>So... Oppress women is the solution you are proposing here?
If that's what you want to call shaming them for certain behavior, yes.
>Why have you gendered it at all?
Because women are, on average, different from men, and, on average, exhibit different tendencies. Different measures are needed to push their behaviors to the same point.
>Why do women have to face social stigma and not men?
As I said, a man who has sex with a woman outside of marriage should be pressured to marry her, or in other words, if he doesn't marry her, he should be shamed for it.
Note that I don't think that should apply if he's not the only man that's had sex with her. In that case she is the one that should be the subject of social shaming to discourage other women from following in her path.
>What about gay relationships, presumably you'd apply the same thinking (en route to a marriage or married)?
I don't think homosexual behavior is very relevant to the discussion of men being unable to find suitable wives, but generally speaking, I don't think society should put any effort toward ensuring homosexuals end up in healthy marriages. And if there is any conflict between the interests of homosexuals and the goal of getting normal people in to healthy marriages, the conflict should be resolved in favor of normal people every time.
>What about poly relationships?
I think society should reject polygamous relationships.
>I'm going to assume you mean owes you a supportive, caring, platonic relationship. Eg, two married people support one another to their mutual benefit. I'm going to assume you don't mean to imply your spouse owes you sex.
I mean both. Both are important to the maintenance of most healthy relationships.
Honestly, you not being able to have partner night have to do with you being coercive and potentially abusive partner. It is the way you think about relationships - you want to create set up in which your potential partners are helpless and have no choice. You don't care about how vulnerable to rape or domestic violence it would make them. You don't care about consequences to children.
As in, potential partners are better off single and alone.
Sorry. But I do really find this persons plans highly coercive and abusive. I dont just disagree, I in fact find it abusive and threat.
And it is also true that such setup would make women super vulnerable for rape or sexual abuse and then forced them to marry their rapists. That is exactly how it worked in the past and how it still works in some radical Christian circles.
It would also create environment in which domestic violence would flourish as women were unable to leave as partner starts the abusing.
The whole plan, in multiple comments, is about creating coercive setup that don't care about violence it puts people at risk for.
I agree that the comments were egregious and banned the account. Nonetheless, it's against the site guidelines to feed such comments by replying to them—that just perpetuates flamewars.
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
(Or, if you prefer Old Internet, please don't feed the trolls.)
When they don't get replies and are properly flagged, egregious comments are deprived of oxygen and the fires quickly die out. When they are fed, we end up in various circles of flamewar hell. Such flamewars are a co-creation of the provoker and the provokees. We're trying to avoid that here.
The only egregious thing about my comments is your dislike of the opinions expressed within them. This was not an ideological flamewar. There were no insults being thrown around. Everyone was being respectful. And it was perfectly relevant to the topic of the submission.
You banned my account because you don't like my opinions. It's as simple as that.
I don't care about your opinions (or anyone else's, for that matter) but I do care about users dumping flamebait on HN, like how you want to shame women and whatnot. The issue is what sort of thread such comments will lead to (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). In this case the answer is: extremely bad.
You've been creating accounts to break HN's rules with for a long time now. Would you please stop doing that?
Not that I expect you to care, but I'm not buying it. I was specifically asked what changes I proposed to alleviate the problem discussed in the submission. I gave an answer briefly detailing a system that has been and continues to be used around the world. You don't like that system, so you banned my account.
I never said I wanted to shame women. I said I thought society should do it to alleviate a problem I consider very serious, not because I'm personally enthusiastic about doing it. I think people around here are able to understand the nuance.
>You've been creating accounts to break HN's rules with for a long time now.
If that's what you want to call shaming them for certain behavior, yes.
>Why have you gendered it at all?
Because women are, on average, different from men, and, on average, exhibit different tendencies. Different measures are needed to push their behaviors to the same point.
>Why do women have to face social stigma and not men?
As I said, a man who has sex with a woman outside of marriage should be pressured to marry her, or in other words, if he doesn't marry her, he should be shamed for it.
Note that I don't think that should apply if he's not the only man that's had sex with her. In that case she is the one that should be the subject of social shaming to discourage other women from following in her path.
>What about gay relationships, presumably you'd apply the same thinking (en route to a marriage or married)?
I don't think homosexual behavior is very relevant to the discussion of men being unable to find suitable wives, but generally speaking, I don't think society should put any effort toward ensuring homosexuals end up in healthy marriages. And if there is any conflict between the interests of homosexuals and the goal of getting normal people in to healthy marriages, the conflict should be resolved in favor of normal people every time.
>What about poly relationships?
I think society should reject polygamous relationships.
>I'm going to assume you mean owes you a supportive, caring, platonic relationship. Eg, two married people support one another to their mutual benefit. I'm going to assume you don't mean to imply your spouse owes you sex.
I mean both. Both are important to the maintenance of most healthy relationships.