Confessions from an Unpleasant Woman | Hacker News Reader

Confessions from an Unpleasant Woman

woodfromeden.substack.com

49 pointsjinjin250 comments

I think this is well reasoned. I am sure some people will try to make a moral equivalence of men and women's anger in exchanges across the dating interface. I reject that equivalence for a very simple reason:

* Men are angry they are facing rejection.

* Women are angry they are still subject to abuse, chattel status and risk of Sexual violence.

They just aren't equivalent.

That said. As a non participant I don't think I like some of the implicit test qualities in online exchanges i see on reddit. "Sorry you used LOL so you are bad. Bye" is .. well I guess it's a noise filter but it's kind of silly.

Is the problem a version of transactional/relational mismatch? Only partly. I would love to understand if the dating spaces where women must make the first move have a different problem by scale or intensity. (I stress purely out of interest. I read blind date stories because they're entertaining not because I need a date)

> They just aren't equivalent.

Those lists are not equivalent, but this seems like a caricature of the issues men face, rather than an actual good-faith list. Unless it's not a Western perspective (given "chattel status"), in which case it would be good to know where your experience is based.

Then you should articulate the particular issues men face I guess. We can skip the chattel thing but since you didn't quibble with the increased risk of abuse and sexual violence that's a good place to start to demonstrate the equivalence.

Again, you seem to be talking in bad faith. I'm not "quibbling" about anything. I'm not going to engage with someone speaking in bad faith. I might reply elsewhere, and you can look out for it, but this is a really inappropriate way to conduct a conversation. Even if you can't see the other person.

I'm not the person you originally replied to so there's no "again" here. You dismissed a valid & straightforward point because of its presentation, not offering any refutation or alternative and now you're mad because I called you out on it.

> I think this is well reasoned.

My understanding of the article is: feminism happened, which caused women to become more unpleasant. It's not clear though why shifting social norms - and which specific norms, relevant to this topic? - lead to that becoming. Was author implying that somehow society before served as the unpleasant filter removing bad behavior from men, and feminism relaxed that society's norm, so now women have to deal with it themselves?

Yes, that's essentially the position:

> What happens when everything is allowed, as long as it is consensual? Then the burden to say “I consent” or “I do not consent” lies squarely with the individual. Individual women need to radiate “I do not consent”.

The restrictions on women's freedom and especially stigma/taboo around their real or perceived sexual interactions limited the "attack surface" for harassment as well. Now that women may accept or initiate sexual encounters (theoretically) free of stigma, they also must repel all unwanted advances, when previously some of these would have been prevented through social norms.

I think this is maybe a little optimistic about to what extent these norms actually prevented unwanted negative interactions, and between whom. But it seems like an overall accurate observation to me.

> Now that women may

Thanks. I guess I thought this change happened much earlier than in ~2000+ - more like 1960+ - so was wondering what was that specific which happened relatively recently.

the audacity to claim women have "chattel status"...

What makes a slave these days, getting your own napkins at starbucks?

Mens displeasure is so easily dismissed, it says a lot about how society as a whole thinks about the matter.

Wow, that's some epic invalidation.

IMHO saying no (ie declining an offer or advance) should not qualify as "unpleasant", and everywhere in the piece one could replace "be unpleasant" with "saying no" and it would be equally true. That also means men need to take no for an answer, though I suspect the type of guy who doesn't will also tend to push through any other "unpleasant" behavior.

> IMHO saying no (ie declining an offer or advance) should not qualify as "unpleasant"

It depends, and situations are quite possible when e.g. it's unpleasant bordering with abuse.

What kind of situations are you thinking of when saying no would be unpleasant bordering on abuse?

A lot depends on the circumstances - the advance-rejection isn't as simple as request-response in a client-server system. So, saying no may e.g. turn into an attempt, maybe unintentional, of public humiliation, with consequences - for example, a loss of credibility in a group, loss of relationship, personal issues - for quite some time. In other words, the environment and specifics of the exchange may matter a lot and range widely.

I suppose I can see what you're getting at, but in my opinion, that is assuming much more than just saying a simple "no", which is what the OP was advocating for. If the "rejecter" tries to attempt embarrasssment or humiliation of the "advancer", then that is certainly wrong but is not a simple rejection.

I also believe that the "advancer" needs to understand that the consequences you've outlined are a real chance and they need to be okay with those consequences before making an advance.

> I also believe that the "advancer" needs to understand that the consequences you've outlined are a real chance and they need to be okay with those consequences before making an advance.

What you'd do if you're not okay with those consequences?

Not make the advance? I don't know what you're suggesting, but I don't think trying to shift the blame onto the recepient of an advance is the right move, regardless if it is a man or a woman.

There are certainly ways to mitigate the chance of one of those consequences happening, i.e. taking the time to see if there are mutual feelings between you and the other person instead of shooting a shot without any sort of idea if the feeling is reciprocated or not.

> IMHO saying no (ie declining an offer or advance) should not qualify as "unpleasant"

> Not make the advance?

So people should carefully avoid certain topics, lest them suggest an advance which could backfire spectacularly? Otherwise how'd they know if some phrase they too carelessly dropped will cause those responses which they should realize could happen?

> I don't know what you're suggesting, but I don't think trying to shift the blame onto the recepient of an advance is the right move, regardless if it is a man or a woman.

I think it's a intentionally complex interaction, and, unfortunately, the recipient can't be completely blameless no matter what he/she does. In other words, we shouldn't oversimplify here, life, and this particular facet of it, is quite more complex than we're modeling here.

> There are certainly ways to mitigate the chance of one of those consequences happening, i.e. taking the time to see if there are mutual feelings between you and the other person instead of shooting a shot without any sort of idea if the feeling is reciprocated or not.

That also begs questions about how to do that at all, how to do that reliably, what unexpected drawbacks this approach brings to all involved parties, and what to do in practice. Don't want to ask them all here, as this discussion is clearly longer than HN can allow. My conclusion is the same: the opinion at the beginning is a sort of oversimplifaction, and doesn't do the justice to the complexity of this problem.

Edit: sorry for oversimplification on my side too.

I honestly don’t really understand what point the author is trying to make. I simply note that in the current environment lots of the complaints she has for women actually dually apply to men as well.

> 20 years ago, when I was on the dating market myself, there were still rules of fair play. A young woman who naively dated a handsome man only to discover that he dated several other women simultaneously would be justified to blame him for being dishonest. Today, she would need to feel stupid because she didn't discuss the terms with him.

I distinctly remember having a conversation in like 2018 with my sister. We were both using Tinder at the time. I was operating under the assumption that once you started going out on dates with someone on the app, you stopped using the app and focused on getting to know them. To my chagrin I was informed that this was naive and stupid, and that my sister was currently going on dates with several men at once, and so were all the women on the app I was talking to, and that this was fine and even expected as long as it “wasn’t serious”. She made it clear that unless someone explicitly asked her to be “exclusive” (a high bar to clear) that she would continue to date as she pleased and not feel any obligation to even mention it to any prospective partner.

Women can’t expect fair play but neither can men. Seems like it’s a race to the bottom.

Overall it seems like the pressure is mounting on men to do more with less, but I could be biased in that regard.

>>I distinctly remember having a conversation in like 2018 [...]

20 years ago (a generation[1]) is very different from only 6 years ago. Your anecdote seems to reinforce the author's point.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation

What I’m saying is that paragraph was written as if dishonesty was a problem women had to face from men. It doesn’t explicitly note that men also face it from women (nor does it assert that this is only a female problem). Just pointing out it goes both ways. I’m not trying to say the author is wrong

It’s not considered dishonesty from either party. This has been true for 10 years at minimum with online dating.

But this is not a recent phenomenon - it's a poorly-publicized fact of life that naive young men of each generation keep have been rediscovering for decades, perhaps centuries. Example: I read the autobiography of a certain chemical engineer (the name escapes me, will look it up later) who, while growing up in Southern US in the 1940s, described that he was shocked to discover that it was completely normal for a girl to date multiple boys at the same time.

(Update for anyone still following the thread: the chemist's name was Max Gergel.)

It's been a very long time since I did any dating, but I'm not sure what your sister said wrong (except for her taking the opportunity to insult you!). Surely having fewer assumptions and more explicit communication is a good thing?

--------------------

Edit - I see your point about whether this is different between men and women. But I do think it's weird to use the term "fair play" in this context!

--------------------

Sure, in theory there’s nothing wrong with more communication. But some people don’t prefer to date this way. I would prefer a single partner and that my partner would demonstrate care and respect for me by dating me exclusively or not dating me at all.

This group (I would expect) is a minority and (I would expect is) getting smaller. If you are this kind of person then more communication isn’t necessarily going to help you find a partner who you feel is truly invested in you. Your dating pool is still shrinking and you still feel left out of the cultural zeitgeist. People will just be more open about how they aren’t compatible with you.

I don’t know what the solution is, I’m kind of just rambling. I do know I’ve spoken with several friends about this and the general consensus is that dating apps are making it harder (not easier) for them to find partners by fundamentally changing the game.

Also, every time I post about this on HN (which has been a couple times now) people absolutely leap to tell me why I’m a bad person or something

Maybe people try to tell you you’re misguided because it sounds like you expect a date who respects you to not date other people. This is a silly expectation to have if it isn’t communicated explicitly.

I’m already dating someone long-term, so the point is somewhat moot. But, I wasn’t saying that they should never date anyone else ever. I was saying they should only be dating one person at a time. Again, referring to the OP - if this is so unreasonable or silly how come everyone thought this way only a decade or so ago?

Isn’t the old term “going steady” the equivalent of explicitly exclusively dating someone?

I’m not convinced a decade or so ago this was so different, but let’s say it was. If the norm is different now, then it’s unreasonable to expect dates to behave as if it isn’t. I’m not saying it’s unreasonable to ask for what you want, I just think it’s silly to feel disrespected when someone violates an expectation that’s not been communicated.

> if this is so unreasonable or silly how come everyone thought this way only a decade or so ago?

Conventions change, right? Ten years is doesn't seem like much but it's nearly half a generation. A lot can change from one generation to the next. The younger generations seem to be much more liberal when it comes to lifestyle choices, and much more explicit around communication and consent.

Wait, so you think the authors use of “fair play” or mine is suspect? If not both, then what’s the fundamental difference?

Sorry, to clarify: I think the author's use is suspect, and I assumed you were using it to mean the same thing.

"Fair play" means playing by the accepted rules. But it seems to me that the rules themselves are changing (arguably justifiably so).

I think you're both correct here to be honest.

Pre dating apps the norm in my part of the world would be to see someone approx 1-3 times. After that, if you continued dating, it would be taken as implicit that they are at least a front runner and the exclusive conversation wouldn't be far off.

Having said that, I don't think that dating apps are a good way to meet serious partners. The overlap between people who use Tinder and people who don't engage in casual sex is extremely low.

It strikes me that a lot of discussion around this topic is very optimistic or maybe just naive.

All of the things that the author speaks about are reasons why men like to accompany their wives on trips, don't like their partners to go out drinking without them, etc. We know how people behave and act accordingly.

Yet there seems to be a strong effort to paint such things as some sort of rank unfairness.

The world is always, always going to direct attention towards nubile young women.

I applaud the author by the way for acting in a mature manner. It feels rare nowadays to see a young woman or man with their head screwed on, who realise that this won't all last forever. Settling down early is better.

It's not just women that are unpleasant, it's men too. The swiping economy has really done a lot of damage to the dating economy. The mutual disrespect flows both ways. The apps promote bad behavior by the very nature of their design.

I had quite a few matches cancel hours before meeting up, or just not show up. I had a match meet me at a concert ( I know, bad idea), and she spent most of night hitting on my married friend and crying in the corner. It's really discouraging, depressing and dehumanizing. I do not remember it being like this when I was in my 20's.

I am 42 now and used the sites from the time my divorce was finalized in 2021 until last summer. It wasn't all bad, I dated a few matches for more than a few weeks. The main problem is that in my experience, a lot of women will exaggerate their hobbies and interests on their profile to attract potential matches. It did really seem like many people were on the apps because they don't have time to date or did not have social lives/hobbies.

Based on the lack of success, I decided to stop wasting time on the apps and focus exclusively on expanding my social circle, volunteering, participating in social groups activities and going places where I could meet people. I've made a lot of new friends with interesting hobbies. You still get rejected IRL, but I didn't find anyone to be overly unpleasant about it. I ended up dating a few women over the course of a few months before I ended up with the girl I am with now.

Incidentally, everyone who I dated during this period had also given up on the apps and remarked on their toxic nature. Dating apps are not made for dating, they exist solely for making the site money by selling boosts and premium memberships in exchange for access to the product (women).

I thought this was sort of an interesting read. However:

(1) It made me wonder if there was an actually scientific way of tracking these things over the years. I imagine there's something buried in social surveys? It wouldn't be the same but might be a little informative.

(2) I was expecting a discussion of a different topic, and am not really sure she addressed the comment. The comment explicitly begins with "I'm referring to attitudes while dating, not how receptive someone is to having sex" and she seemed to discuss receptivity to casual sex.

This is fine, it's not really a criticism although I think the topic she seemed to lead with and that the commenter was mentioning seemed more interesting to me. I'm not sure I agree or disagree that dating norms have changed, but if it did it would be extremely interesting to me.

I've read a lot of women mention that when or where men are being pushy or manipulative, they tend to be more defensive or proactively self-protective like she's saying. I don't think I've read as much about an idea that women are "playing harder to get" in an established (in a broad sense) dating relationship. I'm a bit skeptical but it's interesting to think about changes over time in these kinds of things. At least in the US I feel like the focus is a lot on changes in cultural norms around sex, and less so on relationships per se.

Dating is very messy necessarily. I mean it is the literal end goal of our biology, so difficulty is kinda the point. But. Anyone who's not aware of trends is gonna have a difficult time. Old strategies don't work well. Old outlooks don't either.

I guess the question I have is whether anyone tracks these trends empirically?

>> When group A wants something from group B that most members of group B do not want to give, someone needs to be unpleasant. Either there needs to be unpleasant rules saying that members of group A are not allowed to ask members of group B for what they want. Or the individuals of group B need to act unpleasantly themselves.

>> Laws against begging are a case in point. Banning people from asking for money they might desperately need is unpleasant. It also prevents the minority that feel good from giving money to beggars from doing what they like. Laws against begging moves the obligation to be unpleasant from individuals to society as a whole.

LOL, this took an interesting turn. Begging for money is not equivalent to begging for sex, money supplies food essential for life. Nonetheless, I see the point being made, should we have rules where men are not allowed to flirt with women? Punishable by law. Yes, it will be abused, but it will also force men to find ways to cope.

More salient question: Who in society should take the burden to cope with bad actors?

These rules exist in conservatives religious countries, like some of the more fundamentalist muslim countries.

It's difficult to find any good reasoning in this piece, nor in the other article she wrote, that she mentioned. The author's "tee hee I watched some old teen movies and that is the extent of my research" attitude shows her as unserious.

I suspect the sexual revolution helped womanisers have a field day.

I’m so glad to be out of the dating scene! But, as a male, maybe I can share an experience that might contrast a bit with the linked story. Let’s call it a confession from an unpleasant man:

I was on a work trip- a few years ago- still fairly newlywed and no kids. We had different offices, and I was making the most of it to get to know people better from the other office. Drinks were involved, it was a big celebration event. Anyways, I was hitting it off really great with someone in another division that I didn’t get a lot of exposure to, but she used the software I was working on. She looked to be about my age. I dont remember what we were talking about but at one point she stopped me, held up her hand, and said “Im sorry, but I’m married”. I was absolutely flabbergasted. Of course I held up my hand and said I was married too- but it really killed the conversation. I absolutely was not hitting on her, but apparently being nice and interested in what she had to say was (incorrectly) detected as a pickup attempt. Anyways, ever since then I’m careful to not be too friendly with other women or to quickly bring up the topic of kids.

This brings me to another topic: kids. I absolutely adore my kids. I love playing with them. I love taking them to the playground. I am so terrified around other people’s kids. Some kid needs help at a playground? Not getting any from me. I want to be nice to other kids, but I’m absolutely terrified someone is going to accuse me of trying to abduct them or something. I feel like a man being kind to kids other then his own is absolutely unacceptable today, and that makes me really sad.

>This brings me to another topic: kids. I absolutely adore my kids. I love playing with them. I love taking them to the playground. I am so terrified around other people’s kids. Some kid needs help at a playground? Not getting any from me. I want to be nice to other kids, but I’m absolutely terrified someone is going to accuse me of trying to abduct them or something. I feel like a man being kind to kids other then his own is absolutely unacceptable today, and that makes me really sad.

I think being nice to your kid's friends is perfectly fine, they know you, their parents know you and they're most likely there with their kids. I have a kid and am friendly to my kid's friends and it has never been an issue.

The entire article is wrong because it is based on a false premise: that women are not interested in sex for its own sake but only as a bargaining chip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com