Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 171 posts

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#121

Post by jameshart »

lighttower wrote: post #117
herbig wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that this and my own comments are getting downvoted on this is sad.

> The fact that this and my own comments are getting downvoted on this is sad. It's because you have added nothing other that your own faked outrage at the legitimate use of scoring as a way to describe attainment of a sought after goal.

Actually my genuine concern (not outrage) is primarily that someone on HN feels that the use of the word 'something' to describe a woman is remotely appropriate. I'm calling the poster out on that because I feel like if they don't have it pointed out to them that that is inappropriate they'll continue to think it's okay. It is not okay.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#122

Post by Kalium »

herbig wrote: post #115
lighttower wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard This commenter, the type that is OUTRAGED by speech that hasn't been mangled to be politically correct, is responsible for muffling open and honest communication among people. Specific to this example, there is nothing wrong with the OP's use of scoring - the outraged expressed by the commenter above is basically trolling for a response b…

I'm not outraged, just surprised that people would so heartily upvote such a comment. People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone. If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.

Perhaps people find the content of the comment sufficiently high-quality that it overrides concerns about language.

It's also possible that voters don't share your opinions about what sort of language is "okay" or "not okay". Which wouldn't surprise me in a community with diverse opinions.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#123

Post by alienasa »

cgriswald wrote: post #101
rtl49 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As such a 20-something, I can attest that this is not universally true.

Are you a male 20-something or a female 20-something? The male 20-somethings I know are largely chill and don't really care how a woman reaches out. The female 20-somethings I know (both as friends and as romantic partners), on the other hand, universally prefer a text. They feel a phone call puts them on the spot; they call it "awkward" or "weird". In most cases, they'll only accept the phone call if they're already…

> In most cases, they'll only accept the phone call if they're already into the guy. If they're unsure about the guy, he's probably ensured he's going to get a negative response.

Counterpoint: this is self selection mechanism in itself. I don't want to be dating the person who can't handle getting a phone call without it being "awkward" or "weird".

Playing the game by the numbers is only worthwhile if your goal is ephemeral (i.e. to "score"). If your goal is to have a lasting meaningful relationship, then who cares what the numbers are. Be yourself.

> After the initial courting phase, I've found things to be a bit different and more dependent upon the individual. That's the time to show your own preferences rather than play the game.

If your preferences matter to you, use them as a selection methodology or you're just wasting time.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#124

Post by Jacqued »

donretag wrote: post #88

'the status of my text message changed to “read.”' I am assuming this is an iPhone "feature"? Creepy. Can it be disabled?

iMessages, facebook, whatsapp, ... Unfortunately every messaging platform (except old school texts, but iPhones will automatically send iMessages to other iPhones) seem to have implemented this "feature"

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#125

Post by Kalium »

thirdsun wrote: post #3

> One area where there was a lot of debate was the amount of time one should wait to text back. Several people subscribed to the notion of doubling the response time. (They write back in five minutes, you wait 10, etc.) This way you achieve the upper hand and constantly seem busier and less available than your counterpart. Others thought waiting just a few minutes was enough to prove you had something important in yo…

> Until that last sentence, I had to wonder what's wrong with people. Who enjoys these games?

I've met people who enjoy these games as a source of power. They like knowing they have power over someone else and their emotions. What's perhaps most disturbing is that such games are them being themselves.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#126

Post by silverbax88 »

thirdsun wrote: post #3

> One area where there was a lot of debate was the amount of time one should wait to text back. Several people subscribed to the notion of doubling the response time. (They write back in five minutes, you wait 10, etc.) This way you achieve the upper hand and constantly seem busier and less available than your counterpart. Others thought waiting just a few minutes was enough to prove you had something important in yo…

Playing games isn't new to the dating scene - among people who don't date well.

This didn't start with texting - phone calls, second dates, rules about a certain number of dates before sex. All bullshit.

People who play those games are not people who are good at dating and never have been. They seem to think everything is a power play, or a formula stat-keeping event. You can't build a functional relationship with someone you are always attempting to keep score with.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#127

Post by busterarm »

alias240 wrote: post #107
busterarm wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd make a wager that the original commenter we're referring to is from the UK. Men initiating interest with women isn't a universal cultural standard and that's one of the places where women asking men out is much more common.

I am from the UK.

Nailed it. :D

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#128

Post by rescripting »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #113
noobermin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Score" is a term for successfully attracting a mate. It is not a power struggle per se but dating is a negotiation of sorts in order to reach a consensus about the nature of an interpersonal relationship between two individuals. In that sense, a girl can "score" a guy too, it isn't sexist per se.

"Score" is one thing. "Score something " is, to me, much worse. I don't mind if guys want to speak casually among friends about women as conquests. But it strikes me as disconcerting that there are people who find this way of speaking so unobjectionable that they'd use it on a public forum like hacker news where, I had thought, the general expectation is that the discourse will maintain a certain level of quality and…

I took it to mean that the 'something' being scored was a relationship. Maybe this is some kind of sexist dog whistle I'm not hearing but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt instead of trying to language police a substantive comment.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#129

Post by pdabbadabba »

rescripting wrote: post #128
pdabbadabba wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Score" is one thing. "Score something " is, to me, much worse. I don't mind if guys want to speak casually among friends about women as conquests. But it strikes me as disconcerting that there are people who find this way of speaking so unobjectionable that they'd use it on a public forum like hacker news where, I had thought, the general expectation is that the discourse will maintain a certain level of quality and…

I took it to mean that the 'something' being scored was a relationship. Maybe this is some kind of sexist dog whistle I'm not hearing but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt instead of trying to language police a substantive comment.

Hmm. Possibly. Obviously that's not how I read it, but I don't claim that my way is the only way it could have been read.

I can't say I agree with the choice you've assumed, though, between "language policing" a comment, and appreciating it for its substantive contribution. I think we're all sophisticated enough that we can recognize the substantive value of a comment, as I've tried to do, while also trying to suggest ways to build a more respectful community for everyone. In its best form, "language policing" will usually not be unconditional and vociferous condemnation, but rather a thoughtful sharing of perspectives and suggestion for incremental improvement.

This is the very ethos of this forum in so many other arenas--tech, business, often politics--but I'm often disappointed that the prevailing attitude here is so closed when it comes to issues of gender politics (for lack of a better term). Part of the issue may be that these issues are not always thoughtfully raised, and there can sometimes be an unwelcome tendency towards outrage (in both directions). But I think it would be a shame if we didn't keep trying to improve ourselves, and the tech community at large to make for a more welcoming community.

Edit: As others have pointed out elsewhere, one does not normally describe a relationship as "out of your league." That's a description typically bestowed upon people. I suspect this is why I and others have interpreted the comment they way we have. I don't think this entirely rules out the possibility you raised about the original commenter's intent, but I do think it means that my interpretation is probably correct--or at least eminently defensible.

I'd also add that the original commenter's intent does not matter much to me. I was never here to impugn his or her character in the first place. My point has only ever been that the comment, regardless of its precise intended meaning, reasonably communicates a certain disrespect for women.

Re: She’ll Text Me, She’ll Text Me Not

#130

Post by sliverstorm »

jameshart wrote: post #121
lighttower wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that this and my own comments are getting downvoted on this is sad. It's because you have added nothing other that your own faked outrage at the legitimate use of scoring as a way to describe attainment of a sought after goal.

Actually my genuine concern (not outrage) is primarily that someone on HN feels that the use of the word 'something' to describe a woman is remotely appropriate. I'm calling the poster out on that because I feel like if they don't have it pointed out to them that that is inappropriate they'll continue to think it's okay. It is not okay.

"Something" doesn't necessarily refer to a woman. Could refer to a relationship, ala:

I want something that will make my heart race, something that feels real

Post reply on HN