Obvious Study: Anti-Abortionists found Sexist

[Saint Frankenstein]

Those particular statements? Yeah. I think they hold their noses on other stuff. I vote based on statements like that and hold my nose on the fact that most democrats are otherwise largely indistinguishable from conservatives who earn the label RINO, like Jon Huntsman, who doesn't say crap like that but tries to get his party to focus on non-social domestic policy issues and foreign policy. If you were trying to suggest that these may be extreme conservative issues, don't waste your time, Rick Santorum was one sick child away from taking the 2012 nomination right out from under Romney.

Okay, so you're just basically guessing. Anyway, this is getting away from my original point that this article is trash.

 

[Marisa]

Okay, so you're just basically guessing. Anyway, this is getting away from my original point that this article is trash.

Wasn't that what you were doing when you waxed poetic on frat boys?

 

[MD]

The article is poorly written and it obviously highlights a lot of bias.

The journal impact factor is 0.18. I.e. the journal is ****. It is so bad that it is below alternative medicine journals and parapsychology journals.

Further proof that this is part of a propaganda war, and that the other side is no different from the Limbaughs and Republicans, and that they play their own dirty games. It also puts into perspective the very reputation of Big Think, and how they are also part of pushing their own agenda by publishing an article by an ESL teacher sourcing a study from a ****ty journal.

The pro abortion view is not the right view. They just have infiltrated social studies programs at colleges more effectively than the right has.

 

[Revoltingest]

I used "anti abortion" without even thinking, though I reject that as a position distinguishable from those who self identify as pro-choice. I know a lot of pro-choice individuals, I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. Well, until @Revoltingest that is. !

"Pro-abortion" = pro abortion legalization
To have freedom to choose abortion or not is implicit.
Would any reasonable person think "pro-abortion" could mean imposing it?

Perhaps some people worry the word "abortion" will make people feel uneasy, eh?
I don't. I call it what it is, & see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Marisa]

"Pro-abortion" = pro abortion legalization
To have freedom to choose abortion or not is implicit.
Would any reasonable person think "pro-abortion" could mean imposing it?

Perhaps some people worry the word "abortion" will make people feel uneasy, eh?
I don't. I call it what it is, & see nothing wrong with it.

Well, it's not what the conversation is about. It's about how much we value women and their bodily autonomy. And no, I don't think any reasonable person would think that the phrase "pro-abortion" means imposing it, at least not in the US.

Nonetheless, when the anti-choice community choose that phraseology to describe the pro-choice community, there is a specific contextual implication, and it is one of inferior morality. They see no irony in derisively slandering the character of a pro-choice proponent while expressing no discernible consideration for the bodily autonomy of women.

I didn't tag you to "call you out". I honestly have never heard a pro-choice person embrace that phrase like you do, and I gotta say it's kind of refreshing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it's not what the conversation is about.

It is when you tag me in a continuing discussion about it.

It's about how much we value women and their bodily autonomy.

I value everyone's bodily autonomy (not just women)....male, female, & all betwixt & between.
And I love to annoy people with this curmudgeonly admonition.....
I was pro-choice on everything before yooz was even a glimmer in yer daddy's eye, ya young whippersnap'n whelp!

Caution: The above applies only to anyone under 60.

And no, I don't think any reasonable person would think that the phrase "pro-abortion" means imposing it, at least not in the US.

I've heard speculation otherwise.

Nonetheless, when the anti-choice community choose that phraseology to describe the pro-choice community, there is a specific contextual implication, and it is one of inferior morality. They see no irony in derisively slandering the character of a pro-choice proponent while expressing no discernible consideration for the bodily autonomy of women.

I don't believe that everyone using the phrase has the same intention.
But a good way to take the wind from an insulter's sails is to own the word.
I see nothing wrong with "abortion", so I'm not shy about it.

I didn't tag you to "call you out". I honestly have never heard a pro-choice person embrace that phrase like you do, and I gotta say it's kind of refreshing.

Tis OK to tag me. It makes me feel wanted!
And it's not "calling out" (as defined in RF rules).

 

[Marisa]

It is when you tag me in a continuing discussion about it.

I meant the conversation of choice. The bigger picture, so to speak. Yeah, I tagged you, I was hoping you'd take the opportunity to expand on it, and you did that! Thanks!

I value everyone's bodily autonomy (not just women)....male, female, & all betwixt & between.
And I love to annoy people with this curmudgeonly admonition.....
I was pro-choice on everything before yooz was even a glimmer in yer daddy's eye, ya young whippersnap'n whelp!

Caution: The above applies only to anyone under 60.

I'm not too far behind that marker.

I've heard speculation otherwise.

Not from me you haven't, and won't. But is this the same crowd that thinks if we acknowledge homosexuality as completely normal that the gays will come for their kids?

I don't believer that everyone using the phrase has the same intention.
But a good way to take the wind from an insulter's sails is to own the word.
I see nothing wrong with "abortion", so I'm not shy about it.

I agree, but owning that word isn't my style. Anti-choice people are demanding that I respect their opinion, which I'm happy to do, but most of the time they show no intention of doing the same, as such a phrase used as an ad hominem implies.

Tis OK to tag me. It makes me feel wanted!
And it's not "calling out" (as defined in RF rules).

 

[Revoltingest]

Not from me you haven't, and won't. But is this the same crowd that thinks if we acknowledge homosexuality as completely normal that the gays will come for their kids?

I think the concept of "normal" is over-rated & irrelevant.
I'm pro-sexual deviancy, sexual normalcy & sexual inadequacy.
What matters is that one's right to swing one's arms ends where one's neighbor's nose begins.

Besides, gays don't steal children.....dingoes do.

I agree, but owning that word isn't my style. Anti-choice people are demanding that I respect their opinion, which I'm happy to do, but most of the time they show no intention of doing the same, as such a phrase used as an ad hominem implies.

We each have different experiences with anti-abortion types.
We each do what works for us.

 

[Marisa]

I think the concept of "normal" is over-rated & irrelevant.
I'm pro-sexual deviancy, sexual normalcy & sexual inadequacy.
What matters is that one's right to swing one's arms ends where one's neighbor's nose begins.

Besides, gays don't steal children.....dingoes do.

We each have different experiences with anti-abortion types.
We each do what works for us.

Agreed, on all counts. I'm not going to make value judgments about other people based on what I do, I'm going to make them based on what they do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed, on all counts. I'm not going to make value judgments about other people based on what I do, I'm going to make them based on what they do.

What people do matters.
The difficulty is in discerning their motives.
Is that Confederate flag about identity or racism?
Is "pro-abortion" an accurate term regarding legalization or a sly accusation of murder?
Is disagreeing with someone just a discussion or a personal attack on them?
Opinions & consequent judgments will vary...often with much gnashing of teeth.

 

[Wirey]

That study sounds like one of the ones where people decide the outcome, and build a study to prove it. People are amazingly complex, and I doubt most of us are one issue humans. Especially this issue anymore.

 

[dust1n]

Obviously if the study starts with the assumption that nearly everything is sexist, they will be sure to find that whatever they are studying is also sexist, also, they aren't saying anti-abortionists are more likely to be sexist, they are saying sexists are more likely to be anti-abortionist.

So, what, based on your understanding of the study, seems to suggest that this is the case with this particular study?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you wonder why universities are being funded for social science research into things any logical person already knows?

Unbelievably Obvious Study Finds Anti-Abortionists Also Sexist | Big Think

It's because, academically and scientifically, nothing is obvious and no knowledge should be taken for granted or accepted without data to back it up.

I think when it comes to the sociological descriptions of "sexist" and "racist" terms, people have a tendency to value a persons very worth off of those charges. As if there is no such thing as "sexism" unless the person who holds those views are truly awful and evil people.

It seems like many here missed the point when the abstract does clearly outline this study examined both hostile and benevolent sexism. But it seems many do not comprehend how there can be a such thing as benevolent sexism, or, more broadly, positive discrimination.
Butting in to help someone on crutches or in a wheel chair without first asking them is also discrimination, even if the intention was good. What it does is begin with the assumption that that person is not capable.
In terms of abortion and contraceptive choices, such legislation begins with the assumption that women are not able to make the "proper" choices on their own volition.

I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. Well, until @Revoltingest that is.

Off topic, but the guidelines for the Associated Press require journalist to use pro-abortion.

The typical sexist isn't likely to be a right-wing Christian, but a frat boy type who just wants to screw women and then dump them. They probably won't care if they knock up women and they abort the kid(s).

Then why has the church traditionally supported the notion that women are inferior to men, women cannot be church leaders, and women must be submissive to men? Why was the sexist content of the Bible not removed? Why do so many today wish to make reproductive choices for women, rather than allowing a woman to choose for herself?

 

[dust1n]

Living in a post-modern world where the liberal peace-lovers tell us all views are equal...

Unless you disagree with the liberal peace-lovers of course. Then you're a sexist racist fascist piece of scum.

Oh, you should meet my landlord. Whenever he wants to bet me a quarter a Negress utility worker won't be able to do their work because black women aren't as intelligent and capable, I think to myself, what a sexist racist piece of scum (though fascist wouldn't be entirely accurate). You would think he would have the decency to at least keep his opinions to himself instead of unloading them unto to people who have already begun a contractual relationship regarding living quarters.

Besides, to treat the fact that some people are reactionary and dismissive within this notion of a "post-modern liberal" as if it was a symptom of just having those views is grossly irresponsible. As if there isn't a general segment of young people who peddle too-cool-for-school, apathetic, libertine rhetoric, endlessly and pointlessly consuming of raw material goods at the expense of millions of exploited laborers, and dismissing this through an abstract notion of economic freedom...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then why has the church traditionally supported the notion that women are inferior to men, women cannot be church leaders, and women must be submissive to men? Why was the sexist content of the Bible not removed? Why do so many today wish to make reproductive choices for women, rather than allowing a woman to choose for herself?

Those are all different topics. And your comment about abortion is a caricature of the pro-life position.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those are all different topics. And your comment about abortion is a caricature of the pro-life position.

There are points that there is a history of accepted sexism within Christianity.
And I don't recall making a statement about abortion specifically. Rather that legislation in general takes away the ability of a woman to choose her own options for contraception and abortion. Why would they even push for this legislation if they felt women would make choices they feel to be appropriate? Why should they even want to control a woman's ability to chose?

 

[freethinker44]

So, what, based on your understanding of the study, seems to suggest that this is the case with this particular study?

They used ambivalent sexism as their criteria for what is sexist. What's not sexist with ambivalent sexism? Hate women - sexist, love women - sexist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There are points that there is a history of accepted sexism within Christianity.
And I don't recall making a statement about abortion specifically. Rather that legislation in general takes away the ability of a woman to choose her own options for contraception and abortion. Why would they even push for this legislation if they felt women would make choices they feel to be appropriate? Why should they even want to control a woman's ability to chose?

I'm well-aware of the history of Christian attitudes towards women. I don't need a history lesson. But you're throwing a bunch of things together that are outside of the scope of this thread.

If you weren't making a comment on abortion, then what were you talking about, specifically? Contraception and abortion in general?

 

[dust1n]

Previous research has examined many aspects of ambivalent sexism theory, although there has been an overall dearth of research conducted on its potential relationship to abortion attitudes. This study aims to compare the extent to which hostile and benevolent sexism, the two primary components of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, predict antichoice attitudes. Data were collected at six U.S. colleges and universities (N = 627), and findings generally support the hypothesis that higher endorsements of either form of sexist beliefs are linked with antichoice attitudes.

Pedestal or Gutter

Obviously limited in scope. Wasn't really a large and wide-range survey. Didn't know what the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory was, so I did a big of snooping:

"Measurement: the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

Researchers typically measure ambivalent sexism at the individual level. The primary method used to measure an individual's endorsement of ambivalent sexism is the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), created by Glick and Fiske in 1996. The ASI is a 22-item self-report measure of sexism on which respondents indicate their level of agreement with various statements, which are placed on a 6-point Likert scale.[3] It is composed of two sub-scales that may be independently calculated for sub-scale scores or may be averaged for an overall composite sexism score. The first sub-scale is the hostile sexism scale, which is composed of 11 items designed to assess an individual's position on the dimensions of dominative paternalism, competitive gender differentiation, and heterosexual hostility, as previously defined. A sample item from the hostile sexism sub-scale is "Women are too easily offended." The second sub-scale is the benevolent sexism scale, which is composed of 11 items that aim to assess an individual's position on the dimensions of protective paternalism, complementary gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy, as previously defined. A sample item from the benevolent sexism sub-scale is "Women should be cherished and protected by men."

Over fifteen years of additional research and replications support that this inventory possesses psychometric characteristics indicating that the measure is both empirically reliable and valid. Standard criteria in psychological research can be utilized to evaluate a scale.[13] Using statistics, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient can be calculated to indicate whether items on a scale seem to be measuring the same psychological construct or dimension (demonstrating the retestability of a scale). Generally, researchers agree that a Cronbach's alpha coefficient above 0.80 suggests strong reliability in a scale. The ASI has consistently demonstrated this empiricial reliability over time.[11] In addition, empirical evaluations of the ASI provide support for the validity of the scale, such that the inventory seems to effectively measure what it proposes to assess: a polarized attitude towards women, where both dimensions can be activated simultaneously.[11]

The utility of the ASI is not limited to English speakers.[14] There is extensive support for the cross-cultural validity of the ASI. A cross-cultural study examining the theory of ambivalent sexism in 19 countries found that hostile and benevolent components of sexism are not culturally specific.[10] Furthermore, research suggests that ambivalently sexist attitudes towards men exist, such that hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men are found cross-culturally.[15] These studies provide additional empirical evidence that support the framework of ambivalent sexism.

Critiques of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

While the ASI is widely used and accepted among researchers,[12] one limitation of the ASI is that it is a self-reported measure.[16] Social desirability is a common limitation of self-report measures in survey research; when participants in a research study complete a written self-report questionnaire, respondents are vulnerable to answering the items in a socially desirable manner. For this reason, some researchers employ variations of the ASI in their study designs that do not require self-reports. For example, Dardeene, Dumont, and Bollier (2007) transformed some items from the ASI into scenarios, presenting them to participants to induce conditions of both hostile and benevolent sexism.[14] Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary, and Kazama (2007) designed a field study in which they observed the sexist behaviors of others; they used the theory of ambivalent sexism and the ASI to generate items for their own measure to assess these observed behaviors.[17]

Another criticism of the ASI is that the labels of the two sub-constructs, "benevolent" and "hostile", are too abstract, do not generalize to certain languages, and may not be relevant to some cultures.[9]

Lastly, findings from the Conn, Hanges, Sipe, and Salvaggio (1999) study suggest that other sexism scales may measure ambivalent attitudes towards women.[18] Glick and Fiske originally proposed the theoretical framework of ambivalent sexism as filling a gap in the psychological literature and providing a novel tool for assessing a new dimension of sexism: benevolent sexism.[3] However, Conn and colleagues (1999), using confirmatory factor analysis, showed that the Modern Sexism Scale (Swim, Aikin, Hall, and Hunter, 1995) captures ambivalent sentiments toward women, such that it identifies individuals that appear nonsexist but actually endorse sexist attitudes.[18] Results from this study suggest that, while both the Modern Sexism Scale and the ASI assess ambivalence toward women, the ASI is unique in its capabilities for separately measuring both hostile and benevolent attitudes. In addition, the ASI captures heterosexual intimacy and benevolent paternalism, whereas the Modern Sexism Scale does not."

Ambivalent sexism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually found this too: UnderstandingPrejudice.org: Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

Hostile Sexism Score: 0.64
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.09

Total Average of Women
Hostile Sexism Score: 2.5
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.68

Total Average of Men
Hostile Sexism Score: 2.74
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.96



Turns out, most people are racist sexist scum. I kid of course. I don't actually know what the range is for those numbers, lol. I think 0-5, 5 being the most sexist.

Of course, I always have a problem with questionnaires like that.

Can't access the study, so I don't know what the anti-choice metric is.

 

[dust1n]

They used ambivalent sexism as their criteria for what is sexist. What's not sexist with ambivalent sexism? Hate women - sexist, love women - sexist.

That seems to be a rather vapid dismissal.