fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4522 ]

[ SECRET POST #4522 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4522 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[The Matrix]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Mr Meaty]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Roxanne from A Goofy Movie]

__________________________________________________

05. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]

[Arya/Gendry]

__________________________________________________

07. [SPOILERS for Game of Thrones]

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for Avengers Endgame]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Avengers Endgame]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Dawson's Creek]

__________________________________________________

11. [WARNING for abuse, etc.]

[ProJared]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #647.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A woman and a man are not the point. Discrimination involves systems, and no women as a group are not the one with power over men. Of course, there are other types of discrimination, and a white woman can be racist against a black man. But that's racism. Misandry is not a thing.

So if a group of women decide not to employ a man solely on the basis that he is man, that would not qualify as misandry to you?

Why does that man need to have that job? Is the man so unqualified that he can't be employed by other people who are okay with the fact that he is man?

Why does anyone need a job? And if he's qualified or not for other positions is irrelevant since he's qualified for the position he was denied.

Are you saying that the man's skills are so specialized that the man must have that one position in a business where the employer and employees are all women or else he is unemployable forever? That's rough, buddy.

nayrt but what is this line of argument even? Should the same be said of women denied jobs because they are women? Just look somewhere else or it's your fault for not having a wider skill set?

There are people denied jobs based on the color of their skin, women told to do sexual favors for their employers to keep their jobs and gay people who got fired when they're outed. If a man is "denied" a job because they're a hetersexual male and rants and rages about it forever it's safe to say that they're a giant manbaby.

Same goes for women who are not hired because the company doesn't want to deal with them maybe one day getting pregnant! Big babies.

Nope. Because, like I said, discrimination by definition includes a power element. Discrimination being prejudice plus power is a pretty standard definition. I would say that it would qualify as a prejudice for those women to have anti-male views. Just not misandry, because that isn't a thing.

Misandry is a thing. That is like saying racism against white people isn't a thing.

That prejudice+power bullshit is for INSTITUTIONAL RACISM/SEXISM. Keyword, institutional.

Regular racism/sexism can be towards any and all groups.

Racism against white people isn't a thing. "Regular racism/sexism" isn't a thing. Racism and sexism are inherently institutional. That's part of their definition. An individual woman can be prejudiced against men. But sexism/sex discrimination has a power component.

Well, that is bullshit but you do you.

I am sure the victims of the Zebra killers are comforted to know that the fact they were targeted for being white wasn't racism.

What would you call it?

I'd call it prejudice. Racism and sexism aren't about individual views of individual people. They are about institutions and systems that give power to some groups at the expense of other groups. When someone is prejudiced against white people, the systems don't support that prejudice and they are just one person with prejudiced views. When someone is prejudiced against black people, the system supports that and helps them have power over black people. That's what racism is. It isn't about individuals, it is about systems.

No...it isn't. Historically, racism is just about someone of one race hating someone of another race. Like...have you READ the definition?

racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Your definition didn't exist until 1970 and wasn't popularized until the 00s.

Words have meanings. You are talking about institutionalized racism whe doing prejudice + power.

Yes, words have meanings. And meanings can change. Also, in this case, we're not just talking about words, we're talking about concepts. And our understanding of those concepts have developed. Just because that definition is newer doesn't make it wrong. Our understanding of what discrimination is has developed. We now understand the role institutions and power play and that those are the root of what it actually is. Unless you are suggesting we should just go back to the pre-1970s understanding of racism and sexism and pretend that all progress on the subjects haven't happened? I hope that's not what you are suggesting.

I am suggesting that maybe you understand that words can have MULTIPLE meanings. Even sociologists and psychologists who study this shit know that there is a difference between INDIVIDUAL racism and INSTITUTIONAL racism. They are both racism just different levels.

So, an individual black person can be racist against white people. That is individual racism.

However, the government (of the US at the current time) cannot be racist against white people because there is not a contingent of non-white people in power. That is institutional racism.

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

philstar22 - 2019-05-25 03:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

(Anonymous) - 2019-05-25 03:50 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

(Anonymous) - 2019-05-25 03:50 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

philstar22 - 2019-05-25 03:55 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

(Anonymous) - 2019-05-25 03:50 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

(Anonymous) - 2019-05-25 04:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

(Anonymous) - 2019-05-25 04:17 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

(Anonymous) - 2019-05-25 07:19 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

(Anonymous) - 2019-05-25 09:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

(Anonymous) - 2019-05-25 18:26 (UTC) - Expand

pretty sure white people killed a lot more pocs in history.
also white people are still targeting and killing pocs to this very day and on an institutional level instead of the other way around.

Cool! Doesn't matter. This isn't a contest. One action does not negate another. individual racism =/= institutional racism.

That is bullshit. Like, do you know history at ALL?

In the last 150-300 years? Maybe. I all of history? Shit you need to get back to school.

Racism and sexism are inherently institutional. That's part of their definition.

What? That's bullshit. The group of black teenagers I saw making fun of the waitress' accent in the Chinese restaurant the other day were being racist, full stop. The fact that they were both minorities doesn't matter, that was racist behavior because it was discrimination based on race.

I used to work in a place where the majority of my colleagues were black and we had a fair amount of Asian clients (East and South-East Asian, a variety of countries). Every time some hack on social media calls out "white people" for not being able to pronounce their Chinese name on the first try, I want to roll out the list of anecdotes I could write of my black colleagues mocking our clients' names and accents behind their backs.

This is a lot of tldr to say that both racism from white people against nonwhite people and racism from nonwhite people against other nonwhite people are bad.

Racism and sexism are inherently institutional. That's part of their definition.

As others are also saying, that isn't part of their definition. That is part of one specific definition. It's a definition that academia, in specific, seems to've had a permanent hard-on for, over the last fifteen years or so, but it's not the original definition, is not the definition you'll find in the majority of dictionaries, and is not some kind of largely agreed upon definition.

I am very much a feminist. And if you were arguing that systemic sexism and general sexism are not identical terms - that the differences are important and should be recognized - I would very much agree with you. But I disagree with the idea that discrimination against a man or men, by a woman or women, isn't sexism because it's not systemic sexism.

I'm afraid it really is a thing.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only