The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Ostroeuropa]

Firstly, this advice is often packaged with propoganda and lies about rape statistics that erase male victims and demonize men.

The CDC statistics on sexual violence do not make any serious effort to erase male victims or demonize men and largely align with the common feminist narratives regarding the sexual victimization of women. The fundamental assertion of relevance in our conversation is that 1 in 5 women will experience rape or attempted rape in her life time. The CDC seems to use a more technical definition of rape as involving penetration and concludes that 1 in 38 men will experience rape or attempted rape in his life time. However, importantly, the CDC also includes the statistic that 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men will experience sexual violence involving physical contact.

The CDC linked to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief and by going through the presented data we get a little more elucidation on the statistics and the methodologies employed to obtain them, including a definition of rape that likely is similar to the one employed by the CDC. The survey defines rape as:

Any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types: completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration. Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object. Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.

Your initial thought regarding the definition is likely the same as mine - it seems discriminatory and meant to suggest that women are more likely to be victimized when that's not necessarily the case. Then we get to the interesting part.

Includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another female’s vagina or anus or another male’s anus. Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral sex from a male or female. It also includes male and female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.

The survey then reports that 1 in 5 women experienced rape or attempted rape, matching the CDC statistic, and, additionally, that 1 in 14 men are forced or coerced into engaging in penetration against their will. When we combine rape and forced to penetrate statistics, 22.5% of women will be victimized and 9.7% of men will be victimized. This means women are about 2.3 times more likely to experience rape even defining it in the most inclusive terms. Around 43% of women experience contact sexual violence at some point. Around 25% of men experience contact sexual violence at some point. The fact that terms have clear definitions in this survey serves to minimize as much as can be expected the problem of men not reporting their victimization.

The last serious objection I can countenance for the survey is the sampling bias, specifically with regard to sexual victimization among poor, non-white men under the age of twenty five. Lara Staple's study The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions places especial emphasis on the criminal justice system, juvenile detention facilities, and prisons and how the exclusion of inmates might skew statistics. This is extremely relevant given that an estimated 9% of American men will be incarcerated at some point during their lives. The study in question is a bit dated and largely critiques CDC studies from 2010-2012. The data I borrowed from the CDC is from 2015 and addresses a few of the gripes.

Importantly, for adult prison populations, we can observe that a significant portion of the victimization doesn't come from prison staff but, rather, from other inmates. This is true for both men and women. In juvenile populations, however, we observe that boys are more likely to be victimized by staff whereas girls are more likely to be victimized by fellow inmates. The difference here is quite stark owing to the fact that men and boys are far more likely to be incarcerated. That said, the occurrence of sexual violence remains in many ways gendered - even or especially when it occurs in this context.

Staple even goes so far as to conclude:

Finally, a gender-conscious analysis of sexual victimization as it affects both women and men is needed and is not inconsistent with a gender-neutral approach to defining abuse. Indeed, masculinized dominance and feminized subordination can take place regardless of the biological sex or sexual orientation of the actors. We therefore advocate for the use of gender-conscious analyses that avoid regressive stereotyping, to which both women and men are detrimentally subject. This includes an understanding of how gender norms can affect the sexual victimization of all persons.

She's not stating that we need a gender neutral approach, but rather that we need to dispense with the antiquated agent-object dichotomy and regressive stereotypes. Even in cases of same-sex sexual violence, power dynamics and gender remain important considerations in understanding these criminal behaviors. As a slight aside, I think Staple exaggerates the problematic nature of the disparity in the CDC data a bit given the occurrence of victimization among inmate populations cannot possibly bridge the disparity I referenced earlier between the occurrence of rape where men are victims (including where they're forced to penetrate the perpetrator) and where women are victims. Rather, Staple's argument is to mute that disparity somewhat and give us more accurate picture of sexual victimization among men in particular.

In conclusion, a lot of the commonly cited figures regarding the sexual victimization of women seem accurate, especially when the studies give us their definitions and methodologies. I don't think accusing researchers of lying in a generalized way is accurate, especially not when peer challenges exist in the form of studies and articles critical of one another's findings.

Secondly, if avoiding those pitfalls, it is subtly packaged the same way through linking rape to patriarchy and male domination, carrying the implication it is rooted in male mentalities and a desire to control women.

Sexual violence, even in instances where men are both the perpetrators and the victims, does seem rooted in patriarchal power dynamics since it often serves, especially in the context of incarcerated populations, to assert dominance over the victimized person. That said, while I cannot get a precise statistic on the breakdown by gender of perpetrators who victimize men, the numbers seem to imply that women are more likely to victimize men than men are to victimize men on the whole. It's quite probable that female perpetrators of sexual violence operate in a distinct psychological way to male perpetrators.

Studies can offer us a broad profile of the sorts of men who engage in sexual violence among the general population. A sense of entitlement, narcissism, peer pressure to pursue sexual conquests, lack of empathy, acceptance of rape myths, and negative or derogatory attitudes towards women are all risk factors that predispose young men to sexually aggressive behaviors. Since women are socialized differently, the social pressures and mental processes might function a little differently - though lack of empathy, acceptance of rape myths, narcissism, and negative attitudes towards men might still be present. The main difference would be the pressure to pursue sexual conquests in my view, but, again, I'd need better studies to corroborrate that suspicion.

I do think a decent portion of male-perpetrated sexual violence is linked to patriarchy, male domination, and the way men and boys are socialized. Interviews with rapists living out in the general population and observances of prison populations seem to corroborrate rather than refute that assertion. The question here isn't whether that argument is correct or not, but how it reflects on the psychology and behavior of those who engage in female-perpetrated sexual violence. In short, are female rapists different from male rapists in any psychological, sociological, or behavioral respect?

Thirdly, discussions of consent do not require feminism to happen and are often better conducted without it. It has nothing of value to contribute, only detriment and distraction from the core principles of consent which should remain the focus of such instruction without distraction from irrelevant bits of information. You don't want people remembering the bit about marital rape that feminists love to bring up (And ignore wives raping husbands) but coming out of the class still confused on how consent works. There's other problems with it too, but those are sufficient I think.

In teaching consent, taking gendered socialization into consideration might serve to improve the effectiveness of the lesson, especially when such lessons are presented in gendered spaces. Teaching consent among fraternity men seems to result in decreases in risk factors that make men susceptible to committing sexual violence and one element of that is the manner in which men are socialized. To give a more anecdotal example, a common refrain among the fraternity to which I'm a sweetheart is "real men don't rape."

Naturally, as we collect more data on female perpetrators of sexual violence, we can tailor such programs to us as well. Dispelling myths about male sexuality in particular strikes me as a worthwhile practice. It's not uncommon for women to believe that men are ALWAYS interested in sex for instance and that would constitute a so-called rape myth among women in much the same way that "sometimes women play hard to get" constitutes a rape myth among men.

Removing gendered elements from the conversation could significantly impair our ability to address problematic attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that lead to sexual violence because the assumption is that sexual assailants are an anti-social outlier and/or that they all have the same fundamental psychology and motivations. We have no evidence to actually suggest that at the moment and quite a bit to suggest that the opposite might in fact be true.

I've addressed this argument in an earlier thread.

You are arguing over *lifetime statistics*.

Please review the yearly statistics which show parity between men and women in terms of rape perpetration and victimization.

This is important for a number of reasons.

Policy and discussion should revolve around *current dynamics*. We do not need to endlessly talk about the need to tax the landed gentry because we have a ridiculous set of data stretching chronologically far beyond what is relevant. The statistics will show that men *are raped at the same rate as women, and women rape at the same rate as men.*.

This is separate from "Have been raped".

Once you understand that, you can also begin to understand why these lifetime statistics and even arguing more women "Have been raped" is highly dubious.

Firstly, data becomes less and less reliable the further from the event respondents are being asked to report. When discussing rape figures, *the most recent data is the most relevant and reliable*.
Secondly, Gallo has already previously provided studies showing that men deal with trauma differently to women, and will suppress and forget about it over a number of years at a higher rate than women. (Which suggests that the lifetime figures are too low for both, but significantly too low for men). Thirdly, lifetime figures include a significant number of the older population who are far less likely to have a correct understanding of rape and what it entails, this is crucial as being "forced to penetrate" while not considering it as a sexual assault may well lead to it being forgotten about more rapidly than if one processes what was done to them, and many may not even understand the question.

As for your point on prison populations; that's an extremely valid observation, however, most male prisoners report a female perpetrator (A guard) when it comes to their sexual assault.

This is the problem and why you are engaged in misinformation here:

This means women are about 2.3 times more likely to experience rape even defining it in the most inclusive terms.

You're using *present tense language while discussing lifetime statistics, but present tense stats disagree with you*.

This is an example of feminist misinformation that needs to be corrected.

Men are *As likely to experience rape as women are*. That's a fact. It's one obscured by your misuse of these statistics and you not understanding what they actually say, and this is an extremely common problem with feminists.

Returning to the nobility example, it's like arguing; "The landed gentry are 99.9% more likely to kill someone in a duel than anyone else".

Is that still true? Or is the timescale of your data set ridiculous?

Would having a study showing that actually, they're about as likely to kill anyone in a duel as any other people *in the current year*, stop you saying something so patently ridiculous, or would you still cling to a study measuring 1000 years of human history?

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

Do you get it yet?

So even you, who I consider to be genuinely trying, would have just fucked up and told children a bunch of lies if we let you try and teach them about this stuff. You would have demonized men, made out rape was mostly a male issue, and so on and so on.

You would have taught them to fear men and view them as suspect and to endlessly prattle on about what defect in men causes them to rape more, based on you *immediately latching on to something that confirmed your biases rather than digging deeper*.

You would have taught them "women *are raped* more than men", despite that not being true, and fostered misandry, resentment, and so on.

Do you understand the problem with that?

I don't see why we should have to wait for boomers to all die off for *this* bullshit to finally get resolved too. Are you seriously proposing feminists just ignore the reality in front of them and harken back to the old days when what they were saying might have had actual relevance? Fillibuster society with lifetime stats that get increasingly less and less supportive of their nonsense as the yearly figures continue to tick away at it showing parity, and the whole while in the meantime prattling on about how men are defective somehow and that causes them to rape more and we need to figure out why?

For what? 40 years? 50?

How long do you think that completely unproductive and inane misandry would be justified for? Until everyone over 40 is dead?

[Ostroeuropa]

1. Why is the education crisis disproportionately impacting boys. This is like you saying "It's an issue of police militarization, we don't need to talk about racism."

2. This is highly debatable.

3. Women already receive more pay than men, right up until they have a child. The reason women take on more work-life balance than men do is that men are institutionally prevented from doing so. Men on part time work receive less pay than women on part time work. This, in addition to maternal gatekeeping, is the actual root of the issue. Nothing else is relevant and we can see that by comparing young women and young men, seeing women are paid more, part time men and part time women, women are paid more, and the only place women are paid less is *women who have children*.

1. Equating 2 completely different topics.
Education affects everyone.
All boys, working class boys? Rich boys? Fatherless boys? Orphans boys?

2. I think Faharn has covered this elegantly.

3 (a) Provide evidence women get more pay than men FOR THE SAME JOB before pregnancy.
(b) This is because of society, not because of feminism.
(c) Provide evidence men on part time work receive less pay than women for part time work FOR THE SAME JOB.
(d) Women who have children should not be paid less.

1. Police violence effects all demographics, whats your point?
All boys, but especially working class ones.

2. No, she didn't. She tried, but failed. See above. Your eagerness to buy into that explanation speaks volumes.

3. A) It's not about the same job and never has been. Provide evidence women are paid less than men for the same jobs if that's your argument.
B) Feminisms consistent misframing of the topic alongside crushing opposing movements makes it their responsibility.
C) See A.
D) You don't think someone who works part-time should earn less than someone who works full-time?

[Fahran]

I've addressed this argument in an earlier thread.

You are arguing over *lifetime statistics*.

Please review the yearly statistics which show parity between men and women in terms of rape perpetration and victimization.

If we review the annual statistics, we observe that 1.2% of women experienced attempted or completed penetration in the 12 months preceding the study whereas 0.7% of men experienced attempted or completed sexual assault involving them being forced to penetrate the perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the study. These were the two most common forms of rape, using my own broadened definition, for each gender respectively. This still results in women being 1.7 times more likely to experience rape, by the most broad and inclusive definition, in the past year. We're missing the statistics on men being penetrated, largely an occurrence in male-on-male sexual assault, and women being forced to penetrate, largely an occurrence in female-on-female sexual assault.

Taking into account Gallo's posts on how men experience trauma differently, the disparity still continues to exist - even when we take Staple's corrective statistics on sexual violence among incarcerated populations into consideration. The disparity is a little bit more muted, but it still exists in the data set in question. It's possible that this is still incorrect due to men not acknowledging their victimization when surveyed, but the methodological approach was meant to minimize that as much as possible.

As for your point on prison populations; that's an extremely valid observation, however, most male prisoners report a female perpetrator (A guard) when it comes to their sexual assault.

While it is correct that most male inmates are raped by prison staff, I haven't actually been able to find a reliable breakdown by gender yet. Staple's study doesn't provide elucidation there. Nor does Sexual Violence Inside Prisons: Rates of Victimization. I'll keep looking.

This is the problem and why you are engaged in misinformation here:

This means women are about 2.3 times more likely to experience rape even defining it in the most inclusive terms.

You're using *present tense language while discussing lifetime statistics, but present tense stats disagree with you*.

This is an example of feminist misinformation that needs to be corrected.

It's not really a deliberate misrepresentation. It's a potential methodological problem elucidated by other studies because we assumed responses to sexual trauma were the same between genders. Additionally, life-time statistics may differ from annual statistics for any number of reasons given that annual statistics vary from year to year. It's possible that rates of female victimization have decreased, that rates of male victimization have increased, or, most likely, that rates of male and female victimization have decreased at different rates in response to rape prevention strategies. This doesn't mean that the statistics are inaccurate or lies, but, rather, that they might not demonstrate what people believe they demonstrate. But they remain useful for the reasons I mentioned, especially together with annual data.

With regard to the Reason article you cited, the principal assertion was correct so long as we limited focus to the annual period and emphasized forced penetration or being forced into penetration. If we expand the definition to include coercion, the disparity reemerges. Additionally, if we move to 2015, we get the annual disparity that I cited above - which suggests that the occurrence of sexual violence may differ from year to year or that different samples may yield different results.

[Ors Might]

To comment on how men deal with trauma, I’d like to chime in with my own experiences. I’ve mentioned this before but I’ve been sexually harassed and grabbed by a classmate in the past and it took me a long time before I was really able to register it as wrong and only began to address it when I mentally and emotionally couldn’t ignore it anymore. I’m not saying my experiences on this subject are the norm for men but I do think it could explain some discrepancies.

We need to teach people from a young age what sexual abuse looks like and how to recognize it when it happens to themselves and others. But based upon what I’ve dealt with and what I’ve seen other guys express, I feel like there’s a larger barrier for men on coming to terms with what happens to them.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've addressed this argument in an earlier thread.

You are arguing over *lifetime statistics*.

Please review the yearly statistics which show parity between men and women in terms of rape perpetration and victimization.

If we review the annual statistics, we observe that 1.2% of women experienced attempted or completed penetration in the 12 months preceding the study whereas 0.7% of men experienced attempted or completed sexual assault involving them being forced to penetrate the perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the study. These were the two most common forms of rape, using my own broadened definition, for each gender respectively. This still results in women being 1.7 times more likely to experience rape, by the most broad and inclusive definition, in the past year. We're missing the statistics on men being penetrated, largely an occurrence in male-on-male sexual assault, and women being forced to penetrate, largely an occurrence in female-on-female sexual assault.

Taking into account Gallo's posts on how men experience trauma differently, the disparity still continues to exist - even when we take Staple's corrective statistics on sexual violence among incarcerated populations into consideration. The disparity is a little bit more muted, but it still exists in the data set in question. It's possible that this is still incorrect due to men not acknowledging their victimization when surveyed, but the methodological approach was meant to minimize that as much as possible.

As for your point on prison populations; that's an extremely valid observation, however, most male prisoners report a female perpetrator (A guard) when it comes to their sexual assault.

While it is correct that most male inmates are raped by prison staff, I haven't actually been able to find a reliable breakdown by gender yet. Staple's study doesn't provide elucidation there. Nor does Sexual Violence Inside Prisons: Rates of Victimization. I'll keep looking.

This is the problem and why you are engaged in misinformation here:


You're using *present tense language while discussing lifetime statistics, but present tense stats disagree with you*.

This is an example of feminist misinformation that needs to be corrected.

It's not really a deliberate misrepresentation. It's a potential methodological problem elucidated by other studies because we assumed responses to sexual trauma were the same between genders. Additionally, life-time statistics may differ from annual statistics for any number of reasons given that annual statistics vary from year to year. It's possible that rates of female victimization have decreased, that rates of male victimization have increased, or, most likely, that rates of male and female victimization have decreased at different rates in response to rape prevention strategies. This doesn't mean that the statistics are inaccurate or lies, but, rather, that they might not demonstrate what people believe they demonstrate. But they remain useful for the reasons I mentioned, especially together with annual data.

When including the prison population, differences in trauma processing, and the lower rates of acknowledgement and reporting, I'm confident we'd see 1.7 come down significantly. This was, apparently, a year where more women were raped than men though, I agree with you those aren't sufficient to overcome the 1.7 gap. Most years the figures fall between 40 and 51% however, even before taking into account those problems.

On prisons, stemple:

They add that “for women prisoners and girls in detention, staff perpetrators are overwhelmingly male, and for men and boys the staff perpetrators are overwhelmingly female.” Women are disproportionately represented among all staff abusers because men and boys are so disproportionately incarcerated overall.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... or/503492/

Also relevant;

Noting the high prevalence of “sexual victimization committed by female staff members and female inmates,” the authors report that women are “much more likely to be abused” by other women inmates than by male staff.

And;

“The disproportionate abuse by female staff members does not occur because women are more often staffing facilities,” the authors write. “Men outnumber women by a ratio of three to one in positions requiring direct contact with inmates.”

Finally, also relevant;

Tellingly, researchers have found that victims who experience childhood sexual abuse at the hands of both women and men are more reluctant to disclose the victimization perpetrated by women (Sgroi & Sargent, 1993). Indeed the discomfort of reporting child sexual victimization by a female perpetrator can be so acute that a victim may instead inaccurately report that his or her abuser was male (Longdon, 1993).

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

i decree that from now on, all novels disguised as posts are required to have a tl;dr and/or spoiler, preferably both.

[New haven america]

Mens spaces get actively shut down, so no, doesn't quite work that way.

1. when y'all can only apparently come up with (effectively) male spaces like 8chan, a voice for men, and porn sites then yeah no shit that's gonna happen.

As for "Allowed to exist", sure. I'm not calling for the feminist thread to be deleted. I'm merely here pointing out when misinformation is being spread.

2. with the notable exception of when you are spreading the misinformation (i.e. most of the time)

1. False, several clubs in the late 1800 and early-mid 1900's were male only but got shut down cause the feminist movements at the time view them as sexist for excluding women.
2. For a quick bit of reference. Feminist=/=Woman. Lots of women are anti-feminism and lots of guys are pro-feminism.

[New haven america]

To comment on how men deal with trauma, I’d like to chime in with my own experiences. I’ve mentioned this before but I’ve been sexually harassed and grabbed by a classmate in the past and it took me a long time before I was really able to register it as wrong and only began to address it when I mentally and emotionally couldn’t ignore it anymore. I’m not saying my experiences on this subject are the norm for men but I do think it could explain some discrepancies.

We need to teach people from a young age what sexual abuse looks like and how to recognize it when it happens to themselves and others. But based upon what I’ve dealt with and what I’ve seen other guys express, I feel like there’s a larger barrier for men on coming to terms with what happens to them.

We do.

The problem though is that we only teach girls that. On the other hand, we teach boys how not to be physically or sexually violent towards girls, which ends up with most men growing up to be much less likely to physically or sexually harm women, yet not knowing that they can experience physical/sexual abuse themselves (And a system that actively punishes them for talking about this type of stuff, like the Duluth Model). Meanwhile, we have a lot of women growing up who think they can only be victims or don't realize their physically/sexually violent behavior in general. (Fun fact: Lesbians are the most physically, verbally, and sexually abusive relationship demographic, as most girls aren't taught that hitting or talking shit about your partner is bad)

[West Leas Oros 2]

Ostroeuropa: the term feminist is bad because it's inherently sexist
Cekoviu: the term feminist is bad because it's not inherently sexist

Horseshoe theory?

Also, how the fuck has Cekoviu gotten away with this shit so much?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Cool. Hopefully some of the posts get through to you.

Specifically these aspects:
immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement.
Feminist ideology cultivates these things in women, and women enable this in eachother by validating the perspectives and prejudices at the root of these flaws and affirming the feminist identity as a positive one. Feminism also gives its adherents a sense of identity and feminists are co-dependent on eachother for this identity.

I mean sure, you don't have to respond.

This post does seem like an "all X are Y".
Perhaps be a tad more tactile?

Are you fucking serious? We’ve had a self declared misandrist bullying people in the thread for multiple pages, and this is what bothers you?

[Fahran]

Horseshoe theory?

Also, how the fuck has Cekoviu gotten away with this shit so much?

Because, while she's spicy, she usually stays within the scope of the rules - at least from what I've seen.

[Katganistan]

Also, this isn't men invading a 'female only' space, because this is a forum thread, not a female only space.

i'm not saying this spot is itself a female-only space, but that the invasion by MRAs represents a mirroring of males' insistence upon inserting themselves in female spaces

You're right. It's not a female only space. And anyone is welcome to debate in it. If their debate falls under the umbrella of trolling, be sure to report it.

[Cekoviu]

NSG statistical analysis - round 2: eclectic boogaloo
Cekoviu^1
1 Corresponding author (University of Ediacara, Department of Phrenology)

Abstract

Introduction
It is a well-documented phenomenon that on any forum dedicated to political discussion, topics related to feminism will inevitably become the most toxic hives of scum and villainy on the forum. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the political forum NationStates General, which is hosted by the web game and Austrian book advertisement NationStates; there have been approximately 1,545 pages (a page consisting of 25 posts) of "Feminist Discussion Thread" content. For the most part, regular contributors to this thread have remained surprisingly consistent, with some but not an extreme amount of turnover. Notably and despite the name, the thread is inhabited by a significant cohort of anti-feminist individuals, or "MRAs" (men's rights activists).

One such user on the forum (an adult man obsessed with the children's television program My Little Pony and staunch anti-feminist known as "Ostroeuropa") posited that approximately 90% of his posts debunk misinformation spread by feminists within the thread, which is widespread and which the resident feminists refuse to debunk. The primary goal of this investigation is thus to determine how accurate of an estimate that is (I presume that it is a vast overestimate), but we will also look at the characters that choose to inhabit this thread and what their psychologies look like.

Methods
Primary methodology was adapted from my previous analysis on the same site's Right-Wing Discussion Thread. An arbitrary set of pages across multiple iterations of the Feminist Discussion Thread was chosen, fewer samples than for the RWDT due to the smaller range of topics of the FDT. The page ranges are:

• FDT 3: 25-30, 480-485
• FDT 4: 30-40

(This is equivalent to 500 posts, although fewer were included, as some were made by users that were not included due to the low number of posts they made.)
A list was compiled of active users of the thread over the time periods surveyed. Some may have been missed, as there were no specific criteria and the list was done by sight.

Cekoviu, Costa Fierro, Des-Bal, Galloism, Giovenith, New haven america, Ostroeuropa, Purgatio, Rojava Free State, Stellar Colonies, Sundiata, The Rich Port, West Leas Oros 2, Wink Wonk We Like Stonks, The Xenopolis Confederation

These users were additionally sorted by gender and classified as either feminists, MRAs, or neutral, the latter based on espoused opinions rather than self-identification (see appendix A for assignments).
Next, I set up a post classification system as before in order to identify what proportion of each individual's posts and posts in total debunk or spread misinformation:

• Demonstrated falsehood of misinformation from MRAs (abbr. DM) - The post objectively and unarguably disproves a statistical, historical, linguistic, or economic assertion by an MRA.
• Demonstrated falsehood of misinformation from feminists (DF) - Same as DM, but applied to feminists rather than MRAs.
• Arguable demonstration of falsehood of misinformation from MRAs (abbr. AM) - The post presents strong arguments against a statistical, historical, linguistic, or economic assertion by an MRA and may or may not fully disprove it depending on the viewer's perspective.
• Arguable demonstration of falsehood of misinformation from feminists (abbr. AF) - Same as AM, but for misinformation from feminists.
• MRA propaganda (PM) - The post's contents intentionally skew a statistical, historical, linguistic, or economic reality in order to benefit an MRA agenda, or assert the existence of a statistical, historical, linguistic, or economic event or trend which is outright not factual in order to benefit an MRA agenda.
• Feminist propaganda (PF) - Same as PM, but in order to suit a feminist rather than MRA agenda.
• No contribution (NC) - The post states an opinion or is otherwise unfalsifiable, or does not do anything to counteract or propagate misinformation. The vast majority of posts in general and for almost every poster fall into this category.

For examples of these post categories, please see appendix B.

Note that sorting posts into these categories is by nature subjective and due to the volume of posts, I was unable to read every single one in detail, so post counts by category may be slightly off (the only poster who this affects to any potentially significant degree is Ostro due to the average length of his posts here being much longer than everybody else's; I had to briefly skim most of those and therefore likely missed some propaganda. Disproving misinformation is much easier to catch because links and numbers are present, so results will only be skewed in his favor if at all). On a macroscopic level, the counts should still be approximately reflective of the general situation per poster.

While simple post proportions are visible from the data itself, I also examined statistical trends between gender, ideology, and likelihood of spreading/debunking propaganda. I composed a post contribution index (different from the ones in the RWDT analysis, do not confuse the two) using the simple measure (n_[i]D + 0.5n_A - n_P), simply factoring in posts which either promoted or debunked misinformation according to which action they performed. All data was analyzed and all plots were generated using R.

For the creation of psychological profiles, I simply observed trends across posts made by each user as well as posts responding to them in order to glean information about their psychological condition and took notes. Some users were excluded because they did not post enough to get accurate insights.

Results and discussion
The results for PCI (post contribution index) were largely predictable and are as follows.

User	PCI	Rank
Galloism	4.5	1
Purgatio	4	2
Des-Bal	1	3
Giovenith	0.5	4
Stellar Colonies	0.5	4
Cekoviu	0	5
The Rich Port	0	5
The Xenopolis Confederation	0	5
West Leas Oros 2	0	5
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks	0	5
New haven america	-0.5	6
Sundiata	-1	7
New Edom	-3	8
Rojava Free State	-3	8
Costa Fierro	-4	9
Ostroeuropa	-6.5	10

(A positive result means that the user improved the accuracy of the discourse, a result of 0 means that the user had no measurable effect on the accuracy of the discourse, and a negative result means the user decreased the accuracy of the discourse.)
However, this measurement does not take into account posting frequencies. Adjusted for post frequency, the ranking is as follows:

User	Freq-adjusted PCI	Rank
Purgatio	0.8	1
Stellar Colonies	0.1	2
Galloism	0.096	3
Des-Bal	0.042	4
Giovenith	0.042	4
Cekoviu	0	5
The Rich Port	0	5
The Xenopolis Confederation	0	5
West Leas Oros 2	0	5
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks	0	5
New haven america	-0.018	6
Sundiata	-0.026	7
Ostroeuropa	-0.120	8
New Edom	-0.143	9
Rojava Free State	-0.429	10
Costa Fierro	-0.571	11

Interpretation is the same as above vis-a-vis positive/negative, but keep in mind that these scores are indicative of a person's propensity to spread or reduce misinformation rather than indicating their direct overall literal impact on the thread.

Finally, to directly answer the initial research question, 5.6% of Ostroeuropa's posts were found to either potentially or unarguably debunk misinformation and we can summarily discard his hypothesis.

Please see this gallery for various additional results: https://imgur.com/a/0yjARJS

Results: profiles
Some people aren't on here because I couldn't get enough of a read on them to feel confident in an assessment, or because I forgot them. I swear these are not intended to be personal digs on anyone, I'm taking an outsider's perspective to approach how they would interpret the social interactions here and I'm remaining as honest as possible.

OSTROEUROPA: Extraverted and talkative, but may lack the quality of interpersonal relationships he desires due to his personality trait of valuing being correct over being liked. Likely at risk for substance abuse in order to cope with psychological trauma. Has drive and ambition, and is willing to sacrifice personal relationships if they hold him back. Highly opinionated and stubborn.
Desired perception: Logical, methodical, intelligent, well-spoken
Public perception: Negative - bitter, angry, opinonated, stubborn, verbose
Mindset: Ethos

NEW HAVEN AMERICA: Introverted, albeit not anti-social - bitter over a lack of social connection (particularly romantic?). Possibly on the autism spectrum, exhibits a weak understanding of social cues and comedic timing/context. Enjoys angering people - to compensate for an internal emptiness? Not particularly driven or passionate, a social drifter.
Desired perception: Intelligent, witty, humorous, fun
Public perception: Negative - grating, uninteresting (uncertain)
Mindset: Logos

GALLOISM: Not particularly extraverted or introverted. Well-attuned to social cues. Ashamed of growing conservative with age. Values social justice regardless of group. Statistically inclined, strong ability to recognize patterns.
Desired perception: Well-read, intelligent, witty
Public perception: Positive - accomplished, knowledgeable, likeable
Mindset: Ethos

CEKOVIU: Extraverted and talkative, but shyness and poor self-image result in emotional guarding and few close social connections. Snark and insults are a subconscious means of projecting internal discomfort. Recognition is the most important value, whether positive or negative. Highly self-aware. Quick learner and inquisitive, but also quick to judge. Short attention span and fuse. Unskilled at maintaining positive routines, but prone to forming bad habits. Well-rounded set of interests and strong ambition.
Desired perception: Witty, intelligent, fun, playful, honest
Public perception: Negative - aloof, condescending, contrarian, uninformed
Mindset: Pathos

STELLAR COLONIES: Introverted, logical, science-minded. Few close relationships with people in real life. Skilled at forming compromises and helping with conflict resolution. Unsure of themselves, shy, soft-spoken.
Desired perception: Intelligent, nonjudgmental, generous, compromising
Public perception: [Unclear]
Mindset: Logos

DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

SUNDIATA: Extraverted, loyal, perseverant. Appears to cling to Opus Dei and Catholicism as a way of substituting for emptiness in the soul, perhaps caused by loneliness or turmoil in his personal life. Likely lacks positive organic contact with women on a regular basis.
Desired perception: Kind, devout, friendly
Public perception: Negative - fanatical, illogical, simpesque, strange
Mindset: Ethos

COSTA FIERRO: Introverted, bitter, passionate about a very specific set of subjects. Possible trauma, or simple resentment, leads to a severe rejection of the opposite sex. Unconcerned with accuracy if a claim sounds true enough; does not subconsciously value conformance of worldview to reality. Few interpersonal relationships.
Desired perception: Brave, independent, unique
Public perception: Negative - hypocritical, cowardly
Mindset: Pathos

WEST LEAS OROS: Introverted, young, rash, not an overthinker. Perhaps left out of activities as a child or currently, hence the overwhelming desire to be included and validated. Likely to be somewhat uncertain about identity and place. Does not appear to be particularly well-versed in history, politics, sociology, or rhetoric; most familiarity with political discourse was likely formed via social media/Internet fora.
Desired perception: Brave, logical, a desirable comrade
Public perception: Neutral - hot-headed, common-sense, overall adequate
Mindset: Pathos

GIOVENITH: Somewhat introverted, easily offended, protective, deeply concerned with social injustice, occasionally rash. Values fairness over loyalty and enjoys caretaker roles, perhaps interested in education or medicine as career options.
Desired perception: Just, kind, empathetic, intelligent
Public perception: Positive - respectable, fair, assertive where necessary
Mindset: Ethos

WONK STONKS OR WHATEVER: Extraverted, happy-go-lucky, young. Cheerful, up to date on current culture, well-liked by most. Desired perception: Quirky, unique, fun
Public perception: Positive - "in", friendly, humorous
Mindset: Pathos(?)

Conclusion
Ostro was wrong: statistically speaking, the majority of his contributions appear to do nothing to counter "feminist misinformation" and the presence of MRAs does not appear to have any negative effect on how much misinformation is shared, as the majority of misinformation was propagated by MRAs and only Gallo really did anything to disprove any feminist-originated misinformation.

Appendix A - Gender and ideology assignments

Poster	Sex	Ideology
Cekoviu	f	feminist
Costa Fierro	m	mra
Des-Bal	m	mra
Dumb Ideologies	f	neutral
Galloism	m	mra
Giovenith	f	feminist
New haven america	m	mra
Ostroeuropa	m	mra
Purgatio	m	feminist
Rojava Free State	m	neutral
Stellar Colonies	u	neutral
Sundiata	m	feminist
The Rich Port	u	feminist
West Leas Oros 2	m	mra
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks	u	feminist
The Xenopolis Confederation	f	neutral

Appendix B - Example posts
DM/DF posts look like the following:

Crucially, the poster links a study demonstrating the falsehood of the point the other user, who is feminist, is making, rather than simply stating the interlocutor is incorrect using anecdotes or blind assertions.

You sure that's not you?

While a lot of his posts leave me feeling disjointed and so I don't respond to them much, this part is actually factually based.

Barring explicit disclaimers, failing to be sexist against men is viewed as misogyny on average.

When you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

PM/PF posts look like the following:

Most egregious portion highlighted in bold (the claim here is extremely skewed, and Purgatio demonstrates how in a following AM post). It is important to distinguish the unfalsifiable opinions constituting the rest of the post from the very much disprovable historical claim made here, which is what makes this a PM post rather than a NC post.

You have nobody to blame but yourself.

If you had read LOTR you woulda know to... Alright look I'm a bad LOTR nerd OK.

Um. Glorfindel



Think you misread that. It's POLITICAL suicide.

Which yeah.

How so? Plenty of women support an alt-right and far-right agenda and want it enforced on society. Let's suppose they even straight up repealed womens right to vote.

That would still not be political suicide for women. Example, the daughters of the confederacy were able to massively impact society to the point we're still dealing with their bullshit based on the idea that women were inherently "Non-political" and non-partisan, well before they had the right to vote. This was a common strategy by womens organizations historically to force change on society while delegitimizing criticism and opposition through the claim that women weren't able to be political so the person criticizing them had no idea what they were talking about and clearly just had personal failings.

They completely transformed southern society. If anything it's similar to the "When we do it, it's not sexism" meme we're seeing from women in the modern day. (Which ironically relies on a continuation of the former mentality and denial women had a major role in shaping society.).

Second verse, same as the first.

Works like this tbh:
https://youtu.be/JTfhYyTuT44?t=4248

From here onwards. This entire part of the video describes how feminists operate and how women have historically operated in politics. It is not a coincidence QAnon is mostly women too.

So long as our society continues to believe that if women as a group are upset with a man there's something wrong with the man, so long as it continues to axiomatically reject the notion there might instead be something wrong with women as a group, political suicide for women is not possible. Because they have, can, and will exploit that dynamic to achieve their political goals while denying it.

The key is for men to internalize that rick and morty quote

"Your boo's mean nothing to me, i've seen what makes you cheer.".

This is one example of a demonstrably false claim meant to benefit the feminist side of the argument.

There certainly are different definitions. Where they impact women there is outcry.are you suggesting it would be difficult to find a feminist who says women victimizing men is different and less serious than victimizing a woman?

Yes, no feminist of serious academic or legal note believes that.

NC posts are essentially every post that does not resemble one of these.

External resources

• Source data for all the analysis
• R source code
• URL to our complaints department if you have a problem with your scores/psychological profile

[Cekoviu]

This post does seem like an "all X are Y".
Perhaps be a tad more tactile?

Are you fucking serious? We’ve had a self declared misandrist bullying people in the thread for multiple pages, and this is what bothers you?

when did i bully anyone

i'm not saying this spot is itself a female-only space, but that the invasion by MRAs represents a mirroring of males' insistence upon inserting themselves in female spaces

You're right. It's not a female only space. And anyone is welcome to debate in it. If their debate falls under the umbrella of trolling, be sure to report it.

what does this add kat

[Fahran]

When including the prison population, differences in trauma processing, and the lower rates of acknowledgement and reporting, I'm confident we'd see 1.7 come down significantly. This was, apparently, a year where more women were raped than men though, I agree with you those aren't sufficient to overcome the 1.7 gap. Most years the figures fall between 40 and 51% however, even before taking into account those problems.

These annual disparities, when we account for the decades of data we've collected, lead to the life-time disparities, though we have to account for insufficient methodologies in the past, the exclusion of incarcerated populations, and men not recognizing or suppressing trauma as a result of sexual victimization. While I do not have hard data to examine, I imagine that the sexual victimization of women has declined at a much steeper rate than the sexual victimization of men given the broad success of the feminist movement on such issues. It's difficult for me to see the numbers lining up precisely to the "men and women are victimized about as often" assertion, though it appears to have been true in 2010 and 2011. I think the more easily supported argument is that "men are victimized far more often than the popular discourse acknowledges" since we have abundant evidence of that.

And, with regard to the paragraph above, we're still focusing solely on the modified definition of rape I provided. When we account for coerced sexual activity, wherein a person wears down another through constant badgering and social pressure, it appears, even in years where the occurrence of rape is similar, that women are about 1.5 times as likely to be pressured into sex than men in 2010 and 2011. In much the same way, women are also more likely to suffer from cat-calling and many other forms of sexual harassment. In general, the perpetrators of such sexual violence often come from the opposite gender. I think we can acknowledge the role the socialization of men and boys plays in their portion of the behavior in much the same way that we can and should acknowledge the role the socialization of women and girls plays in our portion of it.

It's worthwhile to do the same with other criminal or problematic behaviors as well since socialization often plays a role and, in our society as with any society, socialization is gendered. It's not about demonization. It's about proactive, rather than reactive, solutions. The average rapist doesn't rape because they're intrinsically evil in much the same way that the average fraudster doesn't steal because they're intrinsically evil. And so we can prevent rape from happening if we can address the risk factors.

They add that “for women prisoners and girls in detention, staff perpetrators are overwhelmingly male, and for men and boys the staff perpetrators are overwhelmingly female.” Women are disproportionately represented among all staff abusers because men and boys are so disproportionately incarcerated overall.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... or/503492/

Also relevant;

Noting the high prevalence of “sexual victimization committed by female staff members and female inmates,” the authors report that women are “much more likely to be abused” by other women inmates than by male staff.

And;

“The disproportionate abuse by female staff members does not occur because women are more often staffing facilities,” the authors write. “Men outnumber women by a ratio of three to one in positions requiring direct contact with inmates.”

Finally, also relevant;

Tellingly, researchers have found that victims who experience childhood sexual abuse at the hands of both women and men are more reluctant to disclose the victimization perpetrated by women (Sgroi & Sargent, 1993). Indeed the discomfort of reporting child sexual victimization by a female perpetrator can be so acute that a victim may instead inaccurately report that his or her abuser was male (Longdon, 1993).

This all seems accurate and consistent with the findings of Staple's study. As I mentioned a little while ago, we do need to engage in more research of female sexual predators so that we can obtain more data and tailor solutions to female-perpetrated sexual violence. In particular, a broad psychological profile, like the one I referenced for male sexual predators, would prove useful in developing programs to decrease the occurrence of female-perpetrated sexual violence.

[Cekoviu]

by the way that whole post probably took me like 5 solid hours of work so you'd better appreciate the hell out of it

[New haven america]

by the way that whole post probably took me like 5 solid hours of work so you'd better appreciate the hell out of it

It's full of misinformation and personal biases from the author (I'm going for a master's degree btw, unambitious my ass) that in some cases could be seen as flaming/flamebaiting, as well as no explanation of their math or how they came to their conclusions (Probably out of fear of revealing said personal biases).

2/10, interesting idea, needs better execution, my Soc. professor probably would've kicked my ass if I presented him a report like that.

[New Visayan Islands]

1. All this reply shows is that you don't know what irony is.
2. If you choose to view facts as insults, sure.

read:
"1. waaa mommy tell the mean internet lady that definitions dont shift and words cant possibly not mean the same thing as they did 150 years ago or have colloquial uses
2. facts don't care about your feelings libtard!!!!! epic troll'd!!1one" (this would be much better with emoji but this ANCIENT goddamn forum software WON'T LET ME USE THEM)

NSG statistical analysis - round 2: eclectic boogaloo
Cekoviu^1
1 Corresponding author (University of Ediacara, Department of Phrenology)

Abstract

(Image)

Introduction
It is a well-documented phenomenon that on any forum dedicated to political discussion, topics related to feminism will inevitably become the most toxic hives of scum and villainy on the forum. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the political forum NationStates General, which is hosted by the web game and Austrian book advertisement NationStates; there have been approximately 1,545 pages (a page consisting of 25 posts) of "Feminist Discussion Thread" content. For the most part, regular contributors to this thread have remained surprisingly consistent, with some but not an extreme amount of turnover. Notably and despite the name, the thread is inhabited by a significant cohort of anti-feminist individuals, or "MRAs" (men's rights activists).

One such user on the forum (an adult man obsessed with the children's television program My Little Pony and staunch anti-feminist known as "Ostroeuropa") posited that approximately 90% of his posts debunk misinformation spread by feminists within the thread, which is widespread and which the resident feminists refuse to debunk. The primary goal of this investigation is thus to determine how accurate of an estimate that is (I presume that it is a vast overestimate), but we will also look at the characters that choose to inhabit this thread and what their psychologies look like.

Methods
Primary methodology was adapted from my previous analysis on the same site's Right-Wing Discussion Thread. An arbitrary set of pages across multiple iterations of the Feminist Discussion Thread was chosen, fewer samples than for the RWDT due to the smaller range of topics of the FDT. The page ranges are:

• FDT 3: 25-30, 480-485
• FDT 4: 30-40

(This is equivalent to 500 posts, although fewer were included, as some were made by users that were not included due to the low number of posts they made.)
A list was compiled of active users of the thread over the time periods surveyed. Some may have been missed, as there were no specific criteria and the list was done by sight.

Cekoviu, Costa Fierro, Des-Bal, Galloism, Giovenith, New haven america, Ostroeuropa, Purgatio, Rojava Free State, Stellar Colonies, Sundiata, The Rich Port, West Leas Oros 2, Wink Wonk We Like Stonks, The Xenopolis Confederation

These users were additionally sorted by gender and classified as either feminists, MRAs, or neutral, the latter based on espoused opinions rather than self-identification (see appendix A for assignments).
Next, I set up a post classification system as before in order to identify what proportion of each individual's posts and posts in total debunk or spread misinformation:

• Demonstrated falsehood of misinformation from MRAs (abbr. DM) - The post objectively and unarguably disproves a statistical, historical, linguistic, or economic assertion by an MRA.
• Demonstrated falsehood of misinformation from feminists (DF) - Same as DM, but applied to feminists rather than MRAs.
• Arguable demonstration of falsehood of misinformation from MRAs (abbr. AM) - The post presents strong arguments against a statistical, historical, linguistic, or economic assertion by an MRA and may or may not fully disprove it depending on the viewer's perspective.
• Arguable demonstration of falsehood of misinformation from feminists (abbr. AF) - Same as AM, but for misinformation from feminists.
• MRA propaganda (PM) - The post's contents intentionally skew a statistical, historical, linguistic, or economic reality in order to benefit an MRA agenda, or assert the existence of a statistical, historical, linguistic, or economic event or trend which is outright not factual in order to benefit an MRA agenda.
• Feminist propaganda (PF) - Same as PM, but in order to suit a feminist rather than MRA agenda.
• No contribution (NC) - The post states an opinion or is otherwise unfalsifiable, or does not do anything to counteract or propagate misinformation. The vast majority of posts in general and for almost every poster fall into this category.

For examples of these post categories, please see appendix B.

Note that sorting posts into these categories is by nature subjective and due to the volume of posts, I was unable to read every single one in detail, so post counts by category may be slightly off (the only poster who this affects to any potentially significant degree is Ostro due to the average length of his posts here being much longer than everybody else's; I had to briefly skim most of those and therefore likely missed some propaganda. Disproving misinformation is much easier to catch because links and numbers are present, so results will only be skewed in his favor if at all). On a macroscopic level, the counts should still be approximately reflective of the general situation per poster.

While simple post proportions are visible from the data itself, I also examined statistical trends between gender, ideology, and likelihood of spreading/debunking propaganda. I composed a post contribution index (different from the ones in the RWDT analysis, do not confuse the two) using the simple measure (n_[i]D + 0.5n_A - n_P), simply factoring in posts which either promoted or debunked misinformation according to which action they performed. All data was analyzed and all plots were generated using R.

For the creation of psychological profiles, I simply observed trends across posts made by each user as well as posts responding to them in order to glean information about their psychological condition and took notes. Some users were excluded because they did not post enough to get accurate insights.

Results and discussion
The results for PCI (post contribution index) were largely predictable and are as follows.

User	PCI	Rank
Galloism	4.5	1
Purgatio	4	2
Des-Bal	1	3
Giovenith	0.5	4
Stellar Colonies	0.5	4
Cekoviu	0	5
The Rich Port	0	5
The Xenopolis Confederation	0	5
West Leas Oros 2	0	5
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks	0	5
New haven america	-0.5	6
Sundiata	-1	7
New Edom	-3	8
Rojava Free State	-3	8
Costa Fierro	-4	9
Ostroeuropa	-6.5	10

(A positive result means that the user improved the accuracy of the discourse, a result of 0 means that the user had no measurable effect on the accuracy of the discourse, and a negative result means the user decreased the accuracy of the discourse.)
However, this measurement does not take into account posting frequencies. Adjusted for post frequency, the ranking is as follows:

User	Freq-adjusted PCI	Rank
Purgatio	0.8	1
Stellar Colonies	0.1	2
Galloism	0.096	3
Des-Bal	0.042	4
Giovenith	0.042	4
Cekoviu	0	5
The Rich Port	0	5
The Xenopolis Confederation	0	5
West Leas Oros 2	0	5
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks	0	5
New haven america	-0.018	6
Sundiata	-0.026	7
Ostroeuropa	-0.120	8
New Edom	-0.143	9
Rojava Free State	-0.429	10
Costa Fierro	-0.571	11

Interpretation is the same as above vis-a-vis positive/negative, but keep in mind that these scores are indicative of a person's propensity to spread or reduce misinformation rather than indicating their direct overall literal impact on the thread.

Finally, to directly answer the initial research question, 5.6% of Ostroeuropa's posts were found to either potentially or unarguably debunk misinformation and we can summarily discard his hypothesis.

Please see this gallery for various additional results: https://imgur.com/a/0yjARJS

Results: profiles
Some people aren't on here because I couldn't get enough of a read on them to feel confident in an assessment, or because I forgot them. I swear these are not intended to be personal digs on anyone, I'm taking an outsider's perspective to approach how they would interpret the social interactions here and I'm remaining as honest as possible.

OSTROEUROPA: Extraverted and talkative, but may lack the quality of interpersonal relationships he desires due to his personality trait of valuing being correct over being liked. Likely at risk for substance abuse in order to cope with psychological trauma. Has drive and ambition, and is willing to sacrifice personal relationships if they hold him back. Highly opinionated and stubborn.
Desired perception: Logical, methodical, intelligent, well-spoken
Public perception: Negative - bitter, angry, opinonated, stubborn, verbose
Mindset: Ethos

NEW HAVEN AMERICA: Introverted, albeit not anti-social - bitter over a lack of social connection (particularly romantic?). Possibly on the autism spectrum, exhibits a weak understanding of social cues and comedic timing/context. Enjoys angering people - to compensate for an internal emptiness? Not particularly driven or passionate, a social drifter.
Desired perception: Intelligent, witty, humorous, fun
Public perception: Negative - grating, uninteresting (uncertain)
Mindset: Logos

GALLOISM: Not particularly extraverted or introverted. Well-attuned to social cues. Ashamed of growing conservative with age. Values social justice regardless of group. Statistically inclined, strong ability to recognize patterns.
Desired perception: Well-read, intelligent, witty
Public perception: Positive - accomplished, knowledgeable, likeable
Mindset: Ethos

CEKOVIU: Extraverted and talkative, but shyness and poor self-image result in emotional guarding and few close social connections. Snark and insults are a subconscious means of projecting internal discomfort. Recognition is the most important value, whether positive or negative. Highly self-aware. Quick learner and inquisitive, but also quick to judge. Short attention span and fuse. Unskilled at maintaining positive routines, but prone to forming bad habits. Well-rounded set of interests and strong ambition.
Desired perception: Witty, intelligent, fun, playful, honest
Public perception: Negative - aloof, condescending, contrarian, uninformed
Mindset: Pathos

STELLAR COLONIES: Introverted, logical, science-minded. Few close relationships with people in real life. Skilled at forming compromises and helping with conflict resolution. Unsure of themselves, shy, soft-spoken.
Desired perception: Intelligent, nonjudgmental, generous, compromising
Public perception: [Unclear]
Mindset: Logos

DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

SUNDIATA: Extraverted, loyal, perseverant. Appears to cling to Opus Dei and Catholicism as a way of substituting for emptiness in the soul, perhaps caused by loneliness or turmoil in his personal life. Likely lacks positive organic contact with women on a regular basis.
Desired perception: Kind, devout, friendly
Public perception: Negative - fanatical, illogical, simpesque, strange
Mindset: Ethos

COSTA FIERRO: Introverted, bitter, passionate about a very specific set of subjects. Possible trauma, or simple resentment, leads to a severe rejection of the opposite sex. Unconcerned with accuracy if a claim sounds true enough; does not subconsciously value conformance of worldview to reality. Few interpersonal relationships.
Desired perception: Brave, independent, unique
Public perception: Negative - hypocritical, cowardly
Mindset: Pathos

WEST LEAS OROS: Introverted, young, rash, not an overthinker. Perhaps left out of activities as a child or currently, hence the overwhelming desire to be included and validated. Likely to be somewhat uncertain about identity and place. Does not appear to be particularly well-versed in history, politics, sociology, or rhetoric; most familiarity with political discourse was likely formed via social media/Internet fora.
Desired perception: Brave, logical, a desirable comrade
Public perception: Neutral - hot-headed, common-sense, overall adequate
Mindset: Pathos

GIOVENITH: Somewhat introverted, easily offended, protective, deeply concerned with social injustice, occasionally rash. Values fairness over loyalty and enjoys caretaker roles, perhaps interested in education or medicine as career options.
Desired perception: Just, kind, empathetic, intelligent
Public perception: Positive - respectable, fair, assertive where necessary
Mindset: Ethos

WONK STONKS OR WHATEVER: Extraverted, happy-go-lucky, young. Cheerful, up to date on current culture, well-liked by most. Desired perception: Quirky, unique, fun
Public perception: Positive - "in", friendly, humorous
Mindset: Pathos(?)

Conclusion
Ostro was wrong: statistically speaking, the majority of his contributions appear to do nothing to counter "feminist misinformation" and the presence of MRAs does not appear to have any negative effect on how much misinformation is shared, as the majority of misinformation was propagated by MRAs and only Gallo really did anything to disprove any feminist-originated misinformation.

Appendix A - Gender and ideology assignments

Poster	Sex	Ideology
Cekoviu	f	feminist
Costa Fierro	m	mra
Des-Bal	m	mra
Dumb Ideologies	f	neutral
Galloism	m	mra
Giovenith	f	feminist
New haven america	m	mra
Ostroeuropa	m	mra
Purgatio	m	feminist
Rojava Free State	m	neutral
Stellar Colonies	u	neutral
Sundiata	m	feminist
The Rich Port	u	feminist
West Leas Oros 2	m	mra
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks	u	feminist
The Xenopolis Confederation	f	neutral

Appendix B - Example posts
DM/DF posts look like the following:

Crucially, the poster links a study demonstrating the falsehood of the point the other user, who is feminist, is making, rather than simply stating the interlocutor is incorrect using anecdotes or blind assertions.

While a lot of his posts leave me feeling disjointed and so I don't respond to them much, this part is actually factually based.

Barring explicit disclaimers, failing to be sexist against men is viewed as misogyny on average.

When you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

PM/PF posts look like the following:

Most egregious portion highlighted in bold (the claim here is extremely skewed, and Purgatio demonstrates how in a following AM post). It is important to distinguish the unfalsifiable opinions constituting the rest of the post from the very much disprovable historical claim made here, which is what makes this a PM post rather than a NC post.

How so? Plenty of women support an alt-right and far-right agenda and want it enforced on society. Let's suppose they even straight up repealed womens right to vote.

That would still not be political suicide for women. Example, the daughters of the confederacy were able to massively impact society to the point we're still dealing with their bullshit based on the idea that women were inherently "Non-political" and non-partisan, well before they had the right to vote. This was a common strategy by womens organizations historically to force change on society while delegitimizing criticism and opposition through the claim that women weren't able to be political so the person criticizing them had no idea what they were talking about and clearly just had personal failings.

They completely transformed southern society. If anything it's similar to the "When we do it, it's not sexism" meme we're seeing from women in the modern day. (Which ironically relies on a continuation of the former mentality and denial women had a major role in shaping society.).

Second verse, same as the first.

Works like this tbh:
https://youtu.be/JTfhYyTuT44?t=4248

From here onwards. This entire part of the video describes how feminists operate and how women have historically operated in politics. It is not a coincidence QAnon is mostly women too.

So long as our society continues to believe that if women as a group are upset with a man there's something wrong with the man, so long as it continues to axiomatically reject the notion there might instead be something wrong with women as a group, political suicide for women is not possible. Because they have, can, and will exploit that dynamic to achieve their political goals while denying it.

The key is for men to internalize that rick and morty quote

"Your boo's mean nothing to me, i've seen what makes you cheer.".

This is one example of a demonstrably false claim meant to benefit the feminist side of the argument.

Yes, no feminist of serious academic or legal note believes that.

NC posts are essentially every post that does not resemble one of these.

External resources

• Source data for all the analysis
• R source code
• URL to our complaints department if you have a problem with your scores/psychological profile

*** Flaming + Baiting = 2 weeks off ***

[Cekoviu]

by the way that whole post probably took me like 5 solid hours of work so you'd better appreciate the hell out of it

It's full of misinformation and personal biases from the author (I'm going for a master's degree btw, unambitious my ass) that in some cases could be seen as flaming/flamebaiting, as well as no explanation of their math or how they came to their conclusions (Probably out of fear of revealing said personal biases).

2/10, interesting idea, needs better execution, my Soc. professor probably would've kicked my ass if I presented him a report like that.

i'm writing a forum post, not a journal article, so sorry for not handholding you through the entire process and writing 10 pages of methodology notes. if you're having trouble understanding how the math (which is basic entry-level college statistics at most, so you, as a supposed masters student, should be able to connect the dots) works, i suggest reading the r script, which i have handily linked at the bottom. it's even commented just for people like you!

[Fahran]

To comment on how men deal with trauma, I’d like to chime in with my own experiences. I’ve mentioned this before but I’ve been sexually harassed and grabbed by a classmate in the past and it took me a long time before I was really able to register it as wrong and only began to address it when I mentally and emotionally couldn’t ignore it anymore. I’m not saying my experiences on this subject are the norm for men but I do think it could explain some discrepancies.

We need to teach people from a young age what sexual abuse looks like and how to recognize it when it happens to themselves and others. But based upon what I’ve dealt with and what I’ve seen other guys express, I feel like there’s a larger barrier for men on coming to terms with what happens to them.

I'm sorry that happened to you, but I'm glad you got to a place where you could acknowledge that you had been victimized and that what your classmate had done was a moral and criminal wrong. I know this is deeply personal and may be a sensitive topic for you, but may I ask if and how you've processed your trauma from these experiences and how the healing process (or absence thereof) has impacted and continues to impact you?

I do think we absolutely need to change the way we pursue conversations about sexual violence in light of how prevalent female-perpetrated sexual violence and sexual violence involving male victims appears to be. I've stated that a portion of our existing framework remains applicable to instances of male-perpetrated sexual violence, at least far more applicable than models that treat sexual violence as an outlier or solely as a consequence of sexual scarcity, but we should approach female-perpetrated sexual violence in a uniquely gendered way as well since rape myths in particular appear to be the product of gendered socialization, specifically the formation of attitudes and beliefs about the opposite gender.

[New haven america]

It's full of misinformation and personal biases from the author (I'm going for a master's degree btw, unambitious my ass) that in some cases could be seen as flaming/flamebaiting, as well as no explanation of their math or how they came to their conclusions (Probably out of fear of revealing said personal biases).

2/10, interesting idea, needs better execution, my Soc. professor probably would've kicked my ass if I presented him a report like that.

1. i'm writing a forum post, not a journal article, so sorry for not handholding you through the entire process and writing 10 pages of methodology notes. 2. if you're having trouble understanding how the math (which is basic entry-level college statistics at most, so you, as a supposed masters student, should be able to connect the dots) works, i suggest reading the r script, which i have handily linked at the bottom. it's even commented just for people like you!

1. And just like any other forum post on this site, it's open for review or scrutiny. One of the biggest point would have to be personal biases/user review, which wouldn't fly in any academic journal. Even though you yourself gave yourself a negative review (Props for that, tbh), is generally something to best stray away from because it will net you mostly negative reception/results.
2. I'm not asking for a point by point explanation of the math used. What would help though is a small paragraph at least presenting the type of math or equations you used, how you counted true/false, sources for what claims were true or false, etc... in a way that doesn't require digging through lines of code.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

WONK STONKS OR WHATEVER: Extraverted, happy-go-lucky, young. Cheerful, up to date on current culture, well-liked by most. Desired perception: Quirky, unique, fun
Public perception: Positive - "in", friendly, humorous
Mindset: Pathos(?)

im not like other nations. my name isn't memorable. ;(

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

It's full of misinformation and personal biases from the author (I'm going for a master's degree btw, unambitious my ass) that in some cases could be seen as flaming/flamebaiting, as well as no explanation of their math or how they came to their conclusions (Probably out of fear of revealing said personal biases).

2/10, interesting idea, needs better execution, my Soc. professor probably would've kicked my ass if I presented him a report like that.

i'm writing a forum post, not a journal article, so sorry for not handholding you through the entire process and writing 10 pages of methodology notes. if you're having trouble understanding how the math (which is basic entry-level college statistics at most, so you, as a supposed masters student, should be able to connect the dots) works, i suggest reading the r script, which i have handily linked at the bottom. it's even commented just for people like you!

why's the post built exactly like a journal article then?

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

if ostroeuropa anyone feels the need to peer review cek's academic study, p l e a s e spoiler it, i'm begging you. the word count in these posts far exceeds the daily recomended value of discourse, and i don't want to end up with here's why you're wrong poisoning, it'd mess up my plan to actually read this thread within a reasonable time frame.

[Dolgo]

[snipped]

Shame I wasn't included in the analysis—I would be flattered if so as someone who engages in a lot of introspection and self-criticism. The level of effort and detail you've put into this is pretty impressive. The last pastebin you provided makes it pretty obvious it's a very elaborate trolling attempt (you literally posted text art of the trollface). I suppose however we all cope with hobbies in different ways, I'm not judging. I think the punishment you received was a bit too harsh however, but then again, I am no moderator, I know they have their reasons, and for all things considered, tend to be pretty moderate (pun not intended—for lack of better word) when it comes to punishments.

I am both "anti-feminist" and "anti-MRA" in the sense I oppose both ideologies. I wouldn't consider myself anti-women or anti-men. I can't hold someone's birth sex or gender identity against them. It can't be helped. I would say I already said the gist of my position in the single previous post I made many many pages back. As a communitarian, I am no fan of identity politics. I view it as a divisive force in society. It separates people into unnecessary factions. When it comes to the "gender wars" or "sex wars," I see both sides as ultimately destructive.

The egalitarians demand equality between the sexes, especially in terms of equalizing outcomes and rights. I see such as a bad idea. Men and women are not biologically equal. To afford them equal rights and demand equal outcomes in all things is not only impractical, but it's also undesirable. Instead of viewing it as equality vs. hierarchy, we ought to rather view it in a utilitarian perspective. What policies will lead to the greatest quality of life for men and women? What will lead to the growth and maintenance of healthy family units, of which the social structure is directly built upon? What will—ultimately—contribute to the survival of our species?

Maybe women make better teachers of children, maybe they do a better job at raising children, maybe they ought to receive greater maternity leave than that of men. Maybe men as a whole should work more than women in employment. That is not to say men should not have the opportunity to become a teacher, or receive no paid time off to father their children, but it needn't be equal. On physicality, men for a fact are stronger than women on average. Certainly in a war or in the vast majority of sports (those dependent on strength), they would very likely beat the women side if the sexes were pitted against each other. This is big reason why men command most societies, they hold the monopoly on force, the lowest common denominator. Right—wrong, irrelevant.

Again, it should be stressed that the existence of inequality does not necessarily have to exclude dignity. Inequality is natural and no one has been able to get rid of it in its entirety. If we become too obsessed with making us all equals, then we will deny the real differences that exist between us... That we all ultimately have different needs, different abilities, different levels of potential—and that these differences can and are affected by physical traits (hormones and gene expression), particularly biological sex. If we are to afford anyone "rights" (which can only be ensured by the survival of civilization—the state—which is the only reason why even the concept of rights exist in the first place), then those rights must be careful to recognize biological realities, however culturally incorrect, and be able to adapt as we learn more about human nature. The secular religion of "human rights," which holds numerous rights as unchangeable and undeniable, interfere with practicality.

Finally I say, men and women are not equal—never will be—nor should be. If they were equal, there were not be men or women, humanity would consist of some bizarre combination or lack thereof of feminine and masculine traits. However, men and women are both needed for human life to flourish. One cannot exist for long without the other. Men and women are unequal, but inseparable. One complements the other. Like two people of equal weight on a teeter-totter. Society must not blindly pursue liberty, equality, or hierarchy, but rather harmony—survival—and through that peace among all mankind, man and woman—and the few in between.