Describing dads as 'baby-sitters' is sexist - against men??

[PinkIndustry]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36144487

I'm glad these men are making the point that their decision to take an equal role in parenting their own children should not be seen as a huge favour to the mothers of their children.They also point out how annoying it is when TV ads for domestic products imply that men are hopeless at housework. However, how can they regard such an attitude as sexist against men? Surely the sexism here is against women as this attitude implies that women are the sex that are 'naturally' good at housework, and that women are the sex who should be providing the childcare.

The fact that these men have decided to play the victim card seems disingenuous and, in fact, sexist in itself.

Just wanted to fist bump TheSparrowhawk and Buffy. You've cheered me up today .

Glad to hear it scallops :)

Another (somewhat late) round of applause for Sparrowhawk!

I thank you

Favouritism.

Thank you mistress

Thank you, all of you, as between you all you have made me realize why I knew that this was sexist in itself but could not put it into words. The argument of how sexism against men can't really work because of the power imbalance and the difference in the seriousness of the consequences/outcomes is particularly helpful.

I've been turned down for jobs because I'm a man. Saying that men can't suffer from sexism is inherently sexist.

"Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex:" Oxford Dictionaries.

"Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism can affect any gender, but it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls" Wikipedia

"unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women" Websters

I've been turned down for jobs because I'm a man.

How many jobs? How and by whom and at what stage in the recruitment process were you informed that that was the reason, TiggyD ?

I've been turned down for jobs because I'm a man. Saying that men can't suffer from sexism is inherently sexist.

Bollocks.

Rather than men getting angry with the men who do actually pose these threats, who have caused others to fear men-as-a-group.

The biggest male feminist I know works to lock such criminals up, and is basically inspired to be feminist by the way he sees how society conditions such men to (a) even think what they are doing is ok and (b) get away with it (e.g. some female juries have internalised misogyny that's pretty eye watering, police frequently mess up, media reporting etc etc etc).

There's that difficult road between removing women from the 'perma-victim' role and acknowledging that in a culture which shields and normalises the behaviour of sexual/possessive/violent criminals women do have to be aware.

Bollocks

Oh dear TDB, I fear your fence sitting will cause splinters!

Unkind, yes. Pretty horrible to humiliate some random young woman because she is white, actually yes, I think so. Racist, no. Why not? Because there's no long history of white people being humiliated by people of colour, of white people serving people of colour, of it being written into law and culture that people of colour are superior. It's that history that makes it racist, when white people humiliate people of colour, or call them names and so on. These acts are racism because they reinforce structures of oppression that have real material consequences

Anti- discrimination laws do not recognise that an indiviual act has to have a long history to make it racist or sexist. The intention was to humiliate her because she was white. If she had complained she is supposed to put up with this ?

Not sure if it's been posted already, but this is the wonderful Glosswitch's take on it, which is, as per usual, brilliant.

Haven't read the whole thread but find this worrying

absolutely no possible way that men who aren't themselves violent can stand up to men who are violent, or support the victims of men who are violent? Men are seen as a threat, quite legitimately, and you just say 'oh well, can't do anything about that

I'm sure men do. However they aren;t responsible. Just as Muslim people shouldn't have to apologise for the acts apparently done in their religions name. And how I wont apologise for women being twats.

I disagree that white people can't experience racism (although it is exceptionally rare and not a societal problem).

My brother was attacked by three Asian men on a night out. My brother is not a violent man (complete softy). The language they used just before throwing the first punch made it clear they had singled him out because he was white (and he was alone).
Thankfully the first punch didn't fall well and my brother is a very fast runner - he ran and that was the end of it.

I personally think that was a racist attack. It's the only one my brother has ever suffers (or I'd ever likely to suffer). Whereas his three attackers have most likely suffered a lot of racial discrimation, violence and attacks.
So I think that one very rare incident is a racist attack. It's not something that needs to be addressed in a societal way but I don't really see what is gained by not calling it racist.

Same with the men and sexism thing. I'm sure men do suffer occasional sexism.

We could call it prejudice, but what is racism if not prejudice based soley on race? I think the danger is that making any distinction of that kind implies some level of tolerance.

I do think that those black students were racist towards their waitress and I do think it should be called out as such. That it doesn't have the same consequences for white people as a whole doesn't make it less racist in itself.

It is, I'm just not sure of the best way to do that. I'm not sure if reserving an 'ism' just for that purpose is helpful or harmful.