Why denying sexism against men exists just proves your ignorance.

Benoit Perreault Dec 14 2016

This is a response to Kat George article on bustle titled 6 reasons men can litterally never be victims of sexism. wich can be found here https://www.bustle.com/articles/71400-6-reasons-men-can-literally-never-be-victims-of-sexism-and-those-who-think-they for your reading displeasure.

The text begins this way ''One of the most frustrating things a man can do is claim that he's a victim of sexism. '' . So right off the bat we know this author dislikes the idea of men infringing on her victimhood monopoly. She will go on to outline the reasons why later, and i will address them accordingly. Be prepared for narrative contradictions and narrow focus designed to delegitimize men's issues by willfully refusing to look at the broader picture.

We know where this is going , it is the old power + prejudice social justice screeching with the added element of history, chery picked history or an ignorants fool rendition of history in any case. This is what she describes here ''Sure, men might experience discrimination, bullying or even disparagement of their gender, but this doesn't equate to sexism. Sexism is institutionalized. Having someone be biased towards you in an isolated context, for instance, a woman excluding a man from something based on his gender, is simply mean or discriminatory, because it's an individual act, rather than one that's historically ingrained in the way society operates to the detriment of men.'' . So while men might experience all the same things as women, its just not the same , because history. The author has been brainwashed into this paranoid delusion that society is geared against women, despite every evidence to the contrary.  So much so that this is what she believes ''The fact is, if you're a white, straight, middle-class man, then society operates in your favor, regardless of any instances of discrimination. You always win.''

You always win, 4 out of 5 suicides are men...winning. 80% of the homeless are men...winning. Being forced to pay child support for a child that is not yours because the mother lied ....winning. Being only 40% of the students in higher education....winning. I could go on of course,  but you get the point. To assert that white middle class man face no systemic problems is not only irrational, it is a heinous dismissal. Also worth noticing how quickly we went from men, to middle-class straight white man. This is the group she wants to see taken down a peg. Also she knows her entire ideological edifice crumbles outside this narrowed range of men and that she will be smeared if she includes LGBTQ , Racial minorities and the poor.

Moving to her actual 6 arguments... do you have your bleach or puke bucket at hand?

#1 Because men have the power.  To start with ''It doesn't take a very deep look at the way society operates to see that men hold the power. From the top echelons of society, they're in control. Last year it was reported by the New York Times that of 200 of the top paid executives in the USA, only 11 were women'' .  Now i have to ask, how many middle class straight white men are ceo's? I reckon not a single one. How many straight white middle class men get their life fucked over by layoffs or poor working conditions that are the results of those ceo's decisions? Thousands if not millions of them. Its funny how having 95% of the ceo's in this country being male has almost absolutely no added benefits to the 99,9 % of the male population.  You do have the disadvantage of not being able to complain of sexism because of them, but apparently thats privilege. Sigh....moving on ... she mentions the wage gap wich has been debunked so many time i'll not do it again and she mentions the fact there's been no women president. Well okay shall we play the % game again how many male presidents versus the # of men who lived in the same time frame. 99,9 exponential . So tell me again how many middle class straight white dudes get to become president? Not a single one you say? Why its almost as if wealth and nepotism has more to do with it than gender.

Then she comes on with disonhest stats about domestic violence ''And then there's the much more subversive: the physical power of men. Rape and domestic violence statistics support this, with 85% of reported cases having female victims, while only 15% are men.'' . Reported cases do not tell the real story of Domestic violence, we've known that ever since Dr.Murray Straus first blew that notion apart in the 80'S. between 40% and 50% of domestic violence is commited by women. It is mostly due to ''fighting couples'' where violence goes both ways and when it is not mutual it is most likely to be initiated by the women. We know this, but violence against men is not perceived as a problem, it is considered a joke.  When you use arrest statistics witout even alluding to the duluth model used by law enforcment you are being dishonest. The truth of the matter is when cops show up on the scene even if the men has a knife planted in his gut , if the women can point to some small scratch or redness and say he did this. He's the one being sent to jail. Your arrest stats do not represent the truth of The domestic violence phenomenon , but i suspect you know that but use them anyway because the numbers look good.

#2 Because of historical context

Madam , you wouldn't recognize historical context if it was wearing a  bright neon sign saying ''look here''. Not unlike you DV stats you only cherry pick the bits of historical context you wish to recognize and blatantly ignore the rest.  She writes ''It took decades for women to receive the right to vote, and weren't able to nationally in the U.S. until 1920. Think about that. That means that every law, and indeed the very founding of this country, was done entirely without women's interests in mind.'' . Yup you are right women didn't have the right to vote before 1920 , This is well before blacks got the right to vote, male or not. Before natives got the right to vote , male or not. And you still don't have to register to selective services to have the right to vote. Wich is funny because there was  a world wart and the viet-nam war in your country since you got the right to vote millions of men were sent to die on the battlefield  because they were drafted. They had to accept that to get the vote . How is that for sex based discrimination?  No sexism there right, women get to stay home, men get to die or get maimed in horrific conditions in foreign countries for the same voting privilege. And now that women can occupy front lines roles and that its been suggested they submit to selective services, well feminists have been up in arms to oppose it. Funny that , equality is not looking so nice right now does it? As for your 2nd argument, the fact that men are in power do not mean they legislate in the interest of men.  There is no patriarchy overseeing men telling them to oppress women. If it did you still wouldn't have the right to vote.  All this does is show that if YOU had power you'd legislate in favor of women and against men. Women and men are not homogenous group with unique interests, please get that in your thick skull and fast.


#3 Because of the way established institutions operate with gender bias.

This is going to be pure comedy gold, you've been warned. Look at the author unknowingly imploding her own thesis by sheer idiocy. ''Pursuant to the above, as a result of the country's history, many of its institutions are "boys clubs" which favor men. While these institutions might discriminate against men on different grounds, the only gender that finds itself pushed aside is the feminine. For instance, the way marriage operates still suggests ownership, and it wasn't until 1993 (yes, you read that right, 1993) that rape in marriage was criminalized in all 50 states.'' Ok marital rape is bad, got it. Now that this has been said, lets look at how men have been shafted based on their gender in systemic fashion by marriage. Alimony, you know being paid post - separation because someone had the pleasure of marrying you for awhile is paid by men for 97% of all cases  https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/#12ed13ad54b9. How does that look for gender imbalance? Why its almost as if women can't take care of themselves and men are expected to sustain them. Speaking of wich , who is complaining that men no longer want to get married? Why are men no longer interested? Its almost as if young men today realized that marriage is a con job and they don't want to be suckered in.


#4 Because ''opportunity'' for a man is never hampered by gender

This is wrong obviously but lets explain it in some details for the blinkered author. She writes'' Men aren't precluded from the job market because one day they might have children, and therefore place a burden on their employer for seeking paternity leave (which, if you ask me, should be readily available to men, although only once we've established an acceptable level of care when it comes to maternity leave!). No one is, consciously or unconsciously, not hiring a man because he is a man '' . right off the bat, she explains that you can experience all the same things women do, but when you are a men it can'T be because you are a men. Unless of course you want to work in a kindergarden or primary school with young children. Or maybe as a nurse., or in any of the institutions with ''positive discrimination' policies like the government.  Lets face it, in today's environment if a man and a woman of equal qualifications apply for the same job, its the woman that'll get it.  Look here http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/07/male-dominated-subjects-hiring-favors-women-teachers-france oh and its not just hiring its goes all the way to grading tests. http://www.dailywire.com/news/8071/study-yes-theres-grading-bias-%E2%80%93-favor-women-pardes-seleh . Why its almost like we have a systemic problem on our hand, teaching jobs go first to women, these women give better grades to girls because of gender bias and the end result is 60% of all higher education students are women. How about that for discrimination based on gender? But you know sexism against men... it ain't real because you don't like to ackowledge it right?

#5 Because discrimination is not sexism

Well , no it isn't. What is sexism is being judged solely on the basis of your gender. You know with things like #killallmen or teach men not to rape. Or compulsory consent classes for male students only. Or being arrested systematically when there is a domestic dispute, because  you are a man. You know, things like that. So when you say '' but that's not the same as sexism. Our "-isms" require a rich, ugly history to precede them. They require marginalization en masse. They require everything spoken about above, including the institutionalization of bias'' You are shooting yourself in the foot. History is irrelevant to the here and now. It may well have an influence on the current situation but it does not cause or prevent sexism . Also this is just your argument #3 repeated. men have a rich ugly history of being discriminated agains by the family courts, by the draft by divorce laws and marriage. So even if i accepted that you need a rich history of bias preceding, well we have it and you are just historically blind to it.

#6 Because straight, white middle class man are the most enfranchised group of people in the world.


She writes ''If you're one of these, you've got the ability to get the best jobs, make the most money, be approved for credit cards, get the apartment of your dreams, take out loans, go to any school, receive unencumbered health care, run for office, become a CEO, freely move about in public unhindered, speak your opinion loudly and without opposition or with respectful opposition, get away with crimes other people couldn't get away with, be physically dominant, etc. And you get to do all these things without anyone questioning you, diminishing you, or reducing you because of your gender. '' . Fucking hell, first off, somehow we're back to middle class white men, not rich man, not poor men, middle class.  Men as a whole cannot experience sexism because there's a small allegedly privileged subset within it. Well Angela Merkel rules germany , so you can't experience sexism either. See how that works ? Furthermore, men get 60% longer sentences than women for the same crimes, so your getting away with it bit you can forget.  As for speaking opinions freely, clearly you've never heard the term mansplaining, Wich obviously you do not consider sexist because it doesn't have a long rich history behind it.


Allright thats enough... But next time you hear someone asking why mra's are spending so much time attacking feminists and feminism instead of ''working for men''. Well thats because feminist spend so much of their time denying men's problems and writing long blogs on how as privileged masters of the world men cannot have problems.