The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]


Some People Use Tinder To Find People To Handcuff Then F**k Them For A Few Years …
June 24, 2015, 6:20 am
Filed under: Comment, Sexism, Social Media, Technology, Tinder

So a few weeks ago, I saw an entry on Facebook from a friend of mine who is a policeman in Nottingham.

This was it:

I have to be honest, I love it.

I don’t know if they found the guys profile because there’s a copper at the station who is looking for dates rather than robbers – or whether it is part of their overall approach to finding [alleged] criminals – but I think it’s ace.

It’s a bit similar – but not very much – to that story from years ago where a US Police department sent some fake “you’ve won money” letter to the homes of criminals that had avoided capture.

They were betting on the fact that someone in the house would let them about their ‘good fortune’ and let them know they did, because on a particular date, at a particular venue, they turned up to collect their cash only to collect some handcuffs and a prison sentence.

In one day, a bunch of crimes were cleared up simply because the cops knew people find it hard to turn down something free – especially when it’s valuable [and especially when you’re a criminal who does that sort of thing for a living] and that trying something different was worth giving a go when so many traditional approach end with nothing.

Lovely stuff.

But back to Tinder.

So for the last 12+ months, I’ve been on Tinder talking to men and women on Tinder about their experiences.

[Don’t worry, the wife knows and I say on my profile that I’m a happily married man. Besides, with my face, who the hell would swipe right on me?!]

I have to be honest, it’s been fascinating, especially when you start seeing the differences of the audience when you compare who is on it in say, China, to those on it in say, Portland.

I’ll be writing this all up in the next few months, but frankly, if you are a woman – and it’s mainly women – who enter the crazy world of Tinder dating in the hope of finding ‘the one’, you may end up feeling more disillusioned and disappointed than when you were at home on a Saturday evening eating Ben & Jerry’s in front of the television.

Watching Bridget Jones.

You see while Tinder makes it easy to “search” thanks to their gamification operating system, it appears that within hours of usage, people [read: men] forget they’re dealing with humans and their emotions and go cold – either in how they judge a potential match or what they do when they’ve connected. [Which seems to involve either asking for sex, sending a plethora of ‘dick pics’ or not making contact at all!]

Of course not everyone is like that and there’s been many relationships formed through an initial interaction with Tinder, but the evidence so far suggests there’s far more disappointment being created between people than emotional fulfilment. At least if you are going on there for pure reasons.

We shall see how things turn out over the next few months – as well as if this finding is something that is relative across geographies or more prevalent in certain countries [which definitely seems the case at this moment in time] – but like with everything in life, for every product that is hyped as being ‘revolutionary’, there is often a dark side that exists, even if it takes a few hours/weeks/months/years to present itself.

By all means am I not knocking what Tinder does/has achieved, I’m just highlighting that behind the headlines, you often find a far more interesting bunch of stories … as Nottinghamshire Police are also demonstrating.

That said, the Tinder for kids names – developed by, I think, an ad agency creative – is sheer bloody genius.

I wish I’d known about it when we were choosing Otis’ name … though I doubt I’d of managed to convince Jill to go with Ziggy, even if she had flicked right.

Which she wouldn’t have.

Bugger.



If You Want To Be A CEO, Make Sure You’re Called John. If You Don’t, Make Sure You’re A Woman.
May 21, 2015, 6:10 am
Filed under: Comment, Names, Sexism

And before anyone starts questioning me on this chart, just know I would agree with you.

I hate this sort of infographic because it’s been designed purely to gain PR headlines and drive dinner party conversation rather than shine a light on hard facts.

Why do I say that?

Well because I don’t believe their methodology would have been robust enough to make a claim like this.

For example, did they really look at the names of every major corporations CEO?

In every country?

And what does a ‘major corporation’ even mean?

By staff? By revenue? By profit?

But even if I ignore that, the fact that proves their data is flawed is the simple reality that there’s no way any shareholder would allow anyone called Robert to be CEO of a big company – let alone 3.4% of all major corporations.

That said, I believe the female statistic.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so utterly disgusting and tragic.

The percentages are even worse in Hollywood as this video so beautifully highlights:

For the record, while I found the way they delivered the horrendous percentages very funny, I do feel the men vs woman message is not going to achieve anything for them. Especially in the ego-filled movie industry.

Personally, I’d suggest that with so many famous and wealthy actresses in the biz – and some in the video – they should think about setting up a female run studio and show the men what they’re missing out on.

Apart from the fact ‘success is the greatest revenge’, the fact is all they need are 2 hits in a row and the rest of the business will shift because Hollywood is a copycat industry, preferring to swallow its pride rather than miss out on making an extra $1.

But that’s just me.

Oh … and while I’m at it, I probably do believe that John is the most popular CEO name.

It’s not because they are naturally gifted individuals … but because the name is safe, solid, conservative that might influence the board of directors at big companies to think they would make a more stable CEO. Someone who won’t rock the boat … someone who will keep the shareholders quiet … someone who won’t get rid of their perks.

Maybe.

Anyway, this has become a very long post for something I think is bollocks, so I’ll leave it there, even though I know most of you stopped reading after the picture.