1- I'm sure everyone heard about the psychotic women who drugged her husband, cut off his penis and threw it in a garbage disposal and then turned it on. In my view, it's horrific and not in the least bit funny, but the women on CBS show 'The Talk' found it delightful and hilarious. In fact, they praised the actions of this woman and proclaimed that the man must have really angered her in order for her to do that so it was probably well deserved. Sharon Osbourne said and I quote: "I think it's quite fabulous". Her remark sent the mostly female audience into a cackling frenzy.
What's wrong here: if the situation was reversed, there would have been an uproar in the community. If a panel of men on a TV show paraded the mutilation of a women's genitals by her husband, a great demand would have been placed on the show's cancellation and I'm pretty sure everyone would be asking for their heads.
2. In Russia, a man tried to rob a woman's store. He was unsuccessful because he was overpowered by the woman who severly beat him, tied him up in a basement and raped him for three days. When this was discovered, the general reaction was: "You go, girlfriend!". This woman now has a fan page on facebook where she is celebrated and her actions justified because they are female empowering.
What's wrong here: if a man beat up a women, tied her up in the basement and used her a sex slave for three days, I can bet that his maimed and castrated body would be found in a ditch somewhere and there would be a Facebook page made in honor of the woman instead of him. His actions would not be justified and the argument that it empowers men would have been stamped down on hard.
So what's going on here? Is this sexism against men? Is this "misandry"? Could you call this "reverse sexism"?
No, no and no. Why? Because: sexism against men doesn’t exist.
Before you blow up at me, read this first:
"Sexism against men is essentlially a linguistic problem. To call discrimination against men and discrimination against women both “sexism” is to undermine what sexism against women really means, and to completely ignore our culture’s general disgust and despising of women. Men do, of course, suffer on account of their gender. But, for instance, when boys are bullied for acting effeminate, it is because our culture values masculinity and hates traditionally feminine traits. When men are expected to serve in the military, or when women are given child custody rights in divorce settlings, it is because the patriarchy has decided that women are too weak for combat, and are more suited to raising children at home."
Sexism discriminates against women and limits men but there is not such thing as men being discriminated against for being men. But there is such a thing as women being discriminated against purely because they are women.
As for the above two cases; the reactions, the remarks, the general consesus on how "empowering" those actions were, are all incredibly wrong and disturbing. But in a world where sexism is an everyday issue for women, I can see why they jeered and applauded. This does not excuse their behavior and in no way am I justifying their responses. All I'm saying is that there might have been other reasons for their crude behavior.
“The global statistics on the abuse of girls are numbing. It appears that more girls have been killed in the last 50 years, precisely because they were girls, than men were killed in all the wars of the twentieth century. More girls are killed in this routine “gendercide” in any one decade than people were slaughtered in all the genocides of the twentieth century. In the 19th century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the 20th century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. We believe that in this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality in the developing world.”
— Half the Sky: Sheryl WuDunn and Nicholas D. Kristof