fandomsecrets | [ 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

So I've been thinking about the "Men can't be victims of sexism because power.

And it seems to me to be based on the idea that no harm or damage done to an individual man will ever count because the person making this statement seems to think that in this world today there is no woman with enough real power to hurt a man.

Am I missing this? Is the idea that women are too weak and ineffectual to harm any man in any way we should actually care about because all the people at the top of society are men?

Cause if so, I hate to say this, but there are some hard core sexist motherfuckers out there with a higher opinion of womens capabilities than you.

Edited 2019-05-25 13:49 (UTC)

I don't agree with the premise, btw. A pauper, living in the gutter, covered in rags and without anything to his name and no power can kill a king or an emperor. We wouldn't say "Oh it's not really murder because he didn't have anything, he didn't have any power so he couldn't have murdered the king." Doing evil to others is always evil, no matter what label you give it, and it remains evil regardless of your own societal or personal power.

Evil is always evil. Wrong is always wrong. And the idea of a wrong being less wrong because of how much a person has is the purest form of injustice.

Of course no one would say it's not really murder. We would say it's not really classism, because rag-clad paupers do not murder kings in droves. The converse cannot be said.

Does it matter if it's "Not really classism?"

I mean, a person is dead, an evil was done, the name you give it doesn't make it any better or worse an evil act

And I would say that if they killed the king because they hated the class the king belonged to, yes, that would be classism. It would be the same amount of classism as a kinf choosing to kill a beggar because they hate their class. The severity of the evil act does not change based on the people involved.

It isn't based on the idea that no harm or damage done to an individual man by a woman will ever count, it's based on the idea that any harm or damage done to an individual man by a woman is an individual act rooted in individual psychology and not reinforced by generations of cultural opinion and policy.

Like, take the example above about a woman refusing to give a man a job on the basis of gender. That's one woman running one company, in a world where a significant majority of executives and management with hiring power are men, and where men are currently and have been historically considered suitable for employment in nearly any field they wish to pursue, and the few exceptions are considered beneath them. That hypothetical woman did a shitty thing to that hypothetical man, something that probably hurt his feelings and may have hurt him financially if he happened to be unemployed, but it's a single incident. It isn't something he can worry about plausibly happening at the next three or thirty or three hundred jobs he applies for.

The relationship between sexism and power doesn't mean an individual incident is inconsequential as an individual incident, it's saying it's inconsequential as part of an analysis of overall trends. It's not reinforced by generations of social doctrine. A woman can absolutely hurt a man, a woman can have power over a man - but women as a class do not have the institutional power and cultural weight to harm men as a class. It isn't devaluing women to say that, it's looking at the reality of our social and political structure.

Right, but we're not talking about big societal trends. we are talking about a thing one person says or does to another person, and we are assigning greater or lesser values of wrongness based not on the act, but based on the name you give it. The only way the name of the act is important, "this we will call sexism, this we will not, even tho the act is the same" is of any significance is if you say "When we give the act this label it is worse".

I do not believe any single of sexism is better or worse depending on the gender of the agressor or the victim. Making a distinction that "some men have more power so we're more ok to do this thing to this one man" is the very definition of injustice.

I would say that a hatred of men is misandry even if you are right that the fact it's less common means it's not a big deal.

Of course we're talking about societal trends, because nothing occurs in a vacuum. It's given a different name precisely because of societal weight. It's only "worse" in that acts of sexism are acts that reinforce sexist culture and policy, while the same act with the gender reversed doesn't reinforce anything - and generally speaking doesn't even have the effect of damaging sexist culture and policy.

You can call hatred of men misandry if you want, but that doesn't make misandry a credible social issue.

"Nothing occurs in a vacuum" is the most meaningless buzzphrase to come out of either side.

"Kings murder paupers much more often than paupers murder kings, so we don't really need to care if a paupers kills a king" is bullshit. the frequency of the evil, or the people involved in the evil does not lessen the evil. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this flipping it from individuals being harmed to "No, it should only be about people as statistics, and as statistics men being harmed doesn't matter" is such monumental goalpost shifting... "No, we don't actually care about people being hurt after all, we care about the identity or the class being hurt, that's all that matters" I mean... It's getting hard to not see that as just shifting the focus from protecting people to pushing only one side because you only care about one side.

I mean taking you at your word, there are now two possible ways to interpret this argument, either my original "We care about people as individual entities, and as individual entities women will always be too weak to hurt men" or what it now sounds like you're saying which is "We don't care about individuals, we just want to make sure the statistics balance, and since the statistics show women as a group are hurt more often than men, we only need to combat one side of this to make the numbers balance out"

And frankly I can't tell which option I have a bigger problem with.

Edited 2019-05-25 18:09 (UTC)

[ SECRET POST #4522 ]

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?

Re: What's your opinion on casual misandry?