Blackpill "Remarkable here is the lack of change... villainous actions are almost as male at the turn of the 21st century as in the mid-19th century."

[The Notorious SLAV]

Title.

Last year, I made a thread about the gender difference in antagonist roles in fiction, with antagonists much more likely to be male than female and the difference being much bigger than the difference for other character roles (protagonists, major characters, minor characters and so on.)

All bad guys in children's movies are men, women most affected

I've decided to go down the "vast majority of fictional villains are male, and mostly unattractive," rabbithole a bit today, and it didn't take much time for me to find this gem :feelshaha: . A total of 48.5% of characters were protagonists. Only 9.2% were antagonists, none of whom were...

incels.is

Now, of course, this is barely looked at when fiction is analyzed like this. Female researchers have no problem with antagonists being overwhelmingly male, they care about the still-existing gap in the protagonists' gender instead. However, thankfully for us, sometimes when they look at stuff like that they also end up analyzing villainous roles and actions, and we get findings like this.

This paper provides an assessment of agency attributions in 87,531 fiction works written between 1850 and 2010. It introduces a syntax-based approach for extracting networks of character interactions. Agency is then formalized as a dyadic property: Does a character primarily serve as an agent acting upon the other character or as recipient acted upon by the other character? Findings indicate that female characters are more likely to be passive in cross-gender relationships than their male counterparts.

This difference, the gender agency gap, has declined since the 19th century but persists into the 21st. Male authors are especially likely to attribute less agency to female characters. Moreover, certain kinds of actions, especially physical and villainous ones, have more pronounced gender disparities.

PNAS

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences.

www.pnas.org

An NLP analysis of dozens of thousands of works written from the middle of 19th century to 2010, analyzing interactions belonging to six categories of actions between dyads of two characters, looking at which characters were the ones doing the actions, and which ones were receiving them and being acted upon by the other character. So, what did they find?

In 1850s, the most gender unequal actions were physical ones, with male characters doing much more physical actions than female ones. Villainous and communicative actions were tied well below physical ones, after which came perceptive and cognitive actions and finally, the one category where you had rough gender equality, being emotional and sentimental actions.

Then, over the decades, all groups of actions except for villainous ones started becoming more gender equal with characters of both genders starting to perform them more equally, and before 1950, villainous actions have not only became the most gender unequal group of actions in literature, but said inequality started rising during the 1950s. Villainy in literature was more male from 1950 up until 1970 than it was as far into the past as this study had looked, before finally reverting to the mean, except still being the most gender unequal category of actions and basically not changing in frequency since the 1850s.

Fig. 4C shows the distribution of agency in different spheres of action over time. The gap between male and female characters is particularly large for physical action. In the mid-19th century, male characters had an advantage of up to 19 percentage points, implying, roughly, that for every two physical actions by a female character in a cross-gender relationship, a male character conducts three.

Similarly, villainy is in the domain of male agency, with female characters typically being the recipients of such actions. Remarkable here is the lack of change. While most other action spheres—like action itself—become more equally distributed over time, villainous actions are almost as male at the turn of the 21st century as in the mid-19th century. The pattern for communication closely follows that of the overall agency gap, while the imbalance in perception and cognition is typically 3 to 4 percentage points lower.

Emotions are the only sphere with a notably different distribution and trend. Here, female characters had approximately equal or even slightly more agency well into the 20th century. Only from the 1940s onward did the distribution start to favor male characters. Instead of male characters becoming more emotional, however, supplementary analyses (SI Appendix, Section I) indicate that the prevalence of emotions in cross-gender relationships has steeply declined overall since the 19th century, but that this trend was more pronounced and persistent for female characters.

That said, it should be noted that while there has been a surplus in male emotions since the 1940s, this surplus is lower than the overall gap, implying that emotions still make up for a larger share of female characters’ actions than of male characters’ actions.

Which is pretty hilarious considering how similar it is to how feminists want the society to move in general. Everything must become more equal ,all gender differences must be eradicated no matter what the actual reason for them is, but rape must stay defined as something only men can do by default and seen as something women never do, the killing of a woman must remain being seen as worse than the murder of a man, physical punishments must keep on being seen as more acceptable to be done to boys than girls, and so on. And of course, men must keep on doing all the shitty and dangerous jobs.

And, of course, rape was the second most male-perpetration-only action.

Spoiler

@KillNiggers @GeckoBus @Regenerator @Mecoja @Stupid Clown @Sewer Sloth @weaselbomber @Sergeant Kelly @To koniec @reveries @starcrapoo @Lv99_BixNood @daydreamER @The Judge @Oneitiscel @TheHungariancel @Squatting Slavcel @Skelly @SuperKanga.Belgrade @Epedaphic @LeFrenchCel @Uggo Mongo @AsiaCel @Mrocznykichajnik

 

[daydreamER]

Good post that somehow got totally noreplied.

The hypocrisy is pure ragefuel.

 

[ESL]

reading+bump

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

Good post that somehow got totally noreplied.

The hypocrisy is pure ragefuel.

It is, had me smirking when I first saw it because of course it's like that.

reading+bump

 

[Skelly]

Women only like the idea of equality, but hate doing it in practice

 

[Icarus]

Villains are based tbh

I have no problem with being seen as a force against all of this. Normies are the truly evil ones

 

[Cuckoja]

Women only like the idea of equality, but hate doing it in practice

Pretty much. Muh equality is to get everything they wish for. I want that too.

 

[reveries]

Women only like the idea of equality, but hate doing it in practice

Because they can't even comprehend the fact that with privileges also comes responsibility, and the fact that an average male life is full of stress and back breaking labour.

They only see chads enjoying their lives, and their monkey brains scream "I want that give me that too i want it". That's why they already lifemog the living shit out of 95% of men, yet still scream they're opressed. Because there's still some chad millionaire that has it better.
The rest of the men don't matter. They're not human in their eyes, because they're low in looks and status.

And of course they don't give a fuck where the good stuff that some men have comes from (it comes from hard work, nothing is ever given to average men for free, which is obviously something foids don't want to do in practice).

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

They only see chads enjoying their lives, and their monkey brains scream "I want that give me that too i want it". That's why they already lifemog the living shit out of 95% of men, yet still scream they're opressed. Because there's still some chad millionaire that has it better.
The rest of the men don't matter. They're not human in their eyes, because they're low in looks and status.

 

[KillNiggers]

Male antagonists are still cooler. Can't take a femoid antagonist seriously unless she has big booba.

This does suck but knowing how low male in-group bias is, not surprising at all.

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

This does suck but knowing how low male in-group bias is, not surprising at all.

This.