I'm not insinuating that sexism doesn't exist or even that it isn't rampant, which it is. I'm not sure if you've seen me around much but sexism is actually the ism/phobia that bothers me the most out of sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. The reason for this is that I'm a man of science through and through and I'm extremely intolerant of blatant disregard for science. They're all ridiculous concepts but sexism is the _most_ ridiculous. Bigots can at least foolishly argue that homosexuality and transgenderism are mental illnesses (they're not). Bigots can at least try to play scientists themselves and argue that if humans have genetically diverged sufficiently so as to have varying physical traits they might have significantly varied mental states so as to argue superiority (they don't). But sexism? Laughable even on the surface. Males and females are just primary genotype A and B of the exact same species. We've checked for significant cognitive differences across sexes in millions of species and found it literally once; it's just something nature doesn't do.
The very "supportive data" misogynists provide as proof of female inferiority is hilariously the best proof of sexism. Take less female scientists for example; the reason there are less female scientists is because the world is feeling the effects of thousands of years of sexism to this very day.
So I know full and well that proof of sexism is everywhere but as a man of science I also have to call things as I see them on a case-by-case basis. The fact is that it's a piss-poor study already and presented in an entirely disingenuous way. It is what it is. It intentionally objectifies women and then we get headlines with hard assertions like, "Men view women as objects."
When one actually examines the actual methods and actual results, we see the only takeaway is that the further you objectify someone, the more objectified someone perceives them as. Why pay for this shit? I could have told them that for free.
Honestly it's analogous to this: My brain activity is measured while I'm shown various pictures of black people. Areas known for processing threats are more active when viewing pictures of black people holding weapons. They report, "S0UNDS_WEIRD finds black people dangerous."
It sounds funny but this is _directly_ analogous to this particular study. It's not even remotely nitpicking to present the methods they straight up used and straight up admit they used. I would absolutely bet the house that if they showed homosexual men various images of men, the areas responsible for attempting to ascertain the mental state of another would be less active when looking at cropped pics of glistening abs than when viewing the facial expression of a man in day-to-day life. It's just common sense stuff and the already-silly study was intentionally mischaracterized for click bait online.
The other study I mentioned is much more concerning in my opinion, the one asserting that both males and females use less "global" processing when identifying women. We should really figure out if this is actually indicative of a problem and, if so, if this problem is inherent or socially created.
"And, no, paying attention to feelings and thoughts to the extent necessary to get what they want doesn’t make it any better."
No one said it did. The line merely further elucidates how cringe the first study was when even psychopaths don't view people _entirely_ like objects. Like you said, people don't read. Something no deeper than "men tend to objectify intentionally objectified photos more than others" is being sold as a hard, "Men view women as objects."
Men seeing women as objects
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I'm not insinuating that sexism doesn't exist or even that it isn't rampant, which it is. I'm not sure if you've seen me around much but sexism is actually the ism/phobia that bothers me the most out of sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. The reason for this is that I'm a man of science through and through and I'm extremely intolerant of blatant disregard for science. They're all ridiculous concepts but sexism is the _most_ ridiculous. Bigots can at least foolishly argue that homosexuality and transgenderism are mental illnesses (they're not). Bigots can at least try to play scientists themselves and argue that if humans have genetically diverged sufficiently so as to have varying physical traits they might have significantly varied mental states so as to argue superiority (they don't). But sexism? Laughable even on the surface. Males and females are just primary genotype A and B of the exact same species. We've checked for significant cognitive differences across sexes in millions of species and found it literally once; it's just something nature doesn't do.
The very "supportive data" misogynists provide as proof of female inferiority is hilariously the best proof of sexism. Take less female scientists for example; the reason there are less female scientists is because the world is feeling the effects of thousands of years of sexism to this very day.
So I know full and well that proof of sexism is everywhere but as a man of science I also have to call things as I see them on a case-by-case basis. The fact is that it's a piss-poor study already and presented in an entirely disingenuous way. It is what it is. It intentionally objectifies women and then we get headlines with hard assertions like, "Men view women as objects."
When one actually examines the actual methods and actual results, we see the only takeaway is that the further you objectify someone, the more objectified someone perceives them as. Why pay for this shit? I could have told them that for free.
Honestly it's analogous to this: My brain activity is measured while I'm shown various pictures of black people. Areas known for processing threats are more active when viewing pictures of black people holding weapons. They report, "S0UNDS_WEIRD finds black people dangerous."
It sounds funny but this is _directly_ analogous to this particular study. It's not even remotely nitpicking to present the methods they straight up used and straight up admit they used. I would absolutely bet the house that if they showed homosexual men various images of men, the areas responsible for attempting to ascertain the mental state of another would be less active when looking at cropped pics of glistening abs than when viewing the facial expression of a man in day-to-day life. It's just common sense stuff and the already-silly study was intentionally mischaracterized for click bait online.
The other study I mentioned is much more concerning in my opinion, the one asserting that both males and females use less "global" processing when identifying women. We should really figure out if this is actually indicative of a problem and, if so, if this problem is inherent or socially created.
"And, no, paying attention to feelings and thoughts to the extent necessary to get what they want doesn’t make it any better."
No one said it did. The line merely further elucidates how cringe the first study was when even psychopaths don't view people _entirely_ like objects. Like you said, people don't read. Something no deeper than "men tend to objectify intentionally objectified photos more than others" is being sold as a hard, "Men view women as objects."
That's disingenuous as fuck.