Sexism

No they don't, and yes you are, though perhaps inadvertently.

edited 28th May '16 3:48:26 PM by TheHandle

In other news, in huehueshitstan a girl is gang raped by her boyfriend and 30 other men, the rape was recorded by the rapists on a cell phone camera.

You know, it is things like this that remind me why I am studying to join the federal police.

*Flashbacks to The Elite Squad*

@Kostya: But we can at least try. Sexual inequality needs to come to an end, and the sooner it ends the better. Women and men needs to stand side-by-side as equals. Maybe I'm just too much of a Wide-eyed Idealist here? I dunno, I know that it's an almost impossible dream, and that it will have many hurdles, but but sometimes the goals that are hardest to reach are the ones most worth reaching.

30 other men?! What...

Gang rape Up To Eleven, sadly as it is, most of them will walk away with this even with the crime being recorded but due to the sheer ineffectiveness of our justice system.

I thought the Brazilian judiciary was very powerful?

Well you though wrong, our judiciary is infamous for its powerlessness, like only between 5% and 8% of our murders result in a conviction and I am still trying to find the data for rape cases. Even politically their decisions can be overruled in case of corruption schemes.

Transgender girl competes along other female athletes in several racing categories, the standing of the female athletes and the community: you can identify yourself as a woman but we think it is unfair for you to compete with other biologically born women at sports.

Yeah it was.

edited 7th Jun '16 5:56:02 AM by AngelusNox

Isn't it supposed to be "transgender girl"?

Anyway, that's a tricky situation. I think at the end of it, sports are segregated by sex, not gender, and that girl is still biologically male.

http://time.com/women-are-sexist-too/

Interesting article on the importance of degendering parenthood. Makes a good point about how we can't really hope to move forward on breaking down gender roles for women if we're unwilling to do the same for men. And it's a little disappointing to see so many women still laughing at "Real men are X" jokes. Never found them funny growing up, was hoping more people would've moved past that too.

Ugh, the URL of that article screams alt-right and makes me not even want to click on it if I can't expect it to give me an objective account of what happened.

edited 29th Jun '16 6:11:27 PM by AlleyOop

I've heard someone say "I have seen male wives and female husbands". No clarification on what 'wife' and 'husband' means in that context. Clearly not 'female spouse' and 'male spouse'.

I'd guess it has to do with stereotypical gender roles.

Even where I live, there's still ways to go in that area. It is getting better, though, and part of it is just encouraging more fathers to be home with their children. It's just like with how if we want women to be more respected in the workplace, we need more of them there to show it's normal for them to be there. We need more fathers to take an active part with their children's lives if we want them to be seen as just as competent as mothers.

Also, have some pics. (You can mouseover for some info about the families.)

edited 30th Jun '16 3:47:10 AM by AnotherDuck

A very important point in the article is that women have to let men take responsibility in domestic tasks for real for men to really take part in them, rather than insisting they know best.

How should one answer to people who say "Just have all men go to work and all women stay at home to take care of the children! Don't make life so complicated!"?

Or people who question the importance of letting married women go to work, or married men to stay at home.

edited 30th Jun '16 6:02:01 AM by hellomoto

tldr? People should be able to do what they want, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. And career-oriented wives or househusbands don't hurt anyone.

What's so complicated about sharing responsibilities?

Having one category for everyone is less complicated than having two.

Wow, that opening. Just, wow.

Between the title being "Women are Sexist Too" and the painfully inaccurate tagline, "If women are equal in the office, why can't men be equal in the home?", the whole thing immediately looks like exactly the kind of wild, MRA-style, "Stop bitching, feminists, because men are the true victims!" ravings we hear all too often.

Which is a shame because the article itself is actually fairly reasonable and is simply making the point that men in the home are often treated in much the same fashion as women in the office: condescendingly, as if they can't know what they're doing because they're men. Just as we make the assumption that only men really know their way around a workplace, we assume that only women know their way around a kitchen.

It's a good article chameleon-cloaked as MRA bullshit. The title and tagline color it with a profound sense of bias that almost certainly was not intended by the article's author. Bad form, marketing guys. Terribly bad form.

edited 30th Jun '16 8:09:48 AM by TobiasDrake

I didn't read it that way at all. Women are sexist too is simply a fact that needs to be acknowledged, not an MRA talking point. Sexism is not a one-way thing that men do to women. Men do it to women, women do it to men, and both genders do it to themselves.

So the moment you imply women can be sexist and not just men, and that there are areas where men are at a disadvantage, it's immediately classified as MRA propaganda. That's the kind of bullshit people have to deal with when they argue for men's issues.

I'd argue that most sexism is internal to the genders (women to women, and men to men), or internal to individuals (self-imposed values and such).

edited 30th Jun '16 8:35:06 AM by AnotherDuck

"Women are Sexist Too" is not an inherently biased statement, but it can be used as such. It can either be raising awareness for the fact that women are sexist towards both men and women, or it can be a snappy Gotcha. Activists use it in the former context, MRA use it in the latter. "See? Women are sexist too. There's nothing wrong with male sexism. You ladies are just being stupid hypocrites."

When it's followed by a fallacious statement like, "If women are equal in the workplace, why can't men be equal in the home?" then it contextually shifts to the latter definition. Because that statement assumes, in and of itself, that women are equal in the workplace. It states in no uncertain terms in the phrasing of its question that there is no longer workplace inequality.

Like I said: it's a terrible title and tagline, especially since "Women are Sexist Too" has very little to do with the actual article. The point isn't that women are capable of sexism, but that men are sexistly discriminated against in the home. The one does not equal the other.

edited 30th Jun '16 8:38:12 AM by TobiasDrake

The point isn't that women are currently equal in the workplace, it's that that's the goal — while men being equal in the home is a punchline. And this sexist double standard is largely enforced by women, who treat the men in their lives like children when it comes to housework, child care, etc. it's in no way saying that discrimination against women in the workplace is acceptable or that women should be pleased with their assumed superiority in household issues, or that because things are unequal in women's favor at home, things being unequal in men's favor in the workplace cancels it out and makes the whole thing a wash.

It's saying that women can be sexist too, and that the Men Can't Keep House attitude is an example of this sexism. Both of which are true statements and not MRA perversions of anything.

It's not a fallacious statement, since it's a conditional. It doesn't actually state that either side of the argument is true. It does however carry the implication that if we want one of them to be true, we should want the other to be true as well. As such, it calls out the lack of engagement in getting men to be equally accepted at domestic work.