Do you expect everyone to accept everything you say at face value without question? Are you this bizarrely aggressive every time someone questions you? I questioned it because it seemed like an odd statement with very broad reach being applied in a largely anonymous space.

You've linked a paper locked behind a paywall, thanks for that. I'm not seeing much of anything to do with demographics in that paper at all. The paper appears to be an analysis of the types of humour present in some popular memes and how they apply to feminism.

None of the categories outlined in the paper even seem like a particularly good fit for this particular meme, other than maybe at a stretch a single line discussing general vs specific sexism, although I'll openly admit I'm not conversant in the literature.

[–] troed@fedia.io -1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If you ask for scientific backing it's a bit rich to then complain on you not being able to read said papers. However, let me tell you about sci-hub:

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517727560

The "Analysis and discussion" heading is interesting reading.

This paper is also relevant:

https://sci-hub.se/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2021.1927049

Women (M = 1.46, SD = 1.83) were more likely than men (M = 1.83, SD = 1.16) to believe that being ready to have sex and their partner’s desire for sex are important to consider in relationships (t(254) = –2.863, p < .01).

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

I didn't ask for scientific backing, I asked where you were pulling the demographics from because you said "look at the demographics" indicating this is readily available information. How exactly is it rich if I complain I can't read the papers? (Which you'll note I didn't actually say, you might also note sci-hub is blocked in multiple countries including mine.) I don't understand the reasoning there, you provide something that's not easily readable and blame me for not being able to read it?

Regardless, I did actually read it as you'll note again from my previous post I pointed out there don't appear to be any demographics in the paper and that the paper appears to be more about categorising memes and how they pertain to feminism.

The second paper you've provided doesn't mention memes, it's an exploratory study of how social media use impacts perceptions of relationships and consent in a small collegiate sample (the sample size is emphasized by the authors, not me). No real conclusions are drawn although the authors do speculate it is the perception of how others behave on social media in relationships that causes the impact - how is this supporting your point? It has absolutely nothing to do with people posting anything, memes or otherwise.

[–] troed@fedia.io -2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah sorry, if you don't get why those parts of those papers are relevant there's probably not much I can help you with there :) I'm quite convinced you have no interest in the actual topic - you're performing a well known debating technique that stems from the need to avoid cognitive dissonance. As long as you can fault find sources - in any way - you can conclude that the premise in question is false and thus continue believing what it now is you need to believe for your own sanity's sake.

Enjoy.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 4 points 11 hours ago

I'm not the one acting in bad faith, in fact I've gone to the effort of independently sourcing and reading around 30 pages of scientific literature to try and understand your point. I'm not nit picking your sources, in fact I'm not even critical of the sources, they're fine in and of themselves, they just don't back up what you're saying.

There's no cognitive dissonance on my part, I don't think I've even disagreed with your point but you're questioning my sanity? You seem to have decided I'm acting in bad faith because I questioned your statement, you've resorted to personal attacks and you're completely misrepresenting what I've said.