Okay, so I mostly use the link I provided to entertain myself at all the ridiculous inclusions, but serious question: Do you (anyone) feel like any gender? For example, the site has things like "Atergender: a gender that is deep, dark, and intimate."
I just find that completely unrelatable, like trying to have a conversation with a bat about how echolocation feels. If something looks and behaves like a man, I'll call them a man, and if they look and behave like a woman, I'll call them that. I have no notions associated with feeling like a particular gender, and certainly not something so profound as to call "deep, dark and intimate". How do you identify as a gender? If you ask yourself, is there a part of it that's telling you that you are a man, woman, or anything on that absurd blog? I get gender dysphoria in the whole "being treated as a wo/man triggers me", even if I can't relate, so I can understand it from a "let's transition so it stops happening." But not a notion of "I feel like a wo/man", or something else entirely, which is where I stop being able to take all the queers seriously.

Talking about things I can't relate to:

Never happens to me. I can't remember a single instance.

You rotters just made all the Harambe memes in my facebook feed into microaggressions. You've all went and turned my FB feed into nothing but violence. I hope you're all happy.

accusing me of violence is violence my dude

I don't think I have actually typed Harambe until just now. Never a bad time to join a memewagon, I suppose.

J.K. Rowling recently called the Harambe meme funny. Does that mean it’s officially dead now? Then again ... the Cincinnati Zoo also recently told people to stop using it sooo ... maybe it’s still gonna go on for a bit? Anyway, dicks out, yo.

question: The "it isn't possible to be sexist towards a man" notion is inherently sexist. y/n

I believe it is but if you agree, great. if not, change my mind

NO it’s not sexist. That notion can’t be sexist because it isn’t stereotyping. It’s simply a statement about sexism that is either true or not. It’s not a sexist statement.

how so? the "sexism only applies to non-males" viewpoint is itself a "prejudice or discrimination based on sex"; ergo, sexism

seems pretty cut-and-dried to me

Because there’s no predjudice or discrimination going on in that statement.

Take these three statements:
- women have hair
- women are sexy
- women aren’t good at sports

All three of those make gross over generalizations but only one is a sexist statement really

That’s how I see the earlier statement you shared. It might be wrong or right, but it’s not sexist.

Gonna wrangle with this one on a good faith basis.




"'It isn't possible to be sexist towards a man' is inherently sexist" is a semantically correct statement taking the definitions above. "It isn't possible to be sexist towards a man" is a statement that purports to recognize a difference between men and women. Without the cultural baggage that comes along with the word "discrimination", the statement discriminates a quality difference ("able to be sexist toward") between men and women.

It is semantically correct but substantively bankrupt. Meaningful racism, sexism, discriminatory -ism of any kind, is a combination of prejudice + power. You can recognize differences between men and women silently to yourself until the cows come home and call it sexism, sure. But Capital-S Sexism is the result of 1) possessing prejudices and 2) acting on them. For example: a manager considers women to be deficient in some quality and is interviewing two equally qualified candidates for a role. Capital-S Sexism is the state of affairs such that "the manager considers women to be deficient in some quality" leads to "the manager makes a hiring decision between two equal candidates based on this prejudice".

To wit, in a patriarchal society, men on the balance hold more power than women. It isn't possible to be Capital-S Sexist to men, generally, in a patriarchal society, because women are not in the positions of power to leverage sex-based prejudices. Hope this helps!

sexism doesnt require power

if it did it would say so in the dictionary definition
it is literally discriminatory to assume that men cannot experience sexism

its a dismissal/invalidation based on one's sex


see above


substantiate your claim

because merriam webster (possibly the most well-respected dictionary to exist) both implicitly and explicitly disagrees

But doesn't the statement carry some judgment? If I, as a man, feel that I have been the victim of sexism, and you respond with "it isn't possible to be sexist towards a man", thus invalidating my feelings, isn't that sexist?

And while sexism towards men is far less common, and rarely as damaging, it certainly exists. Consider the male nurse, and the mockery they have faced on numerous sitcoms. Or the idea that a male hairdresser would have to be gay. Or men in musical theater.

So the statement is false, which makes it a damaging judgement, which means it is inherently sexist.

I'm not sure where the whole thing about ___ism requiring power or needing to be systemic comes from. Xism without those things might not be as impactful, but it's still the same Xist philosophy. It's kind of like saying |hate isn't hate until it becomes violence".
It also leads to overgeneralization. Our society certainly provides more opportunity to put sexism against women into practice, but that doesn't make sexism against men impossible. You don't have to be in a position of power to wield power. Everyone has power enough to hurt. Even if you never found yourself- even temporarily, in a majority, or somehow stronger than the people around you, you still had the power to say something that hurt.

I think there’s a lot of common sense when it comes to things like this. Some people have it and others are more like lawyers who can argue semantics until they’re blue in the face. They may be technically right but the spirit of what something is supposed to mean matters to some, not all

Anyway fun discussion

i just feel that its wrong to redefine a word just because it fits an agenda, when the majority of the human race doesn't agree

words carry particular meanings because of societal impact, because the human race collectively agreed upon said definition. if the majority of humans agreed sexism required power, the definition would have been changed by now

"you cant be sexist towards males" is undebatably FALSE imo
"you cant be SYSTEMICALLY sexist towards males" probably carries weight, I concede on that but thats not what this is about

Yes it’s a false statement. But it’s not sexist to say that or even think that. I don’t think it’s a sexist statement.

I agree with everything else you just said though

But it is sexist to say that men cannot be the victims of sexism. It invalidates the feelings of all men who have been victims of sexism, and closes the door to make their situation better. It has negative effects on men, and only on men. This it is sexist. It is the same concept as how you know that anyone who claims racism is no longer a problem is probably racist.

its discrimination based on sex though

which is sexism

i cant really break it down more than that

why did you revive this thread

why not