luckily i am married and had my fair share of partners. but nowadays i would be scared as hell to even take the first step in the club. i mean, i might easily become a toxic male sexual predator exposed on social media trying to drug a victim by offering to buy a drink :-)
Work is for work, not finding a wife or mistress or staring at breasts. The club and dating apps is where you go for that. If you and someone you work with both swipe right, then it's fair game. But there's an affirmative, out of work step to getting there.
And then the awful question arises: how do two people meet who would enjoy one-another, but who mutually abhor immersing themselves in a pool of strangers (i.e. clubs, hook-up culture, etc.)? How do socially-anxious introverts meet other socially-anxious introverts? (Certainly not in meet-up events for common hobbies; they've chosen their hobbies to avoid being around groups of strangers!)
This sort of coupling used to be accomplished mostly either by a societal expectation of an external matchmaker in some cultures (e.g. "arranged marriages" in the Indian parents-play-matchmaker style); or, in the rest, stumbling upon one-another in a forced shared environment, e.g. school, church, or work, and then fraternizing. With the loss of the social expectation of regular church attendance regardless of belief; and then the discouragement of "mixing business and pleasure"; the introvert finds no place where love will come to them. So they remain alone.
Compulsory schooling remains as an avenue, but in Western culture there's increasingly a very strong push toward peerwise age isolation (i.e. being discouraged from fraternization with anyone outside of your year), at least until college; and what remains goes against the apparent romantic preferences of most people of each gender (i.e. almost no teenager wants to date people precisely their own age.)
I agree tho, work is for work. It's hard to draw the line when you spend at least 8 hours there, and go home keep working or checking slack and you build your whole life around your job/career..
There's a difference between politics in general, which by their nature spill over to all aspects of life (and IMO the only people who can pretend to think that politics doesn't affect them are the ones in the nexus of status quo where the current political environment helps them more than others), and allowing sexual advances in the workplace with the power relationships inherent in those interactions.
> I agree tho, work is for work. It's hard to draw the line when you spend at least 8 hours there, and go home keep working or checking slack and you build your whole life around your job/career..
For sure, this model is heavily predicated on a work/life balance.
The core here is that you don't mix sexual propositions and the (even potential future) power relationships inherent with work for pay.
Also, the bookstore analogy isn't that dated, gen z and millennials are bringing bookstores back. https://www.ingramcontent.com/blog/millennials-have-a-passio...
I don't know if it's true across the board, or just applies to _some_ men, or what, but I know that I personally haven't never felt like I have the go-ahead to approach a woman at the park or something like that.
That's why the bookstore example is neat, it gives you an insight into what she cares about. Speaking in broad strokes, women (well, really people in general) want to be treated as individuals with unique, hopes, dreams, and intellectual frameworks.
I am in my forties and let the ladies go first.
There's no reason to restrict nice things to people based on gender and it can be viewed as patronizing to do so.
times change
the world is crazy
One will get you further, one will keep you stuck.
btw i just confirmed with my wife. being a gentleman scored me a lot of points she says..
so call me sexist as much as you want :-) i already won . jk
None of us have access to the thoughts of others and holding a door open or saying “ladies first” is not ipso facto indicative of a misogynist view; especially among people who were taught it is good manners.
From talking to the women in my life, that would also be bad. They've told me that being treated as "superior" for their gender makes them feel that the rest of who they are - their accomplishments, knowledge, skills, etc. - is invalidated.
> saying "ladies first" is not ipso facto indicative of a misogynist view
You're right, but saying "ladies first" makes many women feel patronized - not a good thing.
> especially among people who were taught it is good manners
I'd say to those people: even if you learned that "ladies first" is good manners, that doesn't mean it still is. It's important to listen to the people around you to hear how they want to be treated, and what we're arguing in this thread is that women these days don't want to hear "ladies first" because - as stated before - it makes them feel patronized.
You've mistaken an example for the concept. I chose the example to show that we have so much choice in how we interpret actions that can easily make the same action imply intentions that are polar opposites. I didn't choose it as an example of a positive interpretation. The point is that the interpretation of an action is separate from the action which itself is separate from the intention behind the action.
> You're right, but saying "ladies first" makes many women feel patronized - not a good thing.
Do you think I don't also talk to women about their feelings? Your comment comes across as patronizing. It suggests women lack emotional maturity and they need you to speak for them.
Object to an action on its merits, not on your perceived view of how women feel.
> I'd say to those people: even if you learned that "ladies first" is good manners, that doesn't mean it still is.
This is how some types of abusive relationships play out:
1. Interpret a behavior in the worst possible way.
2. Feel badly about it.
3. Blame the other person.
4. Demand some type of behavior from the other person so you don't feel badly.
I think there would be some merit in objecting to "ladies first" as sexist. It is inherently sexist, although not necessarily misogynistic. (Holding a door open, on the other hand, is not sexist per se.) But objecting to "ladies first" based on third hand accounts of someone's interpretation of another person's intent is weak, convoluted, and utterly unconvincing.
Edit: List formatting.
Grow up. If you get called out for being unprofessional at work, you need to recognize that your lack of professionalism is the problem, not the people who notice it.