Talk:Sexism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 27 August 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

But there ARE more sexes

Anyone ever heard of the intersexed, or transsexuals? 4.152.24.66 19:09, 4 December 2007 (EST)

There aren't more than two sexes. Transsexual surgery is changing things around, adding and removing parts, not inventing a whole new sex, and intersexed individuals are so rare they don't really count (besides, like transsexuals, they aren't really a different sex so much as just parts of both sexes combined). Gender, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter of course. F_lucked^{talk to me :D} 05:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Some would disagree with you. While I do question their motives for choosing so, there are some transgendered people who want to be "trans". It sounds weird, right, if you think "you're born female and then want to become male... surely you want to be male?". But lo, "trans" becomes something that people want to be. Now, that is again just gender but as it also applies to physical sex it complicates things. Even if you were to just hang people's bastard self-definitions and go purely on genetics you have a few problems where the genes slip up and instead of XX or XY you get XXY, adding at least a few other combinations you can use. ^moral 10:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I get that, but very rare genetic abnormalities and changing your genitalia and whatnot around via surgery does not a new sex constitute. F_ucker^{talk to me :D} 15:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, all right, but that's still only three. Racists have much, much more options for hatred than three. Look at all the skin colours there are to hate! DogP 19:12, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, I've known people who've managed to come up with about 5 or 6 genders...but, most of you garden-variety sexists can't figure that out. Researcher 19:14, 4 December 2007 (EST)

There are only about four skin colors (white, black, red, yellow) although racists hate Jews and Gypsies as well as people of different skin colors. 4.152.24.66 19:16, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Gosh, yes, you're right! It's so tricky being a racist! I could never figure it out, I had to drop that class at school. DogP 19:26, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Also keep in mind that most racists are also homophobes. Sloganwoz 19:28, 4 December 2007 (EST)

But it's not a precondition of being a racist. Concurrence does not make things related. :) Still, while there are "5 or 6 some sexes" or whatever, you need to realize that racists in Mexico came up with 20 some races based on how much of each heritage you had. So, really, it's all where you're drawing the lines really. Gender is a lot like Autism... masculinity is a spectrum "disorder" (ok, variation) that can result in numerous greys between 100% male, and 100% female. What is known is that 100% of either does not exist, it's just the crazy heterosexists that feel that there is only a binary dichotomy... --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 02:24, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Jesus! What's with all the complications! When will it ever end?! DogP 19:30, 4 December 2007 (EST)

For what it's worth, the medial community is now having to address the fact that there are not two genders, there are many. There are two poles, along which a variety of genders exist. People with no sexual organs at all, people with both sexual organs, people with misformed sexual organs. If Male is XY and female XX, then what is XXX, or XXY, or XYY, or YY which is very rare, but it does happen. Godot Malaka 15:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

From an 'objective' standpoint, there are no genders biologically, really -- it's a societal construct, so there can be as many or as little genders as a society wants there to be. Personally, I find the concept of genders stupid, and I think we should move into a post-gender civilization. F_ucker^{talk to me :D} 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

XXX is the Turner syndrome (though its apparently lacking an X chromosome that is happening, not having one too much), XXY is the Klinefelter syndrome and XYY and YY don't exist as the connection of 2 Y chromosomes results in the death of the newborn. So contrary to what people claim, genders are a biological and not a societal construct (as opposed to racism). Complications can happen when the cells are dividing, that in this case, result in the DNA being missplit, making it have parts than is needed (similarly to what causes the Down syndrome, except that instead of being in gene 21, it is in the last numbered gene (forgot the name), that causes your gender to be defined). It should be noted however, that that gene only defines the chemical substances that the then pregnant man or woman gives to you. Thus, while genetically speaking women aren't equal to men (women are, following this logic, superior to men) it is unfair to judge someone based on sexual traits as literally everyone will change gender if subjected with enough chemical substance that causes the opposite gender developments. User:Hex4 (talk) 16:45, 5 september 2016.

Also, just so you know, the conversation you're replying to dates back to 2007 (with the latest reply being from 2011) :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I just wanted to be educational. I am relatively new and I don't know much about how people comment anyway (Is there in fact such a thing as a date or "being dated" here on this wiki?). I just hope that it is not as toxic in here as in 4chan (and derivative) forums. User:Hex4 (talk) 17:57, 5 september 2016.

That's fine, of course. By dates and dating, I just mean that: when people sign their posts (which is always done by placing ~~~~ at the end of your talkpage addition), the date is automatically spelled out by the server. This makes it easy to see in which order posts were made, and stuff like that. It also lets you see, like here, when a conversation is very old. No rule against replying to old conversations however — you might just infuse new life into it! ^^

Oh, and regarding toxicity; like all places on the web, there's individual grumpy-grumpersons (and we believe in free speech even for them). That being said however, most of us work hard to maintain a friendly communal atmosphere. Welcome to the site! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Idiot

I tried to add a post in the talk page of the Conservapedia article on sexism, trying to sound as submissive as possible. Not much luck, though... Why not go over there and quickly copy the page before it is burned. Some people never learn.--lol, wut?! 14:17, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Be fair

Conservapedia has an article about sexism and sexual discrimination, which lists only examples of perceived discrimination against men (and highly tenuous if not laughable ones at that) while ignoring the much larger subject of historical and contemporary sexism against women.

I would like to know how the examples of discrimination on that page (ok, the coaches one and the restrooms one are arguably justifiable) are laughable. I won't pretend that their article was by any means fair, but is it possible you could consider the possibility that discrimination against men can (and does) happen without writing off its purponents as misogynist? I don't mean to sound aggresive; I'd genuinely like to know your reasoning. Thanks. --JW (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Tell you what--and I've made this argument before--count up the number of female US Senators, House Representatives, State Senators, State Congresspeople, governors, Fortune 500 CEOs, members of the Bar, doctors, judges, mayors, city council representatives, high religious officials (bishops, cardinals, etc...), tenured professors (including in economics, business and finance departments science and engineering, not just the Liberal Arts), journalists, professional athletes earning over a million dollars a year, and Nobel Prize winners. Then add victims of rape and domestic violence. When those numbers come anywhere close to fifty percent, I'll try to give a shit about "sexism" directed towards men, okay. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That in no way justifies or makes it right, TOP. You can't just dismiss something because the problem is small. Ultra-feminists who take the "all sex is rape" or "all men are bastards" view on the world just prey on that kind of attitude. If you extrapolate that sort of idea, then a black man killing a white man because of race is less of a crime than it is if the ethnicities were reversed. This just misses the point entirely. The original question was why the article (specifically, that paragraph) seems to take the stance that discrimination against men is laughable, and if that excuse the reason, then it's a very, very bad one indeed. ^moral 19:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the article takes the stance that discrimination by women against men is laughable because the idea of discrimination by women against men is laughable. I read the CP article in question and could find nothing that it pointed to that offended me in the least as a man. The problem is so small as to be non-existent. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. I understand your point about men occupying the top jobs--and feminists complain about this scenario vehemently. Whether it is fair for men to have these jobs, I am not in a position to judge, though I suspect that it is a result of past sexism--so it is perfectly right for feminists to be upset about it. But I think it's the attitudes, not the emplyoment figures, that tell us about society the most. It may not offend you at present, but taking that complacent attitude just encourages the problem to worsen.

For example, pro-choice parties in the abortion debate repeatedly refer to women's rights to have abortions, yet men's feelings are scarcely taken into consideration; sexual assault directed towards men is seen as comedy, whilst sexual assault on women is deadly serious. And the other day, a friend asked me (jokingly) what I would do if a certain girl in my class tried to rape me. I told him I would use hit her, or something ammounting to that, and another friend called me a "woman beater." Yet it is acceptable for women to hit or even sexualy assault men for the comparitively minor offence of sexual harrasment. If you don't think that's misandry, you're deluding yourself.--JW (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sexual harrassment & assault are very serious problems, & perpetrated many times more often by men against women than the reverse. That is the reason why some countries or companies offer women-only buses or train carriages. If some guys choose to view this as discimination in favour of women & to the detriment of men, as the CP/Supawiki article does, then yes I do find that attitude laughable. Whether violence is a justified reaction to sexual harrassment would depend on the context & how serious the threat is - e.g. for self defence. I suspect that the discussion you & your friends had about being "raped" by a girl in your class was not entirely serious. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

JW, there's a world of difference between the situation you describe--in which you must imagine that you are being raped by a woman--and the reality that you will most probably never have to deal with that situation while one in every three American women (your mom, your sister, your girlfriend. One, two, three. Think about that....) is the victim of sexual assault. The fact that your friend asked you the question "jokingly," as you put it,says an awful lot about what a "serious problem" we are dealing with here... And do you know why pro-choice activists don't take the "feelings" of men into account in the abortion debate? This may be \news to you, but men rarely have abortions, so their feelings are pretty irrelevant to the question. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be news to you, but most men would give a shit if they found out they'd got someone pregnant, and want to have a say in the matter of what to do with the pregnancy.--JW (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with TOP here, but this issue isn't that simple. Men can be sexually assaulted, yes, but it's 10x (poma) more likely for the assailant to be another man. Men can be raped by women, but it happens extremely rarely. Does that mean it should be ignored completely? No, but it also doesn't deserve equal footing with the absurd amount of women who are assaulted in their lifetime. By the way, where did that 1/3 statistic come from? I'm not doubting it, sadly it seems totally plausible, just wondering where you got it. Sexism against males happens at such a low rate that it's hardly worth discussing. I hate that we live in a world where women need separate buses and subway cars to be safe, but unfortunately that's the way it is. On the abortion deal....well that's a separate conversation. Speaking from personal experience here, the woman has every right to do what she wants, but calling the male's feelings irrelevant is callous at best. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The one in three statistic is one that I've heard repeated at a number of talks on the topic--but a quick poke around the net seems to indicate that 1. the stat might be out-of-date and 2. that any really accurate measure of the phenomenon might be impossible to ascertain. As for the abortion comment, I agree that it's a little over-the-top, but perhaps necessary--I remember a court case in Montreal in the 1980s; a man sued a woman to keep her from aborting a fetus he's impregnated her with, and the woman eventually had to go out of the jurisdiction to have an abortion that legally defied an injunction that kept her from doing so until the case made its way through the courts--the risk being that by the time it had done so, any ruling in her favour would have been moot as the pregnancy would have resulted in the birth of a child she did not want. Taking the "feelings" of men into the equation strikes me as a sly trick to undermine women's rights over their own bodies, and is therefore not something I can bring myself to give a shit about. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you put "feelings" in quotation marks. Are you suggesting men don't have feelings, or that their feelings are somehow less important than women's? And even if abortion does affect women more than men (which it does), suggesting that men have no interest in the decision and thus do not deserve their feelings being considered is ignorant and prejudiced.--JW (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that because the vast majority of assaults go unreported, so reliable statistics are hard to come by. One in three probably isn't that far off, I doubt it's changed dramatically. It's an interesting point on the abortion issue, it would've been nice if that particular case had been done with more haste. I agree on the overall point, it isn't feasible for the legal system to take a man's feelings into account, nor should they consider it. I suppose I was speaking on a personal level. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So a man should have no say over what happens to his own children? (Not children as such, but potential children however it's described). I don't think that's fair in the slightest. The fact is, many surveys (around 500, according to California State University) have found that women are equally likely to assault men in a relationship, yet the prevailing social attitude is that women are always the victims. I'm not undermining the problem of sexual assault directed at women, but violence against men is not by any means negligible. I'm not claiming it is a worse problem than violence against women; the real problem is attitude. --JW (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

hobags?!?!

I find it kinda weird that the term "hobags" appears in the coding for references in the "sexism" article. Am I missing something here? RaoulDuke 03:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it is just a "term of endearment" for the two lovelies it is referencing (i.e. Coulter and Schlafly). Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. Forgive me, but it's still pretty bloody sexist, even if they are horrible people. RaoulDuke 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to change it, as I kinda agree with you. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I will--but take my back in case I screw up the coding for the reference...RaoulDuke 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

EC) Yeah, having been a bit of a ho and definitely being an (old) bag, I don't want them associated with me! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It was one of the ladies that did that. I have often found that it is our female contributors who are more willing to make sexist and smutty jokes. (EC) Thanks for proving by point Toast. - π 03:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All good on the coding. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Misandry

"Conservapedia has an article about sexism and sexual discrimination, which lists only examples of perceived discrimination against men. This includes a rant that "women-only" spaces are accepted and encourage while "men-only" spaces are almost universally abhorred as sexist. The article as a whole, however, entirely ignores the much larger and widespread subject of historical and contemporary sexism against women."

This article as a whole almost entirely ignores sexism against men!. Somebody, anybody, please fix this. ^{— Unsigned, by: Marcos1997 / talk / contribs}

Like what? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Come up with some examples of historical and contemporary sexism against men, and add them. Literally nothing is stopping you. Blue (pester) 23:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's that crowd of uber-feminists who go around saying all men should be castrated but I think that's a little different to just normal sexism. Although I did hear from a relative working for the employment service that they were sifting through CVs and someone said "why would a man want to apply for a secretary job??" and promptly put the CV on the reject pile without even reading it. It exists, surely, but it's a little different to the usual stereotypical patriarchal oppression that we usually characterise as "sexism". ^moral 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I am a staunch anti-Conservapedian, I do agree with what they said about the spaces. It is okay (on occasion expected), for women to lie, cheat, wear clothes of the opposite sex, cry, have things done for them, commit infidelity, have phony-ass political movements, make fun or discriminate against the opposite sex, physically abuse the opposite sex, etc. But if a man does this, there is controversy. In divorces, who gets everything? Who has a saying that lets them go first? Who doesn't have to pay a cent on dates? Who requires money from their SO & parent of the opposite gender for shoes & clothes they will use (at max) twice? ^{— Unsigned, by: Marcos1997 / talk / contribs}

Testosterone has a proven dampening effect on crying. If you're referring however to the fact that men are not allowed to cry, this is not females oppressing males, this is males oppressing males. So, all of these "allowances" that are made for women, are actually just men treating women on a different field than men yet again. As ADK has noted, there are some cases where women treat men differently from how they would treat women, but you can't take "if you're not machismo enough, you get downtrodden" as a definitive indication that women sexually discriminate against men. It is still the case that men are exposed predominately to sexism by other men. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Men exposed to sexism by other men... I've never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. However, you can probably bring up similar examples of women being sexist to women; i.e., telling them they have to conform or act a certain way. Take magazines like Cosmo and whatnot. Indeed, the gender/sex orientated magazines are probably our best examples of women being sexist to women and men being sexist to men. ^moral 18:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A common error exhibited by the more doctrinaire feminists is to attempt to blame men for any misbehavior among women, including "sexist" attitudes. However, the group of looney-tune feminists who engage in misandry is very small group compared to the groups who practice sexism against women. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You're both totally right. Women do get an incredibly healthy dose of sexism from other women. It has lightened up a lot in some ways, but body image problems are still predominately woman driven. However, pay discrimination remains largely male driven. I just felt it intensely important to mention that "men shouldn't cry" does not come from women, the taboo against wearing feminine clothing is predominately male driven. Beyond the hateful actively anti-LGBT people many women actually admire drag queens for their ability to be more feminine than even we are. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you could generalise further (a dangerous notion, indeed) and say that sexism is more society vs a gender than gender vs gender. I say this because it's a more complicated relationship that really just taking men alone being responsible for the male driven sexism that you state. Undoubtedly there's a female component "hey guys, we need to impress the ladies, man up bitch" (I'm not saying it's women's fault exactly, just that they're a component). It's just that, up until your post above, I always really considered discrimination as one group against the other (whenever I considered it, anyway), never really one group against itself. But now I'm thinking a little about it I think discrimination comes from a pretty wide spectrum of groups and demographics; it comes from a wider group, and is aimed at a single group. Take racism for instance. That's certainly not "white guys" vs "black guys", is it? It's wider reaching and the causes are far more distributed than just one class vs another. Similarly with religion, every religion thinks it's the true way so cults or atheists are going to get flak from all directions. Also, thinking of it in those terms removes a lot of the unfair blame type aspects you get when you say something like "this sexism is male driven" - as you're implying all men do that and are jointly responsible. Diffuse the blame over the whole of society and we're equally to blame, no one feels persecuted, and we all feel like we can do something about it. Anyway, that's just a half-baked thought at the moment. I'll sleep on it, drink on it, and maybe put something more coherent together later. ^moral 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "cry", was one little thing in my comment. You completely ignored everything else I typed.^{— Unsigned, by: Marcos1997 / talk / contribs}

"to lie, cheat, wear clothes of the opposite sex, cry, have things done for them, commit infidelity, have phony-ass political movements, make fun or discriminate against the opposite sex, physically abuse the opposite sex" I've never heard of women being allowed to lie any more than men. I've never heard of women being allowed to "cheat" any more than men. (Since you list "commit infidelity" separately later, I will presume you meant "cheat" as if "on a test") Yes, women are allowed to wear clothes of the opposite sex, and men are not. Women seriously don't really give much of a shit about this, it is predominately male-driven expectations. To point, women are generally widely accepting of transgendered people, and drag queens. Is it fair? No, it's not, go complain about your "man law" issues with other men, not with women. Men are widely not allowed to cry, while women are, again, men enforce this "man law", women think it makes for a sensitive guy. "Have things done for them", this is a subculture difference, where women are accepting of assistance without asking for it, men widely reject assistance unless they ask for it. Again, this is enforced by male subculture a.k.a. "man law", which is enforced by others from that subculture, not by people outside of that subculture. "Commit infidelity" I haven't particularly ever heard of women being given any special allowance to commit infidelity. "have phony-ass political movements" I don't even know what this is supposed to refer to... perhaps "women suffrage", "reproductive rights"? Again, without answer what you qualify as "phony-ass" I can't particularly say. However, I think that since men can have this whole anti-feminist movement, that they're just as allowed to have their own phony-ass political movements as women. "make fun or discriminate against the opposite sex" right, because women are certainly the people firing people for not dating them, and making men earth only about 75% of the pay that women do. Does some of this happen? Yes, it does, but men don't have clean hands to particularly complain. When every man is held accountable for sexism and discrimination, then you can complain that some women are getting away with the same. "Physically abuse the opposite sex" the laws have been written to protect men as well as women, but yes, there is a systemic bias (but not a legal bias) against recognizing domestic violence perpetrated against men by women. The low reporting rate is widely accepted to be because men don't want to admit to being beaten, because of "man law" against showing weakness. Often times, it is male officers arresting the man who defended himself against his wife, and male judges approximately as often as female judges judging them. That's the problem with systemic bias as opposed to direct discrimination, and direct sexism. Often times, both sides are just as at fault for the situation. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did mean like on a test. By PAPM I meant feminism. Even the first wave ones. The rewrote the constitution to say that "men against women" shit. Like a woman was never mean to a man. Though I do think they should have the right to vote, etc. I also support reproductive rights. I hate people who support their pro-life stance on a feminist floor. Be pro-life; but don't say it is "feminist". However, that is neither here nor there. There is somewhat of a legal bias. When a woman hits a man, feminists say he is "misogynist". When it is the other way around, they call it "female power". Also, society does consider it okay for women to cheat on their husbands. When you criticized me for saying "make fun or discriminate against the opposite sex" I meant that it was considered okay for women to do that if they ever did. Also, you complained in another comment that your job was sexist because it inspired independence, which you said was a masculine trait. Yeah, they should promote codependency. Also, do you think, regardless of who the fault are for these stereotypes, that they will be abolished sometime soon? Do you ever think men will be able to wear women's clothing? Do you ever think they will share the money on dates? ^{— Unsigned, by: Marcos1997 / talk / contribs}

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Will stereotypes be abolished anytime soon - well they've changed dramtically over my lifetime. Women can be engineers nowadays.
• Will men be able to wear women's clothing - within reason that's fine already. Overtly feminine dress worn by men is treated the same way as overtly masculine dress worn by women.
• Will they share the money on dates - well my dates do and did.

Try living in the modern world. Jack Hughes (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

First, rewrote WHAT constitution? Next, a pro-life stance isn't feminist? So, um... fighting for pro-life rights helps assure male rights, too? Wait, I see what's going on here, the term "feminism" for you is a bad word, so if you're for something that is feminism, it's obviously not feminism, right? It's the same sort of cognitive dissonance that happens when people are all "Socialism is bad!" and then say "where did I learn about this? At the LIBRARY where books are FREE!" and also completely incapable of realizing that schools are socialism, too. If you want women to vote, then that's feminism. From everything you've said, it's clear that you're a feminist, too. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I also intended to note that the opposite of "working independently" isn't codependency, it's working COOPERATIVELY. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Eira, I have no idea what you are talking about in this unintelligible little rant. First of all, pro-lifers are the polar opposite of feminists. I don't care what the opposite of independence is, I am just saying that they have to promote independence. It is in no way sexist. I got messed up on my facts. I was talking about the Declaration of Sentiments.

^{— Unsigned, by: Marcos1997 / talk / contribs}

I confused pro-life and pro-choice, I read "pro" and my mind blanked out the following word, because to me "pro" is towards reproductive rights (pro-choice). You're confusing independence of person with independence of workers. If an employer has a team of workers, what should that team be doing? If you said cooperating to accomplish a goal, then you would be right. If you look at the CompSci field, it is predominately focused on independent ants working on their own with no input or cooperation of others. In particularly, in the work environment I was in, we were even given competitive yearly reviews, and thus it was in my best interests to screw you, and oversight the review of an important regression, and let you take the fall for it, than risk you getting a better review than me, and screwing me out of a promotion or raise. (To last point, yes we need to raise independent capable people who are not codependent, but our workers should be working cooperatively not competitively. I perhaps could have avoided this whole debate if I had used "competitively" instead of "independently" in the first place, but still, why the hell would you have your workers work in near isolation from each other? I worked for 3 years at my company, and I not once worked on any project with someone in my team where we worked on the same thing at the same time...) Lastly, The Declaration of Sentiments that I found is an 1848 document that rails against the at-the-time blatant sexism that existed in the culture, whereby women were not afforded a right to vote, and in the eyes of the law, when married was little better than chattel. Am I to take it that the sentiment: "He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice." could be expressed in any way accurately vice versa in the year 1848? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your "fighting for pro-life rights helps assure male rights, too?" comment, or how you figure that the anon above is pro-life. Are you confusing pro-life & pro-choice perhaps? The pro-life movement's demands would assure the rights or embryos & foetuses, both male & female, but inhibit the reproductive rights of pregnant women. Certainly there are feminists who are pro-life, & pro-life supporters who are feminists, but ideologically the pro-choice movement, with its emphasis on women's sovereignty over their own bodies, has a much better claim to be founded in feminism. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Anon above was trying to divorce issues that he agrees with from "feminism", which he doesn't seem to agree with. I was attempting to use sarcasm to raise the very point the Armondikov raises below... that it is easy to paint feminism as the righteous position that no one would disagree with (gender equality) all the way through militant misandronism. The term is sufficiently vague so as to be meaningless. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But surely that's the same point anon was making: that people who take a pro-life stance should justify it with pro-life reasons rather than painting it as a righteous feminist stance. & I still don't see why you're assuming the anon is pro-life. He hasn't stated his position on abortion explicitly, but said he supports reproductive rights, which implies that he might be pro-choice. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I misread the post. All this "pro-life" "anti-life" "pro-choice" "anti-choice" whatever bullshit makes it impossible to keep things straight. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your problem there is that "feminism" is a very mixed bag of things and it's best, when discussing it, to put a complete moratorium on using the word and say what you really mean by it (cf "rationalist taboo"). Do you mean feminism as espoused by Andrea Dworkin or by Maggie Mayhem? Do you mean simple gender equality or all-sex-is-rape? Because these views exist and they all seem to cling on to the same word and all these groups with differing opinions want to somehow "reclaim" it, it loses its meaning and leads to inane butthurt all round when someone says something like "I disagree with feminism" when they really mean "Judith Butler can't write for shit" or when someone says "you're for gender equality therefore you must be a feminist". In which case things become a boring and circular row about semantics that gets nowhere. It would be best, therefore, to just abandon the word and just say what you mean. ^moral 08:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, this is why I'm not particularly fond of the f-word and always raise a quizzical/skeptical eyebrow whenever it's broached. I would seriously advocate complete retirement of the term, not least because trying to use a very female orientated word to by synonymous with gender equality (when we have a perfectly appropriate term for that, namely "gender equality") is a little weird. ^moral 11:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Examples

I removed the male-only conscription thing as the fact that women aren't allowed in combat infantry really does make the point moot. That and it's very US centric. But anyway, I added the recent one regarding insurance and pensions (though it could be worded better). It makes me think of the point in HMS Pinafore referring to "an accident of birth". That we shouldn't discriminate based on something someone didn't choose. So it would be wrong to discriminate on insurance and pension grounds based on sex because we never chose it - even if there is statistical evidence that those groups have particular attributes such as being safer drivers. ^moral 01:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That example really is a tough one. Predominately, I agree that we (women) should not get a cheaper insurance rate simply because by "accident of birth", we're statistically less likely to be liable for an accident. But at the same time, we run into a problem where we are attempting to deny real fact in favor of equality. There are men and women Olympic events because men are known to have a greater access to natural steroids (testosterone) than women. If we forced everyone to compete in the same events women would be unable to compete without artificial doping. Of course, this creates a situation where by "accident of birth" one group of people is being treated differently than another. Some forms of "sexism" are simply unavoidable. Should it be held that it is sexist for a health insurance provider to only harass women about getting their yearly pap smear? It's a difficult question in this case, because it is a factual difference between the sexes, yet still artificially applied. Cases where it is only one or the other are much more easy to draw the line for. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a tricky one. And the denial of fact is a big problem because it means that often people can put their idealism above reality. There probably isn't a catch all rule to say what is and what isn't acceptable discrimination because of a real statistical tendency. ^moral 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Certain people claim that there is "systemic bias" based solely on the fact that there is not a perfect 50/50 gender balance in some particular field of employment. For example, I once attended a lecture where some hack was shouting about steadily increasing gender-bias in the field of computer programming. I researched the matter later and found that women's representation in the field dropped because the expanding software market had decreased the previously dominant role of the U.S. Army; the Army had employed women to do all the computing grunt-work it found unsuitable for men. In other words, the numbers were a result of the actual discrimination decreasing. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As a woman who actually worked in the field, there is a systemic bias against women in programming. The field is predominantly male-controlled, and a lot of "features" about how computer programming is done is oriented towards masculine-defined traits (independence, spending all your time working)... (NOTE!!! I am not saying that these are actually traits held by men, but rather are traits that our society considers masculine.) Working at a world-class programming company, I attended a women's small-group conference sort of thing where those of us women that were lower levels got together to talk to a high-level woman and discuss issues that we face (like a lack of work-life balance) that males face as well, but generally don't complain about, because they're socially considered to be not a big deal for them.

Now, also to say, I haven't done any research to know if it is decreasing or increasing, however there still is a big systemic bias in computer science against women. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Eira, you are a phony. ^{— Unsigned, by: John Galt / talk / contribs}

Ahem, I actually used my defunct blog to indulge in my OCD, I wrote up class demographics. [1], [2], [3]. Тy^Talk. 15:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your demographics seem to support the notion that women are under represented in the study of physics, math, and computer science (which I don't think anyone was going to argue was not the case), however it still doesn't indicate an increasing or decreasing trend. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, watch the numbers as the classes go, by year, and they get more advanced. These are old, I'll do a head count in my CS classes next week if you'd like. Тy^Talk. 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is still not enough granularity to make any claims or anything but a passing note of an anecdote. There is simply no way to tell if your original mark is a local minimum, and the current a local maximum. We need significantly more data to make any sort of determination. To point, your statistics here would have such a crazy unmeasured error of margin that it becomes meaningless. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Тy^Talk. 15:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I find that chemistry and biochemistry have a near 50:50 split that I can tell, physics seems to be approaching it although far more slowly. Maths and comp-sci are a bit of a running joke with their splits, though. But you're probably right about it being because those subjects tend to be dominated by attributes that are considered male by society at large. However, as an interesting point, if two university departments have the exact same policies towards gender equality, the exact same methods for recruiting students (and so on) and then one ends up with a massive female dominance and the other with a massive male dominance, who's "fault" is it? There's still too much implication that it's all beastly men oppressing defenceless women with their bias. How can you prove such discrimination when you can show that they have a 70:30 split in applicants and a 70:30 split in successful applicants. It's clearly then not sexism in the sense that you have people actively discriminating but something far more complex and involving society as a whole. ^moral 18:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking only from personal experience, and then only for comp-sci, women are almost unheard of. I know where i went, it was close to 30% women coming in, but they all tended to drop out. Like, by 4th year, there were only a couple women. It was not uncommon in the least to be in a 4000 level course, and have no women in it at all. And I'm not trying to be down on women for dropping out, either. Incoming freshmen in the department numbered around 100, and I graduated with about 25-30 people(and not a single woman). So more men drop out then women, it's just that almost ALL the women drop out. Quaru^{cork soaker - You can't explain that!} 18:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to characterize it as "beastly men oppressing defenceless women with their bias". Rather, men have a subculture that can put off women, and women have a subculture that puts off men. When a specific gender's subculture envelops a whole field of study like it generally has with Computer Science, you end up with women being uncomfortable with the field in the very first place, and avoid even starting into the field. Now, granted if two universities with identical policies and recruitment practices showed wild range in admission ratios that would be one thing, but statistically over all universities (at least in the USA) females are disproportionate to population, and that is in large part because a lot of the subculture around CS overlaps with male subculture, and we just don't fit in, and then once you throw in the occasional jerk who makes our dissonance into a bad thing, and suddenly you get the case that women have to work at 150~200% to be treated as an equal, and in the face of such obstacles the vast majority of people back down and walk away. (This applies for all sorts of things, like why not every black person rises up from the ashes, even though some have.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

...like why not every black person rises up from the ashes, even though some have... Did it occur to you that >gasp!< some black people might be different from some other black people? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you simply miss the whole point I was trying to make? Because you just asked me if the very point I was trying to make had ever occurred to me. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have said that in the absence of "systemic bias," every black person would "rise up from the ashes." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I was pointing out that some people seem to point to examples of blacks that do succeed and argue "since that one person can do it, then they all could do it... they're just lazy". I vehemently disagree with such people, and such arguments. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all conscripted males go to infantry. Finland and Greece are examples of nations where military service is mandatory for males and voluntary for women. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"The supreme court so far has upheld male-only drafts in the USA"

Thunder took that bit out, but I'm curious: did a case about drafting women ever make it to the Supreme Court? P-Foster (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

wp:Rostker v. Goldberg. Looking to see if the constitutionality of specifically "no women in combat infantry" has ever actually come to the Supreme Court. Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that SCOTUS has at least implicitly ruled it constitutional, in that it raised no objections in either the above case or wp:Schlesinger v. Ballard. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In the most recent case, the Court didn't object to it, but they specifically stated that they weren't even considering it, because neither party brought it up. So, as far as my understanding is, no, the issue of women being unable to serve in a combat unit has never come up before the Supreme Court to actually consider. In so far as my phrasing was well chosen, "as long as women can't serve in combat, they need not be required to register for selective service". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fishy business

Passing thought - what would sexism be like in the fish (and other creatures) which can change gender at various points in their lives. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Their religion would likely label changing gender as an "abomination" and denounce it as sin. I hear you saying, "But it would be a completely natural thing, how could they ever do anything like that?" Well, it never stopped religion from denouncing perfectly normal and natural human actions as abominations and sin... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The omitted component is 'being of sufficient sentience to be able to consider the issue.'

Might well depend upon how regularly, and under what circumstances, such gender changes occurred - and whether it was status-determined (top fish is gender W: upon death if no other Ws, one Z changes), 'every Q years you change gender' or 'some other reason(s).

Concept free for adoption. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

CP section removal

It doesn't belong in a mainspace article. Тy^Talk. 03:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So... we've stopped objecting to discriminatory websites in mainspace? what is Mainspace for then... last I looked, the CP section of this article fits our mission statement... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there an entire namespace dedicated to CPstuffs?--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Eira I'm too tired to argue so do whatever. @New guy... Тy^Talk. 03:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It could stay there happily in CPspace.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There isn't enough content for an individual article... and no one is MOVING the content, they're deleting it... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I say let it stay there for now until someone can be arsed to create an entire article to move to CPspace.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Liberals made the biggest mistake in letting women vote. It's not sexism. It's the bible. Put down the reefer and Open Your Mind!--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm officially torn. On the one hand I'm a dedicated member of Operation Get Over It and de-CPification. On the other hand, Eira is right that we should object to that sort of discrimination in the main space. The solution, therefore, would be to find other relevant examples to compliment it so that a CP section doesn't look CP-centric but is actually shown in the wider context of right-wing and fundie misogyny. E.g., do we see similar things from Fox News, from the Eagle Forum, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, the Daily Mail and so on and so forth. ^moral 14:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. We should just treat CP like we treat WND. Also, is that what we are calling it now? Тy^Talk. 14:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"De-CPify" has been my edit comment when removing superfluous references to Conservapedia (emphasis on the "superfluous", however). It may have been Goonie that coined something like "operation get over it". ^moral 14:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Much better name than what I've been calling it. Тy^Talk. 14:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Other Double Standard

It is considered normal for males to burp for fun, but if a gal does it, she must be a tomboy! Also, I must point out that men are often being obligated to pay CS and alimony unfairly. I am a woman, but I do not think men should be victims of discrimination any more than women.--Ariel (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think in the former case of there being "feminine" things to do and "masculine" things to do. So if you bundled public burping under "masculine" ("scare quotes" indicating totally and utterly arbitrary labeling, of course) then a woman doing it would indeed be "masculine", or at least performing a "masculine" activity. As for the latter, I don't know apart from to say that it's quite complicated. ^gnostic 00:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Men's rights

From the article: "Equally, men's rights groups argue that men do not have a fair shake against women; they are considered rapists and abusers without trial; they are mistreated by the courts; and dammit, women expect them to pay for the children they father!"

I'm arguing especially on the last part: you do know that resentment about child support tends to be because many times those fathers can't be envolved with - heck, can't even see or be - their children, don't you? And that there are more "deadbeat" (to more accurately quote Glenn Sacks, "deadbroke") moms than there are "deadbeat" dads, right? And that the real reason that "deadbeat" dads and moms aren't many times able to pay child support is due to the child support being too high for them, right? So, stop moking men's rights concerns.

On the general issue of sexism against men, it exists (just because it's perpetuated by other men - and forgetting the influence and actions that women have in the whole hodge-podge of sexism against both women and men - doesn't mean it's not a problem. Additionally, I've got to say that the reason for why it says "Warren Farrell, top MRA and believer that male-dominated societies don't exist" on the "to do list" is that a) You don't really understand why he doesn't believe that male-dominated societies don't exist and b) women are previleged - and it's not just a few times - by things like chivalry, male disposibility and the success object fenomenon - aka the "hodge-podge" of sexism when combined with sexism against women).

Concluding, "racism against whites/reverse racism" does not exist (although there are instances of resentment, stereotypes and, yes, hate groups against whites) and "heterophobia" does not exist (except amongst fringe lesbian separatists and, arguably, MGTOWs). Sexism against men (a.k.a. misandry)? ABSOLUTELY! (Some things have to be screamed.) Faunas (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Relax dude. Stop screaming, take a few deep breaths, & try to make coherent sentences. Yes, sometimes bad things do happen to guys. But on the whole, things tend to run the other way & it's women who are disproportionately the victims of sexism & men who stand to benefit from it. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What he said! which is so much more polite that what I was going to say. thank god for Edit Conflicts. :-) Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've already corrected some things I think made my sentences "incoherent". The problem is not that I think that women are somehow after me, nor that it's that "sometimes" bad things happen to guys; the problem is that those "bad things" are part of a systemic system of sexism against men and women. You see, sexism is not unilinear/unidirectional, i.e., not like racism, homophobia or classism. Both sexes are trapped in limitative gender roles and stereotypes, and both should be freed from sexism (instead of this bickering between MRAs and feminists, which is in great way the fault of feminists). This is to say, don't mock with the idea of masculism/men's rights nor their concerns (and much less mix them with Conservapedia and conservatives, which believe in the very same things that got us to this). Faunas (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, gender roles can be restrictive to both sexes, but like most MRAs you're going at this issue all wrong. When you toss around terms like "misandry" & claim that women are privileged because of chivalry, nobody will take you seriously, aside from bitter chauvinists. Get some perspective. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't your message misandrist in itself :DD --Henk (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that people go on about SEXIST AGAINST MEN when the results of said 'sexism' are either 1)secondary effects of misogyny, such as fathers not being able to claim rights to their children because women are penned into the degrading role of being best mother due to chromosomes, or 2) going to result in nothing worse than not getting laid or feeling kind of bad and insulted. The results of sexism against women are rape and rape culture, abuse, loss of agency, and historical erasure. "I feel bad when someone calls me a neckbeard that can't get laid!" =/= "I have to fear for my life when standing on an unfamiliar street corner at night." Sure, you can be prejudiced against men. But you can't be sexist against men; sexism is an institutional discrimination, not an individual one.±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 00:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you even read what you write? This is right in the "women have it the Worst in war" territory. What I find hilarious is when you can't tell if people are just playing stupid :DD --Henk (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

CLAP!!!!Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Said sexism against men is as instiutional as sexism against women, and no, sexism against men is not a byproduct of sexism against women; both sexisms are byproducts of classic opressive gender roles (fathers working and male disposibility, which privileges men in some areas but impairs them in others, and mothers staying in house and female protection, which, again, privileges them in some areas but impairs them in others). Unlike "racism against whites", "heterophobia" or "classism against the rich", this sexism results in massive discrimination against men in some areas, such as custody, domestic violence or male victims of rape. This is why I like to think the gender system as a kyriarchy (etimologically meaning "government by the lords", i.e., those who rule) and not a "patriarchy" or "matriarchy", because they are absolute, and our gender system is not absolute (there are always upsides and downsides to being a man and a woman, none of which are a direct result of each other's gender roles, but of the very existence of the gender roles themselves), unlike with race (what are the downsides of being white?), heterosexuality (what are the downsides of being heterosexual?) or class (except very specific problems such as family and mental problems, which we cannot attribute as byproducts of class relations, what are the downsides of being rich?).

And when you say "going to result in nothing worse than not getting laid or feeling kind of bad and insulted." you are confusing MRAs (who are interested in relations between the genders and want equality - well, except the traditionalist minority) with PUAs (who just wanna get laid outside a committed relationship). Faunas (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: No, I'm not an MRA, but I agree with many things they say. And no, I'm not a feminist, but I also agree with what they say. I think they're both deeply flawed because they are both one-sided (one for men, another for women); it's just that one of the movements is more power ful (feminism).

That's nice, but then you have to remember that the gender roles themselves benefit men, not women. It is the gender roles that place men in nearly every powerful position and position of responsibility. It is men, that are and were in power, that have defined said gender roles, and if in the modern era it turns out to be a crapshoot because hey what system defined hundreds of years ago has ever not been proven to be stupid in modern day that's not a case of 'separate but equal faults.' It's petty as fuck to whine about how patriarchy inconveniences you when you can't hear women over the sound of your boardroom meetings and your rape culture. You can't deny freaking patriarchy when you approach the fact that gender roles as they are defined in western culture literally set men up to inherit the earth from other men. They set women up to sit quietly by and let them do it. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 15:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Clap again.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that gender roles were only created and are only maintained by men? Well, let me tell you something: women maintain gender roles through education. Especially on girls, they create exceptations of what a grown child should or should not be. Also, women have a very important role in social movements, where their presence is key to attract more members of both sexes; the social movements, of course, have the power to alter or even change completely those gender roles. Faunas (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would really like to know what instances of "sexism" Faunas has experienced. I know as a student, I was dismissed by my teachers for wanting to go into sciences, and pushed into (I kid you not) typing and home ec classes, which would be "better for any career I wanted". Granted it was the 70s and some overt levels of pushing girls out of sciences have changed, but not overtly. When I was a teen and into my early twenties, I routinely was stared at for my looks, cat called cause i was a "big" girl, (now i'm just a big girl). When I studied native american religions I routinly used TS GODOT instead of my first name Tanya, cause I was taken far more seriously before people found out I was a woman. I am expected to have children. When I didn't want to have children, i was met by a line of protesters who called me a slut (yes, a slut, think they would have said that if they'd known i had been raped a month earlier? Probably), I actually faced LESS RESTRICTIVE laws then, 20 years ago, than now. And your specific instances from your specific life would be???? Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 15:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I, Faunas, never experienced instances of sexism personally. But some men have, in issues like custody, rape, domestic violence or wanting to perform some job that is considered part of women's gender role. Might I point out that it's more acceptable for a woman to adopt men's gender role than vice versa? Also, I never denied women were victims of sexism, so don't talk how you were one on this specific thread, since that is not the point of the thread. (However, you can mention them other time, when it is the topic of discussion.) Faunas (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"But some men have, in issues like custody, rape, domestic violence or wanting to perform some job that is considered part of women's gender role. Might I point out that it's more acceptable for a woman to adopt men's gender role than vice versa?" But you do realize that this is the result of a gender ideology instituted by men...right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said a while ago, the "gender ideology" you're talking wasn't just implemented by men nor is just enforced by men; it was created and is enforced by both men and women. Faunas (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In what world? Up until the last 50 years, women have not had the power to say anything, much less define roles. Women could not vote, or own land, or say no to sex, or say no to marriage, or hold jobs, or wear pants, or use birth control, or have a business, or be the legal guardian of their own kids. Women were property. Your argument is, in effect "slaves defined in part, what slavery was and what the roles of slaves and owners were". to "create" roles, of any kind, you have to have the power to do so. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 18:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Faunas, thanks for giving me my daily dose of stupid. (I have nothing more to say.) Blue (is useful) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, the main objective of those laws was to put responsibilty for women's actions on their husbands as a result of the "childish/hormonal/infantile" and "frail and innocent women" stereotypes; many of those downsides of coverture (that's the proper name in common law) or community marriage (common law's name for the equivalent in civil law) were in part abuses of the husband's power (which weren't uncommon but were not the majority) and in part the stereotype of the "brutish man who needs to be civilized by women" (and here's another proof that our gender system is not absolute, like race, therefore not patriarchy/matriarchy: if men were the single creators of gender rules, why would they create this stereotype for themselves? Wouldn't they create something a bit - to say the least - more positive?). So, comparison to slavery void (since the only objective of slavery is to own another person). (Of course, I wouldn't suggest to go back to those laws.) Also, it's undeniable that women do enforce gender roles through education and that they have a major influence in creating gender roles through their actions in social movements. Faunas (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't really follow what you're saying in the first part of that. What "downsides" specifically are you talking about? The whole marriage deal (until modern times) was that the woman would birth children, keep a home, not have any economic or social independence, & not have any say in the matter, while the husband would earn money & be head of the household. As for "the stereotype of the brutish man who needs to be civilized by women", this mostly exists in romanticised literature & is really just a way of saying "a guy needs a chick". There are examples of both men & women saying things along these lines; it's not a particularly female-driven stereotype, and certainly not an anti-patriarchical one. "The only objective of slavery is to own another person". What now? Slavery is an economic system; it's purpose is to get things done for cheap. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The "downsides" I was talking about are that, in order for a woman to be protected according to that "genius" that was the inventor of coverture, some rights are withdrawn (in the same way that we withdraw some rights to our children until they're old enough, to protect them; and yes, women were basically viewed like "grown children"). The stereotype of "the brutish man who needs to be civilized by women" was mainly an excuse to have the kyriarchal (what you'd call "patriarchal") structure of marriage, since it was viewed that men needed to be tamed (obviously) and that women and marriage were that "tamer" (this is why domestic violence was somewhat tolerated, despite not being an exactly an acceptable behaviour - at least for the husband - and despite the fact there were laws against domestic violence, which weren't uniformely applied). On the slavery part, you've explained it better than me; I was focusing on the legal aspect of slavery (owning a person), but the ultimate objective is to economically exploit the slaves. Faunas (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I hate to play the Tumblr courtier here but my mind is just full of fuck after reading that. "why would they create this stereotype for themselves?" I don't know, can you present any evidence as to why these were stereotypes that socially harmed men, rather than demonstrating that "the role of women is to help men be more complete men"? "women do enforce gender roles through education and that they have a major influence in creating gender roles through their actions in social movements." What are you talking about? Any specifics? Blue (is useful) 19:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As to the stereotype, as I already said to Weaseloid, it was said men needed to be tamed (obviously) and women and marriage were that "tamer". As to why they socially harmed men, you are already demonstrating the first reason why when you say "the role of women is to help men be more complete men" (in other words, you are saying that women are morally pure, gentle and innocent while men are "incomplete" without women - fine stereotypes, right?. This is also related to women and marriage as a "tamer"). The second reason why this stereotype harms men is, again, in issues like custody (if men are somehow "incomplete", they're incompetent when it comes to educating children), rape and domestic violence (if men are "brutes", isn't it just unnatural that a woman beats a man for any reason other than self-defense or that women rape men by forcing men to penetrate women? For this last bit, men are also considered to be always wanting sex, and erection means consent; both are obviously lies.). So, in response to the question "why would they [men] create this stereotype for themselves?", I'd answer "for no reason", and indeed men didn't singlehandedly create them; both men and women had a key role in creating them.

As to women enforcing gender rules through education and having a major influence in creating gender roles, let's first analyse the role of education. Education exists to socialize children in order to integrate in their society. An important part of a society is its gender roles. Now, because mothers are usually considered "natural caregivers" (although that stereotype is also vanishing), they are usually the ones who educate their children; so women enforce gender roles through education. As to creating gender roles, we have to look at women's key role in social movements. It was Karl Marx who said (I don't remember the exact quote) that, without women, a revolution is bound to fail. And if we look at events and movements as diverse as the spread of Christianity in Ancient Rome, abolitionism, the labor movement, the sufragettes (it was a movement for women's interests) and the counterculture of the 60's, we can all see women's key influence in social movements, and we can all see changes in gender roles and, indeed, changes of gender roles (well, in all except the first one). And today we can still see that: if there weren't women supporting the so-called "War on Women" or Fundamentalist Christianity (which both involve returning to previous forms of gender roles), they would fail; as would the more progressive movements (which want to move forward to new gender roles). Of course, men also enforce and help create gender roles. Faunas (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that he's trying to assert that because moms still buy their girls dolls and EZ-bake ovens that somehow women created their gender role on purpose? Or that it's their fault that female gender roles are this way, or that women really WANT their gender role to be this way? I don't know, thinks he can speak for what women want, or what they have have asserted in society, or thinks he knows the pressures women face without actually being one. Typical mansplaining bullshit. <sarcasm>It's not like women are penned into their social role because men, not women constantly reinforce it in women, PTCH, that would be CRAZY! I mean, it's not like nearly every single socially acceptable goal that hasn't been reclaimed from being men-only save basic labor isn't to impress, marry, be appealing to, or otherwise pander to the desires of heterosexual men. That's crazy talk! </sarcasm> ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 20:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, ha, very funny. Read my response, please. (Don't be an idiot.) Faunas (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? They are terrible and demonstrate you think you know more of what you are talking about than people who experience sexism-based aggression every day of their lives. News flash. Just because some bad things happen to men because of their gender role, doesn't mean it's one they didn't build for themselves. Whenever you create a power structure that is tiered, you assign qualities to the elite and those or lower rank. When men display qualities associated with what they have ranked as below them (such as, child care, sensitivity, emotion), they are teased and made to feel bad because they are relating with women, which patriarchy ranks below men. Not because men are discriminated against. Because assigned 'feminine' qualities are discriminated against. You are whining that because your throne gives you splinters up your ass, it can't possibly be a throne. Why don't you read some actual feminist thought before claiming to know what women face? Because I don't give a shit about what you have to say unless you actually understand the issue at hand, instead of trying to explain to me that the role of woman is to improve men, right after asserting that womens' roles were created by women for the interests of women. No. Just stop. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri}

When did I say that women created women's roles for the interests of women? What I actually said is that both women and men enforce their gender roles on each other and that they both have an important contribution on their formation. (And no, I didn't say that women created gender roles on purpose nor that by buying dolls for girls or that women are enforcing gender roles on purpose.) And it's not men and only men that built gender roles for themselves; it was society (i.e. both men and women) who built them. (In fact, in order to prove to me that men built gender roles for themselves, you'd have to prove me that at some point the world was egalitarian - which it was indeed, in the cavemen period - not that I'm saying that those societies were inferior -, where gender roles were more fluid, but then there sometime later was some coup by EEEEVVVVIIIILLLL men who put them in charge.) And the whole "the role of woman is to improve men" thing: read the fucking text, because you haven't read (in fact, you said it yourself: you have no intention to read it, since according to you I said some things I didn't actually say). And another thing: I'm not like one of those spoiled brats who is actually priviledged but thinks that, because he wants a toy and doesn't get one, he's despriviledged. What I'm saying is that a) sexism is not unidirectional; b) sexism is not an absolute in the sense that there is one sex handing out cards and the other sticking with it; c) sexism is institutional for both sides and both sides suffer from it in the form of gender roles, albeit in different ways; d) as in c), we can't claim that one sex's sexism is the result of the other's. Faunas (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Caveman society was egalitarian? Are you for real? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did read somewhere that the cavemen and women were indeed more egalitarian than us, or at least their gender roles were more fluid than ours, but if you don't agree with me, do write, please. Faunas (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a fairly solid school of thought with good evidence that pre-industrial gender roles were fairly egalitarian, owing to the fact that with the working classes all having to work, there was no concept of a "bread-winning male" and "stay-at-home female". Both did solid work in fields. Industrialisation changed that by generating the concept of the "job" as we'd understand it today. Most lists of misconceptions of the past (the medieval period, dark ages etc.) include the idea that systematic, class-wide, oppression of women is mostly mythical or highly exaggerated. What we see today is really the remnants of Victorian social squeamishness straying into a fictional version of the 1950s, not millennia long oppression. ^moral 12:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. the work load was more evenly distributed, but men still controlled women, owned them and the children. Largely defined who the women would marry, (for both "good for the woman" reasons - like a richer husband, and "good for the father reasons", like maybe a business arrangement). Women have not in any real sense, shared equality for well over 2000 years in most cultures I know of. There are "nobel savage" revisionists (they would not see it that way) who push the idea that pre Colombian societies throughout NA were equal, but most evidence we find, contradicts that - most socities were not equal. Though there are a notable few societies in NA where women held equal political and social power. Men need to control a woman's reproduction, or they cannot know that a child is their heir.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 16:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What Godot said. In agricultural societies (past & present), work on the land or household trade tends to be shared within the family or household, but women were/are still responsible the bulk of housework & child-rearing work. Historically, women were also usually excluded from things like trade guilds. Land and businesses were passed on through male primogeniture, and a husband assumed ownership and/or control of his wife's property & assets if she had any. When women did own land or assets or became head of the household (e.g. due to widowhood or the lack of a male heir), it was somewhat of an anomaly & viewed as something of an inconvenience. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean, I do want to point out that patriarchy doesn't convenience ALL men equally, and in some ways it provides a hegemonic image of what a man should be that probably no man can really ever live up to. But that's not a band-aid for the fact that no matter how men within their group may be 'ranked' (for example, your race and sexuality are intersectional; some men are forced to have 'subordinate' masculinites to that of dominant rich white heterosexual male, etc.) ALL of them are defined by being 'superior' to what's considered feminine. You can insult any male by calling him a 'girl,' no matter how inconvenienced by the system that benifits him in the long run he is. Why is that? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 15:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

'Sexism was the likely reason why the patriarchal media subjected Sarah Palin to vile sexist attacks such as "lipstick on a pitbull".'

Now this is just silly. If anything the 'patriarchal media' didn't question enough the competency of Ms. Palin. --Journeyman Studios (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a dumb line. I mean, if I recall correctly, it was originally Obama saying "lipstick on a pig," not a pitbull, and he wasn't talking about Palin at all, but about some policy or other. (I wanna say... bailouts? GOP alternative to Obamacare? Drawing a blank here.) Anyway I agree and removed it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Improvement suggestion

Would it be helpful to add examples of both overt and covert sexism to this aritcle? For example, grabbing somebody's genitals versus having a group where only men or women are in charge?^{— Unsigned, by: I hate MRAs / talk / contribs} 07:41, 18 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Probably a good idea. However, my inherent concern when things like that are inserted into articles is that such lists wind up taking over the article, rather than being a small function of said article. If we do add something like you've suggested, it should be kept short and sweet. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. What is the best way to make such a list? I hate MRAs (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A way I'd go about it would be to compare and contrast the two in a section. You could even title the section "overt versus subtle sexism" or some such, and then give a brief list of examples of each with the header, "some examples of this include...." That way, it doesn't just become another list taking up the attention from the meat of the article. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Other examples" section

I'm thinking of nuking that section entirely and replacing it with a section that defines, and gives examples of, both overt and subtle forms of sexism. Any objections to this re-write? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sexism against men exists, y'know.^{— Unsigned, by: 194.83.243.25 / talk / contribs} 10:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We do know. Thank you. PacWalker 10:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the history of sexism section

Because this seems like it might be a delicate topic I'm bringing some changes I'd like to make here first. I'm going to indicate changes I'd like to make with strikethroughs and parentheses. When I want to say something I will put a note by it.

What is labelled today as "sexist" has been "just the way things are" for the majority of history and across the world. Women's roles have been almost universally limited to hearth and home (NOTE 1) in historical society, even in societies like the Hopi, Jewish, and Okinawan, where women held the family name and property, and were considered an important source for leadership. In most societies, limits on women's freedoms were common, though those limits could range from not being able to leave the home, to not being able to own property to simply not being accepted as equal in business relationships to men. In many societies including all of the so-called Western societies, men institutionalized sexism against women (has been institutionalized since the beginning of recorded history). Until the so-called modern era, women in the West received limited education, were not considered acceptable into academic circles, were not considered valuable within business; though they were, of course, important commodities (NOTE 2), women in most Western countries did not have the right to vote until the 20th century. In the worst scenarios, women themselves, once they married, were legal property like children, a status known as coverture. It is these very patterns of institutionalized sexism that are the hardest to break out of. (NOTE 3)

Note 1: In the upper classes yes. In the lower classes often yes, and sometimes the labor of women was needed and used i.e. in the fields in medieval times. Should this be tweaked to satisfy my literal mindedness because the fields are out side the home? Perhaps this is too petty a nitpick.

Note 2: Again my literal mindedness raises its ugly head. Are not commodities things which are bought and sold? Unless we are talking about enslaved people or political alliance via marriage I do not understand the important commodities comment.

Note 3: I do not understand the last sentence. Isn't it the sexism in the culture which is the hardest to break out of? Institutions can be changed from within or from without by social and political pressure but it is the sexism which lingers on inside peoples heads where even the individuals themselves may not know it is there which remains afterward. It is the cultural sexism (for example how the word slut almost always has a female implication) which would seem to me to be the harder nut to crack. Hmmm I have a feeling I'm missing something here.

Anyway. Thoughts, questions, suggestions? Demands that I be institutionalized? I couldn't sleep (again damn me) and started watching ArmoredSkeptic's latest videos, I was a bit disappointed. He didn't like atheism plus much, on the other hand he didn't go too far the other way either. That's what got me skulking around here at this late hour (late for me, past 3 am). SolPyre (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Realism and Sexism

"Feminists generally consider the following to be examples of sexism in western society". And they have quite conflated sexual dimorphism with pernicious behavior. Also, more of an effort should be made to show how some dimorphism-related differences result in privileges for women, such as combat military service and Car insurance:

"Health insurance plans sometimes cover Viagra so older men can still get their penises hard,[6] but do not cover birth control or necessary medical procedures such as emergency abortions.[7]"

Most health insurance policies are required by Federal Law to cover birth control medications.

"Women have historically not been allowed to serve in combat infantry in the US, a position that has never been considered by the Supreme Court.[8][9] The US Military also has different physical fitness standards for males and females, both of which the US Marine Corps is starting to undo.[10]"

This is assumed to be a privilege by general consensus. Evidently it is more sexist against men, as if an equal number of women were to be utilized combat casualties would be lower among male enlisted personnel. Also, no sane individual really wants to serve in combat.

"Insurance premiums differ for men and women because of known rates of accidents and claims (particularly in driving) differ between the two. This is set to end in Europe due to an EU ruling on gender equality (as are pension payouts).[11]"

This is a female privilege also, as women are assumed to be better drivers and generally pay somewhat lower rates.

"Even in progressive and liberal nations, women still do not earn equal pay for the same job as men. Of course, there are an abundance of apparently biological explanations why the women aren't worth as much as the men in these positions, and thus the man should earn more than the woman, but to be fair, these apologist arguments are typically only presented by the most dedicated of anti-feminists.[12]"

Few academic economists agree that women are actually paid less for the same work on average. eg, http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-economist-explains-the-gender-wage-gap-2016-3 although an average woman does earn less than the average man.

"The belief that men are better at science and math, while women are "naturally" better at communication and care giving. This difference does not appear to be a biological scientific reality, but in a society that holds such sexist beliefs, that reality is created. Boys and girls are educated differently, on subtle levels, reinforcing this sexist myth. Also, boys and girls at very young ages have similar levels of interest in science. Published material by women academics is less frequently cited than comparable publications by male academics.[13]"

There is no evidence that a lack of women in a given academic or professional field creates a systemic resistance or "reality" preventing women from joining the field. This has not happened in Medicine, Veterinary science, Pharmaceutical sciences, etc. This suggests that there are possibly gender differences with regard to occupational preferences.

"Objectification of women in media, especially advertising."

Media objectifies everything for commercial purposes, especially with respect to advertising.Jackinthebox (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

That's the notorious benevolent sexism, parts of why patriarchy (not the govern of men in itself, but the hystorical male with the exclusion of women from most of the active roles in the society) harms men too. The phisical dimorphism is the only dimorphism from which one can draw realistic conclusion, other aspect of the dimorphism of the brain (see trans people), instead can't be objectively modeled in a way to predetermine how either sex is supposed to behave or their abilities. There is no way this "male pernicious behaviour" is a inevitable given and supposedly natural, but assurance companies are capitalist, so they profile and discriminate "naturally", sometimes this can go against men :D. "Also, no sane individual really wants to serve in combat.", ehm, many women want, so that's an opinion, which I even share, to some extent, without generalizing, but still an opinion. Feminists, along with pacifists, fought for draft abolition. At least suspension has been obtained for male. Of course they are not fighting for extending draft to women, just for being able to serve voluntarily, if idoneous. That doesn't mean they don't want the draft off for men.

This intervention seems reasonable (sorry for the grammar, I'm Italian), but seems to boil down to the usual bingo compilation of "but men are the disposable sex, men are beaten and killed more, death on work", but ok, for all, if a man is not inclined to the violence, there are little chances of him getting beaten by walking casually, just slightly more and of course from other pernicious men, but of these same men, the likelyness they'd assault a woman is much higher. Of course, instead, if a man is eager to participate in fights and bad frequentation is more likely to beat and getting beaten. Does this mean the woman is protected, well it is, sometimes genuinely, sometimes as a belonging, but in past they were protected decidedly as properties.

So this protection had a price in terms of basic freedom, being treated as an eternal minor. Lauded as an ethereal being, sometimes, yes, but as long as she put her feet on earth and dare questioning the male superiority, then she was just an emotive intellectually challenged and unreliable creature. Angelicized apparently but demonized on convenience.

This resulted in men taking more risks, that's true, but as said, the price was too high and if women wanted to participate in such risks they weren't treated on par, they should be staying home. They couldn't choose their partner.

Although you are right that to an extent it boils to kyriarchy, like the ruling class useing citizen as a means to an end, men disposable because they were stronger, women utilized because of their reproductive capacity meaning that compared to men they risked shortage. The adduced pseudoscientific conclusion of women being intellectually inferior was bullcrap, like blacks during slavery, but it's unquestionably true that men have been used as canno fodder for the enrichment of the ruling class.

"This has not happened in Medicine, Veterinary science, Pharmaceutical sciences, etc. This suggests that there are possibly gender differences with regard to occupational preferences." I'd be cautious about this, there can be some truth, but no way to say such preferences are necessarily inherent to being a woman, as it's an easy to draw conclusion. And aren't those more traditionally female fields like education?

Because of this very notion there is prejudice against women in those environment, but ok, what's important is that there are no obstacles an opportunity. If women choose such occupations less in raw number, for free choice, whatever the reasons, it's not a problem. I'm quite skeptical of affirmative action too :). Those who make it are at least as capable as men. I don't see a reason why a person, unless impaired mentally, can't learn about anything if enough mental coordination and attidudes are spent on the matter to plasmate the synapsis ad hoc for fast learning on it.--78.15.231.110 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)--78.15.231.110 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Dick worship

Misogyny is still mysogyny.It is like saying i like black People, i love black People and i have sex with them, but i really wish they would stop being Ni**ers.

Shitting on Emilia Earhardt is only thing i have to read before dismissing this trite. Her second atlantic Crossing got a sensational spin in the press(no Cow was harmed and she had 400L Fuel left) and him claiming this as fact, is the kind of MRA Bullshit that pisses me off the most. I have the highest respect for her, and commenting her Death with "rekt" is telling me everything i need to know about your Personality you Trogolydte.Also considering how many Woman made it into Space i'd say his Know-how as Astronaut is lacking."Logical" and "rational" my Ass.--Benaresh (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Misogyny is misogyny. But basic chauvinism is not equivalent to misogyny, because misogyny would involve beating women up literally, and killing them and raping them and wishing such horrible things on them. Chauvinism can be harmless as just wishing them safe. I think it is horrible that Amelia Earhart and Kara Hultgreen died, and wrecked expensive equipment traversing areas that men have already traversed, and doing things that men already had a firm grasp with. It would have been better if they just stayed at home, and pardon the cliche, let a man do it. Plus, again, Charles Lindberg already crossed the Atlantic like a dozen times before Amelia even got into her plane. She was only famous because she proved that women could fly a plane, while traversing ground men had already traversed. Then UMMP! she went and got lost and crashed her plane, proving once again that women are inefficient compared to men. Also, you seemed to conflate mine and Dick's comments about Kara Hultgreen with Amelia Earhart. I said "REKT!" after mention Kara's crash, since Kara is a nobody compared to Amelia. Still actually tragic. Also. pardon the grammar nazi in me, it's "Amelia Earhart" not "Emilia Earhardt", as Maddox would say, "some fan you are, dumbass!" but never mind Maddox, he's a pissy washed up Armenian cuck who tried to character assassinate Dick Masterson, and get him blacklisted. Also, for someone who likes to compare some things that are incomparable to racism, to racism, I find your epithet of "trogolydte" veeeeeeery offensive to my people! :^) But anyway, I gotta say, that I used to be just like you. Naive to the ways of the world. Here's my anecdote, I used to be a liberal who listened to Celine Dion, voted John Kerry, and get beat up in school for being a tubby feminist in gender studies, sticking up for women in an embarrassing white knight fashion. Overtime, the internet ROCKED MY FACE(actually, the 2008 election did that, and the internet and Team America/South Park rubbed salt in the wounds). For instance, after being desensitized to all the flaming going on with Maddox, Dick Masterson, and AngryPatrioticBastard, I became an editor at Encyclopedia Dramatica. I used to hate Dick Masterson, and people like him, but afterwards I then viewed him as a funny troll, but nothing more than that. Just an insincere sarcastic caricature. On Encyclopedia Dramatica, we wrote racist, sexist things, but we were not racists nor sexists, and if we actually were, we would be labeled as such, and then be ripe for mockery. For ED was all about equal opportunity offense, and thus everyone was actually equal. Nothing made that more clear than the fact that the site was actually owned by a woman. That woman was Girlvinyl. Our philosophy was "do everything for the lulz, and let nothing offend you". Our anti-thesis was "Unwarrented Self Importance." In short, not everything was funny, but anything could be funny, and it was a good way to be, because then you can keep a cool head all the time and not feel pain. Everything just slides off your back. We were the pinnacle of free speech, defying those like Alex Jones and David Icke who thought that America was under siege by conspiratorial forces, while also defending the constitution in a very special all inclusive way in the face of modern conservatives, and sensitive liberals. But then one horrible April in 2011, Girlvinyl betrayed us, all of us. She took down Encyclopedia Dramatica, is one fell fascist sell out swoop. And replaced it with a PC equivalent called OH! Internet! Worse, she blamed the downfall of ED on the userbase, rather than the lack of traffic or massive ads that she kept adding and adding. However, those who loved ED the most, dug it from the ashes of google cache. But lulzkiller Sherrod was watching, and GirlVinyl tried TO DMCA the domain! Suffice to say, it was the day the lulz was raped, and the little remnant of egalitarian idealism in me, died. ED fell because a woman handled the website, proving that Dick was right. That Aristotle was right. That Plato was right. That Socrates was right. We live in a gender divided reality, and giving women license to fields other than housework causes the downfall of civilization, but it is the fault of men, not women, for not realizing our place and the essence of our manlihood.DMfanboy (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

you can't be for real as your whole piece is riddled with metonymic fallacies, like the idea that a failure of individual women represent their failure as gender. And by acting offended at her allegef Pc policing of ED and as if that is the definifive proof of gender divide and that women should stay in kitchen, well you proved her point instead, that the so called lulz was not satire and a jokes and it definitely quacked like sexism and bigotry beacause it was, and you prove that, trolling or not, those fallacies were actually drilling on you, as you just needed a definitive self fulfilling prophecy to fully subscribe to what was supposed to be satire "offensive regarddless of the target", yeah how not :).

Your definition of racism, if I followed your definition of sexism, would involve actively beating up those niggas, interesting, but even not.--78.15.244.107 (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)