Definition of Sexism

[Thaluikhain]

I think we can agree, one man can make many women pregnant in a month. A woman can give birth only once in about 9 months. Do we agree on that?
Scarcity adds value. A woman's contribution to procreation is scarcer than a man's, hence more valuable. Still with me? Let me know when I have something wrong.

You have something wrong. Women's contributions to procreation aren't more valuable unless they are more valued. A man (in theory) can make many women pregnant in one month, but overwhelmingly this is not something that is done in our society, There are surely some exceptions out there, but that some of excessive polygamy is the tiny exception, not the rule. The ability of one man to get many women pregnant simultaneously is not particularly relevant.

Feminism holds that as men control the leavers of power, the society is one that is made to benefit men. I would write, it benefits powerful men.

...

More later... but for the meantime watch this based on true story movie clip of a jr. officer telling sr. officer a certain military attack is suicide. sr. then says, (paraphrasing) but there's a possible promotion and pay raise in it for you! after which jr. officer says, "you know, I think it can be done!" and gets something like 800 of his men killed when he should of known better.

Yes, society benefits rich/powerful people as well as men. It also benefits certain races and sexualities over others. That doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist.

Do we agree 95% of combat deaths are male?

Yes, and, as always, we have to remember that the majority of combat positions (in Western militaries) are held by men because women aren't allowed. Women are fighting for the right to serve, but haven't got that far (yet).

We should also remember who else can't serve in those roles. Children and people with intellectual or physical disabilities, obviously. Also, in many places, trans people, and until fairly recently gay people. Not that long ago, certain ethnicities had restrictions placed on them. Those are very different groups, but what they have in common with each other (and women) is that large slabs of society deems them "not good enough".

IIRC, during the American Civil War, units composed of mostly Irishmen suffered disproportionately high casualties. Some historians say that this was because the commanders didn't care for the Irish, and didn't care if they died. Others argue that it was due to the opposite reasons, that the Irish had a good reputation for being good fighters, and thus were sent where the fighting was hardest. Either way, a lot of Irish died. Being seen as superior means you get picked for dangerous jobs requiring your best people.

(Traditionally, at this point, someone suggests that only men should serve, as the survivors of the conflict will have to breed the next generation, and you need less male survivors than female as in your first point. This isn't a concern in modern warfare, as the number of combatants killed is only a small amount of the total population, and no Western nations has had to institute polygamy for their ex-soldiers)

 

[Satinavian]

We know from genetical studies of remains that (before agriculture) the possibility of one man-many women was hardly every realized. So it can't have played some important role in evolution. While there is a lot we don't know, we can pretty safely assume, that any evo-psych explaination based on that is nonsense.

What is ia a bit more difficult to reject is that the age ranges where human men or women tend to be fertile are linked to the ages ranges that are found to be attractive or are seen as viable partners.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[McElroy]

snip

That's pretty much it but I'll add that the risk of having infertility-causing conditions increases with age, and thus it can be taken into account in statistics somewhat. As well as high blood pressure and obesity -> the body is under constant strain -> pregnancy and labor hit harder with more risks. This is the stuff people like to bring up in birthrate conversations (among many other things, naturally).

particularly girls with low BMI and small hips

There is a lot between overweight and underweight. And same between a barely developed 19-year-old and a 24-year-old. It doesn't look good for anyone's reasonable standards when the average person is already overweight (though yes, that weight isn't necessarily in the worst places). Yes, I get that holding a BMI of 19-20 as the ideal is damn unhealthy (for anorexia's sake!), but there is a fair amount of reasonable.

Not that it matters. Would a girl entertain a guy's wit if the man's starting point is internet misogyny and fantastical expectations? I'm only willing to do it because I'm not the target.

 

[Satinavian]

If one wants to be really mean, one can point out that the people who like to discuss how they are attracted to young women because "they are more fertile" also tend to profess attraction to women who are more likely to suffer pregnancy and labor complications, particularly girls with low BMI and small hips.

Now that opens another topic about how "women men feel most attracted to" and "contemporary beauty ideal" might not actually match that well either.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[McElroy]

Now that opens another topic about how "women men feel most attracted to" and "contemporary beauty ideal" might not actually match that well either.

They do match. Think about it: even if the latter was enforced in some weird way (selling a product, for example), beauty and novelty are universally appreciated. It's easier to enforce something that has those and make it into a beauty ideal. Pretty much required.

Unless you don't mean appearance. A million subscribers make anybody attractive.

 

[gorfias]

snip

snip

A lot of what I’ve been writing about is in response to Buyetyen’s claim that MRAs peddle nothing but pseudoscience. I would write what MRAs talk about is at best, Social Science, which is still a soft science. I don’t think I can approach MRA’s ultimate point as if it were hard science, as it is not. (That men are an exploited, disposable utility).

This thread has been about the definition of sexism, which has been changing and fluid for some 70 years. I still think of it as defined as a person that thinks men and women are different, to which I plead guilty.

Today, it is supposed to have something to do with opposing, “social, political and economic equality” of women with men. If men and women are different, I have no idea what that means and how it can be done fairly. It’s like trying to make a space shuttle and aircraft carrier equal.

We appear to agree on some fairly on their face factual matters:

In the US, men are:

nearly 4 times as likely as women to kill themselves;

95% combat deaths;

95% workplace deaths;

Several times as likely to be homeless;

Eligible for combat draft while women are not;

A substantially smaller demographic of eligible voters (women live some 10% longer, up from about 1% 100 years ago and are less likely to have felony convictions that bar them from voting);

Spend less than women;

Are much more likely to support women than vice versa;

Face enumerated bigotry such as the 2015 law requiring bigotry against men in favor of women when forming Corporate boards in California;

Also in 2015, US women became majority US wealth holders at 52%. I understand this has grown since then though it is disputed as to how much;

Make up only some 40% of college graduates;

And more.

One should be able to make a reasonable hypothesis as to why this is all so. For MRAs, it is simply because men are exploited, disposable utilities.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Those women in that window you describe though? They are the gate keepers of sex. For them, there is no such thing as a female incel.

The term incel was created by a young woman who struggled with feelings of loneliness and sexual deprivation and created an online community for others who felt the same way. The people we call incels today took over that community and drove away everyone who wasn't a total piece of shit. There are a lot of people out there of both sexes who, for various reasons, struggle with sex and relationships. It's just that men are more likely to say and do horrible things, so people pay attention to them.

Men(generally speaking) are much hornier than women but don't have the luxury of choice women have.

There's absolutely no real evidence to suggest that men are hornier than women. In fact, there's quite a lot of evidence against it. Horniness, or sex drive, is a very difficult thing to measure, but when we get down to the level of physiological arousal, for example, it turns out women are at least as horny as men.

But here we run into the issue of perspective, because you're not talking about sex drive. You're talking about the willingness to engage in sexual encounters. It's very hard to argue that women, in general, are less interested in casual sexual encounters than men. As a feminine person who has had casual sexual encounters with men, I feel somewhat qualified to tell you the secret of why that is.

Spoiler: WARNING: SUPER BIG SECRET

It's because men are awful. Making yourself vulnerable around them is dangerous, and expecting any geniality or generosity of them which they aren't socially obligated to give you is a mistake.

I mean, that's not the only reason. Women still face enormous stigma for having "too many" sexual partners, so having sex with someone kind of entails a loss of social status and credibility, but really, the fact that any woman has casual sex at all (and a lot of women do) is really testament to how much horniness can outweigh good judgement. There are a lot of things that men can give if they're properly motivated, but if you're looking for a nice, satisfying sexual experience with a partner who is motivated to make you happy, the harsh reality is you're almost always better off buying a vibrator.

 

[gorfias]

The term incel was created by a young woman who struggled with feelings of loneliness and sexual deprivation and created an online community for others who felt the same way. The people we call incels today took over that community and drove away everyone who wasn't a total piece of shit. There are a lot of people out there of both sexes who, for various reasons, struggle with sex and relationships. It's just that men are more likely to say and do horrible things, so people pay attention to them.



There's absolutely no real evidence to suggest that men are hornier than women. In fact, there's quite a lot of evidence against it. Horniness, or sex drive, is a very difficult thing to measure, but when we get down to the level of physiological arousal, for example, it turns out women are at least as horny as men.

But here we run into the issue of perspective, because you're not talking about sex drive. You're talking about the willingness to engage in sexual encounters. It's very hard to argue that women, in general, are less interested in casual sexual encounters than men. As a feminine person who has had casual sexual encounters with men, I feel somewhat qualified to tell you the secret of why that is.

Spoiler: WARNING: SUPER BIG SECRET

It's because men are awful. Making yourself vulnerable around them is dangerous, and expecting any geniality or generosity of them which they aren't socially obligated to give you is a mistake.

I mean, that's not the only reason. Women still face enormous stigma for having "too many" sexual partners, so having sex with someone kind of entails a loss of social status and credibility, but really, the fact that any woman has casual sex at all (and a lot of women do) is really testament to how much horniness can outweigh good judgement. There are a lot of things that men can give if they're properly motivated, but if you're looking for a nice, satisfying sexual experience with a partner who is motivated to make you happy, the harsh reality is you're almost always better off buying a vibrator.

Now I gotta think how to define "Incel". I thought it means a person that couldn't get some unless they bought it. Any woman in that window that wants sex can get it, but not necessarily with who they want. But we should have compassion for a woman that wants a partner but cannot find one she finds acceptable. Telling her to lower her standards, that she is being too picky is not going to make her feel any better.

As for sex drive, there is a lot of evidence that men have a much, much higher drive than women. Examples, Gay partners have the most sex, hetero are in the middle, lesbians the least. And wives aren't terribly happy with their male partner's sex drive. The 1st wave feminism included the desire to have their men chill some in that manner.

I will write that I suspect when a woman does want sex, when she finds someone attractive, she can be less cool, and more intense than a man. I don't think men at a strip club act quite like the girls at the Beatles concerts, who went mental.

And the suspicion that women do enjoy sex more than men has long been suspected. Example:

 

[Thaluikhain]

Now I gotta think how to define "Incel". I thought it means a person that couldn't get some unless they bought it.

Nominally, but really it's someone who declares themselves to be an incel. Plenty of people, regardless of the amount of sex they are having, despise incels.

By comparison, you have declared yourself a Men's Rights Advocate (with caps). That's a specific community/group/ideology, not the same as someone that declares themselves a men's rights advocate (no caps) in general.

 

[gorfias]

Nominally, but really it's someone who declares themselves to be an incel. Plenty of people, regardless of the amount of sex they are having, despise incels.

By comparison, you have declared yourself a Men's Rights Advocate (with caps). That's a specific community/group/ideology, not the same as someone that declares themselves a men's rights advocate (no caps) in general.

Do you mean people despise being an incel if they believe themselves to be one, or that other people despise them?

These are typically sad, lonely, frustrated people. Example:


EDIT: The video starts with examples of aggression about incels, so, yeah, the disdain is out there.

 

[Buyetyen]

A lot of what I’ve been writing about is in response to Buyetyen’s claim that MRAs peddle nothing but pseudoscience. I would write what MRAs talk about is at best, Social Science, which is still a soft science. I don’t think I can approach MRA’s ultimate point as if it were hard science, as it is not. (That men are an exploited, disposable utility).

No, you really don't. Social sciences still follow the scientific method. Evopsych doesn't.

It’s like trying to make a space shuttle and aircraft carrier equal.

That analogy doesn't hold up once you realize humans aren't purpose-built. We're just born.

Are much more likely to support women than vice versa;

This one I'm going to need to see evidence of.

Face enumerated bigotry such as the 2015 law requiring bigotry against men in favor of women when forming Corporate boards in California;

And there we go again. Everything is a zero-sum game with you.

One should be able to make a reasonable hypothesis as to why this is all so. For MRAs, it is simply because men are exploited, disposable utilities.

Under capitalism, literally everyone who isn't rich is exploited and disposable. It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the relationship between money and power.

 

[Buyetyen]

Do you mean people despise being an incel if they believe themselves to be one, or that other people despise them?

People hate incels because they're assholes. Not getting any is not an excuse to treat other people poorly.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Do you mean people despise being an incel if they believe themselves to be one, or that other people despise them?

That other people despise them for being incels. Not for being involuntarily celibate, for being in a group that just happens to have a term that technically means that as the name, but has a worldview/ideology that's only tangentially connected to it.

By comparison, the word Republican. In the US, it's understood to mean a member or supporter of the Republican party, which has it's own specific aims and goals and history. In a more literal sense, it has to do with not having a monarch rule you, which hasn't been relevant in the US for centuries. Opposition to Republicans (in the US at least) generally doesn't involve a desire to have Queen Elizabeth 2 take over the US.

 

[gorfias]

People hate incels because they're assholes. Not getting any is not an excuse to treat other people poorly.

I'd believe there are incels that are assholes that treat people poorly, and even murder innocents. Is it a material component of how they self identify? I don't think so. The video above, I don't think that guy wants to mistreat anyone. He just believes he will never get any. In reality, he is young in a window where he is competing with older, more established men, so that's trouble for him. But grooming, self care and ambition to do well professionally will go a long way. Would telling him that be like telling a female incel she need to be less picky, which I don't think would be well received?

No, you really don't. Social sciences still follow the scientific method. Evopsych doesn't.

What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science?

Discover what differentiates hard sciences from soft sciences. You might be surprised when you learn what the difference is.

www.thoughtco.com

"Particularly in sciences dealing with people, it may be difficult to isolate all the variables that can influence an outcome. In some cases, controlling the variable may even alter the results!
Simply put, in soft science it is harder to devise an experiment."

That analogy doesn't hold up once you realize humans aren't purpose-built. We're just born.

Difference without a distinction. Why would that matter?

This one I'm going to need to see evidence of. .

Example; https://archive.vn/qg8xr

Not conclusive but a could get a conversations started. 70% top earning men have a stay at home spouse vs 22% women with stay at home husbands.

And there we go again. Everything is a zero-sum game with you.

How is a law requiring bigotry against men not zero sum? That as written above, those women getting these top jobs are 1/3 as likely to support a man as vice versa? Jobs have a social utility: they provide for the means of distribution of goods and services. If a man gets the job, that's nearly 2 people that may get this boon. If a woman gets it? Closer to 1.

Under capitalism, literally everyone who isn't rich is exploited and disposable. It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the relationship between money and power.

Under China's one child policy, couples were preferring a son to a daughter if they could only have one. But for the most part in the US? Where men are 8 times as likely to be homeless? Where we have so many supports for women like WIC (women, infants, children but men can fuck right off) that are paid with by a man's tax dollar? Where 95% combat casualties are men in a Nation where only men can be drafted for combat? With what we know, men are far more exploited and disposable than women.

 

[Buyetyen]

I'd believe there are incels that are assholes that treat people poorly, and even murder innocents. Is it a material component of how they self identify? I don't think so. The video above, I don't think that guy wants to mistreat anyone. He just believes he will never get any. In reality, he is young in a window where he is competing with older, more established men, so that's trouble for him. But grooming, self care and ambition to do well professionally will go a long way. Would telling him that be like telling a female incel she need to be less picky, which I don't think would be well received?

I prefer non-engagement when it comes to incels, honestly. I'm not their therapist.

What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science?

Discover what differentiates hard sciences from soft sciences. You might be surprised when you learn what the difference is.

www.thoughtco.com

"Particularly in sciences dealing with people, it may be difficult to isolate all the variables that can influence an outcome. In some cases, controlling the variable may even alter the results!
Simply put, in soft science it is harder to devise an experiment."

You have yet to actually propose an experiment. You just keep asserting your opinions as facts.

Difference without a distinction. Why would that matter?

A commercial airline jet is built for the specific purpose of transporting people via airways from point A to point B. A space shuttle is built for the purpose of space exploration. Humans are not built, we are born, and we lack an inherent purpose. There is nothing we were designed for because we were not designed.

Example; https://archive.vn/qg8xr

Not conclusive but a could get a conversations started. 70% top earning men have a stay at home spouse vs 22% women with stay at home husbands.

What we have here is a correlation. Correlation is not causation unless you can prove a causal link. Most MRA logic is based on correlations rather than causation.

How is a law requiring bigotry against men not zero sum? That as written above, those women getting these top jobs are 1/3 as likely to support a man as vice versa? Jobs have a social utility: they provide for the means of distribution of goods and services. If a man gets the job, that's nearly 2 people that may get this boon. If a woman gets it? Closer to 1.

First half of that paragraph, the law isn't bigotry, it's a brute force attempt at correcting a historic imbalance. We can argue the effectiveness until we're blue in the face, but to call it misandry is completely missing the point.

Second half, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Under China's one child policy, couples were preferring a son to a daughter if they could only have one. But for the most part in the US? Where men are 8 times as likely to be homeless? Where we have so many supports for women like WIC (women, infants, children but men can fuck right off) that are paid with by a man's tax dollar? Where 95% combat casualties are men in a Nation where only men can be drafted for combat? With what we know, men are far more exploited and disposable than women.

In China, men are traditionally considered superior to women. It's a deeply sexist culture. Everything else you've listed is again a correlation. With the exception of WIC. On that one you're just plain wrong. Men can apply for WIC as well, but like women they have to be the legal guardian of a child under 5. Food assistance for adults is simply SNAP in the US, foodstamps by any other name.

 

[gorfias]

I prefer non-engagement when it comes to incels, honestly. I'm not their therapist.



You have yet to actually propose an experiment. You just keep asserting your opinions as facts.

I state a ton of facts and use them to make a theory about why they are the way they are. I think we can only make conclusions based upon good faith.
Is Sociology really even a soft science even if some sources say it is?
Example: People do not consider the consequences of getting caught committing murder, so punishment is a waste of time. Ann Coulter suggested we make it a capitol offense only on Tuesday and Thursday and see how the states change. But in a big and complex world, there will always be potential confounding factors that will be used to undermine any stat that changes with regards to which days on which there are changes in the rate of murder.

What is the point of the experiment if it can never be conclusive and trust worthy?

A commercial airline jet is built for the specific purpose of transporting people via airways from point A to point B. A space shuttle is built for the purpose of space exploration. Humans are not built, we are born, and we lack an inherent purpose. There is nothing we were designed for because we were not designed.

Still not getting the relevence. Men and women are born, and they are different. You write you want to make them "equal". In this context, what does that even mean?

What we have here is a correlation. Correlation is not causation unless you can prove a causal link. Most MRA logic is based on correlations rather than causation.

I asserted a fact. Men are more likely to care for women than vice versa. I backed that fact up with that link. That isn't a causation argument. It just is. It is as if I said I have a blue car. You deny it so I show you a photo of the blue car and you say, "that doesn't prove what caused the car to be blue". Irrelevant given what we were talking about.

First half of that paragraph, the law isn't bigotry, it's a brute force attempt at correcting a historic imbalance. We can argue the effectiveness until we're blue in the face, but to call it misandry is completely missing the point.

Men and women include a lineage 1/2 male and 1/2 female. That a woman's grandfather may have had an unfair advantage over my grandmother does not give her rights against me. Where are we today? Law engaged in "brute force" against me on the basis of my sex is tyrannic evil. There is no excuse.

Second half, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Sorry, me not being clear.
Even if a woman deserved a top job over a man rather than use the brute force of law to violate him, you could argue she shouldn't get it. She is likely to fail relative to the man to use that job for one of its social purposes: to distribute goods and services. In round numbers, if a man gets it, he will support a wife. 2 people served by the job. If a woman gets it, she will have cats. 1 person served.
But if I have to grudgingly say, "ok, she really merits the job, much as that hurts society, so be it" that is one thing. To have the law engage in what is bigotry against me due to my sex? That is evil.

In China, men are traditionally considered superior to women. It's a deeply sexist culture. Everything else you've listed is again a correlation. With the exception of WIC. On that one you're just plain wrong. Men can apply for WIC as well, but like women they have to be the legal guardian of a child under 5. Food assistance for adults is simply SNAP in the US, foodstamps by any other name.

Men can apply for WIC. They should change its name.

 

[McElroy]

As for sex drive, there is a lot of evidence that men have a much, much higher drive than women.

Those statistics don't matter when one's explanation is that women are shamed and controlled by the patriarchy, and that men are awful partners. And it stays true for as long as those statistics exist.

I disagree with the above if you didn't guess. However the data (basing this off the Finnish FINSEX study) does back up one other thing: young women and men want more sex than they have (about 5 times per month compared to the preferred 15). Also the percentage of people aged 18-44 who'd like more sex while in a relationship is also roughly equal between sexes. That one isn't even hard to explain without any sexism: people are busy (busy and stressed nowadays). Though one could be an ass about this too, because sex = intercourse in the survey.

 

[gorfias]

Those statistics don't matter when one's explanation is that women are shamed and controlled by the patriarchy, and that men are awful partners. And it stays true for as long as those statistics exist.

I disagree with the above if you didn't guess. However the data (basing this off the Finnish FINSEX study) does back up one other thing: young women and men want more sex than they have (about 5 times per month compared to the preferred 15). Also the percentage of people aged 18-44 who'd like more sex while in a relationship is also roughly equal between sexes. That one isn't even hard to explain without any sexism: people are busy (busy and stressed nowadays). Though one could be an ass about this too, because sex = intercourse in the survey.

I don't think the Patriarchy get to tell lesbians what to do.

The Ins and Outs of Sexual Frequency

How often do gay and straight couples have sex after commitment?

www.psychologytoday.com

"Regardless of age, couples also tend to have sex more frequently in the early stages of their relationships. Among couples in the first two years of their relationships, 67 percent of gay couples, 45 percent of heterosexual couples, and 33 percent of lesbian couples had sex three times a week or more. The numbers drop off somewhat with time: for couples who had been together 10 years or longer, 11 percent of the gay couples, 18 percent of the heterosexual couples, and 1 percent of the lesbian couples were having sex that often "

Gays and straights 11 and 18 % vs. lesbians at 1%?

EDIT: Like the study you site, they're only including "intercourse" so now I don't really know what they mean. What are the numbers. Wonder what other studies are out there.

2nd EDIT: Will review ASAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_bed_death