"Where men might take being vetoed personally, women don’t see it that way. Women see it as an act of self-preservation and safety in the face of reality, given the nature of a large portion of men presently. Most will not want to keep that raincoat on for longer than absolutely necessary. With this in mind, until much, much more is unco…
"Where men might take being vetoed personally, women don’t see it that way. Women see it as an act of self-preservation and safety in the face of reality, given the nature of a large portion of men presently. Most will not want to keep that raincoat on for longer than absolutely necessary. With this in mind, until much, much more is uncovered about how this vaccine impacts lives, the decision ‘not to date’ vaccinated men remains steadfast for numerous unvaccinated women. "
This statement negates so-called relative privation by generalizing negatively about male emotionalism while implying that women are just being rational. When, ostensibly, the above stated factors would apply for vaxxed/unvaxxed men/women in any analysis regarding dating, this is treated as some sort of women's issue. It is not. Just by using men as contradistinctions the above dating analysis, the relative privation argument goes into doubt. If you swapped men and women in the above paragraph minus or including the contrived contradistinctions, the exact same points would be equally or more valid.
More valid dating contradistinctions are ignored. In general, women are the more neurotic gender and more inclined to over-estimate and over-react to perceived threats, often irrationally. Even wikipedia is forced to admit this. The karen meme exists for a reason and is pretty well documented on the video sites as are male injury-risking behaviors. The percentage of vaccinated women, especially early on in the scamdemic, was far higher than the male percentage. Look at the videos of the early lines for vaccination when the vaccines were being pitched as somewhat unavailable. Perhaps they had more time to wait in line? Men became vaccinated in numbers approaching, never equalling, female numbers when it became a condition of employment. The men who refused vaccination often risked more than just themselves by remaining unvaxxed. These ignored points demonstrate the feminist nature of the article and a bias probably designed to elevate the esteem of uneducated women in the dating market. Consequently, relative privation vanishes in the contrived contradistinctions of a puff-piece written for your self-interested audience. Possibly, her motives were even darker in that this was an attempt to drive a greater wedge between the sexes. In other words, she was writing for the emotional elevation her audience and not from a personal perspective that ignores more pressing vax issues for women such as: unvaxxed men may recognize that many vaxxed women were not driven by the same necessities as men to the vax and that a possible driver for getting the vax provides a strong indicator of the neurotic nature of the prospective date.
And due to his willingness to risk himself for his family to keep his job, the vaxxed male is basically dealing with the same neuroticism that caused many vaxxed women to get vaxxed in the first place. He may find that he is dealing with a woman (excused in spades in the above article) whose neuroticism is being differently focused. He may be better off without this one... In other words, the result of male good intentions must deal with a new expression of existing female emotional frailties.
But, for the female perspective, an unvaxxed woman will definitely be dating up with an unvaxxed male.
@NotAChristian, thank you, very well put. As we get closer to the poop hitting the fan, the women will show their self-preservation by latching on to the first man that comes their way.
"Where men might take being vetoed personally, women don’t see it that way. Women see it as an act of self-preservation and safety in the face of reality, given the nature of a large portion of men presently. Most will not want to keep that raincoat on for longer than absolutely necessary. With this in mind, until much, much more is uncovered about how this vaccine impacts lives, the decision ‘not to date’ vaccinated men remains steadfast for numerous unvaccinated women. "
This statement negates so-called relative privation by generalizing negatively about male emotionalism while implying that women are just being rational. When, ostensibly, the above stated factors would apply for vaxxed/unvaxxed men/women in any analysis regarding dating, this is treated as some sort of women's issue. It is not. Just by using men as contradistinctions the above dating analysis, the relative privation argument goes into doubt. If you swapped men and women in the above paragraph minus or including the contrived contradistinctions, the exact same points would be equally or more valid.
More valid dating contradistinctions are ignored. In general, women are the more neurotic gender and more inclined to over-estimate and over-react to perceived threats, often irrationally. Even wikipedia is forced to admit this. The karen meme exists for a reason and is pretty well documented on the video sites as are male injury-risking behaviors. The percentage of vaccinated women, especially early on in the scamdemic, was far higher than the male percentage. Look at the videos of the early lines for vaccination when the vaccines were being pitched as somewhat unavailable. Perhaps they had more time to wait in line? Men became vaccinated in numbers approaching, never equalling, female numbers when it became a condition of employment. The men who refused vaccination often risked more than just themselves by remaining unvaxxed. These ignored points demonstrate the feminist nature of the article and a bias probably designed to elevate the esteem of uneducated women in the dating market. Consequently, relative privation vanishes in the contrived contradistinctions of a puff-piece written for your self-interested audience. Possibly, her motives were even darker in that this was an attempt to drive a greater wedge between the sexes. In other words, she was writing for the emotional elevation her audience and not from a personal perspective that ignores more pressing vax issues for women such as: unvaxxed men may recognize that many vaxxed women were not driven by the same necessities as men to the vax and that a possible driver for getting the vax provides a strong indicator of the neurotic nature of the prospective date.
And due to his willingness to risk himself for his family to keep his job, the vaxxed male is basically dealing with the same neuroticism that caused many vaxxed women to get vaxxed in the first place. He may find that he is dealing with a woman (excused in spades in the above article) whose neuroticism is being differently focused. He may be better off without this one... In other words, the result of male good intentions must deal with a new expression of existing female emotional frailties.
But, for the female perspective, an unvaxxed woman will definitely be dating up with an unvaxxed male.
@NotAChristian, thank you, very well put. As we get closer to the poop hitting the fan, the women will show their self-preservation by latching on to the first man that comes their way.
Yes Frank, it is a worry for young unclotshotted men, that they will be 'latched on to'.
But, hey, same for young unclotshotted women.
Such a small pool.
@Cairn, Exactly!