Slashdot Mirror
Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women (fivethirtyeight.com)
FiveThirtyEight has an interesting article today which accuses men of sabotaging the online reviews of TV shows aimed at women. The publication cites an example of "Sex and the City", a show which apparently won plenty of awards and ran for many years on TV, getting hammered by males on IMDb. Compared to women, who amounted to 60% of the people who rated the show with an average of 8.1, men gave it a 5.8 rating. It's not an isolated case, FiveThirtyEight says, citing several other instances where the male audience has downvoted shows aimed at women audience. From the article: The shows with the largest proportion of male raters are mostly sports, video game web series, science fiction and cartoons. The programs with the highest proportion of female voters are -- at least the American ones -- mostly from The CW and Freeform, the new name of the network previously called ABC Family. This list is pretty hilarious. Beyond the top 25, shown in the table above, male-dominated shows of note include: "Blue Mountain State" (92 percent male), "Batman: Beyond" (91 percent), "Batman: The Animated Series" (90 percent), "The Shield" (90 percent), "Ballers" (90 percent), "Justice League" (90 percent), and "The League" (88 percent). "Star Trek: Enterprise" is the most male-heavy of the various official live-action Trek enterprises, while "Battlestar Galactica" still managed to grab 15 percent of its ratings from women, which is somewhat shocking. For women, other skewed programming includes "Private Practice" (71 percent female), "Gossip Girl" and "Gilmore Girls" (67 percent each), "Grey's Anatomy" (60 percent), "Scandal" (60 percent), and "One Tree Hill" (59 percent).
Just because someone's not your intended audience, doesn't mean a review from them isn't fair or valuable. If it was better TV, it might have favorable ratings across the board. And most, if not all TV programming is very pandery and not very quality.
You only get two types of people rating things:
1. People who love the ever-loving shit out of something SO MUCH that they feel the need to go online and rate the fuck out of it
2. People who HATE the ever-loving shit out of something SO MUCH that they feel the need to go online and rate the fuck out of it
There's no middle ground at all, it's a worthless system loaded with bias, the flamewars it generates likely fuel iMDBs forum advertising revenue
All men should be counted as women because #transgender.
Corollary: all whites should be counted as black because #transracial.
Do we even care? Was it a slow news day?
Men don't like shows focused at women. More news at 11.
Sex and the City is shit. Next question.
What kind of SJW bullshit is this? Maybe men just have different taste in TV shows. I can't imagine too many men wanting to watch The Bachelorette, either. The low ratings are just a reflection that men don't like the show. It's not sabotage. Cut the SJW bullshit. Why is Slashdot so full of SJW nonsense lately?
Keep digging that hole, liberals.
Just isn't that good.
I'm going to throw out a radical suggestion here....
Maybe men legitimately don't like shows that are aimed at women, and they're more vocal about it?
Is that wrong? Are men supposed to simply sit down and keep their opinions to themselves? What's the hope here?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Women just seem to like a greater diversity of content, not to mention guys would be mocked for liking some shows, it is female privileged that women can be feminine or masculine shows and suffer no negative impact.
Do I understand this correctly? Men rate lower shows that are intented for another target? WOW!
Sounds to me like they're just reviewing them, not "sabotaging" them. The accusation of malicious intent is unnecessary and despicable.
So, those shows are only for women, and men should not have an opinion of the shows? Really? Men don't seem to like them, but how is this sabotaging? What the fuck, really?
remember that, ladies.
A single rating isn't doing the job in this case.
I'm a guy and I loved sex and the city.
Otherwise pretty nerd profile.
12 Monkeys, Fear the Walking Dead, Game...of...Thrones, Big Bang Theory, Mr. Robot, Person of Interest.
But also Bones and Death in Paradise.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So you're saying no one wants to read my film critique of The Notebook?
So... men can't dislike shows aimed at women? A show like sex and the city paints a pretty shallow, incomplete, and unfortunate picture of both sexes, it just tries overly hard to "empower" women while doing so. It's bad reviews are greatly deserved. What I gather from the tone of the article is that any SJW agenda deserves nothing but praise. *eye roll* This mentality is out of control. My wife hates a lot of the sports and sci-fi stuff I watch and would probably give them a bad review too.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
TFA brings up some good points:
There are significantly more men rater stain women rates, which means their results will skew ratings towards what men like to watch
A poor rating does not mean it is bad TV nor does a high one mean it is good
The rating in and off itself is pretty much useless, a better idea is to look at the data to get a clearer picture if a show might be of interest to you
IMDB could separate mens scores from women's; as well as show what shows were highly or poorly rated by the same people who rated a particular show. That would give you a better idea of the value of a rating in deciding if you might be interested in the show.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Join the GNAA and watch BET.
I also hammered the entire The Hunger Games series on IMDB. I am sure that brainless teenagers love it, but I found it infumable, and I said so openly.
of shows aimed for men. Seriously, what is this nonsense? Next up, those who prefer certain skin tones when selecting sexual partners are racist! Only eye, hair, breast, and wallet size are allowed. Men are allowed to indicate they dislike shows just as much as women are allowed to indicate they like them. If anything the system is unfair to men because there are more women than men in the world.
How obvious does it get? Clearly the men must just be wrong and must just like the wrong things. They're oppressing the poor cisfemale hunnies by sharing their rapist opinions!
I propose a Michigan Womyn's Film Festival where women will finally have a space where their opinions matter!
Ok, seriously. If the way you're measuring your ratings can be so easily sabotaged by us evil assigned males, I would suggest you find a better way to measure your ratings. Either way, I don't give a shit. Why the hell is this article even here?
I think I'll put some Star Trek: Enterprise on tonight or else that episode of Batman: The Animated Series I wanted to rewatch. I have a big, heavy plumbing wrench that says that womyn-born-womyn don't get to tell me I have to watch Sex and the City.
Just one more reason to hate cisfemales and their white knights. Hey, white knights: FUCK OFF! I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR CISFEMALE HUNNIES. DEAL WITH IT.
But don't dare write negative reviews of the shows I'm either sexually withholding or emotionally blackmailing you to watch... BECAUSE SEXISM!!!
...a guy would hammer a show about 4 whiney women.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
They're trying to make a tempest in a teapot.
Besides, it's not as if 538 hasn't been wrong before on something like this.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Pretty much everything is rated horrible because, from an adult perspective, yes, they are horrible.
So what we really have here is that a single dimensional rating alone is not good at separating something that is mediocre for everyone, or something that is loved by some, and hated by others. What a surprise.
This is ridiculous. If men don't like the show and are giving it poor ratings that is nothing more than an honest review. Stop gender biasing your material and target audience and you won't have this problem. Likewise with the poor ratings women can and do give on things targeted at men.
About 60% of the population is female and 40% of those who seen the show think it sucks. If 40% of the people in the world think a show sucks it shouldn't be possible to achieve better than 6/10. It isn't as if only females see the rating.
Men on slashdot think article is skewed and vapid. They now think they are allowed to disparage in the comment secton. What can we do to end their reign of terror?
I'm too lazy to read the article so I'll wildly speculate in grand Slashdot tradition. Did the authors investigate why that's happening? I could imagine at least a few non-nefarious causes:
Maybe men are more likely to vote against a show they dislike than women are, so as many women dislike "Blue Mountain State" as men dislike "Private Practice" but they don't bother downvoting it.
Maybe men are more likely to watch shows they dislike with their partners than women are (and this is certainly true in my house). I'll sit through shows I don't care for because I'm not all that picky and I'd rather spend time with her watching Grey's Anatomy than doing other stuff. The converse isn't true: she isn't likely to sit through COPS with me. I'm more likely to have an opinion and vote on her shows than she is mine because I've seen more of hers.
As a variant of the last one, maybe women generally feel that they have less spare time around the house to watch TV. In households where routine chores are "women's work", the male resident might put in more screen hours than the female who has laundry and cooking and only has time to watch the shows she really cares about. (Note: I am not saying laundry and cooking are women's responsibility, just that lots of households divide work that way, and I think probably enough to sway the numbers.)
Yes, I'm sure there are dumbasses who routinely vote down female-centric shows (as defined by the study) just to be jerks. I'd stake money that there are plenty of women who would go down the list of male-centric shows and vote them down, too: "Batman? Dumb. The Shield? Dumb. Star Trek? Dumb." But are there enough to make a difference, or is it more likely the effect of different TV viewing and/or Internet poll taking habits between the sexes?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
...when Slashdot carried stories about science and technology?
What is this BS?
and go play with your dolls. Just because men on average rate the show lower vs women doesn't mean we're "hammering the show". Maybe the show was developed with a female target audience in mind. Maybe it wasn't done on purpose but it just turned out that way. Whatever... The point is, that headline is bullshit. And no, I didn't read the article! This is Slashdot after all...
There's a movie site called Cinemaclock. One of the things I like is that it shows the ratings in a table divided among gender and age ranges. Then I can look and see, if it was liked by men in my age range I'll probably enjoy it too.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
It has been many years since I watched any SitC, but IIRC it portrayed men very shallowly (ojbectifying) as stereotypes. The women got all the airtime and character development. I remember thinking that if a show with four guys was produced doing analogous sexual antics, it would cause howls of fem-protest. For me, there was no entertainment value, but it was an OK tactical training film.
Male-bashing is safe, ostensibly because males are "dominant". Sometimes (past) and someplaces (East) yes. But increeasingly not here, certainly not in divorce court and less so in the workplace. Women get paid 110% of men in my field.
You mean the way women complain about about male-centric video games? When women do it, it's raising a legitimate concern, but when men do it, it's sabotage. I feel like I'm reaching enlightenment. Or, enlightenpersont, I should say. Go on?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
... for decades now, a concerted effort by a loosely-affiliated organization of non-nerds has been working to sabotage online reviews of television programming aimed at nerds.
Wow... so instead of assuming that people have different tastes, blame the fact that apparently a lot of men don't seem to like some shows that happen to be popular with a lot of women happen on their gender.
Could this story be any more sexist?
This kind of tripe makes me sick. Just sick.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I thought we were beyond having toys/TV shows/subjects "for men" and "for women". I can watch/wear/play with whatever I want, and I'll give an honest review of it. If it turns out that, for whatever reason, men or women end up preferring one thing over another, it's a leap without justification to declare that it's sabotage by the men (or the women).
In particular, there are a lot of shows aimed at pandering to the expectations that society tends to push on women. Therefore these shows are likely to be rated more positively by women, because they show a woman how she thinks she's "supposed" to be. Men traditionally get to do more of what the fuck they want (this is NOT so true in the last couple of decades, but that really only affects the younger generations' mindset), so they'll tell you what they think, whereas women are more likely to say what they're expected to say, and keep away from things they aren't supposed to get involved with. So, MadBashPowerAngryPro stereotyping bullshit stuff pandering to male stereotypes will be ignored by women, while guys are happy to tell you what they really think of stuff pandering to female stereotypes.
tl;dr It is sexism, but it's not sexism by male reviewers - it's women traditionally being more timid.
Also lol@/. descending into SJW idiots vs conservative idiots.
Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women
Excuse me: It's called "manotage". Did the editors sleep through 2014 or something? Everything that misogynists do now has to start with the prefix "man-". At least it does if you want your thinkpiece in Slate to be taken seriously.
of shows aimed for men. Seriously, what is this nonsense? Next up, those who prefer certain skin tones when selecting sexual partners are racist! Only eye, hair, breast, and wallet size are allowed. Men are allowed to indicate they dislike shows just as much as women are allowed to indicate they like them. If anything the system is unfair to men because there are more women than men in the world.
Poor oppressed American middle class white male. Tears of sympathy.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
AHAHAHAHAHahahahahahaha
okay if you say so
Aimed...you mean...like a weapon?
I think I have a succinct translation of this article: PLEASE fight among each other for no reason, we would really like influencing your point of view through our programming to be not quite so difficult
I am rather fond of that show, but it's been off the air for over 7 years now. Why would someone waste their time writing a review of it?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
So I need to consider the feelings of the other gender before offering an honest opinion of TV SHOWS?
Do they have any idea where the "Special Snowflake" stereotype comes from and how this reinforces it?
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
Getting my wife to watch anything that I'm into is impossible. But she forces me to watch shows she likes all the time. I don't question this. It's pretty much normal behavior of married couples from what i can tell.
If women have a problem with us downvoting their pet TV series, stop forcing us to sit through them and form strong negative opinions.
Sex and the City was an awful, delusional pile of wish fulfillment aimed at lonely, barren, old women, starring Mary Sue, Mary Sue, a horse and Mary Sue and a bunch of guys that find them inexplicably worth dating.
They are not sabotaging it, this is how they feel about it. If a woman rated the show at 5 instead of 8 would you say that she is sabotaging it? The fact that men rate the show lower than women do is a consequence of it being designed for women rather than for men; it's similar to bras being designed for women, therefore men could not possibly rate them correctly. There is nothing wring with this. Move on.
There are not enough women giving reviews to sabotage anything. Even if the viewership were equally split between men and women, many women would probably not log in simply to give something a bad rating.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
What a surprise. They make a series directly for women, and it really works for women. And it does not fit men. That was the intent, not? What's the news? The fact that men still can rate it? Holy fck. Is this the new norm?
The next starwars can only be rated by starwars fans, as it was created for them?
See this is the problem with ratings and reviews on the internet.
I'm only likely to fairly rate the things that I'm interested in and therefor receive recommendations based on those ratings, so often I don't get recommendations for legitimately good things that I wouldn't otherwise watch since most of my ratings are within my areas of interest. On the other hand.
If for some reason I do watch something, but is generally out of my area of interest and I don't like it based on being predisposed to not liking it and I do rate it poorly, who does that serve?
While I do know there are malicious bad raters on the internet and very likely ones driven by a gender bias, I don't think that is necessarily the problem here. I feel the problem is our human nature to not care about the things we don't care about.
I'm so fucking sorry I didn't like the ghostbusters trailer
Thing is, I actually thought it was shit, I didn't know I'd kick off the fifth wave of feminism.
Keep fighting the good fight against air conditioning and emojis and tv shows while islamic culture rapes women to death with full support of the state and church all over the world.
It very well could be any of these reasons, but the other day I found out there was this weird society of men who feel persecuted and sabotaged by women, and believe there is truly an orchestrated affront to their gender. So maybe it's these weirdos. The idea that there is any conspiracy either way makes me laugh. The internet is full of people who love to complain so I'm sure any place that allows reviews has some of this.
Twinstiq, game news
This is about the average I see for most action movies, even the relatively good ones. My guess is these ratings came from guys who watched this show hoping to see something sexually scandalous and discovered the show was very anti-male and boring. Given the lack of quality I'd have guessed this would get a 6 average among women and a 2-3 average among men due to the title bait.
A key datapoint not seen in this comparison is the general population composition of IMDB users; this site has been around a while and it doesn't have much in the way of "social media" components. Maybe the ratings disparity is just a reflection of the old "there are no girls on the internet" rule. Who's to blame: the men for browsing content/subject based content, or the majority of women for only caring about parts of the internet that have a personal/gossip interest?
I was curious how the ratings for this new BDSM/Kink show/softcore porn were skewing so I checked out the breakdown on IMDB. It's audience is definitely the Mommy BDSM set who made 50 Shades of Grey a sensation, and features women as leads, with a dose of nudity and sex for the men. I was surprised then and am still now that it's got more ratings in to see women voting it on average lower than men, despite it being their target audience. Of course maybe I should actually get around to watching it and see for myself. :P
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Some time ago, there was a web site called Slashdot which was about "news for nerds and stuff that matters". I tried to find it, but when I use the address slashdot.org, what I see is a site about "news for feminists and excuses to whine about men". Where is the old site?
um... that's semen
women AREN'T sabotaging the reviews of shows aimed for men. they simply don't vote about shows that are clearly not intended for them. if women all of a sudden started downvoting sports shows and dudebro shows, that would be annoying too, but thankfully they have some decency and just ignore shit they don't care about'
the entire point of the article could be summed up as 'men are loudmouthed complainy assholes'. sex and the city isn't targeted towards you, we get it. don't watch it, don't review it, keep your mouth shut and move on.
or, put differently - for a show as highly targeted as sex in the city, WOMEN DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION. so if you give the show a bad rating, you are actively making the ratings system less useful.
It's not that men complaining about women's media is objectively worse than women complaining about men's media, its that men's tastes are better represented in media in general than women's, so there's an implicit imbalance there. When an equal amount of media is targeted at women as men, then men complaining about women's media won't be seen as intruding on their space.
This article inspired me to give Sex and the City a 1.
put another way: for the purposes of calculating a ratings score for sex in the city, WOMEN DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR OPINION. by reviewing it, you are diluting the score with your completely inappropriate demographic.
it would be much like if women suddenly started giving shitty reviews and votes to monday night football. would you find that to be helpful, or sabotage?
Never thought of this. #newhobbywhilepooping
People in the target audience might tend to enjoy something more than people who aren't in the target audience.
You are quite right. By way of analogy, I'd rate the Ku Klux Klan zero. I'm not their target audience? So what? I still say they suck.
For some anecdotal evidence my wife was skeptical when I wanted to watch Battlestar Galactica (the 2004 version) but ended up loving it greatly and with good reason. It's an excellent written show with a great cast that includes several strong women roles. Much stronger female roles than say TNG had (which she also enjoyed after some coaxing to give it a chance). If anything i find that only 15% of women reviewed as a case that maybe more women should give it a shot and it's probably one of the best shows for introducing Sci-fi to women, who in my experience are just as quick to write things like that off as men are of writing off something like Sex and the City without giving a chance first.
There are not enough women giving reviews to sabotage anything. Even if the viewership were equally split between men and women, many women would probably not log in simply to give something a bad rating.
And you know this how?
The use of the word 'sabotage' seems to indicate a conspiracy. Seems more likely to me that people are just rating according to how much they liked a program. Also seems likely to me that, ironically, this article has some sort of agenda all it's own.
Nothing to see here?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Recently I did a lot of reading on toy preferences for children. Monkey studies even got involved, as were efforts to no bias the child one way or another beforehand.
The outcome? Girls actually like a 50-50 split, on average, between 'girl' toys like dolls and 'boy' toys like model trucks. Boys are basically 100% involved in 'boy' toys.
Extend this to media like movies and TV shows. Thinking back, mom enjoyed the same movies the males in my family enjoyed. But she also enjoyed the 'girly' shows we didn't.
It could be that media that women's interests are wider, on average, or that an equivalent zone for men to the 'chick flic' hasn't been discovered. I don't know.
I don't read AC A human right
Or another hack job five thirty eight article.
C'mon look at the first SHOCKING line difference -
"“Sex and the City” has an overall rating of 7.0 on a scale from 1 to 10 — the average score of an English-language television series with 1,000 or more ratings is 7.3. So why did a show roundly considered seminal in the now ubiquitous genre of driven-New York-women-make-a-go-of-it programming score so low?"
Wow a whole whopping .3 points greater than the average which must be wrong because the author just blindly accepts that the critics told him it was seminally important.
Sure it was unique and different and popular at first but the latter seasons got really bad compared to the earlier ones and boy howdy how did those movies do? But it was a seminal show!!!
Then the author goes on to make asinine and stupid judgements about men and women based upon a faulty data set from ONE data source (people who volunteered their time on IMDB and not, oh say, Amazon, Redbox, Netflix or Rotten Tomatoes review systems).
On top of that the article fully admits that the review set is skewed towards men who make the bulk of the reviews but then, again asininely, concludes that men make harsher reviews of women's shows -ergo men are aggressive and misogynistic. No, sorry, that's just bullshit logic. A LARGER sample set is going to introduce LARGER variances. (You think a website that prides itself on statistics would, y'know... KNOW this...)
tl;dr - It's yet another scienc-y article written with the click-baity title in mind first and then adjusting the information to suit its pre-desired conclusions. "I looked at IMDB reviews and you won't believe what happened next!!!"
And what if your girlfriend wants you to watch it with her?
And go ahead and give teletubbies a bad review if you're watching it with your kids. Maybe you can find a 'kids show' that is sophisticated enough for adults as well.
I don't read AC A human right
Specifically a very sad puppy that the SJW are lying to promote their smear agenda.
This headline is almost ludicrously aimed to make a discriminatory case. Sounds like men are at least watching the shows women like, even if they don't like the as much. Women aren't even engaged with men's favorite shows. You could read this as "kudos, guys, for being broadminded and watching Sex and the City, glad you liked it some" or "Why do some shows have no women raters?" Or "Why are there no shows that only women like" or (please suggest some others). But not "men are *sabotaging* women's shows" by, *gasp*, watching them and giving them just "good" rather than "excellent" ratings.
I honestly feel like when it comes to television, women are better represented.
It seems like most shows are either squarely aimed at women, or are designed to appeal to both sexes. For all the whining about it, there arn't that many "guy shows" any more.
Shows created specifically for women are disliked by men. News at 11. Da fuq? Couple this with societal pressure on boys and young men to not like anything "girly", and explain me again how is this not an expected outcome? Besides, the shows are mostly shit anyway. You can't expect me to care about "relationships" and all, unless there's fucking involved.
SJW's already explained exactly how to fix something like this: safe space. Separate but equal internets, that way you don't get any pesky opposing view points, err I mean "sabotage".
Tommy Jeffers: "Great, even if you are a manly man. When my wife called me to ask if I minded her getting this video for my three-year-old daughter, I of course told her that it was fine. I knew I would be stuck watching it over and over because my little girl loves to watch things with her daddy. We sat down before bedtime and popped it in the VCR, and I committed myself to being a good daddy and to spending some quality time with my little one. The movie opened with a rip-roaring musical number, and the quality of the computer animation was very impressive. Being a Mark Twain scholar (I did my thesis on Twain), I was expecting a goofy, silly movie adaptation of the story. After all, Barbie is about as interesting to me as fly vomit. However, what I found was a wonder. The story was excellent, but the songs were the best part of the film..."
Romero Smith: "The music in this movie blew me away. I love this movie. It was not what I expected at all. AMAZING!!!!"
Big Daddy: "My kids made me watch this with them when they were little, and I thought it would be torture, but then I heard Martin Short doing the voice of the evil Preminger. He's totally over the top and doesn't hold back at all. Totally hilarious."
If you want to make movies for women (or, I guess, girls,) that men like, you've just got to do it right.
Ask Lauren Faust about her experience.
"Sabotaging"? I certainly love the word, but it is decidedly non-applicable... Let's see:
How do the reviews — however negative — destroy or hinder anything?
Once again the terms are chosen not for accuracy, but for a spin — to build up our emotional reaction to the story...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
how is not liking something and giving it a bad review sabotage? that's just... reviewing
This is why netflix uses algorithm to find what you like based on people who like the same things.
It appears IMDB has the same problem all online, voluntary polls have. You do not get the opinion of the population at large, you only get the opinion of people who like to answer polls.
For IMDB this means their scores represent the score of people who like to rate movies.
From the article this appears to be men to a greater extent than women. There are most likely other biases as well. Maybe tech savvy people are more likely to do online ratings, and the scores are biased towards show that techies like?
You don't have to be a SJW to find this an interesting problem.
It's the same problem as can be seen in voting polls for presidential election, and all other election where people are trying to predict the result. You are trying to predict the general result based on the answers from people willing to answer the polls.
A second problem specific to movie ratings is that I may not be interested in the general opinion. For recommendations I want opinions that correlate with my own opinions. If you happen to like Sex And The City, you don't care that all the nerds vote Firefly to the top. You want shows that align with your interests.
But lets start with figuring out the real score for the general population...
the demographics of tv viewers disagree with you. hint majority female. you're an idiot.
Yeah, how many white people have actually seen White Chicks? Anyone? Anyone?
When it was on, every woman and gay man with a blog seemingly had to share their opinion of the latest episode of Sex and the City. As a straight man, I was inclined to let them have their fun. I'm a modern guy. The world does not revolve around my interests.
Then I went to Chevy's on a weeknight, and there were like 20 squealing, tipsy-on-one-margarita ladies having a "Sex and the City" party, and I was like, ENOUGH! This show sucks! Years of overexposure had finally made me revert to the sexist troglodyte I had been repressing for all this time.
Compare to Blue Mountain State. It gets, maybe 1/1000th the media coverage as Sex and the City. I'm it's target audience apparently, yet I'm barely aware it exists.
Is it really surprising that on average men don't enjoy shows aimed at entertaining women as much as women do? Suddenly it's a fucking conspiracy?
Television "aimed at women" is awful on the whole, and if I was a woman, pretty much insulting.
Sex and the City is the bar that we judge women's television by? I rest my case.
Scandal is a "targeted at women" show? REALLY?!
>one tree hill
"MY KIDS WATCHED THAT AS TEENAGERS." - wife. It's not exactly for adults.
>538 is surprised that Battlestar Galactica garners some women voters
That's because it's a good show.
I'm not going to actually go read the article, because there's enough in the summary to tell me that this is bullshit.
"The problem is that men writers /think/ they know what women want to watch." - also wife.
And she's right.
--
BMO
The only solution to this micro-aggression by white cis-males is clearly to demand that media reviews have a stricter voter selection criteria. If a movie wasn't made for your gender, race, religion or orientation you have no business reviewing it.
You know, when you follow the article's logic out fully, it sounds kinda insane...
The question I want to answer, for a given movie, is whether I will like it, not some abstract average viewer.
What IMDB should do is:
1. Require users to have accounts to vote
2. Analyse correlations between votes for various movies, for a given user
3. When rating movies for me, produce a number of ratings based on groupings from the analysis
4. Allow me to select a few movies I like and don't like to seed the process.
The data gathered would be valuable (so the effort could pay for itself).
Further, if there is a large male/female discrepancy, for example, the rating system can point this out.
John_Chalisque
Should I just give out good reviews because women are in it? This is a joke.
Must have been a slow day on the liberal news front. Time to throw up a man hater story. How is giving less than favorable reviews to a TV show "sabotaging" it? Did it ever occur to anyone that Sex and the City really and truly does suck? Four selfish, narcissistic, shallow, materialistic bimbos stumbling through their me first world in high heels. Yeah...sure sounds riveting to me - yawn!
And since when did winning awards equate to quality programming? Hollywood abandoned that notion years ago. I gave up on sitcoms years ago so my example is dated but let's examine Everybody loves Raymond. The guy is depicted as a complete and utter dope. The woman, of course, is depicted as smart, confident, funny, etc. In other words, she wears the pants in the family. Much to the delight of the feminists, and feminist surrogates. Of course if the roles were reversed the man would be accused to being anti-female, sexist, you name it.
Women did the same thing for great (now cancelled) shows such as Backstrom...
"Sabotoging" means deliberately destroying something. The author failed to provide any basis that men want to deliberately destroy programming for women and overcome the glaringly obvious reason men voted against certain shows: they disliked the program. In fact, the article dismisses all men's opinion by calling it "sabotage" rather than a valid expression of their feelings. Men may dislike shows depicting guys as the bumbling idiots often portrayed in shows targeting women. Rather than blame men for their vote, the author should encourage women to vote, or ask why such shows portray men that way.
I'm sure women rank down racism, but maybe also car shows or wrestling or whatever? Maybe not?
I don't see how expressing your opinion of a show can be construed sabotage, as long as you actually watched the show. I do see how content can skew the results based on the target audience but again if you watched the show your opinion is valid. What they need to do is find a way to divide the viewing audience, and hence the reviews into sex, and consider them that way.
People who are reviewing shows they haven't watched are dill wads regardless of their sex or social agenda.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I've never forced my wife to watch Top Gear. She doesn't like it, but she doesn't need to tell anyone how bad it is because she isn't made to sit through it.
Now when I've got my tablet and nothing better to do because SOMEONE is in the doghouse if he doesn't "enjoy" American Idol with her... GUESS WHAT.
Can we keep the SJW bullshit off of slashdot, PLEASE...
Yes, more political stories have entered slashdot, especially with the last change in ownership. The number of computer/tech stories have declined markedly. I don't even know which version of KDE or GNOME is current.
oh for the good old days of hot grits, GNAA, and BSD is dying
yeah, slashdot used to be a real treasure trove.
Seriously, WTF! Am I not supposed to honestly review something I don't like because some group that does like it would be offended? People are getting accused of "sabotage" just for giving their opinion? I'm not a Trump supporter, but it's bullshit like this that drives people to him.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
So guys show pettiness by downvoting women's shows, and women don't give a crap about downvoting guy's shows. OMG, say it ain't so! Who would EVER have predicted that???
Does anyone log in just to give something a rating? Surely most reviewers are just using the site and give ratings while they are there. And what makes women so special and superior?
The more people who give ratings the better and I certainly hope people are giving bad ratings as well as good ones otherwise the rating will all be skewed and it will be used as justification to make more bad movies!
Yes the middle class white male, the only one who is not allowed to be proud of who they are. The only group which gets no advantages, no special starting wealth, no advantages or special funds to try to start a business or go to college or get a job. You know what it is when everyone but you gets an advantage? A disadvantage and yes it is oppression.
Given that I'm a white male 99.999999999999% of what's wrong with the World is already because of me. So now I'm going to start watching shows/movies aimed at women of color and I'm going to give such poor reviews on them. Really show those bitches who is in charge and make sure they understand that they have no business being out of the kitchen.
--There are two kinds of people in this world. I don't like either of them.
Sane voters are sabotaging polls by saying they won't vote for Donald Trump, even if they are not his target audience.
Sorry but they've assumed that Men didn't watch Sex in the City. They're using "Sailormoon is for Girls" logic. Sorry, but 55 year old men may actually have been a part of their actual audiance. Not like I believe DailyMail, but I certainly don't believe a "study" that didn't even bother to figure out the actual viewership of Sex in the City and rather assumed that Men didn't watch it.
wait, who cares?
Yes, because if a man doesn't like a show and rates it poorly to reflect this, Its sabotage. Or wait, maybe Its just an honest review? If I don't like something, I will rate it poorly. I'm not going to bull shit just because there might be a different demographic that could possibly like it. That's why it's MY review.
Are you new to the internet?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
There is no scandal here. Some amount of taste is shaped by demographics.
Men dislike Sex and the City more than women.
Black women and Latinas probably dislike Sex and the City more than White women.
White people probably didn't like Culture Clash as much as Latinos did.
There's no sabotage. It's just demographics.
When a show is specifically made for women viewers yet most of the reviews come from men, you don't see how that could potentially be a problem?
Just going by the data, there are clearly not as many women giving reviews.. their collective voice is drown out by males. I'm not saying that makes anyone more or less special, it just means that the results are easy to skew.
If I go to a southern Baptist church and ask them their opinion on gays getting married, do you think I'll get a acceptance rate that is similar to nationwide average?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Fuck this. Why doesn't /. rename itself Huffington Post or Salon and be done with it already.
TV procedurals highly skew female which I was rather surprised to learn.
from tv by the numbers: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.c...
1.00 = equal ratings for men and women 18-49, Below 1.0 = more men, Above 1.0 = more women
NCIS 1.19
NCIS:LA 1.25
CSI: Miami 1.29
CSI 1.55
CSI:NY 1.55
Criminal Minds 1.57
Law & Order 1.73
Glee 1.76
Law & Order:SVU 1.84
by comparasion in 2010, these were the only network shows to skew male:
Simpsons 0.67
Family Guy 0.68
Cleveland Show 0.71
Chuck 0.83
Fringe 0.95
24 0.97
everything else on network tv skews female. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.c...
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
That isn't true. Men force women to watch their shows all the time. Most women don't actually watch sports on their own yet not only are forced to watch games but also cook dinner for the guy and their friends so they have food during the game.
Look at a group of friends make and female "watching a game". Most women are chatting or doing other thing during the actual game itself.
Not all but it holds true more often than not.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Cause its audience is supposedly up to 15% female. And that's shocking.
Cause it is clearly a show "aimed at males". So women have nothing to do with such a show, and apparently, should avoid it in favor for shows "made for women".
What? Strong female what? Characters? You mean Starbuck is a girl? And president is a girl?
And a bunch of cylons are girls, one of them portrayed by Xena?
Ah! But I forgot. It is SciFi!
Which means it's automagically "for boys" and not "for girls".
Good job explaining that there. Women shouldn't meddle in things that are not their concern.
Stick with soap operas about shopping and finding Mr. Right. Or Mr. Big. Or the right shoes.
And let's just disregard the fact that apart from "Ballers" and "Blue Mountain State", which are both not shows for men but for sportsball jocks, and which both have quite a lower rating both by men and women - women grade "male shows" similarly to how men do.
In fact... "Ballers" is the only show mentioned that women like less than "Private Practice". Barely. By 0.2 points.
They more like every other "male show" mentioned.
They like "Gossip Girl" less than any Batman show. And none of them have "girl" in the title. And they are all CARTOONS. From two decades ago.
And women only like "Batman Beyond" (out of animated Batman shows) LESS than "Sex and the City". By 0.1 points.
Could it be that this is the case of cherry picking?
"Female shows", male votes, male score; female votes, female score, score difference:
Gilmore Girls - Males 17130 7.3; Females 34638, 8.5, 1.2
Scandal - Males 15678, 7.3; Females 23146, 8.3, 1.0
Grey's Anatomy - Males 52515, 6.9; Females 79175, 8.3, 1.4
Sex and the City - Males 27631, 5.8; Females 39410, 8.1, 2.3
One Tree Hill - Males 19575, 7.1; Females 28637, 8.1, 1.0
Gossip Girl - Males 31125, 6.7; Females 64088, 7.8, 1.1
Private Practice - Males 4634, 5.7; Females 11156, 7.1, 1.4
"Male shows", male votes, male score; female votes, female score:
Battlestar Galactica - Males 84715 , 8.8; Females 15521, 8.7, 0.1
Batman: The Animated Series - Males 38196, 9.0; Females 4032, 8.6, 0.4
Justice League - Males 19039, 8.6; Females 2228, 8.3, 0.3
The Shield - Males 41769, 8.8; Females 4737, 8.1, 0.7
The League - Males 27117, 8.3; Females 3577, 8.0, 0.3
Batman Beyond - Males 13466, 8.1; Females 1375, 8.0, 0.1
Blue Mountain State - Males 29078, 8.5; Females 2631, 7.6, 1.1
Star Trek: Enterprise - Males 21473, 7.5; Females 3427, 7.4, 0.1
Ballers - Males 10309 7.5; Females 1201, 6.9, 0.6
But wait. What about arguably THE manliest shows ever?
Band of Brothers - Males 164067, 9.6; Females 16053, 9.5, 0.1
The Pacific - Males 53467, 8.3; Females 4193, 8.4, 0.1
The Sopranos - Males 134921, 9.3; Females 18200, 8.8, 0.5
The A-Team - Males 18727, 7.6; Females 2869, 7.4, 0.2
What about simply the bestest shows evar?
Band of Brothers - Males 164067, 9.6; Females 16053, 9.5, 0.1
Planet Earth - Males 70632, 9.5; Females 9958, 9.5, 0.0
Breaking Bad - Males 559396, 9.5; Females 104158 9.3, 0.2
Game of Thrones - Males 596473, 9.5; Females 162356 9.4, 0.1
The Wire - Males 135691, 9.4; Females 16281, 9.0, 0.3
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - Males 38626, 9.3; Females 4978, 9.4, 0.1
"Cosmos - Males 14761 9.3; Females 1519, 9.2, 0.1
etc. etc.
Hmm... is it just me... or is there a much lower number of women voting on imdb, even on shows they like, whenever it is not a "female show"?
Also... Looks to me that women tend to like "male shows" more or as much as they like "female shows".
While those average male votes are IN THE WORST CASE only 2.3 points lower. ~1.2 - 1.3 points on average.
That does not look like much of a male conspiracy to !SABOTAGE! "female shows"... or even trying that hard to dislike.
Meanwhile, women on average dislike "male
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I wasn't counting sports because A) I have no interest and B) I didn't think Monday Nigh Football would actually have ratings on IMDB. Turns out it does and some of the highest are from women. That said, the game is a social event (as you describe it) and the woman isn't being forced to make dinner for the man's friends, she's being hospitable to guests in her home (including the females of the group) and could just as well tell her husband to order some damn pizzas, no? And while she's in the kitchen she's not watching the game, while she's chatting she's not watching the game, in fact, it's not her husband holding sex (or anything else) over her head, it's her wanting to please her guests.
Not that there aren't better examples, just that yours sucked at illustrating your point. Come back with something better and we'll talk.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And Feminism is now considered a Very Bad Thing by large chunks of the internet (I still like it, but I see/understand it differently to how most seem to).
It's hated for two primary reasons by my view:
1) Some of the newer third wave stuff often associated with Tumblr has gone a bit too far the other way and started to push man-hate, and they're so loud and vocal that they've managed to give the illusion of hijacking the entire movement, which is moderate and supposed to help men as well as women (by for example changing the image of feminine away from something to somehow be ashamed of)
2) Younger generations are less keen to associate themselves with the sins of their fathers i.e. historical misogyny and privilege. As they were born into a world where equality is encouraged and we don't have so much of an indoctrination into the old patriarchy, they feel that those who tell males they're privileged and should be mindful of feminist issues, are actually trying to oppress men and make people feel guilty for being born with the wrong genitals.
Sadly, this has manifested itself in quite rampant hate towards all things interpreted as feminist, which includes anything aimed at females or featuring a female heavy cast (Ghost Busters). One could rightly argue other factors (like whether Ghost Busters is crap regardless of gender) but I do think it gets silly sometimes as I do see a heavily anti-anything-that-smells-feminist bias out there at the moment.
As always I think both sides are simply human and have their own worries and issues of defensiveness. But at the moment are more likely to dehumanise and attack each other, unfortunately, or go on mass sabotage efforts like this.
You can tell how big a problem this is by the lack of television programs aimed at women.
Really? Personally, I hate watching sports, and the few times that I have is usually because a woman talked me into watching it.
What an odd way to file a feature request. We get that you want to never see male opinions, or at least have them clearly labeled as different in source from female opinions.
Why you think its worth stating that here is beyond me.
Really, sabotaging? That implies intentionally messing up the reviews. Yet, they are looking at reviews with at least 10,000 reviewers. So, are so many men really trying to skew the ratings for shows target at women or are they just rating them based on how they feel about the show? Yet, the article admits that the same thing happens with show with a predominately male audience, such as various sporting events. How come the woman down rating boxing, for instance, aren't accused of sabotaging men's shows?
Here's news, the value of the ratings is questionable at best. It's not statistically valid by any measure. These measures only measure the opinions of those who happen to spend time on IMDB and rate shows. They aren't Nielson or other ratings system. As worthless a measure as the rating is on IMDB, it would be even more worthless if only people who value the show (ie. by gender) are allowed to rate it.
In short, the IMDB ratings are about as valid as Distrowatch's linux distro popularity rating. Here's a thought - if you want to know if a show is good or not, read the reviews people write, not an arbitrary number they click on. Or better yet, watch a few episodes and decide for yourself.
Because you know, this might be an action to try to stop other kids from getting the cooties or similar.
What did they expect to happen when they put in lengthy nearly-softcore porn scenes about crew members being in the decontamination room and lathering themselves with gel? Also, the storyline with Dr. Soong's supersoldiers felt like a tonal shift in the series away from TOS and TNG toward a Cheat Commandos level of action.
Don't get me wrong, I thought it was better than VOY because of the realism. For the people saying that this article is an attempt to guilt men into voting differently, I think an actual solution is for IMDb to offer a demographic-adjusted metric, which some pollsters do this when they know they've oversampled certain demographics, and hide it by default until the user chooses to use it. Would that work?
i would say 'most men' dont like sports either. i like playing sports but i hate watching them.
They're posting reviews, not hacking the review sites. Calling it "sabotage" is just sniveling SJW bullshit.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Could it be just that the type of stuff that is applying to women is more annoying to men than the stuff that appeals to men is to women? In my experience: women push guys to sit through their shows more than vis versa. Guys get "guy time" where they can watch whatever they want alone or with buddies. But often when a women wants to watch a show it is "our time" and we are forced to sit through it. If my experience pans out try forcing women to watch whatever you chose. See what reviews they give to your shows. But not even that: gratuitous violence/sexy women, again in my experience less of a problem for women than guys watching "gay"/hot guys talk about their feelings. One is just boring the other one is actively repulsive.
That isn't true. Men force women to watch their shows all the time. Most women don't actually watch sports on their own yet not only are forced to watch games but also cook dinner for the guy and their friends so they have food during the game.
Look at a group of friends make and female "watching a game". Most women are chatting or doing other thing during the actual game itself.
Not all but it holds true more often than not.
Fortunately in our house, we have multiple televisions no one watches anything they don't want to. Now most of the shows I watch - and there aren't a lot, my wife has no problem with. She does watch more Hallmark channel movies, which are watchable, but obviously oriented toward women, and I watch more science stuff. But we'll watch both together. She watches hockey along with me as well - a surprising number of women enjoy Ice Hockey.
And if a woman is "forced" to watch anything or forced to prepare food for the husband and friends, perhaps she needs to be in a different relationship with a different kind of guy. I've been married 39 years now, and never forced my better half into anything.
She has however cooked many meals voluntarily, and without me asking. I've done stuff for her and her lady friends as well.
Why? Becuse our relationship isn't some sort of sadistic masochistic war between the sexes. I fear altogether too many seem to that a generalized hatred of their spouses is somehow normal.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If I watch a show and I don't enjoy it I'll give it a bad rating.
It's not some conspiracy to destroy shows aimed at women, it's just an honest rating.
Maybe the reason mens' shows don't get given bad ratings by women because women don't bother rating shows.
Or maybe mens' shows are just more enjoyable to a wider audience.
So women shouldn't vote for shows made for men?
Is a show that only appeals to 50% of the population really "award winning"? In my opinion shows such as Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, or Modern Family are worthy of critical acclaim because they are inclusive and accessible to everybody.
The comments here are why I've moved over to other sites. What a bunch of sad sacks, who didn't read the fucking article, and got their boxer-briefs in a twist because they can't fucking stand the idea that not EVERY tv show is catered to THEIR wishes. Whatever. Fuck off. You're only important on the internet.
Let me get this straight. Some men dislike a show which is about shallow nonsense and motivations, and downvote said show on IMDB. Instead of congratulating them, some SJWs bash them for having an enlightened viewpoint, . So even if you are in support of feminists/enlightened motives, you still get bashed by SJWs, just because you are a man. It looks like SJWism isn't really about social justice, but only about bashing the supposed oppressors.
It still puzzles me that SJWs are unwilling or unable to realize that the current western culture, while admittedly not being social justice utopia, yet, is probably the most socially just culture in human history. People have lived and died for what some people take for granted. Gay rights are not natural rights (because, in nature, gay behaviour is, by definition, "abnormal"), but they have been fought for and defended. Medical sex reassigments have been made possible by the medical advancements in western "patriarchic" societies. Universal suffrage, that people regardless of sex or income have one vote, is a huge achievement.
I'm not saying western culture is free of any social problems, but please don't suggest that voting down a shallow TV show on an internet platform is one of those problems.
Women rant every day about the unrealistinc way men behave on television, and the *offensive* way they act. The results have been the demise of some of my favorite shows from feminazis too put off by actually funny material, or by inspiring drama that wasn't "sensitive to women's rights".
So they got their own for a show about slutty women who whore their way through inheritances, divorce money, and a year's worth of wages in just shoes for a single season of the show? Oh, boo-hoo, cry me a river.
I really don't think that a TV show has a gender. Either it's a show that I enjoy watching, or one that I do not.
PS - I recommend watching a few episodes of RuPaul's Drag Race if you're still hung on gender roles.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Really? Do people really watch TV shows for the context? It's context is blatant Communist propaganda, but its content is that of a really good spy thriller. Maybe because the key figures are women? I guess that means Blacklist is about to lose a lot of female viewers.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Ich have to admit, That this approach is a little cliché, but maybe more men were forced to watch Sex and the City with their female partners than women were forced to watch sports etc with their male partners. Creating a disgruntled audience of repeat viewers for whom negative ratings are a safe way to express their opinion anonymously without risking a household quarry. Figures about gender specific forcing to watch would then be the recommended grain of salt that I would wish this comment to be taken with and also please not to seriously.
I regularly get forced to watch Gilmore Girls reruns with my wife. Seriously every single character on the show is annoying. They're all drama-queen, fast-talking, bitches. Even the guys. 0/10 would not recommend.
Care to post a link?
Because what I read and experienced (having both a son and a daughter) contradicts what you state.
My son inherited most of the toys (including gazillion of cars) from elder sister.
Compared to her he is:
1) obsessed with the cars and planes (we bought our daughter all kinds of them, because, fuck 'girl/boy' toys model)
2) tends to speak less and has inferior language ability in general
3) shows next to no interest in listening to stories, unless there is a car or a plane involved, his sister would eagerly listen and then repeat the story ("read" the book)
4) is much much less cautious than sister
DNA is what really makes us different, why should we behave the same?
1. Women have greater constitutional vitality, perhaps because of their unique chromosomal pattern, and normally outlive men by 3-4 years (U.S.). This is also reflected even in the womb. More than 140 male babies are conceived for every 100 females; by the time birth occurs, the ratio is 105 to 100, with the rest of the males dying in spontaneous abortions.
2. Men have a higher incidence of death from almost EVERY disease except three: benign tumors, disorders related to female reproduction, and breast cancer.
3. Men have a higher rate of basal metabolism than women.
4. In skeletal structure, women tend to have a shorter head, broader face, less protruding chin, shorter legs, and longer trunk, and a more rounded pelvis.
5. Women have a larger stomach, kidneys, liver, and appendix, and smaller lungs than men.
6. Women have three very important physiological functions totally absent in men--menstruation, pregnancy, and lactation, and each SIGNIFICANTLY influences behavior and feelings. Female hormonal patterns are more complex and varied.
7. The glands work differently: e.g. a women's thyroids are larger and more active, enlarging during menstruation and pregnancy, making them more prone to goiter, providing resistance to cold, and is associated with the smooth skin, relatively hairless body, and the thin layer of subcutaneous fat that are important elements in the concept of personal beauty. Women are also generally more responsive emotionally, laughing and crying more readily (think how many women complain men are less emotional).
8. Women's blood contains more water (thus 20 percent fewer red cells). Since red cells supply oxygen to the body, they tire more easily and are more prone to faint. Their constitutional viability is therefore strictly a long-term matter. During ware-time conditions, when the working day in British factories was increased from ten to twelve hours, accidents among women increased 150 percent; the rate of accidents among men did not increase significantly.
9. Men are 50 percent stronger than women in brute strength.
10. Women's hearts beat more rapidly than those of men (80 vs. 72 beats per minute). Their blood pressure (averaging 10 points lower than men) varies more from minute to minute, but they have much less tendency to high blood pressure until after menopause.
11. Female lung capacity is about 30% less than in males.
12. Women can withstand high temperatures better than men because their metabolism slows down less.
13. Men and women differ in every cell because of differing chromosomal patterns, the implications of which range from obvious to extremely subtle. In one classic example, when researchers visited high school and college campuses to study behavior of the sexes, they observed that males and females even carried books differently - men tended to carry them at their sides with their arms over the top. Women and girls, by contrast, usually cradled their books at their chests.
14. Men have roughly 10% bigger brain, but some parts of responsible to certain activities are smaller than women's.
Yea, I'm not into sports either. My girlfriend asked me if I'd watch the Superbowl with her (she follows her team) and about half way through the game (the Broncos one last year?) she told me to get out and play my guitar :)
[John]
Shit better not happen!
As a man, I'm appalled and dismayed to see all the bile aimed at women. Whether it's gaming, or politics, or entertainment, there's this poisonous aggression towards women that's disturbing as fuck.
Seriously, dudes, what the fuck are you so afraid of?
I reserve my aggression for reaction to physical threats, not insecurity about my manhood.
I self-identify* as a woman. How dare you begrudge me the right to watch a show targeted at my gender, not liking it, and giving an honest review about how I feel about it???? What grows between my legs and on my chin has zero to do with what I review or not review.
* = sometimes - its fluid.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
"Just going by the data, there are clearly not as many women giving reviews"
It says right in the summary that 60% of the reviews with an average of 8.0 are from women. There are more women giving reviews.
I don't think the target audience of a show is relevant to the review. The show was not released to only women, the target audience of the review site is not only women. As a man when I scroll through the top 100 or 250 or whatever looking at titles this is the score I'd see if that title were listed and this is the score that would determine if that show is listed.
The target audience is relevant only to the makers of a show/movie. There are men who like Sex in the city and men who hate it and men who feel inbetween; there are women all over the spectrum as well.
"I'm not saying that makes anyone more or less special."
I'll let you respond by quoting your parent post in which you did exactly that with a sexist generalization.
"Even if the viewership were equally split between men and women, many women would probably not log in simply to give something a bad rating."
"If I go to a southern Baptist church and ask them their opinion on gays getting married, do you think I'll get a acceptance rate that is similar to nationwide average?"
Do you think you can exclude 40% of the national population by gender (males) and get a result that is similar to the nationwide average? What if you exclude the slightly higher than half in the major cities? What if you exclude the slightly less than half outside the cities but who include the majority of communities? Doing any of these things would radically change the results vs the national average.
The target audience for the results is the general user base of the site, therefore the ideal sampling of people giving a rating should be the general audience of the site including men and people who hate the show.
Nor women only voting. Remember that women got REALLY pissed off that they were not allowed to vote. Why are they not rising up to refute this demand that only women get the vote? And there are private companies that are currently getting into hot water because they're refusing women to participate and claim it's a "men's only" club. Surely they would be against this too! After all, feminism is about EQUALITY, therefore if you're for equality, you're a feminist, and there's no need for a mens' rights movement, ergo the MRA is just a misogyny club.
Right?
Or is the public words not the actuality?
Unless it's out of 6 where 6 is bad, but in this case it's out of 10, and 6 isn't bad. Just not good.
Shit, no wonder so many review sites are terrified to give a 6/10 rating when morons like you whine about how 6 is really bad.
FFS, what the hell was 10 supposed to be?!?!?!?
And if a woman is "forced" to watch anything or forced to prepare food for the husband and friends, perhaps she needs to be in a different relationship with a different kind of guy. I've been married 39 years now, and never forced my better half into anything.
Most women are not "forced" to watch stuff they don't want. That was BronsCon's point. In most married couples, the man is like you: he doesn't force his will onto his wife. We've been taught by society to not do that kind of crap, because that kind of thing used to be commonplace ages ago (and still is in some backwards cultures). But the same isn't true for women: they routinely badger their husbands into watching and doing things they don't enjoy, like watching Hallmark movies, going to church, etc. Men do it because after too many years of being single and sex-less, they reason that this is what they have to put up with if they don't want to be alone and only have the company of porn videos at night.
As a society, we've put a lot of effort over the past century into teaching our boys not to be ogres and to treat women respectfully and as equals. However, while we've mostly stopped teaching our girls crap like being submissive and that "a woman's place is in the home", we seem to have overlooked teaching them useful things about how they should behave in relationships to actually achieve the equality we aspire to. (And also, IMO, how to pick decent guys to date.)
But the same isn't true for women: they routinely badger their husbands into watching and doing things they don't enjoy, like watching Hallmark movies, going to church, etc. Men do it because after too many years of being single and sex-less, they reason that this is what they have to put up with if they don't want to be alone and only have the company of porn videos at night.
This reminds me of a joke. two guys were sitting in a bar, and one buys the other a drink, saying "I'm celebrating! I'm getting married next week. Now I can have sex any time I want!"
The other says "That's odd - that's the exact reason I got divorced."
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This. One of our first dates (my wife and I) was a Giants game. She won tickets at work (ah, work, something she no longer has to -- or does -- do) and wanted to go so we could spend time together. I have to say, neither of us were really into it, but that was kind of the point: neither of us felt bad ignoring the game going on in front of us, we simply enjoyed each others' company. Of course, we've never gone to another game since then because it really didn't add anything to the experience (the experience being having spent time together), but that's not the point. We mutually agreed to do something neither of us really wanted to do in order to spend time together.
And therein lies the problem: watching a TV show only one person is interested in is not a mutual experience, either mutual suffering or mutual enjoyment. It does not lend itself to bonding, as the partner who is interested in the show is going to get annoyed when the partner who isn't tries to talk to them during it, and they're not going to talk about the show after because one of them wasn't paying attention to it in the first place. A show both are interested in? Sure, they don't talk during, but they'll talk after. A show neither is interested in? Background noise to fill silences (periods of thought) in a thoughtful conversation.
I have to say, some of the best bonding moments for my wife and I have been things that absolutely sucked for both of us. Thing where we've looked at each other afterward and said, in unison "there is no way in hell we're ever fucking doing that again". I dare say, if a couple never has such an experience, they're stuck in a rut and will get tired of each other sooner or later. But, if experiences one partner enjoys and the other does not are a common theme, well, that's a sign they're not a match. A healthy couple doesn't have to like and dislike all of the same things but, at some point, they should be able to tell beforehand whether their partner will feel the same way they do about something, and they should (both) be mature enough to not subject their partner to those things; of course, they should also both be secure enough to trust their partner going and doing those things alone or with friends, no matter who those friends are.
I feel sorry for the men writing these reviews; they're probably faced with a decision between having sex used as a weapon or paying alimony for the foreseeable future. And it's likely not something they could have seen coming; if a woman doesn't start playing those games until after marriage, you can't simply not marry her because of the games.
But yeah, back to sports... If I want to watch a bunch of sweaty men rubbing on each other, I live 20 minutes from San Francisco.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Where is this man's (I'm making an assumption, my apologies if that assumption is incorrect) +5, Insightful? Not only did he absolutely nail the point I was making, he succinctly pointed out several root causes of these types of issues.
Add in alimony, and some women being sly enough to not play those kind of games until they've secured it, and you've got a recipe for oppression. And no, a man should not be oppressed because other men have, themselves, been oppressors.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I feel inspired to go to IMDB and give Sex in the City a 1 star rating now.
If this is such a big deal to IMDB why not show star ratings by demographics.
At a glance show "the overall average", "the highest star rating demographic", "the lowest star rating demographic".
So SITC would get a 3.7 stars overall. 4.7 stars from lonely fat chicks. 1.2 stars from men over the age of 17.
just list rating by sex and then a composite rating
If according to our government we are now living in a post-gender society where being male or female is a fluid, post-modernist construct, how can 538 be sure their analysis is even valid? How many of these "men" are women wanting to be men or men wanting to be women? More importantly, 538 were the ones who also recently wrote an article on how Trump supporters are probably not self-identifying as such in public due to the stigma it carries. So what will it be? Are they sure of what their data represents or are they not? I would argue for the later.
FTA:
".....but I think most people would agree it was better than average.
At least, that’s what I thought until I saw the program’s remarkably poor score according to IMDb’s user ratings when I analyzed the data history of HBO. “Sex and the City” has an overall rating of 7.0 on a scale from 1 to 10. "
isn't 7/10 above average? 5 is average in a scale of 1-10.
So right off the bat it's obvious this is a slanted article with a bias view point.
the comments drive the point* farther (in the case a full article about how men* suck* didn't)
...Which is why should I trust reviews at IMDB - or anywhere - in the first place? They're all astroturfed anyway.
Boo-hoo, some people don't like show [X]
If a woman rated some "made for men, show boobies and do crass jokes" show as shit, that's her right to do so. For her, it IS shit. For a lot of men, so is Sex In The City. Or are you only allowed to air your opinion if the creator deems you worthy?
Better yet, how is this a problem that warrants posting on /. ?
I am a consumer and if i watch a show and it sucks im not allowed to say it sucks? So what if i like something and hate something else, i am entitled to an opinion. If i want to bash housewives(which the term should make feminist hate it as well) then i am allowed to bash it because i pay my cable bill the same as anyone else. If i want to bash a kids show then i can do that too. If you consider yourself female and you want to bash something with a largely male audience then you should be allowed to do that too. How dare whoever did this!
I've had classical piano training. I've noticed that male pianists tend to venture further into extremes of volume than female pianists. During fortissimo passages, males really pound the keys, and during pianissimo passages, they seek out the lightest possible touch.
In other words, males tend to utilize the full available dynamic range more than female pianists.
So I'm not surprised they do so when rating TV shows.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
...but those intended for men usually suck less.
Not saying all shows angled toward men were/are great, though. The 1980s was basically nothing but a stream of low-budget man shows that were utter crap. They were as bad, if not worse, than daytime soap operas. Sadly, shows oriented toward women have never caught up, they're still just as bad as they have been decades. Women were just conditioned to endure it.
Most TV is crap, anyhow. I don't own one, but my fiance does and she watches her trash shows. She even calls them that and tries to watch them without me. We do share a love of a handful of shows that probably have a predominantly-female audience, so you can't always predict what males will like or dislike. I mean, the pinnacle of reality TV is probably Project Runway, but I bet people assume only women and gay men would enjoy it.
This is really bizarre... if you don't like something, don't watch it, so what's the point of men even rating these shows?? Did they actually watch them before assigning a rating? Because those ratings would be a lot more understandable if they did. They're all pretty vile. But I don't think they watched any of those shows.
IMDB, Wiki, Slashdot ... it is known who the people are who dominate these and many other online "communities."
There will be no battle. Simply secession. Marginalization for those who cannot or will not go beyond their own perceived ideas and limitations. Rightfully so.
Love without logic is insanity. And vice versa.
So the author's claim is what exactly? That when a woman-oriented show gets bad ratings and reviews from men that this is somehow a conspiracy?
Let me introduce you to my friend the correlation-causation fallacy. I'm too fucking tired to explain this simple point that most 'journalists' these days don't get, but ask any smart person you know to explain it. Anyways, it would be JUST AS FUCKING VALID OR INVALID to 'explain' this result as: "Sex & the Shitty and other vagina-friendly shows, in fact, suck. Men rate them accurately, women drastically overinflate their ratings because of a conspiracy to promote these shows.
BTW as a man who often watched SATC during its original HBO run due to housemates/girlfriends wanting to watch it... I can unequivocally state that it is the most overrated HBO full series of all time. SJP is a shitty writer -- does not seem to realize that self-referential humor and breaking the fourth wall only works if done with restraint by an excellent screenwriter. She, due to the self-referential nature of both the writing and her character, comes across as a reasonably dumb, trashy whore.
I think the unintended consequence of this show is that it opened men's eyes about women. Even if the characters aren't realistic, they are people a lot of ordinary women seem to be able to relate to and are entertained by. We started to think... maybe our girlfriend is as big a skank as Samantha, or as crazy/bitchy/bossy as Red, or as flat out stupidly pretentious & catty as Carrie. Shit, maybe our only hope is to meet the Charlotte's of the world who haven't yet experienced the cock carousel and let their looks go into a mass of cellulite!
A product targeted towards women gets strong reviews from it's intended audience - women, and middling reviews from those outside the target audience - men. If men rated it as highly as women (something the submitter expected) then isn't that an indication that the producers failed in focusing on their target audience? Ask yourself why men are reviewing a show like 'Sex and the City'? Perhaps because the women in their lives 'forced' them to watch it... That they down-rated a show they were forced to watch isn't surprising.
There is a voting system, men and women can vote for shows, there is the average vote displayed common for both groups.
Now men and women vote and men do not vote as high for women shows as women do. They do not troll (no 1 star ratings, but realistic 5.8 which imply they want to tell a real opinion) and suddenly its abusive?
Either they make a women only vote for "shows aimed at women" (isn't that sexist?) or they have a general vote and the outcome represents the average viewer. And when enough men watch women shows, they vote for them and influence the average vote. Which means the number finally matches the opinion of the average human, not the average women. Maybe biased to the men/women ratio on the site, which isn't bad either, as the site should display the average vote with respect to its user base.
So some men find the shows aimed at women unappealing and vote that way. That's a conspiracy?
Even though they are watching these shows to spend quality time with a wife or girlfriend they are still part of the viewing audience. The NFL has made changes in the past few years to appease the women who may be viewing the game with a husband or boyfriend who would otherwise not be watching the game.
That's so funny :) At these present days every of us has such cool opportunity to buy absolutely everything what we need online, even not leaving the house, that is very convenient! The main in it - is a right choice of the place where you make your purchase. Such place must be proven and reliable, because only then you will get a great pleasure from your purchase! Especially we should give a large attention to the choice of medications, because it's our health. From my part I can advise you my favorite pharmacy online http://ed4man.com/acheter-viag... where I always buy quality medications and I'm very glad with my choice. :) Recently I've ordered there special meds and the result from it was amazing! :) So I wish to everybody of you strong health and big happiness to whole your families! :)