Study find low-skilled men more likely to be hostile towards women than men, and high-skilled men do not show this hostility. Just more proof that sexism and LV go hand in hand.

myousername · 2020-07-11T21:21:20+00:00

This has 100% been my experienced. Lvm are threatened by women. Hvm have no need.

catsuramen · 2020-07-11T21:47:10+00:00

Inferiority complex.

LVM may be low-skilled, but they don't like to be the last on the ladder. I would like to see data on low-skilled men on child abuse rates.

Bikkie5233 · 2020-07-11T21:59:03+00:00

There was a study somewhere saying that men in lower ranks in video games are more likely to be hostile towards women than higher ranked ones. High-skilled men can be sexist too, but they know better to at least try to hide it I feel like...

Salt_Satisfaction · 2020-07-11T23:09:34+00:00

It doesn't seem that significant until you remember this was one of the contributing factors of the Iranian revolution. Not surprising that later they fired educated women in positions of authority, prevented them from working in certain jobs (which is still happening), and forced them to cover themselves outside.

There was a lot of economic inequality between rural areas and the cities at the time. Poor men who migrated to the cities for work were really resentful about educated women (especially women wearing Western clothing) that had more money than them.

Don't ask me for sources because I read about this years ago.

Not saying that rich men can't be sexist, but usually education for both sexes is a driving force in reducing sexism.

Phoenix__Rising2018 · 2020-07-11T23:27:24+00:00

Low-value also means low effort so they're probably not going to accomplish much in life. Also fragile ego and easily and intimidated by women.

Nifteroni-and-Cheese · 2020-07-11T21:10:41+00:00

Abstract for the study:

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.

Newwavesupport3657 · 2020-07-12T04:46:46+00:00

This space is so validating.

I noticed in my father being hostile towards women but feeling insecure around his brothers who had more $ and kids than him, and bigger houses. He overcompensated by abusing women.

Women become punching bags for insecure men.

aellope · 2020-07-12T02:27:46+00:00

I keep being reminded of when my ex didn't know how to safely connect the wires to jump start a car, but would not listen to me because apparently there's no way I could have known more than him about the subject, and no way he could be wrong. He got mad at me for trying to correct him.

BerryCocoLove · 2020-07-12T01:58:46+00:00

Ugh I know guys like this who work in “lower” positions than I do. The weird thing is that I know one of them has a crush on me, but then he’ll make these passive aggressive jabs. One day he’s polite to me, the next he’s literally ignoring me or asking me to give up my workstation. It’s annoying and I feel like I’m dealing with a child. Whenever I quest anything he says he asks why I’m getting mad or feel offended. Like wtf

2020-07-11T22:12:59+00:00

I read an article today on FTND about how porn use and sexual compulsion are directly related to the failure that is patriarchy and men not feeling "manly" So in Other words... they turn to purchasing sex.... IE: WOMEN.

whhe11 · 2020-07-11T21:14:35+00:00

Oh we all been known this, glad theres hard science to back it up now!

sadcello · 2020-07-12T09:35:42+00:00

Exactly, men need women as second class to feel good for being losers. That's why they oppressed women, barred them from education, forbid them from getting a job. They need to make sure there's always people below them. Men are sick.

Myplummms · 2020-07-12T16:09:09+00:00

Do you think it’s because they see women as a threat to their status? I mean because in order for men to be better/more valuable than women in their eyes, it’s hard also to reconcile your boss being female (i.e she’s more valuable to the company). It’s typical for LVM to lash out at women they see as a threat because of insecurity. Women have known this forever, but it’s good to see a study as proof.

2020-07-11T22:42:31+00:00

[deleted]

Scandikandi · 2020-07-12T14:52:31+00:00

Real recognizes real

ballerburg9005 · 2020-07-13T15:51:27+00:00

The study findings are, that (in a purely recreational anonymous setting of no serious consequences) people who count the most losses are more likely to blame a novel external event for their own poor performance, while people who count the least losses obviously have the least problems with such an event.

The novel event tested against in the study was the introduction of female players to a (virtually) male-exclusive online first person shooter game.

Any Interpretation that goes beyond this is just a classic case of overextended hogwash blended with confirmation bias.

Comments