There are reasons to do with the history of this particular literary form, as well. It may be that, for a number of fair reasons, women are allowed to denigrate men in print, but not the other way around. “I think some of the things I get away with saying about men would seem a bit gross from guys, because of the obvious power imbalance,” Annie Lord, British Vogue’s dating columnist, told me. Women can write about dating because on a heterosexual date, society generally accepts that women are the underdogs.
Perhaps the presumption that the same privileges equally translate to different contexts plays a part. I don't see any "fair reasons" listed here. I see a group that is allowed to say negative things about one, and another that is shut down for the same thing (but that they have fair reasons to be allowed to). Maybe nobody should be denigrating anyone and it is just, in itself, unfair to denigrate others?
On any dating advise site/community I don't exactly see women as the "underdogs" with regard to support and who is 'right' in any given situation. The first examples that come to mind are reddits dating advice and "AITA" subs where I've seen more than enough examples of the old "switching genders completely changed people's opinions" posts to not feel comfortable there.
Maybe nobody should be denigrating anyone and it is just, in itself, unfair to denigrate others?
I think this is a fair point and we should really avoid denigrating everyone. However, ignore any differences between any of the genders and their assumed roles is not helpful. There are differences we just need to recognize that one isn't better or more correct than the other.
P.S. the AITA subs are always kind of a mess. Especially with people justifying their terrible behavior.
However, ignore any differences between any of the genders and their assumed roles is not helpful.
This is part of what I was saying in the first bit. There are absolutely differences in genders that should be recognized and respected. But context is key. Assuming women are the "underdogs in heterosexual dating" that does not translate to talk about dating. In the context of dating advice and online discussions about relationships, I very much disagree that women are underdogs. But the author is using this, presumably, to support the prior sentence's argument that women can "fairly" denigrate men in print for this reason.
But also, we're not talking about dating, we're talking about sex, and women are the definite underdogs when it comes to sex, or at least casual sex. The stats on who gets to orgasm through casual sex are just abysmal for heterosexual women... Maybe we all would benefit from sex columns for men more than we'd like to admit.
The amount of false info around, " it's just much harder for women to orgasm" and " a lot of women simply cannot orgasm no matter what" is pretty easily disproven by orgasm rates in homosexual female couples, which leads me to believe it's the men in the equation that lead to women having trouble orgasming, not some inevitability.
And this is all women are clear underdogs in sex before you even touch on the difference in dangers to men v women with sex /sexual violence/ coersion
Are you suggesting that those are valid reasons that "women [should be] allowed to denigrate men in print"? Because that's the thing I was talking about.
AITA is garbage because it isn't about finding the best course of action but about whether you can pretend that your behaviour is justified, which is not helpful.