Online Study: Women are just as likley to be "misogynistic" as men online

[Saetha]

"purely male"

Is there someone aside from you who has actually said that? It just looks like you have an axe to grind and no one actually said that.

Hmm...

https://www.toovia.com/posts/2014/may/06/0.13503.363745279115657226?key=node://0.1985.364056009513893898

Huh...

It's also worth noting that ninth tweet (Which is there despite... not actually coming from Scalzi himself) is blatantly untrue, and I don't terribly appreciate someone speaking for me and all other women like that, especially when making such a serious accusation. But regardless, proof positive that not only has that claim been made, it was supported by hundreds if not thousands of other people who felt the need to report it as though it were news. So... clearly there's quite a lot of someones who believe men do this, and women don't.

Uh, that comment doesn't say that women don't menace women though. It doesn't say anything about female behavior. Plus that one isn't even limited to online and is about more than just misogyny.

Really? You missed the "I've never seen a woman do this" or the "This issue is mostly about men" or the "Men do that shit more" because they're kinda right there. Even though this study shows that no, women do it just as often, and this writer's probably just managed to avoid getting hate.

I mean, I've managed to avoid getting hate for being a woman. Logically, then, I should be able to say no woman's ever gotten hate online because, well, it's never happened to me!

 

[Saetha]

Snip

I was talking about the 9th tweet.

And the claim was that it was a *purely male* thing to make misogynistic comments.

#1 does not say that.
#2 does not say that.
#3 says 'the other direction'. Pretty sure that's not even talking about women being misogynistic.
#4 talks about some 'warning'. What warning? You can't just pull things out of context like that, you can't even tell what he's talking about.
#5 is talking about his personal experience. Also violence and rape aren't the subject of this thread.
#6 is talking about people he knows. Also doesn't speak of the perpetrators here. And this wasn't about threats that I recall.
#7 is, again, his experience. Also note that *violence* is not the subject in the OP.
#8 What is 'this'? Considering his previous posts he may very well be talking about threats. Also not 'purely'.
#9 Covered already
#10 Not relevant to this.
#11 And again!

1 and 2: What does it matter if neither of them say that? The following tweets do, and they're all from the same guy, in the same length of time - I wouldn't have even posted those tweets if I hadn't been linking to an article, rather than the actual account.

3: "And the other direction too" meaning "Call out girls who threaten guys with rape or violence." Scalzi promptly dismisses this as something that doesn't happen often enough to be a problem, certainly not to the extent that men do it.

4: It's not pulled out of context. This is the tweet-chain as posted to Upworthy, and the entirety of what Scalzi said on the matter. Nothing is being presented out of context here - it's being presented with as much context as the Upworthy author and Scalzi himself provided. The whole thing's a warning against sending women hate, and letting it slide when other guys do it. I'm not... sure how you even got mixed up here.

5: The subject of the thread is violence and hatred of a misogynistic nature as spread online, and how women do it as often as men. Rape falls under that heading - it's even explicitly mentioned in the OP

as well as rape threats and other comments typically associated with sexism and misogyny

7: Also, note, that violence such as rape was explicitly mentioned in the OP

8: No, not purely. But mostly, which as this study says, is false. Not to mention that "mostly" was used to dismiss male victims, shifting focus entirely to female ones.

9: This one wasn't really relevant to the topic at hand. I was simply noting my annoyance with it, because that is not my experience as a woman and I'd prefer it not be presented as such.

10 and 11: Well, pardon me, you asked for proof that someone thinks that men are to blame for online hate and misogyny. I presented it, and now you're complaining that not every single tweet that I presented as part of a larger tweet chain was relevant. This is especially non-sensical since you accused me of presenting it out of context. So, either I have to cut out the parts that aren't relevant, or I have to put everything in to keep it "in context?"

You asked for proof. Here it is. He's saying men are to blame for this issue, a claim that you said no one's ever made. Like, he clearly stated "It's mostly men" and "men do this shit more." The entire point of the tweets is to address MEN who do this or let it slide, to the point where it dismisses women doing this or letting it slide as not worth mentioning.

 

[J Tyran]

Stuff

So someone posted a few examples and you dismiss it? Well I am glad someone beat me to it and saved me the effort if thats your position, also I never:-

Said it was specific to gaming, you decided I meant that for some reason even though it was clear the article I linked was about social media. Perhaps my comments where also directed at social media considering I made no mention of gaming anywhere? Just a guess...

Never made any statement about how widely held that opinion was, only that it exists to a certain extent.

I never really meant all that much by it at all, it was just a reference to the opinion that some people hold yet you took issue with it yet couldn't really counter the argument about from shout "sources pl0x" when its up to you to counter it. When someone did you try to dismiss it without really adding anything of value apart from trying to dissect things other people are saying, maybe its my fault for not communicating it clearly enough but I merely added some text to pad out the post as the article is the point of discussion.

 

[Saetha]

Well when you say "It's in there!" without pointing at a specific tweet I'm just going to cover them all to cover all the bases here.

And the problem with the violence ones is you can't use a trend in a larger set of information to talk about a subset without further analysis. I have no idea if the threatening ones were also at a similar rate.

I also don't like this giant inference thing. I see nothing that makes it seem like he thinks women can't also be misogynistic. He just doesn't seem to find women making misogynistic threats to be common. A far cry from talking about a purely male problem.

No, he doesn't find women making misogynistic threats to be common enough to be a problem. He dismisses the entire idea as worth mentioning. He tells gentlemen to nip it in the bud. Not everyone. Not men and women. Gentlemen. He's blaming men for the fact that it happens, and prompting men to fix it, thus making it a purely male problem.

And... fair enough. The tweets do only deal with violent threats and not misogynistic language in general.

 

[Vault101]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand

Yes and this shocks no one that laughed at the wave of pseudo-feminist professional victims that tried to say how hostile the gaming is to women despite the fact most guys welcome women into gaming. Yes people talk trash some are offensive assholes and both sexes do it, in other news man sees dog.

women being jerks does not mean the disturbing amounts of sexism isn't real

EDIT: and the example ISN'T EVEN GAMING RELATED god damn it!

 

[J Tyran]

Your study was specific. Going broader does you no favors, the examples were more specific, making an even worse mismatch.

When someone is purposefully going out of their way to be contentious it kills the desire to continue the discussion, the article is posted in the off topic[footnote]I.E. not gaming[/footnote] forum section, the article discusses Twitter and social media[footnote]I.E. also not gaming specifically[/footnote] and I made no mention of gaming[footnote]I.E. three for three,[/footnote].

I never changed the goal posts by trying to broaden the topic, an impolite troll would probably reach for the old chestnut about "reading comprehension" right about now just for the fun of it but I will make it clear I don't really care what you do or do not believe especially when you can only be misconstruing the post on purpose to suit your own bias.

EDIT: and the example ISN'T EVEN GAMING RELATED god damn it!

Thats why its in "off topic", someone else decided it was about gaming and only could be about gaming.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

That's a hilarious article to me. Oh, no, we can't have this kind of language normalised, then people will be saying it all the time! News flash, it is normal. Those are terms that people do use commonly. And I think it's pathetic that they're equating the use of 'slut' and 'whore' as misogyny. I don't see how that's indicative of a hatred for women at all, any more than me calling another male a prick or a dickhead is mysandry.

 

[DANEgerous]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand

Yes and this shocks no one that laughed at the wave of pseudo-feminist professional victims that tried to say how hostile the gaming is to women despite the fact most guys welcome women into gaming. Yes people talk trash some are offensive assholes and both sexes do it, in other news man sees dog.

women being jerks does not mean the disturbing amounts of sexism isn't real

EDIT: and the example ISN'T EVEN GAMING RELATED god damn it!

Okay, still even in massively toxic environments I must say I fail to find disturbing amounts of sexism... sorry. My years of WoW any women was kind of adored and not vilified, my female friends are never doubted to be gamers, any woman on voice chat while they may get annoying cat calls someone tells them to shut the fuck up and rightfully so. It may exist but it is not even close to being a universal threat. Perhaps I am just an evil member of the patriarchy.

 

[J Tyran]

Oh and your comment about Sarkeesian,

Yet when you asked who I might be referring to I mentioned some of the more militant followers of Rebecca Watson[footnote]I.E generally not gaming[/footnote] first, my "comment about Sarkeesian" was directed towards the surrounding kerfuffle rather than than Anita Sarkeesian herself which is an obvious example of all kinds of people making all kinds of claims. I never indirectly tried anything either, let alone trying to do anyone favours.

 

[J Tyran]

Oh and your comment about Sarkeesian,

Yet when you asked who I might be referring to I mentioned some of the more militant followers of Rebecca Watson[footnote]I.E generally not gaming[/footnote] first, my "comment about Sarkeesian" was directed towards the surrounding kerfuffle rather than than Anita Sarkeesian herself which is an obvious example of all kinds of people making all kinds of claims. I never indirectly tried anything either, let alone trying to do anyone favours.

So what? Why are you jumping on me mentioning your very poor evidence that you told me to look up?

And yeah, you tried something. You just tried pretending that I'd tried to make it about gaming or some shit, when my sole mention of video games was in reference to you mentioning Sarkeesian.

Well if it didn't matter and I am "jumping" on it you went out of your way to specify it, you where the one that started the whole thing about a single off the cuff comment to close a post so stones and glass houses and all that.

 

[Flutterguy]

Pfff. THAT'S their method of collecting misogynistic material?

"Whore" is interchangeable with "girl I don't like", and it's used by girls on my Facebook far more than the guys (they tend to stick with "crazy chick"). I can't remember the last time I've seen it used in a sexual context.

So is ******. Plenty of people just havent figured this out yet.