A while back, SonicV2 tried a thread about this, though it didn't seem to work out well. (Personally, I didn't like most of the replies to that thread either, except the ones made by Veckums, Jimro, and Erika.) In any case, let's just go through this in a more general sense.
First off, here's a TVtropes list of double standards. Yes, it says it's about storytelling, but fiction reflects on reality, and I use this particular list because it's a thorough yet well-organized list, though obviously it's not necessary to look through the whole list; just the nature of the list, and the existance of 5 sections, 4 of which pertain to gender, still reflects on this subject. One thing that's especially interesting is that some of these double standards arguably leave ambiguous who they're more sexist AGAINST.
An especially disturbing double standard is The Unfair Sex, and of course the troper tales thereof. Sure, it's only the Internet, and the people supplying those anecdotes might just be making them up to see how people react, but that these anecdotes are even plausible at all reflects very poorly on the consistency with which society approaches gender issues. Discrimination against women in the workplace is considered unacceptable, because people should be treated as individuals above all else... fair enough. And yet, stereotypes against guys seem to play a huge role in assessment of who did what and whose fault something is. The second anecdote (which describes a guy who was being verbally abused by girls, and when he hit one of them, everyone sided with them) is especially concerning. Sure, he shouldn't have resorted to violence, but as one of the responses puts it:
"how is it that women are classified as "weaker" than men when and only whenever it's so !%@@!+% convenient for them to get away with %@%*? If a Non Action Guy was verbally abusing an un-hot strong Amazon by calling her a dork, ugly, horrible, and gay, would that mean she's not allowed to hit him? Calling a girl ugly alone would get him beaten up, and witnesses would cheer the girl for it."
It really seems as though mainstream feminism doesn't seem to speak out against these kinds of double standards as much so as it does about double standards; as if they were supporting giving women the benefits associated with being male without giving men as many of the benefits associated with being female.
It seems to me that the real issue isn't just the double standards, but about how they combine; the logic of some double standards clearly contradicts the logic of other double standards. The real question is how do we interpret these contradictions, and who do we blame for letting this kind of hypocrisy get out of hand?
There's no such thing as "reverse sexism." That phrase is as idiotic as "reverse racism."
Sexism just means to discriminate based on sex/gender.
Yes, there are double standards based on sex/gender and those double standards are the basis for why a lot of sexism in the world goes unchallenged.
Who one decides to "blame" depends on their vantage point--nothing more or less.
There's no such thing as "reverse sexism." That phrase is as idiotic as "reverse racism."
I'm just using it because I find it a convenient shorthand for "racism and/or sexism in the direction opposite from that of the popularly perceived overall net direction of racism and/or sexism." Though for what it's worth, given all the double standards I think it's somewhat subjective to say which set of double standards are worse, so I don't personally believe there's necessarily an overall net direction in and of itself... at least not one I'd claim to know.
Yes, there are double standards based on sex/gender and those double standards are the basis for why a lot of sexism in the world goes unchallenged.
My point, though, is more so about how the logic with which society approaches these double standards doesn't even seem consistent. I frankly find this kind of hypocrisy a rather underappreciated concern even within the context of gender-based double standards.
Who one decides to "blame" depends on their vantage point--nothing more or less.
Well, the way I see it, hypocritical output implies hypocritical input; it's just hard to tell whose input is more hypocritical than who else's.
women are a minority in power, the workforce, leadership (even if we're much better at it) and also generally weak built and small sized. so it matters more to support women's side of things since they'll need it.
but to be fair there is one case where men face sexism in an obvious unjust way... kindergarten teaching positions. this topic should talk about that.
is it really wrong to let a man be a kindergarten teacher?
women are a minority in power, the workforce
The workforce? I'd say if still a minority, they're not a very small minority like blacks or hispanics are. At least not in the western world.
leadership (even if we're much better at it)
What exactly do you base this on?
and also generally weak built and small sized.
So if a construction company decided they were going to focus on hiring male workers instead of female workers because of their "average" builds, would you consider that acceptable?
Also, what about psychological gender differences? You say women are "generally" weak built and small sized, what do you think of the idea of taking into consideration psychological traits women "generally" have in comparison to men?
so it matters more to support women's side of things since they'll need it.
Gee, and here I thought "need" was an INDIVIDUAL thing. Seriously, there are plenty of ways in which "groups" (depending on the standards by which you group people) could "need" something more than other "groups" in various ways, but when the idea shifts to giving help to individuals who need it at the expense of individuals who don't, it's not taken as seriously. What gives?
but to be fair there is one case where men face sexism in an obvious unjust way... kindergarten teaching positions. this topic should talk about that.
is it really wrong to let a man be a kindergarten teacher?
... do you REALLY think that's the only case? Various groups have been arguing it's more than that. Reminds me of this article I've come across on Wikipedia about areas where men are perceived as being shortchanged... hell, even the TVtropes double standard list mentioned earlier points out various double-standards against men, some of them rather vitriolic.
I'm not even sure if there's much of a taboo against letting a man be a kindergarten teacher, but I have heard that some are hesitant to hire male babysitters for fear that said male babysitters would molest children. I could imagine there might be similar attitudes towards male kindergarten teachers.
That and the relatively less intense stereotype that males are relatively less nurturing than females, on average. Of course, even whether that is a good or bad thing for teaching still depends at the very least on what one believes makes a better teacher in the first place.
women are a minority in power, the workforce, leadership (even if we're much better at it) and also generally weak built and small sized. so it matters more to support women's side of things since they'll need it.
Okay this bothered me and I know it's a bit off topic but, being a man or a woman does not mean you are better or worse at leadership. Being a leader is about personality, how you deal with others, and charisma. It doesn't matter what race or gender you are, if you don't have the ability to get people to follow your cause then you won't be a very good leader.
There's no such thing as "reverse sexism." That phrase is as idiotic as "reverse racism."
I'm just using it because I find it a convenient shorthand for "racism and/or sexism in the direction opposite from that of the popularly perceived overall net direction of racism and/or sexism." Though for what it's worth, given all the double standards I think it's somewhat subjective to say which set of double standards are worse, so I don't personally believe there's necessarily an overall net direction in and of itself... at least not one I'd claim to know.
It's not a convenient shorthand. It perpetuates the silly generalization that sexism (or racism) goes in one direction. Popularity has nothing to do with using correct terminology. It's just an excuse to continue idiotic double standards. You can lament hypocripsy, but do acknowledge that you are being hypocritical as well when you use phrases such as "reverse sexism."
There's no such thing as "reverse sexism." That phrase is as idiotic as "reverse racism."
I'm just using it because I find it a convenient shorthand for "racism and/or sexism in the direction opposite from that of the popularly perceived overall net direction of racism and/or sexism." Though for what it's worth, given all the double standards I think it's somewhat subjective to say which set of double standards are worse, so I don't personally believe there's necessarily an overall net direction in and of itself... at least not one I'd claim to know.
It's not a convenient shorthand. It perpetuates the silly generalization that sexism (or racism) goes in one direction. Popularity has nothing to do with using correct terminology. It's just an excuse to continue idiotic double standards. You can lament hypocripsy, but do acknowledge that you are being hypocritical as well when you use phrases such as "reverse sexism."
Not to the same extent, I don't think... okay so I was probably using a poor choice of words for the perspective I'm arguing. It might seem like it's going along with the notion that sexism is in one direction, but the context shows that I'm really arguing the opposite. Though yeah I probably should've picked a better way to word it. o.o
"Arrest me? Aiur burns at the touch of the Zerg, and you travel all this way to arrest me?" - Tassadar, to the Protoss Conclave in StarCraft
^-- This is my point about the blame issue. Scapegoats are just an excuse to direct attention away from real problems. You also cannot find any individual or group to blame for sexism, since it's been going on since the beginning of time. Playing the blame game is itself a problem - I think it's entirely valid to identify a problem, even if the problem is coming from a specific person, but just blaming them for something doesn't solve anything, and some people get so wrapped up in putting blame on others that they lose sight of the point.
But sexism is just one of many issues to do with humans misunderstanding each other. It is also one of those problems that doesn't have a uniform answer. I believe we are at a better point now than we ever were in the past, but there are so many issues, including people wrongly feeling entitled to more than their fair share because their ancestors were mistreated, that continue to complicate and keep the problem alive.
women are a minority in power, the workforce, leadership (even if we're much better at it) and also generally weak built and small sized. so it matters more to support women's side of things since they'll need it.
To suggest women need support is somewhat patronising, the kind of thing we should be avoiding in the workplace.
That said I'm not going to pretend I haven't done heavy lifting work where my female colleges would have had to do it in my place, I'm a relatively big guy and have a good deal of weight behind me, but this is usually because I want to help out and I happen to have a skill set that includes manual handling training.
However, I've known plenty of strong girls over the years too, so I'm sometimes not needed.
As for the term "reverse", be it with sexism, racism, xenophobia etc...I think the only useful way it'd work is if it's negative attributions to one's own race, gender and so on. There's probably still a term that's better for it than that, but it works better than just a shift in who's prejudging who.
Scapegoats are just an excuse to direct attention away from real problems. You also cannot find any individual or group to blame for sexism, since it's been going on since the beginning of time.
I wasn't wondering for who to blame for sexism in and of itself. I was wondering who to blame for the inconsistent logic with which it is approached. My point was that as far as consistency goes, it seems SOMEONE dropped the ball.
Playing the blame game is itself a problem - I think it's entirely valid to identify a problem, even if the problem is coming from a specific person, but just blaming them for something doesn't solve anything,
You sure about that one? Even if this creates an incentive for other people not to do what said person did? Or if it tells us who not to trust in the future? I'd say it can at least help with the solution, depending on what the problem is of course.
But sexism is just one of many issues to do with humans misunderstanding each other. It is also one of those problems that doesn't have a uniform answer. I believe we are at a better point now than we ever were in the past, but there are so many issues, including people wrongly feeling entitled to more than their fair share because their ancestors were mistreated, that continue to complicate and keep the problem alive.
Agreed there. Stuff like "reparations" should be based on what individuals went through, not what generations before us that happen to have the same skin colour went though. The latter is almost arbitrary.
EDIT: I didn't realize until now that my response didn't appear under the quote thing. o.o
tl;dr version: White males are included in my "ancestral abuse" clause, and playing the blame game can often be a problem rather than a solution.
When I said "ancestors" I probably sounded very specific about the whole slavery business. I meant to include any disenfranchised group who feels they should be treated better than others because of the way they've been treated in the past, whether it's a matter of gender, race, sexual orientation or religion (or lack thereof), among other things. I'd even go so far as to include white males in this category, insofar as I've seen the dissatisfaction that many of us have grumbled about in this very thread that it "isn't fair" when a woman "gets away" with things that a man doesn't, or a racial minority can get into a college where a better-prepared white cannot. Those are usually, however, individualized cases; racism and sexism still exist, and I think we insulate ourselves from that reality from our overall privileged position.
Matt, I think you can readily extend my point on who to blame, to include the inconsistency, which has also been going on forever. My point on the blame game, as I said before, is that blaming in itself becomes sometimes more important in our society than real solutions. It's one thing to call someone a bully or a troll, but it's another to talk with that person and try to understand why they are mean to others, perhaps even find a way for them to express themselves more positively. Sometimes people get blamed for things they never even did. Or, blame becomes a means to escape from personal responsibility, such as when someone claims that someone else got picked for a job due to their gender/color/whatever even if the process for getting the job was based on skills rather than appearance. After all, if you blame someone else on something you can't control like race or gender, you then absolve yourself of responsibility to get better at the skills you need to compete in the workplace. "The devil made me do it" is perhaps one of the best examples of trying to escape personal responsibility by blaming someone else. Overall, blame is not in itself a solution; it has to be coupled with action to ensure that it isn't misplaced or just a useless distraction.
When I said "ancestors" I probably sounded very specific about the whole slavery business. I meant to include any disenfranchised group who feels they should be treated better than others because of the way they've been treated in the past, whether it's a matter of gender, race, sexual orientation or religion (or lack thereof), among other things.
Yeah, but I mentioned the reparations for slavery debate not to imply that it was the only example, but because it comes to mind as something that is very clearly an example of this.
Matt, I think you can readily extend my point on who to blame, to include the inconsistency, which has also been going on forever.
Well, I'm not implying inconsistency is something new here. But modern society is partly a product of major challenges to gender roles decades ago, and while these challenges to gender roles were enough to stop "women are weaker on average" from being considered an acceptable justification for barring women as a whole from physically-demanding jobs, it didn't seem to be enough to stop, like in the earlier example, guys who hit girls for verbally abusing them from be regarded FAR less sympathetically than a girl who would hit guys for the same reason is.
And that is just an example; plenty of times when the same reasoning is used for two ideas, one of them will be more often dismissed as sexist than the other. Somewhere along the challenge to gender roles, there was some level of hypocritical input. With such input having contributed to such inconsistency, I think it WOULD be fair to call out whomever was responsible if it were more clear-cut. It isn't, though, so the whole thing is purely hypothetical anyway.
My point on the blame game, as I said before, is that blaming in itself becomes sometimes more important in our society than real solutions. It's one thing to call someone a bully or a troll, but it's another to talk with that person and try to understand why they are mean to others, perhaps even find a way for them to express themselves more positively.
That shouldn't be relied on. They could just as easily be lying for their reasons and looking for excuses to be a bully. People respond more to punishment and reward; actually having a better sense of justice in schools so that we could better know who did what and have them punished accordingly sounds more like something that would actually correct their behaviour.
Overall, blame is not in itself a solution; it has to be coupled with action to ensure that it isn't misplaced or just a useless distraction.
... but that STILL makes blame PART of the solution in that case, right?
