It seems like a track record ought to include how many people have found someone trustworthy, decent, and honest. In my lifelong experience men like this, whether conservative or liberal, are trusted and loved by many women friends. Based on the comments on this blog, I am guessing the men here have very few women friends. In fact, it se…
It seems like a track record ought to include how many people have found someone trustworthy, decent, and honest. In my lifelong experience men like this, whether conservative or liberal, are trusted and loved by many women friends. Based on the comments on this blog, I am guessing the men here have very few women friends. In fact, it seems like hardly any women post here. I'd take that as a major red flag when it comes to self-character assessment.
Would you consider a red flag of a woman had few male friends? Many interests correlate strongly with gender, so of course many fora will be lopsided gender-wise, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Incidentally, I’m probably almost as much a ‘reactionary’ anti-feminist as one finds here and nearly all my friends are women. I actually get along personally better with women than men (probably partly because I hate sports). It would be wise not to judge people’s personalities based on your opinion of their politics.
Conservative men who hunt and fish and oodles of women friends. That's not it. But I do think there is something so incredibly shameless about posting on anti-feminism without but one invited woman to comment in sight. Or do you have woman friends who could read the comment section under the "anti-feminism" post and not find it so full of misogyny that it could be placed in a history text right now, as an example of it? But yes, I also know men are not supportive of your reactionary anti-feminism, and I know what they say about even interacting with people who have these views. (Don't and Why would you?) Maybe you guys could do a survey of fathers, see if they feel differently.
This mere days after Bryan literally invited a feminist woman to reply to a post of his on his own blog. I honestly can't even relate to having such antipathy toward people you disagree with you on politics that you avoid interacting with them, but whatever, it's your life.
I'm really impressed by the way you've managed to respond to a post about Bayesian updating on personal experiences with someone with a feminist screed writ small. There's a kind of halo effect when I open a substack like this one where my willingness to be as open minded as possible sometimes extends to the comment section as well. This applied in your case, and I am grateful for your
comment. I am reminded to ask myself how often my own petty monomanias make me boring and narrow in discourse. Quite often, I'm afraid. Glad you're here.
Hi Love Sophia. I think you assert a valid possibility, in that a supportive indicator of an individual's trustworthiness could be evidenced by male and female friendships. That sure seems balanced and reasonable, as the definition of trustworthiness and character is confirmed by both gender's definition of what that looks like and means.
It seems like a track record ought to include how many people have found someone trustworthy, decent, and honest. In my lifelong experience men like this, whether conservative or liberal, are trusted and loved by many women friends. Based on the comments on this blog, I am guessing the men here have very few women friends. In fact, it seems like hardly any women post here. I'd take that as a major red flag when it comes to self-character assessment.
Would you consider a red flag of a woman had few male friends? Many interests correlate strongly with gender, so of course many fora will be lopsided gender-wise, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Incidentally, I’m probably almost as much a ‘reactionary’ anti-feminist as one finds here and nearly all my friends are women. I actually get along personally better with women than men (probably partly because I hate sports). It would be wise not to judge people’s personalities based on your opinion of their politics.
Conservative men who hunt and fish and oodles of women friends. That's not it. But I do think there is something so incredibly shameless about posting on anti-feminism without but one invited woman to comment in sight. Or do you have woman friends who could read the comment section under the "anti-feminism" post and not find it so full of misogyny that it could be placed in a history text right now, as an example of it? But yes, I also know men are not supportive of your reactionary anti-feminism, and I know what they say about even interacting with people who have these views. (Don't and Why would you?) Maybe you guys could do a survey of fathers, see if they feel differently.
This mere days after Bryan literally invited a feminist woman to reply to a post of his on his own blog. I honestly can't even relate to having such antipathy toward people you disagree with you on politics that you avoid interacting with them, but whatever, it's your life.
I'm really impressed by the way you've managed to respond to a post about Bayesian updating on personal experiences with someone with a feminist screed writ small. There's a kind of halo effect when I open a substack like this one where my willingness to be as open minded as possible sometimes extends to the comment section as well. This applied in your case, and I am grateful for your
comment. I am reminded to ask myself how often my own petty monomanias make me boring and narrow in discourse. Quite often, I'm afraid. Glad you're here.
Hi Love Sophia. I think you assert a valid possibility, in that a supportive indicator of an individual's trustworthiness could be evidenced by male and female friendships. That sure seems balanced and reasonable, as the definition of trustworthiness and character is confirmed by both gender's definition of what that looks like and means.