women struggling in the office when they did not put on makeup that specific day, how the behavior of random strangers changed etc.
It’s simply the difference that’s being noticed, and no one’s really at fault for that, on either side. Any woman who never wears makeup is also never going to get the same ‘are you sick?’ kind of reactions on any given day she doesn’t wear makeup to work.
Same, I’m really grateful she has no interest/desire to wear makeup. It was also nice to know what her face looked like from day 1, which is what this app is meant to facilitate.
The more I think about it, the stranger the notion of ‘gatekeeping her real face’ behind a full-on relationship sounds to me, lol.
P.S. lol, I just remembered reading an old ‘hack’ for this years and years ago: make a water park your first outing together.
1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.
imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.
That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.
You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.
No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.
And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?
This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.
Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.
The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.
Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.
Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol
It’s every day.
Already established to be a pretty much meaningless statement. It’s also a fact that mothers abuse children every day, on average, too.
Do you think it’s fair to say mothers “constantly” abuse children, based on the above technically-correct fact?
I’ll bet you don’t. But you’re happy to do it about a demo you’re biased against.
It’s constant.
That’s bullshit. You’re just bad at statistics, and/or letting things like social media warp your perception of reality.
A tiny minority of men react violently to rejection.
Walk a mile in a young woman’s shoes and you’ll get to experience it firsthand.
I was raped by a woman, but you won’t find me making dumbass statements implying all women are rapists because of it, because I’m capable of logical, rational thought.
How’s this for “reality” when it comes to gendered violence: research out of Harvard showed that, among male/female relationships where one of the two ‘members’ is domestically violent and the other isn’t, the violent one is the woman over 70% of the time.
men absolutely attack women every day for shunning a man’s advances
This is a completely weightless statement, considering that it’s true if as few as 365 men a year do this, out of ~4,000,000,000. In other words, 0.000009125%.
Pretty low bar for shitting on half the world, no?
Do we need to start throwing out the stats for how many rapist are men compared to women?
Sure, just as long as you define rape in such a way that female-on-male rape actually counts as rape, which it doesn’t in the vast majority of “rape statistics” that get put out. Quote http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers :
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011). In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.
The perception of safety, maybe. But not actual safety. It’s an important distinction.
The fact that a worker who barely makes ends meet pays 10-20 times the taxes Amazon pays is… Fascinating in a dark way.
That is absolutely not a fact, lmao.
It can’t be free.
What you’re actually saying is that “childcare should be communally funded by taxes”.
I’m not on board with that unless it comes with limits on reproduction, especially for those who pay zero taxes.
Stop creating more human lives when you can’t even independently support your own.
Mid-syllable hyphen >:(
On top of all that, these days most rejection of men happens before there is even any opportunity for the men say anything. With dating apps putting so much emphasis on looks (a very small minority of users of these apps do anything but look at the first photo before swiping left or right), and surveys finding that women consider over 80% of men less attractive than ‘medium’ (i e. a 3 or lower on a 7 point scale), mean that tons of men reach that conclusion in the final panel simply from getting no traction with women at all, making whether they’re a Tate acolyte or whatever not even relevant.
There was an attempt