40 Double Standards People In This Online Group Deemed To Be The Worst

Unless they've given a fairly direct indication of waiting for someone I would say that even asking if they are waiting for someone is a bit unprofessional, especially if it has a fairly clear gender based bias.

“Are you ready to order?” is good enough. That’s all you gotta ask :)

Wow! Strong and honest words, dear Imogene! Thank you for sharing

Life is not a competition and I think the happiest people have learned and reconciled that. ‘The race is long and in the end, it’s only with yourself’.

How long does it take to undo 7000 years of patrifocal society?

I personally don't care if someone is vegan, but vegans on the other hand, seem quite obsessed with those that choose not to be.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@littlesaresare but how is this hateful? Did you read the article? It is a quite good argument made by an Indian feminist and she quotes Gerda Lerner and a feminist writer, Melissa A. Fabello (never heard of her admittedly). Feminism in India is still struggling with traditions and they are true heroines. They have not abused men, as far as I know :)

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

How can you down vote this comment?! It is a description and not an opinion?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

one has to consider that Feminism has different faces according to different social conditions - here I see that the Indian writer argues that women cannot be sexist because they are not privileged, which is true for India. But you can see the same logic prevailing concerning black and white (and I just read it in @Christy Smith's interesting observation)

and this is also only a description, not a personal opinion.

This is to Vicky Z below. It is not up to debate. It is sexism, pure and simple. To argue this point is nothing more than obfuscation in an attempt to redefine sexism/racism so that they are one-way streets.

They are already defined! No need for me to define anything! Both racism and sexism imply oppression! The terms were created because of oppression from powerful groups of people towards less powerful! For the last time my argument is on the use of term exclusively! I'm not arguing if women can be assholes! Of course they can

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

The term sexism in this case is under debate by many actually and not only this Indian feminist i just put one link! Unfortunately people didn't manage to read it but I'm glad at least one person did! The argument is about the use of the term! And not if it's wrong to behave bad to men! Of course men deserve better, of course you cannot abuse men and think it's okay! But whether it can be called sexism is up to debate!

Women can and often are sexist against women as well. All kinds of sexist discrimination are bad

Yes we all say that. Any kind of abuse, oppression, meanness is BAD. It happens that coiner of terms are academics. And now they debate between themselves whether the term "sexism" is appropriate. And here we are. Academics debate, laywomen get hysterical.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I know women can be meaner than men, I work with women.

@Angelar-Maybe some had/still have bad experiences with men, but yeah, they(we) shouldn't generalize. I've met equally mean people.

of course it can be called sexism if its towards men thats like saying if a black person is racist towards a white person or other person of colour it cant be called racism im not saying thats what you said im just making my point saying that it cant be called sexism is actually quite ignorant in my opinion

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

You jumped in a lot conclusions over here! I just put a link that says that oppression flows only from oppressor to the oppressed! If you read the link it doesn't say that it's okay to say whatever you want about men! Or that it's funny and empowering! It just cannot be called sexism! It's awful yes i agree but the term is wrong! How can you make so many assumptions out of a link that you didn't read and tell me that i find abuse towards men funny?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Yeah, no one bothers trying to understand this argument when it comes to race, either. But yeah, there oppressor/oppressed power dynamic actually really does f*****g matter.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

There's more to it though. Because both sides are great at being victims too. Unless it impacts your life, get over it. If someone is hateful in whatever way and you don't have to deal with them, ignore them. If someone near you is hateful, try to talk about it, if it doesn't change, leave them. Etc. The dangerous situations are the ones that have one person in a dependent position. And historically more women got in that position (financially and phyisically) than men. But it's that point, the dependency that makes someone a person in need, whether male or female. But please, please don't victimize anyone unnecessarily. I have 9gag for that.

Adira, 1/3) But sex-based discrimination is the literal definition of sexism. Institutionalised sexism is called oppression or, well, institutionalised sexism. Because it is literally institutionalised sexism. A type of sexism. Insisting that women can't be sexist and men can't be victims of sexism has absolutely nothing to do with genuine definitions and everything to do with minimising and de-legitimising an entire group of people. This is the exact same nonsense that was used  (and is still used) to minimise victims of rape - most laws in the world still regard rape as penis in vagina, and therefore a**l rape is not considered sexual assault, and exists only to minimise a horrific crime and hurt an entire group of victims.

2/3) Another example is when people get angry at the use of 'circumcision' for female genital mutilation, or the use of 'mutilation' for male circumcision, solely because people want to justify the same practice for one sex but condemn it for the other sex. And, although I'm not too versed on actual examples of this, I have no doubt how many laws have used this tactic to oppress POC and women - hitting a white man is assault, but oh no of course it's a different term and "totally not the same" when hitting your wife or your black slave. Saying "oh it's just simply not the same when I do it to THIS demographic" is not okay and has always, only ever been used to justify maltreatment.

3/3) Claiming that we should change the definition of an extremely important word, both socially and legally, solely to minimise a group of victims, based on their sex (or race, or other demographic), is NOT a genuine argument and has NEVER been a genuine argument, and is the most common tactic used throughout history to silence victims. It is absolutely hateful and it has NEVER been on the right side of history. That is just reality - if the history of oppression has taught us anything, it's that turning a demographic into "the other" and splitting the same crime into different consequences or levels of seriousness based on the demographic of the victim is a dangerous slope and has never, ever been the right side.

2nd rant 1/6) In 2012, a little white boy was set on fire by two older black kids, who mocked him as he burned with, "You get what you deserve for being white." The boy survived and was subsequently ridiculed by the police and the media, because despite the assailants' own words, the idea of it being a hate crime was ludicrous. "It's just not the same thing," people said. In 2017, a little black boy was set on fire by a white boy. It was regarded as a hate crime and the assailant was charged. Neither of these situations is okay. Both are revolting displays of racism, and one is not less important or less harmful than the other because the victim is part of a demographic you personally hate or don't care about - that in itself is literally the ideology of racism, and to pretend it's not is absolutely absurd. It doesn't matter if you're white or black or asian or purple with yellow spots, if you are setting someone else on fire *because of* their race, that is a RACIAL hate crime.

2nd rant 2/6) I know someone who is Maori but hates Africans and Asians. Is her blatant racism not actually racism because she herself is a racial minority, and therefore she is incapable of it? She doesn't have any political power nor is part of the demographic that systematically oppresses Africans and Asians, so her racism is "just totally not the same thing" as if a white woman had these same beliefs, and not even worthy of the description "racism" due to that apparent difference? If she set a little black boy on fire for being black, how the everliving f**k is that "not the same" as if she did the exact same thing but with less melanin in her skin while doing it? Individual racist beliefs and crimes are not less bad because they're not part of the direction followed by the institutionalised racism.

2nd rant 3/6) A black girl went viral a few years ago for talking about how much she hates black people, and how she believes that she's actually white, and goes to great lengths to look whiter. Is this not clearly internalised racism, solely because she is black, and therefore incapable of it? No. Racism is racism - racism against your own race is racism, racism against a different race is racism, and claiming that a race is incapable of feeling a human emotion (ie. hate) is racism. I grew up in a very racist family. I was raised with horrifying beliefs. Do not tell me that their hatred - nor my own before I learned better - is not an 'ism and is "just not the same thing" solely because we don't fit the ideal or common demographic for it.

2nd rant 4/6) Sharon Osbourne had an entire show where she giggled and mocked a man who was horrifically abused by his wife, who was tortured and mutilated and had his severed penis thrown in the garbage disposal. She thought it was hilarious, and encouraged other women to engage in these psychotic acts against men, because men deserve it. When called out on her sexist double standards, she said that it wasn't sexism - that a man mutilating his wife was obviously sexist and horrific, but this was "just not the same thing", that inciting the literal torture of people over their gender is "just not the same thing" when it's not HER gender that is being victimised.

2nd rant 5/6) I have watched for years as my sister physically, verbally, and financially abused her male partners. I have called the police on her so many times, but it's always the same - because it's "just not the same" when it's a female abuser or a male victim. Ultimately it was her child who paid the price for authorities delegitimising her misandry and abuse, for society's insistence that it was "just not the same thing". I have grown up, seeing again and again the consequences of this idea of the same act against different demographics being "not the same". And I have experienced it, too, not for race, but because sexism and ageism in my health care is "just not the same thing", and because denying me my basic legal rights is "just not the same" as denying those same rights to an able-bodied (ie. not disabled) person.

2nd rant 6/6) You want to talk about stretching, then how much of a mental stretch is the ideology of "It's not hate when it's me doing the hating." This s**t is not funny, this is not woke, this is not clever. These are real people with real consequences. This insistence that attacking people over their race, sex, sexuality, whatever, is not hatred and "totally not the same" because it's not your demographic and it's totally different when YOU do it, is just f*****g nonsensical (and frankly, morally revolting). And yes, this mentality is the very definition of sexism or racism, and this is the tactic used again and again throughout history to justify acts of "totally not the same thing" against "the other". An individual's racism or sexism may not be instutionalised, but racist and sexist ideology it still is, by every sense of definition and reason. Regardless of one's personal opinion on it, claiming otherwise is historically, practically, and logically, nothing but a separation and justification and hateful tactic. Through and through and through.

@littlesaresare. As far as I'm concerned, I just asked you what was hateful in the article posted by Vicky. Then I tried to summarize the articles academic stand on the term, staying objective and not stating a/my personal opinion.I tried to contribute to an academic discussion because the article was academic. Not personal. That is what you are incapable of understanding here. You keep lashing out giving gruesome examples and getting all hysterical. If someone would have sent you the link to *reverse sexism* of Wikipedia (stating the arguments in the current discourse) you would have reacted the same way. I used to like your comments and now I will read everything with a grain of salt. I tried to give the discussion some base to reconcile in a civilized way. Very disappointed. Not cool.

I could upvote everything you said millions of times... and it still wouldn't be enough.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@Adira Bennett - OP has called her 87 followers and now we are being down voted into oblivion LOL!!!

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Basically, it would be *reverse sexism* if we would be returning to a certain place in time, like the Neolitihic settlement in Catalhöyük, Anatolia Turkey, where women were buried individually, some men were found in mass graves, the family functioned matrilinear and the deity was a/one and only- woman, the Mother Goddess...

Okay, I'm trying to please both sides here. So let's agree on this: Men can be sexist, and we do have a patriarchal society. That doesn't justify women being misandrists back, or advocating for a matriarchal society.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@MorgothBauglir All here are on the same side - against abuse in general. It is only a misunderstanding about a term, that is all.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Wow, being down voted for this comment! That shows.

Great, we all agree.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@MorgothBauglir See, we DON'T have to agree..We just have to listen and say "Interesting!"...This whole thing with down voting people into oblivion before even trying to understand is exactly what is wrong here. One person can misunderstand/misinterpret something, that is unavoidable. But 7 other people immediately down voting the same is mass behavior.

Angelar, I wasn't even responding to you - I never had issue with your comments nor disagreed with anything you said, nor did I address anything you said. So I'm not sure why you are taking my comments as a personal attack against you. I'm also not really sure how me using real-world examples of why the article's claim is harmful is somehow me being incapable of understanding it, nor how me contributing to the argument is lashing out and getting hysterical but you posting multiple comments just complaining about how much I suck and how much everyone else sucks for apparently downvoting you isn't lashing out or getting hysterical. Acknowledging real people and real victims and real examples of injustice is not a bad thing. This is not a faceless or victimless debate, and if we can't see the real-world consequences - and gruesome those consequences indeed are - of a certain argument, then what's the point of the argument? I've also never been a popular person on this website and I don't post comments for likes or popularity, so regardless of the sort-of-threat to downvote me in the future, neither my personal opinions, nor my right to contribute my opinions to an argument, nor my right to use examples from my own life as explanations or justifications for those positions, is going to change. My only apology is having to break my words into multiple comments (which is due to a word limit, not by choice) - but I won't apologise or hide for expressing my opinion and why I have that opinion. Nor would I ever expect you, or anyone here, to do so, even if I personally have issue with and argue against them.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@littlesaresare - if you want to gaslight me, do your best. My point here is that all the downvotes here have no intellectual response. And I will call this out under every downvote, if you don't mind. I have no ego problems, I'm solely interested in a intellectual debate. I have said this as men were downvoted into oblivion in a post about a petty woman and her tinder revenge. The men were trying to get across the point that in a reverse situation the cheering crowd would have reacted differently. And that is a valid point and should not have been downvoted.

Saying "I wasn't even talking to you" after you repeatedly insulted me is me gaslighting you? Alright then. Maybe people aren't downvoting you for your intellectual debate, Angelar. Just a thought. 🤷‍♀️

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Once a person changes what she/he has written, to obstruct the truth - there is not a gram of respect I can feel. You used words, you have edited them out and changed your initial comment. There is a saying by Mark Twain about wrestling in mud. Enough said.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

But...you yourself have edited. Are you truly saying you do not have a gram of respect for yourself? No? Glass houses. 'Nuff said.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

You are wrong.

The debate about this is pointless. These sort of "academic" arguments (that always seem to spill over into non-academia and obfuscate issues... often intentionally IMO) are exactly the kind of things that Jonathan Swift satired in Gulliver's Travels.

Except not all of us believe a god created us.

Okay then, replace the word "god" with "mother nature" et voilà ♡

I'm white. Not privileged. Grew up with uncaring parents, lower middle class home. I've worked dang hard my whole life to get where I am today. It hasn't been easy.

This is the problem with white priviledge. Ppl dont actualy take the time to understand what it is. It DOES NOT mean you had a great life and didnt struggle. It means that the struggles you had were not because of your race. Of all of the obstacles you had to overcome, racism didnt play a part in it. Black ppl dont have that advantage. Please do some research or actually talk to some black people.

Hugs

I'm sorry to hear you are going thru all that

All whites are privileged solely because of your skin color. Because you have the privilege of not being discriminated against or denied just for being black or brown. Because you’re not black or brown. That is the privilege. Privilege doesn’t mean wealthy and well off and happy. It means people can’t be racist to you for being black or brown or Muslim or Asian since you’re not.

Sure honey. Keep telling me about my experiences as a migrant...