People Name 50 Things That Should Not Be So Universally Hated But Somehow Are

So they have a "ME first and only" attitude to all interactions?

Not necessarily "and only", to be fair. And certainly not in all interactions - just the ones that "matter". Ego has a massive part to play in it too. And you're right about competing with other men - that's fine, because they are the same (insert exceptions regarding race and LGBTQ+), but a woman is different and might turn out to be *better* (this is not the same as saying feminism is about advancing women past men, it's the fear that women might turn out to naturally be better with minimal extra effort - "fun" fact, women were pushed out of computing and it became an all boys club by propaganda, despite those originally involved being absolutely awesome at it. The first "computers" were women. Many astrological discoveries were made by women. Antifeminism is about the fear that men - those specific men who put these policies in place and spout the hatred - just aren't as special and important as they think they are, and are threatened by what they perceive to be the weaker sex

That is a belief I share. However, it appears that by expressioning such one is castigated as being anti-woman.

You are being downvoted because you post "what about"-ism. It's not that we don't care or are ok with men that suffer or slavery or misery in general. It's just that, when people raise a question about oppression and others start questioning it by stating everything else that's wrong in the world it's a power move trying to change the subject and invalidate what is being discussed. That way it can remain just as it is because the discussion is going nowhere. That's why people have a problem with what-about-ism - because the goal is to minimize what's being said.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I appreciate your reply, but your explanation is not sufficient. I replied with a legitimate question based on a valid observation. Somebody expressed a (valid) concern for a section of society in respect of oppression which is also common across all sections of society. For the original commentator to seemingly be concerned about only one section of society whilst ignoring all others (again, for reasons that are common) gives cause to ask. This is further highlighted because the post is about sexism, whilst the original commentator appeared concerned about about one sex/gender .. which is sexist. To ignore the suffering of all does nothing to help reduce the suffering of one section.

Don't take it personally too much. There are more trolls on BP than under most goat frequented bridges (fairy tale reference for any non-native English speakers).

I believe that Eooj is being downvoted because all they have been posting is whataboutisms which many people consider to be trolling

It's getting harder to tell - I got downvotes for saying "thank you" at one point!

Of that's the case then it says much about those down voting, none of which is good. Addressing discrimination is not done by discriminating against other sections of society, and it is not domne by ignoring discrimination of others. When I have been actively involved in setting up protocols to mitigate prejudice it was essential to consider if the actions or changes may have unintended consequences, such on other groups: this is not Whataboutism. To use simply throw in the term indicates a lack of thought or inexperience. Some of my comments have been in response to others posting stereotypes or flawed understanding. Some of people may have made genuine errors, and so a reply may have been 'I didn't mean to exclude or discriminate others.' In the future perhaps engage in discussion rather than posting unhelpful assumptions.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Why? I don't live in the US.

It is often not "if all is equsl" though. In the same position om the same company with the same workload, i am pretty certain that most companies pay the same no matter the body-parts. In reality, though, women are more likely to work fewer hours (because childcare but also because they might settle for less voluntarily), have jobs in a social workplace (nurse, caregiver in an elderly-home, educator in preschool, teacher tc) which generally pays less. And then we have other countries that have no labor-laws where women actuall,y do get less for the exact same job. And then there's opportunity-lack, like for example women's professional sport. Peoplr claim they earn less because less sponsoring, but their matches get less airtime or not primetime sk obvsl there are less sponsors. Not even counting the lesser chances to even get aid to bein a professionell athlete.

4.) 'then we have other countries that have no labor-laws where women actuall,y do get less for the exact same job.' If there are no employment laws then exploitation will be rife against everyone. The solution is to campaign for employment laws that protect all. 5.) 'Peoplr claim they earn less because less sponsoring, but their matches get less airtime or not primetime sk obvsl there are less sponsors.' Fighting to end exploitation is, in my opinion, than important than complaining about sponsorship deals for professional sports people. However, perhaps consider in some sports (such as tennis) women get better sponsorship yet play less, and some sports (such as football) the public prefers to watch men play rather than women (hence the men get higher pay due to greater sponsorship, TV rights, etc.)

1.) 'women are more likely to work fewer hours' People working fewer hours are paid less ... that's valid. 2.) A'childcare' ... Childcare should not be considered 'women's work', to suggest otherwise is sexism. 3.) 'have jobs in a social workplace (nurse, caregiver in an elderly-home, educator in preschool, teacher tc) which generally pays less.' Men do work in those sectors, please do not exclude them. If those sectors pay less than this may be for valid reasons (comparative skills or experience) or the pay levels in them should be raised irrespective of gender.

Uh, ex a private photographer. Took plenty of our black cats. He’s posted them on private spaces; none of his photos have been retouched or otherwise changed. All black cats on a neutral background have very obvious black fur. You can distinguish their for on a totally black background. That kind of statement just encourage the prejudice. Not saying that you agree/believe such a thing it’s just a form of propaganda; of course tabbies and tri’s are easier to see. They aren’t black. If you put a tabby or a tri on a dark background, that’s a given.