Please if you post to this thread- i'd do a poll if i knew how, say if you are a man or a woman and what percentage roughly of men you know are sexist. I will start. I am a woman. I would say that at least %70 of the men i have known in my life are sexist.
fair enough question monkey. I mean not regarding a woman as an equal, as a human being, as someone capable of independent and worthwhile thought and decision making and action, at least as capable as they are themselves, or else, simply regarding women as sexiual targets and nothing much else.
I am a man and I believe women are equal to men. Not in everyway but then men are not equal to women in everyway. Men and the women both have their abilities the other cannot match as easily. That makes women equal if not better in some ways then men. Kind of like in baseball. The pitcher and catcher both have different talents that the other does not, they are better than the other in some ways but equal in those differences. Women are obviously capable and independent in thought and action. I just believe they use all their abilities for evil.
I know way too many...i am actually opposite...i find women to be the better of the human race. I find men to be very unresponsive and, at times, plain moronic even at age of supposed aqccuired wisdom.
I think language and how far people take the dictionary meaning of the word sexist will give you answers that are misleading because I know I could give you two answers. I could say yes, according to the dictionary definition of sexist, and I could say no, according to what I think you mean. Here is what I'm talking about. I respect women as capable and independent and worthwhile thought and decision mak... and Yeah. I respect women and I'm not a pigheaded sexist. But I'm still a sexist. You get what I'm saying? I discriminate. You discriminate. Anyone that says they don't is a liar. "I don't judge" Yeah, screw you. I discriminate because it's an inherent part of my adaptation and if you don't discriminate, you're either stupid or dead. However, I try to discriminate intelligently and fairly with all things like race and gender because I know that discrimination is something that can get out of hand. Therefore, I hope you're not too happy with any numbers you get.
errmmm id say 70% + of the guys i know treat women more like objects than people? I really still cant figure out why two guys or more would fight over one woman unless she asked them to, it doesnt really make sense to me
Personally, I believe it is natural and in no way taboo for men to view women as sex-objects. Women were, by and large, much less capable of survival in the remote . . . or even recent past. The "fairer sex" served virtually no role but those of procreation and the amusement of the menfolk. This, of course, was due to their obvious physical inferiority and . . . mammary glands. Please consider the offensive word, "effeminate". I guess all this could also be accredited to the ferocity of the male sex-urge. Today, we preserve the notion of female incompetence and delicacy through anachronisms like high-heels, skirts, make-up, and jewelry. Then again . . . it may be more than just an outdated notion . . . nowadays, as the body has become relatively unimportant, this would all hinge on whether or not women and men are mentally equal. I wonder . . .
Redoubtable: Why much less able to survive? There's no evidence for that. Certainly, even if you claim that women are less able to hunt, if I recall correctly the neolithic and diet was highly dependant on roots, berries, fish and suchlike. Then how do you account for the high status of women in warlike cultures like the Vikings and Scythians? Or developed cultures like the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians? No no, the idea of woman as naturally inferiour is a bit of silly nonsense of rather recent origen. Difference, of course, does not mean inferiourity. Nor does division of labour. Tra la, but then, how much is natural and how much is social is an interesting question. We should destroy industrial society and find the answer!
Well, a man could've bent over and collected herbs as well as any woman. However, I'd say that women could not have hunted as men did, on account of less strength and swiftness. Thus, a tribal group with a disproportionately large number of females would've had a more trying time surviving in the harsh Neolithic world. It seems incontestible that superior physique equates to a greater chance of survival. Let us consider prostitution; why has it been so predominantly a female profession? Perhaps this is because women cannot support themselves as easily as men and are, subsequently, compelled to take advantage of their bodies to make ends-meat. What do you mean by "high status"? As far as I know, women, unless in possession of an inordinate amount of property, were not equal to men in any one of those cultures. Once, I watched a female wrestler, Jennifer, compete with a male, George. This chick was robust, exceptionally muscular. She weighed about what George did . . . and he wiped her all over the mat. Xev, that is inferiority.
Redoubtable: If he could correctly identify them, yes. Which takes a specialized body of knowledge. Hmm, but are women naturally significantly less strong? In any case, the neolithic diet was not as dependant on meat as is commonly percieved. There was an article about this in Nature a few years back, I wish I still had it. Basically, our ancestors are thought to have been more scavenger-gatherers than mighty creatures who felled wooly mammoth. But of course, there is pregnency. And this is where your argument is flawed. You see, someone has to stay home and keep the pterodactyls (yes, I know that there were no pterodactyls in the neolithic, but it's a cool thought) from munching on the kiddies. Somebody had to defend the home. Somebody had to mend the arrows. Hence you have a division of labour. Or is it because society is structured in such a way that a woman who does not fit into her role as house slave is ostracised? In any case, there's an even SIMPLER explanation. Women don't have to pay for sex. Not so. Study the Egyptian and Sumerian legal codes, and the myths associated with all four cultures. Ach, I meant difference as in division of labour. But I sound silly blaming everything that sucks on Judeo-Christianity.
A man could've gained ample expertise in this area and then gathered the desiderated articles much more quickly than a woman, due to his physical advantages. Afterward, he could also have participated in the hunt, which surely couldn't have been as mentally challenging a task. Xev, why don't you go look at some olympic weight-lifting records? I'm sure you'll notice something. I've studied the myth and I can say that there is nothing in there indicating women were regarded as natural or social equals. The fact that 'goddesses' played some role is of no significance. I'll have to research their law though.
Redoubtable: Off topic, but "desiderated" is such a fucking cool word. And you are correct. Of course we have no clear picture of what life in the neolithic was like, but I do not think we can accurately say that a woman would necessarily be relegated to the status of sex object. Since life was difficult (we MAY assume this) we must assume that few had the luxury of supporting a person who could not support themselves. You do see where I'm going? To make a strong argument for a neolithic "lady warrior" would take some research and may well prove unfruitful. But the alternate view of her as a irrelevent, helpless creature who could do nothing but breed and please her mate seems rather flawed. Now, the crux of your argument does not seem so flawed to me. Is there an advantage for a male to see females simply as 'sex objects'? Perhaps. One would be that much more ruthless when it comes to reproduction. On the other hand, most women act as if they are little else but sex objects. Such a view really is justified, although I can't in conscience say that it should be upheld. Naturally, naturally. But it's a question we can't answer. Humans are not equal, of course. It's not a matter of 'no significance'. The mythology of a culture reflects the values of that culture.
If the religious doctrine of a culture truly determined its practical values, the Crusades would never have ocurred. Myths are just fairy-tales used to comfort the anxious and console the ailing, not teach good behavior and social position.
Redoubtable: What?! I thought the Crusades to be in part caused by the religious fanaticism of Christian culture in the middle ages. Mackay seems to think so. Oh I disagree. Myth may not serve only to 'teach good behaviour', but it is a way to inculcate social values as well as to entertain and cement social identity. Not only this, but myth reveals much about a culture.
That males are generally physically stronger than females is not debatable. That this was always the case however is very debatable. From what I know, the female form, from generally the smaller waist, to the generally bigger breasts, the generally bigger butt, hips etc are all evolutionary adaptions-- survival techniques. I disagree with the notion that females are less likely to survive than males. First, we must not separate the two and talk of societies of either males or females, for neither would survive as a result of lack of reproduction. We must instead discuss societies as we know: societies which have both males and females. In all human societies that I know of, females generally live longer than men. This is your first clue. The female survival adaption as we know was to use the male for physical protection whilst protecting her young. Picking berries and fruit instead of chasing animals with archaic tools or nothing made sure you lived longer. Not having to jump at a predator ensured you lived longer. Nuturing your child meant that you essentially molded the adaptation techniques of your offspring. etc etc etc No, you are very very wrong to insinuate man's superior survival abilities. Anyway, I believe that if females could reproduce on their own, their adpation would have taken a completely different approach and their bodies would most certainly not look as they do, nor would their thought patterns, etc. And they would have survived. Why? If you must compare the modern female to the ancient ancient man, know this: the modern female is physicall taller, smarter and stronger than the ancient male. Also significant is that mankind's survival was not the result of strength and as it was his usage of tools. Isn't fanaticism a perverion of a religious doctrine? As of Egypt and Sumeria, no females were not equals in either law or society, unless of royalty. Original question: Besides one or two gay friends/acquaintances, I must say 100%
a few comments I said (prior to this edit): I see my concern is better addressed in later messages. Second, this effective poll is limited to determining solely whether men are sexist or not. I think a similar poll of women would find a similar proportion are sexist though probably not in the same way. For example, should women spend more time improving their attractiveness than men do? I suspect that many men and women would say yes. added as an edit: An anecdote from several years ago when I was a graduate student in mathematics. There were a couple of female graduate student teachers that at first wore sexually provocative dress (eg, miniskirts, short shorts, etc) in the classroom and later decided to dress more conservatively (based in part on advice from faculty members). The same class with the same people treated them with more respect. One of the student teachers used to have a class with a lot of hostility. That hostility apparently went away (so the story goes). I can't attest that this change in behavior was solely due to appearance since they also improved their teaching methods in various other ways, but it's a reproducible observation easily tested in a college lab. What I heard of the "hostile" class was that both male and female members of the class improved their behavior towards the teacher after the changes were made.
I asked a similar question on an australian political forum. Interesting there was that i had women agreeing with me that it is about 70% (seems similar here) but the men who responded with a proportional rating at all suggested it was more like 90-95%. I take your point that there can be differences recognised and still equality practiced and in a way, in the wider scheme of things where i think everyone's individuality should be repsected this is ideal. Nevertheless, that does not eliminate the fact that in my and many other women's experience, mine at least in the workplace, many men refuse to see us as intellectual equals with capacity to take on responsibility and with capability. Pften they seem to be unable to seee past our femininity or girl-object nature to the fact that we are human beings. i have had peopel expect me to do particular things simply because i am a woman, such as wear a skirt in winter, weaqr make up, shave my legs. None of those things is reasonable or affacets my capacity to do the job. I have also had male bosses who act very negatively towards me because i dont respond positively to their sexual interest or get sick of being treated as a sympathetic feminine ear for their home problems with suggestive overtones. Some men are lovely and i love men. Nevertheless, in my experience there is sexism in te world. Some women also help reinforce the sexist stereotype of what is and should be expected of a woman in my view.
