Reverse sexism is yet again one of the most bigoted terms out there. Wikipedia and other “trusty” sources would want you to believe that it was created in 1960 when a men’s liberation movement was born.
In contrast, this saying is actually used to downplay very real sexism against men, and presenting it instead as something that is entirely different than sexism against women.
The so called “logic” behind this idea comes from the same old exhausted “patriarchy” theory that women were always under the heavy boot of the patriarchy and discrimination against men doesn’t happen equally or at all. Well….we beg to differ.
The Definition of Sexism
One feminist article explains sexism as the following:
“Sexism is when a particular gender or sex is systematically oppressed and discriminated against. To the point that the oppressors have a dominant position in society, where they can manipulate the resources present in society. Hence, the notion of reverse sexism cannot exist in society.”
Oh really?
We agree that “reverse sexism” can’t exist, because it’s an idiotic concept to begin with. Sexism is just what the article explained: a gender being oppressed and discriminated against, wholly because of their sex.
This is exactly what’s happening to men. To add a derogatory word like “reverse”, just falsely attempts to convince people that men as an entire gender are always on top of the food chain in every situation, and their pain when discriminated against is somewhat different compared to what women experience when they are.
Try to say this to a man who is discriminated at his workplace:
“Hi John, so you got sexually harassed huh? Sorry mate. HR says it’s reverse sexism, so not eligible for any type of action or change. Keep up the good work, or we’ll fire you, bye.”
Women Get Away With Sexism
For those of you who don’t remember the story of Catherine Kieu-Becker, she was a woman who cut off her partner’s private parts in 2011, only because he wanted a divorce.
Do you remember the outrage from feminists for this terrible case of domestic violence and sexual assault? Of course, you don’t, because there was none.
Instead we had Sharon Osbourne and other women laughing hysterically at the incident and the video below, where another group of adult females were asking absurd questions and giggling about the event.
How can we still live in a “patriarchal” world, when women are completely free to make fun of mutilated men on national television?
Yet – swap the genders. Imagine a bunch of men on daytime television laughing about the bloody sexual assault of a husband against his wife. Every man would be fired from the show, and the show itself would get canceled.
Patriarchy indeed.
No matter how you juggle it, these reactions are not “reverse” sexism, they are plain and simple sexism against the entire male population.
People Make Excuses for Sexist Women
Feminists claim that too many men brush off the rape of women with statements like, “She was asking for it”. However, all too often women justifying similar attacks against men with excuses like “Well he cheated” or “He had it coming”, and so on.
Feminism argues that men have always held the power and therefore, sexism against them is a rightful punishment.
The global issue with the term reverse sexism is that feminists want you to believe they are still the only discriminated group out there. They don’t wish for equality, because equality would mean shattering all types of sexism, including that against men.
If this happens, the whole idea of patriarchy, would have to be abolished as well. If we acknowledge sexism against men as a real threat to society, there is no room for the concept of patriarchy theory to exist.
Women would no longer hold the upper hand when it comes to “gender issues”. Men would be given a voice. Feminists would no longer be able to justify dishonest actions, with the excuse that the current world is solely for men.
How About Stopping the Victim Olympics?
Few people notice that the fight for equality has become a fight for which gender is most discriminated and therefore who deserves more empowerment. Even fewer people see that this type of narrative serves powerful people, who are the only ones who benefit from this type of antagonism.
Accepting sexism as it is, without using “reverse” or “benevolent”, accepting that it happens across all genders, would break the wall between the sexes. It would unite people under a rightful cause, a cause which will serve all people and eliminate all prejudice.
