equal importance, or they could be one in the same.

It's a valid question.

If a feminist had a choice of two actions where 1 increased female rights but made the situation less equal or action 2 which made the situation more equal but didn't increase female rights which should the feminist of integrity choose?

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 05:07PM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I've asked feminists numerous times what is more important under feminist principles, increasing female rights or gender equality?

None have answered the question so you can see why I would think gender equality is the goal since it also states that it is the goal on wiki.

I will ask you.

What is more important to feminists, gender equality or increasing female rights?

You have been going in circles a while now.A womens movement group want more rights in certain areas. What's the problem there?

No problem if it brings closer equality.

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 05:08PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's a valid question.

If a feminist had a choice of two actions where 1 increased female rights but made the situation less equal or action 2 which made the situation more equal but didn't increase female rights which should the feminist of integrity choose?

It's not a valid question.

You're framing it so there are only two possible outcomes neither of which accurately represent their position or intent.

"Would you rather have sex with your mother or your father?"

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 05:12PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's a valid question.

If a feminist had a choice of two actions where 1 increased female rights but made the situation less equal or action 2 which made the situation more equal but didn't increase female rights which should the feminist of integrity choose?

It's not a valid question.

You're framing it so there are only two possible outcomes neither of which accurately represent their position or intent.

"Would you rather have sex with your mother or your father?"

If I had to choose it woul be my mother, it's the least bad situation.

Which action should a feminist choose? Ie which is more in alignment with their goals?

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 05:16PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Which action should a feminist choose?

Which brings us back to the point there are many different types of feminists.

Ie which is more in alignment with their goals?

Which brings us back to the question being a false dichotomy and intentionally framed.

If I had to choose it woul be my mother, it's the least bad situation.

Would it be fair to say you want to sleep with your mother?

No.

So from that question I have learned nothing about you.

That is the problem with your question.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 05:22PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Which brings us back to the question being a false dichotomy.

Indeed. Would a feminist prefer Hitler or Stalin?

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 05:24PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Which action should a feminist choose?

Which brings us back to the point there are many different types of feminists.

Ie which is more in alignment with their goals?

Which brings us back to the question being a false dichotomy and intentionally framed.

If I had to choose it woul be my mother, it's the least bad situation.

Would it be fair to say you want to sleep with your mother?

No.

So from that question I have learned nothing about you.

That is the problem with your question.

You learn that I value nOt having sex with my father more than my mother.

Likewise my question determines whether you value increasing female rights or gender equality more?

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 05:24PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Which action should a feminist choose?

Which brings us back to the point there are many different types of feminists.

Ie which is more in alignment with their goals?

Which brings us back to the question being a false dichotomy and intentionally framed.

If I had to choose it woul be my mother, it's the least bad situation.

Would it be fair to say you want to sleep with your mother?

No.

So from that question I have learned nothing about you.

That is the problem with your question.

You learn that I value nOt having sex with my father more than my mother.

Likewise my question determines whether you value increasing female rights or gender equality more?

smash · 17-02-2012 05:25PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. Would a feminist prefer Hitler or Stalin?

Kitler! I've heard they're cat people!

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 05:29PM

smash wrote: »

Kitler! I've heard they're cat people!

Can't stand cats.

opps there goes another stereotype about lesbian feminists :eek:

PrincessLola · 17-02-2012 05:30PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is more important to feminists, gender equality or increasing female rights?

Your question is childish to the extreme. Feminism's goal is to promote rights for women so they can be on level with men. female rights leads to increased equality.

You want to know why there was never a 'masculist' movement? Because men never needed one in the same way women did. Men ran the show for generations. That isn't a politaically incorrect thing to say thats the truth.

Seachmall · 17-02-2012 05:31PM

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You learn that I value nOt having sex with my father more than my mother.

Sure, but it's not of any importance or relevance to the real world.

Thus it's a worthless question.

Presenting an ultimatum and forcing someone to pick one choice, knowing that choice doesn't represent anything about their position, is not a question worth asking.

And the danger of giving an answer is someone might mistake that answer as if it's actually meaningful, which is perfect reason not to answer the ludicrous question.

Likewise my question determines whether you value increasing female rights or gender equality more?

Do you want to know what a feminists position is, one they actively strive to achieve, or do you want to know what they'd do in extreme circumstances with only the 2 options you provide?

yawha · 17-02-2012 05:31PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In male circumcision the foreskin is removed. Although I have read and heard debates as to whether this makes the penis more or less sensitive no one has ever claimed it results in no sensation.

You lose 100% of the sexually nerve endings which are present in the foreskin. There's obviously less sensitivity. I think the negative effects are often played down due to not wanting to hurt the feelings of those men who are circumcised.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So-called female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris. That is akin to removing the head of a man's penis - not just the foreskin. The head of the penis and the clitoris have the same number of nerve endings. It certainly could never be compared to removing an eyelid but it could be compared to castration - which is what it is.

No, it doesn't always actually. FGM or "Female Circumcision" refers to a whole range of various weird procedures where random bits of female genitals are mutilated. All forms are absolutely deplorable and detestable, but I hear people claim that the most extreme form involving the complete removal of the clitoris and sewing shut of the vagina is the only form practiced, which is just not true. There are forms which are no more extreme than male circumcision (e.g. removal of the clitoral hood, homologous to the foreskin), and there are much worse forms. They all get treated the same though. A parent would not be allowed to request that a surgeon remove a tiny bit of her daughter's labia for religious reasons, for example.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I cannot accept the premise that male circumcision - usually performed on babies with a local anaesthetic can in anyway be compared to the invasive and barbaric mutilation that is performed in highly unsanitary conditions by non-medics on unsedated teenage girls.

You are correct. They really, really ought not to be compared. They are both ritualistic genital cutting, but the context surrounding each and the general extremity of each is completely different. However, I do hate when the rebuttal to someone making an anti-male circumcision point by comparing with FGM refutes the point by trying to belittle male circumcision as something which isn't at all extreme or harmful.

Consider for a second that male circumcision is a religiously influenced genital cutting ritual which is accepted in the west to the point of it being sanitized and performed by smart, qualified surgeons, despite no rational medical reason to do so. That in itself is in its own category of disturbing IMO.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 05:38PM

yawha wrote: »

You lose 100% of the sexually nerve endings which are present in the foreskin. There's obviously less sensitivity. I think the negative effects are often played down due to not wanting to hurt the feelings of those men who are circumcised.

No, it doesn't always actually. FGM or "Female Circumcision" refers to a whole range of various weird procedures where random bits of female genitals are mutilated. All forms are absolutely deplorable and detestable, but I hear people claim that the most extreme form involving the complete removal of the clitoris and sewing shut of the vagina is the only form practiced, which is just not true. There are forms which are no more extreme than male circumcision (e.g. removal of the clitoral hood, homologous to the foreskin), and there are much worse forms. They all get treated the same though. A parent would not be allowed to request that a surgeon remove a tiny bit of her daughter's labia for religious reasons, for example.

You are correct. They really, really ought not to be compared. They are both ritualistic genital cutting, but the context surrounding each and the general extremity of each is completely different. However, I do hate when the rebuttal to someone making an anti-male circumcision point by comparing with FGM refutes the point by trying to belittle male circumcision as something which isn't at all extreme or harmful.

Consider for a second that male circumcision is a religiously influenced genital cutting ritual which is accepted in the west to the point of it being sanitized and performed by smart, qualified surgeons, despite no rational medical reason to do so. That in itself is in its own category of disturbing IMO.

I agree. My original point was in response to a posted article which made no distinction whatsoever between male circumcision (which means removal of foreskin but never removal of glans) and female so-called circumcision ( a category that includes severe mutilation). The article was framed in such a way as to imply they were always equatable.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 05:41PM

PrincessLola wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is more important to feminists, gender equality or increasing female rights?

Your question is childish to the extreme. Feminism's goal is to promote rights for women so they can be on level with men. female rights leads to increased equality.

You want to know why there was never a 'masculist' movement? Because men never needed one in the same way women did. Men ran the show for generations. That isn't a politaically incorrect thing to say thats the truth.

A1 in avoiding the question.

If the goal of feminism is to increase female rights to match men's then I dont believe feminists are hypocrites. I've been asking numerous time and reading wiki and I no one has said that's what feminism is.

The question isn't childish, it determines the hierarchy of goals.

And the question is not a false dichotomy as it was assumed its not a dichotomy. The whole point of the question is to clear up the hierarchy of values since they overlap.

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments