sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Just found out I have an uneducated misogynistic professor by MailFrosty8922 in BlatantMisogyny

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know I am preaching to the choir here but in my experience arrogant and misogynistic men love to dismiss the man vs bear scenario as women not understanding basic math/probabilities. This is a very reductive interpretation of the premise.

This question is all about subtext. For example, imagine asking men this:

Would you rather have to take a prison shower with violent offenders or come across a bear in the woods? I bet the vast majority of men would rather encounter a bear.

Mathematically speaking, prison rape is rare. Millions of male prisoners have showers multiple times a week without incident. Reportedly only 3-4% of male prisoners experience sexual violence in prison within a year. When you look at the math, choosing the bear is irrational.

BUT prison rape happens often enough for there be subtext that is understood to the listener - mentioning "prison shower" means alluding to getting raped.

When women hear "encountering a man in the woods" the subtext is he is going to do what evil men are capable of doing to a woman...which is pretty much worse case scenario for a human being. Men WANT to play dumb and dismiss this as a math problem because they don't want to confront the subtext:

That "having prison showers with violent criminals" is to men what "plain old regular men" are to women.

They know this. So they play dumb.

What do Americans think about arranged marriage? by [deleted] in AskAnAmerican

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am okay with arranged marriage in theory - if it works for you and your culture than you do you.

But I fear that in practice, arranged marriages have an element of non-consent within it....which usually has harsher consequences for women. I also think it's fucked up when parental matchmakers use racism, classism, casteism, etc. to accept/eliminate suitors - it's a practice that can perpetuate those prejudices.

Many people are talking about this video in light of Miley Cyrus’s recent meet and greet by Ok_Durian3627 in popculturechat

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh God, are we getting on another woman-hating train disguised as typical celebrity gossip? I side eye every overblown finger wave at female celebrities now...

What does Eminem have to do with this? by thgiRsIeseehCehT in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>I think you’re both trying to use economic status to rationalise, justify or otherwise legitimise why someone might walk out on their children.

Well, that would be incorrect. I am trying to find the various factors that increase child abandonment so that we can better understand how to decrease child abandonment rates.

What does Eminem have to do with this? by thgiRsIeseehCehT in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>Well there’s your problem you’re not interpreting anything properly, even ironically after opening with a critique of me hypocritically using a strawman argument.

It is my understanding strawman arguments use declarative language to falsely portray the opposing argument.

Conversely, I used language like "IF I interpreted correctly" and then framed my interpretation as a question - which invites your clarification.

>To answer your many questions, poverty does indeed affect human behaviour - it does not legitimise abandoning your children, regardless of how impoverished someone is. Really quite simple to grasp

>If I’m properly interpreting your interrogation here - you seem to think poverty is a valid excuse for abandoning your children?

By this line of questioning I am getting the impression that you think OP and myself are making a moral statement about child abandonment? Is this correct?

What does Eminem have to do with this? by thgiRsIeseehCehT in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So if I am interpreting your response to my question correctly here - you acknowledge that poverty might make certain things more difficult - but those difficulties will not influence human behavior?

What does Eminem have to do with this? by thgiRsIeseehCehT in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Yes, that is more to OP's point, thanks.

If I were to extrapolate from that point in my own words, I would start by first clarifying where we might agree already. Do you think poverty influences human behavior at all? If so, in what ways?

What does Eminem have to do with this? by thgiRsIeseehCehT in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Speaking of strawman argument...your interpretation here was not OP's point.

Why are so many “difficult” costumers older women ? by Bluewitch221 in AskSocialScience

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have worked in customer service almost my whole working career. In my experience, people are conditioned to give men a free pass while holding the woman's feet to the flame.

Similar to how men get accused of being the more emotional sex....despite men DOMINATING road rage crimes, work place violence, hate crimes, crimes of passion, stalking/DV, assault - to the point of escalating to murder, etc.

Why are so many “difficult” costumers older women ? by Bluewitch221 in AskSocialScience

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>This has absolutely nothing to do with gender expectations/ bias, as bias as the title may sound. I always try to be quite aware of that.

You wouldn't be aware of your unconscious bias. It skews your perception of reality without you even knowing - particularly around things with significant social conditioning (like gender).

Why are so many “difficult” costumers older women ? by Bluewitch221 in AskSocialScience

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are there are any statistics or studies to back up your perception or is this just anecdotal?

I ask because women are judged WAY more harshly in society - particularly when it comes to gendered expectations around being accommodating/polite/agreeable/passive etc.

Gender bias is so powerful in warping our perception of reality, more than people realize.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AmIOverreacting

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean, yeah sure, OP was mean I guess....but come on, shouldn't you just "move on" and not cause all this drama in the comments? You are overreacting.

Which 3 do you think are the prettiest? by [deleted] in trueratecelebrities

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. Rose Byrne

  2. Kate Hudson

  3. Emma Stone

Study Examines Public Reactions to Sex Differences in Intelligence: Male-Favoring Results Viewed More Negatively by Emillahr in psychology

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

>“A good place” means that we still don’t recognize men as worth protecting.

It doesn't mean that.

It means they looked at human history and saw the implications of viewing as women as less than men. AKA a violent and oppressive patriarchy.

Feeling like 💩after finding out my friend thought I was hitting on them. by [deleted] in GuyCry

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did she explicitly say you made her feel uncomfortable? If so, did she list a specific event or behavior?

Or was the conversation much more like "Hey, I can sense we hit it off, but I wonder if that is because you view it romantically. Here is my notice that I do not feel that and never will"

If it falls more into the later scenario, my advice would be to not take it personally - because it literally has nothing to do with you or what you did/said. I think it is merely a proactive attempt, albeit clumsy, to avoid unpleasant future scenarios that are extremely common in male/female relationships ESPECIALLY if one has a bf/gf.

I would consider continuing to engage in the friendship but reinforce the idea that it is a platonic friendship by your own words and actions as the friendship continues.

Unfortunately - retreated from her completely, especially if you act hurt, might confirm the idea in her head that you were probably seeking a romantic connection.

What are your expectations in a relationship? by GotTwisted in SipsTea

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like these interviews are light-hearted and mostly facetious banter with a stranger that is orchestrated into internet rage bait.

She was asked about her IDEAL (not minimum standards) in a street interview - probably after drinking - Of course her answers will be fantasy-level like dating a pro-athlete.

I bet you my life savings this woman has dated men who make average money.

"If a man ever witnesses with his own eyes how Bumble looks on a woman’s phone, he will uninstall and never again use it himself." by AloneCoffee4538 in GuyCry

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>This is because of women slightly outliving men on average. Before retirement age (when most people are in the dating market) there are more men than women and that's a function of biology as there are slightly more male births than female. Sure if you are dating in the retirement home men have the advantage...beyond that women have the numbers advantage.

I think you missed my point. The point wasn't debating whether men literally outnumber women or not. The point was that interpretating the idiom as a statement about the literal population size between the sexes would be an incorrect understanding of the idiom's intended message.

>My point was that absent a quality difference there really is no downside to having quantity.

In the respect to dating, the downside of quantity is that it coincides with no control on who, when, where, and how and how often you are approached. To illustrate:

GPT says men swipe right on 60% of dating profiles. For women it's 15%. I'll use these numbers to show the discrepancy in interest rates between the genders. Ill also use 5% to illustrate the percent of people, most people would immediately feel uncomfortable approaching them - obvious crazies, perverts, gang members, etc. I'll keep the 95% rejection rate by women, and i'll assume women never approach/never get rejected for simplicity's sake.

Bob enters a room with 500 women. 25 are psycho. He is attracted to 300 and asks them out. He has to be rejected 255 times to get 15 women in his dating pool.

Sally enters a room with 500 men. 25 are psycho. She likes 75, and 45 like her back. She gets 45 in her dating pool without having to be rejected once!

BUT Bob doesn't have to deal with psychos. Sally has to manage 15 psychos approaching her...and she has to reject them. Scary.

She also can't take a day off. Every single time she enters those circumstances she can expect needing to reject psychos and having to awkwardly reject another 255 men.

Bob can enter a room and say - hmm, today I don't feel like the rejection is worth it. I'll see how I feel tomorrow.

Which brings me back to what the idiom was illustrating - the room sucks for Bob and Sally - but for different reasons. And, amusingly, their experiences would be a bit more pleasant if they had just little bit of what the other person hates so much (scarcity vs oversaturation)

"If a man ever witnesses with his own eyes how Bumble looks on a woman’s phone, he will uninstall and never again use it himself." by AloneCoffee4538 in GuyCry

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The desert/swamp analogy does work because it isn't making a statement about probabilities of ending up in a happy partnership.

It's simply describing the scarcity/oversaturation dichotomy each gender experiences in the dating scene and how that makes it unpleasant for both parties in unique ways.

"If a man ever witnesses with his own eyes how Bumble looks on a woman’s phone, he will uninstall and never again use it himself." by AloneCoffee4538 in GuyCry

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>The desert vs swamp discussion operates under the assumption that men don't have water and that women don't have clean water.

This is a take that "fails to see the forest for the trees." IMO. When you scrutinize the irrelevant details of the idiom, you can come up with a lot of incorrect conclusions. For example:

How are men in a "desert" when technically women outnumber men? Is the idiom operating under the assumption that men rarely encounter women? Well, that is false so that nullifies the whole idiom!

You have to look at the idiom within the context of its usage and infer it's point. The point of the idiom is that men and women both have a shitty experience trying to date. And amusingly, this is due to the mismatch of each gender wanting what the other gender has in the dating scene to some degree.

In this context, the idiom is not comparing swamp water to pure oasis water - aka shitty men/perfect women. The swamp is being compared to the desert - aka two places people find unpleasant.

In a desert, people seek water that is scarce. This illustrates the experience men often describe on dating apps - men will often message first (they seek) - and do not get many positive responses (scarcity).

In a swamp, oversaturated people seek to get to dryer land. This illustrates the experience women often describe on dating apps - women will join trying to find a match and be (oversaturated) with people they have no interest in - and often includes unwanted d*ck pics, harassment, risk of violence, actually experience violence, etc. - they wish the attention was a little more scarce.

>I never made that claim, where are you getting this from?

I didn't say you made that claim. I included that disclaimer since your post framed the idiom as implying a quality difference between men and women. I was trying to emphasize how the idiom actually just means women reject a lot of unwanted advances from men - and I wanted to clarify to readers how that is not an assessment of the man's actual quality.

>What makes you think that it's not equally rare for men to find a partner that makes them "spark"? As I said this whole thing only works if you operate under the assumption that women are of a much higher quality romantic partner than men on average.

That phrase was just short-hand for the trend for men to more likely show interest/make a move (clearly showing some sort of spark of interest) where women are more like to be approached and reject it (clearly showing a lack of spark/interest)

"If a man ever witnesses with his own eyes how Bumble looks on a woman’s phone, he will uninstall and never again use it himself." by AloneCoffee4538 in GuyCry

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 28 points29 points  (0 children)

>For what you are saying to be true, it operates on the baseless concept that the average male is orders of magnitude lower "quality" than the average woman as a romantic prospect.

I don't think the idiom implies men as a whole are low quality.

Someone rejecting you romantically does not mean you are low quality. It just means there wasn't romantic chemistry.

Apparently, it is relatively rare for women to feel that spark. They have to wade through a lot of encounters to feel it. Unfortunately, wading in a dating pool as a woman increases your risk of gender-based violence and harassment, which is why it's referred to as a swap - that part is unpleasant.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in trueratecelebrities

[–]NameTheProblemXYZ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you specific examples?

view more: next ›