(NSFW) Let's Talk About...

[Eaquae Legit]

So in the case of a disaster is the "save the women and children first" philosophy no longer acceptable?

*shrugs*

I think "save the children first" is definitely an acceptable philosophy.

Really, I'd say that the right thing to do is to save the most vulnerable people first -- the people less likely to be able to save themselves or to survive the disaster without aid. So, you know, a man in a wheelchair who needs to get out of a burning building when the elevators are not usable should be put ahead of a woman who has no mobility issues.

Indeed. Which, in an earlier time, might have meant women by default, since they would be more likely to be hampered by clothing or less physically capable.

I take it from our discussion about the specific inventory questions instead of PUAs that you all are as shocked - SHOCKED - as I am about the overall results of the study.

[starlooker]

I take it from our discussion about the specific inventory questions instead of PUAs that you all are as shocked - SHOCKED - as I am about the overall results of the study.

Honestly, I'm really not. It's similar to the concept of internalized racism in some ways. It's not at all surprising to me that some women hold sexist attitudes towards women. It's also not surprising to me that those women would be more likely to be attracted to men who hold or act based on a similar worldview. And, I never really thought about that particular implication before, but I wouldn't say it surprises me. (Also, note, it's a potential implication of the study's findings, but not an actual result of the study.)

I guess I don't really understand what's so shocking about it to you. Care to elaborate a bit?

[starlooker]

*double post*

I also wanted to clarify, a bit.

The reason I highlight the fact that it's a "potential implication" and not an actual finding is this. In my experience, women of any political stripe or underlying beliefs about gender can and do often go through a stage of very severe self-blame and shame if they are raped or abused. This is especially true when the rape was in any way culturally ambiguous. In the larger social context, the only type of rape that is seen as unequivocally not being the fault of the victim is far and away the least common type: violent rape at the hands of a stranger. And even that scenario often leads to feelings of shame, self-blame, and self-loathing. Whenever an element of trust or not-nice-girl behavior is added into the picture -- e.g., the woman thought he seemed like a nice guy, she was drinking or partying, they've been dating for awhile, they're married, they were making out and she changed her mind, etc. -- there's a lot more confusion and self-blame. So, I'm somewhat doubtful as to whether or not women with higher underlying degrees of sexism would experience self-blame to a greater degree or not -- it's pretty horrific and pervasive under most circumstances. I do imagine that women with less underlying sexism may have social circles that are more likely to be supportive and validating, and that may help the process, but in the immediate aftermath? Meh. Depends on an awful lot of factors that are difficult to tease out here.

What I would think would be a more likely potential implication is that these women are more likely to ignore warning signs and remain in relationships that have the potential to become physically, emotionally, or sexually abusive. Although, again, that's a potential implication and not something that was addressed in the study itself.

As far as whether or not women with more sexist attitudes are more likely to be raped or be targeted by rapists -- I think that is a possibility. I also think it's stretching far past what the actual data of the study indicates. There would have to be a corresponding study indicating that the men who hold those beliefs and use those tactics are also more likely to rape or to consider rape scenarios acceptable. And that's possible, but was not addressed explicitly in the study (at least, as reported in the article. Unless I missed it, which right now is definitely possible).

ETA: And, of course, there's the fact that we're dealing with a media report of a psychological study which, frankly, renders the whole thing a bit on the untrustworthy side. For further clarification, please refer to every media report in history which claimed that psychologists had solved the nature/nurture debate when the psychologists who did the study never, ever claimed that. Because most psychologists point-blank refuse to get sucked into the idea that there IS a debate.

*pulls out hair*

[starlooker]

There would have to be a corresponding study indicating that the men who hold those beliefs and use those tactics are also more likely to rape or to consider rape scenarios acceptable. And that's possible, but was not addressed explicitly in the study (at least, as reported in the article. Unless I missed it, which right now is definitely possible).

Okay, I'm leaving this soon to actually work on finishing up my job, you know, but one more thing.

Due to exhaustion/lack of concentration/lack of sleep, I did miss the quote that

Most disturbing of all, though, is the fact that sexist attitudes are also "related to the use of sexual coercion by men," and to victim-blaming in men and women.

And that doesn't surprise me at all, really.

However, what "related" means is not addressed in this summary, and in terms of psychological findings could mean anything from a very low, if significant correlation found in a few studies, to widespread, accepted common knowledge with high correlations using that exact same survey. Again, there are multiple confounding factors that are not taken into consideration (at least, in the summary). Seriously, I read it with acceptance that it's a plausible, potentially true theory -- and want to read the original studies, too. And also think it wouldn't be too hard to design a study to follow-up to this one and provide stronger evidence.

Although, larger point, even if it is true, I'm still not really shocked by it.

[Wind Swept]

I take it from our discussion about the specific inventory questions instead of PUAs that you all are as shocked - SHOCKED - as I am about the overall results of the study.

I guess I don't really understand what's so shocking about it to you. Care to elaborate a bit?

I was under the impression the extra emphasis implied sarcasm, in this instance.

[starlooker]

Sigh. It very well could.

I am sleep deprived and am in serious thinking mode. Forgive me.

[Eaquae Legit]

Yeah, it was sarcasm. Although since it led to a trio of thoughtful and interesting posts, I don't regret the confusion!

[starlooker]

HEY! We went to the pool today! My boobs FLOAT! They are totally buoyant! They are like Cheerios -- unsinkable. You push them down, they pop right back up! It's really fun, actually! Then I looked at them in my husband's reflective sunglasses and was like, "Well, DUH, they float! How did you not notice that?"

(We were the only people at the pool, and I hope to heaven no one was watching from the fitness room. Also, this was all experimented on in-swimsuit. And not experimented on as much as I would have if the fitness room weren't right nearby. Otherwise I would've probably spent an hour pushing them down and letting them pop back up. I'm easily amused, really.)

[Gravity Defier]

I'm using this thread to give a very short movie review but figured it was the most appropriate place because of what the review consists of, language-wise.


I just got back from the latest Twilight movie and I swear to god, my clitoris shriveled up and fell off and is, as we speak, being swept up with bits of popcorn by a person making minimum wage and wearing a cutesy little uniform. That movie is so unbelievably fantastic at advocating birth control and abstinence.

[starlooker]

Wow.

Why? What happened?

I thought vampires were supposed to be erotic.

[LilBee91]

I'm using this thread to give a very short movie review but figured it was the most appropriate place because of what the review consists of, language-wise.


I just got back from the latest Twilight movie and I swear to god, my clitoris shriveled up and fell off and is, as we speak, being swept up with bits of popcorn by a person making minimum wage and wearing a cutesy little uniform. That movie is so unbelievably fantastic at advocating birth control and abstinence.

Hm. My roommate gave a semi-positive "better than the rest of the Twilight movies" review and I thought it might be worth seeing. But, reading this, I wouldn't touch it with the 39.5 foot pole.

[Luet]

I was guessing it has something to do with the childbirth scene but maybe not? This is just going based on rumors. I haven't read it or seen it.

[Gravity Defier]

It was more the pregnancy than the birthing scene, though by then, I think I was so ready for it to be over, I was willing to sit through anything.

Bella looked deformed from the very first sight of her pregnant belly; I think Steph said she looked gaunt but that was putting it nicely. She looked like death on legs and at one point, they're showing just the top of her unclothed back as she starts to disrobe and I wanted to puke from just that. I can't even explain why it was so hard to see, it just was. On the whole, this movie was more disturbing to me than any horror movie I can bring to mind. Birthing scene? The sounds were the worst of that, which is all there could be, given they were showing it from her perspective as she fell into and out of consciousness.

It was better for acting and all those technical things and I loved, loved, loved the way they handled the sex scenes. A decent portion is seen in flashbacks the morning after, as she's kind of touching a spot on her face or her arm and then remembering him touching that same spot. That is something I have done, minus the sex ( ).