Check it out boys and girls - 5 Reasons Your Online Dating Profile Isn't Working

#2. You're a Genuinely Bad Person and Deserve to Die Alone in Mustard-Stained Sweatpants
There is of course that special set of people who ... suck. They deserve to be locked away in a big metal box underground like that guy who killed Superman (or didn't, as it turned out. Presumably because he sucked at that too). Do you think that women are all conniving bitches who have an obligation to keep their legs shaved? Do you think everyone who differs from you in even minor ways is by nature subhuman? Are you looking for a glorified sex tube as opposed to a romantic partner because you essentially hate human beings? Well then nobody wants to date you because your sexist, racist, sexist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, misspelled, sexist dating profile helpfully conveys what a Poe's law-level of asshole you are, and the fact that you have proudly listed your failings as though they were virtues conveys that your pool of romantic partners is amusingly limited to Russian spambots (you two will make a lovely couple).

5 Reasons Your Online Dating Profile Isn't Working

Yeah, so what we have here is a piece of propaganda - it's a lot more complicated than it seems on the surface. I was going to go through and show inconsistencies with the arguments, but I think I'm better off explaining my perspective.

----------

I'm worried about the profiling going on here, for example, profiling someone because they are a gamer, or profiling someone because they have autism - Or because they are male -

Profiling in general is not a good idea, in my opinion. It's okay in moderation, but not really, on the other hand there is a danger in feminism profiling way too hard - and that would be a backlash.

You would have guys simply not able to meet the expectations of the largely growing feminist crowd, so they would end up banding together in the shadows basically, and this would draw a clearer gender gap line.

When what we really need is to mix the genders and the gender perspectives together. In some ways, we already crossed the line, unfortunately -

I think we are going to be seeing a lot of hostility in the U.S. towards homosexuals, for example and a lot of hostility towards sharing information with women.

I'm not for living in a society where I have to adhere to strict gender roles.

I'm not for living in a society that is hostile towards women or homosexuals, or one that is hostile towards men, or one that is hostile at all -

If someone can work with me here to discuss how the feminist movement is working to help support people with autism, or introverts, or getting out there and making a difference, or working on gender equality and especially working towards generating more options for people and less profiling -

There have actually been some feminist articles written about how feminism is causing a lot of what this particular feminist was ranting about.

I guess society needs logical people and engineers and such to function, and some people are born with those traits. In a lot of ways, trying to force people to be someone they are not isn't possible

reply to post by darkbake


I told my counselor about the idea of forcing people to change who they are, and he laughed heavily because he can't even get people to change anything even if it's good for them !

So while on the one hand, changing people is not going to happen,

On the other hand, deciding not to interact at all with people who are more engineer types, is hardly the right choice, because they are already going to be that way - so being hostile towards them and shunning them certainly isn't going to change that, it is more likely going to result in the opposite.

So my question is along the lines of, does someone know this already who is using the feminist movement towards an opposite agenda.

I used to think that people were just doing something dumb because they were incompetent, but I recently changed my mind because I realized that there are people smarter than me (of course) and so... thinking that feminism is doing this on accident has become highly unlikely imo.

That happens a lot in our society, where something is labelled its opposite on purpose in order to mislead.

Like "The Patriot Act" is the classic example.

Since people are already drawn towards labels and generalizing in our society without thinking, that tactic seems to be highly popular.

reply to post by Chickensalad


You got it, Chicken Salad! You came here wanting help fixing up your online dating profile and got janked. That's how I felt when I first read this article, actually.

I will admit is has some decent tips on personal growth, however it is hard to find those while sifting through the personal attacks - I mean I guess it gives the article character, at least.

I just have a hard time believing that the article was written for an audience that wants to improve their dating profile, it seems to be written more towards an audience that wants to make fun of guys.

Which could be true, maybe it was supposed to be funny, and I'm taking it too seriously today!

OP: There are two kinds of feminism.

Gender feminism, which is what 99% of what you hear in the media. This is actually a small number of highly dysfunctional and often rabid activists who appear to have significant psychological problems with their father or other male figures and authority figures. There is a fairly massive overlap of political socialism in that sector, and a breeding nest in modern colleges of this cult-like combined paradigm.

Equity feminism, which is what nearly any sane woman would qualify for, meaning they simply believe that humans should be treated as humans and it is injust to treat someone doing the same thing differently solely because of their gender. By its nature, the people in this group tend to be more sane and more moderate, so are seldom found evangelizing to the world, and since they're not making noise in the media, are often literally unknown.

There is a sort of analogy in religion, where the first group is more like the evil-everywhere everyone is going to hell there's wicked plots all over, while the second group is more like the churches of people that mostly just are very kind to each other and help the community where they can.

I once read a book called "Who Stole Feminism?" At first I was a little bored but it ended up being really fascinating. I had never heard of the difference in the two 'kinds' of feminism before that. I grew up having zero respect for 'feminists' which is too bad because it seemed like the women who made things like voting and birth control possible were awesome, but clearly I had "bad role models" for it in my generation. My daughter is 17 and she has the same view I had at her age, despite we'd never even spoken about it until recently.

There are plenty of unequal, injustice elements in our culture toward men, too, and it is as much the responsibility of women to improve those as it is the responsibility of men to improve the situation for women: these genders are designed to work together and the culture is about all of us.

I might add that the screenwriting for media is so bad that I am prone to think that drug-addicted depraved cretins are doing most of it, and this gives the impression that all people but especially women are the most horrifically malicious mercenary fickle hyenas ever -- it's like a character assassination even worse than the 1970s when most the women on TV shows were pretty blondes who would stand there wailing while some man did all the fighting to try and save them. At least then, women were just stupid, useless and weak. Now in media they are very often walking evil instead, and those are the heroines of the shows -- I can't tell you how many movies I literally stop watching because the main character is a woman who I utterly despise 20 minutes in.

When we start pushing human rights rather than niche-segment rights, nearly everyone will be on the same side and we're likely to get a lot more accomplished.

PS: I think a man with an interest in swords is plenty cool. I'm in the middle of writing a fiction novel all about that actually. I also think that people should be honest on profiles. I think if someone posted something like, "I'm kind of a loner, I don't really like living on top of someone most the time, but I do like to have someone around sometimes, and I really miss having regular sex, and I'd be willing to ignore a woman being fat/homely/poverty stricken if she were just a decent person I could live with and talk to intelligently and have sex with at least weekly if not more" -- that would be a great profile nobody would write, but how big a % of the single male population would that actually be uncannily accurate for? LOL.

I guess society needs logical people and engineers and such to function, and some people are born with those traits

What is that statement supposed to convey? Sounds like those types are some sort of detriment to society (I guess society needs...).

OP-- Cracked is a comedy site, and all of their articles are comedy. Some can be pretty informative (and others useless fluff) but it's all intended as humor, regardless. However, they have a lot of different authors, and I have encountered stuff there that seemed like propaganda as well.

But yeah, try not to take any cracked articles too seriously....

RedCairo
Equity feminism, which is what nearly any sane woman would qualify for, meaning they simply believe that humans should be treated as humans ....



...I might add that the screenwriting for media is so bad that I am prone to think that drug-addicted depraved cretins are doing most of it, and this gives the impression that all people but especially women are the most horrifically malicious mercenary fickle hyenas ever

I think it's "funny" that you begin talking about equality, and treating all humans equally, as humans, and then you go on to characterize drug addiction (which is a disease), and drug addicts as if they are some kind of horrible, moral failures, and bad people. That came across sounding really prejudiced.


And don't get me wrong-- I'm not saying addiction is a good thing, or justifying addiction. But there are some very highly intelligent addicts out there, and they're not all bad people. I'd be willing to bet you know a few, whether you realize it or not. A whole lot more than a few if you include "socially acceptable" addictions such as cigarettes, alcohol, sex, shopping, gambling, etc ad nauseum.


Sorry for the aside... I just disliked the feel of your stereotypical characterization of "drug addicted, depraved cretins" in the middle of a speech about equality.



Furthermore, regarding the rest of what you wrote about hollywood and their portrayals-- I don't know how large your social circle is, or what kind of people are in it-- but there are tons of women out there like that. Men too. And yes-- often gender stereotypes get amplified in some hollywood tripe. But not always. And just like the junkie who is a bad person, and stick up artist or whatever-- most stereotypes are based on at least a kernel of truth-- even if they are untrue or misleading in large segment, or a majority of a population....


But that's a much larger discussion....

Some cracked articles, while supposedly humor, make me want to punch people.

This is one of them.


The author is just a moron. He does make some good points, and a couple funny lines. (That one comic was pretty funny.) But he also writes a lot of overly-opinionated drivel.


$20 Says he wrote it to try to look all "white knight" to finally get a girl to bad-touch him.

Well you took this rather off topic but I will go there to a degree.

I think it's "funny" that you begin talking about equality, and treating all humans equally, as humans, and then you go on to characterize drug addiction (which is a disease), and drug addicts as if they are some kind of horrible, moral failures, and bad people.

I combined three traits into one example. It does not imply that all drug-addicts are depraved cretins, any more than it would imply that all cretins were drug addicts. You may read into it what you wish, of course.

Had I included three paragraphs of caveat-ing philosophical sermon about the gracious soul equity of all of humankind I'm sure I could have avoided your response, but I kinda hate having to do that in a casual discussion.

That came across sounding really prejudiced.

As you wish. It is merely observational. There is a difference between having an informed opinion and having a mindless bias. I have spent a good deal of my life around people with substance abuse problems including and specifically in the entertainment industry, and there are some fairly recognizable behavioral elements particularly to certain classes of drugs more commonly found in that industry. Combining certain elements tends to have a fairly predictable effect, one which underlies my comment about the characters written in media.

there are some very highly intelligent addicts out there, and they're not all bad people.

I never said addicts were bad people, nor did I wish to write a post specific to drug addicts, since it was a casual reference in passing on the larger topic of feminism and its possible influence in media.

I did however clearly imply that adding 'drug addiction' to being a 'depraved cretin', if that person is then presenting creative works for the public, tends to be an unfortunate end result.

I'd be willing to bet you know a few, whether you realize it or not. A whole lot more than a few if you include "socially acceptable" addictions such as cigarettes, alcohol, sex, shopping, gambling, etc ad nauseum.

You will need to provide these lectures to someone who needs them. I'm sure you mean well.

I just disliked the feel of your stereotypical characterization of "drug addicted, depraved cretins" in the middle of a speech about equality.

I was not making a case for our not treating drug addicted, depraved cretins equally since the conversation was not about that. I suppose indirectly I was implying that having people with those three combined traits write for mass media was probably less than ideal.

Edited to add: I think I am cranky this evening and should not be posting. I apologize for any impoliteness.