Women = empowerment, men = sexist?

[freethinker44]

If some act, song, video, movie, book, or whatever is sexist, why is it empowering if it is being done by a woman and offensive if it's being done by a man? All things being equal but gender, this is usually the case.

I don't really want to use specific examples because I don't want this to be about a semantics argument about a specific example and whether or not it qualilfies and what not, but this concept isn't new. If you watch "What Would You Do" there is a video where a woman puts drugs in her dates drink and no one does anything and some even laugh about it like "he is going to get lucky" but really, he's about to get raped.

My answer to this is; I think it largely comes down to gender roles. In the scenario given, the common gender roles are men rape and women get raped. If a woman attempts to rape a man, she is basically breaking that gender role, going from potential victim to perpetrator. I think maybe this makes the act, which is the same for both male and female, an empowering moment for the woman as she is taking on the role (rapist) that she is traditionally denied.

Another question that occurred to me as I was writing this is; why is this considered empowering in some situations such as sexism, but overbearing in others such as career position, i.e. women are being bossy, but men are good leaders? Like it's acceptable for a woman to rape a man but not to be his boss.

 

[Riverwolf]

If some act, song, video, movie, book, or whatever is sexist, why is it empowering if it is being done by a woman and offensive if it's being done by a man? All things being equal but gender, this is usually the case.

As a feminist, I would reject such hypocrisy. (I think I know of a specific example you might be thinking of, but since you didn't want to specify, I won't mention it.)

As far as I'm concerned, pulling a double-standard isn't empowering, and it won't fix anything. It's still sexist.

Sexism is gender-neutral. Men can be sexist to men, women sexist to women, and all variations that come from that.

 

[Revoltingest]

It reminds me of a scene I recently saw on The Big Bang Theory, wherein Sheldon's sister sexually assaulted him (a strike to the boys) for something he said. And this reminded me of a similar occurrence on Murphy Brown. Consider: If a man struck a woman for saying something offensive, it's generally considered the lowest of the low. But strong women are empowered when the not only strike, but go straight for genitals, if a man dares say something non-PC. I wonder, does this positive treatment of violent women encourage them to act out in the real world?

Murphy was widely supported by feminists (as I recall) for having a baby out of wedlock, & keeping it. Yet in addition to her violent nature, she also once fired a secretary for being the wrong religion. I suppose that if one is cute & empowered, all sins are fair game, eh?

 

[freethinker44]

Sexism is gender-neutral, but when women do it, it is acceptable, they are empowering themselves. When men do it they are just pigs.

Ok, I'll give an example to kickstart the discussion:
[youtube]4vaN01VLYSQ[/youtube]
Salt-N-Pepa - Shoop - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU

If this same song and same video was made by a male group, I mean everything the same except the genders. It would just be another example of sexism in male dominated hip-hop. But if we had a discussion about feminist music in the 90s, Salt N Pepa would be near the top of anyone's list. Compare this song and video with something like Blurred Lines from Alan Thicke. When looked at objectively, they are pretty much the same song and video. One video is three women ogling men like sex objects and the other is three men ogling women like sex objects. Why is one a sexually liberating feminist anthem, and the other is a chauvinistic, sexist date-rape anthem? Aside from the nudity, they are not much different lyrically or visually.

Another example, possibly not a great one, is the film Basic Instinct. Now I'm not saying it is a feminist movie, apparently it's both loved and hated by various feminists, the biggest criticism with the movie isn't it's portrayal of women, but homosexuals. But that's a different conversation, the point is that Sharon Stone's character is a very strong, intelligent, successful woman who is very much liberated and dominant. If this movie was made shot for shot, word for word, with only the genders reversed, I think it would be considered a huge orgy of sexism and misandry. Think about it, a controlling male serial killer who seduces and murders women with an ice pick. It would be a completely different movie simply because the genders are different.

 

[Zanuku]

When a woman hits a man she's considered strong and independent.
When a man hits a woman he's sent to prison for 5 years.
I blame the government.
I don't know why.
I just do.

 

[Horrorble]

In "what would you do?" The woman wasn't going to rape him she was going to rob him.

 

[Revoltingest]

When a woman hits a man she's considered strong and independent.
When a man hits a woman he's sent to prison for 5 years.
I blame the government.
I don't know why.
I just do.

Blaming government is always a good default position.

 

[Zanuku]

In "what would you do?" The woman wasn't going to rape him she was going to rob him.

Just noting:
Women raping men does happen, I believe there was a story a month or two ago about a female teacher raping 2 male teenagers.

 

[Horrorble]

Just noting:
Women raping men does happen, I believe there was a story a month or two ago about a female teacher raping 2 male teenagers.

Ok but the was not what was meant to happen in "what would you do?" Also I'm wondering if a man an even get an erection when drugged.

 

[Zanuku]

Ok but the was not what was meant to happen in "what would you do?" Also I'm wondering if a man an even get an erection when drugged.

It's automatic, only drugs that seriously decrease blood pressure could prevent that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If some act, song, video, movie, book, or whatever is sexist, why is it empowering if it is being done by a woman and offensive if it's being done by a man? All things being equal but gender, this is usually the case.

Yes, if that were actually the case in reality, I'm sure the public opinion would reflect that. At the moment, my observations are that in the court of public opinion, men are still considered the aggressor and initiator in mating behavior as the default position, and some would even argue that it isn't just cultural conditioning, but it has a biological basis. I don't agree with that, but that's how I see how the public sees it.

I don't really want to use specific examples because I don't want this to be about a semantics argument about a specific example and whether or not it qualilfies and what not, but this concept isn't new. If you watch "What Would You Do" there is a video where a woman puts drugs in her dates drink and no one does anything and some even laugh about it like "he is going to get lucky" but really, he's about to get raped.

My answer to this is; I think it largely comes down to gender roles. In the scenario given, the common gender roles are men rape and women get raped. If a woman attempts to rape a man, she is basically breaking that gender role, going from potential victim to perpetrator. I think maybe this makes the act, which is the same for both male and female, an empowering moment for the woman as she is taking on the role (rapist) that she is traditionally denied.

I don't disagree with that. I think the current cultural climate expects men to be aggressors. As it stands, if one were to ask the public opinion on who would win in a fight between a man and a woman, I've observed the vast majority of people place the default position of victor onto the man. Why? He's bigger, stronger, and has testosterone. Once people begin to see how alike we all are as humans, and the idea of gender roles isn't biologically determined or religiously determined, we can see the silliness behind the idea of how weak and fragile and helpless a woman is.

Another question that occurred to me as I was writing this is; why is this considered empowering in some situations such as sexism, but overbearing in others such as career position, i.e. women are being bossy, but men are good leaders? Like it's acceptable for a woman to rape a man but not to be his boss.

I think you addressed this well earlier. I once started a thread a while back asking why is it that we as a society start an awareness campaign that informs our daughters how-not-to-get-raped, but we never inform our sons how-not-to-get-raped? We never tell them to walk with more confidence, to carry pepper spray, to know how to defend themselves in the chance that he might be date raped....I found that to be a glaring difference in perspective on rape expectations between the genders.

This is a good thread.

 

[freethinker44]

In "what would you do?" The woman wasn't going to rape him she was going to rob him.

This is exactly why I didn't want to use a specific example. Whether that specific example was raping or robbing, it's irrelevant. The people in the bar didn't know her intentions, all they knew was that she put something in his drink. And for whatever reason she was doing it, most didn't say anything when it was done to the male but nearly all stepped in for the woman who had her drink drugged.

They did another one where a person was being verbally and physically abused in public and the one where the male was being abused, no one said anything and in fact some even silently cheered the female for abusing the male.

Women abusing men or being sexist is not only socially acceptable, but sometimes encouraged.

 

[Aquitaine]

Women abusing men or being sexist is not only socially acceptable, but sometimes encouraged.

Honestly? I think that mentality might have grown out of "rooting for the underdog" if you get me?

 

[DreadFish]

Sexism is gender-neutral, but when women do it, it is acceptable, they are empowering themselves. When men do it they are just pigs.

Ok, I'll give an example to kickstart the discussion:

If this same song and same video was made by a male group, I mean everything the same except the genders. It would just be another example of sexism in male dominated hip-hop. But if we had a discussion about feminist music in the 90s, Salt N Pepa would be near the top of anyone's list. Compare this song and video with something like Blurred Lines from Alan Thicke. When looked at objectively, they are pretty much the same song and video. One video is three women ogling men like sex objects and the other is three men ogling women like sex objects. Why is one a sexually liberating feminist anthem, and the other is a chauvinistic, sexist date-rape anthem? Aside from the nudity, they are not much different lyrically or visually.

Another example, possibly not a great one, is the film Basic Instinct. Now I'm not saying it is a feminist movie, apparently it's both loved and hated by various feminists, the biggest criticism with the movie isn't it's portrayal of women, but homosexuals. But that's a different conversation, the point is that Sharon Stone's character is a very strong, intelligent, successful woman who is very much liberated and dominant. If this movie was made shot for shot, word for word, with only the genders reversed, I think it would be considered a huge orgy of sexism and misandry. Think about it, a controlling male serial killer who seduces and murders women with an ice pick. It would be a completely different movie simply because the genders are different.

I think that a part of the mentality is the woman changing roles, turning the tables, so to speak, on the ones who usually have charge. "You usually get aggressed? now you are the aggressor! Cheers for taking charge!"

I also notice trends like this when it comes to sexual relations with minors. When it's an older male seeking sexual relations with a minor female, its automatically creepy and unhealthy. When it's an older female seeking sexual relations with a minor male, there is an element of cheering on the boy for getting with a woman. Im not denying that there is a taboo both ways and that many look down on the behavior no matter the sex of those involved, nor am I denying that there are different situations where someone may be more of a victim than in other situations. Nonetheless, if the male is at least 15 or 16, he will probably get cheered on by some and likely not be seen as a victim as much as a female of the same age.

I think that Mystic has a good point when mentioning that males are typically seen as the aggressors and the dominant ones, while females are often seen as potential victims and more helpless, so there is less concern over their safety in certain situations.

 

[dust1n]

If some act, song, video, movie, book, or whatever is sexist, why is it empowering if it is being done by a woman and offensive if it's being done by a man?

Your only example is based off an episode of "What Would You Do?"

 

[oldbadger]

I also notice trends like this when it comes to sexual relations with minor....... When it's an older female seeking sexual relations with a minor male, there is an element of cheering on the boy for getting with a woman.

Cases of female teachers having sex with minor (child) pupils in the UK have been dealt with severely. I don't know if it is classed as rape yet, but a prison sentence, a ban on working with minors and enrollment on the sexual offender's register is automatic.

 

[freethinker44]

Your only example is based off an episode of "What Would You Do?"

Oh. My. God.

 

[freethinker44]

Your only example is based off an episode of "What Would You Do?"

So what are you trying to imply, that this phenomenon doesn't exist?

 

[Poeticus]

I'm sorry, but I have to put this one up:

YouTube[youtube]wLoZWzXGoHQ[/youtube]

Long Live Salt N' Pepa!!!

 

[Poeticus]

Wait. Are any of you fans of Salt N' Pepa?!