This week in feminism: The Hottest Thing a Man Can Do Is Not Be a Jerk About Astrology

[ruby sparks]

... when the moon is FULL, it has an increased gravitational pull on human brains.

Kieth, that part is actually true. Worse, your denial of it marks you out as toxically masculine.

Something I had often guessed, despite what I might call your typically feminine excellent sense of humour.

 

[skepticalbip]

... when the moon is FULL, it has an increased gravitational pull on human brains.

Kieth, that part is actually true. Worse, your denial of it marks you out as toxically masculine.

Something I had often guessed, despite what I might call your typically feminine excellent sense of humour.

Actually it's not although at full and new moon the combined tidal gravitation effect of the Sun and the Moon add to give the maximum tidal effect. There is a neap tide at half Moon because the Sun's and Moon's pull is at ninety degrees to each other rather than adding.

 

[ruby sparks]

... when the moon is FULL, it has an increased gravitational pull on human brains.

Kieth, that part is actually true. Worse, your denial of it marks you out as toxically masculine.

Something I had often guessed, despite what I might call your typically feminine excellent sense of humour.

Actually it's not although at full and new moon the combined tidal gravitation effect of the Sun and the Moon add to give the maximum tidal effect. There is a neap tide at half Moon because the Sun's and Moon's pull is at ninety degrees to each other rather than adding.

Typical Taurean pedant.

 

[rousseau]

Area Man Knows a Thing or Two About Astrology

 

[Toni]

Guys, the issue isn't whether astrology is or is not to be taken seriously. It's about whether or not men should respect women who have interests that the men do not share or even find foolish.

It is about whether or not men are wise to judge women for believing or pursuing an interest in something that they themselves do not believe and are not interested in.

If you think that the devotion of some women to discussions about astrology is absurd and beyond the pale, please consider the on radio discussions of play by play Packers games by Packers fans. Or whatever your particular sport of interest is. Most women who are not similarly inclined to follow the Packers (and many, many ARE inclined to follow the Packers) do not enter into conversations with men to deride the male Packers' fans obsession. A few will but not smart ones. They make talk amongst themselves or amongst fellow non-devotees of the Packers about how stupid and obsessed Packers fans are but they don't do it at the dinner table with their Packers fan partner. Even I can feign interest in football (American or classic) and baseball and hockey. Surely you are all at least as smart as I am.

 

[Metaphor]

Not a publication that is going to be taking a deep dive into the subject. They had to boil it down to dating advice for their readers to even give it a passing look, but I am surprised the editors of a publication that caters to affluent men would let something like this through. I would think that it would lose them some readers. How did you find this rag, anyway?

I only came upon it today, it was linked from something I was watching on YouTube. I haven't read any other articles in it but the links within the body of the quoted article appear to indicate that the magazine has published essays of a similar nature.

Though I'm not surprised it's woke. GQ has gone woke, and that is a magazine with the same target market as this one.

Okay, this is where I have to disagree with you. Please do your best to convince me that belief in astrology is "woke".

Astrology isn't. The article in the OP, however, is buzzword bingo feminism (though, perhaps surprisingly, contains nothing particularly intersectional, so I imagine the white woman who wrote the article was unable to get an intersectional angle).

 

[Metaphor]

Guys, the issue isn't whether astrology is or is not to be taken seriously. It's about whether or not men should respect women who have interests that the men do not share or even find foolish.

It is about whether or not men are wise to judge women for believing or pursuing an interest in something that they themselves do not believe and are not interested in.

If you think that the devotion of some women to discussions about astrology is absurd and beyond the pale, please consider the on radio discussions of play by play Packers games by Packers fans.

I don't think the American public was happy to learn that the Reagans were turning to astrology during the time Ronald was the most powerful man in the world.

If people had instead learned the Reagans were Packers fans, I don't think they'd have been as widely ridiculed, because being a Packers fan does not entail listening to a charlatan to make national security decisions.

Or whatever your particular sport of interest is. Most women who are not similarly inclined to follow the Packers (and many, many ARE inclined to follow the Packers) do not enter into conversations with men to deride the male Packers' fans obsession. A few will but not smart ones. They make talk amongst themselves or amongst fellow non-devotees of the Packers about how stupid and obsessed Packers fans are but they don't do it at the dinner table with their Packers fan partner. Even I can feign interest in football (American or classic) and baseball and hockey. Surely you are all at least as smart as I am.

No, you should not feign interest in something that doesn't interest you. You can be polite about it, though.

 

[skepticalbip]

Guys, the issue isn't whether astrology is or is not to be taken seriously. It's about whether or not men should respect women who have interests that the men do not share or even find foolish.

It is about whether or not men are wise to judge women for believing or pursuing an interest in something that they themselves do not believe and are not interested in.

If you think that the devotion of some women to discussions about astrology is absurd and beyond the pale, please consider the on radio discussions of play by play Packers games by Packers fans.

I don't think the American public was happy to learn that the Reagans were turning to astrology during the time Ronald was the most powerful man in the world.

If people had instead learned the Reagans were Packers fans, I don't think they'd have been as widely ridiculed, because being a Packers fan does not entail listening to a charlatan to make national security decisions.

Or whatever your particular sport of interest is. Most women who are not similarly inclined to follow the Packers (and many, many ARE inclined to follow the Packers) do not enter into conversations with men to deride the male Packers' fans obsession. A few will but not smart ones. They make talk amongst themselves or amongst fellow non-devotees of the Packers about how stupid and obsessed Packers fans are but they don't do it at the dinner table with their Packers fan partner. Even I can feign interest in football (American or classic) and baseball and hockey. Surely you are all at least as smart as I am.

No, you should not feign interest in something that doesn't interest you. You can be polite about it, though.

That struck me as rather odd too. Is Toni claiming that women prefer to be patronized by men rather than men having an honest conversation with them?

 

[Toni]

I don't think the American public was happy to learn that the Reagans were turning to astrology during the time Ronald was the most powerful man in the world.

If people had instead learned the Reagans were Packers fans, I don't think they'd have been as widely ridiculed, because being a Packers fan does not entail listening to a charlatan to make national security decisions.



No, you should not feign interest in something that doesn't interest you. You can be polite about it, though.

That struck me as rather odd too. Is Toni claiming that women prefer to be patronized by men rather than men having an honest conversation with them?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that you should be polite--and respectful when someone is expressing interest in something that you are not.

The OP is pretty patronizing as are virtually all of the responses from male posters.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't think the American public was happy to learn that the Reagans were turning to astrology during the time Ronald was the most powerful man in the world.

If people had instead learned the Reagans were Packers fans, I don't think they'd have been as widely ridiculed, because being a Packers fan does not entail listening to a charlatan to make national security decisions.



No, you should not feign interest in something that doesn't interest you. You can be polite about it, though.

That struck me as rather odd too. Is Toni claiming that women prefer to be patronized by men rather than men having an honest conversation with them?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that you should be polite--and respectful when someone is expressing interest in something that you are not.

The OP is pretty patronizing as are virtually all of the responses from male posters.

There is nothing impolite in having an honest open conversation. I would consider pretense of interest and agreement to be dishonest and manipulative.

 

[Toni]

Guys, the issue isn't whether astrology is or is not to be taken seriously. It's about whether or not men should respect women who have interests that the men do not share or even find foolish.

It is about whether or not men are wise to judge women for believing or pursuing an interest in something that they themselves do not believe and are not interested in.

If you think that the devotion of some women to discussions about astrology is absurd and beyond the pale, please consider the on radio discussions of play by play Packers games by Packers fans.

I don't think the American public was happy to learn that the Reagans were turning to astrology during the time Ronald was the most powerful man in the world.

If people had instead learned the Reagans were Packers fans, I don't think they'd have been as widely ridiculed, because being a Packers fan does not entail listening to a charlatan to make national security decisions.

Or whatever your particular sport of interest is. Most women who are not similarly inclined to follow the Packers (and many, many ARE inclined to follow the Packers) do not enter into conversations with men to deride the male Packers' fans obsession. A few will but not smart ones. They make talk amongst themselves or amongst fellow non-devotees of the Packers about how stupid and obsessed Packers fans are but they don't do it at the dinner table with their Packers fan partner. Even I can feign interest in football (American or classic) and baseball and hockey. Surely you are all at least as smart as I am.

No, you should not feign interest in something that doesn't interest you. You can be polite about it, though.

I was fairly disgusted by the Reagans in general and their (or Nancy's) intertest in astrology was icing on a shit cake, as far as I was concerned. But not at all surprising.

I never suggested anyone should feign interest in something that does not interest you. Politeness is a good way to handle the issue. So is being interested in the person or the person's interest in whatever non-interesting subject that is being contended.

I don't give a rat's ass about the Packers and I find most Packers' fans to be far less interesting than the Packers or football. However, it is interesting to me to learn WHY people love the Packers or football or baseball or poker or whatever.

For those men who are interested in a woman who is interested in astrology (or knitting or classical music or whatever): Either pick a different woman to be interested in or find out why the person is interested in astrology or knitting or classical music or whatever. Being derisive, even if you feel that derision is deserved, is not likely to let you get closer in any way to the person of interest.

 

[TSwizzle]

My zodiac sign is Sagittarius, half man, half horse. Licensed to shit in the street.

I’ll get my coat.

Courtesy of Billy Connolly.

 

[Metaphor]

Not at all. I'm suggesting that you should be polite--and respectful when someone is expressing interest in something that you are not.

No, you suggested you feign interest in a subject you don't have an interest in, and that that's what men should do.

Well, no. Men shouldn't start relationships with needless little lies. My brother doesn't talk to me about football (soccer), because he knows I'm not interested.

The OP is pretty patronizing as are virtually all of the responses from male posters.

I am not surprised that that is your reaction.

 

[Metaphor]

I was fairly disgusted by the Reagans in general and their (or Nancy's) intertest in astrology was icing on a shit cake, as far as I was concerned. But not at all surprising.

I never suggested anyone should feign interest in something that does not interest you.

Yes you did.

Even I can feign interest in football (American or classic) and baseball and hockey. Surely you are all at least as smart as I am.

Politeness is a good way to handle the issue. So is being interested in the person or the person's interest in whatever non-interesting subject that is being contended.

Well, yes, I think you should be polite, but that cannot extend to 'being interested' in something you are not interested in. You can't choose what to be interested in; it chooses you.

I don't give a rat's ass about the Packers and I find most Packers' fans to be far less interesting than the Packers or football. However, it is interesting to me to learn WHY people love the Packers or football or baseball or poker or whatever.

I can agree that you can be meta-interested in something. For example, many years ago, I asked a group of friends of mine (some who watched sports and some who didn't), what it means to 'follow' a particular sportsball team. How is it that you become a 'fan' of one team versus another? I couldn't figure it out, because I know people follow teams where they have no geographical connection to the team, and in any case the people playing in the team are not from the place the team is named after, etc etc.

But even then, I asked because I was interested in finding out. I couldn't force myself to be interested in finding out if I wasn't.

 

[TSwizzle]

Men shouldn't start relationships with needless little lies. My

LOL !!

 

[Rhea]

Went through the whole thread trying to figure out what this ridiculous article had to do with feminism.

Turns out it’s just another Metaphor thread trying to tie some stupid article to all of feminism. The Metaphor StrawWoman fallacy.


Yawn.

 

[thebeave]

It has always kind of amused me how women seem to be OK with men pretending to be interested in the things they like, even though they know its not really sincere. For example, wives fishing for compliments from their husbands about the new dress she bought, despite knowing her husband doesn't really give a shit about fashion or some random dress. And out of respect, the husband will say, "Yeah, really looks great honey!", so he can move on and go about his day. And she will gush and blush and say, "Oooooo thank you, thank you!! You are such a sweetheart! . Just for that compliment, you will be getting something extra special tonight!" And the guy walks away saying, "happy wife, happy life". it's just always seemed weird to me.

The funniest one I ever heard was a guy who's girlfriend was becoming unhappy that he wasn't sending enough sappy text messages to her during the day. The guy was in IT and was generally constantly busy and under pressure, so couldn't really take the time to do it. So, he made some bot app for his phone that would automatically and at random times during the day, send one of about a hundred prewritten canned messages to her like, "Thinking of you, sweetiepie" or "Can't wait to come home and hold you in my arms". She would then respond back to the texting bot with her own sappy or flirty reply. Finally, after a couple of weeks of this, she caught on somehow, and initially got really angry with him, but then later cooled off, forgave him and asked him to continue with the texting bot, as it still made her feel good regardless even knowing it wasn't coming from his own head and hands.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you should not feign interest in something that doesn't interest you. You can be polite about it, though.

And how does one tell the difference between politeness without interest and feigned interest?

 

[Metaphor]

Went through the whole thread trying to figure out what this ridiculous article had to do with feminism.

Turns out it’s just another Metaphor thread trying to tie some stupid article to all of feminism. The Metaphor StrawWoman fallacy.


Yawn.

Did you read the article?

 

[Metaphor]

No, you should not feign interest in something that doesn't interest you. You can be polite about it, though.

And how does one tell the difference between politeness without interest and feigned interest?

Well, feigned interest involves lying and politeness doesn't.