[peterbessman]

I think the title indicates that you are less a member of their target audience than you might have suspected. It was pretty funny and effective to me?

And to the poster who called that "mysogyny"...really? Hatred of women? All women? Not just the ugly ones who screw up your attempts to get with the hot ones? And hate? A little strong.

This article is about how yahoo is pitiable, and something you don't want to associate with. Kinda like ugly girls at dances.

Reality is cruel. Mea culpa.

[ericabiz]

"Hatred of women? All women? Not just the ugly ones who screw up your attempts to get with the hot ones?"

You know, it honestly didn't occur to me that the title of this article could be construed as misogynous. But your comment...that type of comment is why I hate the tech industry sometimes.

[peterbessman]

I can understand not liking that attitude, but that's as much Jersey Shore as it is anything else. It's not particular to the tech industry, it's not even predominantly in the tech industry. Take that comment I made, shop it around to 10 random techies, and then 10 random stock brokers on wall street. Which of the two groups do you expect it to resonate more strongly with?

Reiterated and refined: that comment is neither in poor taste, nor indicative of an attitude particular to the tech industry. It is not in poor taste because (I take this a priori) TechCrunch does not target an audience offended by remarks like that. And it is not indicative of an attitude particular to the tech industry because there are many other industries where that attitude will, on average, resonate more strongly (again, a priori).

[stcredzero]

It is not in poor taste because (I take this a priori) TechCrunch does not target an audience offended by remarks like that.

So, the logic is that if the target audience is sufficiently horrible, anything can still be in the bounds of good taste, just not in the bounds of political correctness? By this standard, dive bar rest room stall graffiti comments are not in bad taste.

[peterbessman]

Why not? It's perfectly reasonable to judge the quality of a work by the degree to which it succeeds with its desired audience. To quote Paul Graham:

"Art has a purpose, which is to interest its audience. Good art (like good anything) is art that achieves its purpose particularly well. The meaning of 'interest' can vary."

http://www.paulgraham.com/goodart.html

As to restroom graffiti in a dive bar... what's the problem? If it was in the vatican lavatories, sure, you'd have a case. Where I'm from? Not so much. A lot of joints herebouts have sharpies in the head, should the muse visit you whilst micturating. I guess we're sufficiently horrible. Or awesome.

[drags]

We (i.e. society) have a history of overemphasizing purely genetic characteristics (beauty, birthing of male heirs, etc) when considering the "value" of women. The ugly girl at the dance metaphor seems designed to tap into that strain for some of its resonance.

Ironically, isn't this something MA is implicitly arguing _against_ in the substantive part of the post? That the single quality of price shouldn't be the only thing we consider in acquisition offers? His title metaphor seems at cross-purpose to his content.