Two academic non-males have invented, or are at least giving a good work-out, to the neologism structural sexism, maybe because structural racism has been so lucrative to academic careers.
You recall structural racism is defined as the racism that the debased wished existed so that they could claim racism but which isn’t there but they still want to say racism, so they say this. Same thing with structural sexism. Whites bad, white men baddest.
One example of the term is in the peer-reviewed paper “When Religion Hurts: Structural Sexism and Health in Religious Congregations” by Patricia Homan and Amy Burdette in the “journal” American Sociological Review.
These non-males say that because perfect equity does not exist everywhere in all things, structural sexism exists, and that this “persistent gender inequality in large scale social institutions is only one manifestation of a discriminatory gender system.” Which means there are more manifestations than this one, though they don’t say what form these manifestations take. Maybe they just like saying manifestation.
Anyway, just like with structural racism, you cannot find, not even with the most meticulous searching, any large- or even medium-scale institution that does not go out of its way to reward blacks and persons “of color” just for being their race; the same thing is true for giving perks to non-males.
With one big exception: religion. Structural non-equity exists in religion. For instance, the Catholic Church will still not allow men to become nuns. The bigots.
Muslims are even more discriminating. They read Christian scripture, too, but they implement some of it better. Like when St Paul said “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law”, Muslims believe it.
“Gender scholars,” our non-male gender scholars say, “have long explored the contours”—contours!—“and consequences of gender inequality in the United States, but the measurement of structural sexism and its health consequences is a relatively recent development.”
So they set about measuring it. And believe you me it takes a gender scholar to do this measuring, because, as our non-male gender scholars admit, “Individuals may not directly perceive structural sexism”. It takes Experts.
Where to start? With “observable feelings”, naturally enough. Also “cellular aging” and such-like things, all of which caused diligent “scholars” to focus “on the dark side of religion”. Like the nasty health effects of “threatening beliefs about the devil”.
“We therefore ask the following research questions: 1) Is attending a sexist religious institution that excludes women from power and leadership associated with health among women and men? 2) If so, how does the health of attendees at inclusive religious institutions and sexist religious institutions compare to that of individuals who do not regularly participate in organized religion?”
You might laugh at the idiocy of the first question, but consider this scenario. A female Catholic parishioner screams, “I’m going to hold my breath until you make me a priest!” She passes out. She undergoes cellular aging. She has observable feelings. It can happen.
The Church could remove the possibility of these observable feelings by giving in to Equality and letting the woman become a priestess. It came close when it ordained James Martin. Yet the Church retains its adamantine grip on inequality, insisting, as it does, that men are not women, and women not men.
The scenario as I spell it out is at least makes the questions posed measurable: the cause can be tied to the effect. Alas, that can’t be said for the way our two non-male gender scholars attacked the problem.
What they did was look at some surveys done for other reasons, tying questions about religion to questions about health. And then they performed a maneuver scientists call “making shit up”. Pace:
We conceptualize structural sexism as systematic gender inequality in power and resources within religious congregations, and we measure it with three different congregation-level variables based on a series of questions answered by each congregation’s leader. First, we use a dichotomous measure (labeled “board”) indicating whether an “otherwise qualified woman” in the congregation would be permitted to “serve as a full-fledged member of the congregation’s main governing body or coordinating committee” (0 = yes, 1 = no). This
measure of women’s representation in governance is particularly important for assessing the relationship between structural sexism and health given the accumulating evidence showing women’s political representation is vital for population health both in the United States and in the developing world (Homan 2017; Quamruzzaman and Lange 2016).
Whatever, dude. Or dudettes.
One Mad Mom asked me to look at this paper.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here
The women are going to fail on this one, too.
They’ll fail quicker if the men can just pretend, for five minutes, that they aren’t the monsters the feminist would have them be?
Be nice, be lovable, like you used to be when you still thought women were the best invention since lego
Structural “X”ism means here comes an assault on the structure of society to be shocking and to make money
It all starts in University and in Education
This post was very good and it was funny, too!
Thank you Mr Briggs
Structural Stupidity in Academia. Is Logic 101 or Fallacies Used in Debates even a required course at universities?
Let your women keep silence in the churches
I’m old enough to remember when women “readers” was a “new thing”
“You’ve Heard Of Structural Racism, Now There’s Structural Sexism”
That’s Structural Structuralism.
This really feels about three or four decades out of date.
Actually, these researchers demonstrate the perniciousness of the patriarchy through their use of the term “manifestations.” Where are the womanifestations?
On the other hand, perhaps they intended to write man-infestations, in which case I understand.
Briggs commented, “Maybe they just like saying ‘manifestation’”.
How about, in just the one paragraph, ‘conceptualize’, ‘structural’, ‘systematic’, and added bonus phrase “dichotomous measure”. That sounds so smart!
Stunted minds, especially like-minded ones, substitute big-word salads for actual thoughts.
These “Gender scholars” are like six-year-olds who first start “exploring each others contours” only to discover what they’ve suspected all along, boys and girls are different!
But instead of APPRECIATING the difference, they start CRYING about it.
They should be crying…they are so very, very SAD.
It seems this study made the rounds of woke websites. One such is “The Friendly Atheist”, where, being an occasionally curious sort, I took a moment to browse the comments. The study conclusion is taken as gospel, of course, because science, and because it confirms their bias which is anti-Christian and pro-revolution. But among the comments is this quote from Elizabeth Cady Stanton*, the 19th century feminist battle axe:
“I have endeavored to dissipate these religious superstitions from the minds of women, and base their faith on science and reason, where I found for myself at last the peace and comfort I could never find in the Bible or the church…The less they believe, the better for their own happiness and development…
The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation.
— from The Degraded Status of Woman in the Bible, 1896
Well Lizzie, here we are living in your “Science and Reason” utopia and it unfunnily enough looks like the old fallen, foolish world. Only worse.
She was right though that, “The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation.” And now with the Bible and Church subverted and sidelined women’s emancipation stumbles forward unimpeded, and has that made women happy? Alas, no. But surely if they can only eliminate the last of their “stumbling blocks” then the promised revolutionary paradise will be theirs! So much delusion in fallen man.
*Elizabeth Cady Stanton dragging as Ralph Kramden.
not very good, just better, because the others are so appalling
Like putting your hand into warm water after ice, contrast therapy
The picture you posted with this reminds me of the “joke” my wife read off the internet:
I’ll apologize if you apologize for the picture
A cabbie picks up a nun. As she gets into a cab, she notices that the cab driver would not stop staring at her. She asks him why he was staring.
He replies: ‘I have a question to ask, but you might be offended.’
The nun answers, ‘My son, you can never offend me. When you’re as old as I am and have been a nun as long as I have, you get a chance to see and hear just about everything. I’m sure that there’s nothing you could say or ask that I would find offensive.’
‘Well, I’ve always had the fantasy to have a nun kiss me,’ says the driver.
She responds, ‘Well, let’s see what we can do about that. You have to be single and Catholic.’
Excited, the driver says, ‘Yes, I’m single and Catholic!’
‘Okay, pull over into the next alley,’ the nun says.
The nun fulfills his fantasy with a kiss that would make a hooker blush.
But when they get back on the road, the cab driver starts crying.
‘My dear child,’ says the nun, ‘why are you crying?’
‘Forgive me, but I’ve sinned. I lied and I must confess. I’m married and Jewish.’
‘That’s okay. My name is Kevin and I’m going to a Halloween party.’
Structural Sexism? Yes, it’s a problem. Here are a couple examples from my personal observations.
Women don’t understand the concept of a cord, which is a thin flexible device used to connect point A to point B. One example would be the connection between a hair dryer and an electrical outlet on the wall. This cord might start life with a length of six feet, but a woman will quickly refashion the cord into a hopelessly tangled rat’s nest with an operational length of one foot six inches. Some may counter that neighbor Bob has a 20′ orange extension cord in a similar state, and that Bob is a man, but the truth of the matter is that Bob is a girly-man, and doesn’t count.
Women don’t understand proportional control systems. A woman knows that a cold room will warm up faster when the thermostat is turned up to 80 degrees. (Which, BTW, is why some married men install a dummy thermostat for their wife to play with, after waking up soaked in sweat one too many times.) When operating as part of a control loop, a woman will necessarily implement a bang-bang control system. When a man shares an automotive interior space with a woman, the man must wear a thin shirt without a jacket even in the dead of winter, as a woman’s role is to control the environmental system, which she will set alternately between blast furnace and arctic freeze; with the fan randomly alternating between completely off and full blast. The man must learn to cherish the brief intervals as the interior temperature periodically passes through his comfort zone.
Given time, I can come up with many, many other examples of structural sexism.
Hmm Milton, she needs a cordless Dyson coral
Dry natural then tong, no noise, little or no damage
no tangles in cords or the hair
fitting a pretend thermostat is funny but she knows within a couple of uses!
Then, great fun when she lets you get too hot turning the real one up!
Dare I say that when we lived in Wisconsin, I had a firm rule that the bedroom windows be closed by Thanksgiving (no later than Christmas)?
And now that we have Central Air, the thermostat doesn’t go below 70
Very hilarious all through!! Only one note on the Catholic priesthood, Jesus ordained only men, His Apostles, at the Last Supper and only chose men, biological males, to be His Apostles, therefore, biolgical women cannot become genuine priests, even if they go through the ceremony. The Holy Spirit rules, like it or not!!
God bless, C-Marie
Well since the NIV 2011 is cursed. They may resort to editing the Magisterium or other ways to to prove that Women Priests were always done. And Male Only Priesthood never happened.
As if Women Priests have always been tradition.
Tutt! central air!
avoiding the obvious remark about the window because one doesn’t have to express every thought that enters one’s head just because it’s there.
I was simply remarking on Milton thinking women turn the thermostat up
I have the opposite problem with my wife
End of November Temperature in Wisconsin is generally around -5 to 5 C.
JohnBy, I understood you completely, I was referring to myself “one’ . How come that’s not obvious? You always seem to think I’m saying something bad? strange.
I understand what you wrote … now … sort of … still cryptic
I’d be interested in windows and central air, especially in a country where 25C is considered a heat wave? At least that’s what I read on WUWT
I was entertained by the term “central air” Little things
WUWT, the last word on weather!
I’d recommend another dyson but that’s blatant advertising
what’s 25C in English?
Here if it’s really cold we speak about
“ooh, Minus five! or minus two”, etc.
If it’s hot?
“It’s in the nineties!!”
One degrees F and on degrees C. The middle ground’s very hazy and not well understood by the average Brit, which is all those I’ve met.
It takes a weather man to understand these tings.
I was smiling at your “central air”, like it’s a normal phrase, little things.
“tutt” implied otherwise, sorry, it was a tut with a smile.
Central Air == Central Air Conditioning vs Units stuck out of windows
Tutt – Big Smile
“Christopher Robin; would you hold up this umbrella and say ‘Tutt! Tutt! it looks like rain!'”
From watching Doctor Who and other British shows, I thought you got your weather in Celsius … my mistake
25C is 80F (or close enough)
Yes! 90’s is hot (especially in conjunction with humidity)!
Cold in Wisconsin minus 20
the average Brit
Where I REALLY see the metric system in Brit is the Great British Bake Off
They use metric measurements: grams, litres and millilitres
Oven temperatures are mentioned in Celcius
Are there above average Brits that use metric
The great British Bake off is a BBC invention complete with all the usual PC and political inclusions to help ‘the cause’, spoiling an otherwise excellent idea.
When in junior school we did both. When I studied DS we used grammes, so I’m very mixed up. “Pints of milk”. Teaspoons measuring five grammes, all sorts of middlemen. Bought some scales that were identical to the ones I used at school as they’re useful if you can’t see. They’re in grammes. Pounds and ounces are prettier though! Same for grates and farthings.
I like Mary Berry, she is an old version of my DS teacher and I feel sure she comes from that neck of the woods. All us girls wanted to be DS teachers t one stage. I should have stuck with the idea! She’s got a familiarity about her and feel sure I’ve met her
EU forced us to have all things metric or else
Brits’ dragged our feet all the way until it was mandated by law to list the ‘correct’ designation on packaging at point of sale.
So there’s a mixed up apathy or ignorance combined with mutiny when it comes to weights & measures
The temperature confusion is no exaggeration, ( QI clip)
They tried to make ‘us’ drive on the wrong, right instead of the right, left.
Yes, the humidity IS worst of all. Cold and clammy or hot and sticky.
If I had to live anywhere else it would be temperate or colder. Canada or nearly Canada.
Somewhere with snowy mountains by ‘the seaside’ (warm). Minus five, near to hot and sunny.
Lake placid? Jasper Canada? England’s west country
Rather cold than hot, but if one has central air, perhaps it’s okay.
I’m going to go to a dessert Island one day soon, nobody’s invited and I’ll remember to ask for central air in the hut? Or a fan at the very least
The metric/english took out a mars probe
JPL and Lockheed Martin software engineers screwed up an Interface Design Document
Was it really 20 years ago? Blame it on the French Revolution?
Celsius 0 100 50 25
Fahrenheit 32 212 122 77
Oh Yeah! Red Dwarf had a road sign pointing to “London” measured distance in KM
English Lockheed Martin Engineer. Unlikely to have screwed up
How come you think kit’s metric English? It’s French!!!!
They who invented equality as a way of life?
Can’t measure for toffee, don’t know what = means those French
People speak of miles not kM, feet and inches or metres and cm. seems to depend on what’s being measured.
Heights of people, feet and inches, still.
American say ‘pounds’ but don’t do stones
Chinese are on mars now. Star wars begins for real
I meant difference or confusion between metric measures and english measures
JPL used metric and Lockheed Martin used english
I know it’s French which is why I said Blame it on the French Revolution?
Americans do not use Stones but stone does creep into it
While English refer to 7 Stone Weaklings (saw it on a 60’s or 70’s BBC)
In America, it’s 7X14 or 98 Pound Weakling
There may be other such language creep
Okay, realised the French revolution after posting.
We only have miles on signs I think, maybe both
it’s all a mishmash
It’s that the US seems to use ‘old money’/measurements so thinking metric was being blamed on us, along with everything else that every happened, unless it’s a good thing, in which case the romans did it, or even the chinese or the Germans! Never the Brits
The plane landing by gliding was in a documentary. I believe the pilots practice gliding as part of training?
The twin blade helicopter pilots have to land without the engine like a sycamore leaf.
The US and the metric system or lack thereof
Blame it on British pirates
I made it to twelve ogh seven
We thought things wee bad in Europe?
See what happens when you try back the French?
They can’t count either
Simon of “Today I Found Out” is not every ones cup of tea (I can only take him in small doses)
Canadian YouTuber JJ McCullough resents and disagrees with his takes on Canada
Where would you say Simon’s accent comes from?
Should have called it Simon Says
Guessing, Norfolk, but from a complex set of calculations which are hidden and not strictly certain
Remember the man from master chef? (English programme). Very distinctive voice.
He had a preposterous ‘English accent’ which nobody in England would believe.
I then had a patient, years ago with exactly the same voice. I had to ask where his accent was from and it turned out that it was Canada!
Funnily enough the man Simon in the video also sounds fairly similar. A kind of theatrical voice which h is not hiding the attempt to speak clearly and with optimistic plainness.
Discovered my patient was working at GSK in pharmaceutical research of some kind.
I recall learning from him that when you wake up due to pain you don’t actually wake due to pain you just wake and then become aware that you have pain.
That’s what I learned THAT day
Just did five more minutes up to ‘human impacts’ was
The other fella’ needs a hair cut. Is it obligatory in Canada to have one of those haircuts?
Must be the native Indian influence. Plus it’s cold up there
Loyd Groseman: Masterchef