Sexism vs. Racism

[Hustler]

Which is worse?

[booyalab]

you should stick to member wars <_<

dumbest poll ever

[LongSilence]

Which is worse?

Hustler, you got this the wrong way entirely.

[Ferrus]

dumbest poll ever
I agree, it's the kind of poll I'd expect form a 14 year old Myspacer, not the Great Hustler.

But then, it could be self-referentially ironic.

[booyalab]

But then, it could be self-referentially ironic.
I was thinking maybe it's something that references something from another thread, but then I realized that doesn't make it any better. Maybe someday threads will be judged by the content of their character...

[LongSilence]

... or hopefully by their caricature.

[booyalab]

... or hopefully by their caricature.
so which is worse? The woman barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or the black felon who knocked her up and stole her shoes?

[LongSilence]

Well, actually they sound made for each other.

[Ferrus]

so which is worse? The woman barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or the black felon who knocked her up and stole her shoes?
Hustler - who sits and takes notes.

[LongSilence]

Hustler - who sits and takes notes.

Well, I guess the woman's not gonna need the use of her mirror now she's not going out anymore as she's banged up and shoeless.

[nfinityi]

Are we going by which is more rampant? Which causes more damage? Which one has had the biggest effect on society? Which concept gave birth to better "whatta-ya-call-a" jokes?

[booyalab]

you get to decide, Brendan! which is why this poll is so useful.

[Samurai Drifter]

Racism, because all women are insane. And my viewpoint is correct and no one else is allowed to disagree. I'm the end-all and be-all.

[Night]

Like most things, their impact is relative to context. I don't have an official vote.


Certainly, neither has the distinction of being "better".

[LongSilence]

Yeah, ok, but how about more 'fun'? I think we can agree sexism wins hands down. White people aren't so good at enjoying racism anymore- they started getting all guilty, etc. Shame, cos now the other races are having some fun with it.

But sex, that'll never cease to be fun for everyone... well, at least half the people.

[Anonymous]

At this time, racism, I guess. I think it does more damage, and is more difficult to battle. Although ironically, focusing on the problem of racism causes people to think in terms of race, thus creating racial divides.

That said, I think Hustler enjoys seeing people who hate him act as the main fuel for his threads. Way to go, guys. :highfive:

[nfinityi]

you get to decide, Brendan! which is why this poll is so useful.
Why you gettin' mad at the poll? It's done nothing wrong and has just as much of a right as you to be in the neighborhood!

[LongSilence]

Ah come on, everyone likes booyalab acting as the pollist, don't they?

[nfinityi]

Ah come on, everyone likes booyalab acting as the pollist, don't they?
All I know is that I get inexplicably excited everytime I see booyalab and the word "poll" in the same sentence.

:pornstar:

[Limey]

Subjective, but I would say sexism since it affects more than 50% of the population. We also need to quantify "worse" - Semantics issue here, the definition of worse could be people affected or crime against commonly held principles of ethics and morals in humanity.

(more than 50% because there are a lot of people that will have another child if they have not had a boy, especially so in China and India).

Life for a lot of females in those countries is a miserable existence that cannot be compared to racism, which at best is "keeping a man down" and at worst is some hick trying to/succeeding to lynch someone and invariably getting caught.

[euterpenc]

I've never seen mass enslavement of women like the mass enslavement of blacks in america, nor have I seen mass slaughters of them as jews (and others) in the holocaust. I voted for racism. Besides, feminists counter balance sexism.

[Night]

Haha...on a personal note, the topic of this thread is....interesting.

I wonder...by creating a thread that deals with broad, controversial "no-no's", does the probability for debate (and the ultimate longevity of the thread) increase?


The carrot is pretty obvious here, folks.

[LongSilence]

Well, we all know Hustler just wants people to dance around his poll.

[Limey]

Do the Hustle
<whistle>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TsRdkrxl4g

[Spring]

Archaeological evidence suggests that man has been sexist for as much as 10,000 years. I would say that predates racism. And if you really need any further proof, look up witch burnings and female genital mutilation.

[cjs55]

Bigotry is never good. But sexism has the potential to be more in accord with reality I think, due the biological differences of the genders being greater than the biological differences of races.

That should get me some hate mail. err PMs.


Archaeological evidence suggests that man has been sexist for as much as 10,000 years. I would say that predates racism. And if you really need any further proof, look up witch burnings and female genital mutilation.

Hm. I'd say racism has been around for a very long long time in the form of tribalism...something chimps practice quite heavily.

[LongSilence]

What's with the assumption that sexism is something only practiced by men? What even is sexism? Judging people according to their gender? Yeah, cos that's not a natural and entirely logical practice...

People get really uptight about stuff that's never happened to them. And if it has happened to you, I ask you, has it happened here, in this forum? Let's keep this thread fun, shall we? It's what our Hustler would have wanted.

[Hustler]

What's with the assumption that sexism is something only practiced by men?
That's what is generally implied by the term. Any dictionary will confirm this. For example:


The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life.
If you are confused by the terminology, I invite you to go ahead and use that definition. If you work with that, you're unlikely to be misunderstood by others. It leaves room for the possibility of sexism directed against men, but says that it's usually the men being sexist toward women. Which is how the phenomenon works in the world.

[Hustler]

dumbest poll ever


I agree, it's the kind of poll I'd expect form a 14 year old Myspacer, not the Great Hustler.

Perhaps you two could explain why it's such a dumb poll. The question invites investigation of both phenomena, and asks for a comparison once the analysis has been made. There may be no hard and fast correct answer to the poll, but it's interesting to learn why people have opinions for one or the other being worse.

[LongSilence]

That's what is generally implied by the term. Any dictionary will confirm this. For example:


If you are confused by the terminology, I invite you to go ahead and use that definition. If you work with that, you're unlikely to be misunderstood by others. It leaves room for the possibility of sexism directed against men, but says that it's usually the men being sexist toward women. Which is how the phenomenon works in the world.

Is that not highly sexist in itself? In more ways than one?

I guess we can forgive you for being so narrow-minded and set in your ways, what with being a man and all...

[Hustler]

Is that not highly sexist in itself? In more ways than one?
If you want to call the dictionary entry for sexism sexist, then you really ought to explain yourself, or nobody is going to take you seriously.

[nfinityi]

I've never seen mass enslavement of women like the mass enslavement of blacks in america,
I know many a woman, and quite a few men, who would fiercely argue that point.

nor have I seen mass slaughters of them as jews (and others) in the holocaust. I voted for racism.
Yes, well that would be slightly impractical, now wouldn't it.

[Limey]

Is that not highly sexist in itself? In more ways than one?

I guess we can forgive you for being so narrow-minded and set in your ways, what with being a man and all...

Quite likely, Hustler doesn't believe there's such a thing as "reverse racism" either. I actually don't believe in the term itself either since racism is racism, it doesn't matter who is perpetrating it, but he doesn't believe in the concept.

[nfinityi]

Quite likely, Hustler doesn't believe there's such a thing as "reverse racism" either. I actually don't believe in the term itself either since racism is racism, it doesn't matter who is perpetrating it, but he doesn't believe in the concept.
Help me out a bit here. You're implying that he doesn't believe that any racial minority holds racist prejudices towards any racial majority? Because, that's a pretty dumb assertion.

[booyalab]

Perhaps you two could explain why it's such a dumb poll. The question invites investigation of both phenomena, and asks for a comparison once the analysis has been made. There may be no hard and fast correct answer to the poll, but it's interesting to learn why people have opinions for one or the other being worse.

The presentation is too vague and both concepts have been bloated by pop-culture to the point of self-parody. (edit: hence, I think Ferrus' "14 year old myspacer" comment) As such, the most interesting responses to me have been by LongSilence because he's one of the few who has challenged it.

[Petroleum Prole]

Everyone knows Ageism is the worst.

[Night]

Help me out a bit here. You're implying that he doesn't believe that any racial minority holds racist prejudices towards any racial minority? Because, that's a pretty dumb assertion.

I can't speak for Limey, but I think you may have missed his point.

It sounds to me like Limey was implying that Hustler didn't believe in "reverse racism" as a sub-category to racism.

[Limey]

I can't speak for Limey, but I think you may have missed his point.

It sounds to me like Limey was implying that Hustler didn't believe in "reverse racism" as a sub-category to racism.

Quite. In my discussions with him, I believe I recall his assertion that Black on White racism was laughable.

I have also been a victim of Black on White racism more than once - the first time being, when the 80s pop group, Musical youth mugged me for my Bicycle as a gang before becoming famous, but the gang didn't take my Black friends' bike (they don't like being called African-English in England, "black" will do fine).

Pass the fucking dutchie pan on the left hand side, and while you're at it, gimme your bike.

[Karl]

Subjective, but I would say sexism since it affects more than 50% of the population. We also need to quantify "worse" - Semantics issue here, the definition of worse could be people affected or crime against commonly held principles of ethics and morals in humanity.

(more than 50% because there are a lot of people that will have another child if they have not had a boy, especially so in China and India).

Life for a lot of females in those countries is a miserable existence that cannot be compared to racism, which at best is "keeping a man down" and at worst is some hick trying to/succeeding to lynch someone and invariably getting caught.

I didn't want to vote but then I thought this basically... wait, no, I disagree with the last part, racism is just as bad as sexism. But sexism is targetted to a lot more people, thus it does more damage, and is, in effect, worse.

Unless the poll means something else entirely. Not a very clear poll.

[Night]

Quite. In my discussions with him, I believe I recall his assertion that Black on White racism was laughable.

I have also been a victim of Black on White racism more than once - the first time being, when the 80s pop group, Musical youth mugged me for my Bicycle as a gang before becoming famous, but the gang didn't take my Black friends' bike (they don't like being called African-English in England, "black" will do fine).

Pass the fucking dutchie pan on the left hand side, and while you're at it, gimme your bike.




You're just lucky Menudo wasn't there...

[Larkin]

I voted racism because it is more brutal and final.

Sexism,which is certainly repugnant is an on going war and women often win by subterfuge.

[Limey]

You're just lucky Menudo wasn't there...

That's the hilarious thing, it sounds so inconceivable, no wonder famous people can get away with so much!

[Night]

That's the hilarious thing, it sounds so inconceivable, no wonder famous people can get away with so much!

Haha...villainy. Let's see what transpires...

[euterpenc]

I know many a woman, and quite a few men, who would fiercely argue that point.

I don't think it compares to a slave trade with plantations and hard manual labor and violence.

I'm just saying racism seems to have had more [intense] negative consequences than sexism.

[Night]

I don't think it compares to a slave trade with plantations and hard manual labor and violence.

I'm just saying racism seems to have had more negative consequences than sexism.

Unless you live in an Islamic fundamentalist state; most of Africa or Utah... :)


Then, some of the tactics are fairly similar.

[earwax]

I don't think it compares to a slave trade with plantations and hard manual labor and violence.

I'm just saying racism seems to have had more negative consequences than sexism.
I can't help but wonder how a black woman on the plantation would vote in this poll.

Assuming she had the right to vote.

[booyalab]

racism is not the cause of slavery, people. :stupid:

[LongSilence]

If you want to call the dictionary entry for sexism sexist, then you really ought to explain yourself, or nobody is going to take you seriously.

You're not familiar with the many faces of feminism and the many things they say, are you?


I can't help but wonder how a black woman on the plantation would vote in this poll.

Assuming she had the right to vote.


Ah no, earwax, you're thinking of anachronism there.

[Night]

racism is not the cause of slavery, people. :stupid:

Agreed.

We can thank, among others, Mr. Thomas Jefferson for legitimizing the systematic dehumanization of an entire ethnicity as a solution to "labor shortages" in our early American history.

[aether]

Racism or discrimination based on ethnicity is worse because everyone (100&#37;) can be discriminated; everyone has a race or ethnicity that can and has been discriminated. Meanwhile, not everyone is female (approximately 50%), and females are known to be primary target of sexism. Reverse sexism doesn't seem as prevalent.

[booyalab]

Agreed.

We can thank, among others, Mr. Thomas Jefferson for legitimizing the systematic dehumanization of an entire ethnicity as a solution to "labor shortages" in our early American history.
You can't really blame any one person, skin color became associated with servitude and that was gradually elaborated to justify the practice in the Americas.

[Night]

You can't really blame any one person, skin color became associated with servitude and that was gradually elaborated to justify the practice.

Haha...hence the "among others" qualifier. :)


Jefferson is a quick example.

[starla]

I'm going to vote for racism here, though I am much more often a victim of sexism than racism. Basically, if your sexist notions are correct about someone, then I don't see how they're harmful. Ditto for racist notions. I just think that people's sexist stereotypes are correct in a higher percentage of cases than their racist stereotypes, though both are harmful when wrong. I'm not sure this post makes sense.

[booyalab]

Haha...hence the "among others" qualifier. :)


Jefferson is a quick example.

sorry I didn't see that.


I'm pretty much fed up with all -isms. Forget about the racism and "reverse racism" labels. It's wrong for anyone to stomp on an unconscious guy's head regardless of the respective ethnicities. The emphasis on motivation and cultural (academic) context is a huge impediment to justice.

[Madrigal]

Maybe if you destroy sexism, you'll have destroyed the foundations of chauvinism in its most basic expression, and therefore racism. I don't really think so, I'm just saying that so my vote makes sense. :p

But to destroy either you need a socialist revolution, blah blah blah... I got elections this week so I'm too tired to explain.

[Limey]

Help me out a bit here. You're implying that he doesn't believe that any racial minority holds racist prejudices towards any racial majority? Because, that's a pretty dumb assertion.

Looking at the open vote, I would have thought that despite being a young man, one of the homosexual persuasion would have surely empathized more with sexism?

Unless promiscuity in this area, sexuality, affords you greater insight in looking at both sides of the fence?

Unless, of course, I have to wonder, you're willing to say that there's the possibility of homosexuality being a lifestyle choice, as the religious fundies would have even us Atheists believe ;-)

[ajblaise]

I was thinking maybe it's something that references something from another thread..

rajah called me a sexist a while ago :cry:


i think it's either what you said in that quote or he made a 'thinking-out-loud-thread'.


and my take on the issue is that racism has caused more hardship overall and with more severity, with sexism not far behind if i had to guess.

[LongSilence]

Sexism is better. It's based on observations arising from crucial genetic differences. More importantly, it pivots around the magnificent organic desire to fuck. Racism, on the other hand revolves around the respectable extension of family connections.

Personally, I find it distasteful that the word 'sexism' has been sexistly somewhat appropriated by females to highlight their general mistreatment. It suggests that their mistreatment by the opposite sex is more worthy of notice than their mistreatment of men. Not only that but it actually says that what men do are more worthy of recognition than women because they are appropriating a word just to describe the shit men have done.

Now I can't very well call myself a 'sexist' and be understood, because I use it to show that men have male bodies, women have female bodies, and the two of them are different, but neither better than the other, because of it. The two are actually better for it because it is the chief cause that the species is a social rather than solitary one.

[Hustler]

The presentation is too vague
Oh, so you're an SJ now. I understand.

[Rajah]

rajah called me a sexist a while ago :cry:I did? Sorry.



...Unless you are sexist, you big sexist jerkface!

[Jasz]

.. the biological differences of the genders being greater than the biological differences of races.

that's why i voted racism

[Karl]

Well this is depressing.

In my US history class, we're discussing the constitutional period soon... so we were talking about natural rights, etc. For part of it we came up with female rights, all of the males except for me and anothe guy thought that women had equal rights, none of the women did. However, none of the women wanted to be required to sign up for the draft. Not one.

Have fun being weak and needing to be protected by your superior male counterparts.

[Ferrus]

That was a remarkably un-Marxist post.

[Karl]

Being critical of reactionary beliefs in the female population is unMarxist?

You can't say that women need to be protected by men, but they still deserve an equal place in society.

[Ferrus]

The Soviet Union did... sort of.

[Karl]

Elaborate?

Edit: Although I also find it depressing that men apparently almost all think women are completely equal in society now.

[cjs55]

Men and women are different. Women are less willing to go to war on average because they are less fit for it (ON AVERAGE), physically and mentally. Men going to war makes more sense due to their physiological make up. It's like how the ratio of men:woman in engineering classes is partially based on biological capabilities.

These facts dont imply any sort of sexism.

And I would say the average middle class woman might be ahead of the average middle class male in percieved options and societal support, at least. Only in the highest places is their a good-ol boys group, which is shitty, but irrelevent to most. And considering men report higher rates of depression and suicide...

Or maybe the grass is always greener.

[Lateralus]

Being critical of reactionary beliefs in the female population is unMarxist?

You can't say that women need to be protected by men, but they still deserve an equal place in society.
I've always found it annoying how so many women want the privileges of being male, but don't want the responsibility that comes along with it.

[Karl]

Men and women are different. Women are less willing to go to war on average because they are less fit for it (ON AVERAGE), physically and mentally. Men going to war makes more sense due to their physiological make up. It's like how the ratio of men:woman in engineering classes is partially based on biological capabilities.


Men are taught to be more warlike than women. Society stresses physical strength as an indictator of worthwhileness for men. If this is good, why don't we do it for women? If it's bad, why do we do it for men?

As for actually being physically stronger... why not not allow women who are as strong as men to be in the same positions as men? And the ones who don't, obviously, shouldn't be in the same position. In fact, I'm certain that most men my age and many women my age are more physically war ready than me. It wouldn't be that smart to send me to the front lines before a woman who was stronger than me.


And I would say the average middle class woman might be ahead of the average middle class male in percieved options and societal support, at least. Only in the highest places is their a good-ol boys group, which is shitty, but irrelevent to most. And considering men report higher rates of depression and suicide...

Or maybe the grass is always greener.

Sources and elaboration? I know women attempt suicide more, but they do it in stupid ways.

[Karl]

I've always found it annoying how so many women want the privileges of being a man, but don't want the responsibility that comes along with it.

And as long as they're in that mindset, they won't recieve either.

Edit: It would not be an exageration to say that the feminist movement in the US is largely worthless.

[Ferrus]

Elaborate?
Well, the Soviet legal code obviously protected women in various ways that men were not protected - especially when the more conservative Stalin retrenched some of the more radical policies of the early Soviet era - and also women didn't fight in the frontline for the Red Army, although they were drafted for logistical purposes during WW2 (as, to a lesser extent were they in Britain).

[cjs55]

Men are taught to be more warlike than women. Society stresses physical strength as an indictator of worthwhileness for men. If this is good, why don't we do it for women? If it's bad, why do we do it for men?

As for actually being physically stronger... why not not allow women who are as strong as men to be in the same positions as men? And the ones who don't, obviously, shouldn't be in the same position. In fact, I'm certain that most men my age and many women my age are more physically war ready than me. It wouldn't be that smart to send me to the front lines before a woman who was stronger than me.

Things can be good for men and not good for women. This isn't popular these days, because people like to think everyone is precisely the same almost in some creepy harrison bergeron-sense. I'm a big fan of the Aristotlean virtue based on the make-up of an individual, the idea that 'who-you-are' in a basic sense of ability and desire determines what is good for you, and thus for a man conflict and competition may be good, but for women it may not be good (on average). It also makes sense to separate the two...competition can be good for a society, but if everyone was a man, there wouldn't be enough cooperation and emotional support for survival. And if everyone was a woman, there wouldn't be enough risk-taking and aggression (necessary for preservation in some cases).

You say: That's just cuz society tells them that!
I say: Prove it. It's a worldwide phenomenon. It's shown in proven biological differences. Society plays a role, but genetics also influence society.

And as far as war goes, it's not just about physical strength. Testosterone plays a huge part in willingness to take part in physical conflict. Violent offenders have much higher testosterone than the average population. Men have much more testosterone than women. It's quite clear that men were built to be the physical aggresor of the species, with above-average physical and physiological build for conflict.

If you had to pick a gender to mandatorily send to war, it's obviously men. And you'd do much better with a random assortment of men than a random assortment of men and women as well.



Sources and elaboration? I know women attempt suicide more, but they do it in stupid ways.

Source is some sociology textbook I read a few years ago in a gender class I took. It's up to debate if the reason women fail at suicide is because they aren't serious about at and just are calling for help, or they simply lack the means. I think in this day and age it's more logically the former, but I could see the latter having merit as well.

Male depression being higher is well recorded. I actually think it might be evolutionary in nature now that I think of it: In the past, men competed and the top of the class procreated much more than the bottom. A much higher reward for the top, a much harsher reality for the bottom, due to the fact that men can have lots o babies in a short time with lots of people while women cannot. One can see why that would be depressing. Women had no such problem. I don't know if that actually happens today, but I'm sure to some extent it is represented.

[Jasz]

I agree, it's the kind of poll I'd expect form a 14 year old Myspacer, not the Great Hustler.

But then, it could be self-referentially ironic.

i actually think this poll is brilliant.

[Night]

I've always found it annoying how so many women want the privileges of being male, but don't want the responsibility that comes along with it.

Can you put this into context?

[starla]

Well this is depressing.

In my US history class, we're discussing the constitutional period soon... so we were talking about natural rights, etc. For part of it we came up with female rights, all of the males except for me and anothe guy thought that women had equal rights, none of the women did. However, none of the women wanted to be required to sign up for the draft. Not one.

Have fun being weak and needing to be protected by your superior male counterparts.
I don't want to be required to sign up for the draft. I don't know many guys who do either. However, I think if men are required to serve in the military, women should be as well. I also think the military should allow women into combat, and should be trained for it just like men are. I think I would make a formidable killing machine if I had to. The government, however, disagrees.

Most people only give lip service to equality. I've dated a lot of them. Guys like this want to tell people that their wife/girlfriend is smarter than them, but only if they're secure in the knowledge that they're actually the smarter one. I've been smarter than most of my boyfriends. And most of them had a problem with it, deep down inside, even if they didn't want to admit it to themselves. The one that was undoubtedly smarter than me would always tell me and other people that I was smarter than him. I don't know how he would have done with a girl that actually was smarter than him, but it's highly unlikely he'll ever date one, so I guess it's a moot point. Another one that I dated thought that equality meant that I should change my own oil and take turns mowing the lawn, but I should also do all the housework and make sure he got fed every night. Women that are like this, on the other hand, want to think they're equals to men, but don't want to have to do things like fight in wars, clean their own gutters (and other unpleasant tasks that are generally assigned to men), and for some reason are perfectly willing to accept that men are incompetent at doing housework and taking care of babies.

I'd say that upwards of 90% of men and women actually subscribe to those stereotypes, leaving sexism to affect the few of us who actually live equality. Which is why I voted for racism in this poll.

[starla]

I've always found it annoying how so many women want the privileges of being male, but don't want the responsibility that comes along with it.

They don't have to take the responsibility. Men have been complicit in allowing this. Nobody wants to give up their gender roles, because most people like things the way they are.

[booyalab]

I've been smarter than most of my boyfriends. And most of them had a problem with it, deep down inside, even if they didn't want to admit it to themselves. Wow, you sound like tons of fun.

[Night]

Hmmm....

It sounds like some assume that women do not "want" to accept traditionally "male" roles of responsibility (as is elaborated in the military restrictions argument). Parallel to this premise is the idea that men, as a collective, "want" their responsibilities.

I'm interested to see how we can logically connect military policy with gender-based "irresponsibility" as someone put it. The belief that a gender (as a concerted, organic entity) is inherently seeking to undermine the efforts of the other seems...odd. Also, men dominate power structures in our (American) culture, so if we need to "blame" anyone, it seems men are the sincere reason behind gender-based restrictions...


We remain objective in our assumptions, right?

I could just as easily say that men, because we "war", are brash and uncivilized. Ergo, if we eliminate men, we eliminate war...right? Or to use approximate terminology, because men do not physically give birth, we are inferior to women in our reproductive "responsibilities". In that same vein of thinking, I've yet to meet a man who would actively want to fart a bowling pin-sized version of themselves after 9 months of nausea, joint pain, limited sleep, financial anxiety, psychological burden and hours of physical trauma.... Man, we sure are weak...


Speaking in absolute terms usually suggests faulty logical footing. In the end, the "irresponsibility" argument smells distinctly like an ad hominem attack.

[Karl]

I'd say that upwards of 90&#37; of men and women actually subscribe to those stereotypes, leaving sexism to affect the few of us who actually live equality. Which is why I voted for racism in this poll.

It's not like this everywhere and feminism wasn't like that here at one point. It's important to remember the progressive things feminists are accomplishing across the globe. Still... yes.

Although if I was dating a girl I'd love it if she was smarter than me, given that she didn't mind that. I would love to talk to a person like that. There's only one person who I can think of that I can say is definitly smarter than me (rather than about the same, which is where most people are) and at one point I was very jealous of his intelligence... but that was because he was also extremely socially successful!

I've come to terms with it though and now I just find him interesting. Maybe I would go through something like that with someone I was dating.


it seems men are the sincere reason behind gender-based restrictions...

Yes, but you're missing the (my) point. If women accept the restrictions men have laid out for them as not only necessarily, but right and kind, they can never rise above them.

[Night]

Yes, but you're missing the (my) point. If women accept the restrictions men have laid out for them as not only necessarily, but right and kind, they can never rise above them.


Why do we believe that women, as a collective, accept the restrictions? There are things I find annoying in my life that, try as I might, are painfully static. Simply because we find things unappealing does not necessarily mean we can change them. Moreover, it's probably not logically viable to lump a summary analysis based on personal experiences (to your classroom example). And again -- we are speaking in consummate generalizations.


If you would allow me, it seems like you are advocating an Ayn Rand-esque, personal imperative mentality. If one expects change, one must actively work to make change. Is that correct?

If so, I think it's a nice idea, but too idealistic to be prudent in all instances. (I think this might be the source of our differences in opinion)

While I'm not advocating pessimism or a fatalistic perspective, I do believe there are certain "unsavory" elements of our world we are stuck with.

[Hustler]

Wow, you sound like tons of fun.
Why do you feel the need to make a personal attack on someone because she is aware of her elevated intelligence and how she has been smarter than most of her boyfriends? Is sexism so pervasive in our culture that you feel this is off-putting in that you've bought into the male agenda to promote the execute/secretary type of male/female relationship at home? Or is it just you making a personal attack on another woman on this forum, yet again, for your own reasons?

[Limey]

Imagine if all of her boyfriends were black!
Oh the scandal!
Would that make her Sexist or Racist? - you decide.

[Hustler]

Yes, but you're missing the (my) point. If women accept the restrictions men have laid out for them as not only necessarily, but right and kind, they can never rise above them.

How are you going to try to make this point by bringing up the draft? That's a form of slavery that men have imposed on other men (and actually the rich on the poor, so it's a class-based system of slavery), not a restriction imposed on women by their omission from the draft.

[nfinityi]

I don't think it compares to a slave trade with plantations and hard manual labor and violence.

I'm just saying racism seems to have had more [intense] negative consequences than sexism.
But who are we to decide that manual labor is more damaging and has been around longer than the way women are often treated in societies as second class citizens, how two of the world's dominant religions "paint women as bigger antagonists than the Egyptians and Romans combined." Not to mention, you wouldn't call the way women are treated in much of the Islamic world as slavery? Do you have any idea what kinds of things are done over there? Aside from the "triviality" of being forced to wear burkas (or hijabs, I always confuse the two) and needing a man to go out in public, there's being beaten, stoned or executed outright for being raped, not being allowed to get divorced, female circumcision (which, when done properly in a medically controlled facility is rather benign, just shaving a portion of skin from the clitoris. When done in the third world is usually done without anesthetic, the tools are crude at best; usually being the broken half of a glass bottle, and the entire clitoris and surrounding tissue is cut from the body. Oh, and it's not exactly sterylized either) and all the other things that go on certainly seem just as bad, if not worse than what some blacks went through in the America's, as unpopular of a proposition it may be.

[Night]

How are you going to try to make this point by bringing up the draft? That's a form of slavery that men have imposed on other men (and actually the rich on the poor, so it's a class-based system of slavery), not a restriction imposed on women by their omission from the draft.

Word.

[nfinityi]

Looking at the open vote, I would have thought that despite being a young man, one of the homosexual persuasion would have surely empathized more with sexism?

Unless promiscuity in this area, sexuality, affords you greater insight in looking at both sides of the fence?

Unless, of course, I have to wonder, you're willing to say that there's the possibility of homosexuality being a lifestyle choice, as the religious fundies would have even us Atheists believe ;-)
What the Hell are you talking about?

[Night]

- you decide.

How very incisive!

[Hustler]

Most people only give lip service to equality. I've dated a lot of them. Guys like this want to tell people that their wife/girlfriend is smarter than them, but only if they're secure in the knowledge that they're actually the smarter one.
This is an interesting point to bring up, especially around here, because I think this hits home for a lot of NT men more than others. Most men I know who are this way, who need to be the smarter one, and be secure in that, are incredibly misogynistic when women aren't around, and uncritically latch onto any hair-brained evolutionary psychology theory that backs their position when it comes to gender roles. Perhaps we are hyper aware of this phenomenon because we're NTs, or perhaps it really is widespread because it is one of the areas a man feels he must be resourceful and impressive toward women, because the cultural pressure is on for men to be good problem solvers.

[charred_heart]

Unless you live in an Islamic fundamentalist state; most of Africa or Utah... :)


Then, some of the tactics are fairly similar.
back up. You can put a woman on a leash in Utah? :drool:

[charred_heart]

racism is not the cause of slavery, people. :stupid:What about justfying slavery through racist ideaology in North America?

[Lateralus]

Can you put this into context?
I have known many women that have used their sexuality to their advantage. I'm not talking about sleeping with the boss to get a promotion, though we all know it's happened. I've worked with women who, when they make a mistake, will use their sexuality to avoid the consequences (ie. flirting). This is just one example. I'm perfectly fine with this behavior, as long as the women aren't hypocritical about it. Don't complain about sexism on one-hand, then engage in the very behavior you supposedly despise on the other.

[Limey]

What the Hell are you talking about?

I was asking you to quantify your vote. How? Why? Insight? Hollister? References?
In light of misinterpreting my own explanation of my interpretation of the subjective definition of racism or lack thereof by the OP.

[starla]

I have known many women that have used their sexuality to their advantage. I'm not talking about sleeping with the boss to get a promotion, though we all know it's happened. I've worked with women who, when they make a mistake, will use their sexuality to avoid the consequences. This is just one example. I'm perfectly fine with this behavior, as long as the women aren't hypocritical about it. Don't complain about sexism on one-hand, then engage in the very behavior you bitch about, on the other.

How exactly do they use sexuality to avoid consequences? Are you talking about giving a cop a handjob to get out of a ticket?

BTW, if using their sexuality is working on someone, it's only because he views them as sex objects. What are they supposed to do, pretend he sees them as equals, and interact with him as such? That will just get them shit on. Sometimes, you have to play the game. That doesn't mean you have to like playing it.

[Lateralus]

How exactly do they use sexuality to avoid consequences? Are you talking about giving a cop a handjob to get out of a ticket?
What gives with the hyperbole? It doesn't take a handjob to get out of a ticket. I've known so many women to get out of tickets just by crying. I've known women that have smiled and brushed their boss's hand in order to avoid a reprimand.


BTW, if using their sexuality is working on someone, it's only because he views them as sex objects. What are they supposed to do, pretend he sees them as equals, and interact with him as such? That will just get them shit on. Sometimes, you have to play the game. That doesn't mean you have to like playing it.
That's not true. A man does not have to view a woman as a sex object in order to be manipulated by her.

This is a game where some women have chosen participate. It's the game they want to play because they're good at it.

[Hustler]

What about justfying slavery through racist ideaology in North America?

Quite true. In the first amendment to the constitution of the United States, people are given the guarantee of freedom of speech and the right to assemble. Slaves were not granted either of these rights; they certainly couldn't go assemble when they weren't even allowed off their owner's land without permission. Why? Because, given the racist ideology of the time, slaves were not considered people. There were no white slaves. This persisted for nearly 100 years after the creation of the bill of rights. So, no, racism did not cause slavery, but it was used to justify its continued existence, long after pure classist arguments for slavery (as used in ancient times, in Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc.) had been rendered null and void.

[charred_heart]

What are they supposed to do, pretend he sees them as equals, and interact with him as such?duh, yeah!


That will just get them shit on.they should just find a nice man to protect them from the world then.

I don't respect women who think like this. It would be a disservice to my sisters, who busted their asses in order to prove themeselves.

[Hustler]

What gives with the hyperbole? It doesn't take a handjob to get out of a ticket. I've known so many women to get out of tickets just by crying.
So now it's the woman's fault that the cop isn't doing his job right on account of him seeing a woman as a sex object? Please. By the way, there are many ways to get out of a ticket; you don't have to be a woman to manipulate a cop.


That's not true. A man does not have to view a woman as a sex object in order to be manipulated by her.
Really? I wonder how many gay men have promoted women to the top on account of the hand jobs the women have given him. Probably zero.


This is a game where some women have chosen participate. It's the game they want to play because they're good at it.
They got good at it because it was beaten into their heads as children and then reinforced in their adulthood that they have a role and they should play that role. The reinforcement in question is the very rewards you perceive being handed out to women who can use their sexuality to manipulate men. The game is rigged, in that sense, in that it is the men with the power to hand down to the women who best play the roles they have been assigned since birth.

[Lateralus]

So now it's the woman's fault that the cop isn't doing his job right on account of him seeing a woman as a sex object? Please. By the way, there are many ways to get out of a ticket; you don't have to be a woman to manipulate a cop.
Where did I say it was the woman's fault? (I didn't. Nice straw man.) The police officer does not have to see the woman as a sex object to be manipulated by her. Women have a tool that men don't.


Really? I wonder how many gay men have promoted women to the top on account of the hand jobs the women have given him. Probably zero.
Do you have any data to back your assertion that this is a common occurrence with straight men? How many women have been "promoted to the top" because of who they slept with? I have yet to meet a woman who slept her way to the top. How many have you met?

I've seen far more nepotism in my professional life than sexism.


They got good at it because it was beaten into their heads as children and then reinforced in their adulthood that they have a role and they should play that role. The reinforcement in question is the very rewards you perceive being handed out to women who can use their sexuality to manipulate men. The game is rigged, in that sense, in that it is the men with the power to hand down to the women who best play the roles they have been assigned since birth.
They're good at it because that's how they attract a mate. It's a skill they would acquire, regardless of their career. Beaten into their head? Pfft. They take that skill and bring it into the workplace. They use it to their advantage, then the women who aren't as good at it complain about sexism.

[Hustler]

blah blah
You're about two steps shallower in thought than starla in this argument, so I'll just leave it alone. You have some learning to do before you can even understand what she has been saying to you; it's up to you if you want to actually try.

Just consider this one thing: in all of your examples and thinking about the situation, the man has the power and the woman is manipulating the man to have him use that power on her behalf.

[Night]

I have known many women that have used their sexuality to their advantage. I'm not talking about sleeping with the boss to get a promotion, though we all know it's happenedr.




How many women have been "promoted to the top" because of who they slept with? I have yet to meet a woman who slept her way to the top. How many have you met?



Wait...I'm confused. Are you asking Hustler to clarify your point?

[Limey]

These are all great debate points which I look forward to being replicated in my future Apples Vs. Oranges poll.

[Hustler]

Wait...I'm confused. Are you asking Hustler to clarify your point?

BIg ups to Lateralus for, yet again, giving us more fuel for...

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/roflcopter_35057.jpg

The ROFLCOPTER.

[Hustler]

These are all great debate points which I look forward to being replicated in my future Apples Vs. Oranges poll.

Go start that. We don't really require your participation in this thread. And when you make that poll, do it at an INTJ forum. Thanks in advance.

[Lateralus]

You're about two steps shallower in thought than starla in this argument, so I'll just leave it alone. You have some learning to do before you can even understand what she has been saying to you; it's up to you if you want to actually try.

Just consider this one thing: in all of your examples and thinking about the situation, the man has the power and the woman is manipulating the man to have him use that power on her behalf.
Typical Hustler. You've run out of retorts, so you run. Your assertions are hollow because you cannot verify the validity of any of your claims.

[Hustler]

Typical Hustler. You've run out of retorts, so you run. Your assertions are hollow because you cannot verify the validity of any of your claims.
Just consider this one thing: in all of your examples and thinking about the situation, the man has the power and the woman is manipulating the man to have him use that power on her behalf.

I just don't think you're bright enough to engage starla in a debate at the level she's operating on. As I was merely backing up her stated position, I see no point in continuing. I think you're the only person in this thread who doesn't see how obvious this all is. If you want to address the above point, which I've so kindly restated for you, feel free to try, but don't expect me to reply unless you come up with something really great which, in all honesty, I don't see happening. But, maybe you'll surprise me.

[Lateralus]

Wait...I'm confused. Are you asking Hustler to clarify your point?
I'm talking about prevalence. We've all heard about Lifetime movies where this has supposedly happens, and I don't doubt that it has. But how common is it? People seem to be up-in-arms over this issue, but how big is this issue, presently, in the US?

My point is that it's not nearly as common as people are asserting. Some in this thread are taking the stance that women are only appreciated for their sexuality, and nothing else. I call BS. I believe that's the exception. The women I've known to use their sexuality to their advantage were already appreciated for their other skills. They weren't treated like they were less than men.

You can't have it both ways, but some women seem to want it that way.

[Lateralus]

Just consider this one thing: in all of your examples and thinking about the situation, the man has the power and the woman is manipulating the man to have him use that power on her behalf.

I just don't think you're bright enough to engage starla in a debate at the level she's operating on. As I was merely backing up her stated position, I see no point in continuing. I think you're the only person in this thread who doesn't see how obvious this all is. If you want to address the above point, which I've so kindly restated for you, feel free to try, but don't expect me to reply unless you come up with something really great which, in all honesty, I don't see happening. But, maybe you'll surprise me.
That's because they're examples. Why would I give an example where the woman was in power? That would be a pretty pointless. I know what you're trying to assert, but it's just not true.

[Rajah]

I'm talking about prevalence. We've all heard about Lifetime movies where this has supposedly happens, and I don't doubt that it has. But how common is it? People seem to be up-in-arms over this issue, but how big is this issue, presently, in the US?

My point is that it's not nearly as common as people are asserting. Some in this thread are taking the stance that women are only appreciated for their sexuality, and nothing else. I call BS. I believe that's the exception. The women I've known to use their sexuality to their advantage were already appreciated for their other skills. They weren't treated like they were less than men.

You can't have it both ways, but some women seem to want it that way.I disagree with pretty much all of your points. I led a pretty idyllic childhood in retrospect. I was taught I could do whatever I want - no field was off-limits. Gender or race differences were a non-issue. I never understood the debates about sexism or racism, because they were not part of my world. It wasn't until I grew up and entered the workforce that I saw both. Regarding sexism, women are constantly objectified and treated as lesser citizens. Worse, women gain respect among their male colleagues by treating their female peers as second-class citizens. Women in my field have tons more hoops to jump through and have to go through way more to prove themselves than men.

One way I've seen women handle this problem is by using her beauty or sexuality. Yes, I've known women who've slept their way to the top. The thing is, you're saying this is somehow a symbol of female power. It's not. Women use their sexuality - a currency accepted gratefully by men - to convince men to use their power. In all fathomable ways, men are in the position of power. They have control over whether or not to give the woman what she's seeking; they have defined the currency they're willing to accept.

[venerationOFrabbits]

Being both a racial minority and female in a male dominated field, I have to say my experience tells me sexism is the worse.

There's always competition about, the competition will use whatever it can to step all over you, a group of men hold an advantage over one or a few females.

[Limey]

To me, Sexism is still quite real and we cannot say we practice it or we don't, we can only say to what extent.
Racism, especially with the current up and coming generation is only an issue still, in the most remote, NW bumfuck, America of places where I wouldn't even want to visit as a white man, let alone as a black female, (which I only dress up as on weekends).

Racism is pretty much becoming obsolete, it's like it all fell away after the countless victories in racial motivation prosecuting court cases.

Sexism, is still hanging around in all societies and I assume that this debate is specifically about our own, western one so we move to the comparison of prison population vs. Corporate glass ceiling, to me the victims are less identifiable in one and memories in the other, which is of course, subjective.


Go start that. We don't really require your participation in this thread. And when you make that poll, do it at an INTJ forum. Thanks in advance.

Way to make me feel like a subjugated white male.
Isn't this the MBTI equivalent of "go back to Africa" or Jane is fired from the fire department because she can't carry as much - "Go and open a fruit store, toots, don't let the door hit you in the ass".

Inconceivable!
Maybe I will ask INTJs about existentialism vicariously through fruit and maybe they'll just nitpick it apart.
The bastards.

[venerationOFrabbits]

At least you're not a NF'igger.

[pangolin]

Not really an answerable question,since both of them basically mean assuming things about people based on some not necessarily related quality.

[Hustler]

Way to make me feel like a subjugated white male.
Isn't this the MBTI equivalent of "go back to Africa" or Jane is fired from the fire department because she can't carry as much - "Go and open a fruit store, toots, don't let the door hit you in the ass".
I don't have a problem with typism. Especially not on an INTP forum, where, generally speaking, I think INTPs should be treated as first-class citizens and non-INTPs as second-class (or worse) citizens. So, yeah, go peddle your apples and oranges to some INTJ forum.

[Limey]

I don't have a problem with typism. Especially not on an INTP forum, where, generally speaking, I think INTPs should be treated as first-class citizens and non-INTPs as second-class (or worse) citizens. So, yeah, go peddle your apples and oranges to some INTJ forum.

Can I at least sit my ass at the back of the bus and participate at INTPc occasionally, Masa?

I'll be a good forum participant. You won't have to whip me, but once a year.

There should be a third vote for Xenophobia.

[Hustler]

Can I at least sit my ass at the back of the bus and participate at INTPc occasionally, Masa?
I'd rather you didn't participate at all. But, that's just my opinion.


There should be a third vote for Xenophobia.
This thread is about sexism vs. racism. It's not about Limey vs. INTP elitists, and it's not about Limey trying to troll the forum. If you want to start a thread about xenophobia, go ahead, but you really should make an effort to stick to the topic of this thread which, again, is sexism vs. racism. If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute on that front, then go ahead and move along to another thread or, better yet, another forum.

[Limey]

I think that Sexism and Racism are growing pains of our fledgling, semantic interpretation of what a "Society" is, how it functions and what the rules and boundaries are for it's development.
They are both associated with the perceived narrow mindedness of hive thinking processes, perpetuated and exacerbated by the historical lack of information reliability, stereotyping caused by poor education and labor shortages in rural areas, lack of law, law enforcement, reliable ethics, and even cases of mass hysteria , the list goes on.

However, this should serve as a warning to us to intuitively question everything more than ever, rely on that which is known as fact and merely consider that which is supposed or perceived.

Which is why a pair of divisive and incendiary discussion topics, labeled in some sort of Alien Vs. Predator, WWF showdown, no holds barred, monster trucks manner should be eyed with caution, because, ladies and gentlemen, it may be based on non-sequitur logic. The kind that has us believing in Jewish zombies.

That's just what I'm trying to say, isn't it an NT thing to question the rules of the game?
I don't get how I'm trolling by just saying the two either don't compare to one another or one is more important now.

[Night]

I think that Sexism and Racism are growing pains of our fledgling, semantic interpretation of what a "Society" is, how it functions and what the rules and boundaries are for it's development.
They are both associated with the perceived narrow mindedness of hive thinking processes, perpetuated and exacerbated by the historical lack of information reliability, stereotyping caused by poor education and labor shortages in rural areas, lack of law, law enforcement, reliable ethics, and even cases of mass hysteria , the list goes on.

However, this should serve as a warning to us to intuitively question everything more than ever, rely on that which is known as fact and merely consider that which is supposed or perceived.

Which is why a pair of divisive and incendiary discussion topics, labeled in some sort of Alien Vs. Predator, WWF showdown, no holds barred, monster trucks manner should be eyed with caution, because, ladies and gentlemen, it may be based on non-sequitur logic. The kind that has us believing in Jewish zombies.

That's just what I'm trying to say, isn't it an NT thing to question the rules of the game?
I don't get how I'm trolling by just saying the two either don't compare to one another or one is more important now.

Well said.

[Hustler]

I don't get how I'm trolling by just saying the two either don't compare to one another or one is more important now.

I presume that's why you brought up apples and oranges. My response is that both apples and oranges are fruits, and can be compared. The same can be said for racism and sexism, in that they are phenomena borne of prejudice, ignorance, and so on. Whether one is decisively worse is, of course, very much open to debate, as indicated by the votes and responses in this thread. So, too, with apples and oranges. But, we're not all judgers like you: the resolution of such a question is of little importance compared to the value to be gained merely from searching for answers and seeing where they lead.

This is something you and Night, being INTJs, are less likely to accept, but the open-ended aspect of the question is very much appealing to me. From now on, though, I'll ask these sorts of open-ended questions in the INTP-only forum, so you don't have to be so bothered by them, what with your need for definitive resolution in order to find value in considering such a comparison. That, or you could try to remember where you are and that we don't think like you and we really don't care about some of the things you do, and, in remembering those things, ratchet down the J when you jump in a thread. Otherwise, yeah, you're trolling. Bringing a J bias to a P forum is just a trollish as being a black power activist posting on a white supremacy website.

[demagogic_schizoid]

How is it an open-ended question if you ask people to vote?:huh:

Anyway, sexism perhaps has more scientific basis because men and women are more biologically different than people of different races.

But racism at least doesn't lead one member of a family to instituionally opress their own daughter/mother/wife from within, so it's perhaps more insipid and sick in that sense. Victims of racism at least are united as a family and community (in a basic sense, against that particular form of racism which discriminates them all) and they are less "defenceless" in that sense.

maybe someone already said this, if so, I don't need to know that! these are still my opinions even if they did and I got a goddam right to post them even though I didn't get there first.

[Night]

the resolution of such a question is of little importance compared to the value to be gained merely from searching for answers and seeing where they lead.

This is something you and Night, being INTJs, are less likely to accept, but the open-ended aspect of the question is very much appealing to me.

Actually, I find the hunt provocative.

Assigning structure can be valuable, but following proper considerations to achieve a falsifiable end is the most rewarding part of positive thought for me.

[Hexchild]

But wouldn't woting for either option on this thread be.. um, prejudice.. ism?

[stopharian]

Subjective, but I would say sexism since it affects more than 50% of the population. We also need to quantify "worse" - Semantics issue here, the definition of worse could be people affected or crime against commonly held principles of ethics and morals in humanity.

(more than 50% because there are a lot of people that will have another child if they have not had a boy, especially so in China and India).

Life for a lot of females in those countries is a miserable existence that cannot be compared to racism, which at best is "keeping a man down" and at worst is some hick trying to/succeeding to lynch someone and invariably getting caught.

Isnt it Ironic that sexism is so rampant in China esspecially in view of the fact that Asian women are sooo hot and Asian men are effeminate little poncers.

[Ferrus]

Isnt it Ironic that sexism is so rampant in China esspecially in view of the fact that Asian women are sooo hot and Asian men are effeminate little poncers.
My God, it is so ironic - in an SJ humour type of way - that the Irony has to be capitalised.

[pangolin]

Archaeological evidence suggests that man has been sexist for as much as 10,000 years. I would say that predates racism. And if you really need any further proof, look up witch burnings and female genital mutilation.

Nevermind the male genital mutilation that American doctors perform daily.

[booyalab]

What about justfying slavery through racist ideaology in North America?
yeah I guess I should have said that. Oh wait I did.

[booyalab]

Female circumcision, while horrible, is as much the fault of other women in the society as the men. Women circumcise other women and women who aren't circumcised are treated like whores by other women. It should be considered more of a human rights issue than a sexism issue.

[Ashi, K?]

To me, Sexism is still quite real and we cannot say we practice it or we don't, we can only say to what extent.
Racism, especially with the current up and coming generation is only an issue still, in the most remote, NW bumfuck, America of places where I wouldn't even want to visit as a white man, let alone as a black female, (which I only dress up as on weekends).

Keep telling yourself that while the US Hispanic population tops 10&#37; nation-wide and 30% in some areas, yet groups continue to grow that push blocking not only Spanish as either an offical or national language, but any non-English language.

Lets not even get into the racial profiling of black men in metropolitan areas.


But racism at least doesn't lead one member of a family to instituionally opress their own daughter/mother/wife from within, so it's perhaps more insipid and sick in that sense. Victims of racism at least are united as a family and community (in a basic sense, against that particular form of racism which discriminates them all) and they are less "defenceless" in that sense.

Maybe, unless the those same daughters/mothers/wives dare to have friends of the wrong ethnicity. Never mind actually date one.




if you really need any further proof, look up witch burnings and female genital mutilation.
Nevermind the male genital mutilation that American doctors perform daily.
Are you seriously comparing the removal of the foreskin to the removal of the clitoris?

[nfinityi]

I was asking you to quantify your vote. How? Why? Insight? [A lack of creativity]? References?
In light of misinterpreting my own explanation of my interpretation of the subjective definition of racism or lack thereof by the OP.
Oh, well that's good. Because it sounded like you were saying that because I'm gay, I'm more likely to identify with women than with men, which --:lol:-- is a pretty idiotic assertion. I picked racism because I believe it's more prominent in today's society and is something that deserves alot of attention. That doesn't mean that I can't point out inconsistencies in other people's arguments.

[Limey]

Oh, well that's good. Because it sounded like you were saying that because I'm gay, I'm more likely to identify with women than with men, which --:lol:-- is a pretty idiotic assertion. I picked racism because I believe it's more prominent in today's society and is something that deserves alot of attention. That doesn't mean that I can't point out inconsistencies in other people's arguments.

Well, you are more likely than the average man to be a victim of sexism from other men, not sexism for sex but sexism for sexuality. This of course depends on the level of effeminate traits, which is why I would have thought that non-heteros would vote the sexism ticket, unless of course, you'd be one of those people that believe that race is nothing but skin pigmentation, ignoring all of the other attributes.

[nfinityi]

Well, you are more likely than the average man to be a victim of sexism from other men, not sexism for sex but sexism for sexuality. This of course depends on the level of effeminate traits, which is why I would have thought that non-heteros would vote the sexism ticket,
Sexism based not on sex but on sexuality isn't sexism; it's discrimination based upon sexuality, or homophobia if you want to call it that.

unless of course, you'd be one of those people that believe that race is nothing but skin pigmentation, ignoring all of the other attributes.
Ahh, nope. Can't say that I'm one of those people. Nice try though.

[Limey]

Sexism based not on sex but on sexuality isn't sexism; it's discrimination based upon sexuality, or homophobia if you want to call it that.

Ahh, nope. Can't say that I'm one of those people. Nice try though.

If we switched sexism for homophobia, would it be worse than racism?

- really not "trying" anything, I just don't ever get an opportunity to ask a gay person about his interpretation of the world.

[nfinityi]

If we switched sexism for homophobia, would it be worse than racism?
Well, I don't really believe that one is better or worse than the other. Sexism, racism, homophobia, et cetera, are all all just categories or discrimination, which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but a fact of life. We all discriminate, each and every day. It's when we discriminate based upon our prejudices or blanket discrimination that are bad.

However, with it broken down, of course I face homophobia so it's the one that most significantly impacts my own life, but I'm not really conceited enough to believe that homophobia is the biggest threat to the world of all forms of discrimination.
- really not "trying" anything, I just don't ever get an opportunity to ask a gay person about his interpretation of the world.[/QUOTE]
Oh. Okay then, glad to be of help.

[Limey]

Women, know your limits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

Fighting diseases of the mind (including homosexuality)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlv3B1078PA

[pangolin]

none of the women did. However, none of the women wanted to be required to sign up for the draft. Not one.

Have fun being weak and needing to be protected by your superior male counterparts.

This sort of highlights some of my issues with the concept of feminism. While there are some radical enough to be offended by traditional pleasantries, and on the other hand there are religious radicals who are perfectly fine with patriarchism, it seems the major mass would like equal privileges/rights, while maintaining the social perquisites of being female.

[Acala1]

Women, know your limits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

Fighting diseases of the mind (including homosexuality)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlv3B1078PA

It is one of most amusing things i see in this forum....:mellow:

[Acala1]

Racism is worse...
Sexism is more global...

[lbloom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7147632.stm

[mancroft]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlv3B1078PA

:rofl:

[Karl]

This sort of highlights some of my issues with the concept of feminism. While there are some radical enough to be offended by traditional pleasantries, and on the other hand there are religious radicals who are perfectly fine with patriarchism, it seems the major mass would like equal privileges/rights, while maintaining the social perquisites of being female.

That's not really part of the concept of feminism. At one point the feminist movement here wanted to get rid of the so called "priviliges." Take the "aint I a woman?" (http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/sojour.htm) speech. But the sentiment that women should be given equal opportunities to succeed and fail was more widespread at one point, and in many parts of the world this sentiment exists today.

In fact, back when the titanic sank, many feminists were upset about the "women and children" first thing. I don't think any of the women on the titanic complained though, and I can't say I would have in that situation either...

[Sojourner]

Assuming that the intensity, durability, and maliciousness of the bias is the same for both, I would like to point out two things:

1) Sexism affects a larger group - it scorns 50&#37; of the human population, a bit over, if it's against women.
2) Racism, however, is less restrained, because where one sex or the other is necessary for a society to function, different races aren't.


That's not really part of the concept of feminism. At one point the feminist movement here wanted to get rid of the so called "priviliges." Take the "aint I a woman?" (http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/sojour.htm) speech. But the sentiment that women should be given equal opportunities to succeed and fail was more widespread at one point, and in many parts of the world this sentiment exists today.

In fact, back when the titanic sank, many feminists were upset about the "women and children" first thing. I don't think any of the women on the titanic complained though, and I can't say I would have in that situation either...
"Ain't I a Woman" doesn't express a desire to get rid of "privileges". Sojourner Truth was making the point that these "privileges" were only extended to affluent white women.

[Karl]

"Ain't I a Woman" doesn't express a desire to get rid of "privileges". Sojourner Truth was making the point that these "privileges" were only extended to affluent white women.

Maybe I'm reading into it wrong but I thought she was making it clear that those privileges were an excuse, and not asking that they be extended to all women.

[Sojourner]

Maybe I'm reading into it wrong but I thought she was making it clear that those privileges were an excuse, and not asking that they be extended to all women.
She wasn't asking that they be extended to all women - the situation was that some male audience members had scoffed at feminist ideas because, according to them, women had so many "privileges" already and didn't need equal rights. She was directly addressing that. I can't say with any surety what she thought about "women's privileges", but that was the context in which said privileges were mentioned.

[Evignus]

Racism can make logical sense if you read "IQ And Wealth Of Nations".

[Sojourner]

Racism can make logical sense if you read IQ and Wealth Of Nations.

1. What other kind of sense is there?
2. Define racism.
3. Explain.

[Evignus]

1. What other kind of sense is there?
2. Define racism.
3. Explain.

The average white IQ is 100. The average black IQ in the US is 85 but average African IQ is 70. Average Asian IQ is 102 and average Jewish IQ is 115. INTPs prize intelligence above all else so racism is logical.

* FACT: The average white IQ is 100; the average American black IQ is 85; the average African black IQ is 70 (borderline retarded). There has never been a civilization worthy of the name founded by blacks, and blacks have not even been able to retain the civilizations which have been created for them by whites ("white colonialism"). Note: Contrary to black propaganda, the ancient Egyptians were not black -- their sculptures, portraits and mummies all clearly show Caucasian features. Second note: Critics commonly claim that blacks score low on IQ tests because such tests are culturally biased. In fact, however, as black Prof Walter Williams has pointed out, blacks actually do BETTER on tests that are culturally biased.

* FACT: Blacks make up 12&#37; of the population, yet are 50% of the prison population.

* FACT: This means that blacks commit NINE TIMES the crimes of whites. (That's NOT 9% -- it's 900%!) It means that if there were equal numbers of blacks and whites in our population, NINE OF EVERY TEN CRIMINALS WOULD BE BLACK. NOTE: Some have claimed that black crime is high because 'racist' cops target blacks for arrest and 'racist' judges heap convictions on innocent blacks; but statistics belie this: Three of the cities highest in crime are Washington DC, New Orleans and Detroit; and yet the government of all these cities is in black hands; so clearly the cause of high crime in these cities is not 'racial targeting of blacks'. More generally, black crime is high WHEREVER you go; and it would be the world's most absurd conspiracy theory to suppose that the across-the-board high crime rates for blacks originated in a collusion of whites in every city and burg in the nation to target blacks and/or cook the books.

* FACT: 90% of all inter-racial crime is black-on-white (ie, committed BY blacks AGAINST whites).

* FACT: There are 20,000 black-on-white rapes every year in the US, but fewer than 100 white-on-black rapes.

* FACT: The majority of hate crimes are committed by blacks, in spite of the fact that blacks make up only 12% of the population, and in spite of the great reluctance of authorities to report hate crimes when they are committed by blacks. (That means that blacks commit VASTLY MORE hate crimes in proportion to their numbers than whites!)

* FACT: One of the most distinguished black scholars in America, syndicated columnist Dr Thomas Sowell, has studied multiracial societies around the world and has observed that -- with the single exception of societies where one race is completely dominant over all others -- such societies simply do not work.

[LastRailway]

The average white IQ is 100. The average black IQ in the US is 85 but average African IQ is 70. Average Asian IQ is 102 and average Jewish IQ is 115. INTPs prize intelligence above all else so racism is logical.

* FACT: ...

How interesting. I guess you'd have some indisputable sources on the matter, which you might care to share with us.

[MacGuffin]

The average white IQ is 100. The average black IQ in the US is 85 but average African IQ is 70. Average Asian IQ is 102 and average Jewish IQ is 115. INTPs prize intelligence above all else so racism is logical.

* FACT: The average white IQ is 100; the average American black IQ is 85; the average African black IQ is 70 (borderline retarded). There has never been a civilization worthy of the name founded by blacks, and blacks have not even been able to retain the civilizations which have been created for them by whites ("white colonialism"). Note: Contrary to black propaganda, the ancient Egyptians were not black -- their sculptures, portraits and mummies all clearly show Caucasian features. Second note: Critics commonly claim that blacks score low on IQ tests because such tests are culturally biased. In fact, however, as black Prof Walter Williams has pointed out, blacks actually do BETTER on tests that are culturally biased.

* FACT: 90% of all inter-racial crime is black-on-white (ie, committed BY blacks AGAINST whites).

* FACT: There are 20,000 black-on-white rapes every year in the US, but fewer than 100 white-on-black rapes.

* FACT: The majority of hate crimes are committed by blacks, in spite of the fact that blacks make up only 12% of the population, and in spite of the great reluctance of authorities to report hate crimes when they are committed by blacks. (That means that blacks commit VASTLY MORE hate crimes in proportion to their numbers than whites!)

*
You are easy to persuade. Very unNT.

(makes note of user)

[Evignus]

How interesting. I guess you'd have some indisputable sources on the matter, which you might care to share with us.

This would be a good start :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_wealth_of_nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

[Sojourner]

Inability to grasp the distinction between cause/effect and effect/effect.

[LastRailway]

This would be a good start :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_wealth_of_nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

I could have bet you'd indicate that stuff.

[Ariel]

I’d say that sexism is the worse of the two. It affects the half of the population that is set at an inherent disadvantage in physical strength (well, usually).

As far as I can tell, no races have any distinct superiority once background is taken into account.

It's pretty hard to make the average woman stronger than the average man. On the other hand, it's not so hard to give an under-privileged, average, person of one race, and train them to match an average person of another race. So if we level the playing field, make everybody witty and intelligent and supply them all with equal economic wealth, things are still not 'fair.' The racism in this idealized land is a discord between two identical forces; conversely, sexism is still a discord between two unequal forces--the guys still get to be stronger.

So? Sexism isn't really 'fair.' Racism isn't either in the real world (given disparities in upbringing, economics, and exposures), but it at least has the potential to be fair, if that means anything at all, hahaha. My conclusion: because it is more difficult for women to overcome men physically, sexism is harder to beat. Sexism is worse.

Of course, we have no way to consider the actual natures of the racist or sexist discriminations in question. Obviously, specific incidents of either type vary on the ‘worse’ to ‘worserest’ scale.

[Sisyphus]

If you include imperialism and colonialism under racism, then racism wins the numbers game hands-down.

[Roger Mexico]

Racism can make logical sense if you read "IQ And Wealth Of Nations".

Oh my God you can't be serious. :stupid:

OK, here's my one attempt to educate the Nazi. I expect you all to be grateful:



*There has never been a civilization worthy of the name founded by blacks, and blacks have not even been able to retain the civilizations which have been created for them by whites ("white colonialism"). Note: Contrary to black propaganda, the ancient Egyptians were not black -- their sculptures, portraits and mummies all clearly show Caucasian features.

So you're an Egyptologist?

*As for the bolded part of this, which would stand out as the dumbest thing yet posted on this forum if only you hadn't included the section following this--"worthy of the name" is a subjective evaluation; it is not, and cannot be, an assertion of "fact." This is to say nothing of how ignorant you would realize you are after reading a few books on anthropology and ancient history.

You could at least cite some of this so-called "black propaganda," but I realize having to back up anything you say ruins all the fun of being a white supremacist.

You realize that the failure of European colonial governments and their successor/ client states is precisely due to the fact that those "civilizations" were "created for" the populations they govern(ed), replacing and destroying the sociopolitical systems the local inhabitants of colonized areas had already developed--right?




* FACT: Blacks make up 12&#37; of the population, yet are 50% of the prison population.

* FACT: *This means that blacks commit NINE TIMES the crimes of whites. (That's NOT 9% -- it's 900%!) It means that if there were equal numbers of blacks and whites in our population, NINE OF EVERY TEN CRIMINALS WOULD BE BLACK. NOTE: Some have claimed that black crime is high because 'racist' cops target blacks for arrest and 'racist' judges heap convictions on innocent blacks; but statistics belie this: Three of the cities highest in crime are Washington DC, New Orleans and Detroit; and yet the government of all these cities is in black hands; so clearly the cause of high crime in these cities is not 'racial targeting of blacks'. More generally, black crime is high WHEREVER you go; and it would be the world's most absurd conspiracy theory to suppose that the across-the-board high crime rates for blacks originated in a collusion of whites in every city and burg in the nation to target blacks and/or cook the books.

Ugh.

*No. No, it doesn't. It means that blacks get arrested and convicted for various crimes at a greater rate than whites. What could cause such a distortion other than an inborn racial propensity to crime?

Uh... well,... how about...

A policy mandated and promoted by the federal government to aggressively prosecute a particular form of vice/ victimless crime that is much easier to catch when it's practiced by people who don't own real estate and live in densely populated urban areas?

-- http://www.amazon.com/Malign-Neglect-Crime-Punishment-America/dp/0195104692

Seriously, what a lot of people don't know is that the racial make-up of the correctional-inmate population in the U.S. changed dramatically between the mid-1970's and and the early 1990s. In 1960 the percentage of non-whites in the prison system was proximate to the percentage of non-whites in the general population. (Evignus: yes, that's right, whites and non-whites commit crimes at about the same rate per capita) The emergence of an incarcerated population that is disproportionately made up of people who are minorities in the non-incarcerated population closely parallels the implementation of the 'War on Drugs,' which in practice is a policy targeted specifically at crimes committed by minorities in largely minority areas.

You are an idiot.

[LongSilence]

If you include imperialism and colonialism under racism, then racism wins the numbers game hands-down.

You could call those nationalism, but not really racism.

If Africa had been populated by 'less civilised' white people they probably would have been enslaved / killed in the same way.

[Roger Mexico]

As to the original topic--

It depends on how you're deciding what makes one form of prejudice "better" or "worse."

Sexism is somewhat less violent, in that it presumes only to define the ways in which two classes of person will or should interact, which recognizes the necessity of these two groups co-existing and cooperating. Racism, particularly of the xenophobic variety, can and does often extend to declarations that members of the "offending" group should be excluded from the proponent's society, or even from moral consideration as human beings, entirely.

A male sexist wants to tell the women in his life how to behave in relation to himself and his entesticled fellows--a white racist may well believe that whatever group he wants to control would actually be better dealt with by eliminating all members of that group. The only "sexist" equivalents to such an ideology that I'm aware of are the declarations of radical feminists like the author of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto, and I'm always assured by feminists that such sentiments should be taken as somewhat ironic in their intent. (*looks around to make sure the doors are locked.* Ha ha! You won't be castrating me tonight, feminists!)

So, as far as genocide/imperialism/etc., racism probably comes out with a higher body count, and in that sense its repudiation could be justifiably seen as a priority over the repudiation of sexism. Presuming, of course, that one can repudiate one without repudiating the other, or that one has to choose to repudiate one and not the other. But that's off-topic.

On the other hand, a victim of sexism likely experiences its effects somewhat more intimately than a victim of racism, which could make the experience "worse" from a subjective point of view. Racism governs relations between groups that theoretically would exist whether or not they came into contact with one another; sexism is written into the most basic institutions of a sexist society. Does the intimacy of oppression make that oppression worse? I don't know.

From the purely NT/scientific point of view, "sex" (though perhaps not gender) is a meaningful biological distinction with a demonstrable objective reality. The same cannot be said of race. Any given woman (or at least anyone born as a woman) has certain specific genes in common with all other women.

The same is not true of race. Recent studies have shown that the DNA of two non-family members of the same "race" is not detectably more similar than the DNA of any two randomly selected individuals who may or not be members of the same "race." Race is a subjectively defined category created by an ideology which assigns meaning to it--it isn't "real" the same way sex is "real". (Although again, note that I said "sex" and not "gender"--traits attributed to a gender that are not directly a product of primary or secondary sex characteristics are just as much an arbitrary, ideological construct as traits attributed to a "race".)

[pangolin]

Are you seriously comparing the removal of the foreskin to the removal of the clitoris?

Mutilation is mutilation.

[pangolin]

That's not really part of the concept of feminism. At one point the feminist movement here wanted to get rid of the so called "priviliges." Take the "aint I a woman?" (http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/sojour.htm) speech. But the sentiment that women should be given equal opportunities to succeed and fail was more widespread at one point, and in many parts of the world this sentiment exists today.

In fact, back when the titanic sank, many feminists were upset about the "women and children" first thing. I don't think any of the women on the titanic complained though, and I can't say I would have in that situation either...

It is irrelevant what you think the 'concept' of feminism is. Most women in the professional world today expect to be treated both equally and as a lady, which is an absurd level of hypocrisy.

[booyalab]

Mutilation is mutilation.the equivalent of female circumcision would be cutting off the whole penis head, not just the foreskin

[songbird36]

you should stick to member wars <_<

dumbest poll ever

Seconded.

[Limey]

the equivalent of female circumcision would be cutting off the whole penis head, not just the foreskin

Clitori are larger than I thought, this little man in the boat has a Neanderthal ridged cranium.

[booyalab]

this little man in the boat has a Neanderthal ridged cranium.
No, his cranium is homo-sapien sized. But he's very smart.

[Limey]

No, his cranium is homo-sapien sized. But he's very smart.

He has clothes and a man head? - sounds like you're permanently getting a piggy back from some canoeist or longboat oarsman (depends).

Clothes make the man, naked people have little or no influence on society.

[Karl]

"If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it"

[Acala1]

OK, here's my one attempt to educate the Nazi. I expect you all to be grateful:

I am...

[Hustler]

* FACT: Blacks make up 12% of the population, yet are 50% of the prison population.

* FACT: There are 20,000 black-on-white rapes every year in the US, but fewer than 100 white-on-black rapes.
See what happens when white guys become a minority?


Seriously, what a lot of people don't know is that the racial make-up of the correctional-inmate population in the U.S. changed dramatically between the mid-1970's and and the early 1990s. In 1960 the percentage of non-whites in the prison system was proximate to the percentage of non-whites in the general population. (Evignus: yes, that's right, whites and non-whites commit crimes at about the same rate per capita) The emergence of an incarcerated population that is disproportionately made up of people who are minorities in the non-incarcerated population closely parallels the implementation of the 'War on Drugs,' which in practice is a policy targeted specifically at crimes committed by minorities in largely minority areas.

FACT: Until last week, distributing 50 grams of crack carried a mandatory 10 year minimum sentence. The amount of powder cocaine distribution required to garner an equivalent sentence? 5 kilos. A 100-1 difference. It may come as news to some among us that crack distribution is primarily done by black people and powder cocaine distribution is primarily done by white people. It's hard to say that the crack/cocaine disparity (http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/raceandthedr/crack_cocaine.cfm) was anything but a racist policy.

FACT: A militant atheist who prides himself on his skepticism and ability to resist illogical philosophies shouldn't fall victim to racist propaganda so easily, lest he be thought a joke and incapable of genuine critical analysis.

[Toonia]

Sexism creates the opportunity for males to have more control over their offspring. By subjugating women, causing women to depend on the male for survival, the male controls the outcome of her life and the life of their offspring. It could be a means to secure the propagation of genetic material. On the other hand, it could place certain aspects of the immediate offspring's well-being into question. If the mother is compromised as a person and she has a nurturing influence, how might this affect the offspring?

Racism could be an extension of this same process in that it ensures the survival of individuals with similar genetic features while placing at risk the survival of those who differ. Of course racism as it occurs today is a social construct and not genetically defined, still the concept of protecting those with similar features would have propagated similar genetic material in historical, tribal contexts. In our global society this process is somewhat warped through sheer diversity of people.

If this relationship exists, then perhaps sexism is the root of the process.

[Ariel]

As to the original topic--

It depends on how you're deciding what makes one form of prejudice "better" or "worse."

Sexism is somewhat less violent, in that it presumes only to define the ways in which two classes of person will or should interact, which recognizes the necessity of these two groups co-existing and cooperating. Racism, particularly of the xenophobic variety, can and does often extend to declarations that members of the "offending" group should be excluded from the proponent's society, or even from moral consideration as human beings, entirely. I disagree. Sexism extend to that kind of level too. Any discrimination can. In both sexism and racism, victims are seen as inferior beings. Not long ago, women were barred from various societal functions. Really long ago, women were kept around for the sole purpose of pleasure and reproduction. Today, women are still being violently repressed. Of course victims of sexism are, as you put it, "excluded from the proponent's society, or even from moral consideration as human beings, entirely."


A male sexist wants to tell the women in his life how to behave in relation to himself and his entesticled fellows--a white racist may well believe that whatever group he wants to control would actually be better dealt with by eliminating all members of that group. The only "sexist" equivalents to such an ideology that I'm aware of are the declarations of radical feminists like the author of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto, and I'm always assured by feminists that such sentiments should be taken as somewhat ironic in their intent. (*looks around to make sure the doors are locked.* Ha ha! You won't be castrating me tonight, feminists!)Wrong. While I won't argue against your point about the extremist matriarch-advocaters, I think it is wrong to say that male sexists can't be similarly disposed. In some countries, when fathers sire girls instead of boys, the unfortunate babies get tossed out the door and rolled down the hill. Isn't this 'extermination' as well? "They are pests," some say.

Also, while women may not be killed outright in most cases (though neither are are victims of racism), they are often kept around simply to use... just like how black people were kept around to be used in colonial America.

What all of this boils down to is an element of need. Men need women to reproduce, just as some races have needed other races to do the dirty work for them. It can be said that when this is the case--when the oppressed are needed-- they are usually treated in the same manner. Perhaps this is why black men got the vote before white women in U.S. history. Either way, both women and blacks were seen as sub par--sub human (in fact, I think that one black man counted only as 3/5 of a white man... so a white female must have been deemed even less than that).

Even when they aren't needed (the victims of discrimination), and when the hatred or ignorance is really substantial, then victims of both sexism and racism are still treated in the same way-- they are either stripped of their personal rights or they are killed. This describes perfectly the still existing sentiment that women are not fit to handle intellectual matters. This describes perfectly America's previous "Seperate but [supposedly] Equal" policies that kept blacks entrenched in poverty. Past Colleges pose an even better example to this rule, as bigots who were both sexist, and rascist, kept well-deserving minority students out their discriminating institutions.

Another thing to consider: We think that the body count is higher for racism, but who has recorded throughout all time the constant oppression of women in almost ALL continents and cultures? Surely, that number has been adding up. Honor killings, female infanticide, rape deaths, even witch hunts... The sumnation of all the death in this timeless injustice must be a staggering figure to behold. Somehow it is still underestimated.



From the purely NT/scientific point of view, "sex" (though perhaps not gender) is a meaningful biological distinction with a demonstrable objective reality. The same cannot be said of race. Any given woman (or at least anyone born as a woman) has certain specific genes in common with all other women.

The same is not true of race. Recent studies have shown that the DNA of two non-family members of the same "race" is not detectably more similar than the DNA of any two randomly selected individuals who may or not be members of the same "race." Race is a subjectively defined category created by an ideology which assigns meaning to it--it isn't "real" the same way sex is "real". (Although again, note that I said "sex" and not "gender"--traits attributed to a gender that are not directly a product of primary or secondary sex characteristics are just as much an arbitrary, ideological construct as traits attributed to a "race".)
I agree with this. I tried to explain the same thing in my previous post. I argue that because women are at an inherent disadvantage, and that they constitute a good 50% of the world population, sexism is worse. Since all discrimination is of the same nature (as I concluded above), I say we take these objective factors into account.

[Ariel]

On a side note, I wish people would stop throwing around the term 'feminist' when they don't know what it really means. Many of you are misusing it. The reality is that we are all (hopefully) feminists. Idiots accross the world have been putting a negative spin on this positive term.

American Heritage Dictionary:
Feminism: fem&#183;i&#183;nism (fěm'ə-nĭz'əm)
n.
-Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
-The movement organized around this belief.

The groups of radicals that advocate female superiority are not, in fact, feminists.

[Acala1]

Strange the potential of racism and sexism happen with the same people don't be discussed yet...
A black woman is subject of racism, sexism or both...

[LongSilence]

How come chauvinist is such a negative word and is pretty much tied up with masculine abuses? The choice of the word feminism itself is bad. It focuses itself on the plight on one sex and precludes proper future equality by tying itself up not with true equality but the readdressing of the balance in the favour of one side. A new word is needed because if we argue that 'feminism' was chosen to highlight the unbalanced situation at the time we must also accept that it has become irrecoverably tied up with the movement - which has extended itself beyond more than just strict egalitarianism.

[Limey]

Strange the potential of racism and sexism happen with the same people don't be discussed yet...
A black woman is subject of racism, sexism or both...

Camille addressed this above. I valued her input whether I agreed or not, which I did, despite not being as qualified in my opinion/experience.

It seems that sexism is worse, since it is inevitably heavier weighted towards prejudgment, where as racism is more often than not actually cultural prejudice, which can often be addressed by doing little more than dressing in a more formally acceptable way and/or speaking common English, (dropping slang terms such as "aint", "bro" unnecessary swearing, etc)

Sexism attacks what a person is, not who they are - it may be arguable to say which is worse, but in my opinion, you can change or adapt who you are, again, pertaining to cultural prejudice, not racism, (to get a paycheck from "the man" for example) but you can't change what you are.

[Ariel]

Well, I think that the advent of the term 'feminism' was appropriate for its time. To tie it into this modern day injustice would be an insult to the past and present great movement, and to misuse it despite the cultural misnomer seems wrong.

'Chauvinism' wasn't specifically tied into gender upon its advent. It has more to do with bigotry in general. I don't think it is at a parallel with the word 'feminist.'

I think that the most appropriate words we can use for gender-based superiority groups are 'misandrist' or 'misogynist'. Unfortunately, these terms will probably never make it into mainstream speech.

[Acala1]

Camille addressed this above. I valued her input whether I agreed or not, which I did, despite not being as qualified in my opinion/experience.

There is no Camille...
Maybe it is another name...

[Ptah]

What is the utility of this poll? I'll speak to the futility in making any such a choice: both are damnable behaviors/outlooks, equally worthy of condemnation. Nothing good follows from trying to place one over the other; evil is evil. To say one evil is less than another is to imply the dangerous assumption that one is more "good" than the other -- a flat-out corrupting frame of mind, leading to more evil. :dont:

[euterpenc]

Both suck, but I think the differences between men and women are greater than the differences between races (hormones and such like). I could be wrong. Dunno the biology. But in myself I notice a greater difference between myself and a female than myself and a black person. So, as far as that goes, I think racism is worse cause it is less grounded in actual disparity between people.

I hate feminists though. It's like they are shitting on femininity. Idk much about it honestly, but it seems to be similar to communism in that the individual is determined by their social circumstances, which is true to an extent but taken too far. Oh, well we live in a gendered system, men and women aren't that different etc. etc. Just bothers me cause men and women ARE very different. Just look at them. Of course we are both human, but we are actually rather different considering we are from the same species.

Just as a note, I'm not sexist, and I'm not against women's rights. But I am against trying to destroy gender differences, cause they are important. I like women damnit, I don't want to marry some butch ass man-freak.

[Toonia]

Just as a note, I'm not sexist, and I'm not against women's rights. But I am against trying to destroy gender differences, cause they are important. I like women damnit, I don't want to marry some butch ass man-freak.Before thinking in terms of destroying gender differences it makes sense to first identify what differences are imposed and what are innate. That gender is biologically on a continuum and not as distinct as societies impose is an important factor to consider. It is appears to be rarely examined or understood - the questions of how gender is measured and how it affects the body and the mind.

[Hustler]

That gender is biologically on a continuum and not as distinct as societies impose is an important factor to consider.
How on earth are you going to make the argument for a biological gender continuum when the gender of human beings is determined by the XX/XY sex-determination system? It's a simple toggle, and a person is biologically either a male or a female, and that's it. Genetic anomalies do occur, where extra chromosomes are present, but these are very rare and hardly constitute a blurring of the gender line.

[Acala1]

Some balances

- racism and the sexism are similars phenomena...
- racism and the sexism have base in ignorance and the prejudice...
- The biological differences between men and women are greater than the differences between races...

I don't see nothing explicitly about interaction between the racism and the sexism when a subject is considered .... so...

- subject can be victim of sexism and practice racism...
- subject can be victim of racism and practice sexism...
- subject can be victim of racism and victim of racism and practice racism...
- subject can practice racism...
- subject can practice racism and sexism...
- subject can practice sexism...
- subject can be victim of racism and practice racism...
- arguable subject can be victim of sexism and practice sexism...

Those interrelactions should be considered when making conjecture about racism and the sexism... or not...

[Toonia]

How on earth are you going to make the argument for a biological gender continuum when the gender of human beings is determined by the XX/XY sex-determination system? It's a simple toggle, and a person is biologically either a male or a female, and that's it. Genetic anomalies do occur, where extra chromosomes are present, but these are very rare and hardly constitute a blurring of the gender line.It was the wrong terminology to use the word continuum. I was just referring to the genetic anomalies, hormonal influences, and the apparent expressions of gender blurring that occur psychologically. Yeah, I won't be constructing any arguments based on a mistaken word choice. The clarification was useful though.

[Ferrus]

How on earth are you going to make the argument for a biological gender continuum when the gender of human beings is determined by the XX/XY sex-determination system?
Heard of womb chemistry, perchance?

[pangolin]

American Heritage Dictionary:
Feminism: fem?i?nism (fěm'ə-nĭz'əm)
n.
-Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
-The movement organized around this belief.

The groups of radicals that advocate female superiority are not, in fact, feminists.

If this is what it is meant to indicate, then it was a poorly chosen word, because it doesn't mean that, either etymologically, or in common parlance.

[Sojourner]

If this is what it is meant to indicate, then it was a poorly chosen word, because it doesn't mean that, either etymologically, or in common parlance.

Etymologically, I see your point. However, "common parlance" depends on who you're talking to. Hardly any of my acquaintances would fail to point to the formal definition.

[Latte]

Skimmed quickly through.

Maybe i missed something. But none of you gets cake. (Except maybe Sojourner, i find it likely that the comment i am thinking about was not about what wins cake however, correct if wrong, there is enough cake to go around).

My fingers are tingling as i expose why this thread was so funny to create for Hustler.

Hustler believes generalizations is are flawed by their very nature. They assume correllation of <object "type"> and <properties> based upon believed patterns that are "just are" inherent in all/most objects of the type.

Generalizations have no "how", and are therefore all logically flawed.

This enables Hustler to sit back and kill all your logic easily, as it is logic talking about examples of things that are governed by a system that is not logically coherent.

Which makes for excellent fun. The whole thread is basically a mockery of that people aren't seeing that the real problem is the way of thought, not what is concluded through it. Which is what makes Hustler so amazingly fun, he understands it so deeply, then kind of "tests" you, with a possibility that few of you might learn what he has realized from it.

[LongSilence]

Come back in 200 or so posts and start your Hustleluving then, n00b.

[Kathara]

I think that sexism is worse than racism because sexism is directed towards half of the world population, whereas racism focuses on a smaller procent. (I think)

(That was a middle school answer)

[Google Monster]

ummm wtf? Both can represent 100&#37; no? After all everyone has a race and a gender. But then again, there are hermaphrodites. Where do they stand?

[LongSilence]

I think that sexism is worse than racism because sexism is directed towards half of the world population, whereas racism focuses on a smaller procent. (I think)

(That was a middle school answer)

You're right- some women aren't targeted by sexism. People often forget that.

As for hermaphrodites- they're lucky: they can give and receive all kinds of sexist discrimination. Also they're useful to throw in to make it a threeway discussion: either so people can know what they like to lookat and poke fun at or so they can be glad they know what they're poking when they're with a mono-sexed person.

[Kathara]

ummm wtf? Both can represent 100&#37; no? After all everyone has a race and a gender. But then again, there are hermaphrodites. Where do they stand?

It was an "either ... or" question.


You're right- some women aren't targeted by sexism. People often forget that.


I think that thiose women are statistically unimportant.

[Google Monster]

It was an "either ... or" question.

Well you either :P or :frypan:

[Kathara]

Well you either :P or :frypan:

Violence against women! J'accuse!

[Google Monster]

Violence against women! J'accuse!
I could have given ya the tongue, but you chose the violence.

[LongSilence]

Violence against women! J'accuse!

Ah come on kathara, you have to admit a little violating might do you some good, right?

[Kathara]

I could have given ya the tongue, but you chose the violence.

Ewww, I'll go with violence, thank you very much!


Ah come on kathara, you have to admit a little violating might do you some good, right?

Sush, that was supposed to be our secret, you naughty boy!

[Latte]

Come back in 200 or so posts and start your Hustleluving then, n00b.

I know noob rimes with boob, but being hung up on semantics, i correct thy nonetheless and say that thy shalt say "newb". Let's pretend that is what you said.

Liking Hustler's way of thinking and humor does not imply the liking of him as person in the same way that me saying that does not mean liking him does not mean that i dislike him:happpy:

Awesome person to have around though, for those who like his humor. Keep on bangin those heads guise :banghead: :banana:

[LongSilence]

I said what I said because you failed. Hustler does not need 'n00bs' [his preferred term] telling him how he's great any more than he needs people telling other people how he's schooled them. As he'd be the first to tell you he does both better than anyone else could. Also I'd perhaps hold off presuming you know how everyone else here relates to Hustler for a little while if I were you.

[Hustler]

I said what I said because you failed. Hustler does not need 'n00bs' [his preferred term] telling him how he's great any more than he needs people telling other people how he's schooled them. As he'd be the first to tell you he does both better than anyone else could. Also I'd perhaps hold off presuming you know how everyone else here relates to Hustler for a little while if I were you.
Translation: As Hustler obsessor #1, LongSilence doesn't want any competition from some upstart n00b.

[LongSilence]

Translation: As Hustler obsessor #1, LongSilence doesn't want any competition from some upstart n00b.

Oh Hustler you know I'm not even close to being Number 1. But thanks for saying that anyway.

[Hustler]

Translation: As Hustler obsessor #1, LongSilence doesn't want any competition from some upstart n00b.
You passed booyalab and Zephyrus a long time ago. Who could possibly still outrank you? Lateralus? No, I think you're it. It's been a long road, but you've earned it. Congratulations.

[quantumzero]

I said what I said because you failed. Hustler does not need 'n00bs' [his preferred term] telling him how he's great any more than he needs people telling other people how he's schooled them. As he'd be the first to tell you he does both better than anyone else could. Also I'd perhaps hold off presuming you know how everyone else here relates to Hustler for a little while if I were you.

ass kisser

[LongSilence]

You passed booyalab and Zephyrus a long time ago. Who could possibly still outrank you? Lateralus? No, I think you're it. It's been a long road, but you've earned it. Congratulations.

Modesty doesn't suit you Hustler.


ass kisser

Wish I could but there's always been something in the way.

[lbloom]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_on_el_pr/sexism_racism

[JBHunt]

Macaca Blues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVYoTnuwqbk&NR=1)

[MacGuffin]

Watching the Democratic Primaries the past few months has made me decide on racism.

At least in the U.S.

[puzzled-observer]

Watching the Democratic Primaries the past few months has made me decide on racism.

At least in the U.S.

Definitely racism. Mainly, i think, because black people will stab you and take your shoes if you dis a brotha whereas women are too weak and unimportant to do anything about it if you do the same to them.

[celesul]

Sexism. As has been demonstrated earlier in the thread, there are more perceived differences between genders than races. Also, it's more subtle. What is "assertive" in a guy is "bitchy" in a girl. I'm on my school debate team (an all girl school), and my teammates have been regularly called barbarians or bitches, simply because they are more assertive than people think a girl should be. It is harder for people to justify racism, as there are fewer perceived differences.

I'm not saying that one ought to judge a girl more lightly than a guy, but simple based upon merit rather than gender. A an INTP, I resent being judged to be a girly, wimpy air-head, and treated as if I am not as bright, or should be more aware of what being a girl is.

A story: My parents are both relatively unaware of gender (my dad decided that I had a talent for science and building stuff, more than my brother or sister, and gave me all of the chores that involved building stuff), but they got told that was bad. My mom, not wanting to buy new junk, gave me my brother's hand-me-down coats, which are nice and warm, and usually quite far from being girly. I was three years old, and anything that allowed me to play in the snow I figured was good, especially if I didn't freeze. However, various people we knew told my mom that a little girl should wear pink, and be pretty (which is stupid. I had a talent for landing in our really polluted stream, which turns everything a nice brown and requires washing). She apparently got quite upset, because she never did see why a three year old would care.

What I mean to say is that you cannot judge an individual by a group or a stereotype, but people see it as justified with women. I want to be judged on my merits. Sure, having me fight in a war would be remarkably stupid, I'm horrible at that stuff. But I could work in the sciences for it, easily. I would never use my gender as a tool, not only is it against my moral code, but I'm even more clueless than the stereotypical guy about such matters.

Sexism or racism is judging an individual based on their group, not on their merits. And I see sexism as more of a problem today, as it is considered acceptable to say women are different, but people judge the group. I don't care if you say women as a whole are weaker, but never judge an individual based on that, which I see far too much of, while I see less racism. I simply see racism as easier to catch, and we are more aware. On the other hand, everyone makes fun of feminists.

Well, I wouldn't say that women were protected by the law. Even after slavery was abolished, a man was legally allowed to beat his wife with a stick as long as it was no wider than his thumb. We learn about Rosa Parks, MLK as soon as we start school, but how many hear of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or Susan B. Anthony? They go unrecognized, because people see it as odd to consider women and men the same, and think feminism is all about that. Well, ECS and SBA only wanted men to stop beating their wives and eventually for women to vote. Their shorter term goals were to be allowed to participate in abolitionist events, which they had often been excluded from.

So, in summery, because I've rambled far too much, racism is recognized and people react, while sexism is justified by the same people.

[Limey]

The outcome of the next general election, may be the proof in the pudding.
Chocolate pudding, anyone?

[Anonymous]

Chocolate pudding, anyone?

Your dog at it all.

[Limey]

Your dog at it all.

No, I like the guy, If I weren't a filthy foreigner I would be voting for him, (not that it will count in NC) - but my wife will be on our behalf.

Anyway, I think that this election will really be a good measuring stick to see just how racist a lot of those mid-west (yes I'm projecting/casting blame there, mostly) 40-60 year old women are (the Hillary crowd) when they completely switch sides and vote for a (white) woman over an ideology.

So, which is worse - political racism or political sexism?

[zero]

No, I like the guy, If I weren't a filthy foreigner I would be voting for him, (not that it will count in NC) - but my wife will be on our behalf.

Anyway, I think that this election will really be a good measuring stick to see just how racist a lot of those mid-west (yes I'm projecting/casting blame there, mostly) 40-60 year old women are (the Hillary crowd) when they completely switch sides and vote for a (white) woman over an ideology.

So, which is worse - political racism or political sexism?

whoa dude you're in NC too?? man i voted in the last election and saw how my time went to waste...i'm wondering why i should vote considering i live in a red state...but i'm still going to do it...even though I can't find meaning

[notjeffgoldblum]

The fact that 75 of us actually voted on this poll is worse.



























Seriously though sexism is worse.

[zero]

^^wait...did you just quantify those two?...it's like comparing shit to shit....

[Limey]

whoa dude you're in NC too?? man i voted in the last election and saw how my time went to waste...i'm wondering why i should vote considering i live in a red state...but i'm still going to do it...even though I can't find meaning

Maybe we should all move to Ohio and balance up the `tardation up there, though that might not make a difference, what with the Diebold connection out there.

[SWPIGWANG]

There is far more genetic difference between sexes than between races.

NEXT!!!

[msg_v2]

What do you mean by "worse"? Do you mean "worse" in a moral sense? Or do you mean a bigger problem in society?

I'm not sure that I'm qualified to judge, really, because I've done more sophisticated reading on gender issues than on racism. It's true that it's more socially acceptable to be blatantly sexist. That doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist, just that it's covered up.

To answer this seriously requires a lot of thinking because there are a lot of different aspects to consider. They operate in very different ways and have very distinct consequences.