Sexism Against Men -- Does it Exist?

Yes. By definition.

Next?

You can't define things into existence. That's magical thinking.

I didn't. I observed as the rest of society did so.

Exactly, it's determined by observation, not definition!

Errmmmm.... are you aware of ....who defines ....stuff? Shhhh. [it's the same critters who do all the observing before they get their crayons out and switch to defining.]

No, of course I'm not aware!

Perhaps you aware that the same critters who define stuff breathe too, and just like "breathing" and "observing" are different actions, so are "defining" and "observing" even though it might be the same critters doing it.

To say something is true by definition means that it's a logical consequence of the definition. E.g. "no married men are bachelors" is true by definition, because the definition of "bachelor" is "an unmarried man". None of this really matters, and it's certainly off topic, but ironing out these errata in ones posts can make one a more effective communicator.

Spearthrower wrote:

Sexism is not prejudice and power - that's institutional sexism.

Sexism is just prejudice, and anyone can partake.

That seems a reasonable position to take. If a man makes disparaging remarks about his female boss simply on the grounds that she's female, he cannot be sexist by the first definition, as he has no power over her. That seems ludicrous.

I would suggest that a more commonly accepted definition of sexism might be "making judgements about someone and treating them differently based purely on their sex, without any other justification".

I compare this to racism. The equivalent would be to say that in a predominantly white society "a non-white racial minority cannot be racist". As a person who grew up among two different racial groups, i know that is complete bollocks.

Instittuional sexism and racism, that's a different matter, as Spear has pointed out.

Sendraks wrote:

Forty Two wrote:

Well, who made that false equivalency?

Sexism against men is not "exactly the same" as what women experience, but it's just as bad.

Well done, you just made the false equivalency.

How so? It's not false.

Sendraks wrote:

And I'm unsurprised to note that you're part of the men to who "missed the point by a country mile" group. Go you!

Perhaps. If so, I'm sure you'll be able to explain it clearly.

tuco wrote:We had hmm lecture on job about bullying. The lecturer said that bullying is about power. He said that we, social workers, had power over our clients thus its impossible for them to bully us. I asked: If bullying is about power, and if client has power over my boss (through extraordinary relations or say bribes), then client can bully me. We had some argument after that but he was lecturer and I was social worker so the conclusion indeed was that clients cannot bully us which I know is not accurate description of reality.

It's identity politics. Identity politics approaches social interaction in terms of groups. People are identified as part of groups. Women are a group, and women are the marginalized group, therefore men can bully women, but not vice versa. If an individual woman engages in conduct that would be considered bullying were she a man, it's still not bullying because she's a member of the disfavored group.

That's the basic logic of third wave feminism and identity politics.
.

Forty Two wrote:How so? It's not false.

It is.
It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "just as bad." That you think it is, shows that you've not been paying attention.

Therefore...

Sendraks wrote:And I'm unsurprised to note that you're part of the men to who "missed the point by a country mile" group. Go you!

Does sexism against men exist? It's practically compulsory.

I feel sorriest for white, heterosexual, able-bodied men from wealthy backgrounds. They really have drawn all of life's short straws.

Well, I was denied job because I was male. It job at establishment where there was no (tradition of) male staff, clients were mostly females and they allegedly did not want male taking care of them. I did not complain because if it was true I was not gonna force myself on someone just because I had the right. I was told, numerous times, that its "strange" I wanted to work in kindergarten for example. And I have other examples, my own anecdotes. Repeatedly sent to fix switch or leaking toilet just because I am male wtf? I dont have genetic disposition for fixing switches.

So burden, it depends, like with everything. But honestly, I probably would not want to be anything else but "the privileged group" ... which says it all.

Thommo wrote:

Evolving wrote:10 Marx out of 10 for that.

No need to be so grouch-y.

Oh do stop harp-ing on about it.

You're such a chic-ken!

Sexism against men obviously exists in terms of blatent single instances, like people making disparaging jokes etc. But it's also important to realise that most of the old, deeply ingrained sexism against women is sexism against men too.

The flipside of "women should stay home and look after the kids" is "men shouldn't stay at home and look after the kids, they must work full time".

The flipside of "women are emotional and lack self control" is "men have to keep their emotions under control at all times".

The flipside of "girls don't play rough games, they stay inside and play with dolls" is "boys do/should play rough games (and not bloody well cry when they get hurt)".

I really think a lot of problems with traditional gender roles have been inaccurately cast as being all about male domination of women. I can see why they've been approached that way, as women have needed to gain more power to change them. But often, they are more about conformity and social control of individuals, in a way that reduces the freedom and options of both women AND men.