"Reverse Sexism Does Not Exist"

cosmicsans · 2014-05-27T17:06:50+00:00

It's right. Reverse Sexism doesn't exist.

It's all just sexism.

Psionx0 · 2014-05-27T18:36:35+00:00

Patriarchy. Privelage. Rape culture. Hetrosexual white male. CIS.

These are conversation stoppers. They are religious. Dogmatic statements. The dialog is over until they abandon these intellectually corrupt and vacuous statements and use facts. Relevent facts instead.

Want to talk about a grand conspiracy to contril women-- prove it.

FrogTrainer · 2014-05-27T16:42:38+00:00

This whole "intimidated around large men" concept is such idiocy. Women only experience this after they have been TAUGHT to feel that way. Read enough about it in fem-propaganda, start to feel it yourself.

jtominglock · 2014-05-27T18:26:05+00:00

Two flaws in this argument:

When the author labels reverse sexism as "Patriarchy backfiring on men" she is admitting that men are being treated unequally, but it's their own fault. This is an example of men getting blamed where a woman would receive sympathy; On top of this being hypocritical, I believe it adds to the cultural problem we have of men who feel afraid &/or unable to express themselves without being judged.
This chart equates numbers with power. It ignores the fact that members of congress are representatives voted into office by men & women (with equal voting power). It also ignores the power of the women's rights movement in congress and their general ability to fight on behalf of women. If anyone fights specifically on behalf of men, they risk being labeled sexist.

cmcagle · 2014-05-27T18:47:17+00:00

This is sophistry of the worst sort. Here's how to counter it.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "sexism" has a specific, technical meaning within the field of sociology which requires a systematic, institutionalized imbalance of power. The question then becomes whether this specific, technical meaning is the one which should be applied when people talk about "sexism" in everyday conversation. It seems obvious that it isn't; in fact, here's the dictionary definition of sexism:

sexism

sex·ism [sek-siz-uhm]

noun

attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.

You may have noticed that there's no reference to an institutional power imbalance; rather, the common meaning of "sexism" refers to specific, individual attitudes, not to an institutional framework or system. And this is exactly what people mean when they use the word "sexism" in everyday parlance. "Reverse sexism" isn't a claim that women have become an "oppressor class" or that they have gained superior social power; rather, it simply means that a particular action or attitude reflects discrimination or devaluation of men.

So the argument is fundamentally dishonest: it illicitly substitutes a technical, specialized definition for a general one when the general definition was clearly intended by the speaker. But it's worse than that, because this definition of sexism as requiring an institutional power imbalance isn't even commonly-accepted in sociology; its genesis comes from Women's and Gender Studies, where it was essentially used in exactly the same manner it's used in this graphic: to shift blame for any problems men might encounter back onto men, absolving women of their behavior, no matter how abhorrent or contributory.

edit: And since the disinfographic brought up anti-male bias in the courts, let's recall that "patriarchy" literally means "rule of the father." Under a traditional patriarchal system, men ALWAYS got custody of children in the event of divorce; it was this way up until the mid-19th century when First Wave feminism urged the creation of the Tender Years Doctrine. And what was the main argument that feminists used to achieve this? That's right: women are naturally more nurturing and caring than men, and thus it's better for children to be with their mothers during the early, "tender" years of their lives.

Mylon · 2014-05-27T18:05:35+00:00

So because women are a minority in government, it's impossible for them to oppress men? What?

Perhaps this author doesn't understand the "for the children" cry where a cause is held up and people are shamed if they don't rally behind it, even if the course is headed off a cliff. It's like Obama. Our country has blacks as a minority, but if you vote against Obama it's because you're racist.

Max_Cash · 2014-05-27T17:41:23+00:00

She made an infographic so she must be right.

Sinistar_Lives · 2014-05-27T18:58:26+00:00

"If the Government passes a law that bans from attending college, that's still not reverse sexism. Why? There aren't enough women in government to make anti-male legislation; women don't have the power to oppress men in that way. The government is almost entirely made up by men, almost every law is both written and approved by men."

So the fuck what? So men discriminating against other men based solely on their gender isn't sexism? Who put those particular men in power? What gender is the majority of the voting electorate again?

It seems like a really great 'eat your cake and have it too' moment where Women will complain about an imbalance of gender in politics and so few are actually willing to run for office and change that fact. Why would they, when they can just sit back, let men run everything, and blame the Patriarchy boogie-man for all their problems?

goodbyeraggedyman · 2014-05-27T16:08:22+00:00

Context: http://imgur.com/ZNAvW2u

She was saying that this man, who believed in reverse sexism, would not be interested in reading any academic articles about sexism/oppression that were written by women. When he said that this was sexist, this is how it played out.

PeteTheFirst · 2014-05-27T17:33:28+00:00

Therein lies the basic problem. Sexism by definition has nothing to do with institutional power, it is the simple act of one individual acting in a particular way towards another individual purely based on the genders involved. That's it.

Feminists can try to change the definition all they like, but it's never going to make it true.

DrouGluiN · 2014-05-27T17:40:38+00:00

I would say this belief is inherently wrong because it seems to assume the variable of power is on a nominal scale (a 0 or a 1). This means that a person either has power or he doesn't. I'd say depending on an institution there's a power relationship between genders and yes there are dominant and oppressed genders to each relationship but men aren't always dominant part of the relationship.

I think it may be true than on the highest level of society women are the oppressed gender, but when you take a look at sublevels you can find situations where women are dominating men thus creating the option of sexism and sexist women. And the sub levels are big enough for the dominant women to be institutionalized.

Just initial thoughts would love feedback from you guys.

SlapMyCHOP · 2014-05-27T18:54:39+00:00

The fact being women aren't oppressed in the US, there's no real argument that i've heard that shows women are oppressed.

It's a low blow to use "patriarchy" to hide gender from responsibility of action.

QueenSpicy · 2014-05-27T19:22:09+00:00

The argument is flawed when we take into account that people can speak objectively, and make decisions based on that notion. To say history can only be written by a person from that country, is fairly silly isn't it? We have different views from similar situations, doesn't make the US history on WW2 more or less accurate than the Japanese view, it makes it human.

Having an outsider perspective is a good thing right? Except you are either male or female, so it becomes impossible to objectively look at anything according to this.

TRAUMAjunkie · 2014-05-27T19:32:09+00:00

Gosh, that argument is so airtight. Sources and statistics and everything. That, "Why? Because I said so," argument. Superlative.

dejour · 2014-05-28T00:56:28+00:00

Ridiculous.

The first example (men in government) is poor, because government officials represent their electorate. The masters of the elected officials are the voters and 57% of voters are women. So if really it would only be women who have the power to oppress.

The 2nd example is poor (advertising), because ad execs aren't the only ones responsible for creating ad content. You have more junior people pitching ideas, and I'm sure women are a significant part there. Secondly, the real consumers are the people who watch tv and the people who buy products. Women watch somewhat more tv than men, and make significantly more spending decisions. Ads have to be designed to appeal to women. Ad executives are just giving consumers what they want.

Putting that aside, the size of the arrows are totally disproportionate. I couldn't argue if the one hurting women was a little bit bigger, it's hard to know "who has it worse". But it's not the 95:5 ratio suggested by this image.

Someone should design a counter graph which shows sexism being equal in size and being enforced by both men and women. I might give it a shot, but I have no graphic skills.

jdmarsh2005 · 2014-05-27T17:42:43+00:00

Oppression implies sexism but sexism does not imply oppression. For anyone who believes this, it seems like a logic problem more than anything.

iMADEthis2post · 2014-05-27T17:47:51+00:00

This is fine, go to most countries in the western world where women have greater protection under the law and rights that men do not have, call all the women sluts, slags whatever you want, treat them however you want and then explain to them that it's not sexism because they have more power and rights than you.

I think it's a good job for women that I don't take my cues from feminism personally.

nlakes · 2014-05-28T01:20:26+00:00

Love that pointless diagram, could have been out of some pointless womyn's studies text book.

Noel_S_Jytemotiv · 2014-05-28T01:26:30+00:00

"Reverse sexism" is itself a sexist notion.

2014-05-28T01:28:13+00:00

LOOK AT HOW OPPRESSED YOU ARE BY BEING ABLE TO WRITE AND SAY WHATEVER YOU THINK.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2014-05-28T01:32:10+00:00

So according to them men can't be sexist against men or women against women.

Oddly enough that's a rather sexist premise.

mirazatha · 2014-05-28T01:55:11+00:00

well, its true that reverse sexism does not exist. same with reverse racism and other things. its just fucking sexism and racism. god i hate people

outhouse_steakhouse · 2014-05-28T02:18:49+00:00

Relevant

Schmit_on_you · 2014-05-28T02:57:33+00:00

Where's Gorgio from Ancient Aliens when you need him....

iongantas · 2014-05-28T04:31:53+00:00

I think it's weird how people being sexist (or racist, etc.) against some group as a reaction to some perceived sexism (etc.) like to attribute claims of reverse-sexism to the object of their complaint, when, as far as I can tell, this never happens.

c0mputar · 2014-05-27T15:58:00+00:00

I am convinced this is satire. No one is that stupid.

Steampunk_Moustache · 2014-05-28T04:18:49+00:00

Unprovable and unfalsifiable claim.

Not worth the pixels its displayed on.

Title	"Reverse Sexism Does Not Exist"
Author	goodbyeraggedyman
Upvotes	126
Comments	127
Date	May 27, 2014 3:55 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/26m3xp/reverse-sexism-does-not-exist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/reverse-sexism-does-not-exist.1617603 https://theredarchive.com/post/1617603

Comments