-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
9 out of 10 people found to be biased against women - UNDP report
- Thread starter Deleted member 16516
- Start date
Don't need to imagine - it's made explicit in the raw data, and that absolutely is the case, though some 'developed democratic nations' are more developed than others.
I suspect it's also crazy misleading, as given the bias marker for that it's likely that the actual question is if there is ever any situation in which it would be acceptable for a man to hit his partner.
If you knew how I had to adjust my behavior constantly as I go about my day due to bias, you honestly wouldn't be saying this. I've actually taught myself to appear dumber when interacting with men so as not to intimidate anyone into actual aggression. I have to act a certain way or there will be consequences. This is due to a mix of reality and my own upbringing. Women are dumber, have to be nice no matter what, can't have desire, and can't say no without dancing around it so as not to piss anyone off.
Microaggressions stack up.
Last edited:
You know its shitty when you see this kind of bias against women on era. So I'm not surprised by this news just dissapointed.
I don't see the usefulness in such a stat where at least 1 form of bias is present. But that's not the point of the report.
If I understand Table 2 correctly then I'm personally biased in assessing who is a proxy for intimate partner violence.
Can someone else offer their own interpretation on what they think "proxy for intimate partner violence" means?
The report is fine but the underlying problem the report cites as creating the most gender bias, family structures basically makes it impossible to really correct this issue. There is one decent idea to directly address it by revising labor time off laws such that fathers can be used more frequently to split the raising of children with their wives but that is such a tiny thing because the impressions children have about gender are formed at the ages long after when a parent would want to use paid time off after birth.
If I understand Table 2 correctly then I'm personally biased in assessing who is a proxy for intimate partner violence.
Can someone else offer their own interpretation on what they think "proxy for intimate partner violence" means?
The report is fine but the underlying problem the report cites as creating the most gender bias, family structures basically makes it impossible to really correct this issue. There is one decent idea to directly address it by revising labor time off laws such that fathers can be used more frequently to split the raising of children with their wives but that is such a tiny thing because the impressions children have about gender are formed at the ages long after when a parent would want to use paid time off after birth.
What's worst is that there are women who are equally just as misogynist as toxic men. Women who literally hate other women. It's disgusting and honestly, they are the reason we won't even progress. Men will always have women who will ride for their shitty views and it is what it is. The biological warfare on your own sex is something so amazing to continue to watch
I mean the biases they're testing are super fundamental, so having even one of them is honestly pretty fucked up. Obviously they aren't all on the same level, but they're all kind of shitty beliefs
That's incredibly sad to hear, thank you for sharing. I'm sure I contribute to the problem as well (as others here said, it would be foolish to assume otherwise).
I try to communicate my fears whenever I suspect my behavior or attitude may have made someone else uncomfortable (especially women) , in order to apologize if that is indeed the case.
More often then not the response is that my concern was unwarranted or exaggerated. But that's not to say there aren't other cases I am blind to were I do offend.
Still, it's funny, because dancing around a "no" instead of just being clear about it is something that I dislike (especially in the context of dating) and blame socially underdeveloped men for essentially forcing women to act in this way, to everybody's detriment.
They're grouped together because these are all biases that women have to face every day of our lives. You can't act like "They're all unwarranted" while essentially arguing that we shouldn't talk about issues that don't meet your personal level of severity. Or that by talking about these issues at the same time, that people are being dishonest and "Not helpful to the cause."
There seriously is not a faster way for someone to make me roll my eyes but to be completely unaffected by the issues at hand while chastising others for not talking about the issues in the way that you like.
It's funny because I believe the exact opposite. How many wars would have been avoided if the respective leaders didn't let their testosterone dictate their decisions?
I screamed "WHAT!" in real life reading this line. :S
It really sucks that this is the way things are for a lot of us. Hearing that you have to do that is sad to me. I try to limit my interactions with men a lot of the time because of how I come off to them and the assumptions they make based on that. I think everyone has biases to some extent and are always looking to confirm them consciously or not.
Probably none. Wars aren't caused by testosterone they're caused by economics and ideology.
Even worse, I've met women that they thought they deserved to be beaten :s
I mean, if it's a global survey... Yes, humanity as a whole is filled with backwards, swamp people attributes and ideas. Cretinous really.
I know a woman who said her MOTHER deserved to be beaten by her father.
But she's 70+ and a really bigoted, sad person.
Reading the report, Spain almost made the cut for "over 50% people have no biases", at 49.50, which is kind of surprising considering how sexist the country sometimes feels to me, and it's particularly shocking compared to e.g. Germany's 37.40%.
Because "having a prejudiced political opinion" is still really bad, dude. Wife-beating is easier to get outraged about in the immediate, but discriminating against women in politics (or business, industries, school, science, etc.) is incredibly insidious and far more difficult to combat. This bias leads to women being less likely to not only reach positions of power in society, but also to make them less likely to seek it out to begin with (and easier for men to just shrug and say "oh, I guess women just aren't typically interested in politics/tech/science/etc., must be biology!" -- James Damore, anyone).
And this all leads to a world that continues to be ruled by men, for men.... is it any surprise, then, that such a male-dominated world would also have widespread misogyny, including potentially a third of its population thinking that men can control their wives and even beat them?
Hidden content
I'm sorry you feel that way but getting angry with me for not getting it despite trying to (i.e. having a similar but not identical emotional response to the problem as someone who suffers from it, while simultaneously asking for insight from those who have it) isn't helpful either.
I understand how it's easy to interpret my post as dismissing other forms of bias and admit that I could have phrased it better. I had no intention to offend and apologize if I did. Being unaware is indeed offensive but it's not due to malice.
Addressing the hidden content: why are such posts not dealt with more severely? Are things so bad that if every man who made a sexist and demeaning post were permanently banned there wouldn't be enough people left? Asking genuinely.
Oh, they are. Won't stop a significant amount of (male) users from bitching that we aren't "fun", though.
These are pretty absurd and shocking results. Holy shit.
I think we all know there are biases, but the pervasiveness and severity of them according to this survey is horrifying.
I think we all know there are biases, but the pervasiveness and severity of them according to this survey is horrifying.
...What's with the tone? Anyway, I'm just explaining how harmful the more insidious and subtle sexism can be compared to the "overt" one, that's all.
I had to do a double take at this line, then I literally said "what?" Out loud.
what kind of shit heads did they interview here?
More people than that think it's acceptable to beat their children. World has a long fucking way to go. The only countries in this list that have successfully managed to mitigate some biases (not enough) are the democratic, developed nations. Tracks with what we know about even our own country too. US has a 50% bias rate, which tracks with what we know about how people vote too.
I don't think it's surprising that the countries with the lowest bias rates are also generally held up as the nations with the best standards of living and social mobility. They've truly created the most equitable societies.
The data in this survey backs up exactly what you are saying.
The tone is to suggest that people bitching about how it's not "fun" to ban others for being sexist maybe shouldn't be welcome on this forum.
Based off of the last anonymous confession thread, we have several extreme misogynists on here, especially if the women are part of a marginalized ethnic or religious group.
Keep in mind those threads are full of trolls. Tons of people make up stories for them.
Yeah, I think we have a very Western bias here. The world is way more than the US and Western Europe. And even in places with feminist movements, there is still lots of work to be done.
Women all around the world are subjugated to insane social conditions--child marriages, honor killings, and so on.
I'm of Hispanic descent and Machismo culture is endemic in Latin America.
... because the entire point Morrigan was making is the frequency of these opinions and their accumulated effect on making women feeling unwelcome, and banning them after the fact does not erase these posts retroactively? Have you lost the plot? This is the same "just ignore the bigots" shitty advice minorities face constantly.
You think? Wow, you cracked the code, congratulations!
Mansplaining is part of the problem.
with regards the hidden content (and I know the the thread is now locked) but why was this thread allowed to stay open https://www.resetera.com/threads/so-serious-question-how-attractive-is-adam-driver.171193/
Surely if it was the other way round and "boys club culture" it would be locked down and people banned.
I very strongly disagree that male agression and toxicity doesn't play a huge part in politics, international relations and, yes, ideology, but let's leave it at that so as to not derail the thread.
How is asking for people to be banned for minor expressions of sexism in order to avoid major ones from happening in the first place shitty advice and/or mansplaining?
Morrigan just said those were frequent occurences on this forum.
This is a naive view. History has some violent female leaders. It's a humanity issue.
Then I guess saying the vast majority of murderers are male is also "naive" because history has some violent female murderers too. The more you know!
Yes... she's perfectly aware it shouldn't be welcome or acceptable, having to spend every day being exposed to sexists posts as a woman. She was explaining what an uphill battle is to moderate this forum, particularly as a woman. We've had female staff trolled and laughed at for trying to clamp down on such behaviour, but that doesn't mean we're going to stop. It just means this isn't something that will be fixed overnight. The issue is a societal one, and it's reflected in the behaviour here. Even if many posters here see themselves as progressive, they blind to their biases and prejudices.
You say you're not mansplaining, but yeah, your behaviour was aggressive and condescending. She's fully aware of how bad that all is, she has to work to combat it daily despite the behaviour specifically targeting her as a woman.That makes it doubly tiring, but she still does it. So please be mindful of that.
Because it's not the same, in the same way punching up in a playful manner isn't the same as casual bigotry. The difference between the power that women and men hold even today is astronomically different, and that doesn't even begin to dig into the way women have historically been commodified, oppressed and controlled by men. Context will always matter.
gender roles informed our entire history from our first societies to the entire concept of marriage to priesthood to concubines to eunuchs to modern governments
"How is rudely telling a female moderator how to run a forum to curb sexism mansplaining?"
Truly a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. *shrug*
Then I guess saying the vast majority of murderers are male is also "naive" because "history has some violent female murderers" too. The more you know!
Sure, let's ignore the social context of female objectifying vs male objectifying; that's certainly a tactic always used in good faith and absolutely never to shut down female sexualization concerns with false equivalences.