# Ambivalent Sexism Index - how sexist are you?



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

UnderstandingPrejudice.org: Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

According to Wikipedia, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory is "the primary method used to measure an individual's endorsement of ambivalent sexism."


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

I did this few days ago, will do it again, but felt it like it'd be easy test to mess up with social desirability. 
Though it seems people get different results, so maybe I just think it's easy.

*Hostile Sexism Score: **0.00 *
*Benevolent Sexism Score: **0.00*


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> I did this few days ago, will do it again, but felt it like it'd be easy test to mess up with social desirability.
> Though it seems people get different results, so maybe I just think it's easy.
> 
> *Hostile Sexism Score: **0.00 *
> *Benevolent Sexism Score: **0.00*


Any scores posted here will be meaningless, which is why I didn't post my own. If people want to be dishonest to make themselves feel better, then that's their problem.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Hostile Sexism Score: 2.36 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.82
I'm not very benevolent.


----------



## Chris Merola (Jul 11, 2014)

i got about 1.5 on hostile sexism, and near a 2 for benevolent sexism. i was under both male and female averages for the United States.

That was a really cool quiz, i never thought of wanting to protect women as a kind of sexism. Although i want to protect everyone anyway, women just have a soft spot in my heart.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

> Hostile Sexism Score: 0.64
> Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.27


For the most part, I found the questions difficult to even respond to. There are a few different ways a "disagree" or "agree" could be taken for most of them:
"A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man." - Agreeing could be a sign of "benevolent sexism", or the person could believe that partners in a relationship should both set each other on a pedestal, and thus agree with the sentiment of a statement like this; alternatively, one could disagree either because they don't like to treat women in a "benevolently sexist" fashion, or because they believe partners should treat each other as equals, or even disagree because they believe women should be treated as subservient. Between statements like this, and statements like "Men are complete without women" that I have no idea what to make of at all, I don't know what store can really be set in any results obtained in this test.


----------



## Kaisikudo (Mar 26, 2011)

4) "What race best describes you?"

5) "Are you Hispanic or Latino?"

Uhhh... why is that a seperate question? Why not just include Hispanic/Latino under the previous list of races? 



Hostile Sexism Score: * 2.18 * 
Benevolent Sexism Score: * 1.55*

Don't consider myself a feminist, but still get lower than average scores for Sexism. Wtf.


----------



## Flaming Bassoon (Feb 15, 2013)

Hostile Sexism Score: * 0.45 * 
Benevolent Sexism Score: * 0.18*


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Hispanic or Latino isn't a race; it's an ethnicity.



Kaisikudo said:


> 4) "What race best describes you?"
> 
> 5) "Are you Hispanic or Latino?"
> 
> ...


----------



## Wonszu (Sep 25, 2013)

Hostile Sexism Score: * 0.45 * 
Benevolent Sexism Score: * 1.55 

*Could be worse I guess.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Hostile Sexism Score: 0.09
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.55

I could have gotten a zero on both, but I dislike using the far ends on scales. It's a habit of mine that I should get out of.


----------



## CitricBoxer (Jan 3, 2015)

Hostile Sexism Score: 0.18 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.45

I'm willing to bet my scores came from not answering full-on with regards to the "men should protect women" type questions. Unfortunately, due to how our reproductive systems work, men are just more expendable than women are.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

I am pretty aware of my sexist biases, so this test only confirmed it for me. 

I am a feminist. I advocate for the rights of both men and women. But I do have a lens in which I perceive men in general to be evolutionary inferior. I can't change this thinking, but I am aware of it whenever I make arguments or enter into a debate.

*Hostile Sexism Score: **0.91 *
*Benevolent Sexism Score: **1.64*


----------



## CitricBoxer (Jan 3, 2015)

stiletto said:


> I am a feminist. I advocate for the rights of both men and women. But I do have a lens in which I perceive men in general to be evolutionary inferior. I can't change this thinking, but I am aware of it whenever I make arguments or enter into a debate.


This is interesting enough to engage. What makes you think men are "evolutionarily inferior"?

Preface: I also identify as a feminist, though I am of the school of thought that men and women have fundamental differences that should be recognized and celebrated. That said, sexual dimorphism would imply that men and women fulfill different functions. To call one or the other superior or inferior makes no sense, as they are supposed to be complementary, not competitive.

Footnote: This is not to say that women should not pursue "masculine" functions or vice versa. We live in the 21st century and every individual ought to be encouraged to do what they want in spite of any biased, biological or cultural. My argument is that men are biologically built differently from women, and that biases us to being better and worse at different things.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Not a very good test. For example:

_Women are too easily offended. _

_Women seek to gain power by getting control over men._

I don't strongly agree or disagree with either of these. I'm not even kind of in the middle. I have zero opinion on these notions because women are 50% of the human population. I'm not in a position to make broad judgments about half the human population.

_People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex. _

_Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores. _

...are they testing for sexism or homophobia?

_Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men._ 

_Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men. _

_Which_ feminists, exactly? The answer isn't the same for every kind of feminist out there.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Walther von der Vogelweide said:


> _Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men._
> 
> _Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men. _
> 
> _Which_ feminists, exactly? The answer isn't the same for every kind of feminist out there.


Yes, this type of question really threw me. It's an unfair question because some feminists are making unreasonable demands and are seeking to have more power. Whether that number is large at all is entirely up for debate and not something I have any sort of real data on.

So despite believing in no stereotypes and rejecting them all readily, I have a little bit of a sexism index according to that test, because I don't blindly think that all feminists are fine and dandy. I say bollocks, I'll continue to live with my eyes open, thank you very much.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

Hostile Sexism Score: 0.00 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.00


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Walther von der Vogelweide @LostFavor

It was created in 1996 so maybe take that into consideration, if you think that feminists making unreasonable demands is a recent thing.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

I wish they had "I don't know" options on their questions. I'm not familiar with feminist ideology so I basically guessed on all of those...


Hostile Sexism Score: 1.36 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.09


----------



## Mr.Venture (Dec 25, 2011)

I'm pretty unshy about my beliefs, but they also tend to be very nuanced. Very few "end point" answers since I can usually think up a few experiences from personal history that are the exception to any rule. Still, interesting exercise.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

For examination of the ASI, one can follow google to a PDF for the paper that first introduced it.

I would link to it directly but seems it's downloaded to be accessed.

*Abstract*

* *




The authors present a theory of sexism formulated as ambivalence toward women and validate a corresponding measure, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). The ASI taps 2 positively correlated components of sexism that nevertheless represent opposite evaluative orientations toward women: sexist antipathy or Hostile Sexism (HS) and a subjectively positive ( for sexist men ) orientation toward women, Benevolent Sexism (BS). HS and BS are hypothesized to encompass 3 sources of male ambivalence: Paternalism, Gender Differentiation, and Heterosexuality. Six ASI studies on 2,250 respondents established convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Overall ASI scores predict ambivalent attitudes toward women, the HS scale correlates with negative attitudes toward and stereotypes about women, and the BS scale (for nonstudent men only) correlates with positive attitudes toward and stereotypes about women. A copy of the ASI is provided, with scoring instructions,as a tool for further explorations of sexist ambivalence.



*​Definition of Benevolent Sexism*

* *




Sexism has typically been conceptualized as a reflection of hostility toward women. This view neglects a significant aspect of sexism: the subjectively positive feelings toward women that often go hand in hand with sexist antipathy. We view sexism as a multidimensional construct that encompasses two sets of sexist attitudes: hostile and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism needs little explanation; by it we mean those aspects of sexism that fit Allport's (1954) classic definition of prejudice. We define benevolent sexism ~ as a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver) and also tend to elicit behaviors typically categorized as prosocial (e.g., helping) or intimacy seeking(e.g., self-disclosure). 

We do not consider benevolent sexism a good thing, for despite the positive feelings it may indicate for the perceiver, its underpinnings lie in traditional stereotyping and masculine dominance (e.g., the man as the provider and woman as his dependent), and its consequences are often damaging. Benevolent sexism is not necessarily experienced as benevolent by the recipient. For example, a man's comment to a female coworker on how "cute" she looks, however well-intentioned, may undermine her feelings of being taken seriously as a professional. Nevertheless, the subjectively positive nature of the perceiver's feelings, the prosocial behaviors,and the attempts to achieve intimacy that benevolent sexism generates do not fit standard notions of prejudice.

Evidence for benevolent sexism can be gleaned from a varietyof research areas. Research on helping behavior shows that femaletargets are more likely to elicit help than male targets are(see Eagly & Crowley, 1986 for a meta-analysis of this effect).Both men and women are more likely to seek intimacy withfemale than with male strangers, as indexed by interpersonaldistance (Riess & Salzer, 1981 ), touching (Major, Schmidlin,& Williams, 1990), and self-disclosure (Cozby, 1973; Morton,1978 ).2 Even the commonly accepted notion among social scientiststhat stereotypes of women are more negative than thoseof men has been called into question by Eagly and her colleagues(Eagly & Mladinic, 1993; Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto,1991 ), who have found evidence for more positive stereotypesof women than men, on certain dimensions.

To balance the picture, however, it is important to note theprevalence of hostile sexism. In nearly all cultures and time periodsfor which information is available, women have been restrictedto social roles with less status than those of men (Tavris& Wade, 1984). In our own society, there is evidence thatwomen still face discrimination in gaining employment(Fitzgerald & Betz, 1983; Glick, 1991 ) and sexual harassmenton the job (Gutek, 1985) and are perceived less favorably thanmen when enacting leadership roles in a masculine manner ordomain (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). Even though stereotypesof women contain many positive traits, the positivetraits relate to social-emotional, not agentic dimensions, sowomen are portrayed as being nice but incompetent at manyimportant tasks (e.g., analytical thinking). Finally, there is ampleevidence that sexual violence toward women is disturbinglyfrequent (Unger & Crawford, 1992).



*
Three Components of Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism
**
Paternalism *

* *




In common discourse, paternalism and sexism are often used synonymously, yet the former term, surprisingly, is not indexed in PsycLit, despite many references to the latter. Paternalism literally means relating to others"in the manner of a father dealing with his children" (Random House College Dictionary,1973). This definition meshes well with the view that sexism is a form of ambivalence, for it includes connotations of both domination (dominative paternalism) as well as affection and protection (protective paternalism). 

Advocates of dominative paternalism justify patriarchy by viewing women as not being fully competent adults, legitimizing the need for a superordinate male figure. Yet protective paternalism may coexist with its dominative counterpart because men are dyadically dependent on women (because of heterosexual reproduction) as wives, mothers, and romantic objects; thus, women are to beloved, cherished, and protected (their "weaknesses" require that men fulfill the protector-and-provider role). 

Research on power in heterosexual romantic relationships confirms that dominative paternalism is the norm (see Brehm, 1992, Chapter9; Peplau, 1983). In its most extreme form, the traditional marriage(see Peplau, 1983 ), both partners agree that the husband should wield greater authority, to which the wife should defer.Protective paternalism is evident in the traditional male gender role of provider and protector of the home, with the wife dependent on the husband to maintain her economic and social status(Peplau, 1983; Tavris & Wade, 1984).



*Gender Differentiation
*
* *




All cultures use physical differences between the sexes as a basis for making social distinctions, which are manifested as notions about gender identity (Harris, 1991; Stockard & Johnson, 1992).Developmentally, gender is one of the earliest and strongest forms of group identity to be internalized ( Maccoby, 1988), and peopleare more likely to categorize others on the basis of gender than on the basis of race, age, or role (A. P. Fiske, Haslam, & Fiske, 1991;Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glass, 1992). Social identity theory(Tajfel, 1981 ) suggests that the tendency to differentiate between groups will be strong when social status is bound up with group membership, helping to create social ideologies that justify the status differences. Like dominative paternalism, competitive gender differentiation presents a social justification for male structural Only men are perceived as having the traits necessary to govern important social institutions. 

This creates downward comparisons,in which women serve, in Virginia Woolf's ( 1929 / 1981 )words, as "looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of a man at twice its natural size"(p. 35), allowing individual men to enhance their self-esteem by association with a male social identity (Tajfel, 1981 ). Alongside the competitive drive to differentiate, however, the dyadic dependencyof men on women (as romantic objects, as wives and mothers) fosters notions that women have many positive traits(Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Mladinic, 1993; Poplau, 1983) that complement those of men (complementary gender differentiation). Just as the traditional division of labor between the sexes creates complementary roles (men working outside the home, women within), the traits associated with these roles (and hence with each sex) are viewed as complementary. The favorable traits ascribed to women compensate for what men stereotypically lack (e.g., sensitivity to others' feelings). Hence a man may speak of his "better half "; for the benevolent sexist, the woman completes the man.



*Heterosexuality*

* *




Virginia Woolf ( 1929/1981 ) haTarded her own answer about the reasons for polarized images of women in literature: "the astonishing extremes of her beauty and horror; her alternations between heavenly goodness and hellish depravity" are as "a lover would see her as his love rose or sank, was prosperous or unhappy"(p. 83). Heterosexuality is, undoubtedly, one of the most powerful sources of men's ambivalence toward women. 

Heterosexual romantic relationships are ranked by men (and women) as one of the top sources of happiness in life ( see Berscheid & Peplau, 1983;Brehm, 1992), and these relationships are typically nominated as the most psychologically close and intimate relationships men have (Berscheid et al., 1989). Men's sexual motivation toward women may be linked with a genuine desire for psychological closeness ( heterosexual intimacy). Although, at their best, heterosexual relationships are the source of euphoric and intimate feelings(Hatfield, 1988), romantic relationships between men and women also pose the greatest threat of violence toward women(Unger & Crawford, 1992). Men's dyadic dependency on women creates an unusual situation in which members of a more powerful group are dependent on members of a subordinate group. Sex is popularly viewed as a resource for which women act as the gatekeepers(ZiUmann & Weave~ 1989). 

This creates a vulnerability that men may resent, which is reflected in the frequency with which women are portrayed in literature as manipulative "temptresses,"such as Delilah, who can "emasculate" men. The belief that women use their sexual allure to gain dominance over men(who would, in vulgar parlance, be called "pussy-whipped') is a belief that is ~ted with hostility toward women (Check,Malamuth, Elias, & Barton, 1985). As Bargh and Raymond(1995) and Pryor, Giedd, and Williams (1995) demonstrated, for some men sexual attraction toward women may be inseparable from a desire to dominate them (heterosexual hostility).





Another paper that touches on the point that sexism on the surface seems morally unobjectionable (Benevolent sexism) but relies on a morally objectionable point. 
http://www.laurencethomas.com/Sexism.pdf

*Page 243
*
* *




"What I mean by the claim that women complement men is aptly expressed by the saying, "Behind every man there is a good woman." Women are supposed to possess or excel at those virtues which make them naturally suited for being supportive of and bringing out the best in men. For instance, women are supposed to possess a greater capacity than men for understanding, encouraging, and sympathetic. (The first capacity, which has to do with patience and tolerance, is not to be confused with the capacity to understand, which has to do with intellectual ability.) Thus, it is thought to be a man's benefit to associate himself with the right woman, since the right woman, so the view goes, will be the man's constant source of support and encouragement, thereby enabling him to excel at what he does. Women, then are thought to play a central role in the self-development of men and, thus, in men having a positive conception of themselves."



*Page 244*

* *




A major aspect of the traditional male role is what I shall call the benefactor role. It is the role of men to protect women and to provide them with the comforts of life. That men should be the benefactors of women (in the sense described) is, it should be observed, a natural outcome of a sexist conception of women.
For it will be recalled that, according to that conception, women play a central role in the self-development of men. And, of course, any person has a good reasons to protect and provide for that which plays a central role in her or his self-development. But it goes without saying that this aspect of traditional male role hardly seems morally objectionable. For we do not normally suppose that a person does that which is morally wrong in benefiting someone. And on the face of it, surely, providing a person with the comforts of life would hardly seem to be a morally objectionable thing to do. After all, are they not desired by nearly everyone? 

At first blush, then, the traditional male role seems quite immune to moral criticism, which explains why the charge of sexism often seems to be lacking immoral force. Indeed, it is not uncommon to hear a man boast of being a sexist-even nowadays! Now, of course, an arrangement where men benefit women is not morally objectionable-in and of itself, that is. What is morally objectionable, though are the presuppositions behind it, one of the most important of them being that this sort of arrangement is ordained by nature. 

From this presupposition, a number of things are thought to follow, such as men should earn more money than women (period) and that the work which women do around the home is not as important as the work which men do on the job. These matters could be pursued at great length, but I shall not do so here. For my concern has been to show that sexism readily lends itself to a morally unobjectionable description. And to show that it is a natural outcome of a sexist conception of women that men should be the benefactors of women (in the sense described) is to show this much."


----------



## Malandro (Jul 17, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> They can if they want to, but why should they be morally obligated too? What sort of things should a woman keep her eye out for to protect a man?
> 
> 
> You sound very entitled. :happy:
> ...


What I mean by that is that I don't think women _need_ a man's help and I don't think we should be considered weaker, but we obviously are. Stats are stats, they don't always get the whole truth behind circumstances. Going home with a male friend would make you less likely to harasses by men you pass by, not necessarily violent. It's not about entitlement for women. We're not entitled to as many things as men are and that is why having one walk home with you who you know you can trust late at night makes a woman less likely to be bothered in any way.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

It's worth noting that the test's average score was global, which is why PerC seems very unsexist. If you look at the average scores for specific western countries, PerC's scores are closer to the mean. The US average, for example, was;

Male:
Hostile: 2.24
Benevolent: 2.30

Female:
Hostile: 1.60
Benevolent: 2.20

That's probably within a standard deviation of what most people here have reported.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

This is obviously a stupid test designed by feminazis.

Sorry but feminism has shown nothing but bias towards one gender, and the way they operate makes me fully believe that at least a significant percentage of feminists hate males and want supremacy over them.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

B3LIAL said:


> This is obviously a stupid test designed by feminazis.
> 
> Sorry but feminism has shown nothing but bias towards one gender, and the way they operate makes me fully believe that at least a significant percentage of feminists hate males and want supremacy over them.


These the femnazis?
Peter Glick's personal page'
Peter Glick
http://http://psych.princeton.edu/psychology/research/fiske/
Susan Fiske - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Wellsy said:


> These the femnazis?
> Peter Glick's personal page'
> Peter Glick
> http://http://psych.princeton.edu/psychology/research/fiske/
> Susan Fiske - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm talking about whoever designed the test.

The fact that my sexism score went higher because I disagree that feminists are making reasonable demands shows a complete and utter biased view from the creator, and also a very manipulative vibe comes from the test.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

*Hostile Sexism Score: **0.00 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.00 



*


----------



## Leviticus Cornwall (Mar 27, 2014)

I was nicer to men than I should've been, I really am a benevolent sexist. Most men are assholes....


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

I felt this test wasn't very nuanced in some of the questions. The one about men protecting, honoring and cherishing the woman they are in a relationship with is a bit weird. If you say yes, you'll probably score higher in benevolent sexism. But what if you believe that both partners should protect, honor, and cherish EACH OTHER, not because of gender, but because they are in a relationship?
Also, I believe sexism works both ways. Lots of people have negative attitudes towards men, and that's just as sexist as having negative attitudes towards women. There weren't any questions about how survey takers felt about men.
And what about the questions more cultured or morally superior to men? If you say you strongly disagree, is that saying you believe both genders to be about equal or that you believe that men are morally superior and/or more cultured than women?
It seems like with a lot of these, why you agree or disagree matters just as much as how much you agree or disagree. Saying you agree that women should be honored and protected by their men because that's what people, male or female, do for each other in a relationship indicates you have a fairly egalitarian view on relationships. Saying you believe the same because it's men's duty as men to take care of women show benevolent sexist beliefs.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

CitricBoxer said:


> This is interesting enough to engage. What makes you think men are "evolutionarily inferior"?
> 
> Preface: I also identify as a feminist, though I am of the school of thought that men and women have fundamental differences that should be recognized and celebrated. That said, sexual dimorphism would imply that men and women fulfill different functions. To call one or the other superior or inferior makes no sense, as they are supposed to be complementary, not competitive.
> 
> Footnote: This is not to say that women should not pursue "masculine" functions or vice versa. We live in the 21st century and every individual ought to be encouraged to do what they want in spite of any biased, biological or cultural. My argument is that men are biologically built differently from women, and that biases us to being better and worse at different things.





Sporadic Aura said:


> Just curious. Whats the basis for that belief? And why do you say that you can't change that thinking?


It is purely base on personal life experience which I acknowledge is not a logical means of drawing conclusions. It's not like it's something I haven't actively tried to change. When I engage in debate, I am actively assessing my own biases before and as I post. Changing a personal belief is not as easy as changing "schema". There is no arguable defense. I just, at my core, believe that men are less effective and efficient than women. They have few strengths specific to their sex/gender that compensate for their positive qualities. These "qualities" are based on traits that I value personally. So this belief is a personal belief, not one based on logic.

Again, I've accepted that it's not something I can change. But I do my part to ensure that I consider my own biases when engaging in conversation.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

B3LIAL said:


> This is obviously a stupid test designed by *feminazis*.
> 
> Sorry but feminism has shown nothing but bias towards one gender, and the way they operate makes me fully believe that at least a significant percentage of feminists hate males and want supremacy over them.


How can anyone take you seriously when you use that word?


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> How can anyone take you seriously when you use that word?


Actually, it's something used commonly to refer to radical feminists, because they have a very "you're either with us or against us attitiude", which is the vibe given off by this test.

"You think feminist demands are unreasonable? The chances of you being a sexist are now tripled".


----------



## .17485 (Jan 12, 2011)

Hostile Sexism Score: *2.18 *
Benevolent Sexism Score: *2.55*


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> Actually, it's something used commonly to refer to radical feminists, because they have a very "you're either with us or against us attitiude", which is the vibe given off by this test.
> 
> "You think feminist demands are unreasonable? The chances of you being a sexist are now tripled".


I don't think you know what a radical feminist is.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

B3LIAL said:


> Actually, it's something used commonly to refer to radical feminists, because they have a very "you're either with us or against us attitiude", which is the vibe given off by this test.
> 
> "You think feminist demands are unreasonable? The chances of you being a sexist are now tripled".


People who use that word to me seem to come off as somewhat immature.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> I don't think you know what a radical feminist is.


I think if a test includes questions that ask you to pick a number, and the further away from the feminist score you are, the more sexist you are, then we can determine it was designed by a radical feminist.

Most feminists are feminazis, and will not accept any middle ground.

It's "you're either a feminist or a bigot" or they'll walk around with an attitude like they, the feminists, are the enlightened ones, and everyone else is ignorant.

To them there's no possible rational opposing argument, just ill-informed opinions and out right bigotry.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> People who use that word to me seem to come off as somewhat immature.


Instead of just making declarative statements about people, why not provide an argument or two? Or will you claim it's a waste of time because I'm so childish? Pretty much just throw an adhominem attack into the pile and run away?


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

B3LIAL said:


> _*Instead of just making declarative statements about people, why not provide an argument or two?*_ Or will you claim it's a waste of time because I'm so childish? Pretty much just throw an adhominem attack into the pile and run away?


Says the person who used the word 'feminazi'?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> I think if a test includes questions that ask you to pick a number, and the further away from the feminist score you are, the more sexist you are, then we can determine it was designed by a radical feminist.
> 
> Most feminists are feminazis, and will not accept any middle ground.
> 
> ...


Your collection of vague assertions isn't very convincing (or relevant). And you still haven't showed that you know what a radical feminist is.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> Your collection of vague assertions isn't very convincing (or relevant). And you still haven't showed that you know what a radical feminist is.


Oooh, everyone ganging up on me. I'm getting excited. 

I'm not necessarily obligated to explain myself fully, seeing as none of you are really responding to my points, you're just calling my arguments shit or saying I'm immature.

I've actually pretty much explained what a radical feminist is. A feminist who considers anyone who's not a feminist a bigot, ill-informed/ignorant, stupid, among many other things.

There's not a set in stone definition for a radical feminist, you can only really pin point their behaviour and state they're a radical feminist because their behaviour is radical and ridiculous.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Says the person who used the word 'feminazi'?


Well see, there's a difference between calling someone a name, and calling someone a name while explaining why they deserve to be labeled that name.

I explained my reasons, I didn't just call them feminazis because I don't like them, I called them feminazis for specific reasons.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Labels mean nothing if you are unwilling to take action.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Labels mean nothing if you are unwilling to take action.


All most feminists do is bitch on twitter and tumblr about how oppressed they are.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> All most feminists do is bitch on twitter and tumblr about how oppressed they are.


That is only the beginning. One day there will be no gender roles. Gender will have no meaning anymore.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

B3LIAL said:


> Well see, there's a difference between calling someone a name, and calling someone a name while explaining why they deserve to be labeled that name.
> 
> I explained my reasons, I didn't just call them feminazis because I don't like them, I called them feminazis for specific reasons.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


>


Oh thanks a lot, now I need to go fap.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> Oooh, everyone ganging up on me. I'm getting excited.
> 
> I'm not necessarily obligated to explain myself fully, seeing as none of you are really responding to my points, you're just calling my arguments shit or saying I'm immature.
> 
> ...


Jeez, what's with the persecution complex?

Like almost every measure used by social scientists, the ASI is interested in making generalizable predictions of behavior. They're looking for correlations between scores on that test and sexist behaviors, and that means the only reason for the measures on their inventory is to predict behaviors.

In other words, the reason they include items like "Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men" is because agreement or disagreement with that statement correlates with certain behaviors that they're trying to predict. If they can find a relationship between agreement with a statement like that and certain behaviors, they can then use their measure on other forms of research (surveys, for example) as a proxy that allows them to evaluate sexism without requiring access to data on their actual behavior, something quite valuable in research for a large variety of reasons. If, for example, they wanted to see if sexism correlates with views on social hierarchy, they could see if there is a relationship between someone's score on the SDO and on the ASI, whereas without that independent measure of sexism, to test that relationship would require gathering data on behavior and comparing it to the SDO, something I imagine you can see would be incredibly difficult. ("Please take this survey on social dominance. Now, tell me, when was the last time you catcalled a woman on the street?")

Regardless of whether or not that statement about feminists is accurate or not (a debate I have no desire to engage, despite how badly you seem to want it), the fact is people who strongly agree with that statement are far less likely to engage in sexism towards women. If we were to take a group of people, all of whom strongly disagreed with that item, and compared them to a group of people who strongly agreed with that item, the former group would display far more sexist behavior than the latter. It has nothing to do with whether or not the researchers agree or disagree with those items, nor does it imply that such a relationship applies to every person in those groups. There definitely may be people who agree with that statement but still behave in sexist ways towards women, and there may be people who strongly disagree but aren't behaviorally sexist. But on the average, there is definitely an inverse relationship between agreement with that statement and a decrease in sexist behavior, allowing them to predict majority behavior. And that's all the researchers care about.

If you're not familiar with research methods, stop hatin' on stuff you don't understand.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Zamyatin said:


> Jeez, what's with the persecution complex?
> 
> Like almost every measure used by social scientists, the ASI is interested in making generalizable predictions of behavior. They're looking for correlations between scores on that test and sexist behaviors, and that means the only reason for the measures on their inventory is to predict behaviors.
> 
> ...


Thank you for responding with arguments, but I don't have a persecution complex, you can quite clearly see I wasn't being serious. I get excited when I get challenged, I wasn't playing the victim, I was pointing out that I'm pretty much standing against multiple opponents here, and I like that. I like the challenge. Unfortunately, you're the only person so far that's provided me with one.

And you obviously have more insight than me on the test, and I can't argue with some of the things you've stated.

But some things I have to disagree with are -

"_Regardless of whether or not that statement about feminists is accurate or not (a debate I have no desire to engage, despite how badly you seem to want it), the fact is people who strongly agree with that statement are far less likely to engage in sexism towards women_."

You've made one too many silly attacks against me in your post. I'm not at all trying to start an argument regarding feminism, I'm simply pointing out how stupid it is to put questions about feminism in a study about different kinds of sexism.

The only reason the conversation derailed into feminists/feminazi's, is because I had to defend my reasons for using the term, and I don't think you can claim it was poor reasoning. 

_"If you're not familiar with research methods, stop hatin' on stuff you don't understand."_

I believe far smarter questions could have been asked on a study about sexism, other than including questions about feminism, which is a vary questionable movement that has gained a lot of hatred, most of it well deserved.

If anything, feminism is only going to halt the strive for women's rights, seeing as the term feminism is now a word with a lot of negative implications, because of the actions of many of the feminists.

Many people who agree with equal rights for females also have a disdain for feminism, male and female, so I don't see how someone agreeing that feminist demands are reasonable or not more likely implies that that person is a sexist.

I'm not claiming to have as much insight into this as you have, but I don't think your condescending manner was necessary.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> _"If you're not familiar with research methods, stop hatin' on stuff you don't understand."_
> 
> I believe far smarter questions could have been asked on a study about sexism, other than including questions about feminism, which is a vary questionable movement that has gained a lot of hatred, most of it well deserved.
> 
> ...


Most of what you wrote was irrelevant defensiveness, so I'm not quoting it here. Your very first post in this thread used the term "feminazi", so don't act shocked when people react to inflammatory language like that.

The part above that I've quoted, on the other hand, makes a claim on the construct validity of the feminist items on this inventory (along with an irrelevant claim about feminism that doesn't relate to my post, but whatever). If you're going to criticize the methods used by these researchers, I suggest you start by reading the literature on the ASI, which is a very well-known and robust measure that has been used in hundreds of studies because frankly, it works. You can start by reading the original paper, Glick and Fiske (1996).

You started this "discussion" with condescension, inflammatory language and dismissal of a solid measure because you don't like feminists. I think I've earned the right to a bit of condescension in response to your attitude, especially since I hate seeing my line of work criticized by ignorant people who don't understand what serious researchers do.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> Oooh, everyone ganging up on me. I'm getting excited.
> 
> I'm not necessarily obligated to explain myself fully, seeing as none of you are really responding to my points, you're just calling my arguments shit or saying I'm immature.
> 
> ...


You're objectively wrong. Radical feminism is a legitimate feminist perspective. It does not simply refer to "extreme" feminists. 

The reason I'm not responding to your points is because you've set them up in a way that makes it pointless to even try. Even if I showed you feminists who you agreed did not have the attitude you described, you could (and would, I suspect) easily dismiss them as exceptions. 

I never called your argument shit, nor did I say that you're immature.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Zamyatin said:


> Most of what you wrote was irrelevant defensiveness, so I'm not quoting it here. Your very first post in this thread used the term "feminazi", so don't act shocked when people react to inflammatory language like that.


When was I shocked? Again, you carry on being overly dramatic and making stupid assumptions of what I must be like in real life based on text on a screen.



Zamyatin said:


> The part above that I've quoted, on the other hand, makes a claim on the construct validity of the feminist items on this inventory (along with an irrelevant claim about feminism that doesn't relate to my post, but whatever). If you're going to criticize the methods used by these researchers, I suggest you start by reading the literature on the ASI, which is a very well-known and robust measure that has been used in hundreds of studies because frankly, it works. You can start by reading the original paper, Glick and Fiske (1996).


Again, can't comment on this. I was never doubting the test entirely, I was simply criticizing some of the questions involved in the test, and for, in my opinion, valid reasons. Feminism should not be involved in a study about sexism. I formulate that opinion based on the negativity surrounding feminism, and how it may effect the results of those who created the test.



Zamyatin said:


> You started this "discussion" with condescension, inflammatory language and dismissal of a solid measure because you don't like feminists. I think I've earned the right to a bit of condescension in response to your attitude, especially since I hate seeing my line of work criticized by ignorant people who don't understand what serious researchers do.


Until you showed up, I was only one offering anything near to an argument.

And again, you're making assertions about me that just aren't true. It's not just because I don't like feminists, it's because I believe including feminism in a test like this is going to defeat the point of the test and produce results that might imply something completely different to what they were hoping for.

I know I don't have tremendous insight on the subject, but I don't believe I've made any claims that are too far based on the amount of insight I have.

I wasn't calling the test as a whole bad, or the research behind it wrong, I was simply making the point that I believe including questions about feminism in this test was a bad decision.

But we can agree and disagree respectfully. I was condescending towards people who didn't attempt to make counter arguments, they simply called me names, and made assumptions, like you are doing, about my personality and beliefs.

I find it amusing how you quickly to resort to claiming I'm getting all defensive and claiming that I'm falling under the persecution complex, when really you're the only one getting personal and bitchy about this. Calm down bro.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

Nobody called you names. I said it makes people seem immature when they use disparaging terms like that.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> I wasn't calling the test as a whole bad, or the research behind it wrong, I was simply making the point that I believe including questions about feminism in this test was a bad decision.


The thing about the internet is it's hard to walk back previous statements, when all it takes is clicking a different page on a thread to read them.



B3LIAL said:


> This is obviously a stupid test designed by feminazis.


That doesn't exactly leave room for a more nuanced "I think these two items on a 22 item scale will have low predictive value", a claim you only presented after I confronted you. It's also a claim that can be tested (and has, if you would bother to read the actual research behind this scale).

You haven't presented arguments in this thread. What you've done is the following;

A) Rant about feminists
B) Rant about "feminazis"
C) Make uneducated claims about research you don't understand

My time is too important to waste debating methods with someone who doesn't understand them and/or debate the merit of feminism in a thread unrelated to that topic. This conversation is over.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> You're objectively wrong. Radical feminism is a legitimate feminist perspective. It does not simply refer to "extreme" feminists.
> 
> The reason I'm not responding to your points is because you've set them up in a way that makes it pointless to even try. Even if I showed you feminists who you agreed did not have the attitude you described, you could (and would, I suspect) easily dismiss them as exceptions.


I know what radical feminism is, and I didn't want to give a definition of radical feminism, and as bad as many might have been, wiki is not the set in stone fountain of all knowledge on the subject.

Radical feminists DO label people bigots for being against them and are far more likely than other feminists to lash out and call people names.

If you're a woman living in Iran than this sort of feminism could be sympathized with, but it's only area of influence is in the western world, where the idea that we live in a patriarchy is laughable, and their reasoning behind their beliefs is ridiculous.



Mee2 said:


> I never called your argument shit, nor did I say that you're immature.


I said "seeing as none of you", implying that I wasn't just referring to one person, and one of you did call me immature, and you calling my arguments shit is what you were basically doing.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Nobody called you names. I said it makes people seem immature when they use disparaging terms like that.


It's a common and well deserved term for mainly radical feminists who act very much like Nazi's, which is why it's used.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

B3LIAL said:


> It's a common and well deserved term for mainly radical feminists who act very much like Nazi's, which is why it's used.


So, comparing a group of people with similar beliefs to *nazis *is okay now, is it?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

B3LIAL said:


> I know what radical feminism is, and I didn't want to give a definition of radical feminism, and as bad as many might have been, wiki is not the set in stone fountain of all knowledge on the subject.
> 
> Radical feminists DO label people bigots for being against them and are far more likely than other feminists to lash out and call people names.
> 
> ...


Another collection of random assertions that can't really be argued for or against. So wiki isn't the "fountain of all knowledge" but you are? Why's that?


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

stiletto said:


> It is purely base on personal life experience which I acknowledge is not a logical means of drawing conclusions. It's not like it's something I haven't actively tried to change. When I engage in debate, I am actively assessing my own biases before and as I post. Changing a personal belief is not as easy as changing "schema". There is no arguable defense. I just, at my core, believe that men are less effective and efficient than women. They have few strengths specific to their sex/gender that compensate for their positive qualities. These "qualities" are based on traits that I value personally. So this belief is a personal belief, not one based on logic.
> 
> Again, I've accepted that it's not something I can change. But I do my part to ensure that I consider my own biases when engaging in conversation.


How would you feel towards someone who held a similar belief? Such as "men are more effective and efficient than women." Or "white people are more effective and efficient than black people."


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> Another collection of random assertions that can't really be argued for or against. So wiki isn't the "fountain of all knowledge" but you are? Why's that?


Never said I was, and they're not random assertions, they are valid accusations based on what I've personally viewed, and many people have reported similar actions coming from radical feminists.


----------



## Harizu (Apr 27, 2014)

*Hostile Sexism Score: 1.36 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.55*


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> What's the point of this thread then?


I didn't have any clear goal in mind, I just stumbled across it and thought the forum might be interested in it. But if you're looking for an explanation of what benevolent sexism actually is, a number of people have given their take on it. 



Sporadic Aura said:


> 2. You were implying that my "attack" on her was unfair. Thats defending her.


I disagree. 



Sporadic Aura said:


> 3. Alright? Are you offended that I semi-jokingly called you a white knight?


I don't think you really know how this works. If I call you a moron right now, it doesn't matter whether you're offended by that or not, it's a insult. If you feel like you owe me an apology, then give me one. If not, then don't. (Hint: it doesn't sound like you do)



Sporadic Aura said:


> Except that my viewpoint was not sexist in any way at all.


I disagree.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Mee2 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I don't think you really know how this works. If I call you a moron right now, it doesn't matter whether you're offended by that or not, it's a insult. If you feel like you owe me an apology, then give me one. If not, then don't. (Hint: it doesn't sound like you do)
> 
> I disagree.


I didn't post it to insult you. It just came to my mind as a funny thing to post, apparently others agreed. Yeah, I was frustrated with you, because I was attempting to have a conversation with Stiletto and you kind of jumped on my back, unfairly. 

How was what I posted sexist?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I didn't post it to insult you. It just came to my mind as a funny thing to post, apparently others agreed. Yeah, I was frustrated with you, because I was attempting to have a conversation with Stiletto and you kind of jumped on my back, unfairly.
> 
> How was what I posted sexist?


I swear I already answered that question and I really don't want to just quote myself and go around in circles. 

If you don't want people to comment on what you're saying, send PMs or write on each other's walls. If you post publicly and I have something to say, I'll say it. There's nothing at all unfair about this arrangement. 

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that people thanked your post because they thought it was harmless fun.


----------



## Gurpy (Aug 8, 2014)

Hostile Sexism Score: 1.45 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.27


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Errr, do I need to step in at any point?


----------



## Gurpy (Aug 8, 2014)

stiletto said:


> I do have a lens in which I perceive men in general to be evolutionary inferior.


This seems very sexist


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Mee2 said:


> I swear I already answered that question and I really don't want to just quote myself and go around in circles.


Stiletto openly admitted to having sexist views towards men. I questioned her on it. You misinterpreted it as me attacking her. I explained how you misinterpreted what I meant. I fail to see why you still think I was being sexist.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Stiletto openly admitted to having sexist views towards men. I questioned her on it. You misinterpreted it as me attacking her. I explained how you misinterpreted what I meant. I fail to see why you still think I was being sexist.


That's not what happened.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Mee2 said:


> That's not what happened.


But, it is what happened?


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Dalton said:


> I think that the inclination to be a "male feminist" is wonderful example of "Benevolent Sexism".


And why do you think that?


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Gurpy said:


> This seems very sexist


haha, you're way late on this.


----------



## Gurpy (Aug 8, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> haha, you're way late on this.


:laughing:
Better late then never


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Most of the questions seem flawed, let alone the 6 levels of agreement system.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Gurpy said:


> This seems very sexist


Uh, it is.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> But, it is what happened?


You'll just have to deal with that confusion on your own for now.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Mee2 said:


> You'll just have to deal with that confusion on your own for now.


Or you can just tell me how its not what happened. And why you still think I was being sexist.

Yeah, I get it. I'm tired of debating you too. But its a cooler thing to do, than just throwing out baseless assertions.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

I didn't take this test because many questions are something extremely subjective, even just the first one.

"No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman. " It's all about that person specifically feels, one might feel eternally incomplete without love and another be perfectly fine with it and I can only share my own external perspective that to me a person is complete regardless but who am I to tell them how to feel? Not my business. And I tend to answer in absolutes when things apply directly to me but in this case I'm supposed to make 'global' judgements which is not really my thing as each individual case has its worth and I can only speak from my own perspective, although many questions are indeed reflective of sexist attitude.

Especially the ones about being offended, your intention might have been innocent but if someone feels personally offended by a statement, trying to convince them that it was all in their head and it objectively was an harmless statement is still invalidating their own personal feelings and there is no such thing anyway. So all of these questions are more of a "what would I do under those circumstances?" experiment rather than some 'objective' way to prove whether someone is sexist or not.

I'm a feminist but it's something I identify with through my own conclusions and I don't have a problem disagreeing with the movement if someone states something that I don't see as fair or I don't believe in, if not strongly hate (ie: TERF). But Feminism still suffers from the stigma of being 'only focused on women' when that's clearly not the case so all I wish for is for the usual barriers to be dropped because this was never a matter of women vs men or "my ideology can kick your ideology's ass also ur mom goes to college lel" rather than noticing the flaws and injustice in an outdated and discriminating social structure without invalidating the subjective experiences of those who are part of the 'default'. I don't see the utility in putting an entire gender or sexuality down in order to defend minorities but, at the same time, anti-PC crowds piss me off to no end because slamming on already victimized categories (ie: let's make fun of other races or rape, after all they don't care about _my_ rights) is still a childish behavior because it's nothing revolutionary, just following the crowd while thinking you aren't.

It's not a matter of getting everyone to agree at all costs, that's ridiculous, impractical and detrimental to individual rights and personal values, rather it's interesting to compare different experiences and try to understand where the other comes from and what kind of chain of events shaped them that way. Because sometimes someone's discomfort gets overlooked because of an inability to relate, I'm guilty of that too but this is where learning, listening and researching comes in handy.

(I think my posts are starting to rival @Wellsy's in length )


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Hotaru said:


> (I think my posts are starting to rival @_Wellsy_'s in length )


Time to write a novel that we co-author XD


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> You'll just have to deal with that confusion on your own for now.


It is your confusion.

You've strawman'd @Sporadic Aura 's post.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> Time to write a novel that we co-author XD


I'm in. I'll leave illustrating to you, my own stick figures cannot compare.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> It is your confusion.
> 
> You've strawman'd @Sporadic Aura's post.


LOL. You never interpret anything properly. And I see Sporadic Aura's objection to baseless assertions is curiously inconsistent.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Or you can just tell me how its not what happened. And why you still think I was being sexist.
> 
> Yeah, I get it. I'm tired of debating you too. But its a cooler thing to do, than just throwing out baseless assertions.


No.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Mee2 said:


> No.


Why not?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Why not?


Who cares why?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> LOL. You never interpret anything properly. And I see Sporadic Aura's objection to baseless assertions is curiously inconsistent.


I disagree, although, it seems like you're assuming to be able to know one's intended meaning based on a post.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> I disagree, although, it seems like you're assuming to be able to know one's intentions.


No, I think one's intentions, in this case, are mostly irrelevant. I think we can make educated guesses about what they might be and these might be meaningful in some contexts but I certainly don't claim to be the ultimate authority.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

I like to think the only "ultimate authority" on a posters intentions, is the poster themselves.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Wellsy said:


> And why do you think that?


Because with "male feminism", women become a "cause" to defend, which is pretty much the definition of "benevolent sexism".


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Hotaru said:


> I didn't take this test because many questions are something extremely subjective, even just the first one.
> 
> "No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman. "


Yeah, there are a whole series of these that basically make it sound bad for a man to be in love with a woman. I mean, if you are in love with someone then you DO want to protect them and you DO want to treat them better than other people. There's nothing sexist about that and I'd assume most women feel just as protective and compassionate to the man they love as the other way around.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> No, I think one's intentions, in this case, are mostly irrelevant. I think we can make educated guesses about what they might be and these might be meaningful in some contexts but I certainly don't claim to be the ultimate authority.


I see, although, I fail to see how you cannot see that your response was unrelated.


* *






Sporadic Aura said:


> How would you feel towards someone who held a similar belief? Such as "men are more effective and efficient than women." Or "white people are more effective and efficient than black people."





Mee2 said:


> Are you serious? What do you think you're going to accomplish here? Stiletto's post does not read as one coming from someone who doesn't already acknowledge that the way she thinks is wrong, nor does it sound like she's trying to justify hating men. What good is comparing her to a white supremacist going to do?
> 
> I get that this seems really repulsive on the surface but you're neglecting context here that changes the whole meaning of it. Oppressed populations are absolutely allowed to be pissed off at and see inherent flaws in their oppressors. Would you hold it against a black person who's been the victim of violent racism their whole life for seeing inherent flaws in white people? If you do, recognise that the people who do this are usually the exact same people who refuse to hold white supremacists accountable. There are some types of "hatred" that I will absolutely hold women accountable for, but there's a type of hatred that simply comes from being oppressed for your whole life and caring about this crap and trying to shame people for it is part of that oppression. It's a double standard. It's like accusing a rape victim of misandry for wanting to speak to a female police officer. It's totally fucked up.





She claimed that she had a non-logical bias.

He responded by questioning her on what she thinks of the reversed position of her non-logical bias.

You then strawman'd his post by implying that he was making a moral judgement and that he was comparing her to a white supremacist.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> I see, although, I fail to see how you cannot see that your response was unrelated.
> 
> She claimed that she had a non-logical bias.
> 
> ...


Of course you fail to see it. This does not surprise me. You don't acknowledge context and implicit meanings. I do.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Of course you fail to see it. This does not surprise me. You don't acknowledge context and implicit meanings. I do.


I disagree.

Your faulty assumptions may create a contrast where you are deluded into thinking that I don't acknowledge context and implicit meaning.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

I need some popcorn, because watching Eska and Mee2 battle it out is really amusing. They both just completely talk right past the other. :laughing:


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Yeah, there are a whole series of these that basically make it sound bad for a man to be in love with a woman. I mean, if you are in love with someone then you DO want to protect them and you DO want to treat them better than other people. There's nothing sexist about that and I'd assume most women feel just as protective and compassionate to the man they love as the other way around.


Exactly.

One thing would be stating "men should always protect women because they are weaker in nature and cannot function on their own" and thus reinforcing gender roles and stereotypes, another is being in love with someone and wanting to protect them at all costs and feeling empty and incomplete if they are no longer part of your life. It goes way beyond gender and social dynamics as it's something deeply emotional and personal that no one should have a say on and even 'empowering' quotes like "behind a great man, there's always a great woman" fall flat to me because greatness is subjective and it's more of a matter of supporting each other, regardless if you agree on something or not, and striking your own personal definition of success and happiness which might not be the 'standard' one. It definitely isn't for me.

A person will always be complete to me, as an outsider, but they might feel incomplete without love and I actually can relate to that deeply. So it's not a matter of "things are X and if you disagree, you're being sexist" because values are something left to an individual to determine, rather I think the most useful way to explain sexism would be trying to point out what comes across as such from your own perspective and see how it reflect against someone else's experience as these things are often unconscious and overlooked.

There's no shame in realizing that something deeply ingrained in one's views is broken or incorrect as long as it's something that works for you and perceive as such, there's nothing worse than pretending to agree to a view just for the sake of agreement, just to end up believing and behaving otherwise. Things cannot be changed if one doesn't understand something wasn't working properly to begin with and only deep self reflection and acquiring more knowledge and information can help one decide the best way to go and reboot the system. If you really want something, doubting only makes it even worse.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Your faulty assumptions may create a contrast where you are deluded into thinking that I don't acknowledge context and implicit meaning.


Someone on here said to me once, "Why are so many feminist manginas INFPs?" and you couldn't see how it was an insult, insisting that I interpret it as a legitimate question. Your ignorance of implicit meaning, in this case, was spectacular.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Someone on here said to me once, "Why are so many feminist manginas INFPs?" and you couldn't see how it was an insult, insisting that I interpret it as a legitimate question. Your ignorance of implicit meaning, in this case, was spectacular.


Focusing on the implied offensiveness of terminologies, in a statement, might derail you from the point being made.

Do you find your assumption, in this case, to be reasonable?


* *






Sporadic Aura said:


> How would you feel towards someone who held a similar belief? Such as "men are more effective and efficient than women." Or "white people are more effective and efficient than black people."





Mee2 said:


> Are you serious? What do you think you're going to accomplish here? Stiletto's post does not read as one coming from someone who doesn't already acknowledge that the way she thinks is wrong, nor does it sound like she's trying to justify hating men. What good is comparing her to a white supremacist going to do?
> 
> I get that this seems really repulsive on the surface but you're neglecting context here that changes the whole meaning of it. Oppressed populations are absolutely allowed to be pissed off at and see inherent flaws in their oppressors. Would you hold it against a black person who's been the victim of violent racism their whole life for seeing inherent flaws in white people? If you do, recognise that the people who do this are usually the exact same people who refuse to hold white supremacists accountable. There are some types of "hatred" that I will absolutely hold women accountable for, but there's a type of hatred that simply comes from being oppressed for your whole life and caring about this crap and trying to shame people for it is part of that oppression. It's a double standard. It's like accusing a rape victim of misandry for wanting to speak to a female police officer. It's totally fucked up.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Dalton said:


> Because with "male feminism", women become a "cause" to defend, which is pretty much the definition of "benevolent sexism".


I actually have the definition on hand from this thread as I quoted the paper in which the ASI was introduced. 
http://personalitycafe.com/general-...xism-index-how-sexist-you-5.html#post14984506

The definition is:

* *




"We define benevolent sexism ~ as a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver) and also tend to elicit behaviors typically categorized as prosocial (e.g., helping) or intimacy seeking(e.g., self-disclosure).

We do not consider benevolent sexism a good thing, for despite the positive feelings it may indicate for the perceiver, its underpinnings lie in traditional stereotyping and masculine dominance (e.g., the man as the provider and woman as his dependent), and its consequences are often damaging. Benevolent sexism is not necessarily experienced as benevolent by the recipient. For example, a man's comment to a female coworker on how "cute" she looks, however well-intentioned, may undermine her feelings of being taken seriously as a professional. Nevertheless, the subjectively positive nature of the perceiver's feelings, the prosocial behaviors,and the attempts to achieve intimacy that benevolent sexism generates do not fit standard notions of prejudice."




A male who identifies as a feminist may fit within this but I don't think it's by default of the description, I think one has to take it further and examine whether someone is motivated by sexist attitudes. 
Looking to the link one sees a core component in benevolent sexism is paternalism, this is where I think one can differentiate between defending someone as benevolently sexist or not. Paternalism treats women like children and compromises their autonomy, it relies on stereotypes about women's incompetence to care for themselves due to being fragile or weak.

I don't think that defending someone always entails these beliefs, otherwise one isn't differentiating between motives being sexist, contextualizing it and would be so inclusive as to consider any support for anyone to be inherently sexist, to which one would ask why is it sexist to defend someone? Which I would then point out, one needs to point to beliefs that are sexist and likely motives and that restrict women's autonomy (Paternalism), without that I think it'd be hard to argue something is benevolently sexist.

I do think it can be a good point to be wary of those that do compromise the autonomy of others as well, there certainly caution to be had of men who come in identifying as feminists but ignore things it directly criticizes, be rather hypocritical and undermines the point of the movement.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)




----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> Focusing on the implied offensiveness of terminologies in a statement, might derail you from acknowledging and debating the point being made.


Yes, that would derail me from acknowledging and debating the vague, baseless assertion that was never meant to be taken seriously in the first place. 



Eska said:


> Do you find your assumption, in this case, to be reasonable?


When someone responds with, "But how would you feel if someone did that to you!?!?!?" That's a moral judgement whether you like it or not. The implication is that the behaviour is wrong (which Stiletto already acknowledged) and that the person would only realise that if they challenged themselves with this absurdly shallow little thought experiment. Another assumption behind Sporadic Aura's post is that prejudices against oppressors are comparable to prejudices against the oppressed. I disagree.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Emerald Legend said:


>


lol. Well, points for bravery, I guess. Though, the consensus seems to be that the test shouldn't really be taken seriously anyway, so you're probably fine.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Yes, that would derail me from acknowledging and debating the vague, baseless assertion that was never meant to be taken seriously in the first place.


It's irrelevant how "baseless" you think the assertion is, there is still a point being made.



> When someone responds with, "But how would you feel if someone did that to you!?!?!?" That's a moral judgement whether you like it or not. The implication is that the behaviour is wrong (which Stiletto already acknowledged) and that the person would only realise that if they challenged themselves with this absurdly shallow little thought experiment. Another assumption behind Sporadic Aura's post is that prejudices against oppressors are comparable to prejudices against the oppressed. I disagree.


"How do you feel" may be the equivalent of "what do you think about", and no, it would not imply moral judgement from the person who asked the question.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> lol. Well, points for bravery, I guess. Though, the consensus seems to be that the test shouldn't really be taken seriously anyway, so you're probably fine.


No. I think it's right on point. I don't think women should be treated special. I think women would take advantage of things like affirmative action for select gender if they need to. I think women would be manipulative and abandon personal ethics when their social reputation is at stake. I think women would make their men change their ways for better/worse..but only because they want them in a certain way..like their purse/shoes. If thinking this way makes me a hostile sexist then yes, I am one.


----------



## backdrop12 (Dec 11, 2012)

I do not know why I scored the way I scored , but I understand test is pretty bogus.

Most of the answers that I disagreed wirh were the feminists ones at a 3. For me , this would correlate to most groups (like gay , ethnic , cultural , color , etc ). the people in the said group would want equal rights not only for themselves , but for everyone's sake, while some go to far in terms of their values saying that " women should have equal rights , while men should be treated as a women of today " while some will go from another group " I believe a person of certain color should have equal rights, but another man of a certain color should be barred and treated like animals ".

For me, everyone should be treated equal no ifs ands or buts . if they do not like my lips or a tail that I may or may not get, then too bad cause I am of the same as you are and I deserve the equal amount of respect , whether good or bad , from you and of myself. nothing more and nothing less.

Here is the score I have gotten :
Hostile Sexism Score: * 1.36 * 
Benevolent Sexism Score: * 1.55


*


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> It's irrelevant how "baseless" you think the assertion is, there is still a point being made.


You can interpret it as someone making a point, yes, but why would I do that when the person who posted it clearly just meant it as an insult and wasn't interested in any discussion? 



Eska said:


> "How do you feel" may be the equivalent of "what do you think about", and no, it would not imply moral judgement from the person who asked the question.


I don't even know what you're talking about here. Luckily I don't really want to.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> You can interpret it as someone making a point, yes, but why would I do that when the person who posted it clearly just meant it as an insult and wasn't interested in any discussion?


You're not forced to reply, but you can acknowledge the point he's making and despite it's implied offensive nature, take it as an observation from the poster.



> I don't even know what you're talking about here. Luckily I don't really want to.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Hostile Sexism Score: 2.64 
"Hostile sexism," which involves negative feelings toward women

Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.00
"Benevolent sexism," a knight-in-shining armor ideology that offers protection and affection to women who conform to traditional gender roles (e.g., cute girlfriend, obedient wife, etc.)

Apparently I think most women are bitches. (To be fair I think most people in general are ass holes)
And that apparently I expect some manners but not anyone to lay on a puddle to form a bridge for me.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> You're not forced to reply, but you can acknowledge the point he's making and despite it's implied offensive nature, take it as an observation from the poster.


And the point of doing that would be what, exactly? 



Eska said:


> I'm talking about the post you criticized.


Yes, I got that much. I also got that you don't think it implies moral judgement. Good for you, I guess?


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

I'm so fucking benevolent.











----








----








----








----








----








----








----


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> And the point of doing that would be what, exactly?


To understand the point.



> Yes, I got that much. I also got that you don't think it implies moral judgement. Good for you, I guess?


Yes.


----------



## Mr.Venture (Dec 25, 2011)

My results from the ProjectImplicit test








Because a piggy Flashdance is adorable under any circumstance

I just want to say that I really appreciate this community because, even when the debates get heated, they are generally quite excellent at drawing out the nuance and complexity of the members' perspective. I very often feel like I learn something valuable in these exchanges, so thank you. You have my gratitude.

About the test being "bogus", I'd suggest that there is still some merit to their being used as part of a research study. While no test (and by extension, no individual item of a particular test) can capture the full range of the taker's motivations in answering, I'd assert that the biggest discrepancies are found in the mid-ranges of the scores. As a metric, surely there is a benefit to looking at behaviors that correlate when test-takers score are at the extreme range?

If I were using this test in a study, I'd be most curious about differences in attitudes/behavior for subjects whose scores were more than a standard deviation beyond the mean for their community.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> To understand the point.


I did understand the point. You're the one who doesn't. The point of asking, "Why are so many feminist manginas INFPs?" was to insult me. The poster was not interested in discussing why, and I doubt much thought was given to this vague assertion in the first place. That you think I should have ignored that it was an insult and for some reason focus on some flippant observation that was vague to the point of meaninglessness, is the height of absurdity.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> I did understand the point. You're the one who doesn't. The point of asking, "Why are so many feminist manginas INFPs?" was to insult me. The poster was not interested in discussing why, and I doubt much thought was given to this vague assertion in the first place. That you think I should have ignored that it was an insult and for some reason focus on some flippant observation that was vague to the point of meaninglessness, is the height of absurdity.


Whether you are offended or not, is irrelevant to the point being made.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> Whether you are offended or not, is irrelevant to the point being made.


Correct. It has nothing to do with whether or not I was offended, and everything to do with your terrible reading comprehension.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Correct. It has nothing to do with whether or not I was offended, and everything to do with your terrible reading comprehension.


Are you suggesting that an insult is pointless?

If I were to say; "Why are so many INFPs manginas?"

You could insinuate that it is insult, although, my point could be that many INFPs are manginas, or I could be questioning the causes of my observation, that so many INFPs are manginas.

You could answer by refuting the point or you could assess why many INFPs fit the description of "manginas", by discussing MBTI-related theories regarding functions, etc. and the link to to being a mangina.


----------



## Mr.Venture (Dec 25, 2011)

@Eska, maybe you offered this already and I just missed it, but did you have a criticism of the test itself?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mr.Venture said:


> @Eska, maybe you offered this already and I just missed it, but did you have a criticism of the test itself?


Yes.

The questions are flawed and I don't find the answering system suitable, so I refrained from the taking the test.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> Are you suggesting that an insult is pointless?
> 
> If I were to say; "Why are so many INFPs manginas?"
> 
> ...


I could, but why would I, considering that the poster clearly wasn't interested in discussing it?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> I could, but the idea that the poster was actually interested in discussing something like that is patently absurd.


Possibly, but that's irrelevant to whether or not he had a point.


----------



## Mr.Venture (Dec 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Yes.
> 
> The questions are flawed and I don't find the answering system suitable, so I refrained from the taking the test.


What about my suggestion that the extreme ends of the scale might actually measure sexist attitudes? Scores higher than four or less than 1 for instance - would that be an invalid approach to conducting a study on sexism?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> Possibly, but that's irrelevant to whether or not he had a point.


I actually edited that post, not that it would've made a difference to this insane discussion. Yes, behind her blatant insult was some half-baked, vague observation that wasn't worth a millisecond of my time (or anyone else's).


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

This is such a silly debate! Everyone knows that the ISFJ's are the manginas not the INFP's!


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mr.Venture said:


> What about my suggestion that the extreme ends of the scale might actually measure sexist attitudes? Scores higher than four or less than 1 for instance - would that be an invalid approach to conducting a study on sexism?


What would "I don't know" be? 2 or 3?




Mee2 said:


> I actually edited that post, not that it would've made a difference to this insane discussion. Yes, behind her blatant insult was some half-baked, vague observation that wasn't worth a millisecond of my time (or anyone else's).


I see.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> This is such a silly debate! Everyone knows that the ISFJ's are the manginas not the INFP's!


Be careful. Mr. "I interpret everything literally" might report you for typism.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Be careful. Mr. "I interpret everything literally" might report you for typism.


I assume you're referring to me.

I don't report.


----------



## Mr.Venture (Dec 25, 2011)

@Eska

Certainly "I don't know" is a factor in every single test item as soon as the subject can imagine an "exception to the rule", but given that these limits exist in any metric like this, are we going to throw out the method itself?

In another thread you suggested that your ideal hiring interview would be one where the applicants went through a exam that assessed their ability to complete job-related tasks. As soon as we talk about measuring any intangible attribute of a person, don't we already accept that the measure will never fully capture that attitude?

Or do you believe the test measures some other attribute besides sexism?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

@Mr.Venture

It's limited to a person's experience, thus, one's environment is a measured factored.

If, in fact, I've experienced that women are too easily offended comparatively speaking to men (note that there's no quantitative word (ex: most/some/few)), I would put in "Strongly agree", even though, factual/statistically, that wouldn't be true for the ensemble of the world population.

Answering with a generalized assumption would simply reflect the experience I've had.

If my experience was different, it might be the exact opposite.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Wellsy said:


> I actually have the definition on hand from this thread as I quoted the paper in which the ASI was introduced.
> http://personalitycafe.com/general-...xism-index-how-sexist-you-5.html#post14984506
> 
> The definition is:
> ...


Ehhh that's not a definition -- that's a novel.

"Benevolent sexism" is not a word that requires a separate definition in the dictionary. It is merely the word _sexism_ with the adjective of _benevolent_. Male feminists often see women as generally in need of protection from men and inequality, and I've noticed that many get a subtle ego boost out of being 'male feminists'. People *fight on behalf* of the group that's "oppressed" (instead of letting them take care of themselves), and that makes them feel good about themselves, just like chivalry.


----------



## Mr.Venture (Dec 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> @Mr.Venture
> 
> It's limited to a person's experience, thus, one's environment is a measured factored.
> 
> ...


But people's experience and resulting atittudes is exactly what the test aims to measure. Sure, it maybe be contextualized in the reference frame of sexism, but then that is the responsibility of later researchers to explore when they decide to use it in their experiments. They may decide to try and validate it (e.g. by comparing it to results on the implict bias test mentioned earlier), or by challenging it (e.g. by exploring the attitudes of self-identified male feminists), but that's how science works.


----------



## Mr.Venture (Dec 25, 2011)

Dalton said:


> Ehhh that's not a definition -- that's a novel.
> 
> "Benevolent sexism" is not a word that requires a separate definition in the dictionary. It is merely the word _sexism_ with the adjective of _benevolent_. Male feminists often see women as generally in need of protection from men and inequality, and I've noticed that many get a subtle ego boost out of being 'male feminists'. People *fight on behalf* of the group that's "oppressed" (instead of letting them take care of themselves), and that makes them feel good about themselves, just like chivalry.



I'll say this, I have an inherent distrust of anyone who scores a 0 on both scales (sorry @Wellsy). I'd be wary of anyone who's self-report said their ideology and behavior was so perfectly consistent. People are complex!


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Mr.Venture said:


> But people's experience and resulting atittudes is exactly what the test aims to measure. Sure, it maybe be contextualized in the reference frame of sexism, but then that is the responsibility of later researchers to explore when they decide to use it in their experiments. They may decide to try and validate it (e.g. by comparing it to results on the implict bias test mentioned earlier), or by challenging it (e.g. by exploring the attitudes of self-identified male feminists), but that's how science works.


Indeed, it may be what they're aiming to measure.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Dalton said:


> Ehhh that's not a definition -- that's a novel.
> 
> "Benevolent sexism" is not a word that requires a separate definition in the dictionary. It is merely the word _sexism_ with the adjective of _benevolent_. Male feminists often see women as generally in need of protection from men and inequality, and I've noticed that many get a subtle ego boost out of being 'male feminists'. People *fight on behalf* of the group that's "oppressed" (instead of letting them take care of themselves), and that makes them feel good about themselves, just like chivalry.


This is the definition put forth in the paper in which of those that proposed the theory of Ambivalent Sexism and the effectiveness of the Inventory to measure Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. 
Can look for yourself in a PDF file through google.

So is it prejudice to take a stance in defense of others?
How specifically? 

I think you need to be more specific as to why you think it's sexist, you've put forth what I understand to be an opinion that any defense of a woman or women is sexist, it's sounds ridiculously inclusive which is why I pose the question above.
Perhaps you should provide a definition of benevolent sexism and explain specifically how male feminists are benevolently sexist by that definition if the one I provided is so lacking. Because from your post I'm not really seeing a connection as to how it's benevolent sexism.

EDIT: I am kind of curious as to why you reject the definition I provided? Perhaps you could explain to me what about it isn't satisfactory.
Why should a a dictionary hold percent here?


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Mr.Venture said:


> I'll say this, I have an inherent distrust of anyone who scores a 0 on both scales (sorry @_Wellsy_). I'd be wary of anyone who's self-report said their ideology and behavior was so perfectly consistent. People are complex!


No need to apologize, I rather a healthy dose of skepticism rather than inherent distrust though XD


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Wellsy said:


> The definition isn't from the dictionary, this is the definition put forth in the paper in which of those that proposed the theory of Ambivalent Sexism and the effectiveness of the Inventory to measure Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.
> Can look for yourself in a PDF file through google.
> 
> So is it prejudice to take a stance in defense of others?
> ...


It's prejudice to make a big deal over things just because you feel you need to protect people. The problem with this is that people don't realize that what they're doing is wrong, even after women/minorities/whatever say, *"Jeez, I can take care of myself!"* Because that kind of behavior from a "male feminist" shows that he feels that she's too weak to defend herself.

*It's damaging in the bastardized name of justice.

*


Wellsy said:


> No need to apologize, I rather a healthy dose of skepticism rather than inherent distrust though XD


The point is that a perfect score shows that you probably answered the questions in the way you felt that you OUGHT to answer the questions, fulfilling your biases rather than attempting to honestly search your soul for the answers. A perfect score suggests delusion.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

So it calls me sexist when I say "yes definitely women try to gain power over men" yet it never asks me how I feel about men. Because yes definitely men try to gain power over women. Sorry but I'm not sexist. Just because I hate women doesn't mean I don't also hate men.. For the same god damn reasons. Of course I also answered negatively on the feminism questions too because of this. Feminists make the same mistake over and over again... They don't care how I feel about men. It's fucking called "feminism". You can't push equality with a label like that. 

If you truly want equality, design better fucking tests to detect sexism. 

Ok ok let's look at that question again "do women try to gain power over men" and the correct answer is supposed to be "no" to be NOT sexist. Well I guess that means the test designers are saying "women don't try to gain power over men" which is disgustingly sexist. Because it's fucking wrong. 

I can not take this shit seriously. I'm going to go treat people like humans, feel free to join me anybody who isn't sexist.


----------



## unoriginal (Dec 22, 2013)

I'm sexist but in the cute innocent 1950s kind of way!


----------



## Mr.Venture (Dec 25, 2011)

Wellsy said:


> The definition isn't from the dictionary, this is the definition put forth in the paper in which of those that proposed the theory of Ambivalent Sexism and the effectiveness of the Inventory to measure Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.
> Can look for yourself in a PDF file through google.
> 
> So is it prejudice to take a stance in defense of others?
> ...


Actually, what I gathered from @Dalton's post was that he believed these male feminists' attitudes reflected self-interest, in the sense that we all express a certain amount of self-deception to maintain a healthy ego. I thought he was suggestion that their expressed attitudes reflect (in some proportion) a desire to see themselves as "better than" the average person...

And I kinda got to agree that almost everyone does that to some degree or another.



Wellsy said:


> No need to apologize, I rather a healthy dose of skepticism rather than inherent distrust though XD


This did give me pause because I had to ask myself if it really was distrust or simple skepticism. Went back and forth on that. I'm going to stick with distrust however, because if I am skeptical that a person isn't deceiving themselves, then it's natural for me to extend that toward decpetion in my direction as well.

I'm NOT saying your expressed attitudes don't match your actual biases - there's always the possibility that my distrust is misplaced - but if I'm going to be homest with myself then distrust is really the more appropriate term in this case.

Thankfully, trust is something people can always earn more of.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Dalton said:


> It's prejudice to make a big deal over things just because you feel you need to protect people. The problem with this is that people don't realize that what they're doing is wrong, even after women/minorities/whatever say, *"Jeez, I can take care of myself!"* Because that kind of behavior from a "male feminist" shows that he feels that she's too weak to defend herself.
> 
> *It's damaging in the bastardized name of justice.*


Do you think by default of being a man and supporting feminism that one is not motivated by any sincere interest or understanding but of want to make a big deal over things due to a superiority complex to stroke one's self esteem? 
Do you consider helping someone to always be prejudiced?

I was kind of hoping you'd make a link to benevolent sexism, because prior you seem to have posed that by combing dictionary definitions of the terms benevolent and sexist that one finds a true definition of benevolent sexism as used in social sciences.
To this I'm curious as to _why _you didn't find the definition provided satisfactory and why you think that a dictionary is better. 

I hold the concern that you might be taking things to an extreme in which any disagreement with someone from a particular demographic is considered prejudice against that demographic which makes for a rather interesting situation in which two people from the same demographic disagree with one another. 
I'm wondering if your thoughts reside more on a societal level rather than an individual level, because I don't think male feminists are forcing themselves upon women to accompany them everywhere, especially without their consent, that's more likely found in those who subscribe to gender stereotypes. 
On a societal level though I can see that there are many who disagree with people who deny social hierarchies and structural inequalities, but I don't think disagreeing with those people even when they're women, equates to being benevolently sexist. 
Because on a societal level one doesn't have limitless autonomy and it's limited by governance in enforced laws and policy, on the extreme one could believe that any governance is paternalistic and some do.

Perhaps i'm just extrapolating to far which is kind of why i was asking for specifics, like a definition of benevolent sexism that one can generalize specifically to male feminists.
But I'm not sure if you're going to do that as you without explanation dismissed the definition that defines benevolent sexism in academia, I'm left kind of confused at the moment as to where to see a direct point.
Because benevolent sexism as far as I understand it, was introduced by those that proposed the ASI and it was from their paper that introduced the definition that I provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism


> The theory has largely been developed by social psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske.


Those two are the social psychologists that acknowledged and defined benevolent sexism and introduced it part of their Theory of Ambivalent Sexism. So I think I got the definition from the best place one could get one, one that holds more credence than combining two words from a dictionary. Just seems it'd be equivalent to trying to discussing Feeling in the Jungian sense and someone going to a dictionary to look up the common usage for the term and to dismiss the initial definition on that basis.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Mr.Venture said:


> Actually, what I gathered from @_Dalton_'s post was that he believed these male feminists' attitudes reflected self-interest, in the sense that we all express a certain amount of self-deception to maintain a healthy ego. I thought he was suggestion that their expressed attitudes reflect (in some proportion) a desire to see themselves as "better than" the average person...
> 
> And I kinda got to agree that almost everyone does that to some degree or another.


Well to that end i think one would have to point out why they believe they know the motivation of someone, I think this would be difficult to do unless one can extract points from what one expresses in support that one is benevolently sexist by the definition of it. Other wise one is being rather presumptions to prescribe motivations when they have nothing to validate that belief.

Also it could be a miscommunciaiton but it sounds like this belief is held to every male feminist which has me curious as to how one reasons to that conclusion. 
As it seems that those most likely to be benevolently sexist are those that subscribe to gender stereotypes to which I think feminists are more likely to be critical of then the general population. 
For example, the same people who made the ASI made another test of Ambivalence towards men which has been used to contrast feminists and non-feminist opinions as defined by those that conducted the study. The study is ambivalent sexist attitudes towards men and their gender stereotypes, one could look specifically at benevolent sexism in the results.


> This did give me pause because I had to ask myself if it really was distrust or simple skepticism. Went back and forth on that. I'm going to stick with distrust however, because if I am skeptical that a person isn't deceiving themselves, then it's natural for me to extend that toward deception in my direction as well.
> 
> I'm NOT saying your expressed attitudes don't match your actual biases - there's always the possibility that my distrust is misplaced - but if I'm going to be homest with myself then distrust is really the more appropriate term in this case.
> 
> Thankfully, trust is something people can always earn more of.


I personally think people overthought the questions, all my answers were zeroes and fives, I did wonder about social desirability being a factor for myself though.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> I personally think people overthought the questions, all my answers were zeroes and fives, I did wonder about social desirability being a factor for myself though.


Well, I personally think you well underthought them. In order to honestly answer all of these questions and get a "0.00" score a person would have to be quite sexist (in a woman>men sort of way). However, I think most people who are getting that score or other incredibly low scores are simply just answering the way they think they are "supposed" to. The test made it abundantly clear which way it thought a person should think (a pretty good indication it's biased if you ask me), so everyone knew what answers would increase or decrease their scores. To me it seems like people scoring a 0.00 are mostly an example of, "The lady doth protest too much" where people WANT a certain score in order to prove a point and then answer accordingly. I don't think a truly "unsexist" person would get a 0.00 on this test, nor do I think any of us are perfectly "unsexist".


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think so, personally I thought the generalizations were poorly founded, where everyone else seems to have got caught up on trying to treat these generalizations for statistical accuracy as if it was a question of how many fulfill the generalization.
It does make me curious for the amount of criticisms found in spite of the ASI meeting a standard of reliability and validity. 
Another source scrutinizing the ASI's reliability and validity. 
Skimming through the source, when they tested for social desirability it seems they sound a statistically significant but small effect that wasn't considered enough to undermine the use of the ASI. 
*The ASI and Social Desirability
*
* *






> Participants in Study 2 (N = 161) completed Paulhus's( 1988 ) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR),which separately measures Impression Management and Self Deception,the two dimensions Paulhus found to underlie other measures of socially desirable responding. We administered the BIDR using the 0 (strongly disagree)-to-6 (strongly agree) scalerecommended by Paulhus. With an issue as sensitive in the current cultural climate as relationships between men and women,particularly on a college campus noted for political correctness,it would be surprising if the ASI were completely unrelated to socially desirable response tendencies. Although the ASI scales were not significantly related to the Self-Deception scale of the BIDR, the correlations of the Impression Management (IM)scale of the BIDR with the ASI scales were significant but not large (see Table 7). Partial correlations, in which each of the ASI subscales ( HS and BS) were controlled, while the other was correlated to the social desirability scales, show that both scales are independently correlated with IM.
> 
> Despite the statistical significance of the relationships between the ASI scale and IM, the magnitude of the correlations indicates that the two are not redundant. No particular ASI items can be tagged as the "culprits" for this correlation; in no case does any individual item on the ASI correlate more strongly than -.27 with IM, but virtually all of the items tend toward a weak relationship with IM (6 items in the -.20s, 13items in the -. 10s). Thus, the overall relationship between the ASI and IM reflects an aggregation of many weak relationships.





I had thought I might go over the questions and explain my interpretation of them for scrutiny if i'm bored. 

Conciseness isn't founded in my posts because my manner of thinking branches out vastly. I do understand the point of posts being tl;dr, but my manner of writing comes out in part because I consider many thoughts important to communicating my point clearly. If a person doesn't want to read they won't but for those that do the can, it also makes it easier to criticize what I think because it's out in the open.

EDIT: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Wellsy said:


> I don't think so, personally I thought the generalizations were poorly founded, where everyone else seems to have got caught up on trying to treat these generalizations for statistical accuracy as if it was a question of how many fulfill the generalization.
> It does make me curious for the amount of criticisms found in spite of the ASI meeting a standard of reliability and validity.
> Skimming through the source, when they tested for social desirability it seems they sound a statistically significant but small effect that wasn't considered enough to undermine the use of the ASI.
> *The ASI and Social Desirability
> ...


We should both explain our answers to the questions because I think we should compare/contrast. I'll re-open the test now and make a new post addressing my perspective of each question and you do the same.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

@Wellsy you do understand that the test itself is blatantly and explicitly sexist right? It assumes that only a man can be sexist. First off, just look at the questions. If a person were completely convinced a woman was better than a man I found 3 they would "miss" (3, 8, 19) and if a person was completely convinced that a man was better than a woman I found 10 they would miss (2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18). That sees pretty unfair, but it's actually worse than that. If you dig down into it you will see that ALL of the "hostile sexism" questions are based on a man being sexist and not a single one of them is based on a woman being sexist. If a woman is sexist she will still get a 0.00 on "hostile sexism" and only fail a few of the "benevolent sexism" questions (the ones for gender differentiation and ironically paternalism). How can you defend a test as being an effective detector of sexism if it's designed to only detect sexism in ONE sex? Maybe if they made it clear it was only meant for male participants and they made a similar test for women, but that isn't the case here. In this test ONLY a man can be a "hostile sexist" and that is IN ITSELF SEXIST.

And all of that is before you even look at the stupidity of some of the questions that everyone would fail unless they were intentionally TRYING not to fail.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No it doesn't assume that at all, women have been tested XD At the very end you can see averages on the basis of being male or female. If you looked into it, you'd realize there is the point made that women are often opposed to hostile sexism but when hostile sexism is high they are stronger supporters of benevolent sexism and in this manner the two complement each other to maintain inequality, women can hold the very same sexist beliefs as men because those beliefs are derived from culture and they live in the very same culture and raised on the same beliefs. 
It's kind of because it's a test based around sexism towards women, there's also the equivalent of ambivalent sexism towards men, it has similar questions but of course of a different gendered nature. 

It's called the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory(AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999) and was used in this study.
ASI has been used globally.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

@Stelliferous
Can see now gonna end up in criticisms all over my own view because people disagree with me XD
0 = Disagree Strongly
5 = Agree Strongly

* *





*(1)* No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman. 
- 0
*(2) *Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for "equality." 
- 0
*(3)* In a disaster, women ought not necessarily to be rescued before men. 
- 5
*(4)* Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
- 0
*(5)* Women are too easily offended. 
- 0
*(6)* People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.
- 5
*(7)* Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men.
- 5
*(8)* Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess. 
-0
*(9)* Women should be cherished and protected by men.
- 0
*(10)* Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them. 
- 0
*(11)* Women seek to gain power by getting control over men. 
- 0
*(12)* Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores. 
- 0
*(13)* Men are complete without women.
- 5
*(14)* Women exaggerate problems they have at work. 
- 0
*(15)* Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash. 
- 0
*(16)* When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against. 
- 0
*(17)* A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man. 
- 0
*(18)* There are actually very few women who get a kick out of teasing men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances. 
- 5
*(19)* Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility. 
- 0
*(20)* Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives. 
- 0
*(21)* Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men. 
- 5
*(22)* Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of culture and good taste. 
- 0




*Hostile Sexism Score: **0.00 *
*Benevolent Sexism Score: **0.00

**1.* I don't think one needs a partner to be complete
*2.* I think women face discrimination due to gender stereotypes and that people don't acknowledge this which is why they don't accept certain practices to help mitigate such discrimination as being based in motivations of equality.
*3.* There is a myth perpetuated by the example of the titanic that says that women and children are saved first, reality does not reflect this, in emergency one doesn't have time for for appraising people's value of life, you save everyone that you can.
Women and children first - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> As a code of conduct, "women and children first" has no basis in maritime law, and according to University of Greenwichdisaster evacuation expert Professor Ed Galea, in modern-day evacuations people will usually "help the most vulnerable to leave the scene first. It's not necessarily women, but is likely to be the injured, elderly and young children."[SUP][5][/SUP] Furthermore, the results of a 2012 Uppsala University study suggest that the application of "women and children first" may have, in practice, been the exception rather than the rule.[SUP][6][/SUP]



*4. *I think a lot of sexist remarks aren't perceived as sexist due to people generally not understanding sexism, especially the subtle forms in this modem age. 
UnderstandingPrejudice.org: The Psychology of Prejudice

* *






> Just as there is subtle racism, research shows there is subtle sexism. For example, Janet Swim and her colleagues (1995) have documented the presence of "modern sexism," a form of prejudice analogous to the "modern racism" listed in Table 3. In contrast to old-fashioned sexism -- which portrays women as unintelligent and incompetent -- modern sexism is characterized by a denial that sex discrimination continues to be a problem, antagonism toward women's groups, and a belief that the government and news media show too much concern about the treatment of women.
> 
> Studies also suggest that sexism is marked by an ambivalence similar to what Irwin Katz (1981) described in his theory of "ambivalent racism." According to Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (1996, 2001), "ambivalent sexism" includes two separate but interrelated components: (1) _hostile sexism, which involves negative feelings toward women; and (2) benevolent sexism, a chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who adopt conventional gender roles. Because benevolent sexism may superficially seem like positive regard rather than prejudice, it can go unnoticed or even be perpetuated by women themselves (Glick et al., 2000). As in the case of positive stereotypes, however, benevolent sexism is far from benign. Not only does it restrict women's freedom and encourage dependence upon men, but the presence of benevolent sexism among females means that women often act as prisoner and guard at the same time._






*5.* I think this is a typical divisiveness of those who don't acknowledge what offense their actions or words were, also the belief that women on the basis of being women are inherently more sensitive than men is a gender stereotype, following this stereotype strictly, there's no such thing as sensitive men or non-sensitive women. I imagine many likely believe that on average women are more sensitive but that's because they subscribe to the gender stereotypes of which I do not. 
*6. *One's happiness can exist truly without being romantically involved with anyone, even through out their lives.
*7.* I don't believe feminism seeks to dominate men, rather this is the belief of reactionaries that misrepresent and misunderstand core points of feminism and refuse to acknowledge societal inequalities and their cultural foundation in gender/sexism. 
*8.* This is nonsense, purity itself as an idea of how someone is rather dubious as it sounds less like it sees a person and idealized an object of their imagination. But for what ever one wants to think of innocence, I don't see it's basis being founded in one's sex but more likely their inexperience with the world that one has been sheltered from.
*9.* Women on the basis of being a woman don't inherently require protection, this is ridiculous motive to protect someone or to cherish them. 
*10.* I would say many women are quite appreciative of the good men in their lives, especially in the context of societies that are permissive to hostile sexism. Rather I imagine many hold entitled attitudes of what they expect from women, feeling they are deserving of gratitude for completing task that they're responsible for ie looking after one's own children. Something which many look to fathers as being exemplary for doing "extra" work in the context where I don't imagine people showing such gratitude to the mothers who also work full time and care for their kids when they can all without a n entitled attitude for gratitude. 
*11.* This stems from the resentment men have of women having any kind of power as they hold beliefs that women should be below them, passive, submissive and obedient, specifically in regards to men's want of access to women sexually. This is touched on as an aspect of hostile sexism, specifically heterosexual hostility.
http://people.cas.sc.edu/swansc/FieldsinpressWhatitmeanstobeawoman.pdf



> heterosexual hostility (“fuses sex with power and expresses thebelief in women’s sexuality as dangerous to men” (Glick & Fiske, 2001a, p. 123)



From The Ambivalent Sexism Inventoryifferentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism, google for PDF

* *






> Virginia Woolf ( 1929/1981 ) haTarded her own answer about the reasons for polarized images of women in literature: "the astonishing extremes of her beauty and horror; her alternations between heavenly goodness and hellish depravity" are as "a lover would see her as his love rose or sank, was prosperous or unhappy" (p. 83). Heterosexuality is, undoubtedly, one of the most powerful sources of men's ambivalence toward women. Heterosexual romantic relationships are ranked by men (and women) as one of the top sources of h_appiness in life ( see Berscheid & Peplau, 1983; Brehm, 1992), and these relationships are typically nominated as the most psychologically close and intimate relationships men have (Berscheid et al., 1989).
> 
> Men's sexual motivation toward women may be linked with a genuine desire for psychological closeness (heterosexual intimacy). Although, at their best, heterosexual relationships are the source of euphoric and intimate feelings (Hatfield, 1988), romantic relationships between men and women also pose the greatest threat of violence toward women (Unger & Crawford, 1992). *Men's dyadic dependency on women creates an unusual situation in which members of a more powerful group are dependent on members of a subordinate group*. Sex is popularly viewed as a resource for which women act as the gatekeepers (ZiUmann & Weave~ 1989). *This creates a vulnerability that men may resent, which is reflected in the frequency with which women are portrayed in literature as manipulative "temptrcsses," such as Delilah, who can "emasculate" men. The belief that women use their sexual allure to gain dominance over men (who would, in vulgar parlance, be called "pussy-whipped') is a belief that is ~ted with hostility toward women *(Check, Malamuth, Elias, & Barton, 1985). As Bargh and Raymond (1995) and Pryor, Giedd, and Williams (1995) *demonstrated, for some men sexual attraction toward women may be inseparable from a desire to dominate them *(heterosexual hostility).






*12.* I don't see why this is a requirement, a man does not need to have a woman whom he adores. One may but saying that one should is problematic.
*13.* I don't see why one should believe that one is incomplete without another person, this set sup unhealthy mindsets I think and a fragile ego/identity. 
*14.* Another example of what I expect from someone who dismisses problems and doesn't take women's experiences seriously. 
*15.* It sounds rather strange that one would participate in committing and responsibility in respect to another then describe it as being put on a tight leash, if one is so adverse to commitment and what that entails then they shouldn't enter relationships that will be unfulfulling to them.
*16.* I'm not incline to presume that something is inherently fair when someone complains, I rather take their concerns seriously rather than dismiss it because one is a woman. This is the kind of thinking I'd expect from someone who doesn't acknowledge the existence of sexism/discrimination in our culture.
*17.* No one and I mean no one, should be put on a pedestal, even the greatest of people are only human beings and ain't nothing special for being a woman nor a man. Such perspectives are problematic and ignore the person directly in front of ones self, due to blindness to whats in front of them,expectations are going to lead to frustration when reality is non-congruent. 
*18.* I don't think many women are so cruel, I think this is likely a sentiment of those who assume to much of women's motivations and think it in a negative light due to being hurt by it, often people can get hurt out of negligence of simply misaligned goals, or miscommmuniation then any maliciousness. 
*19.* I don't believe that one's sex lends to being morally superior.
*20.* I don't think people should be sacrificing things on the basis that someone is a woman
*21.* I do think feminists make very reasonable points, many of which are misinterpreted in the same manner a creationists do of the theory of evolution. It is a theme for people, especially those that are reactionary, to not actually invest any measure of trying to understated what they criticize and such many of their points fall flat out of ignorance and I think this is typical to critics of feminist associated things. 
*22.* I don't see one's genitals correlating to a sense of culture or refinement.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

(1) No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman. 
*- 0 - love yes, woman no.*
(2) Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for "equality."
*- 1 - some women I'm sure do (this isn't yes or no so I use *1* to indicate *some*)*
(3) In a disaster, women ought not necessarily to be rescued before men.
*- 5 - I actually laughed out loud with this one.*
(4) Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist. 
*- 2 - not most but definitely enough to notice that there are a number of women out there who do indeed claim things are sexist when they are not. Like "why didn't you rescue me first when the ship crashed??? sexist!~!" (also it doesn't mention anything about men interpreting innocent remarks as sexist.. hmmm *grows suspicious*)*
(5) Women are too easily offended.
*- 2 - probably the same amount of women are too easily offended as the number of whom interpret innocent remarks as being sexist, just as the question before it. (what about men being easily offended?)*
(6) People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex. 
*- 5 - ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY*
(7) Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men. 
*- 5 - LIES. They throw around the label "sexist" to control people's behavior by designing tests like these. >.> It's a bit like calling somebody crazy when they aren't. They'll believe you if you keep calling them crazy. "Oh I don't want to be sexist so please tell me how I'm sexist so I'll change" "Ok you're sexist because our test that only addresses how you feel about women says that your feelings about things are due to the fact that you either hate women or idolize them" "Ok I will listen to your superiority of which you have clearly gathered in a manipulative manner because people are naturally prone to manipulation if they have a label put atop their head claiming they are socially undesirable because of a flaw, and I don't realize that I'm being a victim to your authority because your authority is, well, masked behind the "fact" that I'm the one with the flaw and not you."*
(8) Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.
*- 0 - LMFAO yeah real pure if you hide your farts and the fact that you go through pain regularly and the obvious fact that pleasure is sought to ease pain naturally.*
(9) Women should be cherished and protected by men. 
*- 0 - another one where I literally laughed out loud.*
(10) Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them.
*- 3 - Not most but there is a fair amount of selfishness, from men and women. (but they don't care what the fuck you think about men)*
(11) Women seek to gain power by getting control over men. 
*- 5 - I answered this one semi-thoroughly in another post. Again they don't care about men seeking to gain power over women. Both men and women do this all the fucking time and it actually gives me symptoms of sickness upon witnessing. *
(12) Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores. 
*- 0 - why? so he can worship the bitch? (at this point I'm thinking the test designer has this question flipped around from what you would normally score the sexism on this test because they honestly feel like they need to be worshiped at this rate since the topic is all about women. Where is the question "Every woman ought to have a man whom she adores.)*
(13) Men are complete without women. 
*- 5 - Yeah we are complete without everything material. We are whole. Born this way and will die this way. AS ARE WOMEN WTF WHERE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS REVERSING THE GENDERS?????*
(14) Women exaggerate problems they have at work.
*- 3 - Not all women. And what are the problems? Are they sexist problems????? Or are you referring to problems that mean ANY FUCKING PROBLEM AT WORK. *
(15) Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash. 
*- 5 - Hey thanks you used the word "usually" for me so I can put a 5. Yeah that's kind of what COMMITMENT means. >.> Oh and by the way, Mrs. Test, in case you were wondering, yes men put women on leashes too USUALLY.  Oh you don't care? Sorry. *
(16) When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against. 
*- 0 - Never once have I seen that. But I do see many men saying "it's ok you're a girl don't take it personally" or rather "you throw like a girl" which means "you suck at throwing". So it is fair that women can complain about discrimination if those things are said, but I have never seen a women complain that their loss being a result of discrimination.*
(17) A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man.
*- 0 - what the fuck.............. First, what is a "good" woman?? and "her" man????? W.T.F. *
(18) There are actually very few women who get a kick out of teasing men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances.
*- 4 - honestly I'm not fucking sure how many do this. All I know is that some do it. I did however laugh at the word "actually" in the question (yes I know they are statements and not questions. I bet it's been peeving you the whole time, huh? (not to you Wellsy but to anybody reading this)). And guess what.. men do it too!! some. Not sure how many, again. I just know that it's a HUMAN thing to do.*
(19) Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility.
*- 0 - morals are so subjective.. you can't throw a word like "superior" in front of it. Men die at war all the fucking time. Women stay home and take care of the kids. Which gender is more moral? Answer: neither!!!! They both do what needs to be done when the world fucking hates each other. And yeah I know armies aren't made of ONLY men, nor do ONLY women stay home from wars. But the numbers of military was just an example of action which could be interpreted morally no matter what you do, so long as you are working toward a better future.. which means surviving through the present.*
(20) Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives
*- 0 - sacrifice is not something that should be socially praised. It is a decision of the individual and should there be any pressure on somebody from another to sacrifice, the decision was not made by the individual and they have been manipulated. Yes, I've seen in many movies women fighting with their husbands about how selfish they are to sacrifice their family for a war. The wife put a tremendous amount of pressure on the husband to NOT go to war, which is the same form of manipulation as putting pressure on somebody to sacrifice. Ultimately the decision should be made by the individual and this is another reason why I put earlier on this questionnaire (yes I know they aren't questions, fuck off) that some women don't fully appreciate what men do for them. And by the way, no I don't feel that men are the only ones who sacrifice. Don't go there.*
(21) Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men. 
*- 0 - Yeah reasonable in OPPOSITE LAND "Demands" pfft 'fuck you think we are? computers?*
(22) Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of culture and good taste. 
*- 0 - again, what is up with this subjectivity??? "good" taste? What IS that???
*
 @_Wellsy_ I'd just like to say that all of my aggression in these answers by no means is reflective of how I feel about you or your opinions. I appreciate every input you voice and while yes your posts are long, I did read them fully (well the ones you posted most recently in the last few pages). Sometimes I don't follow what you are saying - that is not a personal judgment, but rather my feelings as to the clarity of what you speak of, which is most likely due to my lack of understanding of certain things. I know you get anxiety from seeing that "post quote" notification. I do too. :/


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

@Wellsy, read YOUR OWN SOURCE.



> *Hostile sexism*
> Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise
> of asking for "equal
> Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
> ...


ALL of these are based on a man being the perpetrator, not a woman. It could basically have just asked, "are you a feminist" and gotten the same results.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Btw I got 2.45 (right in between avg. female and avg. male) for Hostile Sexism and 0.00 for Benevolent Sexism.
 @_Wellsy_


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> @_Wellsy_, read YOUR OWN SOURCE.
> ALL of these are based on a man being the perpetrator, not a woman. It could basically have just asked, "are you a feminist" and gotten the same results. The word "women" or "feminists" is the subject in every single question. Not one of them is presenting a misandrist point of view for comparison. Of course, that's hardly new. My browser says the word "misandrist" doesn't even exist (lol).


It's testing sexism in the direction towards women, but women can hold these very same beliefs and they do as they are tested with this very same resource, that its about sexism towards women isn't evidence of sexism XD.
A very similar resource is done for ambivalent sexism towards men which I showed a source which used that measure.


Wellsy said:


> It's called the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory(AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999) and was used in this study.


Being sexist towards women isn't only a male thing, just as sexism towards men isn't just a female thing.
People regardless of their sex due to the culture we raise them in are likely to adopt sexist attitudes based on gender stereotypes.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> It's testing sexism in the direction towards women, but women can hold these very same beliefs and they do as they are tested with this very same resource, that its about sexism towards women isn't evidence of sexism XD.
> A very similar resource is done for ambivalent sexism towards men which I showed a source which used that measure.


No, it actually DOES show a bias on the part of the authors. The "default" sexism index is based on only men being sexist and then later they created one for women (because presumably they realized the original one was sexist on its own).


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> No, it actually DOES show a bias on the part of the authors. The "default" sexism index is based on only men being sexist and then later they created one for women (because presumably they realized the original one was sexist on its own).


Apparently testing for sexism towards women = Sexism 
So anytime someone focuses on something they're prejudiced against everything else? Nice to know XD


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Here are some selected example of question in this test that do little to prove someone is sexist:

Things that are true about pretty much everybody and are only sexist if you believe them about one sex:

*(5) Women are too easily offended.*
Yes, many women are too easily offended. But so are many men. This is more a question about whether or not you agree with people who get offended easily.

*(6) People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex. 
*
I've been on enough forums based around psychology and things like depression to know that being alone in love is probably the leading cause of people not being truly happy. This is true for both sexes. IF this question is testing anything it's testing whether you are homosexual or not (because then it wouldn't be the other sex).

*(10) Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them. 
*
Yes, this is true and most men fail to fully appreciate what women do for them. This is just human nature. Men and women often don't understand each other and therefore have problems emphasizing about certain things. Plus most people are just plain selfish and don't fully appreciate anything other people do for them enough.

*(11) Women seek to gain power by getting control over men. 
*
This shit happens all the time from both sexes.

*(14) Women exaggerate problems they have at work. 
*
EVERYONE exaggerates problems at work. It's damn near a national pastime to get home from work and start bitching about who your boss sucks or all your clients are idiots, etc.

*Things that are simply based on a person being in love and not based on sexism:*

*(9) Women should be cherished and protected by men. 
*
Yes, men should cherish and protect the women in their life and women should do the same. This isn't about sexism, it's about whether you care about other people. Is someone a sexist now for loving their mother or their wife? Are you fucking kidding me?

*(20) Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives. *
Again, any decent human being (male or female) should be willing to sacrifice for the people in their lives. Nothing about this indicates sexism, it indicates whether you are a good person.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> Apparently testing for sexism towards women = Sexism
> So anytime someone focuses on something they're prejudiced against everything else? Nice to know XD


It doesn't say it's only testing sexism against women. It says it's testing sexism in general. If you honestly can't see that this test is just completely flawed and worthless then something is seriously wrong with you.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Thought I'd try and spell out my reasoning as well - if nothing else, it shows up the difficult nature of the questions in that they seemed to me to require as much re-interpreting as I ended up having to do to make sense of some of them (Q13 and Q21 in particular):

*Hostile Sexism Score: 0.27 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.27*

*1 - No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman. *
DISAGREE STRONGLY (0) - a person can be "complete" (insofar as that's a defined term) without another's love.

*2 - Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for "equality." *
DISAGREE STRONGLY (0) - some women may do this, but I believe it's untrue that many do.

*3 - In a disaster, women ought not necessarily to be rescued before men. *
AGREE STRONGLY (5) - no good reason to favour one gender over the other, certainly not of necessity anyway.

*4 - Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist. *
Like Q2, some might but most don't - DISAGREE STRONGLY (0)

*5 - Women are too easily offended. *
This is where I find the problems start for me. Like Q2 and Q4, some do this and some don't - but unlike those questions, this one has no "many" or "most" to quantify it. If I agree, I'm saying that women are too easily offended (which I don't agree with), but if I disagree, I'm saying it's not true that women are too easily offended (which I also don't agree with). Middle of the scale just means a point between the two, which doesn't reflect my position either. I can't ascribe to this sentence either of the poles - I'm literally unsure how to interpret it. So my eventual response is to treat it as though it's referring to all/most women, since it would make more sense to try and talk about women as a whole as this sentence does if it means that than if it means some. Now that I've adjusted my understanding of it, it's a DISAGREE STRONGLY (0), for the same reasons and Q2 and Q4.

*6 - People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.* 
AGREE (4) - I think it's perfectly possible to be, but this is a question about what is ("People are"...), and quite a number are, but a number aren't as well. Is that "often"? Does it mean "people live happy lives without any romantic relationships", or "people are happy during periods when they aren't in relationships"? I think the 4 option is roughly where I'd put myself, either way, though it's another that's hard to quantify. (Glad to see this question not refer to specific genders as well, since of course sexism can go either way...)

*7 - Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men.* 
Like Q5, what is meant by "feminists" here? Some do, some don't (unless you exclude those that do/don't by saying they don't qualify as "feminists", but surely that's just "no true Scotsman"?), so what am I supposed to do here? Again, as with Q5, I have to parse it and take it to mean "all/most feminists", in which case I go AGREE (4).

*8 - Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess. *
DISAGREE STRONGLY (0). I don't tend to see people as having the quality of "purity" in the first place, so obviously if that's the case, women aren't having that quality more than men in my eyes.

*9 - Women should be cherished and protected by men. *
Q5/Q7 problem again, this time with both "women" and "men". DISAGREE STRONGLY (0) is my instinctive reaction; thinking further, I get stuck on what my thoughts are on "cherishing and protecting" as a general activity, whether that should be a default state in society (probably not; agreement to join together for mutual benefit doesn't necessitate it), whether it should be so in relationships (stuck there for a bit; again, I don't think it's a necessity, so probably not)... since I'm generally not inclined to think individuals "should be" cherishing and protecting, however desirable it may be, I'm not going to "mandate" it on a wider scale, so I'll stick with my instinctive reaction here, and go for the 0.

*10 - Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them. *
The lack of quantifier on "men" is troublesome, but I'd DISAGREE STRONGLY (0) here. "1" or "2" I considered - does anyone truly appreciate anything to the fullest extent possible? - but that's left irrelevant by the fact I'm not sure what exactly "men do for them" in the first place (and, if I assume we're talking specific acts by specific men, then it's not something I've observed being true for "most women" anyway). So yeah, 0 again here.

*11 - Women seek to gain power by getting control over men. *
Yet again, some do but not most/all - applying my principle from Q5, that makes this a DISAGREE STRONGLY (0).

*12 - Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores. *
DISAGREE STRONGLY (0), because I'm not inclined to think anyone needs to adore anyone just for the sake of it. The possible implication of heterosexuality ("implication" because the statement is not specifically about romantic/sexual attraction) is bothersome as well.

*13 - Men are complete without women. *
I think this one threw me the most when I took this test the first time. What on Earth is "complete" supposed to mean? I assume it's something similar to Q6 ("People are often truly happy"...), but what's the scope here? "Without women" what - in what context are they "without women"? Romantically/sexually? In life generally? Unlike other statements with "men" and "women" as terms, an "all/most" interpretation doesn't help here, because my main issues are trying to work out what "complete" means, what "without women" refers to, &c., and "All/most men" doesn't address that. I don't agree or disagree with this statement, regardless of whether I put "all/most" in there to try and make it work. My eventual choice is SLIGHTLY AGREE (3) - I'm given to think of people as largely autonomous beings, so I lean to the side here that involves people not depending on others, but it's certainly true that most people seem to rely on others (which includes men relying on women) in a sense that suggests a need for it - which arguably means they aren't "complete" without those others - so a "3" it is. Honestly, though, this whole statement is a mess to try and evaluate.

*14 - Women exaggerate problems they have at work. *
"Women" again, so Q5 rule applies. Whilst I'm inclined to believe a substantial number of people do this - women and men both - I don't think that fits the bill for "all/most", so the answer is DISAGREE STRONGLY (0).

*15 - Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash.* 
DISAGREE STRONGLY (0). You could fairly argue that the kind of woman who "gets a man to commit to her" (as opposed to a couple of people committing to each other) is exactly the sort who might "try to put him on a tight leash", but I read it more as "Once a woman has secured the commitment of a man", rather than "Once a woman coerces a man into committing", and that means we're talking about commited relationships more broadly, where I'd say this is not the "usual" situation at all, hence strong disagreement.

*16 - When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against. *
Despite the "women", it's clear we're talking about typical behaviour, so the scope is "all women" as far as losing the competition, but "most women" (because of "typically") as far as complaining. DISAGREE STRONGLY (0), fairly straightforwardly because I don't believe this is the typical case whatsoever.

*17 - A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man.* 
DISAGREE STRONGLY (0) - firstly, the assumption that a "good woman" has "her man" irks me (both for the possessive, which, to be fair, could simultaneously go the other way, and for the assumed heterosexuality of "good women"), but secondly, whilst people can go ahead and set each other on pedestals if they wish, I by no means think they "should be", so the answer is fairly straightforward.

*18 - There are actually very few women who get a kick out of teasing men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances. *
AGREE STRONGLY (5) - not one I'm in a particularly good position to evaluate, but, not having observed anyone do this myself, I'll say actions like that are fairly limited.

*19 - Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility. *
DISAGREE STRONGLY (0) - there is no reason I can see why moral sensibility would tie in with gender. Does "women" refer to "all/most" here, or "the average women"? Either way, I see no reason to presume a gender disparity on this front, so 0 it is.

*20 - Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives. *
DISAGREE STRONGLY (0) - arguably, people in a relationship should each be accommodating the other, but if it's to the detriment of one's well being, then it can't really be a particularly good relationship. In any case, "women in their lives" is plural, and the question isn't explicitly romantic/sexual, so the net is broader than relationships, and again, whilst they may be some impetus to provide for others in given scenarios, it has nothing to do with gender.

*21 - Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men. *
Scope of "feminists" is unclear, as is "men". Probably the second hardest to answer in the quiz (after Q13, which is truly a nightmare of a statement to evaluate). Which demands are we talking about here? Should my agreement vary proportionate to the amount of demands I think reasonable as compared to unreasonable? Making wholesale "demands" of any specific gender is problematic, but like I said, the scope of "men" is unclear - is it demands for males specifically, or for specific males (e.g., those in positions of power)? I wouldn't mind a completely neutral option for this question - just not really evaluable, too many variables - but, after considerable parsing of the statement, to the extent that it's not really the same statement any more, I'll go with SLIGHTLY AGREE (3): ignoring the "demanding" nature, I would say the average feminist, if you sort their "demands" by reasonableness and find the mean, would say something I would consider reasonable enough to slightly agree with. Messy way to read the question, but I'm largely stuck otherwise.

*22 - Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of culture and good taste. *
DISAGREE STRONGLY (0) - see Q19, substituting the moral sense for the culture sense.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> It doesn't say it's only testing sexism against women. It says it's testing sexism in general. If you honestly can't see that this test is just completely flawed and worthless then something is seriously wrong with you.


Incorrect.
UnderstandingPrejudice.org: Ambivalent Sexism Inventory


> "Women -- you can't live with them, and you can't live without them."This male quip captures something essential about the face of sexism: an ambivalence, or doubled-edged way of thinking,* in which women are sometimes treated with contempt and sometimes adored.*
> How can adoration qualify as sexism? To answer this question, you are invited to take the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and explore the *dual nature of prejudice toward women.* The inventory takes roughly 5 minutes to complete, and afterward you can compare your level of sexism with the scores received by people from around the world.


This is the page one is on before they continue onto the actual test, it's pretty clear it's about sexism towards women. 

Then at the top of the test.


> *The statements on this page concern women, men, and their relationships in contemporary society*. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement by clicking on the numbered buttons below.


Clear point that it's a test for everyone.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

@StunnedFox

I absolutely hated the system of which to answer the questions (yes I know they aren't questions) and I hated the wording of many of the questions as well (I know they aren't questions  ). It forced you to basically create your own system to both read the question and to answer the question (I KNOW THEY AREN'T QUESTIONS).
@Wellsy, if it were true that the questionnaire (omg I know they aren't questions) was specifically designed to address feelings toward women.. then why put in a few questions concerning your feelings about men? Also, why be so discrete as to the fact that your results indicate a result based on the fact that they are analyzing feelings toward a specific gender? At least make something so controversial as sexism to be more clear with tests that throw around labels which have a tremendous impact on people's lives. At least repeat, multiple times, that by "sexism" they actually mean "feelings toward women". 

ALSO, the questions are absolutely poorly worded. Even if their intentions were pure-hearted and aimed at addressing specific sexism toward women, the system of which they are using is greatly flawed... just look at how StunnedFox treated words like "most" or "every" or "usually" or questions without those words. And why put FIVE different areas of selection on a statement that you either agree with or disagree with? What is DEFINITELY agree? How is that different than AGREE? Because of the poor choice of words, like "most" and all those other ones, I used the FIVE selections in a way that I felt needed to be used. 

Also I feel no need for two tests.. one which addresses female sexism and another which addresses male sexism. One test is all that is needed. The fact that apparently there are two tests is rather peculiar to me. Everything combined gives me a "sketchy" feeling about it all. It's like they are exposing only what they want to expose to you. And that is manipulation. :/


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Stelliferous said:


> just look at how StunnedFox treated words like "most" or "every" or "usually" or questions without those words. And why put FIVE different areas of selection on a statement that you either agree with or disagree with? What is DEFINITELY agree? How is that different than AGREE? Because of the poor choice of words, like "most" and all those other ones, I used the FIVE selections in a way that I felt needed to be used.


This is the fundamental flaw with the test. It has qualifiers for BOTH the questions AND the answers. If the questions were worded as absolutes like, "women are smarter than the average man" then the five answers could be viewed as each being a percentage (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and the correct answer would be 50% (notice that this test considers EVERYTHING either 0% or 100% BTW and misses that equality is often neither). However, when the questions are worded with their own qualifiers (some, many most) then the answer MUST be given as absolutely (true or false). So if the question was "some women are smarter than the average man" the answer is TRUE and if the question is "most women are smarter than the average man" then the answer is FALSE. Unfortunately, this test has qualifiers on both the questions and the answers and so it is utterly flawed. The answers are all viewed as true/false questions and so at the very least they should be presented that way.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Stelliferous said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because attitudes towards women involve some things about men and how one perceives men's role, gender stereotypes are based around a perceived relationship between the two.
For example a benevolent sexist things that men should protect women on the basis that they're a woman, both men and women can agree with this, but it's still in relation to sexism towards women.
I don't think it strange when talking about gender to bring up both genders as the stereotypes revolve around this apparent complementary relationship in which women support men and in return they get access to security provided from the man, physically and economically. 
I personally don't think it's that discrete even if you weren't told it was the ASI and think that's a reflection of ones lack of perceptiveness of the statements. 
If one wants to know what sexism is they can look up the source in which they explain the nature of Ambivalent Sexism and the ASI, the inventory itself isn't a educational tool, it's not designed to teach you what sexism is, it's designed to test two measures of sexism. 

This is where I think people have over thought the question and tried to do more than it asks.
Example, *Women exaggerate problems they have at work.
*This statement is a generalization, in the same way that one may generalize that women are inherently more sensitive, incapable of certain tasks, that men are inherently strong. 
To me I interpret this as, does one think that women, on the basis of being women, exaggerate problems they have at work. Some men and some women may exaggerate problems at work but I don't think this is related to their sex, but a person who believes in gender stereotypes likely does.
It presents nothing to suggest that one should even consider how many women exaggerate problems they have at work, it's look for a generalized belief towards women as a demographic. Sexist attitudes reside in generalizations from stereotypical beliefs around gender, specifics I imagine aren't a good measure for sexism. 

That you feel there is no need for two tests doesn't present a criticism in itself, I would say the reason they have two is because they test for ambivalent sexism against *a) *women and the other tests for ambivalent sexism against *b)* men. 
The test provided doesn't test for ambivalent sexism towards men and thus it's appropriate to make a similar but slightly altered test as to accurately assess such attitudes as the present ASI couldn't be considered a valid measure of ambivalent sexism towards men. 

Also for an insightful post to the nature of the ASI's design, there's this.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> This is the fundamental flaw with the test. It has qualifiers for BOTH the questions AND the answers. If the questions were worded as absolutes like, "women are smarter than the average man" then the five answers could be viewed as each being a percentage (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) and the correct answer would be 50% (notice that this test considers EVERYTHING either 0% or 100% BTW and misses that equality is often neither). However, when the questions are worded with their own qualifiers (some, many most) then the answer MUST be given as absolutely (true or false). So if the question was "some women are smarter than the average man" the answer is TRUE and if the question is "most women are smarter than the average man" then the answer is FALSE. Unfortunately, this test has qualifiers on both the questions and the answers and so it is utterly flawed. The answers are all scored as true/false questions and so at the very least they should be presented that way.


Yep that's the problem. Reword the statements to make absolutes and put in only two choices (agree or don't agree) and bam you have yourself a test that can ACCURATELY test somebody. Oh and to also reverse the gender with each question: "do women need to rely on men?" true or false (or women need to rely on men. agree or disagree) then switch it up on the next question "do men need to rely on women?" true or false (or men need to rely on women. agree or disagree). Also it would help to be more specific.. like rely on women/men for what exactly? For money? For permission? For happiness? 

If you can't design a test that takes into account interpretation of the test then the results won't tell you a single thing.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Stelliferous said:


> @StunnedFox
> 
> I absolutely hated the system of which to answer the questions (yes I know they aren't questions) and I hated the wording of many of the questions as well (I know they aren't questions  ). It forced you to basically create your own system to both read the question and to answer the question (I KNOW THEY AREN'T QUESTIONS).
> @Wellsy, if it were true that the questionnaire (omg I know they aren't questions) was specifically designed to address feelings toward women.. then why put in a few questions concerning your feelings about men? Also, why be so discrete as to the fact that your results indicate a result based on the fact that they are analyzing feelings toward a specific gender? At least make something so controversial as sexism to be more clear with tests that throw around labels which have a tremendous impact on people's lives. At least repeat, multiple times, that by "sexism" they actually mean "feelings toward women".
> ...


I got caught up calling them questions myself - hence my "Q2", "Q5 rule", and so on. You could always argue that they're implicitly questions - "do you agree that [X] or not?" - but, of course, that would be cheating...

There are some inherent problems with rating things on tests that it's hard to bypass - the lack of ability to express any nuance in your rating, for one - but this test has so many other problems that could be avoided. As you say, I had to invent a system for reading the questions just so I could answer them, which is a sure sign of a problem. Q15 wasn't especially hard for me, but it's naturally read as a conditional, which means you have to assume a woman has "gotten a man to commit to her" - something which could easily be read as limited to situations of coercion or suggesting an unhealthy relationship, although I don't read it that way - and your task is to evaluate whether you agree that that is usually concomitant with trying to keep someone on a tight leash, not whether it actually happens at all (if no woman ever "gets a man to commit to her", then I can't disagree with the statement because that state of affairs never arises so I can't evaluate what's usual in that situation). It's one of the flaws with questions like this generally, too many layers trapped inside the statement such that it makes giving a straightforward "yes/no", "agree/disagree" answer impossible - a bit like loaded questions, in a way. I can only imagine how nightmarish trying to score a statement like "You beat your partner up only occasionally" would be...

The biggest issue with the two tests thing is that you could rate equivalent statements the same across both - thus not discriminating at all - yet be deemed sexist under both indices, because they aren't scored together. As you allude to in your responses to the questions, it's asking you whether women specifically do something you believe everyone does, and deeming you more "sexist" because of that, which is clearly a failing of the test (if the statement is meant to mean "do women do this and not men?", or "do women do this more often than men?", then it needs to say that, not just "women do this: agree or disagree?"). 

There is perhaps a case to be made that I'm exactly the sort of person who "overthinks" a test like this - but then, a good test item would stand up to the scrutiny, surely, rather than withering (spell-check doesn't know "withering", what?) the moment that I try to understand what the test item is supposed to mean? 

Despite the many problems, it's possible the index still has some value, that it does at least correlate correctly and thus is much more likely to indicate "sexist" beliefs than random chance would... but I'd have to think that value would be extremely limited when the problems are so prevalent as they are here.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> This is where I think people have over thought the question and tried to do more than it asks.
> Example, Women exaggerate problems they have at work.
> This statement is a generalization, in the same way that one may generalize that women are inherently more sensitive, incapable of certain tasks, that men are inherently strong.
> To me I interpret this as, does one think that women, on the basis of being women, exaggerate problems they have at work. Some men and some women may exaggerate problems at work but I don't think this is related to their sex, but a person who believes in gender stereotypes likely does.
> It presents nothing to suggest that one should even consider how many women exaggerate problems they have at work, it's look for a generalized belief towards women.


If part of the way you are answering a test is based on your interpretation of how the test will be scored then IMO the test is flawed. This goes back to what we were saying before. You wanted to get a 0.00 on this test and then took it in order to get that score. Your interpretations are based on how you think the test will be scored, not what the questions actually say to the average English speaker. It's pretty clear you are the one putting a lot of thought into it. Imagine if instead you were taking a test screening you for a disease and you answered the questions in order to get a certain diagnosis. Would you consider that appropriate? Would you think the test was well designed if a person could easily "beat" it like that?


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

That test was shady as fuck!

*Hostile Sexism Score: **2.55 *
*Benevolent Sexism Score: **0.73*


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

bethdeth said:


> mantra;
> Be nice to each other.


words to live by


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> words to live by


Words no one actually lives by. :happy:


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Words no one actually lives by. :happy:


not on the internet, at least. :frustrating:


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Sporadic Aura said:


> not on the internet, at least. :frustrating:


Or real life. :sad:

But don't let my misanthropy rain on your parade.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Hostile Sexism Score: 0.00
Benevolent Sexism Score: 1.00

The questions were a bit, odd, to me, as nearly all of them were loaded-questions. I wasn't sure how to answer things like "a man is perfectly complete without a woman". I answered a "5" on that as "strongly agree", because I think that anyone regardless of gender should not be necessarily paired with a person of the opposite gender (heterosexuality isn't the only sexuality), and because a person needn't be necessarily paired with a person at all. I think everybody is perfect the way that they are. To answer on either end seemed to be very sexist. Anyway, there were quite a few of those. I don't agree with gender-stereotypes at all.


----------



## randomness11 (Mar 22, 2015)

Hostile Sexism Score: 2.00 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.91


----------



## Ik3 (Mar 22, 2015)

Hostile Sexism Score: 2.18
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.55 

Scored about the same as the average woman on Hostile Sexism. Ain't mad.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

Hostile Sexism Score: 3.00 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.91

I sit upon my moral high horse and look down upon all those cishet men because they have more privilege than I currently have.


----------



## Ausserirdische (May 2, 2015)

Hostile Sexism: *1.00*
Benevolent Sexism: *1.00*

I actually think I scored too high.


----------



## Maye (Feb 15, 2015)

looks like I'm slightly sexist 

UnderstandingPrejudice.org: Ambivalent Sexism Inventory


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Hostile Sexism Score: 1.36 
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.18

^I don't know how I got such high scores on benevolent sexism but hopefully it was because I was selecting the neutral options too often rather than "1" or "5"  

Some of the questions I didn't understand though, such as "women seek power by gaining control over men", I just thought there will be a few women (or men) who do that, and their will be manipulative people in both genders, right? How do statements like this apply to an entire gender? 

There were other questions too that had me confused because I thought is could be true for some and not true for others. So either I am sexist or that I didn't understand the purpose of each of these questions


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Hostile Sexism: 0.00
Benevolent Sexism: 0.45


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Kaisikudo said:


> 4) "What race best describes you?"
> 
> 5) "Are you Hispanic or Latino?"
> 
> Uhhh... why is that a seperate question? Why not just include Hispanic/Latino under the previous list of races?


Because race and ethnicity are not the same thing. You could be a white Latino, a black Latino or an Asian Latino, for instance.


----------



## Kytaari (Mar 14, 2011)

Women are for dishes and laundry


----------



## an absurd man (Jul 22, 2012)

*Hostile Sexism Score: **1.45 *
*Benevolent Sexism Score: **2.00

*


> Hostile Sexism Score: 1.36
> Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.18
> 
> ^I don't know how I got such high scores on benevolent sexism but hopefully it was because I was selecting the neutral options too often rather than "1" or "5"
> ...


I applied the same thinking


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Hostile 2.27
Benevolent 0.64 (How did I get so much ?)

So, as expected my hostility against immoral people has been reduced to hostility against women. What is the reasoning behind it, for them to assume that most women don't seek privileges instead of justice, or most women aren't too easily offended ? Most women would be moral geniuses ? Most women would make the difference between offense and defense ? Justice and violence ? Equity and egality ? Wait, nope, you're all freaking moral retards. You're all seeking privileges. Feminism is a lobby. Dumb sexist quizz is dumb and sexist.


----------

