I Don't Want to Date a Man Who's Politically Correct. I Want to Date a Man Who's EMPIRICALLY Correct.
The Happy Talent has gotten a lot of heat, lately, from Social Justice Warriors who are pissed about my post, Advice for Asian Men, Black Women, and Other People "No One" Wants to Date.
Dozens of people from the "tolerant" left have made it their mission to refute my points... by calling me ugly.
It should go without saying that these are not the kinds of people I would ever date. Because I don't want to date a man who's politically correct. I want to date a man who is empirically correct.
So intellectual and tolerant! For what it's worth, I definitely don't have red hair -- not even close! -- and anyone who's seen my Instagram knows I'm physically attractive.
I don’t want to be with someone who thinks emotionally, rather than rationally.
Yeah, we're all going to get emotional sometimes... but I want a man who makes decisions and value judgements based on his own critical examination of an issue, rather than what "feels" good.
For example, I would never date the hippie dippie surfer bro who told me to "cover up" my body while I was walking to the beach in Sri Lanka, because it's “respectful” to the culture.
I know that feels right... but as I wrote in Sorry, But No. Not Every Part of Every Culture Deserves My Respect, no culture, ideology, or religion should be above criticism or skepticism.
To me, "covering up" means giving in to the "soft bigotry of low expectations" -- that I think all brown men are gross, sexist perverts. It means participating in a victim-blaming rape culture that has no place in civilized society.
For another example, people who sign petitions... without even reading them. Hundreds of students and alumni from my alma mater, Phillips Exeter Academy, decently signed a petition demanding "required, ongoing cultural competency training" for all faculty and staff.
No one I talked to had any idea what the specifics of the proposal were.
No one gave it any thought whatsoever -- they just signed because it "felt" good.
But here's the thing: "required, ongoing cultural competency training" is dangerous and unethical.
As a psychologist, I'm stunned at how widespread this kind of "training" has become, without a single person making any effort to ensure that it is not only a useful, effective use of time, money and resources... but also to make sure that it isn't harmful.
In academia, I couldn't even run a pilot intervention study without convincing several people of that.
It's not ethical.
I'm happy to explain my thinking on this further. But if your disagreement is based on feelings rather than evidence, you're not the guy for me.
I don’t want to be with someone I have to dance on eggshells around, because words like “crazy” and “stupid” offend him.
The "politically correct" words to use in different scenarios changes so quickly, the only way not to step on anyone's toes is to constantly, actively update your vocabulary.
I have more important things to do with my time.
If you're someone who's going to get his panties all up in a bunch over a word -- or, worse, someone who's unable to acknowledge the importance of intent -- then you're not the guy for me.
(For more on this, I highly recommend the Facts Over Feelings post, This Everyday Feminism Article Convinced Me The "R-Word" Is Okay.)
I don’t want to be with someone who doesn’t have a sense of humor.
Laughter keeps relationships alive -- and I don't want to be with someone who finds everything offensive. Not only will it seriously harshen our banter... but it also means we can't go to comedy shows! We can't toss around ideas. We can't just enjoy certain jokes, gags, and movies.
Humor is shocking. Humor is unexpected. Humor is edgy. Humor pushes boundaries. And I need to be with someone who appreciates that. After all, as I wrote in Why I Dressed as Microaggressions for Halloween, I love coming up with politically incorrect costumes for theme parties -- and I need a partner who's on board!
Here I am as microaggressions (the little stickers on my shirt say horrible things, like, "17-inch airplane seats," "a room full of white people," "America is a melting pot," and, "I believe the most qualified person should get the job"):
And here's my date as a trigger warning:
Oh! And if you want a fun throwback -- here I am as Sandra Fluke:
I don’t want to be with someone who mindlessly obeys far left indoctrination, rather than critically examining individual issues.
Women like men who are strong. And when you act like an indoctrinated zombie, you hardly exude mental fortitude.
For example, SJWs love talking about how harmful “microaggressions” are — but there’s literally no evidence to support these over-the-top claims. See also: "Microaggressions Scholar" Gets OWNED By "Factual Feminist" Christina Hoff Sommers.
This leads me to a similar, super important point:
I don’t want to be with someone who thinks things like knowledge and truth are “dangerous.”
There was a big drama in the Stanford Graduate School of Education recently. The Center for Education Policy Analysis invited Jason Fletcher, author of The Genome Factor: What the Social Genomics Revolution Reveals about Ourselves, Our History, and the Future to give a talk.
Here's the summary of his talk and paper, "Environmental Shaping of Effects of Individual Endowments in Processes of Social Mobility":
This paper explores genetic and environmental sources of educational attainments within a gene-environment interaction framework. The main focus is to examine the extent to which growing up in a socially mobile environment might decouple genetic endowments related to educational attainment with actual attainments.
Many models of intergenerational transmission of advantage contain both a transmission channel through endowments (i.e. genetics) from parents to children as well as from parental investments and "luck". Indeed, many scholars consider the intergenerational links due to the transmission of genetically based advantage to place a lower bound on plausible levels of social mobility- that genetics may be able to "lock in" advantage across generations. This paper explores this idea by using new genetic measurements in the Health and Retirement Study to examine gene-environment interactions related to attainments.
The results suggest evidence of gene-environment interactions: children born in high mobility states have lower genetic penetrance-the interaction between state-level mobility and the polygenic score for education is negative. These results suggest a need to incorporate gene-environment interactions in models of attainment and mobility and to pursue the mechanisms behind the interactions.
You can understand why well-meaning progressives might have a negative gut reaction to this -- it doesn't feel good or kind. But only an overly-emotional, regressive liberal would suggest that a talk like this is "dangerous."
Yet that's exactly what happened when Professor Ray McDermott got wind of this talk. He sent a super long, rambling, mostly incoherent email to his entire department explaining why certain kinds of knowledge -- and certain research inquiries -- are dangerous and inappropriate... even for Stanford professors and graduate students.
Similarly, many "politically correct" people think it’s automatically “Islamophobic” to criticize any aspect of Islam. But, once again, knowledge isn't dangerous. Questions aren't dangerous. There is a perfectly solid argument that If You Care About Women’s Rights, You Should Stop Saying that Islam is a Religion of Peace -- and by avoiding this discussion, millions of women around the world continue to be oppressed, erased, and mutilated in the name of Islam.
Knowledge and truth aren't dangerous -- but censorship is.
I don’t want to be with someone who can’t make an argument without saying “Hitler” or “slavery.”
Or, really, any lazy social justice jargon. I want to know that you’ve thought about something — not that you’re capable of regurgitating other people’s thoughts. It's as boring and lazy as writers in Hollywood relying on rape and pregnancy as the sole "plot twist" for female characters.
I don’t want to be with someone who needs a hug after an intellectual disagreement.
If you need a hug after a debate, you’re doing it wrong.
I don't want to be with someone who can't have difficult intellectual conversations with me.
I'm a lot of things. I'm an athlete. I'm a musician. I'm a builder. I'm an outdoorsman. And I'm an intellectual.
That's why the most important thing to me when it comes to picking a partner is intelligence. I want to be with someone who can discuss tricky issues with me -- from current problems with Title IX reporting (see also: Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus) to minimum wage laws to the forced drowning test to education policy.
If you're someone who's unable to produce data and evidence to support your claims, and instead rely on emotions and anecdotes -- if you instantly shut down uncomfortable ideas because they're politically incorrect -- you will never be able to provide the intellectual stimulation I need in a partner.
(That said, I did recently publish an article called I don't want to be with a man who loves my intelligence -- but you should read the article before commenting.)
And, perhaps most importantly:
I don’t want to be with someone who actively perpetuates benevolent racism and sexism.
I touched on this earlier, but as a feminist, I find it important enough to repeat it here.
One of my biggest beefs with "political correctness" is that it treats women and other marginalized people like fragile, delicate little things in need of white male assistance.
For example, as I wrote in Is Everyday Feminism... Secretly Anti-Feminist?
As a woman, I -- and most women -- find regressive feminism to be incredibly insulting. It breeds this disgusting view of women as so incredibly differentfrom men that we need to “feminize” things like science and education. Sadly, “research” on these ideas is pulling funding away from legitimate social science research -- and even threatens the very foundations of science, free speech and academia.
Consider the fact that these articles have been published in “scholarly” journals:
Structuring feminist science, in Women’s Studies International Forum:
Are STEM Syllabi Gendered? A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, in The Qualitative Report:
tl;dr: Words like “attain” and “must” and “will” scare women. Also, shame on professors for teaching critical thinking and the scientific method, because women don’t like the idea of knowledge being something you can “attain” — women like dynamic conversations.
Glaciers, gender, and science, in Progress in Human Geology:
This isn't politically correct. This isn't feminist. It's just insulting.
I don't want to be with someone who thinks of me as a lesser partner. I want to be with someone who sees me as his equal.
And that is not compatible with political correctness.
7/6/2017 06:06:56 am
This is a comment about the main point in your article, not about whom you should date, which is entirely your business.
7/7/2017 07:55:22 pm
Okay, so 1. What's your book about? TELL ME EVERYTHING! Or do I have to wait to read about it in the Exeter Bulletin? When you're ready, and if your'e interested, feel free to ping me about a guest post opportunity. A little shameless self-promotion never hurt anyone :P
7/8/2017 04:49:18 am
7/6/2017 06:17:18 am
This is a comment about the main point in your article, not about whom you should date, which is entirely your business.
7/7/2017 08:03:40 pm
Fair enough -- someone else I know mentioned to me that dreamers are important, and an exclusive focus on empiricism is too narrow.
11/14/2017 12:05:27 pm
I can completely identify with what you're saying. I used to call myself a "social justice warrior (SJW)" proudly and wondered what was so insulting about being called one by others (mostly far-right trolls until then). Then, one day, I objected to a post by a rather famous activist calling women "non-men" in order to be "inclusive" to all "trans folx". I argued against that term stating that it is degrading to refer to women as non-men, perpetuating the old misogynistic idea that women are somehow "failed men", under-developed men, or that men are default. Regardless of the validity of my argument, I was just summarily banned and a friend showed me that the activist and her clique were circulating my post as "hate speech" example. Then, some time later, when I watched Bill Nye's video on "brains have gender" and spectrum, etc, I was reminded of the scientists of yore (such as Darwin, et al) who would actively pursue the idea that women's brains were inherently feminine (weaker and less logical) than men's, etc. I was alarmed by a science speaker such as Nye making such wild claims, claims that had been the basis for denial of women's citizenship rights for centuries. Upon questioning the wisdom of such a move, I was denounced, blocked, etc. Several such skirmishes later, mainly over trans issues, not banning speech (no de-platforming), hijba and Islam as "empowering", GMO and vaccine discussions later, I have finally faced the reality that there is indisputably such a thing as regressive left full of indoctrinated, extreme folk who are instantly triggered by any variation from the "official line" in opinion. Now, I get why SJW is an insult. :/ I am still a staunch feminist, liberal, left-inclined, pro-science, pro-facts intellectually-oriented INDIVIDUAL with independent stances on issues, on a case to case basis. Sigh. Love your post on PC's problems - shutting down all non-conforming ideas and talk as "hate speech" in a dictatorial fashion - harming the free marketplace of competing ideas from which all progress is birthed.
11/14/2017 04:31:35 pm
All movements, left, right, and -- yes -- center, are given to self-parody. But absurdities aren't enough to guide what your own position should be.
11/14/2017 04:58:36 pm
Also, the GMO debate shows why you're not done when you have identified a silly argument. Are all GMOs dangerous to eat? Almost surely not; many are harmless. But what about Monsanto Roundup Ready soy? It has been engineered to tolerate an otherwise toxic amount of herbicide means you consume higher amounts of herbicide than might be safe. Other crops, modified to produce the herbicide or insecticide themselves, may transfer those genes to other plants, threatening, say, Monarch butterflies. Also, GMO plantings tend to reduce biodiversity. So genetic modification should serve as a flashing yellow light to look for attendant hazards. For a sophisticated discussion of many issues in genetics, see: http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/
12/31/2018 04:12:09 pm
Just came here to say SURELY that feminist glacier research report is a send-up, not serious?
1/3/2019 10:30:49 am
I'm pretty sure it was serious... Many in the social sciences have gone off the rails. There are legitimate problems in climate research -- for example, apparently women's snowsuits are $100s more expensive than men's, and lots of grants won't cover the extra cost (the problem is that when you have to take the whole top part off to pee, it takes a lot longer and you lose a lot of heat, vs. being able to just open a zipper that you can pee out of quickly and get back to work without losing all your heat). I'm just not sure the paper addresses anything like that.
Leave a Reply.
About the Author
Eva is a content specialist with a passion for play, travel... and a little bit of girl power. Read more >
Want to support The Happy Talent? CLICK HERE!
Or Find me on Patreon!
What's Popular on The Happy Talent:
Trending in Dating and Relationships:
What's Popular in Science:
Playfulness and Leisure Skills:
Popular in Psychology and Social Skills: