SEXISM! What's with the standards?

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I'm not contesting that he's wrong. I'm saying his position lacks any serious support. He's jumping to conclusions about society as a whole and I'm calling him out on that.

You do realize that every time anybody says anything based on any effect society has ever had on any opinion they could possibly form about society, they're coming to conclusions about society as a whole?

I say just about every human on the planet has experience with the double standard of sexism because almost every human being on the planet DOES have experience with the double standard of sexism...

There are astonishingly few people in the world unaffected by sexism, and they're usually monks or hermits of some kind.

If you interact with society, you will be affected by sexism's double standard. I can guarantee you that.

He wants you to cite a scientific study. He refuse to look one up himself. You are right, so go look for some kind of study that says you are. If he tears that one apart find another. If you have no desire to do any of that stop replying to him until he stops being such a jerk and actually adds something to the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!
Here's a nice little wikipedia entry to start with. A good example of a double standard of sorts. He'll probably hate it because it's wikipedia.

 

[Darius Brogan]

While we're on this topic, why is it that any MALE claiming sexual harassment is pretty much told to man-up and quit being a fucking pussy?

Yes, because everyone besides you is some faceless group that is just unfathomably inconsistent. How about the people who tell them to man up etc are sexists and not necessarily people who really care about equality? The people that say that kind of shit about manning up and people being pussies tend to be obnoxious, overly macho, and pretty clearly sexist.

What do you mean 'everyone besides me'?

I'm talking about how you're treating all the other attitudes you find in people as if they're supposed to be consistent with each other.

It's a prevalent mentality shared by a vast majority of the male and female genders, a number of whom have already exhibited, in my presence, their distaste for gender inequality.

Contradictions about in this society, and while they no longer surprise me at all, I'm still quite entitled to be curious as to why they've yet to die out.

Prevalent? Your evidence is what, your personal experience?

My evidence is the personal experience of everyone I've ever met, and likely everyone anyone on the planet has ever met.

Sexism has become so ingrained into society that small forms and hints are constantly used by almost every living human on the planet, except those paranoid enough to moderate every single facet of their speech at all times in which they are in contact with any other human being alive.

My personal experience is astoundingly large, yes, but that's only because of how many times I've moved to different places in the last twenty years.

Oh hah, okay so you're just BSing this, now trying to pretend you can cite people you haven't met. Well the only group you can speak for, namely the people you've met, are insufficient. There's a reason they conduct studies instead of pulling some random know-it-all and asking about his personal experiences. No matter how much he's moved around and how large he thinks it is.

And yeah, there's a lot of it. Which of course doesn't justify that nonsense where you talk as if there's a double standard in your OP. Maybe some, but really the kind of talk you cited sure doesn't sound like it comes from anyone I know who claims in any serious way to be against sexism.

Yeah, I'm BSing, exactly. Totally hit the nail on the head.

I, and EVERYBODY I'VE EVER MET, have all experience situations in which a double standard in regards to sexism caused problems.

I nearly got expelled from school for grabbing the wrist of a girl trying to scratch my eyes out.
My brother got kicked in the nuts and called a chauvinist pig for pointing out that chivalry died with the feminist movement.
A random guy in a supermarket one day got cussed out for telling a woman to cool down, he was in line before she was. (I was behind that woman)
And I could name dozens of other accounts I've witnessed or been part of.

So yeah, I'm totally BSing here. Just kinda talking about nothing that means nothing. But hey, you know more than I do simply by assuming I'm talking from ONLY my personal experience, right? Nobody I've ever met after they was kicked in the sack, told to man-up or quit being a pussy?
No virgin I've ever met was ever belittled by women for being a virgin, right?
No woman any of my acquaintances has ever met assumed they should open the door for her because 'They're a man'?
No woman has ever bitched out my stepfather for doing ^just that^, because he somehow thinks women are too weak to do it themselves?
My friend Justin wasn't dumped by my own sister for not being enough of a man?

No human ever has ever been affected by the double standard of sexism specifically because it didn't happen to ME PERSONALLY, right?

I thought so.

Surprise, surprise. Idiotic and illogical rant. I don't give a fuck about everybody you ever met. Neither does any kind of legitimate study. Your personal experiences? Biased and untrustworthy. No, you are not somehow smarter than the people who decide how to conduct studies and do not have the magical ability to decide things on a societal level where they need to do so much more to.

Also, get a fucking grip. Did I say such things never happened? No. Are you just incapable of reading properly, or are you being deliberately dishonest because I called you on your bullshit? Can't handle not making things up?

Yeah, I thought so.

Wow, surprise surprise, a wannabe intellectual.

You finally noticed yourself? Or was that an empty retort because you have no real excuse for your ego?

Yes, you did say it never happened, because your 'I'm just BSing' implies just that.
I'm bullshitting you. Fucking around. Joshin ya. JK JK, lol.

Or it means that you're pulling things out of your ass to support your position. Like trying to talk about the experiences of people you don't know.

It's not idiotic or illogical, 'cuz, y'know, all those things actually happened, to people other than me. Making them not personal experience.

We're still relying on your personal experience with others. It is incredibly idiotic and illogical because you're starting with a pathetically small sample size, one that is not random, so in essence you're just making a stupid generalization. Also it's idiotic to babble about things I didn't ever say and argue against them as if I did.

You can believe whatever you feel like believing. If you want to think a pink honkeycorn princess broke into your room and did horrible, unspeakable things to your favorite teddy-bear who then committed suicide, it's entirely up to you.

Considering all I'm calling for is some skepticism and you're the one throwing out unfounded beliefs I think you're talking to yourself again.

Everything I've said thus far has been entirely truthful.

And/or wild speculation and quite possibly biased retellings.

As I said, believe what you want. It's all true. You can pick apart whatever you feel will make you somehow 'more right' than me, but in the end, you're not trying to think skeptically, you're being an asshole whose opinion differs from my own and feels the need to be sarcastic regarding almost everything I've said thus far.

Are you deliberately playing stupid? Does pretending to be persecuted for telling the truth make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Because over here in reality I didn't say that you lied about those situations.

My ego is just fine, I'm telling the truth, I can only HAVE a small sample size because I abhor giant walls of text, and my 're-tellings' are not biased in any way.

You seem to have ego issues that lead to you failing to address that your experience is not and never will be enough. Don't give a damn that you can only ever have a small sample size, doesn't suddenly make it valid. It just means you're never going to have good support for extrapolating it to a bigger level. And LOL @ the last bit. How the hell would you know if they're not biased? If you're biased you wouldn't know. And your anecdotal evidence includes the word of others, you can't possibly know how biased that was.

My presence at a number of the situations gives me only a limited amount of 'personal experience'. I was an outside party, observing from a neutral standpoint to the situations listed.

And? What does that prove?

Do you seriously want me to relate every single instance I've ever come across where any party was even remotely affected by sexism's double standard? Really?

No more than I want to hit my head against a brick wall. Which may be slightly better for it than talking to someone who apparently doesn't get that I've been saying that your personal evidence isn't enough. Recounting it in greater detail won't fix any of the problems I mentioned.

Tell me, then. What am I supposed to do when everything I'm telling you is true, and I know it's true based on my presence at, literally, every scenario I mentioned, yet you assume I'm lying or wrong or biased simply because I'm relying on my accuracy of memory over a period of twenty years?

You think I'm working with a small group? I've moved to five different cities in the last twenty years and been forced to deal with tens of thousands of people regularly, equating itself to... factoring in inherent inability to remember every possible encounter one has ever had... roughly one hundred thousand memorable encounters that specifically deal with examples of the double standard of sexism that I've been nattering on about for the last several hours?

Regardless of your beliefs on the validity of my claim, I've encountered, personally, almost 100,000 instances where double standards related to sexism have been a factor of the encounter.

What size of test group would you like me to have if one hundred thousand personal experiences are not enough?

 

[Darius Brogan]

I'm not contesting that he's wrong. I'm saying his position lacks any serious support. He's jumping to conclusions about society as a whole and I'm calling him out on that.

You do realize that every time anybody says anything based on any effect society has ever had on any opinion they could possibly form about society, they're coming to conclusions about society as a whole?

I say just about every human on the planet has experience with the double standard of sexism because almost every human being on the planet DOES have experience with the double standard of sexism...

There are astonishingly few people in the world unaffected by sexism, and they're usually monks or hermits of some kind.

If you interact with society, you will be affected by sexism's double standard. I can guarantee you that.

He wants you to cite a scientific study. He refuse to look one up himself. You are right, so go look for some kind of study that says you are. If he tears that one apart find another. If you have no desire to do any of that stop replying to him until he stops being such a jerk and actually adds something to the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!
Here's a nice little wikipedia entry to start with. A good example of a double standard of sorts. He'll probably hate it because it's wikipedia.

I can't stop replying, it an almost obsessive compulsion I've developed for some strange reason.

I think it has to do with some kind of courtesy... I tend to reply when someone talks to me, regardless of whether or not the conversation needs to continue, simply because something was said to me...

 

[Ledan]

*snip*
Yes, the court should do what is best for the child, I'm not disagreeing with that. If the father IS more capable than the mother, of course he should get custody. What I'm arguing is that there's not a REASON why women usually get custody more often. Women, not because they love the child more (which they don't), but because they have a deeper biological and psychological connection to the child are more likely to do what is in the best interest of the child. That's not to say that the father is inadequate in ANY way, that they are NOT going to do what's in the best interest of the child, there's just more compelling evidence for a mother than for a father.

So when we get those artifical wombs going, there should be ABSOLUTELY no reason why women get custody more often? Cool, ill start investing in that if it will make the world more equal.

 

[irishda]

Ah, the old sexism threads here in the gaming community. A lot of Escapist users are closeted chauvinists who think women receiving preferential treatment sometimes means men don't still enjoy every life opportunity, and that if there is one bad case of harassment (which very clearly there's something you're not telling us cause no way does a situation like that not even get appealed) it means the whole system has to be scrapped.

I'm going to try and stop a pointless argument before it occurs, but no, I am not a closet misogynist. Most escapists are as much of closet misogynists as feminists are closet misandrists (which the spell checker thinks isn't a word. Now that is a double standard right there), which is to say, hardly at all. People here tend to think sexism is bad, they just like arguing over who's sexism is worse or more important, just like you are right now. Sexism is bad, all of it. This includes sexism favoring women over men. Just because it happens less often (wrong, but I'll give you that because I have no desire to start such a pointless argument) or is of a different nature does not mean that sexism against men is unimportant. Stereotypes that hold Asians to be super smart are just as bad as stereotypes that hold African Americans to be uneducated. Both are harmful, and therefore both should be stopped. I have no patience for people who want to moan and groan about how much worse they have it than other people who have it terrible, or those who would defend them. Both are blatantly wrong.

We'll argue about the gaming community and the prevalence of misogyny in another thread. And sexism is bad. Although I will take issue with this idea that men have it terrible because of anecdotal evidence from a few people, especially since the anecdote itself is suspect. These threads keep coming up where men are trying to paint themselves as victims of a society that apparently tramples on men when this couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

[XandNobody]

*Snip*

I really was not trying to state that you were making false claims, so much as trying to point out the fact that mentioning citations in the first place, without providing citations of your own, is a little weird. I don't doubt you can find things to cite that defend your point, and even if you don't feel that you 'require' them, it makes you look even better than your opponent. Just seemed like a missed opportunity. Blame the writing consultant in me.

Also, to clarify, I consider a counterpoint without backup to be trolling, was so not saying a troll in the attention grabbing sense, sorry for the confusion.

But what exactly am I supposed to be supporting? You're missing that bit. What would I be citing? I didn't say he was wrong. I said his evidence sucked.

Well, that's part of what you do when someone, in my experience a student, gives you crap evidence, you showcase real evidence to the opposing point just to make them come up with something better than 'I know a guy". In an internet forum, this is usually way to much to ask for, and for good reason, but since we are at our third or fourth reply, maybe a point to consider.

Seriously, was never much about your point, in so much as saying 'ha-ha no citations' isn't enough to counter no citations feasibly. At least not as feasibly as counter citations.

Granted, to be very realistic I've basically been going off on a rant about a pet peeve of mine, so lets call it me being a 'picky son of a' eh?

In the interest of peace,

 

[Wintermoot]

meh it,s the double standard for example woman hate pornography,prostitutes and housewives degrading whilst a portion of them have chosen freely to be so.

in a certain sense feminism in the western society has become pretty redundant.

 

[wintercoat]

*Snip*

I really was not trying to state that you were making false claims, so much as trying to point out the fact that mentioning citations in the first place, without providing citations of your own, is a little weird. I don't doubt you can find things to cite that defend your point, and even if you don't feel that you 'require' them, it makes you look even better than your opponent. Just seemed like a missed opportunity. Blame the writing consultant in me.

Also, to clarify, I consider a counterpoint without backup to be trolling, was so not saying a troll in the attention grabbing sense, sorry for the confusion.

But what exactly am I supposed to be supporting? You're missing that bit. What would I be citing? I didn't say he was wrong. I said his evidence sucked.

Why does his evidence suck? Do you have any proof that his evidence, anecdotal as it is and lets face it, we're on an open forum, anecdotal isn't verboten, is wrong? Nope, it's wrong because you say it is. The least you could do is link to a list of proper debating etiquette which mentions anecdotal evidence as being untrustworthy and therefor unusable to further a point.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

While we're on this topic, why is it that any MALE claiming sexual harassment is pretty much told to man-up and quit being a fucking pussy?

Yes, because everyone besides you is some faceless group that is just unfathomably inconsistent. How about the people who tell them to man up etc are sexists and not necessarily people who really care about equality? The people that say that kind of shit about manning up and people being pussies tend to be obnoxious, overly macho, and pretty clearly sexist.

What do you mean 'everyone besides me'?

I'm talking about how you're treating all the other attitudes you find in people as if they're supposed to be consistent with each other.

It's a prevalent mentality shared by a vast majority of the male and female genders, a number of whom have already exhibited, in my presence, their distaste for gender inequality.

Contradictions about in this society, and while they no longer surprise me at all, I'm still quite entitled to be curious as to why they've yet to die out.

Prevalent? Your evidence is what, your personal experience?

My evidence is the personal experience of everyone I've ever met, and likely everyone anyone on the planet has ever met.

Sexism has become so ingrained into society that small forms and hints are constantly used by almost every living human on the planet, except those paranoid enough to moderate every single facet of their speech at all times in which they are in contact with any other human being alive.

My personal experience is astoundingly large, yes, but that's only because of how many times I've moved to different places in the last twenty years.

Oh hah, okay so you're just BSing this, now trying to pretend you can cite people you haven't met. Well the only group you can speak for, namely the people you've met, are insufficient. There's a reason they conduct studies instead of pulling some random know-it-all and asking about his personal experiences. No matter how much he's moved around and how large he thinks it is.

And yeah, there's a lot of it. Which of course doesn't justify that nonsense where you talk as if there's a double standard in your OP. Maybe some, but really the kind of talk you cited sure doesn't sound like it comes from anyone I know who claims in any serious way to be against sexism.

Calling someone out on not citing sources while, not citing sources.

Can't tell if trolling or not...

I don't recall making any claims that require sources. I didn't say whether it was as endemic as he seems to believe or not. So if you want to talk about trolling talking about me not citing sources when I've made no particular claims like he has seems like a great start.

I mean, don't get me wrong, his experiences have had no more supporting evidence than 'I met a guy' and are so based on the availability heuristic it makes my mind hurt, but there is no reason to get so hostile about him not being able to cite them when you don't either.

I'm not contesting that he's wrong. I'm saying his position lacks any serious support. He's jumping to conclusions about society as a whole and I'm calling him out on that.

Dude, you are on a web forum. You are not in a social sciences class. You are not at a university.

I don't care.

Personal experience is totally valid when people are making arguments, they just aren't in any way scientific.

Ah yes the logical principle of "I can say whatever I want is valid without any reasoning". Oh wait no. It's not valid when trying to prove a bigger rule. It's pathetically weak. If it isn't scientific it isn't really valid.

Sure, he is applying a small sample to a massive whole, but that doesn't mean he is in some way right.

Exactly, it doesn't mean he is in some way right. It makes little to no suggestion of him being right. Good typo there.

Both science and personal experience are part of the same epistemology for fuck's sake (empiricism). In the end science is just a somewhat less biased form of the same argument as what the OP is using. Notice also that you're the one that's adding nothing to the discussion by simply throwing in needless skepticism (a pet peeve of mine).

Needless? Ah yes, because you like his conclusion. Or is there some reason to call it needless? And bias is important. If I go and meet some random guy who says he's a sexist does it now mean that I can use that in any meaningful way for an argument that all guys are sexist? No. Horrible support for the position and not valid in the least.

Also, why the fuck do I need to add to this? If it's based on a flawed premise in the first place, don't fucking whine about not adding. Fix the premise first, then whine if people don't add. That's as stupid as complaining I point out someone is doing a math problem all wrong because I'm not adding anything! It's worthless unless we start out with a good basis. There is none.

I am going to try to not be angry here, just gonna throw that out there right now. I'm really gonna try.

Why are you commenting if you just want to inform him that personal experience is inherently biased, and why did you never tell him that is why you are replying to him. Look back at your posts, you never said you wanted scientific research to back this up, you just kept telling him how he had to be utterly wrong for relying on personal experience. For fuck's sake, I was the onhe who had to point that out to him for you! If you really wanted to know about this in some less biased way, how difficult would it have been to either ask for that, or to look it up yourself? Seriously, when I want a less biased report for something, I go ahead and look for one or at the very least I'd ask for one, not ***** and moan about how the OP is biased or something stupid like that.

And the typo thing, that was pretty jerkish right there. My point was that personal experience can be valid. It is certainly a steep better than relying on entirely baseless assumptions, and is essentially science at a smaller, less intentional scale, a point of mine you completely ignored. Personal experience is not automatically invalid, it just isn't always valid. And that is the pointless skepticism I was talking about, discrediting any argument unless it is absolutely valid. It pisses me of in philosophy class and it pisses me off here.

Your math analogy is wrong too. You can't help someone get better at math by just telling them they're doing it wrong, you have to tell them how to do it right.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Ah, the old sexism threads here in the gaming community. A lot of Escapist users are closeted chauvinists who think women receiving preferential treatment sometimes means men don't still enjoy every life opportunity, and that if there is one bad case of harassment (which very clearly there's something you're not telling us cause no way does a situation like that not even get appealed) it means the whole system has to be scrapped.

I'm going to try and stop a pointless argument before it occurs, but no, I am not a closet misogynist. Most escapists are as much of closet misogynists as feminists are closet misandrists (which the spell checker thinks isn't a word. Now that is a double standard right there), which is to say, hardly at all. People here tend to think sexism is bad, they just like arguing over who's sexism is worse or more important, just like you are right now. Sexism is bad, all of it. This includes sexism favoring women over men. Just because it happens less often (wrong, but I'll give you that because I have no desire to start such a pointless argument) or is of a different nature does not mean that sexism against men is unimportant. Stereotypes that hold Asians to be super smart are just as bad as stereotypes that hold African Americans to be uneducated. Both are harmful, and therefore both should be stopped. I have no patience for people who want to moan and groan about how much worse they have it than other people who have it terrible, or those who would defend them. Both are blatantly wrong.

We'll argue about the gaming community and the prevalence of misogyny in another thread. And sexism is bad. Although I will take issue with this idea that men have it terrible because of anecdotal evidence from a few people, especially since the anecdote itself is suspect. These threads keep coming up where men are trying to paint themselves as victims of a society that apparently tramples on men when this couldn't be farther from the truth.

There's evidence out there, such as custody statistics, abuse statistics, statistics on the portrayal of rape and domestic abuse in media, what have you. This guy just didn't link to it. And yeah, men aren't worse off, but they certainly aren't in the world's best situation, just a different one. The white heterosexual male certainly isn't the great victim of modern society, but they're still a victim just like everybody else.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes, I've read the rest of your comment, but this section warranted special attention.

To which I say: Look up the statistics, and you'll find that you're wrong.
It's not the reverse, but you're still wrong.

Read a little further back into the comments and you'll find a wall-o-text that exlpains what I'm too lazy, distracted, and tired to do.

No. Yes, assaults, especially sexual assaults against men are even more reported than against women, but something like 1 in 3 women are raped by men worldwide during their lifetimes. The reverse is nowhere near that.

Even restricting ourselves to developed nations, it tends to vary between 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women, and something like 1 in 14 men who are raped during their lifetimes (predominantly by men).

Yes, assaults against men are a very serious problem (and FFS, when we people learn that male prison rape is not funny?), but there's no reason to claim they are comparable to assaults against women.

The problem with anything reported is that the male standard usually doesn't allow a man to report being abused, raped, assaulted, or whatever because it isn't considered manly to be affected by those things.

Go back to the first page and find yourself the post with a link to tvtropes.

I know. That was a typo, sorry, should have said "under-reported".

There are still ways to estimate assaults like that, anonymous surveys where things are described, not labelled, for example.

 

[s0p0g]

welcome to reality, as effed up as it is

yes, the genders are equal... except when they're not; don't even believe for a second that they are treated equally, anywhere, anytime

sometimes they're at a disadvantage, like getting less money for the same work; sometimes... well, your example

sexual harassment IS to be punished; but not all (accidental) body contact, especially regarding the circumstances, can seriously be considered sexual harassment

i don't if, to some extent, the media are to blame, with the depiction of lawsuits, the events that led to it, creating fear and the image of every man being not only a potential rapist but that it's actually a miracle that [random person] hasn't been raping anyone until now

also, this sums it up quite nicely:

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I'm not contesting that he's wrong. I'm saying his position lacks any serious support. He's jumping to conclusions about society as a whole and I'm calling him out on that.

You do realize that every time anybody says anything based on any effect society has ever had on any opinion they could possibly form about society, they're coming to conclusions about society as a whole?

I say just about every human on the planet has experience with the double standard of sexism because almost every human being on the planet DOES have experience with the double standard of sexism...

There are astonishingly few people in the world unaffected by sexism, and they're usually monks or hermits of some kind.

If you interact with society, you will be affected by sexism's double standard. I can guarantee you that.

He wants you to cite a scientific study. He refuse to look one up himself. You are right, so go look for some kind of study that says you are. If he tears that one apart find another. If you have no desire to do any of that stop replying to him until he stops being such a jerk and actually adds something to the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!
Here's a nice little wikipedia entry to start with. A good example of a double standard of sorts. He'll probably hate it because it's wikipedia.

I can't stop replying, it an almost obsessive compulsion I've developed for some strange reason.

I think it has to do with some kind of courtesy... I tend to reply when someone talks to me, regardless of whether or not the conversation needs to continue, simply because something was said to me...

I just wanted you to understand where he's coming from before you stress yourself out too much. You should probably take this as a learning experience, if you're going to make assumptions about society as a whole, you'd best have a scientific study to support you, or ample evidence that has little to do with you personally. Some people just love being skeptical, and believe everyone else within existence should behave likewise.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Yes, I've read the rest of your comment, but this section warranted special attention.

To which I say: Look up the statistics, and you'll find that you're wrong.
It's not the reverse, but you're still wrong.

Read a little further back into the comments and you'll find a wall-o-text that exlpains what I'm too lazy, distracted, and tired to do.

No. Yes, assaults, especially sexual assaults against men are even more reported than against women, but something like 1 in 3 women are raped by men worldwide during their lifetimes. The reverse is nowhere near that.

Even restricting ourselves to developed nations, it tends to vary between 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women, and something like 1 in 14 men who are raped during their lifetimes (predominantly by men).

Yes, assaults against men are a very serious problem (and FFS, when we people learn that male prison rape is not funny?), but there's no reason to claim they are comparable to assaults against women.

The problem with anything reported is that the male standard usually doesn't allow a man to report being abused, raped, assaulted, or whatever because it isn't considered manly to be affected by those things.

Go back to the first page and find yourself the post with a link to tvtropes.

I know. That was a typo, sorry, should have said "under-reported".

There are still ways to estimate assaults like that, anonymous surveys where things are described, not labelled, for example.

Oh, certainly. Anonymity does aid the statistics some, but there's a similar problem with religious surveys: There's always a rather large portion that never reply. Sometimes as large as 40% and higher.

That grey area is why statistics via surveys and the like are useful, yet not entirely trustworthy: You don't know how many of who didn't reply, which levers the statistics in favor of those who did.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

welcome to reality, as effed up as it is

yes, the genders are equal... except when they're not; don't even believe for a second that they are treated equally, anywhere, anytime

sometimes they're at a disadvantage, like getting less money for the same work; sometimes... well, your example

sexual harassment IS to be punished; but not all (accidental) body contact, especially regarding the circumstances, can seriously be considered sexual harassment

i don't if, to some extent, the media are to blame, with the depiction of lawsuits, the events that led to it, creating fear and the image of every man being not only a potential rapist but that it's actually a miracle that [random person] hasn't been raping anyone until now

also, this sums it up quite nicely:

Took you guys long enough. I was expecting a link to one of that man's videos ages ago. Not that I watch them or anything, I just know he's absurdly vocal about this and that people love to put his videos in threads about sexism. The one's I've seen come off as pretty strawman-based. They're also a fine example of the problem I brought up in my first post.

 

[Darius Brogan]

I'm not contesting that he's wrong. I'm saying his position lacks any serious support. He's jumping to conclusions about society as a whole and I'm calling him out on that.

You do realize that every time anybody says anything based on any effect society has ever had on any opinion they could possibly form about society, they're coming to conclusions about society as a whole?

I say just about every human on the planet has experience with the double standard of sexism because almost every human being on the planet DOES have experience with the double standard of sexism...

There are astonishingly few people in the world unaffected by sexism, and they're usually monks or hermits of some kind.

If you interact with society, you will be affected by sexism's double standard. I can guarantee you that.

He wants you to cite a scientific study. He refuse to look one up himself. You are right, so go look for some kind of study that says you are. If he tears that one apart find another. If you have no desire to do any of that stop replying to him until he stops being such a jerk and actually adds something to the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!
Here's a nice little wikipedia entry to start with. A good example of a double standard of sorts. He'll probably hate it because it's wikipedia.

I can't stop replying, it an almost obsessive compulsion I've developed for some strange reason.

I think it has to do with some kind of courtesy... I tend to reply when someone talks to me, regardless of whether or not the conversation needs to continue, simply because something was said to me...

I just wanted you to understand where he's coming from before you stress yourself out too much. You should probably take this as a learning experience, if you're going to make assumptions about society as a whole, you'd best have a scientific study to support you, or ample evidence that has little to do with you personally. Some people just love being skeptical, and believe everyone else within existence should behave likewise.

I honestly think I'm just too tired and distracted to care much, and it's weighing my choices in favor of emotional response, rather than intellectual... I mean, seriously, I've had to stop and correct my spelling sixteen times in this reply so far...

Anyways, it's nice to know that there are a few Escapists with rational heads on their shoulders.
Thanks for not being an asshole, and thanks for pointing out the flaws I was too abstracted to notice.

Haha, twenty four corrections now.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oh, certainly. Anonymity does aid the statistics some, but there's a similar problem with religious surveys: There's always a rather large portion that never reply. Sometimes as large as 40% and higher.

That grey area is why statistics via surveys and the like are useful, yet not entirely trustworthy: You don't know how many of who didn't reply, which levers the statistics in favor of those who did.

True, there's quite a lot of inaccuracy there we'll never be able to get rid of (at least without changing our society, which would have the not unfortunate affect of getting rid of most of the actual problem as well).

But as long as we restrict ourselves to general trends over the large scale, it's not that much of a concern, which tends to how true of any statistics. As an aside, dealing with smaller scale statistics leads to all sorts of issues, the yearly murder rate in Tasmania went up 8 fold one year due to the actions of a single man during a single say, for example, that's hardly representative of a increased trend.

 

[irishda]

Ah, the old sexism threads here in the gaming community. A lot of Escapist users are closeted chauvinists who think women receiving preferential treatment sometimes means men don't still enjoy every life opportunity, and that if there is one bad case of harassment (which very clearly there's something you're not telling us cause no way does a situation like that not even get appealed) it means the whole system has to be scrapped.

I'm going to try and stop a pointless argument before it occurs, but no, I am not a closet misogynist. Most escapists are as much of closet misogynists as feminists are closet misandrists (which the spell checker thinks isn't a word. Now that is a double standard right there), which is to say, hardly at all. People here tend to think sexism is bad, they just like arguing over who's sexism is worse or more important, just like you are right now. Sexism is bad, all of it. This includes sexism favoring women over men. Just because it happens less often (wrong, but I'll give you that because I have no desire to start such a pointless argument) or is of a different nature does not mean that sexism against men is unimportant. Stereotypes that hold Asians to be super smart are just as bad as stereotypes that hold African Americans to be uneducated. Both are harmful, and therefore both should be stopped. I have no patience for people who want to moan and groan about how much worse they have it than other people who have it terrible, or those who would defend them. Both are blatantly wrong.

We'll argue about the gaming community and the prevalence of misogyny in another thread. And sexism is bad. Although I will take issue with this idea that men have it terrible because of anecdotal evidence from a few people, especially since the anecdote itself is suspect. These threads keep coming up where men are trying to paint themselves as victims of a society that apparently tramples on men when this couldn't be farther from the truth.

There's evidence out there, such as custody statistics, abuse statistics, statistics on the portrayal of rape and domestic abuse in media, what have you. This guy just didn't link to it. And yeah, men aren't worse off, but they certainly aren't in the world's best situation, just a different one. The white heterosexual male certainly isn't the great victim of modern society, but they're still a victim just like everybody else.

That's the thing though, we really aren't victims in a large, epidemic sense. Yes, men are victims of rape and assault, but these threads where we piss and moan about "how stacked the deck is against us" or "how bad life is for a man", it really trivializes all of the men on women violence that's historically been fairly one-sided. It's the equivalent of telling poor people how ridiculously hard it is to live on $500,000 in New York City. Yeah, it's sort of true, but, big picture, it's really not something that should be at the front of society's attention. I don't think we have to worry about a horrifying matriarchal society that keeps men for breeding and then kills them just yet.

men aren't worse off, but they certainly aren't in the world's best situation

We are though. That's the thing. White, heterosexual men definitely enjoy all the benefits of society. There's absolutely no downside or fear of being discrimination if you're a white, heterosexual male. Louis CK nailed it perfectly, where a white, heterosexual man could travel to any point in the past, absolutely any, and we would be at the top of the totem pole.