Understanding Prejudice Quiz - Sexism

[quote name='dmaul1114']The questions I thought were odd were the ones about whether you though a man could be happy without a woman in their life (or a person without a member of the opposite sex).

I don't really see sexism there. From my experience very few people (especially older than say 30) are happy if they don't have a partner (be them male, female, gay or straight). My friends that are single in that age group of both genders are pretty miserable.[/QUOTE]

But that isn't the question the survey asked. The question was not worded to ask about partners, it was worded to ask about women.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But that isn't the question the survey asked. The question was not worded to ask about partners, it was worded to ask about women.[/QUOTE]

(6) People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.
 
We were talking about "(1) No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman," weren't we?

As far as that one is concerned, it looks to be testing for heteronormativity. Not a good proxy for sexism, to the best of my knowledge.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']'cause I didn't know what the hell he was talking about.[/QUOTE]

command + c that dude. I feel I get that a lot.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']We were talking about "(1) No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman," weren't we?
[/QUOTE]

I wasn't talking about any specific questions, just going off memory from taking the quiz yesterday of there being some question about relationship that didn't mention women and was gender neutral. Didnt' see what that had to do with sexism.

And the one you listed isn't really sexist either. I'd agree with it, but I'd also agree with it in the reverse saying that a woman isn't complete without the love of a man, or a gay person without the love of a same sex partner. That's just a belief that people need love/relationships to be complete, with no relation to gender roles etc.

And yes, definitely heteronormativity in there which was my main problem with that question and the one I listed as I don't see why that has a place in a quiz on sexism either. I mean I guess people that are sexist are more likely to be homophobes since they're stuck on gender roles and sexual norms I suppose. But it would still seem more effective to stick to question directly tapping into gender roles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']:lol:

Those people with higher (more sexist) scores all tend to think something was the matter with the poll.

:rofl:

Funny how that works.[/QUOTE]

I really disliked the questions that were basically alluding to happiness being 1) impossible without a spouse/partner and 2) impossible without a woman. And I answered accordingly, which I think is the main reason my score sucked.

I strongly philosophically believe that happiness is all internal and any degree of dependency on environment or people for happiness is a flaw. A flaw I admit I have, btw.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I really disliked the questions that were basically alluding to happiness being 1) impossible without a spouse/partner and 2) impossible without a woman. And I answered accordingly, which I think is the main reason my score sucked.

I strongly philosophically believe that happiness is all internal and any degree of dependency on environment or people for happiness is a flaw. A flaw I admit I have, btw.[/quote]

I object to those concepts as well. I fully believe that we can be completely fulfilled without a romantic partner. The right romantic partner is an enhancement, not a requirement. And my score was low.

You're sexist for another reason, thrust.
 
I think someone can be happy without a romantic partner, but think that most aren't nearly as happy when they're alone as when they're in a good, stable relationship.

You have to be pretty introverted (and have a low libido--or no problems just sleeping around) to be 100% happy and satisfied without having a romantic partner IMO.

Humans are by nature social animals, and the need for relationships is hardwired into us through the drive to reproduce, libido etc. etc.
 
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.82
Benevolent Sexism Score: 1.09

I get the feeling that it seemed that the survey was geared towards guys...
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']You know, I felt bad about my score, so next year I am taking Women's Studies, gentlemen![/quote]

As the voice of experience, I got a W in Women's Studies.
 
Hostile Sexism Score: 0.09
Benevolent Sexism Score: 1.00

Like myke, mine isn't really accurate since I know what they're talking about. I tried to be honest though. I went straight through for the 0.00 and 0.00 after. My scores come from not strongly agreeing/disagreeing to a couple, mainly the "completion" ones, which added to my benevolent score. For those it's a little weird since I feel the same both ways as a part of being human.

I don't know what's so funny/strange about it though, they're pretty much all opinions that I've heard/seen expressed a million times in life/pop culture. It only seems like it is aimed towards men because the culture is.
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']Honestly, the only reason I'm going to that class is because I just know it'll make for a good laugh.[/quote]

Um, no.

The Women's Studies class I withdrew from focused on how I should feel guilty for being born with a penis.

That and do you really want to make at most a B just because you have balls?

Seriously, you're going to spend something like $500-$1500 on a course you'll probably despise.

Before dmaul chimes in regarding how you need to be "well rounded", make friends with somebody taking the class the semester before you take it. Get a copy of the syllabus and/or reading assignments. Read over the assignments and then decide whether you want to waste your money on that or something useful like "Black History 1600s to the Civil War".
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']It's a high school class, next year I'll be a senior. I really don't give a shit what goes on in that class.[/quote]

Women's Studies in high school?

Either that is going to be some very watered down shit or so extreme your teacher will be fired midway through the year.
 
I'm already in sociology, where I once tried to argue against marraige which ended up with the teacher saying " you'll marry a beautiful wife and have a bunch of kids" over and over and saying " It doesn't matter what you believe !" , when I told her that I didn't believe that married really worked in today's society. When I argued against excessive alimony and " half "( not even saying that it was wrong, I might add, saying simply that I didn't want to go through paying it ), she made it seem as if I just wanted to lock a woman into a marraige with two choices : me or poverty. Mind you, this is all after she made the comment " well, atleast if it doens't work out you can take him for his money".

When we were talking about societal universals she said " in every society women do most of the work", I said " where?". She must not have heard me.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Um, no.

The Women's Studies class I withdrew from focused on how I should feel guilty for being born with a penis.

That and do you really want to make at most a B just because you have balls?

Seriously, you're going to spend something like $500-$1500 on a course you'll probably despise.

Before dmaul chimes in regarding how you need to be "well rounded", make friends with somebody taking the class the semester before you take it. Get a copy of the syllabus and/or reading assignments. Read over the assignments and then decide whether you want to waste your money on that or something useful like "Black History 1600s to the Civil War".[/quote]

My women's studies class was pretty nice, it was about sexuality and gender. And even though the teacher was a woman and I have a penis (and balls), I got an A. Never was I (or any man in general) attacked for having a penis. It was a class of mostly women of course, and I know at least a few men dropped out very quickly because of how anti-man the class was. I honestly don't know what class they were in, just goes to show the disconnect between perception and reality.

I don't doubt that there are extreme anti-male people who teach women's studies courses, but talking about it as if it's universal is eerily similar to the statements on the quiz. All a class needs is the "women's studies" label to be anti-men, apparently.

Anyway, I do doubt that HovaEscobar will enjoy the class, but not because of any of its content.
 
Hostile Sexism Score: 3.45 (women suck at driving)
Benevolent Sexism Score: 1.73 (women are too godly to be forced to drive)

either way, they shouldn't be on the road.
 
Yeah I was talking to this lady who taught a Womens studies class once about a movie. I forget the name, it was a Korean film. Two of the characters were lesbians but that had nothing to do with the plot. It had a lesbian couple, it wasn't ABOUT a lesbian couple. But, god, she wanted it to be. I was trying to get the point across that every movie that has 2 people in a relationship somewhere in it isn't always about their relationship.
Since they were lesbians though it HAD to be. And since I disagreed I HAD to be a chauvinist.


I'm for equal rights but I'm not for feminism.
They want the good without the bad. They wanted to be able to vote but they stopped there and never fought to have to sign up for selective services.
 
I just love messing with the aggregate scores, don't you?

Hostile: 0.45
Benevolent: 5.00

I'm really disappointed I didn't get Hostile to 0.00. Just shows how much I love to mess with bullshit surveys.
 
[quote name='HowStern']I'm for equal rights but I'm not for feminism.
They want the good without the bad. They wanted to be able to vote but they stopped there and never fought to have to sign up for selective services.[/quote]

I'm also both for and against feminism. (?)

And selective service barely even existed when women got the right to vote, not to mention that most feminist protests have been related to anti-war movements, so I guess the answer would be that most of them wouldn't want men or women to be drafted.

But cliche away (yay, it rhymes).
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']I'm already in sociology, where I once tried to argue against marraige which ended up with the teacher saying " you'll marry a beautiful wife and have a bunch of kids" over and over and saying " It doesn't matter what you believe !"[/quote]

What do you mean by "against marriage"? That you don't believe in it yourself, for society as a whole, or what?

Sounds like you had a sociology teacher who wasn't aware of growing divorce rates and growing cohabitation rates. Sure, most of us do tend to get married, but that is a trend that's weakening.

When we were talking about societal universals she said " in every society women do most of the work", I said " where?". She must not have heard me.
Click to expand...

In societies, like ours, where dual-income households are increasingly expected, this is, in fact, the case. The "home sphere" is where women do the work, by and large. Unless it's taking out the trash or grillin'. That's the broader pattern at work, even if our own experiences vary (I'm a fuckin' phenomenal cook, FWIW). Keeping in mind growing divorce rates, combined with the likelihood that the mother retains custody and not the father, and the pattern remains. It's not foolproof. We're human, and we vary. Greatly.

We're not a hard science; we're not going to react the same way to the same stimuli every time, the way vinegar reacts to the baking soda in your second-grade papier machie volcano. But that doesn't mean there aren't patterns that we observe and acknowledge on a daily basis.
 
[quote name='SpazX']My women's studies class was pretty nice, it was about sexuality and gender. And even though the teacher was a woman and I have a penis (and balls), I got an A. Never was I (or any man in general) attacked for having a penis. It was a class of mostly women of course, and I know at least a few men dropped out very quickly because of how anti-man the class was. I honestly don't know what class they were in, just goes to show the disconnect between perception and reality.

I don't doubt that there are extreme anti-male people who teach women's studies courses, but talking about it as if it's universal is eerily similar to the statements on the quiz. All a class needs is the "women's studies" label to be anti-men, apparently.

Anyway, I do doubt that HovaEscobar will enjoy the class, but not because of any of its content.[/quote]

My women's studies course was taught by a bull dyke whose uterus got the better of her. It was before in vitro fertilization was reliable (Fall 1995).

We read "Ain't I a Woman?" by bell hooks. Ms. hooks would write one sentence and then quote seven or eight pages of other douchebags proselytizing some point less relevant than a fatherofcaitlyn/dmaul debate on higher education can be used to determine what's for lunch. It's OK to be confused here. Just take a deep breath.

Then, we read Karen Horney's delightful drivel about womb envy. Let me preface my distaste for her work by stating Sigmund Freud was a cokehead whose body of work is based on his observations of mentally unstable white people of the Austrian upper class. Let me describe it a different way. Freud is like a man fucking a dead pig in the ear. Horney is another man correcting the first man by stating the proper way to fuck a dead pig is in the nose. The essay had a pissy tit for tat undercurrent and defended itself by stating none of her findings were provable because the sexist tendencies resided in the subconcious. Riiiiiiiight. Just like Sangreal.

Last and best, those wonderful class discussions. My favorite was the 15 minute discussion on what looks phallic. After 5 minutes, I (of all people) thought it was childish.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']

Last and best, those wonderful class discussions. My favorite was the 15 minute discussion on what looks phallic. After 5 minutes, I (of all people) thought it was childish.[/quote]

Out of curiosity, what could have possibly been the point of that?

[quote name='mykevermin']What do you mean by "against marriage"? That you don't believe in it yourself, for society as a whole, or what?

[/quote]

I don't believe in it myself nor do I believe it works for most people. Maybe I'm just looking at things too tangibly, but I don't any desirable benefit for myself to get married. Almost everything you can get when you're married you can get outside of marraige ( besides tax benefits ). Yes, you could get a prenuptial agreement, but a divorce in itself still costs you money and time, stuff that you wouldn't have to go through had you just not signed a legal document. There's also the age old tales of someone just outright using the courts as a means to give you hell. I'd like to note that I don't really trust most people.

Also, about women and work in society, I was thinking more along the lines of the most vigorous, intense, least comfortable jobs. Housework is a lot easier for everyone because the onset of technology. Plus, there are more women than men, so I guess they would do more work :p.

EDIT: Y'know, women's studies isn't sounding so good anymore. I mean, if I go there and be quiet, I"ll look like some creep. Go there and laugh at everything, and I'm a male oppressor. Switch classes and that means I cannot handle the tales of Strong INdependant Woman. Looks like I cannot win everything.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I'm also both for and against feminism. (?)

And selective service barely even existed when women got the right to vote, not to mention that most feminist protests have been related to anti-war movements, so I guess the answer would be that most of them wouldn't want men or women to be drafted.

But cliche away (yay, it rhymes).[/quote]

Whether they are for fighting or not they should want equality I imagine.
On top of voting, a man can't go to college or work a government job of any kind without signing up for selective services. Women get a free pass to do any of these things.
So it's definitely sexist.
Womens other big thing was roe v wade. They said "my body, my choice"
but when it comes to the draft it's our body, not our choice. Women don't have anything like that.
I imagine a true feminists stance, though, would be "I can fight just like a man, how come I'm not obliged to serve my country?"
And any woman who says other wise is self-sexist for thinking women are too weak to fight.

I'll admit I wouldn't want women being able to be drafted. I would never let my daughter go to war against her will (and if I could help it even by her will...Although I'm sure I'd feel the same way if I had a son, this issue may be genderless.) But those snide feminists who think women are superior and all men are scum..What's their excuse for stopping the fight to actual 1:1 equality?
 
To be very fair to Women's Studies: If it MUST be taken, it should be taken in college.

If one is taking it in high school, having the daily influence of a parent may distort a student's ability to absorb the information presented or, worse, drag the parent physically into the class. If a man or woman has raised a "well-adjusted" child for 16-17 years, he or she might take great offense when a high school teacher is ranting about how poor of a job the parent how done.

That and, as a college course, it'll be taught by college professors instead of people who couldn't hack it in their chosen field of study.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
That and, as a college course, it'll be taught by college professors instead of people who couldn't hack it in their chosen field of study.[/QUOTE]

Even that depends. A lot of lower level/intro courses are taught by Ph D students or Adjuncts/lecturers rather than professors. Especially at large research universities.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Whether they are for fighting or not they should want equality I imagine.
On top of voting, a man can't go to college or work a government job of any kind without signing up for selective services. Women get a free pass to do any of these things.
So it's definitely sexist.
Womens other big thing was roe v wade. They said "my body, my choice"
but when it comes to the draft it's our body, not our choice. Women don't have anything like that.
I imagine a true feminists stance, though, would be "I can fight just like a man, how come I'm not obliged to serve my country?"
And any woman who says other wise is self-sexist for thinking women are too weak to fight.

I'll admit I wouldn't want women being able to be drafted. I would never let my daughter go to war against her will (and if I could help it even by her will...Although I'm sure I'd feel the same way if I had a son, this issue may be genderless.) But those snide feminists who think women are superior and all men are scum..What's their excuse for stopping the fight to actual 1:1 equality?[/quote]

That just doesn't make any sense. If a feminist believes that selective service is good, then they should fight for women to also be in it. If they think nobody should be drafted, then obviously they won't fight for women to be drafted. I'm sure there are those who have argued that women should also be in the selective service, but it only makes sense in the first scenario.

If they believe in equality they would fight for women to have the same right to join the military voluntarily and have women treated the same way as men within the military. And of course they have done that.

If you want to argue that "women want the good without the bad" you're going to have to come up with something better than selective service.
 
[quote name='HovaEscobar']I don't believe in it myself nor do I believe it works for most people.[/quote]

Your attitude towards marriage is more and more common in society. You can thank your parents' (and all our parents', really) behavioral patterns for that.

But be careful with your language. People get bent here because I ask them to say what they mean; but to point to your language above, you say you don't "believe in it." That's an absurd way to phrase it. You believe in it, of course. It exists. You don't believe in the tooth fairy.

What you think of marriage is that you don't support, value, or believe in the benefits of marriage. But you certainly believe in marriage as an existing institution.

Just a friendly grammar-tastic reminder.

Also, about women and work in society, I was thinking more along the lines of the most vigorous, intense, least comfortable jobs. Housework is a lot easier for everyone because the onset of technology. Plus, there are more women than men, so I guess they would do more work :p.
Click to expand...

Most all work is a lot easier because of technology; that's a moot point.
 
[quote name='SpazX']That just doesn't make any sense. If a feminist believes that selective service is good, then they should fight for women to also be in it. If they think nobody should be drafted, then obviously they won't fight for women to be drafted. I'm sure there are those who have argued that women should also be in the selective service, but it only makes sense in the first scenario.

If they believe in equality they would fight for women to have the same right to join the military voluntarily and have women treated the same way as men within the military. And of course they have done that.

If you want to argue that "women want the good without the bad" you're going to have to come up with something better than selective service.[/quote]

It makes plenty sense. If they are for equality then they need to be forced to sign up for selective services just like men. It doesn't matter whether they are against war or not. A good population of men are against war and THEY still have to sign up for selective services.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/919582-470.stm?cmpid=elections.xml
 
[quote name='HowStern']It makes plenty sense. If they are for equality then they need to be forced to sign up for selective services just like men. It doesn't matter whether they are against war or not. A good population of men are against war and THEY still have to sign up for selective services.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/919582-470.stm?cmpid=elections.xml[/quote]


Until the draft is restarted, this is a nonstarter for far too many people.
 
^Even without war, though, the penalties for not signing up to SS are high.
It's a federal crime. You can get at maximum a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison. You will definitely be barred from attending college or working any government job. It's definitely sexist.
These are actually the reasons I think feminism is a load of BS. I'm against the draft but it's not "equality" if only one gender is subject to such discrimination, when it comes to employment and education, for failing to register for something.

edit: Exactly what thrust said.
 
Booga Booga Booga! Selective Service! Oh Noes!

What information is provided to Selective Service that isn't on a yearly tax return?

If somebody wants to argue Selective Service is a redundant bureaucracy, I'll agree.

An invasive male oppressing arm of the Government? Not until the draft is restarted.
 
Like I said it has nothing to do with the draft.

It has to do with the prison terms, barring from college and certain employment, etc. There are still penalties for failing to register despite there being no draft.

http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1657

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/08/MNGH0PMVID1.DTL&type=printable

The fact that there HASN'T been a draft makes it worse. It makes people think they don't need to sign up anymore. And then stuff like the above two links happens.

Recently though a federal judge here in Boston, who had his head on right, did something about it

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/01/ap_draft_requirement_012709/
 
[quote name='HowStern']Like I said it has nothing to do with the draft.

It has to do with the prison terms, barring from college and certain employment, etc. There are still penalties for failing to register despite there being no draft.

http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1657

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/08/MNGH0PMVID1.DTL&type=printable

The fact that there HASN'T been a draft makes it worse. It makes people think they don't need to sign up anymore. And then stuff like the above two links happens.

Recently though a federal judge here in Boston, who had his head on right, did something about it

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/01/ap_draft_requirement_012709/[/quote]


OK. Would it be better to have six links because three women failed to register for Selective Service due to unusual circumstances or to discontinue an unnecessary agency from the government?
 
Obviously the latter. And just for the record the judge in the last link is a man. And he ended the policy on his own with no help from any feminist movement.
XD
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am still waiting for women to have "equal" representation in the military's infantry.[/QUOTE]

I think even most feminists realize that there are on average physical differences between genders and some jobs most females just can't perform at the same level.

I mean arguing for equal representation in the infantry is like arguing for equal representation of females in the NFL or NBA.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am still waiting for women to have "equal" representation in the military's infantry.[/quote]

Do you want that to happen through coercion?
 
[quote name='HowStern']It makes plenty sense. If they are for equality then they need to be forced to sign up for selective services just like men. It doesn't matter whether they are against war or not. A good population of men are against war and THEY still have to sign up for selective services.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/919582-470.stm?cmpid=elections.xml[/quote]

I'm not talking about being against war, I'm saying if you're against having selective service, why the hell would you argue for women being in selective service? That's just stupid.

You don't argue that women should equally have to suffer under something that you don't want to exist, you argue that it shouldn't exist. It's essentially saying that if one gender has it worse than the other, you should try to make it so that they both are treated equally badly rather than equally well.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I mean arguing for equal representation in the infantry is like arguing for equal representation of females in the NFL or NBA.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. If a female can prove to be just as capable in tryouts, trials, or tests -- should she still be discounted because of her gender? Because they currently are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top