So @catches_stars on Twitter is pretty hilarious. She’s also got an OkCupid account, and regularly posts snippets of her conversations with some of the more problematic dudes who contact her, some on her main Twitter account and some on @okcupid_TXT. With her permission, and because I’m too lazy to actually write a post today, I’m passing along a few of my favorites.
This overeager fellow has a rather sudden change of heart when his stated plan runs into an obstacle, that obstacle being that @catches_stars finds him completely repulsive.
This guy is either totally high or trying some weird and misguided PUA wizardry on her. (It does not succeed.)
This foot-obsessed fellow spammed her with the same message from several different accounts.
This guy, who seems to be shirtless in his profile pic, gets what I assume is, to him, a very disappointing answer.
As does this fellow.
Romance is hard.
After seeing the responses, I feel compelled to respond. I’m dropping using game as an example of theory vs. practice, since it seems to have too much of an attached or implied payload.
@SomeGal
Your explanation of eugenics may add some accuracy with regards to the negative consequences, but it’s not a balanced explanation. When I gave that example, I did so deliberately; knowing someone would confirm the point I was making. That first definition was quoted from the glossary of a medial genetics reference site: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=eugenics (It’s not something I made up)
The reason they write it in that way is because (just like the game), theory, when applied appropriately can do a lot of good. Just because it hasn’t done good in all cases (*cough* Nazis *cough*) doesn’t mean it hasn’t done some good.
For example, thanks to eugenics, expecting parents can now receive advance information on the likelihood of their child being born with down syndrome – they then have the choice as to whether or not to proceed let a child into the world that will be born at a severe disadvantage. Some parents wouldn’t like the idea of their son/daughter suffering their entire lives, eugenics lets parents choose.
Of course eugenics has been abused but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a positive side too. Whether or not what I’ve stated above is ultimately a good thing is down to personal opinion – eugenics has the backing of medical professionals far more qualified than ourselves and is in itself a key to detecting and preventing diseases with a genetic cause.
@Argenti
Do you mean your response to Martyn? I thought that was in the thread right before this one, but nope. I will check more for you.
@Martyn
The point was that mine was also more neutral than yours. That dictionary sucks. They write it that way because they are privileged assholes like you.
Yep. I called it on the ableism.
@Martyn
I’m actually not done. Which genetic diseases do we get rid of? Although, we aren’t just eliminating diseases, we are eliminating people or potential people with those diseases. Do we also stop them from breeding? Are my diseases ones we want to get rid of to improve the human race? Should I not breed?
Individual women making a choice not to carry a pregnancy to term does not a movement make, btw. However, as with abortion of female fetuses in some countries, that doesn’t mean that we can’t work to change society so that fewer women make that choice for that reason.
OMG. I thought I couldn’t get more fed up with Martyn than I was last night, but boy was I wrong. We actually got him coming back because he wanted to defend eugenics. This is so far beyond just privileged teenager behavior. Anyone else want to yell at him? I am going to stop looking at his bullshit and help Argenti.
@Argenti
I think, from context, it has to be here:
http://manboobz.com/2013/02/25/feminism-its-like-letting-your-kids-stay-up-eating-ice-cream/
But I can’t find it. I hope that helps though.
@Some Gal
How do you know what level of privilege the author(s) had at the time of writing? The only privilege I can see there is in the author(s) likely being better qualified to write the definition, a privilege I lack, hence why I use that well-documented definition rather than writing my own.
@Historophilia
Whether or not feminism is still needed can only be answered by opinion. I’ve asked that question myself many times. I determined the answer to be that, in my opinion, until the world goes gender-free and considers sex as penis-having, vagina-having or having both – there will always be a need for both Feminism and MRM.
What do you think?
I know this. But theories are discussed to further social improvement, it’s the development of better theories to explain reality that have offered the best progress for humanity over plain assertions of how the “real world” works from one persons experience of it.
@Martyn
I’m playing the odds that they are privileged. The odds that they are disabled are low. If they aren’t privileged, then they are still racist and/or ableist, which makes sense as society is both. How are you not getting this? In many ways, they aren’t more qualified because they wrote a crap definition. You need to learn to be skeptical of authority.
Stop using privilege to mean both the social justice term and the strict dictionary definition. It gets in the way of clarity and makes you sound like an ass.
@Some Gal
That’s about the choice of the potential parent. Eugenics only provides people with the tools to predict genetic disease. Of course potential people are being eliminated there, but how is that any worse than when people choose not to have kids purely because they won’t be able to cope?
In your opinion, after being confused as elements of the pro-choice movement for many years, are feminists now going pro-life?
Genetic disease is a better reason to abort than many of the reasons a lot of young people today give.
Brz is quoting an interview published in 1999. In his pull quote the interviewer asks Daly about an essay by Sally Miller Gerhart which was published in 1982.
I knew it had to be not-current- Daly died 3 years years ago.
Martyn has decided to bravely come out in favor of eugenics, properly administrated. I am not awake enough to snarl at him as I should do. ‘Just because eugenics has been abused’
He is also conflating genetic research with eugenics. Genetic research- “What does this bit here do?”. Eugenics- “Those people* are sub-par. By what method shall we** improve the genetic pool?”
Screw it. I’m going to wrap up against the rain and walk the dog.
* “Those people” somehow never seem to belong to the same group as the people who want to implement improvements. Isn’t that odd?
** And by “We”, the people who are deciding what is sub-par and suggesting what to do to who are almost always a self-appointed group who just happen to match their own description of ‘good stock’.
Because many feminists believe in ending poverty (in part because it constrains true reproductive choice) and many abortions are the result of poverty, does this mean that feminists are now pro-life?
Complicated ideas are apparently too complicated for you. Fuck off.
No.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22172/43-abortion-restrictions-were-passed-in-2012-second-most-of-all-time
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/05/study-confirms-dark-skinned-women-get-longer-prison-sentences/
http://www.umich.edu/~clemency/position.html
Oh, really? And what reasons are acceptible to use a legal form of birth control? What makes you the arbiter of what is a good or bad reason? If I have an abortion because I don’t like sex with condiment and don’t want to take the pill is that a worse reason than if I don’t want to pass on genetic diseases? Why? What difference does it make? Why does anyone care?
Hey, you never cited any hardback books from Barnes & Noble to back up your claim that the MRM was valuable or even just not awful.
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:
Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’
desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
Condoms not condiment. Fucking autocorrect.
@Some Gal bummer. I find a little ketchup really improves the whole experience 😉
@Some Gal – I know it was a typo but it made me laugh. 🙂
@emilygoddess
I prefer certain types of jelly, myself. 🙂
@Some Gal
The difference is that society overwhelmingly rejects abortions for social reasons. The original purpose of abortion was not about the choice of whether or not to have a child but whether or not the choice to have a child would cause physical or mental health damage to the pregnant woman.
For example: In England and Wales, the majority of abortions were approved on the grounds of “continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;”.
Want to know what percentage of potential parents used that reason? 98% in 2010. (Source: https://www.wp.dh.gov.uk/transparency/files/2012/05/Commentary1.pdf)
Only about 2% of abortions occurred because “there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped;”.
Eugenics has been less of reason for abortion yet has resulted in a large drop in the rates of down syndrome, due to responsible choices by pregnant mothers – that’s a net win for both humanity and society. That’s why I said genetic disease is a better reason.
In a word, NO. There is no need for the MRM, men already have all the rights, you knob.
Fuck off, you immature, sexist, racist piece of garbage.
I forgot “ableist.”
Is chocolate syrup a condiment? *smacks lips*
@drst
That’s an interesting article. In the majority of other countries most of those women would be unable to abort if they gave the real reasons for their abortions.
It’s interesting to see that the majority in there seemed to be younger (below 30s) and a third of which were in poverty.
@hellkell:
That’s why in the UK maternity pay is less than maternity pay? I just disproved your argument in under 5 seconds.
Really? Because I think you just made a giant fucking error, sMarty pants.