1325: "Rejection"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:21 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
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?

Maybe that's where I've been going wrong? Do you think I should offer references too? :P Being a guy, I'm the potential employee in this analogy...

More seriously, I have known a couple of women where, it just so happens that the chemistry and feelings only ever seem to be there in the presence of a fat wallet - and I've had one friendship with a girl who, once she realised I was safe, was quite open about the fact she screened potential dates based on their projected ability to support her in the lifestyle to which she would like to become accustomed.

Maybe in an ideal world, "I find you attractive, want to go on a date?" would be answered purely based on how the askee feels about the asker, but, in practice, that's only one consideration - social pressure is another - it's a lot easier to date someone if you think your friends will approve/be envious...

***

Kit. wrote:
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.


So who owes a specific person the right to sell their labour to them?

The right to sell one's labour is empty unless somewhere there exists a corresponding duty for your labour to be purchased. If Fred has the right to sell their labour, but for all 7 billion people on Earth, each person has the right to not buy Fred's labour, individually and collectively, then Fred doesn't actually have the right to sell their labour - merely to try to do so...
Last edited by rmsgrey on Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:27 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:22 am UTC

Kit. wrote:
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.

If you look at the original analogy again, this is an important part of it. The whole point of it, really.

A right to work (to earn money by selling your labor) is not the same thing as saying anyone should be forced to give you money. I wasn't saying anything about anyone having a right to anything in the first place though, and I don't want to take this on a tangent by talking about whether anyone really should be forced to provide for anyone else. The point of the analogy is that complaining about being passed up for raises and promotions even when you're doing what society tells you should get you those is not claiming that anyone owes you money -- it's complaining about being mislead about how to get money.

And analogously, complaining about being passed up for sexual relations even when you're doing what society tells you should get you those is not claiming that anyone owes you sex -- it's complaining about being mislead about how to get sex. Depending on how those complaints are constructed by specific complainers there could still be problems with them, but neither is necessarily a claim that anyone owes you anything. That was the whole point of the analogy: that complaining about not getting something does not necessarily express a sense of entitlement to that thing, or a desire to force anyone else to provide it, and spinning all complaints that way is a generalizing mischaracterization of the complainers as a group.

If we disagree about the analogousness here still, I think it must be because you think some people really do owe other people a living, where I don't, which is a complicated issue we've argued about before and I don't want to get into it again here. We both agree, I believe, that nobody owes anybody sex.
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)

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 1:51 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
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?

Maybe that's where I've been going wrong? Do you think I should offer references too? :P Being a guy, I'm the potential employee in this analogy...

More seriously, I have known a couple of women where, it just so happens that the chemistry and feelings only ever seem to be there in the presence of a fat wallet - and I've had one friendship with a girl who, once she realised I was safe, was quite open about the fact she screened potential dates based on their projected ability to support her in the lifestyle to which she would like to become accustomed.

Maybe in an ideal world, "I find you attractive, want to go on a date?" would be answered purely based on how the askee feels about the asker, but, in practice, that's only one consideration - social pressure is another - it's a lot easier to date someone if you think your friends will approve/be envious...

There are plenty of gold-diggers (male and female, although usually with a male preferring sexuality (I think this has something to do with the wage-gap)) but if you don't also have feelings for the guy I don't think that constitutes a relationship, that constitutes prostitution. Yes, there are some practical things taken into account, which is usually mutual, not specific to women.

I'm mostly bothered by the comparison of sexism to some problems all people have, some people have them more than others, but this is irrespective of sex, while you still make it sound gender biased. Me thinking that an employee-employer relationship and a romantic relationship involve a completely different level of intimacy and that the required chemistry is therefore hardly comparable is not as important.

Note that I have nothing against prostitutes (the people, not prostitution), but I don't think prostitution and a relationship are the same.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:46 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote: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.

Well the topic of the conversation is a certain kind of man and the way he approaches women and his reaction to their response to that approach and what can be said about that type of guy for that type of reaction to that response to that approach. We're talking about a narrow subject, so I'm talking about that subject narrowly, and only noting for clarity that I acknowledge the existence of different situations, without going into detail on them. For example see my first post again, where I said:

Pfhorrest wrote:Some women buy this message [that relationships are a trade of sex-for-'niceness'] and mistakenly believe that the way to a man's heart is through the fly of his pants, and have their own romantic hardships because of that, but that's not the topic of this thread.

Guys who buy this message [...more detailed analysis]

(This line is just here to be clear that these two quotes are not continuous).

PinkShinyRose wrote: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.

I'm not really talking about stringing along in particular with this analogy, though that could be part of it, but it could also just be constant rejection by a bunch of strangers in bars or wherever. I'm also not talking about any particular (hypothetical) male-female pair here. Just about when a certain kind of guy has trouble getting any kind of romantic relationship going with any woman. A guy who is fighting an uphill battle to realize any kind of progress in the area of romance, and who is wondering why that is, then realizing that he was misinformed (not by anyone in particular, mind you) about what kinds of qualities or behaviors are conducive to progress in that area, and being angry about that. That narrow scenario, I'm arguing, is analogous to a run-of-the-mill laborer realizing that they have been misinformed (again, by no one in particular, just pervasive social tropes) about what kinds of qualities or behaviors are conducive to making progress in their career, and being angry about that. Neither of them are (necessarily) saying anyone owes them anything by expressing that anger.

---

On a different but related topic, with regard to "people don't have the power to make them feel something": while strictly speaking I agree that is true, there is a matter of presentation and attitude and many other subtle factors, which is largely what I'm on about when I'm talking about the lies that society spins about both career and romance. Elsewhere in this thread people are going on about objective vs subjective qualities and all that and I'm not talking anything in that regard. In either romantic or business relationships, both parties could write down a list of the things that they want out of the relationship, and those things could be "objective" or "subjective" in different proportions for the two different kinds of relationship and I'm not quibbling about any of that.

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between those lists of things people are actively and consciously looking for in a relationship and would write down if asked to list the things they're looking for, and the kinds of things that actually influence them to give what the other party is looking for. There can (and ideally should) be a lot of overlap between these two sets, but they will in reality almost always differ; and the lies society tell us in both cases are that they do not differ. For a real obvious one, no employer is going to list "tough salary negotiator" as a quality they're looking for in an employee, but that is a quality an employee needs if they want the business relationship to be fulfilling from their end. There's not a perfect analogue for that in romantic relationships (the analogue of that behavior does not produce an analogous result), but a rough analogue is that if a guy is looking for a sexual relationship he needs to indicate that, like an employee looking for more money needs to ask for it.

That may sound a bit like PUA bullshit, but it's just a general comment about all relationships of all kinds between all people, not just about men seeking sexual relations with women: just giving someone exactly what they say they want out of the relationship may not, by itself, get you what you want out of the relationship, even if it's a relationship being pursued for mutual benefit (as healthy romances and careers should both be). There's all kinds of side stuff in all kinds of relationships besides just giving what's asked of you and hoping the other person gives what you want from them; at the very very least, there's asking for what you want, and a lot of superficial presentation factors about seeming like someone worth it, and more besides that depending on the type of relationship and the circumstances and the people involved. Just giving what's asked and receiving what you want in return is an ideal, and a lovely one, but it's rarely the whole truth, and acting like it is the whole truth when the other party doesn't is a recipe for becoming a doormat, whether that means being unemployed or underpaid at work, or rejected or strung along in romance, or whatever.

But that ideal is what society tells us all is true, in both those domains and probably similarly in other domains too, and it tells us that the only people who don't think it's true are bad people looking to cheat and swindle everyone. So then when people who've accepted that message realize through experience that it's actually not true, that it's not all so simple and beautiful and easy as that, when you realize that you can't just strive to epitomize good qualities and good things will naturally come to you in return, but you have to actively try to get the things you want, not necessarily by cheating and swindling but at least by asking, but asking in just the right way, with just the right presentation, and there's all kind of complicated and messy and socially-variable human psychology involved in everything -- facing the facts of that messy reality hurts and makes people angry. They were told a beautiful lie and now they see it's all false. Some of those people swing the other direction and (try to) become the cheating swindling bad people who they've seen succeeding in areas they've failed, and I'm not justifying them here. But to broadly characterize everyone who's realized life is not a fairy tale as that kind of bad person is just to repeat the fairy tale that set up the problem in the first place.

Instead we should all publicly acknowledge that people are complicated, that being good in certain ways is an important part of getting certain good things that you might want from other people, but that it's often not enough to just do that and wait for the result to roll in -- that way people won't feel bitter when they don't. No, just having the goods often isn't enough, you've usually got to sell the goods too, packaging and presentation and advertising matter. That doesn't mean you've got to, or should, manipulate or force anyone to give you want you want in return, or that you're owed anything in return. It just means that it's work to build mutually beneficial relationship of any kind, to find someone who will bring what you want and be happy with what you're bringing too -- emphasis on find, as in, two people both learning whether they've got what the other is looking for and vice versa. That shit is hard, in every domain, and we'd have a lot fewer bitter and jaded people around if we all just owned up to it up front, instead of letting people sit and wonder for ages why they're not getting the results we've told them people like them would get just for being who they are, and not doing that hard work to show who they are effectively and ask for what they want themselves.
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:53 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
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)

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 8999
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Both Present and Past...... Schizoblitz: 115/2601 NP
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby BlitzGirl » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:47 am UTC

Women say they want nice guys, but what they really want are...

Employers say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

-

These complaints are not congruent.
I think it's an interesting analogy, but like most analogies, it's problematic.
In both cases, the complaining party may have a very good reason to feel slighted.
BUT - the first complaint is offensive, because it is not okay to denigrate a subset of the population like that.

-

Asians say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

Bisexuals say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

Women say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

Corporations say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

-

(Corporations are people now, right?)
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<-Blog
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

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 3:01 am UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:Women say they want nice guys, but what they really want are...

Employers say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

-

These complaints are not congruent.
I think it's an interesting analogy, but like most analogies, it's problematic.
In both cases, the complaining party may have a very good reason to feel slighted.
BUT - the first complaint is offensive, because it is not okay to denigrate a subset of the population like that.

-

Asians say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

Bisexuals say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

Women say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

Corporations say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

-

(Corporations are people now, right?)

No, Honey;
Corporations and the Rulers of The World are Gods now.
Not normal mortal people like me and maybe you.
But; Gods.

You got everything else correct.
Keep going you are singing to the choir.
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
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4686
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:02 am UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:Women say they want nice guys, but what they really want are...

Employers say they'll pay everyone fairly, but what they really do is...

These complaints are not congruent.

It's also not the analogy I introduced and everyone else seems to be talking about now, though to be fair it seems like a lot of people defending "my" analogy are taking it to be something else instead too.

A similarly succinct version of my analogy would be more like:

"Society says guys just being nice/sweet/etc is the most effective way to build romantic relationships with women, but what really influences romantic relationships more is..."

"Society says workers just being skilled/dedicated/etc is the most effective way to build business relationships with employers, but what really influences business relationships more is..."

Or for an equally flawed analogy of the original flawed claim in the comic:

"Women say they want nice guys, but what they really want are..."
"Employers say they want hard workers, but what they really want are..."

Employers generally do want hard workers. Women generally do want [genuinely] nice guys. But those qualities alone often aren't enough to build a successful career or romance out of -- there's a lot of other stuff involved too. The people making these flawed claims (not that anyone really says the second) are trying poorly to articulate that last point, but getting everything wrong in the process.
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)

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:52 am UTC

Trisana wrote:
sonar1313 wrote: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?
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].

If I might interject? While my current relationship, as a lesbian one, may not be entirely relevant, I'd like to give this one a shot. I haven't been able to find a new job in quite some time, so I'm rather extraordinarily bankrupt. While I don't expect my partner to buy things for me, she does all the standard things like pay my share at restaurants and stuff. While it's not quite the same thing cause I just don't have much of anything, she informs me that I more than pay her back through (non-sexual) service means, rather than a financial one. From the cliches like cooking and cleaning, to softer things, such as, she claims, my general attentiveness, and the happiness I bring her. She compares spending money on me to being similar to spending money on a convention, cause what she's getting for her money is fun and happiness.

That being said, I still disapprove of asymmetrical chivalry, and I think it should be an equal two-way-street assuming both partners are equally able to contribute financially. I just wanted to point out that any expense of a partner should, in theory, be worth the value of happiness and enjoyment you are getting out of them.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

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 4:11 am UTC

ok. Like any two friends.
That makes sense.

Or; Two acquaintances.
Don't most humans hang out in groups?

Group dynamics is weird stuff.
Someone studies that stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics

A tasteless joke:
Spoiler:
I was told a joke one time.
A certain kind of man is called a Wolf,
Because, he separates a woman from other women and destroys her.


What about the concept of arranged marriage?
After reading this Thread, it sounds even better than it did before.

Arranged Marriages can be so wonderful.
Arranged Marriages have other people rooting for the Team.

What I have been told by people that live inside Arragned Marrages is
The people that love them want them to be happy.

The people that love them want to be happy themselves.
Brothers and Sisters and Aunts and Everyone gets into the act.

Wonderful reasonable choices are presented.
I have been told it is a very stressful time.

After each date, every detail must be told over and over.
Mother and Father get to ask the first questions.

Then The Truth is discussed between siblings and each parent in private.
Everyone is into all your business. Those families are as bad and the NSA.

This is a big decision. No one should go it alone.
Some people have nicer families than other people do.

Is you family the type that would sell you off before the Goat?
Well?? How much trouble have you been?

"The promise of a Moppy someday and he is yours."
Edit:
Until we get nice functional families,
we complain. This guy complains.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3250#comic
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
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby mythago » Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:55 am UTC

Karilyn wrote: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.


I'm not seeing where your link (which is not a study, but a fact sheet which aggregates other studies) has those statistics; I do see a chart that asks men whether they have committed acts that constitute sexual assault/rape or attempted rape (i.e., they don't ask "did you rape", but questions like "have you ever used force to have sex with a woman when she didn't want to", which is typical of such studies), and you get some pretty depressing numbers, but they are way more than .6%. The numbers get worse when you fold in attempted rape and sexual assault, which some states' laws distinguish. I also see nothing whatsoever about men who "would commit rape if given the opportunity", although other studies along those lines are also pretty depressing. Here's one from 1981 that finds if assured they would not get caught, about 20% to 33% of men would rape. I like to think those numbers are a lot lower today.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby mythago » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:30 am 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!


An analogy and "kidding on the square" are very different things. An analogy would be saying "traditionalist dating patterns, for men, are like the pay gap for women". Kidding on the square, as I noted already, is making a comment that you mean seriously - the pay gap is just because we have to do most of the asking-out! - and pretending that you 'kid' or that it's just a joke to create, in your phrasing, a flame shield. Again, as noted already, "insincere" and "poorly-concealed, seething resentment and anger at the opposite sex" are qualities just about nobody, male or female, has on their OK Cupid match list.

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!".


Wow, no. I get that you're very very angry about traditionalist dating mores, but your rant is not merely painting with a broad brush, it's....you know that paint ad that shows a enormous bucket of paint dumping a giant paint puddle over the planet with the slogan "We Cover The World"? Like that.

First is the assumption that there is a single model of this "Nice Guy" thing: genuinely nice dudes who are gentlemanly towards selfish, traditionalist ladies who treat them bad and then run off with good-looking Bad Boys (and despite your 'perceived' qualifier, in your analogy there, the perception is correct, and he's not imagining it, any more than the bright young thing at work is imagining that her frat dude co-worker gets a faster promotion); rinse, repeat, and genuinely nice dude becomes bitter. Anyone who criticizes Bitter Dude is thus unfair and "demonizing" him.

But there is not one universal Bitter Dude with one Secret Origin. Maybe Bitter Dude was never as nice as he likes to believe he is, and he's just a slightly less suave version of the crass joke-teller. (See the screenshots posted earlier for examples.) Or perhaps Bitter Dude is blowing right by available women who are nice, honest, wear their hearts on their sleeves, and don't tell jokes about what bozos men are.....but those women aren't nearly as thin and conventionally pretty as Ms. Buy Me Dinner, so he isn't interested. Or he finds nice, honest, heart-on-their-sleeve women to be kind of dull, and only gets pantsfeelings for "exciting" women, ie. women who aren't predisposed to treating him with consistent decency.

(The equivalent in your pay-gap analogy, I suppose, would be the young woman who gripes that her co-worker only got a promotion because he's a dude......ignoring that he has better qualifications, works harder, and unlike her, doesn't make a habit of coming in with a hangover every Monday morning.)

Second is that, while the pay gap and traditional dating mores are both the result of sexism, they're not the flip side of the same coin. There are plenty of men who prefer the traditional dating pattern, and it's not because they are "self-hating"; it's because they do get something out of it other than 'bigger paycheck'. They get, as the phrasing goes, to be the man in the relationship. To be the one wearing the pants. They do the approaching, they do the asking, they open the doors and pick the date and make the moves, instead of being the one waiting for this to be done TO them or FOR them and to signal what they want with hints. They probably aren't so crass as to say 'I bought dinner, put out', but that's the implied bargain in the traditional relationship, yes? That all this courting and door-opening and dinner-buying creates a social obligation that the woman pays off physically?

I imagine that latter sounds completely foreign to you, and you can't imagine a dude who would want that to be the way of the world, instead of one where he sometimes (perhaps even equally!) get asked out, bought dinner, etc etc., but there are plenty. If they're "self-hating", then so are women who think it's swell for a man to use money to be the dominant half of the relationship.

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.


No, you're really not the kind of guy the comic is talking about. Unless you decide to be, because being "bitter" allows you to feel like by shitting on anyone with boobs, you're somehow getting back at the subset of women who've treated you badly. That's certainly a hell of a lot easier than thinking, hey, women are people just like men, and they can't all be evil and selfish any more than all men can be, so perhaps I need to take a hard look at why I'm running into this string of Darth Vader dates, rather than deciding my best course of action in the future is to treat the opposite sex as the enemy.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:40 am UTC

mythago wrote:
Karilyn wrote: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.

I see nothing whatsoever about men who "would commit rape if given the opportunity", although other studies along those lines are also pretty depressing. Here's one from 1981 that finds if assured they would not get caught, about 20% to 33% of men would rape. I like to think those numbers are a lot lower today.

My point wasn't to pull out the highest numbers I could, but instead use a selection of conservative numbers which are the absolute minimum you could optimistically hope for: IE the number of men who (without duress) self-report themselves as having raped women. The numbers can, quite literally, only go up from there.

The reason I used those numbers, is so someone couldn't accuse me of exaggerating, and why, even at the optimistic minimum, it's a very real and present threat. Arguably the most important of those numbers was the bit about most rapists being serial, and having an average of 14 victims. For the sake of my own sanity, I hold onto the idea that it's just ~1% of men who are accounting for almost all rape, because I just can't fucking deal with the idea that 20-33% of men are rapists, and I refuse to accept the world is that fucking horrible.
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. » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:58 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Kit. wrote:
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.

So who owes a specific person the right to sell their labour to them?

Where did I say "to procreate with them"?

rmsgrey wrote:The right to sell one's labour is empty unless somewhere there exists a corresponding duty for your labour to be purchased. If Fred has the right to sell their labour, but for all 7 billion people on Earth, each person has the right to not buy Fred's labour, individually and collectively, then Fred doesn't actually have the right to sell their labour - merely to try to do so...

Still, there are people responsible for keeping unemployment under control, and there are people responsible for keeping social security working, and they work together.

There is no agency responsible for giving you an opportunity to have sex.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby valiance. » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:29 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".

Because you're saying Alice is emotionally immature for wanting a relationship and not merely friendship.

Why can Bob say I don't want to be in a relationship, I just want to be friends, but Alice can't say I don't want to be just friends, I want to be in a relationship?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Alice wants a romantic relationship devoid of friendship. What she wants is a romantic relationship and not merely friendship.

Are we obligated to be friends with everyone who is willing to be friends with us?

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


No. Alice wants a relationship (which includes friendship) but she won't accept just friendship. If it helps think of it as relationship = friendship + romantic interest. Alice wants both parts of the relationship, and she won't take just one. Why is that immature?

I ask again: If I want to be emotionally mature, am I obligated to be friends with anyone who I am romantically interested in?

Trisana 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!" (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.


I'm pretty sure the gender wage gap is a myth when controlling for time in the workforce, experience, hours worked, etc.
See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ap/276367/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... -pay-myth/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html

I agree we still have some tradition to overcome if the expectation that the man pays is going to be obliterated, but I don't think there is a (current) wage gap contributing to the maintenance of that tradition. And honestly I don't think the tradition is that strong anymore anyway. I think going dutch is a pretty well accepted thing now, at least in my experience.
Last edited by valiance. on Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:53 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby orthogon » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:42 pm UTC

valiance. wrote: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...

That's just the beginning of it. Those two have serious and well documented problems in their relationship. They have a lot of trouble communicating, they don't trust each other, they're always harbouring secrets, and they've never properly dealt with the Eve situation ...
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Klear » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:49 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Note that I have nothing against prostitutes


I think the thread jumped the shark with this comment.

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 1:55 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote: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.

Well the topic of the conversation is a certain kind of man and the way he approaches women and his reaction to their response to that approach and what can be said about that type of guy for that type of reaction to that response to that approach. We're talking about a narrow subject, so I'm talking about that subject narrowly, and only noting for clarity that I acknowledge the existence of different situations, without going into detail on them.

I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood the meaning behind your words. I was under the impression that you were implying that women (in general, but specifically women) should somehow take this power balance into consideration into their feelings somehow because the romance thing is harder for men. I just read too much into it I think and may have confused different peoples line of reasoning.
Pfhorrest wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote: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.

I'm not really talking about stringing along in particular with this analogy, though that could be part of it, but it could also just be constant rejection by a bunch of strangers in bars or wherever. I'm also not talking about any particular (hypothetical) male-female pair here. Just about when a certain kind of guy has trouble getting any kind of romantic relationship going with any woman. A guy who is fighting an uphill battle to realize any kind of progress in the area of romance, and who is wondering why that is, then realizing that he was misinformed (not by anyone in particular, mind you) about what kinds of qualities or behaviors are conducive to progress in that area, and being angry about that. That narrow scenario, I'm arguing, is analogous to a run-of-the-mill laborer realizing that they have been misinformed (again, by no one in particular, just pervasive social tropes) about what kinds of qualities or behaviors are conducive to making progress in their career, and being angry about that. Neither of them are (necessarily) saying anyone owes them anything by expressing that anger.

I agree that there could be a similar frustration about trying things for naught. However, as I said earlier, I mostly object tot the pay gap issue, as where guys who realise they have been emphasising the wrong things can alter their behaviour (although this is difficult, sometimes immoral and not possible if there really is nothing to love, which I highly doubt), this option is not open to women in the pay gap issue. However, I can agree with an analogy of some random person who doesn't get a promotion due to a lack of certain skills (social skills probably, as those are often neglected in education and fairy tales, which would sadly often make these the same people) instead of due to sexism. I still think there is a major difference between the nature of both types of relationships and therefore also in the selection process, but those are not as important for an analogy.

I also want to point out, that I mentioned in my first post, that I understood if the guy some people made guy 1 in the comic out to be (and who is the guy we're talking about here) was sad, frustrated or even angry with the world. I also mentioned, that while I understood he would lash out at the object of his affection (or the group she is part of) it didn't make it right to lash out like that.

TL;DR Yes, life sucks, don't make it suck even more by being mean.
Pfhorrest wrote:What I'm saying is that there is a difference between those lists of things people are actively and consciously looking for in a relationship and would write down if asked to list the things they're looking for, and the kinds of things that actually influence them to give what the other party is looking for. There can (and ideally should) be a lot of overlap between these two sets, but they will in reality almost always differ; and the lies society tell us in both cases are that they do not differ. For a real obvious one, no employer is going to list "tough salary negotiator" as a quality they're looking for in an employee, but that is a quality an employee needs if they want the business relationship to be fulfilling from their end. There's not a perfect analogue for that in romantic relationships (the analogue of that behavior does not produce an analogous result), but a rough analogue is that if a guy is looking for a sexual relationship he needs to indicate that, like an employee looking for more money needs to ask for it.

Those things are not what people are looking for, but if you don't tell them you want something they won't know, while an employer generally expects an employee to aspire more money. Which is also a major difference: a confessee doesn't lose anything by entering a romance if she likes the confessor, while a company loses money on increasing salary. The better negotiator is more a characteristic that enriches you, it is most definitely not something you would be looking for in any employee that is not to negotiate for the company as it gets the employee rich to the detriment of the company and is really more of a selfish characteristic (although not selfish in a way that is not accepted by society).
mythago wrote:
Karilyn wrote: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.

Here's one from 1981 that finds if assured they would not get caught, about 20% to 33% of men would rape. I like to think those numbers are a lot lower today.

Unfortunately, I don't think they are, considering places like Haiti and certain areas in central Africa. These numbers are sick, and if I combine them they make me sick. I fear it is what you get when all social control disappears though.
valiance. wrote:I'm pretty sure the gender wage gap is a myth when controlling for time in the workforce, experience, hours worked, etc.
See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ap/276367/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... -pay-myth/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html

I agree we still have some tradition to overcome if the expectation that the man pays is going to be obliterated, but I don't think there is a (current) wage gap contributing to the maintenance of that tradition. And honestly I don't think the tradition is that strong anymore anyway. I think going dutch is a pretty well accepted thing now, at least in my experience.

Apart from all these articles specifically discussing the situation in the USA, there are some issues with these articles:
The theatlantic.com story does not support this conclusion: it really just says the wage-gap is smaller but still present when controlling for positions and some other factors, which was obvious to begin with. It has some additional issues as it controls for position, which for the better paying positions is largely determined by promotions, while bias in promotions were part of the problem to begin with. Yes, if you control for the problem you won't find a problem, again, this was obvious in the first place.

The forbes article also seems to control for positions, while simultaneously coming up with completely unsupported numbers and drawing conclusions without any indications about how they came to those conclusions (i.e. 0,39 hours of work a day accounts for 25% of the pay gap). I cannot say anything more about it, because it is vague and unsupported.

Huffingtonpost comes to the same conclusion as theatlantic.com, that there still is a wage-gap. They also use salary negotiation as a reason to discount part of it, while your theatlantic.com article falsifies this argument. It should be noted that they seem to have selected broader job categories, but they looked only one year after graduation, which says nothing about odds of promotion or salaries after multiple promotions as these generally happen later on.
EDIT:
Klear wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:Note that I have nothing against prostitutes

I think the thread jumped the shark with this comment.

I just didn't want to hurt anyones feelings, I don't know who reads this.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:04 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
Kit. wrote:
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.

If you look at the original analogy again, this is an important part of it. The whole point of it, really.

A right to work (to earn money by selling your labor) is not the same thing as saying anyone should be forced to give you money. I wasn't saying anything about anyone having a right to anything in the first place though, and I don't want to take this on a tangent by talking about whether anyone really should be forced to provide for anyone else. The point of the analogy is that complaining about being passed up for raises and promotions even when you're doing what society tells you should get you those is not claiming that anyone owes you money -- it's complaining about being mislead about how to get money.

But you are getting money this way.

The difference is that following the society's "lies" about how to earn money does let you to achieve a decent level of earnings unless some catastrophe happens (although, of course, you may think that you "need" more than that amount of money). While following the society's "lies" about how to become a potential father only increases your chances to procreate.

Pfhorrest wrote:If we disagree about the analogousness here still, I think it must be because you think some people really do owe other people a living, where I don't, which is a complicated issue we've argued about before and I don't want to get into it again here. We both agree, I believe, that nobody owes anybody sex.

I don't think any body owes any other body something that wasn't borrowed in the first place. But human society as a whole has a sort of internal rules that let it keep going. Giving every useful member the means to survive (unless there is an overpopulation) is one of such rules. Giving every useful member the means to procreate is not.

valiance. wrote:
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".

Because you're saying Alice is emotionally immature for wanting a relationship and not merely friendship.

Where did I say that?

valiance. wrote:Why can Bob say I don't want to be in a relationship, I just want to be friends, but Alice can't say I don't want to be just friends, I want to be in a relationship?

That's a question to you, actually. In the quote above you were insisting that it would be inappropriate for Bob to say so.

valiance. wrote:I ask again: If I want to be emotionally mature, am I obligated to be friends with anyone who I am romantically interested in?

No, you are not. But you should not be pissed off if they offer you to be your friends instead. Especially if they already are.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby valiance. » Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:08 pm UTC

edit: adding in a response to Kit

Kit. wrote:
valiance. wrote:
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".

Because you're saying Alice is emotionally immature for wanting a relationship and not merely friendship.

Where did I say that?


Your very first post that mentioned emotional immaturity? I made up a situation in which one might want a romantic relationship and not merely friendship, and you indicated that you thought that showed emotional immaturity. You seem to think it's possible to be emotionally mature and want to be in a romantic relationship with someone without merely being friends with them. In which case we are in agreement. I'm not wedded to my example, but I'm curious what makes it emotionally immature, and what an emotionally mature reason to not want to remain friends with a friend who rejected you romantically would be.

Kit. wrote:
valiance. wrote:Why can Bob say I don't want to be in a relationship, I just want to be friends, but Alice can't say I don't want to be just friends, I want to be in a relationship?

That's a question to you, actually. In the quote above you were insisting that it would be inappropriate for Bob to say so.


That's not at all what I was saying. I never said anywhere that people don't have the right to reject romantic overtures and still want to remain friends. I said nothing like that, so I'm unsure where that came from. My point was that Alice has as much right to say so as Bob does. You seemed to be saying that it is emotionally immature to not want to be friends with a friend who has rejected you romantically. We are somehow talking past each other and I don't know why... :(

Kit. wrote:
valiance. wrote:I ask again: If I want to be emotionally mature, am I obligated to be friends with anyone who I am romantically interested in?

No, you are not. But you should not be pissed off if they offer you to be your friends instead. Especially if they already are.


Noone mentioned being pissed at being offered friendship. I simply said there are cases where merely being (or remaining) friends is unacceptable to the rejected party, and that said unacceptability is perfectly emotionally mature. Wanting to be romantically involved with someone doesn't mean you necessarily want to be their friend, even if you were already friends before. People change, feelings change. That's life.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PinkShinyRose wrote:
valiance. wrote:I'm pretty sure the gender wage gap is a myth when controlling for time in the workforce, experience, hours worked, etc.
See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ap/276367/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... -pay-myth/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html

I agree we still have some tradition to overcome if the expectation that the man pays is going to be obliterated, but I don't think there is a (current) wage gap contributing to the maintenance of that tradition. And honestly I don't think the tradition is that strong anymore anyway. I think going dutch is a pretty well accepted thing now, at least in my experience.

Apart from all these articles specifically discussing the situation in the USA, there are some issues with these articles:
The theatlantic.com story does not support this conclusion: it really just says the wage-gap is smaller but still present when controlling for positions and some other factors, which was obvious to begin with. It has some additional issues as it controls for position, which for the better paying positions is largely determined by promotions, while bias in promotions were part of the problem to begin with. Yes, if you control for the problem you won't find a problem, again, this was obvious in the first place.

The forbes article also seems to control for positions, while simultaneously coming up with completely unsupported numbers and drawing conclusions without any indications about how they came to those conclusions (i.e. 0,39 hours of work a day accounts for 25% of the pay gap). I cannot say anything more about it, because it is vague and unsupported.

Huffingtonpost comes to the same conclusion as theatlantic.com, that there still is a wage-gap. They also use salary negotiation as a reason to discount part of it, while your theatlantic.com article falsifies this argument. It should be noted that they seem to have selected broader job categories, but they looked only one year after graduation, which says nothing about odds of promotion or salaries after multiple promotions as these generally happen later on.


Firstly, if you look at the studies quoted I think you'll find some of your criticisms addressed. e.g. the huffington post is criticizing the AAUW's methodology, and there is another cited study in that same article which is a meta-analysis that reaches similar conclusions without looking at just one year after graduation. Your point on bias in promotions would need to be supported by evidence that it is discrimination and not choice preventing women from advancement. etc.

In any case, the smaller wage gap you're talking about isn't usually what people mean when they say the wage gap; for example, the US president just made reference to the discredited larger figure in his State of the Union speech. A 7% difference is noticeable, but it's not the 20%+ I usually see quoted. Trisana didn't use any numbers, but from the context of her argument (that underlying wage gaps produce the different expectations for different genders to pay for meals), and the frequency with which the incorrect figure is used (even by intelligent, well-informed people like POTUS) I assumed she was talking about the (mythical) very large difference. More importantly, if the wage gap difference is due in large part to voluntary choice by women, maybe getting people to go dutch more often by eliminating the wage gap isn't the right strategy.

Maybe we can take this to PMs if you want to go any further, I want to kind of veer back to the comic a bit:

1. Do women say they want nice guys? This seems to be a frequent refrain from the nice guys being criticized in the comic. Where do they get this idea?
2. Do women actually want nice guys? Nice seems to me hardly a sufficient cause for attraction to a person. Is it true that women want nice guys and the "nice guy"tm just isn't actually nice? It strikes me that there are plenty of nice guys out there who are successful with women, and plenty of assholes as well. Niceness doesn't seem to be at issue here. It seems to me there are a lot of guys out there who don't know how to be romantically attractive to women, and so use being nice as their only "strategy".

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 4:51 pm UTC

valiance. wrote:1. Do women say they want nice guys? This seems to be a frequent refrain from the nice guys being criticized in the comic. Where do they get this idea?
2. Do women actually want nice guys? Nice seems to me hardly a sufficient cause for attraction to a person. Is it true that women want nice guys and the "nice guy"tm just isn't actually nice? It strikes me that there are plenty of nice guys out there who are successful with women, and plenty of assholes as well. Niceness doesn't seem to be at issue here. It seems to me there are a lot of guys out there who don't know how to be romantically attractive to women, and so use being nice as their only "strategy".

I assume that out of the 3,5 billion women out there, there are bound to be some who say they like nice guys and some that say they don't. Out of the same 3,5 billion women, there are probably some who dislike nice guys and some who like nice guys (probably even some for whom nice alone is sufficient), To be fair, there are also bound to be women who do say they like nice guys but don't. Which leads us back to the original point: women are people (in spite of what some people think) and while some characteristics are more common than others, people tend to differ on these kinds of things. Suggesting that these differences are not there also suggests the speaker thinks women are not people, hence the offence taken at ladder theory (although there is still the option that someone thinks that people are made within tight factory specifications, but that seems to be a less common world view).

Now, if you want to know how many women fall in each category: I have no idea, but I expect that the nice is sufficient group consists of fewer than half of the population.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Kit. » Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:56 pm UTC

valiance. wrote:I made up a situation in which one might want a romantic relationship and not merely friendship, and you indicated that you thought that showed emotional immaturity.

Nah. I indicated that feeling that "remaining friends is miserable" did.

valiance. wrote:You seem to think it's possible to be emotionally mature and want to be in a romantic relationship with someone without merely being friends with them.

Or without being friends at all. The question is not about this, but about the reaction to rejection.

valiance. wrote:I'm not wedded to my example, but I'm curious what makes it emotionally immature, and what an emotionally mature reason to not want to remain friends with a friend who rejected you romantically would be.

There is no emotionally mature reason to break your friendship just because your request for closer intimacy was rejected.

User avatar
blob
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:19 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby blob » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:But human society as a whole has a sort of internal rules that let it keep going. Giving every useful member the means to survive (unless there is an overpopulation) is one of such rules. Giving every useful member the means to procreate is not.
You shouldn't confuse sex with procreation - with modern technology, either is entirely possible without the other. Society doesn't give anyone the right to sex, but if you just want to procreate, there's nothing to stop you from acquiring some donor sperm/eggs and making babies. Google "single moms by choice" and "single dads by choice".
Avatar yoinked from Inverloch.

"Unless ... unless they kill us, then animate our corpses as dead zombies to fight for them. Then I suppose they've taken our lives, AND our freedom."
- Elan, OOTS 421.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby valiance. » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:13 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
valiance. wrote:I made up a situation in which one might want a romantic relationship and not merely friendship, and you indicated that you thought that showed emotional immaturity.

Nah. I indicated that feeling that "remaining friends is miserable" did.

valiance. wrote:You seem to think it's possible to be emotionally mature and want to be in a romantic relationship with someone without merely being friends with them.

Or without being friends at all. The question is not about this, but about the reaction to rejection.

valiance. wrote:I'm not wedded to my example, but I'm curious what makes it emotionally immature, and what an emotionally mature reason to not want to remain friends with a friend who rejected you romantically would be.

There is no emotionally mature reason to break your friendship just because your request for closer intimacy was rejected.


OK I see your point but I think we just fundamentally disagree on this. The dissolution of the friendship is not necessarily just some knee-jerk, butt-hurt response to romantic rejection (which I agree would be emotionally immature). An emotionally mature request for closer intimacy can take the form of: "I no longer want to be friends with you, I want to date you." The two are different and I think it's entirely emotionally mature to want one and not the other, even when one was formerly friends with one's now potential romantic interest. People grow and change, and their feelings grow and change with them. That's not emotional immaturity, that's being human. It's entirely possible to fall out of friendship with someone as you're falling in love with them. If people have both the right to dissolve friendships without being called emotionally immature and the right to fall in love without being called emotionally immature, I don't see how wedding the two somehow makes that label appropriate.

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 7:13 pm UTC

ok. PolyAmery is looking better and better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Everyone loves and fucks everyone else.
Within a group of fifty or so.

Someone wants to have sex?
"Not now, Honey.
"I'm busy."

"There must be tens of people that have pre agreed to that.
Look them up on your app."


Other cultures deal with this stuff in different ways.
Is it a nested culture? A culture within a culture?

Very Freudian.
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
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:30 pm UTC

valiance. wrote:Maybe we can take this to PMs if you want to go any further, I want to kind of veer back to the comic a bit:

1. Do women say they want nice guys? This seems to be a frequent refrain from the nice guys being criticized in the comic. Where do they get this idea?
2. Do women actually want nice guys? Nice seems to me hardly a sufficient cause for attraction to a person. Is it true that women want nice guys and the "nice guy"tm just isn't actually nice? It strikes me that there are plenty of nice guys out there who are successful with women, and plenty of assholes as well. Niceness doesn't seem to be at issue here. It seems to me there are a lot of guys out there who don't know how to be romantically attractive to women, and so use being nice as their only "strategy".
1. I want to say no, but that's not true. It's the same problem I said before, you literally cannot describe all women in a single descriptor (anymore you could make a such sweeping statements about men). Such statements will NEVER work, EVER. Whether it's "Women say they want nice guys, but they really want assholes," or even the statement "Do women even say they want nice guys at all?"

MOST women never say they want nice guys. There are however a small segment of women who will say something like "I just want a guy who's nice." Maybe 5% of women, give or take? The statement, in general, is one of low standards born out of low self-esteem. Saying you want a guy who's nice is basically saying "I don't really care what I get as long as he isn't horrible." And that's not really a statement people with healthy self-esteem say. But you tend to have to hit rock bottom self-esteem for people to start saying stuff like that, as even people with moderately low self-esteem will still manage to say things like "I'd like if he was funny," or "I'd like if he was handsome" or other cliches, even if they are more timid about presenting what they would actually like, instead of what they will settle for.

That 5% of women are basically the female equivalent to the approximately 5% of men who are "nice guys." They also probably contributes to the idea that "Nice Guys" have that women only want assholes, because it's people with rock bottom self-esteem that things like Negging actually works on, causing them to glom onto assholes.

2. Hell fucking no. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, "nice" is an astonishingly useless description of a person. It just means that a shallow surface glance doesn't reveal any notable positive traits, or any crippling negative ones. To help underline the point that "nice" is completely useless as a descriptor, think for a moment what is the single number one most common description people give about serial killers? That they seem "nice," that they are pleasant and affable. SERIAL KILLERS. Let that sink in for a minute how insanely useless "nice" as a term is, if not actively a negative term, since it basically means "no distinguishable traits at all, negative OR positive traits."

In the real world, where the average person has a dozen or two positive traits and two or three negative traits, having no negative traits but also having no positive traits manages to become a crippling negative trait. It's not a worthwhile trade-off.

I'm sure everyone here has played videogames or tabletop RPGs or something at sometime in their life. Let's pretend you're playing some action RPG videogame. Which character is better than the other?

Johnny Mc AverageGuy
Stamina: 18
Strength: 20
Defense: 12
Agility: 15
Intellect: 7
Charisma: 9

or

Charley Mc NiceGuy
Stamina: 10
Strength: 10
Defense: 10
Agility: 10
Charisma: 10

If you said the first one's positive traits are so numerous they outweigh his negative traits, which is better than having no negative traits AND no positive traits? DING DING DING, you're correct.

valiance. wrote:I'm pretty sure the gender wage gap is a myth when controlling for time in the workforce, experience, hours worked, etc.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html
I've expected the gender wage gap was exaggerated for quite some time, as I just haven't seen it in practice. But... I uh... whoa. That was... a link from the Huffington Post? But they're like, the Fox News of liberals. I don't know any major news source as openly liberally biased as them. Uh... fuck, if they of all people would put that article out that's rather shocking. I mean I always thought the pay gap was exaggerated (that's why I haven't argued on it yet). But to see the Huffington Post of all people saying that? I think I need to go sit down. My world has been shattered.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Klear » Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:52 pm UTC

Karilyn wrote:Charley Mc NiceGuy
Stamina: 10
Strength: 10
Defense: 10
Agility: 10
Charisma: 10


Ouch man. Zero intelligence. Could be fun to roleplay though. I always get a kick out of the 1 int Fallout playthroughs.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Trisana » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:00 pm UTC

addams wrote:ok. PolyAmery is looking better and better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Everyone loves and fucks everyone else.
Within a group of fifty or so.

Someone wants to have sex?
"Not now, Honey.
"I'm busy."

"There must be tens of people that have pre agreed to that.
Look them up on your app."


Other cultures deal with this stuff in different ways.
Is it a nested culture? A culture within a culture?

Very Freudian.


1) that is a horrible description of polyamory. The idea of everyone involved in a poly relationship sleeping with everyone else in that relationship... well, it CAN happen, but it's actually really rare. You're more likely to see personA and personB in a relationship, and A has another partner, C, while B has D and E (numbers vary depending on the individuals involved). Or people who are themselves monogamous, but fine with their partner being polygamous (A only has a relationship with B, but B has one or more other partners).
2) "pre-agreeing" to sex? not really such a thing, they still need to show (enthusiastic: read, not coerced, etc) consent in the moment.

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 9:37 pm UTC

Trisana wrote:
addams wrote:ok. PolyAmery is looking better and better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Everyone loves and fucks everyone else.
Within a group of fifty or so.

Someone wants to have sex?
"Not now, Honey.
"I'm busy."

"There must be tens of people that have pre agreed to that.
Look them up on your app."


Other cultures deal with this stuff in different ways.
Is it a nested culture? A culture within a culture?

Very Freudian.


1) that is a horrible description of polyamory. The idea of everyone involved in a poly relationship sleeping with everyone else in that relationship... well, it CAN happen, but it's actually really rare. You're more likely to see personA and personB in a relationship, and A has another partner, C, while B has D and E (numbers vary depending on the individuals involved). Or people who are themselves monogamous, but fine with their partner being polygamous (A only has a relationship with B, but B has one or more other partners).
2) "pre-agreeing" to sex? not really such a thing, they still need to show (enthusiastic: read, not coerced, etc) consent in the moment.

It does look complicated.
For the people involved,
It must make as much sense as the rest of This Thread.

**Stupid Story Alert**

I have spoken to people that have Polyamerous Relationships.
The ones I spoke to were not bitching about that part of their personal life, much.

Well...Sort of.
One woman wanted to talk about excusing herself from that Circle of Friends.
They would still be friends.

People's lives are complicated.
When AIDS hit the scene like a Ton of Bricks,
Some people sat down and made some reasonable decisions.

Those relationships worked.
People like sex. Is that a surprise?

They were called Fuck Rings by some.
There was a very high level of both
communication and commitment to their vows.

So funny. So very sweet.
Can you imagine some of those conversations?

Young professionals committing to a marriage of -what- 8 to 10 other people.
Those relationships have their Rocky Spots, too.

It worked very well for one woman.
At one point she wanted to talk about it.

It was not a problem.
Except; She had met someone.

He wanted to see more of her.
She wanted to see more of him.

They saw an awful lot of each other for a few days there.
I thought she had left town. She was in bed and she was not sick.

She had to contact people from her Fuck Ring.
They said, "Oh! Stop fucking him! Get yourself tested! Condomes only!
Introduce him to us!"

It was so sweet.
He did not want to know her other friends that well.

She was getting flowers and candy.
They all loved her.

She would show me the cards and letters.
We ate the candy, together.

It was a different age.
(Today it would be a Facebook group?)


She was so in love with that other guy.

They had three good years together.
He died. He was so beautiful.

A few years after his death,
An old friend was visiting her.

They had known one another sense childhood.

His mother knows her mother.
They were fishing, like old times.

They married and have a beautiful family.
She was Lucky in Love? It seems so.

It must not have felt lucky,
while she was sitting beside a hospital bed.

One never knows.
Love your friends with all you have,
You may not have them long.
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.

interplanetjanet
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:24 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby interplanetjanet » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:42 pm UTC

Do women actually want nice guys?


Most *people* probably want someone who is kind, thoughtful, even-tempered, mature, and so on, which fall loosely under niceness. (The note about how serial killers are invariably described as "seeming so nice" is worth keeping in mind for how little this adjective means.) We also probably want to surround ourselves with people who are thoughtful and mature and so on and date only a tiny subset of that group, so saying "I'm your friend AND I'm nice to you" doesn't really create any obligation.

Picture starting college and your new roommate says "Hi! I want you to know that I am a really nice person. Super nice. I will be so nice to you. Really. Anything you need, I will be there for you. Because. I. Am. NICE. I'm just a nice person."

You probably wouldn't be thinking "This is great! I wanted a nice roommate." More like "Great, a passive aggressive scorekeeper who will do 'favors' I don't know about and then burn with anger that I don't appreciate them enough."

Anecdote from a discussion elsewhere: A guy who was fairly nerdy in high school joined the Marines. He promptly got in excellent shape and started carrying himself with the sort of confidence and sense of purpose that comes with being a Marine. And he also started getting laid like crazy. He was pretty sure he didn't get any more or less "nice." But he did get more attractive, confident, etc, and that carried over to how well he did with women.

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:07 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote: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.

Well the topic of the conversation is a certain kind of man and the way he approaches women and his reaction to their response to that approach and what can be said about that type of guy for that type of reaction to that response to that approach. We're talking about a narrow subject, so I'm talking about that subject narrowly, and only noting for clarity that I acknowledge the existence of different situations, without going into detail on them.

I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood the meaning behind your words. I was under the impression that you were implying that women (in general, but specifically women) should somehow take this power balance into consideration into their feelings somehow because the romance thing is harder for men. I just read too much into it I think and may have confused different peoples line of reasoning.

No, I'm not trying to paint male-female relations as universally analogous to employer-employee relations, just the specific subset of them under discussion.

I will admit that my intuition is that it is that way (that women in general are in higher romantic demand than men in general and so enjoy an elevated position of power in romantic selection), but I realize that my personal history stems from one side of the narrower subset of relations we're talking about where that's true (I used to be the kind of guy who just couldn't get his love life started), and that I've personally met men and women who didn't fit into those power dynamics (men who had women throwing themselves at them, women who couldn't find a date if their life depended on it), and that I really have no objective data on the situation as a whole, so I won't reify my intuition.

And no, the only thing I want women (and men for that matter) to take into consideration into their feelings about this is how to characterize the motives of the kind of guy depicted in this comic. Which is not to excuse the behavior, but the kind of "all so-called 'nice guys' are really just closet rapists" rhetoric I see around some places seems way over the top and to completely misapprehend the psychology I think is really going on in these guys. I think a lot of them probably started out genuinely nice, and are justifiably upset about something (both missing out on a major part of life for most people, and being misinformed about how that part of life works), but are misdirecting their frustration at the wrong party and to the wrong reasons, and worse still coming to the wrong conclusion that they should be be jerks, even if they wouldn't naturally be inclined to be. That vilifying them is counterproductive to improving their behavior (and will only increase it), and sympathetically illuminating their misconceptions about how relationships work would go a lot further toward getting them to knock that shit off.

Which is not to say that anybody who is actually suffering from their behavior owes them an education, mind you. Feel free to just tell them they're being a jerk and how and to fuck off. That's actually helpful in itself as it shows them that their behavior is not productive. But then when we're off on internet forums talking about them later, it does all of us (including them) better to properly understand where their problems come from, rather than just deeming them monsters and being done with it.

I agree that there could be a similar frustration about trying things for naught. However, as I said earlier, I mostly object tot the pay gap issue, as where guys who realise they have been emphasising the wrong things can alter their behaviour (although this is difficult, sometimes immoral and not possible if there really is nothing to love, which I highly doubt), this option is not open to women in the pay gap issue. However, I can agree with an analogy of some random person who doesn't get a promotion due to a lack of certain skills (social skills probably, as those are often neglected in education and fairy tales, which would sadly often make these the same people) instead of due to sexism. I still think there is a major difference between the nature of both types of relationships and therefore also in the selection process, but those are not as important for an analogy.

Yeah, I was never talking about the pay gap at all, someone else misread that into my analogy. I thought I would avoid confusing conflations by making the protagonist of the business side of the analogy female, but apparently it just caused further confusion. It's just about how a worker of any gender generally has to actively pursue what they want out of the business relationship and can't just be good at something and wait for rewards to come -- they've got to ask for what they want, in the right way, and to show that they're worth it, in the right way. Just being worth it alone and waiting for results doesn't work.

I also want to point out, that I mentioned in my first post, that I understood if the guy some people made guy 1 in the comic out to be (and who is the guy we're talking about here) was sad, frustrated or even angry with the world. I also mentioned, that while I understood he would lash out at the object of his affection (or the group she is part of) it didn't make it right to lash out like that.

Agreed.
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)

Soft Hyphen
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:10 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Soft Hyphen » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:15 am UTC

Kit. wrote:There is no emotionally mature reason to break your friendship just because your request for closer intimacy was rejected.

Hypothetical:

I'm long-time friends with a woman. I realise that I have romantic feelings for her, and tell her so, hoping she'll be amenable to a more intimate relationship.

She says no; that she simply doesn't see me that way, and wants to remain friends. I say okay, because I genuinely think that's reasonable. At first.

Over time, I find that any time I'm with her - in my capacity as her friend - I continue to think of all her attractive qualities, of what my life could be if she were my romantic partner. I don't try anything "funny" or duplicitous to pursue a romantic relationship with her - I respect her decision. But the thoughts keep coming, not to the point of obsession, but to the point where any time I'm with her, I wonder "Why not me? What's wrong with me?" But I like her and I respect her, and I know that interrogating her about this issue would be uncomfortable for her, so I don't do it. I'm fine when I'm not around her. When I am around her, I enjoy her company greatly, but it's always tainted by that unsatisfied longing. Her voice, her smile, her intelligence keeps reminding me that she is exactly what I want in a romantic partner.

She gets a boyfriend. I judge him; I can't help it. And I can't help feeling that I would be a better boyfriend to her. I ask myself "What does he have that I don't?" But then I realise that question is silly; romance depends on subjective traits that only she can judge for herself, and I respect that. I wish her well, and I mean it. She seems happy with that boyfriend for a while, but eventually they break up, and she confides in me the reason. And I can't help thinking "But I would never do that I were your boyfriend."

I decide that I should ask about the possibility of romance again. I know there's a risk of making things uncomfortable, so I take time to formulate it in the most non-threatening, positive, and respectful way possible. She states, again, that she's not interested, adds that she doesn't think that will ever happen, and makes it clear that she doesn't want me to ask again. I accept that, and resolve that she will never be my romantic partner.

But I keep thinking those things. The could'ves and why-nots pop into my head whenever I'm with her. The attraction I have for her doesn't die down. Every time I spend time with her is a reminder, and our every interaction is so positive that I can't understand why pushing it further could be bad. But I know she doesn't want that, so I don't push. I don't scheme, even though I know there are plenty of guys that would. Because I respect her, and her choices. Because I'm (heh...) a nice guy.

Eventually I realise these feelings aren't going to go away, and as much as I like her - in fact, because I like her so much - it hurts to be around her. It hurts more than it feels good. I don't pine around all day or write emo poetry about her or have a shrine dedicated to her or whine about it online. I know I should "just get over it", but I can't help feeling the attraction. And it keeps hurting. So, I decide the best thing is to simply not be close to her anymore. To not have that reminder. That means ending the friendship. So I do, and I know it hurts both of us a little, but we both recover, and it finally allows me to move on. And I'm truthfully happier from then on.

I break the friendship because my request for closer intimacy was rejected.

Do you call this "emotionally immature"?

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

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:13 am UTC

Did you want closer intimacy or sex?
Those to things go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

They do not always belong together.
Did you want sex and he said, "eeewww. No."

Or; Did you want a closer relationship?
How do you think a person gets a closer relationship?

Imagine for one moment you are a man.
What do you want to do with other men?

Do you avoid them like the plague?
How do you develop relationships with men?

umm. Do you have intimate, and I don't mean Sexual, Relationships?
If you have many intimate friendships, throwing one away is no big deal.

And; I do understand your point
of wanting a little distance from an ex-lover.

The planet is not quite big enough, sometimes.
And; It is way too far across the border, at other times.

What are You whining about?
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
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Klear » Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:06 am UTC

Soft Hyphen wrote:
Kit. wrote:There is no emotionally mature reason to break your friendship just because your request for closer intimacy was rejected.

Hypothetical:

I'm long-time friends with a woman. I realise that I have romantic feelings for her, and tell her so, hoping she'll be amenable to a more intimate relationship.

She says no; that she simply doesn't see me that way, and wants to remain friends. I say okay, because I genuinely think that's reasonable. At first.

Over time, I find that any time I'm with her - in my capacity as her friend - I continue to think of all her attractive qualities, of what my life could be if she were my romantic partner. I don't try anything "funny" or duplicitous to pursue a romantic relationship with her - I respect her decision. But the thoughts keep coming, not to the point of obsession, but to the point where any time I'm with her, I wonder "Why not me? What's wrong with me?" But I like her and I respect her, and I know that interrogating her about this issue would be uncomfortable for her, so I don't do it. I'm fine when I'm not around her. When I am around her, I enjoy her company greatly, but it's always tainted by that unsatisfied longing. Her voice, her smile, her intelligence keeps reminding me that she is exactly what I want in a romantic partner.

She gets a boyfriend. I judge him; I can't help it. And I can't help feeling that I would be a better boyfriend to her. I ask myself "What does he have that I don't?" But then I realise that question is silly; romance depends on subjective traits that only she can judge for herself, and I respect that. I wish her well, and I mean it. She seems happy with that boyfriend for a while, but eventually they break up, and she confides in me the reason. And I can't help thinking "But I would never do that I were your boyfriend."

I decide that I should ask about the possibility of romance again. I know there's a risk of making things uncomfortable, so I take time to formulate it in the most non-threatening, positive, and respectful way possible. She states, again, that she's not interested, adds that she doesn't think that will ever happen, and makes it clear that she doesn't want me to ask again. I accept that, and resolve that she will never be my romantic partner.

But I keep thinking those things. The could'ves and why-nots pop into my head whenever I'm with her. The attraction I have for her doesn't die down. Every time I spend time with her is a reminder, and our every interaction is so positive that I can't understand why pushing it further could be bad. But I know she doesn't want that, so I don't push. I don't scheme, even though I know there are plenty of guys that would. Because I respect her, and her choices. Because I'm (heh...) a nice guy.

Eventually I realise these feelings aren't going to go away, and as much as I like her - in fact, because I like her so much - it hurts to be around her. It hurts more than it feels good. I don't pine around all day or write emo poetry about her or have a shrine dedicated to her or whine about it online. I know I should "just get over it", but I can't help feeling the attraction. And it keeps hurting. So, I decide the best thing is to simply not be close to her anymore. To not have that reminder. That means ending the friendship. So I do, and I know it hurts both of us a little, but we both recover, and it finally allows me to move on. And I'm truthfully happier from then on.

I break the friendship because my request for closer intimacy was rejected.

Do you call this "emotionally immature"?


Yeah, kinda. Not extremely so, but a bit yes.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby WibblyWobbly » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:08 am UTC

Klear wrote:
Soft Hyphen wrote:
Kit. wrote:There is no emotionally mature reason to break your friendship just because your request for closer intimacy was rejected.

Hypothetical:

...

Do you call this "emotionally immature"?


Yeah, kinda. Not extremely so, but a bit yes.

OK, I'll bite: why?

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 » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:09 am UTC

I think a lot of us are using a definition of emotional maturity that includes learning how to deal with your feelings in a way that makes it possible for you to be in her presence without it hurting.
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
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby WibblyWobbly » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:14 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I think a lot of us are using a definition of emotional maturity that includes learning how to deal with your feelings in a way that makes it possible for you to be in her presence without it hurting.

I can see your point (I thought about that after I posted), and it makes some sense. But is it really reasonable? I don't know anyone who has actually had to do that - basically, you're suggesting that emotional maturity means completely erasing your romantic feelings for someone after they say they're not interested - maybe you can do it, but I'd think it would take time. For anyone. People don't just turn of their emotions that fast, do they? So how long is too long before you consider them emotionally immature?

Edit: I guess that's what it means to get over rejection. Certainly reasonable, I'm just not sure it's as easy for everyone as it is for you. Is that such a terrible thing?
Last edited by WibblyWobbly on Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:16 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:16 am UTC

It doesn't mean erasing your attraction, it just means getting used to the fact that it isn't reciprocated and coming to a point where the lack of reciprocation isn't unbearably painful, or isn't so painful as to outweigh the actually enjoyable parts of hanging out with a person.

And who's equating "emotionally immature" with "bad"?
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
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby WibblyWobbly » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:18 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:It doesn't mean erasing your attraction, it just means getting used to the fact that it isn't reciprocated and coming to a point where the lack of reciprocation isn't unbearably painful, or isn't so painful as to outweigh the actually enjoyable parts of hanging out with a person.

And who's equating "emotionally immature" with "bad"?

Well, the word "immature" generally carries a negative connotation of "not sufficiently developed or progressed;" i.e., that there is a minimum level of maturity that one should desire to reach. Not having reached such a level would generally be thought of as a deficiency in character, would it not?

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 » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:19 am UTC

Yeah but everybody's not sufficiently something. That doesn't mean that saying so is the same as saying they're "bad people".
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
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby WibblyWobbly » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:23 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah but everybody's not sufficiently something. That doesn't mean that saying so is the same as saying they're "bad people".

You're right; that's why I edited out the idea of "bad person" - it doesn't really fit. It just seems odd that the idea of emotional maturity seems to require a limit on the pain one can allow themselves to feel. Beyond this point, you're no longer ... justified? ... in feeling any emotional distress. It seems sad, somehow.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests