Thursday, December 4, 2014

An Open Letter to Anita Sarkeesian

Dear Anita Sarkeesian,

      I have almost no respect for you anymore, mostly due to the tweet where you say that sexism against men is impossible (though there are admittedly other factors).  I now have the opportunity to give you the chance to gain my respect back.  How?  It's rather simple:  You will just have to explain to me just how this music video is NOT sexist against men:

Note that I am not talking about the lyrics, here.  I am not talking about the song which displays rage against an ex.  I am talking about the abuse of a male by a group of women that is laughed about.  It is abhorrent.  Why is it acceptable to tie up a man, smear lipstick on his face, forcibly cut his hair, break eggs on his head, cover him in flour, and take a picture of it?

WHAT exactly makes this not sexist against men?  I can guaran-dam-tee that, were the roles reversed and it was a woman being abused by a group of men, you and I would be screaming "THIS IS MYSOGYNY!" from adjacent rooftops.  You and me both would be decrying this video as an abhorrent glorification of abuse of women.  So why does it not work that way when the victim is male?  Why don't you scream "THIS IS MISANDRY!" from the rooftop adjacent to me?  Is it because of the "+ power" part that you think is required?  Well then WHERE IS THE LACK OF POWER?  She's a damned celebrity, this was made in a professional studio, and was shared by a professional promoter.  Is it because it's not a "grand narrative"?  The video I linked to has nearly FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND VIEWS, and it is not the only copy out there!  How is this not some "grand narrative"?  And if it's alright because it's a guy getting abused, doesn't that say something about the culture, which is oh-so important to that "+ power" part of the equation according to the link you yourself provided later on?

Speaking of that link, even it disagrees with you somewhat:

Men are undoubtedly affected by sexism, but because of their privilege they don’t experience it the same way that women do; this difference in experience is acknowledged through the distinction of sexism versus gender-based prejudice.

Now, I know that you're going to try and claim that this falls under that "gender-based prejudice" part, but does it really?   Just because men have a history of being the ones in charge, that somehow softens this action?  Really?  Just because sexism isn't experienced in the same way DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN SEXISM ISN'T HAPPENING.  And even if it does, that does not change the fact that IT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING IN THE GODDAMNED FIRST PLACE.  Institutionalized vs non-institutionalized sexism is a distinction without a difference:  the end result is the same.  So please, explain to me just how this isn't goddamned sexist.

No comments :

Post a Comment

Honestly, I want you guys to comment at this point. I don't know fucking everything.