The Internet's 'Misogyny Problem' - real or imagined?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"It's impossible to be sexist against men"
"It's impossible to be racist against white people"
"It's impossible to be bigoted against Christians"
"It's impossible to be hateful towards Americans"

Where does this sort of insanity end?

Reductio ad absurdum is in this case a fallacy, because the context of each statement is key.

Sexist, racist, bigoted, and hateful are not direct synonyms. Sexism and racism are social structures, they aren't determined nor limited to individual opinions. Except in a unique case like South Africa, it is pretty much impossible to be racist against white people. It's never possible to be sexist against men. Whites and men run society, and the structure and shape of it, as well as its mores, are defined by their ideals and reinforce the protection of their rule. Being "against" them is not bigotry because the personal opinion expressed by such a statement does not reinforce their systematic oppression, as it does when directed against women/transgender or people of color.

A black calling a white a cracker isn't racism, it's someone being a jerk. The white person isn't oppressed by that. A white calling a black the n-word is racism because it reinforces the social structure of society which places blacks beneath whites, subjects them to the dominant white culture, and treats them as separate from that society if they do not.

"Bigoted against Christians" is purely an individual sentiment. The only case I can think of where this would be possible as a social structure would be in the Middle East, as presently in the ISIS situation, where Christians are a tiny minority and present natively in that region (you might consider Christianity to be a native religion there). Outside of that, it's not at all the same as racism or sexism, unless it manifested itself, as above, in a social manner. Hate towards Americans is as above with Christianity.

 

[brennan]

Some people run society. They happen to be white and male (if you'll permit me a generalisation) - I think it's a huge step from there to get to 'society is run for the benefit of white men in general and therefore white men cannot be discriminated against'.

The homeless people in sleeping bags along our beach are overwhelmingly white men. Where's their 'privilege'?

 

[madviking]

based on the whole jennifer lawrence fiasco, there are a metric ton of creepy dudes out there.

 

[brennan]

Yeah... nice avatar btw. No irony here.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think there is misogyny. The shield of the Red Diamond prevents me from getting into further detail because of the risk to various delicate sensibilities in this corner of the internet.

 

[madviking]

Yeah... nice avatar btw. No irony here.

just doing my part

 

[Old Hippy]

Some people run society. They happen to be white and male (if you'll permit me a generalisation) - I think it's a huge step from there to get to 'society is run for the benefit of white men in general and therefore white men cannot be discriminated against'.

The homeless people in sleeping bags along our beach are overwhelmingly white men. Where's their 'privilege'?

white man dose not fit in predominately white mans system... to generalize again, where is the sexism or racism or even discrimination in this, based on them being white or male...

 

[cardgame]

Brennan wasn't saying they are discriminated against because of their color. It's part of a larger, classist argument that Cheezy, if anyone, should be expected to agree wholeheartedly with and prioritize over such small-time (now, in 2014, yes, they are small) and overly-divisive issues like sexism and racism.

 

[brennan]

Single men are the lowest priority for emergency housing provision. That's discrimination against two protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010: gender and marital status.

And as Cardgame points out, this is beside the point. That (some) white men are the most disenfranchised people in a system alleged to be run for their benefit is the point.

 

[Kennigit]

Sounds like solid statistics and methodologies in the twitter study, I'm onboard.

I've been conducting my own survey of Civfanatics posters and classify 65.5% of all posts by liberals to be sarcastic, while conservative posters hold steady with only 15%. Granted, this has only been done looking exclusively at a 200 post window between Formaldehyde and Mobby

 

[JollyRoger]

So some of those homeless men should marry each other and move up the priority.

 

[bhsup]

I'm sorry, but such a vile attitude is not welcome. Men can have real emotional problems too, anxiety issues, and other such problems.

Your hateful sexist attitude makes it harder for people like that to get through life and try to get better. It isn't helping anyone and you should feel ashamed of yourself for ignoring the problems of so many people with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but no. Now if the site admins feel that way, so be it. Their site, their rules. But you as a fellow user, no, I will not shut up and move along just because you don't like what I say.

Freedom of expression for your fellow users only as long as you agree with it, eh?

 

[cardgame]

That wasn't sarcasm?

You fulfilled the role of anti-male traditionalist attitudes perfectly, bhsup.

I'm sorry to hear you were sincere.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sexist, racist, bigoted, and hateful are not direct synonyms. Sexism and racism are social structures, they aren't determined nor limited to individual opinions.

...

A black calling a white a cracker isn't racism, it's someone being a jerk. The white person isn't oppressed by that.

The theories leave a lot of blank space for malice and harm to inhabit. If you happen to get a gun pulled on you for jogging in the wrong neighborhood in Peoria you count your blessings nobody fired, that your health and jogging companion are intact, and you realize that oppression isn't the only thing that matters if you set yourself in opposition to hate and bigotry.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Except in a unique case like South Africa, it is pretty much impossible to be racist against white people.

I've had some experiences in certain areas of an evening which don't gel very well with this statement.

 

[Old Hippy]

Single men are the lowest priority for emergency housing provision. That's discrimination against two protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010: gender and marital status.

OK I accept your point , I do voluntary work in emergency housing(in a land far far away) and accept that women with children get preference due to the numbers of beds available to them, but would disagree that long or medium term housing is in this position as waiting lists are for first come first served, is this not just a problem of your governments not adhering to their own legislation tho... because your society obviously has considered this, thus the equality act link you provided

And as Cardgame points out, this is beside the point. That (some) white men are the most disenfranchised people in a system alleged to be run for their benefit is the point.

why,
as a % of white men they would not be a great number, and you would have to show that minorities had an even smaller % of people who are homeless and did not benefit from the system
this is not shown, it is just imagined, see white men sleeping on beach, white men are the 'most' disenfranchised in the system

 

[aelf]

Some people run society. They happen to be white and male (if you'll permit me a generalisation) - I think it's a huge step from there to get to 'society is run for the benefit of white men in general and therefore white men cannot be discriminated against'.

The homeless people in sleeping bags along our beach are overwhelmingly white men. Where's their 'privilege'?

Nobody said that privilege and oppressive structures need to ensure that every single member of a dominant group is truly above the rest. Were there no poor Romans in the Roman Republic/Empire? Does the fact that some of them were poor mean that Roman citizens were not privileged? Absurd.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Are men primarily attacked on the basis of their gender? That is what i have to wonder, they maybe the victims of more attacks in general, but that might be due to there numbers, rather than any targeted sort of attack.

Are you saying there are more men on the internet than women? I wouldn't have thought it was pretty even seeing as almost everyone seems have a significant online presence these days. Perhaps not on certain niche sites like this one, but on facebook, twitter, Youtube etc is there really much of a disparity? And those types of "social" sites are certainly where most of the abuse (of everyone) takes place.

 

[brennan]

Roman citizens were indeed favoured by legislation in the Roman state.

What legislation favours white men in the UK?

as a % of white men they would not be a great number, and you would have to show that minorities had an even smaller % of people who are homeless and did not benefit from the system
this is not shown, it is just imagined, see white men sleeping on beach, white men are the 'most' disenfranchised in the system

Skin colour here is an irrelevance. But that men are almost the entirety of the rough-sleeping 'demographic' is beyond dispute.

It seems to me that with arguments like this you are trying to make the idea of male 'privilege' unfalsifiable. Surely to be constructive we must find some way of quantifying such alleged privilege and weighing it against corresponding female privileges?

is this not just a problem of your governments not adhering to their own legislation

Owing to the fact that a variety of worthless parasites have been running the country into the ground for a minority of rich capitalists (i.e. not 'for white men') for some decades now, we have a pronounced housing shortage here in the UK - the world's 6th richest country.

 

[classical_hero]

It's never possible to be sexist against men. Whites and men run society, and the structure and shape of it, as well as its mores, are defined by their ideals and reinforce the protection of their rule. Being "against" them is not bigotry because the personal opinion expressed by such a statement does not reinforce their systematic oppression, as it does when directed against women/transgender or people of color.

I thought the most powerful man in the world is a man of colour and perhaps the next person to take that mantra could be a woman. That is unless the Americans are being controlled by the Illuminati who secretly run everything. Don't forget that you nation once had a female leader and has a female head of state. But you can live in your fantasy world world where you can hate yourself for being white and male so you can eventually feel good about fighting the system.