For how much you hate her, you are as hell haven’t leveled a single actual point against her other than generic shit talking. Surely you can actually point to specific issues, no?
I’m drawing a compromise with the argument that she makes content that dogwhistles right wing talking points.
Compromise is only valuable when the positions the compromise seeks to find ground between are both equally honest positions. And calling her “right wing dogwhistle content” is anything but. It’s just a dishonest excuse to discredit her for not perfectly riding the approved narrative. And just to add onto it, the guy who posted the video was immediately banned for it. Compromise isn’t the goal it seems. It’s to throw out and discredit dissent.
Leftism isnt an obligation, no, but we are on solarpunk
No, we’re on lemmy.ca. Just because the mod is on solar punk, it doesn’t mean that the community is. And lemmy.ca makes no claims of being a leftist instance, just a Canadian one.
There’s a large portion of the left that just absolutely loathes the idea that someone might not perfectly fall in line, and thus brands everyone who they disagree with as some right wing psyop
It’s like the “have you tried restarting your computer” of dating. It’s the most basic possible piece of advice. To that end, most people have heard it tons of times, especially if they’re in the market for dating advice. It’s not bad advice, just not anything special.
Ultimately it seems like a complicated issue that isn’t going to be fixed with one simple solution
Now this I agree with wholeheartedly. My primary issue with the article is that it takes a grievance mindset rather than a problem solving one. It just reads like the women’s equivalent of some incel rant, in the sense that it externalizes the issue such that it’s always someone else’s responsibility to do something about, which doesn’t help solve anything.
I’m sure there’s people out there that this is genuinely great advice for, but at least from my perspective, it just reads like an extremely long way to say almost nothing. “be out there and be confident” is like the most basic possible dating advice, ever, and is really only useful if you’re completely off track on things. And to some extent, I feel like the article did itself a disservice by making it entirely gender neutral, because like it or not, society still tends to be highly gendered, and the problems people face in dating tend to be different along gendered lines.
The problem here isn’t that they have unattainable standards, it’s that a lot of men aren’t putting in effort to meet those basic standards, for whatever reason.
Are men obligated to meet those standards if they have no interest in doing so? Men don’t just exist for the sake of giving women someone to date, after all. And while the article was (I hesitate to say intentionally) vague about specifics, one thing it mentioned multiple times was holding a college degree. It’s hardly what I’d call “basic standards”, considering it takes a huge amount of time, and a fair deal of money to achieve. Of all the men I’ve talked with, myself included, that “standard” doesn’t seem to be prevalent, with the closest thing being “I guess it would be cool”.
At what point does the principle of “if everywhere you go smells like shit” start applying to these women who date but seem to never find a man that meet their standards? It only seems reasonable if nobody meets the standards, that the standards may be a major part of the issue.
And I don’t mean to say that women should just settle for men they don’t like, but “just stay single” is always an option, one men are told repeatedly whenever they struggle with relationships.