[offtopic split] Egalitariansm + feminism + related topics

[vox nihili]

On point 2, you have a lot to learn and see. As I said, overt sexism is less of a problem these days but it's the subtle things that can still do a lot of damage that is alive and well.

This video kind of makes superficial what is a very complicated issue, but it does have a pretty significant point. Watch it and tell me what you think about how (subtle) sexism has been built into our language. There are plenty of other examples of the same.

There are elements of language that are sexist against men as well, in truth. There's probably a greater number of phrases directed at women, granted, but you can cherry pick examples from either side. I don't really deny the premise, just the thing that supports it.

[excal]

Enlighten me.

[vox nihili]

Enlighten me.

It's cherry picking, but just to make the point that one can cherry pick, the term "a man's look" springs to mind as being inherently sexist.

[Ballerina]

Oh no this is here. Oh no, I am the OP.

There are elements of language that are sexist against men as well, in truth. There's probably a greater number of phrases directed at women, granted, but you can cherry pick examples from either side. I don't really deny the premise, just the thing that supports it.

You've just turned something that was supposed to be about sexism against women into it being about men again, by pointing out what you admit to be a small and minor aspect that is comparatively negligible. Which has been the theme across this thread. This happens virtually every time when someone points out an act of misogyny, from the 1950's to 2014. Misandry happens. But obviously misogyny is on an entirely different level, and it's so hurtful and unfair that someone would try and make feminism about men. Again. And again. And again. Men have plenty, there's no need to twist something like a room or video aimed toward women, to be about men. I would never do that to unfair custody laws and military conscription of men, which are real men's issues unlike the ones here.

It shows more poise to learn from a mistake and move on.

[vox nihili]

Oh no this is here. Oh no, I am the OP.

You've just turned something that was supposed to be about sexism against women into it being about men again, by pointing out what you admit to be a small and minor aspect that is comparatively negligible. Which has been the theme across this thread. This happens virtually every time when someone points out an act of misogyny, from the 1950's to 2014. Misandry happens. But obviously misogyny is on an entirely different level, and it's so hurtful and unfair that someone would try and make feminism about men. Again. And again. And again. Men have plenty, there's no need to twist something like a room or video aimed toward women, to be about men. I would never do that to unfair custody laws and military conscription of men, which are real men's issues unlike the ones here.

It shows more poise to learn from a mistake and move on.

The claim was that language is set up against women and some examples were cherry picked and put forward as evidence that language conspires against women. I demonstrated that that wasn't necessarily the case and showed that by cherry picking you can make the same case about language being sexist against men. Language reflects our values and our prejudices; it's sexist against both. I was being needlessly pedantic, that much is true.

If I've led you to believe that I'm trying to take this down the path of "what about the men", I'm sorry. I've particularly tried to avoid that line of thinking because I personally think it devalues the argument. Yes, there are significant issues that men face, you've identified two really important ones and I'd add men's health as well. The gap between the life expectancies of men and women is a pertinent issue that needs to be addressed.

With that said, I'm not trying to devalue women's issues or to point score against women. It's petty and it's stupid. There are significant issues for women and there are significant issues for men. It seems silly to me to look at them through the prism of gender and much more sensible to treat them as people's issues and that it is in everyone's interests to address them.

[Ballerina]

...So they made a claim and put forward examples to substantiate it. You've already agreed that language is biased against women. That's all they did. It is not a scientific study where n=30 is required.

You directly have done that. The life expectancy difference is terrible, and us relinquishing a room will not change it.

But you have intentionally or otherwise. And I'm sorry that I can't really rephrase the same points already made. The best-case scenario is just to learn from a discussion and let it be.
 

The claim was that language is set up against women and some examples were cherry picked and put forward as evidence that language conspires against women. I demonstrated that that wasn't necessarily the case and showed that by cherry picking you can make the same case about language being sexist against men. Language reflects our values and our prejudices; it's sexist against both. I was being needlessly pedantic, that much is true.

If I've led you to believe that I'm trying to take this down the path of "what about the men", I'm sorry. I've particularly tried to avoid that line of thinking because I personally think it devalues the argument. Yes, there are significant issues that men face, you've identified two really important ones and I'd add men's health as well. The gap between the life expectancies of men and women is a pertinent issue that needs to be addressed.

With that said, I'm not trying to devalue women's issues or to point score against women. It's petty and it's stupid. There are significant issues for women and there are significant issues for men. It seems silly to me to look at them through the prism of gender and much more sensible to treat them as people's issues and that it is in everyone's interests to address them.

[vox nihili]

...So they made a claim and put forward examples to substantiate it. You've already agreed that language is biased against women. That's all they did. It is not a scientific study where n=30 is required.

You directly have done that. The life expectancy difference is terrible, and us relinquishing a room will not change it.

But you have intentionally or otherwise. And I'm sorry that I can't really rephrase the same points already made. The best-case scenario is just to learn from a discussion and let it be.

There are certainly some elements of language that are deliberately sexist. Those examples given were, as were mine. Things like "mankind" etc aren't though, although that's getting off topic.

Well that's certainly not been my intention. My objection to some of the points raised is that they cultivate sexism rather than deal with it. Not to say that that sexism, in the scheme of things, will have a large practical effect, it just doesn't seem like a good approach to gender equality. It's hypocritical and whilst, for the most part, hypocrisy is acceptable, from a popular movement it's not.

I have indeed learned from this discussion as I hope everyone has. At the end of the day though it hasn't shifted my underlying feelings about this: if equality is the aim, things that are intentionally unequal are not going to work. Take the room as an example.

Considering that women still suffer the brunt of the sexism in our world, and the vast majority of the sexism that men do face (sexual abuse, rape, mental health and life expectancy being just a few of the most serious issues that affect men) is very often related to sexist attitudes against women, AND considering that sexism is primarily perpetuated by men... I would probably still consider it a women's issue, not a people's issue, even if we do all have a responsibility to fix it. Feminism doesn't have to also benefit men (though it does) to be a worthwhile cause.

If people spent half as much effort actually ending discrimination instead of derailing conversations with miniscule examples of "reverse sexism/racism/etc" then we would have made a whole lot more progress by now. And it actually puts some weight to your words when you say you "support gender equality but...".

Sexism is an issue that hits both sexes. Men are sexist to women, women are sexist to men. Institutionally, sexism has had a much greater impact on women. Only a fool could deny that. It's not necessarily the case that men are inherently sexist and women aren't. Though hard to prove either way, it'd be reasonable to suggest that men and women are equally sexist, it's just that men have had control of the institutions through which they can exercise their sexist tendencies a hell of a lot more. Anyway, that's getting off topic.
It's a people's issue very much. Sexism against men affects me personally. Easy to tell why: Y chromosome. Likewise, however, sexism against women affects me. It affects society as a whole, not just women. Obviously women bear the brunt of that and they most certainly bear the emotional consequences of it—men don't—but, the effect of sexism on society is felt by men and women. It slows us down. It stifles talent. It stunts economic growth. Everyone suffers from sexism, no matter which way it's directed.

I don't entirely disagree with you there. A lot of genuinely sexist people tend to use discussions about the minutiae. At the same time though, it's important to engage the broader public on the issue of gender of equality and they simply won't be engaged if there are screaming inconsistencies in the push towards gender equality.

[Ballerina]

There are certainly some elements of language that are deliberately sexist. Those examples given were, as were mine. Things like "mankind" etc aren't though, although that's getting off topic.

Well that's certainly not been my intention. My objection to some of the points raised is that they cultivate sexism rather than deal with it. Not to say that that sexism, in the scheme of things, will have a large practical effect, it just doesn't seem like a good approach to gender equality. It's hypocritical and whilst, for the most part, hypocrisy is acceptable, from a popular movement it's not.

I have indeed learned from this discussion as I hope everyone has. At the end of the day though it hasn't shifted my underlying feelings about this: if equality is the aim, things that are intentionally unequal are not going to work. Take the room as an example.

But I've already stated that the video wasn't about your examples and that feminism isn't about men.

But they've already refuted those objections.

But they're actions to compensate for the preexisting inequality.

I'm not sure that rephrasing the same statements repeatedly can shift this as much as a change in perception. Good luck Travis!

[Thu Thu Train]

Would you be this upset about a room if it was queer students?

Mature aged students also have their own room at least at Monash.

[Hehetymen]

Dafuq why not just chuck in a men's room too and boom everyone's happy.

I for one would love a room full of nothing but dudes. Wait wot.

[scribble]

Would you be this upset about a room if it was queer students?

Mature aged students also have their own room at least at Monash.

we actually do have a queer room <3

[brenden]

And what about the support for male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault? Or should men have to keep quiet about these experiences?

While we do experience some discrimination still today, many forget that men also face real issues and are often pressured by society to not share with anyone.

Indeed, if this is an issue for so many men,  they should speak up and let everyone know. I guess there's no men's room because they haven't done that yet.

Edit: I'm speaking directly with reference to the lack of men's room at MU.

[Ballerina]

And what about the support for male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault? Or should men have to keep quiet about these experiences?

While we do experience some discrimination still today, many forget that men also face real issues and are often pressured by society to not share with anyone.

...No, they don't, hence why there are multiple men's shelters, hotlines, and support groups in Victoria. The reason there are more groups for women is because the domestic violence and sexual assault is many times greater against women than there are for men. It's not really a privilege to require more support groups because you're part of a demographic that experiences more domestic violence and sexual assault.

...I literally discussed imperative men's issues on the page before this one. I wouldn't be opposed to a men's room at all actually, if there are the resources for it. But if resources are limited, then of course the preference should be allocated to the those who need it most; and again, it's not a privilege that women feel the need for a safe space to discuss topics and share experiences that would be clearly criticized elsewhere. As a heterosexual, I really don't need a heterosexual room to discuss discrimination and oppression against heterosexuals. Aboriginals have extra counselling, financial aid, legal aid, academic support available among other things because we greatly damaged their communities and educational/employment opportunities. I don't need to take their support because I don't need it. The discrimination my ethnicity receives is many times below that of Aboriginals. It would be selfish of me to make their support revolve around my own issues.

[BucketPreacher]

women feel the need for a safe space to discuss topics and share experiences that would be clearly criticized elsewhere.

For some reason I thought of the Dead Poets Society, but instead of reading poems in this room, a women's liberation movement is organised.

[pi]

Would you be this upset about a room if it was queer students?

Mature aged students also have their own room at least at Monash.

To be fair, there is an obvious stigma against those groups of people. You still hear people at uni say "lol that's so g*y" as an insult, and mature age students get bagged as a stereotype. I understand why they may want their own space, that's obvious, that's fine.

I honestly don't understand how the same can be applied to women at uni.

Also, I'm not upset, just utterly confused at this waste of resources. And if there was a room for men I'd feel the same way (loljks there is, it's called the Engineering department).