9 thoughts on “This is hilarious”

  1. Is that site like The Onion?

    How about we ridicule astrology because it is BS. Every day multiple kids are born on the same day as Hitler, or Mussolini, or Trump. So they have the same fate? Might as well kill them as they exit the womb.

  2. Although the problem statement, as it relates to astrology, is humorous…there might be something to the underlying premise. ISTM, the author is saying…hey straight men, you might be missing an opportunity to impress and have a relationship with progressive woman if you ignore this. As well, if progressive women are not your cup of tea, no problem, forget it. Yet, if they are, you need to understand how they might view interest in astrology (despite you viewing it as superficial nonsense).

    In other words, the author seems to be communicating that if straight men are pursuing progressive women, they better know what type of bate attracts them. If not, they might be missing out. For some women, that might come in the form of giving some credence to their interest in astrology. As well, they may mistakenly associate a man’s disinterest/disdain for astrology for something deeper… disrespect for women. Also, some may see this assent to astrology as men having to pay their dues, as women do in their engagement with men. Seems women feel they do this regularly, when they appease men with feigned interest in things like sports and hunting. So, it’s less about astrology being “scientific” or “accurate”. For women, it’s about connecting and displaying interest in something they may find stimulating.

    Who knows, there might be a few less Incels in the world if some guys took heed to the author’s underlying premise?

    1. There’s certainly something to the injunction “don’t be a jerk,” but going along with a woman’s silly delusions doesn’t seem like a good idea for any kind of honest relationship.

      It’s one thing to say, for example, “what do you find interesting about it?” It’s another to pretend that there’s any reality to it.

      1. QUOTE:It’s one thing to say, for example, “what do you find interesting about it?” It’s another to pretend that there’s any reality to it.

        I didn’t get a strong directive for men to pretend from the author’s comments. It seemed he left it open for the individual to determine. It seemed he was primarily saying, if you want a progressive woman, then understand what drives her.

  3. CORRECTION:

    QUOTE:It’s one thing to say, for example, “what do you find interesting about it?” It’s another to pretend that there’s any reality to it.

    I didn’t get a strong directive for men to pretend from the author’s comments. It seemed she left it open for the individual to determine. It seemed she was primarily saying, if you want a progressive woman, then understand what drives her.

  4. “Progess” in the modern age goes with “enlightenment.” And that means we discard pseudo-science. I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that a “progressive” person could have the least interest in astrology. I would say anyone with such an interest would be poorly educated and backward. I wouldn’t want to have a relationship with someone of that ilk.

    1. I wouldn’t want a relationship with such a person either. That said, they do exist and there are some who do want that.

      1. The thing is: If you are hiding your contempt and you proceed onward with a relationship, that contempt will sooner or later be revealed. Of course maybe we are talking about guys who are trying to have a one-night-stand. I didn’t read the link.

        1. AUTHOR’S QUOTE : “That said, I am not particularly interested in investigating why straight men hate astrology — as you may have noticed, I think I have a pretty good idea already — nor am I interested in trying to change your mind. What I am interested in doing, however, is explaining why it might be in your best interest to, at the very least, stop being a dick about it.”

          The author’s main point isn’t really about astrology nor attempting to persuade men to be dishonest about their lack of interest. It’s about men respecting women enough to not show open disdain for something women might find interesting.

          Seems like a fairly simple thought. It’s like a person walking up to a new mother and saying, “your baby is ugly”. It might be true and it’s something she may already know. Yet, in no universe will that ever endear the mother to the bearer of that message. So, the author is indicting that if someone wants to build a positive relationship with the mother, they might not want to say the new born ugly.

Comments are closed.