I'm really sick of sexism being so trivialized

Post Reply New Topic

The cognitive phenomenon that I am attempting to describe can account for such behavior.


This might be the case in the absence of the characteristic inflexibility that often accompanies the reliance on deduction from a formulaic principal.

'But it has been tried and did not work' is outside the parameters of a simple formula that states 'where X group gets A on the basis of being X, but Y group gets nothing on the basis of being Y, then there is discrimination'.

Whether or not something works is a contingency that the formulaic rule (described above) excludes from the scope of material relevance. It is this unfortunate failing of otherwise very logical cognitive patterns (that they often proceed from rules that are insufficiently contingent or overly reductive) that causes such cognitive functioning to be non-adaptive in particular circumstances.

In some cases the formulaic rule is inappropriate/wrong (for instance 'all X are Y' where evidence shows that at least one X is not Y), in others it merely needs refinement (for instance the addition of 'unless there is good cause for the anomalous distribution of something to X denied to Y' would facilitate the needed flexibility, opening the scope of material relevance up to include premises such as 'because we already tried to extend the distribution of resources to Y and it just did not work').


It may be as simple as exclusions based on choices (rather than biology for instance) are not perceived in the same way such that the rule formula is considered non-applicable (in regards to the existence of a 'parents' forum') by the person/s concerned. There may be some other reason (for instance local detail cognition without global integration may result in the perception of a detail that is significant to a person being thought about one way, without the ability to recognize that a circumstance materially the same is also occurring without resulting in the same conclusion being reached).


I understand the point you are making and do not feel that it is a point that can be easily understood when someone is cognitively attending to local detail (rather than global) in an inflexible manner.

It might be helpful to point out that the inflexible cognitive style I am discussing here is reinforced by its success (when it is adaptive) and the absence of anything else to rely on.

If a strict unvaried application of a rule (or rule set) is necessary for one to make sense of the world and one wants to make sense of the world, there is both a positive bias toward retaining stable formulaic rules, and a negative bias against anything that threatens that retention. These biases are as much about feeling (feeling security vs panic at a loss of meaning-making) as about thinking (perhaps more feeling than thinking), and along with cognitive deficits in global (versus local), big picture (versus one detail or a very restricted range of detail) thinking, and attention shifting, are implicated in the inflexible aspect of the cognitive pattern I am attempting to describe.

I rely heavily on applying deduction to formulaic rules to make sense of my world and it is an inherently inflexible style of cognition that can be very effective often, but also which has the capacity to be dysfunctional, particularly where a formula is either inappropriate or in need of refinement. In the case of the latter it is very difficult to see past the formula even though I might try very hard to, and immediate results (in adjusting the formula set I am working from) are just not possible.

It simply takes time (for me) to cognitively process the information I need to process in order to realise that the formula is dysfunctional in some way (so that I can amend it). And yes, I am often surprised at how very obvious the flaw in my earlier reasoning was once I have re-processed or discarded a previously relied on rule. It should be noted that delays in processing such information is a vast improvement itself in my case. It took me years and many hard knocks to acquire the formula 'sometimes my formulas are faulty and need readjusting'. Before I got that formulaic rule worked out, once I arrived at a formula I was stuck with it.

Nothing at all . But I would like to point out that WP is an site for Aspies of both genders and NOT a gender-specific or gender oriented site. I mean, if there were a forum for say, Bipolar folks regardless of their sex than I wouldnt really see the point of having gender-specific subforums. I DO happen to know that there Are online forums for womens issues that Are gender-exclusive to women. If you have something that you only want to talk about with other women why cant you go there?
I still am very curious as to why a gender-specific forum was created by Alex here on Wp .

\\


because they are not for aspie women so it would be quite ridiclous to go those forum and discuss the unique woman problems that related to being an aspie.

I just get sick of some of the threads mainly the Love and Dating ones putting women into a category as if they were dirt yet it's not OK for women to put men down because it's a form of feminism and every aspect in feminism is deemed "sexist." I just wish some men knew where I'm coming from when I say that not all women are like that but it's as if men "know" women better than themselves.

FYI for men reading this, I am aware that men get put down in a misogynist way but I still don't think it makes it right for this lumping that I see so much of in threads. I already see enough of it in other sites that aren't supportive.

Haha, that made me smile. You're the kind of guy who I think we'd welcome around here - and of course you blokes are a curious bunch. Seriously, I welcome men to read this kind of thing, I know it'd make the home lives of a lot of women a lot easier if their other half's understood what we deal with!

I don't have a problem with men being on here. I have a problem with men whining about how they don't have their own board and this board is sexist. We had nothing to do with the taking down of the men's board and we can't make a men's board. So stop complaining about it to us. lol

There are many men who've posted on here and been very helpful but some of them are in fact being rather trolly as others have said.

I think that a forum that was for men (age of 25+), not just male, would work. Not that younger male or women couldn't post, but that the childish and excessively vulgar posts could be filtered more readily. Implementation would be a bear though.

To say that men don't have issues that women could rarely if not ever understand would be sexist, and I think that is the un-thought out stand of those who claim that sexism reigns on this forum. Some guys post vulgar things just to post vulgar things. I think it has to do with what one of my friends said about how supportive guys are compared to girls. On a women's forum you know that support is forthcoming while on a male forum you can count on reticule and crude jokes in response as a way that men separate themselves from each other emotionally.

Maybe a forum for males called "The Locker Room" with some forums that women would not be allowed to post on. The language and content could be regulated as the Adult section where you couldn't get in unless you were of age.

I don't know if this has already been tried. I most likely wouldn't use the "Locker Room." Personally I find that guys, including myself, give too many glib responses to deep and emotional bids.

Men are allowed to post on here, and there ARE some things men won't ever understand, try as they might. That's not sexist and it's not their fault but it is the way it is. We have vastly different bodies, and women have a lot of things to contend with - periods, childbirth, pregnancy, hormones, cramps, extremely complex bodily parts, boobs, body image (usually but not always to a greater extent than men)... see what I mean?

You're good at this. Maybe we should make you the official spokesperson for the Women's Discussion Public Relations Department

Aww thanks

How, exactly, would a 'locker room' forum be different from the extant 'adult' forum?

Men outnumber women on all WP fora (forums?) but this one, and yet it's somehow 'sexist' that we have one, single, solitary place where women can post mostly amongst other women?

Lol... funnily enough I do work in PR.