Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

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)

View on HN

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com