UTMC

Found this test on UnderstandingPrejudice.org

In light of the recent verbal battle, I thought it might be interesting. At any rate:

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

My score was a 0.55 for hostile sexism and a 1.73 for benevolent sexism. No, that is not terribly low. In fact, it means that I, too, am sexist.

Have some fun...or at least take a peek inside your own head.

I'm actually rather surprised to have scored a 0.00 in both categories.

Now that I know I'm not sexist, I think Dobbs joke was funny

/RM

I didn't ready anything after the Joke that was posted in the other thread.
But I took the test because I thought it would be interesting.

Hostile Sexism Score: 5.00
Benevolent Sexism Score: 1.36

I don't really understand my results.
I don't think I'm a sexist and I think the test may be a little biased.

Oh well.

.73
1.18

Whatever that means. Bitches.

MotorCityN8 wrote:Hostile Sexism Score: 5.00

Wow man, sensitivity training time

To be fair the way those questions are formulated seemed almost like it was a trick...

/RM

huh.

Hostile Sexism Score: 2.91
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.45

The test was definitely biased.


Hostile: 0.09
Benevolent: 0.36



It's sexist to think every man should have a woman he adores? WTF?


That's implying that he objectifies her, which is bullshit.


I pride myself on my belief in equality for both sexes and all races/cultures.

The only thing I'm hostile about is the bias of the test.

There is a FAQ on the two different kinds of sexism and how they relate to each other and the treatment of women worldwide.

You can click on the drop down box to see how your scores compare to, say, the average in Belgium...or the average in Syria.

Oh, link to the FAQ: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq.htm

My scores:

Hostile Sexism Score: 1.64
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.45

I had to really think about some of these questions - like this one for instance:
(6) People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.

I gave this an answer of 3, because I believe that a lot of people feel that they "have" to be in a relationship in order to define themselves and their happiness - this is just based on conversations that I have heard (or overheard) from other people. As for myself, I don't think this applies at all - even though I'm happily married, if I wasn't married, I could be perfectly happy not being in a relationship with the opposite sex. Also, what about the people who are in relationships with the same sex?

I think you are supposed to answer those questions from your own point of view. I had trouble with some of them also....having to balance what I know of humanity with what I felt was right for myself.

I think the test is based on heterosexuals. People of other orientations would have vastly different views and would need a test constructed around their specific circumstances. Also, I would think the test is geared towards majority, which would be heterosexual.

Hostile Sexism Score: 0.18
Benevolent Sexism Score: 1.09


That being said. I have to disagree with how much of the data was gathered by offering hyperbolic answer choices. I don't believe in any and all type answers because people are far too complex for that and I choose to base my experiences on individuals I actually know as opposed to some imagined stereotype.

I also blame my Benevolent Sexism Score on my Mama who raised me as a good Southern Boy (even though she's from the south and I'm not). So if I hold the door for a lady or help her with her coat I'm not being sexist, just polite (though I've been accused of sexism for that exact type of behavior).

Ames wrote: I also blame my Benevolent Sexism Score on my Mama who raised me as a good Southern Boy (even though she's from the south and I'm not). So if I hold the door for a lady or help her with her coat I'm not being sexist, just polite (though I've been accused of sexism for that exact type of behavior).

*laughs* That's what I am blaming mine on also.

1.55 / 2.55
I blame my cute girlfriend and my bitchy female coworkerd for bending my mind.

Caliann wrote:

Ames wrote: I also blame my Benevolent Sexism Score on my Mama who raised me as a good Southern Boy (even though she's from the south and I'm not). So if I hold the door for a lady or help her with her coat I'm not being sexist, just polite (though I've been accused of sexism for that exact type of behavior).

*laughs* That's what I am blaming mine on also.

You're blaming my Mama? Harsh...

Ames wrote: So if I hold the door for a lady or help her with her coat I'm not being sexist, just polite (though I've been accused of sexism for that exact type of behavior).

And that's bullshit.


Chivalry and good manners are sexist?

Every woman I know appreciates those qualities in a guy.


I think the test was written by a feminazi.

motorpsycho67 wrote:
I think the test was written by a feminazi.

Well, note that all the questions are skewed with the assumption that the person taking the poll is both male and straight.

The test is crap. The questions are impossibly vague and leading; and there is no "control" question. Example:

(15) Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash.

Disagree strongly .... Agree strongly


First, there is no "Once a MAN gets a WOMAN to commit..."

Guess what? In modern western culture, "commit" usually means some level of "leash," otherwise it's not a commitment. How are we defining "leash"? I mean, does "honoring one's commitments" have to have a negative context? I don't think so.

Furthermore, frankly, there's a reason it's a stereotype, folks. It's human nature. Why lie?

I should've tried not answering questions to which there was no real answer.

Or how 'bout this questoin:

"(21) Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men. "

I've met enough angry man-hating bull dykes in my time who were quite clear about their desire to see men subjugated. They called themselves feminists. I thought their claims to see me kept as a housepet were a bit much. Does this mean that I disagree with the idea that women should have an equal say in society? No, but that's not what the question asked.

This is the same pitiful mindless drivel I heard at university when they told me that because I'm a White male that I'm a racist and a rapist, and I should feel bad about it. Sorry, kids, but fuck that noise. Folks is folks, assholes are assholes, and I'll treat them accordingly.

*sigh*

So yeah, test is stupid.

Hostile Sexism Score: 1.82
Benevolent Sexism Score: 1.55

*snicker*

Golly, I guess Mrs. Jaeger will just have to give me what for. Goodness me.

--Jaeger

I just took that test and think the questions were so full of assumed gendered stereotypes as to make them meaningless. I can't judge women as a group any more than I can judge men as a group. Every one of those questions begs an answer that assumes that the test-taker has no concept of gender as a social construct.

In other words, I fail to find any meaning, whatsoever, in that test.

I looked at that 'test'... Didn't even bother to waste my time with it. Ranged answers aside, the questions were so incredibly self-biased, that it was laughable. These kinds of 'groups' are what's wrong with society today. Any way you cut it, that was a propaganda piece perpetrated by the 'feminist' agenda... and by that, I mean man-hating bitches You know, the kind that get all uppity and nasty when one simply holds a door open for them.

Fuck those people, and fuck you if you're one of 'em...

A little bit of courtesy between people regardless of creed/colour/gender should be simply appreciated. Not dissected and questioned as to the 'motives'...

Bullshit 'test'. And likely, Bullshit website/group.

Jaeger wrote:
(15) Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash.



--Jaeger

Well...if it's the right woman she does put him on a tight leash...then she also puts a collar on him , gets out body oil and the porn......

I'm not even going to bother.

I can barely be arsed to type out this post.

By Nicholas Davidson
(Appendix to Nicholas Davidson, The Failure of Feminism (Buffalo,
New York: Prometheus Books, 1988), pp. 343-348)

[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]

Feminist activists don't fight fair. They are not interested in intellectual speculations or in acquiring new knowledge, for the feminist perspective has already answered all their questions. Legitimate discussion of gender issues can only take place between members of the in-group, who share a common belief structure. This eliminates most women from the discussion: non-feminist women are seen either as potential adherents to be manipulated into a correct understanding or as enemies to be outmaneuvered. It also excludes all men. Men's role in feminist discourse is limited to the role of not-quite-legitimate spectators and, above all, of targets. The structure of feminist belief makes it extremely difficult for feminists to admit the possible legitimacy of points of view which do not arise from their own ideology. Like other convinced believers in search of proselytes, they engage in argument only for the purpose of winning people over.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/o12.htm to the entire article for those you you who want to read it.

Miss Anthropik wrote:

Jaeger wrote:
(15) Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash.



--Jaeger

Well...if it's the right woman she does put him on a tight leash...then she also puts a collar on him , gets out body oil and the porn......

a studded leather collar or a pink fur collar ? And do we have a choice on body oil ? I'm somewhat allergic to coconut.

I refuse the test because I do not judge myself by others standards, let alone the 40 year old standard of "feminism".

I yam what I yam.

I got


Gauss completed the quiz "What would you be in the Star Wars universe?" with the result Bounty Hunter.

Bounty hunters specialize in tracking down and apprehending criminals; sometimes with lethal force. You are fiercely independent, well-armed, and very dangerous. You have the ultimate freedom of taking the law into your own hands and with bounty hunters, the end usually justifies the means. Good. Bad. It doesn't really matter as long as you get paid..


Maybe I did it wrong?

Gauss wrote:I got


Gauss completed the quiz "What would you be in the Star Wars universe?" with the result Bounty Hunter.

Bounty hunters specialize in tracking down and apprehending criminals; sometimes with lethal force. You are fiercely independent, well-armed, and very dangerous. You have the ultimate freedom of taking the law into your own hands and with bounty hunters, the end usually justifies the means. Good. Bad. It doesn't really matter as long as you get paid..


Maybe I did it wrong?

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!
And let's face it, bounty hunters are the epoch of equalitarianism. Man, woman, droid, as long as there's a price on your head they'll be more than happy to use every means (up to and including lethal force, and isn't death the great equalizer anyway) to bring your ass in.
Yes. Perfectly reasonable.

rubber buccaneer wrote:

Miss Anthropik wrote:

Jaeger wrote:
(15) Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash.



--Jaeger

Well...if it's the right woman she does put him on a tight leash...then she also puts a collar on him , gets out body oil and the porn......

a studded leather collar or a pink fur collar ? (Snip)

Is it tuesday or sunday?

Hostile: 1
Benevolent: 0.75

A lot of these questions were totally leading and sounded like anyone who doesn't think a man needs a women in his life is sexist. There's a difference between need and want.

Miss Anthropik wrote:By Nicholas Davidson
(Appendix to Nicholas Davidson, The Failure of Feminism (Buffalo,
New York: Prometheus Books, 1988), pp. 343-348)

[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]

Feminist activists don't fight fair. They are not interested in intellectual speculations or in acquiring new knowledge, for the feminist perspective has already answered all their questions. Legitimate discussion of gender issues can only take place between members of the in-group, who share a common belief structure. This eliminates most women from the discussion: non-feminist women are seen either as potential adherents to be manipulated into a correct understanding or as enemies to be outmaneuvered. It also excludes all men. Men's role in feminist discourse is limited to the role of not-quite-legitimate spectators and, above all, of targets. The structure of feminist belief makes it extremely difficult for feminists to admit the possible legitimacy of points of view which do not arise from their own ideology. Like other convinced believers in search of proselytes, they engage in argument only for the purpose of winning people over.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/o12.htm to the entire article for those you you who want to read it.

I think that in order to understand post-feminism, you have to understand feminism, which has been a diverse and long ranging movement in the past century. The broad feminist movement, its ranks including men and women, helped women gain the right to vote, get access to birth control, gain opportunities out side of the home, get jobs, get better jobs, higher the glass ceiling, etc., etc. I am appreciative of what these people did to expand women's rights when I see fewer limits to my own career opportunities than my mother and grandmother faced.

I read a lot of modern feminist literature, and my own bookshelves are full of feminist works, ranging from woman-centered healthcare, pro-porn essays, fiction about jackalope-worshiping transgendered hookers, essays on inclusive decision-making processes, stories of independent women on motorcycles, historic books on the struggle for birth control, biographies of union women in the 1800's, etc, etc. People who've been termed "feminists" include Emma Goldman, Dorothy Day, Susie Bright, Katherine Hepburn, Nina Hartley, Margaret Atwood, Patti Smith, the strippers who won a union contract at the Lusty Lady in Seattle and San Francisco. Honestly, feminism is a catch-all term for a diverse group of artists, scholars and activists. I think it's foolish and somewhat backwards to lump all feminists into one camp of surly man haters.

While it's certainly true that there are some inappropriately aggressive feminists out there, I think that grouping all feminists into that category is often an attempt to belittle the movement for greater opportunities for women. I often hear those arguments coming from the far right.

I took the test and I think it's bollocks. It's written from a certain POV and is entirely too leading to be precise in its results.

My views are than while men and women are absolutely equal in terms of their worth as human beings, they are different. Each sex has different natural strengths and weaknesses. I don't believe it to be sexist to think that there are certain jobs, tasks, skills, whatever that will play to either a man or woman's natural strengths.

I don't believe it be sexist to be polite and gentlemanly to women.

Moto_Myotis wrote: I read a lot of modern feminist literature, and my own bookshelves are full of feminist works, ranging from woman-centered healthcare, pro-porn essays, fiction about jackalope-worshiping transgendered hookers, essays on inclusive decision-making processes, stories of independent women on motorcycles, historic books on the struggle for birth control, biographies of union women in the 1800's, etc, etc.

Ok, I'd like to stop right there for just a moment... please tell me more about the jackalope-worshiping transgendered hookers? What's the book? That sounds like it'd rank up there with 'Naked Lunch' in terms of "WTF am I READING"?

Awesome.

Moto_Myotis wrote: I think it's foolish and somewhat backwards to lump all feminists into one camp of surly man haters.

While it's certainly true that there are some inappropriately aggressive feminists out there, I think that grouping all feminists into that category is often an attempt to belittle the movement for greater opportunities for women. I often hear those arguments coming from the far right.

I agree wholeheartedly. My critique was of the test, not of feminism. The test is written such that ANY disagreement with ANY "branch" of feminism could be deemed as "hostile." I would dearly love to see the algorithm with which that "test" calculates one's "score."

I doubt there are many (if any) here who would argue that we should go back to the "women as property" and "barefoot and preggers in the kitchen" schools. (Rock, shut your piehole.) There are some of us, however, who take issue with the man-hating school of feminism.

I haven't' heard anybody deny that such misandrony exists... just as much as misogyny. Both are quite alive and well, one is simply more "politically correct" than the other.

As someone who's been on the receiving end of some serious misandrony and who, in turn, has done more than his share to combat misogyny, tests such as the one listed above are, frankly, really fuckin' annoying. They're crudely built guilt machines designed to make those who are so inclined doubt themselves; the guys (and gals) who are the real fuckheads won't take the test, or will discount the negative results (rightly) as poppycock.

The test is just bad science, bad sociology, and bad politics. If the feminist movement wants to get more traction with mainstream America (and I'd guess the rest of the Western world) they need to muzzle the Andrea Dworkins of the movement... sort've like the GOP needs to take Rush out behind the chemical sheds and shoot him before he makes matters worse. (I realize Dworkin is dead, but she's still the epitome of that school of feminism.)

Hatred and bigotry are hatred and bigotry, no matter what government agency, well-meaning "ism" movement, preacher, teacher, or quack says.

And fuck 'em not only if they can't take a joke, but they can't appreciate simple civility and courtesy.

But I do want to hear more about the jackalope-worshiping transgender hookers. And pro-porn. Yay pro porn!!

--Jaeger