Hey, Askthepizzaguy, I happened across some teenage kids beating up a homeless black guy today so they could steal his change. Can you advise me on whether or not that was OK for them to do?
So, do all the attacks on the OP who protested sexism, mean that sexism is a pretty good thing? Should we be working to increase our sexism?
I mean, I certainly don’t want to be attacked. The OP got attacked for all kinds of things that seemed to be complete prevarications (such as that the post was TOTALLY TOO LONG), and I don’t want that to happen to me. So, I guess:
Chicks are dumb and lame and always complaining about our noticing that they are dumb and lame, the dumb lame bimbos! Why don’t they get a clue? Also, people who say there is sexism are dumb and lame too! There is no such thing as sexism, except for the feminazis who are totally sexist! What is wrong with those dumb broads and the men who defend them?!?!?
(There. That should put me in good with the big dogs…at least it will keep me from getting attacked! :D)
Of course not. That’s an idiotic strawman. My annoyance is largely that when someone goes on a lengthy diatribe condemning something that virtually all of his audience already condemns, the motive of the writer is not so much about attempting to right a wrong, or even to bring awareness of injustice. It’s more about saying, “Look at me and how great I am for believing this!” And I find that disingenuous and just irritating. I admit that part of my reaction is because I have a relative that does this all the damn time, and I can’t vent at her.
True, we’re all prone to ye olde venting (and many of us have relatives that conduct themselves in an infuriating fashion).
I’d take issue with the “virtually all of his audience already condemns” argument, though. I’m not claiming that sd.com is tremendously high on the ‘stupid whining women always whining about sexism’ attitude scale…but that sentiment definitely IS in evidence here.
On a little less personal tack: I can’t help wondering how much the ‘stupid whining women…’ attitude might be attributable to entitlement. There is a lot of fascinating research on entitlement. One such study that got a lot of attention recently was the “rigged Monopoly” game that showed any and all experimental participants becoming, quite reliably, assholes. All that was necessary was that they be given more money and more favorable rules…and they predictably became Entitled.
(Couple of discussions of this, and the TED talk given by the main researcher:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsense_06-21/
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/The-science-of-greed-PaulK-Piff
Then there’s the even more recent research on how entitled men are more likely to be sexist. The research question:
That is what they found, in fact. (Full text doesn’t appear to be available free online, but the abstract is here: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/94913614/psychological-entitlement-ambivalent-sexism-understanding-role-entitlement-predicting-two-forms-sexism )
To me this is an indication that it’s wrong to assume that male hormones or male genes are at the root of sexism and/or misogyny. A man raised to feel entitled to deference from females is going to be snippy (at best) when he doesn’t receive that deference. A man raised otherwise, is not.
I’ll take it a step further. Beyond the fact that the OP is incredibly repetitive and excessively long, or that he’s preaching to the choir, it’s that his rant is excruciatingly pedestrian. It reads like an eighth grader’s LiveJournal post.
Wars? Serial killers? Wow, no one ever thought of that shit before.
See Vinyl Turnip’s post above. It’s a perfect distillation of the OP.
Fucking liar.
I find the idea that women can’t be just as good of serial killers as men to be offensive. The reality is that cultural norms prevent most women from engaging in this type of hobby, and so they just aren’t as likely as men to become good at it.
The fact that we don’t hear about female serial killers very often might suggest that women are actually much better at serial killing.
How did it get into so many minds? Once upon a time, there was a world with no effective contraception. Adding to this, there were also no antibiotics. And for most of historical time everything, including cloth, was hand made and most learning happend either with an apprenticeship or a tutor. This results in certain things.
Lets start with contraception. Humans are completely dependent for at least three years after birth. If there is no effective contraception, women-and-children becomes one word. Being constantly pregnant wears a body down and increases the likelihood of early death.
Now add in no antibiotics. Women are more likely to die in childbirth and the infant mortality rate goes up. The family, which has many more children in it than families today have, is also more likely to have someone who is sick or who has been debilitiated from a previous sickness. If there is no one whose job it is to nurse the sick and tend small wounds, the death rate in the family will go up. This is bad because the next generation is the only retirement plan that most people have.
So now the women-and-children are associated with both weakness/risk and healing/safety. I’m guessing that you get more healthy decendents when the babies and the women who are producing them are kept somewhere safe. So now there’s a public/private split along gender lines, and neither side is easy. Families have to manage scarce resources. That includes education.
And that’s about as far as I’m going to take this line of thought. It has always been really easy to lump women and children together and tempting for anyone who could escape being one of the women-and-children, by becoming an adult male, to distance themselves from that risky and constrained state.
It wasn’t just women who had stories of inferiority told against them. In a world where most things were done by hand, the folks who were able to find modes of living that did not include labor would tell stories about the inferiority of those whose place in life required it. Mechanization has undermined social heirarchies more than anything else has. Just as contraception and antibiotics has relaxed the social requirement for women to stay in the home.
Obviously since you could not be "arsed’ to provide us a quote or short description of each link? :rolleyes:
Since your "short’ rant went on & on, why were you so fucking lazy and inconsiderate to not provide one or the other?:mad:
Since this is the Pit, and since I’m a prick, I’m going to link to the Dear Woman video.
You bastard!:mad:
Indeed. What could be more contemptible than men who want to get along with women?
Nothing, I tell you:* nothing.*
Certainly nothing’s more contemptible than that video. If the medium is the message, it has contempt for the eyes and ears of all humanity.
In today’s news: Isis ‘orders female genital mutilation’ for women in Mosul :mad:
Actually in the news several days ago, which has allowed more than enough time for it to be debunked. Typical feminist lies from Badcock.
A couple of recent videos of women talking about sexism they still face online.
Where My Ladies At? (The Brain Scoop)
An Urgent Message to Guys Who Comment on Internet Videos (Cracked)
In Japan? Most definitely. You engage the rude person, you become part of the problem. There will be repercussions (which is why the guy apologized), but not during the event.
I learned this from winding up on a series of videos on YouTube about foreigners living in Japan. A woman was complaining about this guy who would not stop harassing her, and her friends asked her if she said anything to him. When she said yes, they told her that she shouldn’t be upset since she engaged him.
The woman went on to explain how people making a fuss on transportation were similarly ignored. The sole exception is when a guy tries to grope a woman. But that’s a very new thing. It’s just considered culturally wrong to make a scene about anything.
It is very much a society where interdependence is valued over individuality, after all.