Support NeoGAF

[Gordon Shumway]

Most people didn't have two tvs in those days either. Back then there was only one way to punish your partner when you disliked a show they enjoyed.

Shiiit..I did! No way I'm watching everything my wife does. Not that she was a fan of Sex and the City. We watch plenty of things together, but I've never in my life felt obligated to watch a certain show. Fuck all that lol..

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I My post was more on the thought that this is just people making individual choices based on their own opinions, rather than a group mentality of white male centric media telling them that shows like this are bad.

No, I understood, what I'm getting at (and have said explicitly in other threads about this phenomenon) is that it's not an either/or, and trying to make it one gets people in trouble conversationally, because it inherently suggests there's only one real factor. It's why I went to the trouble to point out all the not wrong things dude was doing by rating things on imdb as he saw fit.

The fact you do things the right way and in the right frame of mind with no malice aforethought does not mean the other possibility therefore ceases to exist entirely and is now not much more than a boogeyman or a spectre people unfairly use to minimize your opinion's inherent worth.

You get what I'm saying there? It can be a lot of people making individual choices while simultaneously other people are being real maladjusted inconsiderate mean-spirited shits about it. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean it's not done.

Essentially, you're unknowingly providing cover. You are the rock by which roaches are allowed to hide. And by suggesting there's no such things as roaches (or that they're not worth considering at all) you basically reduce conversational options to:

1) Why you tryina shut up the rock, huh? That's unfair
2) Why you tryina say I'm a roach, huh? That's bullshit, I'm obviously a rock.

At which point, the narrative's been shifted to you and how unfairly people treat you, when the subject that began the conversations was how unfairly others are being treated by people, people you chose to identify with on some level, even though there's nothing really prompting you to do that.

 

[Vice]

People here have just as much grasp on what clickbait means as they do on ethics in journalism.

And, even if the title is clickbait does it doesn't make the entire article pointless. It's just a way to dismiss the argument the article makes before even reading it.

 

[Vagabundo]

lol I was waiting for Bobby's meta pop analysis of this thread.

 

[spekkeh]

I don't see the sabotage. Or as someone who had to watch all of SatC I can sympathize (though it's a lot better than Gilmore Girls *shudder*). Men are likely more judgmental, or simply more active on hobby sites (as 538 also starts with but then doesn't really factor in as confound after that).

There are two other things that 538 seems to conveniently leave out here:

Nearly all of the 'tanked by men' shows are prime time syndicated television. Conversely the strong male oriented shows are things you have to actively seek out. Cartoons, hobby shows, late night programs etc. Women don't tank the show because they are likely oblivious to it. Whereas any man in a relationship will know everything about Jessica and Miranda.

A strongly woman gendered show is basically one or two things: soap opera and some reality shows. A strongly male gendered show either doesn't really exist or could be sports, cars, cartoons, superheros, crime and about ten other things. So there's a stronger sense of this particular thing is only for girls than a similar case for men. This could be a result of the patriarchy where men are important and women aren't, but I think it's actually somewhat opposite to that. Much like in toy stores where there's a girls isle that is all pink and princesses and then there is a generic everything else for both sexes, series seem specifically targeted to women more so than the other way around (which maybe slanted towards male interest but not completely, and talking about mainstream primetime here, not obscure pin-up shows for dudes late at night). Targeting specifically girls/women seems more lucrative than the other way around.

 

[Eidan]

A strongly woman gendered show is basically one or two things: soap opera and some reality shows. A strongly male gendered show either doesn't really exist or could be sports, cars, cartoons, superheros, crime and about ten other things. So there's a stronger sense of this particular thing is only for girls than a similar case for men. This could be a result of the patriarchy where men are important and women aren't, but I think it's actually somewhat opposite to that. Much like in toy stores where there's a girls isle that is all pink and princesses and then there is a generic everything else for both sexes, series seem specifically targeted to women more so than the other way around (which maybe slanted towards male interest but not completely, and talking about mainstream primetime here, not obscure pin-up shows for dudes late at night). Targeting specifically girls/women seems more lucrative than the other way around.

¿Que?

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't see the sabotage. Or as someone who had to watch all of SatC I can sympathize (though it's a lot better than Gilmore Girls *shudder*). Men are likely more judgmental, or simply more active on hobby sites (as 538 also starts with but then doesn't really factor in as confound after that).

There are two other things that 538 seems to conveniently leave out here:

Nearly all of the 'tanked by men' shows are prime time syndicated television. Conversely the strong male oriented shows are things you have to actively seek out. Cartoons, hobby shows, late night programs etc. Women don't tank the show because they are likely oblivious to it. Whereas any man in a relationship will know everything about Jessica and Miranda.

A strongly woman gendered show is basically one or two things: soap opera and some reality shows. A strongly male gendered show either doesn't really exist or could be sports, cars, cartoons, superheros, crime and about ten other things. So there's a stronger sense of this particular thing is only for girls than a similar case for men. This could be a result of the patriarchy where men are important and women aren't, but I think it's actually somewhat opposite to that. Much like in toy stores where there's a girls isle that is all pink and princesses and then there is a generic everything else for both sexes, series seem specifically targeted to women more so than the other way around (which maybe slanted towards male interest but not completely, and talking about mainstream primetime here, not obscure pin-up shows for dudes late at night). Targeting specifically girls/women seems more lucrative than the other way around.

Ahh yes women's entertainment is vapid and dumb and men's entertainment is universal

 

[unpopularblargh]

lol I was waiting for Bobby's meta pop analysis of this thread.

Bobby is the hero we need.

He's the primary reason I stick to OT. That plus the sweet sweet GAF gold.

 

[spekkeh]

Ahh yes women's entertainment is vapid and dumb and men's entertainment is universal

Thats a distortion of what I'm saying.

 

[Vice]

I don't see the sabotage. Or as someone who had to watch all of SatC I can sympathize (though it's a lot better than Gilmore Girls *shudder*). Men are likely more judgmental, or simply more active on hobby sites (as 538 also starts with but then doesn't really factor in as confound after that).

There are two other things that 538 seems to conveniently leave out here:

Nearly all of the 'tanked by men' shows are prime time syndicated television. Conversely the strong male oriented shows are things you have to actively seek out. Cartoons, hobby shows, late night programs etc. Women don't tank the show because they are likely oblivious to it. Whereas any man in a relationship will know everything about Jessica and Miranda.

A strongly woman gendered show is basically one or two things: soap opera and some reality shows. A strongly male gendered show either doesn't really exist or could be sports, cars, cartoons, superheros, crime and about ten other things. So there's a stronger sense of this particular thing is only for girls than a similar case for men. This could be a result of the patriarchy where men are important and women aren't, but I think it's actually somewhat opposite to that. Much like in toy stores where there's a girls isle that is all pink and princesses and then there is a generic everything else for both sexes, series seem specifically targeted to women more so than the other way around (which maybe slanted towards male interest but not completely, and talking about mainstream primetime here, not obscure pin-up shows for dudes late at night). Targeting specifically girls/women seems more lucrative than the other way around.

Looking at the list of shows men rate lower there are only 4 reality shows, that I recognize, the rest are prinetime dramas and comedies. Some with musical, fantasy, horror or procesdural influence. And the top lists are super similar for both genders.

 

[Vagabundo]

Bobby is the hero we need.

He's the primary reason I stick to OT. That plus the sweet sweet GAF gold.

Each to their own I suppose.

 

[God Dayumm]

Ahh yes women's entertainment is vapid and dumb and men's entertainment is universal

Yes, and the patriarchy is to blame for feeding women these shows to conform with gender expectations. Sexism is the same reason why boys got the cool Legos and girls the lame dolls.

 

[Eidan]

Yes, and the patriarchy is to blame for feeding women these shows to conform with gender expectations. Sexism is the same reason why boys got the cool Legos and girls the lame dolls.

It is.

 

[kavanf1]

Shiiit..I did! No way I'm watching everything my wife does. Not that she was a fan of Sex and the City. We watch plenty of things together, but I've never in my life felt obligated to watch a certain show. Fuck all that lol..

Ha, really I was just being tongue in cheek about the ridiculous levels of extrapolation people are putting into a couple of points difference in the ratings for a show.

I mean, all the pseudointellectual drivel about how this is a reflection of the privileged patriarchy and blah blah blah. What a load of horseshit. About the only thing we can extrapolate from it is that men tend to review stuff more than women. Taking a sample of one and using it to make an all-encompassing commentary about an entire gender? Bull. Shit.

 

[tkscz]

Ahh yes women's entertainment is vapid and dumb and men's entertainment is universal

That's not what he said. Thought the separation of what is a man show and what is a woman show needs work. Cartoons, super heroes, crime shows and the like are pretty universal. Often having a male and female main cast and giving focus to both genders. To say which gender likes action more and which gender likes romance more takes away from who the person is and why they are even watching the show. There are shows that are obviously trying to lean toward a specific gendered audience, but that doesn't mean people of either gender are or are not going to like them. Sense we seem to be using Sex in the City as an example, there are lots of women who think it's a crappy show and lots of men who love it. Technically speaking, the average show is pretty universal, regardless of the gender of the main character.

 

[Ishida]

patriarchy -- the assumption by men that everything is designed for their consumption, so if they don't like something, it must just be bad.

Eh... I've seen a pretty large number of women who also believe that stuff is bad because they don't like it... What's the term for that?

 

[uncelestial]

Now, I'm not employed by 538 here, but going through the thread, I noticed an interesting trend on the part of some posters that, when presented with the OP, seemed to tilt strongly towards trying to two different narratives as a means of dismissal or shutting down potential conversation.

1) This is clickbait:











Note the attempt here to dismiss the premise of 538's post by suggesting the entire thing was done and presented dishonestly and disingenuously as a means to secure clicks above all else.

This leads to #2), best summed up via Excelsior's post:



In which the narrative is subtly steered towards the idea that any solution to this easily observable problem will lead to the unfair suppression of men's freedom of expression.















This is essentially the same sort of activity that kept derailing the Ghostbusters thread until eventually discussion was ultimately closed down completely: The wrestling of the narrative into a position wherein not only the validity of the premise is dismissed outright, but it turns out the real unfairly maligned party are the men being put upon by society's shifting, confusing expectations of them lest they be tagged with a label they don't want to wear.

For whatever reason, a lot of us can't simply look at the observable phenomenon in front of us and come to the conclusion that is the most obvious: A lot of us behave badly, and without much forethought.

You don't have to deny such things are happening in order to "clear your name" or whatever.

I'm so glad you're here to make broad accusations towards people who seem to agree this is a thing but think one adjective in the article's title was overreaching. Truly, feminism's best interests are served when bad faith is always assumed, sensationalism is defended, and people who agree with your politics are vilified. Oh well, should be fun to watch more overly dramatic trying-to-outgame-the-thread-instead-of-talk nonsense at least.

 

[ultratruman]

FBI needs to investigate this

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Again, I'm not an employee of FiveThirtyEight, but I did notice another trend:

lol I was waiting for Bobby's meta pop analysis of this thread.

I'm so glad you're here

In which people who don't like my contributions to conversations pretend they're happy to see me enter a thread!

Anyway, I don't think bad faith is being assumed at all, at least not on my part. I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing in the thread, and then going into why it might be popping up. tkscz and melphel both directly asked me to further explain what I was getting at, and my answer not only assumed they were not sexist, but also made sure to highlight how their activities weren't necessarily "wrong" in the first place, before getting into the aspects of the arguments that tend to cause people to trip up.

I think that's fair. I dunno.

 

[Chococat]

It seems the problem is that a certain subset of males are consistently down rating genres not aimed specifically towards them leading to Hollywood executives unwilling to produce shows not approved by men. It is silly, in this case, that one subset of men has so much control over what we all watch, male and female alike.

Other have said it. An algorithm is needed to weed out the trolls from rating boards so that we all can get more variety and quality on TV.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

You know they actually have studies and stuff on these very speculations you're discussing? You're sounding like there isn't academic studies done on the differences in empathy based on gender, or that sociology doesn't extend past a BA.

I'm aware of the studies on empathy, which is why I used it as an example of a speculative conclusion you could draw from this article. The fact remains that unless a study is done to specifically isolate whether innate increased empathy in females actually results in them having a more diverse interest in entertainment media then it's just speculation. Similarly it's just speculation in this thread as to why there is a discrepancy between the way men and women rate media on imdb. It also goes into why it seems the headline of this article is highly editorialized and speculative. There is absolutely no evidence in any of these numbers that this form of rating is a deliberate one, which is one of the important parts of the definition of "sabotage". I expect better than editorializing when/if you're doing good statistical analysis.

 

[Joelstinton14]

Twilight and Hunger Games are your examples of good movies with female leads, instead of movies like Winter's Bone or Blue Jasmine or even The Devil Wears Prada?

I didn't say that at all, i said that these two films more so then others attract mass down voting and abusive comments, when in reality some of the films are actually pretty decent and don't deserve the vehement abuse from male posters that they get.

Winter's Bone is a great film by the way One of the most recent posts on IMDB? About feminism but overall, films in this vain , and say for example Martha Marcy May Marlene (another favourite) are generally devoid of abusive comments. I'm not sure why that is, maybe because they are good films, or that the people being abusive to franchised films don't have interest in such films.

 

[Messofanego]

If I were going to rate Hot Girls Wanted, I'd put it low as well, and it has nothing to do with it being about women. And even ignoring my point of view, it's an anti-porn documentary on the internet. Of course it's going to get rated badly.

Labeling Hot Girls Wanted as an anti-porn documentary is reductive and disingenuous. By that logic, Date My Porn Star (NSFW) was an anti-porn documentary. When actually both documentaries are about showing how girls are coerced with easy money and end up in messed up situations. They're about demystifying expectations and clearing up misconceptions. They're cautionary tales that take into account the process of the porn industry, and why there's such a high turnover rate with many young girls leaving after bad things happen.

It's more likely the clickbait title got people to think they're watching something arousing when it is a documentary that got them to downvote it.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Sure. But that's not the question here.

The question is: why are a bunch of men rolling over to rate female-targeted shows poorly? Women don't do the same to male-targeted shows.

The article doesn't really answer that question though. My issue with it is that it's using correlation of males and lower raters for female targeted shows to arrive at the conclusion that they're intentionally sabotaging online reviews of said shows. It doesn't really delve into why they're rating them lower.

The fact that women seem to rate male targeted shows more in line with how males rate them doesn't really explain the difference as the shows are usually drastically different. I know it'd be subjective, but it'd be interesting to compare rating of similar shows across gender lines. For instance, Entourage has been called "Sex and the City for Men" and I'm sure there's plenty of other analogous shows across gender line.

Another thing I think would be interesting, would be to look at the professional critical response to said shows, ratings wise and compare how much the male average and female average differ from the critical average. This might still fall into the same trap as even professionals aren't truly objective or above biases.

 

[Joelstinton14]

Another thing I think would be interesting, would be to look at the professional critical response to said shows, .

Perfect opportunity to post theses

Mark Kermode Reviews Entourage

Mark Kermode reviews Sex and the city 2

Enjoy

 

[pigeon]

Eh... I've seen a pretty large number of women who also believe that stuff is bad because they don't like it... What's the term for that?

False equivalency.

 

[ReAxion]

lol that there's even any doubt

Perfect opportunity to post theses

Mark Kermode Reviews Entourage

Mark Kermode reviews Sex and the city 2

Enjoy

those are the movies, not the shows.

 

[uncelestial]

False equivalency.

Denzelboom.gif

 

[mephel]

Again, I'm not an employee of FiveThirtyEight, but I did notice another trend:





In which people who don't like my contributions to conversations pretend they're happy to see me enter a thread!

Anyway, I don't think bad faith is being assumed at all, at least not on my part. I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing in the thread, and then going into why it might be popping up. tkscz and melphel both directly asked me to further explain what I was getting at, and my answer not only assumed they were not sexist, but also made sure to highlight how their activities weren't necessarily "wrong" in the first place, before getting into the aspects of the arguments that tend to cause people to trip up.

I think that's fair. I dunno.

I had no problem with your response and I didn't think you assumed I was being sexist, but I still disagree.

I think the only reason why you see these numbers is that more men vote on these sites and men don't like stuff aimed at women. I don't believe they have to view shows based on the other genders point of view, these ratings don't have to be objective.

What you get is lower scores on women shows. That's it.

 

[hodayathink]

Labeling Hot Girls Wanted as an anti-porn documentary is reductive and disingenuous. By that logic, Date My Porn Star (NSFW) was an anti-porn documentary. When actually both documentaries are about showing how girls are coerced with easy money and end up in messed up situations. They're about demystifying expectations and clearing up misconceptions. They're cautionary tales that take into account the process of the porn industry, and why there's such a high turnover rate with many young girls leaving after bad things happen.

It's more likely the clickbait title got people to think they're watching something arousing when it is a documentary that got them to downvote it.

I hear all of that, and then I actually listen to Rashida Jones' personal opinion on the porn industry in general. And then I disagree with you.

And this is from someone who agrees that the porn industry in general (and the Florida porn industry in particular) can be exploitative as fuck.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Again, I'm not an employee of FiveThirtyEight, but I did notice another trend:





In which people who don't like my contributions to conversations pretend they're happy to see me enter a thread!

Anyway, I don't think bad faith is being assumed at all, at least not on my part. I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing in the thread, and then going into why it might be popping up. tkscz and melphel both directly asked me to further explain what I was getting at, and my answer not only assumed they were not sexist, but also made sure to highlight how their activities weren't necessarily "wrong" in the first place, before getting into the aspects of the arguments that tend to cause people to trip up.

I think that's fair. I dunno.

no, bobby, no. bad bobby. bad.

if an imagined average male goes into a rating website and shit on sex and the city for being female-media, then he did it because he genuinely didn't like it

however, if you, a real gaf poster-person, go into this thread and gives your opinion about what you see in the thread, then you are bad and you probably did it for an ulterior agenda

okay?

get things right, geez