Sexism Test - Eliminating Bias

[Emerald]

19 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

I found a way to get 0% and 0%!! 

It's when you take the most 'equal' position. 

Including saying 'I fully disagree with the statement that women should be cherished and protected by men'. 

And, 'Women and men should be equally conscripted in a time of war'. 

And, if you say 'Women should be cherished and protected by men', that's 3% 'benevolent sexism'. 

 

So, if you go out of your way to do good things for women, that's benevolent sexism. Chivalry is benevolent sexism. 

We have to be equal on all fronts. 

You can't make this shit up!! 

 

I would think that this is pretty obvious.

Hostile sexism is negative feelings and sentiments about women like “women aren’t rational, so only men should be politicians”.

Benevolent sexism is like the “women should be protected at all costs”… which actually means, “women are weak and fragile, and the men who own them should protect them at all costs.”

Benevolent sexism casts women as the fairer, weaker sex who is idealized as a caricature of femininity that is both above and below the humanity of men.

Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are two sides to one coin.

[Emerald]

10 hours ago, something_else said:

I got 20% benevolent and 0% hostile.

IMO the worldview that the researchers have is that there is no difference at all between men and women, which is the main criticism I have. There are subtle differences and pointing that out is not really sexism.

I agree with this.

On one question, it said something about men and women’s emotional intelligence.

And I would say that women are generally more attuned to the emotional/social matrix… observably so.

And a good bit of that comes from how we’re wired, as testosterone tends to blunt emotional awareness.

And this comes in handy for earlier times when it was necessary to hunt and kill for food and protection.

So, it does seem to take the perspective that all general differences between men and women are nurture-based and not nature-based… and it lumps in noticing these generalities with benevolent sexism.

But the reality is that some things are conditioned in… and other things are just general patterns of behavior that can be noticed.

[Leo Gura]

I got 18% hostile, 21% benevolent.

Kinda loaded to call it "hostile" though.

Saying that women are less logical then men is not "hostile", it's a general truism. These social scientists are brainwashing themselves.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Hello from Russia]

15% hostile, 27% benevolent

The test is bullshit though

[Emerald]

40 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I got 18% hostile, 21% benevolent.

Kinda loaded to call it "hostile" though.

Saying that women are less logical then men is not "hostile", it's a general truism. These social scientists are brainwashing themselves.

They are probably of the notion that logical = intelligent… when very logical people tend to get things wrong quite a lot.

They think logical equals true. But logical just refers to what makes the most sense given certain pre-supposed assumptions about reality.

That means, if we assume that the world is flat… then it makes good logical sense that we could sail off the edge of it.

It’s a false premise. But it is totally logical.

And I’ve noticed that men do fall in these traps a bit more than women because men tend to be systematic algorithmic logical thinkers while women tend to be more intuitive emotional thinkers.

And if a man holds a great deal of false premises, his logical orientation will make him an simultaneously intellectual and foolish. I’m sure you know the type of person I’m talking about.

The issue is that the social scientists are so steeped in patriarchal thinking that (even in their attempts at Feminism) they don’t realize that they’re biased toward masculine principled orientations and against feminine principled orientations.

[aurum]

Interesting quiz, very SD stage Green. I got 0% hostile sexism, 3% benevolent. 

My main critique of these academic perspectives on men/women is that they do not understand fundamentally what masculinity / femininity are.

Yes, masculinity and femininity are essentially social constructs. But they are based on something beyond society and beyond even biology. It’s more like masculinity and femininity are forces in the universe, like yin and yang. Or unity and division.

Our social constructs and also our biology reflect these forces. And traditional gender roles were not random, despite their limitations.

Why don’t academics understand this? I suspect it’s because you cannot do a scientific study to prove what I just said. Nothing I said is measurable. Therefore, according to science, it’s not science (and therefore probably not true).

Needless to say, this does not justify harmful regressive attitudes towards women or stereotyping. One of the fundamental problems with stereotypes is that they are way too simplistic to account for the complexity of living in modern society. Inevitably this leads to harm. Our thinking must become more nuanced than that as we evolve.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by aurum

[mr_engineer]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I got 18% hostile, 21% benevolent.

Kinda loaded to call it "hostile" though.

Saying that women are less logical then men is not "hostile", it's a general truism. These social scientists are brainwashing themselves.

If I were an SJW right now, I would be calling for you to get cancelled right now, because you have 'hostile sexism'. And that's a very triggering word. 

But, I'm not. And, I'm here to tell you that this is not an accurate representation of reality. If saying that 'women shouldn't be conscripted in a time of war' is 'benevolent sexism', well... I don't have much else to say. 

[Devin]

4 hours ago, something_else said:

Its hard to argue that men being on average physically stronger than women is a bias. Or that men are taller on average. The gestation isn’t the only clear cut difference.

It’s when you get into the territory psychological differences that everyone has a different opinion and someone’s bias comes into play a lot more.

it's obviously not biased to state averages, not sure why you're saying that. Gestation is the only non biased difference. There are women taller and stronger than above average men, so thinking women are weaker(the gender, not the statistical average) is therefore bias.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Devin

[mr_engineer]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

I would think that this is pretty obvious.

Hostile sexism is negative feelings and sentiments about women like “women aren’t rational, so only men should be politicians”.

Benevolent sexism is like the “women should be protected at all costs”… which actually means, “women are weak and fragile, and the men who own them should protect them at all costs.”

Benevolent sexism casts women as the fairer, weaker sex who is idealized as a caricature of femininity that is both above and below the humanity of men.

Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are two sides to one coin.

Here's the thing, though - men have the instinct to protect women hardwired into us. It's in our biology. And, women are, in fact, the fairer, weaker sex, in physical terms. In a time of war, I doubt that the enemy is going to distinguish between whether they're fighting men or women and only send women to fight women. 

And here's why I'm so against today's feminism. It makes an enemy of male biology. It seeks to create a society in which men aren't needed, it seeks to 'outcompete' men. And, granted, that it's the conscious men who will survive this battle, the unconscious men won't. But, there were better ways to do this. More peaceful ways. Like choosing good men over bad men for mating. And to put men in a position where they have to prove themselves in front of impossible standards, is kinda disrespectful. Even from the conscious men's perspective. As much as I understand the urge to do this, to actually do it, reeks of unconsciousness. 

Feminists have no room in my dating-life, for this reason. I will not tolerate a woman who 'fights me for equality' and says that if I lead her and protect her, 'that's sexist'. And, in the professional world, she's a man! And I will treat her like a man. No opening doors for her, no leading her by the hand, none of that good stuff for her! She will be subject to the same harsh accountability-standards that men are and I will show no sympathy for her woman-problems, cuz she's 'equal'. No extra measures to protect her. 

[Devin]

5 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Here's the thing, though - men have the instinct to protect women hardwired into us. It's in our biology. And, women are, in fact, the fairer, weaker sex, in physical terms. In a time of war, I doubt that the enemy is going to distinguish between whether they're fighting men or women and only send women to fight women. 

And here's why I'm so against today's feminism. It makes an enemy of male biology. It seeks to create a society in which men aren't needed, it seeks to 'outcompete' men. And, granted, that it's the conscious men who will survive this battle, the unconscious men won't. But, there were better ways to do this. More peaceful ways. Like choosing good men over bad men for mating. And to put men in a position where they have to prove themselves in front of impossible standards, is kinda disrespectful. Even from the conscious men's perspective. As much as I understand the urge to do this, to actually do it, reeks of unconsciousness. 

Feminists have no room in my dating-life, for this reason. I will not tolerate a woman who 'fights me for equality' and says that if I lead her and protect her, 'that's sexist'. And, in the professional world, she's a man! And I will treat her like a man. No opening doors for her, no leading her by the hand, none of that good stuff for her! She will be subject to the same harsh accountability-standards that men are and I will show no sympathy for her woman-problems, cuz she's 'equal'. No extra measures to protect her. 

Benevolent means good-intentioned, this is not a feminist's test, bias does not necessarily mean it's bad, it's just recognizing it is bias.

[mr_engineer]

6 minutes ago, Devin said:

Benevolent means good-intentioned, this is not a feminist's test, bias does not necessarily mean it's bad, it's just recognizing it is bias.

Oh, really?! I thought that on this forum, bias was 'bad'. And that the woke people do, in fact, see 'bias' as 'bad'. 

If you don't have this anti-bias bias, good work! 

[Devin]

39 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Oh, really?! I thought that on this forum, bias was 'bad'. And that the woke people do, in fact, see 'bias' as 'bad'. 

If you don't have this anti-bias bias, good work! 

I think most only get defensive against bigotry when it's stated as if it's not biased, or averages, or generalizations. Or when ancillary variables are intentionally unconsidered in the statements, those statements are usually attacks, conservatives make inflammatory statements with the sole purpose for offending and causing drama, like they're from daytime soap operas or something.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Devin

[Thought Art]

Triggered cant even rn 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Thought Art

[something_else]

6 hours ago, Devin said:

it's obviously not biased to state averages, not sure why you're saying that. Gestation is the only non biased difference. There are women taller and stronger than above average men, so thinking women are weaker(the gender, not the statistical average) is therefore bias.

 

Saying men are taller than women is not bias. That sentence implies on average men are taller than women, which is statistically just true. It’s not biased against women.

Saying men are smarter than women is bias. Because we have no clear cut way of measuring that and saying it’s true, so someone is using their preconceived anecdotal notions about men and women to make that conclusion, which is the definition of bias.

Edited February 19, 2023 by something_else

[Devin]

17 minutes ago, something_else said:

Saying men are taller than women is not bias. That sentence implies on average men are taller than women, which is statistically just true. It’s not biased against women.

Yes it is, that statement does not imply average, consider someone from mars never knowing anything about earth and reading earth men are taller, everyone above the median height is male and below is female then.

17 minutes ago, something_else said:

 

Saying men are smarter than women is bias. Because we have no clear cut way of measuring that and saying it’s true, so someone is using their preconceived anecdotal notions about men and women to make that conclusion, which is the definition of bias.

Its statistically proven on all intelligence tests, which is what is "implied" by the statement. (If you're going to apply the same grace to both statements)

Edited February 19, 2023 by Devin

[something_else]

47 minutes ago, Devin said:

Yes it is, that statement does not imply average, consider someone from mars never knowing anything about earth and reading earth men are taller, everyone above the median height is male and below is female then.

Are you regularly talking to people from Mars?

99% of people you ever meet are going to understand that you mean on average when you say that, they’re not going to think you’re “being biased against women”

Quote

Its statistically proven on all intelligence tests, which is what is "implied" by the statement. (If you're going to apply the same grace to both statements)

Humans can barely even define what intelligence is. Most intelligence metrics we have focus on dry logical intelligence which is super fucking narrow.

The point I was making is that the first of those statements is easily statistically probable while the second is a massive grey area. Because it’s such a grey area, people’s bias comes into play far more when they form a conclusion or opinion.

[Devin]

1 hour ago, something_else said:

Are you regularly talking to people from Mars?

99% of people you ever meet are going to understand that you mean on average when you say that, they’re not going to think you’re “being biased against women”

Humans can barely even define what intelligence is. Most intelligence metrics we have focus on dry logical intelligence which is super fucking narrow.

The point I was making is that the first of those statements is easily statistically probable while the second is a massive grey area. Because it’s such a grey area, people’s bias comes into play far more when they form a conclusion or opinion.

The problem with saying the female gender is the smaller gender is that we could obviously breed to where female is the physically larger gender, therefore size is not actually tied to the gender, it's just the historic average.

Saying female is the smaller gender implies it is absolutely. For a real world problem, this socially conditions society(biases) to stay with the status quo and not explore(close minded), it's the root of sexist undertones that discourages say women from body building for example, and discourages society from moving/desiring/evolving/breeding toward stronger females, naturally stronger females are not desired in society so we don't breed that direction. "Women are the weak gender" society then does not select the stronger women, it does men.

Stronger males were historically the better sex to be stronger, but in 1st world countries these days females being the stronger gender could work, and obviously the future could allow that even further or it could actually be an environment/scenario where it's beneficial that females be the physically stronger sex.

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

Here's the thing, though - men have the instinct to protect women hardwired into us. It's in our biology. And, women are, in fact, the fairer, weaker sex, in physical terms. In a time of war, I doubt that the enemy is going to distinguish between whether they're fighting men or women and only send women to fight women. 

And here's why I'm so against today's feminism. It makes an enemy of male biology. It seeks to create a society in which men aren't needed, it seeks to 'outcompete' men. And, granted, that it's the conscious men who will survive this battle, the unconscious men won't. But, there were better ways to do this. More peaceful ways. Like choosing good men over bad men for mating. And to put men in a position where they have to prove themselves in front of impossible standards, is kinda disrespectful. Even from the conscious men's perspective. As much as I understand the urge to do this, to actually do it, reeks of unconsciousness. 

Feminists have no room in my dating-life, for this reason. I will not tolerate a woman who 'fights me for equality' and says that if I lead her and protect her, 'that's sexist'. And, in the professional world, she's a man! And I will treat her like a man. No opening doors for her, no leading her by the hand, none of that good stuff for her! She will be subject to the same harsh accountability-standards that men are and I will show no sympathy for her woman-problems, cuz she's 'equal'. No extra measures to protect her. 

I’m sure that the Feminists are relieved that you’ve scratched them from consideration. ?

But I feel like you’re feeling threatened for no reason. Women are just trying to live their lives… they’re not competing with you.

And women who want an equal partnership will just go for a man who shares their values and also wants an equal partnership and will avoid the men who want her to conform to traditional gender roles.

She won’t waste her time trying to convince you to share her values. She’ll just sort you from consideration because of the incompatibility.

And women at your work are genuinely going to appreciate you treating them the same as you treat men. 

Women will not care if you don’t open doors for them. They won’t even notice, tbh.

And if you’re ‘leading your female co-workers by the hand’ already… why on Earth are you doing this?

Sounds like you’re making it up… or they’re using your benevolent sexism to take advantage of you and get you to do their work for them.

-

But benevolent sexism is different than simply noticing general differences between men and women.

So, it isn’t sexism to say “men are generally taller than women” or “women tend to be physically weaker than men.”

These are just general patterns that can be noticed.

Benevolent sexism creates a narrative that puts women up on a pedestal in some way. And it strips us of our basic humanity and typically casts us into narrower roles.

So, benevolent sexism is like “Lizzie Borden couldn’t have possibly killed those people because she is a delicate flower and would certainly faint at the sight of blood because her refined feminine sensitivities.”

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, aurum said:

Interesting quiz, very SD stage Green. I got 0% hostile sexism, 3% benevolent. 

My main critique of these academic perspectives on men/women is that they do not understand fundamentally what masculinity / femininity are.

Yes, masculinity and femininity are essentially social constructs. But they are based on something beyond society and beyond even biology. It’s more like masculinity and femininity are forces in the universe, like yin and yang. Or unity and division.

Our social constructs and also our biology reflect these forces. And traditional gender roles were not random, despite their limitations.

Why don’t academics understand this? I suspect it’s because you cannot do a scientific study to prove what I just said. Nothing I said is measurable. Therefore, according to science, it’s not science (and therefore probably not true).

Needless to say, this does not justify harmful regressive attitudes towards women or stereotyping. One of the fundamental problems with stereotypes is that they are way too simplistic to account for the complexity of living in modern society. Inevitably this leads to harm. Our thinking must become more nuanced than that as we evolve.

 

?

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

If I were an SJW right now, I would be calling for you to get cancelled right now, because you have 'hostile sexism'. And that's a very triggering word. 

But, I'm not. And, I'm here to tell you that this is not an accurate representation of reality. If saying that 'women shouldn't be conscripted in a time of war' is 'benevolent sexism', well... I don't have much else to say. 

Conscripted doesn’t necessarily mean “on the front lines”. There are plenty of roles in the military.

But yes… it’s fair if there’s a draft that women get sent to war. But I disagree with the draft anyway.