...to think that sexism is unacceptable regardless of whether the target is male or female?

[CelineMcBean]

Not a thread about a thread, but inspired by one.

Is it ever ok to allow something sexist to stand because it is against men but where it is against women it would be pulled?

For example, if someone were to suggest that men are less capable intellectually than women is that ok because historically women have been treated as the inferior group (eg not allowed full degrees, made to give up jobs because they got married, or the expectations that certain professions and seniorities will be male) - or does it just undermine our protests about equality and fair treatment if we allow sexist attitudes towards men to be perpetuated while taking up the baton for the feminist viewpoint?

I think it undermines equal rights and attempts to bring equality if we allow the traditionally dominant group (ie men) to be treated in a way that we are trying to prevent the discriminated group (ie women) being treated. AIBU?

I'm trying to counteract the patriarchy and it's effect on my son. He is responsible for small jobs around the house, he is expected to do them properly, luckily DP is a good role model and very equal minded. DS is also attending the cookery after school club next term alongside cooking and baking with me. If I raise a man or woman who can't look after themselves I've failed as a parent never mind as a feminist.

The advertising of household products aimed at women is awful, tell men they're stupid and imply it's a woman's job. The patriarchy is damaging to our sons and daughters IMHO.

yanbu

This is one of the things about this forum that really gets on my nerves, the double standards is unreal from a lot of people.

But you will get people who argue that men can't possibly be victims of sexism because they're the 'dominant' side.

If your sons are learning how to men from Flash adverts, you've got much bigger problems.
You're bigging up one side in favour of another. For every "men are pretty and dumb" advert there are a thousand that say that about women.

Absolutely not sexist to call that example of promotion Wilson. It is an example of sexism and deserves to be called. I am trying to make the point that some of these traditional gender stereotypes that are so dreadful - like promoting the man because he's a man - are not helped by doing the same thing but reversing the sexes.

Promoting the only woman because she is the only woman is just as bad IMO. It doesn't solve the problem, which is failing to promote on merit, just exchanging the victim.

I've just seen a topic, the 'shamelessly sexist' one?

If a men joined in a topic like that about their favourite women's body parts being 'tits', god forbid.

I think the yoghurt ad with Amanda Holden is vile, the one where she's using a half naked man as a footstool, can you imagine them airing an advert where a man is using a woman as furniture?
I hate the advert with Bruce Willis too, a woman young enough to be his daughter ready to drop her knickers at the slightest nod from him and the fact that he's wearing his wedding ring in it so it makes even more of a mockery.
Oh, and the new bed advert where a woman magically changes a double bed into two singles because her partner is looking lustfully at her another "woman as gatekeeper" cliche.
I'll leave it there because I feel a rant coming on.

I was asked by my workplace to attend a women's business networking event recently. The whole session was taken up by speakers making derogatory comments about men and I felt very uncomfortable. I won't be going back.

Bit of a leap there Sakura! Do you not agree that when society treats men badly it does not help women's cause?

Should we not be stamping out all behaviour that discriminates against people for things like cannot reasonably just change like sex, race, age etc?

What a shame Higgle. Are women's achievements and intelligence and potential and capability not enough to focus on? That and the how best to fix the marginalization of women after childbirth and what to do about the glass ceiling?

I find if very depressing. Women are good enough. We don't need to run men down or adopt the nastiest bits of the patriarchy as our own.

I disagree Goldship, that thread is women admiring mens' bodies and genuinely enjoying men - if men were doing the same thing, saying lovely, flattering things about womens' bodies , I can't see why anyone would have a problem with it - I would have a big problem with women or men making nasty, derogatory comments about the opposite sexes bodies however.

Malificence, I don't agree at all. It would be seen as men being perverted.

There's women in that topic talking about drooling, and 'massive cocks'.

Could you imagine if men were talking about drooling and massive tits?

I don't think those women are doing anything wrong btw, just its not good to have double standards.

Agreed Malificence, I'm on that thread. It's mostly women saying how beautiful they find their partners. Also the range of preferences varies greatly. I think the "sexist" reference in the title was tongue in cheek.

Have I seen a different thread ? The one I've seen mentions forearms and shoulders rather a lot, can't recall seeing any mention of massive cocks.

'There's an awful advert on the radio at the moment, I think it is advertising Halfords fitting break lights or something'

Yes yes I heard this the other day (do you listen to LBC too? ) and had a good scream rant about how flaming awful it is and I don't think even Nick Ferrari would put up with the same ad if the genders were reversed

YANBU OP. Sexism does no one any favours whatsoever. I work with nearly all women and have heard my share of sexist comments directed against men. You know the type - 'men are flaming useless', 'men don't see dirt', 'men can only do one thing at a time because their brains are smaller'. Makes me

I suppose either way it depends on how you say it.

Either look at the tits/cock/muscles/ on that (bad)

Or she/he has a very beautiful body, with lovely breasts or penis. (ok)

Its ok to compliment or admire the physical beauty of the opposite sex, if done without turning them into some form of sex item.

Interesting point Pickled. I suppose intent and purpose are relevant.

Taking the nudity in films angle if we may, I have found two tests apply: Is the nudity relevant to the plot line? Is there equivilent nudity between the sexes (ie she's topless or completely naked but he is wearing pants)? I think both of these are good tests. I saw a bbc drama where it was supposed to be post sex. It was integral to the plot, but she was seen completely naked and he was wearing pants and a shirt. He was talking but the camera was following her naked form around the room. It was just really gratuitous and unnecessary.

Taking the tests theory further, to apply to say, advertising as so many dodgy ads have been mentioned on this thread. We could use the following: Is the product gender specific? Is there equality of both sexes in terms of status and mental capacity and ability? Then a tampon advert need not have a man in it but having every version of a washing powder being used by "mum" would breach the test. Then any comments or depictions of either sex would have to meet the equality test. So your Oven Pride, Mandy Holden yogurt ad, Flash women cleaning and Halfords ads would be banned. And that sodding flower ad with the "hunks".

I do not understand these "isms" or "ists", it seems to me it is just an excuse to put things and people into a derogatory catagory and to have a go at them . Getting old is an undisputable fact - how about" factualism"? And it seems to me that being realistic is an unacceptable attribute. " Men are from mars and women from Venus " is an apt saying. Nature/God made us like chalk and cheese to compliment each others strengths and weaknesses. We are nowhere the same or equal in that sense. In the office where I worked, it was equal pay for the same job, but the men had to pay 4% into a widows pension, but the women didn't. The men didn't get the widows pension the women did. The one gay young man in the office was very sweet and kept bringing us home made cakes in- but did object to having to pay for a widows pension when he was never going to marry a woman. I - a woman- didn't think that was fair on all the men. And for years that law about men having to work 5 years longer when women lived much longer on average, I always thought was an injustice for the men. That is just an opening

Celine A woman's shape is more beautiful than a man's, I,m sure most women will agree. But men usually have the best shaped legs. Those bits down below are not pretty and best hidden IMO

Celine Which advert with the HUNKS ?????? Hope they have their bits covered though

I,m sure most women would not be amused never mind sexually excited by seeing a naked man bend down from the back. It's probably what men wish we'd like. Sorry we don't

I'd suggest that deriding someone for their sex, or denigrating either sex is pretty poor.

My understanding was that according to feminist theory, more or less as GoSakuramachi said was that since men were the historical oppressors, and we live under the patriarchy, it wasn't the same.
Rather similar to the womanism issue, where WoC complain of white women trying to take over that term...

Note,if you posted this in FWR there'd be a chorus of "What about the menz".

"A woman's shape is more beautiful than a man's"

Digerd, that is purely your own opinion, even if you do state it like an established fact

I'm not sure about a chorus but maybe one or two posters who might make seceral posts of that ilk OneMoreChap.

I don't think like that and I'm a feminist and not all feminist theory would subscribe to that view. Admittedly some does but your average, liberal feminist doesn't so much ime.

I'm not quite sure what to say to any of that digerd... Some of it seems a little, erm, out of date.

Several not seceral.