That's not quite true. Women are much more likely to receive threats because they are more vulnerable. Just like bullies pick on those they perceive to be weak, abusers target those they perceive to be easy targets.

"Women are much more likely to receive threats because they are more vulnerable"

So you are saying that women are different and need to be treated in a different way than men? I thought we were trying to avoid this and treat women the same as men?

I think we should treat someone that's receiving death and rape threats on a daily basis differently than someone who does not. That we should treat someone that's more likely to be raped or killed differently than someone who is not that likely. And because the people receiving death and rape threats are also the people more likely getting raped and killed, that makes something considered as "taunting" much more real.

You are right, we should avoid treating women differently than men, that's something we're all able to agree on. That does not mean that men and women in our societies are treated the same as of now.

Women should not be considered as more vulnerable, yet that's how they are perceive, and that's also what they are being taught:

- don't fight, don't fight back

- always smile and be pretty

- don't get angry, that just shows you're hysterical/on your period/pregnant and hormone-crazy

- agree with the males, especially when they make sexist jokes, that makes you really cool

- don't be a feminist and try to improve your condition

We should not treat women differently than men, but letting society/communities/bullies target one group more than the other and then refusing to acknowledge it or to empathize with it, seems like a convenient way of not taking responsability, as a society/community, and not try to improve ourselves.

Stats or GTFO.

Not everything in life can be apprehended through stats, and sometimes we should be able to simply acknowledge the fact that others are having a hard time because of the way we're shaping our society.

But anyways, here's something that's been posted earlier : "In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7."

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-ar...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060731153456.ht...

PS: feel free to dismiss these numbers.

Aha, so now we're back to talking about online harassment, which is NOT what the title of the linked article is implying.

People in this thread need to make up their minds.

And if you want me to listen to your arguments, don't side with people who are trying to hijack entire populations for their own agenda.

I don't want you to listen to my arguments, I was simply answering to your question about stats. I have often found out that convincing people that didn't want to be convinced took way too much energy.

For the necessary intellectual rigour we need on HN, I cannot allow combining only tangentially related arguments to create a narrative.