/r/MRRef

Photograph via snooOG

Reference documents for activists.

Men's Rights Reference

A collection of studies, documents, reports, and other interesting articles for use by activists engaged in fighting for men and men's rights.

Posting Guidelines:

  1. All posts must be formated Title, Author, and Year of Publication (some web articles do not have a publication date listed so include the last update date in these cases). Rule deprecated.
  2. All posts must be pertinent to men's rights. Any studies, documents, reports, and other interesting articles for use by activists.
  3. Posts should be about men's rights concepts not specific instances. (i.e. You can post about domestic violence but not articles about someone engaging in domestic violence or about the reactions to an instance of violence)
  4. Scientific studies and government documents should be posted to /r/MensRightsLinks. If you feel uncomfortable posting them there, because you're unsure of how they should be cited, you can post them here and request for others to repost it for you in a comment to your post. Any person who decides to repost these studies and documents to /r/MensRightsLinks should post a comment with a valid link to your cross-post so multiple reposts don't occur.
  5. No trolling, posting false links, or harassing other posters.
  6. Be polite, respectful, and report those who violate the rules instead of engaging them.
  7. No linking to Gawker sites: Jezebel.com, Jalopnik.com, Kotaku.com, Gizmodo.com, Gawker.com, Lifehacker.com, Deadspin.com, and IO9.com.

Related Subs:

/r/MRRef

1,111 Subscribers

28

List of studies showing we care more about women than men

1 Comment
2021/05/10
00:06 UTC
17

Study: Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting - Victims were assumed to be female and perpetrators were assumed to be male.

Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting

Tania Reynolds - Chuck Howard - HallgeirSjåstad - Luke Zhu - Tyler G.Okimoto - Roy F.Baumeister - Karl Aquino - Jong Han Kim

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.05.002

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597820303630?fbclid=IwAR39ZboKYmrHwObLf4JxKk7RxS89skchWxXWccENbZJRFQLYmjZPPQupB80

Abstract

Informed by moral typecasting theory, we predicted a gender bias in harm evaluation, such that women are more easily categorized as victims and men as perpetrators. Study 1 participants assumed a harmed target was female (versus male), but especially when labeled ‘victim’. Study 2 participants perceived animated shapes perpetuating harm as male and victimized shapes as female. Study 3 participants assumed a female employee claiming harassment was more of a victim than a male employee making identical claims. Female victims were expected to experience more pain from an ambiguous joke and male perpetrators were prescribed harsher punishments (Study 4). Managers were perceived as less moral when firing female (versus male) employees (Study 5). The possibility of gender discrimination intensified the cognitive link between women and victimhood (Study 6). Across six studies in four countries (N = 3,137), harm evaluations were systematically swayed by targets’ gender, suggesting a gender bias in moral typecasting.

1 Comment
2020/07/23
10:34 UTC
Back To Top