is there such a thing as 'reverse' sexism?

[keryx]

From the new community guidelines for feminist:

Reverse sexism is not a valid concept: You may not bring up points which imply reverse sexism or explicitly say that you believe it to be a real threat. Feminism is not sexist, and neither are its goals. Sexism implies power, something which institutionally men have, and women do not. Therefore, "reverse sexism" does not exist.

What do you think? (please elaborate in comments)
[Poll #633349]
I'm wondering myself on this one. Assume that this definition of gender-based prejudice is true - that "prejudice" = bias, potentially damaging, against a person based on gender, while "sexism" = inherently institutional and tied to the power system, where one class (men) is the class in power. I think that definition of sexism is fundamentally flawed, but let's go with it for this purpose. The aim of feminist was to get rid of people's argument that sexism as I'd define it (that is, any gender bias that injures people) could always trump institutionalized oppression - and despite what I may lead you to believe, I can look past word choice to intent.

So, going with that. If sexism only exists if supported by the sexist group's power - is women's prejudice against men ever backed by women being in a position of greater power? Is the perception of a class of men or an individual man that women are in a position of greater power (in some situations) enough to say reverse sexism is possible in a given situation? Even with a clear definition, can a man still perceive reverse sexism, a white person perceive reverse racism, etc - despite being a member of a more powerful class of people?

Comments

[kitty-pitchfork.livejournal.com]

is women's prejudice against men ever backed by women being in a position of greater power?

while theoretically this could happen, i think in actuality it probably doesn't. even if such a thing were to occur, the man or men in question still have their social and institutional privilege to fall back on, you know?

[firecat]

Reverse sexism is not a valid concept: You may not bring up points which imply reverse sexism or explicitly say that you believe it to be a real threat. Feminism is not sexist, and neither are its goals.

I think this statement is trying to "legislate" something that needs to be explained or offered for discussion instead.

I would explain it this way. I'm deliberately not using the word sexism or racism because I perceive two ways of defining them, and I think that arguments over exactly how they are defined are in some cases diverting attention from more important issues.

Anyone can be prejudiced, and prejudice is often a bad thing.

But there is a fundamental difference between prejudice that's backed by the approval of society (such as the prejudice that women are inferior to men or women are only suitable for certain roles) and other prejudice.

The difference is that the former kind of prejudice affects entire classes of people in ways that give them extra opportunities (if society is prejudiced in favor) or takes away opportunities (if society is prejudiced against).

Specific instances of prejudice that harm socially favored people are painful and wrong, but their social favor offsets some of the harm. That doesn't make such prejudice right. But because such people already have more opportunities than others, the resources being devoted to improving the opportunities of people who have fewer opportunities should not be diverted to dealing with the problems of prejudice against socially favored people.

To address your questions, I do think that in some circumstances women have more power/opportunities than men, because sex/gender is not the only trait about which society is prejudiced. Rich, educated, white women can deny opportunities to men who are none of those things. I would probably not call it reverse sexism though, I would attribute it to society's classist and racist attitudes.

[miffyness.livejournal.com]

I just find 'reverse sexism' to be a really odd phrase, having always defined 'sexism' as 'discrimination or prejudice based on sex', the same way as racism is 'discrimination or prejudice based on race'; nothing there to say which sex or race is being discriminated against. We have alternative terms for that (misogyny/misandry). Besides which, 'sexism' for me just doesn't have the institutional connotations it appears to have for the feminist mods; it doesn't have the weight of terms like 'patriarchy' or 'hegemony', but seems to be more of an individual thing. Feminism is not sexist, but it is perfectly possible that an individual who self-defines as feminist may be.

To imply that prejudice against men does not exist anywhere on any level seems to me ludicrous. At the moment the most obvious example seems to me the people in the Amnesty survey who thought that a man who rapes an unconscious woman bears no responsibility for his actions. Yes, that's unthinkably sexist towards women; but if reducing men to the status of children or animals with no moral agency isn't sexism too, what is?

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

I think that semantic distinction is exactly why the mods made such a big definition-y post: they want to clarify that, the way they are using the words, sexism or racism = prejudice + power.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

Yep, I agree. I may disagree with the semantic choice, but I understand the intent and *mostly* agree with that.

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

Even with a clear definition, can a man still perceive reverse sexism, a white person perceive reverse racism, etc - despite being a member of a more powerful class of people?

Members of the privileged class may well PERCEIVE something as a "reverse -ism" but in my experience/observation, it's inevitably turned out to be a case of my/their feeling pangs at a tiny-chip-off-the-old-privilege.

[varsil.livejournal.com]

The above definition assumes that 'power' is something that is owned in a solid lump, as opposed to something that varies greatly by situation and circumstance.

What is most mind-boggling about the posted thing above is how it attempts to define reality, specifically by saying that women have no power institutionally, which is both demonstrably false and should be offensive to all the women who have made inroads in getting themselves into power. Feminism also often does this thing where it defines power as "the stuff men have", which can result in some truly bizarre rationalizations--for instance, the ones arguing that men pay for things on dates as an expression of power. Or the truly wonderful paper I read that hypothesized that women would perform worse in a series of bartered exchanges than men due to their lack of power in commercial exchanges with men, found that they did far better, and then still tried to explain that in terms of them being powerless.

And even if you buy the premise that women completely lack power within the institutions, it still doesn't prevent the possibility of A) prejudice on the part of some women against men, or B) institutional sexism against men (which in this case would be from men).

And really, does sexism need institutional power to 'count'? I mean, if I'm sitting in a Criminology class being taught by a Women's Studies prof that stands up and says that statistically, me and the other man in the class (the prof had actively advised men to drop out of the course on the first day) were the most likely people in the class to be pedophiles. She hearkened back to this point often, with the examples of rape, murder... you get the idea, basing this purely on the various statistics that say that men are more likely to commit various crimes, without looking at the fact that these criminals are in fact a small minority of men, and thus applying gender predictively is highly inappropriate in a statistical sense.

So I'd love if one of you people who said that there is no such thing as sexism towards men could explain the above--was the teacher not being sexist because she had no institutional power (if we somehow assume that she lacks instutitional power simply because she has ovaries)?

[varsil.livejournal.com]

As an additional example of why I find the above definition of sexism to be bizarre:

People like Marc Lépine, who are socially at the bottom of the barrel and who are hard to classify as having "institutional power", due to not having any power. They're reviled... and I'd like to be able to say that they're sexists, but they don't meet the above criterion.

Any definition for sexism that disqualifies Marc Lépine is a bad definition.