1325: "Rejection"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby jpk » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:31 am UTC

Weeks wrote:This is seriously off-topic though so whatever


Yes. But the topic is seriously not that interesting. I mean, really, haven't we all kind of gotten over the PUA people by now? They're a bunch of pathetic drippy little men hoping that they'll learn to be cool by watching someone else be cool in a video.
Basically, a lot of wasted skin. And then we have the furious argument over whether men frequently react violently to rejection.
Well, no, they don't, not by any measure that I've ever seen.
And then there's the usual bunch of people talking past themselves and each other and nobody really giving a crap about what anyone else is saying. The great communication continues. Huzzah for the internets.

But, as you say: whatever. It gives me something to do while I wait for numbers to crunch.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:46 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Trisana wrote:
Ilyak1986 wrote:
Right, it couldn't at all be that women have very good reason to be wary of men, for various reasons?
Did I say "all"? I said "a lot". I'm not sure how many of those justified women have personally been the victims of assault, or something worse. But I'd venture to say that the chance of a random stranger being firmly rejected and then doing something so memorably bad that it warrants taking the time to write out some blog post in an echo chamber is pretty low. I'd venture to say that most people don't go off and get violent (either physically or verbally) with an individual for simply saying no, or there would be far fewer outgoing women, and all of them would flock to dating sites from the safety of a computer from within their own home, if we're wiling to follow this logic to its end.
AT LEAST 1 in 6 women (in the US, anyway, I don't have statistics for outside of the US) have been sexually assaulted. Some studies I've read increase that to 1 in 4. Most of these sexual assaults occur by the time these women have graduated from college. We, as women, GET TAUGHT TO FEAR BEING RAPED. So yes, we take care to avoid the slightest chance.
Even if their numbers are low, the chances of meeting one of them are not. And women don't stay at home all day because that is horrible, that is a life prison sentence. I find it horrid that you suggest all women being imprisoned are the level of harassment needed to allow someone to express that they don't happen to like someone (stringing along was also deemed unacceptable, but if you're not into the one confessing to you those are the options). Meeting people on dating sites is no better, as at some point you have to meet them for the first time, and you still hardly know them, they may have lied about everything.


As a woman, I want to interject this one thing here:

This was the results from one of the better studies I've seen with regards to rape.
http://www2.binghamton.edu/counseling/d ... SHEET1.pdf

The end result?

98.3% of men would not, or probably would not commit rape if given the opportunity.
0.6% of men have committed rape only once.
1.05% of men are serial rapists, with an average of 14 victims.

(Also the study is probably lowballing actual numbers by a maybe half a percent, but this more or less is the minimum confirmed numbers)

Think about that. 1% of men are serial rapists, and by themselves manage to account for almost all female rape victims. Those 1% of men fucking ruin it for goddamn fucking everyone, both men and women. And the worst part is, that goddamn 1% openly admits that they look for women who have their guard down to exploit. Women who take their guard down tend to be magnets for these psychopaths. So women tend to be caught between a rock and a hard place: They know that virtually all men aren't rapists, and are completely safe to take their guard down around, but they also know that if they take their guard down, they acquire a bulls-eye on their forehead. A bulls-eye being targeted by someone who on average will have had around 14 successful hits already.

There's no goddamn good solution.

So what do most women do? Most women tend to be polite, not paranoid, but still be cautious. They tend to be wary of men who are pushing their boundaries, or who are trying to pressure them to go fast (individual mileage may vary from woman to woman). But despite being wary, they still try to give people the benefit of the doubt. The best thing, as a male, that you can do, is respect that reasonable need for caution, because even though you aren't a threat, if they let their guard down, they would be at a much higher risk for being targeted by that 1%.

Respect that reasonable need for caution, accept that no means no, and try to take solace in the knowledge that she's giving you the benefit of the doubt, instead of being one of those crazy people who insist "All men are rapists, if they are only given the opportunity," or whatever nonsense some people spew. And with a little bit of time and trust, instead of trying to coerce a woman into not saying no, you might find yourself with a woman who'll be giving you an enthusiastic yes, and isn't that more fucking fun?

Individuals will vary, void where prohibited, offer not valid internationally, please contact doctor if experiencing an erection lasting longer than four hours.

zingularity wrote:Heh, no problem. I certainly don't mean to deny you your offense at the receiving end of "Nice Guy" behaviour. Ostensibly though, some would have the intention of "helping" these people, as a few posters have claimed amid a deluge of sarcastic zingers.

No worries, the sarcastic zingers didn't get to me. I have a thicker skin than sonar1313 thinks :P Plus it helps when it's obvious that people I respect like gmalivuk are on my side. When a person's response can be roughly paraphrased as "fuck you," it's pretty much an admission that they have lost the argument but don't want to concede, and since they have nothing else they can argue, they just become irrationally angry at the thing which is challenging their beliefs. Though I more than welcome anybody to present a counterpoint as to why I am misinterpreting their, roughly paraphrased, "fuck you" posts. I'm always open-eared to well reasoned counterpoints.

KrytenKoro wrote:And disclaimer again: Since Karilyn explained that I didn't know the full story about how she acts, I withdraw my objection to what she said. I shouldn't have attacked her in the first place, and for that I'm sorry.

Water under the bridge dude. Or water off a ducks back. Either way you're not in hot water with me.
Last edited by Karilyn on Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:18 am UTC, edited 6 times in total.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:53 am UTC

jpk wrote:
Weeks wrote:So you admit that you are trolling.


[url="http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html"]Not in the sense that I've always understood the term[/url] (see sense 1), but clearly you mean something different. What is it you mean by the term?

The sense 2 is much closer to your behavior than gmalivuk's personal attacks to ad hominem argument.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PeteP » Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:50 am UTC

jpk wrote:
PeteP wrote:
jpk wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The problem is, interviewers would have no way of knowing that ahead of time, and would probably learn from experience that far more people react like angry American Idol rejects than react well to that sort of bluntness.



Based on the number of ad hominem and obscenity-laced responses I see from you, I wonder if there's a degree of projection here. At least, if you're anything like this in real space, I don't think I'd want to give you any bad news in person, since it sounds like it would be an extremely unpleasant few minutes before security came in and maced the hell out of you.

Mind quoting one of his ad hominem. (Yes I'm just curious whether you know what it means.)


[url="http://fora.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=107753#p3526667"]Here's one.[/url]

(I'm going to try to assume that you're not being a cleverdick, but in case you were wondering, that sort of snide "I wonder if you really know what that means" crap is really, really grating. Yes, other people do know fancy words too)

Like previously said that isn't an ad hominem only an insult . I expect insults from gmalivuk but ad hominem would surprise me.
Btw more interestingly this exchange demonstrates the value of sugar coating words (related to letting someone down easy).
If I didn't add that sentence the implication would still be "I think you are either lying or wrong" or in the most positive interpretation "I don't like believing things without exidence". However the third case would be the least likely interpretation (and still carries the implication that it might be a lie or wrong). When somebody bothers to question a single statement not relevant to the main discussion, they probably doubt it.
Spelling out one of the first two interpretations as I did causes offense in many cases. Leaving it out wouldn't change why I asked. I asked because I know that gmalivuk uses insults, but I have never seen him use an ad hominem and thus I expected that it was misused in the way it often is.
Not adding it turns it into subtext and leaves a slight chance for a more positive interpretation.
Now one might not object to trying to avoid offense by sugar coating and only to object it when it's a statement which isn't true. Like saying "let's just be friends" without wanting to be friends. Though I have my doubts that it's as often a lie as the discussion about it seems t imply. (Especially since friend can encompasses a wide range of relationships depending on usage.)

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:56 am UTC

jpk is clearly familiar with ad hominem; I believe he was merely being a dick.
jpk wrote:Actually, you're wrong on most of that. For example, my vituperation was clearly not in support of any position, it was just personal abuse. So, not being an argument, it's not a fallacy.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5760
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Angua » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:00 am UTC

jpk wrote:
Weeks wrote:This is seriously off-topic though so whatever


Yes. But the topic is seriously not that interesting. I mean, really, haven't we all kind of gotten over the PUA people by now? They're a bunch of pathetic drippy little men hoping that they'll learn to be cool by watching someone else be cool in a video.
Basically, a lot of wasted skin. And then we have the furious argument over whether men frequently react violently to rejection.
Well, no, they don't, not by any measure that I've ever seen.
And then there's the usual bunch of people talking past themselves and each other and nobody really giving a crap about what anyone else is saying. The great communication continues. Huzzah for the internets.

But, as you say: whatever. It gives me something to do while I wait for numbers to crunch.

jpk, please stop posting in this thread if you're not going to be actually on topic.

gmalivuk and everyone else, please disengage from jpk.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26413
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:49 pm UTC

Soft Hyphen wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:And in general my guess would be that, for emotionally well-adjusted individuals, mitigating the possibility of immediate anger does in fact reduce the incidence of violence, because most people know how to take some time to cool off.

Okay, now I'm confused. Surely someone who would react to rejection with the kind of violence described here is not emotionally well-adjusted?

Trisana wrote:I disagree with the idea that a lot of these guys are "unstable" as society defines unstable. It's just that (usually white) men have been taught that they *deserve* sex, that women are things they can earn. That's the story media portrays, and when they are denied that which they believe they are due, they get (to their mind) justifiably upset.

Okay, seriously, this is crossing the line from "I'm socially clueless" to "Is everyone around me fucking crazy?" Anyone who reacts to romantic rejection with violence, I'd be happy to call "evil". I thought "unstable" was being generous.

gmalivuk wrote:So the options on the table are:
1) Blunt rejection, risking anger or violence directed at you right now, or at best probably embarrassing the both of you.
2) Polite rejection, risking the possibility that a slow buildup of frustration will eventually culminate in anger or violence when you're not around, or at best allowing the both of you to save face and part ways without embarrassing awkwardness.

See, no, even when you state the best case for 1, you're really not getting it, and it's frustrating to read.

The best case is the woman says "I'm not interested" (what you would call 'blunt rejection") and the guy says "Oh, okay. That sucks." and moves on. He might be embarrassed, but that seems inescapable. The girl shouldn't be embarrassed at all. She doesn't owe the guy any relationship (haven't there been a bajillion posts in this thread to that effect?) so a simple response of "no" is perfectly valid and no cause for embarrassment for her.

And I don't understand "saving face". If the girl rejects you, you're rejected. There's nothing to "save". It's just a matter of when the guy realizes he's been rejected. Now he has to deal with both the embarrassment of rejection, and the embarrassment of being lied to.

The best case of option 2 is worse than the best case of option 1, and the worst case of option 2 is worse than the worst case of option 1.
Saving face is a thing that happens when you're facing someone (or still interacting with them, even if it's online), and it happens all the time when people disagree or are upset. It's why people try to play things off as jokes and it's why people who've lost arguments claim they were playing devil's advocate or move the goalposts or just, online at least, vanish from the discussion rather than admit they were wrong. Many times people do eventually and privately accept that they were wrong and change their opinion, but in theemotional heat of the moment that is really hard to do. And for the same reason people almost never end a first date in the middle of dinner, even if that's when they realize there won't me a second date. And for the same reason I've heard many people agree that they wouldn't publicly reject a grand public marriage proposal, because they judge public acceptance followed by private rejection is less humiliating for the person doing the proposing.

And really that's what it's about: avoiding embarrassment, which is always heightened by the presence of other people to be embarrassed in front of. So we have elaborate social conventions built to provide face-saving plausible deniability when things don't go as hoped.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby orthogon » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:41 pm UTC

Soft Hyphen wrote:Everyone generalizes. It's not a good thing, and should be fought whenever practical, but it's human nature.

This is this irony thing, no? ;)

Not all generalisations are a bad thing. Many of us xkcders would consider ourselves scientists, and what is science if not the deliberate process of making generalisations based on individual cases?

I'm not saying that you should generalise about people, however, which I understand is what you meant.
Spoiler:
There are at least two reasons: firstly that unlike physical laws, there are no known absolute laws about human behaviour that hold in every single case. Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.
I just wanted to defend generalisations from the generalisation being made about them!
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:09 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Not all generalisations are a bad thing. Many of us xkcders would consider ourselves scientists, and what is science if not the deliberate process of making generalisations based on individual cases?

I'm not saying that you should generalise about people, however, which I understand is what you meant.
Spoiler:
There are at least two reasons: firstly that unlike physical laws, there are no known absolute laws about human behaviour that hold in every single case. Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.
I just wanted to defend generalisations from the generalisation being made about them!

I don't entirely agree with this either. I think the motives are important. I think it is okay if generalisation is done to aid the person the generalised ideas are applied to, but not when trying to select people to reward or punish (either directly or indirectly), I also think it could be acceptable if generalisation occurs to humans in general. To be more specific: mortality rates in surgery are much higher for morbidly obese people, this doesn't mean that any morbidly obese person would die during surgery, I think it is morally wrong to subject such a person to surgery when the odds of dying from the disease are lower.

This is also an important factor in diagnosis. If the patient has symptoms of a disease that is very common in Sub-Saharan African people but extremely rare in East-Asian people (perhaps a genetic disease), while another disease might be in between for both, it might be worth accounting for this. I also think that research concerning these diseases should split populations if there is a reasonable chance for such a difference to exist as it aids diagnosis and improve treatment.

Generalisations about people are also common in the social sciences but I lack sufficient understanding of the subject to judge about these cases.

PS The obesity mortality problem is not the surgeons fault, the game operation also gets more difficult if you poor molten butter over it first and then play when it is solid.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby orthogon » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:36 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
orthogon wrote:Not all generalisations are a bad thing. Many of us xkcders would consider ourselves scientists, and what is science if not the deliberate process of making generalisations based on individual cases?

I'm not saying that you should generalise about people, however, which I understand is what you meant.
Spoiler:
There are at least two reasons: firstly that unlike physical laws, there are no known absolute laws about human behaviour that hold in every single case. Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.
I just wanted to defend generalisations from the generalisation being made about them!

I don't entirely agree with this either. I think the motives are important. I think it is okay if generalisation is done to aid the person the generalised ideas are applied to, but not when trying to select people to reward or punish (either directly or indirectly), I also think it could be acceptable if generalisation occurs to humans in general. To be more specific: mortality rates in surgery are much higher for morbidly obese people, this doesn't mean that any morbidly obese person would die during surgery, I think it is morally wrong to subject such a person to surgery when the odds of dying from the disease are lower.

This is also an important factor in diagnosis. If the patient has symptoms of a disease that is very common in Sub-Saharan African people but extremely rare in East-Asian people (perhaps a genetic disease), while another disease might be in between for both, it might be worth accounting for this. I also think that research concerning these diseases should split populations if there is a reasonable chance for such a difference to exist as it aids diagnosis and improve treatment.

Generalisations about people are also common in the social sciences but I lack sufficient understanding of the subject to judge about these cases.

PS The obesity mortality problem is not the surgeons fault, the game operation also gets more difficult if you poor molten butter over it first and then play when it is solid.

I agree completely, but I think in your medical examples the moral and utilitarian considerations are pulling in the same direction, whereas I was thinking of cases where the two are in conflict. There's a third case: where there are finite resources as in the UK's National Health Service; it's ok to decide to treat patient A rather than patient B because you can only afford to do one operation and A has a better prognosis. In that case, the morality is neutral, since both human beings have equal rights so there's nothing to choose between them. The fourth case is when patient A is more likely to survive the operation but has fewer years of life left, the UK's NIHCE (National institute for health and clinical excellence) actually uses this concept of Quality Life Years to decide between patients. In that case it's not human lives that are held to be equal, but human life-years. This has been rather controversial, but mainly because people have a really hard time accepting that these kinds of decisions have to be made, and it's hard to think of a better metric.

ETA: Case 5: when recruiting doctors and surgeons, should we waive the requirement of fairness and go for the best probability of a good choice, on the basis that hundreds or thousands of human lives will depend on the decision?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:47 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.

Uh-oh... is it fair to prefer to date handsome people, knowing that their genes are "better" only on average, and not necessarily in every particular case?

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PeteP » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:03 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
orthogon wrote:Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.

Uh-oh... is it fair to prefer to date handsome people, knowing that their genes are "better" only on average, and not necessarily in every particular case?

Wouldn't that question only make sense if people choose handsome people to get a partner with good genes instead of because they find it more attractive? (In before evolution something something. Evolutionary reasons for attraction don't matter, if a trait X which leads to behaviour Y was selected because it statistically brings benefit Z then we are doing Y because of X not Z. Note that if benefit Z went away X might remain for quite a while.)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby orthogon » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:06 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
orthogon wrote:Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.

Uh-oh... is it fair to prefer to date handsome people, knowing that their genes are "better" only on average, and not necessarily in every particular case?

Sorry, I was speaking quite far off topic: I don't claim that fair selection should apply to sexual preferences. If it does then I'm a horrible sexist. At some point in the future our moral framework might in fact extend the concept of rights to the point that people do have a right to sex. Tolerance of or legalisation of prostitution is sort of a step in this direction. But at the moment, as the saying goes, life just ain't fair in that department.

Anyway I don't think it's necessarily rational for the human being to make such decisions based on genes, though it does depend what you're trying to optimise. If the future of your family line is the relevant variable then, sure. Otherwise the point about choosing a partner with good genes is that it's good for your genes, not necessarily for you. If your own happiness during your lifetime is the important factor, then how much you enjoy being with the person is more relevant. If you care about both, there are even cuspier solutions such as getting pregnant by / impregnating somebody other than the person you choose to spend your life with. Infidelity allows you to optimise the quality of your children's genes separately from the quality of your life experience.

Edit: I think I might have been ninja'd; I'm not sure because this evolutionary biology is hard.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:26 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:
Kit. wrote:
orthogon wrote:Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.

Uh-oh... is it fair to prefer to date handsome people, knowing that their genes are "better" only on average, and not necessarily in every particular case?

Wouldn't that question only make sense if people choose handsome people to get a partner with good genes instead of because they find it more attractive?

Isn't it like saying that rejecting a candidate based on the blind prejudice against his statistical group, instead of on the actual statistics for his group, is OK?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3379
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:56 pm UTC

I want to say, at this point that I am 100% sexist. I will only date women and not men (people whose gender-identity challenges my binary classification are considered on a case-by-case basis)

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PeteP » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:57 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
PeteP wrote:
Kit. wrote:
orthogon wrote:Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.

Uh-oh... is it fair to prefer to date handsome people, knowing that their genes are "better" only on average, and not necessarily in every particular case?

Wouldn't that question only make sense if people choose handsome people to get a partner with good genes instead of because they find it more attractive?

Isn't it like saying that rejecting a candidate based on the blind prejudice against his statistical group, instead of on the actual statistics for his group, is OK?

Explain where the prejudice would come in, since presumably in that scenario the rejection would be looks based, not on properties derived from the looks. So it would be rejecting someone who is X because of X not because Xs are rumored to be Y.
(Not that I think this matters to this thread, just quibbling about specific arguments. Relationships from friendship to romance are something you enter because you want to, not because you can't find a good enough reason not to.)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:58 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
PeteP wrote:
Kit. wrote:
orthogon wrote:Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.

Uh-oh... is it fair to prefer to date handsome people, knowing that their genes are "better" only on average, and not necessarily in every particular case?

Wouldn't that question only make sense if people choose handsome people to get a partner with good genes instead of because they find it more attractive?

Isn't it like saying that rejecting a candidate based on the blind prejudice against his statistical group, instead of on the actual statistics for his group, is OK?

oh. What are you saying?
What about the odd case where a person has
no intention of passing on genetic information.

What about Time spent?
Time spent with You?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyTfbtZeGeU

You could sing that song to, or with, fifty people
And; Not fuck any of them.

It is a good xkcd question.
Good ole' Eienstine used it.
http://quotationsbook.com/quote/39135/
When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute -- then it's longer than any hour. That's relativity!
Spoiler:
That is a little sexist of the old boy.
What about an hour with an ugly girl that is pleasant, intelligent company?
You don't have to fuck her, for the hour to fly by.


He said, 'Time spent in pleasant company, flies by.'
'Doing Someone or Something unpleasant, is time that drags by.'

Why?
The only reason people Hang Out with new people is for Sex?

Are You Kidding???!
That does explain some stuff.

But; Not everything.
This Thread is like Freudian Psychology.

In Psychology, Freud is still God, to some people.
In this Thread, The NSA is still God?

No Strings Attached?
So, funny.

Don't Fuck your Friends.
Go Off and Fuck strangers?


The Human Animal needs conflict?
Why? It spreads out the genetic message?

Men go of Raping and Pillaging.
Women stay home to be Raped and Pillaged.

Spoiler:
I'm going with the men.
I am a Man.

Some of us go off, Not Raping and Pillaging.
We, sort of, wander around until we find Loser Beach.

Have you ever seen Loser Beach?
I hear it is the most Peaceful Place on Earth.

You can't go there.
They would kick your ass.

They are Elephant Seals.

What a Strange Thread.

So Freudian.
Everything is about sex.

Sometimes cumulus are, just, cumulus.
Unless you point it out.

Then unseeing it becomes, work.
Why bother?

See the Giant Dick in the Sky.
Its a Duck Dick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k01DIVDJlY
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:13 pm UTC

addams wrote:When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute -- then it's longer than any hour. That's relativity!
[spoiler]That is a little sexist of the old boy.
What about an hour with an ugly girl that is pleasant, intelligent company?
You don't have to fuck her, for the hour to fly by.

Don't forget the pretty guy, or a guy that is pleasant intelligent company? Does it need to be a girl?

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:14 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:
Kit. wrote:
PeteP wrote:
Kit. wrote:
orthogon wrote:Secondly, even if you could reduce your error rate (e.g. in recruiting for a job) by applying prior statistical knowledge, it isn't fair to people who belong to the statistically lower performing group: there is a moral imperative to treat people equally and to base your conclusions on your observations of that individual. This moral imperative, which is a question of the rights of the individual, trumps the utilitarian logic of Bayes' theorem.

Uh-oh... is it fair to prefer to date handsome people, knowing that their genes are "better" only on average, and not necessarily in every particular case?

Wouldn't that question only make sense if people choose handsome people to get a partner with good genes instead of because they find it more attractive?

Isn't it like saying that rejecting a candidate based on the blind prejudice against his statistical group, instead of on the actual statistics for his group, is OK?

Explain where the prejudice would come in, since presumably in that scenario the rejection would be looks based, not on properties derived from the looks. So it would be rejecting someone who is X because of X not because Xs are rumored to be Y.

Is it?

Explain me, please, how exactly "you look too old for the romance" is different from "you look too old for the job".

Besides, isn't it the other way around? The brain has no direct access to the "looks" information (almost all the spatial information captured by the eyes is lost on its way to the brain), so it actually works with the properties, which it uses to reconstruct the looks.

PeteP wrote:(Not that I think this matters to this thread, just quibbling about specific arguments. Relationships from friendship to romance are something you enter because you want to, not because you can't find a good enough reason not to.)

But I want to recruit new employees, if I have openings for them.

Ilyak1986
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:33 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Ilyak1986 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:18 pm UTC

mythago wrote:
Ilyak1986 wrote:As someone who constantly was (and still is) socially awkward and who has tried to turn friendships into romances (and has failed miserably, and still do =/)


May I offer you some advice on how to reduce that social awkwardness and avoid doing something that is nigh-guaranteed to torpedo the chance of turning a friendship into a romance? It is:

Don't make hostile comments about women that you try to pass off as "kidding" or a joke.

First, because whether you are or not, it sounds very much as though you're kidding on the square. That is, the "I kid" or "just joking!" right after a slap isn't sincere. It is, using the phrase from your post, a kind of 'flame shield' to avoid being called out on having said something hostile: geez, I was just joking, you're not allowed to be angry about it! And on top of the obvious hostility, insincerity pisses people off.

Second, because projecting the image of someone who is angry at females as a group for their perceived sins is really not a quality that women find attractive. I mean, it's basically imitating Stick Guy #1 in the comic.

And finally, because even if you really mean to be lighthearted and are screwing it up, what you're doing is taking an issue that is a big freaking deal to most women and is not funny - a systemic theft of the value of their labor based on the fact of their gender - and treating it as something you find hee-larious. I sure wouldn't want to have a romance with a guy who thought 'punching down' jokes about stealing bread from my family's mouths was a witty jab in the entertaining Battle of the Sexes. I don't know any woman who would.

If you're trying to make a point that something is hurtful to you - like the phrase Nice Guy - then the adult thing to do is to just say "look, this is hurtful" and explain why. That's what an awful lot of people are already doing here. Using it as an excuse to let simmering resentment boil over? Is probably not going to lead to the desired result. Unless your desired result is a very public sour-grapes "I didn't want you witches anyway."


That's because I am kind of kidding on the square, not because I believe the pay gap is just (after all, code doesn't care what gender you are, and neither should employers), but because it works so damn well as an analogy. And also, because I've never seen anyone, male or female, make that connection before, and I think it's absolutely awesome that someone did. But I suppose that's XKCD for you--intelligent audience!

And what I find hee-larious is exactly that you have some small, justified group of women (and I suppose, self-hating men like Hugo Schwyzer) defending the current status quo of the relationship gap, in which guys assume the majority of the risk in terms of initiation, courtship, and so on, having been taught that the guy pays for dinner, to be kind and courteous, and in return, we get "GIRLS DON'T OWE YOU SEX!" (who then go out with who's perceived to be this attractive guy with swagger but who gets away with making all sorts of crass jokes) while at the same time, lots of young women are taught to study, work hard, and they'll get promoted, and you just get a bunch of libertarians going "LOL EMPLOYMENT IS A MUTUAL AGREEMENT! YOU'RE NOT OWED A PENNY MORE THAN YOU'RE OFFERED!" (while they see other frat boys with half the work ethic, or girls that sleep around promoted ahead of them), which, while both 100% true, completely simplify a situation, subvert well-intentioned conventional wisdom, and demonize those who never had a drop of malice within them, and in some cases, create self-fulfilling prophecies. The genuinely nice person gets burned one too many times, at which point the justified females say "we were right! You never really were nice to begin with!", while on the other end, you get some people saying "we were right! You were only in it for the money!".

See, here are the conventional, well-intentioned rules:

To guys: be kind, be courteous, be forthright, say what you mean, mean what you say, and you'll receive the affection and intimacy that everyone is worthy of.

To girls: study, be diligent, do your work, and you'll receive as much pay as any guy can ever hope to.

But what's perceived:

For guys like me: "Hey, I'm nice, I'm kind, I'm honest, I wear my heart on my sleeve, I don't tell crass jokes, yet I completely fail at relationships."

For girls: "Hey, I got a degree (maybe two), I work my tail off, I put my company first, and all I see is this giant fraternity".

And in both cases, the retort from a small but justified minority is a gross oversimplification of the expectations of those who follow conventional wisdom, and then demonizing them when they complain about the fact that the logically sound rules they grew up with, from their empirical observation, seem to be a recipe for disaster.

I mean heck, it's not even a gender issue--it's even a national issue in the political arena. One of the reasons that Dylan Ratigan is by far and away my favorite public figure is his emphasis on the paradigm of the two sets of rules--one for those with all the money that can basically get away with murder, and the other one for the rest of the people.

And the sad part is that Randall seems to take part in basically kicking those very same people who are down--those that say "hey, I feel that there are two sets of rules here--one that is the conventional, well-intentioned wisdom--which completely fails, and--" which is when guy2 in this comic basically demonizes guy1, and makes a snarky retort.

Now maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here, and this is a very specific situation, and maybe I'm not *really* the kind of guy Randall's talking about (because frankly, I'm fully aware that physical attraction, sense of humor, and so many other things come before "liking someone for 'simply being a nice guy'"), but some of the attitudes I see, particularly from the female side of things, lend more credence to the fact that what this comic is doing is kicking the people who are down.

And yes, that makes me angry, to the point that I may come across as someone kidding on the square.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:17 pm UTC

Ilyak1986 wrote:That's because I am kind of kidding on the square, not because I believe the pay gap is just (after all, code doesn't care what gender you are, and neither should employers), but because it works so damn well as an analogy. And also, because I've never seen anyone, male or female, make that connection before, and I think it's absolutely awesome that someone did. But I suppose that's XKCD for you--intelligent audience!

And what I find hee-larious is exactly that you have some small, justified group of women (and I suppose, self-hating men like Hugo Schwyzer) defending the current status quo of the relationship gap, in which guys assume the majority of the risk in terms of initiation, courtship, and so on, having been taught that the guy pays for dinner, to be kind and courteous, and in return, we get "GIRLS DON'T OWE YOU SEX!" (who then go out with who's perceived to be this attractive guy with swagger but who gets away with making all sorts of crass jokes) while at the same time, lots of young women are taught to study, work hard, and they'll get promoted, and you just get a bunch of libertarians going "LOL EMPLOYMENT IS A MUTUAL AGREEMENT! YOU'RE NOT OWED A PENNY MORE THAN YOU'RE OFFERED!" (while they see other frat boys with half the work ethic, or girls that sleep around promoted ahead of them), which, while both 100% true, completely simplify a situation, subvert well-intentioned conventional wisdom, and demonize those who never had a drop of malice within them, and in some cases, create self-fulfilling prophecies. The genuinely nice person gets burned one too many times, at which point the justified females say "we were right! You never really were nice to begin with!", while on the other end, you get some people saying "we were right! You were only in it for the money!".

See, here are the conventional, well-intentioned rules:

To guys: be kind, be courteous, be forthright, say what you mean, mean what you say, and you'll receive the affection and intimacy that everyone is worthy of.

To girls: study, be diligent, do your work, and you'll receive as much pay as any guy can ever hope to.

But what's perceived:

For guys like me: "Hey, I'm nice, I'm kind, I'm honest, I wear my heart on my sleeve, I don't tell crass jokes, yet I completely fail at relationships."

For girls: "Hey, I got a degree (maybe two), I work my tail off, I put my company first, and all I see is this giant fraternity".

And in both cases, the retort from a small but justified minority is a gross oversimplification of the expectations of those who follow conventional wisdom, and then demonizing them when they complain about the fact that the logically sound rules they grew up with, from their empirical observation, seem to be a recipe for disaster.

Seriously?! Do you actually believe that? This would have been a great joke, had it been funny at all. The issue with the pay gap is not that women get payed too little, it's that women get payed less then men. Had you been arguing that all people are morally obliged to be bisexual, I could have gone with you this far, but you were not arguing anything like that (I have other objections to such analogies, but they are not relevant at this point). You seemed to be arguing that women have to date any guy who considers himself nice or to be acting nice. Which would be analogous to people having to employ anyone who thinks they can do that job (I know I just said I had issues with these analogies, but I didn't want to get out another one, so it is the least bad option).

Your next point on these rules, I think women generally get taught that whatever they do, they would not get the same level of rewards that men do (I think men generally get told the same, but it doesn't aversely affect them). The hard work would therefore merely be a compensation mechanism to get just that little bit closer. And why on earth would you think that the rules you mention for guys are only for guys? Somehow I think girls get told to be nice far more often than boys.
Ilyak1986 wrote:And the sad part is that Randall seems to take part in basically kicking those very same people who are down--those that say "hey, I feel that there are two sets of rules here--one that is the conventional, well-intentioned wisdom--which completely fails, and--" which is when guy2 in this comic basically demonizes guy1, and makes a snarky retort.

No, not at all, a lot of people realise there are multiple sets of rules and that is not what Randall is referring to at all. Randall is portraying an asshole who makes demeaning comments about large sections of the population while his conversation partner is offended by it.
Ilyak1986 wrote:Now maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here, and this is a very specific situation, and maybe I'm not *really* the kind of guy Randall's talking about (because frankly, I'm fully aware that physical attraction, sense of humor, and so many other things come before "liking someone for 'simply being a nice guy'"), but some of the attitudes I see, particularly from the female side of things, lend more credence to the fact that what this comic is doing is kicking the people who are down.

Yes, I think you are, if your writing is any indication, you sound like exactly the kind of guy Randall tried to portray in the comic: someone who makes incredibly demeaning remarks about women without even realising it and then acts like he's the victim of something (it is unclear from the comic whether he actually is a victim of something, but it seems unlikely to be anything that warrants such a remark).

PS To other readers: I'm sorry for any harsh language in the last paragraph. It refers specifically to the quote and I think I got rid of the harshest parts. I do find it important that people realise if this criticism is about them, otherwise it won't have any chance at all to affect behaviour.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:38 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
addams wrote:When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute -- then it's longer than any hour. That's relativity!
[spoiler]That is a little sexist of the old boy.
What about an hour with an ugly girl that is pleasant, intelligent company?
You don't have to fuck her, for the hour to fly by.

Don't forget the pretty guy, or a guy that is pleasant intelligent company? Does it need to be a girl?

Not to me.
A man or beast that can hold up its own end of a conversation is a Joy, to me.

Of course, I prefer the company of humans.
Dogs don't talk Art, much.

Even a Male Model can talk about Art.
Some think they are the only worthwhile Art.

They are wrong.
Don't tell them, during the show.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

sonar1313
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:29 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby sonar1313 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:43 pm UTC

Ilyak1986 wrote:[And what I find hee-larious is exactly that you have some small, justified group of women (and I suppose, self-hating men like Hugo Schwyzer) defending the current status quo of the relationship gap, in which guys assume the majority of the risk in terms of initiation, courtship, and so on, having been taught that the guy pays for dinner, to be kind and courteous, and in return, we get "GIRLS DON'T OWE YOU SEX!"

It's funny, as we just had this discussion in the office today. (Not always great place for it, but whatever.) The opinion of the ladies was that in general women wanted equal treatment in the office, such that pay should be equal and so should things like holding the door. As in, guys shouldn't rush to hold the door for women, and women should hold it for guys as much as the guys do for the girls, and such. But outside the office, relationship-wise, the ladies felt that the guy owed his girl door-holding, a majority of the checks, walk on the outside of the street, the general line-up of traditionally-expected courtesies. The guys agreed with the whole line of thinking thus far, but then asked, "If relationships are built on give-and-take and mutual sacrifice and such, what do girls owe the guys?" The answer was, "Well, to be a kind and supporting and decent person." Yes, but don't you expect that out of men, too? "Yes." Then if the guy's unique responsibility is some semblance of traditional chivalry, what is the girl's? Do they have one?

This is not, for conclusion-jumpers, a proxy for saying, "the answer is sex. Girls owe sex. Open wide." This is to ask: when men, as mentioned above, assume not only the risks of initiation and rejection, and are expected to provide something for women that doesn't get reciprocated in kind, what do men get in return? ... and when some guys get frustrated by finding out the answer for them turned out to be "not much, and certainly not what they're asking for" is it necessary or correct to paint frustrated individuals with the broad brush of bigotry for expressing it?

Ilyak1986
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:33 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Ilyak1986 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:44 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Snip!


We're talking past each other, IMO. I've stated multiple times that the pay gap is something I don't think is just. And I feel I've qualified multiple times that I'm talking about very specific groups of people--not *all* women, but some justified blogging voices, or the female audience on this particular thread, or things of that nature--which then, of course, gets extrapolated into "you're painting ALL WOMEN with that brush".

I have a master's in statistics.

I do analytics for a living.

Trust me when I say that when I'm talking about a subset of something, I'm talking about that specific fucking subset of something.

But here's the thing--you're diving way too deep into the analogy. The entire point of the analogy was to illustrate a situation that affects one gender more than the other, and that by following a specific set of well-intentioned rules, the result is to come up short. And instead, what you do is to dive into the analogy, and try to tear it to shreds, to defend an existing position, and at the end, defend the status quo while demonizing those who complain about it, because they might not be absolutely perfect in expressing their frustration.

So, we're stuck at an impasse, pointing fingers at each other in a destructive blame game, instead of trying to come up with some solutions as to change the status quo.

And then people wonder why everything is so screwed up.

Ilyak1986
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:33 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Ilyak1986 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:45 pm UTC

sonar1313 wrote:
Ilyak1986 wrote:[And what I find hee-larious is exactly that you have some small, justified group of women (and I suppose, self-hating men like Hugo Schwyzer) defending the current status quo of the relationship gap, in which guys assume the majority of the risk in terms of initiation, courtship, and so on, having been taught that the guy pays for dinner, to be kind and courteous, and in return, we get "GIRLS DON'T OWE YOU SEX!"

It's funny, as we just had this discussion in the office today. (Not always great place for it, but whatever.) The opinion of the ladies was that in general women wanted equal treatment in the office, such that pay should be equal and so should things like holding the door. As in, guys shouldn't rush to hold the door for women, and women should hold it for guys as much as the guys do for the girls, and such. But outside the office, relationship-wise, the ladies felt that the guy owed his girl door-holding, a majority of the checks, walk on the outside of the street, the general line-up of traditionally-expected courtesies. The guys agreed with the whole line of thinking thus far, but then asked, "If relationships are built on give-and-take and mutual sacrifice and such, what do girls owe the guys?" The answer was, "Well, to be a kind and supporting and decent person." Yes, but don't you expect that out of men, too? "Yes." Then if the guy's unique responsibility is some semblance of traditional chivalry, what is the girl's? Do they have one?

This is not, for conclusion-jumpers, a proxy for saying, "the answer is sex. Girls owe sex. Open wide." This is to ask: when men, as mentioned above, assume not only the risks of initiation and rejection, and are expected to provide something for women that doesn't get reciprocated in kind, what do men get in return? ... and when some guys get frustrated by finding out the answer for them turned out to be "not much, and certainly not what they're asking for" is it necessary or correct to paint frustrated individuals with the broad brush of bigotry for expressing it?


Image

Trisana
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Trisana » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:50 pm UTC

Ilyak1986 wrote:And what I find hee-larious is exactly that you have some small, justified group of women (and I suppose, self-hating men like Hugo Schwyzer) defending the current status quo of the relationship gap, in which guys assume the majority of the risk in terms of initiation, courtship, and so on, having been taught that the guy pays for dinner, to be kind and courteous, and in return, we get "GIRLS DON'T OWE YOU SEX!" (who then go out with who's perceived to be this attractive guy with swagger but who gets away with making all sorts of crass jokes) while at the same time, lots of young women are taught to study, work hard, and they'll get promoted, and you just get a bunch of libertarians going "LOL EMPLOYMENT IS A MUTUAL AGREEMENT! YOU'RE NOT OWED A PENNY MORE THAN YOU'RE OFFERED!" (while they see other frat boys with half the work ethic, or girls that sleep around promoted ahead of them), which, while both 100% true, completely simplify a situation, subvert well-intentioned conventional wisdom, and demonize those who never had a drop of malice within them, and in some cases, create self-fulfilling prophecies. The genuinely nice person gets burned one too many times, at which point the justified females say "we were right! You never really were nice to begin with!", while on the other end, you get some people saying "we were right! You were only in it for the money!".


... If this is your problem, then address the problem. You're right, the idea of the guy paying for [x] and never the girl shouldn't be a thing, but it is tied to traditions of men being the primary breadwinner and, yes, the gender pay gap. Change the latter and it will be easier to change the former.

Is it a status quo I like? No, and in my own life I try to avoid falling into it. Either my boyfriend and I will each pay for ourselves, or if one is treating the other then it's with the understanding that another time the other will pay. (Or, alternatively, it's because I was driving a distance to see him and paying for food for me was his way of chipping in to the cost of the visit when, as he doesn't drive, he wouldn't come to visit me and gas isn't exactly inexpensive). I'm all for this egalitarian way of paying for dates. Anecdotal, I know, and not representative of the reality, but if you can get a few people to change, then you can get more people to change. So it's doable, if you address the root causes (tradition, the fact that men do tend to make more than women) rather than ranting about how you're owed [y] because you bought [x].

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4686
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:51 pm UTC

I just want to clarify that my analogy was not at all about the pay gap between men and women. The hard-working young woman could have been a hard-working young man too and the analogical points would have been the same, I just didn't want the protagonist of both stories in the analogy to be male.

The point of the business side of the analogy was that we (all of us, men and women) are told a story by society that hard work, intelligence, dedication, etc, all by themselves, will get you high pay in business, but that that isn't the straight truth. While those can be important factors to many employers (and will be important factors in most successful business relationships), there is a whole other set of attributes or skills which are highly influential on how much you get paid, without which you might not be paid well despite having all those other good qualities we're told make all the difference, and which others might put all their emphasis into to the detriment of those other good qualities with much greater success in the pay department.

And that people with that first set of good qualities can be justifiably upset when they find that those alone don't bring the high pay despite what they've been told, and that they needed to be developing other qualities which they've been told were bad qualities (which they should downplay), if they want to make progress on their income. But that expression of that justified frustration is not tantamount to a claim that anybody owes them money. It's just "I was told that you wanted this and didn't want that, and that being this and not that would result in good things coming my way. I've been like this all along, just naturally, but now it's becoming clear that I needed to be that all along. What gives?" (They could add possibly false assumptions into this about who told them that, and about being 'that' instead of 'this' rather than 'that' and 'this', and those could make the complaints invalid; but the root of the complaint without those assumptions is solid).

The genders of the people in that business scenario are irrelevant to the point. But for men having difficulty attracting women (the way many employees have trouble getting employment), the power dynamics, the institutional fairy-tale that pervades society about how to deal with those power dynamics, and the frustration of the people on the weaker side of those power dynamics who realize that the fairy-tale is false, are all analogous.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

valiance.
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:22 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby valiance. » Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:17 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
omgryebread wrote:At no point, either without a romantic proposal from you or after one, will she at some point think "gosh, I've been dating jerks this whole time, when really the man for me has been right by side!" and you'll go off and get married happily ever after, because your life is not written by Nicholas Sparks.

What she can think is "enough with those jerks, it was fun, but now it's time to start a family".

It does happen, although not with everyone.

valiance. wrote:It doesn't always? But it can: say I'm so head over heels for you that being around you after being rejected would be painful, or awkward for one or both or us. Simple. And so common I'm surprised you even had to ask.

Just the very act of asking someone out romantically suggests that you were not happy just being friends, or you never would have asked. Sure it's possible remaining/becoming friends still makes you happy but a relationship/sex would have made you ecstatic, but I think it's equally--if not more--likely that remaining/becoming friends would be unacceptable or miserable.

That's what is called "emotional immaturity" in this thread.

Not everyone likes emotionally immature partners.
ETA: ...or friends.


I don't see how that's emotional immaturity. Alice wants to date Bob but doesn't want to be friends with him; Bob wants to be friends with Alice, but doesn't want to date her. Why is his preference emotionally mature, and hers emotionally immature? Am I obligated to be friends with anyone who I am romantically interested in?

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:01 pm UTC

sonar1313 wrote:what do men get in return?

Usually a girl who takes more care to her clothing choices and make-up. This usually decreases as the relationship lasts, but so does the chivalry stuff, and some women don't do this, but most men don't do the chivalry stuff (and there is a large overlap between women that don't and women that dislike the chivalry stuff).

Men can usually get away with showing up in uniform (also called suit or tuxedo), although this depends on the occasion and clothing choices are generally more limited. This atop of men having fewer clothing combinations to choose from if they don't wear a tuxedo (it usually consists of one or two top items (shirt/sweater and vest, the others being hidden under the outer layer) and three bottom items (pants, belt and socks) as opposed to make-up, several top items (shirt/dress, shirt/vest, some items of jewellery, bag, belt) and two bottom items (skirt/pants/dress, socks/stockings/tights). Moreover, women generally wear more complex hairdos than men do. I know men also take care of their looks before a date, but male clothing is far less complex, so there is just less to do with it.

Of course, when there is a chance of sex both have to choose good looking underpants but girls also have to look at how they combine with her bra.
Ilyak1986 wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:Snip!


We're talking past each other, IMO. I've stated multiple times that the pay gap is something I don't think is just. And I feel I've qualified multiple times that I'm talking about very specific groups of people--not *all* women, but some justified blogging voices, or the female audience on this particular thread, or things of that nature--which then, of course, gets extrapolated into "you're painting ALL WOMEN with that brush".

I have a master's in statistics.

I do analytics for a living.

Trust me when I say that when I'm talking about a subset of something, I'm talking about that specific fucking subset of something.

But here's the thing--you're diving way too deep into the analogy. The entire point of the analogy was to illustrate a situation that affects one gender more than the other, and that by following a specific set of well-intentioned rules, the result is to come up short. And instead, what you do is to dive into the analogy, and try to tear it to shreds, to defend an existing position, and at the end, defend the status quo while demonizing those who complain about it, because they might not be absolutely perfect in expressing their frustration.

This doesn't apply to the relationship thing: there are more straight monogamous women in the world than straight monogamous men, so for every single monogamous straight man there is also at least one single monogamous straight woman (if you live in a poly{other gender} society you are screwed in this department, if you live in a poly{your gender} society you're out of luck for a different reason). What I'm trying to say is: being single is not asymmetric and I highly doubt being long term single is asymmetric and being single can be frustrating for anyone. Although, as sonar1313 pointed out, expectations in relationships or dating situations are sometimes asymmetric.

However, this comic didn't seem to be about people who were in a relationship, but about rejection, suggesting there was nothing between them yet. Yes, men have a stronger tendency to ask women out than the other way around and of course it is difficult to confess your feelings to someone. Although the difficulty to confess your feelings and to be turned down is irrespective of gender. The hopeful potential confessee has similar problems: trying to give hints while the person you like doesn't ask you out skips the awkward confessing moment but is actually more work.

On the other hand, none of this changes that the confessee is expected to be honest about their own feelings too, otherwise they would be stringing someone along. This is also difficult, especially if you know you are disappointing someone with it and you wouldn't be in your chosen environment. The confessee cannot control who they have romantic feelings for the confesser, just like anyone else cannot control this. I assume here that you don't just ask random women for a date, but only ask the ones you like, otherwise you would be trying to string someone along (which I would find weird, I get it when someone has difficulty disappointing someone but I see no reason for asking someone for a date to then string them along).

However, none of this is in any way a justification to making insulting or demeaning remarks about the confessee or a group (consisting mostly of people who have absolutely nothing to do with this) of which confessee is one element and people who do make these remarks are jerks just as much as any other random person making them (unless confessee did something bad to someone, than that someone has reason to make such comments specifically about confessee meaning that confesser is more of a jerk for making the remarks than the other person is). This is what I think the comic is trying to say.

If you think the comic is just deriding people who have had a revelation about the world then we just differ in interpretation, as that is not a nice thing to do. I do want to say that I think my interpretation fits better with the usually peaceful or defensive nature of xkcd.

EDIT:
Pfhorrest wrote:The genders of the people in that business scenario are irrelevant to the point. But for men having difficulty attracting women (the way many employees have trouble getting employment), the power dynamics, the institutional fairy-tale that pervades society about how to deal with those power dynamics, and the frustration of the people on the weaker side of those power dynamics who realize that the fairy-tale is false, are all analogous.

This is nonsense, the power dynamics analogy is correct for someone asking someone out, but it is ridiculous it exists romantically between men and women. The power dynamics on the employment side are usually caused by an extreme oversupply of labourers (for positions that require rare qualities these dynamics are entirely different, although, for some reason they often still include a pay-gap). In the romance field there is no such asymmetry, the only asymmetry arises during the confession, as one person has opened up while the other person has not. Moreover, while the employer is expected to choose on qualities and expected results of an employee, the confessee is expected to answer based on their feelings rendering a persons objective qualities moot.

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:23 pm UTC

valiance. wrote:
Kit. wrote:
valiance. wrote:It doesn't always? But it can: say I'm so head over heels for you that being around you after being rejected would be painful, or awkward for one or both or us. Simple. And so common I'm surprised you even had to ask.

Just the very act of asking someone out romantically suggests that you were not happy just being friends, or you never would have asked. Sure it's possible remaining/becoming friends still makes you happy but a relationship/sex would have made you ecstatic, but I think it's equally--if not more--likely that remaining/becoming friends would be unacceptable or miserable.

That's what is called "emotional immaturity" in this thread.

Not everyone likes emotionally immature partners.
ETA: ...or friends.

I don't see how that's emotional immaturity. Alice wants to date Bob but doesn't want to be friends with him; Bob wants to be friends with Alice, but doesn't want to date her. Why is his preference emotionally mature, and hers emotionally immature? Am I obligated to be friends with anyone who I am romantically interested in?

I don't see how your Alice and Bob case is relevant to your "remaining... friends would be unacceptable or miserable".

BTW, what Alice wants (sex without friendship) is a prostitute.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:30 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
valiance. wrote:
Kit. wrote:
valiance. wrote:It doesn't always? But it can: say I'm so head over heels for you that being around you after being rejected would be painful, or awkward for one or both or us. Simple. And so common I'm surprised you even had to ask.

Just the very act of asking someone out romantically suggests that you were not happy just being friends, or you never would have asked. Sure it's possible remaining/becoming friends still makes you happy but a relationship/sex would have made you ecstatic, but I think it's equally--if not more--likely that remaining/becoming friends would be unacceptable or miserable.

That's what is called "emotional immaturity" in this thread.

Not everyone likes emotionally immature partners.
ETA: ...or friends.

I don't see how that's emotional immaturity. Alice wants to date Bob but doesn't want to be friends with him; Bob wants to be friends with Alice, but doesn't want to date her. Why is his preference emotionally mature, and hers emotionally immature? Am I obligated to be friends with anyone who I am romantically interested in?

I don't see how your Alice and Bob case is relevant to your "remaining... friends would be unacceptable or miserable".

BTW, what Alice wants (sex without friendship) is a prostitute.

It's about a romantic relationship, that doesn't equal sex and definitely doesn't make a prostitute. What a romantic relationship without friendship may constitute is a very unhealthy relationship.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3379
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:04 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:The genders of the people in that business scenario are irrelevant to the point. But for men having difficulty attracting women (the way many employees have trouble getting employment), the power dynamics, the institutional fairy-tale that pervades society about how to deal with those power dynamics, and the frustration of the people on the weaker side of those power dynamics who realize that the fairy-tale is false, are all analogous.

This is nonsense, the power dynamics analogy is correct for someone asking someone out, but it is ridiculous it exists romantically between men and women. The power dynamics on the employment side are usually caused by an extreme oversupply of labourers (for positions that require rare qualities these dynamics are entirely different, although, for some reason they often still include a pay-gap). In the romance field there is no such asymmetry, the only asymmetry arises during the confession, as one person has opened up while the other person has not. Moreover, while the employer is expected to choose on qualities and expected results of an employee, the confessee is expected to answer based on their feelings rendering a persons objective qualities moot.


Employers may be expected by some to choose an employee purely on their objective qualities, but (and I base this on conversations with friends/acquaintances who are employers as well as my personal experience as an employee) they base their hiring decisions as much on subjective impressions as on objective qualities, and rightly so - provided a prospective employee can do the job, their interactions with co-workers and, indeed, their employer are at least as important as their actual skills. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck when you keep getting passed over for jobs you're capable of doing, but that's as much part of applying for jobs as it is applying for relationships...

And it still sucks when someone says they wish they could find someone with all your qualities, but, y'know, who they actually find attractive too (that last generally being implicit rather than stated outright).

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:40 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Kit. wrote:BTW, what Alice wants (sex without friendship) is a prostitute.

It's about a romantic relationship, that doesn't equal sex and definitely doesn't make a prostitute. What a romantic relationship without friendship may constitute is a very unhealthy relationship.

And what exactly is romantic relationship without friendship and without sex?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:04 am UTC

Ilyak1986 wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:Snip!


We're talking past each other, IMO. I've stated multiple times that the pay gap is something I don't think is just. And I feel I've qualified multiple times that I'm talking about very specific groups of people--not *all* women, but some justified blogging voices, or the female audience on this particular thread, or things of that nature--which then, of course, gets extrapolated into "you're painting ALL WOMEN with that brush".

I have a master's in statistics.

I do analytics for a living.

Trust me when I say that when I'm talking about a subset of something, I'm talking about that specific fucking subset of something.

But here's the thing--you're diving way too deep into the analogy. The entire point of the analogy was to illustrate a situation that affects one gender more than the other, and that by following a specific set of well-intentioned rules, the result is to come up short. And instead, what you do is to dive into the analogy, and try to tear it to shreds, to defend an existing position, and at the end, defend the status quo while demonizing those who complain about it, because they might not be absolutely perfect in expressing their frustration.

So, we're stuck at an impasse, pointing fingers at each other in a destructive blame game, instead of trying to come up with some solutions as to change the status quo.

And then people wonder why everything is so screwed up.

I think you may be wrong;
In regards to the way wage inequity and sex inequity are the same.

Excuse me; If the story of the working woman is not the story you told.

Gay men, sometimes complain about all men.
Self included.
Gay women, sometimes complain about all women.
Self included.

Other kinds of men and women complain about everyone else.

Then there are the Ones That Break Your Heart.
Sex is not required. It is, just, a messy side dish.

Of course! I don't understand the conversation.
Sex and Wages?

As long as women have less earning power, men will be successful in buying them?
What are you talking about?

Damn it! I can read English and you can do Math.
How hard is it to communicate?

What is the subject?
Subset?! Subset of fucking What??

Subset of women that work in dead-end positions
And; Men that can't get laid on a bet?

In what way are these two groups the same.
Individuals within each group are Complainers!

Is there another commonality that you know of?
If you can do statistics you need to Define Terms!

Statistis is Hard!
You must lead us Step by miserable Step.

A vin diagram, please.
In what way are these two sets of complainers the same?

1. They are both complainers.
2. They both complain about their personal lives.

She complains about her professional life, too.
He does not complain about his professional life.

He can give her professional lessons?
ech. Nope. I still have no idea what this Thread is about.

What do the numbers say?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:08 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:The genders of the people in that business scenario are irrelevant to the point. But for men having difficulty attracting women (the way many employees have trouble getting employment), the power dynamics, the institutional fairy-tale that pervades society about how to deal with those power dynamics, and the frustration of the people on the weaker side of those power dynamics who realize that the fairy-tale is false, are all analogous.

This is nonsense, the power dynamics analogy is correct for someone asking someone out, but it is ridiculous it exists romantically between men and women. The power dynamics on the employment side are usually caused by an extreme oversupply of labourers (for positions that require rare qualities these dynamics are entirely different, although, for some reason they often still include a pay-gap). In the romance field there is no such asymmetry, the only asymmetry arises during the confession, as one person has opened up while the other person has not. Moreover, while the employer is expected to choose on qualities and expected results of an employee, the confessee is expected to answer based on their feelings rendering a persons objective qualities moot.


Employers may be expected by some to choose an employee purely on their objective qualities, but (and I base this on conversations with friends/acquaintances who are employers as well as my personal experience as an employee) they base their hiring decisions as much on subjective impressions as on objective qualities, and rightly so - provided a prospective employee can do the job, their interactions with co-workers and, indeed, their employer are at least as important as their actual skills. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck when you keep getting passed over for jobs you're capable of doing, but that's as much part of applying for jobs as it is applying for relationships...

And it still sucks when someone says they wish they could find someone with all your qualities, but, y'know, who they actually find attractive too (that last generally being implicit rather than stated outright).

What I mean is: in choosing a partner only your feelings for the other are expected to be taken into account, at least initially. It is mostly based on chemistry. With finding an employee chemistry is also important, but to a much lesser extend (you only have to be able to have a good work relationship, whereas you're expected to be more intimate with your partner) and there are other important factors that are not as important for partner choice. I think finding an employee would be more like finding a room mate: it's definitely a problem if you constantly annoy each other, you want to be on friendly terms, but you don't need to share intimacies. It goes further in that more practical things are more important than in a romantic relationship: careful with your stuff, can be present when receiving guests/customers, helps cleaning/working etc.

EDIT: Wait, or do you ask for a CV when asking someone out on a date?
Kit. wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
Kit. wrote:BTW, what Alice wants (sex without friendship) is a prostitute.

It's about a romantic relationship, that doesn't equal sex and definitely doesn't make a prostitute. What a romantic relationship without friendship may constitute is a very unhealthy relationship.

And what exactly is romantic relationship without friendship and without sex?

Special?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:14 am UTC

Kit. wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
Kit. wrote:BTW, what Alice wants (sex without friendship) is a prostitute.

It's about a romantic relationship, that doesn't equal sex and definitely doesn't make a prostitute. What a romantic relationship without friendship may constitute is a very unhealthy relationship.

And what exactly is romantic relationship without friendship and without sex?

Oh! Oh!
Umm.

There is an answer for this one.
I, just, don't know what it is.

A friend-a-me. (?)
Fren-a-me. (?)

It is a concept.
People you would love to be friends with, but can't.
(mom says, "No." Politics. That sort of thing.)

No sex, either.
No commingling; Of any kind.

The Romantic Images of the African Women
With their scarfs blowing in the desert wind.

What a Romantic Relationship we have with such Women.
Or; The world with the Rugged American Individualist. Same thing.

It Can be Romantic.
Until you attempt to have a conversation.

Friendship is fun.
It sure knocks the Romance out of some Relationships.

Friendship knocks it out.
Sex kills it.

I know the answer to your question.
Did you ask it thinking there was no answer?

Who is wrong?
Me or You?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:28 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Kit. wrote:And what exactly is romantic relationship without friendship and without sex?

Special?

Spaceballs kind of special?

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4686
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:38 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:The genders of the people in that business scenario are irrelevant to the point. But for men having difficulty attracting women (the way many employees have trouble getting employment), the power dynamics, the institutional fairy-tale that pervades society about how to deal with those power dynamics, and the frustration of the people on the weaker side of those power dynamics who realize that the fairy-tale is false, are all analogous.

This is nonsense, the power dynamics analogy is correct for someone asking someone out, but it is ridiculous it exists romantically between men and women. The power dynamics on the employment side are usually caused by an extreme oversupply of labourers (for positions that require rare qualities these dynamics are entirely different, although, for some reason they often still include a pay-gap). In the romance field there is no such asymmetry, the only asymmetry arises during the confession, as one person has opened up while the other person has not. Moreover, while the employer is expected to choose on qualities and expected results of an employee, the confessee is expected to answer based on their feelings rendering a persons objective qualities moot.

Note the qualifier in my statement you're responding to, which I've bolded now for emphasis. I'm talking specifically of the subset of men who do not find themselves easily meeting and falling into romantic relationships with women. For men to whom that comes easily and naturally, none of the problems we're discussing apply, and so there is no problem to analogize to anything else in the first place.

Also see my disclaimer from the post where I first made this analogy:
Of course, this analogy is limited only to when the power relationship favors the latter party in each pair, and that that is not always the case. Some employers have trouble finding good employees and some employees have no trouble finding good employers; some women have trouble finding good men and some men have no trouble finding good women. But the "nice guys" being demonized are guys who do have trouble finding any women, and so are in an analogous position to many employees who have trouble finding any employers, and from there the situation is analogous.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:02 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I'm talking specifically of the subset of men who do not find themselves easily meeting and falling into romantic relationships with women. For men to whom that comes easily and naturally, none of the problems we're discussing apply, and so there is no problem to analogize to anything else in the first place.

There is one issue in your analogy that bothers me. Let me put it this way: while man's right to live (and to earn money for living by selling his labor) is generally recognized, no one owes man the right to procreate.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:18 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:The genders of the people in that business scenario are irrelevant to the point. But for men having difficulty attracting women (the way many employees have trouble getting employment), the power dynamics, the institutional fairy-tale that pervades society about how to deal with those power dynamics, and the frustration of the people on the weaker side of those power dynamics who realize that the fairy-tale is false, are all analogous.

This is nonsense, the power dynamics analogy is correct for someone asking someone out, but it is ridiculous it exists romantically between men and women. The power dynamics on the employment side are usually caused by an extreme oversupply of labourers (for positions that require rare qualities these dynamics are entirely different, although, for some reason they often still include a pay-gap). In the romance field there is no such asymmetry, the only asymmetry arises during the confession, as one person has opened up while the other person has not. Moreover, while the employer is expected to choose on qualities and expected results of an employee, the confessee is expected to answer based on their feelings rendering a persons objective qualities moot.

Note the qualifier in my statement you're responding to, which I've bolded now for emphasis. I'm talking specifically of the subset of men who do not find themselves easily meeting and falling into romantic relationships with women. For men to whom that comes easily and naturally, none of the problems we're discussing apply, and so there is no problem to analogize to anything else in the first place.

Also see my disclaimer from the post where I first made this analogy:
Of course, this analogy is limited only to when the power relationship favors the latter party in each pair, and that that is not always the case. Some employers have trouble finding good employees and some employees have no trouble finding good employers; some women have trouble finding good men and some men have no trouble finding good women. But the "nice guys" being demonized are guys who do have trouble finding any women, and so are in an analogous position to many employees who have trouble finding any employers, and from there the situation is analogous.

Yes, people (not just women) have the power to string lonely people (not just guys) along. But you present it in such a biased way by making a selection of genders for both rolls that it becomes weird. Besides, we weren't going for stringing along here, we were going for a relationship but people don't have the power to make them feel something for the lonely person who feels something for them.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi and 40 guests