Tweeting About Sexism Could Improve A Woman's Wellbeing - Polidicks

[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/z4gpA1z.jpg[/thumb] [QUOTE]Publicly tweeting about sexism could improve a woman's wellbeing as it has the potential to let them to express themselves in ways that feel like they can make a difference. This is one of the findings of a study by Dr Mindi Foster, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada that is published in the British Journal of Social Psychology. The study was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Dr Foster explained: "We know women can be badly affected by experiences of sexism and that responding publicly can be stressful and risky. This study examined whether using Twitter to respond to sexism could be done in a public way without any negative effects to their wellbeing." A total of 93 female undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions regarding tweeting over a three day period. All participants received information over the three days regarding topical issues around sexism in politics, the media and in universities for them to tweet about. One group was required to tweet publicly, another privately and the third group did not tweet at all. They received no instructions regarding the number or the content of tweets they should undertake. All participants completed mood questionnaires and wellbeing measures after they tweeted. Tweets were also analyzed for linguistic and emotional content. Emotions identified were: anger, discontent, sarcastic, shocked, surprise and sadness. The most common combination was surprise and discontent. "Never knew there was this much sexism in politics! It's so disturbing! Shocked disgusted."[/QUOTE] [highlight]Source:[/highlight][url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150130081803.htm[/url] Research money well spent

[quote]Analysis showed that the group of women who tweeted publically displayed feelings of increased wellbeing by the third day. Neither of the other two groups showed any changes in wellbeing.[/quote] So, if publicly expressing your discontent with stuff makes you feel better Does that mean shitposting is good for you? [editline]31st January 2015[/editline] hitler did nothing wrong [editline]31st January 2015[/editline] God I feel like a whole new person

So Sarkeesian just has really, really shitty self-esteem?

[QUOTE=Robotico;47046079][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/z4gpA1z.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47046087]hitler did nothing wrong[/QUOTE] Let's try [img]http://i.imgur.com/pFsUupa.png[/img]

In other words, expressing your opinion about things publicly, but also distantly ('safely'), makes you feel a little better, unlike suppressing it and holding it in. That's nice discovery.

@Shibbey I once had that exact argument with another feminist where I was so shocked she denied her being sexist due to ~the balance of privilege~ I asked her if she would also think racism against white people was impossible by definition. She said she would. So I told her she had clearly never studied the civil rights movement and gave up arguing any further.

If vitriol and pretending to make a difference didn't make you feel better, activism would be dead. Surely we can find better ways to improve people's wellbeing than getting them shitposting about politics.

[QUOTE=Shibbey;47046104]Let's try [img]http://i.imgur.com/pFsUupa.png[/img][/QUOTE] You've completely missed the overarching philosophical reasoning behind her tweet haven't you.

[QUOTE=Lui2112;47046200]You've completely missed the overarching philosophical reasoning behind her tweet haven't you.[/QUOTE] Well did you get the overarching philosophical reasoning behind his retort?

[quote] there's no such thing as sexism against men because whatever[/quote] I despise this reasoning. Who made this thing up? It's simply an invented fallacy. "Sexism = prejudice + power because I said so." No, the definition of sexism is discrimination based on sex, which can happen to men. This mindset puts men off feminism, and has convinced people that the whole of feminism is crazy nut job man haters which is not the case. I mean Christ. What do we call sexism against men then? Does using a different word for it help anything? Make any difference except alienate men? A real change for sexual equality is going to come through cooperation, and a societal acceptance that we are all as important, deserve the same rights, the same pay etc. This is not going to happen through alienating men.

[QUOTE=Lui2112;47046200]You've completely missed the overarching philosophical reasoning behind her tweet haven't you.[/QUOTE] "overarching philosophical reasoning" and you wonder why people don't take any of that seriously.

[QUOTE=bunguer;47046405]"overarching philosophical reasoning" and you wonder why people don't take any of that seriously.[/QUOTE] I think he was actually being sarcastic but I can't be sure

[QUOTE=Shibbey;47046104]Let's try [img]http://i.imgur.com/pFsUupa.png[/img][/QUOTE] The reason why comments like this come to exist is because of an effort by people like Anita to redefine the phrase systemic racism/sexism to just mean racism and sexism. We already have convenient and concise words for both that accurately describe the things they are supposed to describe. But I suspect that being accused of being sexist carries more weight than being accused of benefiting from systemic sexism and having your definition of sexism shield you from being criticised for your own sexism is strategically advantageous. I know that calling something Orwellian is a bit trite and is often used incorrectly, but when I look at the way in which Anita throws around the word misogyny and tries to redefine words like this, the first thing that comes to mind is Orwell. I just don't see what the problem with the current terminology is, it works and doesn't lead to situations where someone acts racist but isn't racist because they are incapable of being racist because of the current political climate.

[QUOTE=Riutet;47046497]The reason why comments like this come to exist is because of an effort by people like Anita to redefine the phrase systemic racism/sexism to just mean racism and sexism. We already have convenient and concise words for both that accurately describe the things they are supposed to describe. But I suspect that being accused of being sexist carries more weight than being accused of benefiting from systemic sexism and having your definition of sexism shield you from being criticised for your own sexism is strategically advantageous. I know that calling something Orwellian is a bit trite and is often used incorrectly, but when I look at the way in which Anita throws around the word misogyny and tries to redefine words like this, the first thing that comes to mind is Orwell. I just don't see what the problem with the current terminology is, it works and doesn't lead to situations where someone acts racist but isn't racist because they are incapable of being racist because of the current political climate.[/QUOTE] Plus when people like Anita do this whole redefinition thing, more specifically when trying to redefine systematic racism as just plain racism, they seem to be indirectly saying that POC can't be racist towards other POC because they lack the "systematic power" to do so and it's at most "racism-lite". That's the main problem I have with these people trying to redefine systematic racism as just plain racism. (Note: I don't like using the term "POC" (Person of Color) because I feel it just boxes a diverse set of racial and ethnic groups into "White" and "Non-White". I just couldn't think of another term at the moment)

[QUOTE=FPtje;47046270]Well did you get the overarching philosophical reasoning behind his retort?[/QUOTE] No that's why I said it, because he just reworded someone else thoughts to get attention.

[QUOTE=Lui2112;47046689]No that's why I said it, because he just reworded someone else thoughts to get attention.[/QUOTE] Or like...to prove a point? Nah you're right he just wants attention on an internet forum lets go with that. And the original tweet totally wasn't made to get attention either...

[QUOTE=Lui2112;47046200]You've completely missed the overarching philosophical reasoning behind her tweet haven't you.[/QUOTE] Uh, was her overarching philosophical reasoning that power is an on/off switch and that men are always in more "powerful" positions 100% of the time? Because that's dumb too. It's justifying sexism against anyone you perceive as having more power. It's completely inconsistent on many levels.

Nice 4 posts, OP. Ive fallen out with Feminism recently, if anything because of Gamergate. The whole discussion makes everyone look like a joke because of a minority of asshats.

[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;47047038]Nice 4 posts, OP. Ive fallen out with Feminism recently, if anything because of Gamergate. The whole discussion makes everyone look like a joke because of a minority of asshats.[/QUOTE] everyone has to start posting somewhere.

[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;47047038] Ive fallen out with Feminism recently, if anything because of Gamergate. The whole discussion makes everyone look like a joke because of a minority of asshats.[/QUOTE] That's ironic. You realise its a minority of asshats in feminism who've made you fall out with the whole of feminism? Feminism itself is about gender equality, which I'm sure we can all get on board with, not man hating.

[QUOTE=Riutet;47046497]The reason why comments like this come to exist is because of an effort by people like Anita to redefine the phrase systemic racism/sexism to just mean racism and sexism. We already have convenient and concise words for both that accurately describe the things they are supposed to describe. But I suspect that being accused of being sexist carries more weight than being accused of benefiting from systemic sexism and having your definition of sexism shield you from being criticised for your own sexism is strategically advantageous. I know that calling something Orwellian is a bit trite and is often used incorrectly, but when I look at the way in which Anita throws around the word misogyny and tries to redefine words like this, the first thing that comes to mind is Orwell. I just don't see what the problem with the current terminology is, it works and doesn't lead to situations where someone acts racist but isn't racist because they are incapable of being racist because of the current political climate.[/QUOTE] No, it's because the one-dimensional model of privilege is flawed. Antisemitism in Europe was absolutely systemic, but it's part of the reason why the banking system was largely in the hands of Jews.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47047872]No, it's because the one-dimensional model of privilege is flawed. Antisemitism in Europe was absolutely systemic, but it's part of the reason why the banking system was largely in the hands of Jews.[/QUOTE] That was a different time and a different cause. I'm talking about this idea of privilege negating the ability to be discriminated against, an idea which even when you take an intersectional approach to privilege still ends up giving you erroneous conclusions like the one posed by Anita and the edit made to criticise Anita's comment. You cannot redefine systemic racism to just mean racism, and when you do the Jews get thrown in with whites as being people who can't be discriminated against because their privilege and their over representation in many facets of society put them in the same situation as white people, who often find themselves being the target of this new idiotic attempt to redefine a word which already has a meaning. If you want to say X cannot suffer from systemic racism/sexism because they are the system, perfectly fine if you can back it up with evidence. If you want to say X cannot suffer from racism/sexism full stop because systemic racism/sexism has replaced the definition we used to use, that is wrong and will give you erroneous results.

[QUOTE=Lui2112;47046200]You've completely missed the overarching philosophical reasoning behind her tweet haven't you.[/QUOTE] It flew over my head initially, but Hitler used that similar reasoning in WWII since Jewish people were powerful at the time. Citizens thought that they were "punching up", but as time passed, they were "punching down". Same thing happened with the Rhodesian farmers in Zimbabwe. Discrimination is pretty bad, no matter which identity that they target.

[QUOTE=Lui2112;47046200]You've completely missed the overarching philosophical reasoning behind her tweet haven't you.[/QUOTE] Spot the pseudo-intellectual on the gaming forum.

It's basically a form of venting. If there's a problem with something and you complain about it openly, it makes you feel way better about yourself especially if other people agree with you.

[QUOTE=Lui2112;47046200]You've completely missed the overarching philosophical reasoning behind her tweet haven't you.[/QUOTE] Then lets hear it, I think everyone in this thread would love to hear about that. You seem to be well versed in the subject so lay it on me. Defend that sexist dribble Anita spouted, philosophize it for me.

probably good for the soul, but not for the wallet putting anything negative about work on social media is a great way to get fired

What she posted does not make any fucking sense.

[QUOTE=Lui2112;47046200]You've completely missed the overarching philosophical reasoning behind her tweet haven't you.[/QUOTE] I did miss it. Please explain it to me, I'm willing to learn.

[QUOTE=Robotico;47046079][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/z4gpA1z.jpg[/thumb] [/QUOTE] Okay wow i assumed the reason her name was synonymous with Satan on the net atm had something to do with the current "Sjw!!" memes that everyone finds so funny, but that first tweet is super wrong. you can't just dismiss any sexism a man might face on the grounds that women have it worse. Holy shit that's exactly the same dumb line of thinking as "black people can't be racist".