An oppressed class asks for more solidarity in order to achieve rights. The patriarchal society in America will alleviate the burden of political differences between the patriarchs, the men. I believe the patriarchy explains these differences especially given the deteriorating women's rights in America such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Liberal women might not tolerate the ideas of other liberal women who advocate for traditional lifestyles. This is because their rights are stripped in trad lifestyles. Liberal men might not care if another liberal man wants a trad lifestyle.
I hope this research doesn't become a tool for men to point to women and say "I told you so". In the comment section of the original post, it's already become that way.
The study adjusts for gender issues and finds the speaker's actual topics themselves don't make much of a difference.
> But the data does rule out a few possibilities. You might wonder, for instance, whether women are more censorial due to being more personally affected by the positions of the hypothetical speakers our surveys asked about. But only one of the speakers argues for a position that disproportionately affects women (banning abortion), and the gender gap isn’t greater for this speaker, so that doesn’t seem to be what’s causing the gap. My suspicion, corroborated by other research, is that women prefer social harmony.
Reading the GP comment made me audibly guffaw. The exact scenario was discussed and corroborating studies were linked. Users that comment after clearly not RTFA should be banned from commenting.
It's ironic that the first thing the GP did instead of reading the article was rush to comment on "oppression" and the "patriarchy" in a fervent manner to poorly attempt to discredit the study and it's findings, seeking to stifle debate for the sake of emotional comfort.
I did read the article. I didn't even try to discredit the findings, and instead merely pointed out why the data might have shown such a difference. If you understood my comment, you would conclude that there would be no difference if women weren't oppressed. In the article, it posed the question, "So why does such a large gender tolerance gap exist?" Which the author left largely open ended.
I believe you should be banned instead for creating such a toxic environment. It's clear to me that your reply is stifling debate more than my original comment.
Aligns with a hot new descriptive phrase, “a karen of protesters”.
"enemies" Who exactly is your _enemy_ because they disagree with you on something so petty and silly?
apples different from oranges
An oppressed class asks for more solidarity in order to achieve rights. The patriarchal society in America will alleviate the burden of political differences between the patriarchs, the men. I believe the patriarchy explains these differences especially given the deteriorating women's rights in America such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Liberal women might not tolerate the ideas of other liberal women who advocate for traditional lifestyles. This is because their rights are stripped in trad lifestyles. Liberal men might not care if another liberal man wants a trad lifestyle.
I hope this research doesn't become a tool for men to point to women and say "I told you so". In the comment section of the original post, it's already become that way.
The study adjusts for gender issues and finds the speaker's actual topics themselves don't make much of a difference.
> But the data does rule out a few possibilities. You might wonder, for instance, whether women are more censorial due to being more personally affected by the positions of the hypothetical speakers our surveys asked about. But only one of the speakers argues for a position that disproportionately affects women (banning abortion), and the gender gap isn’t greater for this speaker, so that doesn’t seem to be what’s causing the gap. My suspicion, corroborated by other research, is that women prefer social harmony.
Reading the GP comment made me audibly guffaw. The exact scenario was discussed and corroborating studies were linked. Users that comment after clearly not RTFA should be banned from commenting.
It's ironic that the first thing the GP did instead of reading the article was rush to comment on "oppression" and the "patriarchy" in a fervent manner to poorly attempt to discredit the study and it's findings, seeking to stifle debate for the sake of emotional comfort.
"should be banned from commenting"
Apparently more men than women would say they should put up with the ridicule after saying something ignorant rather than outright banning ;)
>Apparently more men than women would say they should put up with the ridicule after saying something ignorant rather than outright banning ;)
Apparently more men than women are capable of differentiating decorum and saying something ignorant ;)
Stay seething ;)
I did read the article. I didn't even try to discredit the findings, and instead merely pointed out why the data might have shown such a difference. If you understood my comment, you would conclude that there would be no difference if women weren't oppressed. In the article, it posed the question, "So why does such a large gender tolerance gap exist?" Which the author left largely open ended.
I believe you should be banned instead for creating such a toxic environment. It's clear to me that your reply is stifling debate more than my original comment.