Welcome to Gaia! ::

Are YOU a feminist?

A what? :sweat: 0.02054012932674 2.1% [ 54 ]
ABSOLUTELY. 0.39368581209585 39.4% [ 1035 ]
Maybe? 0.1407379231647 14.1% [ 370 ]
Nah. 0.20426017497147 20.4% [ 537 ]
NO & U R A FEMINAZI LULZ 0.11373145682769 11.4% [ 299 ]
Whatevs. Just gold pl0x. 0.12704450361354 12.7% [ 334 ]
Total Votes:[ 2629 ]
Complex Systems's avatar

6,000 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
The Willow Of Darkness

Reality is biased. Truth is biased. If X is, then not-X cannot be in the given situation.

What you are doing amounts to throwing your hand in the air and ignoring that which is(conflicting data, for example, might be showing both issues exist indifferent circumstances).


I love statistics, the best parts of my job involve doing statistical regressions, however, whenever we start doing them there are a plethora of things we need to take into account. When testing for causality, that is, creating a model that tries to show how a dependent variable is linked to a series of independent variables, it is important to come up with a theory that first explains what is going on. Why were certain explanatory variables picked, why were others excluded? What is the expected sign of each variable, and is there any inclination towards their respective magnitudes?

Having two studies that each try to test a result in a similar fashion, and come up with conflicting results might simply mean that there is no general applicable theory behind why a dependent variable happens. Instead, there are place and time sensitive variables that are unaccounted for in the model. This is called omitted variable bias, and will skew the statistical significance and magnitude of studies.

If there was large inconsistencies in the past research, individuals would be unable to make any claim, as clearly there would be variables with a strongly determinant effect on growth that were excluded and masking the real effects.

It should be noted however that statistics is not truth, it is a syllogism used in logic to try and add a level of empiricism to theory.
Olya's avatar

Fashionable Conversationalist

11,900 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Megathread 100
The Willow Of Darkness
Olya
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Olya
Meroko_Love
Yes, but of course, I have seen plenty of statistics that suggest otherwise; far more that suggest women do NOT initiate violent fights as much, so I cannot really be sure. From my personal experiences, I've seen the female-as-victim types of domestic violence. And from all the psych and soc classes I've had, it seems that tends to be the majority of DV cases. Don't forget, some of the females who are initiating this violence could well be lesbians.

LGBTQ domestic violence is very under-researched.

(This is just for US culture, of course.)

This, in gist is my problem. WHY are studies from REPUTABLE sources so conflicting in what they tell us? I may be inclined to believe one more than the other, but in the end, there is no probable cause to believe either.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright


So your solution to conflicting data is to believe that neither are correct? neutral

Yes. Otherwise you bring your own bias into the issue.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright


Reality is biased. Truth is biased. If X is, then not-X cannot be in the given situation.

What you are doing amounts to throwing your hand in the air and ignoring that which is(conflicting data, for example, might be showing both issues exist indifferent circumstances).

"Might" is not a good enough answer, now is it? "Might" doesn't tell you jack s**t.

I am not capable of sitting down and analyzing why so many studies conflict. I have no resources to conduct an independent study to verify the data. Until someone with education and resources does this and his/her results are further verified by subsequent studies, I have no cause to believe one study over another. And I have no basis to form an opinion. Informed one, that is. There's always an option in believing what one wants to believe.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright
littlewonder2's avatar

Distinct Vampire

5,400 Points
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Full closet 200
  • First step to fame 200
It seems that women are taught to look down on themselves from very early in life, and sometimes by other sad, sad women.

You Didn't Thank Me For Punching You In The Face.

Besides which, I think it's ALL A LIE!!! scream

Plus,

Gender Bias In The Classroom

Which inevitably leads women in adulthood into this situation:

"Success and likability are positively correlated in men, and negatively correlated in women. Women must worry about how ambition ‘looks’ because appearing ambitious negatively impacts their success." – The Next Women, Busting the Myth That Women Are Less Ambitious Than Men
Yoshpet
The Sky Does Not Bow
Well, there's a whole lot of ways you can change about yourself. our speech, your mannerisms, etc. For instance, stop using the word "girl" instead of "women," or use non-gender specific curses.


On the topic of gender-specific curses, is it still wrong if I call men bitches too?

Do women find the term "girls" condescending or something? confused


Yes. Just like many men find the term "boys" condescending. It's politically incorrect to call a woman a girl.
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

5,000 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Meroko_Love
I was confused whether he meant disrespecting a woman's age and authority (which he was) or just the word "girls" in general usage. It's not inappropriate for me to refer to a female under 18 as a "girl", right?

What about the swearing question? I frequently call both my boyfriend and my brother "bitches" in jest. Would women have a right to be mad about me doing so?
Yoshpet
Meroko_Love
Denying one's social privilege indirectly helps to keep the status quo; it ignores the fact that social institutions exist that oppress certain groups of people.

First step is to admit that there are inequalities, yes, which he has denied, which is my main problem. Second step is to be mindful of ways that we benefit from these inequalities and at least try not to use them. For example, because I am white, I have the privilege to never be labelled as a "welfare queen", since that term tends to be reserved for black women. So my responsibility, being privileged in that way, is to challenge these beliefs whenever possible and not just ignore them because they do not affect me.

EDIT: An example that might be more fitting for you, Yosh, is my straight privilege over you. I have the social privilege, among others, to walk around in public being affectionate with my boyfriend without fearing hateful glares, comments, or even threats. It's my responsibility as a straight privileged person to challenge homophobia when possible, even though it does not affect me personally.


How do you challenge your own privilege though? Most of it is stuff you can't necessarily relinquish, like the entire circumstance of your life. While you recognize that you likely have a much easier time expressing PDA, are you supposed to abstain out of fairness, or just chastise those who do the glaring? (Just so ya know I'm not prodding for a particular answer, I'm just trying to get the full picture of your stance.)

I was walking down the street with my boyfriend the other week and someone yelled "fags" out of their car window. I don't know if I have serious gay-face or if it was the fact that I was drinking an iced mocha but we were like a solid foot or two away from each other. I kind of wondered if they would have shouted it at anybody because they're like that. rolleyes


I think of challenging my own straight privilege as chastising others who hold homophobic, oppressive beliefs. These beliefs don't harm me personally at all, so I think I have even more of a responsibility to challenge them and not just ignore them and let them go. Also, it's important to always notice your privilege, because it is something that we pretty much are socialized to think is normal.

See? That's an excellent example of my straight privilege over you. It's pretty unlikely that something like that would happen to me or my straight male friends.
The Sky Does Not Bow
Yoshpet
Honestly, swearing is probably the last frontier for morality and etiquette so it seems a strange place to start when combating an idea like privilege.

It's not JUST swearing. Use of language in general needs to change. Language is a powerful tool and words are powerful, all on their own. It can reinforce privilege or help to deconstruct it and render it open to public analysis and judgment. It seems such a small thing, but actually has incredible impact on our lives.


Someone's been reading Judith Butler! biggrin
Olya
Meroko_Love
Yes, but of course, I have seen plenty of statistics that suggest otherwise; far more that suggest women do NOT initiate violent fights as much, so I cannot really be sure. From my personal experiences, I've seen the female-as-victim types of domestic violence. And from all the psych and soc classes I've had, it seems that tends to be the majority of DV cases. Don't forget, some of the females who are initiating this violence could well be lesbians.

LGBTQ domestic violence is very under-researched.

(This is just for US culture, of course.)

This, in gist is my problem. WHY are studies from REPUTABLE sources so conflicting in what they tell us? I may be inclined to believe one more than the other, but in the end, there is no probable cause to believe either.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright


Well, I think we can safely conclude that everyone and anyone can be victim to domestic violence, however, we also should not minimize the gendered aspects of it. If we look at women's history of oppression in the US, we see that domestic violence was considered a man's right to discipline his wife until rather recently, to be honest.
So, I think we need to also take this history into consideration as well, since, as you can see from every culture, it is very important to present reality.
Olya
The Willow Of Darkness
Olya
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Olya
Meroko_Love
Yes, but of course, I have seen plenty of statistics that suggest otherwise; far more that suggest women do NOT initiate violent fights as much, so I cannot really be sure. From my personal experiences, I've seen the female-as-victim types of domestic violence. And from all the psych and soc classes I've had, it seems that tends to be the majority of DV cases. Don't forget, some of the females who are initiating this violence could well be lesbians.

LGBTQ domestic violence is very under-researched.

(This is just for US culture, of course.)

This, in gist is my problem. WHY are studies from REPUTABLE sources so conflicting in what they tell us? I may be inclined to believe one more than the other, but in the end, there is no probable cause to believe either.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright


So your solution to conflicting data is to believe that neither are correct? neutral

Yes. Otherwise you bring your own bias into the issue.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright


Reality is biased. Truth is biased. If X is, then not-X cannot be in the given situation.

What you are doing amounts to throwing your hand in the air and ignoring that which is(conflicting data, for example, might be showing both issues exist indifferent circumstances).

"Might" is not a good enough answer, now is it? "Might" doesn't tell you jack s**t.

I am not capable of sitting down and analyzing why so many studies conflict. I have no resources to conduct an independent study to verify the data. Until someone with education and resources does this and his/her results are further verified by subsequent studies, I have no cause to believe one study over another. And I have no basis to form an opinion. Informed one, that is. There's always an option in believing what one wants to believe.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright


Kay, I'll let you know when I become a psych researcher, and I'll carry out a study on DV. biggrin
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

5,000 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100


Yeah, I think she's kind of missing the mark. Gradeschool children frequently pick on each other when they have a crush. That's what the parents are presuming. It may not be the case and instead be bullying or just a plain old fight, but it's certainly not society expecting men to abuse girls as part of a healthy relationship.

There's so much evil in this world, I often wonder why people grasp at straws and stretch scenarios to seem malicious when they most likely aren't. What a waste of time.

Edit: For reference - Helga G. Pataki
Yoshpet
Meroko_Love
I was confused whether he meant disrespecting a woman's age and authority (which he was) or just the word "girls" in general usage. It's not inappropriate for me to refer to a female under 18 as a "girl", right?

What about the swearing question? I frequently call both my boyfriend and my brother "bitches" in jest. Would women have a right to be mad about me doing so?


Under 18, using "girl" is considered politically correct. Just like using "boy" is too.

Mmmm, yeah, sorta. Some women don't care because it's so normalized and almost everyone does it, but the term "b***h" has been, and still is, used to degrade women and make them feel guilty about being assertive as opposed to passive and kind. And it is a gendered word which subtly reinforces gender roles, even if that was not the intention.

When I hear the word b***h, I can't help but cringe because I know how hurtful it was for me when I was called it.

See, it's similar to the term n****r. Black people may use that term in positive ways, but if a white person uses it? Ehhhh, it's not acceptable.

It really is like what Sky said: Words are very powerful tools of keeping the status quo, reaffirming privilege, or even oppressing.
Yoshpet


Yeah, I think she's kind of missing the mark. Gradeschool children frequently pick on each other when they have a crush. That's what the parents are presuming. It may not be the case and instead be bullying or just a plain old fight, but it's certainly not society expecting men to abuse girls as part of a healthy relationship.

There's so much evil in this world, I often wonder why people grasp at straws and stretch scenarios to seem malicious when they most likely aren't. What a waste of time.

Edit: For reference - Helga G. Pataki


To be fair, she makes some good points, mainly that abuse towards girls and women sometimes can be normalized in society or excused with just "boys being boys".
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

5,000 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Meroko_Love
Under 18, using "girl" is considered politically correct. Just like using "boy" is too.

Mmmm, yeah, sorta. Some women don't care because it's so normalized and almost everyone does it, but the term "b***h" has been, and still is, used to degrade women and make them feel guilty about being assertive as opposed to passive and kind. And it is a gendered word which subtly reinforces gender roles, even if that was not the intention.

When I hear the word b***h, I can't help but cringe because I know how hurtful it was for me when I was called it.

See, it's similar to the term n****r. Black people may use that term in positive ways, but if a white person uses it? Ehhhh, it's not acceptable.

It really is like what Sky said: Words are very powerful tools of keeping the status quo, reaffirming privilege, or even oppressing.


I can kind of see where you're coming from, but I keep reminding myself that it's a swear word and typically used to be purposefully offensive. So it almost makes sense for it to be sexist in nature. I figured my usage might be more excusable since it's reserved for men (I very rarely use slurs against people when I'm actually mad at them, I prefer resolution to confrontation) and is thus a form of absurd comedy.
Yoshpet's avatar

Dedicated Loiterer

5,000 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Meroko_Love
To be fair, she makes some good points, mainly that abuse towards girls and women sometimes can be normalized in society or excused with just "boys being boys".


That definitely happens and is not alright in the least, but I would hate for every dumbass kid picking on the person they like to be compared to an abusive spouse.
Yoshpet
Meroko_Love
Under 18, using "girl" is considered politically correct. Just like using "boy" is too.

Mmmm, yeah, sorta. Some women don't care because it's so normalized and almost everyone does it, but the term "b***h" has been, and still is, used to degrade women and make them feel guilty about being assertive as opposed to passive and kind. And it is a gendered word which subtly reinforces gender roles, even if that was not the intention.

When I hear the word b***h, I can't help but cringe because I know how hurtful it was for me when I was called it.

See, it's similar to the term n****r. Black people may use that term in positive ways, but if a white person uses it? Ehhhh, it's not acceptable.

It really is like what Sky said: Words are very powerful tools of keeping the status quo, reaffirming privilege, or even oppressing.


I can kind of see where you're coming from, but I keep reminding myself that it's a swear word and typically used to be purposefully offensive. So it almost makes sense for it to be sexist in nature. I figured my usage might be more excusable since it's reserved for men (I very rarely use slurs against people when I'm actually mad at them, I prefer resolution to confrontation) and is thus a form of absurd comedy.


When using it in a form of absurd comedy or satire, I have no problem with it, and I do that myself.
If you are using the term towards men in non-comedic ways, that would be reflective of the degrading of men who are deemed "effeminate" in our culture by calling them bitches. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "being a little b***h". It's common for very masculine men to use the term and thus reinforce gender roles.

I'm not sure if the gay community has tried to reclaim the terms f** or dyke, but it's the same as those words. Meant to demean, cause harm, keep a power structure of straight > gay or male > female.

Also, I hope I'm not coming off as attacking you in anyway; my intent is only to explain.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games