In this post, I'm going to delve deep into the argument at its base, followed by a thought I had afterwards that I haven't fully processed (but am interested in teasing out).
I.
So effectively, the argument comes down to the question of whether or not "isms" against the majority can exist by definition. One side says yes, one says no.
On the side for that notion, the argumentation comes down to one of pure definition and the lack of an impact that relative size/scope has on whether or not something can meet definitional standards.
On the side against that notion, the argumentation comes down to one of a necessary systemic quality to oppression as part of the definition. Without the presence of a culturally developed and sustained power, "isms" are impossible.
Before launching into substantive ideas, it's absolutely worth noting two things:
1. I am a male. All perspectives, biases, and culturally-induced messages that have been cultivated in me are based, at least partially, on that simple fact.
2. I do not personally feel that I have ever been on the receiving end of misandristic thoughts or actions (that I'm aware of).
With that said, I believe the argument has a single, fundamental crux; that the definitions being used for those particular "isms" are different for either side.
To illustrate this, Dictionary.com's definition of "racism" is listed as such:
rac·ism
noun1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
And immediately, we run headlong into the problem. The definition for the noun is regarding two separate things. The first (and third) is an idea- a feeling. The second, however, is an actual structure. A system with intent, goals, methodologies, and, by definition, some level of support.
These are obviously not the same things. As such, the entire premise of the argument is silly. One side holds a position that is consistent with all available definitions, while the other side holds a position that is consistent with only a single available definition.
This does not make the argument wrong per se, but rather, it makes the argument fundamentally flawed in that its basis is in an incorrect assessment of definitions (or at least an ignorance of the complete source). The argument would have much more merit if either:
A. The definition was limited to just "a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination;" or
B. A separate word that specifically only has that definition was used.
Effectively, this argument produced a litany of unrelated arguments and analogies because of that discrepancy at its heart.
I do not see a particularly more satisfying conclusion to the argument beyond "pick a new word or else use a less deliberately narrow definition."
This argument stretched beyond racism to include sexism and the concept of misandry vs. misogyny.
At its base, the definition for "misogyny" is as follows:
nounhatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
If we are to assume that misandry is simply the counterpart of this idea with men as the subject instead of women, it would read very similarly.
In this case, while there is no mention of a systemic process of oppression, I don't discount the position that it merits distinction. However, from a purely definitional standpoint, the argument falls flat in the water. A simple hatred, while it can be amplified, modified, or carried within culture does not necessitate the existence of that culture. It merely requires an overarching and generalizing attitude towards a populace.
There's not much I can say beyond this about the argument. I simply don't think that it is definitionally possible to say one exists while the other cannot.
II.
However, this conversation got me thinking about a fairly radical position on sexism, misandry, and misogyny that I had never entertained before. One that, on its face, seems ludicrous, but from a philosophical standpoint, I'm having a hard time suggesting that it is logically implausible or unreasonable.
Bearing in mind at this point that this is a position I am still processing, and it is by no means as solid as the position I hold in part I.
I am tentatively becoming very wary of the idea that society is misogynistically inclined but not misandristically inclined. Not because I think men suffer from the same kind of oppression as women, of course. The variation between the general experiences, fears, dreams, and roadblocks of men and women is too vastly different to be able to believe that at this juncture. Rather, I'm beginning to look at society through the lens of ambivalent sexism. The idea is that you have two kinds of sexism:
Benevolent; and
Hostile.
While benevolent sexism appears nice and friendly on the outside (men holding doors open specifically for women. Men being considered more worthy of managerial positions. Women being more trustworthy), their root is in a generalization about the respective gender that isn't necessarily based on anything more than circumstantial and socially-pushed evidence.
Meanwhile, hostile sexism is the more overt and cruel differentiation of the sexes. Hostile sexism is typically far more intentional and more deliberately nasty by its nature. They both, however, further the same kinds of societal assumptions with regard to gender.
To that end, I'm wondering if it is perhaps a fatal flaw to consider society sexist towards women but not men. Instead, I think it would be more appropriate to acknowledge that society has ingrained a sense of hostile sexism weighted towards women and a sense of benevolent sexism weighted towards men. From that standpoint, we recognize:
1. That men are likely the beneficiaries of more "friendly" sexism, and are thus in a more preferential position.
2. That the system is not designed with the specific intent to hurt women and benefit men. Rather, the system appears designed to reward men and women who fall into a certain specific set of characteristics, while punishing those who don't. Societally, we have come to "value" many of the things that are designed to reward men for fitting into a stereotype more than the comparable things designed to reward women thusly. Succeeding in your career is designed to give you some sense of fulfillment as well as the ability to lead a stable and independent life. Succeeding in raising a family, however, gives you a different sense of internal joy that lacks many traditionally physiologically rewarding stimuli.
To that end, our valuation of traits, actions, and characteristics is again weighted more towards men with benevolent sexism, but that is still sexism. We're rewarded for succeeding in something we have to do to survive anyway. However, we're also punished socially, financially, and culturally when we are not meeting the correct (and arbitrary) standards of "success" in the field of, say, careers.
So, with that in mind, I would agree that systemic racism against white people does not exist (at least in large amounts), I do think that systemic sexism against men is just as rampant as it is against women. The key difference being that it's more weighted towards benevolent sexism rather than hostile sexism.
As such, I do believe that women have it harder, but not because society is more sexist against them, but rather because the type of sexism they face more often than men is more directly problematic.
Again, this is something I've just started thinking about, so I'm not set in my ways.
I'd be interested in carrying this discussion forward further...
-
Wad
