Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

Well I'm glad I live in the 21st century where sexual discrimination is dead, right? Right? Reassure me. REASSURE MEEEE!!!

Also, am I the only one who finds ludicrously bad "science" hilarious? Heck reading some of this, I swear I could sell magical totems that keep polar bears away to these people.

[Hiiri]

Margie Profet (1993) argued that menstruation helped to expel sperm-borne pathogens, which made men the dirty party.

This bit was funny.

[DJ]

Maybe sexism isn't dead, but at least bad science is, Kansas Board of Education be praised!

[Max White]

It’s time to dump the idea that menstruation is dirty. It’s blood and tissue that you ended up not using to feed a baby, and that’s all.

Well, it has been a wonderful article, full of crazy morons, but I most protest. Menstrual blood is toxic. It is in fact a biohazard. Contact should be avoided where possible... Just like all blood. All blood is toxic. All blood is a biohazard. All blood should be avoided where possible, and some very old fashion "scientists" would know this if they were better at their job. I don't see any evidence to support that menstrual blood is in any way inherently more toxic than other biowaste, but it is biowaste.

As such, if I avoid contact with menstrual blood, please excuse me, it isn't because I think women are toxic, it is for the same reason I wouldn't  ask you to suck my finger if I got a paper cut.

[Ogdibus]

.

[Hiiri]

Margie Profet seems pretty reputable, and probably not someone to jump at the chance to make fun of.

It's funny, because I have a hard time imagining her being serious. And the dialogue sounds like an argument over who's dirtiest.

[Neonivek]

Oh good, another sexism thread and somehow nobody invoked kitchens. Poisonous menstruation yes, but not kitchens. PTW.

Why are Kitchens somehow sexist now?

Maybe sexism isn't dead, but at least bad science is, Kansas Board of Education be praised!

I don't know... I can think of two other REALLY terrible studies done by scientists (real ones) that was about as flimsy as cardboard... But since only one of them involves women (but mostly deals with babies) it isn't worth bringing up.

[Nadaka]

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/samsung-s-primitive-husband-angers-men--is-it-sexist--173827672.html

"But it can’t be sexist. Just like a black person can’t be racist. Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing."

Yea... I can not at all find this to a supportable position, and I say that as someone who strongly supports equality.

Men may be less negatively affected by sexism by both frequency and severity, but that doesn't mean they are never negatively affected by sexism.

[Vector]

I think you missed this part:

Further, she argues, men, who are in power in our society, cannot legitimately cry sexism. “You can say [this ad is] prejudiced, in bad taste, insulting, not funny,” she said. “But it can’t be sexist. Just like a black person can’t be racist. Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing.”

The point is to separate prejudice and sexism to have a particular word that describes a particular degree of institutional prejudice.

[Willfor]

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/samsung-s-primitive-husband-angers-men--is-it-sexist--173827672.html

"But it can’t be sexist. Just like a black person can’t be racist. Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing."

Yea... I can not at all find this to a supportable position, and I say that as someone who strongly supports equality.

Men may be less negatively affected by sexism by both frequency and severity, but that doesn't mean they are never negatively affected by sexism.

We've been over this.

Two options.

a. Stereotyping and discrimination based on gender

b. Institutionally backed, oppressive stereotyping and discrimination based on gender

The "men cannot receive sexism" school is type b., which is said mostly in order to allay arguments that men and women are undergoing things with the same impact.  See unfair hiring practices, etc., blah blah blah.

Person quoted is speaking to type b sexism.

preemptive edit: ninja'd

[Neonivek]

"But it can’t be sexist. Just like a black person can’t be racist. Sexism is a word with a very specific meaning, which is a certain group having more access than another group to the things that make life worth living, such as high wages and good housing."

Yeah Nadaka I have to agree... This is an horrific position to take.

I mean there is some maneuvering to say that the video isn't sexist and that the man is meant to be unrepresentative of men as a whole...

But no Gail Dines... Males can be sexist and black men can be racist... but hey maybe I am wrong, I will delegate to the dictionary

Sexism: Prejudice or discrimination based on sex
Or behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Notice something Gail Dines? Not once did my dictionary say "unless you happen to discriminate against males"

Person quoted is speaking to type b sexism

Even then she is still talking about of her butt. Which we already established that there ARE institutionally backed, oppressive stereotyping and discrimination based on gender for males and females.

The biggest issue with what Gail said is that it is basically a moral writ of permission for sexism geared towards men because "They don't feel it"

[Vector]

. . . Remember that whole long thing we said about how science was directed by people with power and had certain biases?  What, do you think no one wrote the dictionary?

Even then she is still talking about of her butt. Which we already established that there ARE institutionally backed, oppressive stereotyping and discrimination based on gender for males and females.

The biggest issue with what Gail said is that it is basically a moral writ of permission for sexism geared towards men because "They don't feel it"

No.  What she said is that she's operating on a different definition.  She said nothing about prejudice being okay.

[Neonivek]

. . . Remember that whole long thing we said about how science was directed by people with power and had certain biases?  What, do you think no one wrote the dictionary?

Ok then here is a definition given by feminism

"Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination"

Once again nothing that says "Except when it is a man, because once you are advantaged you can no longer be disadvantaged"

[Nadaka]

I am aware, and I still find it to be a completely irrational and unsupportable position. Particularly when comparing it to black people being incapable of racism.

Men who act outside their culturally historic gender roles can and often do face similar judgement and hurdles as women who act outside of their culturally historic gender roles.

[Neonivek]

I mostly cannot support that position because it makes racism AND Sexism acceptable... and as always a double standard that makes something wrong acceptable tends to perpetuate it.

I hate the acceptable targets idea.