misogyny is a skill issue
Always has been, weak men can’t stand women outpacing them, this is not limited to gaming but basically anything and everything.
Had co-workers say they would never marry someone making more than them. Shit is so weird.
jfc, being a home-husband is the dream, their fucking loss
Been there, done that, it sucked.
It was great at first! But after 6-months I was depressed. Guess I’m the sort that requires the structure a regular job provides. Kinda been the same for WFH. :(
I had depression before WFH, still have it but at least now I can work with my cat on my lap
Do you pet the cat?
I like WFH but I hated being a house-husband. WFH gives me something to do more than cleaning and cooking and childcare.
Play some games, contribute to opensource, read academic papers. There are a lot of work to do even if you are not employed.
Believe it or not, cooking, cleaning and childcare full time doesn’t really leave you with much energy to play games, let alone contribute to open source or read academic papers.
That requires a certain amount of intelligence and interest in those things. No disrespect to those people but it you are below average IQ and make a living in a simple job, you cant just contribute to open source software and read academic papers for a hobby.
I replied to comment that says being house-husband sucks because there are not enough things to do.
Also there are minimal intelligence requirements for reporting bugs or donating.
It shows how stupid and against your own best interests this kind of thinking can be.
I am the full time worker in my family, and happy to be the provider for them. However, I would be a stay at home dad / house-husband so damn fast if my wife got some random job mom making a lot more than me. I do have my priorities in order, after all.
deleted by creator
I’d do housework and care for the kids in a heartbeat if my wife made enough.
Hahahha most of our relationship i made more than his lordship. Now he makes more than me and he hates it. He wants to be a kept man, dammit
My genuine theory is that many (if not most) people are emotionally stunted or emotionally immature. You don’t get this kind of mentality from someone who is balanced.
Now expand that to every facet of life and you get the world we live in.
deleted by creator
Maybe because it is not in realm of possible instead of something they don’t want?
There are wealthy women out there, so it is entirely in the range of possibility. My mom’s first husband left her when she started making more money as a lawyer than him. It’s an ego thing.
It would be interesting to see if it’s really because of how they are as individuals or more about the response to social status thing. Like if they did an experiment where high performers were deceived into thinking they were actually performing poorly, and vice-versa, would the attitudes towards women be reversed or not? The conclusions in OP seem to imply the researchers think they would be.
My hypothesis is men with low self esteem would be more misogynistic vs men with high self esteem.
My hypothesis is that if you’re a piece of shit, that will extend to all walks of life(misogny, sucking at video games) whereas if you are not, the same rules apply(equality, excelling at video games)
By being a piece of human garbage you effectively hamstring yourself in every field.
This explains why I am misogynistic…
The issue with this is it’s too simplistic.
What it’s actually saying is “it’s easy to not be misogynistic as long as you’re significantly better than all the women”.
It does not imply that you won’t be misogynistic as soon as you are threatened.
Ie when status quo is maintained (patriarchy is intact for you) it’s easy to support women.
The reverse is not true unfortunately. Skilled men are often mysoginistic assholes too.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Men of quality do not fear equality.
This is in my top ten favorite quotes.
I wouldn’t call a skilled gamer a man of quality though, not without more informations about him…
Anyone who can play support all day is a god
Medic mains are gods confirmed.
AFAIR I have most hours as Medic in TF2.
Sorry.
Ain’t just gaming. I dropped a note on a home tech forum while being visibly female and very rapidly realised i’d forgotten how fucking neckbeardy rank amateurs are
I’ve been a network/systems engineer for 25 years, my fellow pros would never be so gauche.
Except dev.
Except dev. 😞
Rather ironically, I’m actually married to a dev
It’s weird with devs. Most of us are fine but there’s definitely a sizable number of “tech bros” that absolutely are misogynistic. And it’s probably worse than I realize not being the target of it.
Also, a disturbing number of misogynistic people in web design/web dev needing help from technical support. It was rather shocking and educational for me, as a cis male, to work as a support supervisor. I never anticipated the level of sexism and harassment that my female techs faced on a daily basis.
Everything from asking of they want to do porn to “can I talk to a man”. I had several techs that had to change the names that they used for customer communications to male or neutral ones due to the severity on the unending sexism despite regular warnings to the customers that this behavior would not be tolerated.
Working sysadmin gets you four times more abuse because it’s the crux of ‘mean person won’t let my idiot arse run rampant on a system because they’re mean and i hate them’ and ‘fuck youse wimmen don’t tell me what to fucking do’
All I heard was men submissive to men
Low elo men confirmed biddable and breedable
Amen
Nobody fears competition more than the mediocre who only get by on the weight of their privilege.
Can someone please find the article they are referencing?
Edit: found it https://www.psypost.org/2015/07/study-low-status-men-who-bad-video-games-likely-bully-women-online-35901
There’s further discussion in the second link where the original authors stand by their claim.
The two use different statistical methods to try to demonstrate the conclusion, and that’s where the difference lies.
I’m not a big stats person, but I’m coming away feeling like the original claim is valid since a) it was shown in two different models the original author used and b) it makes intuitive sense to me.
Talk about being the change you want to see in the world. Thanks for the link, I appreciate it
What I would be really interested in, is how does it play out in reversed scenarios.
How do inexperienced women react to a singular man commenting in a competitive area that is female dominated, do you see the sane sorr of vitriol from lower performing women, vs welcoming behavior from better performing women?
Well if you want a reversal you need to be true to the parameters: get an experienced male operating - not commenting - and you need to do so NOT in an area dominated by women.
Because the gender split in gaming is almost 50/50. A 1% difference is negligible
That’s true for all video games but most competitive games with an esports scene will have many more male players than women. A lot of this is due to the extra toxicity female gamers experience in those scenes. Not only do they have to deal with the usual toxicity that everybody does when playing those kind of games, but also have to deal with the misogynistic and rape comments on top of that.
I wish it wasn’t the case, and it does appear to be changing with time, thankfully. I notice quite a few more women in Counter Strike 2 than I have in past iterations of the game. I hope to see many more women in competitive esports in the future.
Competitive arena shooters have always seemed the worst to me, so if cs2 has more women that’s really good to hear. I think in a combined ~1k hours of csgo and valorant (haven’t played either in years though) i can count the amount of times ive hears women speak in vcs on my hands, and I’m not sure if it was ever not followed by some stupid sexist comments.
Definitely seeing many women in other genres, just waiting for more to reach pro level so we actually see mixed gender or sometimes all women teams in professional esports commonly. As it stands it also still seems like a few too many people would immediately blame any bad performance on being a woman, and no one really wants to deal with that kind of public response.
Loser gamers are mad screaming chimpanzees confirmed
Hasn’t evolutionary psychology been heavily debunked at this point?
I think it’s much easier to say that dudes have it hammered into their heads that girls are bad at games, so when they underperform and a girl is on their team, they feel emasculated. This isn’t too far off from when dudes end up losing their ‘bread winner’ status in their relationship. They were told they had explicit traits to exhibit and they failed to do so, so it hits them in their self esteem. Classic fragile masculinity.
Patriarchal conditioning makes way more sense than “caveman brain HATE competing with woman!”.
Hasn’t evolutionary psychology been heavily debunked at this point?
It’s not without a good heap of criticism, that’s for damn sure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
I tend to think the social angle is more credible Because the behavior of being a dick to female-sounding voices in games is not a universal behavior. Those who aren’t misogynists don’t act that way. How strange.
The entire field of evolutionary psychology debunked? Do you mean the idea that our brains are subject to evolutionary forces like every other part of our anatomy? No, not debunked.
This is conflating specific methodological problems with theoretical claims. Yes, many have criticized the game theoretical methodology typical of evolutionary psychology. There are a lot of highly speculative junk claims out there. It’s also true that some (not all or even most!) cognitive scientists think that we cannot take the perspective that psychology evolved at all. But it is certainly untrue that there is some consensus that evolutionary psychology has been “debunked”.
This criticism is also a bit ironic given the highly speculative nature of the claims you put forward. Your guess sounds plausible I suppose, but I see no reason to think it’s any more methodologically rigorous.
Show me a prediction it makes
That’s not how science works. I understand that you’re trying to criticize the field, but lack of predictions, even reliable ones, is not itself a problem it has. For one thing, even false theories can make reliable predictions, like Levoisier’s defunct theory of caloric in the 18th century which has now been replaced by modern thermodynamics. The caloric theory can be used to make mathematically accurate predictions, but the underlying theory is still wrong.
Similarly, evo psych can make a lot of reliable predictions without saying anything true. On the contrary, one criticism of the field is that it’s unfalsifiable because an evolutionary theory can always (allegedly) be proposed to fit the data. Which is to say, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
One example: it is proposed that the fusiform face area of the brain is a domain specific module evolved for face detection. It’s present in other animals that recognize conspecifics by their face. In humans, damage to the area leads to face specific agnosia. The theory makes accurate predictions, but is it true? It’s still being debated.
Without predictions and without tangible models you don’t have falsifiability. You unintentionally acknowledged my point without understanding it. The field isn’t a science, just philosophy trying to explain the results from actual sciences, but didn’t itself have any kind of proof of validity.
Your example is much more closely related to neurology and neuropsychology.
If you actually take a graduate level course on scientific methodology or on the philosophy of science, you will learn that “falsifiability” is no longer a viable standard for scientific validity. This is because, logically, no claim is falsifiable: one can always adjust background beliefs to evade a logical contradiction. See the Duheim-Quine thesis.
Moreover, if your argument were correct, we would have to reject evolutionary inferences altogether! What you say about the cognitive system is true for, e.g. the immune system or the endocrine system. But that’s ridiculous. Evolutionary claims are part of the bedrock of the so-called Modern Synthesis in the biological sciences of the last hundred years. Yours is similar to bad arguments made by creationists.
Your “No True Scotsman” response is just deeply confused about what evolutionary psychology even is. What a mess.
Well duh, curve fitting isn’t new, that’s why we try to make predictions before we know the result and try to keep the hypothesis simple. Of course falsifiability isn’t enough alone, but it certainly hasn’t lost its place.
Your comparisons are ridiculous because you’re comparing things which are testable (genetic variances, etc) with hypothetical differences between ancient brains we don’t know the structure of. We still don’t even know enough to make deep comparisons between brains of related animals. Until you can both synthesize and simulate the brain of ancient genomes you have absolutely no idea if you’re on the right track, you can’t know at all. There’s so many different ways a brain can implement the same behavior with so many different unpredictable side effects that you can’t say more than “they behaved in a way that kept them alive long enough” with any reasonable certainty. Do you know at what rate brains have changed biologically? No?
Ugh, your comments are everything I hate about the internet. Both of us know that only one us does research on cognitive science, and it’s not you. Yet, because it’s the internet, you think you can get by with bluster and false confidence.
Of the many mistakes you make: No cognitive neuroscientist would say, without huge caveats, that we can’t make deep comparisons between animal and human brains — not after all the groundbreaking work finding deep functional similarities between bird brains and human brains in the last 10 years. These are groundbreaking findings in comparative neurology, and it’s pretty obvious you know nothing about them. You go on to propose a standard of evidence which require that we can predict protein synthesis based on genetic variances, which is laughable. You also seem to be completely unaware of phylogenetic analysis, which is actually the standard way we make many of our evolutionary inferences.
Look, I’m not even an evolutionary psychologist. I have no skin in that game. But I do hate bullshit artists on the internet.
deleted by creator
If you raise a group of human children without ever exposing them to language, they’ll invent their own.
prediction
That’s a prediction
Derived from what? From observation of the exact same thing already happening, or from a model of behavior?
From the fact that language of our complexity would be very hard to learn if humans didn’t have specialised circuits for learning it, and the fact that evolving better language on a biological level would improve fitness.
Making predictions and conducting manipulation experiments isn’t possible / practical in all fields of science. Medicine, astronomy, archaeology, evolution and climate studies are other examples.
Astronomy at least collects a lot of data from those one-time observations and try to model the physics, hoping to be able to see something similar again to calibrate the models. For medicine it varies, for rare disease and injuries that are unethical to replicate its a valid issue but they still have scientific models of the affected organs, etc, and similarly to above they try to model it and predict what treatments would work. And all your examples have historical data to some extent.
Evopsych have essentially zero usable historical data and adds no new understanding over regular psychology, and I’ve never heard anybody talk about how they expect behaviors to actually have formed over generations (nor does it meaningfully cover learned and taught behavior)
Astronomy is mostly history sprinkled with physics.
You explained the limitations astronomers and medical researchers face. Psychologists face similar problems, which is why all their results should be treated with a certain amount of scepticism. But that does not mean their work is worthless; just that it is hard. A lot of traditional psychology was based on what one person thought, rather than logical arguments or experimental evidence. Evolutionary psychology is an attempt to place the study of the brain’s workings in the context of evolution.
I’ve never heard anybody talk about how they expect behaviors to actually have formed over generations (nor does it meaningfully cover learned and taught behavior)
Individual human behaviours depend on a lot of other factors. All you can do from an evolutionary perspective is to explain some common trends. For example, in almost all cultures, some people are gay / ace. Traditional psychologists long thought of this as some sort of mental condition. But if you think of society in the context of inclusive fitness and r/K strategy, it makes a lot of sense to have a certain percentage of the population not reproduce. Is this why some people are gay / ace? I don’t know, and I don’t think we’ll ever know. But at least we can try to explain some things.
It is impossible to make prediction or cobduct manipulation experiment in medicine and in climate studies? Do you read what you post?
Yes. It is unethical to give someone a disease so you can study it. Best we have are case studies of people who got the disease and are being treated for it.
In climate studies, it is not practical to increase temperature or humidity by x% and see the effects. Again, you have case studies - either from the past or from parts of the world that are warming much faster than the rest. Or you can do mesocosm experiments where you warm, say, a square metre of grassland, and see the effects. But then there is a lot of uncertainity in scaling up the findings of such small-scale studies.
You don’t need to give anyone a disease to study medicine. Moreover, medicine is not limited to diseases. And it has both predictions and experimets.
In climate studies, it is not practical to increase temperature or humidity by x% and see the effects.
You still can observe, describe, analyze and model(predict). The goal of every science is to create prediction function.
Yeah, the problem is it slips too easily into essentialism. “Oh we evolved this way, nothing we can do about it I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”
Especially for questions like this, which could pretty easily be explained by cultural influences, no need to bring evolution into it.
Hasn’t evolutionary psychology been heavily debunked at this point?
No. On the most basic level it shouldn’t really be terribly contentious that evolution has an impact on psychology, on a more detailed level, well, they have their hits and misses just as every other field.
Patriarchal conditioning makes way more sense than
…case in point “everything is socially constructed” is just as bonkers a position as “everything is biologically predetermined”. Why do people have to universalise their specialised area of investigation and “caveman brain HATE competing with woman!” is a rather cartoonish take on evolutionary psychology. If anything it’d be “young male annoyed he can’t hunt for shit while female age-peer can because he wouldn’t be able to provide for her while heavily pregnant”. Note that not being annoyed in that case doesn’t require better hunting skills, only sufficient ones, and “annoyed” can lead to “will work harder on his skills” or “is going to lash out” or “becomes depressive and walks into the desert” or “is going to look around, see all those capable hunters, and focus on hut building instead”. There’s a fuckton of behavioural flexibility left there.
Bad social conditioning then comes into that and shapes tendencies into caricatures of themselves, or good social conditioning comes in and, well, does good things. It’s not an either/or thing, pretty much everything is both nature and nurture.
I was about to point this out - evopsych is an essentialist pseudoscience. Human interactions are governed by culture at least as much as they are by biology.
Human interactions are governed by culture at least as much as they are by biology.
And evolutionary psychology is not claiming that it isn’t. Your strawman is essentialist pseudoscience, agreed.
Idk man. I am shoving respect into my son’s head at all times, I show respect and love to my wife/his mom all the time, and he is misogynistic AF. I don’t get it. I am trying so hard to raise him to be respectful towards women and he just doesn’t accept it.
He’s 7, ADHD, Autistic, etc. But I really don’t know if that even has anything to do with it because I am, too.
I wouldn’t say it’s been debunked. Probably improbable, but in no way debunked
Well in my observation the weaker players are quite often the more toxic ones. The “what a safe” spammers in rocket league are often the ones getting carried.
If someone’s so busy emoting in RL they ain’t playing hard enough.
Scrub == scrub
Got it
Based af
I disagree with the conclusion. My experience is anecdotal, of course, but I’ll share. I’m a gamer female with a husband and grown son. Husband is gone now, but the three of us gamed quite extensively together and separately for years, playing various MMORPGs and MOBAs, among other things. My son is exceptionally good at gaming, I am mediocre and consider myself a proud “filthy casual,” and my husband was absolute dogshit - to the point I had to leave my chair and go help him by taking over the controls to get him past certain difficult hurdles (and my son does the same for me on occasion).
My husband’s ego was never threatened by this. He never took his frustration out on me. Why? Because he was a decent person who was confident in his masculinity.
In the end, lack of skill does not cause misogyny. I believe misogyny springs from the same source as the lack of skill: a tiny brain.
Not saying I agree or disagree with the author. However you being his wife did not result in “female-initiated disruption of a male hierarchy” (their words) so it’s not really an argument against their hypothesis.
(Of course your husband being nice and not a dickhead probably also plays a role)
TLDR: correlation != causattion
Yeah but I doubt your husband would flame you because you 360 no scoped him, becsuse you are also within shoe throwing range
The study for anyone interested.
There’s a bunch of articles written about the study. As much of a shitshow as you’d expect.
deleted by creator
Look up the keywords on Google Scholar?
It took seconds to find.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613
