Women and sexism.

[Glorious KASSRD]

And where does behaviour towards a certain group come from? From the perception of that certain group. You seem to be intent on changing all men, you also seem to lack a firm grasp of logic

I want also point that even if I support it without reserves, I think HeforShe campaign is not enough.
Different tactics would produce quicker and better results. I admit I have a strong preference for speed regarding so important matters.
See that, in example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... he-movies/

The initiative is called “A-märkt,” and its promoters are encouraging theaters to stamp its “A” logo on the movie posters and pre-roll screens of any film that (1) has at least two female characters who (2) talk to each other (3) about something other than men. The “A” stands for both “approved” and “Allison,” the name of the American cartoonist who came up with the test. A surprisingly (or maybe not surprisingly) high proportion of films fail this test.

Sweden is really good in promoting gender equality, it should be taken as example by all the world. Hollywood should follow the same rules.

The bechdal test doesn't work too well, seeing as how it measures quantity and not quality.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I like how you use "they" to imply every single British woman was a member of the White Feather Society and that the social climate of the time meant they were free to refuse being part of the movement without being stigmatized as unpatriotic or even outright treasonous.

I like how you use 'you' to refer to a person who is clearly not myself, but a fantasy person who you have made up who holds positions that are easy to defeat.

Obviously when I say 'they' here I mean the women who were a part of the white feather movement, the ones actually handing out white feathers and shaming British men and boys into signing up to go die for them.

[Lesser Qing]

What about groups like Femen who profane the tombs of murdered innocents (paracuellos del jarama) or assault other people's beliefs(attacking a pro-life protest and walking in half-naked into a church)
Is that a measure of superior feminity?

Uncomfortable question still uncomfortably unanswered

[Gauthier]

I like how you use "they" to imply every single British woman was a member of the White Feather Society and that the social climate of the time meant they were free to refuse being part of the movement without being stigmatized as unpatriotic or even outright treasonous.

I like how you use 'you' to refer to a person who is clearly not myself, but a fantasy person who you have made up who holds positions that are easy to defeat.

Obviously when I say 'they' here I mean the women who were a part of the white feather movement, the ones actually handing out white feathers and shaming British men and boys into signing up to go die for them.

Women were used by the Society to shame the masculinity of men perceived as not enlisting, but implying that women came up with the idea on their own and did it of some innate desire to humiliate men is rather silly.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Women were used by the Society to shame the masculinity of men perceived as not enlisting, but implying that women came up with the idea on their own and did it of some innate desire to humiliate men is rather silly.

You keep going on with saying that I have said things that I did not say and then pointing out that those things are silly.

What do you think their motivations were? Be careful not to infantilize them by insisting that it was all the big man's idea so they are completely without blame.

[Gauthier]

Women were used by the Society to shame the masculinity of men perceived as not enlisting, but implying that women came up with the idea on their own and did it of some innate desire to humiliate men is rather silly.

You keep going on with saying that I have said things that I did not say and then pointing out that those things are silly.

What do you think their motivations were? Be careful not to infantilize them by insisting that it was all the big man's idea so they are completely without blame.

Yes, we keep forgetting women's liberation was widespread back then. And we also forget patriotism was not a pressure at all.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Yes, we keep forgetting women's liberation was widespread back then. And we also forget patriotism was not a pressure at all.

Suffragette movements were directly complicit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeline_P ... _World_War

[Gauthier]

Yes, we keep forgetting women's liberation was widespread back then. And we also forget patriotism was not a pressure at all.

Suffragette movements were directly complicit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeline_P ... _World_War

But it was not a unanimous monolith.

Sylvia and Adela, meanwhile, did not share their mother's enthusiasm for the war. As committed pacifists, they rejected the WSPU's support for the government. Sylvia's socialist perspective convinced her that the war was another example of capitalist oligarchs exploiting poor soldiers and workers. Adela, meanwhile, spoke against the war in Australia and made public her opposition to conscription. In a short letter, Emmeline told Sylvia: "I am ashamed to know where you and Adela stand."[6] She had a similar impatience for dissent within the WSPU; when long-time member Mary Leigh asked a question during a meeting in October 1915, Pankhurst replied: "[T]hat woman is a pro German and should leave the hall. ... I denounce you as a pro German and wish to forget that such a person ever existed."[97] Some WSPU members were outraged by this sudden rigid devotion to the government, the leadership's perceived abandonment of efforts to win the vote for women, and questions about how funds collected on behalf of suffrage were being managed with regard to the organisation's new focus. Two groups split from the WSPU: The Suffragettes of the Women's Social and Political Union (SWSPU) and the Independent Women's Social and Political Union (IWSPU), each dedicated to maintaining pressure toward women's suffrage.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

"There are no biological differences between men and women."

kek

Not in the head, there isn't.

Actually there is. Men utilize more grey matter proportionately, whereas women utilize more white matter. That's why the opposite gender's thought process seems so alien. Psychology is based on biology, after all.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

But it was not a unanimous monolith.

Nothing ever is.

But you asked us to provide you with a single example of women using societal institutions to unfairly discriminate and/or oppress males. I feel I've provided one.

[Padnak]

Misandry. Absolute misandry.

Better put then I could ever hope for

Modern feminism is little more then a thinly veiled hate moment

[Forsher]

Yeah, that's definitely shifting the goalposts. Which may or may not be better than pretending that conscientious objectors/men more generally weren't pressured, largely by women, into going to fight wars with 50% casualty rates by the means of white feathers.

No one is saying that instutionalised and ingrained prejudice haven't been more female related issues. Pretty much everyone is saying that defining sexism to only refer to those is pointless, unhelpful and, in fact, harmful.

And the society that used women to present white feathers as a token of cowardice was founded by a man:

In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward. The organization aimed to shame men into enlisting in the British Army by persuading women to present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.

While women were used as foot soldiers to distribute the feathers, they were by no means the originators of the tactic.

This is relevant in what ways? That the movement was started by a man is actually beside the point (at least, if you remember what the point is). This is a movement that could not have worked without and, in fact, was entirely reliant on the exercise of the female role in society at the time. It is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, an example of "women and blacks using societal institutions to unfairly discriminate and/or oppress males and whites?" Ignoring the irrelevant race aspects of that.

And the society that used women to present white feathers as a token of cowardice was founded by a man:

While women were used as foot soldiers to distribute the feathers, they were by no means the originators of the tactic.

But they happily complied in a tactic that encouraged men to go kill and die somewhere else, ostensibly for their betterment and protection.

Exactly.

What do I think about it?

Mostly I'm stunned by the fact that there's apparently a new person on NSG who I actually agree with and like.

So basically I agree. It's basically the same as why "reverse racism" can't be a thing (as excellently explained in the "Fear of a Brown Planet" comedy clip on the subject).

No, it's completely different to why reverse racism cannot exist. Reverse racism doesn't exist because it's just plain old racism.

But if you want to persist with these deluded definitions counter this rebuttal:

What, I ask, is what is simpler? Calling a racist system, racist or defining racism based on the existence of a system that we would describe as racist? Furthermore, what utility is there is distinguishing between prejudice and racism? None, except racism/sexism sound worse. This reads a hell of a lot like nothing more than an attempt to establish a moral high ground, to invalidate potential criticisms before they arrive and to invalidate views that would spark such criticisms.

On the other hand, linking racism, or sexism, in this fashion to some bigger systemic thing is somewhat dodgy when you suddenly need to deal with, say, "prejudice" between minorities.

In other words, if you accept (and the preceding paragraph shows that you shouldn't) the premise that both ways of using racism are equally accurate in describing the phenomena that we want them to, you should opt for the simpler one (i.e. that's a racist system). However, as I am able to cast aspersions of the motives in going for the more complex way, there is a further reason to opt for the simpler. And then you get back to that premise's being wrong.

The bits in bold have been added/changed for clarity.

You also need to respond to this oversight:

We can see that, according to this person, prejudice is sexism without an "institutional" backing. We shall see that individual power dynamics are invalidated by this view. In other words, whilst, in the first OP quote, the man who will apparently not get a job because he is a (white) man, thus creating a small little system to the advantage of women (and, possibly, non-white men) is theoretically an example of sexist practice, here it is made clear (very soon) that this is not a big enough system or a properly institutional one to count.

That is, the system and institutions are arbitrarily defined to exclude that relationship from amounting to sexism (even though it could well be a matter of life and death, gotta have money to live, right?). This further reinforces the already noted aspersions.

Sadly, for anyone agreeing with the OP, there is also a contradiction that needs explaining.

That's why I think that, due a similar unbalance in power, it would be unfair to cry "sexism" from women: some women can be prejudiced (most women aren't) against men, but "sexism" it's just another thing.

What do you think about it, NSGs?

And now we're back to our woman not hiring men as being sexist... Man, this definition of yours sucks.

tl;dr - the OP's definitions provide absolutely nothing more than the typical ones, aren't as good as describing what we want them to and, in fact, are inconsistent and rather arbitrary.

In short, the OP is entirely inconsistent with belief in equality of the genders.

[Forsher]

Not in the head, there isn't.

Actually there is. Men utilize more grey matter proportionately, whereas women utilize more white matter. That's why the opposite gender's thought process seems so alien. Psychology is based on biology, after all.

Do you have a source for that?

Perhaps not as clear cut as either of us thought.

Studies have found many similarities but also differences in brain structure, neurotransmitters, and function.[32] However, some argue that innate differences in the neurobiology of men and women have not been conclusively identified.[33][34] The relationship between sex differences in the brain and human behavior is a subject of controversy in psychology and society at large.[33][35]

A 2004 review in Nature Reviews Neuroscience stated that the brain's sexual dimorphism is probably determined by genes on the sex chromosomes. They likely do so by genes in cells in the gonads causing the gonads to produce sex hormones that travel to the brain which affect brain cells and also by genes in brain cells directly affecting these brain cells.[36] In the human brain, a difference between sexes has been observed in regarding the PCDH11X/Y gene pair which is unique to Homo sapiens.[37]

In adults, men's brains are an average of 11–12% heavier than women's brains.[38] However, due to relative difference in body size some researchers propose that the brain-to-body mass ratio does not differ between the sexes.[39][40] A 1992 study of 6,325 Army personnel found that men's brains had an average volume of 1442 cm3, while the women averaged 1332 cm3, and differences were shown to be smaller but persisting after being adjusted for body size measured as body height or body surface, such that women averaged 100g less brain mass than men of equal size.[41]

Though statistically there are sex differences in white matter and gray matter percentage, this ratio is directly related to brain size, and some argue these sex differences in gray and white matter percentage are caused by the average size difference between men and women.[42][43][44][45] Others argue that these differences remain after controlling for brain volume.[32]

In the cerebral cortex it has been observed that there is greater intra-lobe neural communication in male brains and greater inter-lobe (between the left and right hemispheres of the cerebral cortex) neural communication in female brains.[46][47]

Wiki.

Misandry. Absolute misandry.

Better put then I could ever hope for

Modern feminism is little more then a thinly veiled hate moment

It's really not. It's not necessarily always helpful and in some cases it isn't even good, but it's very far from being a hate movement.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Do you have a source for that?

I gave up on providing NSG with sources about the 5th or 6th time they were offhandedly dismissed.

[Nerotysia]

Do you have a source for that?

I gave up on providing NSG with sources about the 5th or 6th time they were offhandedly dismissed.

That's no excuse. Don't make claims then.

[Aidannadia]

Misandry. Absolute misandry.

Better put then I could ever hope for

Modern feminism is little more then a thinly veiled hate moment

I have to disagree. The most vocal of the group can be this way, but to condemn a group because of its radicals is very childish. That's like saying Islam is a religion of destruction because of Islamic Extremists when someone who reads the same Qu'ran could interpret it in a very peaceful way. Or to vindicate pro-choice advocates because of the one woman who threw a Molotov into a crowd of pro-life activists. To make a generalization towards the whole group because of the act of a select few within it is unfair.

There are very logical people who support gender equality truly and identify as feminists that simply don't yell as loud as the more zealous members of the movement. I will implore you to keep an open-mind when talking to a feminist.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I gave up on providing NSG with sources about the 5th or 6th time they were offhandedly dismissed.

That's no excuse. Don't make claims then.

no u

[Tahar Joblis]

"Women can't be sexist, just like black people can't be racist."
Lol what the fuck is this shit?

It means women and blacks can't use the establishments of society to leverage their prejudices against another group. Otherwise men would be staying in the kitchen making sammiches and babies, and white kids would be riding the school to prison pipeline.

Except that women can use the establishments of society to leverage their prejudices against another group. So can men. So can whites. So can blacks.

The claim in the OP - and that you're making - breaks down to two distinct implicit claims. Both of those implicit claims are wrong.

1. "___"-ism is the combination of power + prejudice. (This is an inappropriate redefinition of sexism, racism, classism, etc being pushed by certain circles.)
2. Group X has the universal trait of lacking power. This is flatly false.

If a particular US bureaucrat is black, and discriminates against a white person on the basis of race, s/he has both power and prejudice, and in truth meets, as an individual, the redefinition of #1. And this is true in spite of the fact that blacks, in the US, are pretty much the closest thing to a universally disadvantaged ("oppressed") group you will find in the US. (Women are very far from being such a group.)

The truth of the matter is that individuals who are members of nearly any group can be found in positions with enough power to exercise their prejudices... and that even the groups, as groups, are not powerless, either.

What's the purpose of this act of redefinition? Well, since society has acknowledged that sexism is bad, trying to redefine sexism to exclude discrimination against men is yet another way of trying to avoid addressing gendered issues that impact men negatively. It's a morally bankrupt effort to defend sexism, racism, and other forms of prejudice and discrimination.

[Tahar Joblis]

Do you have a source for that?

I gave up on providing NSG with sources about the 5th or 6th time they were offhandedly dismissed.

If I had given up on providing sources on NSG after the 100th time someone offhandedly dismissed them, I would have ended up convincing very few people of anything at all.

Provide sources if you want to convince. You may not convince the person you're talking to, but this is a public forum, and some of the peanut gallery have open minds, along with a few discussants.

[The Lone Alliance]

Sweden is really good in promoting gender equality, it should be taken as example by all the world. Hollywood should follow the same rules.

So what you propose is censorship and the control of society by the authorities to enforce your will and the wills of who agrees with you on the world.

You know what you and the rest of the people who think like you are? You are Imperialists.

This is imperialism, they may not seek to dominate the world with the gun or the sword but that's just because seek to dominate the world through the Pen instead.

I see no difference between these ideas and the White Men who went to the 3rd world countries, took a look at the natives and went "It is our purpose to civilize them to our views".

[Nerotysia]

That's no excuse. Don't make claims then.

no u

So did you expect a response to this?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I gave up on providing NSG with sources about the 5th or 6th time they were offhandedly dismissed.

If I had given up on providing sources on NSG after the 100th time someone offhandedly dismissed them, I would have ended up convincing very few people of anything at all.

Provide sources if you want to convince. You may not convince the person you're talking to, but this is a public forum, and some of the peanut gallery have open minds, along with a few discussants.

But I don't care about any of you.

no u

So did you expect a response to this?

No, but it looks like you proved me wrong.

[Forsher]

I gave up on providing NSG with sources about the 5th or 6th time they were offhandedly dismissed.

If I had given up on providing sources on NSG after the 100th time someone offhandedly dismissed them, I would have ended up convincing very few people of anything at all.

Provide sources if you want to convince. You may not convince the person you're talking to, but this is a public forum, and some of the peanut gallery have open minds, along with a few discussants.

It's a particularly bizarre statement when you notice that the quote/link I provided did mention his claim. I guess the problem was that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily tell one what a state that is actually means and, in this case, also noted that there was disagreement over whether or not the grey/white matter thing is a thing or just a consequence of males tending to have larger heads.

Though statistically there are sex differences in white matter and gray matter percentage, this ratio is directly related to brain size, and some argue these sex differences in gray and white matter percentage are caused by the average size difference between men and women.[42][43][44][45] Others argue that these differences remain after controlling for brain volume.[32]

Just looking at the number of numbers of citations, it's possible that there are fewer others and more somes.

If I had given up on providing sources on NSG after the 100th time someone offhandedly dismissed them, I would have ended up convincing very few people of anything at all.

Provide sources if you want to convince. You may not convince the person you're talking to, but this is a public forum, and some of the peanut gallery have open minds, along with a few discussants.

But I don't care about any of you.

Forums: probably not your thing then. May I suggest blogging?

[Nerotysia]

If I had given up on providing sources on NSG after the 100th time someone offhandedly dismissed them, I would have ended up convincing very few people of anything at all.

Provide sources if you want to convince. You may not convince the person you're talking to, but this is a public forum, and some of the peanut gallery have open minds, along with a few discussants.

But I don't care about any of you.

So did you expect a response to this?

No, but it looks like you proved me wrong.

Then why did you bother posting?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

See? The people who actually care will follow up the claims I make. -nods-