Is reverse sexism ethical?
Mon, 2007-01-01 15:58
#1
Is reverse sexism ethical?
Mon, 2007-01-01 15:58
#2
I'm of the opinion that reverse sexism i.e. sexism towards men is totally ethical as it balances the sexism that women face. I also believe that it's because post feminism has shirked reverse sexism that many women have become disheartened with feminism. I'm sexist towards men and proud of it and I support anything that is sexist against men. I refuse to feel guilty about it.
Mon, 2007-01-01 16:24
#3
Can you give some examples of your version of reverse sexism? Have you instituted a glass ceiling at your workplace that men can't move beyond? Do you pay men only a portion of what you pay women for the same work? Do you focus on the curve a a male politician's chin instead of the content of his character?
While I wouldn't be in favour of any of those things, I'd be amazed if you had balanced the sexism of the sexes.
Or do you just generalize about men the same way white racists generalize about aboriginals, but more benign? Sort of like this: "Men: Those beer-drinking, football watching, crotch-scratching idiots"?
I have no idea what you mean by this:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
[b]I also believe that it's because post feminism has shirked reverse sexism that many women have become disheartened with feminism.[/b]
Can you explain it more thoroughly?
Edited because I don't know how to spell in 2007, either.
[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: sandpiper ]
Mon, 2007-01-01 16:24
#4
Maysie
Hi Louise. Welcome to babble. Interesting website you have there. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Have you read any of the older posts in the feminist forum? I ask because it's a good idea to get a sense of what we-all mean by feminism on babble, not that we have an over-arching definition that we all sign off on.
Some of us who identify as feminists, such as myself, don't believe that sexism against men is possible, since a patriarchal society such as ours doesn't have the structures and institutions to support what is termed "reverse sexism". But all of my (and others') thoughts on this topic can be found in past threads.
I'd love to see a world where hatred of women, violence against women and sexism no longer exist. I don't support the idea that "sexism against men" is the way to go about achieving this. But I also don't agree that there's such a thing as sexism against men.
Enjoy your stay here, Louise!
[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Mon, 2007-01-01 18:22
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
[b]I'm of the opinion that reverse sexism i.e. sexism towards men is totally ethical as it balances the sexism that women face. ... I'm sexist towards men and proud of it and I support anything that is sexist against men. ...[/b]
Your profile links to this URL:
[url=http://fdpandcfnm.tripod.com/index.html]'Female Dominated Relationships!'[/url]
When you click on it, a dialogue box comes up at first advising "this is not a porn site". I scanned the first page and would highly recommend that others do so as well.
Mon, 2007-01-01 18:32
#6
remind
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:
[b]I scanned the first page and would highly recommend that others do so as well.[/b]
Why would you highly recommend?
Mon, 2007-01-01 18:39
#7
Louise, you debase yourself and your cause in doing so.
Mon, 2007-01-01 18:47
#8
This isn't a feminist site, its looks like a commercial site catering to those who are into dominance-submission games. I've never heard an actual feminist using the term 'reverse-sexism', except perhaps with sarcasm, and the little ditty about pan-neolithic matri-archies isn't accurate either.
[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]
Mon, 2007-01-01 19:02
#9
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Why would you highly recommend?[/b]
Have you been there yet?
Mon, 2007-01-01 19:37
#10
Wow, just wow. I don't like that site and the idea that treating men like crap is a good way to maintain any type of equal relationship seems very very flawed to me.
Mon, 2007-01-01 19:44
#11
I'm not sure if the site is okay or not, I'm waiting for my girlfriend to come home and decide.
Mon, 2007-01-01 19:49
#12
quote:
I'm not sure if the site is okay or not, I'm waiting for my girlfriend to come home and decide. -B.L. Zeebub LLD
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2007-01-01 20:24
#13
remind
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:
[b]Have you been there yet?[/b]
Yes, I went as you recommended that we go, I would, as a feminist never recommend that anyone give that site a click exposure. Just as I would not recommend let's say Free Dominion.
It is offensive and no example of moving to towards equality that I can see, or want to share, even as a bad example.
I personally, would have preferred a little blurb on what type of link you were recommending to us, so then I would have had an informed choice. I feel all icky now and my comp feels icky from having been there.
Moreover, your question of have I been there yet, does not answer my question of why you find it recommendable?
Mon, 2007-01-01 20:26
#14
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]I'm not sure if the site is okay or not, I'm waiting for my girlfriend to come home and decide.[/b]
When she does come home, you may wish to direct her to this particular part of the site:
[url=http://fdpandcfnm.tripod.com/cfnm.htm]CFNM Parties[/url]
Mon, 2007-01-01 20:29
#15
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]I feel all icky now and my comp feels icky from having been there.
[/b]
So, your computer has feelings, does it. That's an intriguing revelation.
I recommended it becuase I thought it was central to understanding what Louise was putting forward in her decision to initiate this thread. It is, as you well know, her link not mine. I only recommended that people examine it, not that they accept it.
Mon, 2007-01-01 20:32
#16
Would it be possible for someone to close this thread?
Mon, 2007-01-01 20:43
#17
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Would it be possible for someone to close this thread?[/b]
On what grounds? I'm just curious.
Mon, 2007-01-01 20:46
#18
Well, the same grounds as if someone opened a thread saying that in order to make amends for the Holocaust, we would now like to recruit Jews for the fight against Gentiles.
Or blacks against whites.
Or Aboriginals against Europeans.
I just don't think those kinds of philosophies fit on babble. There's a big world-wide web out there.
Just my opinion.
Tue, 2007-01-02 04:07
#19
quote:
When she does come home, you may wish to direct her to this particular part of the site:CFNM Parties
DavidMR, I know you and I have our arguments, or disagreements, what have you, however I found that particular portion of the site extremely warped. That then led me to believe that perhaps this is a parody site, which is only there to expose the extreme sexism already inherent in society. I find it hard to believe that FDR's exist as this site points out. It may be that this site is more along the lines of Whitehouse.org or LandoverBaptisit. I'm not sure. Perhaps Louise can come back and fill us in on that, for if this is a parody site, then this site may be needed to expose extreme sexism. It's sure to piss men off, and sure to force them to look at what some men do to women on a daily basis. If it is not a parody site, I am with unionist, shut the thread down.
Tue, 2007-01-02 05:20
#20
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]Some of us who identify as feminists, such as myself, don't believe that sexism against men is possible, since a patriarchal society such as ours doesn't have the structures and institutions to support what is termed "reverse sexism". [/b]
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I mean, you can have discrimination or prejudice against either sex, but sexism is a whole other structure.
Tue, 2007-01-02 05:30
#21
My actual objection was to the offensive and deliberately provocative opening post. I haven't seen the website. Just clicked on it, and it seems to be down. I hope Louise is having a good chuckle over all this.
Tue, 2007-01-02 06:50
#22
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Well, the same grounds as if someone opened a thread saying that in order to make amends for the Holocaust, we would now like to recruit Jews for the fight against Gentiles.Or blacks against whites.
Or Aboriginals against Europeans.
I just don't think those kinds of philosophies fit on babble. There's a big world-wide web out there.
Just my opinion.[/b]
Fair enough.
Tue, 2007-01-02 12:13
#23
I don't hate men or wish any badness but I'm appalled by the lack of interest in so many women in feminism which I think is due to feminism losing its teeth. In my search for a feminist forum I finally found this one but not before surfing through umpteen feminist forums who's last post was in 2005. A pat on the back to the organisers of this forum which has life (phew). I think that in feminisms attempt to appeal to men they lost the women. Even on this forum which is better than most I notice more posts on feminism by men than women (no dig there guys). Feminisms fairness appeal to men worked in so far as men don't have the phobia about feminism than they used to but these men don't campaign or write to MP's. A poor swap from the activist females of old of which now are so few even in the colleges.
As regards the website, I front it but a girl called Christine made it, edits it, and is overall boss of it. I agree with most of it but not all of it. FDR 'if' the man is happy with it is a healthy role swap. Take a good look at FDR. Flip the gender roles and you have a pretty normal relationship that exists still today although it's never called MDR or male dominated relationship. Traditional more like. And so I defend FDR. However I'm not so keen on the more recent switch of some of the websites old users to cfnm which they seem to think is a goal scored for feminism but all I see is women catering to a twisted male fettish.
Well, I started this post to help you get to know me and I certainly know more about you from the replies. Hope we'll have many debates.
I'm not as vindictive as my start off posts may imply and I'm quick to admit when I'm wrong or bettered (which happens often) [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-01-02 12:30
#24
I would think there's a difference between role reversal, and trying to right a wrong with another wrong (or however that saying goes).
As an example of role reversal, a friend of mine spent a year looking after his kids at home while his wife went out to work. He said that it was the toughest job he ever had, tougher than working long hours in construction.
Tue, 2007-01-02 12:32
#25
Cueball
There is no such thing as "reverse sexism."
Tue, 2007-01-02 12:38
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]There is no such thing as "reverse sexism."[/b]
[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misandry]misandry[/url] [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
...unless of course cueball you mean that sexism is just that. discrimination based on gender. which could apply to both sexes of course. would i be correct in assuming you mean that "reverse-sexism" would be a non-concept sort of like "de-thawing"?
either way, sexism of any sort to me is reprehensible and unethical, regardless of the gender it is directed too. Hanging Hussein on the weekend did not benefit the people he killed or make a wrong right. killing is killing, and is wrong. sexism is sexism and is wrong.
[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]
Tue, 2007-01-02 12:45
#27
Not the same.
(cross posted) I never thought of it that way, farnival, but yeah, kind of like dethawing. I think people on this board would see sexism as institutionalized sexual discrimination, prejudice and misogyny, and being an integral party of patriarchy. Am I wrong?
[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: RP. ]
Tue, 2007-01-02 12:46
#28
Cueball
No. Sexism, is a highly specialized political term evolved by feminist thinkers to describe the functioning of patriarchy. It does not even necesitate "hatered" of women. It can merely be the assertion of highly defined gender based roles.
The opposite of Misandry is Mysogyny, not sexism.
To be anti-sexist essentially means to believe in the erradication of cultural, social or legal enforcement of gender defined roles, rights and opportunities.
[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2007-01-02 12:49
#29
well, as they say, it's a short day when you don't learn something new. given your clarification, i would then have to say i am fundamentally anti-sexist. thanks cueball.
Tue, 2007-01-02 13:03
#30
Cueball
Modern feminist theorist are as eager to point out the way sexism negatively impacts men, by forcing them to assume gender roles as well.
Myself I am a big fan of Bell Hooks.
[url=http://www.allaboutbell.com/]All about Bell[/url]
Tue, 2007-01-02 15:18
#31
I would say that people should do whatever they can to avoid treating others as members of a category.
Women who were wronged by specific men should direct their anger at those men, and not at others who may have nothing in common with them.
The world is filled with people who, out of a legitimate sense of grievance, become unconcerned about the individuality of those they think belong to the oppressor group. They treat those people as lesser beings; this only creates a new grievance.
Treat people as individuals, not members of races, sexes, nationalities, or religions. It works better in the long run.
Tue, 2007-01-02 15:19
#32
Cueball
Even lawyers?
Tue, 2007-01-02 15:38
#33
No, all lawyers are exactly the same.
Tue, 2007-01-02 15:54
#34
Are lawyer jokes ethical? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-01-02 16:01
#35
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Are lawyer jokes ethical? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Only if they are [i]actually funny[/i]!!! About 95% of of lawyer jokes are at a five year old's level of "funny". Really, that's true of most genres of jokes.
Tue, 2007-01-02 16:01
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Are lawyer jokes ethical? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
I personally like client jokes.
Such as: "how can you tell if the client is lying?
Because his/her lips are moving," [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-01-02 16:54
#37
That's what we call a "police joke".
Tue, 2007-01-02 17:00
#38
Hee! Guess it DOES depend on what kind of lawyer you are!
Peech, just to turn the tables:
A new client had just come in to see a famous lawyer.
"Can you tell me how much you charge?", said the client.
"Of course", the lawyer replied, "I charge $200 to answer three questions!"
"Well that's a bit steep, isn't it?"
"Yes it is", said the lawyer, "And what's your third question?"
Tue, 2007-01-02 20:47
#39
Michelle:
I heard that one before. And it's one of the few "lawyer" jokes I really like! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
And another client joke:
How come lawyers don't invite clients to the Inns of Court or Barrister's Lounge for lunch?
Because they might tax the bill!
(OK a bit too corny)
[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Peech ]
Tue, 2007-01-02 23:01
#40
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]... however I found that particular portion of the site extremely warped. That then led me to believe that perhaps this is a parody site, which is only there to expose the extreme sexism already inherent in society.[/b]
I think the FDR site is some kind of joke too, and that's why I wanted everyone to take a look at it. I think Louise is having us all on.
Wed, 2007-01-03 10:26
#41
It would be a lot of hard work for just a joke I think. Neverthesless it IS more tongue in cheek than many visitors realise. It's based on how some relationships actually were in the 50's but reversed. Some of the relationships however, are real and interesting to observe.
Wed, 2007-01-03 11:02
#42
1) There is no basis for reverse sexism as pointed out at the top of the thread.
2) Having said that, how can any form of discrimination or oppression be considered ethical?
3) I thought the website was a joke or a parody.
This is from the CFNM (Clothed Female Naked Male) page:
quote:
I meet a man at a CFNM party and would maybe like a FDR relationship but I’m not sure. What then?Let him know you’re interested in him and FDR and he’ll ask you for a date. You go through the whole date without saying please or thank-you but just telling him what to do. You’ll soon work out if it’s for you or not. If it is, meet him again.
Now, maybe I'm dense but shouldn't the woman be the one asking for the date if all the roles are reversed?
[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]
Wed, 2007-01-03 18:28
#43
I can't decide if we're all being spoofed or maybe even spammed. There are some who enjoy playing these sort of extreme role-reversal games; maybe a growing sideline among some of the S&M set, despite the official disclaimer.
Wed, 2007-01-03 18:56
#44
it's also interesting to see the word sexism and ethical in the same sentence.
Wed, 2007-01-03 18:56
#45
If one wanted to play devil's advocate one could say that since these men are seeking to be dominated then it's okay.
However I'm not going to say that.
If the end goal of feminism is equality for evereyone (regardless of gender, age, race, etc) then I can't see how it can support one human being dominating another.
If these men are allowing themselves to be subjugated, they still have power over women. Thus this " reversal" is probably the exeception that reinforces the norm-especially since many people would view and define it as the opposite of what's "traditional". Abnormal defines what is normal.
Personally I'd feel terrible telling another person what to do all the time- the best relationships are partnerships.
Wed, 2007-01-03 19:17
#46
No argument from here Red Dolores. Onething Louise seems to have accomplished is getting All of us to agree on something...now That is something. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]