Based on the year so far, you're gonna need this.

Welcome to 2016. We’re just over a week into the New Year, and Australia seems to be in the running for some kind of international sexist bingo championship. First we had Jamie Briggs and Peter Dutton, who ticked off ‘workplace harassment’, ‘misbehaving white men keeping their job because of merit, promise’, and ‘labelling a woman you don’t agree with as a mad fucking witch’ in a few fevered days.

Then came Chris Gayle. The cricketer asked out sports reporter Mel McLaughlin while she was conducting an interview and, in doing so, let the nation tick off ‘sidelining women in sport’ and ‘inappropriate workplace conduct’. This was closely followed by the tragic news that a man had murdered his two children, and killed himself, in Port Lincoln. The media quickly ticked off ‘sympathising with violent men’, publishing multiple accounts referring to him as a “top bloke.” Limiting access to vital healthcare services was next: people with vaginas may soon pay for the privilege of having a pap smear.

All of this boils down to one thing: at some point this year, you’re going to have a conversation about sexism — either at work, a party, family event, or somewhere on the internet — and you’re almost guaranteed to encounter someone saying something sexist. In previous years, you might have stewed silently; unable to articulate how and why the person loudly proclaiming “not all men” was wrong. To make sure that doesn’t happen again, we’ve put together a handy guide to dealing with sexism in 2016. Here you’ll find the most common arguments made refuting sexism, and their corresponding counter-arguments.

–

‘Men And Women Are Already Equal’

Unequivocal denial of sexism is a bold tactic. It’s also surprisingly popular: many people claim that sexism does not exist, either as a structural or individual problem, because men and women are already equal.

Setting aside the problematic notion that gender can be reduced to a simple binary of male/female for a moment, the notion that men and women are equal in 2016 is fairly easy to disprove. The next time someone tries this argument on you, gently remind them that in Australia, at the end of 2015, the salary gap between men and women at non-public sector organisations was almost 20 percent and that women were retiring with 46.6 percent less superannuation than men on average.

Women were also scarce in leadership positions in business; only 15 percent of companies have a female CEO. As Annabel Crabbe documented in her book The Wife Drought, many Australians still believe that men should be at work and women should be at home. “In Australian families with children under the age of 15, 60 percent have a father who works full-time and a mother who works part-time or not at all. Only three percent of families have mothers who work full-time and a father who is at home or works part-time.”

Then draw their attention to the fact that Australian women are dramatically underrepresented in both State and Federal parliaments, and their respective cabinets, with women making up “less than one third of all parliamentarians and not even one fifth of ministers.” These figures grow grimmer when you consider Indigenous women. It was not until 2013, when Senator Nova Peris was elected, that an Aboriginal woman entered the Federal Senate.

Next, remind them violence against women is at epidemic levels in Australia. One in five Australian women have experienced sexual violence, and one in six Australian women experienced physical or sexual violence from a current or former partner. Despite a spate of excellent reportage on domestic violence, particularly the work done by Jess Hill, Clementine Ford and Sarah Ferguson, governments have continued to cut funding to essential services.

–

‘Lighten Up! It’s Just A Joke’

“You need to get a sense of humour – it’s just a joke,” is one of the favoured declarations made by men to feminists. Feminists in this scenario are shrill, joyless harpies, who delight in spending their time screeching SEXISM at everyday situations that are actually hilarious. Supporters of Chris Gayle have insisted that it was a joke, or banter.

This defence often falls apart when you ask people to explain the joke. No one has made it clear how, exactly, asking a clearly uncomfortable Mel McLaughlin out live on air is hilarious. Was “don’t blush, baby” the punch line? As Rebecca Shaw points out, “if you think ‘banter’ is a woman being made uncomfortable by a man’s advances at an inappropriate time, then I am sorry for any woman you come into contact with.”

The demand for feminists to ‘lighten up’ is inherently patronising, implying the only thing standing between women and equality is women being nicer when confronted with instances of sexism. History would beg to differ: women didn’t receive the vote by asking nicely, nor has any oppressed group improved their condition by asking the dominant group nicely. Change is uncomfortable and challenging; that’s how we know it’s change.

–

‘Reverse Sexism’ And Misandry

Men get treated differently from women all the time — isn’t that reverse sexism? People taking up this argument acknowledge that sexism exists, but argue that — contrary to popular belief (and all evidence) — the real problem is the ‘reverse sexism’ practiced against men. This was another popular argument made on behalf of Chris Gayle, with many people triumphantly pointing to Sunrise weather presenter Nuala Hafner, who once asked a topless man on the beach if he was single.

When confronted by someone decrying reverse sexism, the first thing to do is remind him or her that our actions take place not in a vacuum, but within a broader historical and cultural context. Sexism is the result of centuries of oppression. Women have been historically denied full citizenship, and the opportunities this provided; have lacked rights over their own bodies; have been excluded from the workforce; have been subjected to violence at the hands of men on the streets and in their homes; have had their voices and opinions quashed and dismissed; and have been excluded from positions of power and influence. As Jenna Christian wrote, “all of these issues remain deeply persistent sources of women’s inequality.”

In the case of Chris Gayle and Nuala Hafner: the objectification of women has deep historic roots, and therefore reinforces traditional understandings of women as objects to be admired by men. The objectification of men, however, runs counter to dominant understandings of men’s position in the socio-political system both today and throughout history.

Your next step is to explain how, exactly, oppression works. As Elizabeth King writes, “oppression flows in one direction only, from the privileged oppressor to the oppressed. It’s a socially and culturally supported misuse of power that keeps one group at the top and others beneath them in many senses.” In other words: misandry is not the equivalent of patriarchy, because one is enshrined in our socio-political system and the other is not.

This is not to argue that women are incapable of discriminating against men: of course, individuals are still capable of being terrible to each other, and as such women are perfectly capable of being biased against men. This bias, however, is not supported by our socio-political system. Sexism refers to systematic discrimination. Men are still the dominant group in our society, and are not economically, socially, culturally or legally oppressed by women.

–

‘Not All Men’

‘Not all men’ is the favoured catch-cry of embittered men the world over. While these individuals acknowledge that sexism is a problem, they would like you to know that they, personally, are not sexist. In essence, the argument is that people shouldn’t use sweeping terms like ‘male violence against women’ or use ‘men’ as a category at all when discussing sexism, because in doing so they tarnish the reputation of all men. ‘Not all men’ has become a cultural touchstone: prompting countless think pieces on how we discuss feminism, and also wonderful critiques including Matt Lubchansky’s comic ‘Save Me’.

In interpreting feminist discourse as a personal attack, these men (and yes, it’s #notallmen) are derailing the conversation. It stops people from dealing with broader structural issues, such as domestic violence, and instead focuses our attention on individuals. So, the next time someone deploys ‘not all men’ gently remind them that it’s not about them and, in making it about them, they’re disproving their claim that they’re really a nice guy who’s not about perpetuating the patriarchy.

–

‘Why Don’t You Focus Your Attention On Something Important?’

Why are you writing about this, when you could be writing about women in Saudi Arabia/children starving in Africa/the inevitable demise of humanity and all of human achievement? Although the last one might be slightly hyperbolic, in any discussion of sexism there are those who argue that we should be focusing our attention on more important issues.

Strangely, despite the preponderance of articles on ‘trivial’ things — from how to plant succulents, to the most important turtlenecks in Love Actually, to pieces explaining the science behind why the racoon kept washing its fairy floss — this demand is made almost exclusively in response to articles dealing with sexism, racism and the treatment of other historically oppressed groups. In a strange game of moral one-upmanship, we are only allowed to discuss sexism if we are discussing horrific violence exercised against women (preferably committed by a stranger, and ideally taking place on the either side of the world in a non-western country).

This is another classic derailing tactic. The first step is to, politely (or not), remind the person that as a society we are capable of dealing with and being concerned with multiple issues at any one time. The police don’t spend all of their time investigating murders, but also focus their attention on fraud and traffic offences. Then point out that discussions of everyday sexism, from workplace harassment to the treatment of women in popular culture, are an essential part of the conversation about sexism. As Laura Bates writes for the Guardian, “If we aren’t allowed to challenge the more ‘minor’ forms of harassment and discrimination, we set a precedent for the treatment of women as second-class citizens that has a direct impact on the more serious crimes.”

Finally, highlight that sexism is not a foreign phenomenon. Too many people are categorise sexism as something that happens somewhere else – often asking why we don’t focus our discussion of sexism on the plight of women in Egypt/Saudi Arabia/[insert name of any non-western country here]. This is an inherently racialised argument, simultaneously denying the agency and ability of women in non-western countries, and assuming that sexism is a product of other cultures. There’s an obviously racial component here, which has been discussed in far more detail and with far more grace than I will manage here by Ruby Hamad, Clementine Ford and others.

–

’Political Correctness’ And ‘Suppressing Free Speech’

According to some, the plague of ‘PC’ culture has swept the world, leaving in its wake people too cowed by women, people of colour, and other minorities to really speak their mind. Freedom of speech is being quashed, and Australia is ruled by political correctness gone mad.

Labelling something as ‘politically correct’ is a lazy way of dismissing an individual’s argument or point of view without actually engaging with their ideas. White men overwhelmingly wield this argument, upon finding that as we make slow progress on ending racism, misogyny, and transphobia, they can no longer say what they like without consequence. Political correctness isn’t policing free speech; it’s simply challenging dominant (and often damaging) views.

When dealing with someone who claims their free speech is being suppressed, the first point to make is that people regularly confuse their right to free speech (which technically doesn’t actually exist in Australia, FYI) with their right to say anything they want without consequence. The recent spate of articles examining sexism in Australia has prompted countless comments decrying the rise of political correctness and the death of free speech.

Ironically, these comments are all very easy to find and read: often published under the very article, by the very publication, that is supposedly quashing their right to free speech. The media in Australia, and people writing about sexism, aren’t repressing free speech; they’re examining bigotry. Despite what some people believe, that’s not the same thing. Free speech does not equal the right to speak without consequence or criticism.

–

Hollie Pich is a freelance writer and doctoral candidate in history, living and writing in Sydney.