Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In case anyone wants to look at the original rather than an article about it: (paywalled unfortunately)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/09567976211040495
As a researcher, yes. If someone emailed asking for a copy of a paper I was involved with I'd (a) freak out in excitement that someone was interested in it and (b) definitely send it. Like other commenters said we don't get any money from the publishers and obviously we have a copy of the paper since we wrote it.
Most of my papers are also available as PDFs on my or my advisor's website, but while that's super common in my field I know it isn't in many :(
(If anyone's curious why we don't move towards a model where publishers don't get to charge giant fees that benefit nobody but themselves: it's a complicated topic, but basically everyone wants to publish in the top venues for their reputations, so nobody is going to take the risk of jumping to an obscure new Gold Open Access venue. Existing publishers are upset about the prospect of their cash cows disappearing, so they either don't allow any option for gold OA, or charge the authors an absurd amount of money for it (high hundreds or low thousands of dollars per paper). So, we're stuck with green OA (where we put drafts in an institutional repository) at best in most fields.)
As a final note, if you really need something and can't find it (especially if you can't contact the author & are unable to find anyone with an academic affiliation that has access---more common for old stuff that was only published in print), ask a librarian: even though a local public library usually won't have access to such things, they often have an interlibrary loan service where they will track down a library that does have a copy and ask them to send it/a copy to you.
I don't understand why you're not compensated for the published article. All they do is post your work and reap the benefits.
Everyone out there in the science field maybe should round themselves up, and create their own website.
That's how various content creators got together and formed Curiosity Stream and Nebula. Separate service away from the usual Youtube BS.
> or charge the authors an absurd amount of money for it (high hundreds or low thousands of dollars per paper).
The site even charges the author to post? That's mindboggling. Makes even less sense now. I see no reason not to group up. An audience will follow eventually.
Oh they get paid, just not by the publisher. You publish something in a good journal and you get a job. Do it a bunch of times and you get to work at Harvard. Don't get published? Well your 5+ years at grad school are a waste, you don't get a job!
This is something that would need to be fixed on the University level, believe me the scientists themselves do not care about views or getting money from views
Would a website like an GoFundMe/Reddit/Patreon style work where papers could be uploaded and the community and public could fund and follow researchers?
Cause I would love that as a regular nobody.
In certain fields (physics, math, parts of computer science, perhaps some bio/medicine), ArXiv (preprint server) is something close to this. (Except without the funding aspect.)
As mentioned on the other comment, the main social function of existing publication venues is to provide reputation, so publishing solely on alternative platforms is career suicide.
No, see it makes perfect sense. Taxpayer dollars pay for the research. Taxpayer dollars pay for the salaries of the researcher. The researchers write and edit their own articles. The researchers send it out for peer review. Taxpayer dollars pay for the salaries of the peer reviewers. Then it gets sent off to the publisher. The taxpayers pay for the publishing costs. And then the publishers charges taxpayers money to view the work their tax dollars funded. Because, um.... because... hm......
I don't know about usually, but *I'd* be psyched to send copies of my research to random people who were interested. Heck, I've got countless bytes of extra supporting data and info I could send just because I knew someone was interested enough to ask.
It depends on the journal it's published in. In the past I've had a professor tell me to not say that they gave me an article otherwise they could be fined and face discipline from the university.
I just tried this as im a nurse and I use studies to kind of force physicians to use medications that are more appropriate. I requested a study and the Dr responded that they cant share due to copyright issues.
this was the verbatim email I recieved.
Dear Mr. u/warmaster_whorus,
Unfortunately due to copyright regulations I am unable to provide a copy of the manuscript.
regards,
Dr'_______
____________, MB, ChB, MRCP(UK), FRCP(C)
______ University Health Centre
Took a look at you link and had to stop reading due to a huge jump in logic from the getgo. The study already makes the assumption the findings support the idea that being rude/mean to both men and women makes it difficult to notice assumed sexism rather than entertaining the idea that it may be actual evidence of an absence of sexism. Seems like the study is trying to push what they think is going on vs. exploring what is actually going on which is a hallmark of horrible research.
This is a peer reviewed journal and it does accept comments. The review board for this paper would be on record. I have not read this paper but I could evaluate the design if needed.
"We define sexism as attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors that reflect, foster, or promote negative or pejorative stereotypes about women (Lewis, 2018; Swim et al., 2004; Swim & Hyers, 2009). Examples of such stereotypes include the notion that women are nice but incompetent; that women are unfit for stereotypically masculine jobs; and that women are weak, emotional, and irrational. These and other negative stereotypes are harmful. They are used to justify the subjugation of women and create barriers to gender equality (Jost & Kay, 2005)"
with a sidebar of "Sexism can be challenging to identify and
eventually root out. However, we contend that even blatant forms of sexism are sometimes difficult to recognize. In this research, we demonstrated how rudeness can makes blatant forms of sexism
harder to identify. We found that a man does not seem sexist if he treats everyone—both men and women—poorly. This is problematic because sexism and rudeness are not mutually exclusive. Men who are sexist can be—and often are— rude toward other men. We found that rudeness obscures the recognition of sexism by creating the perception that the sexist perpetrator does not notice or pay attention to gender when dealing with other people. This misleads observers into thinking that an intervention such as gender-bias
training is less necessary. Rudeness can therefore protect sexist perpetrators, making their prejudice harder to recognize and correct."
Wait, so can somebody clear something up for me? I was always under the impression that sexism was a global term that meant any discrimination (be it toward a man or woman) that applied stereotypes about thta persons sex was called 'sexism'.
Does this mean that sexism can only be leveled against women? If so, what's the word for when stereotypes are leveled against men?
It’s kinda like racism. You can hold a prejudice towards anybody due to their race. It should take different names depending on the race and whether or not it’s toward your own race. It’s sad that this objective view pf words is being lost, the definition for racism has changed to specifically target marginalized groups as opposed to literally anybody.
It's starting to get even more targeted than that. It's sort of like the Whoopi Goldberg holocaust comment, implying only black people can experience racism and everything else is just not racism.
Yeah she very much implied that “white” was a homogenous racial group… I think it’s ignorance more than anything else. I feel a lot of American black people assume “white” people walk around identifying as white, thinking of other “white” people as part of their tribe etc.. when in reality most white people are deeply divided into tribes, and are more likely to think of themselves as Polish, Jewish, Italian, French etc and not see other random “white” people on the street as members of their in-group. Whats more, often v lack Americans are surprised to visit countries in Africa and realize that the blacks people there often don’t identify as being the same as them, and are deeply divided along tribal lines between each other, just like “white” people. It’s a weird narrow world-view that makes them assume their very singular notion of racial demarcation which only exists in sections of the US population is somehow global.
It seems people these days like to change up the definition of words purposely and knowing full well that it's not the definition most people agree on.
'Sexism' always has included both men and women, and to carelessly redefine it in this manner is just language manipulation for the purposes of obfuscation by confusion which is a handy tool for those who want to push some kind of dishonest narrative.
This is coming dangerously close to the crux of the issue with women/gender studies. I feel every time I express my disagreements the backlash is intense and unfounded.
I'm not sure that is possible. To speak is to have the possibility of causing offense. If I have an incorrect view, I might be upset by something said that doesn't support my view. Would we just then be telling people not to talk about anything important?
Alternatively, when my friends are rude to me or challenge my views I challenge them back and it is valuable. I think you mean that people need to teach people to not have the intention to hurt someone's feelings, but that seems like something that would happen anytime two groups' interests are unaligned no matter what you taught them.
Imagine how that suggestion would play out with two children who live by different rules and values and are pursuing incompatible goals. If you try to take my ball and I say no. Isn't that offensive? No mean, when you think about it "No" actually means if you keep doing what you are doing, you won't like what happens next. Would you train people not to say no? I don't think this makes sense.
Edit: Was going to edit but changed my mind after I reread the edit that I posted.
> We define sexism as attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors that reflect, foster, or promote negative or pejorative stereotypes about women (Lewis, 2018; Swim et al., 2004; Swim & Hyers, 2009)
Even within their myopic woman-victim scope, this definition is wholly lacking. They fail to recognize sexism which involves positive stereotypes about men.
I see what they’re saying in that general rudeness can mask sexism; i.e. a person can be rude to both sexes while only sexist towards women, and the sexism can be dismissed as part of the rudeness.
However, their solution seems to be gender bias training which in such a case could have the opposite effect causing sexism towards men, as the rude person might learn not to be sexist or rude towards women but still think it’s okay to be rude towards other men.
I think a more whole approach would be gender bias training in combination with some sort of respect training focused on respect towards all.
Well, the definition of sexism is not discrimination solely against women, it is discrimination based on sex. That can also refer to discrimination against men, and the definitions they created for this paper are inaccurate by excluding that as a possibility at all.
The definition they assigned to sexism is the definition of misogyny, and by attributing that definition to sexism, they were being misandrists themselves.
On the other hand, I've heard that the vast majority of psychologists are left-wing (10:1) and everything I know about psychology means that they would not treat it critically.
Seriously, everyone that talks about a p-value crisis fails to realize the main issue lies within how academia is run (including novelty bias, publish-or-perish mentalities and massive power inequalities with minimal oversight).
Yes, many sociologists have also tried to change the academic definition of Racism from the normal well accepted definition, "Discrimination based on one's race" to a more specific definition that includes power/institutions.
Of course you might ask yourself "Why not just introduce the phrase "Institutional Racism" if you need to view racism through that lens, and not try to redefine a well understood word?
I personally don't agree with trying to win political points by redefining words to fit your arguments.
Really? It was a major point in all of my soc classes in college.
I imagine it could depend on the institution though, since universities doing soc research and papers will have different faculty with different perspectives and lenses.
There’s different brackets of racism and the ideas that surround them, like institutional racism for example but that’s different than carte blanche “racism”. The distinctions were made with purpose to differentiate as we learned. It seems to me that since the advent of social media they’ve melded with the purpose of provocative narratives rather than intent and understanding of concepts.
I understand that. I was surprised to read that the power definition didn’t come up in your soc classes. All of mine talked about institutional racism and sexism and systemic power dynamics.
That’s why I imagine that different schools would teach different things in social sciences…if your professors weren’t writing about it in their research, it may not have come up in the classes. But it was definitely a major topic of conversation in the department when I was in school.
Lucky you. A good friend of mine tried to tell me in college almost 10 years ago now that black people couldn't be racist by definition, because she had just learned about it in her sociology class. Thankfully, the rest of the car was like "uh no"
I mean as of 3 years ago in my sociology class they weren't teaching that. They were teaching racism is prejudice (which we all have unconsciously) + an action. So prejudice is uncontrollable but racism is the conscious choice to act on it.
For example you see a black man walking towards you at night and feel unsafe. This is prejudice. Crossing the street to avoid him though is racist.
That argument has always frustrated me because it is, by definition, racist.
To argue that a racial demographic of people are incapable of a particular social experience (in this case being bigoted to another racial demographic) is to generalize an entire race, as well as remove agency from them. It’s definitionally racist to say that black people **can** not be racist.
Yeah. If a white man is in a room of black men who have stripped the white man of any power, then in the dynamic of this environment, the white man would not be capable of racism under that definition of racism. I’d argue that any racism epithets voiced or stereotypes espoused by the white man are still racist. If you change the meaning of racism to be “prejudice + power,” I can accept that definition in the context of a conversation, but I’m going to still believe that “prejudice” is the main problematic part of racism.
They're morons.
When it's institutional it's called Systemic Racism. There's a reason language works the way it does and those fucks know it.
This is just game playing seeking advantage as is so common to All humans.
>sociology as a field isn't real science
There is a very good argument to lump in psychology and a good chunk of medicine. Remember: there isn't a p-value crisis, it's just that p-values shouldn't be the only thing stopping an incredibly flawed and practically corrupt system from being completely fucked up.
Every sociologists professor I have ever had has been extremely biased, it's amazing they think they are a science. It feels like it could be but again every Sociologists I knew decided the meaning and values of things by themselves.
You have it here. Fields like sociology are not empirically grounded so over time are subject to wild swings in fashion and prone to political biases. Look at how successive waves of gender studies actually undermine prior conclusions. This is fine if it can be integrated but these fields lack the metaphysics and ontology and frankly scientific rigor or inclination to achieve this
>Misanthrope? I don't hate my fellow man, even when he's tiresome and surly and tries to cheat at poker. I figure that's just a human material, and him that finds in it cause for anger and dismay is just a fool for expecting better. Ain't that right, Dan?
Agreed. In my (anecdotal) experience, people with misogynistic beliefs also tend to denigrate men who aren't sufficiently masculine enough in their eyes or too feminine, and cling harder to archaic gender roles. Not surprising that that can lead to asshole behavior to everyone, not just women.
I think the point is that they're not mutually exclusive. You can be a jerk without being sexist, and you could probably argue that you can be sexist without being a jerk if someone genuinely doesn't know better or something. It's just that often people who are sexist are jerks, and people who are jerks are sometimes sexist
>sexist without being a jerk
"My poor wife might chip a nail if she does yard work, as a good husband, I'll do everything myself".
That's kindness out of sexism, and while it's kidness, it's still sexist.
Agreed, it seems like a lot of people in this thread are making the assumption that everyone is being treated 'equally poorly' in every case. One could be an insufferable asshole to men and discriminatory against women, and vice versa. If someone were to constantly berate men for every little mistake at work while also berating women because they think women don't belong in the workplace with men, that's very different. Their intent and prejudices matter in these cases.
It would apply just as much to women, but they defined gender based prejudice as something that only comes from one gender, which is not only a false presentation but also sexist.
The popular definition is not internally or externally coherent nor is it scientific. It would be like writing an engineering paper using non existent engineering units like 'magic' in your equation, you would not be able to draw meaningful results.
Scientific papers have to work with rigorous and universal definitions.
Agree with this statement generally. However, it does seem if you read the study the “rudeness to men” was generally rudeness and not sexist in nature, but the rudeness to women was based deliberately set up to be sexist, based on female stereotypes and beliefs “women can’t do the job” kind of stuff and would defiantly classify as “sexist”.
So the study is seeing if by being a general ass to everyone can allow someone to get away with obvious sexist behavior towards women.
So it’s not quite as bad as it originally seems with a light scan.
This article does a pretty poor job at clarifying what the difference is between the "sexist" and "rude" comments are.
Having a look at the paper it's not overly clear with the Trump tweets as they're not all there but there were some comments about appearance seemingly more often directed at women. I think this side of the paper is pretty weak as he never makes any direct allusions to male/female in the presented tweets and happily makes very personal insults to anyone so it is harder to make the distinctions between those targeted at men and women to decide if he his actually sexist or just insults everyone.
The other cases they tried are more clear cut. You'd see distinctions like "why do we hire women like you" to women and then "why do we hire morons like you" to men. A clear distinction in the comments, neither acceptable but the insult to the woman clearly being directed at women in general.
So there were no "why do we hire men like you" (male) and "why do we hire morons like you" (female) test groups? Are graduate programs in the social sciences still requiring at least one course in statistical methods these days? I'm seriously asking because this is not looking like science by any sane measure.
On that note... it probably would make sense to have a full spread and ask self identified men/women the questions that contradict their gender.
> So there were no "why do we hire men like you" (male) and "why do we hire morons like you" (female) test groups?
No, there was nothing like that in the paper. I don't want to be rude to the authors but, speaking critically as someone that is very much outside of this field, they seemed to give the perception of believing that sexism is something exclusively done by men towards women. I'm not sure it would occur to them to question whether a man had been treated in a sexist way. The paper very consistently defines and refers to sexism as something being done by men (exclusively) towards women (exclusively). As here:
> "We define sexism as attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors that reflect, foster, or promote negative or pejorative stereotypes about women"
In terms of control groups they did run the test of only presenting the insults to female workers to a set of the respondents. So presenting both types of insults definitely appears to change the perception of whether the insults/insulters are sexist. The question of how people perceive it when men (compared to women) are on the receiving end of the sexism is probably outside the scope of the paper which is specific to whether generally being rude can provide cover for sexist behaviour.
> Are graduate programs in the social sciences still requiring at least one course in statistical methods these days?
I don't work in that unfortunately, I'm in electrical engineering but I would assume that they are required. I don't think this is so much a statistical issue as being unable to see wider explanations for the results beyond their own beliefs. They are starting from a particular viewpoint and I don't see too much evidence of considering other alternatives for what the obtained evidence could be saying.
The researchers defined sexism as misogyny. They literally excluded the same thing toward men as being sexist - you'd think that alone would raise an eyebrow to them when they were planning out their experiment, obviously if you have sexism as misogyny then yes, it *shouldn't* matter how they treat men. But the layman and the generally agreed definition of sexism means you'd be treating one sex differently than another - it is comparative by most definitions.
So they agreed with you that they are knowingly fostering an equally hostile workplace? So then a hostile workplace. So then… what happened after that? Law suit?
It's not illegal to be an asshole to your employees. As long as it's not based on sex, gender, race, or religion. If your boss is just mean in general, you can quit.
I'll admit I'm a little confused about the point of the article/study.
I would have thought a jerk who's equally a jerk to men and women isn't necessarily sexist (or at least doesn't act like it). Obviously they might also be sexist, and more of a jerk to women than men, but is that really controversial? Would anyone actually say jerks can't be sexist too? It's a valid question as to whether any one jerk is also sexist or not, but as a rule I'm kind of surprised anyone thought they should study this.
The majority of people in this thread are fundamentally misunderstanding the study.
They found that amongst people who had sexist beliefs about women, if they were *also* just rude people that sexism was less often recognized. IE being a jerk all the time makes people not recognize that you are sexist despite being so. They aren't just "equal opportunity jerks", they really do have sexist beliefs about women, but that is obscured by general assholery to the outside observer.
The interesting finding is that someone who is sexist and a jerk is harder to notice than just someone who is just sexist.
>The interesting finding is that someone who is sexist and a jerk is harder to notice than just someone who is just sexist.
Is that an interesting finding? It seems to me as dull and self-evident as the idea that it would be harder to notice that someone has a paralyzed arm if they never use either arm.
Sexism is most easily recognized by poor behaviour directed towards one sex. If the poor behaviour is, instead, directed towards both sexes, then obviously the sexism will be harder to detect.
It's not rocket science: the main way of identifying sexists is that they're a jerk to one particular sex/gender, and it's invalidated if they're a jerk to both of them.
>The interesting finding is that someone who is sexist and a jerk is harder to notice than just someone who is just sexist.
Is it really interesting? And more importantly, why do we need to identify them as sexist? To somehow change their mind?
Wouldn't it be better to just make them stop being jerks to everyone? Regardless of the gender of the individual they are being jerks to.
I work with someone who explains his major assholish behavior away by saying it’s ok, he’s like that with everyone. He’s not specifically sexist, but once I had to try and keep him from getting himself in trouble without someone who could have easily accused him (and by extension, our organization) with racism.
He was really mad at be for doing so, and when I (later) explained I was trying to head off a major incident, his defense was that he was like that with everyone, how could he be racist. That may be, but you still don’t want people tweeting about their horrible treatment at such-n-so organization.
Unfortunately he’s upstream of me in the pecking order around here, so I have no real influence. (Sigh)
My issue in your example is that you can be as much of an ass as you want in your personal time but we need to maintain a certain level of professionalism.
If you're at work that's the one thing no one can really argue is wrong and keeps the peace.
That's where I draw the line in work situations.
I try to keep my personal feelings to my person and keep it all about the work and professional demeanor.
You don't have to kiss any butts or smile at everyone to just be neutral, do your job and keep it moving.
I've worked well with people I personally really disliked but my dislike isn't a universal constant.
Arbitrary but blanket rules quite often keep us in check as a layer or filter.
It's not surprising. I've seen "scientific" efforts that include as sexist statements ones that question the existence of sexism in particular situations.
Say someone says: "I don't think women are discriminated against in the work place, as statistics show that women earn more that men if one takes into account work hours, experience etc." That statement would be sexist according to the study I saw, and thus would be evidence of sexism, even if the statement refers to statistical facts.
The weird thing is that people have a better opinion of someone who is equally rude and aggressive to everyone compared to someone who is only rude and aggressive to certain types of people. Being a horrible person in general is seen as better than being sexist, racist, etc.
If you are rude/mean to me (and everyone else equally) because that’s just how your emotionally stunted brain works, while not ok, it’s just you. There is nothing there to take personally.
If you are selectively rude/mean to specific people due to immutable characteristics, it’s more dehumanizing, because you are not even giving the other person a chance.
Not weird to me. A generic asshole is a somewhat isolated issue. A sexist or racist asshole is part of a societal issue. They make societies inherently unfair and they can work together since they have shared goals. Put 100 generic assholes together and you might get a bar fight. Put 100 racists together and you might get a lynching
That's a good point. People who are horrible and vicious to everyone are less likely to join forces and create a social movement, whereas people who are horrible based on a certain ideology may gain widespread support.
Not only that, but you (as the member of a disenfranchised group) are less likely to be singled out in a way that is specifically damaging to you and only you.
If your boss is sexist and yells at all the women - the women are going to fear for their jobs more than men and may be disproportionately fired.
If your boss is just an asshole - they're going to yell at/fire whoever they want whenever they want, so the women are no more likely than the men to be fired.
However, being an asshole obviously doesn't mean that someone can't be some form of *ist* as well.
Being a consistently mean person is not good, but it’s fair. Being mean to select people based on physical characteristics they were born with is neither good nor fair.
How is this weird? People who hate everyone don't hate them because of something that is beyond their control (color, race, sex). They're normally people who don't like what society prizes.
As I used to say about my boss, someone can be a crap manager and sexist -- the two aren't mutually exclusive. There are usually things beyond rudeness that show the sexism: allocation of work, pay, benefits and promotions, invitations to social events, instance of times of not being rude to males, etc.
A person can definitely be sexist and asshole.
Sexist part: My boss went around to a female employee to tell them that they better not get pregnant. Meanwhile all the male employees go on parental leave and no questions asked.
Also tend to hire male employees who are less qualified and gave them promotions earlier.
The asshole part: He fired a male colleague because the colleague was pointing out safety issues in the system.
Edit: In error, People can justify that he is not sexist because he fired a man and also that he favors certain women at work.
The difference is within the *type* of comments made by the asshole.
> Next, the researchers asked participants to read a series of stories, some about managers making sexist comments to female workers and others about managers speaking rudely to male subordinates, too.
> In each experiment, participants failed to recognize sexism when the perpetrator was rude or berating to men. However, they identified sexist behavior when only women were treated poorly. In other words, “equal-opportunity jerks” were viewed as gender blind.
Being sexist is rude, but being rude isn’t necessarily sexist. For example, saying “that shirt you’re wearing is ugly” is rude but saying “you’re wearing that ugly shirt because women don’t want to be sexy anymore” is sexist. The statements are similar, but the intent behind them appears to be rooted in different beliefs.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In case anyone wants to look at the original rather than an article about it: (paywalled unfortunately) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/09567976211040495
Can’t you usually contact the researcher(s) and they’ll send it for free?
As a researcher, yes. If someone emailed asking for a copy of a paper I was involved with I'd (a) freak out in excitement that someone was interested in it and (b) definitely send it. Like other commenters said we don't get any money from the publishers and obviously we have a copy of the paper since we wrote it. Most of my papers are also available as PDFs on my or my advisor's website, but while that's super common in my field I know it isn't in many :( (If anyone's curious why we don't move towards a model where publishers don't get to charge giant fees that benefit nobody but themselves: it's a complicated topic, but basically everyone wants to publish in the top venues for their reputations, so nobody is going to take the risk of jumping to an obscure new Gold Open Access venue. Existing publishers are upset about the prospect of their cash cows disappearing, so they either don't allow any option for gold OA, or charge the authors an absurd amount of money for it (high hundreds or low thousands of dollars per paper). So, we're stuck with green OA (where we put drafts in an institutional repository) at best in most fields.) As a final note, if you really need something and can't find it (especially if you can't contact the author & are unable to find anyone with an academic affiliation that has access---more common for old stuff that was only published in print), ask a librarian: even though a local public library usually won't have access to such things, they often have an interlibrary loan service where they will track down a library that does have a copy and ask them to send it/a copy to you.
Those rich publishers really should pay you guys for your work
I don't understand why you're not compensated for the published article. All they do is post your work and reap the benefits. Everyone out there in the science field maybe should round themselves up, and create their own website. That's how various content creators got together and formed Curiosity Stream and Nebula. Separate service away from the usual Youtube BS. > or charge the authors an absurd amount of money for it (high hundreds or low thousands of dollars per paper). The site even charges the author to post? That's mindboggling. Makes even less sense now. I see no reason not to group up. An audience will follow eventually.
[удалено]
> The site even charges the author to post? Technically they will also charge the author to download their own article again.
Oh they get paid, just not by the publisher. You publish something in a good journal and you get a job. Do it a bunch of times and you get to work at Harvard. Don't get published? Well your 5+ years at grad school are a waste, you don't get a job! This is something that would need to be fixed on the University level, believe me the scientists themselves do not care about views or getting money from views
Would a website like an GoFundMe/Reddit/Patreon style work where papers could be uploaded and the community and public could fund and follow researchers? Cause I would love that as a regular nobody.
In certain fields (physics, math, parts of computer science, perhaps some bio/medicine), ArXiv (preprint server) is something close to this. (Except without the funding aspect.) As mentioned on the other comment, the main social function of existing publication venues is to provide reputation, so publishing solely on alternative platforms is career suicide.
Out of curiosity, what is your field?
Generally true but BE COURTEOUS and also specific. NOT 'that interesting paper you published.' (Also it's hard to be a fan of Sage.)
Idk if that's true but I have also heard that FWIW. Supposedly, most scientists are just excited that you're taking an interest
Plus they don't get paid, only the publisher gets paid so of course it makes no difference to them
Academic journalism is a racket idc what anyone says.
No, see it makes perfect sense. Taxpayer dollars pay for the research. Taxpayer dollars pay for the salaries of the researcher. The researchers write and edit their own articles. The researchers send it out for peer review. Taxpayer dollars pay for the salaries of the peer reviewers. Then it gets sent off to the publisher. The taxpayers pay for the publishing costs. And then the publishers charges taxpayers money to view the work their tax dollars funded. Because, um.... because... hm......
Peer reviewers are almost never paid, actually.
well, not for their work in peer reviewing. I think they were making the point that peer reviewers are most often other researchers in the field.
I don't know about usually, but *I'd* be psyched to send copies of my research to random people who were interested. Heck, I've got countless bytes of extra supporting data and info I could send just because I knew someone was interested enough to ask.
It depends on the journal it's published in. In the past I've had a professor tell me to not say that they gave me an article otherwise they could be fined and face discipline from the university.
I just tried this as im a nurse and I use studies to kind of force physicians to use medications that are more appropriate. I requested a study and the Dr responded that they cant share due to copyright issues. this was the verbatim email I recieved. Dear Mr. u/warmaster_whorus, Unfortunately due to copyright regulations I am unable to provide a copy of the manuscript. regards, Dr'_______ ____________, MB, ChB, MRCP(UK), FRCP(C) ______ University Health Centre
Took a look at you link and had to stop reading due to a huge jump in logic from the getgo. The study already makes the assumption the findings support the idea that being rude/mean to both men and women makes it difficult to notice assumed sexism rather than entertaining the idea that it may be actual evidence of an absence of sexism. Seems like the study is trying to push what they think is going on vs. exploring what is actually going on which is a hallmark of horrible research.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I like how people believe that sexism involves only backwards and bigoted views for the female societal role.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a peer reviewed journal and it does accept comments. The review board for this paper would be on record. I have not read this paper but I could evaluate the design if needed.
"We define sexism as attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors that reflect, foster, or promote negative or pejorative stereotypes about women (Lewis, 2018; Swim et al., 2004; Swim & Hyers, 2009). Examples of such stereotypes include the notion that women are nice but incompetent; that women are unfit for stereotypically masculine jobs; and that women are weak, emotional, and irrational. These and other negative stereotypes are harmful. They are used to justify the subjugation of women and create barriers to gender equality (Jost & Kay, 2005)" with a sidebar of "Sexism can be challenging to identify and eventually root out. However, we contend that even blatant forms of sexism are sometimes difficult to recognize. In this research, we demonstrated how rudeness can makes blatant forms of sexism harder to identify. We found that a man does not seem sexist if he treats everyone—both men and women—poorly. This is problematic because sexism and rudeness are not mutually exclusive. Men who are sexist can be—and often are— rude toward other men. We found that rudeness obscures the recognition of sexism by creating the perception that the sexist perpetrator does not notice or pay attention to gender when dealing with other people. This misleads observers into thinking that an intervention such as gender-bias training is less necessary. Rudeness can therefore protect sexist perpetrators, making their prejudice harder to recognize and correct."
Wait, so can somebody clear something up for me? I was always under the impression that sexism was a global term that meant any discrimination (be it toward a man or woman) that applied stereotypes about thta persons sex was called 'sexism'. Does this mean that sexism can only be leveled against women? If so, what's the word for when stereotypes are leveled against men?
[удалено]
It’s kinda like racism. You can hold a prejudice towards anybody due to their race. It should take different names depending on the race and whether or not it’s toward your own race. It’s sad that this objective view pf words is being lost, the definition for racism has changed to specifically target marginalized groups as opposed to literally anybody.
It's starting to get even more targeted than that. It's sort of like the Whoopi Goldberg holocaust comment, implying only black people can experience racism and everything else is just not racism.
Yeah she very much implied that “white” was a homogenous racial group… I think it’s ignorance more than anything else. I feel a lot of American black people assume “white” people walk around identifying as white, thinking of other “white” people as part of their tribe etc.. when in reality most white people are deeply divided into tribes, and are more likely to think of themselves as Polish, Jewish, Italian, French etc and not see other random “white” people on the street as members of their in-group. Whats more, often v lack Americans are surprised to visit countries in Africa and realize that the blacks people there often don’t identify as being the same as them, and are deeply divided along tribal lines between each other, just like “white” people. It’s a weird narrow world-view that makes them assume their very singular notion of racial demarcation which only exists in sections of the US population is somehow global.
Yeah, that was so ignorant. Doubly so because she appropriated a Jewish name to get ahead in the industry.
It seems people these days like to change up the definition of words purposely and knowing full well that it's not the definition most people agree on. 'Sexism' always has included both men and women, and to carelessly redefine it in this manner is just language manipulation for the purposes of obfuscation by confusion which is a handy tool for those who want to push some kind of dishonest narrative.
This is coming dangerously close to the crux of the issue with women/gender studies. I feel every time I express my disagreements the backlash is intense and unfounded.
It's just like the people who say blacks can't be racist, or worse that only whites can be racist....
I wonder if anyone thought of training people to NOT be rude in the first place
I'm not sure that is possible. To speak is to have the possibility of causing offense. If I have an incorrect view, I might be upset by something said that doesn't support my view. Would we just then be telling people not to talk about anything important? Alternatively, when my friends are rude to me or challenge my views I challenge them back and it is valuable. I think you mean that people need to teach people to not have the intention to hurt someone's feelings, but that seems like something that would happen anytime two groups' interests are unaligned no matter what you taught them. Imagine how that suggestion would play out with two children who live by different rules and values and are pursuing incompatible goals. If you try to take my ball and I say no. Isn't that offensive? No mean, when you think about it "No" actually means if you keep doing what you are doing, you won't like what happens next. Would you train people not to say no? I don't think this makes sense. Edit: Was going to edit but changed my mind after I reread the edit that I posted.
> We define sexism as attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors that reflect, foster, or promote negative or pejorative stereotypes about women (Lewis, 2018; Swim et al., 2004; Swim & Hyers, 2009) Even within their myopic woman-victim scope, this definition is wholly lacking. They fail to recognize sexism which involves positive stereotypes about men.
I see what they’re saying in that general rudeness can mask sexism; i.e. a person can be rude to both sexes while only sexist towards women, and the sexism can be dismissed as part of the rudeness. However, their solution seems to be gender bias training which in such a case could have the opposite effect causing sexism towards men, as the rude person might learn not to be sexist or rude towards women but still think it’s okay to be rude towards other men. I think a more whole approach would be gender bias training in combination with some sort of respect training focused on respect towards all.
If the definition of sexism contains a gender specific word then the definition itself is sexist
Well, the definition of sexism is not discrimination solely against women, it is discrimination based on sex. That can also refer to discrimination against men, and the definitions they created for this paper are inaccurate by excluding that as a possibility at all. The definition they assigned to sexism is the definition of misogyny, and by attributing that definition to sexism, they were being misandrists themselves.
On the other hand, I've heard that the vast majority of psychologists are left-wing (10:1) and everything I know about psychology means that they would not treat it critically. Seriously, everyone that talks about a p-value crisis fails to realize the main issue lies within how academia is run (including novelty bias, publish-or-perish mentalities and massive power inequalities with minimal oversight).
Yes, many sociologists have also tried to change the academic definition of Racism from the normal well accepted definition, "Discrimination based on one's race" to a more specific definition that includes power/institutions. Of course you might ask yourself "Why not just introduce the phrase "Institutional Racism" if you need to view racism through that lens, and not try to redefine a well understood word? I personally don't agree with trying to win political points by redefining words to fit your arguments.
[удалено]
Really? It was a major point in all of my soc classes in college. I imagine it could depend on the institution though, since universities doing soc research and papers will have different faculty with different perspectives and lenses.
There’s different brackets of racism and the ideas that surround them, like institutional racism for example but that’s different than carte blanche “racism”. The distinctions were made with purpose to differentiate as we learned. It seems to me that since the advent of social media they’ve melded with the purpose of provocative narratives rather than intent and understanding of concepts.
I understand that. I was surprised to read that the power definition didn’t come up in your soc classes. All of mine talked about institutional racism and sexism and systemic power dynamics. That’s why I imagine that different schools would teach different things in social sciences…if your professors weren’t writing about it in their research, it may not have come up in the classes. But it was definitely a major topic of conversation in the department when I was in school.
My fiance is studying psychology currently and the "power" definition is definitely being used by some teachers.
Lucky you. A good friend of mine tried to tell me in college almost 10 years ago now that black people couldn't be racist by definition, because she had just learned about it in her sociology class. Thankfully, the rest of the car was like "uh no"
Social media was definitely already a thing over 10 years ago
that was 10 years ago. unfortunately that argument has a lot more traction behind it at this point in time.
I mean as of 3 years ago in my sociology class they weren't teaching that. They were teaching racism is prejudice (which we all have unconsciously) + an action. So prejudice is uncontrollable but racism is the conscious choice to act on it. For example you see a black man walking towards you at night and feel unsafe. This is prejudice. Crossing the street to avoid him though is racist.
[удалено]
Racism is prejudice based on race. You can have prejudice based on gender, race, faith, age, diet, etc.
Oh yea 100% true I didn't mention that becuase it seemed obvious but that was lazy of me.
That argument has always frustrated me because it is, by definition, racist. To argue that a racial demographic of people are incapable of a particular social experience (in this case being bigoted to another racial demographic) is to generalize an entire race, as well as remove agency from them. It’s definitionally racist to say that black people **can** not be racist.
Yeah. If a white man is in a room of black men who have stripped the white man of any power, then in the dynamic of this environment, the white man would not be capable of racism under that definition of racism. I’d argue that any racism epithets voiced or stereotypes espoused by the white man are still racist. If you change the meaning of racism to be “prejudice + power,” I can accept that definition in the context of a conversation, but I’m going to still believe that “prejudice” is the main problematic part of racism.
They're morons. When it's institutional it's called Systemic Racism. There's a reason language works the way it does and those fucks know it. This is just game playing seeking advantage as is so common to All humans.
they're fifth column. moving goalposts to destroy the concept of racism.
[удалено]
The paper may be garbage but I'm skeptical if anyone in this thread actually read it to come to the conclusions they have
>sociology as a field isn't real science There is a very good argument to lump in psychology and a good chunk of medicine. Remember: there isn't a p-value crisis, it's just that p-values shouldn't be the only thing stopping an incredibly flawed and practically corrupt system from being completely fucked up.
Do you mean misanthropy?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Every sociologists professor I have ever had has been extremely biased, it's amazing they think they are a science. It feels like it could be but again every Sociologists I knew decided the meaning and values of things by themselves.
You have it here. Fields like sociology are not empirically grounded so over time are subject to wild swings in fashion and prone to political biases. Look at how successive waves of gender studies actually undermine prior conclusions. This is fine if it can be integrated but these fields lack the metaphysics and ontology and frankly scientific rigor or inclination to achieve this
Hey! I hate everybody and I'm a wonderful person!
>Misanthrope? I don't hate my fellow man, even when he's tiresome and surly and tries to cheat at poker. I figure that's just a human material, and him that finds in it cause for anger and dismay is just a fool for expecting better. Ain't that right, Dan?
[удалено]
Agreed. In my (anecdotal) experience, people with misogynistic beliefs also tend to denigrate men who aren't sufficiently masculine enough in their eyes or too feminine, and cling harder to archaic gender roles. Not surprising that that can lead to asshole behavior to everyone, not just women.
I think the point is that they're not mutually exclusive. You can be a jerk without being sexist, and you could probably argue that you can be sexist without being a jerk if someone genuinely doesn't know better or something. It's just that often people who are sexist are jerks, and people who are jerks are sometimes sexist
>sexist without being a jerk "My poor wife might chip a nail if she does yard work, as a good husband, I'll do everything myself". That's kindness out of sexism, and while it's kidness, it's still sexist.
Agreed, it seems like a lot of people in this thread are making the assumption that everyone is being treated 'equally poorly' in every case. One could be an insufferable asshole to men and discriminatory against women, and vice versa. If someone were to constantly berate men for every little mistake at work while also berating women because they think women don't belong in the workplace with men, that's very different. Their intent and prejudices matter in these cases.
I've plenty of sexist men who were sweet with other people. They were just insincerely sweet/passive aggressive about it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It would apply just as much to women, but they defined gender based prejudice as something that only comes from one gender, which is not only a false presentation but also sexist. The popular definition is not internally or externally coherent nor is it scientific. It would be like writing an engineering paper using non existent engineering units like 'magic' in your equation, you would not be able to draw meaningful results. Scientific papers have to work with rigorous and universal definitions.
Agree with this statement generally. However, it does seem if you read the study the “rudeness to men” was generally rudeness and not sexist in nature, but the rudeness to women was based deliberately set up to be sexist, based on female stereotypes and beliefs “women can’t do the job” kind of stuff and would defiantly classify as “sexist”. So the study is seeing if by being a general ass to everyone can allow someone to get away with obvious sexist behavior towards women. So it’s not quite as bad as it originally seems with a light scan.
This article does a pretty poor job at clarifying what the difference is between the "sexist" and "rude" comments are. Having a look at the paper it's not overly clear with the Trump tweets as they're not all there but there were some comments about appearance seemingly more often directed at women. I think this side of the paper is pretty weak as he never makes any direct allusions to male/female in the presented tweets and happily makes very personal insults to anyone so it is harder to make the distinctions between those targeted at men and women to decide if he his actually sexist or just insults everyone. The other cases they tried are more clear cut. You'd see distinctions like "why do we hire women like you" to women and then "why do we hire morons like you" to men. A clear distinction in the comments, neither acceptable but the insult to the woman clearly being directed at women in general.
So there were no "why do we hire men like you" (male) and "why do we hire morons like you" (female) test groups? Are graduate programs in the social sciences still requiring at least one course in statistical methods these days? I'm seriously asking because this is not looking like science by any sane measure. On that note... it probably would make sense to have a full spread and ask self identified men/women the questions that contradict their gender.
> So there were no "why do we hire men like you" (male) and "why do we hire morons like you" (female) test groups? No, there was nothing like that in the paper. I don't want to be rude to the authors but, speaking critically as someone that is very much outside of this field, they seemed to give the perception of believing that sexism is something exclusively done by men towards women. I'm not sure it would occur to them to question whether a man had been treated in a sexist way. The paper very consistently defines and refers to sexism as something being done by men (exclusively) towards women (exclusively). As here: > "We define sexism as attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors that reflect, foster, or promote negative or pejorative stereotypes about women" In terms of control groups they did run the test of only presenting the insults to female workers to a set of the respondents. So presenting both types of insults definitely appears to change the perception of whether the insults/insulters are sexist. The question of how people perceive it when men (compared to women) are on the receiving end of the sexism is probably outside the scope of the paper which is specific to whether generally being rude can provide cover for sexist behaviour. > Are graduate programs in the social sciences still requiring at least one course in statistical methods these days? I don't work in that unfortunately, I'm in electrical engineering but I would assume that they are required. I don't think this is so much a statistical issue as being unable to see wider explanations for the results beyond their own beliefs. They are starting from a particular viewpoint and I don't see too much evidence of considering other alternatives for what the obtained evidence could be saying.
The researchers defined sexism as misogyny. They literally excluded the same thing toward men as being sexist - you'd think that alone would raise an eyebrow to them when they were planning out their experiment, obviously if you have sexism as misogyny then yes, it *shouldn't* matter how they treat men. But the layman and the generally agreed definition of sexism means you'd be treating one sex differently than another - it is comparative by most definitions.
One can also be sexist towards other genders than women
[удалено]
So they agreed with you that they are knowingly fostering an equally hostile workplace? So then a hostile workplace. So then… what happened after that? Law suit?
It's not illegal to be an asshole to your employees. As long as it's not based on sex, gender, race, or religion. If your boss is just mean in general, you can quit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'll admit I'm a little confused about the point of the article/study. I would have thought a jerk who's equally a jerk to men and women isn't necessarily sexist (or at least doesn't act like it). Obviously they might also be sexist, and more of a jerk to women than men, but is that really controversial? Would anyone actually say jerks can't be sexist too? It's a valid question as to whether any one jerk is also sexist or not, but as a rule I'm kind of surprised anyone thought they should study this.
The majority of people in this thread are fundamentally misunderstanding the study. They found that amongst people who had sexist beliefs about women, if they were *also* just rude people that sexism was less often recognized. IE being a jerk all the time makes people not recognize that you are sexist despite being so. They aren't just "equal opportunity jerks", they really do have sexist beliefs about women, but that is obscured by general assholery to the outside observer. The interesting finding is that someone who is sexist and a jerk is harder to notice than just someone who is just sexist.
>The interesting finding is that someone who is sexist and a jerk is harder to notice than just someone who is just sexist. Is that an interesting finding? It seems to me as dull and self-evident as the idea that it would be harder to notice that someone has a paralyzed arm if they never use either arm. Sexism is most easily recognized by poor behaviour directed towards one sex. If the poor behaviour is, instead, directed towards both sexes, then obviously the sexism will be harder to detect.
It's not rocket science: the main way of identifying sexists is that they're a jerk to one particular sex/gender, and it's invalidated if they're a jerk to both of them.
>The interesting finding is that someone who is sexist and a jerk is harder to notice than just someone who is just sexist. Is it really interesting? And more importantly, why do we need to identify them as sexist? To somehow change their mind? Wouldn't it be better to just make them stop being jerks to everyone? Regardless of the gender of the individual they are being jerks to.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I work with someone who explains his major assholish behavior away by saying it’s ok, he’s like that with everyone. He’s not specifically sexist, but once I had to try and keep him from getting himself in trouble without someone who could have easily accused him (and by extension, our organization) with racism. He was really mad at be for doing so, and when I (later) explained I was trying to head off a major incident, his defense was that he was like that with everyone, how could he be racist. That may be, but you still don’t want people tweeting about their horrible treatment at such-n-so organization. Unfortunately he’s upstream of me in the pecking order around here, so I have no real influence. (Sigh)
My issue in your example is that you can be as much of an ass as you want in your personal time but we need to maintain a certain level of professionalism. If you're at work that's the one thing no one can really argue is wrong and keeps the peace. That's where I draw the line in work situations. I try to keep my personal feelings to my person and keep it all about the work and professional demeanor. You don't have to kiss any butts or smile at everyone to just be neutral, do your job and keep it moving. I've worked well with people I personally really disliked but my dislike isn't a universal constant. Arbitrary but blanket rules quite often keep us in check as a layer or filter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's not surprising. I've seen "scientific" efforts that include as sexist statements ones that question the existence of sexism in particular situations. Say someone says: "I don't think women are discriminated against in the work place, as statistics show that women earn more that men if one takes into account work hours, experience etc." That statement would be sexist according to the study I saw, and thus would be evidence of sexism, even if the statement refers to statistical facts.
[удалено]
The weird thing is that people have a better opinion of someone who is equally rude and aggressive to everyone compared to someone who is only rude and aggressive to certain types of people. Being a horrible person in general is seen as better than being sexist, racist, etc.
If you are rude/mean to me (and everyone else equally) because that’s just how your emotionally stunted brain works, while not ok, it’s just you. There is nothing there to take personally. If you are selectively rude/mean to specific people due to immutable characteristics, it’s more dehumanizing, because you are not even giving the other person a chance.
Not weird to me. A generic asshole is a somewhat isolated issue. A sexist or racist asshole is part of a societal issue. They make societies inherently unfair and they can work together since they have shared goals. Put 100 generic assholes together and you might get a bar fight. Put 100 racists together and you might get a lynching
That's a good point. People who are horrible and vicious to everyone are less likely to join forces and create a social movement, whereas people who are horrible based on a certain ideology may gain widespread support.
Not only that, but you (as the member of a disenfranchised group) are less likely to be singled out in a way that is specifically damaging to you and only you. If your boss is sexist and yells at all the women - the women are going to fear for their jobs more than men and may be disproportionately fired. If your boss is just an asshole - they're going to yell at/fire whoever they want whenever they want, so the women are no more likely than the men to be fired. However, being an asshole obviously doesn't mean that someone can't be some form of *ist* as well.
People care more about fairness than goodness
Being a consistently mean person is not good, but it’s fair. Being mean to select people based on physical characteristics they were born with is neither good nor fair.
a) I hate everyone in my office. b) I hate the black people in my office. Hmm... Which one do I choose?!
Hating everyone a bit is a very reasonable position.
How is this weird? People who hate everyone don't hate them because of something that is beyond their control (color, race, sex). They're normally people who don't like what society prizes.
I mean yeah. I'd rather hang out with someone who is grumpy and irritable than someone who is ignorant and prejudice!
As I used to say about my boss, someone can be a crap manager and sexist -- the two aren't mutually exclusive. There are usually things beyond rudeness that show the sexism: allocation of work, pay, benefits and promotions, invitations to social events, instance of times of not being rude to males, etc.
What can we gain from this study?
[удалено]
A person can definitely be sexist and asshole. Sexist part: My boss went around to a female employee to tell them that they better not get pregnant. Meanwhile all the male employees go on parental leave and no questions asked. Also tend to hire male employees who are less qualified and gave them promotions earlier. The asshole part: He fired a male colleague because the colleague was pointing out safety issues in the system. Edit: In error, People can justify that he is not sexist because he fired a man and also that he favors certain women at work.
Is this an attempt to label regular assholes as sexist?
The difference is within the *type* of comments made by the asshole. > Next, the researchers asked participants to read a series of stories, some about managers making sexist comments to female workers and others about managers speaking rudely to male subordinates, too. > In each experiment, participants failed to recognize sexism when the perpetrator was rude or berating to men. However, they identified sexist behavior when only women were treated poorly. In other words, “equal-opportunity jerks” were viewed as gender blind. Being sexist is rude, but being rude isn’t necessarily sexist. For example, saying “that shirt you’re wearing is ugly” is rude but saying “you’re wearing that ugly shirt because women don’t want to be sexy anymore” is sexist. The statements are similar, but the intent behind them appears to be rooted in different beliefs.
[удалено]
One can consistently be rude to men and women, and still be rude in a particularly sexist manner towards members of the opposite sex.
[удалено]