HOW SEXIST ARE YOU Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
Notice how the male/female symbols are accompanied by a Star of David in the top left of the main page.
>This male quip captures something essential about the face of sexism: an ambivalence, or doubled-edged way of thinking, in which women are sometimes treated with contempt and sometimes adored.
>How can adoration qualify as sexism? To answer this question, you are invited to take the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and explore the dual nature of prejudice toward women.
So basically they are saying: you cannot be neutral towards women.
Thanks fuck. That's basically the definition of "having sexual orientation":
>non neutrality towards a gender
What I argue against is how much they shill for a negative connotation of that.
Under these social psychologists' eyes, even adoration becomes a stigma.
They tell us:
>we noticed hostile people can be dangerous
Of course. But they add:
>Also an exceptionally benevolent person can be a dick when you betray the boundaries of his benevolence
Well... thanks fuck.
Hostile Sexism Score: 4.82
Benevolent Sexism Score: 3.64
Proud hostile sexist reporting in.
Am I so mild compared to you?
But I notice you are also well qualified White Knights!
Apparently, this means you haven't yet digested your redpill.
Serious scores should be:
5.0 Hostile
0.0 Benevolent
...
I tried to be as sexist as possible with the chivalry thing.
I did not check if there would be "benevolent sexism".
What does it mean that my benevolent sexism is so low?
3.73 hostile, 1.00 benevolent.
women are cattle
Answered honestly
Hostile Sexism Score: 4.27
Benevolent Sexism Score: 3.09
It means that you're a true shitlord m8
Hostile Sexism Score: 4.36
Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.73
That means that you think, that your wife should give you everything whilst you give nothing in return. If I understood it correctly.
Hostile Sexism Score: 4.45
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.82
Honestly guys.
why are your benevolent levels so low? pls tell me you are trolling.
I hate women. Why wouldn't I? They've always been cunts towards me.
Hostile Sexism Score: 4.64
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.91
LMAO. I just believe women are not special snowflakes and apparently i'm shitlord
Because of a conflict between idealism and pragmatism. When answering these questions there is a conflict between what you would answer in an ideal world and how you would answer in today's society. I think most of us would have a higher benevolent score if society was not in the state that it was in with regards to "women's liberation" "sexual revolution" etc.
Modern (white) women are fucking traitors, we hate them
Is Europe in the same situation with muslims?
I see
But you are the man, its your fault.
I am not blaming cis scum. The fact I blame the males is because they have responsibility over women, and they fucked up.
I have a good female friend (we could have been a couple but she was to ugly when we were younger) she really started falling into feminism, I didnt make her a perfect women for myself, she is still buthurt because I had a girlfriend. But hey, she is not a fucking femenist and is not that left as she would have been without me.
Care for white women, they give birth to white children.
By hating them you just hide your weakness.
>understandingprejudice.org
>what is your race
>white
>Are you latino?
if you put women on pedestals you are beta
your score is about that of a femenism, also you are wrong.
Women are weaker then man, physicly and mentaly, its our duty to protect them.
As it is their duty to care for the home and children.
I hope you get drafted and raped in the army, you angry dyke.
I picked 2 at that question.
A good women deserves love, I would have picked a 2.5 if that would be possible.
Hostile Sexism Score: 5.00
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.00
If you get anything else, you are not redpilled about women.
Women are naturally treacherous, they are biologically programmed to follow their hypergamic instinct.
That's why you always see them welcoming the refugees, because they subconsciently know that increasing competition among males enhance their prospects.
That's why you saw so much of them betraying their people and voluntairly sleeping with the nazis under occupation.
Loyalty is not something present in women.
Our grandfathers fucked by giving them votes and allowing feminism, we, our generation, literaly did nothing wrongs, the dices were already thrown decades before our births.
The way I worded that was misleading. I meant that both men and women aren't golden statues. I am a dude. We are just hunks and flesh, and caring more for someone else than yourself is fucking retarded.
...
Hostile Sexism Score: 4.45
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.45
>the dices were already thrown decades before our births
so what? there is never an ending for our race as long as one white man stands on this earth
>caring more for someone else than yourself is fucking retarded.
caring more for something then your kind is retarded you fucking libtard.
That is the exact reason why a man should love his wife like himself and vise versa.
reposted because I fucked it up
I don't buy into the redpill bs about women. I also don't think they deserve special treatment.
>But you are the man, its your fault.
>The fact I blame the males is because they have responsibility over women, and they fucked up.
>Blah blah blah it's men's fault women are so shitty blah blah
You're a fucking idiot Why is there always at least one beta white knight KEK who makes this moronic "argument" in every thread about how treacherous, selfish, narcissistic and worthless modern white women are?
...
Apparently I am an asshole.
>4.27 hostile
>0.09 benevolent
Proud misogynist. Women are nearly subhuman.
Dunno how to take screenshots, but I got a solid 4.2 Hostile, and
because they wanted to be men, so they get treated like men
Benevolent Sexism? I thought sexism was a bad thing
H 4
B .27
The questions were mostly of preferential treatment. I'm surprised they purport the mean scores to be so low when it's [idolize] or [impartial].
I got a straight up 4/0.
I guess actually thinking people should be absolutely equal means I hate women.
I didnt understand what you wanted to say.
>being benevolent
I love how hostile sexism is largely based on what you think of the word feminism. Not behaviors. Not specific beliefs about women. Just how you fell about the word feminism.
Shitty academic research is shitty. People get paid, get tenure for this bullshit.
Shit like this shows that feminism was never about equality.
women are not rational!!!
you need to take decisions for them, their decisions are not vaild!
that is what I am saying
It means you don't honor or respect every woman you come across simply on the basis that they're female. You don't believe that women are inherently superior to men (i.e. more cultured, sophisticated, pure, etc.) or that they should be coddled/protected by men while spitting in man's face. Women should earn the respect and opportunities they desire through personal merit, not because they have a vagina. Congratulations, you're not a beta cuck.
i know their decisions aren't valid which is why they shouldn't vote
in fact, as soon as we develop artificial wombs they should be exterminated
Hostile Sexism Score: 5.00
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.73
Living in Sweden must be tough.
All that cucking going on.
It means you're no white knight.
>exterminate women after artefical wombs
how are you even able to say that?
I know trolling and shit is important for some people, but that is not even funny.
I was wondering the same.
Germanbro... are we an exception in Sup Forums?
>mfw I realize that most people here are not ironical as I expected them to be
>mfw I realize that all my "creative" friends on Sup Forums are convicted felons
>mfw I realize I have been sharing jokes with ppl that do not joke at all
>Hostile Sexism Score: 4.64
>Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.91
Meanwhile in Singapore:
Hostility = 0.36
Benevolence = 4.09
Welcome to Sup Forums
but I hope you hate jews and embrace racial purity, do you?
That are the 2 most important things for me.
No need to hide, faggot.
I've had enough of useless cunts waving their vaginas for better jobs :^)
Hostile Sexism Score: 3.64
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.36
is that good Sup Forums?
Pleased to say not very despite spending too much time on here
>but I hope you hate jews and embrace racial purity, do you?
Er...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Let's say I want to feel included in this group, okay?
>Welcome to Sup Forums
Thank you mate.
How was the election? I didn't follow the news really.
Does not giving a fuck/embracing Machiavellian mindset count?
...
good enough, read Mein Kampf then. This book really helps to get solid views out of these you allready have.
I would have answered the same at my question before I have red this book.
For now van der Cuck (+30.000 votes) is designated president after the rigged postal votes were counted...ask again when the constitutional court is done with challenging the election.
Proud to share a flag with you, kinsman.
...
by reducing female births
>good enough, read Mein Kampf then. This book really helps to get solid views out of these you allready have.
>I would have answered the same at my question before I have red this book.
What if I did and found it unconvincing?
On the contrary, Evola and Spengler sound okay. But they are, so to speak, beyond anti-semitism.
your bait had high enery at the beginning to be fair.
>For now van der Cuck (+30.000 votes) is designated president after the rigged postal votes were counted...ask again when the constitutional court is done with challenging the election.
When will you set the Bundestag on fire?
Just joking. Fire will never cleanse your politicians.
Cheers.
>2016
>not being a hostile female sexist (red-pilled)
>being a benevolent sexist (white-knight)
learn to spell you roastie fuck
>Bundestag
In Austria it is called "The Parliament Building".
We would never set it on fire. We would hang the traitors outside, so nothing gets dirty.
Is this now good or bad?
these two sound very intresting, thx for those names.
But how come you find Mein Kampf unconvincing?
There is ofc some dogmatism, but I fit my own thinking in those holes. Also he writes quite propagandistic, but thats fine too.
You dont despise the vaginal jew enough.
I think they want you to feel bad about that. Mine looked almost exactly the same.
3.5 and zero
Pff, I hate a lot of women but I hate no one just for being a women.
I don´t feel bad for it, I think benevolent sexism has a bit of relevance but "hostile sexism" seems to be just a measurement of how much you hate the cancer that is modern feminism.
So if you dont bend over backwards and give up your entire paycheck to women you are a bad person. Yeah that quiz wasnt biased at all.
Hostile Sexism Score: 5.00
Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.45
...
He's basically gathering rancour from all sides of Germany and channelling it into convenient targets (or in favour of convenient groups).
The positive part of the story I remember was all the support to ethnic Germans who were living beyond the borders of the Republic.
However, support for them decreased as he rose to power. And he dig it out again just to wage war.
Then there is all the framing of the Jews, which... you know... they were assholes. But no more and no less than basically everyone else in Europe. So actually in my opinion he retaliated against a minority, which, in the end, was creating jobs.
He did create jobs, of course... but many were just place-holder jobs meant to artificially reduce the unemployment percentage of the time... and economy kept expanding because of the armaments effort. It was not an economy of peace.
So it's not even the book itself. It's more what happened later that somehow transformed a genuine nat soc into something a bit more retarded, and heavily more retarded in the long run.
Limiting myself to the book... you can tell it's one sided. I am not saying anglo books are neutral (they are far from being neutral!). But if I keep being suspicious of everything, why should Hitler get a suspicion-free voucher?
Said I was a middle eastern immigrant woman to skew the polls
>understandingprejudice.org
4.01 hostile
3.18 benevolent
if only they knew what kind of porn i watched
>Hostile Sexism Score: 5.00
>Benevolent Sexism Score: 0.00
What does this mean
>posting on pol
>not being a shitlord
This is actually a great idea, we should all do the test a couple of times in max sexism mod and pretend to be middle eastern men.
That will brainfuck the feminist how created that shit.
You hate modern feminism but you don´t buy into classical female stereotypes or you have abandoned them after you saw the degeneracy of western women.
it means you have a functioning brain
>I think they want you to feel bad about that. Mine looked almost exactly the same.
The whole website is rigged.
I mean, sometimes we feel so strong about this or that argument that all questions about it will be perceived as threatening just because they are questions. Like breaching a taboo or something like that.
So I acknowledge sometimes we are on overwatch and overreact to every question.
However, regarding this specific website, I have my qualms. They clearly have an agenda. And it is ideological, not just scientific. They want to get your registration to provide you with "educational material" and shit.
I got redirected to a test on dietary preferences that turned out to be the result of the most refined vegan propaganda.
They were asking questions like:
>A or not-A?
You answer A, but just because. You know reality is not just black/white... but you want to get over with the test.
>B or not-B?
I answer B for the same reasons as above.
>Are you aware that B entails not-A.
>We have strong evidence for it, but this evidence will be provided you later.
>So why did you answer A in first place? Can you explain your views? Do you think they are inconsistent?
"Man -- I answered -- the only inconsistency is between my mind and the way you are trying to frame me with questions that propose false dilemmas. It is perfectly fine to entertain both A and not-A in our minds because we are not robots but complex beings with complex emotional attachments to things and other individuals. So I can very humanely say I love animals and yet eat them. Similarly, I can say animal suffering can be ethical because there are value systems that think diminishing suffering ranks lower than other things in life.
So basically the whole thing sounded framed to me because all those false dilemmas make you cringe and anyway you end up having to explain your views... which could have clearly included as an option.
I can agree with your philosophy,
But you cant denie the fact of wealth during 1934-40. I cant really imagine how that would have worked with waroriented economy, war costs money doesnt it? (But I never understood economics to be honest)
Also, why a book should be neutral? there is no reason for that. This book would allmost be worthless...
>Said I was a middle eastern immigrant woman to skew the polls
I wrote what follows:
>Other: fuck racial profiling
And in the comments:
>Racial profiling is ludicrous. And anyway, how can you put native Americans and Aboriginals under the same label? Just because they both suffered colonialism? They are entirely different from a genetic and cultural point of view. Aboriginals and Pacific Islanders might be a thing... but Aboriginals + Native Americans? What do they share? Yes, they both got invaded... but this doesn't make them similar.
ok
>understandingprejudice.org
Sweet I scored High do I win a prize. I hope its the crystallized hatred and tears of all feminists.
Kill yourself white-knight.
4,9 "Hostile sexism"