Extremists tend to assume that everybody else is an extremist. Christian Jihadists assume that anybody who doesn't discriminate against Muslims is automatically an Islamic Jihadist and vice versa White supremacists assume that anybody who doesn't discriminate against blacks/Hispanics is automatically a black/Hispanic supremacist and vice versa Misogynists assume that anybody who doesn't discriminate against women is automatically a misandrist and vice versa "I support X because all Xs are good and all Ys are evil!" "No, there are good and evil Xs and good and evil Ys. Shouldn't the good people of both groups work together to protect the innocent from the evil people of both groups?" "You're wrong, evil Ys do exist, and I can prove it! How dare you say that all Ys are good and all Xs are evil?" "... Huh?"
Yes, what I meant though was that in getting people to portray a real human female with sufficient respect they are merely portray the reality of women being around.
That's because right wing conservatives don't use feminist theory. Here's Laci Green, from MTV "Braless", a show designed to teach youth about feminism, saying that male issues are down to sexism against women, not men and echoing Bahar Mustafa's argument. You claim Baha Mustafa's views is a minority, but the very article you link contests that: "The atlantic op ed says; "For me," Heather McRobie wrote in an excellent 2008 article about genercide, "feminism has always been about how rigid gender roles harm everyone, albeit primarily women." Talking about sexism against men is often seen—by MRAs and feminists alike—as an attack on feminism"
This ^ is moving the goal post. You did not confine your assertion to liberals or feminists or liberal feminists. You said: Which is what I found in about 2 seconds on Google. You also claimed: Gender discrimination against men when it comes to child custody is a well documented fact. Clearly one can be sexist against men. Clearly the anecdote you are providing is not a universal POV. Are you unaware you just contradicted your own claim: You've just posted evidence that sexism is a two way street, something @ChickenFreak and I have both been saying. How does any of that support what you said here about feminists?
I agree that there can be sexism against men. I also agree that sexism in general harms women more than men. Those two positions are not incompatible. Edited to add: And it doesn't change the fact that a specific man may be much more harmed by sexism than the average woman. "More" is on a statistical scale. Sexism is about keeping people in little boxes, because people in little boxes have less power. In some cases, putting men in little boxes is an unintended side effect. In other cases, it's deliberate or a side effect seen as desirable by the box-builders, because the men being boxed up are in categories different (different race, different wealth level, different political party, different something) from the people building the boxes.
I like what you say about boxes and disempowerment, but let me ask you- despite the rise of feminism and women's rights, I think it's fair to say that in terms of power, the common person is not doing very well today. Wages have stagnated, wealth inequality has worsened, and politicians are less and less considering the common people's needs. So, maybe sexism is not the ultimate evil? Maybe it's classism. In fact, I think people are being put into "little boxes," deliberately by being encouraged to root out any whiff of sexism, racism, etc, so that instead of seeing oneself as part of the "99%," one sees one's self as a woman, or a Muslim, or gay, or white, etc,
I never said sexism was the ultimate evil. American society is busily (1) forcing people into poverty and (2) punishing poverty as if it's a crime. Many of those in power are working hard to make medical care, education, and a variety of other things, into luxuries that the ordinary person shouldn't expect to be able to afford. But ignoring sexism/racism/classism isn't going to fix that. You don't get equality and justice by pretending that you already have it.
What's wrong with not seeing humanity as a homogeneous mass? Why can't we recognise ourselves as diverse and ALSO see ourselves as all just human? And why are you using the terminology of a reference to stereotyping for this? It's clearly not that. Plus, separating ourselves from all very wealthy is not a worthy exercise. The reality is humans draw boundaries all the time, the elite are one of many people that can be othered easily in our eye. This doesn't not help. Yes, people who are very rich contribute to poverty by gaining more than can be justified through equity while others face the opposite situation due to this polarization, and some don't even give much to charity or useful efforts to compensate. But we don't need to separate them. They are still just human and some are nicer than others.
How very platitudinous, if lacking any substance or support of evidence, whatsoever (or maybe that's part of being platitudinous, isn't it?) The very wealthy are not just wealthy, they are very, very, very disproportionately wealthy and own our political system- that separates the ultra rich from anyone else more than any other divider. On another note, if we want to talk about equality among different groups- there is no greater inequality than having 100000% more access to the world's resources than somebody else simply because of your last name. In short, everything you said, while cute, and nice, actually makes no sense and has (virtually) zero substance. The elite are not some arbitrary group. There are countless political, economic, and historical books which focus on issues of wealth and centralized power.
My evidence is the existence of clear diversity among them. Some get charged with bribing officials. Others give large portions of their wealty to charity and provide very useful developments with what they're company does.
I'm not with you here. America's very wealthy are mostly inappropriately wealthy. We don't need to condemn them as people, but we do need to tax them and enforce laws that fix the fact that two parents can both work fifty hours a week and STILL be one sick child away from homelessness. That hundred hours a week of dismally underpaid unbenefitted labor is usually producing value that makes the inappropriately wealthy even wealthier. That's not acceptable.
Yes, I agree. I did say I think the separation is too high, that different skills and choices aren't enough to account for a system that rewards too much for particular things. This is especially my sentiment when you have america right wing people who think your wealth makes you better, even in cases where a lot of the sucess was down to inheritence. (Cough, cough, Trump, cough, cough) I also think we should take a good hard look at what skills we reward so much.
