Men who Hate Women the book by Laura Bates

[tootiredtobother]

Anyone reading this ? My god, I knew some of it but this book carefully lays it all out, all the Incel, MRA, PUA. groups hiding in plain site on the Internet utterly depressing because of the stark truth in what she writes.

Anyway, I hoped maybe someone here might have gone to the trouble to consider what she's said with a bit more of a critical eye and could say something about how it stacked up.

'14:48SantaClawsServiette

It might be an uphill battle but it's a pretty reasonable question to ask about a book that purports to be about data. Given the absolute shit-show that her newspaper columns involved, especially.'

Ah sorry I obviously wasn't clear! I'll paste what I said at end of this comment for anyone reading the thread.

It was the point about the way the media love to publish iffy studies, or misrepresent conclusions. Report as if findings are vv conclusive, when study based on says margin error, not conclusive, more study etc.

And about the chances of getting the public in general to start looking at source material, assessing how reliable etc. When the sodding newspapers don't even bother!

My comment-
'Plus most people don't do that/ aren't that interested/ don't know how to understand if methods decent etc.

The USA students 1 in 3 was reported widely in mainstream UK news.

If the media are happy to churn out iffy findings for clicks then it's going to be an uphill battle to get more reliable info out in general!'

@SantaClawsServiette

Anyway, I hoped maybe someone here might have gone to the trouble to consider what she's said with a bit more of a critical eye and could say something about how it stacked up.

OP said have you read what do you think.

That's mostly what people have answered.

Who can say that no one 'took the trouble' to think about what she wrote? To mull it over, maybe look into some points to find out more, whether generally accepted.

Maybe you know. Op didn't ask that. If had, might have got different answers.

Is this because you introduced topic of iffy studies, due to reference to a study (which poster doesn't even say is in book) that you said is iffy.... And didn't get any interest from anyone who read it?

I would say to start a thread with the question you are interested in.

Rather than expect commenters to jump into the conversation you wanted to start.

Then writing a condescending post, based on your assumption that all on thread who read book did so in a credulous, brain not engaged manner..

Unless you didn't mean it how it came out?

I mean that's how it went, isn't it!

In short.

If you want to understand what book contains, what studies cited, in what context etc.

Then you need to read it yourself.

I can't imagine you'd be content with trusting assessment of strangers on chatboard anyway!

If still want to talk about that on here, start a thread.

And

If you post on a thread about how you are v good at assessing methodologies of studies, gathering various sources of info and analysing holistically. Etc.

Posting your judgement (negative) of a handful of strangers on a thread, judgement based on huge assumptions with zero justification. Then it kind of undermines the whole rational analytical thing!

Surveys with a series of questions should always be viewed with suspicion - for example: