Why ‘Reverse Sexism’ Isn’t a Thing (Sorry, Guys!)

Words Matter

Thumbnail photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Until recently, reverse sexism (or the idea that men, and particularly cis men, experience systemic gender-based prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination) wasn’t exactly on my radar - I suppose I had assumed that feminists of all genders were in agreement on its lack of existence. Then, on two separate occasions, I was accused of reverse sexism by two of my male friends, both of whom identify as feminists. 

I should clarify that I personally identify as an intersectional feminist, meaning that my feminism recognizes the ways that other forms of identifying oneself, such as race and class, have an impact on gender discrimination (Krenshaw 1989). 

However, behind closed doors, my views can sometimes bleed into those of a radical feminist, which call for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts while recognizing that women's experiences are also affected by other social divisions such as race, class, and sexual orientation (Jaggar 1992). (Basically, radical feminism aims to dismantle patriarchy, white supremacy, and other forms of oppression, rather than making adjustments to the current system through cultural, social, and legal changes.) 

Although I tend to believe that the dismantling of our current patriarchal (and American capitalist) system isn’t the most realistic way to help women and other oppressed groups now, within a society that works against them in many ways...sometimes I get fed up.

I was first accused of reverse sexism when I made a statement among friends that I would indefinitely be taking a break from dating cis white men. I was frustrated with my personal history of mistreatment by this category of human beings, so I made a wine-fueled declaration that they would be off my radar for the time being. I may have also used some derogatory language against this category of person, which is most likely what sparked the accusation. 

In the aftermath of this declaration, I was accused of lumping all members of this group under one big bad umbrella, and I was asked how that was any different than a man saying he “hates women.”

Shortly after, on a separate occasion, I was discussing, with a male friend of mine, my frustration at feeling more deeply and frequently scrutinized by society for my career choices, as a woman, than if I were a man. I claimed that cis men have an easier time making controversial career choices, such as taking up roles as, say, a stay-at-home dad, a broke artist, or a traveling freelancer, than women do, because, for men, these choices are not accompanied by stigma, disapproval and other negative assumptions. 

I argued that society accepts men whether they sit around reading philosophy books all day or set out to become the CEO of a big conglomerate. Women, on the other hand, are accused of emasculating their male partners (in heterosexual relationships) if they make more money, labeled “heartless” or a “bitch” if they embody the same characteristics that typically make men successful in high-power jobs, called anti-feminist if they choose to stay home to take care of the kids, and accused of lack-of-ambition if they decide to write freelance from home and are okay with not knowing what their lives will look like in a year (okay yes, maybe that one was personal for me). 

Not to mention, many industries continue to be male-dominated; investment banking, engineering, or construction work, to name a few. Women still struggle to enter and move up within such industries, whereas men are making more and more headway in previously female-dominated industries, such as teaching, nursing, or childcare. This was followed by a tangent about the still-very-real pay gap, the still-encouraged “lean in” controversy, and the lack of sexual harassment training in the workplace (but let’s save those topics for another day).

In both of these cases, my male friends retorted with the “not all men” approach and accused me of sexism against men. They argued that calling out cis white men in such a catch-all way was closed-minded and that men also struggle when it comes to societal expectations about career choice. In hindsight, the statements I made were general and extreme, and if a man were speaking about women, in the same way, it would be considered sexist. However, my words against men were not. Yes, it is a double standard, but it is far from unfair.

Some of you have probably heard of the term reverse racism, but reverse sexism might not have come up as often in conversation. I’m in the same boat. On the former of the two cases in which I was accused of it, my friend and I actually Googled “reverse sexism” because we weren’t sure if it was widely accepted or defined. As such, I thought perhaps a greater audience might need a refresher, as well. 

As it turns out, from a sociological perspective, the same general conception of reverse racism also applies to reverse sexism. Reverse racism is the concept that affirmative action - and other efforts to dismantle white supremacy and work towards racial justice - is actually “racism” directed at white folx. In its most extreme use, white folx claim that the white population is now the racially oppressed group in society, but most people who use “reverse racism” use it to describe any acts of racial prejudice directed at white folx. 

If you are familiar with reverse racism, you are most likely knowledgeable about the fact that this is a false equivalency. Racism, as we speak about it today, carries the weight of historical prejudice against the BIPOC community; therefore it cannot apply to the white population which does not experience the everyday trauma and racist aftermath of historical oppression. 

White immunity, defined as the immunity which the white population has against the prejudice and oppression which targets BIPOC, is an immunity because by simply being born into white skin, white folx exist with an advantage over BIPOC folx. Therefore, any work that raises up the BIPOC community simply levels the playing field and is not detrimental to white folx. 

The same is true when it comes to reverse sexism. In our patriarchal society, male-presenting and male-identifying men are born into bodies that stand on a taller pedestal than female-presenting and female-identifying women. On a strictly gendered basis, men’s bodies carry more immunity against violence, oppression, and prejudice than women’s bodies. This shifts when it comes to identification: a person born in a male-presenting body, but who identifies otherwise, does not experience the same immunity as a cis man. Similarly, sexuality has an impact on this immunity - a gay or bisexual (or otherwise-identifying) man does not experience the same privileges as a heterosexual man. A cis-passing or straight-passing (a person who does not identify as a cis and/or heterosexual man but appears as one to society) may sometimes experience privilege and immunity as well. 

Any work that involves raising up women is considered female empowerment and simply levels the playing field so that women have the same opportunities as men. When we have scholarships for women in certain fields, or if an all-women organization is formed, this is not sexist. The world we live in already works for men, and anything we do to include and empower women merely evens the scale. This is called equity.

Reproduced with thanks! Interaction Institute for Social Change | Artist: Angus Maguire. Available at: interactioninstitute.org and madewithangus.com

While it is true that men are victim to many societal pressures and expectations under the constraints of patriarchy and traditional ideas of masculinity, they still inevitably experience gender-based privileges that operate on personal, interpersonal, cultural, and institutional levels and give advantages, favors, and benefits to men at the expense of women. Privilege is inherently invisible to those who have it, and it is awarded whether the privileged party wants it or not.

This is why it is very important for men to recognize and address their privileges, and to work to avoid being agents of oppression. An agent of oppression is a member of a dominant group who knowingly or unknowingly exploits and reaps unfair advantages over members of groups who are targets of oppression. The way to avoid this is by being an active feminist and ally to women through checking privilege, working to avoid putting women in uncomfortable, dangerous, or unfair situations, and addressing and educating men who act and speak in a sexist manner. 

Merely identifying as a feminist is not enough. Just as it is possible for someone to personally identify as a ‘white ally’ and intellectually oppose racism without successfully dismantling their own biases and complicity in white supremacy, it is also possible for men to intellectually challenge patriarchy without actually dismantling their own behaviors (and addressing those of others) that may consciously or unconsciously contribute to their continued complicity within patriarchy.  

Words (among other things) matter in this regard. A man saying something along the lines of “I hate women,” “women are trash,” or “women have it so easy,” carries the weight of an inherently sexist and patriarchal society, whereas a woman saying “I hate men,” “men are trash,” or “men have it so easy,” (while an unfair generalization) does not carry that same societal and historical weight. Statements like this by men about women can lead to horrifying violence against women: harassment, assault, and even murder. Equivalent statements made by women towards men do not. This is because men dominate our current society politically, culturally, physically, and emotionally. 

A man stating that he “hates women” holds a deeper, more violent truth than when I, a cis woman, say anything of the sort about the group, “men.” A man “hating women” often stems from conditioned entitlement or the false notion that women owe him something, especially in a sexual context. A man “hating women” labels women with the sexist identity of living to serve him, to submit to him, and to step aside so that he can achieve whatever it is that he wants that women may be standing in the way of. A man “hating women” dehumanizes women. 

Women, on the other hand, do not have the power to dehumanize men. Men are inherently humanized by society. They are the heroes of their own story, while women play the ingénues. This is from a socialized patriarchal perspective, of course, and every day that we fight for equity we work to move away from this reality, but it is still deeply ingrained (though perhaps less overtly practiced and consciously believed). 

As such, when women make broad general statements about men, it is considered punching up because men, as a group, hold more power and status within society. ‘Punching up’ is a loose and controversial term for speaking broadly against a group that holds more power in an unjust system. It is comparable to standing up to the school bully, and while I want to be really clear that feminism does not make men the enemies of women, we must keep in mind the context of a patriarchal society when we consider broad statements against men in comparison to those against women. Broad statements by women against men simply do not carry the same weight as those by men against women. 

If a man is walking behind a woman on the street, the general understanding is that he could overpower her physically, and every moment he does not he is choosing not to. The power imbalance is palpable. Sexism is ingrained into all of our minds, and we must all work to unlearn together, but when it comes to physical safety between men and women, the man is in control of the situation. As such, if you are a man and you find yourself walking behind a woman while she is alone, particularly at night, it is a huge courtesy to cross the street in order to show her that you mean no harm. Because yes, the assumption is that you do, no matter what your intersectional identities may be; no matter your race, age, stature, or sexuality, it is always a weight off of her shoulders to see you cross away from her.

Closely examining the systemic cultural power disparities existing in society and challenging the associated impacts of oppression and privilege is essential for creating a more equitable world. However, this sociological analysis of groups does not determine the character of individuals. 

I do not blame the individual man for his belonging to this group and being socialized as such. Although cis (white) men benefit from the patriarchy and are in less overt danger from its effects than women and folx of the non-cis-white-male persuasion, it is undeniable that they are confined, suppressed, limited, and oppressed by the patriarchy as well. Men are bound by the constraints and expectations of hegemonic masculinity, a captive state they are placed in by patriarchal society that encourages (however unintentionally) a range of toxic behaviors and beliefs. 

When I said that cis men have an easier time picking a career because they are more likely to be praised for their choices than women, I was not referring to “all men.” I was not saying that individual cis men don’t struggle. I know that both of the men with whom I was having these discussions have their own complications, difficulties, traumas, insecurities, and obstacles. I know that my father, your brother, you, and every other man and person existing on this planet does. But ultimately, for cis men, these difficulties do not stem directly from their gender. This is the definition of male privilege. It does not mean that all men are privileged (economically, racially, etc.); it just means that being male is not the source of their challenges and struggles in life. 

When I said that I would be taking a break from dating cis white men, I did not mean to offend or insult every cis white man I know! I have so much love, respect, and admiration for individual cis white men in my life, and I did not mean to insult any of them. I know that the thought of me exiting the dating scene was horribly tragic to fathom; I know that I would be removing a near-perfect specimen from the market and depriving the cis-white-male population of the joys and pleasures that come with the mere possibility of dating me. But I was coming from a place of personal exhaustion, frustration, and trauma that moved me to make such a broad claim, so it’s important not to take it personally! And hey, the sooner more and more cis white men become active feminists and take allyship action, the sooner I’ll be back on the market! So, let’s get to work.

The category of “man” or “cis white man” is completely separate from each individual who identifies with it. The individual decides what kind of man he wants to be, and that is everything. The men that are in my life are still in my life because each and every one of them is aware of this invisible bondage, and each and every one of them works every day to unlearn their behaviors, thoughts, and opinions which are shaped by hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy, and to become the men they choose to be for themselves. 

In the same way, I work each and every day to unlearn things like competing with other women, shaping my body language to appear smaller, insecurity about my femininity vs masculinity, difficulty standing up for myself, struggling to say “no” in a sexual context, changing my voice to mask my intelligence, holding my tongue to avoid appearing dominant, and all of my biases, fears, ambitions, and desires that have been molded by the patriarchy. 

Claiming ‘reverse sexism’ ultimately denies the existence of patriarchy. Yes, individual men can experience gender-based prejudice directed at them from time to time; but they do not walk through life experiencing systemic, gender-based subjugation, violence, and marginalizing conditioning. This is why reverse sexism (like reverse racism) is a false narrative, and why it is an important step for men who identify as feminists - men who are striving to be allies of those who experience gender-based oppression - to recognize this crucial distinction. 

The next time one of your female friends claims that she “hates men”, or that she feels inferior in her life choices due to gender-based prejudices, perhaps instigate a conversation with her about what personal experiences have led her to this conclusion, and remind her that you - one of the men in her life - are by her side, validate her struggle, and support her feelings, no matter how divisive or insulting her words may come across. 

It’s absolutely okay to express how her statements made you feel, too, as long as you come from a place of honesty, vulnerability, and open-mindedness. Which luckily for me, my two male friends did (thanks, guys!).

Note of acknowledgement- With thanks to Islay Nicklin for her contributions and feedback as I wrote this blog. Thank you!