121–130 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Boys get to play with LEGOs without the stigma. But a boy who plays with a Barbie gets the shit beaten out of him. Possibly even by his own parents. > while boys who behave the same way are praised for being "assertive". ... and develop stress-related problems at a higher rate, and die years younger than women. Everything cuts both ways. Everything.
> But a boy who plays with a Barbie gets the shit beaten out of him. Possibly even by his own parents. I already pre-empted this. Read my comment again. Barbies are sex objects. LEGOs are precursors to a respectable career path. It's not a valid comparison. > and develop stress-related problems at a higher rate, and die years younger than women. Please, tell me more about how women are systematically oppressing men.…
I never said that. I said sexism and sexist attitudes hurt men as well.
> "reverse sexism"
No such thing. There is only sexism. It is always wrong.
> Does it show that sexism isn't an issue?
Only an idiot would claim sexism isn't an issue. Don't accuse me of being an idiot.
Also, this article is interesting:
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/156194/what_abou...
(I've posted it elsewhere in this comment page, but it deserves a bit more attention.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prejudice , as in, a default judgment/assessment weighing against an individual? I submit that the idea that it's permitted to treat this person less respectfully because they are a woman is such a judgment, and it is on the basis of sex. Stereotyping , as in a belief... about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality . Again, I submit tha…
Wow, way to put a bunch of words in my mouth. Actually, what I am saying is that nature is not always nice or civilized. When you get a bunch of drunk males into a room, their super ego goes down and they will begin to behave (almost literally) like animals. Is it right or wrong? I don't know, but it is not sexism. Is it to be expected? Yes. How do I know it is to be expected? Because you can easily replicate the sit…
Let's give you the benefit (a huge one) of the doubt here, I'll consider fully and without prejudice everything you're saying:
The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter how distasteful or uncivilized. Fine, agreed. First, what is the value in pointing out this obvious conclusion? The only logical counter position would be to claim people have random and inexplicable behavior, a position which practically nobody holds in full sincerity.
You then continue to say that because behavior has an explanation, that behavior cannot be sexism. Literally, if some behavior can be explained by a surface comparison to animal behavior, or by similarities to vague concepts in evolutionary psychology, then it can't be sexism. Let's even accept your very unscientific and highly dubious observations about Cancun and male behaviors, and conclude from this that all males have irresistible animal instincts which compel them to act offensively and crudely.
We have two things here: first, only behaviors which cannot be explained in any other way can be considered sexism. That means that the only behavior which is sexist is the behavior which occurs when a person, in their mind, has the thought "I will now enact a sexist agenda" or something like that. If, for example, a person thinks "it would be okay to go and lick her tattoo" that is not sexist, because it can be explained as a result of poor socialization combined with repressed animal sex urges.
Second, we cannot complain about "natural" behaviors, because after all, they are natural. You might as well complain that it's not a full moon every night, or that the Sun is too bright in the Summer months. Tough, that's nature.
1. Only behavior which is motivated by an explicit intent to be sexist is sexist.
2. Behaviors which can be explained by appealing to "nature" or "instinct" (natural behaviors) do not merit complaint, and efforts to change or curb them are misplaced.
First, nothing is sexist! All behavior can be explained by appealing to base and instinctual motives. Sexual harassment in the workplace is unavoidable: what do you expect when you put a man next to or above a woman he finds attractive, for eight hours a day? Sexual discrimination in the workplace is also not sexist: it's not a discrimination against women, it's just a natural and active desire to engage with other males. And the situation described by the OP is also not sexist: those men aren't being inappropriately aggressive towards her because she's a woman and they don't respect her boundaries, it's just because they're sex-starved losers!
Second, and even more stupid: bigotry doesn't exist! If the standard for sexist behavior is very specific and limited intent to be sexist, then by analogy you can show that the standard for e.g., racism, is the same. And per the first conclusion, there then is no racism. Or homophobia. These are, after all, very natural expressions of revulsion and disgust for people not like ourselves, and we cannot be faulted for our instincts. Why, these very instincts are what brought us out of the jungle!
A third, less obvious conclusion, is that nothing can be done, or needs to be done about any of this. Women, don't like being manhandled? Don't go to bars where there are males, they can't help themselves. Non-whites, don't like receiving dirty looks or beatings? Stay away from white people, they have a natural revulsion for people not like them.
And whatever you do, don't complain! It's natural and to be expected!
So then, if you can't complain about it, if the behavior is completely natural, then the obvious conclusion is that if you are subjected to offensive-but-natural behavior, you share responsibility for that because you could have prevented it. After all, you have a brain woman, you could have predicted getting manhandled by a bunch of nerds! And everything else I "put in your mouth" is just a little bit more absurd than this. (But only a little, because this is a pretty stupid position to begin with.)
What you're employing here is a logical fallacy called appeal to nature, which in general is an appeal to something that is irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that it's relevant at all to consider what is natural, even if we allow for your wildly exaggerated notion of nature. You are also being lazy and offensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prejudice , as in, a default judgment/assessment weighing against an individual? I submit that the idea that it's permitted to treat this person less respectfully because they are a woman is such a judgment, and it is on the basis of sex. Stereotyping , as in a belief... about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality . Again, I submit tha…
Wow, way to put a bunch of words in my mouth. Actually, what I am saying is that nature is not always nice or civilized. When you get a bunch of drunk males into a room, their super ego goes down and they will begin to behave (almost literally) like animals. Is it right or wrong? I don't know, but it is not sexism. Is it to be expected? Yes. How do I know it is to be expected? Because you can easily replicate the sit…
The way to reduce this type of sexism and increase understanding is through more interaction, and not less. Yellow and red cards may achieve segregation, but they'll also introduce fear into the mix. A man who receives one of these cards, for whatever reason, will think twice before he talks to a girl at a conference again, just as a girl who has been grabbed once at Defcon thinks twice before ever going to Defcon ag…
A little fear on the part of a man given one of these cards isn't equivalent to the fear of a woman who has been grabbed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"PC" just means "Being polite to everyone "
Sometime's PC goes overboard. It is not a bad thing necessarily, unless abused. One example of PC going wrong is the word "retarded" - the PC crowd thought "mentally challenged" would be a better term, even though retarded just means you are a bit slow, mentally-challenged makes it seem like thinking is an arduous task.
This gets hurled as an insult often enough that using it is a bad idea. If you use it, you class yourself alongside the hateful morons who use it as an insult.
> retarded just means you are a bit slow
Ideally, perhaps; that is not the case in reality.
Prediction: The sexism in IT problem will never end. Here's my hypothesis: 1. Women and men are different. We see this played out all around us, all the time, both sides happily make and laugh at jokes about it, and no one has a problem acknowledging this fact during discussion of other topics, but when certain subjects are being discussed, these very same people will assure you, with total sincerity, that there is n…
Here is an interesting data point. When you look across the sciences, there is an interesting correlation. The more mathematical a subject is, the higher the portion of people in it who are men. With a glaring exception. Pure math is about 40% women. And based on the ones that I've known, many would be competent at, and happy in, other mathematically inclined areas but they gravitate towards math because mathematicia…
It's been many years since I worked in undergraduate recruiting, but last I heard this was less and less true every year. (Economics, astronomy and biology related fields like biophys and biochem having already inflected.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do not believe this has got anything to do with sexism > That is our culture Has it ever occurred to you that "our culture" might be a bit sexist? > Men have to approach women, or they don't get laid 1. Approach doesn't have to mean sexual harassment 2. Women can like sex too. And women can approach men too. mind blowing, no? > He probably needed to do something like that and get away with it to be happy? What? W…
News flash: all men, deep down, view (attractive) women as a potential means to their sexual gratification. We cannot suppress it, short of, you know, lopping it off. We also happen to respect, admire, love, and look up to a good deal of women...but that would not make a very interesting article to talk about that stuff. EDIT: for those who don't understand what I am saying, let me clarify: Take special note of my wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do not believe this has got anything to do with sexism > That is our culture Has it ever occurred to you that "our culture" might be a bit sexist? > Men have to approach women, or they don't get laid 1. Approach doesn't have to mean sexual harassment 2. Women can like sex too. And women can approach men too. mind blowing, no? > He probably needed to do something like that and get away with it to be happy? What? W…
News flash: all men, deep down, view (attractive) women as a potential means to their sexual gratification. We cannot suppress it, short of, you know, lopping it off. We also happen to respect, admire, love, and look up to a good deal of women...but that would not make a very interesting article to talk about that stuff. EDIT: for those who don't understand what I am saying, let me clarify: Take special note of my wo…