To me this is about inequalities of power. The original author was not some internet celebrity with millions of followers - but those who snarked her either were, or added up to have the same effect.
It's a bit like me and Elon having an online fight - no matter the "truth" of the matter, he has unfair advantage.
No he did not inherit that advantage. But it is still there. And I suspect one of the underlying "social media"issues is that "power" online (maybe just reach) is waaaay more unequal than IRL. Partly due to early years, partly because reach does not fully map to money, but even so people think "that's what government is for ... where is it?"
The author of the blog is a woman. I didn't realize this at first, but as I was reading the article, something really odd was said:
> I start sobbing.
At first I almost could not believe what I was reading. I understand feeling discouraged and even somewhat down for being made fun of by some anonymous dude online. But to start sobbing? I thought this was a very weird / alien reaction. Then I thought, oh wait, is she a woman? So I scrolled up to the top of the page and indeed, the blog name indicates the author is a woman.
As far as I can tell, it's actually a woman privilige to appeal to people based on your sadness. If you're a woman and something made you sad, you are guaranteed to get sympathy and support from many people.
If something made a man cry, he would in all liklihood be ridiculed even further. At least, this is the experience of the vast majority of men. That's why, for example, "MRA" activism is not effective at all: it's a bunch of men trying to appeal to people based on their emotions. It doesn't seem to work for men.
I had a similar response and it led to a some self reflection:
At first I thought the sobbing line was hyperbole, then I thought "why would someone admit that?" then I saw the author had a feminine first name and thought "why is it OK for a woman to admit to crying about this?" then I thought "why would a man not admit to crying about this?" then I remembered that I'm emotionally stunted and society still thinks it is acceptable to demonise men who have emotions.
I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. It is just what it is.
> society still thinks it is acceptable to demonise men who have emotions.
"Still". As if that will change someday. It will not.
Women are inherently valuable because they can bare children. Men have no inherent value so they must prove their value. A man sobbing over mean comments is signalling that he is of low value.
No, we're clearly not looking at something immutable here. Historically, our society is the aberration. Jesus Christ, Achilles, Guan Yu... They all wept openly, and nobody found it strange.
Did Jesus cry because someone said mean words to him?
Men would cry over lost friends, family, destroyed homes, town, long gone memories, etc. Not over being bullied by someone they don't know.
EDIT:
When men cry, it's not to appeal for help from others. It's to display deep attachment.
You cry with your friends over your destroyed home or your fallen comrades, to show each other that you cared deeply about them, and you bond through this ritual. (and wsually it's not uncontrollable sobbing).
A leader might cry as an act of charismatic leadership to move his audience and rally them behind a cause.
There are certainly subcultures of society that demonize men for having emotions. There are also subcultures of society that do not. Do you really think it's our wider culture to demonize emotion in men? My particular subset of subcultures does not demonize it but I could be in a bubble.
I think you're right, in that open displays of emotion are rarer in men. I'm not sure you're correct in the assertion that men can't appeal to people for help based on being sad. At least, that hasn't been my experience. I think men don't display/communicate their emotions in the same way, but I think its somewhat normal (at least it is today) for men to seek out help for something because they are experiencing conflict and it bothers them.
You will most likely be downvoted for writing this, but you are absolutely right. Prepare for all sorts of name calling (including one commenter already claiming your take is pathetic) as you violated a moral taboo (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html).
This is one of those stories that would 100% have a different ending if the author was a man.
Everyone I know, both men and women, would think it is pathetic if I cried over mean internet comments. They would have a different reaction if it was my wife crying. Unfortunately it's still very socially acceptable to demonise men for being emotional.
I understand your comment, but I think it is said from a privileged position. As a clarifying example; I don't think we would tell a young Iranian girl who is admonished in society for expressing herself to just "meet new people". Society is surprisingly immutable for a single person. I'm not even sure how to meet people if a requirement was that they would earnestly comfort a crying man.
This is your second comment since last year. Out of everything on HN, what made you want to comment on this? And to call it "pathetic" out of all things?
I don't think it's pathetic. I think it's a truth that is considered impolite to discuss.
I'm not even complaining about it. I'm just noting it.
My intention was to point out that my comment probably enraged that person. Now, why where they enraged by it? I wasn't being inflammatory in tone, nor was I being antagonistic. So what would it be?
As far as I can tell, people are enraged when they see something they don't like to be pointed out, pointed out. An "uncomfortable truth" so to speak.
So being enraged and then commenting with "how pathetic" probably indicates that the person deep down understands that it's true.
It's a bit like me and Elon having an online fight - no matter the "truth" of the matter, he has unfair advantage.
No he did not inherit that advantage. But it is still there. And I suspect one of the underlying "social media"issues is that "power" online (maybe just reach) is waaaay more unequal than IRL. Partly due to early years, partly because reach does not fully map to money, but even so people think "that's what government is for ... where is it?"
And Facebook does not want to govern.