Just imagine the outrage if it were half as common for men to state they won't date women with bust size less than X as it is for women to state they won't date men shorter than Y.
The parent post was pretty clear that death threats and juvenile insults were not okay. Merely that he behaved in a way that was sure to increase tension. It isn't about doing or not doing something noteworthy.
Sometimes the best way to refute ideas is by showing how absurd they are with humour by making fun of them. I can certainly see an idea about increasing sexism being one of them.
So you started your post claiming that stating he "shares the blame" is victim blaming and ended it with "responsibility isn't a zero-sum game". Which is it?
Granted, they're currently using the grid as a "battery," rather than actually doing local energy storage
Exactly, it's totally possible as long as not everyone else is doing it. If you can't rely on that dirty grid then you have to worry about that pesky energy storage problem. You could leverage your vastly above average standard of living and put in a storage system but to think that this system would be available to the world is absurd. A battery pack capable of sustaining a house just isn't physically possible for every house on the planet. You wouldn't even be able to put one in every house in the US.
That there is enough solar energy in the "sunniest places worldwide" to power current usage speaks nothing of its feasibility of physical/technological possibility. People will tell you we can build a space elevator as well; it doesn't mean we got space travel on lock-down.
Tu quoque isn't a counter-point. "Fuck you I've got mine" seems to be the centre point of every political ideology. Which is probably why the most successful economies are more fluid and don't adhere to any strict rules.
You have a rather incomplete knowledge on this. It was not "buying" a wife. It had many functions and reasons but to think it was about ownership, slavery or chattel is just plain wrong. In fact its main purpose in Europe was specifically to assign wealth to the woman in the event she outlived her husband. Also to give incentive to the husband to treat his "chattel" right. We'd call it preemptive alimony or divorce insurance.
It was also customary for the bride's family to provide holdings in a marriage. Would you normally pay someone to take your chattel from you? If so I think we should do business.
You should really look into dower and dowry laws and traditions from non-feminist sources. They are brazenly biased.
What natural order? Among both our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, the females are at least as agressive in pursuing mates as the males, if often somewhat subtler in their approach.
You mean like make-up, pushup bras and clothing explicitly designed to broadcast female sexuality? Because women are pretty aggressive and compete fiercely with that stuff. Or is that not subtle enough?
The idea that you have no choice but to initiate - really? Have you thought this through? Or maybe it's that you don't like the idea of sitting around waiting for someone to maybe pick you someday?
You seem to miss the meaning. Men largely do not have this choice. Very few women make the first move (an incontestable truth) which really leaves the responsibility up to individual men if they want to meet women. It is not a cultural preference; it is a cultural fact. Men love having attractive women approach them. It just never happens to the vast majority of men.
A lot of women aren't getting asked.
There are plenty of reasons for this. A primary being things like #everydaysexism considering men talking to strange women street harassment.
I get a lot more attention than a number of friends who are frankly far hotter, probably from being the right kind of outspoken bitch
It is likely because you give off a "not a bitch" vibe. Being as you do not mind making the first move you likely understand its risks and your demeanour probably reflects that you won't respond negatively or violently.
A cultural expectation that you're supposed to wait is hardly a privilege in that case, yes?
For every privilege there is a con to come along with it. Letting other people do the work is certainly beneficial when there are desirable people willing to do the work. The benefit you have is being able to have it both ways.
Women aren't saying they want to make the first move. They have that ability and, as the article says, they are not doing it. They don't want the ability to make the first move (which they have); they want an easier, faster and more impersonal way of rejecting.
but the socialization against making the first move is pretty harsh.
and probably partly as a buffer against their fear of rejection - men often ritually objectify women amongst themselves*
* Or in groups with small numbers of women where they feel comfortable, I've been present for enough of that, and I suspect at that they were holding back.
This is extremely single sided for two reasons. One: men are allowed to find women physically attractive and they are allowed to express that. It is not a buffer against anything; it is human sexuality. Talk about social stigma about a gender not being allowed to like sex. Sheesh.
Two: Women do this too! I have been privy to many female "ritual objectifications" about men. (And I expect they were holding back). There is nothing wrong with that.
** And, of course, there's all the social stigma around women liking sex. Which is ridiculous, at least in these days of decent birth control, but there are still strong cultural currents. (It's kind of ridiculous how many times I've invited a guy into my bed, he made sure I meant for no strings sex, I cheerfully agreed... and then in the morning he decided we should be in a relationship. Um, what?)
Your bracketed text seems to contradict your other bit or is completely unrelated. Men and women seem to be fairly equally vocal about not wanting someone from the opposite sex that is just interested in sex. They both also seem to be equally unconcerned about that aspect when it comes down to getting some from someone they are attracted to. I will agree that women are more vocal about other promiscuous women than men are about other promiscuous men though (promiscuous in the has lots of no-strings sex).
From a numbers game it makes sense to go for someone that does not have tonnes of random sex if you are looking for a relationship. For both genders.
The more barriers you put up for men the less decent men you are going to get. Do you really think good-looking, well-spoken and likable men are going to jump through demeaning hoops just for the privilege of talking to a random girl on the Internet? Any guy that fits those categories is going to look for women where he's not insulted by design. He's probably also got enough experience with women to know that if a girl expects you to play that many games for her she has a very high chance of being an entitled brat.
I do actually understand that version of creep as well. And I agree that it is probably the majority of what the girls in this article are talking about. I was addressing the parent post's comment about men with a lack of "social relationship skills". Lack of social skills is almost universally considered creepy (being as the person doesn't understand when they are making the other uncomfortable).
My original post was a short quip but I was expressing basically the same sentiment as you are here.
Of course it does. I've been stalked and physically harassed by some absolute bush pigs. The difference is I dont make a big deal out of it.
You're right it does go both ways. I should have been more clear and said it's nearly invisible the other way. It will happen less due to aforementioned gender disparity in who is expected to make the first move and because one is in the media spotlight.
What you described is genuinely creepy though. Both to men and to women. It is not quite in the same league as "look at this loser that messaged me; he's sooo creepy".
Of course there are many men that don't understand what women have to "wade" through. They also don't care; they are looking for the women that can deal with or enjoy this sort of thing.
Of course it doesn't go the other way. The messages will essentially only go one way: from men to women. That is backed up even in the summary; women don't send messages so obviously men don't get a lot of creepy or unwanted messages from women.
Additionally, yes men with low social skills will be on dating apps / web sites. They are still the ones expected to make the first move so they use informal methods like this to test the waters. But they are bad at it so get labelled creepy. They may just seriously not understand social norms and why they are creepy.
You should also not underestimate the effectiveness of messages that you (or I) would consider outrages. I have seen guys get good responses from messages that I would consider way over the top. I don't understand it but it does seem to be a decent strategy. 9 out of 10 women might hate it but if it gives better results than other methods people are going to use it.
I wouldn't expect you not to get mad about other males. They are your competition after all.
Lots of people call it a dating app. Including the article and the summary of this very discussion. It is most definitely not "about sex; that's it". It is definitely heavily inspired by hookup culture but if that's all it was used for there wouldn't be so many "Not DTF" (down to fuck) profiles on it.
These women seem frustrated that there are so many men they don't approve of approaching them. Apparently they think continuing to enforce the paradigm of "men must do all the work to gain my favour" is going to fix that.
You aren't hunting on 100 acres of land and you definitely could not farm and hunt it at the same time. That could not support a single human let alone a village.
Meat does not have to be the corner-stone of your diet. Nor does everybody like the same bland food that you like. You sound like you are ashamed of your inability to handle spicy food like others so you feel the need to compensate by calling it "shit".
Slashdot Mirror
Just imagine the outrage if it were half as common for men to state they won't date women with bust size less than X as it is for women to state they won't date men shorter than Y.
You certainly would if you are ever in the circumstance of needing it.
The parent post was pretty clear that death threats and juvenile insults were not okay. Merely that he behaved in a way that was sure to increase tension. It isn't about doing or not doing something noteworthy.
Sometimes the best way to refute ideas is by showing how absurd they are with humour by making fun of them. I can certainly see an idea about increasing sexism being one of them.
So you started your post claiming that stating he "shares the blame" is victim blaming and ended it with "responsibility isn't a zero-sum game". Which is it?
Granted, they're currently using the grid as a "battery," rather than actually doing local energy storage
Exactly, it's totally possible as long as not everyone else is doing it. If you can't rely on that dirty grid then you have to worry about that pesky energy storage problem. You could leverage your vastly above average standard of living and put in a storage system but to think that this system would be available to the world is absurd. A battery pack capable of sustaining a house just isn't physically possible for every house on the planet. You wouldn't even be able to put one in every house in the US.
That there is enough solar energy in the "sunniest places worldwide" to power current usage speaks nothing of its feasibility of physical/technological possibility. People will tell you we can build a space elevator as well; it doesn't mean we got space travel on lock-down.
Tu quoque isn't a counter-point. "Fuck you I've got mine" seems to be the centre point of every political ideology. Which is probably why the most successful economies are more fluid and don't adhere to any strict rules.
You are correct. 39% is less than 100%.
This is why I'm libertarian -- the atheism of politics.
In no way shape or form is that true. Libertarianism requires all kinds of beliefs and assertions. The atheism of politics is "apolitical".
You have a rather incomplete knowledge on this. It was not "buying" a wife. It had many functions and reasons but to think it was about ownership, slavery or chattel is just plain wrong. In fact its main purpose in Europe was specifically to assign wealth to the woman in the event she outlived her husband. Also to give incentive to the husband to treat his "chattel" right. We'd call it preemptive alimony or divorce insurance.
It was also customary for the bride's family to provide holdings in a marriage. Would you normally pay someone to take your chattel from you? If so I think we should do business.
You should really look into dower and dowry laws and traditions from non-feminist sources. They are brazenly biased.
What natural order? Among both our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, the females are at least as agressive in pursuing mates as the males, if often somewhat subtler in their approach.
You mean like make-up, pushup bras and clothing explicitly designed to broadcast female sexuality? Because women are pretty aggressive and compete fiercely with that stuff. Or is that not subtle enough?
The idea that you have no choice but to initiate - really? Have you thought this through? Or maybe it's that you don't like the idea of sitting around waiting for someone to maybe pick you someday?
You seem to miss the meaning. Men largely do not have this choice. Very few women make the first move (an incontestable truth) which really leaves the responsibility up to individual men if they want to meet women. It is not a cultural preference; it is a cultural fact. Men love having attractive women approach them. It just never happens to the vast majority of men.
A lot of women aren't getting asked.
There are plenty of reasons for this. A primary being things like #everydaysexism considering men talking to strange women street harassment.
I get a lot more attention than a number of friends who are frankly far hotter, probably from being the right kind of outspoken bitch
It is likely because you give off a "not a bitch" vibe. Being as you do not mind making the first move you likely understand its risks and your demeanour probably reflects that you won't respond negatively or violently.
A cultural expectation that you're supposed to wait is hardly a privilege in that case, yes?
For every privilege there is a con to come along with it. Letting other people do the work is certainly beneficial when there are desirable people willing to do the work. The benefit you have is being able to have it both ways.
Women aren't saying they want to make the first move. They have that ability and, as the article says, they are not doing it. They don't want the ability to make the first move (which they have); they want an easier, faster and more impersonal way of rejecting.
but the socialization against making the first move is pretty harsh.
Yeah, rejection sucks.
and probably partly as a buffer against their fear of rejection - men often ritually objectify women amongst themselves*
* Or in groups with small numbers of women where they feel comfortable, I've been present for enough of that, and I suspect at that they were holding back.
This is extremely single sided for two reasons. One: men are allowed to find women physically attractive and they are allowed to express that. It is not a buffer against anything; it is human sexuality. Talk about social stigma about a gender not being allowed to like sex. Sheesh.
Two: Women do this too! I have been privy to many female "ritual objectifications" about men. (And I expect they were holding back). There is nothing wrong with that.
** And, of course, there's all the social stigma around women liking sex. Which is ridiculous, at least in these days of decent birth control, but there are still strong cultural currents. (It's kind of ridiculous how many times I've invited a guy into my bed, he made sure I meant for no strings sex, I cheerfully agreed... and then in the morning he decided we should be in a relationship. Um, what?)
Your bracketed text seems to contradict your other bit or is completely unrelated. Men and women seem to be fairly equally vocal about not wanting someone from the opposite sex that is just interested in sex. They both also seem to be equally unconcerned about that aspect when it comes down to getting some from someone they are attracted to. I will agree that women are more vocal about other promiscuous women than men are about other promiscuous men though (promiscuous in the has lots of no-strings sex).
From a numbers game it makes sense to go for someone that does not have tonnes of random sex if you are looking for a relationship. For both genders.
The more barriers you put up for men the less decent men you are going to get. Do you really think good-looking, well-spoken and likable men are going to jump through demeaning hoops just for the privilege of talking to a random girl on the Internet? Any guy that fits those categories is going to look for women where he's not insulted by design. He's probably also got enough experience with women to know that if a girl expects you to play that many games for her she has a very high chance of being an entitled brat.
Creep == man I dont want attention from.
I do actually understand that version of creep as well. And I agree that it is probably the majority of what the girls in this article are talking about. I was addressing the parent post's comment about men with a lack of "social relationship skills". Lack of social skills is almost universally considered creepy (being as the person doesn't understand when they are making the other uncomfortable).
My original post was a short quip but I was expressing basically the same sentiment as you are here.
Of course it does. I've been stalked and physically harassed by some absolute bush pigs. The difference is I dont make a big deal out of it.
You're right it does go both ways. I should have been more clear and said it's nearly invisible the other way. It will happen less due to aforementioned gender disparity in who is expected to make the first move and because one is in the media spotlight.
What you described is genuinely creepy though. Both to men and to women. It is not quite in the same league as "look at this loser that messaged me; he's sooo creepy".
Of course there are many men that don't understand what women have to "wade" through. They also don't care; they are looking for the women that can deal with or enjoy this sort of thing.
Of course it doesn't go the other way. The messages will essentially only go one way: from men to women. That is backed up even in the summary; women don't send messages so obviously men don't get a lot of creepy or unwanted messages from women.
Additionally, yes men with low social skills will be on dating apps / web sites. They are still the ones expected to make the first move so they use informal methods like this to test the waters. But they are bad at it so get labelled creepy. They may just seriously not understand social norms and why they are creepy.
You should also not underestimate the effectiveness of messages that you (or I) would consider outrages. I have seen guys get good responses from messages that I would consider way over the top. I don't understand it but it does seem to be a decent strategy. 9 out of 10 women might hate it but if it gives better results than other methods people are going to use it.
I wouldn't expect you not to get mad about other males. They are your competition after all.
Lots of people call it a dating app. Including the article and the summary of this very discussion. It is most definitely not "about sex; that's it". It is definitely heavily inspired by hookup culture but if that's all it was used for there wouldn't be so many "Not DTF" (down to fuck) profiles on it.
These women seem frustrated that there are so many men they don't approve of approaching them. Apparently they think continuing to enforce the paradigm of "men must do all the work to gain my favour" is going to fix that.
That is exactly how Tinder works. The men, however, get the same power on Tinder which I think is what these women have the problem with.
You aren't hunting on 100 acres of land and you definitely could not farm and hunt it at the same time. That could not support a single human let alone a village.
Meat does not have to be the corner-stone of your diet. Nor does everybody like the same bland food that you like. You sound like you are ashamed of your inability to handle spicy food like others so you feel the need to compensate by calling it "shit".
Were you trying to say Windows PCs were "toys"? I think most might disagree with that.
As for quoted response - imagine buying a PC during 90s era where you didn't have enough permission to uninstall AOL.
Or like trying to uninstall first party software like IE. Oh wait...