What sexist behaviour would be the most shocking if reversed?

[GrumpyOldNag]

I was thinking feminist thoughts to myself (as you do ), and I was thinking about how this belief that sexism doesn't exist anymore creates a huge backlash against anyone who speaks out against it, which in turn makes people who do in fact believe in equal rights for men and women try to distance themselves from feminism because it's perceived as crazy and unreasonable. The problem is that a lot of it is so ingrained in our culture and society that it is completely normalised, and the majority of people don't even notice it anymore.

So what would be the most obvious, outrageous sexist behaviour, if we swapped the genders? Would it be men being followed, harassed and intimidated in the street, or on the music channel men gyrating and grinding dressed increasingly revealing clothing while women are all fully clothed? Men dancing in the windows of the red light district, or the overwhelming majority of politicians and CEOs being female?

What in your opinion would bring about the most uproar if one day sexism suddenly switched genders?

Sorry if any part of this doesn't make sense, I had a beautifully written OP all typed out and then my iPad lost it all for no apparent reason...

To follow on from Tortoise's point... when a mixed group of people all needed to go somewhere, and the person getting them organised was talking to them, she/he would call out, "Ok, dames, all ready? Let's go!"

Any "guys" in the group raising an eyebrow at this would be met with a puzzled stare.

When middle aged female bodied people stopped performing gender, it would be referred to as genderqueer. When young male students did the same it would be called "letting themselves go"

'dames' - I love that! I might start using it

Oh, and...

Women's swimwear would be built for swimming. While it would be possible to buy impractical bikinis, you'd have to look for them. The idea of needing a 'swimsuit wax' in order to go swimming would be puzzling to most women.

Men would have to spend a fortune in specialist sports shops in order to buy anything other than a posing pouch. Men would find that, even if they did buy specialist swimwear to swim in, they would still be expected to have a 'sack wax' in case a stray hair might be seen around their impossibly high-cut trunks.

(Can you tell what I've been shopping for recently??)

In academia, 90% of the professors would be women. When asked about what we could do to advance men's career, we all agree that we should simply have more childcare, but we would be politely puzzled about why men want to be professors anyway, because generally men are not so ambitious.

There would be a huge array of uncomfortable underwear for men to keep their unsightly beer bellies under control.

Men would be walking down the street and told ' smile, love' by women.

( actually wish the first one was true..:) )

(Off topic so shall put in brackets. I live in France where all women wear bikinis. I refuse to do pubic topiary and so wear this. No need to mess with your pubic hair, really comfy and you feel a lot less exposed. I actually prefer it to a swimsuit. Just in case this can be useful to anyone.)

I wear a swimming costume and if a stray pubic hair pokes out, I don't fret. Being a mammal and all.

All men take the name of their female partners when they get married. And are "given away" by an older female relative. And if they don't change their name they spend a long time justifying why not.....

Women always buy the latest gadgets or have hobbies that involve very expensive equipment and no-one ever questions whether it's money well spent. Men, on the other hand, spend their disposable income on making themselves look more attractive.

Here are a few of the ones that I feel are so open that they're taken for granted - I might not be the first...

-Diet products and meal management delivery menus being aimed solely at men, showing them desperately trying on clothes in front of mirror and looking dejected when they can't do up fasteners. Showing them preening having squeezed into skinny jeans and uber-tight red swimming trunks (yes, I'm thinking about you, Special K bowl of pathway gravel...).

-Tenaman incontinence adverts where the man gets his fly stuck in a lift door and subsequently jokes with his mates about peeing himself in front of the lady boss.

-Groups of men with 'nothing better to do' than eat one another's Ryvita when their back is turned...?

-Facebook memes where images of geeked-up bespectacled very young men/boys are fetishized for doing something 'intelligent' such as reading a book...

Facebook banning pictures of men feeding babies. I mean, how disgusting. We really don't want to know about all this mammalian obsession with feeding and looking after your young.

Someone probably said that already about Facebook.

Of course in this brave new world I won't be apologising if a man said that before. I say it better, being a woman.

This is a great thread.

It being acceptable for men to get together and totally slate their partner.

It being acceptable for men to actually express their emotions to their friends and talk things through.

I wouldn't want to see men go through all the horrors that women do, from page 3 to FGM. I don't hate men. Not all of them at any rate. Mostly those who oppress women and girls in the name of religion.

Oh, and is it really only women who get constipated? Because there are NEVER any men in those adverts.

Oh I just had to add this advert ( following previous post )

It's so funny... And accurate, sadly.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=85HT4Om6JT4

I haven't yet read the whole of this (fascinating) thread, but a few years ago, I rewrote (i.e. changed the pronouns) a blog about the 'I don't know how she does it' film: ancient blog post here.

The rewrite included "Still, as Richard reminds us... having children is a great joy. Fine, but it's for men who want this benefit to ensure they can discharge the duties involved. Fulfilling all other aspirations at the same time may or may not be practicable." This is something we very rarely hear about fatherhood.

Scarletohello brilliant!

This thread has been posted on the MN Facebook feed. So far the comments include a depressing amount of "Butwhaddaboutthemenzbadthingshappentothemtoo!"

Scarletohello - Kim147 posted that further upthread, but it's funny enough to be worth repeating!

'Whataboutthemenz' huh? Kinda proves the point of this thread then, doesn't it? < sigh>

"It being acceptable for men to get together and totally slate their partner." Men already do that! And it is acceptable

Apologies if this has already been said, and it's slightly OT but it occurred to me while I was walking the dog that lots of magazines that shame female (mostly) celebrities are staffed by women and the mags themselves are aimed at women. So actually women need to stop being so hard on other women.

scalloprgreat - do they?! Shit. Hahahaha, I would say I didn't know that but that would be stating the obvious.

My DH doesn't, but he doesn't really talk to his friends about emotions and all those lady things.

Yes, sorry skyninja, but men already slate their partners, and it's completely acceptable for them to do that.

They do it all the time, in work, in the media, in pubs, on stage, everywhere.

Women would do very little childcare of their own children, so the child would come to rely on the mother for social and emotional support. Mothers would routinely be unaware of the most basic things like the school reading scheme, their child's health visitor's name or who their child's best friend was.

Upon divorce, some of the mothers would be amazed that courts decided the child should have continuity of care and stay with the father. Mothers would consider it a massive injustice that they were not given 50/50 time with the child, despite having no intention prior to the divorce of doing 50% of the child care.

Mothers would demand the right to spend time with children after a divorce, but only if the mother felt like it. The feelings of the child would be irrelevant. The number of mothers who didn't feel like it would massively outnumber those who did want to but had access blocked. The newspapers would bizarrely report that children had won the right to see their mothers, even though no such right had been proposed or fought for by mothers, merely the right for mothers to see children if the mother was so inclined.

Resident fathers who enjoyed a high standard of living while forcing their resident children to live in poverty would be rightly considered child abusers and social services would get involved. Non resident mothers who enjoyed a high standard of living while paying no child support so the children were forced into poverty would be considered good parents and would still expect to see the children on the grounds that looking after children isn't 'pay per view.'