Are men aware when they have sexist views about women and just don't care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH is generally socially progressive and feminist in plenty of ways. He's almost reactionary when it comes to birth control and women's (non-abortion) reproductive rights. We had extensive arguments about the recent Hobby Lobby decision. I realize these issues are complex, but he is not religious and definitely had premarital sex. I consider his views to be sexist. Abortion is obviously an ethically more complex issue so I am leaving that to the side when explaining his views.

That sounds so bizarre. Personal question, but do the two of you use contraception? If so, how would he react if you suggested stopping, and as a result either having a much larger family, or drastically restricting your sex life?

It's completely bizarre. We definitely use contraception and did for the multiple years before we got married too. Both of us had prior partners and are aware of each other's history. We're your basic mid-30s socially progressive, yuppie east coasters. And, I currently outearn him and am definitely not a shrinking violet when it comes to expressing myself, including strongly held feminist viewpoints. He obviously likes these things about me, both because he has said so and because he married me.

We're generally very happy and we argue with each other frequently (both lawyers), so arguing over contraception policy is more or less right in our wheelhouse. But it is odd to me that he's got these views in particular and this forum seemed like a good opportunity to chime in and express my puzzlement. Heck, I've told HIM that it's puzzling. I've also made the arguments about what how we would manage our family size if I wasn't on the pill, i.e., no sex. I think he's too stubborn to admit I've got him there.

PP, I'm confused. What are his beliefs about contraception and non-abortion women's reproductive rights? Is his stance that women should have to pay for these things themselves? That they should not be covered by insurance?

That was definitely his position with regard to our Hobby Lobby argument. Why should the government force insurance companies to cover it just so that women can have sex, was basically his view, only in many, many more words. I see that as a perceptible shift from, why should the government force insurance companies to cover anything, which is a fine policy view to have if you have a different conception of gov't. For the record, he is 100% on board with the individual mandate.

Also: If you (a woman) want to have sex, you (a woman) should be responsible for the consequences. And: I don't care that clinics that provide gynecologic care to women are being forced to close due to restrictive abortion laws, they aren't entitled to free care. Etc. I consider all of these things to be feminist issues. I get how reasonable people can disagree, but like I said, he's otherwise socially liberal, votes Democratic, is down with equal treatment for women, and is not religious. Except for the latent Catholic guilt. Maybe that explains it all...

Does he feel the same way about insurance covering Viagra and its ilk?

Of course not. Don't think I haven't tried. But, I don't think the gov't requires that Viagra be covered, at least not to my knowledge, so it is a different argument on the merits. I just don't think his real issue is the government's requiring it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think that the difference is that sexist opinions about women are more dangerous. Workplace discrimination still very much exists, as witnessed by the story earlier this month about the IBM executives talking about how they don't like hiring women because they'll just go get pregnant over and over. Sexual violence does happen to men, but not at anywhere near the rate it happens to women. Men are not generally targeted because of their gender - for street harassment, for violent crime, etc.

It goes both ways. So many people are sensitized by the public media outcry about women in the workplace, but here is a significant amount of stereotypes about men in traditionally female careers. Men in nursing do not have the same opportunities as women do. It is significantly harder for male nurses to be hired at the same rates as female nurses. Male teachers have a harder time getting jobs especially at the younger ages. Also men have a harder time getting any careers in childcare. Just search on DCUM and you'll see the numbe of parents who post that they would never trust children with a manny or male daycare caregiver. Even male coaches for traditionally male activities find that they have to change their patterns to never be alone with students because of accusations of pedophilia or inappropriate behavior. It's strange to me that so many school systems both private and public are in need of teachers and yet my friends who are male teachers inevitably only seem to be considered for high school or occasionally for middle school positions. The opportunites for female teachers are far greater.

[Anonymous]

^ Really? I've never heard that about male nurses. Do you have a source?

I definitely agree on men in childcare. But then again, nannying is not exactly a lucrative or high status career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH is generally socially progressive and feminist in plenty of ways. He's almost reactionary when it comes to birth control and women's (non-abortion) reproductive rights. We had extensive arguments about the recent Hobby Lobby decision. I realize these issues are complex, but he is not religious and definitely had premarital sex. I consider his views to be sexist. Abortion is obviously an ethically more complex issue so I am leaving that to the side when explaining his views.

That sounds so bizarre. Personal question, but do the two of you use contraception? If so, how would he react if you suggested stopping, and as a result either having a much larger family, or drastically restricting your sex life?

It's completely bizarre. We definitely use contraception and did for the multiple years before we got married too. Both of us had prior partners and are aware of each other's history. We're your basic mid-30s socially progressive, yuppie east coasters. And, I currently outearn him and am definitely not a shrinking violet when it comes to expressing myself, including strongly held feminist viewpoints. He obviously likes these things about me, both because he has said so and because he married me.

We're generally very happy and we argue with each other frequently (both lawyers), so arguing over contraception policy is more or less right in our wheelhouse. But it is odd to me that he's got these views in particular and this forum seemed like a good opportunity to chime in and express my puzzlement. Heck, I've told HIM that it's puzzling. I've also made the arguments about what how we would manage our family size if I wasn't on the pill, i.e., no sex. I think he's too stubborn to admit I've got him there.

PP, I'm confused. What are his beliefs about contraception and non-abortion women's reproductive rights? Is his stance that women should have to pay for these things themselves? That they should not be covered by insurance?

That was definitely his position with regard to our Hobby Lobby argument. Why should the government force insurance companies to cover it just so that women can have sex, was basically his view, only in many, many more words. I see that as a perceptible shift from, why should the government force insurance companies to cover anything, which is a fine policy view to have if you have a different conception of gov't. For the record, he is 100% on board with the individual mandate.

Also: If you (a woman) want to have sex, you (a woman) should be responsible for the consequences. And: I don't care that clinics that provide gynecologic care to women are being forced to close due to restrictive abortion laws, they aren't entitled to free care. Etc. I consider all of these things to be feminist issues. I get how reasonable people can disagree, but like I said, he's otherwise socially liberal, votes Democratic, is down with equal treatment for women, and is not religious. Except for the latent Catholic guilt. Maybe that explains it all...

Does he feel the same way about insurance covering Viagra and its ilk?

Of course not. Don't think I haven't tried. But, I don't think the gov't requires that Viagra be covered, at least not to my knowledge, so it is a different argument on the merits. I just don't think his real issue is the government's requiring it.

Although I fully believe birth control should be covered by insurance to reduce costs of unwanted pregnancies, the Viagra coverage argument is really stupid. Viagra is used to fix a body part that is not functioning properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm confused. What are his beliefs about contraception and non-abortion women's reproductive rights? Is his stance that women should have to pay for these things themselves? That they should not be covered by insurance?

That was definitely his position with regard to our Hobby Lobby argument. Why should the government force insurance companies to cover it just so that women can have sex, was basically his view, only in many, many more words. I see that as a perceptible shift from, why should the government force insurance companies to cover anything, which is a fine policy view to have if you have a different conception of gov't. For the record, he is 100% on board with the individual mandate.

Also: If you (a woman) want to have sex, you (a woman) should be responsible for the consequences. And: I don't care that clinics that provide gynecologic care to women are being forced to close due to restrictive abortion laws, they aren't entitled to free care. Etc. I consider all of these things to be feminist issues. I get how reasonable people can disagree, but like I said, he's otherwise socially liberal, votes Democratic, is down with equal treatment for women, and is not religious. Except for the latent Catholic guilt. Maybe that explains it all...

I think these issues get super-conflated. For the record, I'm a progressive male (PP@11:08), and I was horrified by the BS Hobby Lobby decision and the radical new precedent it sets, and further I support making contraception free as a part of a health-insurance package.

That said, some people do prefer to draw the boundaries of health-care insurance as purely covering responses to medical issues, essentially: no preventative care. Of course, that means no EKGs, no routine blood tests...it gets to be a problem for almost all care.

Or does your husband think it's only sex we shouldn't pay for? In which case, no viagra either!

Finally, I don't believe his statements are sexist actually; they are incredibly short-sighted and preoccupied with making sure someone doesn't "get something for free" in a move that amounts to cutting your nose off to spite yourself. Contraception is a hell of a lot cheaper than pregnancy, and unless he's insisting that pregnancy isn't a medical condition. What's stupid is that people will have sex anyway - the current baby boom in DC is a result of people having too much time on their hands and having more sex. Your premiums will be higher because of those pregnancies; you will be paying more for those people having sex than if you'd paid for the contraception.

In other words: he's an idiot but not a chauvanist. It's like people arguing with gravity or evolution - you can insist that people who can't afford it should have sex, but that's not going to stop them...because the sex itself is free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Really? I've never heard that about male nurses. Do you have a source?

I definitely agree on men in childcare. But then again, nannying is not exactly a lucrative or high status career.

There is a ton of sexism towards men in nursing. Often they are given patients who need more physical care or who are more aggressive - the thinking being a man is stronger and that a man can deal with stuff that women don't want to. Their safety is less important. Society overall is far less concerned with men being hurt on the job than women. Over 93% of occupational fatalities are male. Male nurses also have to put up with jokes about how they went into nursing just to see naked women or that they are gay etc.. They are not assumed to be as caring or as compassionate. Males in nursing tend to gravitate towards the more crisis oriented positions (ER, psych, critical care) and are more accepted in those areas.

[Anonymous]

My somewhat negative reaction to the #YesAllWomen tweets had to do with a reflexive objection to the expectation that I should modify my behavior because some unrelated third party acted like a dickhead or criminally.

Also, I had a hard time grasping why victimization of women should have some sort of privileged status. Yes, women are abused, harassed, and intimidated by men. But men are also abused, harassed, and intimidated by men. In fact, I'm fairly confident that more men are injured by men than women are injured by men. Certainly I've been to the hospital a couple of times because a guy beat on me.

I'm not sure if my reactions are sexist or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My somewhat negative reaction to the #YesAllWomen tweets had to do with a reflexive objection to the expectation that I should modify my behavior because some unrelated third party acted like a dickhead or criminally.

Also, I had a hard time grasping why victimization of women should have some sort of privileged status. Yes, women are abused, harassed, and intimidated by men. But men are also abused, harassed, and intimidated by men. In fact, I'm fairly confident that more men are injured by men than women are injured by men. Certainly I've been to the hospital a couple of times because a guy beat on me.

I'm not sure if my reactions are sexist or not.

Men and women are also abused, harassed and intimidated by women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm confused. What are his beliefs about contraception and non-abortion women's reproductive rights? Is his stance that women should have to pay for these things themselves? That they should not be covered by insurance?

That was definitely his position with regard to our Hobby Lobby argument. Why should the government force insurance companies to cover it just so that women can have sex, was basically his view, only in many, many more words. I see that as a perceptible shift from, why should the government force insurance companies to cover anything, which is a fine policy view to have if you have a different conception of gov't. For the record, he is 100% on board with the individual mandate.

Also: If you (a woman) want to have sex, you (a woman) should be responsible for the consequences. And: I don't care that clinics that provide gynecologic care to women are being forced to close due to restrictive abortion laws, they aren't entitled to free care. Etc. I consider all of these things to be feminist issues. I get how reasonable people can disagree, but like I said, he's otherwise socially liberal, votes Democratic, is down with equal treatment for women, and is not religious. Except for the latent Catholic guilt. Maybe that explains it all...

I think these issues get super-conflated. For the record, I'm a progressive male (PP@11:08), and I was horrified by the BS Hobby Lobby decision and the radical new precedent it sets, and further I support making contraception free as a part of a health-insurance package.

That said, some people do prefer to draw the boundaries of health-care insurance as purely covering responses to medical issues, essentially: no preventative care. Of course, that means no EKGs, no routine blood tests...it gets to be a problem for almost all care.

Or does your husband think it's only sex we shouldn't pay for? In which case, no viagra either!

Finally, I don't believe his statements are sexist actually; they are incredibly short-sighted and preoccupied with making sure someone doesn't "get something for free" in a move that amounts to cutting your nose off to spite yourself. Contraception is a hell of a lot cheaper than pregnancy, and unless he's insisting that pregnancy isn't a medical condition. What's stupid is that people will have sex anyway - the current baby boom in DC is a result of people having too much time on their hands and having more sex. Your premiums will be higher because of those pregnancies; you will be paying more for those people having sex than if you'd paid for the contraception.

In other words: he's an idiot but not a chauvanist. It's like people arguing with gravity or evolution - you can insist that people who can't afford it should have sex, but that's not going to stop them...because the sex itself is free.

But part of this is that he's not against people getting things for free, or against the government mandating things. He has comprehensive insurance, goes for regular physicals, and further has asthma that requires preventative care for optimal outcomes. He also supports the individual mandate. He's also basically a Democrat, which, let's face it, generally involves support for a good deal of government benefits. My point with all the examples is that he has inconsistent viewpoints when sex and women (not men) are involved.

And, to the bolded point, I completely agree but have used the needle exchange analogy in the past in discussing the point. Many people believe that drug use is wrong and/or illegal and that it's immoral/unethical to further drug use by offering clean needles. Many other people believe that drug use is inevitable for addicts and that we should try to stem the spread of disease by offering clean needles (and also do other things to prevent folks from taking up the habit in the first place). I'm in the second camp, because I consider it to be more pragmatic, akin to acknowledging that sex is going to happen. If someone else was in the harm reduction camp for needle exchanges but in the anti harm reduction camp for sex, I would consider those positions inconsistent and indicative of sexism. If someone held both positions consistently, fine - I don't happen to agree, but such is life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of women have sexist views of men and are either just as ignorant or just don't care.

It goes both ways.

Like what? Is it degrading views?

Men are pedophiles
Men are abusers
Men are dangerous
Men are creepy
Men are not as good as women at parenting
Men are idiots
Men should take care of women, keep women happy, protect them
Men shouldn't control but should be okay with being controlled
Men can't really be victims of rape or sexual assault or abuse
Men create their own problems, and should just deal with it.
Men aren't really victims of domestic violence - they are stronger
Men who express emotion or experience anxiety and depression are weak or needy or not taking responsibility for themselves

etc....

You forgot one. I find the forced feminization very offensive.

Men are pigs for having normal, male sexual interest and arousal, ie interest in looking at female features.

This is what I mean about men being sexist without an awareness of their sexism.

You are normal and no one calls you a pig for being attracted or aroused by "female features" as you refer to women.

You are a sexist pig and a creepy lecherous man if you use "elevator eyes" to intimidate a woman to move to another area of the metro or walk on the other side of the street when she sees you looking at her "female features." Or if you stare at a woman's chest instead of maintaining eye contact even in an office and even when the woman is not wearing any revealing attire.

I am a woman, Sherlock. I was being vague because the uproar I've seen about different types of female form in art. I didn't specify "tits" or "ass" for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Also, your assumption that I am a man or was talking about intimidation is ridiculously sexist. Check yourself, PP.

[Anonymous]

Without going completely down this rabbit hole again, PPs, the point of that particular Twitter campaign was that many women share a common set of experiences related to discrimination, violence, etc. that is gender-motivated. The point was not that men are not abused, nor was it that all men are abusers, sexists, rapists, etc. It was simply that when an experience becomes common to that magnitude, it stops being a series of isolated incidents and starts being a pattern. The highlighting of the pattern was the point.

As for the victimization of women having a privileged status, I don't really know what you're talking about. A major incident had just occurred that had strong overtones of sexism. The Twitter campaign was a response to that incident. As a straight white woman, I do not experience prejudice or harassment based on my race or sexual identity, so I don't spend a lot of time commenting on those issues. I do experience sexism on a pretty regular basis, so in so far as sexism is "special" it's because it relates directly to my experience, which is what people were posting on Twitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH is generally socially progressive and feminist in plenty of ways. He's almost reactionary when it comes to birth control and women's (non-abortion) reproductive rights. We had extensive arguments about the recent Hobby Lobby decision. I realize these issues are complex, but he is not religious and definitely had premarital sex. I consider his views to be sexist. Abortion is obviously an ethically more complex issue so I am leaving that to the side when explaining his views.

That sounds so bizarre. Personal question, but do the two of you use contraception? If so, how would he react if you suggested stopping, and as a result either having a much larger family, or drastically restricting your sex life?

It's completely bizarre. We definitely use contraception and did for the multiple years before we got married too. Both of us had prior partners and are aware of each other's history. We're your basic mid-30s socially progressive, yuppie east coasters. And, I currently outearn him and am definitely not a shrinking violet when it comes to expressing myself, including strongly held feminist viewpoints. He obviously likes these things about me, both because he has said so and because he married me.

We're generally very happy and we argue with each other frequently (both lawyers), so arguing over contraception policy is more or less right in our wheelhouse. But it is odd to me that he's got these views in particular and this forum seemed like a good opportunity to chime in and express my puzzlement. Heck, I've told HIM that it's puzzling. I've also made the arguments about what how we would manage our family size if I wasn't on the pill, i.e., no sex. I think he's too stubborn to admit I've got him there.

PP, I'm confused. What are his beliefs about contraception and non-abortion women's reproductive rights? Is his stance that women should have to pay for these things themselves? That they should not be covered by insurance?

That was definitely his position with regard to our Hobby Lobby argument. Why should the government force insurance companies to cover it just so that women can have sex, was basically his view, only in many, many more words. I see that as a perceptible shift from, why should the government force insurance companies to cover anything, which is a fine policy view to have if you have a different conception of gov't. For the record, he is 100% on board with the individual mandate.

Also: If you (a woman) want to have sex, you (a woman) should be responsible for the consequences. And: I don't care that clinics that provide gynecologic care to women are being forced to close due to restrictive abortion laws, they aren't entitled to free care. Etc. I consider all of these things to be feminist issues. I get how reasonable people can disagree, but like I said, he's otherwise socially liberal, votes Democratic, is down with equal treatment for women, and is not religious. Except for the latent Catholic guilt. Maybe that explains it all...

Who does he think those women are having sex with (lesbians excepted of course)? It's not a logical view of heterosexual society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without going completely down this rabbit hole again, PPs, the point of that particular Twitter campaign was that many women share a common set of experiences related to discrimination, violence, etc. that is gender-motivated. The point was not that men are not abused, nor was it that all men are abusers, sexists, rapists, etc. It was simply that when an experience becomes common to that magnitude, it stops being a series of isolated incidents and starts being a pattern. The highlighting of the pattern was the point.

As for the victimization of women having a privileged status, I don't really know what you're talking about. A major incident had just occurred that had strong overtones of sexism. The Twitter campaign was a response to that incident. As a straight white woman, I do not experience prejudice or harassment based on my race or sexual identity, so I don't spend a lot of time commenting on those issues. I do experience sexism on a pretty regular basis, so in so far as sexism is "special" it's because it relates directly to my experience, which is what people were posting on Twitter.

So, I guess what I'm getting at is to ask why the gender motivation of the violence matters. As you said, the major incident that had just occurred had strong overtones of sexism. But, even there was a gender motivation, the real world damage was done to, as it turned out, more men than women. Women expressed their experience, and that's fine. They are bad experiences and hopefully bad people stop doing bad things. But, is it sexist of me to hear about those experiences and just shrug because, overall, the world is more dangerous for men than women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without going completely down this rabbit hole again, PPs, the point of that particular Twitter campaign was that many women share a common set of experiences related to discrimination, violence, etc. that is gender-motivated. The point was not that men are not abused, nor was it that all men are abusers, sexists, rapists, etc. It was simply that when an experience becomes common to that magnitude, it stops being a series of isolated incidents and starts being a pattern. The highlighting of the pattern was the point.

As for the victimization of women having a privileged status, I don't really know what you're talking about. A major incident had just occurred that had strong overtones of sexism. The Twitter campaign was a response to that incident. As a straight white woman, I do not experience prejudice or harassment based on my race or sexual identity, so I don't spend a lot of time commenting on those issues. I do experience sexism on a pretty regular basis, so in so far as sexism is "special" it's because it relates directly to my experience, which is what people were posting on Twitter.

So, I guess what I'm getting at is to ask why the gender motivation of the violence matters. As you said, the major incident that had just occurred had strong overtones of sexism. But, even there was a gender motivation, the real world damage was done to, as it turned out, more men than women. Women expressed their experience, and that's fine. They are bad experiences and hopefully bad people stop doing bad things. But, is it sexist of me to hear about those experiences and just shrug because, overall, the world is more dangerous for men than women?

How is the world more dangerous for men than it is for women? Even if you include the fact that most countries use exclusively men in combat/war. Worldwide, most of those men leave behind economically insecure women with limited rights vulnerable to sexual violence, often with a bunch of kids to look out for. And that's often the reality with or without a war.