Sexism for all!

I figured this subject deserved it's own topic, although I don't know how that will go. I can always close the topic if it starts getting in to merry-go-round territory.

So I've been trying to figure out how to address an idea that was running through the DLC thread, and really it's a comment that rears it's ugly head everytime anyone ever says, "that's sexist."

Basically it's the idea that you have to be careful about protesting against sexism. You have to keep your head down, and just accept a lot of ugly things because if you talk about sexism too often then people will hate you and you have to be really careful to stay on people's good side. Well this idea is pretty well bullshit and I think I've come up with an explanation (maybe?) that could make it clear why.

Let's say there's a specific aspect of gaming that you hate to see: autotargeting in an FPS. Whenever an FPS has autotargeting, you write an email to the game company, or post on their official forums or something of that nature to let them know you don't like it. Would you ever consider it logical to tell a person that does that, "You have to be careful about complaining on something like that. Only complain on some games. If you complain about it too often then people will think you're crying wolf." In that context, it doesn't even make sense. Of course you want to send a letter to EA, or Ubisoft, or Microsoft or whoever, every time a game like that comes out, and hope that your voice won't be alone and that there will be enough people complaining about it such that those companies will stop building autotargetting in.

And there's a chance maybe they won't! Maybe the people who like autotargetting outweigh the people who don't. But would you tell a person who doesn't like the autotargetting to compare games now to games in the 80s and feel lucky at how good they have it so that they should never complain about games, ever? Would you tell them they need to "pick their battles" and only complain about the really important games and leave the others alone? Doesn't it make sense instead for them to spread their message as far and as wide as they can within their limits? When would silence ever make sense in getting your message heard?

And yet, "bide your time, don't speak out too much" is something that's frequently told to women who deride sexism. As if there are some times when you're allowed to have an opinion, and some times when you're not, and you better damn well know your place and not step out of line or... consequences? And it's not the people who are vocally anti-woman that say these things. It's "concerned" individuals who want to make sure that you don't speak out too often. People like this:

It makes no sense if you think about it for a minute.

(incidentally, I love David Willis and all his sexism comics. They ROCK).

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter

Also reposting: Sex House a completely awesome satire by The Onion that everyone should watch.

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter

It works something like this

_________________
I'd Rather Be a Bandit Than a Lover

Not sure if I'm going to be the only one posting here, but whatever.

I want so say that I learned something sigificant in that other thread, about the (erroneous) way certain people view the word "sexist" and how it relates to why sexism is so difficult to eradicate in society. It was really helpful to me in understanding.

Essentially, when I say sexism is everywhere and it's something we all take part in one way or another, I'm not stating an opinion. To quote some other persons more articulate than me:

Quote:

Unfortunately, it is necessary, because the bolded is wrong. It is, in fact, a fact. Just as many people once believed the earth to be flat, many people have not investigated things far enough to understand the problems that the study of feminism seeks to address. When a "feminist" says "Oh, don't worry. It's something we all do. We're all sexists, doing sexist things, and we should all help each other to stop," it's because they've been engaged in studying the subject for quite some time, and do in fact see how sexism is scrawled across every surface of society.

You say it's an opinion because you believe wrongly. You say it's an opinion because that lets you hold on to your erroneous belief longer, without any need to examine it and find the flaws.

And while you're just going to respond with a dressed-up version of "nuh-uh!", you're still just denying a round earth. Unfortunately, no one can drag you around it to prove it; you're just going to have to start walking if you care to prove it to yourself.

Quote:

using your words again "Simply stating something to be so does not make it so"

To argue that "sexism isn't everywhere" is to argue against large swathes of sociological theory*, feminist theory*, anthropological theory*, and fuck even biological theory*- something that unless you have a lot of very strong evidence to the contrary, is not an argument you can really "win".

This is one of those times where you really need to just accept that you are, in fact, wrong.

The reason we all just "state it" is because, like "the earth is round" or "evolution is real", this is a truth that most evidence supports.

This isn't really up for debate, and I really wish you and others would stop pretending that it is.

*when I say "theory", it is assumed I mean it in an academic sense- i.e. theory supported with large amounts of evidence

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter

Fata, you're not gonna rope anyone in with this a second time. You said some crazy shit, we moved on, the end.

_________________
"Anyone existing in this planet eagers to do something distinction"
- a robot

	TaboriHK wrote:
	Fata, you're not gonna rope anyone in with this a second time. You said some crazy shit, we moved on, the end.

Basically discussing the scientific facts with you is a trip, I'll admit. It really was like trying to talk about evolution with someone flat out denying it. Where do you go from there? I honestly don't know how to address someone who is certain that facts don't matter.

But you really and truly taught me something about sexism deniers, and for that I am truly grateful.

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter

Fata, after the multipage discussion we've had, you should have known better than to label me with that, yet again.

_________________
"Anyone existing in this planet eagers to do something distinction"
- a robot

Imma still give you more facts to deny, though!

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hwV1P2oKliMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA444&dq=sexism+&ots=a1Unybyif3&sig=fE9iYR50z6iBLExSlNvj8F21VpI#v=onepage&q=sexism&f=false

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01539.x/full

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:66305

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01658.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=4495324&jid=PAG&volumeId=5&issueId=01&aid=4495316

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2010.21497

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1890/abstract

Another thing this conversation taught me: I want to learn all the science behind this stuff, I want to be a pro at it. In fact I wonder if it's possible for me to become one of the people running the studies, bringing for the evidence, until there's such an avalanche that no one can deny it any more.

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter

Ha ha, I just realized how much "Benevolent Sexism" would bake PHB's noodle if he actually read that first study.

FLOOR IS ROOF!

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter

Got to quote from it, this is a good passage, and very relevant:

Quote:

Although the content of stereotypes for women are subjectively positive, they are low in status. In a workplace situation, this means that women are favored for low-status, feminine jobs, which include support positions that serve, mainly, male superiors (eg. secretary) or paid versions of women's traditional domestic role (eg. daycare worker). When BS [benevolent sexism] spills over in to the workplace, women may be seen as warmer, but are presumed to be less competent than men, so that women are confined to feminine and low-status roles. Additionally, BS in the workplace may elicit patronizing discrimination (Glick & Fiske, 2007) which includes but is not limited to handicapping via overhelping, taking over, and limiting the responsibilities of targets.

Patronizing discrimination, which is embedded in BS, maintains the dominant group's higher status. It is not overtly hostile and, in many cases, is seemingly beneficial to the recipient. Furthermore the perpetrator may think he is helping the recipient. Women may accept paternalistic gestures either because they are not aware they reinforce the notion that women are suitable only for low-status roles, or because they understand that to cooperate and accept benevolent gestures is a better alternative to enduring overt hostility.

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter

Fata women are worthless. I'm glad you're doing a lot of reading into the reasons why, and maybe Internet reading will make you a professional on the subject- who knows! The more you read, the bigger your sword gets, and when you swing it, it will destroy ignorant males.

Have fun in here. Good fight, and good night.

_________________
I'd Rather Be a Bandit Than a Lover

So, another of the things I've learned from this discussion, is that even though issues of sexism and racism are incredibly complex and yeah, they require some study before you're really going to get even a tenth of the issues involved, it seems that a majority of people want it to be a super simple thing. "As long as I am not actually hating anybody, it's impossible for me to be sexist/racist" as an example of that falacy.

So try as hard as I can, I also realized that a certain amount of introduction to concepts that makes duders extremely uncomfortable is in order. I'm afraid it's past time that I get into a discussion of the dreaded 'p' word.

I'm going to use the easiest and most non-offensive description of it that I've ever read this one by Scalzi:

Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is

Quote:

I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word “privilege,” to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon. It’s not that the word “privilege” is incorrect, it’s that it’s not their word. When confronted with “privilege,” they fiddle with the word itself, and haul out the dictionaries and find every possible way to talk about the word but not any of the things the word signifies.

So, the challenge: how to get across the ideas bound up in the word “privilege,” in a way that your average straight white man will get, without freaking out about it?

Being a white guy who likes women, here’s how I would do it:

Dudes. Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?

Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.

This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.

Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine. Be aware the computer makes it difficult to start with more than 30 points; people on higher difficulty settings generally start with even fewer than that.

As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.

Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.

You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.

And maybe at this point you say, hey, I like a challenge, I want to change my difficulty setting! Well, here’s the thing: In The Real World, you don’t unlock any rewards or receive any benefit for playing on higher difficulty settings. The game is just harder, and potentially a lot less fun. And you say, okay, but what if I want to replay the game later on a higher difficulty setting, just to see what it’s like? Well, here’s the other thing about The Real World: You only get to play it once. So why make it more difficult than it has to be? Your goal is to win the game, not make it difficult.

Oh, and one other thing. Remember when I said that you could choose your difficulty setting in The Real World? Well, I lied. In fact, the computer chooses the difficulty setting for you. You don’t get a choice; you just get what gets given to you at the start of the game, and then you have to deal with it.

So that’s “Straight White Male” for you in The Real World (and also, in the real world): The lowest difficulty setting there is. All things being equal, and even when they are not, if the computer — or life — assigns you the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, then brother, you’ve caught a break.

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter

Ahh, this is a really good article, and it lays out in simple language some of the stuff I've been talking about:

http://www.livescience.com/16339-culture-racism.html

Quote:

For years, social scientists have uncovered the unsettling truth that no matter how egalitarian a person purports to be, their unconscious mind holds some racist, sexist or ageist thoughts.

But a new study finds that this may say less about the person and more about the culture that surrounds him or her.

The new study finds that while people are quick to associate word pairs that bring to mind stereotypes (think "black - poor" versus "black - goofy"), this tendency is rooted not in the social meaning of the words, but in the likelihood of the words appearing together in literature and media. In other words, this implicit prejudice is driven more by culture than by any innate horribleness in the person, said study researcher Paul Verhaeghen, a Georgia Tech psychologist.

"There’s one idea that people tend to associate black people with violence, women with weakness, or older people with forgetfulness because they are prejudiced. But there’s another possibility that what’s in your head is not you, it’s the culture around you," Verhaeghen said in a statement. "And so what you have is stuff you picked up from reading, television, radio and the Internet. And that’s the question we wanted to answer: are you indeed a racist, or are you just an American?"

Responding to prejudice

In study after study, people more quickly associate word pairs that bring to mind stereotypes. "Female" and "weak" would be more quickly associated than "female" and "mundane," for example. This implicit prejudice is different than explicit prejudices, which psychologists measure by asking people questions about how they feel about various social groups.

But the root of implicit prejudice wasn't clear. People might associate the word pairs because they saw shared meaning in them — they really do think of "black" and "poor" as overlapping terms. But people also might link the two words because they simply see the words "black" and "poor" together in literature and media more often than the words "black" and "goofy."

Verhaeghen and his colleagues tested the second theory by giving 104 undergraduates one of three tests. In the first, the student saw two words flashed on a computer screen one after another, and then had to say whether the second word was a real word. In the second, the words would flash onscreen, and the participant would rate whether the second word was positive or negative. The third experiment was identical, except students were asked whether the two words were related.

The word pairs were a mixture of stereotyped terms about men, women, blacks, whites and young and old people. There were also non-social word pairs such as "cat - jumpy" and "dog - dumb." Some of the pairs included nonsense words as well.

Word association

In all three experiments, a faster reaction time in answering the question indicates a closer link between the two words in the brain. Like in other studies, participants were faster at reacting to word pairs that elicited stereotypes. [Read: 5 Myths About Gay People, Debunked]

But this experiment had another layer: The researchers analyzed the results using a computer program called BEAGLE, or the Bound Encoding of the Aggregate Language Environment. This program contains a sample of books, magazine and newspaper articles, about 10 million words total. It's meant to mimic the amount of reading an average college student has done in his or her life.

The program analyses all the words in the reading sample, including how often two words appear near one another. If culture plays into implicit stereotyping, closely related words should always result in fast reaction times, regardless of the social meaning of those words.

The racist inside

Comparing their participants' results to BEAGLE confirmed that, indeed, words that appear more often together in the real world trigger faster reaction times in the lab. This applies for positive and negative stereotypes, such as "male - strong" and "female - weak" and for completely neutral pairs such as "summer - sunny."

There was also no relationship between people's implicit prejudices as measured by reaction time, and their explicit racism, sexism or ageism as measured by questionnaires.

"This suggests that at least part of the alleged racist/sexist/ageist hiding inside us all is a monster not of our own making; it is built out of memes borrowed from close contact with our environment," Verhaeghen and his colleagues reported online Sept. 17 in the British Journal of Social Psychology.

Although limited by the college-age population, the researchers argue that the results paint a picture of prejudice as a painful cycle: Prejudiced thought begetting prejudiced speech, which is then internalized to begat even more prejudiced thought.

But "culture made me do it" is no excuse for racism, they add, writing, "society's influence on its individual constituents does not absolve these individuals from their own personal responsibilities." In fact, Verhaeghen said, the study suggests the need for extra caution.

"There's a reason for political correctness," he said. "At least, as studies suggest, it might be a good idea to not put stereotypes out there too clearly, because if you do, people will internalize them."

You can follow LiveScience senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter

	ThatFuckingKid wrote:
	Fata women are worthless. I'm glad you're doing a lot of reading into the reasons why, and maybe Internet reading will make you a professional on the subject- who knows! The more you read, the bigger your sword gets, and when you swing it, it will destroy ignorant males. Have fun in here. Good fight, and good night.

Who is this guy?

On topic: I love sex!

_________________
You're Gonna Carry That Weight

	Swordfishes wrote:
	Who is this guy?

It's kind of moot now that he's decided to stop posting here, but that's a friend of PHB's that he does his podcast with.

_________________
"I know we're in a lot of trouble and probably about to die. But that: was worth it."

site :: wish list :: twitter