SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:This is the type of garbage that more than mildly infuriates me. There's always going to be the 1% with extremely outlandish views and access to the internet, and it's probably not healthy for me to focus too much on those cases, but the fact that anyone would buy into this stuff irritates me greatly.
Oohmynameisblue wrote:This person does know sexes are inclusive of males as well as females, right?
SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:Oohmynameisblue wrote:This person does know sexes are inclusive of males as well as females, right?
Yes, but within the first paragraph the author tries to redefine sexism to better suit her narrative. She claims that individual cases of discrimination based on sex are not sexist (even though discrimination based on sex is literally the definition of sexism) and that for discrimination to qualify as sexism it must be institutionalized. Now that the twisted groundwork has been set, this allows her to segway into a load of other points ultimately invalidating men's right to to complain because as men we are "privileged".
My guess is that she's the type of person who would also claim that racism against white people does not exist because minorities are the victims of institutionalized oppression and white privilege, and white people hold all the cards.
Seriously. The irony is strong with this one. Here we have a group of people that are convinced (at least the loudest ones are) that there is a faction of men that are actively doing everything in their power to oppress and silence women. And in the same article the author dismisses male concerns and male sexism as "rich white guy tears" because we've apparently "won the genetic lottery" and have had everything handed to us. More than anything this seems like a tool that (some) women are using to silence anybody that might disagree with them, which ironically is the very thing they're supposed to be fighting against.
SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:Oohmynameisblue wrote:This person does know sexes are inclusive of males as well as females, right?
Yes, but within the first paragraph the author tries to redefine sexism to better suit her narrative. She claims that individual cases of discrimination based on sex are not sexist (even though discrimination based on sex is literally the definition of sexism) and that for discrimination to qualify as sexism it must be institutionalized. Now that the twisted groundwork has been set, this allows her to segway into a load of other points, ultimately invalidating men's right to to complain because we are "privileged".
My guess is that she's the type of person who would also claim that racism against white people does not exist because minorities are the victims of institutionalized oppression and white privilege, and white people hold all the cards.
Seriously. The irony is strong with this one. Here we have a group of people that are convinced (at least the loudest ones are) that there is a faction of men that are actively doing everything in their power to oppress and silence women. And in the same article the author dismisses male concerns and male sexism as "rich white guy tears" because we've apparently "won the genetic lottery" and have had everything handed to us. More than anything this seems like a tool that (some) women are using to silence anybody that might disagree with them, which ironically is the very thing they're supposed to be fighting against.
elanshof wrote:You live in a country where legislative bodies made up of mostly men actively try to restrict women's health care choices at every possible turn.
SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:elanshof wrote:You live in a country where legislative bodies made up of mostly men actively try to restrict women's health care choices at every possible turn.
Could you be more specific in regards to which legislative bodies, what specific women's healthcare choices are in question, and how they're being restricted at every possible turn?
elanshof wrote:SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:elanshof wrote:You live in a country where legislative bodies made up of mostly men actively try to restrict women's health care choices at every possible turn.
Could you be more specific in regards to which legislative bodies, what specific women's healthcare choices are in question, and how they're being restricted at every possible turn?
State legislatures have been on a streak of passing laws aimed at limiting access to abortion. Granted, they've been overturned when challenged in court, but it's still done fairly consistently, notably in Texas and Ohio.
elanshof wrote:
You live in a country where legislative bodies made up of mostly men actively try to restrict women's health care choices at every possible turn.
MisterBones wrote:But guyyyyys, all white cis males are rapists and misogynistic it's true I read it on the tumbler dot com
:^)
SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:MisterBones wrote:But guyyyyys, all white cis males are rapists and misogynistic it's true I read it on the tumbler dot com
:^)
SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:So, if the main issue here seems to be state legislatures barring attempts at abortions, then don't you think it's an exaggeration to paint this as men actively trying to restrict women's health care choices at every turn? Because those are two very different statements.
Rachel M wrote:SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:So, if the main issue here seems to be state legislatures barring attempts at abortions, then don't you think it's an exaggeration to paint this as men actively trying to restrict women's health care choices at every turn? Because those are two very different statements.
It's not, as no one would ever dream of infringing on a man's bodily autonomy or punishing them for sexual activity the same way.
SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:However, if you're going to make the claim that "no one would ever dream of infringing on a man's bodily autonomy", then I would ask to consider the millions of male babies who have been and will be circumcised
SolidSnickerdoodle wrote:I really wish this thread hadn't gone down this road, considering that the focus of my post was on an incorrect and self-serving definition of sexism.
Kyle wrote:It wouldn't be a discussion about something like sexism on the Internet without a "but we have it so much worse because of this and this and this" getting brought up.
zetastrophenow wrote:Welp, it's official: Everybody above me who says "no, our side is in the right" are, by definition, massive assholes. As thus, there's a guy name Caleb who's wants to learn how to be a gigantic asshole, can anyone of the interlopers give him some tips?
Steak in a Tree wrote:zetastrophenow wrote:Welp, it's official: Everybody above me who says "no, our side is in the right" are, by definition, massive assholes. As thus, there's a guy name Caleb who's wants to learn how to be a gigantic asshole, can anyone of the interlopers give him some tips?
No, defending your opinion does not make you a massive asshole. Trying to cram your opinion down other's throats and belittling them because of their different opinions makes you a massive asshole.