Amy, I agree with your analysis, except for what you leave out:
Most couples are like this.
The woman IS a silly, child-like, passive, docile baby, and the guy IS a silly, narcissistic, self-absorbed robot.
These are the ways women behave, and these are the kinds of guys women fall for, because that's what our culture encourages.
If you detect a sexist tone in what I'm saying because I seem to be blaming women, I can only say this: in modern western culture it IS women who ultimately choose who sleeps with who. Criminal activities like rape aside, it is women who choose which guys get to be in a relationship with them and which guys don't. So I don't think it's unfair to attribute the bigger part of this to women.
I'm pretty sure I get to choose who NOT to sleep with, and so do women. All rape aside of course, ho ho ho.
The tone of your comment depresses me. It sounds so bitter. And confused. As if you hadn't had sex or a healthy relationship in a very long time, if ever, and feel powerless to change that.
Yes, but women get to choose WHO TO (positively) sleep with; whereas, as a man, you generally don't have that choice, unless you're extremely famous/wealthy/etc., which you generally don't have control over.
I am bitter and confused about heterosexual relationships, because they seem to contain big contradictions which I can't work out.
I've tried to form a theory that explains most of what I observe in straight female attraction: women are attracted to men who are tall and socially powerful (i.e. popular).
This theory seems to generally hold. Yes, I know there are a multitude of OTHER qualities that women at least SAY they're attracted to.
But I think height and popularity are baseline requirements which are common to most women, regardless of what other requirements they choose stack on top.
Yes, I speak in terms of requirements. It's true.
Dating a woman is like going to a job interview. Any man who's honest knows this.
Sadly, not having a relationship can be a cause or… a symptom. Not speculating about this commenter cuz who the hell knows, but… most of the people I've known who were truly alone were people who drove everyone away.
No need to speculate. I don't have a relationship, and I've never really had a proper relationship.
This isn't something I'm ashamed of, because I don't base my self-esteem on other people's judgements of me.
Especially not on womens' romantic interest, which in my opinion (based on my observations) has a lot more to do with pre-determined evolutionary subconscious emotions than conscious, rational judgement.
You convinced me. It's a fact! It's a fact because you called it "the fact that."
On a serious note, I'm sorry you feel* that way (* not think, no matter how much you think it's "logical"), but have you ever considered that it's you?
If women don't CHOOSE to be with men like this, then either A) women are with men like this, but not by choice, or B) women aren't with men like this, by choice.
So which is it, Amy?
If most women don't go for men like this, then most relationships aren't like this.
But then why would a profit-seeking company spend the dollars on a video that portrays people like this?
You yourself implied (I think) in a recent tweet, that this company was disregarding ethics to appeal to a mass audience.
"@DanielAmitay well no point in asking THAT, since avg corporate ethics is clear for all to see. :) q: do they KNOW what they're doing?"
If most women aren't like this, who's the company's marketing aimed at? A tiny minority?
And by the way, when did I ever say it wasn't "me"? I'm not claiming any moral high-ground here.
I never said women shouldn't be the way they are.
If I'm upset, it's just because I happen to lose out in today's culture.
But I never said (or even implied) that the culture should change. The culture is what it is and I am what I am, and I just have to deal with that.
Who cares what most couples/women are like. You are on here, so you'll tend to find a very small proportion of women attractive. (presuming higher than average intelligence)
If you are proactive enough to choose in your dating life, you wouldn't complain about the culture. That's just externalizing the sources of your problems.
"If I'm upset, it's just because I happen to lose out in today's culture."
Make the most out of yourself and play the numbers game. The culture is better than at any point in the past. More choice, more freedom for both sides (it's not a war or a competition - everybody wins). You just "loose" if you don't invest in yourself and overcome fears.
Meaning, just make a complete doormat of myself. Go on as many dates as possible, buy women as many things as possible, just keep giving and giving more and more.
And maybe one day, some woman who no one likes will decide to give me a go, as a last ditch resort, and I'll get lucky for a night or two before she dumps me for someone with higher status.
But of course I must not have enough "self esteem" to do all that.
> If you are proactive enough to choose in your dating life
Oh I have all the choice in the world.
I mean, I can literally CHOOSE who will reject me.
I can approach any woman anywhere and get a rejection within 5 minutes.
That's wonderful.
And the internet makes it even easier, because now, I don't even have to know of the rejection.
I can just send off 100 messages to 100 women and get 0 responses after 5 days, and just assume that I was rejected.
You are deliberately misinterpreting to get some pity and avoid the hard work of changing what you can control.
Life is not black or white. Women do have very similar problems to men. With your attitude you'll just filter out the people that will treat you like shit (because you expect them to treat you that way).
You think we're having a big debate, but we're not. Your central thesis: "Most couples are like this. Women are like x. Men are like y." You have zero evidence for this. We're not having a discussion at all. I am saying "There's no evidence" and you're arguing with tautologies -- "If women don't CHOOSE to be with men like this, then either A) women are with men like this, but not by choice, or B) women aren't with men like this, by choice." That false binary choice includes a big assumption. Do you see it?
I never claimed that narcissism like in the video is prevalent… nor did I claim that it isn't. What I said was "This video is from a wholly narcissistic viewpoint."
I didn't say THIS company was disregarding ethics. I made no judgment other than "this is narcissistic" and (in that twitter conversation you extracted) "This video isn't guy-focused, it's narcissist-focused. If I was a guy, I'd find Couple's apparent opinion of me insulting."
The tweet you excerpted was from from a separate, subsequent conversation:
DANIEL: I meant my original tweet slightly in jest: Could a company potentially be OK with their sexist video if it got them results?
ME: well no point in asking THAT, since avg corporate ethics is clear for all to see. :) q: do they KNOW what they're doing?
You COULD rebut the idea that the average corporation will gladly use sexism to sell things, but it would be a waste of your breath.
My question: "Do they KNOW what they're doing? Do they SEE what they're portraying with their video? Do they know what narcissism is?" is a useful one, on the other hand.
You said:
> If most women aren't like this, who's the company's marketing aimed at? A tiny minority?
Tautology. "It must work, or else why would they do it?" This is not a safe assumption. See again my useful question above.
> You think we're having a big debate, but we're not
True, because you're not coming out and saying what you think is true; you're just attacking my statements.
> That false binary choice includes a big assumption. Do you see it?
Just one? I think it includes several, but I tried to narrow it down to what I guessed you would think the most likely possibilities are.
Maybe you don't think women have a choice. Maybe you don't think there's such a thing as free will at all.
I don't have time to second-guess every possible opinion you might have; I'm offering my own opinion and trying to ferret out what yours is.
> If I was a guy, I'd find Couple's apparent opinion of me insulting
And you never say why. Is that a moral judgement on your part?
> My question: "Do they KNOW what they're doing? Do they SEE what they're portraying with their video? Do they know what narcissism is?" is a useful one
Is it one you intend to find the answer to?
I think it's pretty clear, from having observed a whole range of marketing material and cultural artifacts (TV shows, etc) that this really is how people think about relationships, and that this company is appealing to that thinking in this ad.
I don't have a massive amount of statistical data to prove this, but I don't have a high regard for statistics anyway. I think it's better to consider as evidence things you can observe directly, rather than having faith that some bean-counter is getting his stats right.
Sorry if I come off as a whiner, but I think human beings generally like to express themselves when something in life is upsetting/depressing to them, and I don't see why I should have to shut up and put up just because I'm a guy.
>> You think we're having a big debate, but we're not
> True, because you're not coming out and saying what you think is true; you're just attacking my statements.
Yes. I don't have to have a position, nor do I have to share it with you. Why? Because I'm not trying to describe 100% of all humans, walking around, with my own little pet theory. If I were, the burden of proof would be on me.
> Maybe you don't think women have a choice. Maybe you don't think there's such a thing as free will at all.
No. The enormous hidden assumption is that 3 billion+ people can be jammed into your tidy little binary choice. You've seen it all… you've figured it out. You don't have "a massive amount of statistical data to prove this" -- you have zero data to prove this.
But still, you think you know. Enough to dare to say to the world: "This is how men are. This is how women are."
Oh good! Jonathan Conway figured it out. Stop the presses, everybody! Trim the wicks and lower the shades… we're done here! Everybody out of the pool!
What sheer, monumental gall.
By the by, nobody asked you to "shut up and put up just because [you're] a guy." Nobody asked you to shut up and put up at all, in fact. They merely pushed back against your labeling of the entire human race, because well, that's what people do when they see idiotic things on the internet. They push back.
> I'm not trying to describe 100% of all humans, walking around, with my own little pet theory
Neither am I, I'm just trying to describe the majority of humans, based on my own experiences.
> The enormous hidden assumption is that 3 billion+ people can be jammed into your tidy little binary choice.
And you're assuming there aren't traits that are common among most of those 3 billion+ people. But I think this marketing video indicates that there are certain common traits, which marketing is designed to appeal to.
> Jonathan Conway figured it out.
I'm not the first person to make these claims.
> nobody asked you to "shut up and put up just because [you're] a guy."
Fine, not here, but on many other forums (e.g. feminist) that's what I'd be told in an indirect kind of way.
I agree with you that there are a lot of people who simply refuse to engage with Rand's ideas.
No matter how much one dislikes an idea, I think one should be willing to understand and engage with it, especially if it's an important idea that has had influence (as some of Rand's ideas have, for example, her concept of "force").
I personally agree with most of Rand's philosophy, but that doesn't prevent me from being willing to listen to and engage in discourse with Marxists, Keynsians, and other schools of thought which differ strongly from Objectivism.
If someone really thinks their ideas are true and right, then they should have the confidence to see those ideas tried and tested in the real world, against all the alternatives.
They should count it as a privilege to discuss/debate their ideas with opposing schools (as long as everyone respects basic manners/decency), because doing so will deepen their knowledge and improve their ability to convince others of their ideas.
"If someone really thinks their ideas are true and right, then they should have the confidence to see those ideas tried and tested in the real world, against all the alternatives."
My idea is that dropping a bomb on you would immeasurably improve the world. Care for me to try that, or are you ready to admit that some ideas shouldn't be tested?
I don't detest your thought, I just find it ridiculous.
If you want to use the life as software analogy, here's one.
Life is about making choices, and choices involve tradeoffs. If life was like software, to remain free to move around in any circle and jobs, besides employment benefits, one would also only program in the most popular programming languages (Java,C#), speak the most commonly spoken languages (Chinese and English), eat the most commonly available food stuff (McD's), dress the most commonly worn clothes (T-shirt and Jeans from age 3 - the day you die), do the most commonly done things (Watch TV) so you can have things to talk about when you hang out with your common friends. Some people like those lives, and that's fine. But some others like to have the finer things in life, and that involves going off the mainstream and be elitist as you would probably say. Instead of programming Java, some would program in Python. Instead of watching TV, some would like to read a book or go to museums. Instead of working for 50k a year with minimum benefits like everyone else, some would work for a company that gives them PTO, health insurance, gym membership etc etc etc. People work hard so they can get hired by a company to have those things. They want it. That's their freedom. Their freedom to choose the life best suit them. It's not that they can't leave, they don't want to leave, because they feel they've earned the benefits in the first place. If some would like to leave, that's when they are making choices that value something else over employment benefits. That's also freedom.
“A rational man never leaves his interests at the mercy of any one person or single, specific concrete. He may need clients, but not any one particular client — he may need a job, but not any one particular job.”
I included the Ayn Rand quote because it's simply the most straight-forward and succinct summary of what my blog post was all about.
In the context of your blog post, the Ayn Rand quote is arguing for MULTIPLE clients and MULTIPLE jobs to avoid dependence on any one client or employer. Your post argues for choosing ONE single particular job, with ONE single, specific employer, using criteria not based on employer benefits. I don't see what one has to do with the other.
I think you misunderstand my intentions. What I meant is that one SHOULD have multiple clients/multiple jobs, and that doing so will be easier if one doesn't become too dependent on any one employer due to benefits, etc.
SHOULD is still a strong word. I don't mean to say nasty things to a consultant. But consultant work isn't for every single developer. In fact, I don't like working with contractors. I want to work with the team that works for my company. I don't want to go outside and speak someone who doesn't understand our company's culture and how we work.
Besides, consultant work DEPENDS on the market. You are tied to the market. Your value is depending on the market, not YOU as an individual. If your skill is no longer special because there are tons of people doing the same thing, your value will be lowered. It is a lot secure to work for a company. As a consultant, you need to either find a client yourself because you are starting, or you need to work your ass off just to make enough. I don't know about you, but most of us here can't make enough these days. consultant is freelancer, if you really think about it.
Moreover, I choose a job based on the role and the culture there. I can expect $80k ~ $100k on average for a software engineer nowadays in the city. I can keep myself comfortable with one single task, not multiple task.
Thanks for the comment. Yes this won't work for sites that are heavily dependent on interaction with the server. In my experience it's better for working with static sites such as blogs, news sites, etc.
This is complete rubbish. Take a look at my LinkedIn profile: linkedin.com/in/jonathanconway.
Virtually nothing but 3/7/12-month stints.
I'm now making more money (and having more fun!) than ever before in my career!
The key is to keep your skills fresh and relevant to the job market, have an excellent C.V. and interview well.
Unfortunately a lot of people take on the mindset of "employees"/serfs and don't realize that every individual is a mini-business, which can benefit and profit from doing excellent work and marketing properly.
I'm going to keep up my contracting gig for as long as I can, because this is what I love doing, and I don't ever intend to "belong" to any employer.
