Lulu: An App No One Should Accept
compylr.com
compylr.com
As for the startup/app itself, it's the natural evolution of taking HotOrNot ratings + OKCupid profiles + Fuckedcompany gossip and building it into a neat package. There is certainly a demand for apps like this in the market but if you're a user, try to be nice even if you don't like someone. People can become really mean when anonymous.
So instead of understanding that most people are not compatible, we're now building a db to slander them based on purely emotional reasoning?
If women are using this then it says a lot about the woman. I imagine the women drawn to this are difficult anyway. This problem kind of solves itself. I doubt this app can help them and its a symptom of a very negative attitude toward dating and, frankly, socially acceptable misandry.
When it's your fault if he rapes you, you put "creepy" on a hair trigger.
Just in case you are unaware of this, most women I know and have discussed this with agree that social awkwardness in men is often correlated with inappropriate sexual behaviour, so yes, if you make an awkward attempt at conversation, you are probably going to get negatively labelled. May I suggest working on your social skills if this bothers you?
I've known a number of women that tend to avoid the socially smooth guy because they see it as a mask for other sexual behaviors. I'm sure much of these types of judgments come from personal past interactions regardless of which direction they tend. Yay for anecdotal evidence!
- playing on a sports team (I'm Canadian, so I like to pick on hockey players, but this happens in other sports as well).
- working on oil rigs.
- abusing heavy drugs.
- working in sales.
- being too smooth.
- practicing that moronic "treat girls like your sister and insult them" pick-up method.
Long story short, there are many, many indicators of inappropriate sexual behaviour.
Too smooth? What is the right amount of smooth?
Before anyone jumps the gun, I'm not saying that someone raped while drunk is at fault. Only that this is a bad example of someone acting cautious at all. Caution and being protective (or the lack there of) != fault.
Also, this app is to rate men. Its not an anti-rape app. Stop playing the rape card to defend every lousy idea.
Though it is not at all appropriate to share such information on a public online forum.
- Did the hot date you were kind of into try to touch your boob without asking you? Creepy! (acceptable)
- Did the ugly guy two tables over compliment you on your looks when you were both trying to get a drink at the bar? Creepy! (not so acceptable.)
- Did the guy you were dating for a few months ask you for a 5' in-person conversation after you decided to break up out of the blue over SMS? Creepy! (that one happened to me and I felt personally threatened by this woman's implicit threat of slander)
It's also interesting how prevalent the notion of "creepyness" is in the US. Whereas in other cultures the same guy would be considered annoying, inconvenient, misguided or justifiedly threatening, here a blanket term is applied and everyone accepts it. The same principle applies to a lot of emotional stuff, where Americans apply very coarse "pattern matching" to behaviors that other cultures are way more nuanced about.
That's a contradiction in terms.
If this had been an app for men rating and alerting them about certain women all hell would of broke loose.
It's so easy to look down on someone identifying as male as being discriminant but when the opposite is true, the male point of view is often ignored.
Simply put, we are expected to man up, whereas women are expected to stand up.
Men have been getting the good end of sexual discrimination for centuries. Owning property. Voting. Higher education. Being allowed to practice a profession. Being favored by marriage laws. Being favored by social biases.
Like Peter Parker and Voltaire say, "With great power comes great responsibility." Having received a substantial boost just for being born with a dick, I'm ok with manning up. To me, that's part of using my power to redress the imbalance.
Sure, men have had the upper hand for centuries but we live in an age where the scales have tipped - we need to be careful that instead of having a substantial boost for having a dick, or a vagina, that instead every has the same substantial advantage.
Unemployment of young folk (<30) is more prevalent in men than women.
I don't want to take anything from the women's struggle, but more and more, they are getting the upper hand. (Heck, my boy is 11 months old, and even now, he gets more 'insults' about behavior then his female cousin about same age)
If we look at young people, then women clearly have the uppder hand. In addition to having the upper hand in dating, they out-earn young men and have greater success in education. Interestingly, if women are better than men at something, then the explanation is never discrimination, but if men are better than women, then the reason is discrimination.
I don't think that's a valid inference, honestly. Firstly, "average" is too tied to distribution and biased outliers and asymmetry. Perhaps you intended to compare medians.
"have the upper hand" I think means that when you compare proportions of X to non-X within strata that the proportion of X decreases with increasing status.
Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice, and doesn't seem to be about gender equality at all. Sure you could say "men are more pressured..." but you could also say "women aren't empowered to make decisions about their body and don't see it as viable". Again: how does the stat show an upper hand?
About dating: I don't think you can declare women have the "upper hand". At best they have an "even hand". Sure there are pretty girls that get an absurde level of "power of choice", but there are plenty of men in the same category. Similarly when the traditional "men approach" role is taken, women are stuck with what comes their way. Putting it another way: in my experience the problems women experience in dating are the same as the problems men experience: shitty candidates, lots of fear of rejection, insecurity and incompatability issues. Leading to:
Query: how do women have the upper hand in dating in your mind?
It indicates that men are at a disadvantage. It doesn't matter what causes the disadvantage, it's still a fact. Of course, when men are at a disadvantage the reason is never expected to be gender roles or discrimination.
>Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice
If you think social issue like suicide can be categorized as "personal choice", you don't know much about depression and suicide. There are factors that increase risk to suicide, like poverty and depression, which are quite prevalent in males.
>About dating: I don't think you can declare women have the "upper hand". At best they have an "even hand". Sure there are pretty girls that get an absurde level of "power of choice", but there are plenty of men in the same category.
That description doesn't quite fit the facts, though. It's more like the upper 2/3 of women are in the same position as upper 1/3 of men for various reasons. You can just look at the number of messages on online dating sites, or look at the genetic evidence: 2/3 of all women in history have had children, but only 1/3 men have had genetic offspring.
>Putting it another way: in my experience the problems women experience in dating are the same as the problems men experience: shitty candidates, lots of fear of rejection, insecurity and incompatability issues.
The social etiquette and gender roles and various other reasons mean that men are expected to make the initiation, and women can simply choose the best candidate. That means that men have to face a lot more rejection than women.
This is a good article on the issue: http://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/another-okcupid-st...
>It indicates that men are at a disadvantage. It doesn't matter what causes the disadvantage, it's still a fact. Of course, when men are at a disadvantage the reason is never expected to be gender roles or discrimination.
False. This is not how statistics work. There could be other confounding factors that are relevant. For instance, of the women who would become homeless how many are forced into some sort of prostitution scheme from which they can't escape? How many die early in homelessness because they are at a survival as homeless person disadvantage? You are not providing enough data, just cherry picking context free numbers as if it meant something.
>>Quey: how does the suicide give women an "uppper hand" this is a personal choice
>If you think social issue like suicide can be categorized as "personal choice", you don't know much about depression and suicide. There are factors that increase risk to suicide, like poverty and depression, which are quite prevalent in males.
Maybe. So what advantages to women have. Again, you need to explain a causal relationship of advantage, not just cherry pick numbers as if it were meaningful.
About the dating stuff: your stat makes no sense with regards to genetics. Everyone gets a X chromosome, some get 2 of them. Of course there will be more attributable genetic lineage to women, wheres a guy who only produces daughters will not necessarily be identifiable in a few generations from his sister who passes on the same X chromosome to ~50% of her offspring. Also, why does this genetic number prove evidence for "do nothing"? That is conflating two similar numbers pointlessly. Again, I suggest you learn some simple statistics.
As for the initiation thing: that is not a disadvantage to males. A couple reasons:
First of all, except for people who have 0 social skills initiation is really not hard.
Second, initiation must be invited, putting half the onus in the woman's hands (again, there are cues and signaling for this) - the act of asking or a date or starting a conversation is quite far into the courting process.
Third, simply choosing the best candidate is not - ever been part of a hiring process? Sometimes all the candidates are shitty and you have to choose "no hire", this is a problem.
Fourth do you really think women just sit there and do nothing in dating but wait for a candidate to come along? I doubt that, otherwise why would there be a giant business targeting women with things like "how to make guys notice you", and "improve your dating potential".
Fifth: In the traditional role, women have the following disadvantage: they are the ones with the job of keeping men around far more often than men keeping a woman around. Once the relationship is established, the woman has to keep the man happy. (again - big buisness in magazines with articles like "keep your man happy and around", "how to prevent him from cheating" and the like).
Finally your linked article presupposes the conclusion it reaches, and ignores in its analysis any other factors.
I'm one of those overeducated women with the upper hand or something like that, although due to my great success in education I'm not out-earning all that many people yet. Remember, though, that the mythical ability to get a guy to pay for dinner and that incredible math PhD mean nothing when a guy on the street is looking me up & down & giving me a "compliment." If I talk back to that crazy guy on the bus, even if I'm out-earning and out-educating him, I always remember it can go like this: http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whethe...
To return to the original topic, I don't support Lulu at all. I've had far better success in dating and life treating men like people.
Yeah, I used statistics from my own country.
>Greater male service in the military is one component of this
Funny anecdote, here in Finland men still have conscription (e.g. forced labour for 6-12 months), but almost nobody talks about that as a gender equality issue.
>I'm one of those overeducated women with the upper hand or something like that, although due to my great success in education I'm not out-earning all that many people yet.
Education of course doesn't directly lead to higher earnings, as you need to choose the right industry and career path. Of course, I don't know anything about you in particular, but most well-off people underestimate the earnings of otherpeople. (I don't know the exact statistic, but the top 10% think that they're only slightly better off than the average or something).
Anyway, men earn more than women because they work longer hours (about 20% more in average). The other explanation is that men choose careers that have higher income (e.g. according to research for men income matters a lot more in career choise than for women).
>Remember, though, that the mythical ability to get a guy to pay for dinner and that incredible math PhD mean nothing when a guy on the street is looking me up & down & giving me a "compliment."
Err, men have to deal with crazy people on the bus too. In fact, vast majority of street violence is against men (it's around 80% in my country).
Racial privilege was the one I noticed first. And that was mainly because I lived in places where as a foreigner I was outside the normal framework. That made it much easier to see race and class dynamics at work. It was only after that I could start seeing gender dynamics more clearly. But they're still hard, because you can't try be an outsider to that in the same way.
I agree that we should be working toward parity. I just don't think we're there yet.
And even calling women "sweet" isn't always appreciated. See http://rookiemag.com/2013/04/no-more-nice-girls/
If these expectations remain, what possible social change could occur that would put our "brutish" gender in the crapper? As long as that cultural push exists to be stoic, strong, tough, and to go for what they want, then our male culture is ingrained to be immune to a social upheaval. It's a good way to live if you ask me.
My recommendation is to not care.
I do not care.
I hope the girls have fun on LuLu.
Now if the girls want to change their cultural expectations to make their lives better? Sounds great! I don't care.
I sincerely hope you're joking.
Yes, so let's reverse it, and get a female-biased revenge ...on people that weren't even alive back at those times.
Why not also sell white people as slaves?
Second, you DO know that "Godwin's law" is not an actual law that govern's discussions, and it's not even something that people agree on its validity, right? It's merely a BS internet meme, a funny quote used as a joke. Invoking it is like invoking made up statistics as an argument.
By the way, I didn't say that discrimination was ok, and I wasn't making a historical analogy. I was pointing out that our existing society is just emerging from that long history of sexism.
You know who else wanted to end threads? Hitler.
Done.
Not really. Men have had more freedom but less security. Just because you personally like your gender role (as it seems), that doesn't mean other men agree (or agreed in the past). Sure, men were allowed to be employees and women cared for the children at home (though reality was actually a lot more complex than that, but we can accept this caricature for now), but men had to work or they wouldn't find a women to marry. Women didn't have to work, as they could be supported by their husband. Work was pretty gruesome in the past, even if homework was also harder in the past.
Of course, there's little proper scientific research on this subject, as "women's studies" start from their assumption that women had and have everything worse without really proving it.
The problem with saying that the men's gender role of more freedom but more responsibility doesn't take into consideration that some people prefer to have less freedom and less responsibility, while some women prefer to have more freedom and more responsibility and some less freedom and less responsibility (or at least prefered in the past).
>Having received a substantial boost just for being born with a dick, I'm ok with manning up.
Even if we assume that men had better starting position in the past, that doesn't apply anymore. Young women are outearning and have more success in education.
True equality can only be reached through the abolition of gender roles for both men and women, not assuming that men need to "man up" and therefore saying that gender inequality is somehow positive and should exist.
You also made the claim about "imbalance". There's no imbalance in favor of women in Western countries. Men have just as much gender equality problems as women, but even speculating this is politically incorrect. Here's a study o the subject: http://granum.uta.fi/granum/kirjanTiedot.php?tuote_id=18450
I agree that patriarchy is bad for men too. I disagree that it was equally bad for both genders. I disagree that we have reached balance. By "manning up", I don't mean reinforcing gender roles or maintaining gender inequality. I mean that men should, as the relatively privileged parties, not be whiny at either the shift toward balance or the small anti-male inequities that crop up temporarily along the road to equity.
Translated from feminist rhetoric: Men have no right to complain about discrimination against them.
shanelja and nawitus, I think abundance of people with similar views to wpietri highlights how real your points actually are.
But I have the legal right to say that they're whiny idiots when they appear unable to notice or acknowledge the context of their complaint. If you're going to cry, "have sympathy for meeeeeee", you really should make sure you've demonstrated some sympathy for others.
For example, if somebody is tired and cranky and says something mean, I don't have to get upset at it. I can let it go, and treat them compassionately. I think that is precisely the road to getting rid of meanness.
I do think that to a privileged person, any move toward equality feels like inequality, because what they notice is things getting worse for them.
I also think that people emerging from oppression are liable to cross the line of exact equity from time to time. An as long as the swings are small, I'm ok with that. Specifically, as a guy, I'm saying I don't mind brushing off something that might be a bit of anti-guy sexism. Because that one small nettle-sting is nothing in proportion to the benefits I've received, or to the scope of the historical wrong that we are righting.
I don't know enough about Lulu to have an opinion on it. And for the record, I'm opposed to hiring practices that advantage women. I am strongly for, though, active practices to eliminate the disadvantage that women face.
I want people to treat other people as individuals, not representative of their gender. I don't care about my own gender role. I don't want people to say "man up" to men if I face some injustice. And I don't want (the reverse I guess) it happen to women either.
Your path doesn't lead to equality, it just slows down progress.
This isn't true no matter how you slice it. Men had more economic security because they could work, whereas most women could not. Men have bodily security in ways women do not, esp. in regards to sexual assault and domestic violence.
> men had to work or they wouldn't find a women to marry
I think you have this backwards. Men didn't have to marry. However, since women at large could not work and support themselves, many had no choice but to be attached to someone who could work. Due to past stigmas about women were not married, this put women in a position where getting married was a near necessity.
> Women didn't have to work, as they could be supported by their husband.
Not only would women have little recourse but to marry someone, but women by far were expected to should domestic duties. That is a lot of work and is a full time job in and of itself.
> Of course, there's little proper scientific research on this subject, as "women's studies" start from their assumption that women had and have everything worse without really proving it.
This is blatantly not true. There is a ton of written and academic research work on gender, sexism, etc. and women's studies is a real academic discipline.
> The problem with saying that the men's gender role of more freedom but more responsibility doesn't take into consideration that some people prefer to have less freedom and less responsibility, while some women prefer to have more freedom and more responsibility and some less freedom and less responsibility (or at least prefered in the past).
Men are much more able to pursue the less freedom and less responsibility life, as you put it, compared to women because of how they are treated in society at large. Historically most women did not have the option for the less freedom and less responsible life since they would either be pigeonholed into domestic care or they would have been working poor.
> Even if we assume that men had better starting position in the past, that doesn't apply anymore. Young women are outearning and have more success in education.
This is plainly not true. Most women still earn less than their male counterparts. Further, women still suffer far more from domestic and sexual violence and have their bodies policed much more than men.
> True equality can only be reached through the abolition of gender roles for both men and women, not assuming that men need to "man up" and therefore saying that gender inequality is somehow positive and should exist.
Gender inequality exists right now, even without something like Lulu, and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Having an app that deals with one aspect of that reality is totally legit.
> You also made the claim about "imbalance". There's no imbalance in favor of women in Western countries.
Amazingly you say that there is no real research on women's studies, but then go on to conclude there is not problem at all.
> Men have just as much gender equality problems as women, but even speculating this is politically incorrect.
Ah yes, saying men have it as hard as women, which is demonstrably not true at a societal level, will summon the PC police.
> Here's a study o the subject: http://granum.uta.fi/granum/kirjanTiedot.php?tuote_id=18450
The summary of that study tries to use misandry and matriarchy seriously to describe the social and political condition of a western country. This is laughable on its face.
In a marriage the women of course benefits from the man's income to provide economic security. They've also had the security of not dying in senseless wars, and the security of men defending women from danger as is the gender norm even today.
>I think you have this backwards. Men didn't have to marry. However, since women at large could not work and support themselves, many had no choice but to be attached to someone who could work. Due to past stigmas about women were not married, this put women in a position where getting married was a near necessity.
I never claimed that men had to marry, though most of them wanted to (to gain access to sex if nothing else). Men didn't have the option to not work and marry, while had to work to marry, and women didn't have the option to work and not marry.
>Not only would women have little recourse but to marry someone, but women by far were expected to should domestic duties. That is a lot of work and is a full time job in and of itself.
I'd say domestic duties were significantly easier than the typical hard work in the past. Workplace safety was non-existent, for starters. That's of course in addition to military duty and dying in wars.
>This is blatantly not true. There is a ton of written and academic research work on gender, sexism, etc. and women's studies is a real academic discipline.
Women's studies is not an empirical science, if they start from an axiom which doesn't require evidence.
>Men are much more able to pursue the less freedom and less responsibility life, as you put it, compared to women because of how they are treated in society at large. Historically most women did not have the option for the less freedom and less responsible life since they would either be pigeonholed into domestic care or they would have been working poor.
That's of course blatantly not true. Men who didn't work were deemed pretty worthless, and no women would marry them. Besides, they would starve on streets or something, while a women could marry someone and not need to work.
>This is plainly not true. Most women still earn less than their male counterparts.
I said young women. Please try reading what I'm actually saying :). As for the whole pay gap, it's explained through men working 20% more hours per year and making career choices that focus on income.
>Further, women still suffer far more from domestic and sexual violence and have their bodies policed much more than men.
No, men are mutilated more than women (since male-only circumcision is legal in most countries). Also, majority of rape victims in USA are male: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-a...
>Gender inequality exists right now, even without something like Lulu, and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Having an app that deals with one aspect of that reality is totally legit.
What? This app doesn't prevent gender equality, it enforces it, along with stereotypical gender roles that discriminate both men and women equally. Only a misandrist can support this kind of app.
>Amazingly you say that there is no real research on women's studies, but then go on to conclude there is not problem at all.
Just because women's studies are based on non-empirical "science" doesn't mean there's no research on the subject. Like this: http://granum.uta.fi/granum/kirjanTiedot.php?tuote_id=18450
>Ah yes, saying men have it as hard as women, which is demonstrably not true at a societal level, will summon the PC police.
Good that you agree with me!
>The summary of that study tries to use misandry and matriarchy seriously to describe the social and political condition of a western country. This is laughable on its face.
Not an argument :).
Certainly there is a benefit to having some income through a marriage than none at all, but it is a problem if marriage or association with men is the only option available to have any economic safety at all. Women do not fare well in war because women are very often the target of violence from armies and military conflict even if women do not serve in those conflicts. Men defending women from danger isn't a real phenomenon, as violence against women is predominantly perpetrated by men. Common stories about women and lifeboats, for example, may not reflect reality: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/13/chivalry-at-sea-a-myth...
> Men didn't have the option to not work and marry, while had to work to marry, and women didn't have the option to work and not marry.
My main point about this is that there it was much more likely for women to have no economic security without marriage, whereas men could achieve some economic security without a marriage. Obviously there is a big class element to this w.r.t work access and pay and that women of color have always been working in large numbers outside of personal domestic work.
> I'd say domestic duties were significantly easier than the typical hard work in the past.
It isn't about quantifying the difficulty of some kind of work, but that women still were very like to perform labor in home even if they worked outside of the home in some capacity. Either way, the notion that women didn't do work in a marriage while their husband did contributes to the perspective that domestic work isn't real work and that domestic work performed by husbands/wives at home doesn't have the same value as paid labor.
> Women's studies is not an empirical science, if they start from an axiom which doesn't require evidence.
Women's studies doesn't start from an axiom of "that women had and have everything worse". Women's studies generally explores the condition of genders and provides research, including statistical and empirical research, about the lived conditions and experiences of people.
> Men who didn't work were deemed pretty worthless, and no women would marry them. Besides, they would starve on streets or something, while a women could marry someone and not need to work.
First, work isn't something that most people have for their lifetime in perpetuity. Many folks go through periods of having work and not having work and social factors may exacerbate the availability of paid work. The era leading up to prohibition in the US, for example, made the working situation for the poor worse and damaged existing marriages and families, so to say that there is some kind of binary decision making process in who gets married to whom is silly. Also, the notion that women could marry and not work isn't a common reality for most marriages, in the past and now.
> I said young women. Please try reading what I'm actually saying :). As for the whole pay gap, it's explained through men working 20% more hours per year and making career choices that focus on income.
The pay gap is a complicated thing, and while incomes have improved for younger working women, executive level pay and representation is still belong men in similar positions and companies. Working patterns like the one you mention don't fully account for wage and position gaps for women.
> No, men are mutilated more than women (since male-only circumcision is legal in most countries). Also, majority of rape victims in USA are male: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-a....
Firstly, male circumcision isn't a form of domestic or sexual violence, so while it is an important thing it is not really what I was getting at. Second, yes most rape victims in the US are male due to how many men, mostly of color, are imprisoned and how prevalent sexual assault in the prison system is. That reality and sexual assault for women go hand-in-hand reflect a real reality of male violence made manifest through social institutions and beliefs. Women in prison also suffer from high rates of sexual assault and coercion. The number of men in prison is much, much higher than the number of women in prison, so we would expect that by raw number men are victims of sexual assault more than women in prison. That said, none of these things negate the nature of sexual violence towards women.
> What? This app doesn't prevent gender equality, it enforces it, along with stereotypical gender roles that discriminate both men and women equally. Only a misandrist can support this kind of app.
I might not have been clear, but I meant to say an app that can help women label men as violent or misogynistic is legit even if that kind of app amounts to collecting rumors, because women are much more likely to face domestic or sexual violence from an intimate partner and people have a right to know about someone before they expose themselves to that kind of violence. I don't particularly care for lulu, but rumors are a legitimate defense when social systems do not protect you from violence.
> Good that you agree with me!
I was being sarcastic. Calling something or someone PC is a derailment to avoid thinking critically about what you said and why it might be a shitty thing to say.
> Not an argument :).
As tumblr ppl like to say, misandry don't real: http://bunnika.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/sorry-men-you-are-no...
That said, a single study that attempts to take issues of patriarchy and misogyny and turn them on their head to make them about misandry, a thing that doesn't exist as a social institution in the western world, should be treated with a high amount of skepticism.
Yes, it is. Your views on historic gender roles do not reflect reality. Men were restricted by gender roles too, and their role was largely "go risk death to get a chance to provide for a woman and children".
This is impossible, all men have and do participate in the subjugation of women so as systemic sexism exists.
Perhaps you're a male who's OK with being the subject of discriminatory treatment over centuries of gain you didn't get to live through. I'm not, and I don't think anyone should be. Unless two wrongs make a right, discriminating against people who have not been a party to the kind of discrimination you're talking about helps no one, it just alienates those who see our position clearly.
Let's talk about the gender ratio today in Congress, or among Fortune 500 CEOs. Let's talk about the recent study showing that given identical (fake) resumes for a lab manager position, scientists on average offer lower salary and less mentoring to female candidates. http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/sexists-in-white-coats-... That's just a few examples; there are countless others.
I completely agree that it's unfair to blame men today for the long history of inequality in our society. But 1) that history is not remotely over, and 2) the responsibility that we do have as men alive today is to find whatever ways we can to make progress in improving these issues for everyone.
I honestly don't know the best ways to do that; none of them seem entirely good or entirely effective. But if we know that there is a vast invisible finger of society tipping the scales against women in a given context, it does not strike me as necessarily immoral to put explicit structures in place designed to tip things a little bit back the other way. (I'm sure it could be implemented poorly.) We have to break the self-reinforcing cycle somehow, and maybe an admittedly clumsy counter-push against those social pressures can help.
The few male at the top are supported by an army of women in leading positions, such as project manager and director. Under these women are many, many more men with lesser roles.
Women have it good in the middle to upper regions of corporate and politics. In those roles they are very appreciated and have lots of real power (and get to boss around other men).
It should be interesting to know how many have women as direct superiors vs viceversa.
Sure. But lets also talk about the gender ratio of prisoners, the homeless, suicides, workplace deaths, etc. It is fallacious to look only at the top 0.0001% of men and declare that men as a group have things better as a result. Men have a much greater variance in virtually every measurable aspect. Look at the entire spectrum.
Seriously? A "vast invisible finger?" No, I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. I'm all for social equality. Equality of opportunity. The way to implement equality is not through further inequality in another direction. That means opportunity starting all the way at the bottom, with basic education, moving up towards higher education, government, and business.
That does NOT mean "hey, we're going to fix this RIGHT NOW, and if women/blacks/pygmys/minority x are underrepresented in any way, we're going to 'tip the scales' in your favor until someone arbitrarily decides thing are 'equal' enough!"
It is unfair to blame men for this situation. It's also unfair to everyone to try and solve the problem of discrimination with more discrimination.
Just because I haven't been an active participant in discrimination doesn't mean I haven't been the recipient of unearned privilege.
I agree that two wrongs don't make a right. But I also believe that fixing the endemic sexism that's still with us is inevitably a messy process. And I believe people who have been victims of that have some very reasonable issues to work out along the way. I think everybody should try to be understanding. But as somebody who ended up getting a better deal than average, I think it's especially incumbent on me to be gracious, kind, and patient.
You are referring to rich men, that elusive 1%. Average men have traditionally gotten the worst/riskiest jobs such as soldier and physical labourer. While the top 1% do get these advantages, the bottom 99% are maybe worse off than women.
Also, the "men had it good for centuries, it's women's turn now" doesn't hold. I am not those men. I was not present then and I resent having to pay for it. Should a child have to pay for the sins of 10 generations ago?
What counts for us is here and now. What passed, passed. It was not our doing.
My point in bringing up the history is that the effects of the history aren't past. I have done unfairly well because I'm a guy. That should end.
Are you saying that men should be expected to "pay" for the priveleges of previous generations of men? If not, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, because all the advantages you list are now equally enjoyed by women (in some cases moreso, e.g. favored by marriage laws).
One very interesting thing, is that schools targeted at women are seem as "traditional" and "bastions" or "empowering", specially if they are ancient and do have good education...
Men schools, once regarded in the same way, are now being attacked, one of the best schools in the US for example is being sued for not taking female students, and a common tag attached to them is "Backwards" or "medieval" or "inquisitors"
If this was a US-only phenomenon, at least I would feel less troubled, except even in Brazil we had a crazy problem...
During the government ranking of high schools (that is made with a test that all high schools students in the country must take if they wish to join university), the first place was a boys-only school.
This is a problem, because it drew attention to them, now there are all sorts of discrimination lawsuits from parents of girls, and the media is bellowing how "less worse" they are, because they accept female teachers, and that when they did not accepted them they were evil, and now that they do they are less evil, but that this would be only a truly good school when they start accepting girls and change some of their authoritarian ways and become more tolerating and egalitarian.
Or some issue with bars... Female only bars in Brazil are allowed and seen as a female fun thing. Male only bars get the cops quickly called on them for refusing entry of costumer based on gender. (Female-only are illegal too, but cops ignore it).
Or one even crazier, it is common to employers to want to hire one gender or other (for example they might want a woman to be the maintenance person of the women's bathroom), yet although signs of "hiring female x" don't attract problems, if you put a sign like "hiring male bathroom cleaner" you get quickly sued for hiring discrimination (that is illegal).
I even had a business owner once complain that a woman sued him (and almost won... a judge chance that allowed he win the case) for not hiring her as attendant in a store for male intimate clothing... The first judge saw it purely in the light of law: you cannot discriminate, period. the second judge had more common sense on his head and imaginated that it would bring even more legal problems to have a woman hanging around men that might want to become naked (or almost naked depending on store policy regarding trying intimate clothes) to choose his new clothes...
Which school?
EDIT: I can't comment as to the criticism; I haven't heard any.
Just read the comments related to this subject, and you will see what I mean (lots of attack on them because the wish to remain male only)
The increased outrage is not necessarily something that automatically favours the sex it purports to defend.
One could argue that people care more about women than men, but one could also argue that women need to be defended more than men, which flips the discussion of sexism or gender-favouritism on its head.
But generally, I definitely find there to be a gendered response, depending on the target demographic.
Google "Black Book Apps". There should be hundreds of them, I assume.
An iPhone app that finds bikini photos of your Facebook friends
Thanks Lulu!
*badoom, pish!
The fact that many people think it is OK to make and laugh at prison rape jokes sickens me. What would you think if I made rape jokes about your 90 year old grandma? Or your ten year old son? Or your wife? If that is not ok, neither is prison rape of adult men.
I am appalled to realize many people think prison rape is part and parcel of the "prison experience". Should rape be used as a deterrent to unwanted behavior? Where do we stop? Will you be ok with teachers turning a blind eye on students raping other students in detention for not doing their homework or for misbehaving in the classroom? Answer me.
What can we do to help deter prisoner abuse?
#1 on the list would be to stop sending so many people to prison, one way or another. Then you can afford to spend more resources per capita to better rehabilitate/reform/etc. the smaller number of inmates that remain.
I think we have a similar problem here. We've grown up with these jokes and lived with them for so long that it just doesn't bother us. I am glad you agree that prison rape is not OK. I am not trying to be sanctimonious (I actually had to look up that word). I just feel so helpless about this situation.
Comedians regularly make jokes about some of the most abhorrent things that happen in the world. Racism, pedophilia, murder. Do you think that these comics therefore agree with racism, pedophilia and murder? No, of course not. They're making jokes.
It may not have been funny, and it may not have been appropriate (we're not in a comedy club after all), but it doesn't mean esquilax will be OK with "teachers turning a blind eye on students raping other students in detention for not doing their homework".
Basically, calm down, he made a bad joke, it's not the end of the world.
Comedians who joke about raping women generally get booed and chastised and otherwise shunned. Comedians who joke about prison rape generally don't. Regardless of which you think is the appropriate response, it would be nice to see a little consistency.
A joke is a joke. Specifically naming someone is not a joke. It is personal and implies a thinly veiled threat. It's not apples to apples at all unless you are the personification of the concept of prison rape.
However, I don't know what happened after I left, so there might have been some dubious decisions.
Where there is public facing code, there is vulnerability.
Regardless of if you are built on Django, CodeIgniter, Rails or super-secret-obfuscated-language-mark-two, no application is bullet proof and it would be trivial for any highly skilled security tester to interface this way with your database.
It's not if you're not doing dumb stuff.
You have to be lucky every time, an attacker only needs to be lucky once.
SQL injections are just one class of many. There are ways to vastly reduce SQL injection risks but that still leaves many other venues of attack.
Even Haskell is not a silver bullet against every kind of security problem. Didn't Snap have a directory traversal bug a while back?
You could have been informative and made your original point tactfully. Instead, you badmouthed a certain technology without even naming the stuff that was supposedly better. I'm a Haskell evangelist and agree with you 100%, and you came off like a jerk even to me.
Your assertion that whatever problems I deal with are solved problems is absolutely insane. Please, tell me how problems like interpreting customers requirements are "solved" and what technology I can use to ensure that all the code I write will 100% always match the users mental picture of what they wanted.
Criticizing the choice to deliberately create security holes for convenience is not "badmouthing", and "I'm offended" is not a productive response. It literally conveys no useful information at all.
That said, I'm not trying to doubt the skill of Lulu's employees. Just warning that vulnerabilities are always a possibility.
There wasn't really a guy-hating culture, in fact, most of the employees there were men. I don't know how it's changed since.
I re-read the parent, and nowhere does it say nor imply that the CTO nor the people he hired were male. For all that we know, the site might be built by bimbos scratching one of their own itches.
I wouldn't bet on it, of course, but I'm amazed to see that prejudices are so deeply ingrained that:
* you read what was absolutely not written;
* nobody noticed.
Of course, it could not be true, but I can't see why anyone would bother.
I don't see the 'deeply ingrained prejudice' here.
This is the perfect example of double-standards implied by women. Imagine an alternative scenario where men could rate their female counterparts on the basis of their 'assets' as defined by some vague methodology. Imagine how much fire under men would be, with ALL men being broadly labelled as sexists because this app was targeted at men.
I am seriously asking - Where are all the feminists now? And their blind-folded feminism?? Especially the ones who know this app..
Don't worry, they are certainly ready with the argument that it is the "patriarchy" that makes this app acceptable but not the reverse.
"A woman is rude and abusive? PATRIRACHY!"
If you don't, then you might want to pause for a few minutes and seriously ask yourself why you said what you did. Because from my experience, opposing a service like this is a core value of feminism. (It may not be seen as a top priority, but that's a radically different statement.)
(This is a reflection of the social influences that feminism labels "the patriarchy", right? Even though it's individual people making choices that implement those social trends. I've never considered the two to be mutually exclusive.)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/02/07/lulu_app_for...
and here:
http://jezebel.com/5982867/the-creepy-new-yelp-for-boys-and-...
Do you not know how to use google?
[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2013/01/ces-booth-babes...
[2] http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/20/playhaven-developer-fired-...
(Oh crap, now I'm feeding the troll now, aren't I?)
Now, I am a troll because I oppose your narrow views suggesting 'Feminists are always right. Men are wrong'
Because you posted two links in response to my argument that feminists don't commit to drama when it's the other side that's being hurt. But you paste just two blog posts that never got popular (I stand by this) trying to justify the fact that feminists did create an issue out of this.
My question is "Where's the drama?"
I think to understand the popularity I'm talking about, you need to go back and read out about some recent incidents where a company was brought under fire and posts were written by dozens and dozens of blogs and authors about an incident where a woman got offended because she over-heard a private conversation and about another incident where a company was under fire because they had hired PROFESSIONAL models to promote their hard disks. Now that is immense popularity, not just two blog posts that never got as much attention as described above. My point is, don't favor one gender over the other.
Also, I said unpopular blog posts and not just unpopular blogs. I hope you take some English lessons part-time.
I generally keep track of such tech issues. I never got to read those posts you linked above. If it were really popular as you claim, then I would have seen some twitter hash tags and some re-posts of the article by prominent media organizations.
Jezebel and Slate's XX Factor are definitely prominent within the feminist blogosphere (if there is such a thing).
You're also trolling by comparing a startup to the clusterfuck that was the Pycon incident. They are just simply not similar events. There have been creepy dating or hookup apps which have come up on Hacker News in the past. And this conversation (your trolling aside) very much resembled them.
So, please, tell us more about what you think feminists should be doing in detail. What should I as a feminist (someone who believes in equality more generally) have done?
You just didn't understand what I said, did you? Re-read my comment above.
http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1c4e1o/as_a...
If you have specific evidence that "the feminists" do not oppose this sort of thing, now would be a great time to share.
And you don't have to imagine that alternative scenario. It's how men generally treat women.
Do you have anything to back this up?
Congratulations, you've now been promoted to sexism level - infinity.
What you said above is sexism by itself. You are labeling an entire gender of species for what a percentage of species is accused of doing.
I'm disgusted by people like you who favor one gender over the other and my comment exactly addresses people like you!
Basically I'm saying, you're trying to set fire to a strawman.
I also am not driven by blind principle, I focus on practicality. As a futurist, I don't see this catching on, let alone abuse of if becoming a big problem. Why would I put energy into solving a vaguely possible future violence when there is documented violence happening right now?
If this app were supporting and accelerating an existing tragedy of men being unable to control their reputations, this might be worth getting angry about.
With all due respect, you should be outraged too, no? Because a LOT of feminists were outraged when similar things happened to women. My question is exactly addressed to you: Why are you outraged when it happens to gender X and why do you dismiss it when it happens to gender Y, saying things like "it's not a big problem", "we have many other things to worry about in the society" (as another commenter posted, etc.)
Assuming that gender X can withstand all this but not gender Y is sexism by itself. I appreciate your positive look on life, in general, but you are not being fair here.
>As a futurist, I don't see this catching on, let alone abuse of if becoming a big problem.
This is exactly the kind of mentality we hate. Supporting something based on the drama around it is the worst thing a feminist like you can do. Does this mean isolated incidents with no drama can be safely ignored? I think it's a poor methodology.
This is not about violence. It's about the identities of people who never opted for something. So, you're saying something along the lines of
"I don't care because it's not a serious issue (yet). And you have to deal with it."
Which is unfair. How would you like to see your face on a pornographic site uploaded without your consent? Wouldn't you and other feminists be outraged? That's exactly the feeling we've got right now, because it's our identity at stake. And you can't just ask us to live with it, just because there's no drama around it.
As a feminist, if this is the mindset with which you and your friends are working towards sexism, then, I think you would be contributing more to sexism than eradicating it. And this is disgusting. Someone should probably write a blog post about this mindset, so people like you can stop calling yourselves feminists, representing other genuine feminists in the wrong way.
And I find all this hilarious.
Or not. I don't think this is something that my friends or I would ever encounter outside reading Jezebel, which legitimately is a popular site for women. It seems like a gross app to me, one that objectifies men and has the potential to be abused by women with a grudge.
Bitterness, anger and jealousy are unfortunately some of the strongest traits we humans have, especially when it comes to our interactions with one another, this application, while on the surface immoral, is simply providing a means for this to happen online.
I don't in anyway agree with this application or the practices it supports and the tags come across as misandric but people will be people, if they don't bitch here it will be on more public venues, such as Facebook or Twitter, at least here I don't have to see the self absorbed whinging simply by virtue of never visiting the app.
That aside, I hope the creators provide some means of men removing themselves from the website or there could very soon be some kind of law suit coming there way, regardless of their contrived TOS.
That being said, I would find it a good indicator, if the person you were dating took notice of this drivel, they are probably the kind of person you don't want to be dating anyway.
I think the biggest issue is the complete anonymity which is inherently given online, even if it asked for identities, these can easily be faked.
What is to stop a jealous co-worker or an annoyed sister, or even a drunk friend from tarnishing your public image online by saying you treat them badly, or even worse, raped them, over an application like this?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoAdmit#Criticism_and_controv...
1. From the sound of it, this is a horribly sexist product that dehumanizes men and reinforces traditional gender roles. I hope to one day see a world where an app like this couldn't exist because there would be no demand (and because everyone would be disgusted by the basic concept).
2. Actively opposing this product is a lower priority than many other issues in our society. While this app does harm the men it targets, that harm occurs against a social backdrop that does not in general emphasize treating men this way. (That is, such attitudes exist, but they are rarely the primary lens through which men are viewed.) In contrast, a similar app targeting women would reinforce negative social norms that are often the primary way in which women are viewed. (Consider how often articles about women in politics comment on their appearance and clothing choices, as compared to how often articles about men do so.)
In short, every feminist that I know would be unhappy about this system, but there's no hypocrisy in those same people being less upset about it than about similar treatment of women. Yes, both men and women suffer unfair treatment because of how our society deals with gender. But women have much farther to go.
You clearly believe this, but that's what it is, your belief. I disagree; women may have "much farther to go," but that doesn't mean this is somehow intrinsically less important to people who really do support equality.
There is nothing wrong with establishing your own priorities. Calling this a lower one with the justification that you are more concerned about women's issues, instead of issues of sexual equality as a whole, would have been more honest. Less benevolent, but then nobody's perfect: Better to be clearly flawed, like the rest of us, than to fabricate some sort of intrinsic dominance where a true egalitarian would find none.
But that reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how you couldn't apply the same argument to say "Regardless of context, it's always equally bad to violently shove someone," ignoring the difference between shoving someone standing on flat ground and shoving someone standing at the edge of a cliff. Of course I would be more upset about shoving in some contexts than in others.
So my claim is that the same reasoning applies here. This app absolutely does harm men, but the position of men in society is such that the resulting harm is fairly contained: this service is notable precisely because it's unusual. On the other hand, a similar app for rating women would be yet another contribution to a vast complex of social attitudes and institutions that combine to have a powerful oppressive effect. My sense is that network effects would reinforce and magnify the harm that such an app would do to women.
So yes, when evaluating my desire for sexual equality as a whole, I find myself more pressingly concerned about women's issues. But from my perspective, that's not an arbitrary preference but a rational choice.
Like I said... I don't find your view "wrong" in any absolute sense. I find it mildly objectionable that it's arbitrary (which is fine) while hiding behind claimed rationality (not as fine).
Try to read a little more about how genders really work before you claim that men are the only oppressors: the top of society is mostly men, but so is the bottom.
The survival rate of third-class female passengers on the Titanic were higher than the survival rate of first-class male passengers: does that sound like oppression for you?
And yes, feminism is also concerned about the ways in which this social structure hurts men, very much so. It's just that the consensus is that it hurts women more, so today there are larger and more immediate gains to be made by spending more energy fixing those harms to women.
An appeal to consensus - never mind being logical, consistent or mindful of context - would be an improvement over where these debates with patriarcy-theory indoctrinated feminists always end up, which is 'you're wrong by definition'. That is, sexism can only hurt women because that's what the word has been defined to mean. It's utterly ludicrous and intellectually bankrupt approach to dialogue of course.
Your implicit attack on morals derived from feminism reveals a failure to understand feminism and its ideals and effects. Furthermore, demonizing "plenty of highly educated women" as eye-for-an-eye combatants seeking revenge for patriarchy isn't just silly, it's offensive.
Well-educated people - both women and men, actually - are in fact more likely to be feminists (due to the cultural milieu at most universities, if nothing else), and feminists are in fact not unlikely to approve of things like Lulu as well-deserved reversals of privilege. I'm not saying all of them would (in fact, I am a feminist myself, and I do not), but it's not rare, either, and I've seen that kind of reaction from people I would not consider superficial or uninteresting.
That's not an attack on anything, it's just me sharing my personal experience. And who are you to say that my experience is invalid, or silly? I think that's far more offensive than anything I've said.
2. "Highly Educated" and "Decent, intelligent human being" are different things. It's nice when they collide, but they don't always.
3. Not all education leads to idiotic opinions like these.
Other than that, obviously everything you've said there is totally true, in that I think that covers everything you've said there.
Would you not be tempted to at least look? I mean you know it's just superficial crap, but you might have a look; just for laughs of course..
Or you meet a new girl out somewhere and get her phone number, then your buddy comes to you and says "haha, dude that chick you met.. says here she gives a terrible blowjob! LOL!"
I mean, you'd like to think that stuff wouldn't colour your judgement at all..
And if my 'buddy' said that he'd get a polite "fuck off".
UPDATE: Or perhaps not. After looking at the web site, it seems that this service, and a bad review of my person, is precisely the thing to repel exactly the kind of women I've never wanted to have anything common with.
"I've published my book on Lulu.com."
"Oh, is that the horrible sexist girl gossip website?"
"I didn't know they were running it. I'll tell my friends to stop buying their books from there."
I think the issue is men can't use the app.
This thought exercise is really making me scared about how much the owners of the apps on my phone know about me!
If this helps steer the superficial airheads in another direction, I'd only have one thing to say to Chong: "Thanks!" Saves us the trouble of finding out the hard way, at least.
Most of the time, satisfied customers don't bother to review the product or service because a certain psychological barrier first needs to be overcome (i.e. "writing this review is worth my time because it's SO good/bad"). Middle-of-the-road reviews rarely make it through, and when they do, they are typically short and uninsightful. Reviews that draw the most attention are those at the extremes.
Human beings are generally more prone to extreme dissatisfaction than extreme satisfaction. It's in our nature. When is the last time you thought, "Man, that person drives SO well!" or "My bill is SO low this month!"?
In the case of Lulu, the comments will heavily skew to the negative since "satisfied customers" will likely still be dating the guy (and thus not posting reviews) and dissatisfied ones will have every incentive to write vindictive comments in a last attempt to "get even". And those who are initially angry with the guy but later change their minds are likely to write a review during the angry phase and forget about it later, when their opinion of him has moderated. The end result is that most of the guys on the site will be portrayed in a much more negative light than is actually merited.
In terms of its user base, it's really just catering to the female equivalent of guys who engage in "slut shaming". But it's more socially acceptable because the app targets men instead of women, and men are expected to be more psychologically durable.
That's only true if you don't have what gossip girls like; but attraction is definitely not a symmetrical relationship.
WHAT?! You mean the Lulu app users might not be strictly adhering to the site's Terms of Service?! Well, notify the FBI about that! There's a law created in 1984 https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa for JUST such criminals as these, and it makes the users guilty of committing a felony offense (a perfectly reasonable use of the law in this case)! Never mind the EFF's Week-Of-Action for reforming the CFAA this week https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/help-us-remember-aaron... . Lulu's users are clearly a threat to society and deserve felony convictions for their awful behavior here.
I don't see why anyone would want such a "business model".
Doesn't any such law exist in the US?
Either that, or it's OK because it's about men and not women. One of the two.
http://tumbling.alastair.is/post/42050321362/why-are-posts-a...
What I have seen is public acknowledgement from pg that they delete stories that get voted up just because they feel like it. So the community doesn't necessarily get a say.
But the amount of faux outrage you're all whipping yourselves into a froth over is really over the top. So much hate and resentment. :(
Oh, and those of you claiming there would be some sort of anti-man frenzy if there was a site targeting similar gossip by men?
It's been done. No outrage. The most prominent example? Facebook.
There are far creepier and more intrusive apps and services out there. Instead of blindly blaming feminists (without actually understanding what most feminists actually stand for) for them being on the marketplace, blame the developers and encourage the ecosystems they're a part of to stop allowing apps whose primary intentions are to shame or label unknowing persons. Your rage is Streisand-effecting this thing and propelling it further than it would have gone otherwise.
What were the totals in those gender polls yesterday? The current numbers are sitting at Male - 1201 / Female - 72 / Other - 30. And it shows (particularly because a lot of women specifically signed up yesterday just to participate in it and will probably go back to lurking for good reason).
I think many forget this place is actually less diverse than Reddit in demographics, frequented mostly by the 18-24 male, we just pretend that there's higher expectations in how one speaks and treats the upvote/downvote system even though that seemingly goes out the window when discussing topics like these, where opposing viewpoints are downvoted as quickly as they're posted and the women-blaming posts are upvoted.
When we have threads about revenge-porn sites, where are these same angry posters? Instead we get slut-shaming in the form of, "Well maybe you shouldn't be sending those types of photos if you don't want them to end up in the wrong hands." They act as though photos of naked males are passed around as quickly and have the same effect on the victim as they do females.
Do you remember the threads about /r/creepshots and how many here were defending the right to post these photos even if they contained personally-identifying information (location, scars, tattoos, etc.) because "freedom of speech" and "let Reddit be Reddit" and the always rational "well she was in public so she doesn't have any say in who can take a picture of her, regardless of how depraved it is". But oh no, some woman on some app nobody is going to use is going to call me a creep and it's going to ruin my life - the privilege!
The idea that "I don't experience privilege and I know this because I am not to blame for anything that happened before my existence," is trying to argue a point that only extremist feminists are making; no one's blaming the current crop of men for past problems that exist today (not most of them, anyway). That doesn't negate the fact that these values and expectations have already permeated through our society and are affecting everyone in ways many do not notice in their day-to-day.
It's a shame that this was the first post I am commenting on today, after seeing the existing dialogue here and the sibling comment to my post (albeit [dead]), I'm sure there will be some fun responses. But I needed to get things done today anyway.
TL;DR We have things to work on on both sides, but blaming women for a product not even created by women is really unnecessary and unproductive, particularly when similar apps for men are already on the market and have been linked in this thread.
Why do discussions like this always get such ridiculous strawman arguments tossed around? Nobody is blaming feminists. People are pointing out that the vocal, hateful group of internet "feminists" constantly claim they are against sexism in all forms, and thus men's rights advocacy should not exist and those people should just be feminists. But in reality, when obvious sexism like this happens, those same "feminists" do not speak out against it.
It has no legitimacy because it's not legitimate.
Instead it is largely the same old prejudices, finding renewed strength under a thin mask of collective victimhood, desperately clung to.
The men's rights movement as it is should not exist. Not because male inequality is covered by feminist ideals, though it is, but because the "men's rights" movement is largely nothing more than a pretext for men to openly and self-righteously flaunt their anti-woman beliefs.
Certainly not. Posting deliberately inflammatory nonsense is however. Especially when posting it as a complete non-sequitur reply to an entirely unrelated post. Doubly so when you then proceed to act like a response is warranted, and double down on the random nonsense.
If you're angered by my disagreement, it's not because I'm being inflammatory. I have not engaged in the name-calling you have, nor have I tried to undermine your posts by pretending to be unable to understand them. I have simply stated my honest opinion.
Perhaps you really do have trouble understanding what I'm communicating; if so, my condolences.
But it's more likely that you're simply unprepared for direct challenges, so you avoid the topics at hand and try to score points via misdirection.
No, it was not. I said nothing about men's rights, you simply assume that I must be an MRA because I disagreed with something you perceive as feminist. Just like MRAs assume I am a feminist when I disagree with something they say.
>If you're angered by my disagreement
Why do you think I am angered? And you have not expressed disagreement, your post literally had nothing to do with anything I said. You posted a complete non-sequitur, which you know is deliberately inflammatory, under the assumption that I am someone who will be offended by it. That is the very definition of trolling, even if your assumption is incorrect.
As for the rest, I have no interest in labeling people into petty little tribal buckets. I don't care what you call yourself.
That said, the amount of effort you are expending trying to undermine my opinion by personal attacks and misdirection strongly suggests you find my beliefs threatening, but lack either the evidence or the intellectual capabilities to produce a counterargument.
Finally, of course you are angered. On what other basis can you label my comments "inflammatory"?
Exactly why I couldn't continue responding to him. Everything he says is just some empty non-statement coupled with how I'm "wrong" or "not getting it" when there's nothing even there to get. Keep fighting the good fight.
The hypocrisy of that statement is overwhelming.
>Your comment introduced a group opposed to MRA's existence, then argued that they were wrong in doing so.
I did neither of those things, perhaps you should try reading it again.
>That said, the amount of effort you are expending trying to undermine my opinion
I have said absolutely nothing about your opinion in any of my posts, other than that it was entirely unrelated to anything I have said.
>Finally, of course you are angered. On what other basis can you label my comments "inflammatory"?
I possess basic literacy and adult level reading comprehension. If you said "gay rights is largely the same old prejudices, finding renewed strength under a thin mask of collective victimhood, desperately clung to" it would also be obviously intended to be inflammatory. Even if I am not gay, and even if your comment does not make me angry, I am still capable of grasping the obvious inflammatory nature of the statement.
Introduction of a group opposed to MRA: "the vocal, hateful group of internet 'feminists' constantly claim they are against sexism in all forms, and thus men's rights advocacy should not exist ..."
Your counter of said group's supposed reason for believing MRA to be superfluous: "But in reality, when obvious sexism like this happens, those same 'feminists' do not speak out against it."
> I have said absolutely nothing about your opinion
Exactly. Yet you are strenuously trying to dismiss it nonetheless -- but doing so by attacking the messenger and other weasel tactics, rather than by honest disagreement.
The uproar in this thread is over placing inappropriate blame on people that neither asked for nor made this app. As Stavros said above, the company is primarily male and this aspect of the app was a last-minute pivot he hadn't heard of before he left the company.
Now look at how HN handled the same type of app for men -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5087859. Seems to be a lot less gender-blaming/misplaced fear going around there.
A better way to handle something like this is to shut down the very notion of it and do what was necessary to tell developers and distributors that this is not acceptable, like the thread linked above did. Instead, it turned into a hateful, woman-bashing array of bruised egos and hurt butts over what women you'd probably be smart enough not to date in the first place had to say about you.
I'm not sure how you could misunderstand my post as it was quite clear. I know people mentioned feminists. Yes, they say things like "WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS NOW?!" just like I said. That is not blaming feminists for the creation of the app, which is what you claimed, and what I very clearly and explicitly responded to.
>The uproar in this thread is over placing inappropriate blame on people that neither asked for nor made this app
No it is not. Asking why feminists aren't speaking out against something is not blaming them for the creation of that thing.
Yet many of people come into these threads with the intent to argue with those whom they inherently believe will approve of an app like this because their misguided thought-process has them thinking the majority of feminists would praise it. They're quick to get mad at women, not at the developers or the mindset that this is okay. They're quick to complain at a movement for not doing enough in 24 hours, when we're all a part of it.
Not only that, but the current top comments here are complaining about how women abuse their "privilege" by calling men they deem unworthy of their time "creepy" and have decided to pile on needlessly to the idea that everyday interactions are going to land them with such a title. Again, there are very few women on HN alone, no less those willing to engage with people who honestly think that this is standardized practice for +/- 50% of the population, thus leaving dissenting opinions in the dust and piling on one-off anecdotes as some sort of social proof that they're right. How is that benefitting anyone?
This is not the first women's-issue thread in which I've seen you (and others here) personally go out of your way to talk without actually having anything to say. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here, but it isn't conveying anything other than you are arguing to argue.
That is clear from the content of your post. The question is, why are you so unsure. It is very simple, and I made it very clear. Twice in fact. You said that people here are blaming feminists for the creation of the app. I said that is false. That's it. That is the whole thing. I do not see how you can have such a hard time understanding such a very simple statement.
This has come up so much in this thread its almost baffling. Newsflash: If you are apart of the majority demographic on this website (18-35, upper middle class educated white male) you live the privilege EVERYDAY. Of course you arent conscious of it because it exists in your favor.
However, progress and equality is not the reversal of an imbalance - it's the leveling of a playing field and accepting that to achieve real meaningful change, the notion of retribution must be taken off the table.
Either it's ok for both genders to have a service like this, or it is not ok for either gender to have a service like this. End of story.
Personally I'd find any site like this reprehensible for either gender (or any other biologically or socially discernable metric, for that matter).
Not to mention the insane double standard. I'd love to see a man make a similar app for rating women this way. I'm sure there would be news reports and tons of angry feminists flooding the airwaves.
When every other online interaction involves at least a few men commenting on your fuckability or how much of a 'bitch' you are, or going digging through all of your previous posts or even tracking down your Facebook account so that they can publicly share your body with all of the other men reading, and you have no recourse lest you be labelled an 'angry feminist', you will find that one single Web site where women treat men in a similar fashion does not inspire the same level of passion that it is doing here.
It is a terrible Web site, obviously, but i am envious of the social position that leads to such a complete lack of irony and self-reflection as seen in these comments.
Also, in no way should double standards and sexism lead to more double standards and sexism.
The definition of a double-standard is 'the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or two different people in the same situation'.
Your use of the term 'insane double standard' (not to mention the other comments here using similar language) therefore suggests that the existence of one single Web site dedicated to women objectifying men is a 'similar situation' to living every single day in a culture where only the OPPOSITE is actually a real problem.
And as much as i can identify with the distaste over this Web site, i find that that implication is laughable and the emotional outrage over it is therefore severely misplaced.
I understand why people dislike websites like this, or the Diet Coke ads (men stripping their shirts off while women ogle) and I'd join in the criticism. But the ranting sometimes feels so overblown.
Thanks for correcting me.
I imagine the signal to noise ratio will just be horrible, bitter ex girlfriends will just spam guys with negative tags even if they aren't true and it's information will just lose all value.
I would expect it to be a lot of negatives, because people usually don't (seem to) gossip as much about positives.
To me, the emotional heart of this piece of writing is his concern with "men kowtowing". I looked at his other articles and his personal site, and I didn't see anything where his writing was half this passionate. And certainly nothing where he'd expressed concern for sexism.
I suspect if I looked into Lulu I'd also not like it. But this article is so full of the author that I really can't see the subject.
Never mind that either side of that is the worst kind of ad hominem.
Ad hominem concerns apply to rational arguments. This piece is not cool, rational discourse. It's a highly emotional piece, written to incite emotion. Inquiring about the source and nature of the emotion that drives it is fair.
I do think it's wrong for a writer, though. If you're going to set yourself up as writing an article about a topic, I think you should actually know something about the topic.
This would have been a better piece if he'd made it more explicitly about his own feelings all the way through, rather than trying to make it about bigger things.
Do they take steps to anonymize the evaluators? Even if they do, timing the changes in the evaluations will allow to guess who said what, except for the most frantic womanizers.
I can foresee a Lulu user being busted, bad things happening to her, and Lulu being sued.
Finally, for those who talk about DDoSing the site: it's smarter and funnier to build a Lulu whistleblowing bot, which makes stuff more public than intended.
Moral issues aside, I can see a lot of libel lawsuits (at least in the UK) springing up because of this app. There are enough rumours in the world as it is, we do not need apps that profit from people rating the opposite sex and spreading rumours about them.
You sound like you expect investors to somehow be more guided by ethics than other people. Ever consider that it might be the other way around?
The investors expect it to make more money than they put in.
You just have to roll with the punches and adjust. It's fine to be appalled at stuff like this, it goes over the top whenever you want someone to have authority to bring a stop to it for you. Adjusting your expectations and dealing with your objections are a better option than giving someone you can't really trust such long lasting power just to temporarily please your ego.
In two days you're going to forget about this app, but then you'll probably have found something else on HN to be outraged about. Maybe it will be the app store gate keeper shutting down an app you liked.
So there's that.
--edit-- Here is is - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5087859
It wasn't as as popular as this topic, and there are one or two "how will you monetise this" posts, but in general it got slammed.
But sometimes, people getting what they want is a horrible thing.
Very ... smart.
/edit: Oh, their privacy disclaimer states that they will also pull your friends' data into their DB.
Guys don’t see what the girls see. We let them select their relationship status and profile picture and we encourage them to get their “fan base” to review them.
Lulu Dude is also a place for guys to get self-improvement tips. Think of Lulu Dude as Cosmo for guys."
It depends a LOT on what the opposite sexes look for in a partner - men want something young and pretty to impress their friends and not say something too stupid, women want a dominant man who pays for stuff and makes decisions.
I get the impression that this is a "terrible thing" because it will actively hinder the dating chances of some people without redress or knowledge. (Which is exactly like an evening in the bar)
Like privacy, our reputations are taking a digital battering. But just as people watch reality tv and boo at the evil ones, they also learn that they are booing five minutes edited conversation from 24 hours of life - lulu will carry on and so will gossip and bitchiness, but we will learn to adjust to the new levels of transparency - it may be a rough time, but it will happen.
Nb I you can use SQL injection to get a hot date, and don't live up to the injected criteria, trust me, that story will not need lulu to spread
We could have the "words vs. words+voice" debate, but let's just skip it because voice matters.
Surprised they even tried to launch in the UK and had it running without getting sued or prosecuted.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating that you do so.
Edit: saw the “no boys allowed” clause. Great. So I guess using it would require a fake Facebook account?
Playing to the base instincts of the hoi polloi is rarely a bad business strategy.
But it is self-debasing.
She should grow up. So should you.
Interesting: "hoi polloi" autocorrects to "hot pollo". And now I'm hungry.
But then I was: I just need a few fake reviews ...
That's a great filter, right there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toeIzZZxEkw
The more things change....
Oh wait this is about how awful women are to men. Never mind.
I find the whole idea objectionable at every level and about as innovative as "rate my poo".