It’s like the attack of the puritans here.
I don't want to whip out the dictionary definition of that word, but in what way does choosing classes to spend more time with women (because your existing classes are full of guys) mean you hate women?
But that isn't really what we are talking about. The average hypothetical man choosing his class or major because of how many women are in it isn't looking to make female friends.
He just wants to surround himself with a higher percentage of people that he is sexually attracted to.
I assume you're not saying that, but you're not explaining why this behavior is misogynistic. At best, you might mean that if a man is sexually attracted to women, and he seeks out the company of women, then he must believe that women are sexual objects made strictly for his personal pleasure. Is that what you're trying to say?
I am sort of saying this but not as tautologically as you are stating it.
I am saying that generally, when someone chooses a class or major because of the high percentage of people taking it that said person is sexually attracted to, said person is probably objectifying those people. Said person is probably not interested in friendships with those people or with the personality of those people.
I am not saying that any situation in which a person seeks out another person that they are sexually attracted to is misogynistic or requires objectification.
What is this modern style thinking that sex is bad? Sex is a tool for love making.
It comes across that you are demonizing natural and biological sexual attraction between the opposite sexes, and categorizing it as objectification and bad. Then there is oddly separating the possibility of friendship or having an interest in people beyond sexual attraction, as if this is not possible. To include, based on previous statements, these are probably misandric beliefs directed towards men in general.
There is nothing wrong with being physically attracted to the opposite sex, and it's also possible to form friendships or be attracted to other aspects about them. A man can think of a woman as both physically attractive and intelligent. A woman can look at a man as both attractive and possessing a nice personality.
And whatever are the attributes that attract one person to another, that is their right. It is not for a 3rd party to decide what two people find attractive between them. If they want only the purest of friendships or only completely sexual relationships, that is their prerogative. Of which, we usually can't truly know, because both men and women can lie. Only when the line is crossed towards actual violations of written legal policies, violations of human rights, or criminal behavior that it should become the concern of 3rd parties.
This statement comes across as a bit misandric, but in way in which it appears not to be realized. It's demonizing males who are attracted to the opposite sex, which is natural biology, and as if men shouldn't be allowed to freely associate with other adults of the opposite sex.
On the flip, I don't see women being demonized for wanting to be around a higher percentage of people she is sexually attracted to. Be it males or other females. To include if she chose a class or major with higher prospects for meeting the opposite sex, dating, or for greater marriage prospects.
> The average hypothetical man choosing his class or major because of how many women are in it isn't looking to make female friends.
Again, the casual male demonization and vilification, is both sad and amazing. Few people would come to the conclusion that a woman choosing her class or major based on greater opportunities with the opposite or same sex, would find that to be nefarious by default.
> If you are someone who genuinely enjoys the company of women over the company of men, then I agree that it is not misogynistic.
The later statements contradict this statement. It also appears that for a male to genuinely enjoy the company of women is something weird or odd. Why can't an adult prefer to be around other adults that they want to associate with. There are many women that state they prefer male friends to female friends. That's their preference or personality, nothing nefarious should be read into it, without evidence.
Going into "easy" courses you have already mastered to force interactions with others is different.
Therefore people wanting to but unable are not human, I guess.
I know people have some conditions (such as psychopathy) where they don’t form attraction towards other people, I also know there are people that do form attractions but have a hard time expressing it (such as in autism), however I don’t know of any condition or neuro-diversity which wants to form attractions, but is unable to, that would be like a psychopath that still show empathy (which is kind of a contradiction).
But if these people exist, they are still human. I merely said that humans have this capability, not that it was a necessary condition for human individuals.
You've claimed that it's weird that these men go to these lengths to find partners, because it's supposed to be just natural for them to find them.
It's clearly not.
My main point is that if you go about living a normal live, attend social functions, or just see other people on a regular basis, most people will be attracted to some of the people they meet along the way. What I’m getting at, is there is no skill nor effort needed, nothing needs to be carefully evaluated and planned. These attractions just arise naturally for most people. So altering your life course to maximize some chances of attraction, that is weird.
> ...go about living a normal live, attend social functions, or just see other people on a regular basis, most people will be attracted to some of the people they meet along the way.
It is more of a feminine perspective and privilege to wait and hope random luck will take care of romantic matters, because males pursue females. Many women are able to get attention, as a matter of biology. Ignorance on the mechanics of what is occurring in the background, with regard to why this attention exists, can lead to distorted and misplaced views.
Furthermore there are clearly great numbers of people (male and female) that are shy, fear rejection or embarrassment, are socially awkward, or at some disadvantage in social settings. To pretend otherwise, seems to be making a concerted effort to remain oblivious.
> What I’m getting at, is there is no skill nor effort needed, nothing needs to be carefully evaluated and planned.
That is not a perspective many others share and when people are specifically and repeatedly saying this is not the case, it's not helpful to blatantly ignore them. For various people, and more so for men, they do need various levels of knowledge, skill, effort, and/or planning.
You are right, I might be the one who is tone deaf here, but I still get a strange vibe from people that do this kind of thing, and personally I think I would feel uncomfortable around them.
When I did math & cs - there were almost no women in any classes I took. The few that showed up were typically fob and didn’t speak English much at all or have any interest in integrating.
[Edit: It's sarcasm... mostly]
> As Scott has kindly allowed this discussion to carry on, let me try to inject some more sisterly honesty into the question of dating and what women do or don’t want.
> Let me start by noting that there are a few billions women in the world so the question as posed is ridiculous . In fact I will just say what the sort of women I know well want and leave you to guess how widely applicable this could be. Everything below is unbelievably obvious to most people but I feel is somehow being hidden from the argument by feminists.
> In broad brush strokes, we would like the attractive men to find us attractive and potentially to hit on us *and the unattractive men not to notice we are women.*
> In fact we want a very small percentage of men to find us unbelievably attractive and to hit on us, but in, you know, a nice way. We would like a slightly larger number of men, but still small, to find us very attractive but to do nothing about it (they can talk to each other about how hot and unattainable we are though) and the rest just to completely leave us alone and preferably have no thoughts about us at all.
> But of course it’s not actually that simple, sometimes we don’t even want the hottest men to hit on us. It depends. *To achieve this attraction of the hottest men, we would, like millions of women, dress in a way that is designed to be maximally attractive. A lot of thought and a lot of money goes into the design of the clothes women wear and it’s not an accident that your eye naturally runs up the leg of the dress or down the cleavage*. But how can you dress in a way that is attractive to the men you want but not attractive to other men? How can you let it be known which subset should hit on you? You can’t of course. We Western women take a not very well calculated risk every day hoping that the odds will work out in our favor.
> *It is of course disgusting when an unattractive man hits on you in any situation. You might say we should hit on men. Apart from the fact that you would then just reverse the problem, we don’t want to. Rejection is humiliating*.
> As you may tell, we would like to have all our cakes and eat them at once. But who wouldn’t? Women are just like men, people. Those who are aware of the other nations of Earth will also notice that some cultures don’t think this degree of freedom for women is a good thing. Despite what our media may suggest, they are not simply insane. Although you may not agree with them, our system is not without its flaws.
> My advice to nerdy men would simply be this. If you see a women you would like to date, ask her gently and respectfully (and only once) for a date somewhere non-threatening. How about lunch? She may reject you out of hand. If so, take it politely but confidently and move on and don’t worry about it. Everyone normal understands that what you have done is perfectly reasonable even though you may feel embarrassed at the time.
To note, chosing a field with higher ratio of women can be good for completely different reasons. After spending years in almost 100% male environments, moving to more balanced and diverse environments was like night and day, the toxicity was mostly gone, discussions and communication would be more interesting etc. I heard the same for women moving away from women only places as well.
So yes, looking at the ratio can be plenty helpful outside of any dating concern.
I've chosen my high school (CS-profiled) and major without any such consideration and ended up having ~0 contact with female peers through it all 'till now at 26 years old (and it's unlikely to change...)
I'm an aspie so I guess that might've been for the best*... still, maybe something is slightly off with the society in which this can happen. It seems rather absurd.
* Somewhen during middle or maybe even elementary school I figured I'm unable to understand dating and such, so I should just not attempt it / min-max. I didn't know I'm an aspie until maybe 2 months ago (or rather, I figured I probably am, but as it's permanent I didn't bother thinking about it much and researching information about specifics).
It didn't bother me much, except now I've got an annoyingly persistent FOMO. Eh.
Really? I know people who specifically chose their entire major based on the ratio of women in that major.