~ archived since 2018 ~

If someone created a dating site/app specifically to make the playing field even for men, what do you think that dating site/app would have to offer to make it different from all the other trash out there? What flaws are there in current dating sites/apps that makes them disadvantageous to men?

Shimmerstorm

October 25, 2019

11 upvotes

Hey y'all.

I am asking this, because it is a topic of great concern to me. Modern dating is so much more complex. I have so many male friends who are drowning because everything else has fallen into place in their lives, but they have no one to share it with. My own partner tried dating apps and sites for two years with little to no luck. I am the one who found him online, and not through a dating app, so I think he thought those two years were a complete waste of his time. His mental state surrounding dating and women by the time I met him was so soured, and he deserved so much more, and it just needs to change.

And the men who I am talking about are good men. Established, funny, smart, kind, romantic, compassionate, etc. Literally everything a gal could ever ask for in a man. Like so much of you. I read all of your stories and it just infuriates me. Just normal, nice guys who just get shit on because somewhere along the lines, society decided that all men are bad and that all men want to repress women and rape us and abuse us and blah blah blah. It's just really sad, and really ignorant.

So, realistically... in dating sites and apps, is there anything that is advantageous towards women, and disadvantageous towards men? Is there any features within a dating site that could change or be added that would be a real game changer? For instance, confirmed profiles, so both parties know that the person in the picture is the person who shows up for the date? Or... if you could leave comments about the date? Or about the person?

My partner was in the process of finishing a dating site a couple of months ago that he started when he was single, and I suggested that he should make one that was more fair to men, and he really loved the idea, but I think he kind of lost steam because we didn't have anyone to consult on how to make it more fair for men. We needed more men with more experience using apps to give us suggestions. But now, I can consult with you!

So, honestly, if someone were to come to you and say, I want to make a fair dating app for men, I want to base it off of your experiences, and I want your help, what advice would you give them?

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	If someone created a dating site/app specifically to make the playing field even for men, what do you think that dating site/app would have to offer to make it different from all the other trash out there? What flaws are there in current dating sites/apps that makes them disadvantageous to men?
Author	Shimmerstorm
Upvotes	11
Comments	32
Date	October 25, 2019 2:29 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dmqyi5/if_someone_created_a_dating_siteapp_specifically/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/if-someone-created-a-dating-siteapp-specifically.1203206 https://theredarchive.com/post/1203206

Comments

[–]fengpi 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

And the men who I am talking about are good men.

That's basically irrelevant to women's attraction. In online dating, it's all looks.

Really, a lot of women aren't using dating sites in the way they were intended to be used. The intention was for people to meet other people. Instead, we have a goddamned circus where the bottom 50% of the men get virtually 0% of the messages and the top 1% of the men apparently get mobbed.

A lot of women on these services just want to feel the validation of seeing 70 messages pile up in their in-box. They don't actually bother reading any of the messages. And then they complain like the idiot who talks about having 2000 channels and nothing to watch.

Bumble was supposed to be a dating app that would require women to make the first move (with one word perhaps), but after that one initial step, the dude has to basically do everything and jump through hoops for her and the woman is basically allowed to do whatever she wants.

Frankly, I think it's necessary to penalize female members who waste men's time. There are a lot of women who join and just don't do anything. If only there was a laziness penalty of some sort.

[–]Shimmerstorm 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My partner has a theory that all the main dating site makers are just like him... they wanted an easy way to find a girlfriend. And then they wanted an easy way for their friends to find a girlfriend. So they make it easy for their friends, and then obviously its easy for the dudes it always easy for, and then the normal nice guys are left with nothing.

Also, women are idiots, because they want to be treated like queens, but they act like assholes. You can't expect to go on a new date or a new hookup with a new dude every single night and expect to get treated like a queen, because you aren't one. You are playing around and fucking off when other people are trying to take it serious. Women are using the feminist movement to just get laid. "Oh, well dudes have always done it, we need to catch up." That's dumb. Most dudes aren't like that, and you are shitting on the good ones. And that's not a good outlook to have anyways. They really just think there is more demand then supply I think? That needs to change...

Like I was saying, I feel like you should be able to comment about a person after you date them, or interact with them or whatever. And if you see like, 12 comments that say that a girl is a time waster, then don't bother. And maybe they will stop doing that. And with the dating service we wanted to offer, you would verify your profile, so it's not like you could get a few shitty comments and just make a new one. We'd be able to see that you already had one and that you just want a fresh start. But I think that people should be able to petition comments if they can show proof they are bogus.

[–]apeironman 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kik_Jayleo2019 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OscarAlexHasEntered 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

That is an absolutely perfect resolution to that problem! I love it!

And yeah, I never really got the point of matching? Especially because my friends will sometimes say a girl will match with them, but never say anything. What was the point? And I feel like it kinda means you feel like you have to say something catchy because you matched. And you have to have the pickup line and all the things. But... if you just message someone, maybe you just message them? Maybe there is etiquette to messaging so that no one is like, that dude is a creep, or that dude isn't funny enough, or whatever. Like, when you first message someone, always introduce yourself, explain your interests, blah blah blah. That way, a person could write what they needed to according to the template, but... they could write it in their own personality? I just feel like it would be less pressure maybe.

[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

but never say anything. What was the point?

Getting him to waste time pursuing her. Again, a lot of the women just want attention and don't actually want to meet anyone.

A long time ago on Yahoo personals (before there were pictures on the profiles), I met this woman and we had a back and forth that, after the typical friendly introduction banter to get her interested in talking, went like this:

Her: Wow, you're really smart and interesting and polite and funny and you really seem like a great guy and stuff.

Me: How about we meet at Such-And-Such Cafe on Main Street? It's a good place.

Her: Uh, no thanks. You might be a stalker.

Me: A stalker? Well, all I can say about that is: I'm not a stalker. But if you're uncomfortable meeting 1 on 1, maybe you could bring a friend to go with you? Or maybe you could choose the place? However you want.

Her: That's not good enough, you might end-up following me home and stalking me?

Me: Yeah, that was TOTALLY my plan. I was TOTALLY gonna do that. You caught me. I was TOTALLY gonna stalk you just like that. Ugh.

Her: That's not funny!

Me: If you're afraid of stalkers, why are you trying to meet people online then? That doesn't make sense. Why?

Her: .... I don't know.

Me: YOU DON'T KNOW. Seriously, WHY? If you're afraid of stalkers, don't meet people online? What's this game that you're trying to play?

Her: I don't know!

Me: Fine, thanks for wasting my time. Bye.

Her: Wait wait!

Me: BYE.

...and that, my dear, felt pretty damn typical. She didn't KNOW why she was doing it, because saying "I just wanted attention" makes her sound like the vapid time-wasting twit that she was, instead she chose to sound like a plain vanilla stupid twit.

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I dunno. That IS a real threat though. Not just for women, but for men as well. I mean, we all hear about the craigslist killers, and the people who have gotten ambushed when meeting a Tinder date or whatever. It happens to men as well as women. Women will arrange dates with men, they show up and then her boyfriend and his best friends rob him and sometimes kill him.

And honestly, if I've been talking to a dude for 30 minutes and he's like, hey let's meet up, I dunno... that does make me feel a little leery? Cause, if I were literally on a dating site to meet someone to date, not just someone to hook up with, I kind of would like to get to know them a little before meeting. Because honestly I think its more of a waste of your time if we have 0 chemistry and 0 in common, and we go on a date, opposed to figuring it out over a few texts and it just feels like we can part ways without any negative feelings? Like, if I go on a date with a dude, and he wants completely different things in life, that honestly feels like more of a waste of time. I dunno how long you waited to ask her to hang out, but, if it was a relatively brief encounter, I might feel like things are moving too fast if I were her? And I'm only saying that to maybe allow insight into a female mind? An open one, at that.

Like, we all have to protect ourselves. And sometimes that means you might be talking to a really awesome person, but then there is a red flag and you have to step away bc of past experiences, or because you know how some people work. We also know that the traits of a good guy or a good woman are also the fronts that socio and psychopaths put up. Like I said, dating is complex. And there ARE bad people in the world. And we all have to be cautious of that.

I think some of it may be communication issues? Like, maybe she was just trying to tell you to take it a little slower? Not that she wasn't interested, or that she wanted to waste your time. Obviously I don't know the exact situation or how long you actually talked to her prior to asking her to meet. I'm just trying to play Devil's advocate and provide insight and help. Maybe both sides have just had so many bad experiences that everyone has lost patience, or aren't on the same page. So, maybe you have had a few experiences with time wasters, and maybe she has had a few experiences with creeps, which would obviously happen if you were both actively trying to date, but neither of you are aware of that going into it... Which could possibly be a communication issue. I'm legitimately interested, so, if you care to share, tell me if I'm completely wrong, or if maybe I'm onto something, or just whatever.

[–]fengpi 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

if I've been talking to a dude for 30 minutes and he's like, hey let's meet up, I dunno... that does make me feel a little leery?

That's a natural thing to think, but I heavily summarized our interactions there. It wasn't 30 minutes. In reality, we had been corresponding back and forth fairly regularly for well over a week up until that point; it had been light and friendly and I thought we'd had enough things in common that I was willing to take a chance with her. I didn't attempt to invite her to meet in person until she mentioned that she had enjoyed interacting with me and she felt comfortable talking to me. I don't recall the exact sentence (it was years ago) but she did use the word "comfortable" when referring to how our communications had felt to her. We were living in the same suburb, so it wasn't a distant place I was suggesting, either. So I don't know what more I could have done to put her at ease-- how many more weeks of communication did I really need to invest in a time wasting flake?-- and her expression of "comfort" in corresponding to me made the "you might be a stalker" response look all the more unbelievable. If she thought I was creepy, why did she tell me that she was comfortable?

What's more, she could have ceased communicating with me at any point up until then if she was uncomfortable, yet she continued writing me as if there was no problem at all. From my point of view, her attitude towards me had suddenly turned on a dime.

As for my communication skills, as much as you hear complaints about men who can't spell, use poor grammar, who use stupid sentence fragments and so on... I have never really received that kind of complaint. If there is one item of feedback I have gotten rather consistently through my online interactions, it is that I tend to write rather well.

Regardless of whatever flaws I might have (and I certainly do have them), if you respond to the question of: "why are you trying to meet people online?" with the answer "I don't know", twice, you have to admit that's not the smartest answer to give?

There are all sorts of perfectly valid reasons to not want to meet someone you met online, by the way. "I'm busy," for instance "or I think it would feel weird" or "I'm shy in person" and so on. Those seem OK to me. But the reply: "you might be a stalker," uh... what?? That's not exactly in your typical Top Ten reasons, is it? That one seems a bit bizarre and accusational, no? Why not just say "I'm shy" or "I'm too busy" instead of insinuating the person you're talking to is a maniac serial killer? Did she need to insult me?

How was I supposed to respond to "you might be a stalker," by the way? It seems to me that any answer I might have given could have been the wrong answer to someone who is paranoid. A simple and honest "I'm not a stalker" is, naturally, what a stalker would say. A sarcastic "yeah, right, I'm totally a stalker" can be taken as me admitting that I'm a stalker. A "how can I prove to you that I'm not a stalker?" is manipulative, like a crafty stalker. I dunno, it seems like a no-win situation. Almost as if she was wasting my time as a form of cheap entertainment.

[–]Shimmerstorm 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, we have been moving for the past few days and I wanted to be able to sit down and give you a well thought out response.

I figured you were summarising, bc you don't seem that dense. Lol. And yeah, if she was comfortable with you, she should have felt more comfortable telling you why she wasn't ready to meet yet. Especially bc you do sound like an understanding guy, and if she would have said something like, "Look, I have social anxiety so this is a little hard for me," or if she was anxious around meeting new people, or just whatever. And honestly, maybe she didn't have any friends, or maybe she didn't have any friends she thought would approve of her meeting a dude online that she could bring with her. But she should have explained that. Or maybe she already had a boyfriend that she wasn't telling you about (not having to post pictures would make that easier) and she was just trying to fuck off and feel good about herself. Guess we'll never know. :(

And I don't mean communication skills, as in your ability to communicate. You are very clearly well educated and use proper sentences and everything you say is well thought out and makes sense. I more meant, men and women speak on different wavelengths. This is a scientific fact. One, that a lot of people don't understand the extent of. We literally communicate in different ways. Different things matter to us. We worry about completely different things sometimes. If you really research the differences in communication and the brains of males and females, you'd almost feel like they should be considered a different race or something. I think if people were better educated in those communication differences, it would be easier to actually make ground with one another.

I honestly think that's why I get along with men so well, and can relate to men so well, bc in Psychology, we learned about it, I found it so interesting I did additional research, and I think I just have better insight into a mans perception, but also an understanding of why men and women usually don't have very good insight in that regard. It's not really anyones fault I dont think, we just need more education. Your actual physical communication skills are superb. But maybe we just need to tall about the differences in how men and women communicate?

It's pretty stupid she kept saying she didn't know why she was trying to meet ppl online. It honestly sounds like she was just really shy and lonely and was nervous, or that she already had someone else and she was just looking for positive attention she wasnt already getting.

And in reply to, what if you're a stalker? maybe, what would put your mind at ease? Has this been a problem for you in the past? You're right, there isn't always an easy right answer. Especially online, bc you can't 100% read the other person. You can't tell if she has an awesome sense if humor and you can say, oh yeah, that's totally me. Modern day Jack the ripper. See, I'd laugh, but I'm hilarious and awesome. Ahaha. Jk. Lol. But, you know, obviously she would have never been able to handle that.

But also, realize that you shouldn't have to try so fucking hard with all these girls. If you have one red flag, you should feel comfortable cutting ties just like women. Even if that red flag is that she is a time waster, that's okay too. Just don't miss out on an opportunity just bc maybe someone was a little shy and just needed encouragement. That's what I mean. I don't think you did the wrong thing, especially in this situation. She should have been more forthcoming and open with what she was really going through.

[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for taking the time to write back. I shared the story not because it was the most negative story I had about meeting people online (believe me, I could've recalled far worse instances) but I mentioned it because it felt so typical and banal despite it also being kind of weird. This was the regular kind of weirdness and flakiness that I kept dealing with. I'm glad she didn't end up wasting more of my time, frankly. There were women who were far worse that I'm not going to talk about.

Today, online dating looks far worse to me as well. It looks like a dystopian shit-show.The bratty entitlement of certain women who have nothing to offer, women on Tinder saying, with obvious ridiculousness: "I'm not here to hook up!" even though that is what Tinder is for: hooking up. (Duh?) I'm glad I'm out of that whole gladiator-clown show.

I more meant, men and women speak on different wavelengths.

I hear you, but I also think it's really easy to exaggerate and even oversell those kinds of differences. I've studied a number of foreign languages (and linguistics) and spent a lot of time in multicultural circles so I find communication differences to not be all that insurmountable across languages. In countries like Switzerland and Malaysia it's very common for people to grow-up speaking multiple languages and dealing with people of differing backgrounds but they manage to not kill each other. I've had girlfriends whose native languages were different from my own, but we nonetheless had some very good times together and we could work-out some of our disagreements and so on. So if two native speakers of the same language have slightly different takes on the same item, well... it's not necessarily a giant problem? There are couples where people from totally different linguistic and religious backgrounds manage to make it work. My Chinese girlfriends didn't freak out if I liked smelly cheese and I didn't freak out if they ate a fried pig's ear.

What matters in those situations is a willingness (and patience) on both sides about mutually understanding the other. Alas, this kind of willingness was seemingly not present enough on that woman's side of that particular conversation. Intolerance is a problem in communication, even though different variations of understanding might create minor misunderstandings.

And if you do have a cultural misunderstanding? It's better to laugh than get offended. If I ever mistakenly said "Merry Christmas" to a Jewish friend, they usually didn't sneer at me for it.

realize that you shouldn't have to try so fucking hard with all these girls.

That sounds great, but I never had a relationship in which I didn't initiate the whole thing. I was never able to walk into a place, shake my hot booty, have some woman boldly complement my hot booty shakin' and pay for my drinks all evening. Things didn't quite work that way for me.

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think you picked a good story actually, because it was simple to pick apart and analyze. Pick a more complex story, we'd still be doing it!! Lol.

Modern dating really is a shitshow. I've posted before about my theory on what happened, which is that back in the day, men had to court women bc women didn't have jobs. They went straight from living at home with their fathers who took care of them and made all their decisions for them, to courting to find the man who in the future would take care of them and make decisions for them. A man had to court a lady to show that he could provide for her, to demonstrate that he was a gentleman, and to show he could protect her. Once they got married, the man continued to pay bc that's the only way it could possibly be in that time.

Throughout time, women started speaking out, getting more power, getting jobs, etc. Up until recent years, women didn't USUALLY make as much money as men, so a man still had to court a lady.

But in modern days, women have a ton of power, they have a lot of success on their own, they make their own money, they make their own decisions... but in dating, they still insist on being courted? But, now a days, they get to make all the decisions while dating. Back in the day, a man said, this is what time I'm picking you up, this is what we are doing, this is where we are going, and sometimes even, this is what you should eat. But now, a woman has the power to say no, and the power to pay her half of the bill, and wants to be a strong independent woman... And I honestly think they think they are pulling one over on you, but they really aren't bc they dont understand what tradition they are reinforcing and upholding. Because they are uneducated. Lol. So, a woman wants to be swooned and courted but has no fucking idea why she requires that.

That's an excellent point. That you've managed to have a relationship with someone from another culture without having too much of a communication issue despite the obvious communication issue. Lol. It's interesting, my partner is Australian and I am American, and we have some major cultural differences, surprisingly, that have actually caused issues, but that we talked through and moved forward from.

I dunno. Sometimes men and women do legitimately talk on different wavelengths though. Like, for instance, when a woman complains when she comes home from work, she generally just wants to vent. Woman generally just need to talk about their thoughts and feelings and by doing that, they can usually solve them on their own. The other person on the side on the conversation is just meant to get creative juices flowing. And sometimes it's not a problem that we want to or are willing to solve. But, men like to solve problems. If a woman complains, a man tends to offer solutions, but for some reason, that just makes us feel like we aren't being listened to? It doesn't make sense. But I think its bc you are just trying to help but actually sometimes it just makes us stressed out. So, you can see, like in that situation, a communication issue could occur. And there are numerous different little things like that.

But yes, patience is a main priority. Because, despite our differences, my partner and I can get through anything with each other as long as we have patience, and we are a fucking mess if we aren't patient with one another.

I know. I think those types of women are hard to find. I think we are honestly all mentally ill and you probably don't want us. Haha. My partner and I were moving today and I literally had a breakdown bc he wouldn't let me help him with heavy stuff. Lmfao. And we didn't talk for like over an hour... bc we couldn't be patient... yet. ;) lol

[–]fengpi2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, look, I don't want to nit-pick too many aspects of your historical perspective but the whole notion of romantic love being a basis for marriage is relatively recent, starting in Europe in the 1600s. For much of human history, parents were heavily involved in creating couples and marriages were basically a land or property transaction-- often the largest transfer of property that one would see in their lifetime. Among elites, marriages were sometimes made to guarantee political agreements; that's how Queen Victoria's children ended up bringing hemophilia into royal families in Russia, Prussia and Spain. Today in many places in India and the middle east, there is no courtship and marriage is still very much a property transaction with parents being heavily involved. You can find Indians in arranged marriages who say that love is what happens after marriage. Indeed, "Love" as a feeling, was for many centuries considered a very poor basis for something as important as marriage. Feelings can fade. Land? That lasts forever. And I didn't even mention the parental investment in their children.

In traditional rural households on the north China plains, the extended family lived together (around a farm; the land would get handed down to the next generation) and the sons' future wives always came in from outside the farm (with one's own daughter always being sent elsewhere to marry someone else) because the sons were needed to work the land and support their parents who would become unable to work in their old age. This was parents' Social Security pension system back then. It was said that children needed to be "betrothed in the womb" so marriages were planned way early and because the daughter would always be sent away, she wasn't seen as a useful child. Why bother educating a child if you're only going to send her away? It was very fucking harsh, but these were poor people trying to scratch-out an existence in a hard land. Romantic love was basically irrelevant. You can't eat love.

In South Korea, dating (like the modern customs of meet-ing and sogeting) is barely under 2-3 generations old and there is a big divide between the older and younger people. When I was travelling in the conservative Korean-populated areas of NE China in my early 20s, I had the awkward experience of having middle-aged ethnically Korean moms showing me pictures of their daughters and bragging about their beauty and cooking skills in an attempt to get me interested in them. There are a lot of cultures in which "courtship" just doesn't happen in the way people in the west experience it.

I think it's also fair to mention here that working class women have always worked. One reason the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist fire became such a major scandal was because it was mainly female workers which had died in that mess, for instance. The first large group of women who "didn't work" were middle-class women after the industrial revolution. Ironically, this was considered a big step forward for women at the time because they were spared from working (the labor organizer Mother Jones was a big fan of the "man as breadwinner" thing because it allowed women to spend more time with children); upper class women didn't work, and that was considered an ideal to strive for. Not unrelatedly, the early suffrage movement came out of this group of women, the first large group of people in history to have education, leisure time and decent standards of living. It takes freedom to get more freedom. So, yes it is true that a subgroup of (white western) women "didn't work" and, in the early days, that arrangement was seen as a pretty damn good deal for those women. It wasn't until the latter half of the 20th century that a group of discontented (white) middle-class women decided it was oppression to live in a comfortable house while the husband worked elsewhere (a phenomenon which only existed after industrialization), and that the (relatively light, increasingly automated) housework demanded of such women was a kind of slavery and it was glamorous "liberation" to go work in a goddamned office under a demanding boss who didn't love you. Working class (often darker skinned) women often didn't believe that their work was fun, games and liberation, but what did they know?

Anyway, I can appreciate your perspective.

[–]Shimmerstorm1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The 1600s isn't that recent! And it's plenty of time where we should have figured all of this out way before now. lol. I mean, maybe in terms of human existence, it wasn't too long ago. But in terms of our existence and progress as a race, and from we are standing right now, it is pretty long ago.

And honestly, I kind of see the appeal to arranged marriages? If I was raised knowing that I would have an arranged marriage, it's more possible that I could be upset. But I remember being in high school and having to do a report on arranged marriages, and most people did opposition of it, and I do see the cons, but I also definitely see the pros. Especially if your partner just isn't a cunt. Like, if you were arranged to marry someone who was relatively similar in terms of beliefs and morals and stuff, I think it could be fun to fall in love with someone that way. Especially if we are talking in modern days, and the partner you are arranged with also feels similarly about how roles in your relationship should work. And I dunno, I can almost relate to that? That feelings can fade? Like, my current partner, I don't see that happening with, because we were literally manufactured in a factory next to each other for one another. Ahaha. But, my first serious partner I ever had, I was madly, unhealthily in love with him. And he was actually a terrible person. We were together for eleven years. And I honestly feel like he ruined my life. He was a legitimate sociopath and mentally, emotionally, and financially abusive. If I had had an arranged marriage with a man who my parents were confident could support me, protect me, help me raise an amazing family, learn to love me, then my life would be completely different. Because my parents definitely didn't approve of my ex. With reason. I couldn't make a logical decision for myself because I was seventeen and also thinking with my heart. I saw red flags, but thought I could save an unsaveable person. My parents would have made a logical decision and I would probably have my doctorate right now instead of regrets. So, can totes relate. But... at the end of the day, I would go through 100 years of the hell I went through if I knew at the end of it, the partner I have now is the one I'd walk out and find on the other side.

Also, you are mentioning a lot of other cultures, who, mind you, have beautiful and wonderful and logical practices, but I am from America, so that is the perspective on the evolution of dating I have. I obviously don't only want to help American people in the dating world. I'd love to help everyone! :) But that's just where my background in education was, and honestly I adore history, but psychology will always be my first love, so you will probably railroad me into the ground on worldwide history lessons.

Like, I am totally aware that women in rural areas worked, because they worked on like, their farm... But I kind of think of that differently? Like, I feel like some farm work just winds up being chores when you live on a farm? Like, going and getting the eggs in the morning, and milking the livestock, and helping to shave livestock, and feeding the livestock, etc. And I just feel like that is supporting your husband at home, and he just happens to work at home. But also, you are investing in your home.

I was under the impression that women who lived in more suburban and urban areas were typically more housewives up until like, maybe when the World Wars happened? Because all the men went to war, and women had to pick up the slack in their communities. I thought that was when women really started focusing on things outside of their home and family. And realized that they actually liked being more independent. I always thought that women weren't even allowed to work, and that it wouldn't be acceptable for a woman to show up in a workplace until, like I said, WW times?

If at the end of all this, I tell you I was educated in Florida, would the holes in my timelines of women working make more sense? Ahaha.

[–]fengpi1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thanks for taking the time to write that.

And honestly, I kind of see the appeal to arranged marriages?

I can see some wisdom in it but it wouldn't appeal to me. Marriages, in some cultures, are a very big deal. One time, when I was traveling in an Arab country, the guesthouse owner invited me to an engagement party. I went there (sexes were separated into different venues) and it was a large gathering with dozens of people to announce the father announcing his acceptance of the future son-in-law. There was coffee, pastries, it was a big deal and the parents were deeply involved in everything. They really don't do "dating" in the Arab cultures. In contrast, when I got engaged to my ex-fiancee (she turned out to be a lazy and dishonest person), my parents were quietly against it but they held their tongues until I realized it wasn't going to work and it broke it off. And then my parents told me that they didn't like her from the start. It certainly wasn't a setup where the community held sway over who I was going to marry.

Like, I am totally aware that women in rural areas worked, because they worked on like, their farm... But I kind of think of that differently? Like, I feel like some farm work just winds up being chores when you live on a farm? Like, going and getting the eggs in the morning, and milking the livestock, and helping to shave livestock, and feeding the livestock, etc. And I just feel like that is supporting your husband at home, and he just happens to work at home. But also, you are investing in your home.

Yeah, you're on the right track. That was the human condition for a very long time. A lot of farmers were subsistence farmers who were not part of the cash economy. Maybe they farmed enough to feed themselves and no one else. If they did have a surplus to sell, they would need to sell it after harvest (when prices were low) but in bad years they would need to buy (when prices were high) and it was a very precarious existence. Home was the workplace, you worked at home. The idea of leaving home to work a job, and home being a place away from work, that was what happened after the industrial revolution.

"The workplace" in the 1800s was a nasty, filthy, dangerous place where people's hands might get chopped-off in the machinery, and then the worker would be kicked aside and replaced with a new one. It's back when Marx wrote Das Kapital and Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle and William Blake wrote his poem about the "dark Satanic mills." "The workplace" was often very nasty! The idea of working "for personal fulfillment" was laughably unthinkable. Charlie Chaplain's film "Modern Times" tried to make a joke about it, where he can't keep up with the assembly line and gets sucked into the gears of the machinery.

For instance, in the mid-1800s in the UK, Parliament banned women from coal mining. This was not a sexist move because women were weak and inferior, it's because coal mining was very deadly. I don't remember the numbers, but every million tons of coal involved a certain number of worker deaths. In contemporaneous Meiji Japan, there were women in coal mining, where the conditions were also quite deadly (I think the death rate was something like 13 workers per million tons of coal), and foreigners were aghast at it. It was seen as bad thing for women to do because people would die.

I was under the impression that women who lived in more suburban and urban areas were typically more housewives up until like, maybe when the World Wars happened?

That narrative, what I like to called the "women were not allowed to work" narrative, was very much an oversimplification created by the (white) feminists who came out of the mid to late 1960s and 70s. In the late 1940s and 1950s through the early 60s... the "patriarchal dark ages" according to feminists... the evil "male breadwinner/housewife" setup... that was really about the preceding generation's desire for stability and normalcy. That generation had lived through very hard times: the depression and World War II. After the war was over, they wanted stability, god dammit. Yes, there were some very strict families and miserable home-lives and some women felt being a housewife was too limiting or whatever, but no one ever bothered to ask men of that generation what they thought about the deal. Regardless, their daughters, the young Boomer feminists, had never known hardship (there was a big generation gap) and they reached their own madcap conclusions: "women weren't allowed to work." Nonsense. Working class women always worked and middle class housewives in the 1950s were the envy of the entire world. So feminists of the 1960s decided that work was "for personal fulfillment" (hah) and that men were thwarting women's "personal fulfillment" by "not allowing women to work." There were novels back in the 1950s like "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" and management texts like "The Organization Man" which portrayed the male-dominated workplace as destroying the individual, not granting the individual "personal fulfillment," but the feminists of that time didn't read dreary books like those. They had their pet fantasy and they were sticking to it.

During the Depression before WWII, a lot of women had to work. Out of necessity. Husbands who couldn't support their families were considered failures. My granddad had an employer in the Depression who couldn't pay him, so he and my grandma lived rent free (and free meals) at his employer's dormitory. My grandma worked at a department store for cash. She had to. She had a college degree, too. A lot of people forget this, but in the 1920s in the US the number of women in universities was at a record level for the time. Why? Because World War I had killed giant numbers of men and there were a lot of spaces open in universities.

There's an interesting bit of trivia about the Rosie the Riveter poster (the "We can do it!" one). The woman who inspired the poster, Geraldine Hoff Doyle, was photographed at a factory during World War II. For how long did she work? For about 2-3 weeks. She saw someone get injured by a machine, (she wanted to play the cello) so she quit. She married a dentist, had a bunch of kids and ended up being a 1950s housewife! She was allowed to work but she CHOSE not to.

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]justaskinthequestion 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Everything in life is supply and demand. There is a roughly equal supply of men and women but the demand for women (by men) is and always will be greater. So, you have to address supply, demand or both to level the playing field.

I think adding in men and women from foreign countries would absolutely level the playing field. Let's just look at why adding foreign women would work. For one, in my opinion, women from some other cultures seem to respect and desire men more. This would raise the demand for men. And can you imagine the supply of dateable women if you started letting Brazilian and Colombian women sign up? Not only would you be adding more dateable women, but the influx would be like the Emerald Ash Borer for a lot of American women unless they raised their game. Thus, American women would have to up their game, further increasing the supply of women who are actually trying to date. So, this would dramatically raise the supply of women. So, I think adding foreign women would raise the supply of women AND raise the demand for men.

I think the increased competition would be advantageous for both men and women. Women would appreciate men more and be happier. And men would appreciate women more and be happier. Even though you might say it is unrealistic to date someone from another country, Colombia is a 3 hour flight from FL. Anyways, just seeing and talking to women from these places would have a beneficial effect without ever meeting someone in person. I have wanted to start this app since I got back from Brazil but it's only a pipe dream. Would love to discuss more, though.

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]justaskinthequestion 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Thanks! Yes, I do think some people would be green card seekers or gold diggers.

To a well-adjusted person, I believe most gold-diggers or green card seekers would be obvious in moving things along quickly. I don't believe I ran into a green card seeker but the women who wanted money asked very quickly (within a day, give or take.) Of course, you can have gold diggers within your own country.
Even if there were green card seekers or gold diggers, I would think the impact of it would still positively affect the market.
Even green card seekers or gold diggers may not be bad relationships or marriages. I think wealth is a pretty established advantage in finding a partner (for men.) So, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing or avoidable that part of what would make a man attractive would be his wealth or social status.

But, you are right. Maybe a way to protect people who have no self-awareness (e.g., the 70 year old man with no money who swears the 22 year old he met loves him for him.)

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]justaskinthequestion 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]justaskinthequestion 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shimmerstorm 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, I talked to my partner about it... Because I had an idea, but I didn't know if it would be an intrusion of privacy.

But my idea was, there should be a list of caution words. Words like, green card, escape?, blah blah blah, where if two people were messaging one another, and one member of the chat said one of the caution words, that it would flag that message, notify the person who sent the message that a caution word has been detected and that their message was sent to a moderator for review.

If it was someone being malicious or with ulterior motives, then the mod would obviously delete the message. I dunno if they would delete that persons account or just warn them and put them on probation or something? If it's an innocent message, and it was just a random innocent use of the word, then the mod would forward it to the person who was meant to receive it, and maybe the sender would receive a message that says the message has been approved and sent to the recipient.

Just to maybe help ensure that innocent people aren't getting taken advantage of? I was concerned it would be a violation of privacy, but my partner said as long as it is clearly in your terms and conditions and you aren't being deceitful about it or anything, then it isn't a privacy violation.

And we also thought it would be a good idea to send messages to the sender and recipient and stuff saying that their message had been delayed, just so they weren't stoked to be talking to this awesome, amazing person they are really connecting with, and then their message gets flagged and it's not sent right away and the person doesn't reply right away and then they are worried and think they did something wrong. It's just simply because the message was sent to a mod for review.

And then, I was also kinda wondering, and my partner said he could literally try to make anything possible I could think up, if maybe there were also additional caution words that were only applicable for maybe, the first five or ten messages between two people? that, where if you said words like, maybe kik, or email, or phone number, or whatever, that it cautions the sender that the message can't be sent because it contains a caution word that isn't safe to be using so early in your interaction. Just so you couldn't lure people off the site just to manipulate them without it getting flagged.

And, honestly, I have always found it annoying and a turn-off when I have been talking to someone, and they immediately in the first or second message ask if I have kik. As if our interaction cannot continue unless I do. And the men I spoke with usually always tried to pressure me into downloading it for them. "Come on, just for me." After you hear, come on, just for me so many times, you are like, holy fuck, do you realize you are not the only man in the world who has said the same fucking identical thing to me? Do you think that line is uniquely yours?

And honestly, in the dating world, or in the social world, you would never know that about me until you asked and then pressed me and then it upset me. And then our interaction would have already been ruined.

I feel like that is also a big problem with dating. There is so much fucking bullshit in dating, and each new interaction we have, its hard not to bring the baggage from all the old interactions because that's how you learn and gain caution. So you know, sometimes, I get frustrated for things that aren't necessarily the dude's fault, and he had no way of knowing it was gonna piss me off. And I just wonder if this constantly keeps happening to everyone else too. If all our old interactions are tinting our perception of the new ones, and potentially ruining them before you ever get the chance to actually know one another?

[–]justaskinthequestion 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, if you all can do it, protecting users would be great.If you can filter with caution words to make it easier, I think that's a good idea. In my experience, the scammers (which were mercifully few) always asked for money extremely quickly. I actually didn't run into any green card seekers or anyone that proposed a quick marriage but maybe someone would if they were from a very poor country. The sites I used also had a report button that you could use to report scammers. And the sites warned to never send money. And, if you were going to buy a plane ticket, offer to buy it yourself and not to send money.

Yeah, I don't know how to solve the dating problem in general. I can't really speak for the problems women have with it, only men. But, I do think the idea of a new kind of site is really interesting. If you want more help, I think I would be interested. I don't have programming experience but would love to do research surveys and develop algorithms. Here's a scheduling spreadsheet I made for Excel that used algorithms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lcGyDp1IRY&t=428s

If you don't want any help, I would still find it really interesting to hear about.

PS: I also found out you can download your Tinder data. That has been eye-opening. And from reading the results of others, I have to think there is a need for something better!