Agrippina wrote:

Skinny said:
Boys and men don’t qualify for that same respect that they’re being asked to extend to others in society.

I spoke to one of someone about this today. He agrees. He says that dating is a minefield because of the sexism levelled at men. On the one hand if you approach a woman and ask for a date, you'll get "I won't sleep with you," as an answer, as if the implication of the request for her company is a request for sex. Or, if you get to know her and take her out a couple of times without making some sort of sexual approach, you get "are you gay?"

He says you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I sympathize with him, and so I hope I'm not dismissing his concerns when I say that it isn't true. I know that factual statements are conflated with value judgments, in cheerful defiance of Hume, but it isn't true.

What makes it untrue is a non-linear relationship between confidence and reaction. An extremely confident man can do a lot of things and not have any trouble. It's not that he'll simply bulldoze his way out of troubles; it's that he will not be considered untoward at all.

A man who is extremely shy can stay out of trouble, but only if he doesn't try.

It's in the middle where men have problems. They're confident but not quite confident enough. They're, like Gary Burghoff but not George Clooney.

Most men are in the middle somewhere, are they not?

Also I do believe that culture plays a role. I'm not going to go into a long description of my society but I do think that US, Europe and Australia are more liberal when it comes to this subject. I think the women are more liberated and that older men are less sexist. The confidence thing when it comes to approaching women could be easier when women aren't fighting the perception that young men aren't as sexist as their fathers who still believe that they have to protect their daughters against all men who they tell them are predators. Here the level of both sexism and liberalism is definitely related to people's particular cultural mores.

epepke wrote:I don't have any more recent anecdotes that are just as good. This is partly because, at that point, I pretty much gave up. Making me and other men give up was probably the purpose of the treatment, but truly, at some point one stops banging one's head against a brick wall. This is the first in a long time I've talked about it at a level beyond mere snark and blowing off steam, but that's probably because the Elevatorgate bruhaha has made me reassess my belief that regressive (AKA radical) feminism left the scene around 1995.

The result of this is a kind of meta-sexism that prevents talking about sexism against men, especially in mixed company. Now, I am glad this isn't happening in this thread, and I am glad that there are some women here who I don't think are about to do that, but this is a rarity, and I'm not sure how it will last. Maybe we're going to have yet another all-time greatest season of bullshit. I feel a lot like Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen when he had to go into the leech-infested swamp for the second time, but it's gotta be done.

I'm really glad you had the time to elaborate on this, as it now shows us where you are coming from, just as many others of us have done.

And if this is a rarity—well then, I think we've all got to work extra hard to make sure it lasts.

There has to be this kind of honest dialogue, the ability to call each other to account, to actually clarify what we're saying—and perhaps more importantly, what we're hearing. So that these misunderstandings can be cleared up asap.

I don't know but from what most people who have posted here have said I think we're all keen to keep the true dialogue going. Even if it requires a few forays into the leech-infested swamps.

I'm not sure if there's much we can do on the global stage, but I think we can change our own expectations. In other words, I think we'll get to the point that we demand that kind of equality of respect from the people around us, rather than just giving up hope and turning away simmering.

Agrippina wrote:Most men are in the middle somewhere, are they not?

I'm not so sure about this. I think there may be a bimodal distribution curve. Something about the general forces later, but now just an anecdote. I used to be extremely shy around women. I worked on it, for years. My experience is not that I gradually improved, but that at some point around the middle 1990s, I made a quantum leap from extreme incompetence to extreme competence.

Also I do believe that culture plays a role. I'm not going to go into a long description of my society but I do think that US, Europe and Australia are more liberal when it comes to this subject.

Certainly it does. Myself, I haven't gotten the hang even of the UK yet, though I've spent most summers there since 1984. I do pretty well around here, though.

I think the women are more liberated and that older men are less sexist. The confidence thing when it comes to approaching women could be easier when women aren't fighting the perception that young men aren't as sexist as their fathers who still believe that they have to protect their daughters against all men who they tell them are predators. Here the level of both sexism and liberalism is definitely related to people's particular cultural mores.

That's a pretty complex statement. I can see some of it, and I shall say this:

Treating all men as if they were predators may have some effect. Let's say there is a hypothetical average guy. Based on the assumptions, he might be pushed more and more into timidity. Or, after a certain amount of beratement, he might decide "fuck it all, better hanged as a wolf than hanged as a lamb." Of course, when he does that, he finds that he is hanged a lot less. I think the middle-of-the-road might be unstable for this reason.

epepke wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Most men are in the middle somewhere, are they not?

I'm not so sure about this. I think there may be a bimodal distribution curve. Something about the general forces later, but now just an anecdote. I used to be extremely shy around women. I worked on it, for years. My experience is not that I gradually improved, but that at some point around the middle 1990s, I made a quantum leap from extreme incompetence to extreme competence.

Perhaps a matter of practice improving competence.

Also I do believe that culture plays a role. I'm not going to go into a long description of my society but I do think that US, Europe and Australia are more liberal when it comes to this subject.

Certainly it does. Myself, I haven't gotten the hang even of the UK yet, though I've spent most summers there since 1984. I do pretty well around here, though.

Where is "here?"
In SA it is definitely a cultural thing. The religious right is very sexist against women and expects them to keep their place, as is the traditionally African one. The more liberal attitude is found only among big-city people and even then, religion and culture play a huge role. One anecdote from my experience is a girl from a Southern European background whose parents insisted that she marry only her own "kind" and that she live at home until she eventually rebelled in her late 20s.

There is such a huge mix of cultural backgrounds here that it's difficult to define a "norm" for our society.

I think the women are more liberated and that older men are less sexist. The confidence thing when it comes to approaching women could be easier when women aren't fighting the perception that young men aren't as sexist as their fathers who still believe that they have to protect their daughters against all men who they tell them are predators. Here the level of both sexism and liberalism is definitely related to people's particular cultural mores.

That's a pretty complex statement. I can see some of it, and I shall say this:

Treating all men as if they were predators may have some effect. Let's say there is a hypothetical average guy. Based on the assumptions, he might be pushed more and more into timidity. Or, after a certain amount of beratement, he might decide "fuck it all, better hanged as a wolf than hanged as a lamb." Of course, when he does that, he finds that he is hanged a lot less. I think the middle-of-the-road might be unstable for this reason.

We're also a very materialistic society and girls are raised here to look for mates who can provide. The guy with a nice car and the right hairstyle, and dress style, and an upmarket address has a better chance with the kind of woman who is looking to improve her social status. I still hear people talking about the "wrong side" of the north/south divide in Johannesburg. A girl from the southern side of Johannesburg will look for a man from the north to improve her status but a guy from the north won't want to marry the girl from the south because she isn't a trophy. That sort of thing is still a little entrenched here. You have to know the society with its mix of ethnicity, culture and wealth to really get it. I know it sounds terribly superficial but that's just the way it is. The Protestant work ethic still has an extremely strong influence here; if a guy doesn't have the right car, the right address etc etc, he is not seen as being "ambitious" but rather as a loser or too far left. Being left and being sympathetic to the government which is very left-wing is not socially acceptable in some circles, and in the ones where it is acceptable, the right ethnic background is a requirement. As I said, it's very complex.

Which is where what I said earlier comes in. There is not much by way of a proper single social system here. Pubs are places where men hang out to watch sport and where 'decent' women don't go. (I don't make the rules that's just what the culture is). People tend to go to clubs, particularly the ones associated with particular types of music, and these are usually places where very young people hang out. A guy on his own in his 30s literally does not have a place to go to to meet women. No pubs, no bars etc. So they have to rely on introductions by friends, social gatherings, the people at work, or internet dating sites, or those quick-dating things where you meet a whole lot of people and have a mini-date with each one.

So you start out with not being able to go to places where you can meet people with the same interests. And then when you do meet people, however, you meet them, there are only malls, restaurants and movie houses to go to. Agh it's a minefield, I'm so glad I don't have to go through this business anymore.

Agrippina wrote:Where is "here?"

I realize now that my avatar doesn't have the place listed. Here is the USA, specifically, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Arizona, California, Indiana, and Alaska. I'm still working on the Northeast, but I expect to have data in a few months if I have a travel budget.

Oh OK that's fun, moving around like that.

HAJiME wrote:On the subject of male sexism, watching shows like "Loose Women" makes me feel a bit sick sometimes. It's not so much the constant dishing out of sexist and stereotypical remarks about men, which are often funny despite their often vile nature if you think too hard about it. It's more the fact that they dish it out but the defensiveness and agression towards any man doing something similar is just disgusting.

That's the thing though, it seems to me that most women being sexist about men are ridiculously over defensive about sexism from men about women. And sometimes the over defensive feminism is so anti-male its male directed sexism in itself. It's all rather childish "two can play at that game".

As is usual in society when a male speaks about females despairingly his job is usually on the line.

Take this example:

Andy Gray sacked by Sky Sports following 'unacceptable behaviour' towards Charlotte Jackson

Andy Gray has been sacked by Sky Sports after a new off-air clip emerged of him engaging in what his employer has deemed to be “unacceptable behaviour” towards fellow presenter Charlotte Jackson.

Barney Francis, Sky Sports' managing director, said Gray was dismissed "in response to new evidence of unacceptable and offensive behaviour in off-air incident that took place in December 2010." Gray and colleague Richard Keys had already been subjected to disciplinary action for the sexist comments they made about Sian Massey on Saturday.

Continued...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8281445/Andy-Gray-sacked-by-Sky-Sports-following-unacceptable-behaviour-towards-Charlotte-Jackson.html

However, on the Loose Women show, they get paid (with no fear of losing their jobs) and they have a free-for-all at men’s expense. Here are some examples.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEzcOit5LZQ[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QNUXrehMRo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jObMeCy7cqM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHt5nQb6zJk[/youtube]

Now when they bash men, make fun of men, talk about men’s crotches etc. ad nauseam that’s funny, they get good ratings and the shows has won many (many) awards, but here’s what they think when a female is on the receiving end of sexism.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swYUYnJQ0T4[/youtube]

For some reason being sexist isn’t funny for them when it’s a women on the receiving end of it.

Is this sexist in your opinion?



Now in a country that wasn’t rife with misandry and where males were actually considered to be equals, that ad would be offensive.

Reverse the roles for a second and have a man doing that to women and try to imagine the OUTCRY from feminists. That company, the advertising agency and any media that displayed that image would wish they’d never been born.

However, leading naked men on a leash like dogs is... well this is what it is...

The Board considered that while some people clearly had different perceptions of the advertisement, it represented a satirical comment on a patriarchal world.

It determined that, as such, the content of the advertisement did not contravene the Code in relation to either the portrayal of people or the portrayal of sex, sexuality and/or nudity.

With the Board finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on any other grounds, the complaint was dismissed.

http://www.popculturist.net/advertising-sex/
http://www.womenagainstmen.com/advertising/advertising-standards-board-response-on-voodoo-complaint.html

Yes... it’s acceptable in our equal society.

Since that ad has received approval, they why not re-do the ad. Let those guys be black, Asian, East Indians, Jews and so on. Since it’s as they say “a satirical comment on a patriarchal world” then any male should be fine since it’s only satire after all.

Anyone with even an ounce of brains knows that would be a no-no.

It’s bad enough that men are depicted as animals, but to receive approval for that type of despicable treatment by governing bodies says a lot about the type of society that we live in that has the hypocrisy and audacity to even speak about equal rights.

And yet that same society asks (demands) that men show respect and empathy for the opposite sex. Equality is a two-way street, not a one-way street.

I can't believe that it was found to not be offensive. I thought it was pretty disgusting.

SP, I've looked at the first clip from Loose Women (which is a show I've never seen before, but it's just not the kind of thing I'd watch in any case), and I think they are a world removed from the way the women were behaving on The Talk. Linda Bellingham (the woman on the far right) clearly says that it's sexist, and even makes your point that if the roles were reversed women would find it offensive. I didn't think they were displaying anything like the maliciousness of The Talk hosts.

I've also now looked at the second two. Again, not a show I'd watch and some of it made me feel uncomfortable, but I never felt they were bashing men. They were also honestly discussing and questioning their own crotch-watching habits. And I'm fairly certain that a similar gathering of male comedians would still get in some comments about women's breasts. Are you really saying that doesn't happen anymore?

As for the final clip, again I felt they were discussing it honestly and expressing a range of views and even disagreeing with each other. They weren't all in there saying "They were being sexist, let's get them fired," sort of thing. Not only that, there was that one woman who said something along the lines of "we've all done it" (i.e. said something we shouldn't when wearing a microphone that we thought was switched off).

I'll have to disagree with you on the Loose Women stuff, SP. It might be because I'm more used to British humour and can sense the subtle difference between when something is being ridiculed and when something is having gentle fun poked at it. But also because these women were discussing the issue of male sexism, and were honestly asking the question "are we being sexist here? Do we think this is sexist?" They were talking about it and asking honest questions, and disagreeing with each other, they weren't just pooh-poohing the mere thought that something might be sexist against men.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Is this sexist in your opinion?

[Reveal] NOT SAFE FOR WORK / EXPLICIT CONTENT

Now in a country that wasn’t rife with misandry and where males were actually considered to be equals, that ad would be offensive.

To be fair, this is not original nor the worst I've seen. The piece I find relevant starts at 3.47 something.
And no, that's not nearly the only thing that's somewhat weird in that video.



edit: added nsfw filter

babel wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:Is this sexist in your opinion?

[Reveal] NOT SAFE FOR WORK / EXPLICIT CONTENT

Now in a country that wasn’t rife with misandry and where males were actually considered to be equals, that ad would be offensive.

To be fair, this is not original nor the worst I've seen. The piece I find relevant starts at 3.47 something.
And no, that's not nearly the only thing that's somewhat weird in that video.

[Reveal] NOT SAFE FOR WORK / EXPLICIT CONTENT

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3kVtd2CCA[/youtube]

edit: added nsfw filter

Context. Rammstein is a group that specialized in that kind of intense imagery, sometimes outright pornographic. I know from personal experience that their music is favorite at BDSM dungeons. That's what they do, and sometimes it's quite perspicacious as meta-commentary. Overall, neither men nor women come out looking too good in the world of Rammstein.

A billboard advertising a product has quite a different context.

I'm quite glad the billboard was approved even though it is offensive, or perhaps because it is. I don't like it when these kinds of things are hidden. I also don't want to get into the typically feminist of trying to cherry-pick evidence. The Talk is out there, so it's worth commenting on. The billboard is out there, so it's worth commenting on. Both were made because somebody believed they would sell products to women, and the proof of the pudding is whether they do or not.

Nora_Leonard wrote:
SP, I've looked at the first clip from Loose Women (which is a show I've never seen before, but it's just not the kind of thing I'd watch in any case), and I think they are a world removed from the way the women were behaving on The Talk. Linda Bellingham (the woman on the far right) clearly says that it's sexist, and even makes your point that if the roles were reversed women would find it offensive. I didn't think they were displaying anything like the maliciousness of The Talk hosts.

First, I wasn’t comparing it to The Talk. I’m considering it on its own merits. However, rather than really addressing whether the ad is sexist or not (they gave it lip service) they go into how lazy and incompetent some men are etc. Their conversation went from a sexist ad against men to things that men can’t do. Yes, it’s gentle banter, but males are never allowed to mention things that women can’t do.

I've also now looked at the second two. Again, not a show I'd watch and some of it made me feel uncomfortable, but I never felt they were bashing men. They were also honestly discussing and questioning their own crotch-watching habits. And I'm fairly certain that a similar gathering of male comedians would still get in some comments about women's breasts.

First of all, they’re not comedians at The Improv. They’re a lunchtime talk show on a major network. And to make a fair comparison, one can’t compare female breasts to male genitals. Let’s compare male genitals to female genitals. Now take a similar talk show, with all male hosts, an all male audience and show a picture of a female’s crotch.



How long would the show last on prime time with the guys talking about “her crotch, how big it is and so on?”
How long would those guys have a job?
How long (in seconds) before the network and the guys would be forced to apologize for such sexism?

That wouldn’t be tolerated for even a second. There would be an outcry of treating women as nothing more than sex objects.
I’m not a prude and not saying that gentle banter isn’t okay, but it’s only okay when females do it. Males cannot, under any conditions whatsoever, do that. I agree, it’s not male bashing, but the reverse situation wouldn’t be tolerated because it’s sexism against women.

Are you really saying that doesn't happen anymore?

If you’re saying that males do that on a major TV network, then I’d love to see some clips where males talk about a female’s crotch and nobody cares or complains.

As for the final clip, again I felt they were discussing it honestly and expressing a range of views and even disagreeing with each other. They weren't all in there saying "They were being sexist, let's get them fired," sort of thing. Not only that, there was that one woman who said something along the lines of "we've all done it" (i.e. said something we shouldn't when wearing a microphone that we thought was switched off).

At 4:17 the lady in red says “We’re sexist, we’re sexist all of the time, I make a career of being sexist all the time”.

So they’re talking about sexism against females and she says that she’s a sexist!

I'll have to disagree with you on the Loose Women stuff, SP. It might be because I'm more used to British humour and can sense the subtle difference between when something is being ridiculed and when something is having gentle fun poked at it. But also because these women were discussing the issue of male sexism, and were honestly asking the question "are we being sexist here? Do we think this is sexist?" They were talking about it and asking honest questions, and disagreeing with each other, they weren't just pooh-poohing the mere thought that something might be sexist against men.

As I’ve already stated, banter is fun and it’s okay, but in our society it’s only okay when females do it. I don’t watch the show and have had to look over the net, but the general consensus is that Loose Women use a lot of sexism against males to float their show. Just Google their show and you’ll get lots of hits where there are 100s and 100s of complaints about it for being sexist.

The complaints are how they (with humour) demean men, make fun of men and are totally free to do that without any repercussions. Men aren’t allowed that same freedom. Men can’t make fun of women since society will not tolerate that.
The highlighted part below is indicative of the show’s style.

Are there double standards with TV sexism?
The news this week has been dominated with the inappropriate behaviour of Sky Sports presenters Andy Gray and Richard Keys, who have been caught making sexist comments about women in the industry on several occasions.

But are women making the same mistake? And is it somehow more acceptable for women to make sexist jibes?

Watch Loose Women and you'll see a panel of women ripping into their ex-husbands, current boyfriends and men in general. Or what about that advert for an oven cleaner, featuring a clueless man and the tagline "So simple, even a man can do it." Surely that's as sexist as saying a woman shouldn't be a ref?

Giles Coren recently wrote an interesting piece for the Daily Mail where he suggested that the sacking of the two Sky Sports presenters might lead to further consequences in the sporting field.

Giles claims that men are constantly having to apologise for their sex. And I can see where he's coming from. There are certain jokes women are allowed to make about men, which would be shocking if men made them about women. I suspect this might be because women are seen as the more vulnerable sex.

But when was the last time you heard about a Loose Woman getting a tell off for mocking men?

So, is there a double standard when it comes to sexism? Is it more acceptable for women to make sexist remarks? Let us know in the comments.

http://www.dollymix.tv/2011/01/are_there_double_standards_wit.html

SP, I don't want to go point for point against you, especially as on the whole I've been agreeing with you. AND I don't watch Loose Women, so I can't really make a judgement on that show. I was just looking at those examples you gave in isolation.

This isn't my fight any more, apart from ensuring that I myself am not sexist towards men, that I don't participate in that kind of sexism (e.g. on this forum) and that I don't encourage it. I've had to deal with the repercussions of living under sexism for so many years, i.e. the rage etc. So I have great empathy for you on that account, but it isn't my battle any more.

Women on leashes in this video: NSFW

To my knowledge it is not banned, although I have not looked into whether it was complained about. George Michael is known for controversial videos too, but he is a 'mainstream' performer, and this video was played on prime time British TV when it was in the charts, and it was a hit all over Europe.

@Nora +1

Loose Women is basically chewing gum for the eyes, but of less nutritional value. I suppose it's meant to appeal to what they think is the 'kind of woman' who is at home during the day. It must get high ratings in order to continue, and as I said earlier, there does seem to be an appetite for this kind of thing. It does not appeal to me however, and I find it not only insulting to men, but to women since the view is obviously one of 'this is what women like and are like'. Those twonks don't represent me in any way at all, and they don't talk about anything I like or am interested in.

Fallible wrote:Women on leashes in this video: NSFW

[Reveal] Spoiler:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tndpjffPic[/youtube]

To my knowledge it is not banned, although I have not looked into whether it was complained about. George Michael is known for controversial videos too, but he is a 'mainstream' performer, and this video was played on prime time British TV when it was in the charts, and it was a hit all over Europe.

He's gay, that clearly doesn't count.



/sarcasm

Ah well I was expecting that from someone without the '/sarcasm', so I guess I fared pretty well...