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

[NovaKart]

All you're proving is that you're a dudebro who doesn't know what words mean.

Are you really saying that women oppress men by upholding a standard created by men in the first place?



If it's men oppressing men, then no, it's not sexism. If it's men oppressing women, and some men get caught in the crossfire, then yes, it's sexism.

So dudebro is the latest misandrist term for men?

I think people have already pointed out that a sexist practice doesn't need to be perpetuated by the opposite gender to be sexist.

 

[CaptainF]

Oh, so you're really serious?

I'm sorry, but I can't at all understand how you can have a position that's so blatantly false.

As someone who has been discriminated against based on my gender, I find your views utterly disgusting. You're essentially out of hand dismissing the problems of a group of people solely based on their gender. I find that just.. not civilized.. and 100% wrong.

Okay, so you might be kidding.. pulling my leg.. right? I don't know what to think anymore..

No, sexism doesn't exist against men because oppression male dudebros english institution institutionalized oppressor structures social systematic dudebros bro bro dude menz tears white people.

I might have left something out, but I think that captures the essence of it.

 

[Old Hippy]

The problem is, you can't say that it's only men oppressing men in these circumstances. The head of the AAP's "Circumcision Task Force", the one that justifies this mutilation, is a woman. But no, she is simply being controlled by men, like a puppet!

no she is simply a victim of societies cultral and moral assumptions or of capitalism itself, like any new born who is circumcised
if you look closely its not sexism but the same wired cult that has people eating bland food for breakfast... a fad
Q. Historically, how was circumcision started?

Spoiler :

A. It goes way back. There are pictures from 2,000 years ago of Egyptians doing the procedure. Most people tie the history to the Jewish and Muslim religions. There are references in “holy” documents that suggest circumcision is important to be part of these religious communities. So that takes you back a couple thousand years.

But the non-religious aspects are a little harder to trace. It made a come-back in the United States in the early 20th century. That history was related to a number of individuals, including John Harvey Kellogg of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and Sylvester Graham, who invented the Graham cracker, advocating for bringing up boys who were more pure or moral, and part of that was keeping their hands off their genitals. It was an anti-masturbation strategy.
That was also the case with the Graham cracker and Kellogg’s Corn Flakes. Kellogg and Graham believed that bland foods would make boys less likely to masturbate, so they encouraged people to feed them to kids. Most people don’t know that when they pour their corn flakes for their morning cereal.

That history led to circumcision being propagated or spread. It created a social culture where that was the norm. In the 1950s and ‘60s, many parents chose to circumcise their boys because all the other boys were circumcised and they didn’t want their child to look different. My mom, who was a nurse, said that it wasn’t even a question for parents in the hospital. The doctor would just say, “We’re going to circumcise your baby.” It is only in the last 20 years or so that we’ve seen a resurgence of people questioning the practice.

http://pulse.seattlechildrens.org/new-aap-circumcision-policy-task-force-member-shares-perspective/

so that raises the question are men being sexist if they give their kids corn flakes for breakfast...

TIL that apparently they are...

 

[sophie]

You are so, completely, utterly incapable of reading what other people write.

Forced circumcision isn't sexism. It's a violation, to be sure, but it's not sexism. Women aren't using society to force infant males to have parts of their penises chopped off, other men are doing that.

That man having to pay child support is obviously wrong. But guess who made the law? You guessed it: male-dominated society. Men wrote the law and passed the law. Women didn't will the law into existence with their evil she-powers in order to spite men. Nor does this oppress men or render them at a disadvantage in society in any way, shape, or form.

So yeah, not sexism.

No, it doesn't count, because it's still not racism.

What part of this aren't you getting? It's not about individual attitudes or your white people feel-feels. You cannot be the victim of racism because your race dominates society. Even if the president is Black, even if he came from poor origins, even if the president is female, even if the cop beating down the Black man on the street is still himself Black, they are upholding and defending a White, Male-run society which reinforces the rule of their respective social classes.

You have privilege. Get that through your head. Let's say he had killed you. You know what would happen? An actual police investigation. News time on your death, on the capture of the criminal once he was apprehended. You know why? Because you're White. They don't report on the murders of poor black girls so often, and they are never as quick to start up a search for the murderer or robber of a Black person. It's often dismissed as "well they kill/rob each other anyway." People just don't care that much, certainly not the police. No one says that about White people, either, even though we certainly do that to each other too.

Apparently not, since your post and your argument deal with things I addressed. You would not call those things sexism.



All you're proving is that you're a dudebro who doesn't know what words mean.

Are you really saying that women oppress men by upholding a standard created by men in the first place?



If it's men oppressing men, then no, it's not sexism. If it's men oppressing women, and some men get caught in the crossfire, then yes, it's sexism.



Today I learned that you don't speak the English language enough to be allowed to use this forum.

You're doing god's work cheezy

Moderator Action: A post which simply states agreement with three other trollish posts in the thread, without providing anything of substance towards the topic, isn't acceptable in an RD thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In this analogy, distance stands for gender, and parental wealth for political involvement.

But fine, droping the marble, and using abuse incidents instead.

...

Ahhh sorry. I thought it was a sample of male and female politicians. I didn't realise it was a sample of male and females that INCLUDED politicians. I get what you mean now, and yes I agree with you

 

[CaptainF]

You're doing god's work cheezy

lol much backslap, very feel feels

Just for you Owen, since I know you luh her so much:

(Warning, NSFW language)

Spoiler :

Moderator Action: Image containing inappropriate language put in spoiler with a NSFW warning. Please be aware that the rules on inappropriate language only allow for the posting of images containing inappropriate language if the image is placed in a spoiler, and a NSFW warning is given.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[luiz]

You're doing god's work cheezy

Only if by God's work you mean redefining words against the understanding of 99% of the population. For virtually everybody, racism is a dislike or hatred of certain races, or a belief in the existence of a hierarchy among human races. So anyone can be a racist, regardless of his race. For Cheezy, racism is the act of oppression of an underprivileged race by a member of the privileged one. And he expects us all to buy that.

It would be like redefining pedophile to mean "a bearded person who is sexually attracted to children". So, to paraphrase Cheezy, a non-bearded child mollester may be a jerk, but he is not a pedophile, because by defintion a pedophile must belong to the bearded man category

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Perhaps we could just not have any of these threads anymore. Genuine suggestion.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Wow, holy White People Tears. I'm sure you getting picked on in school was terrible. As was being "made to feel uncomfortable." That's not sarcasm, I know that stuff isn't pleasant. But as I literally just explained (and have done a thousand times before on this site, if you can hear me through all the White People Whining, racism has nothing to do with casual expressions of hostility.

You got made fun of. They had their land taken from them, are forced to live on reservations, and treated as second-class citizens.

You were made to feel uncomfortable once or twice. They're surrounded by a society that casually regards them as dangerous, volatile, and borderline-beastly.

There's some homeless white guys. So the system eats their own. It's not a caste society, and plus, there are multiple levels of oppression which overlap. The rich prey on each other, too, that doesn't mean they don't still run things for their mutual benefit as a class.

You think racism and sexism are "minor, overly divisive" issues. Because you're White and Male, and not affected by them.

Stop and think for a second about the narrowness of your own anecdotes before you angrily flail at the keyboard because someone dared to suggest that you might have it better than someone else simply because of your identity. And please, please read the post you're responding to, because you look awfully silly when you restate the exact same thing I just explained was false.

Y'know, I'm almost positive that you weren't there in that hallway at Red Deer College in the mid-'80s when I had the encounter I described. No, make that 100% positive. There might have been one of my male classmates in the vicinity; I don't remember. But even if he was there, he wasn't you, so do not presume to mock me for something that you think happened. The rest of us there were women, and it was a female student from the Hobbema reserve who let loose her diatribe - an unprovoked one - against Europeans/white North Americans. Interestingly, this occurred as we were waiting to get into the classroom where our anthropology class on Native North America was about to start. In my experience, anthropology tends to make people less bigoted, not more. I guess she's the exception to this.

I think this kind of misses the point. Firstly, abuse and misogynistic abuse are not the same thing. Men may well receive more abuse on-line, but how much of that is purely down to their gender?

I also think the comparison shouldn't be made between men and women, but between on-line an 'IRL'. In general, do women experience more misogyny on-line or off-line? I'm lucky enough to live in a community where misogyny and bigotry in general are rare; so from my perfective the answer to that question is clear: on-line misogyny is worryingly prevalent.

It depends on what part of my life you mean with regard to online or offline. Up until my grandfather died, I got a lifetime of "it's a man's world" and "you're not entitled to your own opinion until you're 18, and when you get married, your opinion becomes whatever your husband's opinion is." After that I informed my family that I wasn't taking any more of this, I was done being a doormat, and that's why I tend to get cranky online when guys mock or put me down because "women don't count."

Nowadays, offline, I tend to experience more discrimination against the disabled and the fact that I'm too old for some programs, or I'd be eligible if I had children, or if I were a senior citizen.

No, it doesn't count, because it's still not racism.

What part of this aren't you getting? It's not about individual attitudes or your white people feel-feels. You cannot be the victim of racism because your race dominates society.

It's irrelevant who dominates a society if one person denies another respect, safety, shelter, or other necessities solely due to "race" (I hate using the term like this since I sincerely believe that there is only one race - the human race). That's still racism, prejudice, bigotry, etc.

How or why are male politicians more likely to receive abuse than female politicians?

There are, for the most part, more male politicians than female politicians? And since fewer female politicians get into the upper echelons of power and policy-making, there are fewer of them available to say the monumentally stupid things that they receive abuse for.

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?

Oh, so you're really serious?

I'm sorry, but I can't at all understand how you can have a position that's so blatantly false.

As someone who has been discriminated against based on my gender, I find your views utterly disgusting. You're essentially out of hand dismissing the problems of a group of people solely based on their gender. I find that just.. not civilized.. and 100% wrong.

Okay, so you might be kidding.. pulling my leg.. right? I don't know what to think anymore..



I will defend your right to say whatever you want, unless what you're saying is in some way hateful, bigoted, sexist, racist, or whatever. You have a right to say what you want, but I have a right to speak out against the nonsense coming out of your mouth.

Nothing personal, but I know first hand how hurtful comments like that can be.. and how much they can affect people in a very negative way. I am very disappointed you don't feel a need to change in light of what you're saying being so hateful and hurtful, not to mention bona fide sexist.. I thought you were better than this.

When I said your comments are not welcome, I was saying that they are not welcome in society, period. I am not trying to say that you shouldn't be able to say these things here. Obviously that is not up for me to decide.

However, as a part of the society we both are members of, it is my duty to speak out against what you said, in the hope that you'll change or that others who have similar opinions will. Not for my own selfish reason, but because it will make other people's lives better, in the future, if you change and treat people with a bit more respect and courtesy. It can go a long way. No way am I going to sit by and not say a thing when you tell men "to suck it up", because they're men. What's next, men don't cry? Women don't wear pants? Women shouldn't vote?

Sexism is a problem, but we're not going to get anywhere if those are the views people have.

This is an example of an argument between two people I like and respect, and I wish they could find common ground.

Warpus, bhsup has, in the vast majority of interactions with me, behaved like a gentleman. On the rare occasions when he has slipped up, he has apologized.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Closed for review.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Thread reopened. Dawgphood001 and Cheezy the Wiz both banned.

Please get back to the topic of the thread, rather than going off on tangents (e.g. circumcision). Please also remember to remain civil.

 

[cardgame]

Perhaps we could just not have any of these threads anymore. Genuine suggestion.

I had hoped marking it red diamond would achieve something more. Oh well, back to page 3. This may still develop into something worthwhile.

I think this kind of misses the point. Firstly, abuse and misogynistic abuse are not the same thing. Men may well receive more abuse on-line, but how much of that is purely down to their gender?

I also think the comparison shouldn't be made between men and women, but between on-line an 'IRL'. In general, do women experience more misogyny on-line or off-line? I'm lucky enough to live in a community where misogyny and bigotry in general are rare; so from my perfective the answer to that question is clear: on-line misogyny is worryingly prevalent.

I kind of see it the other way around. The fact that men and women receive more or less the same amount of abuse – and most importantly, that women themselves make up nearly half of the abuse directed at women – tells me that nobody is being singled out or targeted on sex. The abuse itself may be in sexist language, to be sure, but I don't think that alone indicates a wider pattern of misogyny at all. It would be much, much more clear to me of a wider misogyny problem if a woman did [thing] and received incredibly more abuse than other people (men) with similar actions/views in similar contexts, etc – the problem would be actually finding directly comparable cases.

Of course, we may also be limited by the data from the OP. Twitter alone isn't the most representative internet platform. This sort of thing can definitely be localized and concentrated to certain parts of the internet. I and many others would not object (at least, as much) to a more specific statement like 'reddit's default subreddits have a misogyny problem'. The objections arise from the more ambiguous and generalizing “women aren’t welcome on the Internet,” and "The Internet isn't safe for women," approaches.

 

[aelf]

I wouldn't be surprised if sections on the Internet where there are few women are particularly misogynistic. The fact that these sections are over-represented in popular culture revolving around the Internet would certainly contribute to the perception that the Internet as a whole is misogynistic.

 

[Old Hippy]

I had hoped marking it red diamond would achieve something more. Oh well, back to page 3. This may still develop into something worthwhile.

to go off topic for a moment...
I totally missed the RD tag, sorry

 

[brennan]

any legislation that favours citizens of the UK...

you seem to think that white men are in some other category

Conflating 'white men' with all human beings who are legally citizens of the UK is unbelievably, astonishingly and stupefyingly silly.

That's not really discrimination though, it's triaging according to need. There is only so much emergency housing available so it goes to those with the greatest need for it. Single men tend to have less of a need for emergency housing, so they go to the bottom of the list.

No. It is discrimination. It's discrimination because it precisely meets the definition of discrimination (making decisions based upon certain characteristics) and is illegal under the relevant law. calling it 'triage' is a frankly pitiful response.

And...how do single men 'less need' for emergency housing? No home is no home, surely?

This is a depressingly low standard of discourse I must say.

There seems to be a willingness to engage in affirming the consequent here. Gender divides (except when they disfavour men - in which case they can be hand-weaved aside with some quite awesomely bad reasoning) certainly could be signs of sexism. However, the debate seems to fetature an awful lot of 'here's a gender divide, therefore there is sexism', which strikes me as affirming the consequent. There's no effort going into demonstrating that the divide is indeed caused by sexism or racism.

In which case it can be clearly seen that shark attacks are the result of misandry amongst the global shark population. Or will people suddenly see the titanic flaw in such reasoning?

There are at least two competing hypotheses here: That any gender divide is caused primarily by sexism; and that gender divides, whilst historically the result of institutionally sexist policies and societies, are rapidly becoming less pronounced with the result that there are other primary causes for the gender divides that we see, such as the over-representation of men in various professions at high levels, which could result from excess competitiveness and assertiveness in males over females.

The real question is how we would use the evidence to determine which of these hypotheses (and others) is the best explanation for what we see in society.

 

[Old Hippy]

Conflating 'white men' with all human beings who are legally citizens of the UK is unbelievably, astonishingly and stupefyingly silly.

you really seem to think that white men naturally are in some special category that does not make them eligible for rights available to citizens of the UK

it blindingly simple to me, citizens of the UK are not all white men...
but all white male citizens in the UK have ALL the rights available to citizens of the UK...
you even posted the legislation yourself that makes this true

under the Equality Act 2010: gender and marital status.

legislation I might add that feminists (among others) spent 30 years getting put in place so that you have these rights... as a male citizen...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But the question was what legislation FAVOURS white men in the UK. Not what rights do white men have in the UK.

 

[Old Hippy]

But the question was what legislation FAVOURS white men in the UK. Not what rights do white men have in the UK.

but it was linked to citzenship, (remember roman citzens?) so uk white male citzens benifit FROM ANY BENIFITS THAT ARE FAVOURABLE TO UK CITIZENS...

do you think the question that was asked was about what extra benifits males should have simply because they are male...

if you are, I'm definately in the right thread...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well the question was clearly* asking "what legislation in the UK favours white men over other races or females?", and so the answer "the same legislation that applies to everyone else equally" is not really a sensible answer to that. It wasn't about what extra benefits males SHOULD have, it was asking what they DO have already.

* I say clearly because it came right off the back of a statement about Roman citizens having extra legal privileges over the conquered peoples in the Roman Empire, so was obviously drawing a parallel with this.

 

[aelf]

Privilege can be institutionalised by legislation or in other ways. I doubt the UK is totally free from legislation that favours men, and at any rate I'm pretty sure there are still social mores that are to the advantage of white men. Just because some of them are poor and part of the underclass doesn't mean there is no privilege.