Men read terrible tweets to female sportswriters

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

The Guardian did a series of articles on this topic a couple of weeks ago regarding their own commenting system - https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...rdian-comments

That's a pretty poor article from the guardian, even though it's far better than most on the topic. At the very least show us comments per pageview and pageviews per article for each group. The more comments per pageview, the more controversial the topic likely is, and the higher you should expect the rates of abusive comments to be. The more pageviews per article, the more popular the author is, and the more likely this will be attracting trolls. Give us these two metrics and we will be able to compare much more accurately.

Nevertheless, there is some useful information in there. Basically, they successfully demonstrated that for any given topic, the difference in abusive comments by sex is below the level you would be able to notice. The highest difference was still less than 2% in the last year. This tells us that on the guardian at least, the complaints of women being targeted because of who they are vs what they say in the comments are more a matter of perception than reality. I suspect if they went with page-view based metrics as I suggested above, even this small disparity would be reduced. Of course, the opposite could be true as well, but until this data is presented, we simply don't know.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I tend to view these types of behaviours from two points of view. One is like you said, whether it is mental illness, abuse etc. These aren't likely to be balanced people in a lot of cases.

On the other hand, I also wonder about how normal people tend to make over the top attention seeking remarks. I've seen some heinous posts on CP and a lot of times I think a person's mindset, temporary loss of self control and desire for attention and to be heard can drown out the part of their brain that knows these types of comments are wrong.

As a society we are so obsessed with hyperbole in every sense of the word. Every movie is the best ever, every player the greatest of all time, every journalist isn't just "meh" they are "the worst POS to ever live". Why are we obsessed with this? I don't know. Information overload? Lack of self identity? When you are one of a bazillion twitter users the only way anyone will pay attention to you is by being over the top. And what is the best way to get the attention of a non-male or non-white person or non-straight person etc? To use their their non-maleness and non-whiteness as an insult.

There's likely something to this.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Sometimes I wonder if it isn't that we have hoards of racist dbags who would lynch every woman, racial minority and LGBT person at the drop of a hat, but instead that these usually 18-35 white males have no sense of consequence of their actions and are simply using whatever means possible to express what should be a fairly mundane opinion. It gets them attention, even if it is the wrong kind.

I agree that insulting people based on their characteristics is at least partly about attention seeking. I disagree that it's somehow related to non-maleness or non-whiteness unless they are insults directed at people who are white and male. Similarly, insults are made to people of color by comparing them to traits stereotypical associated with white people (you dance like a white man for example). The insults fly regardless of color and gender, though I suspect that there are real differences in the insult rates between genders here. I would also reduce the age to between 14 and 24. Almost all men can control themselves and recognize the consequences for their actions by the time they are 25.

Generally though, I think it's more about what people think will be an effective insult than any particular hatred of outside groups that motivates many of these comments.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

I would also reduce the age to between 14 and 24. Almost all men can control themselves and recognize the consequences for their actions by the time they are 25.

Strongly disagree. I've seen and heard the most heinous garbage from adults directed towards my (mostly women) employees hundreds of times, regardless of age.

[Fuzz]

Hundreds of times? Where do you work, Bada Bing!?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

On the other hand, I also wonder about how normal people tend to make over the top attention seeking remarks. I've seen some heinous posts on CP and a lot of times I think a person's mindset, temporary loss of self control and desire for attention and to be heard can drown out the part of their brain that knows these types of comments are wrong.

As a society we are so obsessed with hyperbole in every sense of the word. Every movie is the best ever, every player the greatest of all time, every journalist isn't just "meh" they are "the worst POS to ever live". Why are we obsessed with this? I don't know. Information overload? Lack of self identity? When you are one of a bazillion twitter users the only way anyone will pay attention to you is by being over the top. And what is the best way to get the attention of a non-male or non-white person or non-straight person etc? To use their their non-maleness and non-whiteness as an insult.

Sometimes I wonder if it isn't that we have hoards of racist dbags who would lynch every woman, racial minority and LGBT person at the drop of a hat, but instead that these usually 18-35 white males have no sense of consequence of their actions and are simply using whatever means possible to express what should be a fairly mundane opinion. It gets them attention, even if it is the wrong kind.

A big part of it is about getting attention, or expressing yourself to a vast, uncaring world. With the onset of mass-media in the 20th century, we started to see people craving the limelight, even if it meant taking anti-social actions to get that attention. Something about the awareness of how many people were in the world, or in their country, and how small they were in the scope of things, causes people a lot of distress. Especially people who are insecure and feel they lack status already.

The internet and social media have ramped up that need to feel important a hundred-fold. Now we aren't just aware of the city we live in, or what see on TV or read in the newspaper. We're connected to hundreds of millions of people who all share their lives and thoughts with one another publicly. That makes many people feel even smaller, more useless. So they try to get attention. Try to show they have agency. Most make do with the simple narcissism of facebook and selfies. Some give rein to uglier impulses.

I don't buy into the notion that race has anything to do with it. It's not as though white men are any more misogynist or abusive than other men. You only need a passing familiarity with Africa or India to realize that.

The male part, yeah, you're probably right. Men tend to be more aggressive, less empathetic, and have less developed social skills than women. Men are responsible for most physical assaults in meat-space - both as the aggressors and targets. It's unsurprising that we see the same tendency on social media.

However, I don't see any reason to believe men are more likely to be belligerent towards women on social media than they are towards other men. Look at how male gamers talk to one another. If you want to see toxic malice, check out how RPG players (90+ per cent male) argue over which edition of Dungeons and Dragons is best. Or how sports fans (overwhelmingly male) insult one another online. If anything, I'd say men tend to behave more civil in online environments where a lot of women are present than they do when then they're around just other men (which also holds true in real life).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

However, I don't see any reason to believe men are more likely to be belligerent towards women on social media than they are towards other men. Look at how male gamers talk to one another. If you want to see toxic malice, check out how RPG players (90+ per cent male) argue over which edition of Dungeons and Dragons is best. Or how sports fans (overwhelmingly male) insult one another online. If anything, I'd say men tend to behave more civil in online environments where a lot of women are present than they do when then they're around just other men (which also holds true in real life).

You've said you don't use Twitter, and I'm not sure how regularly you use Facebook, but my experience has generally been the opposite. Obviously anecdotal, but the garbage that women like Michelle Beadle get from FSU twitter and their ilk is awful. Someone might tell Skip Bayless to shut up and go kill himself. They don't generally say they're going to show up and rape his skull and slit his throat.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You've said you don't use Twitter, and I'm not sure how regularly you use Facebook, but my experience has generally been the opposite. Obviously anecdotal, but the garbage that women like Michelle Beadle get from FSU twitter and their ilk is awful. Someone might tell Skip Bayless to shut up and go kill himself. They don't generally say they're going to show up and rape his skull and slit his throat.

Like I alluded to before though, I don't think this is because of some deep seeded malice that men have towards women. I would bet that a good number of these men who make these types of comments have wives, g/fs, female coworkers/bosses and they all for certain have mothers and I would bet money that they don't all make these types of threats to the women they normally associate with. So then why are they willing to make these comments to women online? Well I don't think it is because they all, or even a majority, secretly hate women.

Once again, I would point to the low hanging fruit argument. What is the easiest way to get a reaction out of the media personality? What is the easiest way to say something that will get attention? What is the easiest way to direct an insult at them?

I think it is also important to ask why do we consider threats of rape to a female worse than threats of death to a male? I mean, I'm not so ignorant that I can't see why we might view it that way, but it is interesting that one might say "oh if ONLY women only had to deal with death threats like Skip Bayless" lol. Like WTF? Is that what we've come to? Just wishing that death threats were the norm? I know that isn't exactly what you were saying but there is a weird desensitivity we have when it comes to this. We aren't nearly as disgusted as we should be by the general awful treatment people have towards each other online, we just wanna know why they use special insults for people that we view as being minorities.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Like I alluded to before though, I don't think this is because of some deep seeded malice that men have towards women. I would bet that a good number of these men who make these types of comments have wives, g/fs, female coworkers/bosses and they all for certain have mothers and I would bet money that they don't all make these types of threats to the women they normally associate with. So then why are they willing to make these comments to women online? Well I don't think it is because they all, or even a majority, secretly hate women.

This is basically the "I can't be racist, I have black friends" argument. I would wager they make these comments online because anonymity protects them from the consequences they would face from saying them in person.

Once again, I would point to the low hanging fruit argument. What is the easiest way to get a reaction out of the media personality? What is the easiest way to say something that will get attention? What is the easiest way to direct an insult at them?

That's definitely part of it.

I think it is also important to ask why do we consider threats of rape to a female worse than threats of death to a male? I mean, I'm not so ignorant that I can't see why we might view it that way, but it is interesting that one might say "oh if ONLY women only had to deal with death threats like Skip Bayless" lol. Like WTF? Is that what we've come to? Just wishing that death threats were the norm? I know that isn't exactly what you were saying but there is a weird desensitivity we have when it comes to this. We aren't nearly as disgusted as we should be by the general awful treatment people have towards each other online, we just wanna know why they use special insults for people that we view as being minorities.

I agree, none of it is acceptable. I'm just saying, from my experience, the tone seems much more violent and vitriolic when directed at women and minorities than it does when directed at the Skip Baylesses of the world.

[Aegypticus]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Obviously anecdotal, but the garbage that women like Michelle Beadle get from FSU twitter and their ilk is awful. Someone might tell Skip Bayless to shut up and go kill himself. They don't generally say they're going to show up and rape his skull and slit his throat.

Is it possible that some of this is due to raging idiots not really having a clue about who the person is that they're angry at? I think in many cases all they really know is that they're pissed off and their target is a man or a woman. Maybe they know a couple public details, but not much else. So, in their anger or whatever, they think, "what's the most insulting thing I can say to a generic man/woman?" Guys get threatened with laughable run-of-the-mill movie-style violence that is generally easy to shake off, while women get stuff that hits much closer to home, being well within their sphere of plausible threats they face in day to day life.

Maybe this is a gross oversimplification, but I think if I was forced to come up with the most insulting, offensive, threatening things to say to someone I had never met and didn't know anything about aside from sex, it would be a much easier task to do against women than men.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Strongly disagree. I've seen and heard the most heinous garbage from adults directed towards my (mostly women) employees hundreds of times, regardless of age.

Yes, but I think you missed my point. I think after 25 people can no longer use as a partial explanation the following statement: "...males have no sense of consequence of their actions and are simply using whatever means possible to express what should be a fairly mundane opinion." At some point it becomes careless or malicious.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Russic

These are not the types of actions that you see out of well adjusted, respectful people. I simply do not believe once the lights are off a balanced person starts making rape jokes. We need to learn from reformed trolls about what made them tick. Once you do that, we get into all sorts of bumpy territory linked to mental illness, abuse, and a host of other problems.

I largely disagree with this. I think that's exactly what's so troubling about internet trolling and harassment is that it absolutely is people who are otherwise totally well adjusted and 'normal.' Yes, there are people with mental illnesses and such represented in the population of trolls, but I bet the vast, vast majority of them aren't, in day-to-day interactions are respectful, and find this activity to be a kind of release, or they get some endorphin rush from it, or something else.

It's not scientific, but I read r/relationships (it's my version of trash reality tv) and something that's popped up a lot more than once is the "My SO is perfect in every way, but I just found out they're a horrible internet bully/troll, what do I do?" thread.

Ads like this, and this subsequent thread, are exactly the right way to approach the issue. It's part of the on-going social discussion about morals and behavior. We've been living in groups for hundreds of thousands of years and we're still working out what the appropriate way to interact face-to-face is. The Internet's only really been around for 20 years, it's not surprising that we're having problems figuring out how to act online.

I used to think anonymity was a big part of it, but I think it's more distance. Since Facebook came around, people's actual names and photos have been attached to a lot of their internet activity/commenting and it probably has something of a calming effect, but just look at the dreck people post in comments to articles that has their actual name next to their post. It's downright horrifying. I think it's a similar effect to what happens when people drive cars. People (including myself) get angrier, say things they would never say face-to-face, and generally think worse things of each other when they're behind the wheel. I think something similar is happening online: in a car you're separated from other people by tons of glass and steel and meters of road; online you could be hundreds or thousands of clicks apart, ensconced in, what to you is a very safe-space, your home or office or bathtub or what have you.

But, the positive is that change is happening. Just look at CP, it's changed in the 9 years I've been here - remember the ongoing "You Love, You Lose" thread/argument? Or just the general change in the tenor of conversation? Heck, even this very thread - this place is largely male and I bet posters in this thread probably break down similarly to the overall population of CP gender-wise, and we're all engaged in a discussion about this issue and, no doubt, will go away thinking about it, and likely talk about it in our offline-lives as well.

It's not a huge step, but it is a step.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by driveway

But, the positive is that change is happening. Just look at CP, it's changed in the 9 years I've been here - remember the ongoing "You Love, You Lose" thread/argument? .

There's still a few CP'ers that bring up the "You love You lose" thread from time to time and would likely still get into a heated defense of it if there was a thread to do so.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Ok now I'm curious. What does a thread full of pictures of beautiful women have to do with online threats of rape and murder? Am I missing some connection between the two?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Ok now I'm curious. What does a thread full of pictures of beautiful women have to do with online threats of rape and murder? Am I missing some connection between the two?

...Well, yes... and the connection is twofold:

First, the acceptance and even celebration of the objectification of women for the pleasure of men directly leads to individual men thinking that it's okay or acceptable to then say horrendous things to women such as the tweets in the OP, as women are objects and not in fact humans.

And secondly, the removal of the thread on CP and the production of this video speaks to a change in the acceptance of both the objectification of women in online communities and the invective directed towards them.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Right ok I guess I just don't see the connection between pictures of women, taken with their consent, for which they were likely paid, and objectification. I might say that it is a celebration of women actually. Not a celebration of objectification. But that's the pictures. I'm curious about the thread itself and these so called arguments and the subsequent threads where people argued about the thread. See because I think "acceptance and celebration of objectification" requires more than just a thread with pictures. There has to be some evidence via posts that would support the fact that the thread was in fact about objectification. Otherwise you are basically saying that any and all photos of women are objectification. There needs to be intent to be objectification.

I agree that as objectification in general has improved, or lackthereof. Women are pretty far removed from the days of being seen as dainty little flowers with delicate sensibilities and reduced intellectual capacity due to their emotional nature.

I'm not sure if I've ever noticed any sort of significant female abuse on CP in regards to the type of online harassment that this thread is about though so I'm still not sure where you're getting the connection between that thread and this one.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I think it is also important to ask why do we consider threats of rape to a female worse than threats of death to a male? I mean, I'm not so ignorant that I can't see why we might view it that way, but it is interesting that one might say "oh if ONLY women only had to deal with death threats like Skip Bayless" lol. Like WTF? Is that what we've come to? Just wishing that death threats were the norm? I know that isn't exactly what you were saying but there is a weird desensitivity we have when it comes to this. We aren't nearly as disgusted as we should be by the general awful treatment people have towards each other online, we just wanna know why they use special insults for people that we view as being minorities.

According to RAINN, 1 in 6 American women have been sexually assualted (rape or attempted rape).

I would venture to say that far fewer than 1 in 6 American men are victims of murder or attempted murder. (I can't find statistics to support this, I tried to find hard numbers, feel free to check me on this if I'm wrong.)

One is far more likely to happen than the other.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Right ok I guess I just don't see the connection between pictures of women, taken with their consent, for which they were likely paid, and objectification. I might say that it is a celebration of women actually. Not a celebration of objectification. But that's the pictures. I'm curious about the thread itself and these so called arguments and the subsequent threads where people argued about the thread. See because I think "acceptance and celebration of objectification" requires more than just a thread with pictures. There has to be some evidence via posts that would support the fact that the thread was in fact about objectification. Otherwise you are basically saying that any and all photos of women are objectification. There needs to be intent to be objectification.

I agree that as objectification in general has improved, or lackthereof. Women are pretty far removed from the days of being seen as dainty little flowers with delicate sensibilities and reduced intellectual capacity due to their emotional nature.

And yet in the US, there are more and more laws being enacted with the idea in mind that women aren't capable of making decisions about their own bodies.

I'm not sure if I've ever noticed any sort of significant female abuse on CP in regards to the type of online harassment that this thread is about though so I'm still not sure where you're getting the connection between that thread and this one.

CP is a remarkably good place to be as a woman. In general anything sexist/borderline sexist here is pretty harmless in nature and never have I felt like it was meant in a malicious way. Everyone here is pretty respectful of each other's differences for the most part, even if there are a few eye-roll worthy remarks from time to time. I've always felt safe around CP, which is a testament to the people running things and the people who post.

There are a few truly awful corners of the internet for women, however.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Right ok I guess I just don't see the connection between pictures of women, taken with their consent, for which they were likely paid, and objectification. I might say that it is a celebration of women actually. Not a celebration of objectification. But that's the pictures. I'm curious about the thread itself and these so called arguments and the subsequent threads where people argued about the thread. See because I think "acceptance and celebration of objectification" requires more than just a thread with pictures. There has to be some evidence via posts that would support the fact that the thread was in fact about objectification. Otherwise you are basically saying that any and all photos of women are objectification. There needs to be intent to be objectification.

I agree that as objectification in general has improved, or lackthereof. Women are pretty far removed from the days of being seen as dainty little flowers with delicate sensibilities and reduced intellectual capacity due to their emotional nature.

I'm not sure if I've ever noticed any sort of significant female abuse on CP in regards to the type of online harassment that this thread is about though so I'm still not sure where you're getting the connection between that thread and this one.

Regardless of the entire objectification argument, that thread was creepy. You know the weird guy who likes to show you the naked pics of his girlfriend on his phone, or the weird guy that talks openly about the porn he wanks off to? It had that kind of vibe to it.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Right ok I guess I just don't see the connection between pictures of women, taken with their consent, for which they were likely paid, and objectification.

I'm really surprised you don't see the connection, but here's a primer on sexual objectification and commercial imagery:
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/07/0...-1-what-is-it/

Here's the concluding paragraph of that article:

The damage caused by widespread female objectification in popular culture is not just theoretical. We now have more than 10 years of research demonstrating that living in an objectifying society is highly toxic for girls and women. I’ll describe that research in Part 2 of this series.

I'm curious about the thread itself and these so called arguments and the subsequent threads where people argued about the thread. See because I think "acceptance and celebration of objectification" requires more than just a thread with pictures. There has to be some evidence via posts that would support the fact that the thread was in fact about objectification.

It was a pretty contentious thing for a while, it looks like the only thing that's left of it is this: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ight=love+lose There's some indication in there of a) what the thread was about and b) what the argument was about over whether or not it was a valuable part of the forum.

Otherwise you are basically saying that any and all photos of women are objectification. There needs to be intent to be objectification.

I feel this point is very well answered in the article linked above from Ms. magazine.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Ummm ok...I almost feel like you are remembering a different thread than me lol. I remember a lot of pictures of models and actresses. Pictures from Maxim and that sort of thing.

What you're describing sounds like some creepy sub Reddit.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by driveway

I'm really surprised you don't see the connection, but here's a primer on sexual objectification and commercial imagery:
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/07/0...-1-what-is-it/

Here's the concluding paragraph of that article:




It was a pretty contentious thing for a while, it looks like the only thing that's left of it is this: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ight=love+lose There's some indication in there of a) what the thread was about and b) what the argument was about over whether or not it was a valuable part of the forum.



I feel this point is very well answered in the article linked above from Ms. magazine.

That article is about advertising and does not explain in any way why pictures of beautiful women is objectification. if my memory serves, 99% of the pictures from the thread meet exactly zero of those categories let alone 1 or 2 or all.

As for the second and third parts of your post, none of what you wrote seems relevant to either this thread or my points.