Sexism to my understanding within the US

@deathstriker666 said:

@sissylion said:

Sexism is an institution which systematically oppresses a certain group. That group is women. Saying "sexism towards women" is redundant.

Nope, Oppression is the institution that systematically persecutes against a certain group. Sexism is merely a reason/cause for it.

It's also not unique to women. Oppression against men is a real thing, and is part of the above definition of sexism.

@Azteck said:

@deathstriker666 said:

@sissylion said:

Sexism is an institution which systematically oppresses a certain group. That group is women. Saying "sexism towards women" is redundant.

Nope, Oppression is the institution that systematically persecutes against a certain group. Sexism is merely a reason/cause for it.

It's also not unique to women. Oppression against men is a real thing, and is part of the above definition of sexism.

People still trying to argue with Sissylion over sexism. He/she is master troll, or extremely biased and has never backed down in a thread. He/she is somewhat of a legend...

@Blimble said:

you will know a lot of women stronger than both and you.

Mmm....nope. Even my girl friend who works out 5 days a week can't do more than 3 pull ups. I can do twice as many at least. Weird, huh?

Also if you and your brother can't tell shades of colors apart it says more about your intelligence than anything and there are women who would have no idea either.

Show me where being able to tell red from blue is a sign of intelligence. I'm actually interested in seeing where you read/saw this.

Neither of those qualities and many other men and women stereotypes you could bring up aren't genetic or fit the majority.

So I guess it's BS that men have betterspatialdirection?

It's not genetic that women have a better sense of smell and see more colors of the spectrum than men?

I guess the stereotype of women lovingto talk is also sexist, and not based on the biology of women at all.

The stereotype that men are all around "tougher" than women when it comes to pain? Totally not biological...Wait a second.

Basically, I'm calling you out on the bolded part of your quote. Ball's in your court.

@LikeaSsur said:

@Sevenout: Uh.....okay? I have no idea where I said I would ask women which colors would go with which, but thanks for the reply, I guess?

"I'm going to ask a woman for her opinion on colors." I would think this means her opinion on color coordination or preference and not simply "Do you think this is red or purple?" which any human being could reasonably tell you. And if you are speaking of sussing out slight shade differences (which, who would ever need to ask about that) you are still better off asking someone with artistic training than a random woman.

@TheHumanDove:Guess it's clear I don't spend as much time on GB as I used to. This is me backing out of this thread if what you say is true.

@Sevenout said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@Sevenout: Uh.....okay? I have no idea where I said I would ask women which colors would go with which, but thanks for the reply, I guess?

"I'm going to ask a woman for her opinion on colors." I would think this means her opinion on color coordination or preference and not simply "Do you think this is red or purple?" which any human being could reasonably tell you. And if you are speaking of sussing out slight shade differences (which, who would ever need to ask about that) you are still better off asking someone with artistic training than a random woman.

Look at my post above yours. Yeah, I'm sure asking a trained artist is better, just as hiring movers to move things is better than getting my friends to do it.

But I don't know any artists that are readily available to help me paint my bedroom walls or tile my bathroom, and I'm not about to pay the absurd amount of money for movers.

@mystakin said:

@Jams said:

@mystakin said:

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin the reasons stated are best explored in the shady8x post Jimmi linked to earlier. The redditor in question has done a commendable job of promoting equality over simplistic equivalencies. It is societal, but in a much more natural and self-driven way than the assumed 'oppressive male domination' that is too easily reached for.

I honestly find that post misleading and unrelated to my initial point. Though the articles state the pay gap may be a myth, few deny its existence outright. Many articles still state that women have difficulty breaking into business and that societal constraints may play a role in that. Either way, none of the links address the lack of power that I've been discussing, to my knowledge.

I will admit to personal bias as well. I don't have a lot of faith in a subreddit that rallies against the solution to their own problems.

Men and women aren't just two jugs you can just fill with the equal amounts of water. That's a goal that will never be accomplished. You can't just want equal numbers even if there aren't even enough women in the field to make it even. The USA is equal in almost every way. We have enough people of all types in power to make sure it stays that way. To think otherwise is fooling yourself. You'll find every type of race and gender in every type of seat of importance or wealth. You'll now only find sexism or racism only in individual cases or small time group think. Things like the Presidency are a different story. That's a one person job that one person every 4 years gets to have and we've only just acquired our equality in the recent decades. We do still have holdouts from previous generations who are still holding their predispositions towards race and gender. But that'll change with every new generation born.

Being equal isn't about being a one to one ratio. It's about everything balancing out in the end. Where one man may have worked his way up the ladder with hard work and determination, a woman blackmailed her way there. One woman has to fight twice as hard to get her job while there is a guy who did it with his social status. For every woman that fights for real equality is one that does it for their own twisted agenda. If there are too many women with twisted agenda's then people start pushing back until it all balances out and that's what makes it fair and equal in the end.

I think America and most developed nations have gotten to this point of equality and it's only going to cement or get better while every older generation dies out. The real problem is trying to get the undeveloped nations there too.

This is what I believe.

The US isn't as equal as you think it is. Just as an example, in 2002 there was a study that concluded a 50% lower job application callback rate for African-American sounding names. Simply sounding like you were black meant a lower likelihood of being hired. Maybe this has improved in the past decade, but I doubt it's resolved entirely. The study is only about as old as Halo 1.

I only scanned the article, but I didn't see where they say the ethnicity of the person receiving the applications. How can that be a complete study if there's a chance some of those people rejecting African sounding names were black themselves, or Latino or Asian? You can't make assumptions that they were all white if you want a real scientific study. If the one of the business that rejected the names were black themselves, then what does that mean?

@LikeaSsur said:

@Sevenout said:

@LikeaSsur said:

@Sevenout: Uh.....okay? I have no idea where I said I would ask women which colors would go with which, but thanks for the reply, I guess?

"I'm going to ask a woman for her opinion on colors." I would think this means her opinion on color coordination or preference and not simply "Do you think this is red or purple?" which any human being could reasonably tell you. And if you are speaking of sussing out slight shade differences (which, who would ever need to ask about that) you are still better off asking someone with artistic training than a random woman.

Look at my post above yours. Yeah, I'm sure asking a trained artist is better, just as hiring movers to move things is better than getting my friends to do it.

But I don't know any artists that are readily available to help me paint my bedroom walls or tile my bathroom, and I'm not about to pay the absurd amount of money for movers.

You are missing my point which is that you are making a logical fallacy regardless of sexism. Being able to see more colors has nothing to do with taste, which is what you are asking about if you want opinions on what color to paint a room. You are assuming women have a better taste in colors because they are able to see a greater spectrum. There is just no logical connection there. Hence, teenagers can hear a greater spectrum of noise but that does not make them better music critics. It just doesn't make sense.

Unless you are going off of the idea that women in general are just more fashionable, which has nothing to do with seeing a greater visual spectrum.

This is one of the most unintelligible thread titles I've ever seen.

@Jams said:

@mystakin said:

@Jams said:

@mystakin said:

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin the reasons stated are best explored in the shady8x post Jimmi linked to earlier. The redditor in question has done a commendable job of promoting equality over simplistic equivalencies. It is societal, but in a much more natural and self-driven way than the assumed 'oppressive male domination' that is too easily reached for.

I honestly find that post misleading and unrelated to my initial point. Though the articles state the pay gap may be a myth, few deny its existence outright. Many articles still state that women have difficulty breaking into business and that societal constraints may play a role in that. Either way, none of the links address the lack of power that I've been discussing, to my knowledge.

I will admit to personal bias as well. I don't have a lot of faith in a subreddit that rallies against the solution to their own problems.

Men and women aren't just two jugs you can just fill with the equal amounts of water. That's a goal that will never be accomplished. You can't just want equal numbers even if there aren't even enough women in the field to make it even. The USA is equal in almost every way. We have enough people of all types in power to make sure it stays that way. To think otherwise is fooling yourself. You'll find every type of race and gender in every type of seat of importance or wealth. You'll now only find sexism or racism only in individual cases or small time group think. Things like the Presidency are a different story. That's a one person job that one person every 4 years gets to have and we've only just acquired our equality in the recent decades. We do still have holdouts from previous generations who are still holding their predispositions towards race and gender. But that'll change with every new generation born.

Being equal isn't about being a one to one ratio. It's about everything balancing out in the end. Where one man may have worked his way up the ladder with hard work and determination, a woman blackmailed her way there. One woman has to fight twice as hard to get her job while there is a guy who did it with his social status. For every woman that fights for real equality is one that does it for their own twisted agenda. If there are too many women with twisted agenda's then people start pushing back until it all balances out and that's what makes it fair and equal in the end.

I think America and most developed nations have gotten to this point of equality and it's only going to cement or get better while every older generation dies out. The real problem is trying to get the undeveloped nations there too.

This is what I believe.

The US isn't as equal as you think it is. Just as an example, in 2002 there was a study that concluded a 50% lower job application callback rate for African-American sounding names. Simply sounding like you were black meant a lower likelihood of being hired. Maybe this has improved in the past decade, but I doubt it's resolved entirely. The study is only about as old as Halo 1.

I only scanned the article, but I didn't see where they say the ethnicity of the person receiving the applications. How can that be a complete study if there's a chance some of those people rejecting African sounding names were black themselves, or Latino or Asian? You can't make assumptions that they were all white if you want a real scientific study. If the one of the business that rejected the names were black themselves, then what does that mean?

The race of the people receiving the applications doesn't matter; no one is making the assumption that the employers are white. It's not stated -- this might just be a summary of the full study -- but most college studies use random assignment to eliminate participant bias. It's likely that this study did as well. It's standard practice.

Additionally, the results of a single resume is irrelevant. The data is only meaningful in aggregate. Whether or not a black employer rejected a black resume doesn't mean anything (Unless you're that applicant, I suppose). It's only important once it's a trend.

So, uh...I think women in media (like video games) are generally under written or written in a way to enhance the male characters, and I oppose that because it's crappy writing. There are notable exceptions, but in general I feel the majority of popular media (from games to books) are written towards the male perspective, and that there's a lot of cool and interesting stuff we could experience if we expanded that. And that is my contribution to this clusterfuck!

@LikeaSsur: I'm sure that's a conversation that comes up a lot. And to the degree that you would have to ask someone (assuming you are not color blind) about shades you would still need someone with an artistic background to give any kind of meaningful answer. Particularly since the article you cited stated that only about 40% of women have this ability and it seems to be limited to the red-orange spectrum. I agree that on average men are stronger than women, but I think saying that you would always ask a woman about colors first because less than half of them may see one color spectrum slightly better is a bit of a stretch. It sounds more like you are trying to shoehorn genetic differences into a series of real life applications that don't really fit. Is it a difference yes, does it have any real life application, no not really. Does it warrant giving women preference in this instance, only 40% of the time and only if your asking about red.

@TheHumanDove said:

@Azteck said:

@deathstriker666 said:

@sissylion said:

Sexism is an institution which systematically oppresses a certain group. That group is women. Saying "sexism towards women" is redundant.

Nope, Oppression is the institution that systematically persecutes against a certain group. Sexism is merely a reason/cause for it.

It's also not unique to women. Oppression against men is a real thing, and is part of the above definition of sexism.

People still trying to argue with Sissylion over sexism. He/she is master troll, or extremely biased and has never backed down in a thread. He/she is somewhat of a legend...

I have posted on this forum 216 times. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That being said: Racism, sexism, etc. are one-way streets. They're the systems which specifically oppress groups. Just as you can't be homophobic towards heterosexuals while still being discriminatory towards them, you cannot be sexist towards men or racist towards white people. "Discrimination" is a blanket term that transcends institutions.

@sissylion said:

@Fattony12000: I'm not going to argue semantics with you. "Sexism" and "gender discrimination" are two different things, at least in America.

Well that just shows how fucked up America is. This is the English language and both are those things mean the same thing.

That's like saying racism just means racial discrimination towards people of African descent.

@sissylion said:

I have posted on this forum 216 times. I have no idea what you're talking about.

That being said: Racism, sexism, etc. are one-way streets. They're the systems which specifically oppress groups. Just as you can't be homophobic towards heterosexuals while still being discriminatory towards them, you cannot be sexist towards men or racist towards white people. "Discrimination" is a blanket term that transcends institutions.

They're institutions now? It's not some well defined mechanism to which racists or sexists subscribe. There's no fucking manifesto here. People can be sexist and racist for all sorts of different reasons.

What a load of bollocks. So if a group of black people beat the shit out of me and carved "cracker" into my back with a knife, that's not racism?

Also, you can't be homophobic towards a heterosexual. All this is just reinforcing it, in my mind, that you haven't a clue what you're on about.

@AlexW00d said:

@sissylion said:

@Fattony12000: I'm not going to argue semantics with you. "Sexism" and "gender discrimination" are two different things, at least in America.

Well that just shows how fucked up America is. This is the English language and both are those things mean the same thing.

That's like saying racism just means racial discrimination towards people of African descent.

It goes with the logical fallacy that racism or sexism can only be applied to people perceived to have less power in society. That you can only be racist/sexist when you are in position of power.

Its a total cop out, but that is the argument used. Especially when you consider that most men(or people in general)are not in a significant position of power.

Lol, whatever you say chief. While sexism does exist in North America, women still have it a lot better here than women in other countries. Some women in other countries receive death threats or get acid thrown in their faces for going to school. It sounds like you're trying to get your dick wet and this lady friend of yours is the target.

@mandude said:

They're institutions now? It's not some well defined mechanism to which racists or sexists subscribe. There's no fucking manifesto here. People can be sexist and racist for all sorts of different reasons.

What a load of bollocks. So if a group of black people beat the shit out of me and carved "cracker" into my back with a knife, that's not racism?

Also, you can't be homophobic towards a heterosexual. All this is just reinforcing it, in my mind, that you haven't a clue what you're on about.

Correct! If a group of black people beat the shit out of you and carved "cracker" into your back with a knife, it's not racism. It's racial discrimination. Unless you live in an area where sociopolitical norms and power have made white people an oppressed group, in which case it is racism. Each instance is a terrible occurrence, but again, semantics.

And you're also correct in asserting that you can't be homophobic toward a heterosexual, in the same way that you can't be ableist toward someone without a disability, or that you can't be sexist toward a male in the patriarchal system of America.

@Sevenoutsaid:

@LikeaSsur said:

@Sevenout: Uh.....okay? I have no idea where I said I would ask women which colors would go with which, but thanks for the reply, I guess?

"I'm going to ask a woman for her opinion on colors." I would think this means her opinion on color coordination or preference and not simply "Do you think this is red or purple?" which any human being could reasonably tell you. And if you are speaking of sussing out slight shade differences (which, who would ever need to ask about that) you are still better off asking someone with artistic training than a random woman.

If we are talking physically, then yeah men, on average, are significantly stronger than women.

You can take a basic human physiology class and learn that. You could also go to your nearest gym and see it first hand.

@sissylion said:

@mandude said:

They're institutions now? It's not some well defined mechanism to which racists or sexists subscribe. There's no fucking manifesto here. People can be sexist and racist for all sorts of different reasons.

What a load of bollocks. So if a group of black people beat the shit out of me and carved "cracker" into my back with a knife, that's not racism?

Also, you can't be homophobic towards a heterosexual. All this is just reinforcing it, in my mind, that you haven't a clue what you're on about.

Correct! If a group of black people beat the shit out of you and carved "cracker" into your back with a knife, it's not racism. It's racial discrimination. Unless you live in an area where sociopolitical norms and power have made white people an oppressed group, in which case it is racism. Each instance is a terrible occurrence, but again, semantics.

And you're also correct in asserting that you can't be homophobic toward a heterosexual, in the same way that you can't be ableist toward someone without a disability, or that you can't be sexist toward a male in the patriarchal system of America.

No, you cannot equate those two examples to sexism towards men, because the latter actually does happen to be a real thing.

Show me one dictionary that holds the same definitions as you do for this stuff, because frankly, you've just made up a load of bollocks, and I don't think you have anything at all to back it up.

@mandude: Misandry is not a real thing. Men's rights are rapist's rights.

@sissylion said:

@mandude: Misandry is not a real thing. Men's rights are rapist's rights.

LOL, misandry and misogyny both exist. It may be anecdotal, but I have seen very obvious examples in my life.

All it really means is an active hatred/contempt of the opposite sex. Both men and women are capable of it.

But if you wish to cling to childish semantics, where it has to be quantified through some sort of infantile doctrine or set of rules, be my guest.

@sissylion said:

@mandude: Misandry is not a real thing. Men's rights are rapist's rights.

This is what some people actually believe.

Faith in humanity-lost.

@sissylion: Alright. You win. You've worn out my endurance.

@TheHumanDove: If you honestly believe that misandry is a serious issue and not an imaginary construct perpetrated by the entitled middle class American male, I hope you never regain a fraction of your "faith in humanity."

@sissylion said:

@TheHumanDove: If you honestly believe that misandry is a serious issue and not an imaginary construct perpetrated by the entitled middle class American male, I hope you never regain a fraction of your "faith in humanity."

I don't think you understand what misandry is. Or even probably what misogyny is either.

I'll give you a hint, being sexist does not inherently make a person misogynistic or a misandrist.

@Sevenout: That's 40% better of a chance than if I asked a random man. Although this is delving into semantics, that's statistically significant enough for me.

@Brodehouse: Yes, exactly. I totally agree that men and women should be equal in the general sense. Equal pay, hours, opportunities, etc. and so forth. On a more personal level (in before "But every individual is different!"), generally speaking, it would be in bad taste to treat the women in my life the exact same as the men. In fact, looking back, I may owe a few of my male friends some apologies. Excuse me.

@flindip: I'm not going to play your game. Say what you will or drop it.

@Boondocks24 said:

Woman don't even get paid as much as men because, as far as i know, of the fact that they are woman, which is total bullshit if that's the only reason.

It's not just a sexism thing, it's partially an economic thing. According to my Economics of Race and Gender class, some of the discrimination stems from women taking leave from their jobs due to pregnancies, or even just the perception that they might take a leave in the future.

After being away from the job for more than a couple months in a competitive industry, it takes time to get back into the swing of things, and companies have to eat the cost to catch someone back up -- a cost more often associated with women than with men who may take a leave for whatever reason. Thus, the perception is that hiring a woman is a greater risk, and possibly more likely to cost the company money later on, so they may receive lower pay as a result.

That's just a tiny snippet of a larger, more complex issue, and of course I want to stress that I don't think this is right, but it's an explanation that makes more sense in our modern world where maximizing profits can come before equality.

I live in the US. Where I'm from most guys say stuff like girls belong in the kitchen. I find it really annoying. As for getting paid I have no clue if guys get paid more. If they do it sucks, but hey my insurance is cheaper because I'm a girl. That's not really fair for guys. Sometimes girls get good jobs and other things because of their looks. They might get paid more than others. Point is there's a lot of unfair things but I don't expect it to change. All I have to say is no one is going to tell me where I belong, or what I'm suppose to do.

@sissylion said:

If you honestly believe that misandry is a serious issue and not an imaginary construct perpetrated by the entitled middle class American male, I hope you never regain a fraction of your "faith in humanity."

Referring to the "entitled, middle-class, American male" judges all entitled (at least, in your perception), middle-class, American males as a single unit. That is the epitome of discrimination.

If the sexes are ever going to meet in the middle, so that no discrimination exists on either side, the gentlemen will certainly have farther to go, but denying female sexism exists simply holds us back from that point.

Misogyny and misandry are both very uncommon, since both are revulsion or hatred of the particular sex. Uncommon, but, since I've had the "pleasure" of speaking with a misandrist, I can testify to its existence. Male sexism is quite prevalent and female sexism occurs as well, but can't we agree that mis----- and fe/male sexism are both terrible?

And I must say I'm inclined to flag your "men's rights are rapist's rights" post, since it literally labels the entire male sex as rapists. There is a laxly enforced policy against attacking other users or, in this case, sexes.

@mlarrabee: I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that discrimination is terrible. Being judged in any way by uncontrollable characteristics is a horrendous thing that society needs to move away from. I'm just trying to express the idea that there's a distinction between plain discrimination and the institutions of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

And I'm not attacking males in any way. I'm attacking the men's rights movement, which is a movement based in hatred and fear. As it usually goes hand-in-hand with cries and accusations of misandry, I felt it was worth including.

@Boondocks24: Ok.... I acknowledge that sexism is definitely something people push away just like racism, however I will say that I have seen a lot of females pull the gender card. If you think you as a complete stranger that I don't know can be a total bitch and think I'm not gonna punch you just like I would any male... Yeah you'e sexist in your own right, and I've seen this exact scenario so many times. I've met a lot of girls that claim sexual harrasment just because the don't like the person. So I personally think that it's all a matter of the person, do I think there are males that are sexist? Hell yeah.

Ummm also, I work out, I have a job, I continue my education, I clean, I cook, and i take care of my body.... If any girl without a handicap thinks she shouldn't have to do the same and that I shouldn't hold standards, then yeah I'm gonna treat you like a lesser person than me, same goes for males, but I've met many females who believe they're entitled to not do these simple things and be total bitches.

Sexism is played out and often misconstrued group-formed belief that individuals seem to draw their flag for. I'm what you call an "old-world" gentlemen, and have been accused of sexism several times. I believe that men and women are equal, but that there are several differences that our genders benefit from. Women are simply better nurturers. I am a fantastic father for my one-year old daughter, but there will never be the same synchronization between her mother and herself that I could achieve. It's simply nature, and that's just how it is. People wish to impose this or that is sexist, but really all they are doing is hitching a ride on the new hot band-wagon topic to seem like they are ahead of the times and educated.

We can all boohoo the common sexist topics, but those are simply the red-button tools used by desperate debaters when they have run out of topics that require actual discussion rather than stop-putting statements.