[potatolicious]

Eh, I felt it was accusatory and putting words in my mouth (though I didn't downvote it - I can't, since he replied to me).

He seems to have taken my description of general gender dynamics in online dating to be an endorsement of said gender dynamics. This is in no way true.

He seems to also have taken my description of aggregate gender behavior in huge user bases to indicate specific individual behavior - this is also in no way true. There are plenty of users on both sides who don't subscribe to the larger usage trends, but ultimately the trends are pretty overwhelming.

I for one am all for upending gender roles, but we're talking about how online dating works right now, not how it could hypothetically work in a society where gender roles as we know them didn't exist.

[fubu]

It was the phrase "and this model works". You could have said "and this model is very profitable". But "works" implies correctness and fit for purpose which is seen to me as an endorsement.

[potatolicious]

But yet it works. The tricky thing about gender roles is that while they may not be progressive nor just, much of the participation is voluntary.

There isn't exactly the Gender Role Police sitting around going "NO! SWIPE RIGHT!" "NO, SWIPE LEFT!". These trends are voluntary from the participants.

This may be a bit tragic - i.e., people voluntarily disempowering themselves by reinforcing gender roles that work against them - but yet this happens. En masse even.

"It works" doesn't imply correctness. It just implies that it produces the desired result to a sufficient level of consistency/reliability.

[fubu]

> desired result

For whom does this produce the desired result?

> people voluntarily

Which people?

Again with the generalizations that lead to stereotyping.

Beyond that, you must realize that a platform(environment) can reinforce and even encourage a particular behavior. To say that they are all 100% rational actors is not accurate. Research has shown many times that people react differently based upon their environment.

One may see Tindr's popularity happening for a different reason. Dating sites are a network effect business like no other. Tindr was very effective at their initial marketing push at colleges. Could it actually be Tindr's very effective network building and marketing at the early stages that has to do with it's success? Could it be that Tindr is closer to how college age daters work? And once the network effect took hold it spread to other demographics the mechanics were not the reason for it's growth? I'm sure some will agree that much of OkCupid's early success had to do with the fact that people just thought the quizes were fun. Plenty of people go to clubs with music they don't really like because they want to meet new people and that is where the people are right now.

All of a sudden we might discover a situation where a platform is reinforcing gender stereotypes proactively. In many cases against the wishes of non trivial portions of their users simply because that is where the people are? This reinforcement can actually change the views of people outside an environment once they have spent significant time inside of it.

Unfortunately, all of this is a lot more complicated just like stereotypes are. And is why we should take a step back and be careful when saying things that might reinforce them.