comment: >
  
  
  then why did nobody debating him bring up this point, that he has actually not understood the law?
  
  Oodles of people did this, including the major professional association of attorneys in Canada. Its linked in the comment you are responding to.
context: In my experience on most subreddits that aren't specifically focused on gender:
  When a man does something shitty, he is blamed for it and everyone moves on.
  When a woman does something shitty, women are blamed for it and a debate ensues. >
  
  Yes, the debate continues because some people are ready to defend a woman who has done something obviously bad just because she is a woman. When men does something shitty, everyone agrees that he is stupid and no debate is there to be seen. So you just proved my point, thank you. >
  
  
  Yes, the debate continues because some people are ready to defend a woman who has done something obviously bad just because she is a woman.
  
  Not because she's a woman, because women in general are being attacked by being unfairly grouped with the bad actor. Important difference. >
  
  I don’t understand what that means, could you try to explain with some easier words? >
  
  When a man is blamed, that man is blamed as an individual. I.e., Bob yells at a retail worker--Bob is an asshole.
  When a woman is blamed, women as a whole are blamed. I.e., Sue yells at a retail worker--women are such Karens. >
  
  That is not quite my experience. I think that both genders are blamed in groups. Your example with the Karen thing is great, because it’s common for people to say so. But men are also blamed in groups. Just take such a thing as when people say that we live in a patriarchy. They take an example of an extremely rich man, lists his privileges, then says that ALL men have those privileges and therefore we live in a patriarchy which is not correct. Another example is sexual assault. And I know it’s a emotionally loaded subject but hear me out. How often do you not hear feminists say that all men are trash or all men are contributing to sexual assault? Often. You ask them why and they say “well all of us 3 in this group have been sexually assaulted by guy x, y and z. Absolutely, those guys are idiots but not all men are like that. As a man myself, I often feel like I’m being attacked for being a man, but people think that is just doing justice when I have never been involved in any kind of crime or anything. They think it’s serving justice because I have a penis and some people who do bad things also have a penis. What if I went around and treated people like robbers because a few women have done robbery? >
  
  Ok, let's take your example of robbery vs sexual assault. I assume you've heard the phrases "Not all men" and "Yes all women?" What this means is that, even though most men have not sexually assaulted women, all or almost all women have experienced a form of sexual assault. Robbery is perpetrated by a small percentage of people, and affects a small percentage of people. Sexual assault is perpetrated by a small percentage of people (although larger than most people think), but it affects a huge percentage of people. In this sense, the experience of a woman in society is objectively worse than that of a man. 
  Another thing people tend to say is, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What this means is, even if you have not sexually harassed or assaulted a woman, you likely know someone who thinks that such things are ok. Those men don't care about the opinions of women, so if you do not actively teach them not to harass women, you are allowing sexual harassment to happen. >
  
  Of course I understand that it effects many women by not so many men. But does that make it harder live as a woman? 
  I believe the second statement isn’t fair at all. If I clearly state that I don’t ever condone to sexual harassment but know someone who doesn’t agree with me, that makes me a part of the problem? That is a claim that I don’t believe to be true. A person who think it’s ok to sexually harass anyone isn’t going to change their mind if i tell them that is not ok. These kind of people have had other factors in life that has resulted in their view. Perhaps parents were missing during childhood, someone has brainwashed them or maybe they even know what they’re doing isn’t cool, but yet they are so good at ignoring their self-respect and true thoughts that sexually harassing someone isn’t hard for them. 
  First statement, cool i can agree on the stats. Second statement, blaming all men for sexual assault happening is not doing anyone any good and is not true. >
  
  So, based on the way you're phrasing your post, I'm assuming that by "on Reddit" you primarily mean in relationship-focused or drama-focused subs like AITA or r/relationships. If that's not the case, please mention which subs in particular you've seen this in--some links to example posts would be nice too.
  The first thing I'll say is that, even if the trend you believe exists DOES exist in those subs, that does not mean it exists in reddit as a whole.
  The next thing I'll say is that what I have noticed in those subs is that the OP is more likely to be voted NTA, and other people in their story are more likely to be considered an asshole than not, because they are not there to tell their side and so reddit sympathizes with the person telling the story. I believe this phenomenon is gender-independent. However it may be the case that more women's posts than men's posts are upvoted to the top on these subreddits, leading to the erroneous conclusion that women are "favored".
  The third thing I'll say is that the first thing you say in your post is "when a man does something shitty." Can we agree that, if a man does something shitty, pointing out that it is shitty is not "favoring women?" You seem to think that men are called assholes more than women, but you use as your (admittedly vague) example a man that is actually an asshole. Stating the truth is not favoring either gender even if the truth is that a man was an asshole and a woman wasn't.
  The fourth thing I want to point out is the "mob opinion phenomenon." People often perceive that everyone is against them when that is not the case. Have you ever noticed that when a person talks about "society," they really mean "everyone who disagrees with me?" A far right republican says "society is shoving the trans agenda down our throats". A trans ally says "society hates trans people." In reality, opinions in the whole of the US population are split fairly evenly down the middle on that issue. This phenomenon happens when a persecution fetish meets confirmation bias. I think it's possible that you are drawing a conclusion which objective statistics do not support, due to a mob opinion phenomenon happening in your brain. 
  The fifth thing I want to say is, several women have commented here about their own experiences with rape and death threats. It's very clear that there is a statistically significant difference in the number of rape and death threats received by women vs. men. You have responded to these by saying "this represents a tiny percentage of men, not Reddit as a whole". This is a statistical error on your part. If 50% of women and 5% of men receive rape and death threats on a weekly basis in a community, that community favors men in that sense. It doesn't matter how many men are sending the threats. Remember, the murder rate in El Salvador is only about 50 in 100,000, and murderers are a tiny percentage of the population, but that is still the most likely place for a person to be murdered on earth. In addition, the actual percentage of comments that are rape and death threats can be very low, but statistically that is not important; what is important is the difference between the percentage of comments women receive that are rape or death threats, and the percentage of comments men receive that are rape or death threats. If 0.1% of comments received by women are rape or death threats and 0.01% of comments received by men are rape or death threats, women are statistically 10x more likely than men to experience rape or death threats on reddit. That would be an example of reddit favoring men. That's how an actual statistical analysis would read. >
  
  I must say you have some great points that are relevant to the post and I thank you for that. 
  Yes I’m talking about relationship-focused subs, that’s where I mainly read. Yes, I understand that it perhaps doesn’t exist on reddit as a whole, of course it doesn’t, on some subs gender isn’t even mentioned.
  Second point about people being voted NTA is great and makes me think. It is true that many times the side characters of the story don’t have a voice and cannot tell some untold truths that are relevant to the story. And yes, maybe more women post and therefore it seems like they are favored, but it’s hard to know without any stats so I will leave that uncommented. 
  Very true, we can agree that saying a man is shitty when he actually is is not favoring women, that is totally correct.
  Your point about mob opinion is a very interesting phenomenon. But can’t that be applied to the people who comment? They often say that women are oppressed but that no one but women agrees with them which isn’t true because there are many men agreeing with this, especially on reddit. Isn’t that also the same phenomenon?
  You’re fifth point is my favorite because it actually made me realize that i was in the wrong on that point. Know I must say that I believe 50% of women getting threats is a very high unlikely number but I trust you since You sound very wise and you seem to know your thing. But your point is still valid and it is correct that it favors men in that way. But we can both agree that it shouldn’t favor men and in the best case scenario, no one would get threats. Yet, why should women get favored in comments? (Now if my statement is true which I believe it is.) >
  
  So these are just from your personal experience/anecdotes instead of actual statistics? Or if there are statistics, please show me the research for it. Thanks. >
  
  Doesn’t my personal experience and anecdotes matter? Stats don’t always tell the whole truth, I can make a statement without having the support of statistics if I have other valid and well grounded arguments. >
  
  First please dont get so defensive, I never said that personal experience and anecdotes dont matter, I was merely asking you whether these are personal experience or from statistics.
  So suppose this right:
  Premise: Personal experience and anecdotes are valid to make objective statements.
  You make a statement that
  u/lemonmoister has the personal experience that Reddit favor women over men.
  and following the premise, we can make the objective statement that 'It is true that reddit favor women over men.'
  The problem comes with this, suppose person B says that
  Person B has the personal experience that Reddit does not favor women over men.
  Again following the premise, we can make the objective statement that 'It is true that Reddit does not favor women over men.'
  We now have two contradicting objective statements, and therefore something is flawed.
  I would say that there are two solutions to this:
  
  Change the premise so that personal experience and anecdotes are valid only for subjective statements instead of objective statements. --- i.e. person P experiences XXX therefore it is valid for them to feel XXX. (but it is not necessarily objectively the case that it is XXX)
  Deny that 'person B' exists, that it is impossible for anyone to experience that Reddit does not favor women over men.
  
  Do you agree with my analysis? If not, why? >
  
  I’m sorry if I may have sounded defensive, that was not my intention.
  Yes, your analysis if true, perhaps I should have phrased it differently. But I think you still get my point. Of course if I don’t have literally stats then it’s a feeling based opinion. >
  
  Women tend to get more positive and negative feedback.
  The positive feedback tends to stick in your mind, while the negative feedback tends to stick in theirs.
  Then when the two of you talk about the nature of Reddit threads, you both feel like you're gaslighting each other, because you remember the positive feedback so keenly and she remembers every single word of the negative feedback.
  But in the end, the only real truth here is: on the Internet, women get more feedback than men do. >
  
  I don’t agree with your point about the positive things are ones that stays on our minds. 
  First of all, often when I read posts and comments, I LOOK for the positive comments to see if there are any on post where the comments are one sided. And absolutely, the comments are one sided for a reason, but i look for someone who just doesn’t call the man nasty words and so on and instead try to reason why a men would do such a thing.
  Second of all, why would my mind stick to the positive comments on the women post while the negative would stick on the men’s post? Also, psychologically, the negative is usually what grabs our attention and makes us interested, without drama many things would be uninteresting. >
  
  What I'm saying is that when you look at the comments on women's photos, and you see ten that say "You're fucking sexy I wanna fuck you" and you see one that says "you're an ugly bitch," you remember the ten and if you even notice the one, you think "well that guy has problems."
  But if you post your own photo, and nine people say "nice" and one person says "you look like a creepy pedophile," all you'll remember is that Reddit says you look like a creepy pedophile. >
  
  
  What I'm saying is that when you look at the comments on women's photos, and you see ten that say "You're fucking sexy I wanna fuck you" and you see one that says "you're an ugly bitch," you remember the ten and if you even notice the one, you think "well that guy has problems."
  
  Unless that's happening in a gonewild type subreddit, I think "those eleven guys have problems." >
  
  How many rape threats do you think active male redditors receive each week?  Because I received 1 last week just for the comments I made in this subreddit, and I wasn't even commenting that much. >
  
  As i told another person who also received threats, I am sorry to hear this and it’s obviously not ok. But the persons who sent these threats are a tiny portion of redditors in portion to how many people who decided to slaughter men in reddit comments. There are about 200-300 comments on a popular reddit post about how shitty the man is, while you have received one rape threat while you are anonymous. Do you see what I’m trying to say? >
  
  Can you link that post please? Just want to point out, if a man is factually shitty, pointing out he is shitty is not favoring men. >
  
  I suppose you mean that it isn’t favoring women? Well i dont really know how to link post but i can try. 
  And pointing out that a man is shitty when he is, that is not favoring women, so your correct. But what I’m saying is that people are favoring women by not labeling shitty women as shitty just because they’re a women. That is absolutely favoritism. >
  
  I want to push back on that too. Not issuing judgment on a certain party could be due to one's personal knowledge, not favoritism. I am male, and am therefore more likely to issue judgment on the male in a relationship dispute than the female because I understand that side better personally. If that means I issue no "asshole" judgments to women, that's not because I favor women, it's because I choose not to express an opinion where I don't have personal experience. >
  
  Reddit is so male-dominated that it banned several subreddits for trying to set up female-only communities. 
  For example, /r/TrueLesbians, which was intended as a female-only discussion forum for lesbians (because the subreddit /r/lesbians is, as one might expect for Reddit, a pornography forum dedicated to the male gaze), was shut down for excluding males.
  Another thing to keep in mind is the wholesale vilification of Amber Heard, across pretty much every subreddit that discussed her case. Reddit users love to hate on women when they have an opportunity to do so, especially when they can convince themselves it's somehow righteous to do so. >
  
  
  For example, /r/TrueLesbians, which was intended as a female-only discussion forum for lesbians (because the subreddit /r/lesbians is, as one might expect for Reddit, a pornography forum dedicated to the male gaze), was shut down for excluding males.
  
  I wasn't there for it, but based on some of your comments in other CMVs and general knowledge of TERF talking points, I'm guessing the sub was shut down for hating on trans women. >
  
  If that was the case, It took much longer for the incel community to be shut down. For that alone we can see that misoginy is a lot more tolerated than transphobia, for example >
  
  
  For that alone we can see that misoginy is a lot more tolerated than transphobia, for example
  
  Yeah, not surprised. Reddit is a home base for a lot of incels, but kind of peripheral to TERF social media. >
  
  
  but kind of peripheral to
  
  What do you mean..? >
  
  Both I and an acquaintance of mine have been opinionated on Reddit. He is a man and makes that clear from his posts and comments. I am a woman and also make that clear.
  I have received death and rape threats via DM from burner accounts. He has never received such threats. >
  
  I’m sorry to hear this and certainly don’t think it’s okay. But on the other and i must make the point that the people who sent these messages are often men, but a very tiny proportion of men on reddit. And I suspect that you don’t get as many total threats as the comments that are made on these posts calling men many bad things in total. >
  
  Well, depending on what you are exactly on about. Women are still second class citizens in  more than half the world and in the rest, they have only received rights in the past 100 years, so objectively, that isn't correct at all unless all reddit users are from countries where women have just as must rights as men and are not objectified for beign women( note very few of these countries exist) then you have the statistics on how many acts if violence or vulgarity are committed by men on women vs. women on men. 
  So it would make sense that any morally inclined individual would try to protect those who are more vulnerable across the world >
  
  First of all, i want to say that i understand your argument somewhat. 
  But you cannot take a global perspective of women when reddit are mainly Americans and Europeens, with some Australians as well, in other words west societies. There aren’t stories being told about women in Saudi or women in central Africa. The stories are about first world problems except the ones featuring clear violence towards women. So don’t argue about women all over the world when reddit aren’t featuring these people.
  Also, women have the same rights as men does in pretty much all the western societies. In fact, women have a right men don’t have which is that they can decide to not have a baby where as men cannot. (I’m pro-abolition so no need to make assumptions, and yes i know this right doesn’t exist in all western countries.) But to make the argument that women haven’t had rights for the past century is irrelevant in this context. People do not read a story on reddit about a man being mean to a woman and then think “women haven’t had rights very long, therefore this women who have hade rights and privilege all her life should get the most positive feedback she can get and we shall slaughter her man who doesn’t have any more rights than the women does”.
  And yes, men on women’s violence is awful and should bot happen, but just because some women experience violence doesn’t mean that you have to defend a person who hasn’t experienced violence in the story. And men also experience violence from women, but in smaller numbers. Still no one wants to make the argument you do when it’s the other way around. >
  
  Ok, so where to begin...
  
  Also, women have the same rights as men does in pretty much all the western societies.
  
  On paper only.. this is obviously by blatant disparities in wages, expressing pain/ill health at doctors hospitals, reporting crime(particularly rape/sexual assault)..so dont use the "everyone has the same right bs when in reality it's clearly not the case) 
  Wages still are not equal for equal work across the western work.. 
  Women are far more likely to suffer from sexual harassment(wolf whistling, ass grabbing and general verbal abuse) than men are.
  Women are far more likely to fall victim to spousal abuse.
  These list go on and on and on..
  So yes, in general, people take the woman's side because statistics and history say they are more likely the victim.
  All this without even taking the majority of the world into account because you dismissed it because Reddit is only western world >
  
  Well how often do you see someone on reddit go “I’m a 32 year old male from vietnam”? Or other countries? 
  The pay gap is a complex issue and has actually been backed by many highly educated people to be so. I personally don’t believe the pay gap is only due to gender but to many other things like personality traits that could be because of gender. Men also generally work harder which could be a reason. But to not write a whole paragraph on here, I recommend you listen to Dr. Jordan Peterson talking about the pay gap. I think he represents my opinion very well. 
  Now to your argument to women being more likely to be the victims. Absolutely, I can’t deny those statistics and it’s sad to see it happening. But you don’t mention the things men are more likely to be the victims for, which i would argue sometimes are much worse then the things women are the victims of (except things like rape). Men are more likely to get punished in court and are also likely to get a more harsh sentencing then women for the same crime, but no one talks about that. Men are more likely to go to war and also die in war, yet no one talks about that. Men are more likely to commit suicide, no one talks about that. Men are more likely to be the victim of shootings, no one talks about that. So we both can go on about how men and women have it harder statistically, but you cannot deny that women being victims are talked about WAY more then men being victims of things that could lead to their death. >
  
  ooof Jordan Peterson is known to BS about things he doesn't understand. Look at the Canadian law amendment about transgenderism that shot him to fame. Even the Canadian Law Society came out with a letter saying his take was absurd. I assume if you follow him you knew about the amendment did you read it....doesn't say at all what he claimed it did. Take his views with heavy scepticism he relies on you not doing the easy leg work that proves he's wrong. 
  For example :
  The Bill is super short so I am posting it here. It was just adding the words “gender identity or expression” to three places, I have highlighted them for you.You can see that since it hasn't forced speech to call people by their correct sexual orientation or race it was a big leap to think adding the words gender identity or expression would lead to compelled speech for pronouns.________________________________________________________________An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code[Assented to 19th June, 2017]Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:R.‍S.‍, c. H-6Canadian Human Rights Act1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)
  1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:Purpose2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)
  2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:Prohibited grounds of discrimination3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression*, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.R.‍S.‍, c. C-46Criminal Code2014, c. 31, s. 123* 
  Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:Definition of identifiable group(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression*, or mental or physical disability.1995, c. 22, s. 64* 
  Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression*, or on any other similar factor,* >
  
  Well, I’m not a lawyer I you probably aren’t either. Laws can be turned and twisted so I’m not going to comment on the law of Canada since I don’t understand it well enough. 
  What Jordan said was that he has no problem with calling someone by their preferred pronouns. The issue he had is that people are saying the government are telling him what he HAS to say. He believes that is dangerous because it hurts free speech which is a human right. He believes that if the government keep doing this (telling people what the HAVE to say) free speech will essentially be gone in a few decades. That is what Jordan said. 
  And what do you mean Jordan is known for not knowing his stuff and what he is talking about. He is as educated as you can be. He was a teacher at a university for a reason. And even if he was known for not knowing his thing, does that just make his beliefs about the pay gap invalid? 
  Of course I’m always sceptic to things on the internet, and people who aren’t will end up delusional which I don’t want to be. When I listen to Jordan, there are always something that I don’t agree with. I’m not that stupid that i just listen to him without having a second thought. >
  
  
  What Jordan said...... the government are telling him what he HAS to say
  
  that was a BULLSHIT take.... the Canadian Bar Association (The leading Canadian legal body) came out and said it is Bullshit. 
  
  He believes that if the government keep doing this (telling people what the HAVE to say) 
  
  They are not doing that though....the amendment passed.....it has been the law if the land for 6 years. It is functioning exactly as the Canadian Bar Association said it would and as I or any rational person would have read the law amendment I posted above.  
  
  does that just make his beliefs about the pay gap invalid?
  
  It makes his opinions outside of his area of expertise suspect as he has demonstrated a willingness to ignore experts in the field like the Canadian Bar Association and not to correct himself when presented with his errors.  
  
  He is as educated as you can be
  
  I have a couple degrees and friends with PHD's from Oxford, MBA's from Harvard & many other credentials....they are brilliant in their field and ignorant in others. Being an expert in one field does not mean you know much about another...and often it gives people a false sense of their ability in unrelated fields. You're basically committing the logical fallacy  Appeal to False Authority. Jordan Peterson is the guy who breaks when his car starts to fishtail on ice and then claim he acted appropriately....literally an argument I had with the PhD from Oxford. You can know a lot in a field and still not  remember enough high school physics to be a safe driver . He lacks humility for the expertise he does not have.  Another example of him speaking ignorantly was when he debated Slavoj Žižek and displayed an embarrassingly poor reading/understanding of the Communist Manifesto. He has demonstrated time and time again he talks authoritatively on subjects he only has a layman's level of research and understanding of...there is no reason to think his views on the gender pay gap are not equally dismissive of experts and due to poor/misreadings of studies just like his misreadings of the legal amendment and the manifesto. >
  
  I’m gonna say once again, you don’t have to link these laws as I don’t understand the text. English is not my first language. But I get it, you don’t like Jordan Peterson and that’s fine, but I like him and I think he has many wise and good thoughts of things. And if the take that the government controls what he says is BS, then why did nobody debating him bring up this point, that he has actually not understood the law? Maybe there is something I’m missing because I don’t understand English well enough to read law in English.  Perhaps you can help me understand but linking long texts of the law doesn’t help.