"sexist" depends upon how one defines the term. If it is taken strictly as bigotry based upon gender, then I would think one could be sexist against men.

But it's a pointless fight, even among pointless fighting, sort of like arguing over which late 70s punk band is the greatest or whether orange is the best color. Some people are going to have a definition of the word which precludes sexism against men. Since "sexism" is an idea, and not, say, The Golden Gate bridge, an argument like that will never have a definitive resolution.

...you're a Devo fan or Dead Kennedys???

In other words, a discriminatory action. Bigotry is in regards to how a person thinks. If some people go from sexism = misogyny that still doesn't change the literary meanings of those words. I see no reason to cater to the least literate in an effort to find common ground on meanings that are already well defined by the tools of literacy.

Look, you can say there is one true definition of the word, and someone else can (and no doubt will) insist that the one true definition means something completely different. I can say you're right and they're wrong, or vice-versa, but again I am also just one opinion.

What I personally believe is irrelevant, except to say (again) that I believe a lot of people are overly attached to all kinds of labels and semantic representations, and many people - generally mathematically correlated to ideological rigidity, stridency, or fondness for dogma- could do with a crash course in "Korzybski for dummies".

Sexism is simply gender discrimination which may or may not be the result of bigotry or bias. Bigotry is what happens in the mind. Sexism requires an action. Sexism does not even require nefarious intent. Benevolent sexism and institutional sexism are two examples which do not require or depend on bigotry. Work policies and cultural norms both can be sexist with no bigotry involved.

It is nevertheless a form of bias that is sexist in its basis.

Or at least it doesn't have nefarious intent until the cops are called to investigate that man in the park with all those kids around.

I had forgotten about that nasty, vile bigot.

"My cancer is worse than your broken leg, ergo your pain is not worthy of my validation." A position with which I fundamentally disagree. I'm about to leave work... will hopefully be able to explore this more in a bit.

One can only defend the idea that "sexism against men" doesn't exist by arguing the point that "sexism" means bigotry and bias against women only.

The really funny thing is that the same people will make the argument that the flipside of sexism (against women, of course) is "benevolent sexism". No one has yet given me an example of benevolent sexism which cannot be more easily described and explained as sexism against men.

So, there are apparently only two kinds of sexism. Hostile and benevolent sexism against women. So, when men are given longer sentences for the same crime, this constitutes benevolent sexism against women.

I think this entire argument is itself proof that sexism against men is a thing.

you just now figured this out?

Silence is consent. I'm probably not changing the mind of the person I'm arguing with, but the real goal should be to challenge the creation of an even more biased conventional wisdom wherein words can mean anything one wishes; such as men dying on the job or going to jail is "benevolent sexism" and watching porn is "misogyny".

At this point, me personally, I'm just all "fuck it".

But I don't smoke, don't drink (much) and I do eat my veggies... and everyone needs a vice.

.
.
.

Silence, as in not responding verbally to another person is definitely NOT consent.

If I ask a girl to have sex, and she says nothing - then it ain't gonna happen unless she willingly responds - "oh yes", or starts peeling of her or my clothes of her own volition.

If I listen to an inane argument/statement/question - and I say nothing, that is not consent.

I may find the argument/statement/question so confusing or maddening that I choose to say nothing.

Also, fear can make people afraid to respond,

And so on.

CC

it's pretty damn clear in that post what the context for the statement "silence is consent" is, and is not. Taking those 3 words totally out of context to try to claim, oh, (to make some completely random theoretical example) that said statement was supposed to be about sexual consent and, by extension a form of rape apologia, is lame and blatantly disingenuous.

For instance, this statement:



is a political statement, a statement about the implied duty of people to speak up against policies or viewpoints they find objectionable. That if you don't object, you're assenting. I used to see people with that bumper sticker on their cars, all the time. They were liberals like me making a statement about the Bush Administration, mostly. Would anyone argue- with a straight face- that they were really making a statement of rape apologia on their cars? Give me a break.

Now, leaving aside the specifics of whether ALL viewpoints which could be objected to are necessarily objectionable - like, I'm sure there are now republicans who use that bumper sticker about Obamacare- it's still NOT about sexual consent.

If people want to 'score points' based on the words of others on this board, they really ought to be able to do it without bald-faced misrepresentation.

.
.
.

"Silence is consent"

That was the first complete sentence.

I did not pick something out of the middle of a statement,

and I saw nothing in the remainder of the post that explained that statement.

If it is as you say, and Jeff is perfectly capable of explaining his own words,

let him do so.

CC

And challenging "conventional wisdom". Not consent in sexual encounters.

"now they're shamelessly defending that egregious statement of rape apologia in the mens group!!!!!!"

But, at least I can consider the source, and feel good about the fact that at least some of us don't spend our time palling around with, and taking direction from, the likes of iverglas, sargassosea, feldspar and a host of other trolls at least.

That's just a rough estimate, mind you.

It's a pattern, and it's about more than just your response to that post.

That said, if you look at the post Jeff was responding to (mine) it's pretty clear he meant silence and consent as it pertains to not speaking up against assertions found objectionable- NOT silence/consent in the context of sex.

So much of the pseudo-intellectual bullshit academia studies that have popped up over the last forty years have found that making semantic arguments and changing the meanings of words so they can put people in a neat little box is easier than taking the concepts themselves head on. It's a lot easier to scream and yell that women cannot be sexist because "my definition says so" than to have to admit there may be some women who would go far beyond reason when it comes to how males should be handled in society, the workplace, school, etc.

Just look at the career and writings of the late professor Mary Daly.

Women can absolutely be sexist against men. I've seen it in my little group. And it bugs the heck out of me.

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."
- Mary Daly Professor of women's studies, Boston College, 1999.

I find that sexist comments against men seem a bit more prevalent these days, at least in my own experience. It's still the okay sexism. The fact is that the only reason why it's okay is because men don't seem to get particularly outraged about it. It's all in good fun you know, or so I've been told at least.

What if it isn't fun, after all? What if the only reason men keep from outrage on this is because they'll predictably be told they're being too sensitive and should "man up?" What if being portrayed in the media culture as oafish, witless, yet lovable (?) dolts really DOES affect how women see them in real life? What if there is a growing sense that women are buying the trope to varying degrees? What if this isn't as harmless as those who would deny that sexism is even POSSIBLE toward men want to claim?

Has anyone considered this, or are we just content to enable hypocrisy so long as the cause is presumed just by some?

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Men have all the power. Men are the oppressor.
To be considered a dolt is a counter to the power they have and opposite of the true perception of men.

Most men are not seen as dolts.
Men run the world.

The only area they are perceived as dolts is in the home front area:
raising kids or cleaning house or cooking.
And they perpetuate this myth because it works FOR them, since they do not want to do those things in the first place,
Most men want a woman to do those things, hence men continue to promote the myth that a man simply is not capable of say....keeping a clean place.

Men have the power as an oppressor and cannot be in a position of an ism that is all about keeping them down.

If you don't think that women are told to suck it up (pun may be intended) you have not been watching.

Because if this ain't sarcasm, it's a four-pound sack of garlic baloney.

down my throat. Stick that in your white man's pipe and smoke it.

The 4lb sack of garlic baloney is that men have all the power and women have none, when the fact is that women and men have been sharing power in this society for quite some time, although that fact has been a bit inconvenient to some people's narratives, specifically those with axes to grind.

Did you get lost on your way somewhere else? Seems so. Oh well.

I understand about a division of labor and how it came to be. No, I am not lost and I know when and where I am not wanted. I will take my leave of this unwelcome. The group is easily enough out on ignore. Nothing said here has impressed me, you included.

Be well and go in peace.

Nor was it ever my intention. You came in here spouting nonsense. How fitting you leave the same way.

This is not an echo chamber and marching in lockstep with the prevailing opinions of frequent posters of this group is neither required or even encouraged. The people who find themselves banned here are those who have zero interest in the SOP and simply want to come to this group to bash other DUers. I would prefer discussion remain respectful and not dissolve into a GD style free for all, but even acrimonious disagreement will not make you unwelcome here. In fact, I would even go as far to say the opposite is closer to being true.

Cheers!

....regarding the old joke about hell and being waist deep in manure.

Shit City. Duly noted, I take my leave. Peace.

Y'all come back now, y'hear?!

You can take solace in the fact that unlike other places where the "safe haven" policy is strictly enforced, you can still attempt to contribute something useful in the future.

For most negative social stratification effects, men get the shit end of the stick.

If you are homeless, chances are you are male and if you are unsheltered and homeless the chances are even greater.

If you die sooner, chances are you are male.

If you commit suicide, chances are you are male.

If you die of heart disease, chances are you are male.

If you die from cancer, chances are you are male.

If you get less government funding for gender predominate cancer, chances are you are male.

If you die of HIV/AIDS, chances are you are male.

If you die on the job, chances are you are male.

If you die in an accident, chances are you are male.

If you are injured on the job, chances are you are male.

If you are in jail or prison, chances are you are male.

If you receive a harsher criminal sentence, chances are you are male.

If you are a victim of homicide, chances are you are male.

If you aren't granted custodianship of your kids, chances are you are male.

If you are addicted to drugs or alcohol, chances are you are male.

If you die of diabetes, chances are you are male.

If you didn't graduate high school, chances are you are male.

If you receive educational financial aid, chances are you are not male.

If you are enrolled in college, chances are you are not male.

If you die in an automobile accident, chances are you are male.

If you are registered for selective service, chances are you are male.

If you have ever died in a war, chances are you are male.

I am going to commit the mortal sin of posting the significant part of the alert:

It's sure to be an instant classic.

....because there's nothing to refute. They know it's true. They just don't give a fuck and don't want to hear it.

When you see one, you immediately wonder how many you don't.

Just sayin'

For some reason I have a mental image of superballs, right now. You know superballs, right?



The little rubber balls that bounce all fucking nuts when you toss em against a floor, or the wall.

Okay, put a few of those things in an industrial-grade clothes dryer. Turn it on the highest tumble speed.

...bing! bang! bing! bang! BINGBANGBINGBANGBINGBANGBINGBANGBINGBANNNNNNNNGGGGGGG
[font size=5]BINGBANG BANG BINGBANGBINGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/font]

...Sooner or later, that dryer door's gonna get opened.

I'm not a bettin' man, but I'd lay heavy odds that those bing-bang-superballs REALLY want to get out.

Dear Leader must have warned them against opening that door too quickly when she sent them back... but things certainly are getting ramped up over yonder lol..

Sigh. It's wrong but it does exist.