This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Do women over react at 'sexism?'

Scroll to see replies

You are quite wise and rational, I must admit. Although I don't at all agree with this statement 'don't think you can judge the way someone reacts to "sexism", because you really don't know the person, and what could have caused them to have this view' ...TBH I don't really care what's caused them to be sexist.. all I know is that they are and I think that that is despicable, inexcusable behavior

I was talking about the women who are being judged for reacting, not the men who make the statements.

Reply 21

TurboCretin

Original post by GonvilleBromhead

How are jokes which are intended to be shocking or provocative in order to elicit a laugh an example of institutionalised anything? Institutionalised is defined as '

institutionalizeɪnstɪˈtjuːʃ(ə)n(ə)lʌɪz/verbpast tense: institutionalized; past participle: institutionalized

1.establish (something, typically a practice or activity) as a convention or norm in an organization or culture."he institutionalized the practice of collaborative research on a grand scale"

2.place or keep (someone) in a residential institution.

So you would have to demonstrate (a) the practice or activity of jokes exclusively against women is a convention or organisation; and (b) the intent is sexist in so far as sexist opinions are the basis for this behaviour.

(a) Is not true, jokes are made against everyone, it's not exclusively to any one subgroup but even assuming that to be correct (b) is your confirmation bias. You have no idea why people make these jokes, what the intent is or how they view the world yet you'll happily impute intention without sufficient evidence to do so. Prima facie example if they hate women why are they married? Why do they love their daughters so much? I'm sure you will be trying to say 'patriarchy' but that isn't the point I'm getting at - rather the baseline common denominator in so far as why would they optionally volunteer to spend so much time with people they hate? At work or school you avoided people you didn't like, if you hate them why would you optionally agree to spend your life with exclusively one of the group you hate?

'Faux scientific articles'. Demonstrate how they're faux. Every single sexually divided species shows distinct separate traits for the male and female. For example in apes the males are bigger, stronger, more aggressive and the females are more caring towards the young. Conversely in seahorses the male looks after the children, in mantises the woman is much larger and often rips the males head off after sex. My point being its not faux biology to identify objective trends in not just humans as a species but in species throughout the animal kingdom. Science has hundreds of years of observation, chemical research (ie hormones), advanced imaging, detailed studies and careful consideration behind it - what is your counter evidence?

As for the gender roles I'll show this the same way I show stereotypes. Why is it nobody stereotypes Africans as wearing sombreros? Simple answer because that has never been observed - similarly gender roles are a generally observed trend of human interaction (as is true in the other aforementioned instances). That doesn't mean people have to follow them but it does establish a base line as to general behaviour by observation thereof. Does it never seem strange to you how the scientific and social elements slot together to make perfect sense whereas your counter is its a conspiracy for no particular purpose. Men are 90% of workplace deaths, women historically cant be soldiers (ie blown up and/or shot), it used to be 'women and children first', chivalry used to demand you defend your womans honour ie punched someone because they upset her regardless of potential consequence, maternity leave is legally mandated, child support and alimony exist etc etc but yet we live in a society that institutionally hates women? Not a lot of logic there.

To answer the OP some do, some don't. There's never an all or nothing across diverse demographics.

Why do you assume that sexism is only about hatred of women? Sexism can be thinking women are great, just that they're inferior to men, or assuming things about them just because they're women.

Reply 22

_gcx

Study Forum Helper

Original post by TurboCretin

Why do you assume that sexism is only about hatred of women? Sexism can be thinking women are great, just that they're inferior to men, or assuming things about them just because they're women.

This is a problem that we have in society.

Original post by Nirvana1989-1994

Why was this ancient thread revived again?

The related discussions section seems to have a tendency to suggest threads that are 3-4 years old, for some reason.

Reply 25

Nirvana1989-1994

Original post by _gcx

The related discussions section seems to have a tendency to suggest threads that are 3-4 years old, for some reason.

That's strange.

Reply 26

username1921011

Original post by TurboCretin

Why do you assume that sexism is only about hatred of women? Sexism can be thinking women are great, just that they're inferior to men, or assuming things about them just because they're women.

Because that's the general societal trend of interpretation, because the thread is specifically about women and because the person to whom I was responding mentioned women specific problems ie had I replied 'but meh men' then they'd have rightly said 'so f**king what, that wasn't what we're discussing'. I'm well aware of the fact it can be both ways by definition, men have a lot of various issues related to potentially generalised views about them as a whole - though just as with females I'm always sceptical when the label 'sexist' is applied as should any fair minded person be. To say the person to whom I'm responding - a feminist who mentions institutionalised sexism - isn't complaining specifically about womens issue is disingenuous hence I replied addressing womens issues. The theory of IS by definition cannot apply to men as it purports men (specifically white men) to be the problem.

Original post by _gcx

This is a problem that we have in society.

Seems a bit confirmation bias to me. As mentioned above there are numerous contextual reasons as to why the scope of the discussion concerned exclusively women, it's not about base assumptions and even assuming it to be so we can't eliminate thousands of years of inbuilt defence mechanisms that give snap judgement decisions based on anecdotal personal evidence - the best a rationalist can do is notice these when being employed by self or others and so use evidence and facts to negate their impact. There is some exclusively or overwhelmingly male problems but (a) I'm always sceptical to apply 'sexism' inherently regardless of gender, and (b) that has absolutely zero relation to the current discussion so why would I bring it up? I could also point out there's a species of antelope called a Dik-Dik but would that address anything being said? How about that the platypus is the only poisonous mammal? My (slightly facetious) point is I was engaging with the scope of the discussion to keep it focused on the point being made.

Reply 27

username2808800

Original post by iJess

Probably an unpopular opinion from me,.

@Len Goodman
This is political correctness at its finest!

Reply 28

Len Goodman

Original post by fleky6910

@Len Goodman
This is political correctness at its finest!

Yes indeed, liberals should realise that men and women are different and learn to take a joke. Come on lefties, it's just a bit of fun!

Reply 29

TurboCretin

Original post by GonvilleBromhead

I think you may have misunderstood my post. The emphasis was "why do you assume that sexism is only about hatred of women?". My point was that it is possible to be sexist (toward women) without hating women, which is an important point if people are going to recognise sexism in themselves. I wasn't saying anything at all about the application of the term 'sexism' to treatment of men.

Reply 30

Zargabaath

Original post by Fedale

Sorry but as a girl I think you should become a little more educated on the subject and a little less ignorant... It's people (particularly girls) thinking men saying that 'women should be in kitchen' is banter which is the majority of the problem. So disappointed that you cant even realise that sexism exists, probably only because you haven't had to deal with it first hand (yet) when in reality it is one of the biggest problems of today after animal cruelty. You say that 'pictures which are obviously a joke' but if the people that made these jokes didn't really feel this way they wouldnt say it or even think to say it at all.

Original post by Fedale

I actually can't read this feed anymore. It makes me feel sick the way some people (boys on here) genuinely think. Sexism is rife ladies, great !

dont get so emotional love

Reply 31

Nirvana1989-1994

Again, why has the 3, nearly 4, year old thread been resurrected?

Reply 32

username1921011

Original post by TurboCretin

Ah apologies I can't read.

Well in regards to the question you actually posed I would say because;

(a) That is the common discourse
(b) If it's untrue then what is the metric by which it's judged?
(c)
sexism
ˈsɛksɪz(ə)m/noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."sexism in language is an offensive reminder of the way the culture sees women"synonyms:chauvinism, discrimination, prejudice, bias; More

On what grounds would people prejudice or discriminate 'against' if it wasn't a 'hatred', 'disdain' or other such semantically similar reason? Their discrimination would either have to be (i) rational, or (ii) irrational (ie either true or false as in are women generally stronger than men? No). If its (i) then its not sexism, it's a fact. If it's (ii) then you have to judge the source of irrationality which is usually one of the aforementioned semantically similar reasons. Proposing that to be false then by which alternative metric do you judge? Can people be 'irrationally' biased against women without having some sort of dislike for women? Add in theories like the patriarchy and the common use of 'oppression', the metric applied by feminists is one of hatred or disdain - that men intentionally hold women down by forces they can't demonstrate or corroborate.

I'm ignoring the 'stereotyping' part of the definition because a stereotype is not 'sexist' its either true, true of a minority within the group or false. There's a reason nobody stereotypes Africans as wearing sombreros.

One cannot be accidentally biased. Its either anecdotal evidence from their personal experience or taught evidence from the anecdotal or researched opinions of others - people do not randomly just decide to think a thing despite never having observed it to be true nor taught it to be true which is why not even a five year old will say something like 'dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time' because nobody ever, anywhere is saying or demonstrating that. Bias can be taught but that's a discussion (a) not independent to this topic, and (b) not relevant in so far as taught bias is not usually resistant to fact (hence an education system) nor withstanding personal experience ie meet an Asian that's bad at maths and that taught bias disintegrates through experiential reality.

On sum of all these points bias without intent in relation to sexism is highly unlikely and certainly not as prevalent as feminist literature would claim, that is the 'without hatred' element. The 'with hatred' element is their common drum bashing rally cry to try and convince people of their own victimhood for no adequate reason except furthering the cause even by saying stupid things like 'blacks can't be racist' and 'women can't oppress men'

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 33

cambio wechsel

Original post by GonvilleBromhead

On what grounds would people prejudice or discriminate 'against' if it wasn't a 'hatred', 'disdain' or other such semantically similar reason?

If I consider that a woman's place is in the home, with the corollary that her husband's place is at work, that is a sexism. But I wonder why it reveals me as hating women. It could as reasonably be argued that I must hate men to want to condemn them to 40 years of dreary wage-slavery where some at least would sooner be working the Dyson and doing the school run.

TurboCretin is right to say that the requirement that prejudice necessarily be informed by animus, or it is not prejudice, lets people off the hook at their private moral assizes. And I think as well that this notion of what must inform attitudes generates an asymmetry. I might hire Asians on the ground that I believe them (Asians and by extension these Asians) to be hardworking: the attributing of a positive quality. That's a prejudice having a real-world consequence, determining employment outcomes. Does it require that I like Asians? I might loathe the industrious little bastards.

Reply 34

username1921011

Original post by cambio wechsel

Not so much. It's a biologically accurate statement, observable in humans as a generalised trait. Is it outdated in the modern world? Maybe but there is no question men prefer being out of the home and women prefer being within it (childcare etc) as a statistical block. It feeds in to what I say about stereotypes, to observe a generality is not to hold prejudice against individuals. If some individuals do not fit said generality then they need not concern themselves, I differ from the stereotype of a 'man' in numerous ways but I don't begrudge its existence, I'm stereotyped because a lot of my mannerisms are picked up from growing up in a poorer environment but I don't think this is some slight against all poor people, rather people see their generality and extrapolate. I do disagree with people saying you're poor so you must be x but I do not disagree with generally poor people are x if its statistically valid.

I would say that example is more reducto ab adsurdum than anything realistic.

Does your example not prove the matter inconsequential, you may not like them but it does not prejudice them owing to such. Further it is a very simple mindset to assume all x are y without variance (a mindset held by very few, people normally shorthand refer to observable generalities) and this unto itself will (a) correct naturally ie if the example Asian is lazy and useless that prejudice will be corrected, and (b) be representative of this persons reality. My point being such views aren't manifest from nowhere, people didn't just randomly decide one day to create a stereotype, if I went around saying 'look at those people, as hard working and honest as politicians' everyone would respond wtf are you talking about they're lying lunatics!

Also none of this demonstrates how sexism is not an implicit hatred unless you'd take the definition it means generalising on observable difference which is nonsense. Is it racist to say blacks are faster runners when only one white person ever has done a sub 10s 100m? No because it's accurate.

What exactly does 'there doesn't have to be hatred' mean in relation to the definition of 'sexism' then because the dictionary certainly implied motives of hatred ie discrimination. Unless you take indirect discrimination so say it effects women more coincidentally but then what is the feminist cause fighting? Those imperfections are noticed and sorted out as the legislative procedure progresses. You can't fight accidents. There seems to be no way to apply these sorts of redefinition consistent with the aims of groups who redefine them, this is basically the gender version of microaggressions as best as I can see it.

Reply 35

yudothis

Original post by joecphillips

They don't overreact to sexism but a lot see sexism where it doesn't exist

Interesting idea but who is to judge that sexism didn't exist in a certain circumstance? Certainly many feminists have a huge victim complex, annoyingly so (which is no help to their cause), but I am still of the opinion that there is a lot more sexism than say you would think there is.

Take the example in the OP, it's on the face of it nothing bad. Women are complicated, aren't they, they even admit it. But what is that photo actually, it's a (gender) stereotype. And if you read what many feminists actually argue for, is removing all gender stereotypes (including male ones, i.e. if a man wants to play princess or do ballet that should be seen as perfectly normal, or if a girl wants to play with Lego and do sports rather than barbies that should be normal, too. Now you might think well that's ok I don't care let him/her do that, but surely you can see that the general social attitude is not that. And these gender stereotypes are pervasive and have bigger impacts than you think or you might see some women conforming to the gender stereotypes and a) not realize they might only do that because that's how they think, due to the stereotypes, women should be, or b) what about all the women that don't conform and don't want to be treated as per those stereotypes but still are?).

In short, every small perpetuation of gender stereotypes builds up to something bigger and the whole picture does still have significant impacts on how society (subconsciously even maybe) sees women.

Reply 36

Zargabaath

Original post by Fedale

Why are you trying to patronise me

why are you getting triggered babe

Reply 37

Sara_t

Went through a hardcore feminist phase when I was 13-15, thank God I grew out of it.
I'm obviously still for equality and stuff but now it's come to the point where it's actually a joke. Today's feminists make me embarrassed to be a female sometimes.