Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    01 Jun '16 19:42
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/02/sexual-harassment-training-failing-women

    "Sexual harassment training may have reverse effect, research suggests"
    --Sam Levin (2 May 2016)

    "Sexual harassment courses aimed at preventing workplace discrimination
    can have the opposite effect, making men less capable of perceiving
    inappropriate behavior and more likely to blame victims, according to academic studies..."
    --Sam Levin

    "Sexual harassment training may provoke backlash in males."
    --Lauren Edelman (professor of law at UC Berkeley)

    "...the training appears to make some men feel threatened or afraid ...
    As a result, they may respond in a defensive manner."

    "We (researchers) were surprised (by men's responses) ... it certainly appears
    to be irrational. The only explanation can be psychological or emotional."
    --Shereen Bingham (co-author of a study on sexual harassment training)

    "People in powerful positions don't have a good grasp of what it's like to
    be in a non-dominant group."
    --Shereen Bingham

    That may explain the common absence of empathy by the white men here toward other people.

    "A study published in 'Social Psychology Quarterly' found that after men
    learned about sexual harassment rules, it triggered implicit gender biases,
    effectively making it more likely for them to stereotype women."

    These studies contribute to my impression that mandatory sexual harassment
    training is more about employers' aiming to reduce their legal liability
    (being sued for condoning sexual harassment) than it's about actually
    reducing sexual harassment in the workplace. I would submit that empowering
    women may be a more effective way of reducing sexual harassment.

    I suspect that many men here could not care less about sexual harassment
    except to the extent that they feel at risk of being punished for violating
    any regulation against it. But some men here seem to have a sincere
    concern for women's rights. What would they believe could be a more
    effective way of reducing sexual harassment?
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    02 Jun '16 14:54
    "...it certainly appears
    to be irrational. The only explanation can be psychological or emotional."

    No study would ever refer to women in this way. Seems like a statement from a bitter feminist.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    02 Jun '16 18:481 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    "...it certainly appears
    to be irrational. The only explanation can be psychological or emotional."

    No study would ever refer to women in this way. Seems like a statement from a bitter feminist.
    In this male-dominated forum, ignorant sexist comments are propagated nearly all the time.
    In fact, men traditionally have made 'studies' in which they used sexist stereotypes about
    women supposedly being 'irrational', attributing it to women being too 'emotional'.

    For further reading:
    _The Mismeasure of Woman_ by Carol Tavris (a social psychologist)

    Vivify's ignorant post has corroborated the assertions (not in my words) in the original post
    that simply *discussing* (not even 'training' about) sexual harassment tends to 'provoke
    backlash in males' (such as Vivify), resulting in these men 'responding in a defensive manner'.
  4. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    02 Jun '16 20:141 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In this male-dominated forum, ignorant sexist comments are propagated nearly all the time.
    In fact, men traditionally have made 'studies' in which they used sexist stereotypes about
    women supposedly being 'irrational', attributing it to women being too 'emotional'.

    For further reading:
    _The Mismeasure of Woman_ by Carol Tavris (a social psychologist) ...[text shortened]...
    backlash in males' (such as Vivify), resulting in these men 'responding in a defensive manner'.
    This was an unintelligent post. My argument isn't with the findings of the study, but with a poor choice of wording that seems to needless attack men, in a way that would be blasted for sexism if it was about women.

    Defending their actions with "Men did it too!" doesn't excuse the apparent sexism in that statement; it only diminishes the article's credibility, as well as yours.
  5. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    02 Jun '16 20:222 edits
    Duchess' behavior of resorting to name-calling certainly seems irrational, emotional, and psychological. Any rebuttal from Duchess corroborates this, based on her logic.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    02 Jun '16 21:29
    Originally posted by vivify
    This was an unintelligent post. My argument isn't with the findings of the study, but with a poor choice of wording that seems to needless attack men, in a way that would be blasted for sexism if it was about women.

    Defending their actions with "Men did it too!" doesn't excuse the apparent sexism in that statement; it only diminishes the article's credibility, as well as yours.
    "Defending their actions with 'Men did it too!'"
    --Vivify

    But Vivify denied that men ever have done it, and, as usual, Vivify refuses to admit that he's wrong.

    In addition, Vivify apparently fails to comprehend that Shereen Bingham's comment
    about men appearing to be 'irrational' etc. was *not officially made within the study*.
    It was her informal comment to a journalist asking her about the study.

    And Vivify keeps showing his obstinate defensiveness. As I recall, Vivify has liked to
    complain about how allegedly oppressed men are by sexism. Shereen Bingham
    concluded that it's 'irrational that, *after* their sexual harassment training, men tend to
    become even more likely to condone sexual harassment. So does Vivify think that's rational?
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    02 Jun '16 21:373 edits
    Originally posted by vivify
    Duchess' behavior of resorting to name-calling certainly seems irrational, emotional, and psychological. Any rebuttal from Duchess corroborates this, based on her logic.
    "Duchess behavior of resorting to name-calling..."
    --Vivify

    What 'name-calling'? In my earlier post (page 1, post 3) my only comment about Vivify
    was to say that he wrote an 'ignorant post', which is undoubtedly true. Vivify showed
    that he was completely ignorant of the long history of men (even scholars) putting down
    women as 'irrational' or too 'emotional'.

    "...Vivify's ignorant post.."
    --Duchess64 (page 1, post 3)

    The paranoid Vivify has condemned that comment as offensive personal 'name-calliing'
    because he's far too arrogant to admit his error or to accept any factually based criticism.
    How can such a oversensitive troll like Vivify possibly survive in the harsh world? (sarcasm)

    I expect Vivify to be supported by the men here who are even more sexist and dishonest than he.
    And now Vivify resorts to more his usual insults, lies, and other abuses against me.
  8. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    02 Jun '16 22:012 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "Defending their actions with 'Men did it too!'"
    --Vivify

    But Vivify denied that men ever have done it, and, as usual, Vivify refuses to admit that he's wrong.
    Denied what? Male sexism in psychology? Post a link with my quote; if you can't, please admit you are wrong.

    In addition, Vivify apparently fails to comprehend that Shereen Bingham's comment
    about men appearing to be 'irrational' etc. was *not officially made within the study*.


    I didn't claim it was. Re-read my post. I only commented on the statement itself, not the research.

    My exact quote: "My argument isn't with the findings of the study"

    So now we have a classic example of a straw-man from Duchess, who is attacking me for something I never said...twice in one post.

    And Vivify keeps showing his obstinate defensiveness.

    So I should've been okay with her referring to men in a way that would've been harshly criticized if if was toward women? Do you believe objecting to double-standards is "defensive"?

    Shereen Bingham
    concluded that it's 'irrational that, *after* their sexual harassment training, men tend to
    become even more likely to condone sexual harassment. So does Vivify think that's rational?


    No; but it doesn't change the fact that if this study was about women, that "irrational" comment would've been seen as sexist.
  9. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    02 Jun '16 22:163 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    What 'name-calling'? In my earlier post (page 1, post 3) my only comment about Vivify
    was to say that he wrote an 'ignorant post',
    I was making the point that simply expressing a contrary opinion isn't being "defensive". No, you didn't call me any names but that was the point; it would be silly to label any rebuttal from you about this as "defensive", wouldn't it? Likewise with you claiming I'm "defensive" simply for taking issue with Bingham's bad choice of words.

    Vivify showed
    that he was completely ignorant of the long history of men (even scholars) putting down
    women as 'irrational' or too 'emotional'.


    How did I show "ignorance"? By pointing out a double-standard? If I criticize a woman for punching a man, am I showing "ignorance" of violence toward women?

    Nothing you've said is the least bit rational.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    02 Jun '16 22:241 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    Denied what? Male sexism in psychology? Post a link with my quote; if you can't, please admit you are wrong.

    [b]In addition, Vivify apparently fails to comprehend that Shereen Bingham's comment
    about men appearing to be 'irrational' etc. was *not officially made within the study*.

    I didn't claim it was. Re-read my post. I only commented on the st ...[text shortened]... fact that if this study was about women, that "irrational" comment would've been seen as sexist.[/b]
    As usual, Vivify goes to increasingly desperate lengths to avoid admitting his errors.
    Vivify seems to be going after people with even worse 'reading comprehension' than his.

    Here's a quotation of what Vivify denied (which he now pretends that he did not):
    "No study would ever refer to women in this way."
    --Vivify (page1, post 2)

    FALSE. Vivify's wrong and doing his utmost to avoid admitting his error.
    Vivify shows his complete ignorance of studies (written by men) putting down women
    for supposedly being 'irrational' or too 'emotional'. I am not surprised that Vivify shows
    his complete ignorance of sexism even in academic or scientific fields.

    And Vivify's statement "No study would ever refer to women in this way" *implies* that
    he believed that Shereen Bingham's *study referred to men*, *within the study*, in a way
    that he considers offensively sexist. Otherwise, it would be an 'apples and oranges'
    comparison (not that I believe that Vivify's incapable of blatantly dishonest comparisons).
    Now Vivify claims (or pretends) that he knew all along that Shereen Bingham's comment
    was made *outside her academic study*. That's possible, but there's no corroboration,
    and Vivify has a long record of self-serving lies.

    "Seems like a statement from a bitter feminist."
    --Vivify (page 1, post 3)

    Vivify's obviously trolling for support from the many sexist men here who hate feminism and all feminists.
    It seems rather like Vivify making comments putting down blacks at a meeting of KKK sympathizers.

    Vivify again shows his poor 'reading comprehension' and poor capacity to 'reason', jumping,
    as usual, to some absurd conclusions. Vivify has unwittingly supplied more evidence of
    how defensive and paranoid some men are in regard even to discussing sexual harassment.
    So perhaps Vivify's 'contribution' could be used as part of a future study on men's attitudes
    toward sexual harassment and discussing sexual harassment.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    02 Jun '16 22:331 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    I was making the point that simply expressing a contrary opinion isn't being "defensive". No, you didn't call me any names but that was the point; it would be silly to label any rebuttal from you about this as "defensive", wouldn't it? Likewise with you claiming I'm "defensive" simply for taking issue with Bingham's bad choice of words.

    [b]Vivify showe ...[text shortened]... howing "ignorance" of violence toward women?

    Nothing you've said is the least bit rational.
    "No, you (Duchess64) didn't call me (Vivify) any names."
    --Vivify

    So now Vivify has admitted that fact, but earlier Vivify made his false accusation.

    "Duchess behavior of resorting to name-calling..."
    --Vivify (page 1, post 5)

    Given that Vivify never has apologized for his extremely long record of insults and lies
    about me, I don't expect Vivify to apologize for his latest false accusation against me.

    "How did I show 'ignorance'?"
    --Vivify

    I already have explained this more than once. Vivify shows his complete ignorance of
    the studies (written by men) putting down women as 'irrational' or too 'emotional'.
    Now Vivify keeps showing his extreme stupidity or dishonesty in pretending not to
    comprehend this simple point.

    Vivify keeps showing that he's an extremely arrogant dishonest sexist troll, one of many here.
  12. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    02 Jun '16 22:36
    Originally posted by Duchess64

    "No study would ever refer to women in this way."
    --Vivify (page1, post 2)

    FALSE. Vivify's wrong and doing his utmost to avoid admitting his error.
    Vivify shows his complete ignorance of studies (written by men) putting down women
    for supposedly being 'irrational' or too 'emotional'.
    This is an amusing level of stupidity. Simply saying "no study", to Duchess, apparently means no study from beginning of human history. If I said "no one thinks it's okay abuse children", will Duchess post a link about some sicko who does to refute me?

    Bringing up sexism from men is a red herring anyway. Other studies by sexist men has nothing to do with a this woman's comment being apparently sexist. Duchess is no stranger to frequent use of logically fallacious arguments.
  13. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    02 Jun '16 22:43
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I don't expect Vivify to apologize for his latest false accusation against me.
    You have a serious lack of reading comprehension. I clearly explained that I wasn't actually accusing you of name-calling. The point was to highlight how silly it to label someone as "defensive" for criticizing what they believe is a bad comment.

    Now I know why you use tag sarcastic posts with "(sarcasm)". It seems you aren't intelligent enough identify sarcasm, satire or anything similar without a clear label.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    02 Jun '16 22:462 edits
    Originally posted by vivify
    This is an amusing level of stupidity. Simply saying "no study", to Duchess, apparently means no study from beginning of human history. If I said "no one thinks it's okay abuse children", will Duchess post a link about some sicko who does to refute me?

    Bringing up sexism from men is a red herring anyway. Other studies by sexist men has nothing to do w ...[text shortened]... ng apparently sexist. Duchess is no stranger to frequent use of logically fallacious arguments.
    It's absolutely clear that Vivify made a false statement, and now the arrogant Vivify resorts
    to more of his usual personal abuse and lies in attempting to avoid admitting his errors.
    In fact, contrary to Vivify's denial, there have been many studies in which men have put
    down women for being 'irrational' or too 'emotional'. Indeed, books and articles have
    been written about the traditions of sexism in academic and science.

    Given how much Vivify likes to harp upon the theme of alleged 'female sexism' against men,
    would Vivify admire the writers here who like to harp on 'black racism' against white people?
    Who has more power? Men or women? How can the weaker side oppress the stronger one?

    The poor sexist troll Vivify! The paranoid Vivify seems to inhabit a world in which brave
    innocent men are being constantly oppressed by sexism and threatened by evil feminists.
    I expect that many men in this male-dominated forum share Vivify's absurd sentiments,
    which may explain why these men here show such abysmal 'comprehension' of women.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    02 Jun '16 23:034 edits
    Originally posted by vivify
    You have a serious lack of reading comprehension. I clearly explained that I wasn't actually accusing you of name-calling. The point was to highlight how silly it to label someone as "defensive" for criticizing what they believe is a bad comment.

    Now I know why you use tag sarcastic posts with "(sarcasm)". It seems you aren't intelligent enough identify sarcasm, satire or anything similar without a clear label.
    Vivify apparently hopes that his whopping lies can fool the most gullible nearly illiterate readers.

    "I clearly explained that I wasn't actually accusing you of name-calling."
    --Vivify

    FALSE. In fact, Vivify wrote that I have a 'behavior of resorting to name-calling.'
    And now Vivify somehow (ludicrously) pretends that he 'clearly explained' that claiming
    that I have a 'behavior of resorting to name-calling' was not saying that I do 'name-calling'!

    "You (Duchess64) have a serious lack of reading comprehension."
    --Vivify

    As I recall, Eladar and Normbenign have made the same comments to me.
    But many diverse writers have condemned Eladar and Normbenign for their poor reading
    comprehension.

    Vivify's presumably a proud native speaker of American English. I am not a native speaker of English.
    How would Vivify feel about a competitive examination (written by American professors
    of English)--only for a very large sum of money at stake--of reading comprehension in
    formal written American English (not slang)? Normbenign boasted of his self-evident
    superiority over me, made various excuses, and then ran away from this offer.
Back to Top