"Can Women be Sexist?"

[bloom]

Guess what - "blogging against sexism" - is blogging against the patriarchal structure of society. (Some men - and women - contribute more to it than others). It's not supposed to be another excuse to blog against women. (A public service announcement for the clueless.).... I wonder how many threads there were on "Blogging Against Racism Day" that suggested blacks were racist? (Or if there were any - how long they were allowed to stay up).

http://vegankid.solidaritydesign.net/blog-against-sexism-day

Here is an example of someone who is completely clueless when it comes to sexism.

definition: Sexism

An attempt for ignorant women to complain that they aren't treated equal, when they are.
Can women vote? yes
Then why do they still think they aren't treated equal?

Here's another:

definition: Sexism

Like racism, but more fun.
-What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?

-Nothing, you done told her twice.

(I suppose somebody thinks that's funny)

Here are some blog snips:

....If we go purely by the definition of the terms, any gender (I won't say both, because there are more than two) can be biased toward any other gender, including one's own. In colloquial usage, however, sexism means "oppression of women." In that context, feminists are not sexist, though a woman may be every bit a patriarchist, like Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter (both of whom should turn in their ovaries, IMO). Electing a woman like that to office doesn't count as affirmitive action - it's the same old shit in a deceptive, but equally poisonous, package.

... My hatred is reserved for patriarchy and its proponents of any gender. Only you, the reader, can decide if that includes you or not. If you've accused me of being a "Nazi" or a sexist, I'm talking directly to you.

Women have only ever asked for equality. I think that's a mistake, but that doesn't make me misandrous, just observant - I see the results of 6,000 years of male rule and it's appalling. I see remaining matriarchies and see peace, cooperation, sensuality, positive hedonism, mutual respect among the genders and a lack of all those "ism's" listed above. That sounds good to me. So good, in fact, that I have to question the judgement of a thinking person who prefers war, poverty, elitism, exploitation, oppression, and a sociopathic admiration of competition and greed.

The Women's Autonomy Movement is not anti-male. It is pro-female. We seek the simple right to sovereignty over our own bodies, and equal rights with all others. Yes, that will end the special "rights" and favoritism that men have enjoyed within a patriarchal system. That doesn't make you less. It makes you equal (i.e. no longer special). This is not an either/or dichotomy so prevalent in patriarchal structure. My gaining a fair and reasonable level of respect and opportunity takes nothing away from a man, it simply brings me up to his level. We stand on equal ground. Considering that women are more than half of the population, do the bulk of the work for least of the money, and are living in a state of war virtually everywhere on the planet including within our own homes, I don't think that's too much to ask, and how dare anyone suggest we continue to settle for less?!
http://the-goddess.org/wam/2005/08/can-women-be-sexist.html

Men everywhere are bound together by this hatred of women. Sexist jokes, gang rapes, watching porn together, public stonings, boys competing to deflower the most girls, all this and so much more is evidence of their hate. They partake in it, enjoy it, bond over it, it’s something they have in common. A hatred of women....

http://geekyfeminist.wordpress.com/2006/03/01/acknowledging-the-hate/

Happy International Women's day everyone!

Although the feminist gaze can bring a lot of grief as you begin to see the reality of the world around you and realise that we still have a long, long way to go towards achieving equality, it is also truly empowering. Never before in my life have I been happy and proud to be a woman, and never have I felt so confident in my own skin and with who I am. I hope that I can share what I have learnt and am continuing to learn with other women so that they too can feel as wonderful as I do now and join us in the fight for respect and equality.

I feel like I'm part of a movement that has been bubbling away for a while now and is about to boil over and out onto the streets and into the consciousness of every man, woman and child. Now is the time to unite, to shout, to wave banners, to march, to sing, to demand our human rights, the right to live a life free from rape, violence, intimidation, harrassment, objectification, oppression, scorn and disrespect.

Let's get cracking.

http://www.notafeministbut.blogspot.com/

Other sites:

http://mindthegapcardiff.blogspot.com/

http://www.gendergeek.org/?p=146

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/03/08/going-out-on-a-limb-to-blog-against-sexism/

http://www.internationalwomensday.com/

[bloom]

1. porn - "its a lifestyle choice"

http://aradfem.blogspot.com/

[mongo]

5. Ah England

The British still practice quite a lot of censorship, and HC porn is still illegal. Soft core porn movies are sold in "licensed" porn shops, and they are few and far between. There are more illegal fly-by-night hole in the walls, selling HC porn (and they sell videos only), than the licensed shops which sell legal soft-core porn and adult novelties.

This has allowed the few legal soft core magazines on the market to penetrate (no pun intended) your local newsstand, where it is much harder to keep these materials out of sight of Children.

Before sex shops had to be licensed, there were hundreds of shops in England, dozens in London alone. Back then it was much less common to see these magazines in your local newsstand.

But you'd know all this if you were reading Pornocopia right now :sigh: And what this last article has to do with your OP -- I do not know.

[bloom]

9. articles

articles related to the subject of "blogging against sexism"

[mongo]

12. and I was commenting on the article

which was about porn being displayed where it was right in a child's face.

[Katherine Brengle]

79. porn----

has everything to do with the original post.

Pornography is the ultimate representation of everything that is wrong with our male-dominated society. In porn, women are treated as property--in this case, property you stick your * into. The things that are done to them are humiliating and degrading (and also, viciously inequitable--it's like sex for the egomaniac--every woman has an orgasm in less than 5 minutes, just from the sheer joy of being treated like a warm hole a man).

It also serves to propogate the "rightness" of sexual violence against women (and children as well) by consistently showing men dominating women sexually and portraying this as the right way for men to treat women, while in truth, it is not.

[chopper]

102. okay

how does that explain gay porn?

[mongo]

107. Thanks for your rote recital of the same old rhetoric

that the anti porner's have been throwing around since the 80's.

I invite you to read this short essay from the other side:

A Feminist Overview of Pornography, Ending in a Defense Thereof by Wendy McElroy
http://www.bodyinmind.com/March14,2001.htm

And if you would like more:
Feminists for Free Expression http://www.ffeusa.org/index.html

Wendy McElroy's site http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php

Lastly, the wikipedia entry for sex positive feminism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

But boy, you must have watched a lot of porn in order to make those accusations, right?

[bloom]

111. Well you know

We could probably just dig up an archive and all read that. Hasn't most of this been said before? Including YOUR arguments.



There are all kinds of feminism. There are right-wingers against abortion who call themselves "feminists".

The ones you mentioned seem rather Libertarian to me. Like you. So it's not a surprise that you would point them out.

[mongo]

117. No need to read it, right?

You must protect yourself from exposure to the other side.

And nice that you're branding me a libertarian. I could easily brand you as a socialist authoritarian, or fascist.

But lets not mention the fact that when most liberals talk about adult entertainment, they don't see it as all one single entity, trying to destroy women. They can recognize small pockets of problems, with out bashing an entire industry. They also are overwhelmingly in favor of the right of consenting adults to make and view adult materials. And they don't buy the old, debunked arguments that "porn causes violence" and the like.

Face the fact that you're a relic.

[bloom]

124. You said you were a libertarian

as have others who by their posts show that they are only concerned about themselves - and their rights. No concern for society in general.


I agree that the libertarian mindset - seems to be winning. I disagree that there is anything positive about that. I also have seen evidence that would suggest that libertarian men can be rather lax in their interpretation of consent. As if drunken consent is consent and other nonsense.



"Libertarianism is a political philosophy<1> advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long as they allow others the same liberty, by not initiating physical force, the threat of it, or fraud against others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism


"Social liberalism (new liberalism), a development of liberalism in the late 19th and early 20th century, is a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from market liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Additionally, it also means social progressivism, usually when contrasted with social conservatism.

Social liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions, rather than the threat and use of force, to solve political controversies. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

[mongo]

141. Nothing positive about the libertarian mindset?

Not that I'm a libertarain, I've never said that. If the libertarains ever got into power they would sell the country to the highest bidder. What I've said is that I do have libertarian leanings on personal social issues.

So, since you are so against libertarian views:

Do you think it's a good thing the DEA busts Medical marijuanna co-ops, even though the voters in the state have legalized it for this purpose? Although I agree with the SC decision allowing this. If they had voted otherwise, the legality of the EPA, etc., would now be in question.

Do you think the state belongs in the bedrooms of two consenting adults?

Do you think the state should be able to eminant domain a person's home to build a shopping center, for no other reason than to increase the tax base?

but no, I am far more socialist than most of my dem peers out here in 'merika. I doubt if many of them would support nationalizing the electric and gas industries, which I would like to see.

I'll take the good for any particual political ideology. Hell, I remember when the 'pubs were for a balanced budget -- Although it took Clinton's leadership to get than done.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. "the libertarian mindset- seems to be winning"

* You will note the use of the words "consenting" and "adults" in this post. So please resist the urge to reflexively bring up examples involving non-consent and non-adults in response.


The libertarian mindset is winning? What planet are you living on? Can I move there? Maybe this will cheer you up: Not only have draconian anti-abortion laws been passed or proposed in several states, but Tennessee just banned dildos and vibrators. Great. As if the prisons weren't already bursting at the seams with non-violent drug offenders, now we can lock up granny for getting her jollies with a wahl coil. You know, I was wondering to myself where the outrage was among certain folks here over that particular piece of legislation- then I realized that the TN bill was titled an "anti-pornography and obscenity" bill, and I've seen evidence that some people here have apparently never met one of those that they don't like.

But speaking of "evidence" by anecdote, it seems you still don't want to provide any sort of justification for the concept of telling consenting adults what they may do or not do with their own bodies, but instead fall back upon spurious insults and insinuations- "I also have seen evidence that would suggest that libertarian men can be rather lax in their interpretation of consent."-- well, if you says it, it must be true.. but just for the record, is that like the "DU men" who are supposedly running around saying rape is good and pedophilia is okay? Because I hate to be a bother, but I asked you for some kind of link to back your repeated assertions along those lines up, and I'm still waiting on that.

Back to the 'libertarian mindset winning' (wow. "Libertarian" "Freedom" "rights"- you sure know how to pick your insults!) Actually, in case you hadn't noticed, the control freaks, the folks who think "choice" is dandy as long as people make the choices THEY want them to, are on a god-damn rampage. The fact that some people cling to the (apparently irrational, according to you) notion that what other consenting adults choose to do with their own bodies, what they choose to read or watch or smoke or who or what gender they choose to love - provided, as always that everyone involved is a consenting* adult*- isn't really any of their business, well, unfortunately, those people don't seem to be writing laws and driving policy.

And to say that anyone seems 'only concerned about their rights'... is that supposed to be another insult? What the hell is everyone, particularly the women on this board, pissed off as hell about this week--- And rightly so? The LOSS OF THEIR RIGHTS. Damn straight people are concerned about their rights. Yet you act like that's a character defect.

Defining something as a 'social ill' is not just a favorite tactic, it seems to be a necessary one for anyone trying to get past people's natural 'mind your own business' impulses. Drug warriors define drug abuse, including the some 50 million americans who smoke pot and still manage to be productive, contributing members of society, as a vast social ill that requires $40 billion a year in DEA budgets and ever-escalating levels of incarceration. Pro-lifers define abortion as a 'social ill'. The only rational answer, in my mind, is to say that consenting adults need to be free (ugh. there's that "freedom" thing, again) to make choices about their own bodies- even, especially, when YOU don't happen to like the choices they make.

[ismnotwasm]

130. Hey my brother sent me to that site

Hard core libertarian that he is.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. I think you've been looking at the wrong porn, frankly.

* You will note the use of the words "consenting" and "adults" in this post. So please resist the urge to reflexively bring up examples involving non-consent and non-adults in response.


There's a whole range of it. There's lesbian porn, gay porn, all different kinds of porn. Most of it, AFAIAC, is hopelessly low-brow and not terribly erotic. But the idea that the majority of porn has anything to do with violence or propogating violence is unmitigated BS.

Beyond that, perhaps you can make us a list of what situations it's okay for a consenting adult to decide what to do with his or her own body in, and when those decisions should be against the law or otherwise under the discretion of allegedly well-meaning people who've never met them:

Here's an example, to get you started:

A woman choosing to get an abortion: YES
A woman choosing to take her clothes off for Hugh Hefner: NO
Someone using birth control: YES
Someone smoking a joint: NO

That would really clear things up, you know, so the rest of the human race can get the okay from you as to what is okay and not okay for us to do with our OWN bodies.

[bloom]

2. "The Exploitation of Women in Hip-hop Culture"

http://www.mysistahs.org/features/hiphop.htm

[Sparkly]

3. I hear you, bloom.

I'm amazed seeing the surface scratched, with the prospect of Roe's peril, to find opinions even on DU that I thought had been "consciousness raised" long, long ago.

Even the coverage of the most-recently-publicized murdered woman has been amazing me: Didn't implications of "she asked for it" disappear decades ago? I guess not.

It reminds me very much of coming of age and realizing there were still racists around. My upbringing in Connecticut taught me that all that was over, except for a few old-fashioned (and old-aged) oddities. I was *shocked* to discover, well into my 20s, that racism was still alive and sickeningly well in America.

Reading recent threads on men, women, and reproduction on DU is amazing me all over again in the past few days.

[bloom]

4. I think it's something that people get sucked into

through advertising and the whole peer group thing.


I see it as similar forces that are driving right-wing nutters to go along with the war-rah-rah-patriarchy nonsense - that there is a patriarchal nonsense masquerading as "freedom" on the left. Or as seen on Wikipedia's Radical Feminism page:

Right wingers want women to be private property.
Left wingers want women to be public property.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

[Warren DeMontague]

6. I know. "freedom". (sigh)

Just rhetorical cover for consenting adults making their own damn decisions about things.

[bloom]

8. Some people want freedom to torture others. (mostly right-wingers)

Others want:

Freedom to rape their wives.

Freedom to create child pornography.

Freedom to satisfy their own urges regardless of the law or others. (I've seen that idea here).

Etc.

[mongo]

11. Smoke screen

Do you really think that leftists want the "freedom" to rape their wives or create child porn?

This sub-thread is about this comment:
I see it as similar forces that are driving right-wing nutters to go along with the war-rah-rah-patriarchy nonsense - that there is a patriarchal nonsense masquerading as "freedom" on the left. Or as seen on Wikipedia's Radical Feminism page:

Right wingers want women to be private property.
Left wingers want women to be public property.

Which is code for tramping on the first amendment and squashing expression made by and for consenting adults.

[mondo joe]

16. I'm always disappointed to find liberals who are as authoritarian and

controlling as the worst conservatives.

I've come to understand that some of the people I think are my allies against the fascists are just slightly different fascists. :-(

[omega minimo]

20. And there's the other Blog Against Sexism Day meme!: "FASCISTS"

Where can we get a copy of the talking points?

[Cats Against Frist]

88. I'd just like to say, here

That I I think most pornography is sickening, cliche and damaging -- and, further, definitely figures into the "social cost" game. That said, I wouldn't, say, try to pass an initiative that made it illegal for people to enjoy their porn in the company of others, with a beer, if they so wanted. :)

That's the difference between an authoritarian, and someone with an opinion. You can hate something, but still realize that freedom is more important than -- yes, even saving millions of women from abuse, degradation and objectification, and your imaginary allergy to smoke.

[bunyip]

127. Well said

I don't own any porn, never have.

But I'll be marching in the street if any puritan freak tries to ban it.

The difference between a Radical Feminist and a Catholic Bishop - is the hat.

[ismnotwasm]

131. Oh dear.

I'm not anywhere close to being a Catholic Bishop. Some feminists have advocated "banning" porn, but that isn't the solution is it? There was a time where it was illegal. It certaintly didn't go away.
What's needed is a open discussion on what it is and what it isn't. Who pays? And what's the price? I don't think we need to follow a deontological philosphy on it, but screaming "rights" every time a discussion is started get us nowhere.

Most porn I've seen is either repulsive or silly. I was 15 years old when I saw my first porn magazine featuring pregnant women. 16 when I saw scenes from a film involving apparently compliant women laying on slabs while their nipples where cut off and the male involved licked the blood off the wound. And that was many years ago.

Welcome to DU, BTW

[bunyip]

134. Thanks for the welcome

And what's the price? I don't think we need to follow a deontological philosphy on it, but screaming "rights" every time a discussion is started get us nowhere.

You mean "teleological" I think. Deontology is screaming "rights" every time a discussion is started. :evilgrin:.

All the porn I've seen has been really tame, mostly centrefolds of attractive women in various states of undress. And movies featuring consentual sex in absurdly contrived plot situations. Thats the stuff that reaches a mass market.

Porn is overpaid untalented actresses making undeserved fortunes out of male weakness. Discuss.

I'm not anywhere close to being a Catholic Bishop.

Glad to hear it. I know a number of young women who are philosophically liberal but vote conservative because they loathe Radical Feminism.

My mother describes herself as an Existential Feminist to escape the tag.

[ismnotwasm]

136. You are welcome

I meant what I said, I put it poorly, I suppose. I'm not very educated, but I like that word, deontology, even if I don't like the philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
So you've never wandered down the dark side of porn? It's still a choice whether it's vanilla porn or hard core, Isn't it? Or rather, It's still the same genre. A lot's involved. And while I feel free to (and do) critizise the porn industry, I understand banning it would not work. I still say it needs constant open discussion, arguement with every aspect of it brought to light.

You don't call your mama a Catholic Bishop do you? (kidding, not nice)
Feminist was the first label I gave myself, I take on "radical" because feminist isn't enough anymore. The word has been marginalized, and weakened. And we know the power of words. If I have to be radical to fight for my basic rights, that's what I'll be.

[bunyip]

138. If you're here at DU...

you are better educated than most. The best education can come from the world. :toast:

The porno mags I've seen were on high-school camps. I was never much interested. Partly because two dimensions is boring. Partly because I preferred chatting up a real girl to ogling a paper one. But mostly because I felt the industry exists only to exploit male weakness.

It's still a choice whether it's vanilla porn or hard core, Isn't it? Or rather, It's still the same genre.

Its a matter of degree. My university briefly set the popular internet filter they use to 1, where a website won't load if it refers to kissing or romance. The supplier includes that setting for fundie households. It is a legitimate viewpoint. Casablanca is part of the porn genre if you cast the net wide.

I've never called my mother a Catholic Bishop! :)

I have said similar things about her idols, like the time she defended Germaine Greer but eventually choked on Greer's support for FGM as an ancient women's practice under attack by (male) do-gooders.

Mom is very patient with lunatics while she believes they're on "our side". I'm less patient, especially when I see the number of "own goals" they are scoring among upper-middle-class young women.

Radical feminist intellectuals pay lip-service to liberal ideals like equality for all. But like NeoCons, the details of their discourse speak only of advantaging the group they identify with. One lecturer at my campus can preach hatred of males and puritanical condemnation of heterosexuality as though she was Bin Laden in drag. That's not Radical, that's Reactionary.

[bloom]

18. I noticed that you left this out

"Freedom to satisfy their own urges regardless of the law or others. (I've seen that idea here)."

Because I have seen that sentiment here - just last week. And someone who didn't have a problem with having sex with underage girls, also.


And then there is the freedom to have cartoons about child molesters. It seems to me that you defended that. As if we are all more "free" with cartoons glorifying child molesters. Good grief.


And then there was the whole thing where supposedly women should go along with "rape" as long as there is a "set of rules". So some men want to rape with a "set of rules" and some without. According to some people - I guess the difference between men on the left and men on the right is a "set of rules".


Actually - I know plenty of men who don't buy into either idea. It's not like it has to be an either/or of course. This seemed to be the direction of society - toward more equality before the right and Limbaugh and his "feminazi" nonsense - And Flynt saying about the same thing from his side. Neither of those sides has been useful for equality - and for better relationships between the sexes.

[mongo]

32. I didn't leave it out on purpose, but it's a really blanket statement

"Freedom to satisfy their own urges regardless of the law or others. (I've seen that idea here)."

What the hell does that mean? Homosexuality was illegal in many states before Lawerance vs Texas, Should homosexuals have refrained from sex before this SC decision?

They way the obscenity laws are written, Playboy is "obscene" under Ohio law -- should I not sell it? Not that I think I'll be arrested for selling Playboy.

Because I have seen that sentiment here - just last week. And someone who didn't have a problem with having sex with underage girls, also.

Well, the laws are certainly arbitrary, but there has to be a limit somewhere, and I support the current limits. But I can understand where other people might not have a problem with a 16yo and a 20yo having consentual sex, even if it is illegal in most states.

And then there is the freedom to have cartoons about child molesters. It seems to me that you defended that. As if we are all more "free" with cartoons glorifying child molesters. Good grief.


I don't believe that the "purpose" of these cartoons are to "glorify" child molesters. More to shock and create a "that's sick" response. But it is free expression, and as such, I'll support it. It is only unpopular speech that needs defending.

And then there was the whole thing where supposedly women should go along with "rape" as long as there is a "set of rules". So some men want to rape with a "set of rules" and some without. According to some people - I guess the difference between men on the left and men on the right is a "set of rules".

Just so that you know that I didn't leave this out "on purpose" -- I didn't see this thread. If I had, I would have had a problem with it -- as long as the definition or rape here is unconsentual sex. I'm never going to support unconesentual sex.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Wow! I guess you won that argument! I mean, except for the fact that

those things don't have jack-diddly-squat to do with the subject, which is consenting adult behavior.

Of course, if you can't figure out a way to justify your position of legislating for consenting adults what they may or may not do with their own bodies, be sure and drag all kinds of unrelated things, like rape and kids, into the discussion.

[bloom]

69. Let's look at where we started:

You were referring to my post:

I think it's something that people get sucked into through advertising and the whole peer group thing.

I see it as similar forces that are driving right-wing nutters to go along with the war-rah-rah-patriarchy nonsense - that there is a patriarchal nonsense masquerading as "freedom" on the left. Or as seen on Wikipedia's Radical Feminism page:

Right wingers want women to be private property.
Left wingers want women to be public property.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

And the fact of the matter is the second link in the OP refers to some things that are legal - some things that aren't - but many that have become too common nonetheless. Some of the things leftists support, some of things they don't.

"Sexist jokes, gang rapes, watching porn together, public stonings, boys competing to deflower the most girls, all this and so much more is evidence of their hate. They partake in it, enjoy it, bond over it, it’s something they have in common. A hatred of women...."

Rape - with "sets of rules" has been defended on DU. So have child molester cartoons, as Mongo has admitted. So has sex to satisfy a guys "urges" whether it was legal or not. A lot of this stuff adds to the rape culture. Part of the sexism. That's part of the point. Some people won't admit to to condoning it - some of it's right out here in the open.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Mkay. Again, none of this has anything to do with

consenting adults looking at pictures of other, naked, consenting adults, taken with their consent.

I will concede that your semantic gymnastics are impressive. For example, to argue that anyone here has defended, in any way, shape, or form, "rape"... That is an impressive load of baloney. But, please. Provide links. Show me where someone, anyone on this board, has EVER said "rape is okay".

As far as 'sex to satisfy a guy's urges, whether it was legal or not'.. Well, actually, I was a part of the thread I think you're referring to, and here's a few points:

a) Nowhere- NO WHERE- did anyone in that thread say anything about 'satisfying a guy's urges'. That phrase must have come out of your own head.

b) There is UNIVERSAL agreement on this board about the need for an age of consent- ALL that happened in the thread you are referencing was the asking of QUESTIONS about the age of the guy in the story, which was not provided as part of a poorly written, remarkably uninformative news story. The reasons for those questions- and this is where your projection and your twisting of people's words and motives on this board get really beyond the pale- was because MOST OF US were of the opinion that if the perpetrator in the case was a 40 year old man, we said, a forty year old man having sex with a teenager was a far worse crime than TWO TEENAGERS HAVING SEX WITH EACH OTHER.

Get it? Apparently, judging by your stated opinions on that thread, you think that a 17 year old who has sex with a 16 year old (if you find the words "satisfying a guy's urges" in that sentence somewhere, please let me know) is just as bad a criminal as a 40 year old- but some of us disagree. I guess that makes us, like that noted anti-feminist Ellen Goodman, who wrote a piece on this very subject recently, "apologists for the rape culture".

[bloom]

103. Actually you are thinking of a different thread

the one I was referring to was about Pedophilia.


The rape apologist was on the thread about Travis Frey.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Links?

Again, you don't address the central issue of consenting adult behavior, but- please- let's see some links.

[omega minimo]

19. If there is ever to be some common ground reached and mutual

respect or --at the least-- courtesy, you seem to have the potential to help find/create it. We've seen signs of it and I like/d to think of you as someone who had reached-- or at least waved-- over the asshole crevasse that (unecessarily and pointlessly) divides us.

Maybe a little less ETA.

Btw: your post? You forgot the
:sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

52. I hear you. Perhaps it's a visceral reaction to seeing the word "freedom"

presented with such disdain.

It's not like I don't have anything better to do than fight the friggin' porn wars endlessly. I'm all for spanning the AC, but the bottom line is, the OP has had several of these points -some of which were even rejected by the Meese commission, a low threshold if there ever was one- debunked over and over again, and yet we still see these threads pop up with conflations of words like "porn" and "rape" in a style reminiscent of the Bush administration's handling of the words "Iraq" and "9-11".

It might be worth your while to direct your attention to the content of the argument, if you can call it that, which the OP offers in the post responding to mine.

Never even any attempt to justify a position of telling other consenting adults what they may do with their own bodies, or what they may read or watch in the privacy of their own homes (presuming, again, that everything in question involves, again, consenting adults)

I mean, if there's a legitimate pro-censorship argument to be found in there, why the need to automatically fall back upon ridiculous straw men like torture, rape and children?

[mongo]

59. Well,

I personally don't have anything better to do than fight the friggin' porn wars endlessly.

That was :sarcasm: folks. Just wanted to lighten things up a tad.

[Cats Against Frist]

89. You're a warrior in the porn wars mongo

And so am I. I respect you as an ideological adversary -- but, in essence, we're really on the same side. I'd fight for porn until my death -- but I wouldn't fight alongside one who would deny me the time-honored tradition of lighting up a cigarette in a bar, over a beer. I know where you stand. That's the difference between someone with an opinion, and an authoritarian. Everyone's got a fucking opinion.

*edited for grammatical clarity

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Touche.

I will say, with regards to smoking bans, that I think there are appropriate places for everything. I don't think people should be allowed to read Hustler while standing in line at the DMV, for example. In terms of balancing the right of people to make their own choices about their own bodies and the rights of people in indoor public establishments to breathe fresh air, I think (at least in a state like California, where the weather outside is usually pretty nice) asking smokers to go outside to smoke isn't such a huge imposition. Note that that's a far cry from making cigarettes illegal.

But, if it's any consolation, smoking bans in bars aren't a real front burner issue for me, as it were- I don't go to bars much anymore, either way. And I think both sides in this issue have a point. If I really believed that 'allowing individual proprietors to make up their minds' about whether to allow smoking or not in their establishments wouldn't just lead to ALL establishments being "smoking" by default (because no business owner wants to alienate potential customers) then I might be more amenable to that kind of a solution.

:hi:

[bloom]

70. ironically

"yet we still see these threads pop up with conflations of words like "porn" and "rape"


It's the porn people who conflate porn and rape - when they show rape as porn and when they have "rape" cartoons next to porn.

I think it's a bad idea.

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/

Perhaps you could encourage them to stop - or at least stop buying it.

[mongo]

105. Personally, there are several companies that I chose not to stock

Exactly for that reason. You won't find "shock porn" in my store. Which by the way, is not rape porn, it's just porn where they go out of the way to degrade women. (extreme assoc, max hardcore, *some* red light district lines, and bang bus to be exact).

There's no real sub-genre of "rape porn", it is just another false charge the anti-porner's like to throw around. But you can't really condem a particular work because of an act. Clockwork Orange is probably the best example of that -- One of the most inspired movies of all time, yet it has a rape scene.

Like I said, I don't think the cartoons are meant to glorify rape. More to illicit a "that's sick" response. If you think that Hustler cartoons glorify rape, do you think Dr Strangelove gorifies Nuclear war? Does Clockwork Orange Glorify gang violence? Isn't it more thought provoking to bring these things into the light to examine them, rather than hide them from our society? How many Lifetime movies per week have a rape scene in them?

[bloom]

109. "How many Lifetime movies per week have a rape scene in them?"

I don't know Mongo - you tell me. Is that what you watch all day? :evilgrin:



I think there is pretty big difference between someone watching rape or rape like scenes for the fun of it - and drama - but I don't really care to see it dramatized at all - personally.


Of course I don't like glorified violence at all. LOTR movies where the violence goes on and on. I hear it's a testosterone thing.

And then there is actual war. Which some people must get off on - just like the movies.

See I don't think people have to be raised to rape and murder - or to glorify it - or to get off on it. But I think there are some people who do think it's a good thing. As if it gives their children an "edge" or something.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. For the record

I personally think the LOTR films were far and away the biggest cinematic achievement of the past 20 years. So does my wife. And that's not because we 'get off' on violence.

[Sparkly]

7. I'm not sure what it is.

So often advertising appeals to whatever's already in the air, albeit it can seek out the worst in people.

Interesting link and quote! Thank you.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Fill in the blank:

(blank) hurts women.

Women aren't really capable of consenting to (blank). When they participate in (blank), they're really being victimized by the (blank) industry.

The women who do participate in (blank) are emotionally immature, taken advantage of, not morally capable of determining for themselves what (blank) involves, and by definition not mentally competent to make decisions about their own bodies when it comes to (blank).


First, try "porn".
Then, try "abortion".

[bunyip]

128. Thirdly,

try "sex". I had a Radical Feminist lecturer tell the class all heterosexual sex is rape.

Why can't all the fascists head over to the Right where they belong?

[Warren DeMontague]

137. A relative of mine spent a couple years at Smith College.

She's in a completely different head space these days, but she spent quite a while repeating the exact same thing.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[bunyip]

139. Thanks for the welcome

:toast:

[mongo]

10. I'm only going to comment on what you wrote

and give my explanation for the backlash

Guess what - "blogging against sexism" - is blogging against the patriarchal structure of society. (Some men - and women - contribute more to it than others). It's not supposed to be another excuse to blog against women. (A public service announcement for the clueless.).... I wonder how many threads there were on "Blogging Against Racism Day" that suggested blacks were racist? (Or if there were any - how long they were allowed to stay up).

Outside of sexist/racist humor (which is a whole different complicated issue), I don't think you would see a lot of threads on DU talking about today's issues that said "white people...", and then make some over-generalization.

A whole lot of threads as late, have said "men just want...", "men are....". I think if people were talking about racism they would say "racists just want..." "racists are...". Maybe if more of these threads that everyone is upset about were pharsed as "sexists (or misogynists) just want..." "sexists are..." you wouldn't see a backlash at perceived sexism against men.

Also, if you were talking about history, I don't think there would be a backlash either. "For centuries men...", "men kept women from voting....".

Lastly, most complaints about sexist posts against women on DU are about a specific word directed at a public figure (Condi is a....) but when sexism is directed towards men, it is more often a broad-brushed stroke against all men in general.

So, to answer your question, yes women can be sexist -- against both men and women. If someone believes that women can't be sexist against men, they are using that as an excuse to justify behavior.

[bloom]

14. IMO

Women cannot be sexist in a society where the overwhelming power structures are male-dominated as we see in our country and nearly all countries today.

I also think that to say that a woman is sexist or that "If someone believes that women can't be sexist against men, they are using that as an excuse to justify behavior" is no different from saying that Rosa Parks was racist for wanting to end racism - or that if Rosa called whites "racist" that that was "an excuse to justify behavior".

I think women "could" be considered sexist if they controlled the vast majority of the sectors of government, media, education (at the university level), etc. and used those powers to force men into subordinate roles. Nobody is suggesting that that is desirable - and we are nowhere close to that scenario. So I think the suggestion that women are sexist is absurd.

[Solon]

15. I think my BS meter just broke...

You say that women cannot be sexist because they are do not have the power to institute systematic sexism, so that discounts personal sexism. And you say this after posting quotes from sites that generalize all men as a bunch of sexist pigs. :puke:

[bloom]

26. Just because

some people overgeneralize - or one thing or another - doesn't not make someone sexist IMO.

Are women saying it's ok to rape boys? (99% of child molesters are men) to beat up their husbands - hit them in the head with a 2x4? (it happens - but men kill/beat their wives in far higher numbers) to discriminate against men in the work place? (what are women's wages up to now - 75%?) To fire men from their jobs for getting women pregnant? (women get fired - I've never heard of a man getting fired) Are women denying that they control men's bodies (just kidding - we don't control men's bodies - but there IS legislation that was passed for states to take control of women's bodies).


I think sexism and racism and all of those are in a similar category. Seems to me that Malcolm X railed against white people as a whole. Maybe you think he was racist. I think he had a reason to be angry.

I think women have a reason to be angry. And I think things are getting worse. And I think a lot of men go along with a lot of sexist crap whether they are thinking about it or not.

[Solon]

30. There is a difference between being justifiably angry...

and being a bigot. Seriously, if you can't see that, then I really don't understand why I should continue this conversation. Just because there are injustices that I do NOT support, gives no one the right to impugn my character for no better reason than the way I was born. Its stupid and bigotted, period.

[bloom]

33. And if you can't see

that this society has a problem in the way it treats women - and that large numbers of supposedly leftist men go along with a lot of this crap as well - then there is probably no reason for me to converse with you either. So fine. I'll just assume you enjoy benefiting from sexism since you have given me no reason to believe otherwise.

[Solon]

39. I see that just fine, thank you very much...

I even see how I can benefit from institutionalized sexism, that is plain as day. I saw, most clearly, after a "Pay equalization" period at Wal-Mart, when I worked there, where all floor associates were supposed to get a 50 cent raise to be up to par with new hires. Guess what, only us guys got that raise, and you know what? I spoke out against that sexist policy, even talked to a Union to help the store employees. Of course, I got fired for both actions but I have no regrets, I speak out against injustice, where ever or whomever it effects, even if its not me. What else can any of us do but speak out and take action to make sure things can become truly equal?

[bloom]

43. "What else can any of us do but speak out..."

People do what they can do. And if that is what you are doing that is great.

I never said that I thought that it's easy to be a non-sexist man in a sexist world. Esp. when there are all kinds of forces that push people to go along with sexism.

[Solon]

48. We get pulled and prodded in many different ways...

I will say that, but then again, I would agree that most guys, in many cases at least, are sexist pigs, that's probably why I don't hang out with them. Then again, I also don't hang out with crowds that are completely White, never fails, someone will say something, like n*gger, or make a racist joke, and oddly enough, that is offensive to ME, a fucking Mick :). That's probably why, when I do go hang out with friends, they end up being, without fail, a mixed crowd of many multiple colors of GLBTS people of both sexes. I'm usually the only white guy, and in many cases the only guy in such groups, don't ask me why, I just feel more comfortable with people different than me than like me, I'm an oddball.

[Cats Against Frist]

90. Well, it's sticky

Technically, it's like Rush Limbaugh calling feminists "Feminazis." It conflates those with power with the victimized group. The fabled "Tyranny of the Minority" that the Christians are always bedwetting about. Technically, you cannot enforce power that you don't have. So, yes, personal sexism is definitely a factor -- still relevant, and you're right to recognize it -- (though I think women are far harder on themselves, as a through-the-looking-glass enforcer of the male gaze, than female-to-male sexism). That said, I won't listen to a "sexist female to male" argument, until the last piece of lingerie is burned, there's a woman president, and I can walk around without a shirt on.

[omega minimo]

17. And "broadbrush" seems to be the injured male meme for the day

in honor of "Blogging Against Sexism Day " and "International Women's Day" too many are distracted by crying boys with skinned egos needing ointment on their booboos.

We all need to move past this stumbling block and get to the issues........................:kick: and address the "overwhelming power structure" that is destroying the nation and the planet.

:patriot:

[Solon]

21. How about treating people as individuals first, without judgement...

Instead of this fucking bullshit:

Men everywhere are bound together by this hatred of women. Sexist jokes, gang rapes, watching porn together, public stonings, boys competing to deflower the most girls, all this and so much more is evidence of their hate. They partake in it, enjoy it, bond over it, it’s something they have in common. A hatred of women....

[omega minimo]

24. Why are you directing that at me, if you "treat people as individuals"

"first" -- that has nothing to do with me.

[BlooInBloo]

27. LOL - now that our lead has been entrenched for 1000s of years...

... what a GREAT time to treat "people as individuals first, without judgement".

LOL - great racket men have - jump out to a headstart, then fire the starting gun, and demand a fair race.

absolute genius.

EDIT: And also a wonderful situation to "conveniently" forget about history.

[bloom]

29. Exactly n/t

[Solon]

31. Jesus Fucking Christ, am I to be a whipping boy for what ALL our...

ancestors have done? Where is the justice in that, where is the equality there?

[BlooInBloo]

40. Don't worry - I'm there with ya! :)

lolol

Just tryin to keep it real yo.

[BlooInBloo]

41. Look - treating people "just" as individuals....

... with no regard whatsoever to context or group history is fine if...

(a) everybody IS starting from the same point, or

(b) you want to PRETEND everybody is starting from the same starting point.

Otherwise, one needs to take context and history into account.

Is that REALLY so bizarre?

[Solon]

44. I'm talking about on an individual level, not on a societal or...

legal level. If your talking about affirmative action, I have no problem with that, I'm not one of those stupid white guys that laments over "Reverse Discrimination". I'm talking about how an INDIVIDUAL views the world, nothing more. Are we to approach everyone we meet as if they are responsible for all the wrongs in the world? If I meet a guy named "Smith" in this country, am I to blame him for what his ancestors did to my ancestors back in Ireland?

[BlooInBloo]

45. Hm. Sounded to me like you were lamenting....

... over reverse sexism tho... Mebbe I misheard...

EDIT: In any case, your call to "treat people as individuals first..." carries the implication to NOT treat them as members as a particular group (say, men). As i mentioned, this is a fine thing to do if all groups at hand either start from the same point, or you want to pretend that they do. Not otherwise. IMO.

[Solon]

49. Well, I took as sexism on an individual level, not as let's say...

an admissions department at a college would view it. I mean, to me, at least, the individual level is the one you have direct control over. You can either generalize all people or treat them as individuals that are all different from each other, regardless of what groups they "belong" to because of sex, orientation, or their ethnicity/nationality. In a perfect world, even on the institutional level, people could be treated as individuals only, but we do not live in such a perfect world, so today its for the best for our institutions to try to right historical wrongs.

[readmoreoften]

55. I really only look at sexism on a cultural level.

If you're a guy and you are sensitive to the sexism in the world, that's great. But as a lesbian who is only getting older, I am most effected by larger institutions. I have absolutely no cultural value. I'm no longer young and beautiful. I have no children. I have no "direct control" over the "individual level." On a personal level, I have many white male friends. But in the world, they are more valuable than I am. That's just the way it is.

I understand what you're saying, but one of the reasons that you can think about it as an "individual basis" problem is because you're only effected by it when prejudiced individuals lash out at you! For me, the problem is completely systemic and largely enacted in ways that are insidious and difficult to pin down.

[mongo]

60. That was a really good post.

And true.

[Cats Against Frist]

91. She's good, isn't she?

I would insert a "she rocks" smiley, here -- but there isn't one.

[Cats Against Frist]

92. Excellent post.

Thank you!

[hfojvt]

51. the whole starting point is kinda confusing

are we all in the same race, have the same goals? That sounds like an endorsement of the "American Dream" - that is, once we say go, everyone start scrambling for as much money and power and stuff as you can - and make sure it is a fair contest!

And this group thing? Are you gonna say that all white people or all men start from the same point? George Bush and I started at the same point? Then he must be a millionaire President because - he's smarter than me, he worked harder than me, or what? After all, we are both in the groups white and male so we started at the same spot, right?

[BlooInBloo]

61. Sheesh. There's this phrase "on average"....

Here's an example of it's correct usage:

On average, two white folks start out at much closer to the same level as a white guy and a black guy.

Here's another example of correct usage:

On average, two guys start out much at much closer to the same level than a boy and a girl.

On average.

Sheesh.

[hfojvt]

65. and, of course, that phrase is meaningless

since if you look at two distributions, one with a higher average than the other, there will still be large groups of people in the white group who started behind other large groups of people in the black group - for example, me and Bill Cosby's daughters.
On average my sisters started at much closer to the same level as me than George Bush did or Ann Coulter did, and the whole start thing is kinda less important than "where I am now" and "which side I am on"

[BlooInBloo]

68. {shrug} sure - it CAN, in certain instances...

not be as informative as in other instances...

Or in even more exotic instances there might not be an average at all (eg a cauchy distribution).

Even more exoctically, one might have a distribution with no moments of any order.

So? Until all these exotic theoretical possibilities get tied to the particular case at hand, they're nothing more than exotic theoretical possibilities.

I applaud you on your knowledge of basic probability theory tho.

[readmoreoften]

64. Yes, class is an issue as well.

Race
Class
Gender
Sexual Orientation

All factors.

[Katherine Brengle]

78. Great post, lol.

The problem with the logic of "just treat people as individuals" is that women are not considered individuals by society. To be trite for a moment, look at it this way--men are "Mr." once they reach adulthood and until they die, unless they become doctors, or maybe if they are in the military. Women are "Ms." until they get married, when they take on the "r" from "Mr." and become "Mrs." as in, belonging to "Mr." as I see it.

The "woman as property" concept is so deeply entrenched in our culture that we don't even notice it most of the time--and herein lies the problem.

[lukasahero]

95. I'm liking you

Welcome to DU.

I think that might be the part that some men just aren't getting about why some women are so angry about the "male bashing" meme that really took flight (ironically enough) on International Woman's Day.

We're already seeing a flood of legislation meant to curtail our rights - and so much more is on the way. We daily see words from some of the idiot RW men and women that are actually currently in positions to influence the leadership of our country telling us we are nothing but breeders who have nothing to contribute to society. But when we women rail against this, WE aren't playing fair. We're taken to task when we forget to qualify every statement with "some" or when we fail to specifically include the RW women in our statements.

I'm tired, hurt and angry and don't have the time required to expand on this further at the moment but I really wanted to thank you for your observation here. And to welcome you to DU. Thanks for joining.

[jbnow]

66. AMEN!

I am a woman and I know women can be sexist. It bothers me that male bashing is pretty widely accepted. Now that doesn't harm men the way sexism toward women when men had all the power hurt women but it lessens us.

I came of age in the 70's. It was those ahead of me that broke down the barriers. I didn't have to fight for anything. Men didn't hold me back and couldn't unless I let them.

I am "liberated" but came to say I am a humanist more then a feminist. I am for humans. I love cool people of any age, sex, sexual preference, race, income or creed.

People in any group can be biased or prejudiced. There are men and women sexists. There are black and white racists.

These are new times and rights are being threatened again and we have to fight for rights again. But good people of all genders, races and sexual preference should care about all of us having our rights. Only 1 sub-group might be picked on by an issue, but it is everyones issue to care about.

But you put that better and simply saying "How about treating people as individuals first, without judgment" Yes, let's.

But I do admit I am so biased against right wing people, I really am. I never agreed with the philosophy of republicans but I never felt this antipathy as I do toward those who support this extremism. So I am biased and not ashamed of it.

[bunyip]

129. Best post

I am "liberated" but came to say I am a humanist more then a feminist. I am for humans. I love cool people of any age, sex, sexual preference, race, income or creed.

That's close to being the soul of liberalism.

:yourock:

[mongo]

34. some people can get to the issues

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x609987

Others are more interested in posting insults like too many are distracted by crying boys with skinned egos needing ointment on their booboos.

[omega minimo]

101. Did you copy/paste that from the Feminist Group and then have it deleted?

It has disappeared.

That was not an insult, it was a description-- which contained some humor, in context, which apparently has been disappeared.

That can also be said with some compassion, believe it or not.

And "some" men here have taught us that their hostility and sense of victimization is based on fear and confusion (or lack of information). They feel trapped, they attack out of desperation and try to end their personal nightmare by killing discussion.

When we try to stand on a level playing field, they think we're stepping on their toes.

[mongo]

108. No, the quote was from your post #17

which I was replying too. Jumping to conclusions are we?

[omega minimo]

110. How is your booboo today?

From #17: We all need to move past this stumbling block and get to the issues........................ and address the "overwhelming power structure" that is destroying the nation and the planet.

Still stumbling on the way to this conclusion..............:eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

93. And Statements Like That Do What To Advance The Goal?

Men have entrenched themselves as the pwers that be, lots of folks want to get toward complete equality, and insulting those with whom you disagree on details is productive?

The Professor

[omega minimo]

100. When the badgering stops, I'll let you know

;)

When women stop being hit with those "insulting those with whom you disagree on details"

"...lots of folks want to get toward complete equality"?!!!! Do you know any of them? Invite them to DU!! :evilgrin:

[ProfessorGAC]

104. Most of Those I Know Are Here

And i don't get the reply. We obviously agree on the general, and it's just some specifics that are at issue in this thread. It hardly seems logical to argue about the trees when we all are concerned about the forest as a whole.
The Professor

[mongo]

23. The problem is

that there's really two definitions of sexism, that get used interchangably as it is convienient.

Using the actual definition of sexism "systomatic oppresison of the other gender", then yes, men in general have that sewn up. Women can be sexist in this way, but it is few and far between.

Then there is the use of the word sexist, to describe bigotry, which more descibes the posts you were talking about in your OP. In this case, and especially on DU, there are *some* women who are just as sexist as *some* men.

I also think that to say that a woman is sexist or that "If someone believes that women can't be sexist against men, they are using that as an excuse to justify behavior" is no different from saying that Rosa Parks was racist for wanting to end racism - or that if Rosa called whites "racist" that that was "an excuse to justify behavior".

That is a totally BS analogy. First I did mention that I was talking about modern times, DU posts, etc. Figthing racism is not racist. But again we have two common definitions of the term, one to mean a social order, and one to describe bigotry. In that sense, I have been the victim of racist attacks myself, on two occasions on the S side of Chicago in the 70's.

[omega minimo]

28. Dear Mongo- It's 2 ends of the same beast.

The small oppression is an expression of the big oppression-- and it feeds it. That's why "the personal is political." That's why you might see "no big deal" terms get an "overreaction."

[mongo]

56. If by small oppression you mean gender based slurs

Then I do think there's a whole lot of context you need to consider - but that's just me.

I also think there's a lot of power in language, especially slurs (of all types and sizes), and they do serve many purposes, one of which may very well be to feed the big oppression. Especially when used by those (truely) in power. (I'm agreeing with you here OM, I hope you don't fall out of your chair).

But just as I've heard many times over the last few days, when someone says "men just want..." they aren't talking *all* men, when someone calls condi you know what, they aren't talking about all women either. There really isn't even any confusion or grey area that they are. I don't take offense when Bush is called a prick. It's him that's being defined by his anatomy, not me.

By far, my biggest problem with the "men..." posts is that it's not *men* doing the oppressing in America today for the most part. It's theocrats who want to shove their agenda down our throats.

Look, at this point I want to apologize to ALL of you that we couldn't have had a better response to international women's day. It is sad on many levels -- but I hope that we can share some of the blame.

[Marie26]

62. I think women can be sexist,

but it does not have the same force or effect as sexism from men. In the same way that minorities can be racist, but it doesn't have the same negative effect as racism of a majority against a minority. It's about who's in control of the power structure. To a large extent, men are still largely in control of most of the institutions of our society (churches, government, corporations) and so in a position to exert power & control. So male sexism has had a disproportionate effect on women's ability to get a good job, or an education, or an abortion, etc. That's why, IMO, sexism against women is still a much larger & more pressing problem in the country.

To the extent that women are also gaining positions of power, I guess sexism against men can also be a problem. However, that's sort of a false problem, IMO. Sexism against women usually takes the form that we're not hireable, or capable, or are basically sex objects. That's a perspective that has real effects on women in the real world. Sexism against men tends to consist of male-bashing. That's very different & IMO, much less likely to result in real-world discrimination or oppression against men. It's just different.

[bloom]

73. Yes

you explained that better than I did.


Basically - I'm not considering it sexism if women say something like "men (in general or otherwise) are hateful and oppressive" - because it won't do anything to oppress them if I did.

If we lived in a world where there was more balance and a woman's saying that had an impact - then it would be different.


I do expect men to try to have a clue for themselves and know whether they are sexist assholes who are contributing to the rape culture or what have you. I'm not assuming that all men are. If some men need to read that some women think they are sexist assholes who are contributing to the rape culture before they think about changing their habits - then I'm glad I did my part.

[omega minimo]

115. "So male sexism has had a disproportionate effect"

thoughtful statement
thank you
:applause:

[readmoreoften]

25. Women cannot be "sexist' against men. That's why it sounds awkward.

They can be prejudiced against men. They can hate men. But the "ism" in sexism implies that one group has control over the other. Sexism is not a conspiracy of individual men who individually agree to hold women down. It is an extremely complicated system that needs to be challenged. It is an ideology that people except and implement or rise up and fight against.

There is no real ideology, and certainly no social system, that believes that men are weak and inferior and seeks to keep them docile.

When we say "fundies are idiots" we don't mean every fundamentalist let alone every Christian is an idiot. We certainly don't mean that Martin Luther King is an idiot. Similarly, when women on DU say "men need to keep their laws off my body" they don't mean their liberal brothers on DU. It's a rhetorical grouping.

(And no, Mongo, I'm not talking about porn. I'm not an anti-porn feminist in any sense.)

[McCamy Taylor]

35. America is a Matriarchy (and I am a woman). The world is a Patriarchy.

The corporate world in America is a Patriarchy. This is why so many people think that America is a Patriarchy, because Big Business is the largest single holder of power in America. But Business is not the only power structure within America, nor is it the one with the largest most immediate impact on the largest number of people. The family is the basic unit structure in America, and the American family revolves arond the Matriarch. Other relationships mimic family relationships. In school, life is centered around the (female) teacher. The physician and minister strive to became like the Mother in their dealings with their clients. The world of inherited wealth in America is actually a Matriarchy since women tend to outlive their spouses, so you see a lot of rich widows inheriting their family fortunes and starting foundations etc.


This is not true for other countries, where the family center is the Patriarch. But in America, Dad is Homer Simpson and Mom is Marge. Watch TV commercials sometime and you will see that Mom always knows best and Dad is just an overgrown kid.

If this isnt sexism directed against men, I dont know what is.

[Sparkly]

37. I disagree.

The woman in most families keeps the operation going, by providing the labor (nurturing, economic sacrifice, etc.) to hold it together. But when it comes to exercizing individual power, economic power comes into play -- and there's no matriarchy there.

Women are not only paid less than men for the same work, we're also more likely to sacrifice career advancement to bear and raise children. And when things rock the family boat -- domestic violence, divorce, etc. -- women are far LESS empowered than men. That equation impacts the immediate lives of far more people than the patriarchy of "big business," imho.

There's a similar impact on women's independence re healthcare, childcare, Social Security, retirement benefits, etc...

(I also disagree with your views on church as a matriarchy, commercials as denigrating men, and schools as ruled by women -- more teachers are women, but more administrators are men.)

[bloom]

38. how do account for

the women taking the husbands name - for the most part.

or

men passing their businesses (and other major inheritances) to their sons


And your examples mostly showed that women often take the motherly role as a profession. Rich women and foundations - as if that is the foundation of power in society. :eyes:



"If this isn't sexism directed against men, I dont know what is."

Actually - I don't think you do know what sexism is if the only thing you think that matters are a few shows where they men act stupid. There are about a gazillion examples of women as playthings/men as serious business person like these:

http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/sidebyside.htm


I guess some people just don't want to know.

[Solon]

42. Actually, that's just weak...

First, culturally, this is nothing new, look at old shows like the Dick Van Dyke show or the Flinstones, or better yet, the Honeymooners. Bullheaded men versus rational women, nothing new, and most people, in the real world, view that as a fantasy. Its comedy, not to be taken seriously, and woe to those who do take such things way too seriously. Even then, most of the time, the sexism is blatant, first, most of the time the women are the homemakers, even if they "rule the roost" so to speak, and second, they usually use snide remarks or manipulation to get their way. The message is that women can't be trusted, and men can be easily manipulated, both of which are not stupid generalizations. It makes good comedy, but bad, in most cases, social commentary.

[readmoreoften]

50. Physicians and ministers are not mothering

They're paternal. Charitable Foundations (unlike political foundations for "Club for Growth" and the "Heritage Foundation") are minor cultural institutions. Men pass their money onto their children, and often their businesses onto their sons.

"But Business is not the only power structure within America, nor is it the one with the largest most immediate impact on the largest number of people."

My employers are not women. Whether a woman heads The Spina Bifida Association has little impact on most Americans. Men are portrayed as "overgrown kids" in the way that rich people are "happy and free."

[Katherine Brengle]

80. This is patently untrue.

I don't have much else to say--it has likely all already been said anyhow.

[mongo]

36. You didn't need the disclaimer

and I think we mostly agree -- but I do see the word sexism being used for prejudiced behavior on a fairly regular basis. And the definition changing back and forth as the author's see fit.

Similarly, when women on DU say "men need to keep their laws off my body" they don't mean their liberal brothers on DU. It's a rhetorical grouping.

That is true, but it is still a slur, no? This all started with the SD abortion ban, and was characterized as a gender war by many, when it is far more about theocrats vs free people. Just as many women as men want to outlaw abortion. The SD law was written and introduced by a woman.

I'd just like people to look at the real enemy, and it ain't everyone with a Y chromosone. or even little ole' me.

[lukasahero]

96. Excellent explanation

Thank you for this.

[joeunderdog]

106. To borrow a line from Spinal Tap

"what's wrong with being sexy?"

[smirkymonkey]

13. Kicked and recommended.

:kick:

Great post, I am just too pissed off to comment rationally right now.

[omega minimo]

22. Nail, meet hammer

"Guess what - "blogging against sexism" - is blogging against the patriarchal structure of society."

That's it. That's the point. What else is there?

If only we could get past the bullshit and address the common issues. Seems to be mostly a problem of education and semantics. Word games and mindfuckers. Maybe it can't be worked out here.

[mmonk]

46. Technically yes.

Sexism is defined as discrimination against the opposite sex by Webster's. However, in most cultures, sexism is directed against women by men. But yes, women can be sexist.

[bloom]

74. Sexism - definition

Politics

sexism
The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. Sexist discrimination in the United States in the past has denied opportunities to women in many spheres of activity. Many allege that it still does. (See also affirmative action, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, glass ceiling, and National Organization for Women.)

http://www.answers.com/topic/sexism

[Odin2005]

53. When Women go ranting about how us Men are all such evil scum...

...hell yeah it's sexism.

[bloom]

75. Sexism - definition

Politics

sexism
The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. Sexist discrimination in the United States in the past has denied opportunities to women in many spheres of activity. Many allege that it still does. (See also affirmative action, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, glass ceiling, and National Organization for Women.)

http://www.answers.com/topic/sexism



You might notice that nobody was advocating that women dominate "most important areas of political, economic, and social life".

[jpgray]

57. Yes

Sexism by definition is believing one sex is superior to the other. Any site that argues matriarchal rule would be somehow inherently superior to patriarchal rule believes exactly that. Sexism towards males does far less damage than sexism towards females, but that doesn't make it any less bigoted. Take a concrete example:

An employer fires an employee simply because of his gender. Is that sexist? If you say "no," but you believe that if the employee were female the answer would be "yes," that's sexist thinking. May as well say that blacks can't be racist.

[readmoreoften]

63. And this happens how often?

Are you really worried about black employers firing their white employees across the nation?

Have you ever walked into a board room and wondered, "God, do these women really think I'm less intelligent then they are because of how they were raised?"

And lastly, when you've heard women complain, "I hate men! They're a bunch of fucking pigs!" Did you ever really *fear* them? Did you ever think that they were going to commit sexualized violence on you or another man? Or do you just pass them off as a bunch of bitchy women? If you were able to pass them off as a bunch of "crazed feminazis" it's because we live in a patriarchal society. If I heard a man say, "I hate women! They're a bunch of fucking pigs!" I'd run for cover.

Theoretically, "sexism" is the idea that one sex is superior to the other. But in practice, small groups of women who think their superior have no effect whatsoever on the larger culture.

[jpgray]

67. The question isn't "how often does it happen" or "can't we ignore it"

The question was can women be sexist? The answer is "yeah." And how would you feel about a black employer discriminating against a Peurto Rican employee? I suppose we'd have to bring out flow charts to compare their relative social power in our society in your view, but in my view it doesn't matter what the race or sex of the bigot--the bigotry is what the problem is.

[readmoreoften]

71. You're speaking in pure theory.

You're purely philosophical and ahistorical analysis trivializes the issue. How often is ACTUALLY the issue. We don't have a systemic problem of black employers holding latino employees down. In fact, I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a single legal discrimination case to this effect. If it happened would it be wrong? Yes. Would it be a bad, nasty, prejudiced thing to do? Yes.

But it's not a systemic problem. To put male complaints of angry feminists on par with the phenomenon of glass ceilings and gang rape is kind of ridiculous. To put white complaints of "reverse racism" on par with slavery is completely absurd. To reduce these issues to single instances of bigotry minimizes the problem.

Bigotry is terribly wrong, but racism, sexism and homophobia are much more complicated than single individuals not liking people who are different from themselves.

[jpgray]

72. I don't care how often it happens, I will still point out that it is wrong

To put male complaints of angry feminists on par with the phenomenon of glass ceilings and gang rape is kind of ridiculous. To put white complaints of "reverse racism" on par with slavery is completely absurd.

Where did I equate these in my post? I don't remember doing so. But at any rate the mechanism for bigotry is the same in all cases--just because a minority or a woman in general can't do the same amount of damage with bigotry as those in power doesn't mean it should be ignored or not pointed out. Am I going to picket for white male rights anytime soon? Nope--sexism towards women and racism towards minorities are infinitely worthier to spend my time on because they're among the most dangerous forms of such in our society today. But Lenny Bruce has a great bit about how first the whites are disgusted that the blacks are moving into the neighborhood, and then both races are disgusted that the Puerto Ricans moving into the neighborhood--bigotry is a general human behavior, it isn't tied to any one race or gender.

[readmoreoften]

76. Right. You're making my point.

<I going to picket for white male rights anytime soon? Nope--sexism towards women and racism towards minorities are infinitely worthier to spend my time on because they're among the most dangerous forms of such in our society today.>

And why is bigotry against white men less important to tackle as a social problem than bigotry against black women? Because one group has cultural power, the other doesn't.

I'm a white person. When African-Americans say "White people continue to discriminate against my people. I don't trust them." I don't say "Well, not ALL white people! What about me? You're discriminating against me!"

Instead, I nod and say, "Yeah, I'm trying to do something about that!"

The person may be a "bigot", but I take HISTORY into account and try to show that person that they have no reason to see me as an enemy instead of DEMANDING that they see me as a friend.

[Katherine Brengle]

81. As Alice Paul said in Iron Jawed Angels---

I don't have the film here, so I am paraphrasing, but basically Patrick Dempsey says something to the effect of women believing they can do things better than men (particularly in government, and said in a jovial way, not as an attack at all) and Alice Paul (Hillary Swank) says something along the lines of: "We don't think we are morally superior" and during the same conversation--

"We're legitimate citizens. We're tax without representation. We're not allowed to serve on juries so we're not tried by our peers. It's unconscionable, not to mention unconstitutional. We don't make the laws but we have to obey them like children."

Now, of course, women have the right to vote now in this country, and serve on juries, but are still viewed in many ways by our society in general as property, or as somehow "less" than male, rather than just different.

We're not better, we're just human, and we'd like to be treated as such.

[michael_1166]

122. Here's a good book I can recommend to you

because you seem to me a bit lagging behind where the "feminism" debate actually stands:

The Rantings of a Single Male: Losing Patience with Feminism, Political Correctness... and Basically Everything

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Obviously, They Absolutely Can Be. Sexism Can Come From Either Side,

though it is true that it most often comes from men. Doesn't mean it can't come from women too though, as has been shown quite readily lately. :hi:

[bloom]

77. I think this was a good post:

#98

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x598206#600598

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

118. That One Wasn't Explained Well. This One's Better:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=598206&mesg_id=601786

Sexism can come from any gender and be directed at any gender.

:hi:

[Mythsaje]

82. I just read through this thread

and I KNOW I'm going to get flamed for this, but fuck it.

What REALLY pisses me off is that I spend most of my life trying to be a decent guy and treating women with respect and many of my best friends growing up were girls and yet I'm still spat on (at least in theory) because other men are fucking jerks. I've been pointing this little fact out my whole life. A lot of guys are jerks. No kidding. Big goddam surprise there.

I wasn't one of the ones in high school who thought my manhood would be justified by screwing anything I could get my hands on, and decided that the best way to do that was to make myself into the biggest prick in town. I saw plenty of guys doing just that and, guess what, they're the ones that attracted the most female attention. I didn't understand it then and I sure don't understand it now. What IS it with bad boys, anyway?

I have NEVER acted as though I owned a woman, or anyone else for that matter. I own myself, and I don't give a fuck who likes it or doesn't like it. My wife makes roughly four times what I make and I'm okay with that. I don't have a goddam thing to prove. She takes care of the finances and I do most of the cooking and taking care of the house, including the fix-it jobs, and whenever something needs written, or a little bit of tact is necessary in dealing with someone outside of the house, I'm the one who does it.

Can women be sexist? I don't know. I don't think it necessarily needs to be institutionalized to hurt someone's feelings. Reading this thread, frankly, hurt my feelings. To be lumped in with a bunch of pigs who think they have the right to decide for another human being what's right and what isn't just because I've got a dick between my legs seems pretty goddam lame to me.

And as for treating other people like sex objects, spend a little time on an e-mail list with female romance authors and you'll get a bloody education, especially when one of the male cover models shows up for a visit. That door swings both ways.

I damn well don't deserve to be attacked and/or denigrated because of anything I do not do myself. I am not responsible for the glass ceiling, or institutionalized racism, or any of that crap. I take each and every person as an individual and judge that individual on the merits of how they act toward myself and others. And I sure as hell expect the same level of respect in turn.

I choose my friends based on common interests and even now I'd have more female friends if it didn't make my wife a bit uncomfortable. If I meet a person of color who likes the same books, movies, and/or music, and has at least a few of the same hobbies, I'm damn likely to become friends with them. A person's race, sex, or sexual orientation has very little, if anything, to do with it. Whether or not we have any common ground on which to meet sure as hell does. I don't make friends easily, but once I do, I'm solid as forever. The only thing that's ever come between me and a friend is a knife in the back.

I am not a demographic or a statistic, I'm a human being. And so is everyone else. If they WANT to identify with a demographic or a statistic, that has nothing to do with me.

The only group I identify with is individualistic science fiction and fantasy authors who haven't quite yet sold enough books to quit their day job.

Oh. Make that LIBERAL individualistic science fiction and fantasy authors who haven't quite sold enough books to quit their day job.

'nuff said.

[Marie26]

86. If you are not a sexist male

than the thread is not referring to you. Right? Most people are able to make the distinction between sexism (as an action), and an entire gender. And maybe sometimes people refer to ALL men, but honestly, that not what I see in this thread. People seem instead to be referring to the effects of sexism from both sides.

[bunyip]

132. Amen

:kick:

[rucky]

83. What's wrong with being sexy?

[Brazenly Liberal]

84. Can women be sexist? yes and no

By a literalist interpretation, yes. Individual women can think less of men and treat them badly just because they're men.

But not in any meaningful sense. Sexism, like racism, homphobia, anti-semitism, and all the other nasty little cockroaches in hatred's bag of tricks, depends on balance of power. A woman can believe men should have fewer rights, but she hasn't the power to make that happen on any significant level.

This is one more instance in which I find myself looking back and trying to pinpoint exactly when the rightwingnuts latched onto the cynical and hypocritical portrayal of the powerful as victims of the powerless as a debate strategy.

[Cats Against Frist]

85. Make-up? Fashion? Leg-shaving? Lingerie? Dieting?

You're goddamn right they can be sexist -- I'd say that 95 percent of women, outside the "dyke" set, are digging their own fucking hole. That's girl-on-girl sexism. Any whiny-ass males who think they're getting discriminated against by "reverse sexism," can jump off a fucking bridge. Women have to worry about sexism from men, sexism from other women, and the anti-woman sexism within themselves.

Poor baby boys. Maybe they should start, by soothing themselves by shaving all the hair below their necks, wearing control-top pantyhose and puking up their dinner gracefully into the john.

[Marie26]

87. True

Women are incredibly sexist against themselves, as well. We're all trying desperately to fit some mold that no one can ever reach. Men seem, for the most part, much more comfortable w/themselves & how they look. I sort of envy that. But now, all the new male fashion magazines seem to be changing that as well, so they're starting to feel that pressure as well, when those ideals should really be less powerful on everybody.

[bubba j]

94. Ahhh.... righhht!

So men are to blame for you "shaving all the hair below (your) necks, wearing control-top pantyhose and puking up (your) dinner gracefully into the john."?

You give men too much power if you really believe this. That or the men you know are assholes.

Not all men are that way.

bubba j

(flame suit on!)

[TahitiNut]

113. (LOL!) Lord! Where to start?

This entire topic has become so embroiled in fallacious logic, codependent thinking, artificial reductionism, and the politics of victimhood that it's increasingly doubtful any meaningful, collaborative progress can be achieved in these Keystone Kop disKussions.

The one overwhelming power, transcending all others, that each gender exerts upon the other in some inevitable equilibrium is the sex drive itself. Above and beyond and compounding our social/affiliation drives is the "urge to merge" in which homosexuality could be cast as the prototypical exception (except it isn't!) that proves the rule. It's entirely possible, I believe, to describe socio-political animosities focused on homosexuality as a form of sexism (oppression being the punishment for non-compliance to coercive sexual politics).

Anyone who thinks men aren't subjected to sexist oppression by other men has another think coming. If anything, the observation that sexism is a perversion of power inflicted on both genders by both genders is undeniable. We're all so immersed in our own experiences of that oppression, seeing any attempted collaboration as potentially another ploy in the eons-long gamesmanship of oppression codependency, that we're clearly impeded in even collaborating.

Codependency? Ubetcha. The "urge to merge" is so strong that even our basest and most perverted projections of "what makes a (wo)man a (wo)man" become coercions to comply. When men hear women say "all men are ___" it creates a strong motivation to emulate the very attributes proclaimed, no matter how unhealthy! Why? To a large extent it's because we 'discover' that we aren't accepted as "real (wo)men" unless we satisfy that membership criterion. Even when such 'expectations' are promulgated by our gender peers, it's combative and competitive in the mating game on top of being accepted within a peer group. In terms of raw and blatant codependency, I don't know of much that's more clear than the very claim that a women are somehow justified, as a result of being oppressed by gender bigotries, to engage in the same gender bigotries. Engaging in wrongful/unhealthy behavior and blaming that behavior on the similarly wrongful/unhealthy behavior of a cohort to whom we're tied is the very definition and essence of codependency. (Why do you drink? Because she nags. Why do you nag? Because he drinks. Codependency.)

I don't know of many males that haven't experienced some degree of boy's shower or adjacent urinal anxieties. I don't know of many males that haven't succumbed in some degree to the "real men don't eat quiche" expectations, no matter how perverse. In a trivial sense, neckties offer an example. The vast majority of men dislike them - but regard the expectations of others (who also dislike them) as sufficiently coercive.

I have personally regarded many elements of women's fashion as unattractive and basically a perpetuation of sexual objectification. I don't like make-up. I don't like high heels. I don't like panty hose. I don't like jewelry. I don't like emaciated. Strangely enough, the reaction I get from most women is one that subtly infers I'm not a "real man" as a result. Sheesh! Go figure! At the same time, I wear Birkenstocks, carry a fanny pack ("man purse"), dress in wash'n'wear natural fabric clothing, and eschew any scented colognes, after-shaves, or deodorants whatsoever. Even my closest female friends (not to mention my male peers) have characterized one or all of such preferences as 'unattractive' (i.e. 'unsexy'). Why? I can only conclude it's brainwashing. As my libido ("urge to merge") becomes less overwhelmingly controlling over time (age), I find myself more and more sanguine (who cares what you think?) in my choices.

The "take it like a man" message is merely one more nail in the coffin of dysfunction. It's appalling.

</rant>

[CTyankee]

119. Well, here you are again

on a tear against these wimmin. But, you know what?

"I find myself more and more sanguine (who cares what you think?) in my choices."

[TahitiNut]

121. That's a gross mischaracterization of my post.

Nowhere and at no time do I go "on a tear against these wimmin" and the inference is insulting.

[CTyankee]

125. Oh, okay.

I guess. Whatever.

[bunyip]

135. Thoughtful and original post

:kick:

[TahitiNut]

140. Thank you.

I recently heard the resolve of: "I'll stop comparing my insides to other people's outsides." That advisory somehow seems very apt in regarding these discussions regarding sexism - and a decent postscript to that post.

The above post is part of what's been percolating in me for a couple of days. It finally came to a bit of a boil and some came out about as close to what I perceive as I can get it. It took some significant effort. It's somewhat of a relief that it wasn't a complete waste - as too often seems the case. I appreciate the positive feedback.

Somewhat belatedly, welcome to DU! :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

120. Wow, That Post Is Just Sexist Against EVERYBODY! LOL

Definitely proved with that post that the answer to the OP's question is a resounding yes.

[Odin2005]

97. Some feminists seem to think they must FORCE women to be "liberated"...

...and this is what gets them into trouble. The point of feminism is to give women the CHOICE to do what they want, If a woman wants to be a housewife thats her choice, she should not be chastised for not acting like how a "liberated" woman should act. It is not just women who are fighting stereotypes, 50 years ago there were probably very few male nurses; us men are still taught in childhood the "big boys don't cry" BS.

[bloom]

112. I suppose there are some

I don't know of any myself.


I think the sexism war is mostly being driven by profits in various industries including advertising and most industries that buy advertising and the war industry and the porn industry....

It's the same forces that are driving the world to global warming - and overpollution and disregard for the planet.

I think it's all related.

There are a few writers out there that see it that way - Like Robert Jensen and Stan Goff.


Here another one - Alan Pert ->

I think two main factors underlie our predicament:
1. Patriarchy, which must control and exploit by its very nature. Today the power centre is with the global corporations,with tentacles around the world.They are ripping the heart out of the planet.

2. By focusing solely on the material side of existence, the pursuit of wealth and consumption, society has become corrupted. Morality is swamped under the rising tide of greed and selfishness.

...

What is to be done?

We are living in a dying civilization. The evidence is all around.What sort of a society is it that brainwashes little children with consumer values, destroying innocence and true wonder? That presents mutilated freaks as the ideal of womanhood?I refer to matchstick thin models and celebrities with silicone breast implants.(See Wolf .) A society that must destroy everything that is beautiful, natural, wild and free? This is a civilization in its death throes: take a good look.

We have have to get down to basics, and really think about such questions as: what is a human being? What are truly human needs? What is the purpose of life? People who lack imagination, compassion and soul have too much power in this world, and they are pushing us all to the brink.

Everyone knows that our external world is being polluted.Our bodies and minds are being polluted also.It is part of the same process.To make true human progress, people must eliminate the toxins from their bodies: alcohol, nicotine,hard drugs,sedatives,junk food, etc.They must also remove the toxins from the mind, which are conveyed by the mass media.This means giving up television,movies,glossy magazines,commercial radio, most newspapers,videos,computer games, rock/pop culture,etc.Is this too hard, too drastic? Tough it may be, but it is necessary to clear the mind, to see our predicament as it really is.The mass media and culture we have today has one purpose: to exploit people rotten. Only people who have freed themselves from its clutches will be able to create new and worthwhile ways of living.

In the long run we need a society that is based on spiritual principles. We need to heal our ties with Nature, and live within Nature in a reverent manner.Nature should be our guide and touchstone.Real change for the better will take generations and many upheavals to occur. Some people are waking up now and thinking about basic change. Current values such as materialism, sexism and patriarchy are being questioned. An ecological awareness that promotes the welfare of all life forms is growing. We have to create new, life affirming values, and implement them.There is a need to expand awareness and question deeply. Life itself has the answers for us, but we have to be free of much accumulated garbage before we can see with clear new vision.

http://www.personal.usyd.edu.au/~apert/consume.html

[Odin2005]

123. Article sounds like nonsense.

More blaming everthing thats bad in the world on male dominance. I highly doubt there would be any less crap going on if women were in charge. The article equates greed, consumerism, and enviromental distruction with patriarchy, which is bullshit.

[bloom]

126. patriarchy / capitalism

It's' not the first time....

Capitalism typically creates and exploits divisions for the purpose of undermining working class solidarity. Sexism undermines the solidarity between men and women. By failing to point out capitalism’s role in this issue, we can allow a new threat to class solidarity to take root. This non-class based division, created by the media, the so-called “moral divide.”

A New Mass Movement
The current trends in the media represent a step backwards for women in the struggle against sexism and exploitation. This is another facet of the global phenomenon, regardless of gender, of working class people being attacked more fiercely by the capitalist class. The current onslaught of sexism, besides undermining class solidarity, also serves capitalism by expanding markets for diet and beauty products and for surgery. It also represents a huge drain on the resources of an individual woman. With her self-image and self worth constantly under attack, it is no surprise that some women have fallen into an individualistic, superficial, self-absorption, spending less time fighting to change the workplace and the community. Especially with the failure of working class and women’s organizations to fight on concrete issues that are important to women.
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com/feaSexism.htm

A related view from Stan Goff:

But we were still left with the question of the intrinsic relationship between partiarchy and capitalism. We all knew, of course, that patriarchy preceded capitalism. Was it then correct to say that it simply continued as a kind of substructure? Why was the great promise of modernity to abolish all feudal, patriarchal, backward relationships not fulfilled when it came to women? After all, feudalism had been abolished, at least in the industrialized world. Why has this not also happened with regard to the patriarchal relationship between the genders.

The more the feminist movement developed, the more we discovered new manifestations of patriarchal structures and ideologies. In particular, the movement against violence against women, against woman-battering, rape, pornography, sexual abuse in the work place, violence agaisnt women in the media and advertising, challenged the prevailing myth that modernity had ‘civilized’ the man-woman relationship, had ‘tamed’ the erstwhile aggressive, anti-women tendencies in men. No, these were not just ‘leftovers’ of a feudal past; this was the flesh and blood of modern, progressive capitalism; this was the heart of capitalism; it was capitalist patriarchy.

It as the analysis of the role of housework under capitalism that provided the first theoretical understanding of the political economy of capitalist patriarchy. This movement had started around 1980. It became clear that women’s unpaid caring and nurturning work in the household was subsidizing notonly the male wage but also capital accumulation. Moreover, by defining women as housewives, a process I call ‘housewifization,’ not only did women’s unpaid work in the household become invisible, unredorded in the GDP, and ‘naturalized’ — that is, treated as a ‘free good’ — but also her waged work was considered to be only supplementary to that of her husband, the so-called breadwinner, and thus devalued. The construction of woman as mother, wife, and housewife was the trick by which 50 per cent of human labor was defined as a free resource. it was female labour.

http://stangoff.com/?p=91

[Odin2005]

133. The Evil Male Capitalist is forcing women to buy makeup?

:rofl: That whole first paragraph stinks of Marxist blank-slatism, deneying a biological cause of behaviors and putting it all as a result cultural and socioeconomic forces. This is just more athoritarian "social engineering" feminism, forcing women to adhere to a cerain person's interpretation of being "liberated". What if a woman WANTS to be a housewife, or WANTS to wear that makeup? Should society force her to have a job, or ban her from wearing makeup just because some people in acedamia dosen't like that that woman isn't acting like a proper "liberated" woman?

[Hidden Stillness]

143. Bigoted, Hypocritical Males

This depressing thread and others like it are the reason why I do not like to join the really hateful discussions of male bigotry and oppression. Until males admit what their attitudes are toward us, (and they can start with admitting what they hope to do to us on threads like this), then things will never be solved anywhere, because the whole world is drowning in blood because of male violence and oppression. The extremes that the same names on this website will go to to shift the blame of everything onto us, the silly psychobabble they use, and their total unawareness of themselves or how their taunting causes this fight--not to mention their total lack of interest about our concerns, from equal pay to child care availability, from rape and blaming the victim (there, too) to discrimination in the corporate world--and they way so many males never, never face anything or change, makes this all very depressing. I figured the other feminist threads, or "Women's History Month" or "Equality Year" or whatever males tell us it is this time, would officially end whenever women begged forgiveness for ever raising the issue--and maybe it is time for yet another "Who Gives a Fuck About the Dead Missing White Woman Hogging All the Attention on Male TV?" as if she did it herself, and when you know she was actually raped, tortured and murdered by one of your people. ...But of course, I suppose now I have done something wrong now too, used the wrong phrase, lifted my eyebrow at the wrong time...Wait for the next hateful, bigoted male attack.

[Igel]

145. Of course.

I've seen men discriminate against women because they're women, and I've seen men discriminate against men in favor of women. I've also seen women discriminate against men because they were men, and against women because they weren't men. Mostly I've seen them engage in parallel kinds of discrimination; sometimes, inversely parallel.

The absolute quantities aren't important: Can women be sexist? Yes. It just takes one to prove it's possible. There's no need to quibble over attitude-based discrimination or differential-outcome discrimination, slurs versus action, in positions of great authority versus positions of minor authority.

Of interest would be the relative quantities: On that, I have no info. But most women I've seen in positions of authority (and have talked to before they make decisions about personnel or actions to be taken) have had about as much trouble being unbiased as men have; at the same time, fewer suspect them of being biased.

I don't see grounds for any sex-based superiority; it may exist, but I'm unconvinced anybody's managed to run a decent study. Mostly I think differences in how important the various flavors of sexism are boil down to differences in opportunity.