Meeting People (1 Viewer)

[Lili Marlene]

We are at the point where opinion B is allowed to exist. We know it exists because we have a link to it. We should not go toward the point where it cannot be analysed in any way at all without everyone immediately assuming that you agree with everything in column A because you analysed one part of column B. But that tends to be how people react to everything.

I am long past the point of thumped awareness where I would think you pointing out a flaw with point B automatically means you 100% agree with point A.

 

[Lili Marlene]

I didn't do that. Her interpretation of an interaction between two strangers was that it was creepy. If it genuinely was, that's fine but judging by the tone of the article I would not take it for granted that she isn't projecting in this instance.

And 7, she specifically refers to "men in general", i.e. me.

Think of the flipside to this reality. Interaction between randomers is outlawed, courting is not to be attempted outside of singles bars and dating websites. I'm not condoning creeping behaviour, particularly of the kind 7 described in his workplace, I abhor it. But I thought it wasn't about me if, like Ann Post, I didn't engage that sort of thing myself. But that's not true is it, I'm jumped on by nooly for having an opinion.

Dude, I know what you're getting at but come on

That is an incredibly whinnying Guardian piece. Is women's time somehow more precious than men's? I'm way too shy to approach women publicly as she describes but I've frequently been told (by women) that that sort of confidence can be attractive. I have, however, been on the receiving end and neither assumed, like this bint, that the person in question was hitting on me nor whined about it afterwards.

Also, Starbucks?? Hand in your card love, surely places like that are tailor made for phonies to go size each other up.

it was posted in the Guardian opinion section ("comment" section technically)

edit: eh, removed the highlighting from the last bit

 

[hermie]

Well yes but I'm not attacking her directly. I don't feel strong enough to write her an email or even bitch in the comments section. Surely you see that some of what I said was for comedic affect? Hand in your card love was in relation to the irony of a Guardian contributor who spends all her time in Starbucks. Clearly tongue in cheek

But the crux of her argument, which we seem to have side-stepped, essentially boils down to lads shouldn't approach girls in coffee shops. And I fundamentally disagree with that even if I've never done it myself. Aside from that her tone is pithy and confrontational. Perhaps you think it's hypocritical for me to respond in kind but there you go.

 

[nooleen]

But the crux of her argument, which we seem to have side-stepped, essentially boils down to lads shouldn't approach girls in coffee shops.

no it doesn't.

 

[hermie]

no it doesn't.

Go on then, enlighten me.

 

[nooleen]

it boils down to the headline, that being the purpose of a headline

 

[hermie]

it boils down to the headline, that being the purpose of a headline

Nope still not enlightened.

And as an aside the headline is usually the work of the editor and rarely these days holds true as an accurate summation of what follows.

 

[nooleen]

Nope still not enlightened.

i can see that

 

[hermie]

Arf.

I can see you have no real wish for a proper discussion so I'll leave it at that.

 

[nooleen]

mm hmm

because just replying with 'nope' within a minute of a response makes for a good discussion.

 

[Lili Marlene]

How I see it:

Well yes but I'm not attacking her directly. I don't feel strong enough to write her an email or even bitch in the comments section. Surely you see that some of what I said was for comedic affect? Hand in your card love was in relation to the irony of a Guardian contributor who spends all her time in Starbucks. Clearly tongue in cheek

yeah of course but "it's just a joke, tongue in cheek" is a bit of a - wolf-whistle, show us your tits, why are you offended I was just having a laugh - harassment response. Your personal context doesn't trump theirs.

But the crux of her argument, which we seem to have side-stepped, essentially boils down to lads shouldn't approach girls in coffee shops. And I fundamentally disagree with that even if I've never done it myself.

I don't think this is the crux and I don't think it's her point, and I think she'd agree that people should be allowed approach a person of the opposite sex wherever they are, as long as it's appropriate.

When is it appropriate? Hard to work it out, just don't always assume it's appropriate. I'm sure you'd agree with that as well.

Which leads to the bit where she says

Douchebag supremacy is built on a long history of getting away with as much as possible – in finance, in romance, in literature, in humour, in politics, in the countless subtleties of simply taking up space in the world. If you can get away with it, good. More for you. Generosity and basic decency are favours, not obligations.

That's more her point.

Aside from that her tone is pithy and confrontational. Perhaps you think it's hypocritical for me to respond in kind but there you go.

No not really. Fuck it, it's thumped.

 

[Unicron]

Starbucks seem to have nice coffee.

This is the wrongest thing in the past 2 pages. Vile shite.

 

[hermie]

yeah of course but "it's just a joke, tongue in cheek" is a bit of a - wolf-whistle, show us your tits, why are you offended I was just having a laugh - harassment response. Your personal context doesn't trump theirs.

Way harsh, what am I a Top Gear presenter or something now? There's a distinction depending on the platform. Ok we're not all sitting around a poker table here but neither am I calling her out on Twitter. As you say, it's Thumped. I'm not saying my personal context trumps hers - she says douchebag, I say bint - but neither do I truly mean to attack her character. But on the whole I take your point.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

This is the wrongest thing in the past 2 pages. Vile shite.

My primary concerns are location.

There's a Starbucks next to my cinema. If the line in DD's is too long, I'm hitting up Starbucks.
They both taste like coffee to me. I have no refinement when it comes to this stuff. I'm a major novice.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

A Must Checklist for Ladies before the First Date | Meetville Blog

 

[Lili Marlene]

Way harsh, what am I a Top Gear presenter or something now? There's a distinction depending on the platform. Ok we're not all sitting around a poker table here but neither am I calling her out on Twitter.

Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean you embody this or anything, just there's a connection in the kind of thinking. I was trying to draw a parallel, not call you out.

 

[тхеодоре кацзынски]

the kind of dudes (#notallmen) who impose themselves obnoxiously on women in public spaces might gradually start gaining some self-awareness if articles and discussions highlight their behaviour

I was thinking about this earlier with regard to domestic violence-I'm not so sure the 'target audience' will read let alone internalise any of this stuff. This whole PUA thing (maybe I'm wrong but I see #notallmen as an extension/relation to PUA) seems to take narcissism to a whole new level and I get the feeling those who do it, if they do read such articles, simply recall the 'successes' they had and so think "It's not about me, women love me" or something equally lame and delusional. Thats not to say articles like that in The Guardian shouldn't be published, just that they're probably not as effective/affective as the author/editor believes.

Oh, and the original article is a steaming pile of shite too, this Robinson guy is a fucking jackass, 'bitch face'? Really? While I don't think women should be avoided at all costs lest they be disturbed (women are tough, not some delicate exotic flower)there is a time and a place and anybody with even a modicum of awareness will know when its not the time and where its not the place. If he's getting 'bitch face' he obviously doesn't know timing and placing.

 

[nooleen]

I was thinking about this earlier with regard to domestic violence-I'm not so sure the 'target audience' will read let alone internalise any of this stuff. This whole PUA thing (maybe I'm wrong but I see #notallmen as an extension/relation to PUA) seems to take narcissism to a whole new level and I get the feeling those who do it, if they do read such articles, simply recall the 'successes' they had and so think "It's not about me, women love me" or something equally lame and delusional. Thats not to say articles like that in The Guardian shouldn't be published, just that they're probably not as effective/affective as the author/editor believes.

well i don't think they're meant to make instant lightbulbs go on over the heads of every douchebag, more of a gradual change in social attitudes
if sexism becomes more socially unacceptable it will eventually filter through to some degree, as with racism and homophobia

 

[washingcattle]

I was thinking about this earlier with regard to domestic violence-I'm not so sure the 'target audience' will read let alone internalise any of this stuff. This whole PUA thing (maybe I'm wrong but I see #notallmen as an extension/relation to PUA) seems to take narcissism to a whole new level and I get the feeling those who do it, if they do read such articles, simply recall the 'successes' they had and so think "It's not about me, women love me" or something equally lame and delusional. Thats not to say articles like that in The Guardian shouldn't be published, just that they're probably not as effective/affective as the author/editor believes.

I was abut to post basically the same thing. It's a bit like preaching to the choir.

well i don't think they're meant to make instant lightbulbs go on over the heads of every douchebag, more of a gradual change in social attitudes
if sexism becomes more socially unacceptable it will eventually filter through to some degree, as with racism and homophobia

I don't think that's as effective as you think though. Racism and homophobia for example are rife in sports, but since sporting associations have tried to stamp it out and since men will never move away from sports that has a real effect.

On the other hand articles like the one your discussing only reach a very small demographic of men and it eventually does more to turn those men away from reading them rather than entice the men who really should read them into buying the paper or visiting the site.

No one wants to be told how you are the bad guy based on your gender when you are in fact as far from the bad guy as possible, case in point you're actually reading the article to begin with, probably to make sure you're not the fucking bad guy.

It's a catch-22 but it is worth discussing, basically until FHM start writing articles about how to live in the 21st century we're all screwed. And that's not going to happen any time soon because ... well.... how do I put this delicately......eh...... Boobs?

 

[Unicron]

well i don't think they're meant to make instant lightbulbs go on over the heads of every douchebag, more of a gradual change in social attitudes
if sexism becomes more socially unacceptable it will eventually filter through to some degree, as with racism and homophobia

Is it a case of you have people who do it, and people who don't do it and tells others to cop on, and people who don't do it but who let their mates who are the first kind get away with it? And articals like that are more about turning the last kind into the second kind and thus marginalising the first kind, which makes them less likely to engage in bad behavior of whatever type.

Because as depressing as it sounds many people are less likely to alter their bad behavior as a result of a negative response from the people they're acting badly towards then they are if the negative response comes from within their own peer group.