Never let it be said that Men’s Rights activists can’t accomplish great things. Oh, sure, in what the old fogies call “the real world” their victories are pretty much nonexistent; they can’t even manage to organize conferences for themselves two years in a row.
But online, their brilliant strategy of “running around being dicks to everyone” has been an amazing success, causing numerous websites to shut down their comments because they were so sick of all the MRAs gumming them up with endless blather and abuse.
And now it appears the Men’s Rights movement can claim another victory: They have knocked the IMDb rating of the show Sex and the City down more than a point!
Take that, show that ended its run twelve years ago, but that MRAs and other manosphere dudes can’t stop talking about for some reason!
A statistical analysis by Walt Hickey of the data-driven site FiveThirtyEight suggests that men are swarming the IMDb profiles of shows aimed at women in order to give them low ratings.
One of the shows most obviously affected by this new form of cyber-activism is Sex and the City, a show despised more less equally by MRAs, MGTOWs, Roosh, and right-wing mass murderer Anders Breivik.
As Hickey points out, women collectively rated this show at 8.1 out of ten. But so many men gave the show bad ratings that they were able to drag the final score down to 7, which, as Hickey notes, is a below-average rating for the site.
And we’re not talking about a handful of statistical outliers taking down the score. More tha 78,000 people have rated the show. So there are thousands if not tens of thousands of guys out there taking out their anger at women by downvoting one of the most influential recent TV shows aimed at women — often, I would guess, without ever having watched an episode.
It’s a man’s world on IMDb, where, Hickey notes,
[s]eventy percent of IMDb TV show raters are men, according to my analysis, and that results in shows with predominantly female audiences getting screwed.
Why is that? It’s not just that men outnumber women on IMDb; they are also far more likely to give shows not aimed primarily at their own gender terrible ratings. As this chart shows pretty clearly, the more a show appeals to women rather than men, the more likely it is that a man will rate it a rating-killing one star.
“The overall effect of this imbalance is profound,” Hickey notes.
Among shows with 10,000 ratings or more, the average rating of the top-100 male-skewing shows was 8.2, while the average rating of the top-100 female shows was 7.4.
Is it possible that shows aimed at women are just objectively worse? Hickey thinks not. “Everybody watches crap,” he points out. “Men, women, everybody.”
Women may watch more than their share of terrible reality shows like “Say Yes to the Dress,” he notes. But they didn’t make up much of the audience for Beyblade, which, Hickey notes sardonically, is a show based around spinning tops. Spinning tops that fight each other.
Nope. The real reason for the difference is that men are far more likely to poop on the ratings of shows aimed mostly at women than women are to poop on shows aimed mostly at men.
Women rated only two shows appreciably lower than their male raters did. Men, by contrast … well, just take a look at this chart that Hickey put together:
Are the men who make up the Angry Man Downvote Brigade all card-carrying MRAs? For the most part, probably not. And I haven’t run across any evidence of organized IMDb downvoting anywhere in the manosphere (though I haven’t looked all that hard).
But if you’re a dude who literally devotes his evenings to giving crappy ratings to TV shows that women tend to like — just to show those ladies what’s what! — I think that makes you pretty much a de facto MRA. The MRAs should send you a little thank you note, at the very least.
Dad, what did you do in the culture wars?
Son, I gave The Mindy Project a one star rating on IMDb.
EDIT: Hickey made that last chart into a handy gif:
Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women https://t.co/cc6DsQf7hi
My point, in one gif: pic.twitter.com/GWKFr9Cv36
— Walter Hickey (@WaltHickey) May 19, 2016
Thanks, Katz, for the link!
EDIT 2: My favorite misogynist response to Hickey’s post:
https://twitter.com/Coondawg68/status/733298158202032128
@brian
My working theory is that MRAs have trouble perceiving time as a side effect of the tiny black holes inside their heads.
There was a lot to get irritated by in SATC but I loved that show. It was pure escapism and made it a lot easier to talk about sex with my friends-no mean feat in catholic Ireland! Also Dirty Martini…Dirty Bastard is still one of my favourite lines ever…I will show myself the door ?
Also I know I shouldn’t but I wanted all their wardrobes for awhile
Blame it on the fact that I could only get maybe 2 avatars out of Pandapool. As Handsome Jack, I can switch it up constantly to confuse the hell out of everyone. In fact, I have two weeks worth of icons which I can switch up every day. (9 of Jack, 5 of Angel.) So, I mean, pfff. I mean, who doesn’t want to see such handsome (and beautiful) faces?
A panda in a Deadpool suit covered in guts or a smoking hot…”hero”, choices, choices. I think I made the right one.
http://66.media.tumblr.com/23bea390492be77b8034b7f662579b54/tumblr_nds5viPFar1rzm1e7o2_500.gif
You’re welcome world. 😉
I really liked Beavis & Butthead and King of the Hill. There was a lot of subtle humor in there, and great characters.
@Leda Atomica – Yeah, MRA types seem to be obsessed with assigning numbers and rankings to everything. It’s so childish. As if artificially downvoting a show/movie changes anything about its quality, cultural impact, or who it appeals to. Do people really put much stock in ratings when deciding what to watch? I tend to go more by reviews, because they require more thought (though they also suffer from the same selection bias problem). If there are a lot of obvious 1-star MRA troll reviews, that’s a recommendation in and of itself.
God, talk about unproductive. And I thought all those assholes who downvote videos on YouTube were wasting their time…
W.W.T.H.:
Well, they are the protagonists, it’s just that they’re also often the butt of the joke. Same goes for the cast of It’s Always Sunny – part of the comedic value is seeing terrible people scheme and then have their plans blow up in their face.
You are right though: people seem to think the Mike Judge is trying to make you empathize with them, which he isn’t. He probably couldn’t stand them either.
@Brian:
Same here. To be honest, there are plenty of things that I like that are considered “girly” for some reason – but I don’t care, and it’d be incredibly insecure of me if I did.
‘Sides, it isn’t as if there aren’t plenty of works geared at men that women still enjoy and their femininity doesn’t come into question because of that.
I saw a little SATC when I was a teenager because it had the word Sex in the title and I was a teenage boy who didn’t have much internet access yet.
The concept that sexuality was something which could be portrayed from the female side, and (although I didn’t realise it at the time) from the over-thirty female side, was something I hadn’t come across before and was an eye opener. I’m very glad it existed, whether or not it was aimed at my demographic.
(To be honest, most of the things I’ve seen that have been aimed at my demographic have missed the mark for me.)
Re: The Nanny
I think I can shed some light on that. My mom, a classist with a severe case of internalised misogyny, ABSOLUTELY HATES that show, and I wouldn’t be surprised if her reasons for doing so were more widely shared.
It’s Fran Drescher’s characteristic way of speaking. It’s non-conformist and abrasive and unattractive, and she’s not ashamed of it at all. How dare she! She’s only happy to draw attention to herself with it. The gall of that woman! It’s almost as if she’s proud of herself the way she is and expects others to not only accept her quirks but grow to like her for them, or failing that, to mind their own fucking business.
The right to that attitude is strictly reserved for men. Women have an obligation to not annoy anyone, especially if they intend to be visible.
Nothing else about that show stands out that I can think of but the voice.
—
For those of you who offered advice about my dad, I thank you again. A project that was already close to its deadline got suddenly dumped on me and I’ve had to put everything else on hold. I’ll have time to think about other challenging things again next week, we’ll see if I end up perpetrating thread necromancy or what. Right now the processing is going on in the background and I’m becoming a lot more comfortable with the situation, in no small part thanks to you all.
@ paradoxy (or anyone who understands how twitter works)
Is there a way of seeing the whole ruling in the Zoe Quinn case? I’ve managed to get a few individual pages but not the whole thing. Love me a convoluted judgement so intrigued to see.
@dust bunny
I’d forgotten about her voice! It’s so awful that it’s cute. Half the humor of that show is her voice. And that laugh!
IIRC, her regular speaking voice isn’t quite like that. Less heavily New York. More self-conscious. And the laugh is toned down.
Ooohhh…. they’re mad. They’re so cute when they’re mad, and their jimmies start to rustle 😀
Oh man the Nanny was my show. The butler, the dynamics of people tearing each other down but in ways that are affectionate and just how assertive and happy Fran is. On top of it all once you get past the antics she does make the family household a much happier and more well adjusted with her presence and actions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/sports/golf/muirfield-golf-club-british-open-female-members.html
Bit off topic but it reminds me of that defence given by Charles M. Storey about finals clubs.
Could call back to your first handle and go by Banana Jack. Or Handsome Banana. Or Handsome Panda. Jack-o’-Panda. Jack of all Fruits. Dandy Panda. Eridian Species. Handsomepool.
I’ll see myself out.
This seems as good a place as any to stick this. Article from Caitlin Moran (whom I’ve always found very funny bit very insightful ) so see what peeps think.
http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/advice/a9641/things-men-dont-know-about-women-caitlin-moran/#!
Got off the internet for a week, woke up to… this with a terrible hangover.
“The culture war. The culture war never changes.”
I think there is a kind of double standard at work here. These shows “aimed at women” were clearly designed by men in the first place. All that vacuous shite like the Kardashians and Next Top Model etc, deserves to be down voted by women viewers. It’s an insult to our intelligence. I wouldn’t watch that crap if you paid me. I can literally feel my brain melting and running out of my ear. A lot of stuff men like is vacuous bullshit as well, I hasten to add. I see Bevis and Butthead on that list!!
@ cupcakes
A lot of pop culture is vacuous, probably most of it. But I’m very much one for leaving people to their own devices as to what they do or do not enjoy. I’d hate to impose my preferences on anyone else or even say my views mattered (hence I think the rating thing might be marginally interesting from a research point of view, but it’s not something I’d bother doing)
To me (and again this is just my opinion) the “pushpin versus poetry” argument is a bit snobbish and elitist.
Why is sex and murder dumb entertainment when it’s Game of Thrones but the height of culture when it’s Shakespeare?
People don’t only watch things because they want to be intellectually stimulated. Literally nobody watched Jersey Shore because they thought it was a clever show that provided deep insights about life. I watched it because I wanted to know what funny non sequitur Snooki would say next, or I wanted to cringe at The Situation’s awkward machismo.
It really annoys me when people complain that trash television is stupid. Yeah dude, we know. You don’t have to be some intellectually superior superhuman to figure that out.
@ IP
I’ve never seen jersey shore but I have seen that situation bloke do a “comedy” routine at some roast on YouTube. You seen that? I guarantee you’ll end up behind the sofa watching through your fingers.
As someone who’s never watched GoT (read one of the books though, didn’t really like it) I think it’s a bit more complex than that. I mean I know some “mildly elitist” people (the kind who want brain food but also entertainment) who enjoy BOTH GoT and Shakespeare’s stuff.
Now it IS true that a lot of pop culture is vacuous, but… let’s look at it this way : I fancy* myself a writer of fantasy who despises and avoids the stupid cliches that plague modern fantasy novels – so yeah, here’s an extremely elitist (and pretty smug) approach to writing. Yet… I also play video games. A lot. Where poor writing and awful cliches are pretty much the norm. There’s still a few gems in all the “dirt”, and even said “dirt” can be pretty enjoyable. The same can be said about nearly every other aspect of “pop” culture – let’s include Shakespeare in there instead of creating barriers in culture itself.
All in all it comes down to what people do or don’t enjoy : sex and murder (to follow on that example) are pretty efficient catalysts to get a point across. And I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that maybe the reason why people (be it some people, most people, all people, I dunno) rate shows on IMDb might be said point instead of the catalysts. Which brings us back to where this circle started : MRAs don’t like it when they or their ideas aren’t the point. AND THEN they hide that behind some smug elitism, ‘cuz they the smart bunch.
*On a side note, I recently realized that the novel I’m working on right now still hasn’t passed the reverse Bechdel test – two men talking to each other about something other than a woman. *Smug elitism*
I tried to like SATC but even the supposed frankness about sex always felt incredibly prissy and conservative. Still, I love the fact that it annoyed jerky men so much.
@ sinkable john
I suppose the irony is that, in his day, Shakespeare was the low brow pop culture for the masses. I used to live near the site of his original theatre; that had to be moved overnight because the powers that be thought it wasn’t suitably edifying.
If Shakespeare was alive today he’d probably be writing Eastenders.
(Good luck with the novels btw)
For those of us who are prone to anxiety and depression, stupid TV is a good distraction.
Even if you don’t need an escape from your brain for mental health reasons, it’s nice to have one. It is possible to enjoy reality TV and still read literature and follow the news. Almost every intelligent person I know likes one form of trashy pop culture at least.
Plus, a lot of shows that are perceived as stupid, really aren’t. Beavis and Butthead has already been discussed. Roseanne frequently covered class issues. On Rupaul’s Drag Race, the cast members often talk about the difficulties of both being gay and not fitting into gender roles and audience members who aren’t up on those issues might learn a few things by watching.
tl;dr I’m also not down with anti-TV snobbery. I find it pretentious and usually classist.
@ sinkable john
I suppose the irony is that, in his day, Shakespeare was the low brow pop culture for the masses. I used to live near the site of his original theatre; that had to be moved overnight because the powers that be thought it wasn’t suitably edifying.
If Shakespeare was alive today he’d probably be writing Eastenders.
(Good luck with the novels btw)
@Alan: pretty much. If I’m not mistaken, he considered the plays stuff he churned out to fund the real art: his poetry.