Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks

Online Creeps Inspire a Dating App That Hides Women's Pictures 482

HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "Tricia Romano reports at the Seattle Times that Susie Lee and Katrina Hess have developed Siren, a new online dating app designed to protect against men inundating women with messages that are by turns gross, hilarious, objectifying and just plain sad. A 2012 experiment by Jon Millward, a data journalist, found that women were messaged 17 times more than men; the best-looking woman received 536 messages in four months, while the best-looking guy received only 38. Lee hopes to change the nature of the messages and put women in the driver's seat. As online dating options have grown, Lee noticed that her friends' frustration did, too: With every good introduction often came a slew of lewd ones. "I just started looking (at online dating options) and very quickly realized how many things are out there and how immediately my 'creepy meter' went up," Lee says. The free iPhone app, currently launched to a select market in Seattle in August, allows women to peruse men's pictures and their answers to the "Question of the Day" ("You found a magic lamp and get three wishes. What are they?") and view their Video Challenges ("Show us a hidden gem in Seattle"). If a woman is suitably impressed by a man's answers, she can make herself visible to him. Only then can he see what she looks like. "It's a far more thoughtful — and cautious — approach than the one taken by the dating app of the moment, Tinder, which is effectively a "hot or not" game, with little information beyond a few photos, age and volunteered biographical tidbits," writes Romano. "And the implicit notion that it's a "hookup" app can be uncomfortable for some women." OK Cupid's stats as illustrated by co-founder Christian Rudder give another example of how steep the curve is, when it comes to physical attractiveness vs. messages received on online dating sites.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Creeps Inspire a Dating App That Hides Women's Pictures

Comments Filter:
  • How about... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:01PM (#48050101)

    Women just message the men they like instead.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:08PM (#48050201)

      OH MY GOD quit oppressing women you sexist patriarch!

      • Online dating (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fyngyrz ( 762201 )

        You're doing it wrong.

        Not wrong as in "that's wrong to do", but wrong as in "you'll do better with people you interact with in the real world."

        If, of course, you can put the cellphone/iPad/keyboard down for enough minutes to interact with the people around you.

        Online profiles are far more "crafted" than real-world interactions, and real-world interactions provide far more clues when someone is gaming you.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:10PM (#48050235)

      MISOGYNIST!

    • Re:How about... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:17PM (#48050303)

      Women just message the men they like instead.

      That doesn't work, because the women don't want to look "easy". They want the man to do the work.

      But existing dating websites already offer the option of hiding your picture, so this adds nothing new. The problem is that hiding your picture results in far fewer messages, by a factor of eight. I met my wife through match.com (now married for 12 years, with two kids). I never messaged any women that didn't display their pictures. In addition to issues of chemistry/attractiveness, photoless people are more likely to be married or in other relationships.

      • Further, I usually take someone hiding their photos as a sign of insecurity or something to hide. Not that I have to worry about it really, I met my wife the old fashioned way - mutual desperation and booze.
        • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:43PM (#48050615)

          I met my wife the old fashioned way - mutual desperation and booze.

          Bars never worked for me. I don't drink, and I am not interested in desparate drunks. Match.com was great. I met many women, and had a date (or two) almost every weekend for six months. I already knew that my future wife's goal was marriage and kids before I even clicked on her link. We exchanged a few emails, chatted on the phone, and then met two days later. Everything clicked. The only real question was whether we had compatible indentation styles. On the second date, she had her laptop with her, so I asked to see a code sample and take a look at her ~/.indent.pro. Her code was perfect BSD style, like a snippet from from the FreeBSD kernel. We were married eight months later.

          • by fche ( 36607 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:45PM (#48050659)

            "We were married eight months later."

            What took that long? Getting emacs vs. vi settled?

            • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:57PM (#48050829)

              "We were married eight months later."

              What took that long? Getting emacs vs. vi settled?

              No. I use emacs. She uses vi. Who cares? If you share code, and use the same git repository, then a common indentation style is important. Using the same editor is not. The only thing we argue about is which editor the kids will learn.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by scubamage ( 727538 )
            LOL, my wife was actually the roommate of a girl I had dated for about 2 months. I occasionally sent her an IM to check how she was holding up (she has and continues to have a number of major health problems), and she started hinting that her roommate was single. Then one day she just randomly handed the computer over to her roommate. Point taken. So, we met up to see a band, drank, hooked up, and where I really shined was making pancakes the next morning. We've been together ever since. No programming thou
      • The problem is that hiding your picture results in far fewer messages

        Wasn't that the point here? How is that a problem? (Aside from the "I wonder what does he/she have to hide?" questions...)

        • The problem is that hiding your picture results in far fewer messages

          Wasn't that the point here?

          No. The point is to get fewer lewd or undesirable responses, not fewer responses overall. Neither the summary nor TFA claims that only, or even mostly, the "bad" responses were reduced, and there is no reason that I can see why that should be true. In fact, it seems to me that the best guys can afford to be the most choosy, and would be the least likely to click on a profile with no photo. If you really want to just reduce the number of messages, with no regard for quality, then just delete every other

      • Re:How about... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Java Pimp ( 98454 ) <java_pimp@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Thursday October 02, 2014 @05:01PM (#48050875) Homepage

        If I'm understanding correctly, this allows her to view a guy's profile and/or other info (Question of the day) and choose to allow him to see her picture while it is still not visible to everyone else. From what I remember, for other sites you could have a picture everyone could see or no one could see.

        Of course, this gives a guy a bit of an edge since if he stumbles upon her profile and her pic is visible, he knows she's already looked at his profile and she's already somewhat interested.

      • Re:How about... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TheDarkMaster ( 1292526 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @08:13PM (#48052363)
        They want the man to do all the work and assume all the risks involved too, such as (and not limited to) being labeled as scum if you do anything that is not exactly what she wants at the time she wants and how she wants. As I do not want to go to jail because of a woman who decides to end my life just because I have committed the "crime" of say hi (and not be a rich man with luxurious car in the garage), so I prefer to simply keep distance.
      • Well, if I don't see a picture I'll assume she's ugly. In fact, even if I see a nice picture my first suspicion will be that it's an exceptionally good one (the "Myspace angle") and that in reality she's too fat or too skinny and in any case too ugly. And if she's really beautiful, as proven by dozens of hot pictures and thousands of "likes", hearts, or whatever, then it is very likely that she's in the beginning of her 30s, extremely frustrated by men (viz., her own choices based on repeating the same mist

    • Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kielistic ( 1273232 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:29PM (#48050433)

      These women seem frustrated that there are so many men they don't approve of approaching them. Apparently they think continuing to enforce the paradigm of "men must do all the work to gain my favour" is going to fix that.

      • Re:How about... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:53PM (#48050763)

        These women seem frustrated that there are so many men they don't approve of approaching them. Apparently they think continuing to enforce the paradigm of "men must do all the work to gain my favour" is going to fix that.

        ok, so since I used to work on an online dating service, I had a female fake profile in addition to my male fake - I'm male. You would not believe the level of crap some men think is a good idea to send to women, and no, it does not go the other way. This is not about playing hard to get or expecting favors, this is about creeps with very lacking social relationship skills. Even as a man I got mad about "males".

        • Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kielistic ( 1273232 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @05:05PM (#48050923)

          Of course it doesn't go the other way. The messages will essentially only go one way: from men to women. That is backed up even in the summary; women don't send messages so obviously men don't get a lot of creepy or unwanted messages from women.

          Additionally, yes men with low social skills will be on dating apps / web sites. They are still the ones expected to make the first move so they use informal methods like this to test the waters. But they are bad at it so get labelled creepy. They may just seriously not understand social norms and why they are creepy.

          You should also not underestimate the effectiveness of messages that you (or I) would consider outrages. I have seen guys get good responses from messages that I would consider way over the top. I don't understand it but it does seem to be a decent strategy. 9 out of 10 women might hate it but if it gives better results than other methods people are going to use it.

          I wouldn't expect you not to get mad about other males. They are your competition after all.

          • by mjwx ( 966435 )

            Additionally, yes men with low social skills will be on dating apps / web sites. They are still the ones expected to make the first move so they use informal methods like this to test the waters. But they are bad at it so get labelled creepy. They may just seriously not understand social norms and why they are creepy.

            I dont think you quite understand how this works.

            Creep == man I dont want attention from. See aslo: scrub.

            It doesn't matter how polite or socially astute they are. If a woman receives attention from a male they decide is the wrong type, they are a creep regardless of if they sought that kind of attention.

            This is the main reason I've given up on dating in the west. Asian and to a lesser extent Latino women dont have this issue. If an Asian girl doesn't want your attention, she'll be polite about it

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      How about.... when a man wants to send a message to a woman for the first time, first of all they need to spend $10 to buy a "point", the content (with sender and recipient anonymized) get sent to 5 other random men for approval; they will be asked "Is the content appropriate and respectful" Yes/No ?.

      If 3 out of 5 agree, then the voters receives a point. If the Yes' have a plurality, the recipient gets a message, and a chance to report it if lewd. If the recipient thinks the message is OKAY, then t

      • Or the simple option. Allow recipients to rate messages for lewdness/rudeness. People could then filter their messages on the rating of the sender and the sender has no clue what their message rating is.

      • The more barriers you put up for men the less decent men you are going to get. Do you really think good-looking, well-spoken and likable men are going to jump through demeaning hoops just for the privilege of talking to a random girl on the Internet? Any guy that fits those categories is going to look for women where he's not insulted by design. He's probably also got enough experience with women to know that if a girl expects you to play that many games for her she has a very high chance of being an entitl
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:03PM (#48050135)

    My recommendation is take the rejection at face value and in private, instead of meeting up for a date and have the guy run screaming because you're a 450 pound overweight lard-ass

  • by Poorcku ( 831174 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:06PM (#48050181) Homepage
    They are already there (in the dating game). And they were always there.
    • by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbarahudson@NosPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:32PM (#48050473) Journal

      Exactly. And that whole "a lot of them creeps?" Well, there's an old saying, "you have to kiss a lot of frogs to get a prince."

      Also

      allows women to peruse men's pictures and their answers to the "Question of the Day" ("You found a magic lamp and get three wishes. What are they?") and view their Video Challenges ("Show us a hidden gem in Seattle"). If a woman is suitably impressed by a man's answers, she can make herself visible to him. Only then can he see what she looks like. "It's a far more thoughtful — and cautious — approach than the one taken by the dating app of the moment, Tinder, which is effectively a "hot or not" game,

      How is this not a variant of the "hot or not" game? To NOT be a variant, it should allow BOTH sides to see each others pics only after she's decided that she's impressed only by his answers, not his answers and photos.

      • Interesting idea...

        All pictures are hidden by default. Men and women browse each others profiles. When both sides "like" the other profile, they both get to see pictures.

        This may quickly devolve into men "liking" every female profile, but it still forces the woman to be interested in profile content before seeing a photo.

    • by eth1 ( 94901 )

      They are already there (in the dating game). And they were always there.

      Really? The stereotype that women have to wait for men to make the first move puts MEN in the driver's seat. We don't have to deal with constant unwanted advances - we only do the dating thing when *we* want to. If a woman subscribes to that convention, then she has to wait for men she's interested to approach her, while under the same convention, men can pick their target and go for it. How is that putting women in the driver's seat?

      That's why I've never understood why some men whine about "always having t

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Right. And Corporations are not in the driver's seats, when they're hiring.
        People seeking employment have alll the privileges. Corporations are so oppressed.

      • That's why I've never understood why some men whine about "always having to make the first move." It puts us in the driver's seat.

        To continue the stereotypical car analogy here, it puts us in the driver's seat, but it means we get to deal with the rejection when we see someone along the side of the road we want to offer a lift to, and lose big time when we miss seeing the perfect passenger.

        Why is it better to be "in the driver's seat" than to share driving responsibility and expect the woman to stop and offer us a ride if she's interested in doing so?

        Forgetting the analogy -- complaining about "always having to make the first move"

      • That's why I've never understood why some men whine about "always having to make the first move." It puts us in the driver's seat.

        I used to complain about it because I didn't want to be in the driver's seat all the time. I wanted women to approach me as often as I approached them. That's still what I'd want out of dating.

        I've never understood why some men want control all of the time. Give it a rest every now and then.

  • by topham ( 32406 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:08PM (#48050197) Homepage

    The whole dating situation is ridiculous these days. Dozens, or even hundreds of guys email a couple of women and almost none get any response at all; is it any wonder they escalate to crap? A response, positive or negative, is better than no response to a lot of people.

    If you're in the top 20% on looks, congrats. Otherwise: you get treated like shit, whichever side your on.

    • by gizmo2199 ( 458329 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:12PM (#48050265) Homepage
      I think that applies to men more-so than women. Even plain-looking women get a lot of messages on the internet, whereas the man has to be an underwear model to get the same kind of attention.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Otherwise: you get treated like shit, whichever side your on.

      What's an on? I didn't even realize I had one.

    • Dozens, or even hundreds of guys email a couple of women and almost none get any response at all

      When I used match.com, I got a response rate of about 30%. So maybe the problem is with you, not the women.

      Here are a few tips:

      1. Send an individualized response. Mention a few things from her personal profile, and compliment her on something specific.
      2. Include a picture of yourself next to a nice car, or house, dressed well. Men are "shallow" about looks, women are "shallow" about money.
      3. Mention that you like dogs and/or horses.

      • 4. Mention that you have to be at the gym in 26 minutes.

      • by onkelonkel ( 560274 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:33PM (#48050481)

        4. Don't mention that you like dogs and/or horses sauteed with garlic.

      • I used POF. I'm not a great looking guy - but I had a lucrative job, photos in my convertible, photos in a tux, and nothing. Out of messaging scores of women who at least seemed interesting enough to ask out for a drink, I got maybe 2-3 responses, one girl was a mentally troubled asian med student, one girl was fishing for a green card, one ended up being a white trash hoodrat with a police record a mile long. The other responses were usually put downs, or nasty bitchy comments. It worked out in my favor ul
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Dozens, or even hundreds of guys email a couple of women and almost none get any response at all; is it any wonder they escalate to crap?

      Yes it is a wonder. If you don't get a response and your reaction is to escalate to stalking, harassment, gross pictures, that's not a normal or healthy response at all and shows that there's something wrong with you.

      Otherwise: you get treated like shit, whichever side your on.

      "Not getting a response to an unsolicited message" -- this isn't being treated like shit, not at all. If you send out an unsolicited message then you should have ZERO expectation or entitlement of getting a response.

      (I'm male by the way, probably about a 6/10 on hot-or-not, and spent several ye

  • Lol (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:09PM (#48050219)

    As if I'm going to jump through hoops just to get to look at a girl? This starts the relationship out on a bad note -- one where the guy has accepted responsibility for the actions of others and is willing to make sacrifices as a result. This is sexism at its strongest, unless it works in both directions -- ie, no pictures are displayed until a user chooses to present themselves to another.

  • by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:11PM (#48050243)

    Can't women just do this on any other dating site by not having any photos on their profile and sending photos once they've been talking to a man for a while?

    Why would a man join this site compared with dating sites that let him see photos and don't make him jump through silly hoops?

  • Unworkable. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gizmo2199 ( 458329 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:11PM (#48050245) Homepage
    " If a woman is suitably impressed by a man's answers, she can make herself visible to him. "

    It seems pretty unworkable to me. I suppose these women must be a mix of Angelina Jolie/Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawrence, to insist on being anonymous.

    What I don't understand is why would a desirable man put up with all of these games just to view a woman's picture? If a man is attractive enough to get replies and messages from women on online dating sites in general (most men can easily send out hundreds of messages to get only a handful of replies), presumably he's attractive enough to go on other sites that don't make the man jump through these hoops, just to view the woman's picture, let alone go out on a date.
    Which means that the men who are willing to put up with these kinds of hoops wouldn't be attractive to these women in the first place.
  • ...have a "report" system that censures or bans someone after enough negative reports are made about them, either in absolute terms, or in relation to the number of conversations that have an exchange of more than two volleys?

    This doesn't seem like it would be all that hard to fix, without resorting to unusual measures like the ones brought up.
    • Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scubamage ( 727538 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:25PM (#48050391)
      The issue is, you'll start having malevolent users filing false reports against people. "He doesn't look like an underwear model! Ugh! Gross! *complaint filed*" Any guy who doesn't look great has had to deal with this in meatspace - getting a nasty rebuke, getting ignored, getting stared down with that "how dare YOU talk to ME" look just for saying hello. For all of the stereotypes about how men are shallow, women are entirely capable of being far, far more cruel and arrogant about looks.
      • As a short guy how much it sucks to try and date. I'm lucky in that I'm quite tall but man, are women stuck on height. Most women will NOT date a man shorter than them. It is a deal breaker to them for whatever reason. They also seem to feel it is perfectly reasonable, and not just very shallow.

        It really sucks for short guys because at least with looks you can generally do something. While you can't change your looks radically you can lose weight, work out, wear better clothes, etc and improve your looks at

    • Re:Why not... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:28PM (#48050413) Homepage
      Because these systems are built on milking the ugly men who have no real chance of ever doing anything but creeping out women. Banning them removes the sites bread and butter.
      • by TWX ( 665546 )
        Could always shadow-ban them temporarily... That's mean, but might not violate the original terms of service depending on how they're written.
  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:15PM (#48050287) Homepage
    Just look at the replies vs height.

    If you TRULY want to solve the problem of abusive men, then the solution is simple:

    Create a website where the men can NOT make first contact.

    You don't have to require the women to actually write an email - heaven forbid you do that. Just set it up so that the women have to 'wink' (or whatever you want to call it), at the men before the guy can write back.

    This would have several advantages - including saving the men from wasting their time.

    • That is exactly how Tinder works. The men, however, get the same power on Tinder which I think is what these women have the problem with.
      • I've never heard anyone call Tinder a dating app. It's a hookup app. It's about sex. That's it. Of course it's going to be shallow.

        • Lots of people call it a dating app. Including the article and the summary of this very discussion. It is most definitely not "about sex; that's it". It is definitely heavily inspired by hookup culture but if that's all it was used for there wouldn't be so many "Not DTF" (down to fuck) profiles on it.
    • Wouldn't work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:53PM (#48050755)

      It has been tried. A dating site was made where only women could initiate contact. The result? It went nowhere because women wouldn't initiate contact in almost any case. Men couldn't women wouldn't, so it didn't go anywhere.

      The thing is not only do we have a cultural bias that men are supposed to initiate relationships, but the person who initiates puts their emotions on the line, sets themselves up for rejection. Women do not wish to do that by and large, and do not need to since men are very willing to initiate so they just don't.

      Unless we are able to change that, such a site will go nowhere. The vast majority of women will just be unwilling to initiate a relationship and thus the site will wither and die.

  • While im not saying its okay to dig up personal information through google searches and then freaking out the girl by sharing the information the creep dug up, I do find it concerning that she is victim blaming google for finding this information that she was responsible for making public in the first place. Google doesn't make available information that you hadn't posted online in the first place.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Video Challenge: Upload a video of your paycheck.

  • by wcrowe ( 94389 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:30PM (#48050453)

    I haven't been on a dating site for some time since having found someone (not on a dating site, BTW) and taking myself out of the game. But several years ago I was on a couple of dating sites geared specifically towards Christians. I was in my 40's and looking for age-appropriate matches. I try to be as well mannered online as I am face to face, especially on a dating site. I had very little problems getting responses, and what I learned from many of the women I talked to surprised me. A lot of them told me about how lewd and creepy the men were -- and this was supposed to be a Christian dating site! In contrast I always behaved as a gentleman, and in fact, I had to hide my online status sometimes because when I logged on I would get inundated with chat requests.

    Unfortunately I never found anyone who was a great match. Distance was usually a problem. I met someone the traditional way.

    It seems to me that a lot of people cannot handle the anonymity that an online presence provides. This is true, not just of dating sites, but everywhere. There is a tendency to objectify everyone. Men are particularly bad at it, but I've seen women do it too. The thing is, people like to be treated like people. A good rule of thumb is to not say anything to anyone that you wouldn't say within arm's reach.
         

    • While I am sure your politeness helped, the biggest factor was most definitely the age range.
  • by Spy Handler ( 822350 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:33PM (#48050485) Homepage Journal

    than this crap.

    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that dating stopped after the arranged marriage occurred. Back when attraction and love weren't an important component in marriage partner selection, both parties were expected to find those things elsewhere (and typically did).

  • by uCallHimDrJ0NES ( 2546640 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:43PM (#48050621)

    They claim that the best looking man only received 38 messages in four months. That's totally untrue. I received 43 messages.

  • " Tinder, which is effectively a "hot or not" game...And the implicit notion that it's a "hookup" app can be uncomfortable for some women."

    Implicit notion? Thank you Captain Obvious.

    If a woman assumes Tinder is anything but a "hookup" app, then she has just shown me the very reason to avoid her, for my ignorance alarm is blaring. I really don't need to take a look at the intelligence meter or even the rest of the package.

    It's not like our online dating app choices are Tinder and...Tinder.

    And Tinder is used for one thing.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:51PM (#48050743)

    I can report that my findings indicate that the worst-looking guy receives 0 messages in four months.

  • Damn girl (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rinikusu ( 28164 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @04:52PM (#48050747)

    Your font looks so good. How about we get together and kern that shit?

  • ...then simply create a profile that doesn't have a picture. Then state in the profile that pictures are available upon request. The fact of the matter is that everyone has a standard that they will not go past. Some peoples standards are lower/higher than others. If you are overweight you can't expect to date an underwear model. If you are lower middle class you can't expect to date someone making six figures plus. The only exception to the rule is a women making less than six figures may be able to land a guy making more than six figures if she is smoking hot that is where the phrase "Arm Candy" came from.
  • by buckfeta2014 ( 3700011 ) on Thursday October 02, 2014 @08:50PM (#48052599)
    Did Anita Sarkeesian take a shit all over Dice? First the Facebook/Trans article, then the Intel/Gamergate article, and now this? Come on, you are better than stooping to this level.
  • by Any Web Loco ( 555458 ) on Friday October 03, 2014 @02:55AM (#48053961) Homepage
    Christ Slashdot is depressing these days. Any article at all that mentions how women have a shit time in the digital world and the overwhelming majority of comments disagree, and those marked Insightful or Funny are almost exclusively whines from men about how it's all the fault of women and the "SJW crowd". If you're lucky, there'll be one or two +5 Interesting comments expressing alternative view. And they're always Interesting, never Insightful - it's as if these alternative views are *news* to people. It's just depressing.

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972

Working...