Obvious Study: Anti-Abortionists found Sexist

[freethinker44]

That seems to be a rather vapid dismissal.

It should be easy to prove me wrong then. Ready... go.

 

[MD]

It says a lot about a society, a movement and a people who attack those who wish to preserve innocent human life. Slander and lies is one way, and increasingly shows the delusion of the left.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It says a lot about a society, a movement and a people who attack those who wish to preserve innocent human life.

Who's attacking? Calling a pervasive view as sexist is attacking?

Dang, and I thought accosting women heading to a women's care clinic, grabbing her, shoving signs in her face, calling her a murderer, telling her to go into a truck instead of a clinic for a "free ultrasound" was much more of an attack than saying folks can carry both/either hostile and benevolent sexist views.

Which brings me back to my point from earlier. Some folks hear "sexist" and they think the referral is about somebody who is a horrible human being, rather than pointing out that it is the view, itself, that is sexist.

 

[dust1n]

It should be easy to prove me wrong then. Ready... go.

Prove you wrong on what? That you didn't respond with a vapid dismissal?

 

[MD]

Who's attacking? Calling a pervasive view as sexist is attacking?

Dang, and I thought accosting women heading to a women's care clinic, grabbing her, shoving signs in her face, calling her a murderer, telling her to go into a truck instead of a clinic for a "free ultrasound" was much more of an attack than saying folks can carry both/either hostile and benevolent sexist views.

Which brings me back to my point from earlier. Some folks hear "sexist" and they think the referral is about somebody who is a horrible human being, rather than pointing out that it is the view, itself, that is sexist.

And labelling an entire movement as sexist, based on a 'study' from a crappy journal is right? It's not sexist if it's calling for saving human life. I view pro abortion akin to murder, especially after the first trimester.

Instead of having a dialogue, pro abortionists simply dismiss any other views. It is the pervasive problem of the left in general, they cannot and do not accept that they can be wrong.

 

[dust1n]

It says a lot about a society, a movement and a people who attack those who wish to preserve innocent human life. Slander and lies is one way, and increasingly shows the delusion of the left.

Yup, pro-abortion people never slander or tell lies. It's not like every single being to have ever existed has ever slandered or lied, so it is a quite poignant observation you made there about an entire society, a movement and a people being especially primed to do these not-innate human behaviors.

 

[dust1n]

And labelling an entire movement as sexist, based on a 'study' from a crappy journal is right? It's not sexist if it's calling for saving human life. I view pro abortion akin to murder, especially after the first trimester.

Instead of having a dialogue, pro abortionists simply dismiss any other views. It is the pervasive problem of the left in general, they cannot and do not accept that they can be wrong.

The study certainly didn't say the entire movement was sexist. I quote again:

"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

Do those words function equivalently as "the entire pro-life movement is sexist" as you suggested?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hate women - sexist, love women - sexist.

When you love women so much that you think you must carefully guide her, that you have to protect her, that you have to open doors for her, that is what is called benevolent sexism. It begins with the assumption that women need a man to provide for these things.

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.

You are the one who dismissed right-wing sexism claiming it isn't likely to be found within Christianity.

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

"In general...contraceptions and abortion." Those where my own words.

Instead of having a dialogue, pro abortionists simply dismiss any other views. It is the pervasive problem of the left in general, they cannot and do not accept that they can be wrong.

Why should pro-lifers be able to take it upon themselves and make choices for women? In the more extreme cases, why should pro-lifers dictate a woman's reproductive/sexual habits? Why should pro-lifers mandate that a woman carry a rape-pregnancy to term when she had absolutely no choice in the matter?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

And labelling an entire movement as sexist, based on a 'study' from a crappy journal is right? It's not sexist if it's calling for saving human life. I view pro abortion akin to murder, especially after the first trimester.

It isn't. It is the termination of a pregnancy according to bioethics and to the justice system affording women our constitutional right to have bodily autonomy even during pregnancy.

Instead of having a dialogue, pro abortionists simply dismiss any other views. It is the pervasive problem of the left in general, they cannot and do not accept that they can be wrong.

It's difficult to have any sort of dialogue with somebody who submits an absolutist view like this, one that unequivocally says "abortion is murder, full stop," because where can the conversation go after that?

I should know, I held a hard core absolutist anti-choice view like that for 20 years. Nobody could convince me to see anything else except that abortion hands down was murder. And it was a conversation on RF that had me humbled out of my anti-choice position.

Things change.

 

[freethinker44]

Prove you wrong on what? That you didn't respond with a vapid dismissal?

I said the results in this study are obvious because of course they would find something sexist if their criteria for testing for sexism is ambivalent sexism, and then you said that's a vapid dismissal, so again if I'm wrong, go ahead and prove it.

 

[dust1n]

I said the results in this study are obvious because of course they would find something sexist if their criteria for testing for sexism is ambivalent sexism, and then you said that's a vapid dismissal, so again if I'm wrong, go ahead and prove it.

The reasoning the study here is being dismissed is because it's use of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory is unreliable, if I am understanding you correctly, because it finds all things sexist, which is a claim that isn't supported by anything you'e said. In which case, I posted earlier:

"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]"

So given all that I can find about ASI, there is no reason as far as I can see that any and all opinions would be deemed sexists. And since you have no provided any evidence to support the notion that using the ASI for any purposes would deem all things sexist, yet you dismiss the entirety of the study (which one probably could do by legitimate means anyways) because it utilizes ASI to gauge a study. Which is why I referred to it as a vapid dismissal.

 

[freethinker44]

When you love women so much that you think you must carefully guide her, that you have to protect her, that you have to open doors for her, that is what is called benevolent sexism. It begins with the assumption that women need a man to provide for these things.

This is why benevolent sexism is BS. It's like saying slaves are oppressing the slave owner because there is an assumption that the owner needs the slaves. Benevolent sexism against one sex is just a way to rationalize hostile sexism against the other sex as sexism against the first. It's complete BS, men being disposable is not benevolent sexism against women, it's hostile sexism against men.

 

[dust1n]

Furthermore, here are all the test points:


Hostile Sexism (toward women):

• Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for "equality."
• Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
• Women are too easily offended.
• Feminists are seeking for women to have more power than men.
• Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them.
• Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.
• Women exaggerate problems they have at work.
• Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash.
• When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against.
• There are many women who get a kick out of teasing men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances.
• Feminists are not making entirely reasonable demands of men.

Benevolent Sexism (toward Women):

• No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman.
• In a disaster, women ought to be rescued before men.
• People are rarely truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.
• Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.
• Women should be cherished and protected by men.
• Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores.
• Men are incomplete without women.
• A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man.
• Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility.
• Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives.
• Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of culture and good taste.

Hostility toward Men:

• A man who is sexually attracted to a woman typically has no morals about doing whatever it takes to get her in bed.
• When men act to "help" women, they are often trying to prove they are better than women.
• Men would be lost in this world if women weren't there to guide them.
• Men act like babies when they are sick.
• Men will always fight to have greater control in society than women.
• Even men who claim to be sensitive to women's rights really want a traditional relationship at home, with the woman performing most of the housekeeping and child care.
• Men usually try to dominate conversations when talking to women.
• Most men pay lip service to equality for women but can't handle having a woman as an equal.
• When it comes down to it, most men are really like children.
• Most men sexually harass women, even if only in subtle ways, once they are in a position of power over them.

Benevolence toward Men:

• Even if both members of a couple work, the woman ought to be more attentive to taking care of her man at home.
• Men are less likely to fall apart in emergencies than women are.
• Every woman needs a male partner who will cherish her.
• A woman will never be truly fulfilled in life if she doesn’t have a committed, long-term relationship with a man.
• Men are mainly useful to provide financial security for women.
• Every woman ought to have a man she adores.
• Men are more willing to put themselves in danger to protect others.
• Women are incomplete without men.
• Men are more willing to take risks than women.
• Women ought to take care of their men at home, because men would fall apart if they had to fend for themselves.

So, what's the problem?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I said the results in this study are obvious because of course they would find something sexist if their criteria for testing for sexism is ambivalent sexism, and then you said that's a vapid dismissal, so again if I'm wrong, go ahead and prove it.

This isn't necessarily true. It's a thing that just happens with research when your data contradicts your initial hypothesis. I know one guy who has ended up regretting a good chunk of his life's work because his research into his master's thesis has turned up stuff that has contradicted him to such a strong degree that he had to change his thesis statement. His statement was initially, something that is based on "common knowledge," is that MMA is more safe than other sports, but his research is not supporting that.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

This is why benevolent sexism is BS. It's like saying slaves are oppressing the slave owner because there is an assumption that the owner needs the slaves. Benevolent sexism against one sex is just a way to rationalize hostile sexism against the other sex as sexism against the first. It's complete BS, men being disposable is not benevolent sexism against women, it's hostile sexism against men.

And that's why patriarchy hurts us all - not just women - and must be stopped.

Please don't misread that; it's not designed to make light of the tribulations women are subject to. Harm isn't a competition, obviously.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is why benevolent sexism is BS.

It's part of a larger problem known as positive discrimination. It's like my example of butting in and trying to help someone who seems physically impaired, even though you did not ask if that person needs help. It starts with the assumption that person is unable to help themselves, and you must help them, even though that person may be perfectly capable of doing what you are trying to do for them.
Discrimination comes in many more forms than just "I hate your kind." With benevolent sexism towards women, it starts with good intentions, but it assumes women need something from men. And it does go both ways, such as how society generally regards men as needing the help of a woman to raise a child.
But it does very well exist, and it is very much alive.

 

[Marisa]

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.

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.

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

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?

I'm all of a sudden reminded of Jimmy Carter and his recent egress from the SBC over sexist religious dogma.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are the one who dismissed right-wing sexism claiming it isn't likely to be found within Christianity.

Wrong. That's not what I said. I was saying that the right-wing Christian sort of sexism that everyone likes to harp about probably isn't the most prevalent sort of sexism against woman in society right now. It's certainly not the sort of sexism that's promoted in media. The sort of sexism against women I see is a pornographic sort of "bang 'em and leave 'em" sort of sexism that wants to add more notches to the belt and run off. The epidemic of fatherless, single mother homes in America is proof of that. I doubt those guys are going to care much if you have an abortion or not.

"In general...contraceptions and abortion." Those where my own words.

So are you arguing that being against contraception and abortion is rooted in sexism against women? Except that it's not. Being against contraception is generally rooted in what the person believes sex should be about, namely bonding and creating new life instead of just screwing for pleasure. Opposition to abortion is based on the person's definition of personhood, generally that life begins at contraception and to take the life of an unborn child is tantamount to murder. It has nothing to do with sexism and that's just a stupid political argument meant to shame your political opponents and mischaracterize their argument. It's the same as when I got called a racist in one of my threads for basically just saying that black culture has a problem that only they can fix. This is a common tactic among certain neo-leftists.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And that's why patriarchy hurts us all - not just women - and must be stopped.

What do you mean by patriarchy and what do you propose as an alternative?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wrong. That's not what I said. I was saying that the right-wing Christian sort of sexism that everyone likes to harp about probably isn't the most prevalent sort of sexism against woman in society right now.

But you still nevertheless find sexism throughout Christianity and the church.

Being against contraception is generally rooted in what the person believes sex should be about, namely bonding and creating new life instead of just screwing for pleasure.

You can be against it. That's a personal choice. However, it becomes a problem when you take your beliefs and try to legislate them into laws that restrict the ability of women to choose. Those are blatant attempts to control women, which is sexist.