What do you think of this theory about women in male spaces and hostile behaviors by lower status men?

alreadyredschool · 2017-06-16T17:13:54+00:00

So women unfairly get an advantage and the men are wrong for being annoyed at injustice.

Edit: Read the abstract it's a horrible study.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613

Our results provide the clearest picture of inter-sexual competition to date, highlighting the importance of considering an evolutionary perspective when exploring the factors that affect male hostility towards women.

Sad. The clearest picture? A study made with online gaming for evo psych insights?

Good players in teamsports are good teamplayers too. Why would anyone of them shit talk to their own mates? When I fucked up everything in football the good players said stuff like "Ah that's ok you can't undo the mistakes the middle field makes" and they pushed me with motivational stuff. Bad players were more of the flaming kind, complaining etc.

This study was in Halo 3 on the Xbox 360 - Xbox Live - probably the worst online space ever. Even 4chan is nicer to women.

wtknight · 2017-06-16T17:19:17+00:00

I think it sounds reasonable. Men who are already high status don't feel threatened by lower status women entering their space. In fact, many probably welcome it because it means there is a chance for them to be around some attractive women.

alreadyredschool · 2017-06-16T17:28:01+00:00

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613

Abstract

Gender inequality and sexist behaviour is prevalent in almost all workplaces and rampant in online environments. Although there is much research dedicated to understanding sexist behaviour, we have almost no insight into what triggers this behaviour and the individuals that initiate it. Although social constructionist theory argues that sexism is a response towards women entering a male dominated arena, this perspective doesn’t explain why only a subset of males behave in this way. We argue that a clearer understanding of sexist behaviour can be gained through an evolutionary perspective that considers evolved differences in intra-sexual competition. We hypothesised that female-initiated disruption of a male hierarchy incites hostile behaviour from poor performing males who stand to lose the most status. To test this hypothesis, we used an online first-person shooter video game that removes signals of dominance but provides information on gender, individual performance, and skill. We show that lower-skilled players were more hostile towards a female-voiced teammate, especially when performing poorly. In contrast, lower-skilled players behaved submissively towards a male-voiced player in the identical scenario. This difference in gender-directed behaviour became more extreme with poorer focal-player performance. We suggest that low-status males increase female-directed hostility to minimize the loss of status as a consequence of hierarchical reconfiguration resulting from the entrance of a woman into the competitive arena. Higher-skilled players, in contrast, were more positive towards a female relative to a male teammate. As higher-skilled players have less to fear from hierarchical reorganization, we argue that these males behave more positively in an attempt to support and garner a female player’s attention. Our results provide the clearest picture of inter-sexual competition to date, highlighting the importance of considering an evolutionary perspective when exploring the factors that affect male hostility towards women.

[deleted] · 2017-06-16T19:12:25+00:00

because the higer ups don't have to deal with their nonsense.

Here is a clip from our favorite sub twox. And yes, I've had to deal with women this fucking stupid at work who were put in "charge" because vagina. Ever try to NOT be hostile when dealing with retards like this?

My favorite moment was when three guys were trying to figure out how high temperature would make the thickness reading on a piece of piping change. They hypothesized that the heat would cause it to expand outward (in radius), but the thickness should stay the same.

They were failing to grasp that the heat would have expanded the inner wall itself, rather than the entire radius of the pipe.

Essentially how a donut's hole looks much large before it's cooked, but after the donut expands the hole is smaller and the surrounding doughnut is much thicker. I explained this in plain English same as I did above. They literally responded with blanks stares, and turned to continue talking to each other as if I hadn't just answered the question they'd been debating for over an hour.

IIHotelYorba · 2017-06-16T20:43:54+00:00

IIRC this is arguably what gamergate was about. Feminists clutching their pearls and declaring there is rampant misogyny because men treat women who compete with them (half) as bad as the way they treat other men. People seem to think they should all be on their bestest behavior once A LAAAAADY appears.

future_space_boobs · 2017-06-16T17:32:55+00:00

sexist men are insecure and low value. water is wet.

says_harsh_things · 2017-06-16T17:11:30+00:00

I dont know if the study is accurate in its conclusion about the cause, but it does seem reasonable.

But when they say status, are they talking about status in the company or status in looks/personality/masculinity? Because i see high status but grotesque looking men being sexist to women all the time.

If we are talking at a peer level, then it does seem to be that the lower status men are the most hostile to women.

Whenever a new girl shows up at work, you could sit back with popcorn and watch as all of the scrubs try their luck with her and then immediately call her stuck up. Goddamn guys, have some respect for yourselves.

Love8Death · 2017-06-16T17:17:19+00:00

Makes sense to me, it's the result of power exchanges happening over and over.

You will naturally have the low status men, that don't get women enough to properly handle them, ending up below most of the women, and then the higher status men remaining on top, making the women in the middle, and helping keep the bottom men lower.

Then, it's super easy to see, an appearance of superiority and inferiority, and we all know women will not much consider a man inferior to her, which the status hierarchy most plainly signals to her and the group.

[deleted] · 2017-06-16T17:19:21+00:00

Misogyny

This, the theory goes, enables women automatic higher status over lower rank men, which is responded to by lower status men using sexist hostility in order to control for status loss.

Misogyny is marked by prejudice, preconceived notions. It's not preconceived if it's a response to status loss. This is ridiculous.

questioningwoman · 2017-06-16T17:46:13+00:00

I feel like it's ok for men to be annoyed at women trying to gain entry into male spaces if they're social spaces or concerned with male only stuff. It seems to me that if things are going well for you and everything is fine in your life then it's so easy to be gracious and generous to others. It's when things are bad for you that you might feel compelled to be spiteful and obnoxious. Being a low class male prob isn't very fun.

ClarityofDisaster · 2017-06-16T19:51:06+00:00

I think it's a load of BS, because it is rare to experience overt hostility from the majority of men, even in fields/environments that are almost exclusively male.

The only times I've seen this happen is when women come into a male-dominated space and immediately start trying to change things up. If you don't act like a special snowflake who deserves to be treated more-than-equal to the guys already there, it's extremely rare that you'd encounter any trouble. Quite the opposite...I've found that most men are very welcoming to hobby newcomers (male and female alike).

KrispyMcSockington · 2017-06-17T00:49:05+00:00

The university of Waterloo did a study on when men treat women like other men or treated them nicer. When men were more nicer to women, onlookers assumed they were being fair. When the men treated women like other men, they assumed they were being sexist.

The assumption that male dominated environments are hostile to women because of sexism is really just an inability by women to see the truth: they have been treated so nicely by men for many years that when they are treated like men, they cannot handle it and believe it is sexism. Many male dominated fields are incredibly competitive and the competition among the lower ranks may be even more fierce as they try to climb the corporate ladder.

The belief the environment is hostile specifically for women is probably inaccurate. The environment is hostile for everyone. Women entering a competitive workplace environment just never had to experience what it means to be truly treated equally (read: as shitty as the next man) and now they don't like it. Those lower status men (undertones of misandry much? Are they not working in the same tier as them or are they somehow elevated beyond low status because they are women?) are probably not going out of their way to make each others' lives easier while trying to backstab a woman in the process.

AutoModerator · 2017-06-16T17:06:19+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[deleted] · 2017-06-16T17:12:36+00:00

It's yet another reason why men and women aren't the same psychologically.

Never_Evil · 2017-06-16T17:24:20+00:00

It works if the low status men derive happiness from climbing the hierarchy. I doubt you'd see the same level of hostility from men who weren't attached to their status.

[deleted] · 2017-06-16T17:50:14+00:00

Makes sense.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2017-06-16T19:51:22+00:00

That makes sense.

okaygirl123 · 2017-06-17T03:51:43+00:00

Anecdotal evidence yes, but I'll still share this.

I changed my board of study during 11th and 12th grade to a state government run establishment. Until then I'd studied in a private school, and the crowd there was roughly equal, mostly upper middle class kids (including me)

Then in the state board college, the crowd is more geared towards the lower classes, and most of them got into the college due to the minority quotas. What I saw was a voluntary segregation of the males and females the second female specific spaces were introduced.

The college introduced a women's reading room next to the library a while before I joined, and immediately the students segregated themselves to say that girls weren't allowed in the library.

Also the guys coming from lower classes indulged in a lot of sexism, especially since it was the girls who were at the top of the class/ school. The guys had little to no interest in studying, so their sexism was geared towards that. It wasn't something drastic, but it bears keeping this in mind.

Entropy-7 · 2017-06-17T11:01:01+00:00

I'd have to know more of the context and what their definition of "status" is, as opposed to "value" or "merit". It seems the biggest hostility arises when women who are obviously inferior get further up the hierarchy simply because they are (good looking) women.

It's l like when hiring firefighters and women get to skip over guys with higher apptitude scores (especially for physical fitness). The guys who are going to be the most pissed are the ones that got knocked out the running, and they will always be the guys at the lowest end of the scale.

I'd have to know an example from the study to really comment.

Edit: The context used was Halo 3 (online). The corelated individual game performance with "negative" comments and found that less-skilled players made fewer positve and more negative comments when women were added into the mix of players. And I think the lower perfomers also made more negative comments to females.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613

They didn't appear to provide the "coding" for whether their negative comments were sexist per se, but it seems they assumed the increase in negative comments generally was an indication of sexism. I also didn't see where the women were "attracting the attention of higher status men" or how that "rearranged the hierarchy". I would have to read the abstract again when I have time. It's an interesting study but even if one can't pick apart why having females in the game elicits more negative comments from guys who are getting killed (and then assuming sexism), is it really generalizable to a working environment like IT or mining that is male dominated but women are entering?

Anyways, it nothing to do with "male spaces" like a locker room or country club, and their definition of "status" is simply "performance", which can be a tricky thing to tease out in a FPS when you have to consider both Kills and Deaths: lowest deaths? highest kills? the difference between the two? the ratio between the two?

Title	What do you think of this theory about women in male spaces and hostile behaviors by lower status men?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	1
Comments	91
Date	June 16, 2017 5:06 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/6hnur7/what_do_you_think_of_this_theory_about_women_in/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-do-you-think-of-this-theory-about-women-in.267557 https://theredarchive.com/post/267557

Comments