Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Women More Likely To Unfriend Than Men

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the culling-the-herd dept.

Social Networks 135

Hugh Pickens writes "AFP reports that a study by the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project shows that women are more likely than men to delete friends from their online social networks like Facebook and tend to choose more restrictive privacy settings. Sixty-seven percent of women who maintain a social networking profile said they have deleted friends compared with 58 percent of men. The study also found that men are nearly twice as likely as women to have posted updates, comments, photos or videos that they later regret (PDF). 'Even as social media users become more active curators of their profile, a small group of what might be described as trigger-happy users say they post updates, comments, photos, or videos that they later regret sharing.'"

cancel ×

135 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nothing to see here (4, Insightful)

dugjohnson (920519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157767)

"The study also found that men are nearly twice as likely as women to have posted updates, comments, photos or videos that they later regret " or "Men more impulsive than women" Hmmm. Big surprise there.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157791)

Also, 67 vs 58 percent doesn't strike me as a distinguishing difference (+- 2.4%) .

There are some more interesting ones though:

Women are significantly more likely than men -- by a 67 percent to 48 percent margin -- to set their profile to private, the study said.

Forty-eight percent said they have some difficulty with privacy controls while 49 percent said they did not experience any difficulty.

Re:Nothing to see here (4, Insightful)

bagorange (1531625) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157841)

Does this reflect higher concern re stalking (in the spectrum from the dangerous, life ruining/threatening kind to I don't want an old boyfriend to know about me)?
Seems likely to me.
I bet those of us worried about privacy in a big brother, what-can-future-employers-find-out-about-me way are more male than female, since that's probably correlated with higher computer literacy.

Re:Nothing to see here (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158017)

It is amazing the lengths that women will go to clean their fachinas, but at the same time they will totally neglect their buttholes. They trim, shave, wash, and douche their faginas until they taste like candy, but at the same time they will take a shit before or during a date and wipe inadequately, then wedge a string of artificial material in their asses so the boody crease acts as a petri dish for all of the stinky bacteria feeding on her shitsmears.

And later, then the clothes come off, my nose will get hit with an acrid stench of rotten cheese or rancid buttescotch coming from a woman's anus area. This has been a problem for all types of women I've been with, from rail-thin supermodels to beat-up chubbies.

Women, if you're reading this, for fucks sake wipe your goddamn asses properly. Get in there knuckle-deep with the paper and wipe until there are no spots left. Better yet, you can take a shit before your pre-date shower and eat light at dinnertime. Have some fucking consideration. If I'm gonna waste all that money buying you dinner and drinks, the least you can do is not smell like an incontinent retard. Thank you very much.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158395)

Some guys do this too. Raise your standards.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159485)

> and eat light at dinnertime

Do you have any idea whatsoever how many hours it takes from food being ingested to coming out as shit through the other end? It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if she ate a whole fucking cow with side order of 2 whole lambs and half an oil tanker. Unless, of course, you're feeding her e.coli icecream for dinner, then all bets are off, although I somehow don't think you'd even entertain the notion of eating her pussy while she has explosive diarrhea.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39160421)

and eat light at dinnertime

Do you have any idea whatsoever how many hours it takes from food being ingested to coming out as shit through the other end? It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if she ate a whole fucking cow with side order of 2 whole lambs and half an oil tanker. Unless, of course, you're feeding her e.coli icecream for dinner, then all bets are off, although I somehow don't think you'd even entertain the notion of eating her pussy while she has explosive diarrhea.

A heavy meal will engorge the abdominal cavity, pushing fecal matter from the large intestine, and sometimes undigested food from the small intestine into the large intestine, causing diarrhea. Thus GP's complaints regarding poo-breaks during the date.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159491)

Mod parent +1 insightful. I think this is one of the most important potential advances the human race can achieve: the bidet. See how wonderful it would be if women and men washed their assholes clean using a bidet [wikimedia.org] !
 
We need to have bidets installed in all toilets everywhere worldwide. It should be a basic human right to have access to a bidet for asshole cleanliness wherever you may find yourself, be it in a truck stop bathroom, the shitter at a strip club, or even while visiting the white house.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39160047)

fachinas

Is that the part of the body where fascism comes from?

Nothing to see? Au contraire (3, Interesting)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157883)

There's gotta be more. E.g., Do the women really have more trouble with privacy settings - or does Facebook assume so because women inquire about the settings, whereas men won't stop and ask for directions (also explaining why more men fail to change settings to private)?

Re:Nothing to see? Au contraire (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158101)

The second sentence is not regarding to women but the whole group. Perhaps I excerpted badly.

Re:Nothing to see? Au contraire (4, Interesting)

gmack (197796) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158163)

Judging from the differences of what gets posted on my wall, I find that men put up random cool things, pics from something they did with their friends etc while most of the really personal stuff I read such as struggles with life, relationships etc tend to be put up by women. I suspect the gender gap on the privacy settings are simply because woman care more about who reads what they put up.

Re:Nothing to see here (2)

BobK65 (2541842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158869)

That 67 vs 58 unfriending figure should have been controlled according to the average number of friends for each of the sexes. I suspect they wouldn't be equal. Even as a separate category average friends for each of the sexes would be interesting to know. Meh. Maybe they just didn't want to deal with classifying transvestites.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159973)

That 67 vs 58 unfriending figure should have been controlled according to the average number of friends for each of the sexes. I suspect they wouldn't be equal. Even as a separate category average friends for each of the sexes would be interesting to know. Meh. Maybe they just didn't want to deal with classifying transvestites.

I bet it's evened out by women being more likely to approve a friend they don't really want in the first place and then defriending them later.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39157943)

More like "Women less regretful than men, more likely to blame others."

Re:Nothing to see here (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158469)

More like "Women less regretful than men, more likely to blame others."

That's possibly true. Socially women are seen as victims if people misuse or ogle their pictures, where as men are seen as "fair game". This would certainly encourage women to feel "poor me, I din nothing wrong its all these nasty people", whereas men would think "oh how could I have been so dumb".

Re:Nothing to see here (2)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39160031)

While you're right on the first one, try telling yourself the second one while watching me curse the motherfucker that keeps breaking into my house and moving my fucking keys.

I'll get that son of a bitch if it's the last thing I do (it will be the last thing I do).

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

ToadProphet (1148333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158229)

I find it amusing that someone funded a survey when they could get much more accurate data from a couple lines of SQL. Assuming one of the social networking sites would provide the info, of course.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158349)

Social scientists should be chased out of universities. But then there would be fewer women in the university. :S

Contradictory observations (3, Insightful)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158629)

My own experience with Facebook friends isn't nearly so clear-cut. My friends fall into one of four categories: People I know from childhood (school), people I know from work, people I know from church (conservative, evangelical) and people I know from a dialup BBS network in the 80s. Of those four groups, only the BBS nerds are an even mix of men and women; in the other three groups women dominate (heh) by a vast majority.

And unlike the survey results mentioned in TFS, my female friends tend to be the ones to chatter about personal issues -- daily photos of children and grandchildren doing cute things, updates about their mood or health, etc. The men write about political issues, cars and other "guy toys", restaurants they like, hunting... and some of them only visit Facebook once a month or less.

So the real news here is... your mileage may vary?

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159917)

no need for sexism. the argument could be made that women unfriend more often due to less control over emotional impulsivity. when women severe social ties, it's often a lot more dramatic than men.

Hah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39157769)

Dumb broads. They don't understand technology but they understand artificial scarcity!

They're 52% of the population you know. If anything pussy is overabundant.

Re:Hah (1, Offtopic)

zblack_eagle (971870) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158231)

A guy can ejaculate a lot more frequently than a woman can get pregnant and give birth. While people may not think about it consciously, it's the relative scarcity (or abundance) of the genetic material produced by either gender at play.

Re:Hah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158429)

Pretty much, in dry times it is best to think of it much the same as taking a crap, blowing your nose, etc. Just another routine bodily function that needs to be taken care of. Nothing special at all. Maslow was wrong.

Still holding out. (4, Informative)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157801)

I still don't have a Facebook account, and am no worse the wear for it. I have noted that of my family and friends who do have accounts, the ones who typically talk about their Facebook activity the most are definitely the women, and a lot of that talk seems to swing between gossip and outright vicious assaults. I'll just stay out of that mess, thanks.

Re:Still holding out. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39157969)

Facebook is like most other technologies. You get out of it what you put into it.

News at 11.

Re:Still holding out. (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158143)

Facebook is like most other technologies

Facebook is a technology now? That is kind of like calling Slashdot a "technology."

Re:Still holding out. (4, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158821)

Or a /. editor an editor.

Re:Still holding out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158935)

It's a brand of a technology. I guess that's good enough for those of us who don't have a tree up our ass.

Re:Still holding out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159085)

It's a brand of a technology. I guess that's good enough for those of us who don't have a tree up our ass.

give this man a medal!

Re:Still holding out. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158041)

Only reasons I have a facebook now:

1) Tried it out before the privacy debacle hit the fan, then found myself held captive with Facebook flat out refusing to delete me even though I followed the 2 week removal procedure to the letter.

2) Some of my friends have already been suckered in and Facebook has many communication facilities locked down to members only, so I dusted it off as the only way to stay in touch with them.

Re:Still holding out. (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158121)

1) Tried it out before the privacy debacle hit the fan, then found myself held captive with Facebook flat out refusing to delete me even though I followed the 2 week removal procedure to the letter.

Sounds like a compelling reason to stay away from Facebook, to demand that your account be deleted, and to let the news media know about what they are doing.

2) Some of my friends have already been suckered in and Facebook has many communication facilities locked down to members only, so I dusted it off as the only way to stay in touch with them.

"I am not on Facebook"; if your friends refuse to talk to you because you do not use Facebook, then I would reevaluate your relationship with them. Why give in to Facebook's attempt to take control of the world's communication, especially when we have so many systems that are not controlled by any one party?

Re:Still holding out. (1)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158325)

"I am not on Facebook"; if your friends refuse to talk to you because you do not use Facebook, then I would reevaluate your relationship with them. Why give in to Facebook's attempt to take control of the world's communication, especially when we have so many systems that are not controlled by any one party?

Which communication modalities aren't under the control of a monopolist? Snail mail is dominated by the postal service. For the longest time, in the US, phone service was only available through AT&T, but today with wireless, you've got a whopping 4 choices. Internet access is also pretty much the same -- you're lucky if you have more than one ISP to choose from.

However, I would argue that mail, phone service, etc. have little competition because of the high infrastructure cost for a new competitor. Facebook is different in that the large interconnected user base is what creates the barrier to entry.

Re:Still holding out. (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158443)

Which communication modalities aren't under the control of a monopolist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRC [wikipedia.org]

you're lucky if you have more than one ISP to choose from.

Except that the Internet is not controlled by that one ISP, only your connection to it. No matter how you connect to Facebook, it is a communication system that is controlled entirely by one company. That is the difference here.

Facebook is different in that the large interconnected user base is what creates the barrier to entry.

No, the fact that Facebook has made no substantial effort at being interoperable with any other system is what creates a barrier to entry.

Re:Still holding out. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159075)

Email: 75% spam

USENET: 99% spam and zero privacy unless you run your own server

IRC: your non-geek friends have never heard of it.

Re:Still holding out. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159979)

Email: 75% spam

Might I recommend using a spam filter? I only see one or two spam messages per month...

USENET: 99% spam and zero privacy unless you run your own server

I guess that it depends on which newsgroups you are reading; I rarely see spam in sci.crypt or the other groups I read. As for privacy, I have no clue what it is that you are referring to here -- are you concerned that other people are going to read your messages in a discussion system? That is like claiming that people are going to read the messages that you post in Facebook groups or other forums.

IRC: your non-geek friends have never heard of it.

  1. So what?
  2. I know plenty of non-techie IRC users
  3. It was an example of a system that is not controlled by any monopoly. Would you have preferred that I said XMPP?

Re:Still holding out. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39160309)

Might I recommend using a spam filter? I only see one or two spam messages per month...

And now you're back to something controlled in part by a fairly small number of companies that provide the blacklists.

As for privacy, I have no clue what it is that you are referring to here -- are you concerned that other people are going to read your messages in a discussion system? That is like claiming that people are going to read the messages that you post in Facebook groups or other forums.

My point was that Facebook allows you to limit messages to people that you trust, and allows you to send messages entirely in private as well, whereas USENET is a purely open discussion forum. This makes it significantly less useful than Facebook, email, IRC, or web-based message boards. It also makes no real guarantees of when a message will be delivered. A reply could reach the original poster the same day or a week later (though I suspect this problem is less prevalent now than it used to be). Thus, its distributed nature comes at a nonzero cost.

It was an example of a system that is not controlled by any monopoly. Would you have preferred that I said XMPP?

XMPP (a.k.a. Jabber) would probably be a better choice, though even then, most of the people you communicate with will be using a server provided by a near-monopoly (e.g. Facebook Chat). Still, it is at least a reasonable candidate, with the caveat that as soon as you depend on IP numbers or domain names, the service is controlled, at least in part, by a monopoly.

Re:Still holding out. (1)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159295)

These are protocols, not services. They enable communication, but they don't provide it. Furthermore, nobody uses IRC or Usenet anymore, illustrating that popularity is the limiting factor. Email is a different story -- you can try to host your own mail server but it's a huge PITA to set up SPF records and whatnot to keep your outgoing mail from getting bounced. You're pretty much stuck with one of a handful of email providers.

Except that the Internet is not controlled by that one ISP, only your connection to it. No matter how you connect to Facebook, it is a communication system that is controlled entirely by one company. That is the difference here.

Does it matter? To you, the end user, the end result is the same. A service is provided to you by a monopolist.

No, the fact that Facebook has made no substantial effort at being interoperable with any other system is what creates a barrier to entry.

Diaspora comes readily to mind here. It's open source and decentralized, yet nobody uses it because everyone that wants online social networking already uses Facebook. More to the point, if Facebook were to suddenly change course and allow you to host your own data and provide an open, decentralized service, would you then consider using it?

Re:Still holding out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159983)

Furthermore, nobody uses IRC ... anymore

haha, oh man, you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you don't use it anymore, but it is used in far more places than you think (any stream chat for example), or any of the hundreds of channel on Freenode that's still active to this day. Lots of people still use it daily.

Please educate yourself before making such ridiculous claims.

Re:Still holding out. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39160053)

These are protocols, not services

Which is what communication systems are all about: protocol. Facebook is a protocol too, in some sense, but it is one that can only enable communication on the service run by Facebook the company. Compare this to the examples I gave, in which there are well defined rules for how different services can interoperate with each other and exchanges messages.

Furthermore, nobody uses IRC or Usenet anymore

These are claims that we should try to avoid making. There are quite a few IRC and Usenet users left; take a look at Freenode, EFNet, etc., and sci.crypt, rec.radio.shortwave, sci.math, etc. Just because you do not personally use a particular system anymore does not mean that nobody else does. IRC and Usenet are also popular for downloading movies and music, which is certainly a form of communication.

Email is a different story -- you can try to host your own mail server but it's a huge PITA to set up SPF records and whatnot to keep your outgoing mail from getting bounced. You're pretty much stuck with one of a handful of email providers.

Which is still much better than the situation on Facebook, where there can be only one service provider.

More to the point, if Facebook were to suddenly change course and allow you to host your own data and provide an open, decentralized service, would you then consider using it?

I could see myself doing so. Keep in mind that there are different levels of openness; Slashdot does not exchange posts with any other system, but you do not have to register with Slashdot to read or post comments. I have also seen links to Slashdot stories posted on various forums (including Usenet), where users of those systems post their own comments; this is substantially harder to do with Facebook, where most things require a login. I would not be terribly opposed to "using" Facebook's service in the sense of visiting a URL, if I did not have to log in to do so.

I would also not be opposed to communicating with Facebook users if Facebook could interoperate with other services or systems. It would not be hard for Facebook to define a basic method of sending messages, friend requests, group memberships, and so forth through other systems.

Re:Still holding out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158407)

"I am not on Facebook"; if your friends refuse to talk to you because you do not use Facebook, then I would reevaluate your relationship with them. Why give in to Facebook's attempt to take control of the world's communication, especially when we have so many systems that are not controlled by any one party?

That's not what he said. His point is not about refusal to communicate outside of Facebook and more about Facebook being their preferred medium. There's a difference, although it is a bit annoying when people use Facebook for everything. Personally I prefer AIM or email, but I'll use Facebook, SMS, Skype and MSN because I'm not a pontificating tool.

Re:Still holding out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159581)

Let's me honest here... men stay out of women's bullshit because it's 90% gossip and vicious assaults. Be it facebook or Bingo nights.

Re:Still holding out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159981)

Thanks to inform us women in your friends and family circle are vicious. We will do as much as we can to stay away.

Really? (0, Offtopic)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157815)

AFP reports that a study by the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project

AFP (Americas Funniest People) and the Pew Pew Research Center. Is this a windup?

Re:Really? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157847)

...

Yes. OMG and WYSIWIG were unavailable for comment.

Re:Really? (2)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157935)

...and GTFO's response was unprintable.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158323)

Not everyone is a FUCKING MORON like yourself and realizes that AFP stands for Agence France-Presse.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159935)

Not everyone manages to peg the Whoosh-O-Meter like you just did, either.

How long..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39157821)

.....will society require to learn that everything on the web effectively lives forever?

Re:How long..... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159027)

.....will society require to learn that everything on the web effectively lives forever?

Maybe, but by deleting something from Facebook I can control its ubiquitousness by quite a bit.

In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39157899)

Women are more easily deceived by a false sense of security.

Discretion!! (3, Insightful)

teknx (2547472) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157905)

What ever happened to discretion? People are so quick to post every thought, feeling, and complaint for the world to see. But then also complain about privacy. No one is forcing you to post about what you ate for breakfast and take a picture of it. The trend seems to point to things only getting worse in the future as more companies focus on you being the product and selling your information and habits to 3rd parties. I remember hearing someone say that if the services are free, YOU are the product.

Re:Discretion!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158251)

I remember hearing someone say that if the services are free, YOU are the product.

Yeah, they got that a bit wrong though. You aren't directly the product. It is the meta-you (data about you) that is the product. Data that allows extremely fine market segmentation. Nothing makes a marketer happier than an extremely high conversion rate (number of actual purchasers / number advertised to). This is the game they are in. The data about you (meta-you) is the thing being actively sold.

Re:Discretion!! (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159015)

I remember hearing someone say that if the services are free, YOU are the product.

Yet, you're not paying for using Slashdot. What does that make you?

Re:Discretion!! (1)

teknx (2547472) | more than 2 years ago | (#39160417)

A product of my environment?

The flipside of that... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39157917)

Women are more likely to friend people they'll end up unfriending later.

Re:The flipside of that... (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159241)

How many daughters have unfriended their own mother after an argument? I know a few.

In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39157921)

Water is wet.

I think it makes men more open and honest. (3, Interesting)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157923)

If you're going to say something say it without caring who hears it or don't say anything at all.

The above described phenomenon is akin to how women and girls whisper in each others ears, filters are like whispering. The unfriending I see as akin to what I watched a group of girls do in high school. There was about a dozen of them but only 11 could be friends at a time, there was always one girl kicked out of the circle, when she came back they chose another one to be mad at and kicked her out of the circle.

My guess is the regret men have is regret over how a woman reacted to the picture or other content.

Re:I think it makes men more open and honest. (4, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39157973)

Isn't this pretty much the only reason why men regret anything they say or do?

Re:I think it makes men more open and honest. (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158085)

That or they managed to talk themselves out of being fed and/or given beer.

We're simple creatures...

Surprise, surprise... (4, Interesting)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158015)

...women are more selective than men regarding who to include in their social circle. I could've predicted this from real-world interactions. Women tend to form close-knit cliques. Men will hang with anyone who will get shitfaced drunk with them and commiserate about their problems with women, work, money, etc.

Re:Surprise, surprise... (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158297)

Or women are less selective, and they add people without thinking about it, and then remove them later when it proves to be a bad idea. You can't tell which it is from the summary, anyway :p

Re:Surprise, surprise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158843)

You have to establish a certain level of trust before you're willing to get shitfaced drunk with someone, ergo your argument does not hold water.

Re:Surprise, surprise... (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159037)

I think the threshold for achieving that level of trust is probably lower for men. ;-)

Social exclusion is a femal strategy (4, Insightful)

qualityassurancedept (2469696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158019)

Female's all over the animal kingdom use social exclusion instead of violence in order to punish other females. Exclusion is the primary competitive strategy for all sorts of female animals. Look it up on Wikipedia. Or google it. Its a widely known fact among researchers in the social science. That's how teenage girls bully each other.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158075)

"Female's"

God damn I am sick of semi-literate idiots like YOU who don't
understand the proper use of an apostrophe.

If you can't write correctly keep your fucking thoughts to yourself,
fuckwit.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (4, Funny)

jader3rd (2222716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158105)

If you're that mad about it, just punish him by unfriending him and excluding him from your social circle.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (3, Insightful)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158159)

You didn't even notice that the subject line says "femal", huh?

While I agree that proper grammar and spelling are something we should strive for, in a web discussion forum "it's the thought that counts". Isn't that the purpose of language -- to convey our thoughts?

Dismissing someone who may have a worthwhile contribution to the discussion just because they misplaced an apostrophe (or misspelled a word) smacks of elitism. If we measure someone's value by the amount of useful information contributed to the discussion, you're more of a "fuckwit"... by at least an order of magnitude.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159029)

True, but on the other hand, such errors can and do distract from the message, which is detrimental to both the reader and the writer (since, supposedly, the message was meant to be read).

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (0)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158257)

Poor grammar and spelling is less objectionable than nasty language. Malice is worse than incompetence.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (4, Insightful)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158303)

...and never assume malice where incompetence will suffice. You'll get through life with a lot less conflict that way.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159941)

Yes because others are responsible for your oversensitivity? get a fucking spine.. when someone calls you something, ignore it. it's a fallacy. these are kindergarten lessons, people.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39160569)

Poor grammar and spelling is less objectionable than nasty language. Malice is worse than incompetence.

That would be "are less objectionable", you ignoramus.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158263)

"semi-literate"

God damn I am sick of semiliterate idiots like YOU who don't
understand the proper use of a hyphen.

If you can't write correctly keep your fucking thoughts to yourself,
fuckwit.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39158423)

"God damn I am sick of semiliterate idiots like YOU who don't ..."

God damn. I am sick of semiliterate idiots like YOU, who don't
understand the proper use of a period or comma.

If you can't write correctly keep your fucking thoughts to yourself,
fuckwit.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (1)

BryanL (93656) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159611)

The GP sure needs something like a quality assurance dept to catch misspellings.

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159635)

I've noticed that the only people who care about correct punctuation and grammar are autistic retards

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (1)

mattgoldey (753976) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158513)

I'm curious about your thought process while writing this. Why would you add an apostrophe in "female's" but in "animals" or "girls"? And not in the send usage of "females". If you're going to abuse apostrophes, why not go whole hog?

Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159685)

I'm curious about your thought process while writing this. You're missing "not" in the second sentence; and your third sentence is an incomplete sentence/thought. If you're going to abuse the English language, why not go whole hog?

Who didn't know this (3)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158247)

Women will unfriend someone for wearing the wrong shoes with a skirt, I think men have known this for years.

Re:Who didn't know this (4, Funny)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158291)

Thanks. Glad to know this. I've always wondered why so few men wear skirts. Now I know.

Re:Who didn't know this (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158345)

Ya exactly there you go, It's my pearl of wisdom for the day.

How about divorce? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158329)

What about divorce?
Sources say [divorce-la...source.com] that women are initiating divorce in 66% [yahoo.com] of cases.

Re:How about divorce? (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158337)

Oh, and by the way, my conclusion out of all of this is similar to the age old belief, that women come into relationships hoping to change the partner more often (and I believe men come into relationship hoping that the women don't change over time), and both get screwed.

Drama queens (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158679)

You know the old joke about the definition of a bachelor: A insensitive clod who has deprived some poor woman of a divorce.

Its actually not that funny. There are some women* (and not a small minority) who seek drama and conflict. Why do you think the plots of daytime soap operas are so bizarre? Well adjusted people stay the hell away from such emotional wreckage. Particularly on a regular basis (something you can experience with the occasional movie but not an ongoing story line). And they tend to seek out the companionship of others suffering from similar woes, rather than attempting to readjust their outlook by associating with undamaged people.

*OK, some guys too. But if I say 'drama' and 'male', what stereotype comes to mind?

Re:Drama queens (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159153)

*OK, some guys too. But if I say 'drama' and 'male', what stereotype comes to mind?

Well, 'drama' has a strong connotation, but if you replace it with 'conflict', I think of drunken assholes beating up their wifes (and sometimes kids). Where I live, a couple dozen women are killed every year due to domestic violence.

Compared to that, "emotional wreckage" seems somewhat less important.

Re:Drama queens (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39160081)

Completely different. Drama queens seem to like being victims. Its possible that such women might seek out the drunken asshole (consciously or otherwise) for a boyfriend or husband.

The male stereotype drama queen I was referring to has nothing to do with women .... if you know what I mean. ;-)

Re:How about divorce? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159811)

Oh, and by the way, my conclusion out of all of this is similar to the age old belief, that women come into relationships hoping to change the partner more often (and I believe men come into relationship hoping that the women don't change over time), and both get screwed.

Well you're obviously not talking about marriage then.

Laugh (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158605)

Through out the ages "Women more likely to with hold sex" another duh moment in science.

Re:Laugh (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159115)

We haven't evolved that far beyond our cousins. Primate behavior has plenty of insight into humans. People just don't like to hear that they are not thinking and act thoughtlessly as much as they do; after all, they've spent a lifetime rationalizing thoughtless irrational behaviors. It comes as no surprise to me that religious types have a harder time dealing with this whole area (from evolution to the nature of irrational behavior, it all involves a similar fiction writing process for explaining reality as religion does.)

Re:Laugh (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159573)

I agree I argue this point constantly, people in marketing get it why don't everyday people grasp it?

Rare is the human the rises above his/her animals drives.

a few comments (2)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39158959)

> When it comes to privacy, 58 percent of social network users set their profile to private so that only friends can see it.

This should be 100%. I suspect the other 42% don't know how or don't understand the ramifications. (Mild hyperbole, but you know what I mean.)

I understand there's problems with Facebook privacy but if you're going to play at all, you have a responsibility to protect yourself. Just my opinion.

It's also important not to poke "accept" for every friend request you get, without first doing due diligence. If you have one friend in common, that may only mean that your friend may have been stupid enough to click "accept" to a potential social engineer without checking.

I photograph events and travel, and those albums are open. The rest is closed off. Not because I'm "hiding anything", (this is *facebook*) but because there are things I'd tell my friends that I wouldn't tell the general public. I review my privacy settings periodically. I don't do optional Facebook applications, ever. I don't do Facebook games, ever. I don't repost Facebook "forwards", and I will block someone if that's all they're doing. I have lively discussions (in our own words, not cutting and pasting someone else's) with a circle of friends, we share ideas and have some heated arguments, and that's a good thing -- in my opinion, it's the "social" in social networking. The rest is the electronic equivalent of stuffing an envelope with magazine clippings.

I believe that women are more likely to unfriend, but I wonder what the statistic is for blocking. I have less than 200 friends, small by Facebook standards, although I've met most of them and about 25% of them would help me move (and 2 or 3 would help me move a body -- although they'd want to know who's first) and of those I've never unfriended someone no matter how obnoxious. I *have* blocked them from my news stream because they're irritating, natter on too much about nothing (a characteristic of Facebook it seems) or repeatedly try to bait the community out of some desire for attention. These "junk" postings get in the way of the people on my friends list whom I *want* to read.

It doesn't seem right to unfriend. It seems snarky -- a personal insult. Blocking them from my news stream is more like, I haven't taken you out of my address book, but I probably won't be calling you. It would have been interesting to find out if this is a male vs female characteristic. Something like: Given it's time to end the relationship with another person, women are more likely to break up publicly, whereas men are more likely to simply ignore.

I've noticed repeatedly that a personal friend or acquaintance will jump on, friend everyone in sight, load up a bunch of applications, play a bunch of games, and then suddenly disappear. I've asked some of them later about that, and some have said it takes too much time (I can see that) and others have said they lost interest (reasonable also) but many have said that they became alarmed at the lack of privacy. It's almost like there was an event that shook them up and they dropped out. Social networks are hot right now -- generally accepted -- but I wonder what people's perceptions will be in ten years time.

Social networks are like any tool -- you can use it to get work done, or you can use it to poke your eye out. If you're not willing to learn the tool, you shouldn't be surprised at the consequences. There is no "walled garden" social network as far as I know. It's like the rest of the internet -- raw, fertile, potentially dangerous. The knife is sharp; it's important to point it in the right direction. But sometimes a spork just won't do.

Verified (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39159077)

Women is bitches. Proof.

Groucho (5, Funny)

Wildplasser (1031246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159493)

I don't want to be friends with people who have people like me as friends.

That's because women are more emotionally hostile (5, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39159737)

Look at any social group of young teenage girls today. They're the most vile, wretched, undisciplined, emotionally hostile human beings that walk the face of the Earth today. They think nothing of torturing their peers emotionally to the point of suicide.

Women want their enemies to suffer socially and emotionally.

Re:That's because women are more emotionally hosti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39160437)

Look at any social group of young teenage girls today. They're the most vile, wretched, undisciplined, emotionally hostile human beings that walk the face of the Earth today. They think nothing of torturing their peers emotionally to the point of suicide.

Women want their enemies to suffer socially and emotionally.

I have to agree, and this just keeps getting worse as time goes on. There is a drastic increase in abusive females, but all the laws are there to protect the women, and nothing for the men.

Re:That's because women are more emotionally hosti (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39160515)

... teenage girls ...

and the entirety of western civilisation is at their behest and control. Everything we do is to placate and please them. They have ultimate power but no clue what to do with it.

This is why eastern cultures find western ones so abhorrent. We are without control, worshiping the teenage female form and sacrificing everything in our future for it. I'll have no part of it. It is too late though, we are past the point of no return, this has already effectively destroyed western civilisation. The question is: will any westerners learn from it? I suspect not.

Environmental contaminants and xenoestrogenics responsible for the recent increases in feminisation of boys? Not so much - while probably part of it - it is clear to me that when faced with such a powerful, hostile and cruel selection of young women to pick from that the solution is obvious.

Cynical explanation for that 9% difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39160219)

Maybe that 9% difference is because men are more likely to stay "friends" with someone they don't actually like as a person, but who's attractive enough that they want to keep the option open of potentially having sex with them. Clicking "unfriend" means renouncing the possibility, however theoretical it may be, of "I still might get to have sex with her someday!"

(Heck, "I might get to have sex with her someday" is the reason most of us get out of bed in the morning.)

And for those who are more sexually accomplished and have fond memories of a relationship that was great in the bedroom and terrible otherwise, that also includes "...have sex with her AGAIN someday". I suspect many of us have at least one ex-girlfriend on our friends list like that -- someone whom we eventually found incomparably annoying, but who was a great, great lay. After all, you can only have two out of three.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>