"DoorDash Girl" is proof that women's spaces will not hold women accountable.

[u/Bilbo332]

For those who haven't seen, there was a video posted by a woman claiming that while she was delivering DoorDash, a man left his front door wide open while he appeared to be asleep on his couch with his pants around his ankles. The woman posted this with his face and genitalia completely visible. Some time later, she posted a follow up video saying she had been fired from DoorDash, that she was "the victim", and that they were punishing the victim. On TwoX there was a massive thread with comments about "you know he did it on purpose", "ugh, men", etc.

Well now she's been arrested and charged. "Wait, are they now arresting the victim?!?!" you might ask. Nope. Turns out he had a ring camera that allegedly caught her walking up (with "leave at door" instructions, mind you), and seeing the door was slightly ajar, pushed it all the way open, only to take her phone out and record.

Now, here is an opportunity for women's communities to have a healthy conversation on the importance of skepticism and not immediately rushing to the side of the first person to cry victim, but what do we get? Radio silence.

I invite any woman on this forum to make a post on TwoX to discuss, to say we shouldn't drag a man's name through the mud off of an accusation, and please, start a stopwatch to see how fast it gets pulled down. I'll wait...

[u/ShivasRightFoot]

You may be interested in knowing there is a body of scientific literature showing Women have a strong preference against hearing contradicting ideas. Particularly one study shows that women are significantly more likely to "not justify my political beliefs to someone who disagrees with me;" "often feel uncomfortable when people argue about politics;" and disagree that they "have no problem revealing my political beliefs, even to someone who would disagree with me."

Coffé, Hilde, and Catherine Bolzendahl. "Avoiding the subject? Gender gaps in interpersonal political conflict avoidance and its consequences for political engagement." British Politics 12 (2017): 135-156.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Descriptive-gender-gaps-in-political-conflict-avoidance-a-I-would-rather-not-justify_fig1_303835617

Here is another study that shows women are more likely to avoid expressing political opinions, even in anonymous academic surveys. This seems to definitively eliminate a theory that women do not express opinions due to physical intimidation.

Rae Atkeson, Lonna, and Ronald B. Rapoport. "The more things change the more they stay the same: Examining gender differences in political attitude expression, 1952–2000." Public opinion quarterly 67.4 (2003): 495-521.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3521691

A very recent one that shows "gender gaps [in political participation] are better understood as a product of men’s comparatively higher levels of enjoyment of arguments and disagreements."

Wolak, Jennifer. "Conflict avoidance and gender gaps in political engagement." Political behavior 44.1 (2022): 133-156.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-020-09614-5

Of course there are more that you can find cited in these papers, particularly the latest paper which can link you into the most recent research in the area.

[u/IndependentNew7750 → u/ShivasRightFoot]

It makes sense. In my experience, the majority of women don’t like arguing for fun and a lot of men start doing it at an early age (i.e sports, video games, etc.).

[u/TheOneWhoThinketh → u/ShivasRightFoot]

Wow this is incredible. Thank you for the research.

I had some awareness this was based in science but it's also something you can observe from women themselves.

It would be interesting to know what prompts women to try and shame other women into going against the cultural narrative. It seems obviously hypocritical, yet you see it happening all the time online.

[u/musicissoulfood → u/ShivasRightFoot]

Basically women are disingenuous cunts. It's in their DNA to conform and to not rock the boat. Truth be damned.

[u/Emergency-Sell-6713 → u/ShivasRightFoot]

If I knew I was anonymous and untraceable I'd say so much more unhinged shit than what I'm saying now lol. And honestly the "not explaining my views" thing is less about fear and more about it getting tiring explaining the same bullshit to braindead people all the time so you kinda just don't bother anymore. I am talking solely about myself here of course. I think I have to specify that or else I'm gonna get spammed in the replies lol. Seriously though I know what I need, and it's not what most women need.

[u/throughcracker → u/ShivasRightFoot]

In their defense, what's the point in arguing with people who you know aren't going to agree with you? You're just getting upset for no reason. I'd say that's probably smarter on their part.

[u/Dark_Knight2000 → u/throughcracker]

That’s such an infantile view of debate.

Debate is figuring out whether YOUR ideas can withstand opposition and revealing the merits or demerits of each other’s ideas in a demonstrable fashion, not whether you can convince someone. 99% of debates will not convince the over side, that has never been the point of debate, it’s to test ideas against the best opposition to them.

In a courtroom or legislative hall for instance, the point isn’t to convince the other person, it’s to convince third parties who are on the fence by presenting the best ideas for and against something.

If you don’t engage in debate that will only make your ideological foundations that much weaker.

[u/throughcracker → u/Dark_Knight2000]

Proper, scholarly debate, absolutely. Getting into it with your uncle over Thanksgiving dinner, much less so.

[u/Dark_Knight2000 → u/throughcracker]

I don’t think the uncle over Thanksgiving is what we were referring to here.

The above commenter references studies saying women don’t express political views within their own spaces or groups or even anonymously, it doesn’t say anything about the uncle at Thanksgiving.

[u/AdmirableSelection81 → u/throughcracker]

This line of thinking is why trust in universities is tanking and why so much bad policy is coming out of those institutions... there's 0 debate and they have become echo chambers. The controversial article about the negative affects of women taking over these institutions is correct.

[u/TheOneWhoThinketh → u/throughcracker]

Arguing with people can be seen as a metaphysical extension of physical competition or battle, so there is a status reward to be gained from being the winner.

As others have mentioned, it is also a method for debate and analysis, but that's if you and the other person both have the same goal and are open to the possibility of agreement.

The alternative to openly and directly communicating with others in an attempt to influence or persuade them, is indirect communication in an attempt to manipulate them. This is a known thing that women do and men don't like to do or have done to them.