Study confirms that sexist men are losers

Clearly, we were all better off when men could beat us when ever they saw fit, we could be fired for daring to get pregnant (or married, or whatever), no one thought rape was a crime, and we spent all our times tending to others in our lives, ignoring our own needs… /s


Except that I am admitting that I cannot possibly know what it ultimately is - only what I think about it right now based upon my limited experience.

In contrast, you are stating that you somehow know exactly what it is all about, for everyone! As positions go, I do not need to personally disagree with this, but I do think this claim is demonstrably untrue.


Good insight. Maybe this helps explain why bigots so often use liberal as a pejorative. They perceive that liberals have contempt for them and return the favor enthusiastically.


That’s pretty ironic. You sound a hell of a lot like all the christian fundies crying about how persecuted they are now that gay people can get married.

You’re just bitching about how your gender is slowly losing its long and undeserved hegemony.

If you can’t recognize the systemic and societal unfairness in the way men and women are being treated, I dare say you’re either intentionally not looking (boy that cognitive dissonance stings), or just lying.


?? No one owes you a discussion for a short rant about how no one listens to you.

Your post and previous posts generally consist of you calling people assholes, particularly your first post in this topic, you try to give them banners and tell them that freedom of speech is having to argue with you and accuse people of thinking you’re an asshole because you’re a man instead of realizing you sound like an asshole and that’s why people think that.

But hey, go all MRA, you go boy! Stand up for us all, show them you tha man! You can stop those elite superior SJW’s that hold you back so and vilify you personally… YOU CAN DO IT LIL TROOPER!! YOU CAN DO IT!


I moved 7 posts to a new topic: On replying with the same animated GIF many times

As a loser I’m insulted at all these jerks sullying the fine art of being a loser.



These losers hate themselves and project it outwards.


It’s a pretty good sign of a garbage human being, sure.

Why are we testing this on Halo and then claiming something about “powerful/dominant” men? No one who plays Halo is powerful or dominant. Even the best players are most likely not in the upper echelons of society (they spend their time playing and getting good at Halo, which is awesome and fun but not a social mover).

How about we take some data from boardrooms, C-suite executive interactions with their employees, etc? I’m sure it would be amazing to see. And given a great deal of anecdotal evidence… I think you’d find that dominant and powerful men can be just as big of scumbags (likely even more so).

We don’t because it’d be impossible to get a proper sample size. Plus a lot of C-suite execs are complete psychopaths who would make it difficult to even collect worthwhile social data.



This study just seems… eh. unthreatened dudes are less like to be shit bags. Surprise!!! Replace dudes with like… anything. “Unthreatened racoons are less likely to be aggressive”. Not trying to downplay that some dudes are assholes or #notallanything. But this just seems like something that goes without saying and doesn’t really point out anything useful about current society.

But eh whatevers! Glad someone published a paper and furthered their career I guess.

1 Like

People who play Halo can at least win within the rules of the game. Games are good for this (although I am not sure about Halo specifically) because they have a formal, built-in structure, with methods and objectives.

Society in general does not have “echelons” for precisely the same reason. Because there are no overarching goals which unambiguously define “success” at social activity. If my team is playing football, and you are training for decathlon, there is no actual competition between us to measure.


And why does being low-status and non-dominant make us losers, not sure I want to even play that game, let alone win.

I didn’t RTF study, but from the chart on the article the correlation seemed to be between antisocial behavior and being good (achieving a high maximum skill level) at an online game; couldn’t this as easily point to it being more enjoyable to stick around long enough to get good/achieve a high level at the game if you weren’t an asshole?

1 Like

I’d say there’s still value in looking at behavior closely. Doing a formal study like this can end up being useful down the line in a field that seems unrelated. But I don’t really think the “evolutionary explanation” is supported by the evidence, at least as far as the abstract and publicly available data goes.

They’d be more credible just going from a pure behaviorism analysis than trying to cram this data into an evopsych mold, because I don’t think this experiment gives nearly enough new information to justify such wide generalizations about specific group dynamics at a species or gender level.

I’d like to see it done again with at least a control group doing something non-competitive, perhaps a focus group activity or something.

I’d also like to see some priming studies done in this way. I think the experiment they designed could be really useful to see how much priming plays a role during gaming interactions like this. Just out of personal curiosity.


Agreed on all points. It really is the “evolution” jargon that bugs me now that you point it out. Because this just doesn’t seem to point that out. But again… I’m open to being wrong and missing something!


Although I would disagree that society does not have echelons. I do agree that games are good for studies like this. My issue is with the huge overarching claims because the study just doesn’t seem to support them given the very narrow venue.

Football teams may not be comparable to marathon runners but the are definitely comparable to other football teams and other football leagues. For instance if you play in the CFL, you are in a lower echelon than those in the NFL, and an even lower echelon than a “super star” from an NFL team. Or am I reading your comment wrong?

Errrr… you posted this:

I genuinely enjoy boingboing right up until the point where they latch on to the SJW bullshit which seems to be all the time these days. We get it, men are assholes, women are eternal victims and anyone who disagrees is obviously misogynistic pond scum.

You weren’t really expecting a thoughtful engaged debate on the finer points of gender politics based on that shit were you?

Of course not, you were expecting exactly what you got, and now you get to be the victim. Yay!


Just breezed through the abstract in PLOS ONE. (PDF of the study here)

This statement was a definite showstopper:

In contrast, there is no evidence that a woman’s fitness is determined by her position in a hierarchy, making overt hierarchical navigation less important.

Perhaps not in the fossil record. But there certainly is evidence in various societies that the woman at the top of a hierarchical social structure definitely gets her pick of the litter as it were, allowing her choose her mates with stricter criteria and increase the fitness of her offspring.


No you’ve missed a key point. Unthreatened dudes are less likely to be shitbags to women, while dudes both threatened and unthreatened are equally unlikely to be shitbags to males. Thats the salient issue.