= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Adele_L comments on LW Women Entries- Creepiness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (472)
Really? I think a big no would be a lot more off-putting than a small one. I can totally see myself bulldozing small nos and then taking a big one seriously.
Further, what the socially privileged think of as a "small no" is not recognizable as such to the socially unprivileged.
From the outside, "creepiness" looks a lot like "ew, he doesn't play the social game on my level and should therefore be reviled and shamed". I understand that there's more to it, but that particular aspect looks downright evil.
I used to offer numbers, but the incentives are such that I deliberately switched with exactly this in mind. If you want to fix this, give a fake number, say no, or somehow work on the incentives.
The other examples are worrying, but I'm unsure what to do with this information. I'm already afraid of women, how does it help me to know that some men aren't and it causes problems?
More generally:
I occasionally have these big updates where I realize that women aren't worth associating with. This post caused another one:
I am very sympathetic; I hate the idea of making someone else have a bad time; it's horrifying to me. Then all I hear about the internal experience of women is that interacting with men is uncomfortable and even frightening. This makes interacting with women quite distressing. I am constantly worrying about overstepping boundaries, interpreting subtle cues, etc, even when she's clearly responsive and wants it. So point one: interacting with women can sometimes be actively unpleasant.
I am attracted to women, which makes them seem far more interesting than they actually are. I have a very hard time disengaging from friendship with a woman even when it's clear it's no longer worth it for me. It also makes it hard to interact with women on an intellectual or friendship level without creepily dragging it towards sexuality like some kind of subhuman. I'm starting to really hate this. Maybe If I were asexual I could be friends with women. Point two and three: Women seem more interesting than they are, and I can't trust myself around women.
The worst part is that for whatever reason (bad socialization, lower intelligence variance), there are few women among the types of people I'm interesting in. Not much to say about this. Point four: there is a lower prior on a woman actually being interesting.
So summing up:
So, can someone remind me why I should go out of my way to adjust myself to be women-compatible? I've already given up on 95% of people, why not another 50% (actually more like 10%) of the remainder if it saves me trouble and improves my life?
Thanks for prompting this chain of thought. My life probably just got better.
Sorry for the horrible sexist rant. I'm going to go quit the internet for a while...
I don't think this is usually the case, especially not within the context of rationalist gatherings. I have had several interactions with people on (or who seem to be on) the Autism spectrum, and I have not ever felt creeped on by them, and most of my interactions have been positive with them. While it seems that low status men are more likely to act creepily, I do not automatically feel this way about someone who is low status, and I do feel creeped out by high status people who disrespect my boundaries. So I don't think this is a significant part of creepiness.
As a woman, I would rather avoid people like you anyway. Hope that helps.
Why is this? Is it because he admitted to being socially low status?
I did no such thing! I expressed sympathy with socially unprivileged men, and complained about how my interactions with women tend to be driven by sexuality rather than friendship.
I'm actually rather high status (eg. everyone shuts up and listens when I talk, and I'm not shy at all.) in the circles I move in.
Sorry about being unclear.
This is generally a status-lowering move. If you can afford that in real life, it could be a counter-signal, but it probably doesn't work online.
If I imagine a similar post in which all references to "women" have been replaced by references to some other group with which I identify more strongly, like "Jews" or "queer men" or "white people," my desire to interact with the hypothetical author of that hypothetical post similarly plunges, to varying degrees.
If the reason for that plunge were the author's admission to low status, it would seem to follow that I could infer the status of various groups in my society from the degree of plunge. I haven't thought too hard about this, but I doubt that would actually work terribly well.
Imagine the "creepiness" question were also coordinated on race; black people come off as creepy, and a black person complains that all the complaints white people make about creepy black people makes them disinclined to try to interact with white people.
Does this change how you regard the hypothetical author?
Do you mean a post that also says the same things about white people that n_s's post says about women (e.g., that the author becomes subhuman around white people, that interacting with white people is distressing, that white people are less interesting than black people and that the author's occasional belief otherwise is simply an illusion they ought to adjust for)?
Yeah, I expect that would change how I regard the author. I mean, if nothing else, I'm a white person, and it's difficult to listen to that sort of thing without having an emotional reaction to it.
Or do you just mean a post that says that the complaints of white people about black creepiness make the author disinclined to try to interact with us? I expect that would change how I regard the author less.
The latter is how I interpret nyansandwich's post; it's what it starts with, it's how it justifies the former points, and what it isn't used to justify comes off as something like sour grapes. (How does nyan_sandwich know how interesting women are if he's too nervous to interact with them on a human level?)
Can't really criticize you for taking the more negative interpretation, however, since I do the same thing pretty frequently.
Especially given that the "more negative interpretation" in this case involves treating the author's statements about their experience as accurately describing their experience.
But, sure, if I restrict my attention to only those claims which are somehow justified by the assertion that the complaints of women about male creepiness make the author disinclined to try to interact with women, my reaction to the post is very different.
That said, I'm not sure why I ought to restrict my attention in that way.
FYI, the former "uncharitable" interpretation is correct.
I'm quite sure the creepiness question is coordinated on race. Black men often have a really difficult time hitting on white women without coming off as creepy.
Probably because of wall of text phrased in rather misogynistic terms, (which were not really strictly necessary)
Or perhaps because he is as bitter as quinine?
He's said that he doesn't really enjoy the company of women and that they make him "subhuman." I think that's reason enough to not want to be around him if you're female!
My brain just doesn't wrap around that and find the second sentence true.
You don't believe I have never felt creeped out by an autistic person? Or what?
I apologize, I should have quoted. I was referring to the last couple of sentences.
Sorry, I am still not sure what you mean.