Men, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Google knows everything.

Suelford

Of course, you will say "But this 'sexism against men' stems from a root cause of sexism against women", but that logic works both ways. Why not say the sexism against women comes from a root cause of sexism against men?

The principles of patriarchy have been around much longer than the feminist movement, back when we were owned like property and treated the same way. "Reverse sexism" is the product of men trying to justify the age old treatment of women with their own causes. I agree, the everyday portrayal of men as useless fathers and breadwinners is also damaging but its no use pretending that the deeper social constructs and expectations of women don't exist because there is also sexism towards men.

This isn't tit for tat, perhaps if more men were willing to stay at home or relinquish earning power to their partners without feeling emasculated or embarrassed everyone, regardless of gender can move forward.

Feel free to use Google, I'm sure there are plenty of lists out there. Off the top of my head: men are expected to play the breadwinner/provider role, men are often portrayed as useless or disposable, men are treated as suspicious or incapable around children, etc etc.

Of course, you will say "But this 'sexism against men' stems from a root cause of sexism against women", but that logic works both ways. Why not say the sexism against women comes from a root cause of sexism against men?

There is sexism against both genders. Neither gender is the victim of a 'primary' sexism which causes collateral damage to the other gender when enforced. Both genders have their roles, both have their examples of discrimination. In the UK at least, neither is worse than the other; both are bad enough.

Can i clarify that I also worked in the same team as my DH and that is why we were discussing that particular client. We shared her care.

My Dh until recently worked in a profession full of empowered women but with a clientele consisting of some of the most vulnerable, disenfranchised and voiceless women (He was a CPN). He never failed to notice and be disturbed by the contrasts.

I remarked to him once regarding a client of his that he was the first role model in her life not to have tried to either have sex with her or beat her. To work with her as she started to explore something other than being defined by her relationships with men, to start further education and realise that child rearing was not her only recourse was wonderful.

In our working lives we both recall moments of eyes wide open clarity when the reality of life in a patriarchal society hits home. To say anything else is disingenuous and blinkered.

He is also aware that within nursing it may be female dominated but a greater proportion of the senior staff are male. As he says, within nursing the cream doesn't really rise to the top because the system is still very much supportive of and biased towards those who do not need to be pregnant or give birth to be parents. There is much male cronyism especially within psychiatry which still bears traces of the old guard-alpha male dick swinging and hints of uniformed service origins of the original orderlies.

We work with wonderful strong women but they face comments like 'you are a bit strident' from some male senior staff and 'jokes' about their hormonal status in a manner that suggests that to be anything other than laughingly tolerant of such behaviours is to not be part of the (male) gang. Emphatically expressed professional opinions and standing your ground may be depicted in a gender stereotyped negative manner when some of the senior male colleaguse disagree with you. Whereas should two male seniors disagree then there is no other judgement in place other than professional.

"I suppose it is if you think sexism is suffered equally by men and women............Do you?"

Well, define "equally". Women suffer sexism in some areas, men suffer sexism in other areas. I expect it probably balances out pretty equally, but I don't think it's useful to nitpick over whether women are discriminated against in 7% more situations, or whatever. I certainly don't think women (in the UK) are the only, or even the large majority of, victims of sexism.

"The issue with men challenging sexism is that (in general) it is in their best interests to maintain the status quo. Men (in general) whether they realise it or not, benefit from the way from the current societal mind set. So for them to challenge it, they have to be prepared to give up a bit of their privileged position. Which is a big ask. But because most men are actually kind, sensitive and thoughtful human beings,it's reasonable to assume that once they realise this, they will be willing to make that small sacrifice in the name of equality. The problem is that it's a difficult thing to think about or to take on board. Particularly if the privilege is so ingrained and normalised that it doesn't look like privilege. Sometimes, particularly from the inside, it can even look like equality."

This ^ a thousand times over.

"It's funny how there are howls of indignation from men when exhorted to get involved. They don't like the tone or deny there is a problem. However, when women decide to do it themselves, there are howls of indignation from men because women are being exclusionary. Can't win I suppose."

yup. Totally.

I personally don't understand why men wouldn't want to support anti-sexism and the feminist movement behind it.

Actually, "a one-sided version of anti-sexism" is a pretty good description of feminism as a whole.

If it's merely being called on to be anti-sexist, rather than explicitly pro-feminist, then I agree.

But "you can choose to challenge misogyny and sexual violence wherever you see them. You can choose to take risks and spend energy supporting women, promoting women, treating the women in your life as true equals" seems like quite a one-sided version of anti-sexism.

"Do you see no contradiction at all in feeling so strongly about the Mumsnet logo while simultaneously saying that women are overreacting about the sexism they face in their everyday lives?"

Twas pure sarcasm about the logo curlew, the only strong reaction I had when I saw it was to chuckle at the incongruity of it. As to me saying or implying anything like "women are overreacting about the sexism they face in their everyday lives."... ummm.... errr... huh... where... what?

But you assume that feminism is the only route to equality, so men who are pro-equality should therefore be pro-feminist.

I really wish people would leave "women in the Middle East and some parts of Asia" out of conversations like this.

It's a derail and using women in these countries who aren't here to speak about their lives and issues as a prop or token (not from any actual concern about these women as humans) to say "Look how bad they have it! How can you complain?". It is a statement that benefits neither women in "those places", nor women in the UK.

Whether intended to or not, it is a silencing tactic and that the likes of Dawkins used it during Elevatorgate (see here: phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Dawkins'_EG_Comments_at_Pharyngula) should give people a big clue as to how anti-feminist it is.

Now, we can go back to discussing exactly how sweetly we are supposed to request men to stop enabling misogyny.

Well, I am new DuelingFanjo, and I can tell you why I came here. It was outrage.

I saw the mumsnet logo on another internet site:
?mumsnet : By parents for parents?

The dad in me face-palmed, my spleen lurched and my four humours were unbalanced at sight of it. That said I understand the problems of the internet name-space and the marketing inertia of names.

?I'm not from round here, I don't understand.?

I don?t know if you directed that at me or not, but I will take a leap of faith and assume you did. This board is global. If you make a conceptual comparison between your link and mine, that only people in the UK could possible understand, then it will go over the head of every woman on the planet who does not have deep experience of UK media, as well as my own.

You cant see the difference in the links? The article you link puts men in the stocks and hands out rotten fruit and veg to the women applauding. The article I link takes men out of the stocks, stands them on their feet and shines a cold hard light in their face and the ground they stand on. No deference to or need of an audience, just a one on one. I am afraid your link seems to appeal to women Penny herself specifically identifies with in the article: ?After all, most of us grew up learning that being a good girl was all about putting other people?s feelings ahead of our own.?

Say what? My daughters would not see themselves in that, they would pity anyone who had an upbringing that led them to that view. Someone born in the 1960's... I can certainly see society at large and well meaning but naive parents fostering that kind of outlook in a child, forcing individuals to later self realisation. But Laurie Penny was apparently born in 1986, I was floored she is that young. Either she is intentionally writing to an older and specific audience (which is quite possible given the tittle of her other piece ?Today?s teenagers are smarter, tougher and braver than my generation ? and yours, too?) OR British society is a few decades behind where I live OR her personal experiences growing up were far harsher than they should have been, which would not invalidate her personal views but might hamper her ability to communicate her message in this particular article.

I gather the substantive point of the article, Curlew, is to communicate to men. In that it fails. You really want to have a chance to have men on your side, use my link. Since you think the articles are so very similar that should not be a problem for you. Bottom line, your link does not communicate the message you supposedly want men to hear, it communicates a message some women want to hear being delivered to men, but one that will be lost in translation and make more male enemies of feminism than friends.

what a zinger SF!

Is the only reason you're on mumsnet because you think there is? Odd question.