Sexism (of both types)

[MystyGlyttyr]

Most women who I say this to are horrified when I make this statement, and call me a traitor to my gender, a bitch, etc., so forth, so on, but I still think it's the truth.

I think men are way more discriminated against these days than women are.

I mean, yeah, women frequently get paid less for the same work. And there's still the sex stigma where a man who sleeps around is a stud and a woman is a whore. And hell, being a female in a traditionally male business like wrestling, and being a female who's physically and mentally strong does get me a lot of shit.

That being said, I think it's sad the way men are villianized so often.

I mean, just off the top of my head...

The differences in acceptable parental leave for men vs. women

The fact that it's legal for a single woman to adopt a child but a single man can't

The issue that man against woman violence is taboo, but men can hit men and women can hit just about anyone they want with no one screaming about it (aside from maybe whoever they hit)

The issues of adult men with children (being discussed in another thread)

The fact that men HAVE to sign up for the draft, women don't

The fact that women almost automatically receive custody of children in a divorce, save for very obviously unfit mothers (and even then, the guy is the one who has to prove it)

An issue I've experienced myself, wherein if a conflict arises between a man and a woman, the woman's side is practically always taken over the man's, again, save for a very obvious issue with the woman.

And this is just what I've observed in EVERYDAY LIFE, let alone issues that I would need to research.

Now, again, I'm not putting down women's issues with this, because God knows plenty of women have been discriminated against. The thing is, those issues are always out in the open. There's news reports about the rise of crime against women, about funding for shelters and how a woman is suing a company because someone told a PG-rated joke in her earshot, etc. Hell, everyone is wetting their pants over Hilary Clinton possibly becoming the first female president, far rarer is any mention of Barack Obama or Alan Keyes possibly being the first minority president. Almost the only times you see the stories about male abuse, male issues are from the men's rights groups online, or if one of the major news stations does it like it's some kind of novelty.

Honestly, I've always felt that if people want equality, there should be equality. Same rules for everyone, male or female. But, maybe that's just me...

[AFPheonix]

..... .. .....

We don't have a draft anymore.

And as prevalent as female on male abuse is, male on female is FAR more common. Doesn't make either of them right, but there it is.
I suppose it depends on what part of the country you're in, but there's an awful lot made of Barack if he were to be president as being the first minority in office. Frankly, I don't really care what color the person is or if they have a handle or boobs, as long as they can start fixing the pile of shit we're in, I'm cool.

While there is some blow back sexism against males now, females these days finally have attention being paid to their troubles, at least in 1st world and some developing countries. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, sexism against females is still very rampant, so we still have to keep working for equity. That's not to say that we should fight dirty and minimize males, but we still have a ways to go before achieving true equity. Same for minorities. At least in America, it's still very much a white guy's world.

The difference between parental leave is a gender role issue. As roles change from the 50's perfect nuclear family concept, so will the leave thing. Females will always get a longer maternity leave however, simply because there's really no way to get around the biology of squirting nine pounds of flesh out of your crotch and then breast-feeding it for awhile.

Adoption rules are also very much beholden to old gender and familial rules. I would like to see anyone able to adopt if they're fit, including gay and lesbian couples, singles, etc.

[MystyGlyttyr]

..... .. .....

We don't have a draft anymore.


There's not technically "a draft" per se, but men still have to register themselves in case there IS one. I know because my brother still gets harassed over it even though he was exempted over a decade ago due to a medical condition. Meantime, I tried to sign up and was also exempted due to a medical condition, never heard from them again.

And there has been mention of Barack, but it's a tenth the mention of what Hilary gets, if that. Personally, I don't know why it gets flaunted myself because it doesn't matter WHAT the person is so long as they can do the job, but I do notice that it is and that it's rather disproportional.

And believe me, like I said, I do NOT deny there are women's issues. I couldn't be in the lifestyle I'm in and not know it...wrestling is one of the most sexist businesses there is. And there is biological issue with women's leave vs. male leave (except in the case of adoption, wherein the leaves are still skewed). There are a LOT of things for women to worry about, and ESPECIALLY in underdeveloped worlds where horrors we couldn't even begin to fathom are carried out daily.

But my point is that these days, so much attention is paid to those issues that the men's get swept by in the tidal wave.

For just an example, I was trying to do research on being a male molested by a female. While Yahoo and Google supposedly returned a few hundred thousand pages, it became pretty quickly apparent that there were only about four or five of the same reports that were being quoted over and over, all the sites linked into each other. A similar search into female abuse turned up hundreds of studies and dozens of experts weighing in across MILLIONS of websites. (This was about a year ago and there's more now, but not a lot.) I mean, as early as 1997, studies came out that showed that 30% of women admitted becoming physically aggressive towards the men in their lives, and I have to think that number has gone up. So even assuming it didn't, you'd think at least the proportions of the studies would add up...one male for three females. Fact is, it just doesn't.

I just don't think it's fair that all the attention is fixated on women and so little on men. Yes, women's suffrage and women's rights, in the scheme of things, are still fairly new. Women shouldn't be shoved back down to make room for the men to rise back up. But we can't get so fixated on girls that we toss the guys out the backdoor, and the more I look, the more it seems like that's what's happening.

[Pedersen]

Wow. I'm kinda curious how you're finding life here on earth, personally. Adapting well, I hope.

We don't have a draft anymore.

Hmmm, seems that, while we don't have a draft, we do have the Selective Service (http://www.sss.gov/FSdrivers.htm), which mentions a few little legal things about how, if a draft is instated, a guy can be called to serve whether he wants to or not.

No, no draft right now. But there have been calls to have a draft, and some sites claim to have information (http://blatanttruth.org/draft.php) showing how Bush planned to have one. And yet, only males can be drafted.

And as prevalent as female on male abuse is, male on female is FAR more common.

This is shocking only because it is so under-noticed by everybody. Here's one of the first links (http://www.ncfmla.org/dv_data.html) I found about female on male domestic violence. There were quite a few more I saw elsewhere, but haven't linked.

The stats I've read make it sound like it's pretty even ly distributed by gender.

I'm not even going to get into the rest of your post. Just those two points made me quite upset.

Aside from that, I do hope you enjoy the rest of your stay here on earth. Live long and prosper, or whatever suits you.

[Seshat]

Most women who I say this to are horrified when I make this statement, and call me a traitor to my gender, a bitch, etc., so forth, so on, but I still think it's the truth.

That's odd, because I've been an active feminist in the IT aspect of feminism, and the majority of women who I discuss this with agree with this. Including me. In fact, I can't say 'who I bring this up with', because much of the time it's the other party raising the topic.


I think men are way more discriminated against these days than women are.


I think it's a bit like saying 'which is worse? Post-polio syndrome or schizophrenia?' It may be possible to say one or the other is worse, but it's much more useful to try to find ways to heal it or improve the quality of life of those suffering it.

That said: that's just how I feel. Other people may well feel differently.


That being said, I think it's sad the way men are villianized so often.


Very definitely. I think it's sad that every time I get in a lift with a strange man, there's this little part of my mind assessing him for how dangerous to me he might be. Or if I'm coming home from the train station and a man's behind me, I get nervous.

All those little details, that accumulate into even me - someone who tries to notice sexism against males - treating men differently from women just because of their gender.


The differences in acceptable parental leave for men vs. women

The fact that it's legal for a single woman to adopt a child but a single man can't

The fact that women almost automatically receive custody of children in a divorce, save for very obviously unfit mothers (and even then, the guy is the one who has to prove it).


The fact that childcare is so often treated as a feminist issue. It's NOT! It's a parent issue. And a grandparent/aunt/uncle/whatever issue, but primarily childcare is not a women's issue, dammit.

If we treated childcare as a parental issue, a lot of sexism against both genders would be cleared up.

The only aspects of childcare that society should treat as gender-based, IMO, are pregnancy and breastfeeding. Everything else is a parental issue.

Even breastfeeding can be a parental issue, though I understand the practicalities of pumping and storing breast milk are annoying at best, and - well, much to much information for me if it goes badly. :eek:


The issue that man against woman violence is taboo, but men can hit men and women can hit just about anyone they want with no one screaming about it (aside from maybe whoever they hit)

An issue I've experienced myself, wherein if a conflict arises between a man and a woman, the woman's side is practically always taken over the man's, again, save for a very obvious issue with the woman.


I've not personally experienced much violence in my life, for which I'm grateful. But as for the conflict issue - in my experience, it depends on the type of conflict. I've seen a pattern in which some types of conflict tend to have the man assumed to be right, and other types, the woman is assumed right.

I'd rather see the person who's story fits the physical evidence/witness testimony assumed right, regardless of gender.


The issues of adult men with children (being discussed in another thread)


That drives me insane.

Have you noticed that Santa Claus nowadays ALWAYS has a Mrs Claus or a female elf? When I was a kid, Santa's elf was as frequently male as female, and sometimes entirely absent if the shopping complex was quiet enough not to need a line-wrangler.

And when my brother is Easter Bunny for his church, there's always a bunny-helper. Even though everyone in the church who knows him, knows that it's not needed for the child's sake. The helper is there for his sake, to be a witness if, God forbid, someone makes a claim against him.

And if I let myself continue, this will become an angry rant. Moving on.


The fact that men HAVE to sign up for the draft, women don't.


And when I was talking with the military sign-up people when I was career-choosing, I was only permitted to consider non-combat careers.

Historically, of course, I can see the rationale behind letting men fight and not women: it only takes a few men to perpetuate the society, but it takes many women to keep the society at replacement-level population. Especially if infant mortality is high.

Even in World War One, there was massive loss of life (proportional to the society's population) to combat in some nations. I can understand it taking them a long time to alter legislation - you have to change the legislators' attitudes, after all.

In nations with a small population (Australia has roughly the same population as New York City, as one example), this is probably a consideration. But for the really populous nations, I don't see a need to bias the military intake just to keep a breeding population of healthy young women in reserve.

Really I don't.

Maybe there are people who do, but I'm not one of them.


And this is just what I've observed in EVERYDAY LIFE, let alone issues that I would need to research.


You've got a good representation of the issues there.

There's a bias against men in some professions that's almost as strong as the bias against women in professions back in the '50s and '60s.

The majority of these are the 'nurturing professions' - teaching (especially early childhood teaching), nursing, social work, counselling. It doesn't become 'news' because those professions are typically underpaid for the difficulty of the job, so according to 'them', "men don't enter those professions because they don't want to". Which is crap.

Other professions which men get discouraged from entering are 'housework' professions: sewing, cooking, cleaning. Even though at the top of the sewing and cooking careers, there's a lot of money and a disproportionate number of men. Cooking is becoming more and more acceptable, but woe betide the teenage boy who's interested in dressmaking. Especially in the schoolyard. Or the boy who expresses a desire to be a chef - it's okay (by schoolyard rules) to be 'stuck cooking at McDonalds', but not to have a fascination with food and a desire to cook for a living.

On another topic: men don't get touched. Handshakes or slaps on the back from their mates, but men rarely get hugged, or have a comforting arm placed over their shoulders, and as for breaking down and crying and having someone just sit there and listen and hold their hand and bring the tissue box over - oh no, that's not okay at all.
And THAT is very unhealthy. Suppressing emotion is not a good thing.

Just as women sometimes suffer from too much uninvited and unwelcome touch, and suffer from not being 'allowed' to show anger or frustration or ambition; men suffer from too little touch, and not being 'allowed' to show 'weakness'.

And finally, tying in with schoolyard stuff, children are treated differently according to gender in the process of education and being raised. This affects both genders, and causes problems to both.

There are more ways in which men are discriminated against, but the summary of the ways I know are:
1. Childcare should be a 'parents' issue, with no gender-based variation except re pregnancy and breastfeeding.
2. Violence and conflict having gender-based discrepancies in how they're treated. Irrational fear of males.
3. Unequal treatment in the military.
4. Gender bias in employment and career choice, with some careers being treated as 'unacceptable' for particular genders.
5. Gender bias in touch and in how emotions are treated.
6. Gender bias in childrearing.


Now, again, I'm not putting down women's issues with this, because God knows plenty of women have been discriminated against. The thing is, those issues are always out in the open.
<snip>
Almost the only times you see the stories about male abuse, male issues are from the men's rights groups online, or if one of the major news stations does it like it's some kind of novelty.

Honestly, I've always felt that if people want equality, there should be equality. Same rules for everyone, male or female. But, maybe that's just me...

It's not just you. Not at all. As I said earlier: 90% of the feminists I've been friends with agree with you.

I just realised that my summary is actually gender-neutral. That's probably because I don't think the gender biases do either sex any good.

[rahmota]

Well I'm not going to jump into this too deep as Seshat has already said quite a bit.

breastfeeding. Everything else is a parental issue.

Well give modern medicine some time and breastfeeding may not be a genderbased issue as males do have mammaries, just not as well developed. Then the problem would be how to masculinize the idea of breastfeeding.


And as for what to say about the overall things. Some traditional roles are not a bad thing as long as people choose to follow them of their own free will. You can have chivalry with equality. Its not impossible.

And while it might be good if society would look at people based on what they can and cannot do and not what their gender is there are a lot of reasons why that isnt going to happen. Religious beliefs and dogma, the common inertia of soceity being slow to change and just general lack of real perceived need for things to change.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I think men are way more discriminated against these days than women are.


I can see where you're coming from on this in regards to certain aspects, but I still have to (politely) disagree with you on that one.

Men are, in general, raised and taught that they basically own the world and everything in it (including women), that there isn't anything they can't do (we won't go into things like crossdressing or other similar stuff). True, not all men subscribe to this view. But too many of them do, and I don't think I need to mention the results of that kind of thinking.

On the other hand you have women, who, in general, are still being told "Be nice. Play nice. Don't make waves. Girls don't/can't do this/that." Females generally exhibit a sharp learning rise in education and self-confidence until they hit adolescence, and then it gets systematically shot down in a myriad of ways, and often doesn't get better even years after they've escaped potentially poisonous environments.

A man's word versus a woman's is generally accepted as truth/law in most of the world, even today, particularly in repressive regimes where just trying to get something done like a rapist arrested requires no less than 4 witnesses to the rape, all male, and preferably family members. Yes, you read that right.

Men can get contraception and sterilization done more easily than women. Women in this country (USA) are actually being discriminated against as part of a sick movement to deny all contraception access, and being refused service when they attempt to purchase birth control. How dare we not want to have kids when we're not ready to. How dare we not want to have kids at *all*, in some cases. Men are not questioned and harangued to the ends of the earth on these issues the way that women are.

When men are being abused, physically and psychologically, to the horrifying extent and mass quantities that women have been enduring *since the beginning of time*, then, and only then, will I believe that men are more discriminated against.

[Greenday]

I would just like to start off my reply by stating, "Mysty, I love you!" This is one of my favorite topics of all time.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, gets stereotyped more than the white male.

I am a white male, thus I should have NO trouble making money.

I am a white male, I should have NO trouble getting into a college.

I am a white male, I can obviously get ANY job I want.

I am a white male, getting my ass kicked by a girl can't happen, so when it does happen, it won't get reported, meaning the statistics on women beating men is shot to hell.

I'll put it this way, in nearly 20 years of living, not ONCE has being a white guy ever worked to my advantage. I get ZERO federal aid, even though my family lives paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to put me through college. I stand a chance at not getting a job, even if I'm better qualified, because I'm white and a guy. I can't flirt to get better grades. I can't flirt to get free drinks at a bar. As pointed out in the other thread, I'm a child molester because I'm a guy. I'm forced to register for the Selective Service. If I didn't register, I'm not allowed to vote, I wouldn't be able to get certain jobs, etc.

And Amethyst Hunter, I have yet to meet one guy who was taught they own the world.

This thread makes me want to start another one on how affirmative action is a huge load of crap and screws over white men unfairly.

[Seshat]

I'll put it this way, in nearly 20 years of living, not ONCE has being a white guy ever worked to my advantage.

It has, you just haven't seen it. Being the 'default' privileges you in ways that are difficult to notice precisely because you are the default.

Here's one discussion of privilege (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/) in the sense that I'm using the word. (Please let's not debate the meaning of the word 'privilege', I'm using it specifically in the sense used in the politics of the various 'isms'.)

Here's a white person talking about white privilege (http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html).

If anyone wishes to further discuss privilege, let's move to a different thread - I'd like to keep this one more on the topic of the places where men aren't privileged, and aren't neutral either, but are actually discriminated against.


Edit to add: I found a list of privilege lists (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/09/26/a-list-of-privilege-lists/). And do read Maia's critique, linked to at the bottom of the list.

[Greenday]

Decent articles, but the first one, some of the arguments just are a matter of experience and I can't say I've shared those experiences. And the second article, a decent portion of that I'd say depends hugely on where you are. Back home, I live in a decently majority of liberals, so most of those don't apply to my life so far.

[Seshat]

Fair enough. Not every privilege applies to every life in every part of the world.

I find it interesting to see the ways I'm privileged and don't realise it - I'm currently reading through that list of lists I found and added to my previous post. Anyway, enough digression.

Back to the topic:

Sex. Yeah, that would get everyone's attention. ;)

There's a lot of talk about how the sexual double standard demeans women, how unfair it is to women that they're supposed to control the pace of dating/sex, how women should dress so as not to 'unduly lead men astray' and how fair or unfair that is to women.

I think the whole shebang is insulting and offensive to MEN. Also to women, but it's time someone talked about the men.

The idea gets presented that if a man should (gasp!) see my cleavage or my tits or my groin, he shall be overcome with lust and unable to 'help himself'. What a load of insulting ROT! Men are people. Men have brains. Men can control their impulses. I've had enough male doctors do pap smears or check my breasts for lumps to be absolutely certain that the mere sight or touch of my 'feminine attributes' isn't going to cause a guy to suddenly lose his intelligence and become a ravishing monster.

The sexual double standard is unfair to men, as well. So's the Madonna/whore dichotomy. Any person should be able to choose their sexuality in a way that's true to themselves: men who choose to be celibate or virgin should be deemed as natural as women who do so, rather than having pressure to 'sow their wild oats'. Men who choose to marry a woman who is unashamed of her sexuality shouldn't risk social censure for marrying 'a slut'. (And many 'sluts' are monogamous, they're just unwilling to repress their sexuality for no good reason.)

As for women being expected to control the pace of dating/sex, that puts enormous pressure on the man to be ready whenever the woman decides she is. What if he's not? He's 'supposed' to be champing at the bit, a satyr in need of a nymph, restrained only by his chivalry. What if he's nervous? Heck, what if he thinks the back seat of the car isn't a good place, and wants to wait until they get home?

Eh. Just another set of things to think about.

[AFPheonix]

Hmmm, seems that, while we don't have a draft, we do have theSelective Service (http://www.sss.gov/FSdrivers.htm), which mentions a few little legal things about how, if a draft is instated, a guy can be called to serve whether he wants to or not.


That's a rather large if. It would be political suicide for anyone to try and reinstate it. Is it sexist that only males are included in selective service? Yes, yes it is. I didn't disagree with anyone on that.



This is shocking only because it is so under-noticed by everybody. Here's one of the first links (http://www.ncfmla.org/dv_data.html) I found about female on male domestic violence. There were quite a few more I saw elsewhere, but haven't linked.

The stats I've read make it sound like it's pretty evenly distributed by gender.


National studies, but how about international ones? I sincerely doubt those numbers would stay static if we looked at that. If you'll notice, most of my post had a rather international view in it.


Aside from that, I do hope you enjoy the rest of your stay here on earth. Live long and prosper, or whatever suits you.

Condescension does not suit you well. Feel free to debate me, that's fine, that's how we learn to think outside the box. But leave the personal insults at home, please.
Feel free to go back and actually read my post. I think you'll find I'm not entirely disagreeing with Mysty nor attacking what she's saying. Hell, I'll even quote myself:
Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, sexism against females is still very rampant, so we still have to keep working for equity. That's not to say that we should fight dirty and minimize males, but we still have a ways to go before achieving true equity. Same for minorities.
How is this offensive to you?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Also, a lot of female on male domestic abuse goes unreported due to men being made to feel ashamed at being beaten up by a girl. The same goes for male rape; yes, it does happen and a lot more than reported. Not just for sexual purposes, but more of a power grab... I don't think this is the time or place to go into different types of rape, but a lot of people still have the belief that all rape = sex. But just as with domestic abuse, there are a lot of men who would be far too ashamed to report a rape by another man to the police; just as they wouldn't report a rape by a woman. It does happen; just cuz women don't have a penis, does not mean they can't commit rape on a man. Just use your imagination; don't make me spell it out. O_o

There's another thing I'm going to throw into the pot; teacher abuse. Older male teacher seduces 13 year old girl student = instant disgust, cries of pedophile/monster/sexual abuse. Older female teacher seduces 13 year old boy student = nudge nudge wink wink, cries of lucky bastard/wish that had happened to me when I was at school/no harm in it. Yet, both are pedophiles corrupting a minor.

[Greenday]

It does happen; just cuz women don't have a penis, does not mean they can't commit rape on a man. Just use your imagination; don't make me spell it out. O_o

I have a friend who goes to college in Boston. He says there are a lot of cases of girls drugging guys and then having sex with them while they are knocked out. When the guys report it, the cops refuse to do anything about, claiming that it's impossible for a girl to rape a guy.

[Rapscallion]

Hmm - I've had a procedure where I was given a sedative that is a relative of rohypnol. I really doubt that I would have been able to attain any sort of arousal whilst under that influence.

On face value, I'd agree with the cops. I'd like to see more evidence before I consign this to urban myth status, though.

Rapscallion

[Seshat]

That only accounts for one form of rape, Rapscallion.

[Rapscallion]

Aye, but the form described in the post - I have doubts it could be managed.

Rapscallion

[Lace Neil Singer]

I wasn't talking about that form. O_o You're making me spell it out, damn you! XD

OK, say a woman drugs a man and then penetrates him with a dildo; that would be rape. Or indeed any object that she inserts into his "special area"; that would be rape. If she just touches his genitals or rubs herself on him, that would be sexual assault. There are also cock rings that can be put on men; dunno about the specifics, but they possibly could cause a state of rigidity, as could horse tranquilisers.

Here are some links I dug up; there were a lot more on google than these; some however treated it as a joke, like saying "Would any man resist rape by a beautiful woman?" which kind of supports what I was saying earlier about teacher rape.

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1759365,00.html

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1027927.ece

http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2003/as-20030624p592-rape.php

http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V111/N37/gorgen.37o.html

[Rapscallion]

Have to admit that I'd not heard of this. I was more thinking along traditional lines of forcibly having sex with.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Dude, that's totally possible. A guy doesn't have to be aroused just to pop a stiffy. Just think, we have morning wood. Didn't get aroused at all, yet you still wake up with a raging hard on.

[Rapscallion]

You've obviously not seen my dreams.

I only get fleeting memories of them, and they disappear from my cortex within seconds, but it's far to say that it's damned annoying.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

...Okay...Thanks for sharing that tidbit of information.

But it's totally possible to get an erection without being aroused. Sometimes it just happens. Maybe it's because I'm young I can still manage to do that, and maybe when your an old fart like some members on here you can't remember it, but it's totally possible.

P.S. - Please don't kill me :D

[Lace Neil Singer]

Plus, men being executed get, uh, wood... doubt they're turned on. O_o

[horror]

I must admit, I'm not too up on my feminist issues, though I do like to try and understand them.
However, this post falls in perfectly with a conversation I was having with a friend last night.
To paraphrase, he stated that families fall apart more because women have decided to work, and as such have made family values a #2 priority behind their career.
I in turn posed the question, "Why should a woman be a housewife? Why can't a man be a househusband?" and was more or less told that men are hunter/gatherers and can't care for children.
WHAT!?
I'm not going to bore everyone with the rest of the details of the conversation, but my friend was essentially exhibiting sexism to both genders simultaneously, in that he suggested women should have to stay home, and that men are incapable of caring for the children they spawned.
The whole conversation left me dumbfounded and I could barely argue any points because I was just so speechless. I don't mean to turn this into a debate about women's issues, but I just thought I would point out that some men perpetuate the sexist stereotypes against them without even knowing it.

[Greenday]

I in turn posed the question, "Why should a woman be a housewife? Why can't a man be a househusband?" and was more or less told that men are hunter/gatherers and can't care for children.
WHAT!?
I'm not going to bore everyone with the rest of the details of the conversation, but my friend was essentially exhibiting sexism to both genders simultaneously, in that he suggested women should have to stay home, and that men are incapable of caring for the children they spawned.

Scientifically, your friend has a point. Men, overtime, have evolved to be hunter/gathers, whereas women have evolved with other things that make them better at running a household than a man. In this day and age, things are evening out, but I'd still say this applies for the majority of people in the world.

[Seshat]

If men can't care for children, my niece and nephew have suffered SEVERE neglect for large parts of their life.


. . . yeah. I won't stand for that sort of sexism against men either. And yes, horror's friend was sexist against both genders.

[blas87]

If men can't care for children, then my father must be a woman in disguise.

I'll never let anyone try to convince me that I need to stay at home, be a house-frau, pop out litters of children, and spend my days watching soaps and cleaning the house and tending to the kids.

Hell no. I can do whatever the hell I want. Any man that has that old fashioned point of view isn't for me. I'm a career woman with too many goals, and none of which involve children or being Martha Stewart.

[Ree]

This is a really interesting issue, and I'm glad it was brought up because I have often felt along these lines myself.

I think the reverse discrimination is a backlash against all those years of oppression and male dominance, adding in a healthy dose of political correctness.

In my own work environment, men have always been paid more than women.
I have been with my employer over 20 years. I am now in a supervisory position, yet my wages as a supervisor are less than those of the men on staff, some who have been with the company for less time than I have.

I had one guy who had just started and was at minimum wage.
My employer came to me a few days after he started and said, "I didn't realize he had children. I can't give him minimum if he has a family." (The guy had shared custody of his children only on alternate weeks.)
Meanwhile, we have women, some single mothers, starting at minimum and staying there for at least their first 3 months probation.

That being said, there are other areas where I see what Mysty is talking about.

Still within my own personal work environment, if a woman calls in, or has to leave early because her child is sick, they don't like it, but they understand.
That same man, once he had been there a few months, had to call in because his little boy was sick, and I heard from the manager, "Does he not have family or a babysitter who can look after his kids?"

In our own home, with the foster children, we have to be on guard all the time to avoid situations where my husband could be accused of improper acts with the young girls that we take in. He has to be so careful about the way he comforts them, or offers a hug. He has to always be aware of the way he even puts his hand on their arm.

If I am going to be out of the home for any period, I have to have a whole bunch of safeguards in place so my husband is not alone in the house with her overnight.

If we were to take in a boy, and I gave him a hug or put my hand on his arm or shoulder or rubbed his back, that would be seen as perfectly acceptable comforting and nurturing acts. My husband could be at work until very late in the evening, or he could even go away to a food show overnight, and there would be no concerns about my being alone with a male child.

My husband has always worked long hours, leaving me alone to look after our daughter, although, when he was home, he was wonderful with her.
He did all of the same childcare duties that I did.

If I had a chance to go out for an evening, and he stayed home with her, I always heard, "Oh, is Daddy baysitting?"
I always said, "No, he's looking after his daughter, the same as I do."

When my nephew joined the police force, he had to really work to get the job. Preference was being given to minorities and women, and if one happened to be a minority woman, then a job was all but guaranteed.

He had to pass a rigorous physical test. The tests for the women were all skewed so their levels were slightly lower than what a man had to reach.

I see this reverse discrimination in advertising now, too.
Men are made out to be incompetent boobs who have absolutely no grasp of what is going on with their children or their partners.

They have no idea how to cook, or clean a house or do laundry and are in awe of these wonderful products that do the job so easily. They are amazed at their discoveries, as their families stand on with smug smiles, because they, as women, and the children who are so closely bonded with their Moms, knew all about this product ages ago.

Women are allowed to leer at shirtless men in tight jeans because this is the 21st century and the roles are reversed, but an ad with the reverse action gets an outcry of condemnation as "sexist".

I have an acquaintance whose marriage broke up.
His wife left him and took his child, and made all kinds of wild accusations against him. Now, I don't know him well enough to know whether there was actual truth to it, but from what I do know of him, he did not seem the type to have done what she was claiming. I had worked with his wife briefly, but not directly, as she was in a different department, so I don't really know if she was the type to make false claims either, although she didn't appear to be.
The accusations she was making didn't sound like this guy at all, though.
He went to court to get custody of his children, but the court believed the mother and awarded custody to her, giving him only supervised access.

He was so angered by that, he started a group advocating fathers' rights.
The fact that there are so many of these organizations out there now must say something about the situation.
Deadbeat Dads make headlines and get clamped own on pretty darn hard, but what about Deadbeat Moms?

Anyway, there is no doubt that a lot of it is just an attempt to equalize a playing field that has long been slanted in the other direction, but in my opinion, it is now being slanted the opposite way a little too much.

[BlaqueKatt]

And when I was talking with the military sign-up people when I was career-choosing, I was only permitted to consider non-combat careers.

Historically, of course, I can see the rationale behind letting men fight and not women:


actually I was in a "combat MOS"-Chemical soldier, plus there's medic and a few others

the reasoning is actually due to some actual gender issues-
! some MOSes actually require you to be "in field " for quite some time, without access to showers, and there is the possiblity of infections from not being able to keep clean. The other reason is if a medic has to carry a 180 pound soldier out of a dangerous area is a 100 pound female going to be able to do that?

[Seshat]

The other reason is if a medic has to carry a 180 pound soldier out of a dangerous area is a 100 pound female going to be able to do that?

Actually, I may have said it in this thread - if not, I think I said it somewhere else - but I agree with that.

Any job which involves being able to carry a particular amount of mass for a particular distance, or any other similar requirement, should be discriminatory. But not gender discriminatory: ability discriminatory.

IE: there needs to be a test during the initial interview or training stage, which determines who can and who can't do it.

If a wiry 100 pound person, male or female, is capable of carrying 180 pounds of soldier (or training dummy) out of a simulated battlefield, then go ahead and employ that wiry person.

If a 180 pound person of either gender can't do it, then don't employ them.

That sort of job requirement shouldn't be gender-discriminatory, just ability discriminatory: if you can do it, you can get the job.

As for the washing one: not all women of fertile age menstruate. Those who don't should be considered for the job.


And for Ree's post: YEAH! I can't think of anything you said, Ree, that I disagree with.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Also, men get on with each other better. That's not sexist, that's an established fact.

There are however a lot of "feminazis" (not my invention) who do exactly what Ree was saying; they go nuts at things like page 3 of the Sun, but wouldn't see anything wrong with Playgirl showing hard core full frontal nudity of men.

[DexX]

Any job which involves being able to carry a particular amount of mass for a particular distance, or any other similar requirement, should be discriminatory. But not gender discriminatory: ability discriminatory.

Very well-said!

By all means, put a test in place that is more likely for men to pass than women, but at least give the female applicants a try. I'm fairly strong, but I have a female friend who's been hitting the gym hard recently, and she could probably break my arm if I arm-wrestled her. It would be ridiculous for her to be refused a physically demanding job when I'm not.

[Seshat]

Thank you. :)


By all means, put a test in place that is more likely for men to pass than women,

As long as the test is relevant to the job. (Though I presume you assumed it would be. I just am too cynical these days to make that assumption.)

[DexX]

Sorry, yes - a job-relevant test. :)

No point making them bench press 20 reps of 50kg to get into an accounting job. ;)

[Greenday]

Sorry, yes - a job-relevant test. :)

No point making them bench press 20 reps of 50kg to get into an accounting job. ;)

Piece of cake...if I was still in shape. I miss those days...

If you can't carry the stuff needed to do a job, than you are physically unable. This applies to men and women alike. It should just be a person to person basis, based on what the individual can actually do.

[guywithashovel]

I think that an important thing to consider in this situation is that each person is going to view the situaiton through his or her eyes and from his or her experience. That's probably stating the obvious, but what I mean is that it is often difficult for a woman to see things from a man's perspective, and vice versa. Many people might think that their group is the most oppressed, but they are often looking at it from only one standpoint. They haven't been in the other person's shoes.

In short, everyone gets oppressed sometimes. As a guy, the one thing that kind of gets to me is that outspoken feminists often want to act like my life is all honky dory simply because I am a caucasian male. Let me assure you, it isn't. Remember, the grass always looks greener on the other side.