Why libertarians can't get dates
January 18, 2002 9:10 AM   Subscribe

Why libertarians can't get dates "So what if someone you hit it off with has different politics? You want that. "You can be like Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd in Moonlighting," he notes encouragingly. The tension only makes things more charged." "I couldn't help wondering: Would women in my arty downtown Toronto social circle start warning each other? "Stay away from that one. You get to the restaurant and he harangues you about agricultural subsidies."" None of my female friends date Republicans OR Libertarians of any stripe, for reasons that are pretty obvious to us. And yes, we are all cute. Any thoughts on this?
posted by jfwlucy (80 comments total)
 
JFWLUCY,
Any post involving such broad generalizations must be meant to be funny, else it is simple bigotry. Giving you the benefit of a doubt, I laughed.
None of your friends date Libertarians or Repbulicans -- what about Marxists and Socialists? As long as you are painting with a broad brush, don't you find them as dorky, wonky, etc. as the fun lovers described in this article?
posted by O Boingo at 9:19 AM on January 18, 2002


As someone who is a self-described libertarian and who has been described by others as a bohemian, I can say that I've never had trouble getting along with boho chicks. I've dated several. Actually, I think they found my willingness to debate a refreshing change from the guys who would soberly nod along with every voiced feminist sentiment in hopes of getting in their pants.
Actually, the descriptions of libertarians in the article(which I realize is humorous) is something of a misrepresentation. We're not all Lyndon LaRouche. Libertarianism, like any other political philosophy, comes in a lot of different flavors. It was cool seeing that artwork from the great Adrian Tomine though(Optic Nerve rules!).

BTW, jfwlucy, some of us libertarians are cute, too!
posted by jonmc at 9:22 AM on January 18, 2002


What the hell are you talking about, Boingo? Please make sense if it's not too hard.

And besides, everyone knows that left-wingers get all the chicks. Why do you think I became a vegetarian?
posted by tweebiscuit at 9:23 AM on January 18, 2002


Tweebisucuit,
The premise that Libertarians and Republicans can't get dates is so patently ridiculous that it is either meant to be humorous or it is some sort of bizarre bigotry. That is what the hell I was talking about.

Maybe I should have taken more time crafting my post, but I had to get back to a phone conference that was starting.
posted by O Boingo at 9:30 AM on January 18, 2002


I've yet to meet a Libertarian who would want to date a Democrat.
posted by Xkot at 9:33 AM on January 18, 2002


It's a cause-and-effect thing: rather than people having celibacy forced upon them by their Libertarian beliefs, men become irrational from sexual inactivity and then adopt Libertarianism.

The worst are the Rand devotees, who never, never got any action in high school and thus had too much time to think about philosophy while pissed-off.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 9:34 AM on January 18, 2002


I've yet to meet a Libertarian who would want to date a Democrat.

Xkot - consider your quest over. I've been dating a Democrat for 7 years.Politics should never get in the way of romance.
posted by jonmc at 9:34 AM on January 18, 2002


"None of my female friends date Republicans OR Libertarians of any stripe" .. because probably Reps or Libs would not like to date your friends too. So what's the big deal ? You'd probably date a cute Rep or Libs, regardless of his political ideas, because true interest/love doens't care about colors.
posted by elpapacito at 9:39 AM on January 18, 2002


Xkot: I'm a card-carrying Libertarian married to a lady who voted for Dukakis, Clinton (twice), and Gore. Go figure.
posted by alumshubby at 9:42 AM on January 18, 2002


Interestingly, I once met a Rand-worshiping female who complained that she couldn't get any dates, either. So it's a gender-neutral issue. It's just that nobody wants to date compassionless greed-mongers.
posted by Fenriss at 9:46 AM on January 18, 2002


The ending is pretty funny. "I don't recycle."

The one political deal-breaker for me is "politically incorrect" anti-feminism, and I've found Republicans to be as good or maybe even slightly better here than Democrats. Like, I'd much rather date someone with Bush's politics than Bill Maher's.
posted by transona5 at 9:46 AM on January 18, 2002


I once met a Rand-worshiping female who complained that she couldn't get any dates, either. So it's a gender-neutral issue. It's just that nobody wants to date compassionless greed-mongers.

I wonder if people who take gratuitous swipes at philosophies they obviously have no knowledge of get many dates.
posted by mw at 9:54 AM on January 18, 2002


I think Harry Hopkins' Hat, in the interests of full disclosure, should mention that he once pursued the head of the Young Republicans in college. Or was that all forgotten in an alcoholic daze?
posted by yerfatma at 9:56 AM on January 18, 2002


I wonder if people who take gratuitous swipes at philosophies they obviously have no knowledge of get many dates.

So, you're saying that "altruism is wrong" and "greed is natural and healthy" are not tenets of Objectivism?
posted by Fenriss at 9:58 AM on January 18, 2002


Yerfatma- I'd never bagged a Republican and it seemed like a good thing to get out of my system. I've still yet to do it.

I never persued a Libertarian because the smell of sulphur is a turn-off.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 10:03 AM on January 18, 2002


if you want to meet people who belong to a certain political party, you might try volunteering to work for campaigns. the cute libertarian girl of your dreams might be just behind that stack of paper. church might not be bad for republicans (not to generalize, but considering the religious right and all); maybe invovling yourself in activist groups for the more outspoken?
posted by moz at 10:12 AM on January 18, 2002


those illustrations the article has are great.

moz...great advice.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:44 AM on January 18, 2002


th3ph17-they're by Adrian Tomine, who writes one of the best comics on the market today-Optic Nerve. His stories are even better than his drawings, if you can believe that.
posted by jonmc at 10:47 AM on January 18, 2002


Yep, from what I hear, campaign trails are the way to go...irrespective of your political stripe.

There are plenty of Rand worshipping males and females still around for them to date each. I was reading this rather cool Biography of Greenspan who is a previous life used to be a Rand devotee and it seemed that the Rand types tended to marry each others (another broad generalization!).

Also if you dont bring pro-choice/pro-life arguments and environment on the table, most people would really not care.... I guess the article - like my previous sentence is meant to be taken lightly. Otherwise it would be deemed to be bigotry.
posted by justlooking at 10:51 AM on January 18, 2002


that's a good point th3. maybe the problem isn't the libertarian trying to find a date; maybe it's the 35 year-old joe mid-executive trying to mack on the 17 year-old riot grrls.
posted by moz at 10:53 AM on January 18, 2002 [1 favorite]


Sex and politics should never mix.

Certainly people who find each other attractive can find other things to talk about.
posted by UncleFes at 10:56 AM on January 18, 2002


In general, and at the risk of oversimplification, more women vote Democratic than Republican in the United States, and Liberal or NDP than Conservative or Alliance in Canada. The dating/mating pool is skewed to the left, which of course is going to pose problems for the right-wing male who wants to talk politics on a date.

(Having said that, I once had a Social Credit girlfriend in spite of my centre-left leanings. British Columbians will know what that means.)
posted by mcwetboy at 11:03 AM on January 18, 2002


Obviously, conservatives do fine on the dating scene as a general proposition.

However, they (not surprisingly) do quite poorly among the hip, urban, arty women set ... who are just about the most liberal group one could imagine, and usually with a liberalism unleavened (unmoderated) by the social reality that concerns about education your children in safe, success-oriented schools, and maintaining the value of your home, brings even the most liberal of the soccer mom set.

Libertarians are a mixed bag, having to do (I think) with the various ontogenies of the libertarian male.

Plenty of them flow from a sort of high-school-nerd, socially-isolated, science-fiction-fan experience of the world (the classic Rand fan, not meaning to insult Rand fans of other descriptions). These fellows, not particularly attractive in the first case, tend to articulate their libertarianism in a way which most women read as a tad bit sociopathic. They also have a deep-seated belief that personal superiority (of intellect) should be rewarded with all good things ... and carry a big chip on their shoulder because the one thing that great personal intellect in young men is not rewarded by is the sexual favors of young women.

Other libertarians come to their philosphy out of anti-establishment and anti-conformist instincts, and a more general rejection of all things deemed mandatory and desirable by society at large. These guys, if good looking enough, can have overpowering effect on some of those hip, urban, arty women ... because it is so fresheningly tonic from the rote sensitive leftism of most of the urban arty males they see every day.
posted by MattD at 11:16 AM on January 18, 2002 [1 favorite]


I once had a Social Credit girlfriend

Which means that she was probably a Mormon, right? Truly scary.
posted by Harry Hopkins' Hat at 11:22 AM on January 18, 2002


Just as a general question...how come every republican woman I see on TV is blonde?
posted by Doug at 11:22 AM on January 18, 2002


I, a left liberal according to that libertarian political affiliation quiz, once wore a G. Gordon Liddy t-shirt to a party and attracted a Republican punk rocker fresh out of the army. Since my romantic liasons with those who shared my politics had, up to that point, been less than spectacular, I thought, "Eh, what the hell."

That lasted about a week, until one Sunday morning over brunch we got into an abortion debate and I almost came across the table at him with a fork. Later, as I drove him to his apartment, he told me he had met a woman while stationed in Korea and was patiently waiting for her to come to the USA so they could get married. Laughing, I pulled over and kicked him out of the car a mile shy of his destination.

Lesson learned, I'm now unreasonably happily shacked up with a fellow lefty.
posted by jennyb at 11:23 AM on January 18, 2002


MattD - Well said. I consider myself one the latter kind of libertarian. As do, I suppose, most of the celebrity libertarian A-list(Dennis Miller, Clint Eastwood, Drew Carey.)
A more interesting question perhaps is why are us libertarian guys attracted to the boho-lefty babes?
Well, obviously, the physical reasons(black hornrims and Doc Martens are way cuter than Britney-style bimbo wear.) The better reason is that any intelligent version of libertarianism would include admiration for those willing to shatter boundaries, as boho chicks are wont to do.
posted by jonmc at 11:34 AM on January 18, 2002


Dude, librarian chicks are hot!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:44 AM on January 18, 2002


Woo! What Matt D. said.

Nah, I'm not trying to be bigoted -- this article struck me b/c it is one of those things that seems in GENERAL to be true, at least in my world -- yet of course there's exceptions, overstatements, etc. There are a few cute libertarians, of course, and even a few Republicans I might not mind hooking up with.

But when it comes time for marriage, and deciding where you contribute money every year, etc., it seems pretty important to me that a wife and husband are at least on the same political planet. "What?! We gave how much money to the ACLU?! You putz!!"

And I couldn't even think of dating anyone who wasn't prochoice or who thought creationism should be taught in school. Just . . . impossible.
posted by jfwlucy at 11:44 AM on January 18, 2002


Humorous article and riotious thread. Thanks for the laughs all! Made my Friday complete.

Why do people rag on Libertarians? Why not? Why rob banks? What large target? Too easy and tempting? Okay, I quit...before I get incinerated by a Harry Brown noser...
posted by nofundy at 11:47 AM on January 18, 2002


Why do people rag on Libertarians?

Beacause being libertarians, we will fight to the death for your right to do so! ;)
posted by jonmc at 12:04 PM on January 18, 2002


Yes, and other, lesser philosophies are scared by our inherent correctness and superiority!
posted by jammer at 12:13 PM on January 18, 2002


The real question is why lefty chicks only end up going on ONE date :)

Lefty guys don't go on dates.... they just go to the gym :D
posted by UncleFes at 12:23 PM on January 18, 2002


Why thank you, monju! See, Jessamyn,
you're proven right again!
posted by Lynsey at 12:29 PM on January 18, 2002


Actually, Fes, there are no "lefty guys" merely "recovering sexists" and no "lefty chicks" either, simply "breasted Americans."
posted by jonmc at 12:31 PM on January 18, 2002


Sorry, my bad. They never post this sort of thing at Cato.
posted by UncleFes at 12:36 PM on January 18, 2002


There is something very attractive about leftist, boho women, yes. They're adventurous, articulate, uninhibited. It's like the joyful side libertarianism, without any of the grim, Hayeckian free market stuff.
posted by MattD at 12:39 PM on January 18, 2002


I'm a left-liberal type, and I enjoy discussing libertarianism. Better than conservatism, as at least we agree on social issues. But the economic stance of libertarians does come across as based on greed.

I understand the idea of wanting everyone to get what they work for, etc, but until you stop allowing inheritance, that's impossible. If people who died had to put all their worth (except some limited amount in things of personal/ sentimental value) into a pool which then got evenly divided among say, 18 year olds, each year, we could talk about it. But since individuals grow up with massively different degrees of advantage and opportunity, a government which makes minimal attempts to even some of that out makes sense. Libertarianism just closes the circle of who gets hand-outs to those with wealthy relatives.

Of course, Bush passed a bill further limiting the current inheritance tax (which is only even an issue for the extremely wealthy) just last year.
posted by mdn at 12:40 PM on January 18, 2002


MattD - How 'bout you and me open a Libertarian dating service? Privately funded of course, and we'll charge whatever the market will bear.

mdn-good post. But the inheritance tax does bring up the issue of whether it's ethical to tax the sme money twice. Not to mention, that when you factor in say, the family home or small business and car even a family of modest means can be affected by the tax.
posted by jonmc at 12:47 PM on January 18, 2002



There is something very attractive about leftist, boho women, yes. They're adventurous, articulate, uninhibited. It's like the joyful side libertarianism, without any of the grim, Hayeckian free market stuff.


You mean they put out?
posted by electro at 1:06 PM on January 18, 2002


What cracks me up is the Libertarian Party. Isn't that an oxymoron? How can you have a party planning a platform for a group that holds indivdual rights so dear? *shrug* :)
posted by terrapin at 1:32 PM on January 18, 2002


But the inheritance tax does bring up the issue of whether it's ethical to tax the sme money twice.

You're thinking of the parent and child as being the same person. All money is taxed more than once - when it's my income, it's taxed for me. When I spend it at your store, it becomes your income, and then it's taxed again. It's not how many times those particular dollar bills are taxed - it's the income of different people.

I have to run but am always open to continuing this conversation here or via email
posted by mdn at 1:34 PM on January 18, 2002


Doesn't work that way, MDN.....

When you earn the money, it is taxed as income.
When you spend the money, it is taxed for sales.
When the company distributes the money, it has changed into income again. It gets taxed then. It is not immediately income.

And, as you can see, there *IS* excessive overtaxation of the same money -- by the time you've paid tariffs and income and sales taxes and petrol taxes and the social entitlement schemes.....well, there isn't really that much left.
posted by dwivian at 1:46 PM on January 18, 2002


terrapin, there's no contradiction there at all. As long as membership in the party is 100% non-compulsory, the choice of whether to join or not is up to the individual. Those who agree with its stance will join, those who don't, won't. No ones rights are harmed either way. Just the way it should be.
posted by jammer at 2:07 PM on January 18, 2002


I dunno... I'm a basically right-wing libertarian female, and my last boyfriend was practically socialist. Occasionally we argued, but in the end it wasn't as much of a problem as the fact that I wasn't Catholic, or even the fact that I'm an English major, while he's a Chemistry major.

My current boyfriend is about as politically neutral a person as you can find, which matches well with the libertarian opinion that the government doesn't exist to solve all your problems, something both the Republicans and Democrats fail to understand....
posted by dagnyscott at 2:14 PM on January 18, 2002


dagnyscott - you're a libertarian female AND you like the Bonzo Dog Band and Dr.Strangelove. Where have you been all my life?! ;)
posted by jonmc at 2:36 PM on January 18, 2002


(inexcusably off topic: ignore all of this!)

I just found a physically fit non-smoking grad student that likes beer, college hoops and Star Trek: The Next Generation! I think I can die now.

The closest I can come to keeping this on topic is that, like me, she's allergic to debt.
posted by NortonDC at 2:46 PM on January 18, 2002


Was he really using the drug trade as an example of why we *don't* need government regulation of markets? "No need to burden the courts with this matter. Me and my nine can handle it just fine!"
posted by electro at 3:23 PM on January 18, 2002


gee wiz, i love my boyfriend too! we are both card-carying cynics (CCC); it works for us. I suggest you all go out and get cynical sos too!
I have an urge to insert a smiley face, but I have never done so before, and would like to retain my record. Besides, I think you get the picture.
posted by goneill at 3:25 PM on January 18, 2002


RIGHTgrrl versus RIOTgrrl?? personally, i can never pick. (margaret thatcher is a rip-roarin' *babe*, and dianne feinstein, i'm certain, is a hellcat in the sackeroo.) the complexities of socializing may present a dilemma for the canadian columnist (who appears dateworthy for his snappy syntax alone), but here in america it at least seems to be the case that, in fact, women aren't *really* sweet on those good ol' lefty guys, and guys don't much dig bohemian broads. which is why bruce willis types get more work than lucifer, while cybill shepherd can't get a job sweeping caves in tora bora.
posted by jellybuzz at 3:44 PM on January 18, 2002


Shouldn't two people who really like each other be able to get past something as relatively minor as political beliefs?

Maybe this article should be titled "Generally, It's Hard To Score With Capulets If You're A Montague."
posted by mcguirk at 4:01 PM on January 18, 2002


Argh!!!

Y'all. I know this thread is about to die out, but I do want to reiterate one point. It really DOES make a difference if two people of different political views make a partnership that involves money. No matter how much they love each other. For example, a lefty chick who makes a lot of money marries a libertarian dude who makes hardly any. Who gets their contributions for that year? NOW? Ralph Nader? It does all come down to money. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Carville/Matalin duo. That, if it is for real, has to be one VERY interesting relationship.
posted by jfwlucy at 5:37 PM on January 18, 2002


I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Carville/Matalin duo.

Me, I'm grateful.
posted by y2karl at 5:39 PM on January 18, 2002


They also have a deep-seated belief that personal superiority (of intellect) should be rewarded with all good things ... and carry a big chip on their shoulder because the one thing that great personal intellect in young men is not rewarded by is the sexual favors of young women.

I dunno about that. I did all right, although I was sort of a nerd/bohemian hybrid. You just have to go for the artsy chicks. And, come to think of it, while I consider myself a libertarian, most girls I've dated have been pretty far to the left. We agreed on the personal freedoms issues, which is mostly what those chicks are about anyway. And I can't remember the last time I talked politics with someone I wasn't already sleeping with.
posted by bingo at 8:44 PM on January 18, 2002


For example, a lefty chick who makes a lot of money marries a libertarian dude who makes hardly any.

Seems much more likely it would be the other way around...
posted by bingo at 11:37 PM on January 18, 2002


it's hard enough to find chicks that actually think around this area -- so i can't be too picky when it comes to political orientation.

most of them subscribe to the 'daddy politics,' which basically means 'whatever daddy says as long as he sends me money.'

god i hate this town.
posted by aenemated at 8:30 AM on January 19, 2002


Male libertarians (heck, men of whatever politics) might be more successful socially if they referred to females as "women" rather than "chicks."
posted by Carol Anne at 9:46 AM on January 19, 2002


Doesn't work that way, MDN.....

sorry, didn't mean to imply sales tax - I only used the "your store" example b/c it seemed like a simple way for the money to get from me to you. I was only thinking of income tax, though - when you work out your net income from your store, you'll be taxed on it. The point was, the "same" money will be repeatedly taxed as it changes hands; the inheritance tax is therefore completely reasonable.

As for the idea of excessive overtaxation, try to make the same amount of money at your store when your suppliers have no highways over which to distribute their products, when your products have no FDA approval and may or may not cause sickness or death, and when your customers have to take great personal risks to walk to the two blocks from their apartments because of a lack of a police force and a justice system - for starters. Your tax dollars make your income possible.
posted by mdn at 11:52 AM on January 19, 2002


Male libertarians (heck, men of whatever politics) might be more successful socially if they referred to females as "women" rather than "chicks."

Here in L.A., most females I know refer to themselves as chicks, and I'm including the intelligent, successful variety as well as the bimbos. I think that in general, young men who refer to females their own age as women only get laid by the feminists over which they slaver.
posted by bingo at 12:18 PM on January 19, 2002


bingo: The word "women" is problematic? Wow. New one. Is this a reverse sort of political correctness?
posted by raysmj at 1:13 PM on January 19, 2002


but here in america it at least seems to be the case that, in fact, women aren't *really* sweet on those good ol' lefty guys, and guys don't much dig bohemian broads. which is why bruce willis types get more work than lucifer, while cybill shepherd can't get a job sweeping caves in tora bora.

Crap line of the month. She's a bit older now, y'know, with kids and a long career behind her. (She's done Revlon ads in recent years, if I remember correctly, which is almost an unheard-of thing for her age.) In any case, Cybill Shepherd had a rather notorious affair with Elvis. Yeah, guys never dug her.
posted by raysmj at 1:33 PM on January 19, 2002


Male libertarians (heck, men of whatever politics) might be more successful socially if they referred to females as "women" rather than "chicks."

Carol Anne - It's just a slang term. No offense intended, you hot little lefty/boho chick. ;)
posted by jonmc at 3:44 PM on January 19, 2002


raysmj: The word "women" in itself is of course not problematic. Neither is the word "marijuana," but if you're at a party and someone asks, "Hey, does anyone have some marijuana?" then that person is probably going to be perceived as a narc, or a complete geek, or at the very least, socially out of sync. Obviously I'm talking about certain kinds of social circles, not, for example, Mormons, in which I guess the response would be negative for different reasons.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with referring to your car as an automobile, or your house as your domicile. That is the way that the use of "woman" as a general descriptor is seen in most of the circles I run in. I would never say to a group of my friends, "Did you see that hot woman who just walked by?" To remove sex from it completely, I would never even say to a female I'm, friends with, "You're a very intelligent woman." It just sounds too formal and technical. Part of the problem is that English needs a female equivalent of the word "guy" that isn't diminutive; I think that many women (word use intended) use the word "chick" as a descriptor for females in general, usually with a positive connotation, e.g. I commonly hear girls saying things like "She's a cool chick" or "I need to find another chick like me" or "I dig that chick".

The realm in which young men gain social status by use of the word "women" to refer to those females around them is not a realm to which I have been privy, and thank the stars for that.
posted by bingo at 4:01 PM on January 19, 2002


bingo: You're being, oh, just a smidgen silly. Take a listen to Prince's "Kiss" or Etta James' "W.O.M.A.N." and get back to me.
posted by raysmj at 4:05 PM on January 19, 2002


Yeah, um, those are songs, right? Take a listen to Springsteen's "Hurts so Good" and They Might Be Giants' "Birdhouse in Your Soul." Read The Story of O by Pauline Reage. So what? I'm talking about the way real people relate to each other.
posted by bingo at 4:24 PM on January 19, 2002


Also, and I apologize for the many posts, but it just occurred to me that there might be a racial issue here, and I don't mean that in a negative way. It's true that my black friends might use the word "woman" casually, e.g. "That's a fine lookin' woman." But a white guy saying it would either sound like a wigger, or a complete geek.
posted by bingo at 4:43 PM on January 19, 2002


bingo - But a white guy saying it would either sound like a wigger...

Please, use the proper term: "sound like a Walker."

(John Walker Lindh, that is)
posted by NortonDC at 6:13 PM on January 19, 2002


bingo: Yeah, pop songs aren't known for being reflective of everyday or street language. Never happens.
posted by raysmj at 6:25 PM on January 19, 2002


raysmj: I'm not saying it never happens. It just usually doesn't happen, pop songs are more like bad poetry. A lot of pop songs rhyme and people don't talk in rhyme either. The conversation was about the way people talk in real life. I think you missed your electroshock treatments this week.
posted by bingo at 12:18 PM on January 20, 2002


Google phrase search:
"Good-looking woman": 18,500 hits.
"Hot babe": 69,300 hits.
"Hot woman": 47,400 hits.
"Hot chick": 28,100 hits.
"Good looking chick": 860 hits.
"Intelligent woman": 20,600 hits
"Intelligent chick": 82 hits
"Smart woman": 28,800 hits.
"Smart chick": 575
"Smart babe": 114.
"Intellectual chick": 44.
posted by raysmj at 1:14 PM on January 20, 2002


When I was in college, we referred to girls & boys when talking about each other - maybe a side effect of the riot grrrl movement, maybe part of the youth & cuteness styles (and carol anne, in the dyke scene, the "queer girl" vs. "lesbian woman" was a significant divide).

Now that I'm in my late 20's I hear a lot more talk of men & women and it doesn't sound so strange. When people talk about "chicks" or "girls" instead of "women" I usually assume it's cool, just casual use equal to "guy" or whatever, which it usually is among the educated, but then I've been wrong about that, too. I tend to be surprised by sexist pigs when i come across them, finding it difficult to imagine people could still think that way. But they can...
posted by mdn at 3:21 PM on January 20, 2002


Not that anyone is reading this thread anymore, but that google hit survey is meaningless to me in terms of what I was talking about. First of all, you're hitting international sites, you're hitting porn sites, you're hitting ficton, lyrics, articles, and all sorts of things that often use different phraseology than people in conversation in real life, in America, in the present. Then, you're assuming that the kind of people not only use those phrases, but also use them in regular speech, but also post them on web sites, are representative of the general population.

At the end of the day, the truth is that in my life, I meet very few white men who refer to females their own age as "women," and the ones that do are the most socially inept and celibate ones. If your mileage varies, send me a postcard from Mayberry.
posted by bingo at 1:47 AM on January 21, 2002


mdn: I'm glad you pointed out the cultural/generational gulf between "lesbian woman" and "queer girl." At 56, I remember when "queer" was strictly pejorative. The word "chick" reminds me of a time when adult females were called "girls," by men who would have raged at being called "boys."
posted by Carol Anne at 5:35 AM on January 21, 2002


I'm fine with chicks calling me a boy...
posted by bingo at 10:47 PM on January 21, 2002


A couple of new language rules: The use of "women" to describe women is, in the vast majority of cases, pretentious. Using the phrase filmic storyteller to describe yourself in a casual Internet setting, on the other hand, is totally OK.
posted by raysmj at 1:04 PM on January 22, 2002


raysmj & bingo, how old are you each? I'm pretty sure this is both generational and age-related (i.e., my generation uses boy, girl, chick, etc, in referring to people our own age and younger, and occasionally for those older, but as we get older, the use of man, woman, etc, is more common).
posted by mdn at 1:53 PM on January 22, 2002


35, actually, but teach on a college campus and listen.
posted by raysmj at 2:06 PM on January 22, 2002


well, mdn, the question wasn't addressed to me, but I'll chime in anyway. I'm 31 and working in retail I meet a fairly wide variety of people. "guy" is fine, my freinds both male and female call eachother "dude" all the time. I generally speaking, only use "man" when speaking about those over 50(whom I stll mentally classify as "grown-ups") or when used as in "hey,man what's up?"
"Boy" though for some reason irks me. If someone said of me "that Jonmc is a cute boy," I'd feel like I was wearing overalls and carrying a pail and shovel. Which is probably why I prefer "chick" to "girl". "Chick" sounds older and has an added connotation of hepness, which I suppose many women find flattering.
posted by jonmc at 3:41 PM on January 22, 2002


I'm 30. See my comments on the other thread for stuff that has to do with the other thread.

And in terms of the appropriate way to interact on MetaFilter, I was under the impression that ongoing personal attacks like the one raysmj seems to be waging on me, belong on MetaTalk if anywhere on this site. If you want to go there, and have an open discussion about whose comments here have been more in the spirit of productive discussion and the uses for which MeFi is intended, let's do it.
posted by bingo at 2:27 PM on January 23, 2002


Or just join in on this one.
posted by bingo at 2:52 PM on January 23, 2002


« Older No place for political correctness in film. By...   |   Sweeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments