The bubble world that types live in makes it seem like it's impossible to get laid without being some unreachable level of celebrity attractiveness/wealth. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because being a bitter misogynistic piece of shit can be smelled a ways off. It's like when creeps whine about parents getting protective and defensive against them when they're lurking near playgrounds.
I agree with the first half of that, but not so much the second. I'm a tall single dude, and I am more or less stigmatized out of spaces where kids exist unless I'm with a woman presenting date or friend. Like, I get it, sexual predators tend to be men so extra caution is prima facia warranted, but it's pretty unfortunate that has manifested in such a way that men are inherently unwelcome without a chaperone in what should be gender-neutral spheres of society. This seems to reinforce toxic gender stereotypes to me and harm everyone.
I feel like both your characterization and my objection are reductive, though, and I honestly don't want to get into a whole thing about it. So I'd prefer to just say I think there's more nuance to that and leave it be.
Sure. But caution and the outright exclusion/presumption of guilt are two different things. Men who enjoy care taking and children are just as legitimate in those interests as women are who don't, and it's gender biases/reactionary roles that say otherwise. Whether women have their own kids, or hell, even want to have their own kids or not doesn't prevent them from being seen as innate care takers and being given permission by society to interact with kids. A woman who wants to engage with care taking or play or mentorship with kids can fairly readily do so. (This sword obviously cuts the other way where women are expected to take on this role, whether they want to or not.) Men can't, and that is sad for the men who would want to and would be great at it. I intuitively imagine that those are probably the most sensative and compassionate men who would provide a better model for what being a man could be to kids too. Reactionary Gender roles do hurt everyone, not just the historically marginalized. I don't think it's good to give them a pass or affirm them just because they happen to be hurting a historically privileged group. I think even those parts need to be dismantled and the pain they caused taken seriously.
That's pretty funny, because I've never made more than median local wages and I've never struggled to get laid (please don't turn me into the
)
Maybe, just maybe, treating women like people and not having a shit personality is more important than wealth.
The bubble world that
types live in makes it seem like it's impossible to get laid without being some unreachable level of celebrity attractiveness/wealth. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because being a bitter misogynistic piece of shit can be smelled a ways off. It's like when 
creeps whine about parents getting protective and defensive against them when they're lurking near playgrounds. 
I agree with the first half of that, but not so much the second. I'm a tall single dude, and I am more or less stigmatized out of spaces where kids exist unless I'm with a woman presenting date or friend. Like, I get it, sexual predators tend to be men so extra caution is prima facia warranted, but it's pretty unfortunate that has manifested in such a way that men are inherently unwelcome without a chaperone in what should be gender-neutral spheres of society. This seems to reinforce toxic gender stereotypes to me and harm everyone.
I feel like both your characterization and my objection are reductive, though, and I honestly don't want to get into a whole thing about it. So I'd prefer to just say I think there's more nuance to that and leave it be.
It's reductive, yeah, but for the most part I don't blame parents for erring on the side of caution if an adult man is alone around a playground.
Sure. But caution and the outright exclusion/presumption of guilt are two different things. Men who enjoy care taking and children are just as legitimate in those interests as women are who don't, and it's gender biases/reactionary roles that say otherwise. Whether women have their own kids, or hell, even want to have their own kids or not doesn't prevent them from being seen as innate care takers and being given permission by society to interact with kids. A woman who wants to engage with care taking or play or mentorship with kids can fairly readily do so. (This sword obviously cuts the other way where women are expected to take on this role, whether they want to or not.) Men can't, and that is sad for the men who would want to and would be great at it. I intuitively imagine that those are probably the most sensative and compassionate men who would provide a better model for what being a man could be to kids too. Reactionary Gender roles do hurt everyone, not just the historically marginalized. I don't think it's good to give them a pass or affirm them just because they happen to be hurting a historically privileged group. I think even those parts need to be dismantled and the pain they caused taken seriously.