Comment by CryptoPunk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by CryptoPunk | Hacker News Reader

I think what's possibly needed is a return to a more traditional relationship and dating culture.

In the past, if a man had a dalliance with with a woman and she got pregnant, he was expected to marry her.

Now we expect women to have to be responsible for their own decisions the way men are, but women are generally more emotionally vulnerable than men, due to their more compassionate and less aggressive personalities, and are more easily manipulated as a result.

Therefore it may be up to men to not abuse that.

This was the assumption in place in the past, which is why young women often had chaperones present during close interactions with men, and why the 'marriage if pregnancy' responsibility was placed on men.

We've tried the 'rawr girl power, women can do everything men can do' culture, and the result is scores of women being used and taken advantage of because they were not capable, emotionally/temperamentally, to be their own advocate in sex and dating interactions.

Women are not more compassionate than men, that's false. Women have an instinct to take care of children (as do men), but this does not extend to society at large.

Women score higher on agreeableness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness

That's a deeply misogynistic take. What do you base this on?

How is it misogynistic?

I base it on the prevalence of stories like this, where a woman ostensibly consents to sexual advances and later regrets it and feels she had be abused.

The issue is not consent. The issue is vulnerability. Women are generally more vulnerable to advances from men and more likely to consent to an interaction when it's not in their best interest, than men would be, due to well documented physiological and psychological differences between the sexes.

It essentially assumes incompetence on the part of women. That's not the only possible explanation.

I don't even think it's the most plausible explanation. Social pressure and upbringing are large factors in human behavior and it takes time to make society-wide changes.

Is noting that women have two times less upper body strength misogynistic because it implies less competency in hand-to-hand combat or heavy manual labor?

I'm assuming women are more compassionate and less aggressive, which makes women less competent in competitive settings where self-advocacy is important, and more competent in scenarios requiring cooperation and caretaking, like child-rearing.

Whether these differences are inherent to female biology, or a result of deeply ingrained structures of human culture that mold girls in their upbringing is orthogonal to my premise. But as it happens, there is overwhelming/definitive evidence that much of these differences are biological in origin, and noting that is not misogynistic.

We do not make the world better by deceiving ourselves about it. An accurate model of the world is needed before any positive changes for it can be formulated. A positive but inaccurate vision of the world does not result in actions that improve the world.

Women are extremely competitive and they are not more compassionate than men.

Women are less aggressive and more compassionate (agreeable) than men on average.

> I base it on the prevalence of stories like this

So you've just pulled it out of thin air. What I figured. It's just victim blaming through misogynistic prejudices.

Personal observation is not 'pulling it out of thin air'.

And I did the opposite of victim blaming. I stated that even a woman's consent does not absolve men of responsibility for women suffering poor outcomes as a result of the interaction.

You mischaracterized my comment to an extreme degree, without even bothering to understand, let alone contend with, the points raised.

Attitudes like this are not conducive to constructively discussing complex social issues. They lead to the forwarding of certain propositions being avoided, out of a fear of eliciting exactly the kind of response you provided, which increases the possibility that society will settle on a faulty model of the situation, and thereby not institute changes that improve it.

Sorry, but what a pathetic tone policing reply to blatant misogynistic garbage about women being inherently "more emotional", "We've tried the 'rawr girl power", and so on. You're just wrong and clearly not worth the energy.

Being held to account for your false accusations is not "tone policing", so please stop gaslighting.

I didn't write that women are "more emotional". I wrote they are generally "more emotionally vulnerable".

It's irresponsible to make extremely harsh accusations against someone when the analysis that the accusation is based on is sloppy and low-effort.

And as an aside, claiming that women are generally more emotional wouldn't be misogynistic, any more than noting that men are generally more aggressive is misandrist. There is nothing sexist about claiming general psychological differences between the sexes.

Your accusations are extreme mischaracterizations, and the basis of your dismissal of my argument is based on a weak/entirely-ideological heuristic.

Let me suggest this then. Post your initial reply to a forum with a lot of women and ask if they find it misogynistic.

Adults can "read between the lines". Putting all your statements together draws a perfectly clear misogynistic narrative. No amount of deflection by trying to rebrand each point individually will make that go anyway.

I don't have time to run that experiment, and that wouldn't prove anything any way. Opinion polls don't tell us what the truth is about anything except opinions.

There is no misogynistic narrative between the lines. That misogynists would exploit the facts I am presenting to push their narrative does not make me uttering those facts misogynistic.

We cannot avoid certain ideas and discussions out of fear that bad people will incorporate them into the narrative they use to push their agenda. Their narrative has to be countered by presenting factual arguments, not by avoidance of discussion and suppression of facts.

> I don't have time to run that experiment

How surprising, I wonder why.

> Opinion polls don't tell us what the truth is about anything except opinions.

If you honestly believe that there's some sort of objective "exactly here is the line, don't cross it!" I feel bad for you.

> the facts I am presenting

Facts? It was a blatantly fact-free reply with your subjective "takes"; - "maybe the old times was better because I think women can't handle this new reality".

>>How surprising, I wonder why.

It's surprising to you that someone did not fulfil a request from a random person on the internet who has been rude and angry toward them, while mischaractering their statements, to post their argument in another forum?

I even gave you a reason why it would be pointless, and yet you insist on making this passive aggressive accusation.

>>Facts? It was a blatantly fact-free reply with your subjective "takes";

I made an argument based on objective facts. If you'd like to discuss my argument, or whether the claims it is premised on are factually correct, we could do that, but your tone and attitude suggest you cannot entertain the possibility that my argument could be right, and that instead you'll just provide more caustic and sarcastic quips.

> I made an argument based on objective facts.

If you think your first reply was based on objective facts you're delusional. It's full of your subjective assumptions:

> "We've tried the 'rawr girl power, women can do everything men can do' culture, and the result is scores of women being used and taken advantage of because they were not capable, emotionally/temperamentally, to be their own advocate in sex and dating interactions."

From your very first reply, up until now, all you have done is personally attack me. That is not a decent or constructive way to contend with points raised.

Like I said, if you disagreed with the claims I'm making, about the psychological profile of a typical woman, or even what proportion of that profile is biologically determined, and expressed that skepticism in a polite and open-minded manner, I would have been happy to provide sources.

But you are not open to counter arguments enough to even evaluate what evidence supports them. Your position on this issue is based on a weak/entirely-ideological heuristic.

More tone policing and then avoiding answering regarding the "objective facts" from your blatantly subjective takes. Dishonest.

More gaslighting where you mischaracterize someone calling you out for your ad hominem attacks as "tone policing". I've already refuted all of your points, and you've simply evaded my points and regurgitated yours.

Let me help you then, take the statement I quoted:

> "We've tried the 'rawr girl power, women can do everything men can do' culture, and the result is scores of women being used and taken advantage of because they were not capable, emotionally/temperamentally, to be their own advocate in sex and dating interactions."

"We've tried" = subjective

"rawr girl power, women can do everything men can do' culture" = subjective

"the result" = subjective

"because they were not capable, emotionally/temperamentally" = subjective

"in sex and dating interactions" = subjective

What do you mean "subjective"? These are claims about objective reality, which can be proven or disproven with facts. I think you're confused about what 'subjective' means.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com