Why is sexism universal?

[CorruptUser]

In what world do you have to live in where you think men who sleep with tons of women are praised by everyone? Or that women who have sex are shunned by everyone?

The magical world you invented in your mind when you stopped understanding the difference between "everyone" and "many people".

Yeah but is that "many" an overwhelming majority or a relatively tiny fraction by comparison? Many people live in Los Angeles, but most people don't.

Like I said before, almost no one will respect a guy for having sex with numerous land monsters.

I think it's more being judged on whom you have sex with; you are who you screw.

[krogoth]

Is that what it comes down to for you? Jealousy? You think the people they choose to have sex with is disgusting, or attractive and you are either grossed out or jealous of what they have done?

Edit: I've used loaded language here, sorry about that, I don't mean to be rude. I'll try reword this to be more polite when I have more time later.

[CorruptUser]

Is that what it comes down to for you? Jealousy? You think the people they choose to have sex with is disgusting, or attractive and you are either grossed out or jealous of what they have done?

Edit: I've used loaded language here, sorry about that, I don't mean to be rude. I'll try reword this to be more polite when I have more time later.

Disgust. And no, it isn't about how attractive the person is. Well, it is, in the sense that attraction is supposed to be based on how 'good' a person is. If there is some asshole who makes the world a worse place just by existing, and you have sex with said person, you are in some ways supporting that asshole. A girl that has sex with bros is just as bad as the bros themselves; if women wouldn't sleep with them, they wouldn't act like that. If men wouldn't have sex with bitches, maybe they would stop being so mean. That or die childless. Either way, the world would be a better place if assholes and bitches didn't have sex.

As much as I hate to agree with Ayn Rand, she may be on to something with her theory of sex.

[HungryHobo]

Either way, the world would be a better place if assholes and bitches didn't have sex.

True, very true.
Unfortunatly the problem is "but he/she's georgous, I'm going for it!"
A sort of eugenic tragedy of the commons.
If people actually selected against unpleasent mates the world would eventually be a better place but people aren't good at that.

I'm also stealing your phrase "land monster".

[Ormurinn]

If people actually selected against unpleasent mates the world would eventually be a better place but people aren't good at that.

People emphatically do select against unpleasant mates. Them having a different definition of unpleasant isnt a bug, it's a feature.

The distortions in the dating market you put down to "Bros" and "Bitches" I'd be more inclined to put down to the looming, leering, grey populations of "Nice Guys"

[omgryebread]

A girl that has sex with bros is just as bad as the bros themselves;

Because doing things which in retrospect, weren't a great idea, or doing things pleasurable in one aspect (he's fucking hot) and unpleasurable in another (wow he's an asshole), make someone a bad person.


Firstly, if the person's an asshole (using that for both genders, since it's simpler) because they use manipulation to get laid, then I'm comfortable calling the manipulated person a victim, and I'm not comfortable victim blaming. If the person's an asshole in other ways, I'm going to wonder why the person sleeping with them chose to do so, and perhaps question their taste, but it's stupid to make a moral judgement. Box wine is bad, and I'm going to suggest that people who drink it are bad at choosing good wines, but not going to say they're bad people.

Men Having Sex = Praiseworthy!
Women Having Sex = Shameful!

I'm sort of pointing at comments like this, Panonadin. So, you know, things pointed out as universal truths are kind of like saying they're universal truths. Or not, maybe "equals" means something different than it did yesterday, and sweeping statements like "x = y" really means "nuanced discussion on different demographics".

I don't even like math, so I'm perfectly fine with using "equal" without meaning exactly. If you think I meant that everyone believes those two statements, rather than that I meant that those are broad generalizations that society, in a broad generalization, applies to men and women; then you're either overly literal, and it's hard to have a conversation with you, or you're being deliberately obtuse, and it's hard to have a conversation with you.

[HungryHobo]

Firstly, if the person's an asshole (using that for both genders, since it's simpler) because they use manipulation to get laid, then I'm comfortable calling the manipulated person a victim, and I'm not comfortable victim blaming.

For the love of all that is holy stop using rape terminology whenever you want to be overly dramatic. it devalues it in relation to real rape victims.

people who freely choose to sleep with assholes aren't "victims", they're just idiots.
it's not "victim blaming", it's "foolishness shaming" which is perfectly acceptable since foolishness is something to be discouraged at every level of society, across every creed and race.

As an adult you're expected to be able to deal with the adult world.
that includes other adults who are following the rules but being assholes about it.
if you make bad choices of your own free will with your eyes open you're not a "victim".
you're guilty of not using your perfectly good adult brain.

When you freely choose to ignore that little voice in the back of your head that says "this is a bad idea" you don't then get to turn around and call yourself a victim.
You don't get to slot the people who , rightly, laugh at your foolishness into the same catagory as the repugnent monsters who attack rape victims.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

You do understand what manipulation is, right?

[The Great Hippo]

For the love of all that is holy stop using rape terminology whenever you want to be overly dramatic. it devalues it in relation to real rape victims.

people who freely choose to sleep with assholes aren't "victims", they're just idiots.
it's not "victim blaming", it's "foolishness shaming" which is perfectly acceptable since foolishness is something to be discouraged at every level of society, across every creed and race.

As an adult you're expected to be able to deal with the adult world.
that includes other adults who are following the rules but being assholes about it.
if you make bad choices of your own free will with your eyes open you're not a "victim".
you're guilty of not using your perfectly good adult brain.

I don't think the 'victim' terminology serves us here (if someone doesn't feel as if they're a victim, are they still a victim? I don't like telling people they're victims when they'd clearly disagree with me), but I also don't think it's useful to call people idiots because they've been manipulated, nor is it useful to shame them for falling for manipulation (this actually sounds much more like a boorish attempt to justify someone's emotional bullying--"look! I'm not being a bully, I'm performing a crucial social service by showing you how stupid you are!").

Part of the reason manipulation works is because of our refusal to believe that we can be manipulated; and part of our refusal to believe that we can be manipulated is because of the shame inherent in being manipulated. Society often parses it as demeaning--a demonstration of fault in the mark, rather than the thief. I think it would be far more emotionally healthy for all of us if society engaged in less 'foolishness shaming'. Frankly, 'foolishness shaming' strikes me as just another type of manipulation--one designed to trick me into siding with jerks, thieves, and liars. But that's a whole different conversation in of itself.

EDIT: Let me clarify that I'm not referring to what's being discussed (subset of women who sleep with jerks--who are jerks because they noticed a subset of women sleep with jerks). I'm not sure this represents a manipulation at all; frankly, it sounds more like an equal exchange of services (group A wants to sleep with jerks, group B wants to sleep with anyone; group B act like jerks to satisfy group A's requirements), assuming everyone involved is aware of what's going on. I just wanted to pop in and take issue with the whole 'foolishness shaming' concept.

[gmalivuk]

I'm comfortable calling the manipulated person a victim, and I'm not comfortable victim blaming.

people who freely choose to sleep with assholes aren't "victims", they're just idiots.

I'm not sure why you quoted omgryebread and then proceeded to talk about a completely different thing. (Apart from the already suggested possibility that you don't actually know what the word "manipulated" means...)

[RoberII]

I'm confused - is a bro like a jock? And if so, why did we alloe this thread to devolve into nerdrage and a discussion on how some women should totally be shamed for being attracted to guys who aren't nice who also are not nice for the wrong reason. Unlike all of us guys in this thread, who are in that tiny portion of dudes who has realized this.

PS it is entirely possible to engage in manipulative behaviour without realizing it.

PPS
if you think you can decide who's asshole enough to be 'unworthy' of a relationship, odds are that you are an asshole yourself.

[Роберт]

I'm confused - is a bro like a jock?

Bro = frat boy

[omgryebread]

Firstly, if the person's an asshole (using that for both genders, since it's simpler) because they use manipulation to get laid, then I'm comfortable calling the manipulated person a victim, and I'm not comfortable victim blaming.

For the love of all that is holy stop using rape terminology whenever you want to be overly dramatic. it devalues it in relation to real rape victims.

people who freely choose to sleep with assholes aren't "victims", they're just idiots.
it's not "victim blaming", it's "foolishness shaming" which is perfectly acceptable since foolishness is something to be discouraged at every level of society, across every creed and race.

As an adult you're expected to be able to deal with the adult world.
that includes other adults who are following the rules but being assholes about it.
if you make bad choices of your own free will with your eyes open you're not a "victim".
you're guilty of not using your perfectly good adult brain.

When you freely choose to ignore that little voice in the back of your head that says "this is a bad idea" you don't then get to turn around and call yourself a victim.
You don't get to slot the people who , rightly, laugh at your foolishness into the same catagory as the repugnent monsters who attack rape victims.

Other people have deconstructed your actual argument enough, so I'm just going to roll with the rest.

As a preamble, I use "you" in the nonspecific sense a lot, and I'm pretty sure that's what you're doing here, and not actually directing that post at me.

HOWEVER

I've had sex that I regret with people I regret having sex with. I've had sex with people I'm willing to call assholes. I've gotten drunk when that put me at risk and had sex that I wouldn't have if I was sober. (If you want a flip side, I've had sex with people who probably wouldn't have sober, after peer pressure to both drink and have sex from their friends.)

So I'm still going to take this just a little personally.

1) You don't get to decide which sexual partners were good choices and which were bad. That's my decision alone. That applies to everyone, no matter who they are, or whom they've slept with. It's not mine, nor anyone else's responsibility to sleep with people only you approve, so as to not "reward" them or whatever bizarre term you want to apply.

2)You also don't get to separate out non-violent rape and call it something other than rape.

3) Assuming someone did sleep with someone they regret, you don't get to call us foolish for it without understanding circumstances. People make the wrong decisions regularly, even intelligent people. Maybe they weren't manipulated into it, but blaming them and faulting them for making a bad decision, or "laughing at their foolishness" as you phrase it, is very close to victim blaming, and it's certainly not something you should do.

4) You don't get to decide who is a victim and who isn't, not based on that criteria. If you walk down a dark alley at night, you may know it's a bad idea, but if you got mugged you're still a victim. For future reference, this:

When you freely choose to ignore that little voice in the back of your head that says "this is a bad idea" you don't then get to turn around and call yourself a victim.

is straight up victim blaming.

5) Lay off the terms "overly dramatic" in regards to rape discussion. It reeks of both the argument "that's not rape-rape" and the ever popular sentiment "bitches be crazy".

6) If you're laughing at anyone, or you're shaming anyone for bad decisions (to be clear, I'm okay with shaming people for doing bad things. Assholes should be shamed! People who associate with assholes and then regret it should not) you're the asshole. Seriously, shaming someone is not nice.

7) http://xkcd.com/603/

[Radical_Initiator]

gmalivuk and TMT didn't so much deconstruct HH's argument as simply suggest (snidely) that he's stupid. I don't know whether or not HH is stupid, but that's not a refutation of anything so much as "You obviously don't get it, hahahaha".

I would argue that manipulation doesn't rise to the level of victimization basically because manipulation still leaves the generic "you" with a choice. That choice may be based on misleading, incorrect or incomplete information - the result of manipulation, which is meant to guide you to a specific choice you'd generally not make - but the choice is not removed. Victimization seems to deal more with the removal of choice or lack of a choice to begin with; a rape victim is a "victim" because no matter where they were or what they were wearing or what time of day it was, etc., none of the choices they made had any control over whether someone else rapes them, and that's why we try not to engage in victim blaming: the rapist is the only one who bears responsibility for the choice they made, and they did it outside of the victim's control. Walk down a dark alley in a bad part of town at 3 in the morning; if you get mugged, you're not to blame, because you had no control over the mugger's choice to mug you.

So, I would suggest that calling others "foolish" for regrettable choices without understanding the circumstances probably makes that person a grade-A asshole, but I don't see where it rises to the level of "victim-blaming". I think Hippo is on the money in this regard, and I'll defer to his better explanation.

[The Great Hippo]

I would argue that manipulation doesn't rise to the level of victimization basically because manipulation still leaves the generic "you" with a choice. That choice may be based on misleading, incorrect or incomplete information - the result of manipulation, which is meant to guide you to a specific choice you'd generally not make - but the choice is not removed. Victimization seems to deal more with the removal of choice or lack of a choice to begin with; a rape victim is a "victim" because no matter where they were or what they were wearing or what time of day it was, etc., none of the choices they made had any control over whether someone else rapes them, and that's why we try not to engage in victim blaming: the rapist is the only one who bears responsibility for the choice they made, and they did it outside of the victim's control. Walk down a dark alley in a bad part of town at 3 in the morning; if you get mugged, you're not to blame, because you had no control over the mugger's choice to mug you.

So, I would suggest that calling others "foolish" for regrettable choices without understanding the circumstances probably makes that person a grade-A asshole, but I don't see where it rises to the level of "victim-blaming". I think Hippo is on the money in this regard, and I'll defer to his better explanation.

I actually don't have a problem calling someone a 'victim of manipulation' when that person is comfortable self-identifying as such; my primary resistance to the usage of the term is that there are probably 'victims' who wouldn't consider themselves 'victims' at all (in fact, they consider themselves willing participants in the whole affair!), and I'd like to preserve their autonomy in that regard.

I also think that perceiving this in terms of 'choice' creates a trap--everyone has choice, and we can trace those choices and see how they lead to any number of ends (seen and unforeseen). The reason I'm opposed to victim-blaming has nothing to do with the 'removal' of choice, or the make-up of choice; it has to do with how the metrics of blame do not serve us in situations like this.

[HungryHobo]

2)You also don't get to separate out non-violent rape and call it something other than rape.

5) Lay off the terms "overly dramatic" in regards to rape discussion. It reeks of both the argument "that's not rape-rape" and the ever popular sentiment "bitches be crazy".

and here we go again.

can you make an argument without trying to link it with rape? it's the most lazy form of argument.

I'm not talking about "non violent rape" I'm talking about people who "freely choose" with a fully working "adult brain" "of their own free will" "with their eyes open" to have sex with assholes.
That's not rape. that's not non violent rape. that's not vaguely rape. that's not even rape associated. it's consenting freely to have sex which is exactly what rape is not.

"she's an asshole, you know she's an asshole, everyone knows she's an asshole"
"ya but I don't care, I'm going for it, she's gorgous"

*later*
"damnit, she's such an asshole"
*friends muffled laughter*

The above it not victim blaming because it has no victim. Calling it victim blaming is an insult to real victims.

and when you try to pollute the normal usage of rape-associated language to try to apply it in such cases for nothing more than a blatant attempt to shut down opposition to your argument you devalue it for actual victims of rape of any kind.

[Radical_Initiator]

I actually don't have a problem calling someone a 'victim of manipulation' when that person is comfortable self-identifying as such; my primary resistance to the usage of the term is that there are probably 'victims' who wouldn't consider themselves 'victims' at all (in fact, they consider themselves willing participants in the whole affair!), and I'd like to preserve their autonomy in that regard.

I also think that perceiving this in terms of 'choice' creates a trap--everyone has choice, and we can trace those choices and see how they lead to any number of ends (seen and unforeseen). The reason I'm opposed to victim-blaming has nothing to do with the 'removal' of choice, or the make-up of choice; it has to do with how the metrics of blame do not serve us in situations like this.

Fair enough. And I apologize if I suggested that my point of view was more in line with yours than it actually is.

I'm curious to know what you mean by "metrics of blame" - the different levels of blame we place on certain actions, visited upon us by others or on ourselves? And does blame ever actually serve a purpose? It seems to me we lay blame at someone's feet to convince ourselves that we could not be in the same position - to "other" someone, perhaps. We blame someone for poor choices to tell ourselves we would never make those bad choices, when in reality, in certain circumstances and with certain limited information, we almost certainly would. We engage in victim-blaming to convince ourselves that we would never make the "choices" that lead to victimization (a very erroneous conclusion - "Oh, you should know better than to walk down Miller Avenue at 3 a.m. on a Saturday. You're just asking for trouble then." Well, I didn't choose to take a gun into the back-alleys at night and rob people just for being there. But there again, people often blame the mugger for being a "bad person", and since we're not "bad people", we feel little sympathy for someone who might be starving and have resorted to violent robbery to feed themselves. Not the only motivation, but a possible one.)

It's possible I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, and even more possible that I'm dragging the conversation off-topic. Just some curiosity on my part; feel free to disregard.

[The Great Hippo]

And does blame ever actually serve a purpose?

I think it's important on a personal level. If I'm abused, it's better I blame my abuser than blame myself. If your best friend is abused, it's better you blame the person who committed the abuse rather than your best friend (or yourself). To me, blame seems like a way we navigate intense emotional situations and powerful feelings of pain and guilt--a way we can direct all that intensity away from ourselves and toward a healthier target. I think it can be a healthy way of coping with your particular thing, whatever that thing might be.

Where blame strikes me as less useful is when we're not actually part of the equation. For instance, when we're talking about hypothetical victims, or we're several times removed from the circumstances, or we're talking about how we can best support a victim--how does blame help us? All it does is give us a sense of validation and comraderie, and I think that, sometimes, those things are acquired at the expense of the victim's emotional needs.

The only things that concern me about abuse are how to stop it and how to address the needs of those who have already suffered it. I don't care about the abusers themselves--except that I want them to stop being abusive.

[felltir]

can you make an argument without trying to link it with rape? it's the most lazy form of argument.

Nope, this is.

[hawkinsssable]

can you make an argument without trying to link it with rape? it's the most lazy form of argument.

I'm not talking about "non violent rape" I'm talking about people who "freely choose" with a fully working "adult brain" "of their own free will" "with their eyes open" to have sex with assholes.
That's not rape. that's not non violent rape. that's not vaguely rape. that's not even rape associated. it's consenting freely to have sex which is exactly what rape is not.

Slightly off-topic, but since rape seems pretty universally defined as [html=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape]sex without consent[/html], I'm curious about where the line of valid / invalid consent can be drawn. Both morally and legally, since I've got no idea about either.

Assuming that person B has a "fully working adult brain", if person A holds a gun to person B and gives them the choice of consenting to sex or being shot, does that count as consent?
What if there's an explicit threat of physical harm (say, a beating) but definitely not death?
What if it's an implicit threat of physical harm?
What if person A steals a large amount of money and offer to give it back in exchange for sex?
What if person B desperately needs money, and person A offers it in exchange for sex?
What if person A threatens to spread some kind of slanderous rumour which would screw over person B's personal and / or professional life?
What if person A is very effectively creating feelings of guilt / obligation?
What if no one specific person is applying psychological pressure, but person A still experiences a strong sense of pressure / obligation?

In every single scenario person B is not physically forced into sex - s/he has a choice. So in which cases, if any, is this choice coerced?

[CorruptUser]

If there's a question about whether or not something is rape, it's rape. Some forms of rape are more heinous than others, but it doesn't mean that some forms of rape are OK.

[Ormurinn]

If there's a question about whether or not something is rape, it's rape. Some forms of rape are more heinous than others, but it doesn't mean that some forms of rape are OK.

[quote]What if no one specific person is applying psychological pressure, but person A still experiences a strong sense of pressure / obligation?[quote]

This is from the post I assume you were replying too. It's definitively not rape.

[HungryHobo]

If there's a question about whether or not something is rape, it's rape. Some forms of rape are more heinous than others, but it doesn't mean that some forms of rape are OK.

Merely being able to pose a question about something doesn't define it because anyone can ask anything. People are fully capable of laying out scenarios which aren't rape under any legal or conventional definition and regularly do.

For instance I could say:

"if 2 adults freely consent to have sex while capable of giving consent, is it rape?"

"if 2 adults freely consent to have sex while capable of giving consent, but one of them has a tattoo, was once in the navy, secretly fantasises about sex with kermit and likes to wear a big-bird costume is it rape?"

Under your great sounding but fundamentally meaningless definition: it's posed as a question, hence yes, it's rape, merely a less heinous form.

But I'm sure it felt great to say.

Perhaps you meant to say "if there's significant debate about whether something is rape it's safer to act as if it is for the purposes of everyday life" which is a very different statement

What if there's an explicit threat of physical harm (say, a beating) but definitely not death?
What if it's an implicit threat of physical harm?
What if person A steals a large amount of money and offer to give it back in exchange for sex?
What if person A threatens to spread some kind of slanderous rumour which would screw over person B's personal and / or professional life?

given that these are all crimes and would be illegal if used to obtain anything whatsoever, whether or not sex is involved they're pretty much right out the window.

If something wouldn't be allowed like blackmail for any of the other things we do in life which require free consent like trading property, signing a mortgage or writing a will then it's out the window for sex as well.

You can sell someone your house if you just need money because you're still an adult capable of giving consent freely giving consent, on the other hand they can't put a gun to your head and force you to give it to them or sell because you then wouldn't be freely giving consent.

You can sell or even give someone your house if you just feel some kind of significant emotional obligation to them (Perhaps you love them, perhaps they pulled you from in front of a bus or maybe they helped you somehow and you feel you owe them) because you're still an adult capable of giving consent freely giving consent, on the other hand they can't just get you drunk and get you to scrawl your name while you're too drunk to read because you wouldn't be able to give consent in that state.

Are there people who find this unreasonable somehow?

[CorruptUser]

If there's a question about whether or not something is rape, it's rape. Some forms of rape are more heinous than others, but it doesn't mean that some forms of rape are OK.

Merely being able to pose a question about something doesn't define it because anyone can ask anything. People are fully capable of laying out scenarios which aren't rape under any legal or conventional definition and regularly do.

For instance I could say:

"if 2 adults freely consent to have sex while capable of giving consent, is it rape?"

"if 2 adults freely consent to have sex while capable of giving consent, but one of them has a tattoo, was once in the navy, secretly fantasises about sex with kermit and likes to wear a big-bird costume is it rape?"

Erm, no, there is no question there. Perhaps I should rephrase it as "if there is a non retarded question about whether or not something is rape". The questions only arise in the "grey areas" in between "completely consensual sex without mitigating factors" to "forced penetration at knife-point". If you, assuming you aren't trying to perform mental gymnastics so you can still think you are "good", have to question whether or not something is rape, it's rape. If there was any coercion whatsoever, in any form whatsoever, it's rape. If you are honestly trying to argue that some types of coercion aren't rape, please seek therapy.

[HungryHobo]

Erm, no, there is no question there. Perhaps I should rephrase it as "if there is a non retarded question about whether or not something is rape". The questions only arise in the "grey areas" in between "completely consensual sex without mitigating factors" to "forced penetration at knife-point". If you, assuming you aren't trying to perform mental gymnastics so you can still think you are "good", have to question whether or not something is rape, it's rape. If there was any coercion whatsoever, in any form whatsoever, it's rape. If you are honestly trying to argue that some types of coercion aren't rape, please seek therapy.

Right, check, if a girl says "but I really love you, pleeeease"(emotional coercion) when she wants to have sex and he's going out somewhere she's then raping the guy.

lovely and clear now when we use absolutes.

There's also the far more reasonable standard:

In the same situation could the person instead legally give or sell you their house?

drunk? no.
high? no.
knifepoint? no.
Blackmail? no.
Just because? yes.
like your face? yes.
senile and think you're someone else? no.
because they said "if you really loved me"? yes.

which also tends to line up somewhat better with both the law and social norms since it revolves around the same basis of what constitutes consent and duress.

[Belial]

Yawn. Where am I? That was some strong stuff. Huh. Looks to be a thread about the definition of rape. Wait, no, always look at the title Belial, always look at the title. Why is sexism uni...huh.

Why that's not about the definition of rape at all! All of you cut it the hell out!

[Azrael]

No only is this thread the wrong place for such ponderings, but further such attempts here in Serious Business (and, likely, the rest of the forum) will be met with similar prohibitions.

[krogoth]

I'm going to try and take this back to before I think it went OT if that's okay?

Either way, the world would be a better place if assholes and bitches didn't have sex.

True, very true.
Unfortunatly the problem is "but he/she's georgous, I'm going for it!"
A sort of eugenic tragedy of the commons.
If people actually selected against unpleasent mates the world would eventually be a better place but people aren't good at that.

I'm also stealing your phrase "land monster".

The problem here, Is the judgment isn't it? That YOUR preference is better than THEIR preference.

It should be ok for anyone to have sex with as many or as few people as they want. Just like people have the right to get drunk every week, every night even, stinking drunk, throwing up in the toilet drunk. It's bad for them, and it's ok not to want to be around them, or offer them help.

But it's still their right to do so, as long as they aren't impacting on the freedoms of others.

I have a friend I think she sleeps around too much. I wouldn't sleep with her because of it, but that's about as far as I think she should be judged for it, outside of it, she's a really caring person, she keeps a clean house, she studies ect. if you ignore that aspect of who she is she's just a normal person.

I drink just about every weekend, both nights, sometimes I drink on a Thursday night when I'm not working the Wednesday.
I work, I rent my own place, I have savings ect. I think I'm a nice guy :/

The real problem, isn't always just the people who appear to be doing the immoral things, but those who judge them (judge not lest ye be judged)
The above 'war' is enough proof that being too judgmental is a terrible thing.

Sexism is all about one group judging another group inferior.There are plenty of group-isms that are wrong. Against gays, against Jews, against blacks, against Christians. And some actually bad groups, eg. organized crime groups. Being against some things may have 'made sense' at the time, but acceptance and understanding the people in the group goes a long way.

It's easy to judge a faceless group, or an 'ugly' person. It takes a better person to take the time to understand them.

edit:"And some actually bad groups"
from "And some bad "

[HungryHobo]

I'm going to try and take this back to before I think it went OT if that's okay?

The problem here, Is the judgment isn't it? That YOUR preference is better than THEIR preference.

It should be ok for anyone to have sex with as many or as few people as they want. Just like people have the right to get drunk every week, every night even, stinking drunk, throwing up in the toilet drunk. It's bad for them, and it's ok not to want to be around them, or offer them help.

But it's still their right to do so, as long as they aren't impacting on the freedoms of others.

I have a friend I think she sleeps around too much. I wouldn't sleep with her because of it, but that's about as far as I think she should be judged for it, outside of it, she's a really caring person, she keeps a clean house, she studies ect. if you ignore that aspect of who she is she's just a normal person.

I drink just about every weekend, both nights, sometimes I drink on a Thursday night when I'm not working the Wednesday.
I work, I rent my own place, I have savings ect. I think I'm a nice guy :/

The real problem, isn't always just the people who appear to be doing the immoral things, but those who judge them (judge not lest ye be judged)
The above 'war' is enough proof that being too judgmental is a terrible thing.

Sexism is all about one group judging another group inferior.There are plenty of group-isms that are wrong. Against gays, against Jews, against blacks, against Christians. And some actually bad groups, eg. organized crime groups. Being against some things may have 'made sense' at the time, but acceptance and understanding the people in the group goes a long way.

It's easy to judge a faceless group, or an 'ugly' person. It takes a better person to take the time to understand them.

edit:"And some actually bad groups"
from "And some bad "

I think you misinterpret: people have every right to do xyz and nobody has the right to stop them but that doesn't negate the statement "the world would be a nicer place if people didn't xyz"

The world would be a nicer place if people didn't kill themselves with drinking and smoking. they still have every right to do it and the imposition of anything trying to force people would negate the benefits.I drink occasionally myself. that doesn't negate the statement that if people freely chose not to then things would probably be better overall.

It's not even immoral, it's just something which has unpleasant side effects since antisocial tendencies and temperament can be fairly heritable.

counter to what someone else tried to imply, I'm not saying that the world is decending into any kind of assholeocracy.( well perhaps it's already in that state looking at the sort of people who hold most of the worlds wealth and power but it's probably not getting much worse and I digress)

[KestrelLowing]

I think a reason sexism is universal is because division of labor is a really good thing. If we go back to the hunter/gather lifestyle, someone has to hunt, someone has to gather. Because, on average, hunting is riskier, requires the ability to give sudden bursts of energy, and possibly the need to be quite strong, and the knowledge on how to kill things, then the people who hunt need to be able to give those spurts of energy, be strong, be able to be lost if something should go wrong, and have the knowledge to kill things.

For gathering, you need knowledge and endurance. Perhaps surprisingly, it has been shown that females (in general) are better with endurance things, once you go long enough. If you get into supermarathoners, there is a certain distance (I'm not sure where) when women become faster than men because their 'super-endurance' is better.* Gathering is also more low-key work, so childrearing fits into that lifestyle better than hunting.

If men and women could produce milk (yes, yes, I know it's technically possible), my guess is that there wouldn't be a gender division. But, as women have milk producing breasts, they pretty much automatically get put into the gather lifestyle. As mentioned before, women are more valuable in terms of baby-producing than men, so the group does not want to be put into hunting duty because of the danger.

So therefore, in order to be the best society (have everything needed to survive covered), division of labor is needed and it works fairly well along gender lines - even though I hate that!

So, why in general are men seen as 'superior'? Basically, hunting wasn't a very consistent food supply, so it was a BIG DEAL when you got meat. Nuts and berries? Eh. Got those all the time. It's nothing special. Therefore, more value gets placed on hunting, and therefore on males. Give someone an inch, they take a mile.

Also, it would probably be quite easy to deprive a female of meat and therefore making her have less nutrients, but it would be more difficult to deprive a man of nuts and berries as if worse comes to worse, he could just go and look for some - the teamwork need isn't nearly as strong with gathering, provided he knows what's poisonous and what's not.


*there's actually a theory that initially men would just run down their prey for the entire day before creating spears and the like, but would occasionally have to put in bursts of speed as the animals they were chasing would occasionally run faster. Basically, you create a wide line that's herding the animal until they drop dead of exhaustion. However, the animals would be faster than humans so they could dash off and then stop for a while. Eventually, the humans would catch up and the animal would have to run again. Do this enough, and the animals get exhausted. However, if the animal is fast enough, it can get around the line of humans so therefore the humans needed to have occasional bursts of speed.

The women would jog behind with the children, weaving back and forth to gather, while still keeping up with the men at the end of the day - after all, you don't want to kill something by running it to death and then have to carry it 100 miles back to the females. I believe this info was from a NOVA special a while ago




Also, I'm pretty much just pulling this out of my butt, but it makes sense to me.

Another random thought - I'd be curious to know if the societies where women were in charge was because gathering required more knowledge there - so you could deprive a man of nuts and berries because they were difficult to find, or the good ones were really similar to poisonous ones. Because the gathering knowledge would be passed down to girls and hunting knowledge to boys, it could be that women could sign the death warrant for a man if they refused to give him nuts and berries because he couldn't go out and get them himself. Anyway, just a thought.

[sigsfried]

I suspect that the strong male dominance arrived later, perhaps with the rise of the military. Fruit is rarely poisonousness (and when it is normally doesn't look or smell like edible fruit) so while eating it unguided is probably a mistake I doubt that could be a huge source of power.

I do remember when studying Latin at school my teacher made a great deal of the fact that many myths of 1,000BC-500BC cultures feature male Gods overthrowing the female Gods, suggesting maybe a similar thing happening in reality. I wouldn't hold this as hugely favourable evidence but I doubt it is any worse than made up evolutionary arguments.

[lutzj]

I suspect that the strong male dominance arrived later, perhaps with the rise of the military.

I think this is actually an imprecise way to look at it. Coalitional violence goes way back in human history (can be seen in all cultures ever + chimpanzees). In addition, during the period between the invention of efficient spear throwers, which place a much greater emphasis on practice and technique than strength, and the invention of more strength-reliant weapons in the Bronze Age, women weren't even at much of a disadvantage in combat (gunpowder weapons have produced this phenomenon all over again, to the great benefit of women). We obviously can only speculate regarding the first sexist sentiment held by a human, but it probably had more to do with the biological differences KestrelLowing mentioned, and systematic male dominance grew out of these hardwired traits coupled with the rise of complex, and therefore stratified, societies.

[sigsfried]

But I said military for a reason, not group violence. Also I doubt it was that common among hunter gathers simply because of the rarity of humans.
Military has always had great prestige and while women may well be able to fight on roughly equal terms a key distinction from coalitional violence is campaigns that often take men a long way from home. Of course these campaigns historically would have made women a liability due to pregnancy being all but guaranteed.

[lutzj]

But I said military for a reason, not group violence. Also I doubt it was that common among hunter gathers simply because of the rarity of humans.
Military has always had great prestige and while women may well be able to fight on roughly equal terms a key distinction from coalitional violence is campaigns that often take men a long way from home. Of course these campaigns historically would have made women a liability due to pregnancy being all but guaranteed.

The complex societies needed to support military campaigns had probably established male dominance on their own by then. I think that all-male armies are a consequence, and possibly an entrenching factor, but not a root cause of male dominance in societies. You seem to be defining "the military" as "coalitional violence with XYZ sexist elements," and I think that the XYZ arose before the creation of militaries.

[CorruptUser]

Military has always had great prestige

I have to call bullshit. People tend to forget, in most societies soldiers were at the bottom of society. Most wars were not fought between knights and officers, but between peasants/slaves forced to fight by a few nobles. Just look at what made up the British Navy prior to the 20th century. If anything, the all-male army would be more evidence of sexism against men, not in favor of men.

Oh sure, being a Knight or Samurai (same thing IMHO) was glorified, but that was for the minor nobles who could afford a horse and a set of armor. Look closer at who was glorified in the old books; it was the nobles/officers. In Greek epics, the main hero was either a nobleman/king (Odysseus, Nestor) or a demigod (Heracles).

[The Great Hippo]

Knight or Samurai (same thing IMHO)

Oh my fucking God please just stop talking about history forever.

The complex societies needed to support military campaigns had probably established male dominance on their own by then. I think that all-male armies are a consequence, and possibly an entrenching factor, but not a root cause of male dominance in societies. You seem to be defining "the military" as "coalitional violence with XYZ sexist elements," and I think that the XYZ arose before the creation of militaries.

As a corroborating point, you see the same sort of division-of-labor mentioned by Kestrel above reflected in the military, split along gender roles in the ancient Western world--women playing the roles of nurses, caretakers of weapons and property, rearing of the next generation of soldiers, etc--this infrastructure doesn't just 'pop up' out of no where. There has to have been a precedent, and that precedent is easily described in terms of a prior division-of-labor that's just being increasingly reinforced by the emergence of a military culture.

[An Enraged Platypus]

Oh sure, being a Knight or Samurai (same thing IMHO)

No, they are not the same thing. Not at all.

[CorruptUser]

Oh sure, being a Knight or Samurai (same thing IMHO)

No, they are not the same thing. Not at all.

Both were warrior classes made up of minor nobles with a supposedly strict code of honor. Often became mercenaries when their lords fell (i.e., very often), and pillaged/raped the countryside justifying it through their moral system. Disappeared as gunpowder began dominating the battlefield. Sorry, what's the difference again? Oh right, it's impossible for Japanese to ever be equivalent in morality/status as white people.

[HungryHobo]

split along gender roles in the ancient Western world--women playing the roles of nurses

I'd leave this be if not for the insanely smug and condescending

"Oh my fucking God please just stop talking about history forever."

line since after that you're expected to have a clue about history.

Ancient times:Ancient Rome- The term "nosocomial" meaning "hospital acquired" stems from the nosocomi, the men whom provided nursing care in ancient Rome.

Middle ages: Parabolani - largely male nurses dealing with the Black Plague epidemic.

Crusades: again largely male nurses with military orders caring for their own.

At times nurse wasn't really a profession in itself and mostly male orderlies would perform the same job.

At times nursing wasn't even seen as a womans profession which makes sense given the amount of heavy lifting involved in the job.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6131230_ancie ... rsing.html
http://allnurses.com/men-in-nursing/men ... 96326.html

[The Great Hippo]

At times nurse wasn't really a profession in itself and mostly male orderlies would perform the same job.

At times nursing wasn't even seen as a womans profession which makes sense given the amount of heavy lifting involved in the job.

Pardon, when I said that I was explicitly thinking of the role of nurses in the first and second World Wars; after I wrote the post I realized that we were talking about ancient history, went back and inserted 'ancient', and didn't take out the 'nurses' reference (although I wasn't aware of the examples you've given anyway!).

(But thank you for the "insanely smug and condescending" bit! I'll treasure it always )