EVE General Discussion

oh man this got ugly,
not quite ugly enough to warrant a lock but still pretty ugly.


derp,
no ,
discussions with belligerent morons end like that .
sweeping generalisations are bad mkaaaay

my partner is a feminist and we have never argued once over the subject and we argue over -everything-

Then I can only assume that you haven't gone through his post history.

(EDIT: I'm adding this clarification to the start of this post since people are getting upset: Men suffer from both passive and active discrimination and I do not intend to downplay that. My explanation of the semantic definition of the word "sexism" is based on wider social implications and is not to suggest I think men are immune from discrimination.)

You literally don't know anything about feminism, atleast not in any academic sense non-tumblr sense, despite claiming you're some sort of jaded expert.

Sexism against men can't exist, because "sexism" is a term for a greater social phenomenon that is pervasive through society in almost every culture in the world - That is, men holding the majority of power in social, political, and economic terms. While there are privileges women have that men do not (which itself is a problem, albeit a less dangerous one, since not many men are getting sexually assaulted or being paid less) most of those privileges are associated with the assumption of their inherent vulnerability and/or incompetence in comparison to men, rather then the sex being assumed to have many inherent virtues. There are exceptions, of course, but not many.

Men can certainly be subject to prejudice and bias on an individual level as a result of their gender, or suffer indirectly as a result of sexism, which are both bad things and they shouldn't be treated that way. But sexist as a lebel can't be applied to women because the term was coined to describe the institutionalized oppression that women face in a subtle, but omnipresent fashion specifically. To do so would diminish what it describes. It's certainly not because being crappy to men because they are men is cool and justified in the eyes of the rational feminist community, as you're making it out to be.

You're acting as if feminism is some crusade against men. It's not - It's a social movement against the concept of the Patriarchy, the greater social impetus that thrusts unfair expectations towards both genders and hurts people on both sides of the fence. However, it is necessary to acknowledge that the "hurt", while far from completely one sided, is very much skewed in one direction.

I would argue instead that it is a philosophical perspective. Marx-ism, Nhil-ism, Constructiv-ism, Femin-ism.

Otherwise I am in agreement with you. Semantics.

If you didn't read my post, how can you call it a bigoted tangent?

I'd suggest you take another look at it, and if you still don't agree, research the origins and original usage of the term.

By the way, Merriam Webster literally agrees with me, so.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

On what basis?

I wanted to go off on a rant about how feminism is the worst thing to have happened to men and families in the 90's. Feminism is politics. Why am I reading about that drivel on this forum? Lock please!

Because what better way to endorse equality than by demonstrating a philosophy dedicated to the eradication of an entire gender identity?

I'm honestly guessing, because I'll never be capable of, nor willing to actually understand evil like they ascribe to.

Discrimination based on sex is sexism. That's the only definition that matters. That discrimination can occur against both genders. If discrimination can occur based on someone being a man, then sexism against men exists. Since discrimination against men does occur, then sexism against men does exist. To deny it is ignorant and in itself another form of discrimination against men. You have to be extremely naive and/or wilfully ignorant to assert that sexism against men doesn't exist.

Gender biases exist all around, and they're always based on one thing and one thing only: expectations. Here's the thing, nobody, and I mean nobody, is required to conform to anybody else's expectations of them short of their social obligations to one another.

its sexism .

if you cant tell that then get the **** off your soap box and go back to whatever echo chamber you came from