The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard and dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle.
This commenter, the type that is OUTRAGED by speech that hasn't been mangled to be politically correct, is responsible for muffling open and honest communication among people. Specific to this example, there is nothing wrong with the OP's use of scoring - the outraged expressed by the commenter above is basically trolling for a response by feigning outrage.
People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone.
If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.
It's also possible that voters don't share your opinions about what sort of language is "okay" or "not okay". Which wouldn't surprise me in a community with diverse opinions.
The "mangling" of speech to be politically correct and the "muffling" of open and honest communications that some of us are asking for is just this: changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow.
There may be someone "trolling for a response by feigning outrage" in this conversation, but I don't think it's GP.
There are many people who are not sympathetic to calls for PC language, and including accusations of "insane chauvinism" isn't going to make them any more palatable.
Being right is not a substitute for being persuasive.
The use case for language is this: You have a picture or idea in your brain that needs to be transmitted over ASCII into my brain. The conventional symbol set for this use case are English words. A priori we received a dictionary of words and their meanings that we assume is identical to all parties. Trouble is that it isn't. IF and only IF the goal of BOTH parties is to reproduce the original message with highest possible fidelity, then the receiver will obtain a copy of the transmitter's dictionary, and use the updated definitions to reproduce the transmitter's message.
However if the goal of the receiver is to discredit the transmitter or distract from the point being made, then a great tactic, akin to DNS hijack, is to push onto all receivers an alternative dictionary to the one used by the transmitter. In this case the alterative dictionary elicits outrage, discrediting the transmitter, and hijacking the original discussion.
CNN, for example, their goal is NOT to reproduce with high fidelity what congressman X said, rather, their goal is ___ (insert: make it more entertaining, make it more newsworthy, make it click-bait suitable, keep viewers watching, attract ad dollars, curry political favor, drive their own agenda, etc). In addition to pushing an alternative dictionary, they can reinforce with cutting phrases out of context, using selective historical imagery and video, bringing 'experts' to present their views.
In summary I feel that HG was using an alternative dictionary attack (akin to DNS hijack), to distract from the substantive content in the OP.
1. What reason would HG have to distract from the substantive content in the OP's comment?
2. HG was not the only person who found OP's comment objectionable. Do we all have ulterior motivess?
3. There are, I think, objective reasons for finding parts of OP's comment objectionable, which HG, myself, and others, have thoroughly expressed elsewhere in this thread. Do you have a response to these substantive points, or are you merely concerned about HG's reasons for raising them (and, perhaps, his./her tone in doing so)?
I for one think that OP's comment is interesting, and I have no interest in distracting from its substance. But I do hope to point out how some unfortunate, casual choice of words may have inadvertently caused harm to other members of our community.
I'd also point out that, like the dictionary attack that you describe, baselessly impugning an opponent's motivations is also a tried and true tactic for distracting others from the substance of what they have to say, without meaningfully engaging with it.
The dictionary attack has been practiced in media for a long time. Watch a famous 50s news anchor interview an atheist author (I can think of specifics, but I don't want to bias you). Back then it was obvious they were distorting what the interviewee was saying. The viewing audience wasn't stupid, they were complicit because they didn't agree with the atheist. Today this goes on, and occurs so regularly that no one cares if someone deliberately misunderstands something in order to be outraged. Actually whats even more telling is that this technique is a standard way to "communicate" political messages - just watch the campaigners.
I learned this dictionary problem while managing a startup with some employees who used a different dictionary than I. I'd say 80% of the conflict at work was due I say X while the other understood X'
Really if I had a way to efficiently and reliably transfer images in my head into theirs we would have saved countless hours and dollars
... and you think that OTHER people are taking the thread off-topic and muting substantive discourse?
The problem is, there IS a double standard, as evidenced in many places, including this OKCupid blog post that was replied to me: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati...
That said, generalizing correlations of ANYTHING to gender and then trying to ACT on that, is, generally, a bad idea (just as it is to correlate with race or ethnicity or age or pretty much any other physical attribute).
In that sense, a girl can "score" a guy too, it isn't sexist per se.
What's even more disconcerting is that the comment that used this expression has been voted to the top (though it is otherwise a very good comment), and comments taking issue with the sexist language are voted into oblivion (so far).
I can't say I agree with the choice you've assumed, though, between "language policing" a comment, and appreciating it for its substantive contribution. I think we're all sophisticated enough that we can recognize the substantive value of a comment, as I've tried to do, while also trying to suggest ways to build a more respectful community for everyone. In its best form, "language policing" will usually not be unconditional and vociferous condemnation, but rather a thoughtful sharing of perspectives and suggestion for incremental improvement.
This is the very ethos of this forum in so many other arenas--tech, business, often politics--but I'm often disappointed that the prevailing attitude here is so closed when it comes to issues of gender politics (for lack of a better term). Part of the issue may be that these issues are not always thoughtfully raised, and there can sometimes be an unwelcome tendency towards outrage (in both directions). But I think it would be a shame if we didn't keep trying to improve ourselves, and the tech community at large to make for a more welcoming community.
Edit: As others have pointed out elsewhere, one does not normally describe a relationship as "out of your league." That's a description typically bestowed upon people. I suspect this is why I and others have interpreted the comment they way we have. I don't think this entirely rules out the possibility you raised about the original commenter's intent, but I do think it means that my interpretation is probably correct--or at least eminently defensible.
I'd also add that the original commenter's intent does not matter much to me. I was never here to impugn his or her character in the first place. My point has only ever been that the comment, regardless of its precise intended meaning, reasonably communicates a certain disrespect for women.
Ideally, no. But men often use sports analogies when discussing getting a woman to actually date them, which is a quite difficult goal. I apologize for any offense.
> dating dynamics aren't meant to be a power struggle
Here you lost me. If you don't think there's often a power struggle in the early stages of dating, I don't know what reality you're living, because it's not mine.