Recently, I was unfortunate enough to encounter a brand of radical feminism that literally made me say "wow".
It was while drudging through the recesses of Facebook groups, that I came across a young man who was, apparently, dismayed by the level of misandry in the group. Now, I had witnessed the occasional post in said group which had made me raise an eyebrow at its seemingly misandric tone, but I really didn't frequent the group often enough to really know whether or not he had a point or much less, what had specifically happened to cause him to draw such a conclusion. All I really knew was that I had an interest in the topic to which the group was dedicated and that the group declared itself a safe space for minorities, with no tolerance for prejudice.
It sounded like a very positive description.
I was mistaken and so were the claims about the group.
I'm not going to say that the place was full of misandric people. I don't know that. But I do know that through the group, I have now become aware of a strain of radical feminism, of which I was previously oblivious.
I say radical simply because there is really no other way to describe the views on sexism and men, that were expressed to me. I'll explain:
Reading some of the posts that followed the young man's accusations of misandry, I became aware of what seemed to be an opinion among some, that men either don't or can't experience sexism. Asking if that was actually what was being suggested, I was indeed told that it is true: men can't experience sexism.
Needless to say, this was an incredible revelation!
In the most polite way, I stated that I disagreed. This unleashed some rather venomous replies and things pretty much went downhill from there. But, to bring things back on topic, I'll explain the logic of this radical strain...
It was while drudging through the recesses of Facebook groups, that I came across a young man who was, apparently, dismayed by the level of misandry in the group. Now, I had witnessed the occasional post in said group which had made me raise an eyebrow at its seemingly misandric tone, but I really didn't frequent the group often enough to really know whether or not he had a point or much less, what had specifically happened to cause him to draw such a conclusion. All I really knew was that I had an interest in the topic to which the group was dedicated and that the group declared itself a safe space for minorities, with no tolerance for prejudice.
It sounded like a very positive description.
I was mistaken and so were the claims about the group.
I'm not going to say that the place was full of misandric people. I don't know that. But I do know that through the group, I have now become aware of a strain of radical feminism, of which I was previously oblivious.
I say radical simply because there is really no other way to describe the views on sexism and men, that were expressed to me. I'll explain:
Reading some of the posts that followed the young man's accusations of misandry, I became aware of what seemed to be an opinion among some, that men either don't or can't experience sexism. Asking if that was actually what was being suggested, I was indeed told that it is true: men can't experience sexism.
Needless to say, this was an incredible revelation!
In the most polite way, I stated that I disagreed. This unleashed some rather venomous replies and things pretty much went downhill from there. But, to bring things back on topic, I'll explain the logic of this radical strain...
Redefining Sexism
The reasoning behind the declaration that men can't experience sexism, goes thus:
The reasoning behind the declaration that men can't experience sexism, goes thus:
Sexism = Prejudice + Power
Men have all the power in society.
That coupled with prejudice against women, is sexism.
Men have all the power in society.
That coupled with prejudice against women, is sexism.
That's the argument for why men can't experience sexism (and thus, why misandry does not exist). It's an equation that is concise, elegant, informative, and absolutely, completely wrong.
Did you see what happened there?
In order to make this claim that men cannot experience sexism, those in question have attempted to redefine what sexism is. The claim is that sexism is "prejudice + power". But it isn't. Sexism is prejudice against a person or group, based upon their sex. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is why I chose the above title for this blog entry: not because there is anything new going on in sexism, but because there seems to be this radical movement attempting to redefine what sexism is. The only reason behind this attempted redefinition, seems to be to try and make sexism some kind of exclusive club that only women can join. But, why? I can't be entirely sure. Perhaps to glorify women as inherently innocent of the crime of sexism. Perhaps to demonize men as the purveyors of sexism. Perhaps to create some kind of unity through a perceived victimhood. Who knows? Radical political/social views probably need a certain kind of mentality in order to take root and I'm just not privy to that mentality.
Perhaps it seems like I am being rather harsh in my portrayal of those who hold these views. After all, they are entitled to have a differing opinion. Indeed, I agree; they are entitled to their opinion. But this isn't like deciding which Backstreet Boy is your favourite. No, these kinds of radical views can have very dangerous consequences and should, in my opinion, be stood up to.
I'll move past the obvious point that declaring men incapable of experiencing sexism is, in itself, sexist - and instead I'll move on to other insidious ramifications of this kind of thinking.
Did you see what happened there?
In order to make this claim that men cannot experience sexism, those in question have attempted to redefine what sexism is. The claim is that sexism is "prejudice + power". But it isn't. Sexism is prejudice against a person or group, based upon their sex. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is why I chose the above title for this blog entry: not because there is anything new going on in sexism, but because there seems to be this radical movement attempting to redefine what sexism is. The only reason behind this attempted redefinition, seems to be to try and make sexism some kind of exclusive club that only women can join. But, why? I can't be entirely sure. Perhaps to glorify women as inherently innocent of the crime of sexism. Perhaps to demonize men as the purveyors of sexism. Perhaps to create some kind of unity through a perceived victimhood. Who knows? Radical political/social views probably need a certain kind of mentality in order to take root and I'm just not privy to that mentality.
Perhaps it seems like I am being rather harsh in my portrayal of those who hold these views. After all, they are entitled to have a differing opinion. Indeed, I agree; they are entitled to their opinion. But this isn't like deciding which Backstreet Boy is your favourite. No, these kinds of radical views can have very dangerous consequences and should, in my opinion, be stood up to.
I'll move past the obvious point that declaring men incapable of experiencing sexism is, in itself, sexist - and instead I'll move on to other insidious ramifications of this kind of thinking.
It's not ______ism, if...
After a little back and forth, it was accepted that men can be the objects of prejudice, based on their sex. However, that acceptance came with a proviso: When it happens to men, it's not sexism.
I know, it's gobsmackingly twisted logic.
Essentially, according to this radical view, men can experience everything that constitutes sexism, in which case it is prejudice, but because you're a man, it isn't sexism. The mind boggles as to how this kind of reasoning can exist in someone's head, without them experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance.
There is, however, a reason to this. Apparently, what any sensible person would call sexism, they call "push back" - meaning that it is really just an oppressed underclass retaliating against their oppressors. Using their own weapons against them, so to speak.
Now, I will avoid discussing "patriarchy" and ideas about whether or not women are oppressed and whether or not all men are part of that oppression, etc. This isn't a blog about the ins and outs of feminist theory. What I'm focusing on here, is this one radical strain and its rather disingenuous views. So, I'll break this proposition of "push back" down to the essential reality: Even if - IF - the reason why someone is exhibiting a sexist attitude towards a person, is because they perceive themselves as oppressed by them, it is still sexism. The reason why a person is sexist has nothing to do with the fact that it is still sexism.
But I said that this radical view had insidious ramifications - and indeed, it does.
If people were to actually accept the idea that a man can't experience sexism, it automatically insults and makes light of those men who have experienced sexism. But more than that, it lends an air of acceptability towards sexism against men.
Worse still, it undermines the fact that there are areas in society where men are disadvantages and social change is needed. But if it is considered impossible for men to experience sexism, then the entire march for equality is undermined.
As I pointed out in my last blog, 40% of domestic violence is suffered by men, yet there are plenty of accounts of men calling the police because of their partner's violence and then themselves being the one arrested - simply because they are the man. That's an example of sexism. But of course, if we accept that men can't experience sexism, then a social injustice like this loses that aspect of gender inequality.
In my last blog, I also wrote about how men suffer rape and sexual violence by women, with a frequency comparable to that of women sexually abused and raped by men. However, in many places, this kind of rape of a man, is not legally counted as rape. That, too, is clearly sexist. But, if men can't experience sexism, then these kinds of gender inequalities lose the gravitas of being sexual inequalities, at all. This is not just insulting and offensive to the victims of these crimes, but also a dangerous precedent to set - we cannot start defining crimes based on the sex of the perpetrator and/or the victim!
After a little back and forth, it was accepted that men can be the objects of prejudice, based on their sex. However, that acceptance came with a proviso: When it happens to men, it's not sexism.
I know, it's gobsmackingly twisted logic.
Essentially, according to this radical view, men can experience everything that constitutes sexism, in which case it is prejudice, but because you're a man, it isn't sexism. The mind boggles as to how this kind of reasoning can exist in someone's head, without them experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance.
There is, however, a reason to this. Apparently, what any sensible person would call sexism, they call "push back" - meaning that it is really just an oppressed underclass retaliating against their oppressors. Using their own weapons against them, so to speak.
Now, I will avoid discussing "patriarchy" and ideas about whether or not women are oppressed and whether or not all men are part of that oppression, etc. This isn't a blog about the ins and outs of feminist theory. What I'm focusing on here, is this one radical strain and its rather disingenuous views. So, I'll break this proposition of "push back" down to the essential reality: Even if - IF - the reason why someone is exhibiting a sexist attitude towards a person, is because they perceive themselves as oppressed by them, it is still sexism. The reason why a person is sexist has nothing to do with the fact that it is still sexism.
But I said that this radical view had insidious ramifications - and indeed, it does.
If people were to actually accept the idea that a man can't experience sexism, it automatically insults and makes light of those men who have experienced sexism. But more than that, it lends an air of acceptability towards sexism against men.
Worse still, it undermines the fact that there are areas in society where men are disadvantages and social change is needed. But if it is considered impossible for men to experience sexism, then the entire march for equality is undermined.
As I pointed out in my last blog, 40% of domestic violence is suffered by men, yet there are plenty of accounts of men calling the police because of their partner's violence and then themselves being the one arrested - simply because they are the man. That's an example of sexism. But of course, if we accept that men can't experience sexism, then a social injustice like this loses that aspect of gender inequality.
In my last blog, I also wrote about how men suffer rape and sexual violence by women, with a frequency comparable to that of women sexually abused and raped by men. However, in many places, this kind of rape of a man, is not legally counted as rape. That, too, is clearly sexist. But, if men can't experience sexism, then these kinds of gender inequalities lose the gravitas of being sexual inequalities, at all. This is not just insulting and offensive to the victims of these crimes, but also a dangerous precedent to set - we cannot start defining crimes based on the sex of the perpetrator and/or the victim!
It Gets Worse
The conversation continued and just when I thought that these views couldn't get any more twisted, they did. Using the same logic, it was declared that white people cannot experience racism and that black people can't be racist.
Of course, I am sure that any sane person understands that anyone, of any racial, ethnic, national or cultural background, can be racist. However, this really does outline how views like this can be potentially dangerous. After all, anyone who thinks that white people can't experience racism, really needs to learn a lot more about the world. For example, the current climate among many Europeans is horribly racist towards Eastern European immigrants. Also, I personally have enough white Jewish friends to know that being white is in no way a protection from racism. Antisemitism is still very much out there.
The conversation continued and just when I thought that these views couldn't get any more twisted, they did. Using the same logic, it was declared that white people cannot experience racism and that black people can't be racist.
Of course, I am sure that any sane person understands that anyone, of any racial, ethnic, national or cultural background, can be racist. However, this really does outline how views like this can be potentially dangerous. After all, anyone who thinks that white people can't experience racism, really needs to learn a lot more about the world. For example, the current climate among many Europeans is horribly racist towards Eastern European immigrants. Also, I personally have enough white Jewish friends to know that being white is in no way a protection from racism. Antisemitism is still very much out there.
It's not racism is you're white.
Oh, yes it is.
It's not sexism if you're male.
Oh, yes it is.
Oh, yes it is.
It's not sexism if you're male.
Oh, yes it is.
Call me an idealist, if you want, but by my reckoning we all need to work together to stamp out sexism of all sorts. Not to mention racism, ageism, homophobia, religious discrimination and all the other kind of prejudice, out there.
But, of course, the key issue for this blog entry, is sexism. There are radical and extremists on both side of the fence. It's clear that the ranks of Men's Rights Activists are heavy with misogynists and anti-feminists. Likewise, Feminism has it's fair share of radicals, such as those described here, and worse. But men's rights and feminism are not mutually exclusive to each other. Indeed, feminism is supposed to be about equality for both sexes. But we need to make sure that is really what we are all striving for and that the inequalities experienced by both sexes are addressed, with each being recognized for their own importance.
Sexism has to be fought from both sides, with men and women in union and with each recognizing the issues that are suffered by the other.