4 ms·

To put it simply, sexism against men does not exist. You can discriminate against men, but let's be clear: sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on

by mlent 14y ago

To put it simply, sexism against men does not exist. You can discriminate against men, but let's be clear: sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender. So...having a series of talks that is for women by women cannot possibly be sexist. You can say it discriminates by not allowing men to be speakers, if you so wish. I can't say I'd find it to interesting to listen to a man tell me what it's like to be a woman in tech, though, so you could also just say that they're just featuring people who are interesting to their audience: women. Also -- who said anything about hostility? What I meant was, "This is about women...why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I just get tired of all this "reverse sexism" nonsense. Edit: To be clear, I agree with your last paragraph. I don't think it's limiting the audience to feature women speakers, unless you don't think that men can find women interesting. ;)

cbeach 14y ago
Sexism towards men does now exist, thanks to attitudes like yours. Fighting fire with fire? What a pity.
- hnacc10 14y ago
  Exactly. It is rather ridiculous that people like mlent spew their own definitions for sexism and feel that women cannot be sexist. It destroys any sort of reasonable discourse by being so ignorant.
Zikes 14y ago
I must vehemently disagree with your argument that discrimination against men on the basis of gender is not sexism, and I take offense at the notion that it is "nonsense", however that is only a pedantic tangent in the context of this discussion. To avoid further pedantry, going forward I will simply refer to it as discrimination. Whatever your definition of that word, discrimination of any sort is morally and ethically wrong, and I must persist my argument that introducing more discrimination into an already discriminatory environment will only further escalate hostile feelings. Regarding your point that this series is about women and therefore "[...] why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I did not think that was the goal of Passion Projects. Are you trying to say that you would prefer a separate industry of women's technology and men's technology? The ultimate success of this project and others like it, I had assumed, was integration of all peoples into a cohesive community free from discrimination. To that end, I celebrate GitHub's initiative and hope that it is as successful as it can be.
- mlent 14y ago
  Why is it necessarily hostile towards men to have a series of talks oriented towards women in tech? I don't imagine they're going to spend their time talking about how terrible men are, how we should undermine them at every turn, and do our best to tip the scales of systemic oppression in their favor. It seems to me to be about inspiration and encouragement, which can be a benefit to anyone, regardless of gender. It is about creating an integrated community. But women need to come together and find the collective voice that most individuals currently do not possess. Sometimes the presence or involvement of men can be detrimental to that progress. Not all men, not all the time, but sometimes. So why bring up the "what about men?" argument when this is just not about men? I am sorry you disagree with my definition of sexism. To my knowledge, that is an accepted academic definition.
  - Zikes 14y ago
    You misunderstand my point. I happily support talks that feature and target women in tech, as I believe I have stated several times, I only worry about such initiatives excluding men from the audience or other means of participation. To achieve integration and inclusion, everyone must get involved to show their support and to learn about the issues at hand. As to the definition of sexism, I would implore you to closely read any available dictionary entry of the word. The core definition is "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex". It is unfortunate that this definition, in some dictionaries, will also include such lines as "typically against women", but that does not negate the possibility that sexism against men may occur. I would hardly refute that in a large number of cases sexism targets women, but by no means are men free from its effects.
    - mlent 14y ago
      My perspective is this: people write the dictionary just like people write any other book. It's not the end-all-be-all of any word. There are probably many sources on sexism that agree with me, and many that do not. It goes without saying, such is the nature of a controversial subject. I am not trying to be sarcastic here: Have you read any books on sexism or feminism? Because realistically, I think it's hard to grok those subjects with only a dictionary entry at your disposal. I agree that sexism affects men negatively, as well. While men benefit the most from patriarchy, they also suffer. In order to reap its benefits, they have to play into the system. Most guys don't want to do that, and are appalled by people who do. But a future in which men and women overcome sexism is quite uncertain, and it is far easier to passively support male domination rather than to fight it. So yes, while I agree that men are negatively affected by sexism, I would disagree that men are negatively affected by sexism in the way that women are.
sp332 14y ago
sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender. I think you're using the wrong word then. Discrimination against men is sexism. Maybe a better word for what you want is hegemony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory#Hegemonic_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory#Hegemo...
- mlent 14y ago
  The key element is that women are not able to systematically oppress men for being men, as they do not have the social privilege to do so. You need all the elements in order to produce sexism.
  - sp332 14y ago
    A single individual event or person can be sexist. I understand the idea you are describing. That idea is not what the word "sexism" refers to. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism
    - mlent 14y ago
      Sexism is an institution, so to speak. A single individual could not "bring sexism into existence". Women do not have enough power, as it stands, to impose a systemic oppression of men. Perhaps in the future, or in some female dominated societies, sexism against men exists...but not in the United States.
      - sp332 14y ago
        There is such a thing as institutional sexism, but that is not the only kind. I have already linked to the definition if sexism. There are many possible manifestations if it, and you are only describing one of them.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > Women do not have enough power, as it stands, to impose a systemic oppression of men. And men don't have enough power to impose a systemic oppression of women -- for that, they need women to cooperate in their own oppression. Women voluntarily rise to the challenge. > Perhaps in the future, or in some female dominated societies, sexism against men exists...but not in the United States. No. You may have meant effective, oppressive sexism, but not sexism per se. There's plenty of sexism directed at men. "If men knew what women said about them in private, the human race would cease to exist." -- W. H. Auden

by mlent 14y ago

cbeach 14y ago

Sexism towards men does now exist, thanks to attitudes like yours. Fighting fire with fire? What a pity.

hnacc10 14y ago
Exactly. It is rather ridiculous that people like mlent spew their own definitions for sexism and feel that women cannot be sexist. It destroys any sort of reasonable discourse by being so ignorant.

Zikes 14y ago

I must vehemently disagree with your argument that discrimination against men on the basis of gender is not sexism, and I take offense at the notion that it is "nonsense", however that is only a pedantic tangent in the context of this discussion. To avoid further pedantry, going forward I will simply refer to it as discrimination. Whatever your definition of that word, discrimination of any sort is morally and ethically wrong, and I must persist my argument that introducing more discrimination into an already discriminatory environment will only further escalate hostile feelings. Regarding your point that this series is about women and therefore "[...] why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I did not think that was the goal of Passion Projects. Are you trying to say that you would prefer a separate industry of women's technology and men's technology? The ultimate success of this project and others like it, I had assumed, was integration of all peoples into a cohesive community free from discrimination. To that end, I celebrate GitHub's initiative and hope that it is as successful as it can be.

mlent 14y ago
Why is it necessarily hostile towards men to have a series of talks oriented towards women in tech? I don't imagine they're going to spend their time talking about how terrible men are, how we should undermine them at every turn, and do our best to tip the scales of systemic oppression in their favor. It seems to me to be about inspiration and encouragement, which can be a benefit to anyone, regardless of gender. It is about creating an integrated community. But women need to come together and find the collective voice that most individuals currently do not possess. Sometimes the presence or involvement of men can be detrimental to that progress. Not all men, not all the time, but sometimes. So why bring up the "what about men?" argument when this is just not about men? I am sorry you disagree with my definition of sexism. To my knowledge, that is an accepted academic definition.
- Zikes 14y ago
  You misunderstand my point. I happily support talks that feature and target women in tech, as I believe I have stated several times, I only worry about such initiatives excluding men from the audience or other means of participation. To achieve integration and inclusion, everyone must get involved to show their support and to learn about the issues at hand. As to the definition of sexism, I would implore you to closely read any available dictionary entry of the word. The core definition is "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex". It is unfortunate that this definition, in some dictionaries, will also include such lines as "typically against women", but that does not negate the possibility that sexism against men may occur. I would hardly refute that in a large number of cases sexism targets women, but by no means are men free from its effects.
  - mlent 14y ago
    My perspective is this: people write the dictionary just like people write any other book. It's not the end-all-be-all of any word. There are probably many sources on sexism that agree with me, and many that do not. It goes without saying, such is the nature of a controversial subject. I am not trying to be sarcastic here: Have you read any books on sexism or feminism? Because realistically, I think it's hard to grok those subjects with only a dictionary entry at your disposal. I agree that sexism affects men negatively, as well. While men benefit the most from patriarchy, they also suffer. In order to reap its benefits, they have to play into the system. Most guys don't want to do that, and are appalled by people who do. But a future in which men and women overcome sexism is quite uncertain, and it is far easier to passively support male domination rather than to fight it. So yes, while I agree that men are negatively affected by sexism, I would disagree that men are negatively affected by sexism in the way that women are.

sp332 14y ago

sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender. I think you're using the wrong word then. Discrimination against men is sexism. Maybe a better word for what you want is hegemony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory#Hegemonic_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory#Hegemo...

mlent 14y ago
The key element is that women are not able to systematically oppress men for being men, as they do not have the social privilege to do so. You need all the elements in order to produce sexism.
- sp332 14y ago
  A single individual event or person can be sexist. I understand the idea you are describing. That idea is not what the word "sexism" refers to. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism
  - mlent 14y ago
    Sexism is an institution, so to speak. A single individual could not "bring sexism into existence". Women do not have enough power, as it stands, to impose a systemic oppression of men. Perhaps in the future, or in some female dominated societies, sexism against men exists...but not in the United States.
    - sp332 14y ago
      There is such a thing as institutional sexism, but that is not the only kind. I have already linked to the definition if sexism. There are many possible manifestations if it, and you are only describing one of them.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > Women do not have enough power, as it stands, to impose a systemic oppression of men. And men don't have enough power to impose a systemic oppression of women -- for that, they need women to cooperate in their own oppression. Women voluntarily rise to the challenge. > Perhaps in the future, or in some female dominated societies, sexism against men exists...but not in the United States. No. You may have meant effective, oppressive sexism, but not sexism per se. There's plenty of sexism directed at men. "If men knew what women said about them in private, the human race would cease to exist." -- W. H. Auden