02/25/2014 Jonathan Taylor

Humanities textbook teaches that men can’t be targets of sexism, promotes worldview that trivializes men’s experiences

Women can't be sexist

From the textbook Is Everyone really Equal, page 46.

Is it just me, or are the humanities becoming less humane?

Today’s gem comes from Drs. Ozlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo’s textbook “Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education.” We’ll be focusing on page 46, which says:

There is no op­pression against men as men and therefore no “reverse” sexism (although there is oppression against men where they also inhabit oppressed positions, e.g., working class White men or gay Asian men or elderly Sikh men).

First of all, I don’t like to use the word “oppressed” when referring to either men or women as a group. It’s an extreme word, and its use in the context of sex can only be rationalized by dishonestly cherry-picking only the disadvantageous experiences of either sex, and then misrepresenting such cherry-picked data as if it were all or most of the picture of gender relations.

And as I’ve explained at length elsewhere, women were never historically “oppressed,” at least not in the west, and certainly not in the way blacks and Jews historically were. Women were indeed disadvantaged by traditional gender roles, but so too were men.

Nor – contrary to Feminist dogma – were such roles forced upon society against women’s will. As many women of today so eloquently demonstrate, women are quite happy to demand that men perform traditional roles whenever they work in women’s favor.

And they always have.

Historically, men died in the workplace and in war. Women tended to die during childbirth. Women didn’t have the option to work in the most advanced positions in society, but unlike men they weren’t forced to work the most brutal, filthy, and deadly jobs.

Women had limited options to establish a career, but men never had the privilege of society providing them with a partner who will fund their entire existence.

Women weren’t respected in the public sphere, but women weren’t held accountable in the public sphere either, and consequently were given a free pass by the criminal justice system. In many cases men themselves paid for their wive’s crimes.

Let’s also remember that men were historically obligated to die for women in the event that women got into more trouble than they could handle. Titanic, anyone?

Feminists and their apologists like to dismiss such counter-evidence by claiming that women were not “privileged” per se, but rather “treated like children.”

But were women treated like children, or treated like royalty? Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. And compelling arguments could be made that children have historically been treated much worse than women.

The majority of men throughout history were not princes and kings – the 1%. They were born in the mud, lived in the mud, worked in the mud, and died in the mud. What was the historic relation of women to mud? Metaphorically speaking, something like this:


In a sense, Drs. Sensoy and DiAngelo are correct: there is no such thing as “reverse” sexism against men, because such a concept often rests upon the false premise that gender relations were ever one-sided against women to begin with. So it’s not “reverse” sexism. It’s just plain ol’ sexism.

The textbook also says:

“Women cannot be just as sexist as men because they do not hold political, economic, and institutional power.”

Notice how their definition of sexism leaves out the concepts of biological and cultural power, both of which tend to favor women.

In pre-industrial societies it is considered acceptable to kill off huge numbers of men. This is because no matter how many men a society/tribe/nation kills off, it can still repopulate itself so long as a few men and most of the women stay alive.

It cannot do this if it kills off most of its women. Hence, men have almost always been the ones put on the chopping block. This is the foundation of the phenomenon Dr. Warren Farrell calls male disposability. It is biological power.

Men may have indeed been favored by the laws of public institutions, but women are favored by the laws of Nature itself.

Men at bottom

The phenomenon of male disposability. Sources here: http://boysmeneducation.com/know-the-issues/mhrm/issues/

Furthermore, even if it were the case that women historically did not hold any kind of power, the concept that women do not hold political, economic, and institutional power today is false on its face.

Women are the majority of consumers in society, which means that they are the target audience corporations (read: men) pander to. Hence, why Hallmark will make cards insulting men, but will never insult women.

In addition, women are the majority of voters. And many institutions are gynocentric – academia especially. So it’s a sham to pretend that women hold no power in society.

A simple Google search will show that this textbook is on the syllabus of many classes in “higher education”:

We have seen time and time again how Feminists in academia attempt to silence alternative perspectives on gender equity, often while violating others’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association and engaging in hateful and criminal acts.


The freshman orientation program “She Fears You,” presented at 60 colleges and universities. How would people react if it said “whites fear you”?

We have seen them preach many hateful things about men and boys, both individually and as a group, in the halls of academia. And we have seem them – surrounded by their political allies – translate these hateful ideas onto banners, posters, and other visual aids, and wield them in a public and symbolic manner that demonstrates communally shared beliefs.

But as I have made pains to stress in the past, the problem is not so much the singular and occasional anti-male statements and actions of students, faculty, and administrators. Those are merely the symptoms of a much deeper problem.

The real problem is the attitude and the worldview that creates and fosters them. It is the seething darkness and the underlying subtext beneath their words and deeds.

And that worldview is shared not just by the “radicals” in academia, but by the moderates as well.

Jonathan Taylor
Follow me

Jonathan Taylor

Jonathan is Title IX For All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer. Hailing from Texas, he makes a mean red beans n' rice and is always interested to learn new things.
Jonathan Taylor
Follow me
Share and rate this post:
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author

Jonathan Taylor Jonathan is Title IX For All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer. Hailing from Texas, he makes a mean red beans n' rice and is always interested to learn new things.

Comments (21)

  1. As far as I’m concerned anyone who uses the term “reverse [discriminatory practice]” is practicing that form of discrimination.
    Reverse sexism is the implicit belief that only women can be discriminated against, which is a sexist belief. Further women have always held political, economic and institutional power. Men had the direct power to vote, women had the power to effect that vote, with chivalrous ideals men would be inclined to vote for the prosperity of their family(wife) rather than themselves. When nobles were still a thing women were just as powerful as men with owning property and businesses and ruling populations. Institutionally women have always had positions of influence, women ran church communities, nuns upheld communal values, etc…
    I don’t even have a college education and I can look and see how full of shit this is, how scared must so many administrators and scholars be to not call this shit out?

  2. Xaros

    Great article. I have never understood the term “Reverse racism” or “Reverse Sexism”. I was taught that each one was characterized by discriminating or judging of someone (positively or negatively) based on their race or gender. To me there is no such thing as “reverse *ism” it is just Sexism, or Racism, or any of those other nasty ism’s. I guess I missed the bus when they taught that it could only be practiced by those with some sort of perceived power. Oh well, I like my definition better.

    • Glad you like your definition better 🙂

      Interestingly, the dictionary definition of sexism directly contradicts the definition given by these ideologues (sexism = prejudice + power). These ideologues then tell us to refer to the dictionary whenever people challenge the idea that Feminism is about equality.

      It’s a double standard; the dictionary is a determining arbiter of language when it suits their purposes. When it doesn’t suit their purposes, it isn’t.

  3. That is a blatantly egregious lie. I suppose we are to believe the prominent and powerful women drafting legislation such as VAWA, the organisation N.O.W are not infact endorsed entirely by the Government and carried out with threat of violence. This of course is not power? That is the ultimate form of tyrannical power. That the entire Feminist ideology is the dominant ideology upon all campuses which dictates all male life while present? That is not power?

  4. George G

    Great article Jonathan!

    The statement in the textbook that “women can’t be just as sexist as men” is patently absurd. Statements like that are proof that some areas of academia have become nothing more than integral components of the relentless feminist propaganda machine. Television, by the way, is another integral component.

    And you’re right; while textbook foolishness like this is troubling, the broad acceptance of the twisted, underlying worldview is even more problematic. Again, it shows the disturbing effectiveness of the feminist propaganda effort.

    The implications for the future are mind-boggling.

  5. markxneil

    The message in the book is inherently sexist, and proof of the existence of sexism against men. It is essentially self defeating, no matter how you examine it. The definition of sexism or discrimination has not traditionally include any power component, and accepting this definition, one can see the attempt to exclude men in the textbook definition is, by it’s nature, discriminatory. If, however, you accept that this feminist definition has become what is in the textbook, then their ability to change the definition of sexism, is a form of power, and that power is being used expressly for the purpose of excluding men… therefore, even by their own definition they use to exclude men, they are being discriminatory towards men.

  6. Rob

    Holy Shit! It was bad when I was in college but not this bad. Those authors as well as any teachers requiring that book are narrowed minded sexist jackasses. SIMPLY INCREDIBLE. Not sure if your from Canada or the US but I will say that America is becoming like apartheid South Africa except we use gender rather than race as the basis of discrimination and stereotyping.
    Women dont hold the power? Women (and more specifically feminist) control US Education, American family courts, major media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC, and they have the most influence in Congress. Most male politicians (whether D or R) will not go against feminist sponsored legislation.
    That book is a pathetic joke.

  7. Rob

    BTW, your analogy of “Whites fear you” was pretty good!

  8. T.Smith

    “She Fears You”. And there you have it, the true feminist intent is to promote fear amongst women . They benefit from this propaganda, it is in their interests to see women afraid as it encourages buy-in of their message, and encourages more women to join. Nothing new or original about this strategy, it was the communist scare, the jewish scare, the Asian scare. Manipulate the data and silence criticism by calling any challenge to the propaganda unpatriotic or in this case misogynistic.

    Though I suspect if you asked most women they would be more afraid of walking past a group of women than walking past a man.

  9. Insidious_Sid

    Be aware, gentlemen that the feminist misandrists writing this drivel in textbooks and calling it fact (by virtue of being in an “academic text”) are the same people who have jobs in government revolving around writing school policies for young children. The real radical feminist, by virtue of their lifestyle choices, cannot reproduce through natural means, so they instead attempt to indoctrinate (aka assimilate) the children of others, starting at the earliest possible.

  10. Beatle

    Wow look at all the fedoras gathered in one glorious MRA haven to rub their precious male tears on one another.

    • I approved your comment to show the world an example of the intellectual caliber of the opposition. Now that you have done the best your mind can possibly do, have a good day.

    • Bob

      It’s nice to see that there are many people out there willing to show just how deep anti-male hatred goes. When men get together and discuss their malcontent with all traditional gendered impositions on men, the liberals show up in force to show just how hated men are. Men are so hated in society that even small groups of them questioning their gender identity are accosted, insulted, belittled, harassed and threatened by even major institutions like the SPLC. Feminists, on the other hand, proceed in everything they do with nearly ubiquitous institutional support.

      I think that very much lends weight to the claims of Men’s Rights advocates. When they cannot even discuss their lack of fondness for the abuses levied upon them by society without extreme backlash from large groups and institutions, it shows just how much western society has to lose in men becoming aware of their subordinated and underprivileged positions.

  11. Bob

    I tend to be forgiving of “reverse racism” in the western world as there are and have been a great many structures and attitudes that have caused serious harm to minorities – but not sexism against men. Women aren’t a minority. Women have never been slaves (if anything, men have been the slaves of women). The vast majority of men are less powerful than the vast majority of women.


Comments are closed.