Yesterday I felt overwhelmed by the casual sexism of those around me. I heard the whole ‘you can’t hit girls’ fallacy several times, along with others such as ‘you should go get it, you’re the guy’. All of this sexism came from women.
Some female feminists don’t think girls can be sexist, as being a bigot is obviously only a male trade - such opinions are ridiculous and sexist in themselves, so they self-refute. The more reasonable feminists do believe in ‘internalised misogyny’, i.e. sexism against women was invented by men, but women have been indoctrinated to accept and use their stereotypes, therefore oppressing themselves. This is better, but it is still a sexist view as it continues to suggest a clear oppressor role for the man whilst still labelling women as the oppressed.
From a biological point of view it is obvious that such stereotypes are the fault of neither gender, or both, and so pinning the blame on men is at best deluded, if not completely prejudiced. Besides, this view still ignores the fact that sexism can affect men too - and yes, even ‘misogyny’ hurts us. Feminists are usually wrong to divide sexism into misogyny and misandry (if they don’t deny it exists at all, that is), as all too often they are one and the same.
Confused? Let’s look at our examples. That men ‘can’t hit girls’ is now accepted as the reasonable view (and has been so throughout much of history), and any man doubting this law is actually proclaimed to be sexist and a woman-hater. But if we follow through with this claim, we see that it actually means ‘men can’t hit girls because girls are weaker and can’t defend themselves’. So this statement is the misogynist one, portraying women as pathetic and helpless. Definite internalised misogyny - fight it at all times.
But it is easy to look at how women suffer and ignore that men might be affected too. At times in my youth I have been thoroughly beaten by a variety of women, and just took it because I knew if I defended myself I was assured an even stronger beating from any nearby boys. Even friends would join the punishment of a ‘woman-beater’. But girls have always been free to slap or punch me and other men with little or no justification, without needing it. Even verbally attacking such actions puts the man at risk of a lynching.
This situation is self-evidently ridiculous. When we see a woman slapping a man we almost want to applaud her empowerment (basically equating to feminism), but when the roles are reversed the man is obviously violent and misogynist. The irony of this is just ridiculous, as the real misogyny is in the assumption that women are fragile and should therefore be handled with patronising care. The true feminist man doesn’t protect women from squabbles with men as if they are little children, he allows them to fight their own battles. Pacifism is obviously to be preferred, but he should treat female opponents with the same respect he would award a male; no double standards, no sexist kid gloves.
So this is misogyny in its assumptions, and yet externally men are the ones who are disadvantaged. Likewise with the other quote ‘you should go get it, you’re the guy and guys are much stronger and more capable than girls’. The same ‘misogyny’, but another disadvantage for men who are made into slaves. Nowadays we aren’t so often expected to open doors for ‘weaker’ women, but we’re still expected to take the greater burden of duties in inter-gender relationships. This is outdated and ridiculous, but once again feminism has failed to notice that the rights they complain about have responsibilities attached. This ignorant approach leads to women having an equal share of the rights but the same lack of responsibility, which is the worst of both worlds for men.
I’m not saying that that is the situation, but at the very least all ‘misogynistic’ stereotypes have an equal and opposite disadvantage for men when you actually think about them. Today on the news the government were doing a survey on crime, and it was noted by my female companion that all the ‘potential victims’ they interviewed were women. This was immediately interpreted as ‘misogyny’ against weak women, but once again we can see how there is a flipside. In court being considered a more appropriate victim has consistently benefited women, with a disproportionate number of men prosecuted. In not choosing to interview men the interviewer must have either assumed that men were less likely victims (dramatically false, and supporting this misandry) or that they were more likely criminals. So yes it’s misogynist, but it’s equally misandrist on the other side. Most things are.
Of course when you call someone sexist for the first quote they’ll quickly silence you, pointing out that ‘I’m sticking up for women - how can that be sexist’. Such statements make the denial of sexism against men circular, and thus even more unreasonable - but they’re also hypocritically sexist in themselves. Besides, since when was supporting misogynistic stereotypes - beneficial to many women though they may be - a good thing for women in general? It isn’t, and you shouldn’t accept this as an answer; in fact the added offence should motivate you even more.
Don’t just call any form of stereotyping misogyny, as that connotes sexism against women by men, and this is an unhelpful stereotype in itself. You should leave it as sexism or stereotyping, or - if you’re going to bring directions into it - you should always remember that sexism isn’t a one-way street. Look at ‘misogyny’ and see the misandry that comes with it, and appreciate that men suffer too. I can’t point out enough that any feminist who doesn’t see the misandry is by nature biased against men where sexism is involved, and any masculist who does the reverse is likewise in the wrong.
It’s really not that hard to understand: gender stereotypes were created by all of us as a society, they restrict all of us as individuals, and they should be fought by all of us as enlightened human beings. Even the ‘girls’.