[papsosouid]

>Instead of blindly blaming feminists (without actually understanding what most feminists actually stand for) for them being on the marketplace

Why do discussions like this always get such ridiculous strawman arguments tossed around? Nobody is blaming feminists. People are pointing out that the vocal, hateful group of internet "feminists" constantly claim they are against sexism in all forms, and thus men's rights advocacy should not exist and those people should just be feminists. But in reality, when obvious sexism like this happens, those same "feminists" do not speak out against it.

[mnicole]

"Feminist" found count - 41. "Feminism" found count - 13. "WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS NOW?!" was one of the top comments when this post was on the front page a few hours ago and helped set the stage for the continuing commentary.

The uproar in this thread is over placing inappropriate blame on people that neither asked for nor made this app. As Stavros said above, the company is primarily male and this aspect of the app was a last-minute pivot he hadn't heard of before he left the company.

Now look at how HN handled the same type of app for men -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5087859. Seems to be a lot less gender-blaming/misplaced fear going around there.

A better way to handle something like this is to shut down the very notion of it and do what was necessary to tell developers and distributors that this is not acceptable, like the thread linked above did. Instead, it turned into a hateful, woman-bashing array of bruised egos and hurt butts over what women you'd probably be smart enough not to date in the first place had to say about you.

[papsosouid]

>"Feminist" found count - 41. "Feminism" found count - 13. "WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS NOW?!" was one of the top comments

I'm not sure how you could misunderstand my post as it was quite clear. I know people mentioned feminists. Yes, they say things like "WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS NOW?!" just like I said. That is not blaming feminists for the creation of the app, which is what you claimed, and what I very clearly and explicitly responded to.

>The uproar in this thread is over placing inappropriate blame on people that neither asked for nor made this app

No it is not. Asking why feminists aren't speaking out against something is not blaming them for the creation of that thing.

[mnicole]

Are you a feminist? Are you voicing your opinion? Then yes, feminists are speaking out. I don't know what this place expects; a story comes out and within hours members of this community decide that not a group isn't "doing their job" because they're personally not seeing enough outrage to satisfy them and prove the group is worthy of their support. As linked in other comments, plenty are.

Yet many of people come into these threads with the intent to argue with those whom they inherently believe will approve of an app like this because their misguided thought-process has them thinking the majority of feminists would praise it. They're quick to get mad at women, not at the developers or the mindset that this is okay. They're quick to complain at a movement for not doing enough in 24 hours, when we're all a part of it.

Not only that, but the current top comments here are complaining about how women abuse their "privilege" by calling men they deem unworthy of their time "creepy" and have decided to pile on needlessly to the idea that everyday interactions are going to land them with such a title. Again, there are very few women on HN alone, no less those willing to engage with people who honestly think that this is standardized practice for +/- 50% of the population, thus leaving dissenting opinions in the dust and piling on one-off anecdotes as some sort of social proof that they're right. How is that benefitting anyone?

This is not the first women's-issue thread in which I've seen you (and others here) personally go out of your way to talk without actually having anything to say. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here, but it isn't conveying anything other than you are arguing to argue.

[papsosouid]

>I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here

That is clear from the content of your post. The question is, why are you so unsure. It is very simple, and I made it very clear. Twice in fact. You said that people here are blaming feminists for the creation of the app. I said that is false. That's it. That is the whole thing. I do not see how you can have such a hard time understanding such a very simple statement.

[crux_]

Men's rights advocacy is, as a movement, pretty much the same thing as the whole "war on Christmas" crap that comes up on right wing TV every year.

It has no legitimacy because it's not legitimate.

Instead it is largely the same old prejudices, finding renewed strength under a thin mask of collective victimhood, desperately clung to.

[papsosouid]

Did you reply to the wrong post by accident or something? I was asking about the motivation behind strawman arguments, not requesting /b/ tier trolling.

[crux_]

Just because you have no response to something doesn't make it trolling.

The men's rights movement as it is should not exist. Not because male inequality is covered by feminist ideals, though it is, but because the "men's rights" movement is largely nothing more than a pretext for men to openly and self-righteously flaunt their anti-woman beliefs.

[papsosouid]

>Just because you have no response to something doesn't make it trolling.

Certainly not. Posting deliberately inflammatory nonsense is however. Especially when posting it as a complete non-sequitur reply to an entirely unrelated post. Doubly so when you then proceed to act like a response is warranted, and double down on the random nonsense.

[crux_]

The post I replied to was, in part, a (poorly worded) justification of the need for "men's rights advocates," and that is the part I chose to reply to.

If you're angered by my disagreement, it's not because I'm being inflammatory. I have not engaged in the name-calling you have, nor have I tried to undermine your posts by pretending to be unable to understand them. I have simply stated my honest opinion.

Perhaps you really do have trouble understanding what I'm communicating; if so, my condolences.

But it's more likely that you're simply unprepared for direct challenges, so you avoid the topics at hand and try to score points via misdirection.

[papsosouid]

>The post I replied to was, in part, a (poorly worded) justification of the need for "men's rights advocates

No, it was not. I said nothing about men's rights, you simply assume that I must be an MRA because I disagreed with something you perceive as feminist. Just like MRAs assume I am a feminist when I disagree with something they say.

>If you're angered by my disagreement

Why do you think I am angered? And you have not expressed disagreement, your post literally had nothing to do with anything I said. You posted a complete non-sequitur, which you know is deliberately inflammatory, under the assumption that I am someone who will be offended by it. That is the very definition of trolling, even if your assumption is incorrect.