Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think technology is somewhat to blame, and agree with you in a way.

With broadcast mediums and technology, we first made it easy to compare any potential with the pool of all potential partners, and so many women (the historical gatekeepers of sex and relationships, fair or not) began to hold out on local suitors because they didn't meet some platonic ideal they'd seen once somewhere.

Now technology has ticked again, and men have access to a marketplace of potential mates. Unfortunately, women are no longer the gatekeepers on relationships or sex, and the winning strategies in this new market happen to be uncouth and crass and, most importantly, effective.

Speaking frankly as a somewhat bitter and jilted engineer:

If they'd wanted traditional relationships, they should've been friendlier and less aloof when they were being courted earlier.

Now that we're older and wiser and more financially secure, and with the technology giving us a ripe marketplace for relationships, why settle for anything less than convenience and our own arbitrary standards?

"and so many women (the historical gatekeepers of sex and relationships, fair or not) began to hold out on local suitors because they didn't meet some platonic ideal they'd seen once somewhere."

Citation needed. Pretty sure women had standards before television and movies.

"If they'd wanted traditional relationships, they should've been friendlier and less aloof when they were being courted earlier."

Ah, the 'nice guy' argument. Plus a bit of generalizing. It disturbs me that you refer to women as 'they' as if they all collectively decided to ignore you.

So, for the first part, it follows pretty directly from basic logic:

Assume women are looking for mates (reasonable). Assume women will more favorably choose a mate the farther they are above some arbitrary standard (reasonable, though at the extreme end we see falloff--"I don't deserve him, he'd never date me, etc."--sames as we do in the other direction). Assume that these standards are the result of exposure to local norms (an example: as a friend returned from Kazakhstan explained to me, "A good Kazakh man is one who doesn't beat his wife after bedding down with a whore"). Assume that mass broadcast and the internet have redefined what local is (reasonable).

It follows then that standards are being influenced by members outside of the physical local community of women (for an example of similar issues, consider the body image research done with Barbies and other deconstructions of beauty).

That being the case, it seems perfectly reasonable that these same standards can be raised above local market rates.

Ah, the 'nice guy' argument.

Well, no, not really--the observation is that, at a time where there was a large supply of men looking for traditional arrangements, they held out, and now with the advent of technology, that supply has decreased because of the substitute good of hookups enabled by Tinder et al.

There's no point in being mad, for example, that carriages are hard to come by if you didn't buy until cars were widespread.

I'm a bit bitter because it all seems like such a waste: some of us were disappointed before, some of them are being disappointed now, and the sum total of unhappiness in the system (taken through time) has increased unnecessarily. It's just unfortunate, and could've been avoided.

It disturbs me that you refer to women as 'they' as if they all collectively decided to ignore you.

Don't read too much into it...it's just a useful and short pronoun in English to refer to women, saving a few characters.

Inaccurate assumption #1: There was a time when all men wanted traditional relationships. Inaccurate assumption #2: That all women rejected these traditional arrangements. Inaccurate assumption #3: That all women are now regretting the outcome of their collective actions.

Reality: Women made individual choices as to which relationships they wanted to pursue. And being rejected by a woman still doesn't give you the right to be an asshole.

Several women in the article certainly seem to be regretting the outcome of their collective actions:

"“It’s a contest to see who cares less, and guys win a lot at caring less,” Amanda says."

"“No, like 90 percent,” said Ashley (the same as mentioned earlier). “I’m hoping to find the 10 percent somewhere. But every boy I’ve ever met is a fuckboy.”"

As for the rest...you keep wanting to insert the "all" qualifier into things as though that is some kind of legitimate critique. The use of "women" instead of "all women" is intentional, as it denotes a sort of large number instead of universality.

If I'd said "all women", "all men", etc., I would agree with your critique--but I didn't.

You're basically talking past my observations. Your inaccurate assumptions are not those that I used anywhere in my reasoning, least of all because of your insistence on prepending "all" in front of everything.

And being rejected by a woman still doesn't give you the right to be an asshole.

On Hacker News we do tend to shy away from namecalling. :)

I do agree with you on a few points (like the sum total of unhappiness has increased) but man you do need to go out and meet some women who break your stereotypes. Everytime I make any stereotype I am really eager to find someone who breaks them and with women its really very easy because for every bitchy girl I meet, I also meet at least three girls who are super nice! You just have to keep going till you meet them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com