4 ms·
That language. Talking about relationships in pseudo-Darwinian terms is something that comes out of the pickup artist community. Especially the bit where you u
by bunderbunder 10y ago
That language. Talking about relationships in pseudo-Darwinian terms is something that comes out of the pickup artist community.
Especially the bit where you use that jargon to dehumanize women by reducing their feelings to a set of base instincts.
- brokenmachine 10y ago>Talking about relationships in pseudo-Darwinian terms is something that comes out of the pickup artist community. You do realize that what Darwin is known for is discussing mating behaviour and natural selection, don't you? Or do you think that is not relevant because humans are not animals but special snowflakes, carried down on the wings of angels? I'm not the OP, but I would say that kind of language is exactly what one would use in order to try to explain exactly what really motivates humans, beyond some ephemeral idea that our actions are based on "feelings", with no deeper interest in understanding of what might be the basis for those feelings. And since you brought up dehumanizing (which I don't agree this is, BTW): If that is dehumanizing, would such a description not also dehumanize men, who are described as mindlessly dedicating a significant portion of their life to acquiring the money with which to impress? It's a pity that such behaviour would have no effect because women are humans with unfathomable and intractable feelings... Or can we just admit that some women might be impressed by material wealth, making them precisely human, because some humans may be impressed by material wealth?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]