How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change • Hacker News Board

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#41

Post by zozbot123 » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 12:52 PM UTC

MRD85 wrote: post #27

zozbot123 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that "how assertive should I be" is the wrong question to ask-- there are many ways of being "assertive", only some of which work well! As a society, we are still in the process of developing-- and raising awareness about-- workable and effective sexual/dating "scripts" that men can stick to, and trust that they won't run into obvious problems. As the article hopefully makes clear, even the outwardly-trivia…

If we develop a set of working scripts to indicate availability, then women will still go for men who are "bold" enough to deviate from the script and seize the day. It's a complex issue, and it's my belief that the traits that women find attractive in men and the traits that women would like to find attractive in men are two different sets with less overlap than you'd imagine.

> ... women will still go for men who are "bold" enough to deviate from the script and seize the day.

There will be lots of ways to signal the kind of "boldness" you (and women) want, while still staying well within the 'script'. So hopefully this won't be a big issue in practice. (Though it's hard to say since we don't even have broadly-acknowledged 'scripts' yet!)

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#42

Post by Flenser » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

A long description of the problem, but short on solutions.

This video is much better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G9tX0wZptM — Alexis Jones: "Why We Need Men" | Talks at Google

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#43

Post by bronzefish » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 2:04 PM UTC

>Patriarchy, likewise, is simply the idea that we live in a social system oriented around men and paternal dominance.

Unpopular idea, but no. Patriarchy is a word for the decisions women make collectively.

Patriarchy wants you to wear make up and pretty dresses? You mean the judgemental stares at work and school.

Patriarchy wants you to have a glamorous career and a family with kids? Or is it the biological clock kicking in, and the pressure to not be left alone with a box of wine and 3 cats.

Patriarchy says men are strong leaders and women are weaker? I think you mean all the women calling men pussies when they don't step up to defend them, and the severe lack of women choosing high risk jobs. Even in politics, women fare better when they do it, but fewer choose to do so.

Even in this article there's the example of a woman losing interest as soon as a man follows the supposed script of asking nicely. But he doesn't seem to connect the dots: people aren't very good at predicting their own emotional responses, and much of the reasoning they do is just to rationalize them after the fact, when their brain has already decided what it wants based on feelings.

Equality means everyone's responsible for their own choices. It's as simple as that.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#44

Post by StrictDabbler » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

MRD85 wrote: post #10

dijit wrote: post #2

I suspect people will be reactionary because of the title, but the content is much different than what I was personally expecting. As a corollary to the article; I've always felt it's critical not to assume too much as a man. The line between being assertive and creepy is very fuzzy and depends entirely on the womans perception of you (which, is essentially unknowable). There is no easy answer, men will in most cases…

I'm a single man, I date, and it's confusing as hell. The examples given in the article are no surprise to me since my whole adult life has been peppered with similar events. Women who later tell me they wanted to sleep with me but I didn't push hard enough, etc. Not pushing women to sleep with me has likely cost me a lot of opportunities, but it's also meant I haven't accidentally assaulted someone. On my birthday I…

Since my bisexual wife has very similar problems when dating women I'd say the answer isn't simple.

There were times early on where we'd gone on a triple date with a nice girl and eight hours of talk had elapsed without any action. I could tell the girl wanted to be kissed. I could tell my wife wanted to be kissed by the girl. Real movie lean-in moments. Neither of them could bring themselves to be the initiator.

It would have been easy for me to initiate both because I'm good at reading those signals and good at feeling and accepting implicit rejection in an unenthusiastic kiss, but if I'd taken the reigns my wife wouldn't have had the opportunity to explore her own relationship with feminity. So I sat and chatted and watched the opportunities float by.

The next day my wife would express a paradox of frustration that she couldn't just borrow my assertiveness and gratitude that I was letting her find her own path. (edit: Important to note here that the women would tell her the same thing, that they'd felt the moment but hadn't been able to take advantage of it.)

Eventually she figured out that more assertive bi women were an important group to look for.

So it isn't entirely a gender thing and it's not about "pushing" anybody to do anything. It's about learning how to sense signals, how to make signals, how to recognize people who want you to take the level of initiative that you're comfortable taking, and how to gracefully accept that incompatibility on this one point is incompatibility per se, not just a missed opportunity.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#45

Post by ThrustVectoring » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

hobofan wrote: post #33

belorn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Probably Testostorone No. When accounted for gender Testostorone do not have a correlation to risk taking for men. > traditional evolution One of the research findings among primatologists about 50-70 years ago is that female choice has a significant impact. That "little/limited say in their choice of reproductive partners" is actually not that little or limited, but simply different compare to male primates. The r…

How are arranged marriages (as they still exist now) not "limited choice"?

Arranged marriage was not a feature of the ancestral environment that these traits evolved in; that practice came about later.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#46

Post by alphabettsy » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #7

alphabettsy wrote: post #3

I think if more men were capable of making such a well thought out and logical argument we’d be farther along, but in many cases men have been extremely defensive and the most attention has gone to those responses rather than something more substantial such as this. That women are socialized to not be the aggressors and must be pursued not be seen as promiscuous is another problem that feeds into unclear boundaries r…

I am one of the men who feels defensive, although I try very hard to see both sides. I assume you also wish to know the thoughts of detractors so I'll tell you how I feel and why, and you can decide if you believe me. The topic of social justice is very broad and I'll touch on it broadly as it's (sadly) very complex to distill but needs to be mentioned because the context is incredibly important; I would like to focu…

This article and my comment are about sexual assault and consent. How does what you’ve said in any way address those issues?

Surely your opinion is important, but it’s regarding an altogether different topic. I can’t think of anything more frustrating right now than trying to have an in-depth and honest conversation about a topic and having some unreletead and lengthy defense.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#47

Post by alphabettsy » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

neetdeth wrote: post #16

thomasmeeks wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read and thought about your comment for a while because I am also a white male, mid 30's, low end of the socioeconomic status in my childhood, and at one time had a lot of the same thoughts as you. Here's what changed my mind. I'm speaking just about my own experiences, it may or may not be useful to you. 1. I realized that survivorship bias was clouding my judgement. This was tough to accept because I first had to…

Many people whom we would all consider racists only ever state things that are statistically true about groups of people.

This is such an unbelievably naïve and frustrating thing to read. I would also like to add that I highly doubt you’d want to be treated or viewed the way you’re statistically likely to be.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#48

Post by neetdeth » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

alphabettsy wrote: post #47

neetdeth wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people whom we would all consider racists only ever state things that are statistically true about groups of people.

This is such an unbelievably naïve and frustrating thing to read. I would also like to add that I highly doubt you’d want to be treated or viewed the way you’re statistically likely to be.

Your frustration is noted, but I'm afraid there is nothing of substance in this comment to respond to, except to agree that prejudice is bad.

My point - in case it was unclear - was that it is entirely reasonable to be defensive when your race or sex is broadly maligned. Even if denigrating statements are strictly based in statistical fact[1], they may still be indicative of prejudice or intended to lend support to discriminatory practices.

1. I choose to refrain from citing any specific examples here. If you doubt they exist I invite you to spend some time with the writings of, e.g. Jared Taylor

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#49

Post by woodandsteel » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:27 AM UTC

JonGarfield wrote: post #19

woodandsteel wrote: post #14

A while back I read about a study that found that when a woman is friendly toward a man she doesn't have sexual feelings toward, often the male will mistakenly believe that she does, and act on those feelings. My response was, how is the male supposed to tell the difference? If there is a clear, observable behavior difference between how women behave when they are sexually attracted, and when they are just being frie…

Start by assuming that not all women who are friendly towards you "want you." That default assumption seems to be ingrained in some (by no means all) men and that is what gets them in trouble. If you start with the default assumption that women who are friendly are ... just being friendly then misunderstandings are far fewer. Most men who approach you are just being friendly rather than coming on to you. Do you requi…

That's excellent advice. But I am saying it is a lot more likely men will start thinking and behaving that way if women explain it all to men, and if they behave in a consistent manner themselves.

Re: How shutting out men from the conversation is an obstacle to change

#50

Post by woodandsteel » Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 12:46 AM UTC

My experience is that women vary a lot in how direct they are. I find I get along a lot better with the direct ones as opposed to the ones who expect you to guess what they are feeling, and beat up on you if you get it wrong. My guess is that life goes better in a lot of ways for the more direct ones, though I could be wrong about that.