So much for freedom of thought at universities

[Derec]

There were few things that irritated me more than the blind puppies who wanted to debate the professor in class. I paid good money for that chair and some idiot thinks his short 19 years on this planet has given him some special wisdom and it's his duty to share it with the class.

If the purpose of a (part of) the class is discussion then that is part of what you are paying good money for. If the professor welcomes discussion by "blind puppies" (huh?) who agree with him but blocks those who disagree then what is the purpose of having a discussion portion of the class anyway?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the OP was a failed attempt at showing the prevelance of anti-man bias regarding rape.

No, it was about viewpoint discrimination. A female student challenging the "rape culture" myths would be just as unwelcome as he was.

Regarding the Op-Ed, it is a shame that all six of Earth's universities have suffered from perhaps leaning in one direction regarding discussion of the subject.

Huh?

 

[laughing dog]

If the purpose of a (part of) the class is discussion then that is part of what you are paying good money for. If the professor welcomes discussion by "blind puppies" (huh?) who agree with him but blocks those who disagree then what is the purpose of having a discussion portion of the class anyway?

What is the purpose of class discussion if one student monopolizes the discussion with repetitive responses?

 

[Derec]

You are right that there are probably women who look for dates with guys so the guy will buy them stuff. Personally, I've never known any women like that but surely there are some out there. And there are likewise men who will look for dates with women to buy them stuff. Yep: that seems to happen, too although it's usually the guy who has forgotten his wallet or credit card when the bill comes. I've never actually met anyone like this but I've heard of it.

But that's only Jaguar drivers.

Occasionally, someone doesn't realize that a planned outing was actually a date. I've known people that this happened to, actually. And once it was even me:

Actually what caused me to give up dating for good was something like this.

- - - Updated - - -

What is the purpose of class discussion if one student monopolizes the discussion with repetitive responses?

What is the evidence that he really monopolized it?

 

[Derec]

So you need to pay women to let you fuck them?

Pretty much, yes.
That was not my preference, just how it is.

 

[Derec]

I guess I really don't understand. You'd be surprised to learn how many women go out on dates because they want to learn more about their partner. The meal is just a common activity.

In that case they should not be opposed to paying for their share.

No. It is "I do not go on dates because women aren't interested in me in the first place".

It's not too difficult to change that, but it take effort and a willingness to change.

How do you figure that it is not "too difficult" to get women interested in dating you? I would say it's pretty much impossible.
Of course people to whom women are interested in the first place think it's easy, in much the same way that people with legs think walking is easy. Well, it is to them ...

That is your choice, but I will spend less money and spend my time with someone who is excited to be with me.

Well it's choice between paying for sex and involuntary celibacy.

 

[Derec]

She should if he is the one who asked her to dinner, and did not create any other expectation, like going dutch.

But people still expect the man to do the asking out and most look down upon men who suggest going dutch as well.

Sure, blame the victim.

Victim of what?

Victim of the mercenary daters from that article.

 

[ZiprHead]

But that's only Jaguar drivers.

I'm going to miss him on that program.

 

[Derec]

No offense, but if you literally gave up dating, it had to be your choice.

It wasn't a free choice. It was due to no women being interested in dating me and I was sick of the rejection.

 

[Derec]

What I found most interesting about the first link and the last is that it was mainly men saying men should pay.

Why do you think that is? Do they think (probably rightly) that women are more likely to put out if they pay?

No. The two are unrelated in most people's minds (and should be unrelated in everyone's minds).

Regardless who pays for drinks, dinner, movies - the point is to enjoy each other's company. No one is paying for companionship or for sex.

Maybe the two are considered "unrelated" not because they are truly unrelated but because people are uncomfortable with admitting the transactional nature of mainstream dating and club/bar scene even to themselves. Doth protest too much and all that.

If you do conditional probability where S is probability of sex and P is paid for a woman's drink or date then if S|P > S|_P it would show that they are definitely related. If they were unrelated you'd expect S|P == S|_P == S.

 

[laughing dog]

No offense, but if you literally gave up dating, it had to be your choice.

It wasn't a free choice. It was due to no women being interested in dating me and I was sick of the rejection.

You could have continued to pursue women but have chosen not to do so.

 

[laughing dog]

What is the evidence that he really monopolized it?

Other than

But the turning point was when he refused to stop discussing his beliefs on rape, even though sexual assault survivors told him outside of class that it made them uncomfortable.

“That’s when he crossed the border from his right to have his own beliefs to harassment,” said Clara. She said that she never felt physically unsafe, but that she is a survivor of sexual assault and True’s comments made it hard for her to concentrate in class as well as other courses.

“In response to being respectfully asked to stop, he discussed [his views] more openly and more aggressively, and just disregarded people’s lived experiences,” she said. “He continued to argue with people who had expressed to him that they felt unsafe and uncomfortable. He said rape culture didn’t exist, but I feel like I live rape culture every day.”

nothing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if that's the actual reason then the professor was in the wrong. If the topic was rape and his comments were on topic, then if other people are uncomfortable with differing views on the topic of rape then they should not be involved in classes which discuss rape.

 

[ksen]

Why do you think that is? Do they think (probably rightly) that women are more likely to put out if they pay?

No. The two are unrelated in most people's minds (and should be unrelated in everyone's minds).

Regardless who pays for drinks, dinner, movies - the point is to enjoy each other's company. No one is paying for companionship or for sex.

Maybe the two are considered "unrelated" not because they are truly unrelated but because people are uncomfortable with admitting the transactional nature of mainstream dating and club/bar scene even to themselves. Doth protest too much and all that.

If you do conditional probability where S is probability of sex and P is paid for a woman's drink or date then if S|P > S|_P it would show that they are definitely related. If they were unrelated you'd expect S|P == S|_P == S.

Hmmm, but what if 8===D~ ?

 

[Derec]

Other than

But the turning point was when he refused to stop discussing his beliefs on rape, even though sexual assault survivors told him outside of class that it made them uncomfortable.

“That’s when he crossed the border from his right to have his own beliefs to harassment,” said Clara. She said that she never felt physically unsafe, but that she is a survivor of sexual assault and True’s comments made it hard for her to concentrate in class as well as other courses.

“In response to being respectfully asked to stop, he discussed [his views] more openly and more aggressively, and just disregarded people’s lived experiences,” she said. “He continued to argue with people who had expressed to him that they felt unsafe and uncomfortable. He said rape culture didn’t exist, but I feel like I live rape culture every day.”

nothing.

Doesn't sound like monopolizing. Sounds much more like they were offended because he challenged their 'rape culture' myths. Discussing one's opinions openly, even aggressively, is not "monopolizing". Neither is disregarding somebody's alleged "lived experiences".

- - - Updated - - -

You could have continued to pursue women but have chosen not to do so.

It would have been futile.

 

[laughing dog]

Doesn't sound like monopolizing.

It can, depending on the situation.

It would have been futile.

With that expectation, it probably would be futile. But that still makes it your choice.

 

[Toni]

Well, if that's the actual reason then the professor was in the wrong. If the topic was rape and his comments were on topic, then if other people are uncomfortable with differing views on the topic of rape then they should not be involved in classes which discuss rape.

Not if one student--any student--was monopolizing the classroom discussion or dominating the discussion excessively. This would be true of any of the students was dominating discussion with any other point of view. So, if another student wanted to spend hours pontificating about how the patriarchy was promoting the rape of women, then I would find that to be also inappropriate. Particularly when asked to cease.


For what it is worth, I have been in class with a student who truly believed that he had the right to dominate classroom discussion. In this particular case, it was not anything that could be considered even remotely political as this was in an advanced chemistry class. It was more along the lines of wishing to take classroom lecture time to 'discuss' or in reality, insist that the professor go into great detail about what points of any particular journal article that had struck this student's fancy the professor agreed with or disagreed with and why. The articles were, in a broad sense, related to the coursework but these 'discussions' were not and would have potentially been appropriate in perhaps a different kind/different level of class although I highly doubt any professor would have had any patience with this particular student's nonsense. If the student had been more pleasant, it might have been more tolerable and even appropriate in the right setting. It did not help that this particular student was convinced that he--as an undergraduate-- was more knowledgeable than any of the professors holding Ph.D.s and more intelligent than anyone else. The professor had to shut him down because it was taking up too much class time and eventually had to shut him down preemptively at the beginning of any attempt by this student to 'discuss' topics he felt were interesting. Because it was not a large university and we were all upper classmen, I knew that there were variations of the same things attempted by this same student in each of his classes.

As a student sitting in class with this clown, I felt he was wasting my time and money and interfering with my education. I wasn't alone: he was rather infamous. Students would groan when they learned he was in their section.

 

[RavenSky]

The other thing, somebody complained that the women but not the men get a fair deal whatever happens, i.e. that even if the date goes awry and there isn't going to be any smooching nor a second date, she's at least got a free meal while he ends up paying two meals for nought: That seems to go contrary to what little I believe I've picked up about 21st century North American (or 1960s European) dating conventions. Isn't that kind of situation exactly when women will insist on paying their part of the bill even where conventions would otherwise dictate that the man pays? Isn't that even why some men positively insist on paying the bill because they interpret any suggestion on her side to go dutch as a put-down?

Those two women who engage in dating for the sole purpose of getting free restaurant meals prove the opposite.

No, actually two women out of millions, one of whom I already showed was purposely creating an outrageous blog in order to get rich and famous like her male counterpart did, doesn't prove anything except your own bias.

 

[Toni]

But that's only Jaguar drivers.

Occasionally, someone doesn't realize that a planned outing was actually a date. I've known people that this happened to, actually. And once it was even me:

Actually what caused me to give up dating for good was something like this.

Funny enough, everyone I know who drives a Jag is an Asian woman...Now, that's only two but still....

It's too bad that that situation caused you to give up dating altogether.

The reality for me is that most of my dating life after high school was pretty informal. It was a rare thing when someone called up another person and invited them to a movie or dinner. Usually, it was simply a case of people hanging out and someone asking if anyone was going to see "some movie title" and people saying yeah or nah and sometimes people arranged themselves in couples and sometimes not. Which left some room for ambiguity and hurt feelings, yes, but also left lots of room to save face if it became apparent that the person you were crushing on was not interested. Because it was just hanging out and not a 'date.'

I know that sometimes people do ask explicitly: Would you like to go with me to the concert? As a date. That way there is no ambiguity.

I will say that sometimes hanging out turned into more. Sometimes unexpectedly.

 

[RavenSky]

Quote Originally Posted by RavenSky View Post
What I found most interesting about the first link and the last is that it was mainly men saying men should pay.

Why do you think that is? Do they think (probably rightly) that women are more likely to put out if they pay?

Anyone who thinks that way is likely communicating that attitude and is unlikely to get the date in the first place.

No. The two are unrelated in most people's minds (and should be unrelated in everyone's minds).

Regardless who pays for drinks, dinner, movies - the point is to enjoy each other's company. No one is paying for companionship or for sex.

Maybe the two are considered "unrelated" not because they are truly unrelated but because people are uncomfortable with admitting the transactional nature of mainstream dating and club/bar scene even to themselves. Doth protest too much and all that.

If you do conditional probability where S is probability of sex and P is paid for a woman's drink or date then if S|P > S|_P it would show that they are definitely related. If they were unrelated you'd expect S|P == S|_P == S.

Derec, you need to get away from the MRA websites. They are rotting your brain. Seriously. I don't want to make this about you but you freely admit that you don't even try to date any more yet you pretend like you know what every woman currently dating is thinking. Wake up, dude! Most women do NOT expect the man to always pay, and sure as hell don't "put out" in exchange for dinner.

As for your little attempt at a put down with the "doth protest too much"... again indicative of your clearly and continuously transmitted bad attitude/opinion about women. THAT is what women are picking up on, Derec. THAT is why you are not getting dates. But enough about you. Here is the real world:

There is a dating website wherein each person answers a series of questions that are available for others to see. One of the questions is "When the bill arrives, who should pay?". I looked through probably around 50 - 75 guys - every single one of them said they had to pay. Some even said it was "very important" that they pay. Not even a single guy said that the woman should pay, or that it depends on the situation. I will grant that I was looking at profiles for men 45 - 65. Perhaps some younger men would have had a different answer. I would have also loved to sign in as a male looking for a woman just to see what the women's profiles said, but cookies...

 

[Jokodo]

The other thing, somebody complained that the women but not the men get a fair deal whatever happens, i.e. that even if the date goes awry and there isn't going to be any smooching nor a second date, she's at least got a free meal while he ends up paying two meals for nought: That seems to go contrary to what little I believe I've picked up about 21st century North American (or 1960s European) dating conventions. Isn't that kind of situation exactly when women will insist on paying their part of the bill even where conventions would otherwise dictate that the man pays? Isn't that even why some men positively insist on paying the bill because they interpret any suggestion on her side to go dutch as a put-down?

Those two women who engage in dating for the sole purpose of getting free restaurant meals prove the opposite.

No, they don't. That's two individuals who appear to be getting away with breaking conventions in a way that's blatant enough to warrant being reported in the media. Saying this proves the opposite is like saying that a single guy bragging about averaging 90 mph on the highway from Denver, Colorado to Kansas City without being caught proves that speed limits aren't being enforced.