Is there sexism towards men in america?

[Morning Glory]

Feminism does not seek to end sexism.

Feminism seeks to end sexism against females.

There are clearly problems facing males which feminism does not seek to address, or (fallaciously) believes will be solved by focussing on women.

This isn't to say that ending sexism for women is bad...but feminism certainly isn't looking to end all sexism. It's a women's movement...for women.

See, the thing is, if feminism actually does succeed at ending sexism against women, then this should have a domino effect on the issues that affect men too, and I say this as a man because it just makes sense to me. If traditionally female positions are no longer seen as being below men, it will be much easier for men to get into those positions. For instance, nursing. Likewise, if a man wants to stay at home and rear the child, then that won't be seen as a choice that is beneath him just because it's a "woman's job." Men won't be expected to be stoic, impassive and emotionally stunted, because it won't be seen as "womanly."

If any of this is still true, then there is still sexism against women because the uniting trend in all of these circumstances is that these positions and roles are seen as being lesser because they are for women. The fact that, thus-far, you haven't seen a shift in the perception of men dealing with traditionally feminine problems or looking for traditionally feminine roles isn't proof that feminism doesn't work, it's proof that there's still a long way to go before the job is done. It's a symptom of a problem, not proof that the solution doesn't work.

EDIT: I realize that my wording may have been ambiguous in specifying my gender. I didn't mean to try and lend credence to my argument on base of gender, I just wanted to point out that as a member of the group in question here (men), I see the success of feminism and women's rights movements as being something that would have a net benefit for men too.

[Morning Glory]

See, the thing is, if feminism actually does succeed at ending sexism against women, then this should have a domino effect on the issues that affect men too, and I say this as a man because it just makes sense to me. If traditionally female positions are no longer seen as being below men, it will be much easier for men to get into those positions. For instance, nursing. Likewise, if a man wants to stay at home and rear the child, then that won't be seen as a choice that is beneath him just because it's a "woman's job." Men won't be expected to be stoic, impassive and emotionally stunted, because it won't be seen as "womanly."

If any of this is still true, then there is still sexism against women because the uniting trend in all of these circumstances is that these positions and roles are seen as being lesser because they are for women. The fact that, thus-far, you haven't seen a shift in the perception of men dealing with traditionally feminine problems or looking for traditionally feminine roles isn't proof that feminism doesn't work, it's proof that there's still a long way to go before the job is done. It's a symptom of a problem, not proof that the solution doesn't work.

This may be true for some fields, such as nursing as you mentioned.

Other fields, however, are affected very negatively by the sex-negative branch of feminism, hence the reason other professions - such as teaching - are actually becoming more female dominated.

Since such sex-negative feminists always cast males as the perpetrators and females as the victims, men who would go into a traditionally feminine career must be up to no good.

This requires a shift in general thinking which I have never seen the feminist movement as a whole advocate: that men might be just as innocent or guilty as women, and therefore deserve to be treated with the same level of suspicion as women are (which is to say, little to none unless there is a reason to).

I have to work in ten minutes so I can't write as much as I'd like, but I'd just like to point out that feminism isn't some monolithic entity that must have a uniform opinion. I'll expound in eight hours or so if the thread hasn't moved too far.

[Morning Glory]

Do you mean in a degrading, objectifying or derogatory manner?

How about the lovely gem "I wanna f*** you" by Akon?
Or maybe "Wayne on me" by Lil Wayne?

Please note that both of these songs contain strong language and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.

Well they are criticized for those songs as they should be. Katy Perry's piece of trash "Peacock" is very derogatory to men, yet we hear no criticism about that. To me thats sexism

I've never heard Peacock, so I can't really tell how it compares, but to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been any broad popular outcry against such wonderful ditties as "Bitch Came Back" by Theory of a Deadman, which is one of the most misogynist songs I've ever heard. Similarly, 99 Problems ended up being used in a... BF3, I think, promotion, rather than being condemned.

And, having just gone and listened to this song... I'm sorry, but it doesn't really strike me as that bad? And here's just an idea, but would it be possible that the greater reaction to songs that sexualize and objectify women is due to a greater sensitivity to it, due to the fact that it's utterly pervasive throughout society? I'll admit I don't have sources to back this up, but I'm fairly certain it's a fair assertion anyway that due to the much rarer nature of equivalent sexualization of men in most media, men aren't near as sensitive to it, and therefore a song about wanting to see some dude's dick is naturally not going to generate near as much of a backlash.

[Mushet]

The feminist movement wont deal with it because anyone who identifies as a feminist either hasn't considered the implications of the posistion, or is a straight up sexist.

You haven't had much exposure to actual feminists have you?

[Nansurium]

Absolutely there is. Its called affirmative action and hyper-masculinity.

[Natapoc]

Look... patriarchy doesn't hurt both genders. Patriarchy hurts females.

No. Patriarchy harms women the most but it also harms (some) men. In some ways it harms all men and all women.

It is true that patriarchy gives men "privilege" but that does not mean that it does not also cause some harm to men.

[Natapoc]

prostate cancer doesn't usually harm you even if it is common

Malignant prostate cancer is one of the fastest spreading cancers in existence.

Yeah that's some pretty bad "medical advice" to give on the internet.

Males should regularly check for both prostate and testicular cancer. Like any cancer: They can kill fast or they can kill slow but the sooner they are detected and treated the better the survival rates.

[Natapoc]

http://thefemitheist.blogspot.com/2012/04/castration-are-benefits-worth-risk.html

On an unrelated note, that website is pretty creepy. It's hard to tell whether they're serious or not.

Reviewing the YouTube channel? Yeah, I think she's serious. People generally don't put that much effort into being trolls, the figures she cites are commonly touted by "feminists" out to prove exactly what she seems to believe - that men are intrinsically violent and evil.

How do you guys even find these sites? lol

Another of "her" blog entries advocating international castration day (to replace fathers day)

Males of all ages will be brought to the public squares of their cities nude, to stand together in a circle, as they await castration by a woman known as "The Castrator", who will be a woman chosen from the public much like a juror.

Girls of all ages will attend, lining the streets to cheer and applaud the males as they join the rest of civilized society.

http://thefemitheist.blogspot.com/2012/ ... yself.html

This is obviously not the goal of feminism and has nothing to do with feminism at all.

I mean, of course all men should be castrated and forced to parade nude on the street. It just is not feminism to make them do so.

Just kidding of course! Men should not be castrated or forced to parade nude in the streets. Although, it would solve the claimed lack of funding for testicular cancer research.

This "lady" (if she is even really a female... I have doubts) is no less than a NAZI. Pretending "she" is a feminist of any kind is wrong.

After looking around a bit I'm pretty sure you'll find this "lady" is an anti feminist who is trying to "satire"

edit: Correction, she is not "no less than a NAZI" she is practically shouting siege hail from the rooftops!

She's 100% pure (semi organic) Nazi. Chemically treated for freshness.


"People, regardless of gender, who are born with either a mental disability or a physical disability, that is of such a degree it has been socially proven to hinder normal common functions, should not be allowed to suffer through a life of misery at the hands of care-takers and or sitters."

http://thefemitheist.blogspot.com/2012/ ... ciety.html

[Natapoc]

Can men be sexually harrassed?

of course.

Has any sane person ever indicated otherwise?

[Natapoc]

of course.

Has any sane person ever indicated otherwise?

Depends on your definition of "sane." It's certainly believed by the majority of our culture.

I don't believe that. Have you ever seen a study that backs it up?

[Natapoc]

of course.

Has any sane person ever indicated otherwise?

They tend to see men and boys as pussies if they report being harrassed by either male or female, unless it was an ugly person.

That's true and part of patriarchy. But that's not so much saying that males "can't be sexually harassed" as it is saying that "males should take every chance for sex they can get"

Luckily there has been a lot of progress lately in reducing such notions.

[Natapoc]

So I know this woman was already linked to before...but does anyone wish to join me in debating her and her ridiculous ideals of genocide?

People who base their world view on the irrational cannot be beaten in a debate. When one asserts ones views as correct because they are their views it is impossible to use logic or reason to persuade them of anything.

Just be glad that his/her views are such a small minority that he/she will never have real power.

Even speaking with them is pointless except for any humor value one may find in it.

[Natapoc]

Can't we all just get along and be nice to eachother? Can't we just treat eachother equally without judging eachother based on race, sex, ect?

Tahar Joblis, why are you so afraid of women? Women are not your enemy. Feminism is a movement for gender equality. It's not an anti man movement.

Yes there are people who are anti man just as there are people who are anti woman but why do you so badly want to be afraid of feminism?

Most of the things you blame feminism for have been part of the legal system forever and are called "patriarchy", the very thing REAL radical feminists want to get rid of.

Radical has "root" as it's meaning. Radicals want to solve the root of the problem. Radical feminists want to stop the very things you are complaining about. The very things you blame women for.

What I don't understand is how you can blame feminism for our messed up legal system when feminists have almost no power. Almost none of the people who write the laws are feminists.

So Tahar Joblis, let's all become feminists and try to get the people who write the laws to stop writing such sexist laws! Don't blame feminism for the acts of a few people who call themselves feminists either: It makes as little sense as blaming all men as individuals for every inconsistent and mean or cruel thing said by any man ever.

[Natapoc]

Can't we all just get along and be nice to each other?

That's what I asked.

Can't we just treat each other equally without judging eachother based on race, sex, ect?

That's what I - and pretty much everyone on the "men's rights" side, barring a few reactionaries trying to co-opt the movement - believe.

But it's a long way to go.

Tahar Joblis, why are you so afraid of women?

I'm not.

Women are not your enemy.

They aren't.

Feminism is a movement for gender equality.

It isn't. It's a movement for better opportunities for women, based on the idea that women are at an unfair disadvantage.

Gloria Steinem will say otherwise, but as much as I'd like her to be correct, her prescriptive definition does not match with what the feminist movement actually does.

It's not an anti man movement.

Some parts of it are, but mostly, it's just a "doesn't give a shit about men" movement.

Most of the things you blame feminism for have been part of the legal system forever and are called "patriarchy", the very thing REAL radical feminists want to get rid of.

I challenge you to name one thing I have blamed feminism for which has been part of the legal system forever.

One thing. Quote me blaming feminists for X, where X is something that has been part of the legal system forever.

Because I'm pretty damn sure I haven't.

Radical has "root" as it's meaning. Radicals want to solve the root of the problem. Radical feminists want to stop the very things you are complaining about. The very things you blame women for.

"Radical" feminists - as I already linked and sourced - fought against making statutory rape laws gender-neutral.

I'm pretty sure that's not working to stop the "very things I'm complaining about." The San Luis case would not have happened if the rapist followed the same "fifteen will get you twenty" rule that a male rapist would; she either would have kept mum or been in jail for the entire lifetime of the child she'd conceived (and therefore not the custodial parent). The "radical feminist" crowd want to say it wasn't rape at all, just fuck the fifteen year old and bill him for the rest of his natural life for having been an easily manipulated fifteen year old.

What I don't understand is how you can blame feminism for our messed up legal system when feminists have almost no power. Almost none of the people who write the laws are feminists.

Bullshit. Feminists have political power - very real political power.

What you mean to say is that almost none of the people who write the laws are women.

One or more individuals who claim to be feminists may have done something you disagree with. That does not mean that you should allow these individuals to redefine feminism.

Feminism seeks gender equality.

Feminism has a definition. Radical feminism has a definition. Any action which does not fit that definition is by definition not feminist.

People who call themselves feminists can act in ways that do not further the goals of feminism.

If you don't like the fact that men are discouraged from being nurses (for example) by our culture (although not by nurses... female nurses LOVE male nurses generally speaking)

Then become a feminist. Join a feminist group and campaign for gender equality.

I feel like one problem may be that your experience with feminists is actually your experience with internet trolls and media celebrities on TV and the internet.

Try to meet some real actual feminists (the real, living breathing ones... you know... outside!). You may be surprised.

[Natapoc]

Natapoc? I'm going to ask you bluntly. Are you retracting your accusation, or are you meeting my challenge? Please choose one of those two options. Moving along and ignoring it is rude, facetious, or both.

No Tahar Joblis, I am simply not interested in having the type of debate or discussion you wish to insist I have with you. At least, not right now. You do not own my time and you have no right to demand a response.

[Natapoc]

No Tahar Joblis, I am simply not interested in having the type of debate or discussion you wish to insist I have with you.

Ah. You're instead interested in having the sort of discussion where you don't even provide evidence that I have said what you've claimed I've said? Look, if you want to have a snowball's odds bobbing by the banks of the Phlegethon of convincing me of anything, you're going to have to be willing to back up at least your most aggressive and outlandish claims; and if you're just grandstanding, don't expect me to stick to your preferred script while you do so.

At least, not right now. You do not own my time and you have no right to demand a response.

Funny, you had plenty of time to ramble on and throw a fit about me calling you out for bad argumentative techniques. Oh, I don't have a right to a response. It's just very rude to give me a facetious response full of fallacy while ducking my rather prominent and central request.

Not really. I get to decide how I spend my free time. Thanks. Doing what you asked sounds very unfun to me. Thanks.

Doing the necessary research would take time and I'm quite certain from previous discussions that nothing I show you will have a chance of changing your mind and I doubt you would even read it fairly (meaning attempt to understand the meaning)

Therefore I decided I did not want to participate in this thread anymore (looking for high quality unbias sources, ect). Thanks!

[Natapoc]

Feminism has the elimination of gender roles as a stated goal. You can shake you fist at the sky all you like, but the elimination of gender roles benefits both sexes and helps to prevent almost every problem anyone has listed throughout the thread.

The funny part is that so far we've never had even one single feminist argue against the importance of all the issues brought up. Every person who identifies as a feminist that is here to speak has explicitly said the opposite, in fact. If the majority of feminists do not believe the things we're saying, why aren't any of them involved in the discussion? Is there a magic barrier around NSG that only allows in feminists who care about men?

They're not actually feminists.* Stop calling a spade a shovel and call them what they are: equalists.

*When they go around saying stuff like that. Feminists are only about, by definition, women's rights. That is not to say they cannot also be equalists.

You are the one who has chosen to define feminism as woman's rights. Feminists do not limit themselves to your definition. I don't know of any group that uses your definition.

You are the one advocating for feminism to be about "woman's rights"(whatever that means)

As gloria stillwell said when asked to define feminism:

"GS: I would still go along with the dictionary definition of someone, which can be a woman or a man, who believes in the full social, economic, political equality of women and men. To say "radical feminist" is only a way of indicating that I believe the sexual caste system is a root of race and class and other divisions. But whether or not one believes that, one may act exactly the same in the present, in the short run. "

http://www.feminist.com/resources/artsp ... gloria.htm

In other words, feminists are what you are calling "equalists".

The entire argument of most of you so called "men's rights" people relies on you redefining feminism in such a way that feminists don't agree with.

[Natapoc]

You are the one who has chosen to define feminism as woman's rights. Feminists do not limit themselves to your definition. I don't know of any group that uses your definition.

You are the one advocating for feminism to be about "woman's rights"(whatever that means)

As gloria stillwell said when asked to define feminism:

"GS: I would still go along with the dictionary definition of someone, which can be a woman or a man, who believes in the full social, economic, political equality of women and men. To say "radical feminist" is only a way of indicating that I believe the sexual caste system is a root of race and class and other divisions. But whether or not one believes that, one may act exactly the same in the present, in the short run. "

http://www.feminist.com/resources/artsp ... gloria.htm

In other words, feminists are what you are calling "equalists".

The entire argument of most of you so called "men's rights" people relies on you redefining feminism in such a way that feminists don't agree with.

Have a look again.

a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women

You gave me this definition. This is purely about women's rights, specifically making them equal.

sense of "advocacy of women's rights

Again, your source and totally about women's rights. This one doesn't even mention equality. And as a refresher for observers this was only a few days back.

The doctrine — and the political movement based on it — that women should have the same economic, social, and political rights as men.

Another of yours, again all about "teh womenz."

A movement for granting women political, social, and economic equality with men.

This is getting quite predictable. Another of your definitions. As can be expected by all except the dense or pattern ignorant, this is about women and their rights. Like three of your other sources it also wants them to be equal with those of men.

Today's definition I wouldn't trust as much as any of your other ones for the simple reason that they are from sources whose business it is to define things and today's is just one person making the same mistake as many NSG "feminists."*

My source, is arguably the source for definitions and it agrees with five out of six of your sources. In fact, it's, in my eye, the source.

the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

To conclude, feminism is about women's rights. Most definitions agree that it advocates said rights based on the belief that the genders should be equal. Some just think it's about women's rights.

*They are often also feminists but simply more interested in equalism than feminism.

Every definition of feminism has the same meaning. You are simply choosing to ignore the meaning because you wish to confirm your bias against feminism.

Tell me, if a movement wishes to give women equal rights to men (what you are calling woman's rights), and let's say this movement achieves that is there some third uncounted gender that exists such that this would not result in equality?

Of course not. If women are equal to men then men are equal to women. You seem to be confusing things.

All feminists are interested in equalism. It is impossible for a woman to be equal to a man without a man also being equal to a woman. It's what being equal means.

If A= B then B = A

If A = B but B does not equal A then you have a fundamental problem with your logic.

Let A = Woman
Let B = Man

Feminists want A to have equal rights with B.

This means that the goal is for the rights of A to be equal to the rights of B.

This means that by the fundamental properties of logic that feminism seeks equal rights for men and women and women and men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics)I really don't understand the confusion.

[Natapoc]

[

Every definition of feminism has the same meaning. You are simply choosing to ignore the meaning because you wish to confirm your bias against feminism.

Tell me, if a movement wishes to give women equal rights to men (what you are calling woman's rights), and let's say this movement achieves that is there some third uncounted gender that exists such that this would not result in equality?

Of course not. If women are equal to men then men are equal to women. You seem to be confusing things.

All feminists are interested in equalism. It is impossible for a woman to be equal to a man without a man also being equal to a woman. It's what being equal means.

If A= B then B = A

If A = B but B does not equal A then you have a fundamental problem with your logic.

Let A = Woman
Let B = Man

Feminists want A to have equal rights with B.

This means that the goal is for the rights of A to be equal to the rights of B.

This means that by the fundamental properties of logic that feminism seeks equal rights for men and women and women and men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics)I really don't understand the confusion.

Just because A is B, doesn't mean B is A. All dogs are mammals, not all mammals are dogs. Feminists want to advance the rights of women, most feminists want to do this because they want equality but this is not true of every feminist. Feminists want to advance women, most do this with the aim of equality and also wish to address areas of male disadvantage (with caveats about priorities etc) but again that's not true of all.

All equalists are feminists, but not all feminists are equalists.

(As for 'third gender/sex' people and how feminists have reacted to them, transgenderism and all that side of things, that's a whole other can of worms).

No. If A =B then B = A always. It's a fundamental identity. You don't need to believe me. Look it up. It's kinda basic. Break it and the whole world falls apart.

What you MEAN to say is that if A is a member of set B then not all members of set B need be equal to A.

You're confusing equality (identity) with set membership.

Feminism strives for equal rights for women and men. This is the definition of feminism. It's what feminism is. It does not matter if you like that or not.

[Natapoc]

No. If A =B then B = A always. It's a fundamental identity. You don't need to believe me. Look it up. It's kinda basic. Break it and the whole world falls apart.

What you MEAN to say is that if A is a member of set B then not all members of set B need be equal to A.

You're confusing equality (identity) with set membership.

Feminism strives for equal rights for women and men. This is the definition of feminism. It's what feminism is. It does not matter if you like that or not.

Except it's not, feminism is the advocation of women's rights. Literally by definition, although some definitions propose stopping at the point where both are equal, which will never happen as in some areas women are ahead. And feminism, by definition cannot address that as it is all about increasing.

Only according to you. You don't get to set your own definition of a term. All standard definitions of feminism are about equal rights for women and men. Giving women equal rights with men. This has been shown multiple times in this thread but you persist in your insistance on using your own definition of feminism which feminists don't use.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Sexism is a two way street, so yes, there is sexism towards men. There is also sexism toward women, and it's wrong both ways. People need to stop looking down on women and underestimating our abilities, but they also need to stop expecting men to be tough all the time.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I'm not against an honest study and assesment of how certain groups are treated unfairly, so long as it's done in a context of recognizing our collective, common humanity. This very rarely happens in identity politics. I'd be interested in seeing a historically successful instance of rage and militancy on part of a "victim group" and guilt and shame on part of an "oppressor" group actually leading to lasting equality and reconciliation.

The rage and militancy is necessary in the early stages of a struggle for equality. Once you get closer to equality, it's not so helpful, but it sometimes takes people a while to calm down.

[Nazi Flower Power]

There's a difference though. Women are biologically engineered to take care of the children, do I don't think that expecting them to do what they're made for is particularly discriminatory, and women having lower salaries is generally crossed out of the equation because men normally have to pay more money towards things such as bills, and because women get so much freedom and so many gifts from men it normally doesn't even matter.

Women always want equal rights until the rights are completely equal, then they expect to fall back on tired old double standards such as "Oh no, a man can't hit a woman, but a woman can hit a man"

Bullshit.

First of all, men are perfectly capable of caring for children. I'm glad my dad was the stay at home parent in our family because it would not have worked very well the other way around.

Secondly, your salary is not determined by how many bills you have to pay. It's supposed to be determined by the amount of work you do.

It's also not a biological fact that men have to pay more toward bills. When I lived in a shared apartment, everyone paid an equal share of the bills, even though some of my roommates were male. If you're talking about boyfriends and girlfriends or husbands and wives, that's up to each couple to decide how they want to manage their household finances. They could perfectly well split the bills equally or use a shared bank account. Fighting one form of discrimination with another form of discrimination does not fix the problem.

And finally, do you have any proof that women are more responsible than men for double standards like "don't hit a girl" or "the guy should pay for dinner on a date"? I've had a guy literally push my hands away from the cashier to stop me from paying for stuff I wanted to buy with my own money. You can't blame women for things men do without asking if we want them to.

[Nazi Flower Power]

There's something resembling a point buried in some related facts. Allow me to find it for you.

In the US, women control 80% of spending. Between gifts, alimony, child support, division of labor within marriages, et cetera, the general model is that men make money while women spend it.

Which is ... interesting.

None of that changes the fact that it's unfair for women to be paid less.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Just like male teen suicide is 3.7 times higher than female teen suicide, yet if you look at hot-lines and advertisements, they are mainly directed at women. So the point of discussion is why this is.

First of all, most of the advertisements and hotlines are not gender-specific. I have seen stuff in the media or my high school health class that dealt with teenage suicide and showed boys struggling with suicidal tendencies. There certainly seems to be more awareness of male suicide than, for example, female-on-male sexual assault.

Secondly, women are more likely to attempt suicide. Male suicide attempts are more likely to succeed, but they want to get the attention of anyone who is planning to attempt suicide.