Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women (fivethirtyeight.com) 858
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).
Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:4, Interesting)
Still - women don't seem to feel the need to go trash-talk shows that are designed to appeal to men. (See the figure entitled: "Men are more likely to give the crappiest rating").
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because most men couldn't care less if their significant other watches "The Shield" or "Star Trek" with them. In fact, many would prefer to watch it alone. As such, fewer women are exposed to male targeted shows. On the other hand (and this is, for sure, just an anecdote) it seems like every straight guy in my office is forced to watch "The Bachelor" with their S.O. every week as part of their "quality time" together. Since they're exposed, it seems reasonable that they might also rate the show.
Re: Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, this is Slashdot. Does that mean you imagined watching The Shield? :P
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I've spent countless hours of my life watching terrible shows like sex and the city to meet imposed requirements of "quality time", and I know I'm not alone.
And it never occurred to you to come up with an alternative?
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't like those shows why not just communicate that to your partner? If she cares about you she won't force you to do things you hate doing, and will find something mutually enjoyable for "quality time". If she doesn't care and insists on torturing you, maybe it's time to reconsider your relationship.
Sex in the city still rated around 6 among men, so they did like it, just not as much as women. Yet still the headline was that men sabotaged the votes.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:4, Insightful)
When deciding to watch a show, I don't see a warning that says "The following program contains content intended for women. Viewer discretion is advised." I decide to watch a show on its own merit. Whether I do or don't like it, I probably wouldn't review it. But for the people that do, a review is just a review. Who is doing the reviewing is almost as telling as what the review says. Aggregating those scores to get a "number" that's supposed to be meaningful is the big mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
Seeing a lot of negative individual scores would tell you that. The fact that it brings down the average for the aggregate number tells you almost nothing at all. That number doesn't factor the value of a review into its weighting.
And what I get from this is that men are responding to the advertising for the show and tuning in. Which is possibly a failure in advertising, if they are attracting people who won't like the show.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Uhm, yes they do. They do it all the time. Go on a date and tell a girl that your favorite TV show is Batman Beyond. The article said it skewed heavy to men, and it is a great example.
The difference is that women do it openly and reject men as dating companions for it, while men do it secretly because we don't want to piss off the 'dating goddesses'.
This is not sabotage, it is a simple example of the failure of rating systems.
A single number is useless for most rating systems. A graph is what we nee
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. Characterizing one demographic choosing to review a particular set of TV shows as "sabotage" is clickbait sensationalism at best. This is an opportunity for sites like IMDB to detect a gender based split and report it:
"'Sex and the City' received an overall 3.8 stars, but female reviewers rated it 4.7 stars."
Or you could get even more useful: "General Hospital received an overall 1.0 stars but the distribution of ratings is non-normal, suggesting that while most viewers thought it was a waste of airwaves, a small demographic really enjoys the program."
Re: (Score:3)
Still - women don't seem to feel the need to go trash-talk shows that are designed to appeal to men.
Nope. They only trash-talk games that are designed to appeal to men.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, as long as you define "universal appeal" as "things that appeal to men."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Informative)
TFS listed several shows that have a 90% male audience, and none that had a 90% female audience. I wouldn't expect anyone to RTFA, but I thought it was reasonable to RTFS.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Interesting)
And yes, if you are going to force me into something, I am going to throw my weight around to make the situation more favorable for me.
Fortunately, my wife and i enjoy the same shows, pretty much across the board, and respect each other enough to not force each other to watch what we don't like, so we don't have that issue. My wife is not most women, though, and I am not most men, so I'm not speaking from personal experience, but simply relaying experiences shared with me by my other married friends. And if you don't want to take my word for it, fine, don't; read the rest of the discussion on this topic for a couple hundred other examples.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to stretch when the numbers already fit.
Complaint: Men are rating down "women's" shows!!!
Response: Men rate shows they don't like poorly, and rate shows they like highly. What's the problem?
Complaint: But men are rating down OUR shows!!!
Response: Men and women can watch and rate the same shows.
Complaint: But women aren't watching "men's" shows and rating them poorly!!!
Response: Maybe that's because they aren't watching them, and don't care to rate them.
Complaint: But men ARE watching "women's" shows and rating them poorly!
Response: You keep talking about "women's" shows, but you can't list any that have a 90% female viewership share to establish that they are "women's" shows. All the while you are comparing these shows, and the demographics of those who rate them, to your self-defined "men's" shows which DO have 90% male viewership.
Complaint: UR RLY STRETCHING!!!
Response: QQ
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:4, Funny)
Fucking Batman the Animated Series and Justice League the Fucking Animated Series.
Fucking forest for the trees, dude. Hint: They aren't so geeked (double hint, that word) to go see Star Wars as you might think.
The last superhero movie that should, in theory, have appealed to women was Superman Returns which was essentially a Christopher Reeve Superman movie wrapped up in a chick flick, complete with dueling love interests for Lois, and a whole subplot of will Superman figure out and care for his own child? Plus he dies (chick flick requirement) and comes back to life sweetly to give a soliloquy to his sleeping child!
It probably flopped more for male assholery in word of mouth than female. And as a reward, gents, you got a new movie where Superman learns he must kill sometimes. Sigh.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent is rated "insightful"???
Does anyone really think enraged men are bothering to downrate "Sex and the City"? Seriously?
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, the entire Gamergate movement was predicated on the notion that feminists had no business reviewing games that were geared towards men. "Let them make their own games" was the rallying cry.
You didn't understand gamergate. It started with the exposing of corrupt and biased favorable gaming reviews.
The message you're misstating is actually not that feminists had no business reviewing games, but they had no business trying to enforce their values on game developers as a whole. See the overblown Overwatch "scandal" about Tracer's victory pose.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think you don't understand Gamergate because it started with a jilted and angry ex-boyfriend's complaints about his game designer girlfriend's cheating ways. There was an accusation of sex traded for reviews, but there was never any evidence to support the accusation, not even superficially, since there was no such review.
Yep, absolutely no evidence at all. [reaxxion.com]
In practice, that seems to be the same thing, in that most of the GameGaters that I've seen go ballistic over anyone saying anything even the slightest bit negative about their favourite games.
There are extremists in everything unfortunately. I personally don't give a shit how someone reviews a game, as long as it's factual and simply opinion. Trying to make an entire community conform to whiny, lying, bitches [imgur.com] however is where I draw the line.
Lets not forget that Depression Quest was barely even a game.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, I'm not taking any article that says this seriously:
The video-gaming business was a bastion of old-fashioned sexism long before Gjoni came along. As the industry grew into a $100 billion behemothâ"rivaling Hollywood, bigger than pop musicâ"it maintained the atmosphere of a teenage boyâ(TM)s basement den, and stayed hostile to women.
Not to mention that the article only focuses on Gjoni and Quinn's relationship and doesn't really go into GamerGate at all. Yeah, guy was pissed his girlfriend was fucking around, nobody gives a shit about that except those two. The reason why it ended up being a big thing is because of the exposed corruption in gaming journalism, and the women involved trying to make the entirety of gaming out to be sexist.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, sorry, but I was there, and yes it was. It wasn't rampagingly misogynistic, but it was definitely a male-dominated industry, market, and culture. The number of well-known female game designers could be counted on your fingers. And while there's no intrinsic reason why a woman can't enjoy a game about blasting the crap out of aliens/demons/terrorists, as a group, that's not a genre they have tended to gravitate toward.
Your first statement is not backed up by the rest of the paragraph. Pro-male is not anti-female. Gaming culture is as anti-female as the fashion industry and culture is anti-male, that is to say, not very. There are entire genres of games targeting women, and many female protagonists (from Samus to Femshep). Nobody is actively keeping women away, as you said, it's not something they tend to gravitate toward. None of this makes the gaming industry sexist.
Why would it? Gjoni made up the whole thing as part of a vicious character assassination. Yes, there's quid-pro-quo corruption in games journalism, but that happens at the managerial level, as Jeff Gerstmann will readily attest, long before Gjoni oozed on to the scene.
I have already shown proof to the contrary in other co
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, the entire Gamergate movement was predicated on the notion that feminists had no business reviewing games that were geared towards men. "Let them make their own games" was the rallying cry.
The whole gamergate thing was predicated on an effort to stop the production of 'male oriented' games. Nobody really cares if reviews are poorly done, that's not exactly gonna be a new thing for entertainment media. The special affront for gamergate was nothing about reviews as you and the article claim, but instead
about SJW's trying to dictate what kind of games should be made.
You just have to look at the outpouring of rage from whiny-ass MRA manbabies regarding the re-boot of Ghostbusters with an all-female cast to see how this mechanism plays out. If it's targeted at men, then men believe they should be the ones to review. If it's targeted at women, then men believe they should be the ones the review. And god forbid a woman should offer an opinion because, "IT'S NOT MEANT FOR YOU". Hell, these embarrassing needledicks have been overwhelming the reviews of Ghostbuster and it hasn't even come out yet.
Fuck these losers. If they got out and met a few human girls in person, they might not be so skeevy that they have time to carpet bomb any show or movie that has women in it. Remember the outrage over the latest Star Wars? How the MRAs were going to boycott? They degrade all of masculinity with their incessant whining.
Sob, sob, other people have different opinions of games and movies than I do and they are expressing those opinions. Stop caring about what other people think and just watch what you enjoy, problem solved. You don't need to go enforcing things on others to get over this first world problem.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:4, Informative)
The whole gamergate thing was predicated on an effort to stop the production of 'male oriented' games.
Nope. It was started by a man (a misogynist man, at that). A man started making a huge stink because he was dumped by his girlfriend, and accused her of sleeping with everyone to get good reviews for her woman-aimed games. The MRA misogynists all hopped on the band wagon, siding with the lying ex, and woman came to rally for the game designer who was slandered. Are you sure we are talking about the same gamergate?
That's funny, the Gamergate I remember is where a bunch of manipulative dominating feminists tried to tell gamers that game developers weren't supposed to be allowed to do anything in their games that feminists didn't approved of. They created a bunch of absurdly wrong videos, and started a whole group based on lying and manipulating. Gamergate in response was a guy accusing his ex-girlfriend who had clearly cheated on him and lied to him of sleeping with game reviewers for good reviews. Which got a lot of support from people tired of the feminist controlling dominating b.s., some of whom also went on to create their own lying manipulating b.s. in response against feminists. That's the Gamergate I remember, at best it was one lying manipulating group of feminists against a lying manipulating group of men - but those men only showed up in response to attacks by feminists, they didn't start it off.
Re: (Score:3)
You just have to look at the outpouring of rage from whiny-ass MRA manbabies regarding the re-boot of Ghostbusters with an all-female cast to see how this mechanism plays out.
Funny, most of the MRA groups I know of are more concerned with social issues like disparate child custody decisions, prison sentencing and other inequalities in the justice system biased against men. The only group I have heard make statements on the Ghostbusters movie was the Red Pillers at Return of kings [wehuntedthemammoth.com]. Was that what you were referring to?
Remember the outrage over the latest Star Wars? How the MRAs were going to boycott? They degrade all of masculinity with their incessant whining.
Again not familiar with MRA's weighing in on popular movies, Return of kings did though and you should rightfully ignore them, they embarrass everyone including MRA
Re: (Score:3)
No, it doesn't. Because those people are grown now and their childhoods have passed and if somebody remaking a movie they liked as a kid somehow threatens their gestalt, then there's a problem that has nothing to do with movies.
Please, what are we talking about here? Your "childhood" really hinges so much on a tv show that you would create a host of sockpuppets and carpet bomb a review site with negative reviews even though yo
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:4, Interesting)
TV viewing skews heavily female. Check out TV by the numbers some time for gender skews for popular shows. Unless its sports, or fox's sunday nite lineup, men don't watch much tv at all.
The following link from 2010 has a breakdown and its pretty sobering.
http://whiskeys-place.blogspot... [blogspot.com]
Men's interests might be more narrow (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:4, Informative)
TV is female centric. Check out viewing numbers. Men only watch sports and fox's sunday night lineup, just about everything else on network tv heavily skews female by a wide margin.
Go Figure... (Score:5, Funny)
...a guy would hammer a show about 4 whiney women.
Re:Go Figure... (Score:5, Insightful)
...a guy would hammer a show about 4 whiney women.
Instead of "hammering" it, he should just realize he is not part of the target audience, and watch something else. I don't enjoy watching Teletubbies, but I don't give it a bad review because I am not a three year old.
Re: (Score:3)
Your point makes sense. Don't go around just thinking of things that piss you off and then spend your time trashing them, it makes you a negative person.
But on the other hand doesn't that kind of boil down to "don't poorly review shows you don't like"? Doesn't that kind of break the concept of reviews?
I can see both of these points, not sure if they can be reconciled. The concept of voting isn't so good for protecting minority opinions, and the author mentions that IMDB voting population is 70% male.
Re:Go Figure... (Score:5, Insightful)
He should just realize he is not part of the target audience, and watch something else.
I have watched Sex in the City, I would not have watched Sex in the City by my own volition. I would give it a solid 6-7 rating.
My Fiancee does not watch Clone Wars, nor would I even suggest that she watch Clone Wars, because it's bad. I know it's bad. I complain about how bad it is. But I keep watching it. I would also give it a solid 6-7 rating. I'm sure she would give it a 1. But she doesn't watch it.
I think that's the difference. Guys watch mediocre or bad television with their female partners, female partners go do something else.
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY. Since complaining about the show to said female partner would disqualify him from nookie time later, guys suffer through the show and instead vent by bashing it online. I'm not sure why anyone who's been in a typical MF relationship would be surprised by this.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess I was luckier, my ex would just yell at me to get online in Warcraft because they needed a healer.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you can find a 'kids show' that is sophisticated enough for adults as well.
Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. First of all online reviews of TV shows are bullshit because it's not a fair sampling of the total audience. Online reviews are also faked all the time. You should be sampling all TV viewers and correlating demographics intelligently with particular shows because you get viewers by filling a niche at the right time. If any real decisions are made by the industry using these numbers I'd be shocked. It's a fluff piece.
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:5, Interesting)
Why ask for reviews, then question why men are reviewing women's shows? How would you expect to get the opinion of the audience if you exclude half the viewers?
The more interesting question is why more women don't review shows aimed at men.
An even more interesting question is why anyone would bother watching the crap that fills the gaps between commercials anyway?
Re:Strong enough for a man, made for a woman (Score:4, Insightful)
The more interesting question is why more women don't review shows aimed at men.
Because people don't review shows they aren't watching. A lot of men say they are sexually blackmailed into watching women's shows. This is the result of sexual blackmail.
Suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Men don't like shows focused at women. More news at 11.
Re:Suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Or "male shows" like Battlestar Galactica is objectively better television than Keeping Up With the Kardashians.
I think this just reveals how sexist pressures apparently are keep women from watching amazing television like BSG.
Re:Suprise (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no proof that they're "going out of their way". They may be watching the shows but still not value them highly. One thought is they're watching stuff out of boredom.
Re:Suprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Misogyny is alive and well on the internet.
Without a single doubt. Now that "misogyny" has been clearly defined as "disagreeing with any woman on any topic", there will always be misogyny to feel good about bashing. For example, TFA: men disagree with women on the ratings for a show. Misogyny by definition.
Re:Suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
TV show ratings now = Misogyny
Perhaps THAT is the problem going on here. Its like the crap my wife says when I watch MMA or Car Shows or whatever, and the derogatory comments she makes about them, but should I say something about sex in the city I'm a fucking pig* .
*Not really, making stuff up that I've seen in other couples do.
Re: (Score:3)
Misandry is alive and well on the internet also. What's your point?
Bollocks isn't it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sabotaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OMG, stop trying to oppress me with your logic! If you like a show and I don't, it's because the show is trash.
If I like a show and you don't, it's because you are the oppressive arm of the patriarchy flaunting your male privilege!
Re:Sabotaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is not actually that unreasonable apart from the headline.
'Men are downvoting shows aimed at women' may be a more fair title.
To quote:
" But ratings taken as an aggregate obfuscate crucial detail. They can smooth over dramatic imbalances in demography that belie a thoroughly unscientific sample. They have the habit of lumping the divisive among the universally mediocre. And as long as they purport to underscore the true value of a work, they undermine people’s ability to find new and interesting material just because a subset of passionate and vociferous dudes on the internet somehow hold it in low regard."
This is not unreasonable.
Another example is complex software only usable by professionals (or very skilled amateurs). Votes from people coming to it who have no idea of the field are basically worthless.
Re:Sabotaging? (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, anyone using the term "SJW" is completely full of shit.
Why? It perfectly, succinctly describes what it's all about. It's dead on.
Re:Sabotaging? (Score:5, Informative)
So you're suggesting that social justice is an undesirable thing? Or just that allowing oneself to be labeled as a crusader for it is unacceptable?
*sigh*
No. The point is that the people who carry on in this way are generally over-wrought, pretentious idiots that don't understand what the word "justice" actually means, but consider themselves to be passionate warriors for their nebulous cause because they tweet with some magic hashtags. They aren't "fighting" for anything, but they do get their feelings hurt for all the wrong reasons about all the wrong things.
Yes, "social justice" (as the term is used by its shrill priesthood, most of whom make careers out of getting paid to manufacture phony injustice that only they can solve through being paid to blog about it) IS an undesirable thing. Because it's not at all about justice, it's about faux grievances and misplaced senses of entitlement.
Maybe they just don't like the shows? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: Maybe they just don't like the shows? (Score:5, Insightful)
When a boyfriend and girlfriend want to watch different things on TV, the girl wins out. Men get stuck watching girl shows. Women don't get stuck watching guy shows. As a result, men have the knowledge to rate girl shows poorly. Women don't see the guy shows, so they have no reason to rate them poorly. This isn't sabotage. Slashdot needs to cut the SJW bullshit.
Re: Maybe they just don't like the shows? (Score:5, Insightful)
So much actual this.
And beyond that, when your GF does sit through one of "your shows" she's usually doing something else, whereas for whatever reason I feel guys are compelled to watch what's on the TV even if we hate it to our core.
There are certainly legit social issues relating to gender inequality, but I wish we could find a balance and accept that yes, there _are_ actually differences between how men and women generally behave and that may not actually be a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Meh, guilty as charged to pretty much all of that.
If what you said works then I'm envious.. I accepted having to choose between sitting through some crap while cuddling or no cuddling and possibly a speech a long time ago.
I do complain about the shows though, it's no secret that I don't like them. Why women (or at least the subset I've known) absolutely insist on forcing us to watch stuff with them that they _know_ we hate is beyond me, but it's a thing and I (like I suspect many others) gave up fighting it
Re: Maybe they just don't like the shows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Great statement by someone who doesn't understand the majority of women. As with most things, women care a great deal about the social aspects of watching TV, discussing what is happening and what is going to happen and what just happened. If I pull out my iPad or laptop to watch something else (or as is common in my case, play video games), and I plug in earphones, she loses that aspect and it isn't as enjoyable for her.
In fact, I wonder if that is at least part of the cause of the lopsided ratings. Women might care less about the show and more about its capability to discuss it with others. Despite enjoying Sex in the City, she wasn't very enthused when I got her a copy of the show because I wasn't really interested in watching it with her. I tried watching the first episode with her, and found it rather hideously boring. The show is off the air, so none of the women she knows is going to be discussing it anymore. When it was originally on the air, lots of women (and I believe it was a hit among gay men as well - and before the outragists here start shouting, these are generalizations) were discussing it. It probably doesn't hold up as well now, and I be interested to see the plot of ratings over time.
Ultimately, it seems like this information is just a stereotypical conflation of correlation versus causation. There are gendered differences to the rating, so there is a leap to the unsubstantiated reason of "sabotage". The true results of this study should be, "Hey, I wonder why this is?"
Re: (Score:2)
When a boyfriend and girlfriend want to watch different things on TV, the girl wins out. Men get stuck watching girl shows. Women don't get stuck watching guy shows. As a result, men have the knowledge to rate girl shows poorly. Women don't see the guy shows, so they have no reason to rate them poorly. This isn't sabotage. Slashdot needs to cut the SJW bullshit.
That's certainly the script. However I don't follow it - I tend to encourage my wife to watch the shows she likes because I won't be watching them with her. I've even got an agreement with her that I will watch exactly three chick flicks in a given year (no carryovers) as long as i get to veto her proposed chick flicks.
I haven't seen a show aimed at women since (possibly) 2004. I simply refuse.
Re: Maybe they just don't like the shows? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Maybe they just don't like the shows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are men supposed to simply sit down and keep their opinions to themselves?
That is exactly what the radical feminists are demanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Are men supposed to simply sit down and keep their opinions to themselves?
That is exactly what the radical feminists are demanding.
Its the victim mentality.
Re:Maybe they just don't like the shows? (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't read the article.
The difference is that when men don't like shows that are aimed at women, they apparently rate the show, but when women don't like shows that are aimed at men, they don't rate the show. There are shows popular with men and unpopular with women, and vice-versa, and the latter get way more "wrong-gender" votes. No particular reason was proposed as to why this is. The call to action was to recognize that single-number rating systems obscure important details in general.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Maybe they just don't like the shows? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's junk food for the SJW agenda and anyone interested in benefiting from it. Men (the least likely to benefit from any modern social justice agenda) are acutely aware of this and develop appropriate opinions.
See, this worries the fuck out of me and is why I'll give time to this so-called agenda even though it riles me too - because since when have we become so fucking selfish that any other group trying to improve their lot immediately means we have to fight it? Maybe we should recognise imbalances (even if they are in our favour) and help to right them?
Meanwhile... BSG is "somewhat shocking"... (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
The tough part is stretching out one episode of stalking Hugh Laurie into an entire season
Sabotaging? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
A friend of mine posted something on Facebook today. I rarely look at Facebook and when I do I just glance but this caught my eye.
The average wedding in Europe is around 6,000 euros. The average wedding in the US is around 36,000$. The blurb was accompanied by a little video showing a British woman talk about how its a family event and about the commitment, all the important stuff. Then it cut to a spoiled American girl screaming "ITS MY FUCKING WEDDING" while holding onto her dress and throwing shit.
My response to her was "Too many princesses in the US and not enough women". Sex in the City embodied that to me. It was such a horrendous show that to this day when I hear a woman talk about how great it was I gag and throw up in my mouth a little. The women on that show were so shallow and lifeless I have a hard time understanding how it existed at all. Then I talk to some of the princesses this countries pumped out over the last 30 years and it all becomes clear.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
The average wedding is not 36k. The source for that number was a survey in a high end bridal magazine which caters to the type of reader that would spend that much on a wedding.
RFTA - It has some good points: (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:RFTA - It has some good points: (Score:4, Insightful)
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 suppose that would be useful, but you really can't solve for the general case. For example, my favorite film is Fellini's 8 1/2. It has a very high rating, but I suspect that people who would generally like that kind of film go out of their way to find it and watch it, and rate it. If Netflix pushed it on their front page, I'm sure IMDB would fill up with negative reviews from people who hate B&W films, surreal plots, over dubbing, long films, and generally not be ready for the experience. And then you have every terrible blockbuster start out with an 8 rating, mostly from teens, before the rating slowly falls as others discover the film. Another example is a film like ET, which I despise. It has a high rating, and I understand why. I have no problem with that. But it is still a terrible film. You have to take the audience and distribution into consideration. It also helps to read the top of the "Loved it" and bottom of the "Hated it" to see WHY people rated it the way they did.
Re:RFTA - It has some good points: (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Next up, white people sabotage shows aimed at black people. Old people sabotage shows aimed at young people.
The problem is you're playing the SJW game and will endlessly fall down the pit of trying to appease everyone because dammit it we're all being oppressed. It just happens to be men vs women today. .... actually it was whitewashing blacks yesterday. Tomorrow is "religion Friday" is it not? Looking forward to an anti-Islam article.
In other news WOMEN are sabotaging the reviews... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Look at Netflix reviews of kids series (Score:3)
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.
But what's the cause? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Weird society of paranoid men (Score:3)
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 [mgtow.com]. 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.
Put the ratings in a table (Score:5, Interesting)
Sabotage? Or just honest opinion? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
SJWs to the rescue! (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Is 15% women watching BG really "shocking"? (Score:3)
How is this 'sabotage'? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing to see here?
IMDB has the same problem as all online polls (Score:3)
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...
Seems biased (Score:3, Informative)
Newsflash - Demographics Matter (Score:3)
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.
Because it's considered "Feminism" (Score:3)
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.
Tv is being ruined! (Score:3)
Sabatoging? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
So, what you're saying is: "Crack team of scientists desciver the surprising truth: online polls are worthless".
, the flamewars it generates likely fuel iMDBs forum advertising revenue
Well, at least someone profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazons questions are exactly not this.
To quote:
(myfirstnamename): Can you answer this question about X
'As a reviewer of X, can you help this fellow customer?
Chris B. asked
"Will this charge an ipod classic"
This sort-of-implies that Chris intended to ask me personally - which gets a very very different response to an optional ratings box.
Re: (Score:3)
There's plenty of men whining about women also. We're keeping this equal-opportunity.