Support NeoGAF

[draetenth]

It's a good article. I'd like to think I practice a lot of those.

She should probably try to incorporate some of the FAQ into the article to make it more clear.

Despite the article's goals I think some of those points are more idealistic and academic rather than practical. For example, expecting men to preach feminism at every turn won't accomplish much IMO.

Same with giving up 23% of your salary to social causes. Can't really see anyone doing that but props to those who do.

I pretty much agree with everything in this post.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I feel this list is fair, equal, and supports its arguments. Seeing men get upset at the slightly authoritarian tone is very silly to me considering how dudes are talking to the ladies in this thread.

You gotta point to specific posts come on now. Coming in here talking like that is ridiculous. I think a few of the points may have some valid issues or were perhaps not explained well enough. Does that make me part of these men you're talking about?

You can't just paint a broad brush like that.

 

[way more]

I don't know, I thought we were in an age of actively trying to display equal respect for all people regardless of gender or race.

I don't think you accomplish that by saying "But what about the rights of men?" in articles posted about feminism. People don't go into threads about NYC stop and frisk and say, "but what about starving Africans." It seems to be a phenomenon unique to feminist threads that posters negate a social disparity by adopting the stance that they are confused by how we should strive to treat everyone the same and yet we should recognize things like racism and misogyny.

 

[RockTurtle]

I don't think you accomplish that by saying "But what about the rights of men?" in articles posted about feminism. People don't go into threads about NYC stop and frisk and say, "but what about starving Africans." It seems to be a phenomenon unique to feminist threads that posters negate a social disparity by adopting the stance that they are confused by how we should strive to treat everyone the same and yet we should recognize things like racism and misogyny.

that's true. but i wonder if you can you make a men's rights thread without influx of MRA accusations or "feminism already covers this, thus this is pointless"?

who has the balls (or vagina) to try!?

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

I feel this list is fair, equal, and supports its arguments. Seeing men get upset at the slightly authoritarian tone is very silly to me considering how dudes are talking to the ladies in this thread.

Mmm nothing like a hit and run generalization of probably 95% of the posters in this thread. Come on, say something of substance

 

[Miss.Selfdestruct]

A lot of these comments are "jeopardize your relationship with your male friends in order to help women who don't exist". Especially number 22. Quite a few of these are very reasonable, but I'm not going to start being judgmental of men and telling them how they should give women more respect when they both know better and are past the point of no return.

I have a friend or two I would consider sexist, but no amount of me judging them is going to magically make them change their mind about how they feel about women. That's for their parents to deal with at a much earlier time.

ugh...I cringed at this comment. It's exactly why there's still a problem. So their parents obviously did not teach them how to respect fellow humans that happen to not have a pair of balls and a penis. Let's pretend that your friends were racist. Would you not say anything for the sake of being a "bro"?

There's no need to come off judgmental in this sort of situation. Your bros already have respect for you and will listen to what you have to say. There's ways to suggest alternative ways of handling a situation that involves women. If no one says anything, they'll continue to think their behavior is appropriate and acceptable no matter how old they are.

This type of attitude is pathetic and not helping matters whatsoever.

 

[ishibear]

Mmm nothing like a hit and run generalization of probably 95% of the posters in this thread. Come on, say something of substance

If 95% of the posters apply, a generalization should suffice then.

 

[besada]

Lets reduce the number of meta posts in general, folks. Address the issues, do it reasonably and without attacking your fellow posters, and without a bunch of chatter about other people's posting style and unnamed call outs. None of that is productive.

 

[The Librarian]

Lets reduce the number of meta posts in general, folks. Address the issues, do it reasonably and without attacking your fellow posters, and without a bunch of chatter about other people's posting style and unnamed call outs. None of that is productive.

dat thinly sliced ham tho

 

[Social]

buy my shit
don't sit next to me
don't walk by me

Will get right on it.

Yeah, it's way too much. I can understand some pointsbut seriously, I refuse to walk around in public with all these silly rules in the back of my head.

 

[poppabk]

A woman told me this list is sexist, so that means I can discount the whole list right?

 

[besada]

A woman told me this list is sexist, so that means I can discount the whole list right?

Do you really need help thinking this through, or are you simply being a smart-ass?

 

[poppabk]

Do you really need help thinking this through, or are you simply being a smart-ass?

I was being a smart ass but also trying to point out that a statement like "if a woman tells you something is sexist believe her" is really stupid.
Take this womans article about how gay marriage is sexist:
https://patriotpost.us/commentary/21626
Are we really supposed to take this on face value and not argue against it, or at least only later and not while "she is in the midst of expressing feelings of degradation and hurt and anger about specific things she has experienced"

 

[Lazyslob]

being a deadbeat dad is sexist?

 

[Cat]

I didn't read the whole list, but I appreciate the sentiment behind it. From reading a good chunk of this topic, I think #6 is especially relevant.

6. When a woman tells you something is sexist, believe her.

The FAQ notes:

note: This is the item on the list that the most women have said is the most important to them, and the most men have reacted against. I think that’s telling. Men are used to living in a world where their opinion gets to count, and gets to count the MOST, in most social situations. A lot of men find the idea that there are situations where they should trust someone else’s perspective above their own to be an indication of like, extreme dictatorial censorship. In fact, learning to accept that your own voice isn’t always the one that matters most is an important part of learning to conscientiously deal with your privilege.

Further in the same point:

"When a woman tells you something is sexist, believe her" does not mean you have to shut off your brain and not have any independent thoughts about what sexism means or what it looks like...

Also, early on in the topic someone asked about a man calling himself a feminist. I recently watched a free university lecture on iTunes about feminism that said there is a term, "pro-feminist," if you would feel more comfortable with that.

 

[S-Wind]

I'd love to see Christina Hoff Sommer's reaction to this list and accompanying FAQ

 

[Zaptruder]

Neo-chivalry by another word huh.

 

[remnant]

I love how you seem to make so many of these posts in feminism threads. Come on you can do better than this one liner, group attack, shit, you make some great posts. Be specific. And everybody should respond poorly to getting spoken down to, male or female. It is not a productive response, even if the target is acting stupidly.

He does this in every thread, like clockwork

being a deadbeat dad is sexist?

How is it not?

 

[Trey]

That FAQ really fleshed out those points. Should have been appended to them in the first place.

 

[Forkball]

5. … but insert yourself into spaces where you can use your maleness to interrupt sexism.***Examples: challenge men who make sexist comments and jokes. If you see a female friend in a bar/at a party/on the subway/wherever looking uncomfortable as a man is speaking to her, try to interject in a friendly way that offers her an opportunity for an “out” if she wants it. If you see a situation where a woman looks like she may be in distress while in the company of a man, stand nearby enough that you make yourself a physical presence, monitor the situation, and be in a position to call for help if needed.

This sounds like an accident waiting to happen. I can see making yourself available to friends being alright, but establishing a physical presence around random women you don't know doesn't seem like the best advice.

 

[Fahrenheit]

After reading the article and the FAQ the mod so strongly recommends we read i'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

 

[The Mule]

This all seems really verbose and unnecessary. Just remember the Golden Rule. Don't be a jerk.

 

[Lazyslob]

How is it not?

because a bum ass dude doesnt equal a sexist.

People in general should learn to be nicer. Isms all develop a 'us against them' mentality which really does no one favors. As a good friend of mine once said 'its nice to be nice'.

i agree with you joe ro... i mean grimlock, haha. women dont like men when they do certain things, act like jerks in public(cat calls and such), referring to them as weaker sex, things like that. but if you are going to do things only because they are women, like if they are handling some kind of cooking duty, then you you do it instead and all this wacky stuff that just... defeats the purpose isnt it? its disingenuous. just treat people like people.

 

[timetokill]

I went through some of the notes and thought it was interesting to see how many women reject the idea that men can be (or should call themselves) feminists.

Not a fan of #35 (because I think men SHOULD call themselves feminist allies rather than feminists), but the rest of this list is pretty solid.

Good list, but I’m not sold on that last one. Enough women that I’ve seen on my dash are against the Idea of men self-identifying as feminists, mainly because the movement isn’t about them/us.

(one note about #35 - i know some woman feminists who don’t believe men should claim the title “feminist,” and rather should use “feminist ally.” so, just keep that in mind i guess.

Seconded to all of the commentary. Also, in case you were wondering, I’m a woman who prefers that cismen not ID as feminists.

Also, men identifying as “feminist allies” isn’t hedging. There are women who believe that it is important to explicitly reinforce that men’s role in feminism is as allies to women and I think it’s a sign of at least positive intent when men attempt to respect that.

It does seem to suggest that men need their own movement for their issues, and are specifically excluded from this one.

 

[kirblar]

I went through some of the notes and thought it was interesting to see how many women reject the idea that men can be (or should call themselves) feminists.

This is very much one of the problems with the word.

 

[888]

Learning that many women carry their keys in their hands (for personal defense if needed) when walking late at night was pretty eye opening.

I am a guy and I do that at times. I have been leaving some businesses late at night and have run across all sorts of crazy people. I look like Wolverine with keys for blades =)

 

[besada]

It does seem to suggest that men need their own movement for their issues, and are specifically excluded from this one.

Well, it suggests some women feel that way. It doesn't suggest all women do. Women aren't a monolithic block. They often disagree, including on how best to pursue the goals of -- even what the goals are -- of feminism.

 

[remnant]

because a bum ass dude doesnt equal a sexist.

Dude, sitting next to a chick on the bus makes you sexist according to the OP. Pretty sure not paying you're bills makes you sexist.

 

[timetokill]

Well, it suggests some women feel that way. It doesn't suggest all women do. Women aren't a monolithic block. They often disagree, including on how best to pursue the goals of -- even what the goals are -- of feminism.

I know that, and I didn't mean to suggest that all women think or feel that way. But much like feminism is needed rather than an "equalism" movement or whatever, the mere fact that there is uncertainty within feminism about men's place within the movement, or whether men can even BE a feminist, suggests that men seeking to focus on the male experience (even in a feminist-sympathetic sense) need their own movement to address those issues.

 

[kirblar]

Well, it suggests some women feel that way. It doesn't suggest all women do. Women aren't a monolithic block. They often disagree, including on how best to pursue the goals of -- even what the goals are -- of feminism.

It's the type of issue, though, where the men-opposed side is going to be much more vocal than the men-inclusive side, leading to the appearance of them speaking for the whole.

 

[YoungHav]

smh @ some of the responses. Dudes feel really threatened.

Indeed. But then again, this thread and other female based threads give good insight into why so many people on GAF have trouble with women. I go through these threads, and I can't begin to feel bad for the lonely dudes on GAF.

Chuuuuuch.

 

[besada]

I know that. But much like feminism is needed rather than an "equalism" movement or whatever, the mere fact that there is uncertainty within feminism about men's place within the movement, or whether men can even BE a feminist, suggests that men seeking to focus on the male experience, even in a feminist-sympathetic sense, need their own movement to address those issues.

Well, I suppose men are welcome to organize themselves if they feel that way, although many men seem to have no problem working within the feminist framework. I'm not sure what men's organziations have to do with this thread, though.

 

[Lazyslob]

smh @ some of the responses. Dudes feel really threatened.

to be fair, that list has a lot of wacky stuff on it

 

[YoungHav]

Most white people aren't expecting to be murdered in the street or on the subway though. They're expecting to be mugged or harassed.

Why is it that "the media" or the culture at large is so frequently to blame for making white people afraid of African Americans, but media and cultural influences don't seem to often seem to be a part of the discussion when women are suspicious and distrustful of men? Why is one group's fears discounted as racist/irrational and while the other group's fears are affirmed as correct and unassailable?

Because shook white people are in fact racist and irrational. There's no comparison to the valid concerns women have about safety.

 

[timetokill]

Well, I suppose men are welcome to organize themselves if they feel that way, although many men seem to have no problem working with the feminist framework. I'm not sure what men's organziations have to do with this thread, though.

It was a mere observation based on the notes of the post in the OP, which I wouldn't have seen otherwise. Also, the argument about whether men can be feminists in the first place is of specific interest to item #35. I'm not intending to discuss such men's organizations, but I didn't really realize that men being feminists was an area of contention before now. As such it doesn't seem particularly wise to follow #35 since you might be offending some women, or perceived as "taking over a movement" or imposing yourself on women, by calling yourself a feminist.

 

[besada]

It was a mere observation based on the notes of the post in the OP, which I wouldn't have seen otherwise. Also, the argument about whether men can be feminists in the first place is of specific interest to item #35. I'm not intending to discuss such men's organizations, but I didn't really realize that men being feminists was an area of contention before now. As such it doesn't seem particularly wise to follow #35 since you might be offending some women, or perceived as "taking over a movement" or imposing yourself on women, by calling yourself a feminist.

Pretty much everything is an area of contention for someone. The reality of any movement is a million schisms, detractors, fundamentalists, and kooks. That there is some times disagreement on principles doesn't make the movement invalid, it just means that people disagree what the best methods are. This is true for any movement. I'm not sure why one would expect a single, authoritative answer to any question, given these exist practically nowhere in any other human collective. If you'd prefer to call yourself a fellow traveler, an ally, a supporter, what have you, that's okay. And if you call yourself a feminist, and it bothers someone, they'll probably tell you, and you can discuss it.

 

[Vicetrailia]

In some ways I see this article as taking various, positive man to man interactions that do occur naturally, and making you aware that you should treat women the same way by giving women the same respect and interactions. Also included is the typical notion of being a respectable human being in general.

 

[GrooveCommand]

I find some of these suggestions to be reasonable and frankly common sense, but others are ridiculous. I should assume financial responsibility because women make less than men? The wage gap between men and women is caused by the different choices that men and women make when it comes to career and education, and is admittedly a product of gender roles. But still, when it comes to contraception we should both place ourselves responsible for the decisions we make and not pass the ball to someone else.

It's also a ridiculous notion that men should need to cross the street. I never want to make anyone uncomfortable but I give everyone the same treatment when it comes to their space. I try and make sure not to creep along behind someone but if anyone is afraid of my presence then they can walk to the other side of the road. Even as a man, I am always aware of the people surrounding me, especially at night in a dark area and I have actually crossed the street myself because someone ahead looked sketchy and it was in a bad neighborhood.

I do agree with a lot of the points related to stepping in and being active in pointing out sexism when you see it. I don't do it enough, often out of my own fear of confrontation. This actually applies to any kind of harassment and is good advice in general.

I personally don't make anything my responsibility beyond not being sexist and trying to be aware of how my own actions/beliefs affect other people. We should strive for a society where women feel safe regardless of who is walking on the same side of the road.

 

[timetokill]

Pretty much everything is an area of contention for someone. The reality of any movement is a million schisms, detractors, fundamentalists, and kooks. That there is some times disagreement on principles doesn't make the movement invalid, it just means that people disagree what the best methods are. This is true for any movement. I'm not sure why one would expect a single, authoritative answer to any question, given these exist practically nowhere in any other human collective. If you'd prefer to call yourself a fellow traveler, an ally, a supporter, what have you, that's okay. And if you call yourself a feminist, and it bothers someone, they'll probably tell you, and you can discuss it.

I'm not looking for complete agreement on most things, but I think what catches me most off-guard about this in particular is it's such a fundamental, basic question. It's literally a question of whether (slightly less than) half the population can be a part of the group. The fact that it's not a "of course, obviously" answer gives me pause. The word itself suggests it's a women-first movement, of course, but it makes it difficult to want to get too close to a group that perhaps isn't as inclusive as I once thought.

Completely ignoring men's issues, the issue here is we have a "primer" sort of guide and #35 highlights an issue where there's no correct thing for the intended audience to do. Calling yourself a feminist may be sabotaging the movement or claiming a group that doesn't want your participation. Meanwhile, the author wants you to "not hedge" by not saying you're a feminist. I support the feminist movement and I certainly don't want to hurt it, so I feel pretty stuck in this instance.

Also, I think saying "they'll probably tell you" is perhaps presumptive. Part of the idea of the patriarchy is that women don't speak up about things because their voices are discounted, or because they feel threatened, and so on. So me claiming to be a feminist may cause her trauma that she doesn't bring up, and I've upset or insulted her without meaning to.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

Well, I disagree with some of the items. I could frame my response by outlining my disagreements. But the reality of any movement is that reasonable minds will differ. And when you think about establishing a list of prescriptive tools or ideals, particularly in the social context, it should be obvious that people are going to disagree with some of the items enumerated. I say this because I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to seeing a list like this and looking for an item or multiple items to take issue with. I also say this because I don't feel like I'm not a feminist for disagreeing with some of what Clark wrote. As someone said in this thread, women don't all agree on everything. Feminists don't all agree on everything. You can't take the fact that you are going to disagree with some feminists as an indictment of the movement.

With that said, I will explain one of the items I disagree with: Item 4 - giving women personal space.

I've had talks with many very intelligent female friends who have articulated the opposite of what this author suggests, at least in the seating and walking examples. I'm obviously not my friends, but the most accurate portrayal of what they suggested would be ideal is that if you are not a creep, taking a seat next to a woman can make them feel relieved in the right situation. The basic idea was that if the seat is almost certainly going to be occupied at your stop, it's better to be proactive by filling the seat yourself. However, Clark's suggestion would apply to non-crowded public transportation. As for the walking example, I had a friend say that the scary part of walking on the street with a dude behind her was when he would pass her. She also said that if the dude passes her without incident, then she feels safer because now she is in proximity of someone who didn't harass her. So, I have made a habit of letting people know in certain situations. I will say "on your left ma'am" or something to that effect and give a purposefully wide berth, and it is not uncommon to receive a genuine "thank you" as a result.

I expounded on that item because I know that reasonable people are going to disagree with what I wrote. Does knowing whip-smart women who endorse the substance of what I just wrote mean that this is the 'right' approach? Of course not. There just isn't an optimal way to act for all women, and I think that's perfectly fine. The core of the list and the underlying principles are sound, and I think that most reasonable people would agree that, for example, everyone should be educated on the issue of consent or that being an equal parent is a great ideal to hold. It just sucks that everything at the core seems to get lost over disagreements at the fringe.

 

[besada]

I'm not looking for complete agreement on most things, but I think what catches me most off-guard about this in particular is it's such a fundamental, basic question. It's literally a question of whether (slightly less than) half the population can be a part of the group. The fact that it's not a "of course, obviously" answer gives me pause. The word itself suggests it's a women-first movement, of course, but it makes it difficult to want to get too close to a group that perhaps isn't as inclusive as I once thought.

Completely ignoring men's issues, the issue here is we have a "primer" sort of guide and #35 highlights an issue where there's no correct thing for the intended audience to do. Calling yourself a feminist may be sabotaging the movement or claiming a group that doesn't want your participation. Meanwhile, the author wants you to "not hedge" by not saying you're a feminist. I support the feminist movement and I certainly don't want to hurt it, so I feel pretty stuck in this instance.

Also, I think saying "they'll probably tell you" is perhaps presumptive. Part of the idea of the patriarchy is that women don't speak up about things because their voices are discounted, or because they feel threatened, and so on. So me claiming to be a feminist may cause her trauma that she doesn't bring up, and I've upset or insulted her without meaning to.

The primer is one person's opinion. It's not a shouted dictate from the feminist goddesses. She holds one opinion, and other feminists hold a different opinion. Read the article and make your own decisions about what you're going to do. That's all you can do. It's what you do with every other piece of information you read and discuss. I'm not sure why this one has you so baffled.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

I'm not looking for complete agreement on most things, but I think what catches me most off-guard about this in particular is it's such a fundamental, basic question. It's literally a question of whether (slightly less than) half the population can be a part of the group. The fact that it's not a "of course, obviously" answer gives me pause. The word itself suggests it's a women-first movement, of course, but it makes it difficult to want to get too close to a group that perhaps isn't as inclusive as I once thought.

Completely ignoring men's issues, the issue here is we have a "primer" sort of guide and #35 highlights an issue where there's no correct thing for the intended audience to do. Calling yourself a feminist may be sabotaging the movement or claiming a group that doesn't want your participation. Meanwhile, the author wants you to "not hedge" by not saying you're a feminist. I support the feminist movement and I certainly don't want to hurt it, so I feel pretty stuck in this instance.

Also, I think saying "they'll probably tell you" is perhaps presumptive. Part of the idea of the patriarchy is that women don't speak up about things because their voices are discounted, or because they feel threatened, and so on. So me claiming to be a feminist may cause her trauma that she doesn't bring up, and I've upset or insulted her without meaning to.

I understand where you are coming from, but you aren't going to get uniform validation one way or the other. That's perfectly fine, and it's not unique to feminism. Contrary to popular belief, the idea that men can't disagree with any woman in the area of "feminism" is not actually a core tenet of the movement. If you have participated in discourse with women or read work by women on the subject of whether men should or should not call themselves "feminists," you are free to take a stance and even defend your position. It's not really different from any other aspect of any other movement.

 

[timetokill]

The primer is one person's opinion. It's not a shouted dictate from the feminist goddesses. She holds one opinion, and other feminists hold a different opinion. Read the article and make your own decisions about what you're going to do. That's all you can do. It's what you do with every other piece of information you read and discuss. I'm not sure why this one has you so baffled.

Well, naturally. but I'm giving my impressions and voicing my hesitation about things in the interest of discussion for the forum. I can certainly just read it and consider it for myself. it's not "baffling" so much as discouraging, and makes me rethink some things. I'm going to discuss it with my wife tonight, but I figured I'd voice my thoughts here in the meantime.

 

[Azriell]

Annoyed by quite a bit of this list. What stands out most to me is the birth control, though. Why should the man pay? I'm pretty sure, in every relationship I've been in, we had sex because we both wanted to have sex. Simply put, the fairest way to go about anything that benefits both people is to split the cost. Why in the hell is the woman supposed to have 100% say in which method of birth control method is used while the man foots the bill? That is not equality and frankly I would feel taken advantage of.

I also disagree with not sitting next to women on the bus. This is some special treatment bullshit that I cannot support. It's as if women were so frail they can't even be breathed on. The message here should be "be a good neighbor when sitting next to someone on the bus." If she looks like she doesn't want to socialize, then don't try. Don't stare at her, feel her up, smell her hair, etc. But let's not act like women are some sacrosanct creatures who men should not discomfort by existing.

Also, a lot of this stuff is not specific to women. Being decent to each other in general would go a lot father in bettering the world than just rehearing women would do. I try to help anyone being harassed. I give all strangers their space. I try to respect the wishes of most people, as long my own wishes are not hindered. Fuck this "treat my group special" bs though.

 

[Chichikov]

With that said, I will explain one of the items I disagree with: Item 4 - giving women personal space.

I've had talks with many very intelligent female friends who have articulated the opposite of what this author suggests, at least in the seating and walking examples. I'm obviously not my friends, but the most accurate portrayal of what they suggested would be ideal is that if you are not a creep, taking a seat next to a woman can make them feel relieved in the right situation. The basic idea was that if the seat is almost certainly going to be occupied at your stop, it's better to be proactive by filling the seat yourself. However, Clark's suggestion would apply to non-crowded public transportation. As for the walking example, I had a friend say that the scary part of walking on the street with a dude behind her was when he would pass her. She also said that if the dude passes her without incident, then she feels safer because now she is in proximity of someone who didn't harass her. So, I have made a habit of letting people know in certain situations. I will say "on your left ma'am" or something to that effect and give a purposefully wide berth, and it is not uncommon to receive a genuine "thank you" as a result.

I expounded on that item because I know that reasonable people are going to disagree with what I wrote. Does knowing whip-smart women who endorse the substance of what I just wrote mean that this is the 'right' approach? Of course not. There just isn't an optimal way to act for all women, and I think that's perfectly fine. The core of the list and the underlying principles are sound, and I think that most reasonable people would agree that, for example, everyone should be educated on the issue of consent or that being an equal parent is a great ideal to hold. It just sucks that everything at the core seems to get lost over disagreements at the fringe.

You can't hope to capture all the intricate details of everyday life with a one short paragraph, and obviously, things like your build, body language and general behavior all play into this. I think what's important in that item is to raise awareness to this very real issue that many well meaning men are ignorant about.

Annoyed by quite a bit of this list. What stands out most to me is the birth control, though. Why should the man pay? I'm pretty sure, in every relationship I've been in, we had sex because we both wanted to have sex. Simply put, the fairest way to go about anything that benefits both people is to split the cost. Why in the hell is the woman supposed to have 100% say in which method of birth control method is used while the man foots the bill? That is not equality and frankly I would feel taken advantage of.

Women should have full control over method of birth control that affect their bodies, just like man should have full control over the decision of whether or not they get a vasectomy.
As for paying for them, the idea here is that women makes less on average and run the risk (which is also financial) of pregnancy. I personally always took a micro approach to such issues, i.e. base such decisions on how much each person in the relationship makes rather than observing averages, but whatever, way too many times in my life I let women who made significantly less than me assume the non-negligible cost of contraception because "fuck it, I don't want to care about such things and condoms suck". So again, if it succeed in nothing but raise awareness that's a good thing.

 

[perfectchaos007]

I wish the author of the FAQ went into some detail as to WHY there's no such thing as reverse sexism and what he means by "reverse sexism" which can be taken 2 ways. Is sexism simply sexism regardless of which gender is the offender, or are women immune from being sexist towards guys therefore rendering reverse-sexism non existent.

 

[Chichikov]

I wish the author of the FAQ went into some detail as to WHY there's no such thing as reverse sexism and what he means by "reverse sexism" which can be taken 2 ways. Is sexism simply sexism regardless of which gender is the offender, or are women immune from being sexist towards guys therefore rendering reverse-sexism non existent.

Well, it's an article about practical steps to promote feminism (i.e. gender equality). You really think that prejudice/discrimination against men is a big obstacle standing in the way of gender equality?

 

[Calibus]

I wish the author of the FAQ went into some detail as to WHY there's no such thing as reverse sexism and what he means by "reverse sexism" which can be taken 2 ways. Is sexism simply sexism regardless of which gender is the offender, or are women immune from being sexist towards guys therefore rendering reverse-sexism non existent.

I interpreted it as meaning reverse sexism is still sexism. In other words, a woman being sexist to a man is still just sexism not reversed. Holding a sexist attitude and then reforming your ways would be reversing sexism.

 

[Somnid]

I wish the author of the FAQ went into some detail as to WHY there's no such thing as reverse sexism and what he means by "reverse sexism" which can be taken 2 ways. Is sexism simply sexism regardless of which gender is the offender, or are women immune from being sexist towards guys therefore rendering reverse-sexism non existent.

It's an annoying language misunderstanding that academics have, you can't truly define (or undefine) a word, as much as they'd love to. It's simply based on popular usage and the word certainly does get used. But the idea is that many in these fields try to define things like sexism and racism as only coming from some group in a position of general power (it doesn't always apply contextually but society generally gives edges to certain groups) and so the reverse of sexism doesn't exist because men still have a lot more power in general terms. This, I'd say, is the important thing to consider. Men deal with certain discriminations, it's not a like male-rights groups have no points, it's just they are much fewer, more specific, and hold one back less and therefore don't need nearly as much attention. To retort "We have problems too!" is generally saying that they are as important as to cancel the other out, which is not the case.

 

[Calibus]

It's an annoying language misunderstanding that academics have, you can't truly define (or undefine) a word, as much as they'd love to. It's simply based on popular usage and the word certainly does get used. But the idea is that many in these fields try to define things like sexism and racism as only coming from some group in a position of general power (it doesn't always apply contextually but society generally gives edges to certain groups) and so the reverse of sexism doesn't exist because men still have a lot more power in general terms.

This has never set well with me. If anyone, regardless of gender or perceived social privilege level, is discriminated against due purely to their gender, then that is sexism.