That this exact person exists is totally normal. That this exact person would write this doesn’t seem that way, because what they would write would probably be boring and this is not.
That’s an… odd take on it. I don’t think I’d expect gender-conformity to antipredict engaging writing very strongly, if at all, and the life experience the submitter alludes to would positively predict it if I’m reading between the lines at all correctly. And it’s being posted on LW, of course, which totally buggers up most conventional demographic analysis.
The submitter is using a pretty assertive and analytical style, which I wouldn’t have predicted from the paragraphs on emotionality; the bit about girl-game struck me as particularly unusual. And her ideas do tally well with the conventional wisdom among certain male-dominated metacontrarian subcultures. I might have considered a false flag option of some sort except that she seems to consider hers an exceptional opinion: most of those subcultures wouldn’t be satisfied with an existence proof, they’d be trying to frame this as the norm.
I think it’s most likely legit. Though I can’t rule out a small probability of someone trying to tell LW what it wants to hear for some reason, or to confirm a theory about how such a stance might be received.
(Should the submitter be reading this, please excuse the lack of charity.)
Hell I don’t know. All I know is that I am confused. I strongly doubt that anything dishonest is going on here. It’s possible that this lady is just being playfully self-indulgent.
The thing that is odd about the writing isn’t that it’s assertive and analytical, or that it is engaging. It’s the specific claims and especially the fact that she seemed to have touched all the bases.
It is worth noting that she didn’t do either of the following: try to frame as normal OR complain about more strongly feminist viewpoints.
That’s an… odd take on it. I don’t think I’d expect gender-conformity to antipredict engaging writing very strongly, if at all, and the life experience the submitter alludes to would positively predict it if I’m reading between the lines at all correctly. And it’s being posted on LW, of course, which totally buggers up most conventional demographic analysis.
The submitter is using a pretty assertive and analytical style, which I wouldn’t have predicted from the paragraphs on emotionality; the bit about girl-game struck me as particularly unusual. And her ideas do tally well with the conventional wisdom among certain male-dominated metacontrarian subcultures. I might have considered a false flag option of some sort except that she seems to consider hers an exceptional opinion: most of those subcultures wouldn’t be satisfied with an existence proof, they’d be trying to frame this as the norm.
I think it’s most likely legit. Though I can’t rule out a small probability of someone trying to tell LW what it wants to hear for some reason, or to confirm a theory about how such a stance might be received.
(Should the submitter be reading this, please excuse the lack of charity.)
Hell I don’t know. All I know is that I am confused. I strongly doubt that anything dishonest is going on here. It’s possible that this lady is just being playfully self-indulgent.
The thing that is odd about the writing isn’t that it’s assertive and analytical, or that it is engaging. It’s the specific claims and especially the fact that she seemed to have touched all the bases.
It is worth noting that she didn’t do either of the following: try to frame as normal OR complain about more strongly feminist viewpoints.