Is there sexism towards men in america?

[Saiwania]

There is certain forms of sexism against men and women in America, but I'll admit as much- I don't lose much sleep over it. It isn't an issue that has a high priority for me, I mostly accept it as just a part of life to deal with. Similar to how there will always be racism. It can be minimized, but not completely eliminated.

[Sanguinum Maria]

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

Tell me something, as in a patriarchal society, men are usually forced into the armed forces, if I were born male, and were forced into service against my will, and, against my will, was killed for a cause I did not believe in, would this not be harm?

There are a multitude of ways in which a patriarchal society harms men. "With great power comes great responsibility". Many men don't want that responsibility, and would gladly give up that power, and yet, both are forced upon them against their will.

[Sanguinum Maria]

3. Feminists aren't what everyone goes and judges them as. Yeah, some of us are feminazi's, but those, from my experiences, are people who have an emotional experience (like rape or domestic abuse) behind them fueling them, and it hurts for them to even hear someone being called a bitch. Just like gays who dislike the word: fa**ot, because it hurts them and they don't want to hear it at all. But for the most part, the non-radical feminists are pretty peaceful, and it's less about hating men, and more about empowering women. And I don't see what's so wrong with that. Even if I was a guy I wouldn't see what's so wrong with that.

The problem I have with Feminism is that, I see no logical reasoning why we should focus on the problems of one group over another, which is what Feminism does. It focuses on improving the lives of women, while ignoring the problems that face men. It proposes to solve sexism...with it's own form of sexism.

And I know someone will say "but if we solve women's problems, then mens problems will be solved too!" But, sorry, I don't buy that. I see no logical reasoning as to why solving my problems will somehow make my friend's problems magically go away. It doesn't work like that. When proactive harm is done to a group of people, only proactive solutions will change their status.

Rather than focusing solely on the women's movement, which only furthers a divide between the sexes, I should instead find myself supporting movements which seek to improve the lives of all people, regardless of sex, economic status, race, ect. Solve sexism, not sexism towards any particular sex. And that's why I don't support feminism.

[Sanguinum Maria]

All jokes about rape are acceptable.

Unacceptable **
But there's another thread for that.

Pray tell, why should humor be regulated? So you don't find them enjoyable...why should other people have to not find them enjoyable?

All jokes of any kind are "acceptable". Whether you as an individual like them or not is another story...but please...don't force others to abide by what you say is funny and not funny.

[Sanguinum Maria]

If there was no sexism, I'd agree with you.

If there was no sexism, this discussion wouldn't be taking place, and you'd have no ability to agree or disagree with me on it.

But there's a group for everyone. That's just the way it is. This is like saying that there shouldn't be a gay rights group because think about the straight people and all their problems. I don't agree with that. And sure, there are feminists who hate men, but at no point are we trying to take away mens' social or political rights and replacing them with our own. We're asking that we get paid the same money that men do, not more. We're asking that our issues as women come to the surface and get discussed and fixed, not that anyone else's gets pushed down.

I'm not saying that many, or even most feminists are "men opposers". I agree with your statement that they are simply looking for equal rights.

But, take the statement you made about homosexual advocacy groups. I don't agree with those either. I don't agree with simply dividing up everyone into their own little set of problems, and having people and organizations cater specifically to them. In my mind, that's just creating more of a division, in order to try and solve a division. Feminism seeks to solve a division between the sexes...by focusing on the division. I don't see that as being right. It's like affirmative actions programs; fighting racism with economic benefits to particular races...which is just more racism in it's own way. I think Affirmative action should focus, not on particular races, but rather, the poor in general (which solves the problems those races are facing). Likewise, I don't agree with feminism, because I don't agree with focusing in fighting a bad thing by utilizing your own form of that bad thing. And that's all feminism is. It's (good intentioned) sexism, just as affirmative action is (good intentioned) racism, or movements to support particular sexual orientations are (good intentioned) sexual elitism. The same thing can be said about anything in my mind. Fighting violence with violence, fighting bigotry with bigotry, ect. It just doesn't work. You can't fight corruption with corruption. It just leads to even more corruption, not less.

I've never met anyone who's said that, but the fight against female oppression is not the fight against male oppression, if that makes sense. You can't fight all the battles. It just doesn't work like that. Sure, in an ideal society, there would be a system where people could fight and support complete equality without having to choose the ones that mean the most to them that they can take a stand on. But we don't live in an ideal society -- far from it.

I've met a few people who've argued that female problems and male problems are somehow interconnected. And that solving one's problems will solve the others. But it's a completely fallacious argument. For instance, take a look at what feminism has achieved in terms of encouraging women to join the work force. Spectacular, right? Except, whilst now we have more women who desire to work, the opposite (which supposedly is an intertwined issue) did not occur; it's still socially stigmatized for fathers to not work, and be stay at home parents.

I would have to disagree that we can't focus on all the problems. I think it's very possible, in the same manner that we encourage people to not be sexist towards women, just stop being sexist period. In fact, if anything, doing so would be more effective, because it would destroy all these pseudo-logical arguments that sexual equality seeks to oppress or ruin one group of people's lives. You go to a man and, instead of preaching how bad women have it, how bad people in general have it (which includes hi, as by nature of him being male), I bet you he'd be a lot more happy to support sexual equality movements.

But it wasn't the person sitting at home saying "I think that everyone is equal and we should just forget sexism and racism because I think that everyone is equal and we should just solve them all together" living in an ideal society that ever changed anything. The feminists who marched in the streets and held up signs and yelled and screamed were the ones who changed the voting laws. We need the radical feminists (I dislike the term "feminazi") to get something done, just like we need the radicals in any fight for equality.

I agree feminism has done a lot for women, don't get me wrong. It's just...that's my point. It's done things for women, and not men. And I just can't support an ideology that's nature is it's own form of sexism.

And before it's said, social movements are different fro solving "real" problems (and I use the word real very loosely there). for instance, when it comes to, say, improving third world nations, yeah, there's no way you can have an organization large enough to handle the economic needs of assisting all third world nations in the world. But when it comes to social movements, which is simply a matter of changing people's attitudes, I see no reason why there's some kind of "need" to have separate organizations for separate sub-groups of people who face a common problem (by sub-groups, I mean, you have the group of people who are affected by sexism, and the sub-grioups are males and females. You have a group of people who are affected by bigotry towards sexual orientaion, and the sub-groups are people such as homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, ect.).

[Sanguinum Maria]

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?

[Sanguinum Maria]

By people? Yes, especially extremist feminists. By the government? No, the government is not sexist towards men.

I'm sorry, what?

Forcing all men to sign up for the draft isn't the work of the government? Or is it not sexist?

Not giving men the same opportunities as women to abdicate all rights and responsibilities towards a child is not the work of the government? Or is it not sexist?

The government allowing insurance companies to charge men more is not the work of the government? Or is it not sexist?

The government setting up programs to assist women in education and obtaining work is not the work of the government? Or is it not sexist?


I could go on...but I think (hopefully) you get my point.

[Sanguinum Maria]

Actually, biologically, when you get down to it males and females are nearly the same, with very minor physical and psychological differences. The differences being so incredibly minute in reality they aren't worth mentioning...unless you like trying to over-exaggerate them to further divisions between the sexes...which is what the world currently does.

[Sanguinum Maria]

Actually, biologically, when you get down to it males and females are nearly the same, with very minor physical and psychological differences. The differences being so incredibly minute in reality they aren't worth mentioning...unless you like trying to over-exaggerate them to further divisions between the sexes...which is what the world currently does.

"Similar" does not mean "Same", though I see and acknowledge your point as valid. While the differences aren't nearly as big as they relatively could be, they are enough to divide an entire race, meaning that they have to be addressed or you get arguments like this one that are 9 pages long.

They are only "big enough" to divide the sexes if we emphasize them. You're missing the point. Hell, we could create a division because of hair colour! But we see hair colour as something that's such a pathetically silly difference, we might as well say we are the "same".

So too it is with being male and female. the differences are so minute at birth, really, we might as well say they are the same. The only reason people like to say men and women are different is because cultures try to emphasize the minor differences, to distort them into "big" differences.

[Sanguinum Maria]

Yes, sexism exists and feminism seeks to end it. All of it.

Yes, men die sooner, for a whole bunch of reasons. Feminism seeks to address many of them. For example, part of men have more heart issues is because of work stress. When women started being a large part of the work force, the amount of heart issues went up accordingly. The more men and women have common expectations with respect to child-rearing, work and care for the home, the more equality we'll see in life expectancy and health outcomes.

Yes, there are still inequalities in the interactions between men and women. Feminism seeks to end this. Feminism stands directly against the idea that men and women should maintain standard gender roles when courting and engaged in relationships. Feminism as a movement holds that how men and women relate to one another should be determined by the individuals involved. No more. No less.

Yes, there are laws out there that seek to protect the victims of sexual assault. It's amusing that some people posting here are presenting this as favoring women. The necessary implication, of course, is that women are grossly more likely to be the victims than the perpetrator. Oddly enough, the law actually favors the perpetrator. Always. That's what innocent until proven guilty does. Most attempts to protect the victims is in recognition of the necessary imbalance our legal system creates when it comes to crimes where the victim is afraid of the accused. Now, of course, there are stigmas associated with accusations of crimes. These are social stigmas, not legal ones. And those stigmas, unfortunately, cannot be helped. There are stigmas if you're accused of rape. There are stigmas if you're accused of murder. That's the nature of being accused, unfortunately. There is recourse if you can prove that you were maliciously accused. But then, the person who accused you is not being accused and has the same presumption of innocence. Funny how that works, eh?

And, yes, there is a pay gap. It's not 30% anymore, when normalized for other factors. However, it does exist. It's constantly verified. There is still discrimination against women in leadership roles. For example, how many female Presidents have we had? How many VPs? What percentage of Senators are women? What percentage of Representatives? What percentage of Governors? And so on. It should be just about 50%. It's not. Why? Well, there are lots of reasons, but the fact is that women ARE not equal in the work force.

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.

[Sanguinum Maria]

They are only "big enough" to divide the sexes if we emphasize them. You're missing the point. Hell, we could create a division because of hair colour! But we see hair colour as something that's such a pathetically silly difference, we might as well say we are the "same".

So too it is with being male and female. the differences are so minute at birth, really, we might as well say they are the same. The only reason people like to say men and women are different is because cultures try to emphasize the minor differences, to distort them into "big" differences.

Why the differences are there was not what I was discussing.

Nor I. There are minute differences between makes and females. The only reason people consider them so big (and therefore, worth mentioning) is because society emphasizes them in order to drive the sexes apart...just like one could do about hair colour.

My point is, any difference, if emphasized enough, is "big enough to divide a race". That doesn't make the differences worth mentioning. If I have blue eyes and you have green eyes, but otherwise, we are the same, is it truly fallacious of me to say we are the same, simply because of a minute, worthless difference? On the whole, we are the same.

So too is it with males and females. To go around shouting "men and women are different!" when, clearly, whatever differences we have are so ridiculously minute and unimportant, is just silly and unnecessary. It's a tad fallacious, in that it makes out our differences to be something of importance, or that we are so very different...when that's not the case.

[Sanguinum Maria]

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.

See, that's where the jump in logic is. There is no logical reason to assume such a domino effect. There's no reason to believe that solving the issues of one people group will somehow solve the issues of another people group. And in fact, this is already proving to be true. Take for instance, feminisms success in getting women out in the work force. Women are now encouraged to live how they please, and it's acceptable for them to go out and seek work, or to be a spouse who stays at home.

But the opposite has not occurred. It is still not socially acceptable for a man to be a stay at home spouse. IT's looked down upon, and is downright mocked in some circles of society and entertainment.


There's absolutely no logical reason to assume that solving the troubles of one people group will magically solve the problems of another. It just doesn't work like that.

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."

The only problem is...this isn't true. We see women gaining equal rights...but this, what you mention, isn't happening.

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.

That's not true at all. If, going back to the homecarer example, women are encouraged to be anything they want, including this, but men are not encouraged to care for the home, women have achieved in gaining equal rights with men. However, men will still be looked down upon for not fulfilling their "role", that is, to work. Caring for the home wouldn't be seen as "woman's work", however, work would be seen as "what a man is supposed to do".


It's entirely evidence of feminism's failure to solve men's issues. When women's rights and freedoms increase, but the opposite effect for men doesn't occur, clearly feminism did not address the issue properly; which makes sense entirely, because it's not designed to address the problems of males. It's designed to address the problems of females only.

[SD_Film Artists]

To the OP: Yes, there is sexism towards men. But there is more sexism towards women.

The answer is quite simple.

Indeed, I'm not sure why this thread is still going.

[Seatopia]

I cannot stop laughing at the pure absurdity of this question. Is a misogynist nation sexist against....men? Seriously? LMAO!!!

[Sedikal]

There is, I've never run into much sexism though. But then again my views on male female roles are more "traditional" so I may just not notice it.

[Sentinel XV]

Of course there is. The Feminazis have gone from being about equality to special rights! It's why we need a Sexist League to fight women who vote, hold nontraditional roles, and are non-college/unattractive lesbians!

Sexist League away!

Signal the others! HI HOOOOOOOOO, SEXIST LEAGUE!

To the oversized Ford F1-50 with dual tires, extended cab, 50" rims, and deluxe entertainment package!

WE CONVENE AT DENNY'S!

[Shard_Head]

ahahahah what

Ever heard of child support?

Christ that argument makes me weep for mankind.

[Shard_Head]

Christ that argument makes me weep for mankind.

A poorly stated argument to be sure, but not wholly incorrect.

We do not force women to become legal parents against their will, even after their biological role is completed.

However, men are forced to become legal parents solely on the mother's say-so, and must prove within a very limited time window that he is not the biological father. He is presumed 'guilty' until proven innocent, and if that is not done within a limited time frame, he must remain a legal parent even if he is not the biological one.

Sorry this isn't an avenue of discussion i'm interested in exploring within this thread beyond a post of exasperation

[Shard_Head]

Sorry this isn't an avenue of discussion i'm interested in exploring within this thread beyond a post of exasperation

Very well, but do know the original statement is correct:

We do not force mothers to become legal parents, but we do force fathers, and even those who are not fathers if they are untimely in proving their innocence. Guilt is assumed.

I understand that you hold this to be true.

[Shard_Head]

I understand that you hold this to be true.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

This has been well-sourced.

I understand that you hold this to be true.

[Shard_Head]

I understand that you hold this to be true.

When it comes to application of law, I hold true to what the courts have found to be true.

It's a good practice for anyone, really.

I understand that you hold this to be true.

[Shard_Head]

Really, is simply spamming the same response your only argument?

There is no argument here. You missed the part where I said I wasn't interested in having one?

It is, however, only polite to recognise that someone is saying something to oneself.

[Shard_Head]

I don't think you do.

I'm sure you can guess the response to this kind of thing by now.

[Shard_Head]

I'm sure you can guess the response to this kind of thing by now.

The concept of a discussion forum is that when you no longer wish to discuss something, you stop posting in the thread and become a passive reader until something comes up which elicits a legitimate response.

I like to maintain a polite manner so i'll have to disagree with your assertion on this expected behaviour. Perhaps this is an area of discussion for another thread though. It could be interesting.

[Shard_Head]

If you are the OP it is considered polite to stick around, departing after the first page is generally the sign of a troll thread.

I'm not the OP.