I’ve written a fair bit here and there about misandry and discrimination, prejudice, and violence directed against men. It seemed like it would be useful to have all the links collected in one place…so here they are, in roughly chronological order. I think this is everything, but if you see something I’ve missed, let me know.
Misandry and the Trayvon Martin Case
On stereotypes of men in Orange Is the New Black
An interview with genocide scholar Adam Jones, who does a lot of work on violence against men.
What Hollywood Needs Is Fewer Strong Male Characters
On Andrea Dworkin, hating men, and the patriarchy.
On the film Black Sea and the disposability of working-class men.
Is a man suffering from “gender discrimination” the same as a man suffering from “sexism”?
Perhaps the difference is irrelevant, and I would certainly look forward to a day when the difference is irrelevant, but collapsing the terms into one potentially erases a central element of what I think has been historically defined as sexism: the overall cultural power relationship between men and women.
Women suffer from gender discrimination disproportionally, even overwhelmingly disproportionally, than men. So sexism is part of a larger cultural phenomenon. Using “sexism” to describe incidents of men suffering “gender discrimination” is both redundant (we can just call that “gender discrimination”) and, more importantly, it erases the chief concern of “sexism,” which is the overall status of women.
I suggest that until that larger power relationship is balanced, “gender discrimination” applies to men, but “sexism” doesn’t.
I think discrimination against men can be part of a larger cultural phenomenon as well.
And it’s not always the case that women suffer more from gender discrimination than men. It depends. During war and genocide, men are often rounded up and killed. That’s a cultural phenomenon, and it’s pretty extreme as gendered discrimination goes, it seems like.
True. Gender descrimination against men can be both extreme and part of a larger cultural phenomenon. But, I would argue, not the same cultural phenomenon as sexism.
Men are rounded up and killed by other man because they are perceived as powerful threats. That is arguably the opposite of sexism because the gendered discrimination is a result of being a member of the more culturally powerful gender.
Sometimes both men and women are killed because they are members of the same larger group under attack, but if just women are killed it’s likely because they are believed to be breaking from their gendered role. If just men are killed it’s likely because they are believed to be conforming to their gendered role.
I really don’t want to collapse both of those into gender-nuetral “sexism.’
The example of the divorced husband having to pay alimony even though his ex-wife is as financially capable follows the same pattern. The gender discrimination against the man is a result of his being perceived in his traditionally more powerful gender role.
But when MRAs talk about being victims of sexism, they mean that women are mistreating them–as if men’s overall gender is in a weaker position, as if women are in a culturally dominant position and so able to enforce anti-male discrimination. That position looks like nonsense to me.
If gender descrinimination against men is sexism, then it’s not the same kind of sexism that women face, and so I fear that calling it sexism obscures the larger issue in a way that hurts women.
“is a man suffering from “gender discrimination” the same as a man suffering from “sexism”?”
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of sexism, yes.
Chris, words can and do mean multiple things. Check any dictionary, and you will see that ‘sexism’ can by definition refer to exactly what you say it should not be. You cannot change the meaning of words by fiat. Nor does artificially restricting a term lead to greater communicative power or less confusion.
Also, while arguing against standard and broadly used definitions to deny a well read feminist like Noah might not have an adverse effect beyond complicating terms, doing so with anyone the least bit sympathetic to MRA lines of thought will only confirm their biases by giving them another way to think of men as being mistreated–by denying them the use of a regular word as it is regularly used (supposedly) based upon their gender. So this denial of established definition is unhelpful both in communication and in argumentation meant to convince.
“unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially unfair treatment of women”
“prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex”
So, yes, dictionaries’ use of “especially” and “typically” does not categorically exclude men; it just indicates the standard or most broadly used sense of the word.
Also, Noah is indeed a well-read feminist whom I don’t wish to deny anything.
But I’m not sure I’m complicating the term since the term is already so complicated. As Noah writes:
“Talking about sexism against men is often seen—by MRAs and feminists alike—as an attack on feminism.”
That suggests that “sexism” when used to describe discrimination against men is not simply a regular word used regularly.
If MRAs use “sexism” to undermine feminism, and if (some) feminists (including me) see that use of “sexism” as undermining, then there’s more going on here than a denial of an established definition.
My comment above is an attempt to explain why the disagreement exists.
But I deeply agree with Noah’s much larger point: sexism hurts men too. Both sexes suffer when power relationships are unequal. Fix that and no one, not even I, will quible about the word “sexism.”
Or is it “no one, not even me”? I thank that’s grammatically wrong, but “not even I” sounds so pretentious.
I’d definitely agree that sexism works differently when women are the targets vs. when men are the targets. I see your point about undermining the term…but at the same time there’s a worry that seeing only women as victims or women’s victimization as the default, can play into the same gender stereotypes that portray women as (always) victims and men as (always) powerful.
So I guess I go back and forth on which terminology to use, or what language is best to try to talk about these issues. I know people are often really resistant to the idea of misandry as well — but I think it is a useful concept, especially when considering the way minorities are often portrayed as hyper-masculine, and therefore as especially deserving of violence.
I have no problem at all with “misandry” as a term because it’s distinct.
I would guess the resistance to the idea of misandry is concern that focusing attention on prejudice against men is to not focus attention on prejudice against women and so potentially adding to the problem of prejudice against women, especially if the implication is that women are man-hating hypocrits.
But I agree sometimes you need the right analytical word-tool.
Now I’ve not read examples of what you references in your comment above, so this is not a challenge, but a sincere question:
If the issue is about prejudice against minorities then is the portrayal of minority men as hyper-masculine primarily about their being minorities? Gender is obviously a key weapon here, but is it deployed in the service of the larger minority prejudice?
Oh, and very good point about women as always victims and men as always powerful. Definitely part of the problem, though, as you point out, still very tricky.
Well, intersectionality encourages you not to disaggregate, I think? Minority men face particular oppressions, which I don’t think can be reduced either to race or gender alone (would be my argument.)