121–130 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Bulgarian colleague of mine said that even surnames are gendered - her surname is Nakova, her father's is Nakov. It plays merry hell with admin software from anglo nations which assume surnames aren't gendered, apparently.
Not just Bulgarian. I know Latvian surnames have the same concept. Probably others too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it were true that "these kinds of stories are what people are looking for", that doesn't mean it's not "evidence of sexism".
Depends on what you mean by sexism. If you mean unfair discrimination against women, then that's not an evidence for it. If you mean natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people, then yea you can call it sexism but it's not necessarily a bad thing.
How's that different from actual real life beatings, murders and kidnappings?
Aren't men usually the aggressors?
People who have poor understanding of human nature will consider this an evidence of sexism. Think for a minute about why "Fifty shades of grey" is popular among female readers. If there are many stories are filled with males competing over resources and women (in the form of violent criminals kidnapping women and brave heroes rescuing them) then might it be that these kinds of stories are what people are looking for…
Unfortunately, every single difference of any significance is often took to be sexist and (of course) wrong sexist. Why are the top 100 chess players men? Sexism. Why are there more male than female programmers? Sexism. In non-romance movies, why are there more male leads? Sexism. There is legitimate wrongful sexism, but they aren't usually found in first world countries. It's as if we ever agreed there was a signifi…
People who have poor understanding of human nature will consider this an evidence of sexism. Think for a minute about why "Fifty shades of grey" is popular among female readers. If there are many stories are filled with males competing over resources and women (in the form of violent criminals kidnapping women and brave heroes rescuing them) then might it be that these kinds of stories are what people are looking for…
That plot would fit into, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which had a viewship in the millions) no problem. Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence. This is a controversial subject that's overflowing with armchair sociologists. Right now you're indi…
Millenia of history is a kind of evidence. And the main answer back is "this history is the history of an oppression". Which doesn't even go to why would (all things being equal) one gender get to be the oppressor and the other always the oppressed within the same society, and with the same population numbers on each side (e.g. we're not talking about slaves captured via force here).
People who have poor understanding of human nature will consider this an evidence of sexism. Think for a minute about why "Fifty shades of grey" is popular among female readers. If there are many stories are filled with males competing over resources and women (in the form of violent criminals kidnapping women and brave heroes rescuing them) then might it be that these kinds of stories are what people are looking for…
Just as our culture has in-built biases against women it also has in-built biases against men who use their brains more than their brawn.
Need I even cite any examples of this? It's such a well-worn trope.
And you know what? That anti-nerd bias is pretty stupid and it needs to change. Just like the anti-female bias is stupid and needs to change.
The anti-nerd bias is finally beginning to change a little as our culture begins to recognize the leadership value of smart men (thanks Elon!). And we're also going to change that anti-female bias.
Why? Because over time anti-sexism will just plain work better than sexism. Just like over time leadership by brainy guys has worked better than leadership by dumb alpha jocks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not _your_ definition of sexism, apparently. If you define sexism in such broad terms that it includes both bad and neutral things, the word will lose its meaning.
No, that isn't the OED's definition of sexism. The word already has a specific meaning. > Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. You seem to be making it more specific to exclude things you don't deem important.
The definition is so broad as to be meaningless.
Even having different boxing (the sport) categories for men and women could be construed as "sexism".
Much less any implication that men and woman can have, as genders, different sensibilities and priorities, and not just because they were "raised that way" but also because of biological imperatives.
E.g. something that we know is true for almost all animals in nature (e.g. which gender hunts, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, playing around with that shows it's a lot tighter in Britain - where it's also the other way around in the past tense by quite a margin. (Likewise in the USA until recently.) I'm British, so maybe that explains my initial confusion.
Comparing the past tenses is probably more appropriate as that's the tense that those verbs are most commonly used in. It also occurs to me that a lot of the use of just "rob" may well be the name "Rob." Given that, the usage of stole vs. robbed tracks quite closely with just a bit of an upward track of stole over the past couple of decades. I originally thought that rob vs. steal might be one of those Germanic vs. F…
Google ngram search is case-sensitive though, so that's unlikely to account for much - and probably offset by sentences beginning with the verb, e.g. 'Rob him, quick!' said the man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That plot would fit into, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which had a viewship in the millions) no problem. Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence. This is a controversial subject that's overflowing with armchair sociologists. Right now you're indi…
> Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence. Millenia of history is a kind of evidence. And the main answer back is "this history is the history of an oppression". Which doesn't even go to why would (all things being equal) one gender get to be the o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That plot would fit into, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which had a viewship in the millions) no problem. Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence. This is a controversial subject that's overflowing with armchair sociologists. Right now you're indi…
You have it backwards. If you think there are no natural difference between men and women you better bring a mountain of evidence. Strong claims require strong evidence. I did not make any outrageous claim. It would be incredibly surprising if men and women were identical in every aspect except for their reproductive body parts Just consider the difference in selection pressure that men and women face.
I read "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" as saying that what's "implicitly" (i.e. commonly) understood as to be the natural differences is correct. Because what has been "implicitly" understood has differed substantially across time and cultures, that's a highly suspect claim that requires a matching degree of evidence.
Furthermore, just the long and loud history of people spouting off absolute bullshit about what women are and aren't is, by itself, enough to demand significant evidence for any positive statements of what's natural or not.