Essay talk:Yes, men can also be victims of sexism

Egregious error

"drinking to kool-aid"

Hear hear, let's all raise a glass to Kool-Aid Man! Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Whoops :-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

More examples

Higher retirement age for men (despite men have shorter life expectancy) Capital punishment and life sentences are not used against women, but used for men in some countries (e.g. Russia). Russia also has some laws against using firearms against women. Alliumnsk 37.140.189.222 (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Transphobia and homophobia is usually directed at biological men, not women. Alliumnsk 37.140.189.222 (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Male virgins are shunned but female are not. 95.108.225.193 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"In short, this is something of a tu quoque."

No, that's the wrong argument for points that have some validity. The observations "while males are privileged" and that they "have institutional power" are not tu quoque; I don't read anyone arguing (or at least that's not in the quotes critiqued in the essay) that sexism against men doesn't exist, or should be ignored, because they do stuff to women. The argument is, or should be, that sexism against men exits simultaneous with the stronger, more pervasive sexism against women. Any feminist point that fails to grasp that these two things can be true at the same time is erroneous. But, standing alone, isn't tu quoque.---Mona- (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"I don't read anyone arguing (or at least that's not in the quotes critiqued in the essay) that sexism against men doesn't exist" -> The quotes are simply the titles of the list of reasons she puts forward. Maybe I should quote more; I slightly changed it to make this a bit more obvious...

She tries to argue that sexism against males literally can't exist, and as a reason for that, she points out that "men have all the power and are sexist to woman" (paraphrased)... This sounds like a tu quoque to me ...

"The argument is, or should be, that sexism against men exits simultaneous with the stronger, more pervasive sexism against women" -> This is indeed my point; although I wouldn't be so quick to point out that sexism as woman is "stronger, more pervasive". In the end, it's an *individual experience*; a homosexual man working in a day care centre may experience more sexism than most females, for example... Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

she points out that "men have all the power and are sexist to woman" That's not tu quoque. It's a wrong claim. Men do not, in fact, have all the relevant power. Moreover, policies predicated on anti-female sexism can and do have the effect of also being sexist against men. Unless someone is arguing that because "men are sexist against women men cannot be victims of sexism," I don't see a tu quoque. I see an error of fact.---Mona- (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course men can be victims of sexism

Though instances of it are radically different to what women experience. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of equivocation & conflation in this essay but the most glaring example is jumping from "men from can be victims of sexism" to "this is sexism against men". They're really not the same thing. It's ridiculous to characterise male conscription as "sexism against men" when it's so obviously a male invention with heavily patriarchal implications. Likewise patriarchal attitudes towards the traditional family & to caregiving vocations. I've seen very few examples of ostensible "sexism against men" that aren't essentially patriarchal in nature. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Just because men instituted the sexism doesn't mean it's not sexist. This is the same confusion that the article I linked to seems to have. Carpetsmoker (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Again you seems confused. I have not said that conscription or family roles are are "not sexist". I said they're patriarchal. Hint: that means they're sexist. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

In that case I don't quite seem to understand what exactly you're saying. My apologies. I will try again later when I've had less beers. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You're conflating two very different kinds of sexism here: sexist thoughts and sexist actions. An ideology that regards men as powerful, responsible, etc. is not sexist against men. A policy that forces men (and only men) to fight and die in war is sexist against men. The tricky part of explaining actions with ideology is that, since we don't have direct access to others' thoughts, the endeavor is prone to ideologically-driven rationalization itself. For example, male conscription is also justified by the idea that men are more expendable than women (women and children first, etc.). Have you asked anyone which idea they find more important to their stance on conscription? How would you characterize a society where women are regarded as valuable members of society who must be defended against rape, and which therefore prohibits women from going around in public without a male escort? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)