[001sky]

MarissaTV, the Yahoo Q3 News — If It Bleeds, It Definitely Does Not Lead

__________

But this is far from atypical, as a little google-fu whill show you. And if you look into some research, some additional things will emerge: eg What attracts the media to woman-on-woman (WOW) bullying is the fact that women are targeted at a higher rate by female bullies (71%) than by male bullies (46%). I won't belabor the point. Merely pointing out an empirical irony relevant to the headline and the context of this discussion. This is not counterfactual (nor apologetic) to other types of bad behabiour, but it is oddly not widely understood (it appears).

[Whitespace]

How is providing evidence to your claims "[belaboring] the point"? I know it's easier to vomit a seven-word sound bite, but don't patronize me with a bunch of dismissive hand waving and "find it for yourself on google." You said it, now back it up.

When you make a statement like that on a place like this I expect you to do your homework before you click the comment button. You do us all a disservice by making a ludicrous claim and then backing away from it, because it encourages others to pander anecdote as fact.

[001sky]

You're now arguing from ignorance. I've provided you three examples: (1) Editors at fashion magazines; (2) a High-profile technology editor; and (3) Some research with quantification.

Since this topic starts to bleed into the HN-no-go-zone ("women in tech"), its worth not "belaboring the point" because that soon tends to lead into a meaningless debate[0]. If you have some contra-evidence or a counter-factual to put forward, it would be interesting to see it. But seriously, I don't need to do your homework for you. If you don't have something to show, arguing "i don't understand" or "i don't see it" is dis-ingenuous.

________

[0] This is a distinct topic to the more-common flame-wars around Women's STEM aptitude and/or promotion potenial.

[Volpe]

There are countries where woman cannot choose who they marry. Where woman are beaten, Where woman are not allow outside on their own, where woman earn double digit percentages less than male counterparts... You are seriously saying that 'often' the 'worst' mysoginists are woman in the magazine industry!?

And then claiming others are arguing from ignorance. LOL.

[001sky]

You seem to be having a comprehension problem with the English language. Its probaly better for you to study the definition and history of the word than for HN to lectur you or try to enlighten you. In addition to the word 'misogeny', you might also do well to study the phrase 'argument from ignorance', which I referred to above. The logical construct 'some of the worst' also seems to be mis-understood. Because there is a reasonably large number of people on HN that speak English as a second language there's no point in continuing this sort of debate. Because ultimately, you seem to be basing your line of attack on false premises. I will, however, limit my remarks for brevity to the case of misogeny in the western english speaking world. (One could extend the argument, but its not neccessary to support my earlier point.).

(1) Definitions: Misogyny is manifested in many different ways, from jokes to pornography to violence to the self-contempt women may be taught to feel toward their own bodies."

(2) Its clear from (1) That the media and workplace bullying are included in the definition.

(3) Its clear from the construct of 'many of the worst', that this refers to a non-trivial number, but need not be exclusive. So, the verbal threshold means 'many but not neccessarily all, and in any event not amount we need to further specify or approximate in specific percentages'. But, for the sake of it. The data I reference earlier implied that despite the higher proportion of total 'work bullies' in the workplace being men, a woman is as likely to be bullied at work by a woman. So, from the perspective of women, this is indeed a non-trivial amount. We can be reasonably say then that the 'some of the worst' bullies are other women, because this makes up half of the pool.

[Volpe]

I think first and foremost - relax.

You are ignoring severity of misogyny, and instead referring to number of misogynists. Correct?

I'm saying, magazine (female or male) editors are by far not the worst, nor that common, among the TOTAL population of misogynists.

But by all means go and fight the "misogynist female magazine editor" fight... I'm sure it's worthy.

But lay off the ad hominem attacks, they just make you look like a jerk. (See what I did there ;) )

[001sky]

Its a more generalized trend, not some sort of special interest thing. I was merely pointing it out in my first comment. Later examples are just repsonding to specific queries. This sample was published in the NYT today, and it re-iterates many of the same points. In particular, read the last sentence...

studies have shown that the more attractive an adolescent girl or woman is, the more likely she is to become a target for indirect aggression from her female peers.

“Women are indeed very capable of aggressing against others, especially women they perceive as rivals,” said Dr. Vaillancourt, now a psychologist at the University of Ottawa. “The research also shows that suppression of female sexuality is by women, not necessarily by men.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/a-cold-war-fought-...