A couple great sites with people's everyday stories. These are not isolated, rare events.

http://www.everydaysexism.com
http://www.microaggressions.com (not limited to sexism)

There are plenty analyses of objectification of women in media. Women are more often considered prizes that are sought after. Look at the whole PUA thing. Play the game, insert the coins, pull the lever at the right time, the prize comes out. It's a pretty popular movement that demonstrates how women are "treated right" without actually treating them like people.

Oh, gee, how about a bunch of old white guys trying to outlaw birth control and abortion. Sexism in the republican party is the easiest thing in the world to find.

Edit: slut shaming, blaming victims for rape. Catcalling. The notion that women are less technical (I work in software, this is common). There's a ton of examples if you actually try to look.

It really disappoints me to still see some of the sentiments expressed in the links of the OP, the implications rising from the OP itself, this community, the Internet, the Western world or the world in general - leaving no major differences between westerners who still cling to Aristotelian concepts of women or modern-day Islamic heroes (case in example).

It reminds me of all those arguments people expressed against the expansion (or even the introduction) of democracy in the 1800s (and afterwards). First the dudes in control derided the non-nobles for "being fundamentally dumber and crude - in all ways fundamentally different from us" and "giving them suffrage would dilute the greatness of our nation/race/religion/you-name-it", preventing them from having any say in how things were ran. Eventually, concessions were made there and there and the voting base kept on enlarging (while the nobles were crying out "WE TOLD YOU SO!" if even the smallest of things went wrong) - to working classes, non-whites, et cetera.

But whenever any man who felt discriminated against - whether they were workers, black, Asian, Irish (the list could go on) - they would always return home and remember that they can always dish out their anger, shock and outrage against a certain group of humans (if they were even classified as such) and it wouldn't be legally or morally wrong because hey, what rights do they have?

And what rights could they even lay claims to due to not being able to run as fast or play rugby as effectively as men could (etc.)? They made (and apparently still do) long lists of the why and how things were how they were (and was meant to be for all perpetuity), hell, occasionally even getting some female activist to even give their consent to it and say "LOL IT'S TRUE" - who knows why. But as time went by, things did start changing for the better (in the Occident, at any rate) - suffrage would become universal and previously unthinkable (yet, in a modern view, incredibly non-offensive) scenarios of women acting as human instead of just female increased.

Until at some point those who once had more or less limitless power over how things were run decided that "whoa, this process has gone too far!". Sentiments like "hey, whoa, we only LET you have those things so we wouldn't have to listen to your complaints" or "it's not like you have any real power anyway" or "it's not like those things actually matter!" would pop up. New expressions came into the play, such as "hey, I respect you as a human but sadly you're also a woman which is why x + y + z = you suck" or "OH NO MEN ARE UNDER SIEGE".

Which is roughly where we are now. Men would throw in points like "it's not rape, we're programmed to do that" or "look, all these things from the past were false but obviously this one about men and women is true as gravity!" to counter giving women the opportunity to attain their personal goals and dreams in the same way as men could. The goal posts are continuously being moved to justify man-made concepts and regulations to prevent further "dilution" as theyw ould call it - often stated in a faux-respectful tone. For example, several Islamic countries justify their women being absolutely under their closest male relative's control with "it gives them security".

Then again:



Spot-on, I'd say. Of course, the points I've applied to women can be applied to other groups of people as well, but at any rate in these modern times it seems like men have started to fight back against all the progress made in a relatively short time span (~200 years) - but especially against the one group who they still think shouldn't have any say in anything ever. This has resulted in meltdowns of the Dave Sim and Scott Adams variety. Perhaps it's because of genetics (the innate human urge to hate others to survive seems to have a particularly worse sui generis variety against women), cultural influence, certain groups' influence, desire to fight against authority/state (especially if they're "going on about affirmative action") or what have you.

But it's going to be the day when I'm departing from a Holocaust Denial/Neo-Drapetomania conference in New York City when I'm going to give any legitimity to "men's rights".

...

And the reason I'm blabbering about all this stuff is actually from a quite personal approach. I've seriously felt hurt and mistreated by women in countless of occasions. But despite all those incidents and all the pondering I've done afterwards, my resolve in supporting and advancing women's rights (in my way) has never been damaged. Naturally this has elicited other people (well, men) to react like "WOW LOL FEMINDOCTRINATED" - both online and in real life.

While I genuinely want everyone to be able to attain their personal happiness (admittedly without hurting others... which can get difficult, I admit)), I guess all this is still just a truthiness-kind of a feel in my gut and I'm going to stand by it even if it's going to take me to an early grave. Even if it was a result of something as measly as just asking "why are you treating these people worse than others" when the rights of those who have only had them for a couple of decades (maybe a hundred years at best) are once again threatened.

[TL;DR] FGR the Feminazionist thinks the men's rights movement and the excuses used to prevent practical equality for all are bull****.

I love you, moobs.

FGR NUMBA 1

.

As long as boys and girls continue to hit puberty in a social setting like middle school, the ensuing group dynamics can never be negated. The biological-social urges are overwhelming. I think our consumer culture and marketing to teens might also have something to do with it.

Not sure if this has anything to do with the thread, but there.

Those biological-social forces can be overcome, and the question then arises about whether or not ideal, undistracted / determined / capable boys vs. girls are suited for various lines of work / roles / etc. But that all aside, the AVERAGE boy and AVERAGE girl that emerge from middle school are very, very different.

Anyway, the fact that women and men have different biological needs and inclinations is just enough to skew the average characteristics of women vs. men. That either category is so easily identifiable allows the differences to be amplified by sexism. I guess, try not to be a chauvinist pig by accident? OTOH, I'm not really sure that the PC police have really seriously asked for a reactionary movement against feminism. I'm a white male and life seems pretty peachy without me complaining... but then again, I guess I don't live in Norway?

Disclaimer: This is speculation based on my unscientifically established opinion.

I nominate "mainstream media" for douchiest phrase of the decade.

It's a good thing that that social progress has been derailed into a pissing contest over who has it worse. Otherwise we'd have to stop acting like freaking cavemen who derive their entire identities from the siege mentality of their ridiculously narrow little groups.

.

Can't you understand that you're paying for the misdeeds of your fore-bearers? Despite what you've been lead to believe, you are not an individual with a blank slate. You are (i think?) part of a group (white males) who is on probation for the activities of the last 500 years.

.

Hey! I don't make the rules....

(Try criticizing Israel in DC, for example.)

.

Good points. My main reason for bring it up is to illustrate how the PC police, the media, and political donors have all distorted reality by making certain things unspeakable. "Standing up" for male rights will give you instant guilt by association with... well, some of the same people who "stand up" to Israel. I'm not saying it's right.

Then again, we are neither politicians, news anchors, nor academics, so who cares? I'm guessing that most of the negative posts here are by folks who don't feel much persecuted themselves (or have sufficient male guilt) and therefore would rather accuse you of self-pity. Except FGR, since I'm not smart enough to comprehend the full implications of his post.

People use the word "privilege" like is a zero sum game. Like somehow the only reason that one person has privileged is because they unfairly took it from someone else. That's an asinine perception, and it's used to put people down and marginalize their ideas, perspectives and accomplishments. If a black person in a poor neighborhood has it worse off than me, the problem isn't that I'm unfairly too well, if it's that the black guy has it ****ty. No white person should ever feel bad about the fact that they have an advantage over black people. They should feel angry that black people don't have the same advantage that they do. Men's right websites tend to fall into the exact same traps that all other group's that become obsessed with the injustices that they think they suffer. It very quickly stops being about justice for everyone and very quickly becomes about using brazen observer and selection bais to fuel hate for everyone who isn't fully on board with their anger. Never-mind that many of the ways that society unjustly treats men are directly derived from backwards perceptions of women. Social justice is impossible to achieve if it's only considered from the perspective of one group, because that is by definition unjust.

When one group of society is treated unjustly, it ends up screwing everyone over. It's not a competition, we are all in together.

So wait... Magic Johnson is black... and has AIDS... and he still has it better than me? This is bull****.

Couchman is black.

.

It's hard to tell why those *****y women don't agree.

Reid, I think you're missing the point. Feminism isn't about forcing men and women to be exactly the same, it's about providing them the same rights and protections and opportunities. If we're arguing from the standpoint of biological essentialism, we should probably bring back laws against miscegenation and citizenship for folk who aren't white. There was a stunning amount of scientific research "proving" aryan supremacy. I mean, who could possibly argue against the sound phrenological evidence?

Even things that seem (I hope) completely obvious and fundamental to modern US citizens like women's suffrage had adamant arguments against it back in the day.
eg, http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm

And there are still lots of arguments against voting /for/ a woman for office. Eg this nearly unreadable site: http://lfnexus.com/whyawomanpresidentwouldruinamerica.htm


I, for one, was quite heartened and excited by the recent decision to allow women to serve in combat roles. Or rather, to be officially recognized and viable for promotion in the combat roles they have been in without recognition forever.

.

It's not that I hate women. It's just that women are wrong.

.

Nailed it! With a bit of luck you'll soon be pigeonholing people more effectively!

You mean the one where fat idiot men somehow have wives who are both smart and totally hot? Yeah, poooooor men.

.

Mike, stoooooop it. We're ganging up on Reid for having an opinion. It's not like his opinion can be inherently wrong and based on hate.

And far far more people who argue against feminism are missing the point right along with you and using strawmen, sugar, and porridge to discredit the actual fundamental premise of feminism. Some feminists have their own additional agendas that they try to add on to what feminism is really about, therefore women shouldn't have the right to vote.

.

No, it's the one where most advertising is targeted at women because it is expected that they will do all of the shopping, cooking and cleaning.

oh wait, no, you're right. lol. I was thinking of irl.

.

If corporations are willing to wreak ecological devastation in order to maximize profits, are you actually surprised that they don't care very much about social harm either?

Chauvinism: Bad for everyone!

.

.

Men... who are not easily manipulated by sex??? Wheredeyat?

Ya, pointing out that it's just as bad for women is totally trivializing it.

.

Men are p much hard wired to notice and pay attention to sexually aroused women. Which is how they're photoshopped to look. It's advertisers taking advantage of our psychology and sexuality to make us pay attention to the product, and it absolutely does work.

it also causes a raft of other social issues affecting both men and women, but who cares about that ****? you've got a thousand cases of pungent body spray to sell

itt attentive people begin to realize that basically all of our problems are caused by capitalism, with the many minor social injustices of race and gender thrown in to distract us from the massive and systemic inequality we all live under constantly

you wouldn't be so poor if you just worked harder! pull yourself up by your bootstraps!

the ultimate game of blame the victim