maybe less generalisation would help?
Both can be true at the same time.
Maybe believing women would help?
but would not be click-baity enough I guess.
Is it that you don't agree with this person's politics why you are so dismissive?
The tweet was not a comic, just a tweet. I don't see how that connects to the comic. If they were already known to the hate group, then I think they're using that as an excuse. If it predates the notoriety, then that's different.
That's what I thought too. But I didn't see a link to the actual comic in the article.
Which is literally called 'Men Yell At Me'.
She's thrown her hat into the realm of public opinion taking sides on issues.
This is not a 'random person' so it's at least a tiny bit disingenuous for the author to represent themselves as 'nobody' when their own substack headline trails with 'trying to raise hell'.
I would imagine this was a milquetoast tweet that got picked up by the algorithm, or shared in the feeds of dumb trolls.
The best way to evaluate how often this happens would be to look at the various tweets of various people and see which one's hit, and why.
It might very well be that women are more likely to be victims but I think it's probably more or less even between genders, whereas men are more likely to be trolls. But that's just a guess.
Trolling happens for any, even mild opinion, the more popular the voice, the more trolling.
That is the essential nature of the trolling which I believe is misrepresented in the thesis.
Some women certainly avoid it by just not going to those neighborhoods of the internet, but if that neighborhood is somewhere you'd like to go (if, for instance, you like video games) you have to choose between receiving that abuse or just not accessing the same entertainment services as men.
The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate.
Men who are small, short, effete, high pitched voices, who appear 'chubby' as opposed to 'big boned' are not seen as 'real leaders'.
We are not all like that obviously, it's just a tertiary effect, but it is absolutely real and pervasive.
If Hillary Clinton had the appearance of one of those blonde female lawyer types on Fox News, she might have received more votes (which is arguably sexist), but if Pete Buttigieg were a little taller, square jawed, not gay, and slipped in a few slightly nationalist statements and could maybe throw a football ... he'd have a real shot at being president. I'm not positing that any of this is good (or bad), I'm just indicating that I believe men and women are judged on their posture and appearance.
I believe it would be harder for women in certain circumstances (male dominated situations, of which there are many) to gain credibility however.
No, it's their gender.
You can always find something if you try.
I'll bet that this trend continues, and that that every US Presidential election featuring a male and female candidate, there's little or no gender differentiation.
We have dozens of elections to test our height thesis and other data as well such as income.
I searched for the data (it was on BI some years ago) sorry I couldn't find it, but I remember distinctly seeing for that females, they were paid more if they were taller and thinner (and punished for being heavy) whereas men were paid more if they were taller and bigger (i.e. 'girth / total mass').