why do feminist

Post Reply New Topic

Well, that's assuming that the number of men we have in our social circle adds up to at least 51% of the men in the combined totals of our respective societies (I live in the UK). My social circle is pretty small. I count two men amongst it. You?

I have rejected and kept away from far more men, because of their various a***hole behaviour (sexism is kind of a***hole 101), than I have befriended.

Only I wasn't arguing it was a majority social behaviour. You decided to bring that into consideration, and make it important. While the fact that neither of us associates with sexist a***holes may prove to your satisfaction that sexism somehow isn't a problem, I view the matter, as all social matters, through a variety of perspectives.

I could count dozens of people without problem.

Anyway, you have the right to say that this is just an small biased sample and it's not relevant. Well, I would rise a few objections to that:

1) Even though the relavancy or the accuracy of aproximating some social behaviour through your circles could be small, it' bigger than zero. I asked before for some serious statistics and got nothing.

Disprove my very roughly approximative reasoning and substitute it with bold statement based in nothing but blind faith, just because, sounds like a very creationist attitude.

2) And when it comes to the accuracy of it, this accuracy is not necessarily low even though we're talking about a small sample. The probability of getting zero quantity from a supposedly widespread behaviour, even in an small sample, is very small. I'm gonna give an example: let's take a feature that we know for sure is highly widespread through society. For example: being christian, catholic, protestant or whatever else. I can bet you that if you think in a sample composed by the 10-20 people closer to you (friends, family, and so), and we're talking here about a small sample of people, you CAN'T say "there's zero christian people in this sample". Am I wrong?

Did you not see the rest of what I wrote? That I have witnessed many, many, many men behaving in a sexist manner? And this is just men I have, in some way, known - that I could point to and name, or at least say, 'oh, he knows such-and-such'. I have been around them, known them by acquaintence etc. Nevermind the general witnesing of such from a distance of people I don't know.

They are not in my social circle, as I choose not to socialise with a***holes. They would doubtless consider me an a***hole anyway. So we keep a mutual distance. But I've seen many, many real life, real time examples of sexist behaviour. Every woman I've talked to about it has experiences of sexist behaviour, of varying degrees of intensity and horridness. That's the point of the everyday sexism project.

Here's a bunch of numbers:

http://ukfeminista.org.uk/take-action/g ... tatistics/

http://ukfeminista.org.uk/take-action/f ... nequality/

What is an acceptable level of sexism for you? Would 49% of men variously dismissing women because they're women, sexually harrasing women, thinking it quite ok to shout obscenities at women because they're women and so on - would that minority figure make it ok? 40%? 30%? 20%? 10%? If less than half of women experienced such, would that make it ok?

I am concerned, here, with the experience women have of sexism. Numbers only get us so far. That individuals live in and are shaped by social and cultural norms would suggest, to me, it is worth investigating just why so many men feel fine to behave the way they do towards women.

Remember that exciting BIg Bang news recently? The BBCs Newsnight programme had some scientists on to try and explain the significance. One of the most read papers in the UK, the Daily Mail, responded thus:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... sters.html

To quote in full, to save you giving them pageloads:

The response:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-article ... Daily-Mail

If they had been male, white, UK/US scientists, it wouldn't have been commented on. Such things are the norm, the default.

I didn't see anything measurable or objective in this sentence. It's just your personal feeling. You see sexism everywhere. There's people who see God everywhere. And other see aliens invading earth. People see what they wanna see. You have numbers, that's Ok. You have bold statements, personal feelings or blind faith, then go the Church.



I don't see any real number in those links. I checked the first links there. You barely can't find the link to the original reports there, and where it is, it's just a pdf with lot of colors... and nothing more. No tables. No report of which exact question was asked. No report of which exact answers were considered to sum up the statistics. "1 in 3 teenage girls tell of sexual abuse by their boyfriends". And what that exactly mean? Which question did you ask and which answers did you consider as sexual abuse?. Oh, mistery!! !!

BS.

For example. When it's rape OK? http://mindfuller.tumblr.com/post/46161 ... cents-ages And according to this report half of the men thought that rape was OK. Is not that terrible???

But, which was the question? And the question was: write 1 to 5, from right to wrong, your opinion about rape in this situation being right or wrong. In my case, for example, I would have written a 4 as answer for those questions. It's wrong, but I don't see it as a five. In my opinion the "5 - this is extremely wrong" option is for really evil things like entering a school with a rifle and killing every kid there.

Well, every person that didn't answer with a 5 was reported as "he/she thinks that rape is OK". And here you have: half of men thought that rape was OK. Great, isn't it?

So, you put numbers, you put serious numbers. Faith, for the Church, thanks.

Sorry - what are we talking about here? Am I supposed to somehow be proving to your satisfaction that sexism exists?

I have personal experience. Numbers, in matters such as this, are made up of accounts of personal experience and belief. They ask peope 'have you experienced x' and 'what do you think of x'.

Do they? Do you consider yourself of that disposition, too?

Of course. And that's why I didn't make any argument like "I feel that sexism doesn't exist" or anything similar.

I have not made an argument that I 'feel' that sexism exists. I have made the remark that I have witnessed, and had reliable accounts of, sexist behaviour.

Please answer my question:



And, if so, please give the circumstances under which that satisfaction will be met.

they dont care to look from your perspective

thats the roots of sexism right there

they are just men who have been treated unfairly by women

or are offended highly that no one is caring about their gender needs

or are offended that they cannot get laid and they feel entitled to

Ah, the easy and happy life of religious people. They have their faith and that's enough. Numbers? Facts? Serious statistics? Well defined specific terms? Vade retro!! ! This is the work of the devil!! !

What are you talking about??

i think someone's just made a new account to troll people

Any such numbers in this instance will be an expression of the percentage of those asked who responded in the affirmative to matters of sexist experience or opinion. Those responding will be drawing on their personal experience, the same experience written up time and again on everyday sexism. But those experiences are on a par with 'faith', apparently. Yet a number of such experiences registered in a statistically valid sample from which a percentage can be drawn, and suddenly it's 'objective'?

What makes something a fact, in this context?

And, again. To what purpose is this?

Seems so. Looks like they joined Wrong Planet just to have a go at feminism.

Whoever Kuku is, they seem to think that because they haven't seen sexism, or it hasn't been 'objectively' proven or verified (not bothering to say how such a thing would be done to their satisfaction), there is no sexism.

Of course. Why people should bother you pointing out bold statements? Asking for numbers and serious and well documented statistics? Ah! How annoying!! ! That's trolling!! !

and the most ridiculous thing is that sexism is not something to be proven, its a cold hard fact (and either way statistics are soaring). because if historical dragging. on the other hand there are two possibilities 1) its good that men nowadays dont see sexism so apparent and to large extent this is fortunately true (I mean only the most basic issues) 2) men really, as most people, firstly see their own problems and this blind resistance usually stems from their own, individual and more general male, issues

ofc if you sign up with some random forum and dont post anything else besides some rants about feminism, thats by defnition trolling, honey <3 wish you all the best may you find peace with yourself