zlacker

The study adjusts for gender issues and finds the speaker's actual topics themselves don't make much of a difference.

> But the data does rule out a few possibilities. You might wonder, for instance, whether women are more censorial due to being more personally affected by the positions of the hypothetical speakers our surveys asked about. But only one of the speakers argues for a position that disproportionately affects women (banning abortion), and the gender gap isn’t greater for this speaker, so that doesn’t seem to be what’s causing the gap. My suspicion, corroborated by other research, is that women prefer social harmony.

>>legits+(OP)
Reading the GP comment made me audibly guffaw. The exact scenario was discussed and corroborating studies were linked. Users that comment after clearly not RTFA should be banned from commenting.

It's ironic that the first thing the GP did instead of reading the article was rush to comment on "oppression" and the "patriarchy" in a fervent manner to poorly attempt to discredit the study and it's findings, seeking to stifle debate for the sake of emotional comfort.

>>throwa+i3
"should be banned from commenting"

Apparently more men than women would say they should put up with the ridicule after saying something ignorant rather than outright banning ;)

>>readth+6N
>Apparently more men than women would say they should put up with the ridicule after saying something ignorant rather than outright banning ;)

Apparently more men than women are capable of differentiating decorum and saying something ignorant ;)

>>throwa+Xw3
Stay seething ;)

>>throwa+i3
I did read the article. I didn't even try to discredit the findings, and instead merely pointed out why the data might have shown such a difference. If you understood my comment, you would conclude that there would be no difference if women weren't oppressed. In the article, it posed the question, "So why does such a large gender tolerance gap exist?" Which the author left largely open ended.

I believe you should be banned instead for creating such a toxic environment. It's clear to me that your reply is stifling debate more than my original comment.