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

[Anonymous]

Frequently it's just that the lived experiences of people are different, and often (including men) aren't able to get out of their own state of mind (frequently called privilege).

When we were dating, my husband didn't understand why I wanted to cross the street when I saw a large group of men in an alley when we were walking at night in Rome. My lived experience told me this was not safe, and for him it didn't occur to him to think about it this way. I suspect that most women would have understood this from my point of view immediately.

I wouldn't say that all men are obtuse when it comes to sexism (and you can add in racism, homophobia, etc), but it stems from both privilege or a lack of lived experience.

[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?

I don't think it's sexist of you to shrug. Everyone has a right to care more about one issue than another. I am married to someone who went from talking about violence against women to a more complicated conversation about what masculinity means and the ways in which "typical" masculinity is toxic for many young men. He had a lot to say about the way that boys and young men are socialized, particularly related to violence. I found his perspectives (male child of Vietnam vet with serious PTSD) very informative and enlightening, if only because his experiences were things that I had not personally experienced. I spoke with several male friends who had really not considered the ways in which many women fear and simultaneously expect things like street harassment, getting hit on at bars, being called names for what they wear or what their bodies look like, etc. You are not required to be interested in and care about the same things as everyone else. I would like to think, however, that if a woman you're close to shared with you that she fears walking home at night alone, or that she was assaulted in college, or that she regularly has comments made about her body, that you would not just shrug because oh well, the world is a dangerous place for men too.

As for why the motivation matters, I read the manifesto of the troubled young man, and his entitled attitude, his feelings about his own masculinity and what was owed to him "as a man" were very disturbing. They would've been disturbing without his killing spree. I would also have been unlikely to have read them without his killing spree. It was part of a larger conversation that happens periodically when events related to gender occur. What happened in CA was definitely related to gender.

I heard this perspective from several people at that time - why can't we just talk about human rights? Why can't it be a conversation about violence in general? Why do we always have to talk about gender? Women are killers too, you know. The reality is that there is a strong legacy of violence against women throughout history. It's political. It's legal. It has been written about by thousands of scholars. Do you not believe that this is the case? Do you also believe that we should not discuss racially-motivated violence or violence that targets people for their sexual orientation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frequently it's just that the lived experiences of people are different, and often (including men) aren't able to get out of their own state of mind (frequently called privilege).

When we were dating, my husband didn't understand why I wanted to cross the street when I saw a large group of men in an alley when we were walking at night in Rome. My lived experience told me this was not safe, and for him it didn't occur to him to think about it this way. I suspect that most women would have understood this from my point of view immediately.

I wouldn't say that all men are obtuse when it comes to sexism (and you can add in racism, homophobia, etc), but it stems from both privilege or a lack of lived experience.

Agree. Good points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frequently it's just that the lived experiences of people are different, and often (including men) aren't able to get out of their own state of mind (frequently called privilege).

When we were dating, my husband didn't understand why I wanted to cross the street when I saw a large group of men in an alley when we were walking at night in Rome. My lived experience told me this was not safe, and for him it didn't occur to him to think about it this way. I suspect that most women would have understood this from my point of view immediately.

I wouldn't say that all men are obtuse when it comes to sexism (and you can add in racism, homophobia, etc), but it stems from both privilege or a lack of lived experience.

Except that men are more likely to experience an act of violence and to be assaulted than a woman so I don't think it is lack of lived experience. It is more how people are socialized. Often boys are socialized that they should be tough, fight back, not back down, only cowards walk away from a fight etc... and women are socialized that you are a victim or that you are about to be a victim, that victimizers are all around you and that backing down and walking away is the best thing to do.

[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?

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but it matters because it's a hate crime, and hate crimes have damage beyond their direct victims. It's the same if someone goes on a shooting rampage at a Mosque or synagogue or black church or gay rights rally-- even if a majority of the victims happened to be straight WASPs who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, it's an act of violence directed toward and intended to terrorize a certain community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right, it's just women getting contraception for free...sex, that is. At which point, I would, were i in your shoes, simply state: you're wrong and not logically consistent and then ask him: why is contraception (pregnancy prevention) different from asthma preventatives?

Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with asthma to think of a preventative - there aren't steps you can take to keep from getting asthma - you have it or don't; you can react to it by taking drugs that suppress attacks or using inhalers that respond to them...but you can't keep from 'catching' it. Is this what he's hung up on? Insurance is strictly for reacting to new medical issues - like broken bones after an accident or getting antibiotics to treat Lyme after a tick bite? If that's the case, what activities does he engage in that put him at risk of breaking a bone? Like...crossing the street? Clearly if he's choosing to take the risk of crossing the street, he shouldn't be expecting insurance to pick up the tab. The distinction here is agency: are you doing something that might increase your risk...the way having sex puts you at risk for pregnancy.

That "agency" question is a real hangup for a lot of people who believe in a kind o libertarian horatio-alger magical thinking: the kind where all power rests in individual choices, not in plain dumb luck (good or bad).

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.

In all fairness, although I made this point, it is actually a sidestep of the initial issue and kind of orthogonal. It says "doesn't matter if it should or shouldn't happen, it will". If he's hung up on what is right (should or shouldn't) then this is a side issue.

[Anonymous]

^ Exactly. If he's saying that non-procreative sex is a bad thing that shouldn't happen, like drug use, then he's being logically inconsistent when he's having sex with his wife who's on the pill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frequently it's just that the lived experiences of people are different, and often (including men) aren't able to get out of their own state of mind (frequently called privilege).

When we were dating, my husband didn't understand why I wanted to cross the street when I saw a large group of men in an alley when we were walking at night in Rome. My lived experience told me this was not safe, and for him it didn't occur to him to think about it this way. I suspect that most women would have understood this from my point of view immediately.

I wouldn't say that all men are obtuse when it comes to sexism (and you can add in racism, homophobia, etc), but it stems from both privilege or a lack of lived experience.

Except that men are more likely to experience an act of violence and to be assaulted than a woman so I don't think it is lack of lived experience. It is more how people are socialized. Often boys are socialized that they should be tough, fight back, not back down, only cowards walk away from a fight etc... and women are socialized that you are a victim or that you are about to be a victim, that victimizers are all around you and that backing down and walking away is the best thing to do.

This is part of what occurred to me during the discussion. I've experienced quite a bit more violence from men than my wife has, but she is far more likely than me to walk to the other side of the street. She expressed to me that I didn't know what it was like to be afraid of men on account of being a woman. And that's true. But, I left unsaid that she doesn't know what it's like to get her nose broken by a man who is punching you in the face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frequently it's just that the lived experiences of people are different, and often (including men) aren't able to get out of their own state of mind (frequently called privilege).

When we were dating, my husband didn't understand why I wanted to cross the street when I saw a large group of men in an alley when we were walking at night in Rome. My lived experience told me this was not safe, and for him it didn't occur to him to think about it this way. I suspect that most women would have understood this from my point of view immediately.

I wouldn't say that all men are obtuse when it comes to sexism (and you can add in racism, homophobia, etc), but it stems from both privilege or a lack of lived experience.

Except that men are more likely to experience an act of violence and to be assaulted than a woman so I don't think it is lack of lived experience. It is more how people are socialized. Often boys are socialized that they should be tough, fight back, not back down, only cowards walk away from a fight etc... and women are socialized that you are a victim or that you are about to be a victim, that victimizers are all around you and that backing down and walking away is the best thing to do.

This is part of what occurred to me during the discussion. I've experienced quite a bit more violence from men than my wife has, but she is far more likely than me to walk to the other side of the street. She expressed to me that I didn't know what it was like to be afraid of men on account of being a woman. And that's true. But, I left unsaid that she doesn't know what it's like to get her nose broken by a man who is punching you in the face.

Sure. I think that the difference is that the man punching you isn't punching you because you're a man. Maybe he's punching you because he doesn't like your face, or because he's drunk and pissed off, or because he's a sociopath in general. Women walking alone at night are targeted because they're women. My husband has never been harassed while walking down our street (we live in Columbia Heights) at 11pm on a Friday. I have been, repeatedly. My husband does not get "Hey baby"-ed or propositioned by strangers. I know four women who have had men expose their genitals to them on the metro. I know zero men who have had that experience.

And the place where your analogy kind of falls apart is that just because your wife has not experienced having her nose broken by a man punching her in the face does not mean that that experience is unique to men. I know women who have had that experience, often accompanied with other forms of violence that men are much less likely to experience. My father was jumped by a gang of skinheads in the 80s. He's a slight man, who had long hippie hair. He told me that while they were beating him, he kept asking them "Why are you doing this?" and one of them said "You looked like a bitch."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not usually. Usually it's used to combat the completely normal reduction in function associated with aging. It would be like insurance covering hormone replacement therapy indefinitely.

[Anonymous]

Look at a statistic: likelihood of being raped of you are a woman, versus likelihood of being raped if you are a man. I'd take higher odds of being punched in the face over being raped any day.
How about likelihood of being killed by domestic violence? Yep, we women get to win that one too.
I'm tired of hearing that it "goes both ways". Sure, it does. But NOT in equal volume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frequently it's just that the lived experiences of people are different, and often (including men) aren't able to get out of their own state of mind (frequently called privilege).

When we were dating, my husband didn't understand why I wanted to cross the street when I saw a large group of men in an alley when we were walking at night in Rome. My lived experience told me this was not safe, and for him it didn't occur to him to think about it this way. I suspect that most women would have understood this from my point of view immediately.

I wouldn't say that all men are obtuse when it comes to sexism (and you can add in racism, homophobia, etc), but it stems from both privilege or a lack of lived experience.

Except that men are more likely to experience an act of violence and to be assaulted than a woman so I don't think it is lack of lived experience. It is more how people are socialized. Often boys are socialized that they should be tough, fight back, not back down, only cowards walk away from a fight etc... and women are socialized that you are a victim or that you are about to be a victim, that victimizers are all around you and that backing down and walking away is the best thing to do.

This is part of what occurred to me during the discussion. I've experienced quite a bit more violence from men than my wife has, but she is far more likely than me to walk to the other side of the street. She expressed to me that I didn't know what it was like to be afraid of men on account of being a woman. And that's true. But, I left unsaid that she doesn't know what it's like to get her nose broken by a man who is punching you in the face.

Sure. I think that the difference is that the man punching you isn't punching you because you're a man. Maybe he's punching you because he doesn't like your face, or because he's drunk and pissed off, or because he's a sociopath in general. Women walking alone at night are targeted because they're women. My husband has never been harassed while walking down our street (we live in Columbia Heights) at 11pm on a Friday. I have been, repeatedly. My husband does not get "Hey baby"-ed or propositioned by strangers. I know four women who have had men expose their genitals to them on the metro. I know zero men who have had that experience.

And the place where your analogy kind of falls apart is that just because your wife has not experienced having her nose broken by a man punching her in the face does not mean that that experience is unique to men. I know women who have had that experience, often accompanied with other forms of violence that men are much less likely to experience. My father was jumped by a gang of skinheads in the 80s. He's a slight man, who had long hippie hair. He told me that while they were beating him, he kept asking them "Why are you doing this?" and one of them said "You looked like a bitch."

Not the PP but I disagree with your position that men always attack women solely because they attack women and they always attack men for some other external reason. Not true. There are many motivations why people (men and women) are violent. Assuming you know everyone's motivation and then forming a generalized perception of men and women based on this is very flawed. Men are also victims of domestic violence and are also targeted sometimes just because of their gender, so you could equally say that men fully understand the experience of women and it isn't unique to them.

I am a woman and I have never been harassed or propositioned or had anyone expose themselves to me. So no experience is shared by everyone just because of gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP but I disagree with your position that men always attack women solely because they attack women and they always attack men for some other external reason. Not true. There are many motivations why people (men and women) are violent. Assuming you know everyone's motivation and then forming a generalized perception of men and women based on this is very flawed. Men are also victims of domestic violence and are also targeted sometimes just because of their gender, so you could equally say that men fully understand the experience of women and it isn't unique to them.

I am a woman and I have never been harassed or propositioned or had anyone expose themselves to me. So no experience is shared by everyone just because of gender.

I did not mean to suggest that men always attack women because they're women or that male-on-male violence is always the result of external factors. I was simply saying that many times, being a woman is an invitation to violence that being a man in a similar situation is not. I'm really glad to hear that you haven't been harassed or propositioned though. You're the first woman I've ever heard that from. I don't mean to sound patronizing, but how are you defining "harassed" or "propositioned"? Maybe things that other women find uncomfortable are not uncomfortable for you. I know that I certainly have different thresholds for certain things than some women I know (the word "bitch" doesn't really bother me unless it's used in a particularly hostile way, for example).

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's possible to generalize that women ARE targeted because of their gender more often than men are targeted because of their gender. I do not have statistics on hand to back this up, but will go see if I can find something on the internet to support this assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at a statistic: likelihood of being raped of you are a woman, versus likelihood of being raped if you are a man. I'd take higher odds of being punched in the face over being raped any day.
How about likelihood of being killed by domestic violence? Yep, we women get to win that one too.
I'm tired of hearing that it "goes both ways". Sure, it does. But NOT in equal volume.

this is true however the fact it isn't equal doesn't mean that attention should be paid to it.

In 2007 (most recent national data stats I could easily find) 1640 women and 700 men were murdered by their intimate partners. Unequal - yes. Insignificant for men - no. In the same vein, men commit suicide 4 times more often than women - so should we not address or deal with or support or talk about women who are suicidal because of the gender inequality? Almost 30,000 men die from suicide each year. If we are playing a numbers game then men are murdered far more often than women. If you are going to say that the likelyhood is the key factor then women come out on the bottom in many areas. They are far less likely to be victims of violence overall than men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP but I disagree with your position that men always attack women solely because they attack women and they always attack men for some other external reason. Not true. There are many motivations why people (men and women) are violent. Assuming you know everyone's motivation and then forming a generalized perception of men and women based on this is very flawed. Men are also victims of domestic violence and are also targeted sometimes just because of their gender, so you could equally say that men fully understand the experience of women and it isn't unique to them.

I am a woman and I have never been harassed or propositioned or had anyone expose themselves to me. So no experience is shared by everyone just because of gender.

I did not mean to suggest that men always attack women because they're women or that male-on-male violence is always the result of external factors. I was simply saying that many times, being a woman is an invitation to violence that being a man in a similar situation is not. I'm really glad to hear that you haven't been harassed or propositioned though. You're the first woman I've ever heard that from. I don't mean to sound patronizing, but how are you defining "harassed" or "propositioned"? Maybe things that other women find uncomfortable are not uncomfortable for you. I know that I certainly have different thresholds for certain things than some women I know (the word "bitch" doesn't really bother me unless it's used in a particularly hostile way, for example).

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's possible to generalize that women ARE targeted because of their gender more often than men are targeted because of their gender. I do not have statistics on hand to back this up, but will go see if I can find something on the internet to support this assertion.

I agree with this, just not your earlier assertion that there is a set formula to violence and that men always do x or women always do y.