4 ms·

I think it's pretty easy to observe this by, instead of looking at the hated public figures, looking at the championed ones. Right and left leaning female publ

by munk-a 5y ago

I think it's pretty easy to observe this by, instead of looking at the hated public figures, looking at the championed ones. Right and left leaning female public figures still get a lot of vile comments thrown at them and a lot of sexualization from within their "support base". Men hardly receive that at all - we may be attacked by haters for our comments, but simply being a public woman online exposes you to a lot of emotional abuse. Some women certainly avoid it by just not going to those neighborhoods of the internet, but if that neighborhood is somewhere you'd like to go (if, for instance, you like video games) you have to choose between receiving that abuse or just not accessing the same entertainment services as men.

jollybean 5y ago
Men are championed or derided for their physical appearances. The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate. Men who are small, short, effete, high pitched voices, who appear 'chubby' as opposed to 'big boned' are not seen as 'real leaders'. We are not all like that obviously, it's just a tertiary effect, but it is absolutely real and pervasive. If Hillary Clinton had the appearance of one of those blonde female lawyer types on Fox News, she might have received more votes (which is arguably sexist), but if Pete Buttigieg were a little taller, square jawed, not gay, and slipped in a few slightly nationalist statements and could maybe throw a football ... he'd have a real shot at being president. I'm not positing that any of this is good (or bad), I'm just indicating that I believe men and women are judged on their posture and appearance. I believe it would be harder for women in certain circumstances (male dominated situations, of which there are many) to gain credibility however.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate. No, it's their gender.
  - jimmygrapes 5y ago
    No it's their lack of affiliation with furrydom. You can always find something if you try.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      You can, but you have to try to make some sense.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    In the only US Presidential election which has ever featured a female contender, she won the popular vote. I'll bet that this trend continues, and that that every US Presidential election featuring a male and female candidate, there's little or no gender differentiation. We have dozens of elections to test our height thesis and other data as well such as income. I searched for the data (it was on BI some years ago) sorry I couldn't find it, but I remember distinctly seeing for that females, they were paid more if they were taller and thinner (and punished for being heavy) whereas men were paid more if they were taller and bigger (i.e. 'girth / total mass').

by munk-a 5y ago

jollybean 5y ago

Men are championed or derided for their physical appearances. The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate. Men who are small, short, effete, high pitched voices, who appear 'chubby' as opposed to 'big boned' are not seen as 'real leaders'. We are not all like that obviously, it's just a tertiary effect, but it is absolutely real and pervasive. If Hillary Clinton had the appearance of one of those blonde female lawyer types on Fox News, she might have received more votes (which is arguably sexist), but if Pete Buttigieg were a little taller, square jawed, not gay, and slipped in a few slightly nationalist statements and could maybe throw a football ... he'd have a real shot at being president. I'm not positing that any of this is good (or bad), I'm just indicating that I believe men and women are judged on their posture and appearance. I believe it would be harder for women in certain circumstances (male dominated situations, of which there are many) to gain credibility however.

jacquesm 5y ago
> The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate. No, it's their gender.
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  No it's their lack of affiliation with furrydom. You can always find something if you try.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    You can, but you have to try to make some sense.
- jollybean 5y ago
  In the only US Presidential election which has ever featured a female contender, she won the popular vote. I'll bet that this trend continues, and that that every US Presidential election featuring a male and female candidate, there's little or no gender differentiation. We have dozens of elections to test our height thesis and other data as well such as income. I searched for the data (it was on BI some years ago) sorry I couldn't find it, but I remember distinctly seeing for that females, they were paid more if they were taller and thinner (and punished for being heavy) whereas men were paid more if they were taller and bigger (i.e. 'girth / total mass').