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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.