"Fighting sexism against women also has benefits for men"

A common argument in discussions about gender issues is that as feminists fight against sexism that harms women, sexism that harms men will go with it.

This begs the question; how effective has that been so far?

I mean, nowadays, in issues like workplace discrimination, that is so commonly cited as the reason for things like the wage gap that mentions of the role gender differences might play are pretty much treated as taboo. (The role itself is of course disputable, but this is just an example, and the nature of the example is beside the point.)

And yet, in the context of things like domestic abuse... people are so convinced that women abusing men is justified that most bystanders assume that any guy who gets abused by his girlfriend must have done something to deserve it, despite having no reason to conclude that.

If opposing sexism against women would in itself lead to opposition to sexism against men, how do you explain the continued popularity of DoubleStandards like Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female on Male in comparison to all the progress made against sexism against women?

It would be a mistake to conflate all methods of fighting sexism, and assume that all of them have the same degree of benefits or benefit the same people. After all, just because I support MLK's legacy doesn't mean I want anything to do with Nat Turner.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I wish that supporting feminism would lead to more recognition of a man's troubles in this world, but that shit ain't the truth.

feminism's been around long enough that the organization has ossified, and become what every other grass-roots gathering eventually does; a thing more concerned with its own continued existence rather than the ideal under which it was founded. So, in seeking to justify its continued health, feminism goes after new monsters in the fog. But since it cannot change too much from its founding ideals, championing the cause of men is not going to happen.

No, at this point supporting feminism won't win a guy any favors.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

You do realize that this stems from the fact that women are considered to be so weak, that a woman actually hurting a man is seen as ridiculous, and thus, it's okay for her to hit a guy, because, obviously, that would never result in any sort of serious injury.

Sexism against men does stem from sexism against women, and it was a guy who convinced me of that.

edited 6th May '11 12:00:18 AM by fanty

That explains its origin. The OP, however, asked for an explanation of its continued popularity. In its current form, there appear to be additional elements. For instance, ideas such as this one mentioned in another thread: "Misandry from women is a forgivable reaction from the oppressed class."

Well, it depends on the sexism, but a lot of gendered double standards that feminists tend to fight against are a double edged sword, that while Patriachal and male supremacist in essentially, holds men to some standard that hurts them too.

If you've looked at the Double Standard page, it has load of things which ought to hurt men much like women. If you look at that list, you'll notice for most, if not nigh absolutely all, they're twins, where if you remove the thing that's sexist toward women, the one that's sexist toward men will disappear as well.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

"You do realize that this stems from the fact that women are considered to be so weak, that a woman actually hurting a man is seen as ridiculous, and thus, it's okay for her to hit a guy, because, obviously, that would never result in any sort of serious injury." - fanty

No. That's not it. Come on.

First off, that's not what the people in the video said. The people in the video said he must have done something to deserve it. They said nothing about the woman being too weak or the man being too strong. Let those who think Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female on Male speak for themselves.

Also, strength isn't needed to cause serious injury (there's also something called weapons) nor does abuse have to be physical (see also stalking, blackmail, etc...) so even if one were to assume "women are weak" the assumption that women "couldn't abuse men" doesn't follow from it.

And seeing as how the "women are weak" assumption doesn't exactly seem as popular in the contexts of things like workplace discrimination, and that only a hypocrite would refute it in one area but use it elsewhere, I would say the idea isn't so much that women "couldn't" abuse men as that they "wouldn't" which leads back to the assumptions expressed in that video.

I think there are different kinds of feminists. Some feminists are primarily feminists, focused on the rights of women, and everyone else can go screw themselves (this category is often in conflict black women, disabled women, etc as well as with men, and some of the nastiest transphobia I've seen come from this category). Other feminists are primarily equality activists, for whom feminism is part of a commitment to fight all kinds of oppression (my Mom and I both fall into this category).

The kind of 'fighting against sexism' that the first category does hurts men, but the kind the second category does helps men.

edited 6th May '11 10:04:24 AM by Ettina

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

The idea that feminism helps men stems from the assumption that eliminating strictly defined gender roles will allow men to express themselves more freely.

(Feminism is about as united as Christianity — that is, lock an egalitarian feminist and a Marxist feminist in a room together until they can come to a consensus on welfare*

, and there will be a war. Thus, it's best to take this as the consensus of a fraction of feminists rather than all or even most of them).

Basically, when feminists are saying "Patriarchy hurts men too", they are going by a slightly modified definition of patriarchy. Instead of "social system that benefits men at the expense of women" it's "social system that rewards masculinity at the expense of femininity*

" — therefore, men regarded as feminine won't benefit from the system in the way men regarded as masculine will. Since the goal of feminists who talk about the patriarchy is to do away with the gender system altogether, there will be benefits to men who do not adhere to the standards of the system along with women in general.

Of course, this is just a very loose sum-up of the "Patriarchy hurts men too" meme — people write fucking books explaining this, after all (Allan G. Johnson's The Gender Knot, Julia Serano's The Whipping Girl to start off), and I'm probably getting something wrong because I'm not a sociology and/or gender studies major (it's always good to remember that most feminists that actually identify themselves as such are huge sociology nerds. Like, if they wrote slash fanfic, it'd be Marx/Weber hatesex all the way).

edited 6th May '11 12:44:26 PM by Sparkysharps

"If there's a hole, it's a man's job to thrust into it!" — Ryoma Nagare, New Getter Robo

This is an absolutely brilliant summation of modern patriarchy. May I steal it?

Stuff what I do.

"The kind of 'fighting against sexism' that the first category does hurts men, but the kind the second category does helps men." - Ettina

I agree with your assessment of different varieties of feminists, but it still comes back to the question I mentioned earlier; how effective has this been so far? If they care about fighting against sexism, why do domestic violence PSAs still always show violence as being done by men to women? Why is the "if a girl hits a man, it could only be because he did something to deserve it" assumption still so popular?

@Ettina: I disagree with your categorization of feminists; while it's true that feminists don't all care about men's issues to the same degree, that's not the only or the biggest split within feminist thought.

However, all but the most radical feminists (and this is radical in the laymen's sense, although many of these feminists were radical feminists in the sense of the movement) agree that men's rights should be protected and are aiming for equality and not dominance. In fact, by most definitions of feminism, the women who want dominance over men aren't really feminists. Though it is certainly a diverse movement, it's not entirely anything goes, in the same way that a Christian can believe Jesus was a fan of communism or humanism or even proto-Nietzsche, but if they don't believe in Jesus at all they can't really be called Christian.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

"However, all but the most radical feminists (and this is radical in the laymen's sense, although many of these feminists were radical feminists in the sense of the movement) agree that men's rights should be protected and are aiming for equality and not dominance." - Black Humor

And yet, they doesn't seem to care near as much about double standards against men as they do about double standards against women, as is readily apparent from the lack of "not all violence by women against men is justified" PSAs, or the lack of feminist concern about homeless shelters turning away men to protect the women.

edited 6th May '11 3:56:59 PM by neoYTPism

That's not because they don't think men should have equal rights but either because they believe that women's problems are so much worse than men's problems it's not worth devoting effort to men's problems until women reach a much greater level of equality or because they believe that working towards men's problems would be a distraction from their main goals and men should devise their own movement if they want to be heard.

EDIT: Or also that men's problems are all or almost all due to sexism against women at the core and thus they feel that even if they're not fighting for men directly, they are fighting for men.

edited 6th May '11 4:07:52 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

We've been over this before. They are not obligated to assist men. They do vital, life-improving work, but aren't and don't have to be your perfect omnigendered fix-all dream movement. Give it a rest.

edited 6th May '11 4:08:10 PM by Penguin4Senate

That too:

Does the NRA have to give you a lawyer to defend your right to free speech? Or can they decide to use their time and money on what they want to do and not what you want them to do?

Does the NAACP have to fight for women? Or can they fight their own battles without having to worry that they're hypocritical if they don't fight every injustice to everyone ever?

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

The radicals don't want you to know this, but I have discovered through painstaking independent research that gay rights activists don't care about black people! And I am shocked, simply shocked, that they could choose to ignore another marginalized group despite the obvious rhetorical and cultural parallels between them.

@Black Humor Seeing as how the NAACP as an obligation for protecting the rights of racial minorities, I would assume racial minorities who are women fall in that category. White women? Not so much.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

Well, it's more or less paraphrased from Julia Serano, so it's not exactly mine to be stolen from anyways.

"If there's a hole, it's a man's job to thrust into it!" — Ryoma Nagare, New Getter Robo

@KCK: Ah, but even then they don't fight for them on women's issues. I haven't actually checked, but I'll bet a whole internet that the NAACP spends absolutely nothing fighting the wage gap for anyone.

And I'm okay with that. That's not their job. They don't need to fight other people's battles for them, even if they sympathize.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Intersectionality.

"I disagree with your categorization of feminists; while it's true that feminists don't all care about men's issues to the same degree, that's not the only or the biggest split within feminist thought."

I didn't say it was the only or biggest split, just that it was present. I didn't mention any other splits because they didn't seem relevant to the current topic.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

Actually, I've read essays on the problems and rewards the two groups face when they work together for common cause.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

"We've been over this before. They are not obligated to assist men." - Penguin

And I never said they were. Quit putting words in my mouth.

Difference is, I was responding to assertions that fighting the double standards against women would also wear away at the double standards against men, and was questioning this, namely on the basis of how that does not seem to be actually happening.

If someone wants to say they are fighting for their own cause and do not have to fight for them, then stick with that. If they do not really believe that helping their own cause would inadvertently help others, then it would be disingenuous to say they do.

As for Black Humor's post, yes, the question of whether or not "sexism against women is worse" (which is fundamentally subjective) is relevant. Of course it is. But if that is their perspective, they should just say so. Again, anything else is disingenuous.