The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Kowani]

...Isn't Sweden considered the "Rape capital of the World?" Oh, wait! It is!

More like a bunch of racist grifters and their helpful idiots have spent years abusing statistics to the point that the belief that Sweden is a sexual violence dystopia has been absorbed into the "common sense" of a wide sector of society. The fact that many people consider Sweden to be the "rape capital of the world" doesn't mean that it actually is, much in the same way that Americans believing, on average, that Muslims make up over 15% of their population doesn't mean that they actually are that numerous.

Here's some actual information on Sweden and sexual violence.

I wasn't blaming immigrants. I very much doubt that they are the sole perpetrators. However, according to your very own https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/rape-and-sex-offences.htmlsource says that last year, 22,000 sex crimes were committed. Of those, 7,370 were rapes. Note, however that in the EU, the Nordic Countries lead everywhere else. Culturally similar, mind you, and geographically close. The Swedish Model doesn't seem to work.

Edit: Fixed URL

[Ostroeuropa]

More like a bunch of racist grifters and their helpful idiots have spent years abusing statistics to the point that the belief that Sweden is a sexual violence dystopia has been absorbed into the "common sense" of a wide sector of society. The fact that many people consider Sweden to be the "rape capital of the world" doesn't mean that it actually is, much in the same way that Americans believing, on average, that Muslims make up over 15% of their population doesn't mean that they actually are that numerous.

Here's some actual information on Sweden and sexual violence.

I wasn't blaming immigrants. I very much doubt that they are the sole perpetrators. However, according to your very own https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/rape-and-sex-offences.htmlsource says that last year, 22,000 sex crimes were committed. Of those, 7,370 were rapes. Note, however that in the EU, the [url-https://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-and-maps/survey-data-explorer-violence-against-women-survey]Nordic Countries[/url] lead everywhere else. Culturally similar, mind you, and geographically close. The Swedish Model doesn't seem to work.

It's pointless to measure sex crimes country by country imo. You've got the problem of detection rates being all over the place, definitions being skewed by bias and deliberate fuckery, and so on. Iran says shit like "There are no homosexuals in Iran." not because that's true, but because detection is fucked. On the flip side in some countries you've got feminist academics fucking with the numbers and suppressing incidents of male victimization while inflating female ones.

[Kowani]

I wasn't blaming immigrants. I very much doubt that they are the sole perpetrators. However, according to your very own https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/rape-and-sex-offences.htmlsource says that last year, 22,000 sex crimes were committed. Of those, 7,370 were rapes. Note, however that in the EU, the [url-https://fra.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-and-maps/survey-data-explorer-violence-against-women-survey]Nordic Countries[/url] lead everywhere else. Culturally similar, mind you, and geographically close. The Swedish Model doesn't seem to work.

It's pointless to measure sex crimes country by country imo. You've got the problem of detection rates being all over the place, definitions being skewed by bias and deliberate fuckery, and so on. Iran says shit like "There are no homosexuals in Iran." not because that's true, but because detection is fucked. On the flip side in some countries you've got feminist academics fucking with the numbers and suppressing incidents of male victimization while inflating female ones.

So what do we do? By province and add 'em all up? No. Now, while I do agree that the detection rates are somewhat ...bad, if only due to lack of reporting, but, I would like to see your proof that Swedish Feminists are deliberately messing with the numbers.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's pointless to measure sex crimes country by country imo. You've got the problem of detection rates being all over the place, definitions being skewed by bias and deliberate fuckery, and so on. Iran says shit like "There are no homosexuals in Iran." not because that's true, but because detection is fucked. On the flip side in some countries you've got feminist academics fucking with the numbers and suppressing incidents of male victimization while inflating female ones.

So what do we do? By province and add 'em all up? No. Now, while I do agree that the detection rates are somewhat ...bad, if only due to lack of reporting, but, I would like to see your proof that Swedish Feminists are deliberately messing with the numbers.

I wasn't specifically discussing swedish feminists deliberately messing with the numbers. The example that springs to mind is mary koss, the CDC, SPLC, and so on.

But In the case of Sweden their definition of rape covers anyone who exploits someone who is asleep, unconscious, drunk or under the influence of another drug, mentally disturbed, sick or otherwise is in a particularly vulnerable situation. It does not necessarily need to involve penetration or envelopment and counts provided the act is sexual and "sufficiently insulting.".

The broad definition of rape sweden uses in its justice system is not appropriate for comparison to other countries, and criminologists (You know. people with expertise in crime, as opposed to a degree in feminist theology). tend not to do so, suggesting victim surveys instead.

[Galloism]

More like a bunch of racist grifters and their helpful idiots have spent years abusing statistics to the point that the belief that Sweden is a sexual violence dystopia has been absorbed into the "common sense" of a wide sector of society. The fact that many people consider Sweden to be the "rape capital of the world" doesn't mean that it actually is, much in the same way that Americans believing, on average, that Muslims make up over 15% of their population doesn't mean that they actually are that numerous.

Here's some actual information on Sweden and sexual violence.

I wasn't blaming immigrants. I very much doubt that they are the sole perpetrators. However, according to your very own https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/rape-and-sex-offences.htmlsource says that last year, 22,000 sex crimes were committed. Of those, 7,370 were rapes. Note, however that in the EU, the Nordic Countries lead everywhere else. Culturally similar, mind you, and geographically close. The Swedish Model doesn't seem to work.

Edit: Fixed URL

I’m not sure about other Nordic countries, but Sweden in particular its a counting thing.

In the US, if a woman reports she’s been held captive for half a year and raped twice a day, we record it as one incident of rape (it’s on a per report basis). Sweden reports 366 of them (it’s on a per offense basis).

How this adds up fast is imagine a rape where there’s a forced blow job, vaginal penetration, and then a forced blow job to finish. In the US, that’s one rape. In Sweden, it’s three.

[Ostroeuropa]

Worth noting that feminist conceptions of how various things like not seeing them as negatively as men are "patronizing" for women as being evidence in favor of their view go against humanistic psychology. Unconditional positive regard is seen as vital for mental health and self-actualization. Also worth noting that Rogerian counselling has a 70% success rate, suggesting that this view is not unfounded.

Empathy being afforded unconditionally and a positive view of the client no matter what they say or do is successful and causes the client to value themselves, a crucial step in psychological health which leads to self-actualization. The environment men are in is much different from this. We see this from the treatment of women rapists and how the media sympathizes with them but vilifies men and so forth.

A feminist would have you believe this is evidence of misogyny, despite it being, in quite simple terms, women being treated as people and men being dehumanized, the latter a direct result of feminist campaigning on these kind of issues. As usual, some form of ignorance or illiteracy is needed to buy in to feminist claims. The feminist claims here are based on starting with their conclusion and then rationalizing an excuse for why it applies in all situations and in all frames of reference, even when evidence goes against it. It is merely the assertion of a prejudice, over and over.

The humanistic model of psychology also notes that the psychological problems it deals with arise primarily from being forced to view the world in terms of how to make other people happy and viewing your self-worth in those terms. This is in line with MRA criticisms of gynocentrism and how feminists have framed the discussion, and suggests that feminist domination of the discussion, in simple terms, spreads mental disease and makes children ill.

You are indoctrinating boys into a gynocentric conception of the discussion and how they should base their behavior around other people rather than encouraging self-actualization. This makes sense when you also take on board the MRA criticism of womens in group bias, feminist misandry, and their pathologization of masculinity and view of male influence as toxic. Naturally, this presents in ways that effectively mean attempts to limit male agency and control it. Because the feminist movement has mutilated this discussion and framed it around their own chauvinism and prejudices, the notion of men discussing their personal agency and how best to utilize it and resist the controlling behaviour of others has been botched continuously due to womens interference and attempting to control that discussion and make it line up with their own perceptions and biases.

See all the whining that happens about how MRAs and so on "Should be discussing X" if they want to help men, and so on, or how there is a persistent impulse to deflect criticism of womens sexism and controlling behavior into "But its caused by patriarchy so focus on that.". That is merely women not listening, and asserting that they should not only be the center of their own universe, but everyone elses too. This trend is called by other Manosphere movements "Female solipcism", the apparent inability of women to properly conceive that other people have internal experiences different from their own. I think its just indoctrination into prejudice and dismissive attitudes toward men and their humanity.

This is especially relevant when you get to incongruence caused by shoving biased and female chauvinist concepts down childrens throats and then demanding they internalize and accept them or they're bad people. (I.E, if you do not view the world as a woman does, if you do not have a womans priorities and a womans perception, if you do not base your behavior around these things, you are malicious and controlling and evil.).

The mismatch between "self" and "Idealized self" this causes generates anxiety and psychological problems in boys.

[Liriena]

The environment men are in is much different from this. We see this from the treatment of women rapists and how the media sympathizes with them but vilifies men and so forth.

Hey, does anyone remember Steubenville?

Also: https://prospect.org/article/sympathy-rapist

And also: http://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10 ... 4079-e-118

The dominant media image of the rapist is a marginal male driven by sexual desire; a dangerous stranger lurking in the bushes (Jewkes, 2015). Entertainment media especially reproduce the psychotic stranger stereotype, with high numbers of violent or homicidal serial rapists featured in genres such as television crime shows (Horeck, 2004). This imagery is in stark contrast to the statistical reality that rape is most commonly committed by “normal” men from the same social sphere as, and usually known to, their victims.

The more “respectable” a man is deemed to be the less credence allegations against him are likely to be given, particularly if the woman making the allegations is deemed to be less respectable or have a lower social status (Benedict, 1992). A well-known example of this was the media coverage of the 1991 William Kennedy Smith trial in Palm Beach, Florida. Smith, a doctor belonging to the prestigious Kennedy family, was accused of sexual assault by Patricia Bowman, a woman he had met at a bar. Media coverage of Smith before and during the trial emphasized his profession, good looks, and “gentle” nature, ignoring or minimizing the existence of prior allegations of sexual assault. In media interviews following Smith’s acquittal a number of jurors claimed that their decision was heavily influenced by their conviction that Smith was not the kind of man who would commit a violent sexual assault (Sanday, 1996).

In rape cases involving “respectable” men like Smith media scrutiny is generally reserved for victims. The defendant’s sexual history is rarely raised, and if it is, his “reputation” as a “womanizer” may be used to discredit the victim’s account, implying she “should have known” what was to come. It is rare to the point of nonexistent to see media coverage that questions why a sexually experienced man was unable to accurately read the signals of his potential sexual partner and determine that she was unwilling to have sex. Similarly, the behavior of men in terms of drinking irresponsibly is rarely raised except to provide mitigating circumstances for the allegations against them. In short, defendants are frequently presented as sexual innocents, unable to accurately read situations or respond to all but the most blatant of signals (Lees, 1996a).

This phenomenon of excusing and erasing sexual violence by assailants who do not fit the stereotype of rapists can extend even to cases involving violence, clear non-consent, and group sexual assault or gang rape. This blindness has been witnessed in several countries when sports stars have been accused of violent or group sexual assaults. For instance, allegations of gang rape made against footballers in Australia in the early 2000s were frequently referred to as “sex scandals” in the news media, with the alleged victims portrayed as “groupies” who had invited the assaults, or as women who were making false claims after being rejected. Deb Waterhouse-Watson (2013) has described the footballers as possessing “narrative immunity,” meaning that their high social status meant that victims’ stories would simply not be believed, no matter how many allegations were made.

[Bienenhalde]

]

I agree, this is an error, it should have been at the top of the list.

And also the Swedish model being implemented in Israel.

...Isn't Sweden considered the "Rape capital of the World?" Oh, wait! It is!

The heard somewhere that real reason that the number of rapes in Swedish statistics is so high is because Swedish police use a broader definition of rape than police departments in other countries.

[Ostroeuropa]

The environment men are in is much different from this. We see this from the treatment of women rapists and how the media sympathizes with them but vilifies men and so forth.

Hey, does anyone remember Steubenville?

That incident was pretty much an anomaly which is why it sticks in your mind, alongside feminists flipping out over it and making it a national issue, something they notably never do over the countless incidents of it happening with women rapists, and beyond that, the feminist reaction to that incident goes to prove my overall point about the hostility to empathy for men who rape V empathy for women who rape.

What was your point supposed to be here exactly?

That when a male was afforded the same consideration for their humanity as a female would be, feminists threw a fit about the existence of empathy for men?
Yes, that's kind of my point. You could not have picked a better incident to illustrate it.

[Liriena]

Hey, does anyone remember Steubenville?

That incident was pretty much an anomaly which is why it sticks in your mind, and beyond that, the feminist reaction to that incident goes to prove my overall point about the hostility to empathy for men who rape V empathy for women who rape.

What was your point supposed to be here exactly?

Just being a nitpicking bitch.

[Ostroeuropa]

That incident was pretty much an anomaly which is why it sticks in your mind, and beyond that, the feminist reaction to that incident goes to prove my overall point about the hostility to empathy for men who rape V empathy for women who rape.

What was your point supposed to be here exactly?

Just being a nitpicking bitch.

It's not nitpicking if it proves my point tbh. I guess you've got nothing to say about the broader point of how feminist conceptions of the situation are tantamount to an endorsement of mentally ill ways of behaving? Or rather, ways of behaving that cause mental illness?

What exactly is womens grievance here?

[Liriena]

That incident was pretty much an anomaly which is why it sticks in your mind, and beyond that, the feminist reaction to that incident goes to prove my overall point about the hostility to empathy for men who rape V empathy for women who rape.

What was your point supposed to be here exactly?

Just being a nitpicking bitch.

I mean, the rest of your post is very much an essay that could use a more layman-friendly prose and some citations here and there, specially citations of, I dunno, specific feminist arguments that have been actually made that you want to rebuke.

[Liriena]

I guess you've got nothing to say about the broader point of how feminist conceptions of the situation are tantamount to an endorsement of mentally ill ways of behaving? Or rather, ways of behaving that cause mental illness?

What exactly is womens grievance here?

You are asking the wrong person because I cannot make heads or tails from the rest of what you wrote.

[Ostroeuropa]

Just being a nitpicking bitch.

I mean, the rest of your post is very much an essay that could use a more layman-friendly prose and some citations here and there, specially citations of, I dunno, specific feminist arguments that have been actually made that you want to rebuke.

I'm not going to give you a course on how to be a counsellor. Go get a carl rogers book, or just pop in to a library or book shop and open up a psychology text book and flip through to the section on humanist psychology.

If you need specific citations, then it's Carl Rogers, rogerian counselling, and Gibbard and Hanley (2008) showing that it has a 70% success rate.

The specific feminist arguments i'm disputing is the notion that the reason female rapists, abusers, and so forth are ignored and downplayed is misogyny.

[Ostroeuropa]

I guess you've got nothing to say about the broader point of how feminist conceptions of the situation are tantamount to an endorsement of mentally ill ways of behaving? Or rather, ways of behaving that cause mental illness?

What exactly is womens grievance here?

You are asking the wrong person because I cannot make heads or tails from the rest of what you wrote.

Essentially feminism imposes conditions of worth on boys that it doesn't impose on women. Conditions of worth and conditional positive regard lead to mental illness and anxiety. Beyond that, feminism imposes a female centered view of the world on boys and demands they internalize it or they are bad people, often it is added that they are not worthy of affection if they don't internalize it.

Exposing children to feminism is child abuse of a similar caliber to the religious indoctrination sort, and has similar consequences for their mental health.

The framework is also gynocentric and framed around womens experiences and perceptions. Men are told not to behave certain ways or to behave certain ways because of how it impacts women, in fact almost all of the discourse is this to the point that even mens experiences are framed through this gynocentric lens. This is something Rogers specifically discusses. (Self-worth being based around other people as a toxic way of thinking) and so on.

This aligns with the MRM criticism of feminism as gynocentrism.

As a lens by which to analyze feminism, psychology doesn't have much positive to say about it, frankly.

[Liriena]

You are asking the wrong person because I cannot make heads or tails from the rest of what you wrote.

Essentially feminism imposes conditions of worth on boys that it doesn't impose on women. Conditions of worth and conditional positive regard lead to mental illness and anxiety. Beyond that, feminism imposes a female centered view of the world on boys and demands they internalize it or they are bad people, often it is added that they are not worthy of affection if they don't internalize it.

Exposing children to feminism is child abuse of a similar caliber to the religious indoctrination sort, and has similar consequences for their mental health.

Okay. Nice hot take.

Now onto the specifics, because your original post talks about the behavior and beliefs of women, feminism and feminists in very undefined terms (plus lots of conjecture and speculation that could use at least some basic sources) while presenting a lot of psychological theory.

Names? Dates? Specific policies, behaviors or even texts? Verifiable causal links between those feminist policies, behaviors and texts, and the negative consequences you observe on boys...?

You are throwing a lot at your fellow posters without giving them any guarantee that what you are observing, explaining, claiming and arguing is accurate other than your own written word. You ain't giving a lecture in front of psychology students with bags preemptively stuffed full with the reading material.

[Des-Bal]

Hey, does anyone remember Steubenville?

Also: https://prospect.org/article/sympathy-rapist

And also: http://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10 ... 4079-e-118

The dominant media image of the rapist is a marginal male driven by sexual desire; a dangerous stranger lurking in the bushes (Jewkes, 2015). Entertainment media especially reproduce the psychotic stranger stereotype, with high numbers of violent or homicidal serial rapists featured in genres such as television crime shows (Horeck, 2004). This imagery is in stark contrast to the statistical reality that rape is most commonly committed by “normal” men from the same social sphere as, and usually known to, their victims.

The more “respectable” a man is deemed to be the less credence allegations against him are likely to be given, particularly if the woman making the allegations is deemed to be less respectable or have a lower social status (Benedict, 1992). A well-known example of this was the media coverage of the 1991 William Kennedy Smith trial in Palm Beach, Florida. Smith, a doctor belonging to the prestigious Kennedy family, was accused of sexual assault by Patricia Bowman, a woman he had met at a bar. Media coverage of Smith before and during the trial emphasized his profession, good looks, and “gentle” nature, ignoring or minimizing the existence of prior allegations of sexual assault. In media interviews following Smith’s acquittal a number of jurors claimed that their decision was heavily influenced by their conviction that Smith was not the kind of man who would commit a violent sexual assault (Sanday, 1996).

In rape cases involving “respectable” men like Smith media scrutiny is generally reserved for victims. The defendant’s sexual history is rarely raised, and if it is, his “reputation” as a “womanizer” may be used to discredit the victim’s account, implying she “should have known” what was to come. It is rare to the point of nonexistent to see media coverage that questions why a sexually experienced man was unable to accurately read the signals of his potential sexual partner and determine that she was unwilling to have sex. Similarly, the behavior of men in terms of drinking irresponsibly is rarely raised except to provide mitigating circumstances for the allegations against them. In short, defendants are frequently presented as sexual innocents, unable to accurately read situations or respond to all but the most blatant of signals (Lees, 1996a).

This phenomenon of excusing and erasing sexual violence by assailants who do not fit the stereotype of rapists can extend even to cases involving violence, clear non-consent, and group sexual assault or gang rape. This blindness has been witnessed in several countries when sports stars have been accused of violent or group sexual assaults. For instance, allegations of gang rape made against footballers in Australia in the early 2000s were frequently referred to as “sex scandals” in the news media, with the alleged victims portrayed as “groupies” who had invited the assaults, or as women who were making false claims after being rejected. Deb Waterhouse-Watson (2013) has described the footballers as possessing “narrative immunity,” meaning that their high social status meant that victims’ stories would simply not be believed, no matter how many allegations were made.

The outrage over Steubenville was about the fact that friends and families of the offenders didn't instantly turn against them the moment accusations were made and that CNN in a move that is not in any way uncommon noted what the sentence meant for the accused. It was at a sentencing hearing. Talking about the sentence and it's ramifications is pretty much the order of the day.

The bit on "respectability" is also nothing new. Who the accused and witnesses appear to be and whether they are or are not credible is always an issue. When you're talking about a rape case where the defendant claims the encounter was consensual whether or not the victim would have ever consented is part of the jury's decision process. If you're saying a nun consented to having sex for the first time in a car park with a total stranger it's less believable than a saying a woman who has sex with a stranger twice a day in public places did the same. That said this evidence is generally inadmissable. You're talking about an adversarial system, the defendant's sexual history isn't disregarded because prosecutors and plaintiff's attorneys with financial incentives to win at trial think that rapists are pretty cool guys. It's because it doesn't help, why would you bother pointing out all the consensual sex the defendant has when whether or not he consented isn't at issue?

The other side of this of course is where the accused is NOT respectable and they are gutted.

After some cursory research on the Australian rape cases it looks like coaches were encouraging players to engage in group sex and the media was doing it's absolute best to tie a moral and a legal controversy together hence labeling rape accusations part of the "sex scandal."

[Liriena]

As a lens by which to analyze feminism, psychology doesn't have much positive to say about it, frankly.

How much would be "much"?

An enormous feminist contribution, in my view, to all social science research practice including that in psychology, has been the assertion that the perspectives of all peoples of whatever origin are to be taken into account (e.g., Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2007). This assertion presumably stemmed, at first, from insisting that female and male perspectives, rather than just male, should be examined. Thus, feminism was pioneering in positing that female psychology was different to and not a lesser version of that of males (and therefore not understandable via study of just it). And that it was just as important—and hence needed study, too. The moment evolutionary psychology acknowledged an average psychological difference between the sexes that was not merely construed as a deficit in one, it showed itself to be feminist in this same way.

A related position that feminism shares with evolutionary psychology is that there is a male-female divide in aspects of how the world is viewed. Many feminists would say this is wholly attributable to gender (“The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones …”: Oxford English Dictionary). On the other hand, many evolutionary psychologists would say it is attributable to sex and gender (with the former influencing the latter), while likely just investigating sex as causal. It is completely understandable that some feminism would deny sexedness of psychology or aspects of perceived reality and attribute all average psychological differences between males and females to gender (which is taught and mutable). Such belief perhaps had to underlie the initial questioning of each and every “sex difference” that was assumed pre-feminism—including some that prevented or stymied female participation in many activities. Considering whether gender may wholly explicate an apparent “sex difference” is still important, due in part to the ‘blind-spots’ of members of each sex with respect to the perceptual world of the other. Even without such blind-spots science would demand that all posited sex differences be thoroughly researched before they are accepted (with such acceptance being permanently provisional, in the sense of welcoming any new data that disputes it). Evolutionary psychology is a science and thus holds this value.

The world improved immeasurably when feminists helped ensure legal equality between the sexes in some areas of the world. Maybe feminism couldn’t have helped achieve this without holding that average differences between the sexes in psychology (and reality perception) were solely gender-based. During struggles for suffrage, for example, would men in a position to decide the issue have listened to women saying “You may be right about some psychological sex differences, but we contend that, despite us not knowing just what these are, none of them would justify maintaining unequal rights for women. We make that ‘leap’, and so should you.” The fact is that this may never have worked. And if it hadn’t, we mightn’t have nearly as many women working in most fields today, evolutionary psychology included. This would have been a special detriment to evolutionary psychology, over and above the loss of much data, theory, and other contributions, for the reason outlined above.

Thus, though it is true that many feminists would dispute that average female psychology differs from that of males due to any non-environmental factor (socialization, etc.), feminism shares one of its core values, equal perspective-taking between male and female, with evolutionary psychology, perhaps more so than with any other branch of psychology.

Evolutionary psychology may even share with feminism, more than do other branches of psychology, feminism’s commitment to using the perspectives of all peoples, of whatever origin. Future work in every psychology sub-field will hopefully expand by how much people from around the world and not just the West are studied. But evolutionary psychology may currently lead traditional social psychology in the extent to which it studies non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) peoples from around the world (Kurzban, 2013).

Evolutionary psychology does not tell women or men that where they tend as a sex to perceive differently than each other, they are crazy. It tells them there may be adaptive reasons they do so. Evolutionary psychology and the traditional, equality-advocating feminism with which I have familiarity, all hold that the elevation of either sex’s view over that of the other is nonsensical. Evolutionary psychology holds that males and females on average each have a somewhat different psychology and somewhat different perceptions in select areas. By implication, each sex, therefore, may have on average a somewhat different perceptual reality. This does not imply that one sex is superior to the other. And none of this precludes being both a feminist and an evolutionary psychologist—perhaps being one can even help some researchers be the other.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/174c/1 ... 1546576623

Psychological science has been continually transformed,
not only in response to its internal dynamics of discovery
and theory development, but also in reaction to the questions posed by social changes ongoing in society. Feminism as a social movement thus posed psychological questions about a myriad of aspects of gender, and activists
called for research to support social action and legislative
and other reforms. Researchers in psychology then rapidly
escalated their commitment to research on gender and
women. Viewed in raw counts of articles (see Figure 1),
this growth has continued unabated. Viewed relative to the
growth in all research on human psychology (see Figure 2),
gender research peaked in the late 1970s, reflecting the
period of maximum feminist activism, and peaked again
around 2000. This second peak and the continuing popularity of gender research suggest that, although feminism
planted the seeds of this research by asking provocative
questions, these seeds took root and yielded long-term
scientific investment. This attention on the part of many
researchers effectively transformed the content of psychological research in a half-century that saw momentous
social change affecting gender relations. Moreover, consistent with greater change in the social roles of women than
men, the psychology of women has received a greater
amount of explicit scientific attention than the psychology
of men.

ples.
Consider the successful use of psychological research
on gender stereotypes in court cases on employment discrimination (e.g., Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, & Heilman, 1993). Research on work–family issues has served as
the basis for progressive changes in organizational personnel policies (e.g., Bailyn, 2006). Also, psychological research has been the lynchpin in several U.S. Supreme Court
cases regarding reproductive rights. For instance, in the
case of Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (1986), a research-based amicus brief
by the American Psychological Association (Bersoff, Malson, & Ennis, 1985) helped to overturn the Pennsylvania
state law that required physicians to inform women contemplating an abortion of potential detrimental physical
and psychological effects. Similarly, research on sexual
harassment has been influential in a variety of contexts,
including court cases and the formulation of government
regulations (see Greathouse, Levett, & Kovera, 2009). Research establishing women’s progressive and effective
leadership styles has been widely distributed in advocacy
efforts to improve women’s access to corporate leadership
positions (e.g., Desvaux, Devillard-Hoellinger, & Baumgarten, 2007).

[Mardla]

Saying men and women are hardwired to think diffrently was pioneered by feminism?

[Liriena]

Saying men and women are hardwired to think diffrently was pioneered by feminism?

It's definitely a thing in some variants of feminism.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Saying men and women are hardwired to think diffrently was pioneered by feminism?

I mean, men and women DO think differently, that's never really been up for debate.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Saying men and women are hardwired to think diffrently was pioneered by feminism?

It's definitely a thing in some variants of feminism.

Probably generally the worse variants.

[Mardla]

Saying men and women are hardwired to think diffrently was pioneered by feminism?

It's definitely a thing in some variants of feminism.

But it certainly wasn't pioneered by feminism, it's as old as the hills.

Also female perspective is a major theme in the Gospel of Luke (whereas Matthew tells the Nativity from Joseph's perspective, Luke tells it from Mary's); it is actually a major "plot point": in ancient Judaea, women were not admissible as witnesses in court, yet the original witnesses to Christ's Resurrection are all women, whom the male Apostles have been brought up to disbelieve. Very likely Luke talked especially to women in putting together his Gospel, which is why it focuses so much more on them.

[Galloism]

Like all things, I'm sure it can be debated to death, but University of Missouri (US) and University of Essex (UK) designed a new Basic Index of Gender Inequality (BIGI) to measure the inequality between men and women to determine where men and women are the most equal and unequal. They measure three things - educational opportunities, healthy life expectancy and overall life satisfaction.

Researchers from the University of Missouri and University of Essex in the United Kingdom say a new way of measuring gender inequality is fairer to both men and women, and presents a simplified but more accurate picture of peoples’ well-being than previous calculations. The new Basic Index of Gender Inequality (BIGI) focuses on three factors – educational opportunities, healthy life expectancy and overall life satisfaction.

“We calculated BIGI scores for 134 nations, representing 6.8 billion people,” said David Geary, Curators Distinguished Professor of Psychological Sciences in the MU College of Arts and Science about the study, published today in PLOS ONE, one of the world’s leading peer-reviewed journals focused on science and medicine. “Surprisingly, our new measure indicated that men are, on average, more disadvantaged than women in 91 countries compared with a relative disadvantage for women in 43 countries. We sought to correct the bias toward women’s issues in existing measures and at the same time develop a simple measure that is useful in any country in the world, regardless of their level of economic development.”

Using the BIGI measure, the researchers found the most developed countries in the world come closest to achieving gender equality, albeit with a slight advantage for women. In the least developed countries, women nearly always fall behind men — largely because they have fewer opportunities to get a good education. The picture is more mixed in countries with medium-levels of development, with nearly the same number of countries where women fall behind as countries where men fall behind. The men’s disadvantage is largely due to a shorter healthy lifespan.

Until now the Global Gender Gap Index, introduced in 2006, had been one of the most established and well-used measures of national gender inequality, used by academics and policy makers across the world. But Stoet and Geary argue that it does not measure issues where men are at a disadvantage, such as harsher punishments for the same crime, compulsory military service and more occupational deaths. The complexity of the Global Gender Gap Index also means it is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether gender differences are the result of inequality or personal preference.

“No existing measure of gender inequality fully captures the hardships that are disproportionately experienced by men and so they do not fully capture the extent to which any nation is promoting the well-being of all its citizens,” said Gijsbert Stoet, professor of psychology at University of Essex. “The BIGI provides a much simpler way of tackling gender inequality and it focuses on aspects of life that are directly relevant to all people.”

Researchers say that when BIGI is included along with other existing models of gender equality, it provides additional information, presenting a fuller picture of gender equality that can be used by policymakers to introduce changes to improve the quality of life for both men and women.

“Internationally, improvements in gender parity may be reached by focusing on education in the least developed nations and by focusing on preventative health care in medium and highly developed nations,” Stoet said.

“With the BIGI, we are focusing on issues that are important to all women and men in any nation, regardless of level of economic and political development, and by including factors that can disadvantage men as well as women,” Geary said. “Current equality measures are generally biased to highlight women’s issues and thus are not really measures of gender equality.”

The study, “A simplified approach to measuring national gender inequality,” was published in PLOS ONE.

https://munews.missouri.edu/news-releas ... ell-being/

And the actual study for your perusal:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0205349

[Luminesa]

It’s probably not news that a good education goes a long way to help both men and women to go further in life, and in third-world countries women should be allowed an education along with the men. The problem is...are we in the West going to do anything to support the education of girls in third-world countries? Or are we just gonna have Oprah do it?