Topic: Sex Rights

[Plastique]

Having been steeped in neither feminism nor men's rights, as an outsider my knee-jerk reaction at both is a distinct feeling of alienation because, in the country I live in at least, I'm not seeing harsh manifestations of prejudice against either sex. I'm left feeling these groups are destructively divisive more than anything, and I think much more could be accomplished by a major rebranding as human rights advocates rather than the stereotype-eliciting labels currently used.

But that's a facile reaction, and I deliberately stop short of holding strong beliefs either way about either movement because I simply don't know enough.

I'm interested in hearing your ideas about why each movement is or isn't necessary, and whether ideally they should continue to be separate or not. Thanks for any input.

[AngleWyrm]

The English language is remarkable for one particular facet: Nouns do not have a gender. Things are referred to as "it" instead of "he" or "she."

Food for thought.

[lorryfach]

I'm not sure what grammatical gender has to do with the OP, but nouns like 'girl' or 'Steven Novella' are still nouns, and they have gender.


I think what feminism would want to say to the OP is that feminism (despite the one-sided name) really is about human rights and it does benefit everyone, regardless of sex or gender. My personal experience is that the people who call themselves 'feminists' actually run the gamut from full on hating men to full on hating any woman who doesn't agree with them about everything, neither of which strike me as particularly feminist things to do. I have very little experience with men's rights, so I can't comment on that.


As a female working in male-dominated fields/environments, I've personally experienced enough BS to feel that, yes, SOME kind of work towards more equality still needs to be done. I don't care what you label it.

[Guillermo]

The problem I see with all this [Insert PC] rights is that although it is of serious concern, the majority of the complaints (issues) are just exaggerated situations that were not actually the intention of the accused. Say for example a job opening and two candidates apply, the male candidate might be more qualified than the female candidate. The companies selection of the male candidate is indistinguishable (for the most part) from a gender bias selection.

What I do hate is when somebody claims Politically correctness or violation of personal rights when it is clear that the offense was not intended or nonexistent.

[andrewclunn]

It's kind of like when Rev. Jessie Jackson calls something racist.  He's occasionally right, but the rational first response is to assume he's full of shit.

[SVoid]

Interesting. Guillermo, I didn't think you were going to say what you actually said. Remember, people can act sexist and do sexist things without being sexist. A lot of sexism is unintentional.

Plastique, what country do you live in that there is no sexism?

In North America women make less for the same job as men. Here, women are assumed to be the care givers of children. During a divorce women have an easier time getting children. And men, harder. Here women are expected to act a certain way. They have found that even professional women get interrupted and talked over in meetings more than men. In sports women athelets who aren't feminine enough often don't get accepted, scholarships or training to continue. Men are often mocked for wanting to care for children or go in professions that are 'for women.'

Feminism's goal is the equality of the sexes in all spheres of life (political, economic, social) so that we are all treated fairly. I.e., a better woman should get the job, as should a better man.

Men's Rights on the other hand are usually proposed by people that seem hostile toward women rather than systems and culture. A feminist wants women the join men in all spheres of life. A Men's Rights Activists tend to simply be upset that things are unjust. This seems valid, and in fact most feminists are for men's rights. But most men that want to change the system work with women feminists because they have the same goal: quality so you can choose and work hard to organize your life just like anyone else's, regardless of their gender.

Fact is, the best information I've gotten about how men don't have equal rights as women is from feminists.

[snakeman]

I agree with much of what SVoid said about the gender situation in N. America and efforts to address it.  However, I don't agree that "Men's Rights on the other hand are usually proposed by people that seem hostile toward women...."   While there are some such organizations, there are also many that are actually working to break down some of the same sexist social/political institutions that feminists are such as:

- the fact that it's easier for the woman to gain custody of the child(ren) in a divorce than the man and that, in some areas, the man almost has a "guilty until proven innocent" burden of showing not only why the woman should not have custody but why he would be a better choice than some third party

- the tendency on domestic disturbance calls, where both partners have been fighting/trading blows and it is he-said/she-said about who started it, to take the male away in handcuffs rather than the female or both

- the fact that even if both a husband and wife have careers and there are no kids, in some jurisdictions, the husband must still pay alimony to the wife in the event of a divorce - seriously, how is this holdover from the 1800s that assumes a woman can't survive without the support of a man (even when she has a well-paying job) still in existence?

- the social norm responsible for the stay-at-home dad who takes his kids to the park getting the stink eye from everyone else there as a potential child molester.


All of the above are just as bad (though don't generate as much outrage because they're less direct and personal) as the "go get us some coffee honeybuns" and glass ceiling of the pay scale that many women still encounter in the professional workplace.  I can't speak to more than the sliver of American society that I'm familiar with, but it's enough to tell me that our culture still has some screwed-up attitudes, stereotypes, and expectations of both genders that should have been done away with long ago.

I don't know the answer to how that happens without advocacy groups making themselves sound, at least at times, like unreasonable nutjobs screaming on the street corner about slights both real and imagined, but I would like to see it happen.

[SVoid]

Snakeman, you misunderstand me. In the same what that Intelligent Design is really a Christian thing even though they pretend that's not what they are talking about, MRAs and MRMs are really fully of anti-feminist people who are full of vile and at times advocate violence against women. It's unfortunate that they've taken that name because it's confusing. Men have very really problems, just as women do. But the MRAs and MRM is not really about the issues, it seems to be about advocating violence against women, which hurts men actually seeking equality.

Which, by the way, is called feminism.

[Jeremy's Sea]

As a female working in male-dominated fields/environments, I've personally experienced enough BS to feel that, yes, SOME kind of work towards more equality still needs to be done. I don't care what you label it.

The problem I see with all this [Insert PC] rights is that although it is of serious concern, the majority of the complaints (issues) are just exaggerated situations that were not actually the intention of the accused. Say for example a job opening and two candidates apply, the male candidate might be more qualified than the female candidate. The companies selection of the male candidate is indistinguishable (for the most part) from a gender bias selection.

What I do hate is when somebody claims Politically correctness or violation of personal rights when it is clear that the offense was not intended or nonexistent.

I find it interesting that you could easily just minimize Lorry's post by assuming the majority of complaints are baseless, when someone who lives the reality has just stated that it is an issue. So you gave one hypothetical that doesn't really mean anything...

My grandfather wasn't intentionally racist, but he could still be racist in his attitudes and treatment of people. It was his cultural norm and attitude, the problem isn't battling the obvious stuff, it's battling the invisible stuff. Like you know, the rush to discount or minimize the BS women experience after they just told you they experience it.

[Anders]

I'm so disappointed. I thought we would be talking about a government ban on the friendzone.

[Ajzzz]

You can't be unintentionally racist or sexist. You can express a racist or sexist view deceitfully, you can say something other people interpret as racist or sexist, but you can't be racist or sexist unintentionally.

I feel like I'm a strong feminist, I believe in equal rights for women, I'm against gender roles, and I'm extremely pro-choice. From what I see the people who call themselves feminists are just as bad as the "men's rights" people and you'll probably get to see that in this thread.

[Guillermo]

As a female working in male-dominated fields/environments, I've personally experienced enough BS to feel that, yes, SOME kind of work towards more equality still needs to be done. I don't care what you label it.

The problem I see with all this [Insert PC] rights is that although it is of serious concern, the majority of the complaints (issues) are just exaggerated situations that were not actually the intention of the accused. Say for example a job opening and two candidates apply, the male candidate might be more qualified than the female candidate. The companies selection of the male candidate is indistinguishable (for the most part) from a gender bias selection.

What I do hate is when somebody claims Politically correctness or violation of personal rights when it is clear that the offense was not intended or nonexistent.

I find it interesting that you could easily just minimize Lorry's post by assuming the majority of complaints are baseless, when someone who lives the reality has just stated that it is an issue. So you gave one hypothetical that doesn't really mean anything...

My grandfather wasn't intentionally racist, but he could still be racist in his attitudes and treatment of people. It was his cultural norm and attitude, the problem isn't battling the obvious stuff, it's battling the invisible stuff. Like you know, the rush to discount or minimize the BS women experience after they just told you they experience it.

I apologize to Lorry. I might have expressed myself incorrectly. First of, it is my perception and fully anecdotal. And the majority, of what I have seen and heard, is unintentional or nonexistent and I was pooling all PC situations. Some of which are more egregious (sexist being one of them). Still, maybe majority is not the correct term.

I live in a country that is predominantly sexists, and the women are the worst offender of this. My aunts no longer ask me how many girlfriends I have since I married. They must have said it as jokes, since the irony in all is that they are all divorced from unfaithful husbands. I absolutely dislike anything that is sexists. But I am aware that sometimes things aren't black and white. I dislike political correctness because of the way it is misused.

[snakeman]

You can't be unintentionally racist or sexist. You can express a racist or sexist view deceitfully, you can say something other people interpret as racist or sexist, but you can't be racist or sexist unintentionally.

That depends a whole hell of a lot on how you define the terms "racist", "sexist", and even "unintentional".  I'll give you an example:

My wife and I do not have children, by active choice on both our parts.  Frequently, when we meet people for the first time, get-to-know-you conversation will turn to the "do you have kids?" question.  When my wife answers "no, we don't, unless you count the dogs" she'll often get "Oh, why not?" with that look and tone of voice that says "what's wrong with you?" or sometimes she'll even get an "I'm sorry" response when she tells them she doesn't have children.   This is 100% unintentional sexism in my book that derives from a cultural assumption/bias that all women naturally want to have children of their own.   It's not discriminatory sexism, but it is sexism in that it's founded on pre-judging my wife based on nothing more than the number of X chromosomes she has and I'm certain that it's not a conscious or intentional thing.


@SVoid - I agree that many "Men's rights" groups are not much more than "let's get together and bitch about those horrible women who ruin everything for us", but I'd be cautious about painting with such a broad brush as to lump them all together.  Granted, the ratios are much different, but declaring that men's rights groups are "really fully of anti-feminist people" sounds a bit like if I were to point to the Catholic priest abuse scandals and say that "Catholic churches are really full of pedophiles".  I'll grant you that non-pedophile Catholic priests are vastly more common than non-misogynistic men's rights advocates, but it's equally wrong to dismiss either as not existing, which it sounds like you're saying.  If I've misunderstood and you're just trying to advise caution because some/many (but not all) men's rights folks are like that, then please ignore as we're in agreement - there are numerous bad apples out there in the issue space trying to claim the moral high ground while being about as vile as you can get.

[Ajzzz]

My wife and I do not have children, by active choice on both our parts.  Frequently, when we meet people for the first time, get-to-know-you conversation will turn to the "do you have kids?" question.  When my wife answers "no, we don't, unless you count the dogs" she'll often get "Oh, why not?" with that look and tone of voice that says "what's wrong with you?" or sometimes she'll even get an "I'm sorry" response when she tells them she doesn't have children.   This is 100% unintentional sexism in my book that derives from a cultural assumption/bias that all women naturally want to have children of their own.   It's not discriminatory sexism, but it is sexism in that it's founded on pre-judging my wife based on nothing more than the number of X chromosomes she has and I'm certain that it's not a conscious or intentional thing.

That's 100% intentional sexism, the fact that someone has that assumption is sexist, they expressed sexist views. It's obviously a conscious thing, those sentences didn't form in the subconscious, the decision to move those lips didn't either, and those beliefs aren't the domain of the subconscious either, these aren't simple associations, they're coherent consciously held beliefs i.e. "women want to have children or worse women are for having children".

[snakeman]

My wife and I do not have children, by active choice on both our parts.  Frequently, when we meet people for the first time, get-to-know-you conversation will turn to the "do you have kids?" question.  When my wife answers "no, we don't, unless you count the dogs" she'll often get "Oh, why not?" with that look and tone of voice that says "what's wrong with you?" or sometimes she'll even get an "I'm sorry" response when she tells them she doesn't have children.   This is 100% unintentional sexism in my book that derives from a cultural assumption/bias that all women naturally want to have children of their own.   It's not discriminatory sexism, but it is sexism in that it's founded on pre-judging my wife based on nothing more than the number of X chromosomes she has and I'm certain that it's not a conscious or intentional thing.

That's 100% intentional sexism, the fact that someone has that assumption is sexist, they expressed sexist views. It's obviously a conscious thing, those sentences didn't form in the subconscious, the decision to move those lips didn't either, and those beliefs aren't the domain of the subconscious either, these aren't simple associations, they're coherent consciously held beliefs i.e. "women want to have children or worse women are for having children".

Ah, I think I see.  You and I differ on the definition of "intentional".  I agree that it's a conscious act to speak and that people generally are not oblivious to what they are saying.  However, I think that they can certainly be oblivious to how their words are received/perceived.  The woman who has a bunch of children and asks my wife "why wouldn't you want to have a child?" is consciously forming an opinion based on her world view and expressing it, but she's no more being intentionally sexist than my wife is in asking "what the hell is with those people?" when we see the Duggars (and their two dozen kids) on TV.  The other woman's opinion and view just happens to be founded on generations of expectations about the roles of women in Western society while my wife's is based on a different set of standards/assumptions.  Both are biased in their own ways, but only one is (at least in my understanding of the term) sexist.

I guess, for me, a lot of it has to do with the line between "why wouldn't you want to have a child?" and "You don't need contraceptives because the only purpose of sex is to have children and you should have as many as you can".  It's the difference between the guy who leaves his plate on the table after dinner without even thinking about it because he's always been in a home where the woman (wife, mom, whoever) cleans up the table while everyone else goes into the living room and the guy who thinks that a woman doesn't need anything more than a 6th grade education because she's going to stay home with the kids and cook and clean.