Men and women are not enemies!

[TheBigQuestion]

Good for you Mr. Internet Tough Man! Be sure to pick up that cookie at the door.

 

 

 

Your whole post is a transparent excuse to call some guys "chumps" on the internet. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion Something tells me you probably couldn't get away with that kind of namecalling in real life though.

 

One thing I don't think you will see in many of the chumps' posts here that annoy you so is direct personal attacks and name-calling. But it's cool for you to do it because you're the "anti-chump," right?

 

 

 

You don't know a thing about me, you don't know for example, that I've been on this board less than a week, and that the reason I'm here at all is that I'm laid up and recovering from a broken tailbone. But keep preaching, man, Hallelujah! I do plenty of preaching myself and don't really mind it... your sermon does need a bit of polish though.

 

 

 

I heard you the first time you posted that in a different thread, and resisted posting my hunch that in all likelihood, you aren't exactly the type to stand face-to-face and give a man that advice, are you, so the posturing is some understandable here. But since you have insulted me now for the second time... Viva la Interwebz Gangstas, eh?

 

You've accumulated more posts here in less than a week than I have in 3 years, most of your posts have been advocating a lot of misguided generalizations about women, and you seem to possess a lot of "white man angst." You call me out for name-calling, and yet by saying stuff like "You wouldn't do all this posturing to another person's face," all you're doing is threatening me in a passive-aggressive manner. How exactly is all this supposed to make you look better?

 

I know enough about you for the context of this message board. You've gotten burned some people of the opposite sex in your life, and you have some sort of beef with certain sociopolitical consequences. I know that it sucks. The first time I ever had to get any kind of psychological help was from the fallout of a ****ed up (if brief) romantic situation. I was strung along horribly and got played like a musical instrument. I didn't make crazy generalizations about women back then, and I don't do it now.

 

What's all this about cookies? Instead of thinking about whether or not having the aforementioned "woe-is-me/screw some-or-a-majority-of-women" attitude is counterproductive, you just deflect it and call me an "internet tough guy." One thing a lot of the female posters keep saying here is that a lot of the "chumps" might have trouble getting dates because they have this whiny, unattractive disposition (as put on display here) that gets reinforced ad infinitum. I'm inclined to agree.

 

Tell me all these amazing things you have done to learn about women and to improve yourself/make yourself more attractive to them.

[meerkat stew]

You've accumulated more posts here in less than a week than I have in 3 years, most of your posts have been advocating a lot of misguided generalizations about women, and you seem to possess a lot of "white man angst."

 

What is this "white man angst?" sounds interesting. Is it anything like "white man's burden?" But am flattered that you have read each and every one of my posts, always nice to have a new fan. I've only read three of yours.

 

You call me out for name-calling, and yet by saying stuff like "You wouldn't do all this posturing to another person's face," all you're doing is threatening me in a passive-aggressive manner. How exactly is all this supposed to make you look better?

 

You opened the door, but c'mon "threat?" "passive aggressive?" I apologize for telling you to "man up or shut up" twice... erm... wait a second. OK, I apologize for calling you a "chump"... erm... wait a second. Wait so who started in with the personal stuff? And I could care less about looking better here.

 

You don't like what I post, but can't discuss it in a rational manner without "more cheese with that whine" comments, "chump calling" or "man up or shut up" level comments? Go to Walmart and buy yourself some basic communication skills. Testosterone doesn't transmit in binary very well... but intelligence sure does.

 

Tell me all these amazing things you have done to learn about women and to improve yourself/make yourself more attractive to them.

 

Well lots of it is in all those posts of mine which annoy you so much, yet you claim to have read so thoroughly, so you tell me.

[TheBigQuestion]

You talk about debating you rationally as if it's something that has actually worked on this forum. As far as I can tell, you're 100+ posts into your time here and no one has really been able to convince you that you're a tad misguided. To be honest, I can agree that a lot of what you say DOES happen and is in fact true. What I can't agree with is your attitude. Not every guy who posts on this forum who disagrees with you (or who doesn't post on this forum but who would still disagree with you) has great luck with women. Many might be worse off than you. Why is it that so many don't have such a negative attitude towards relations with women and yet you do? I've read through this thread and the other longer one and it sounds to me like you have a pretty decent dating life, and a good social life in general. That's what I don't get, and that's why I didn't attempt to be entirely rational or civil with you and just called a spade a spade.

 

For the record, when I used the phrase "man up or shut up" the first time, I was addressing another poster, as quoted in the post, not you.

[Kamille]

Meerkat, Alec Baldwin's Jack Donnaghee is probably my favourite character on television right now: he's a funny, confident, brilliant NBC boss.

 

but I don't want to get into debates about media representation because the goal of this thread is the exact opposite of figuring out who has the short end of the stick. We all have privileges in some ways and we all encounter prejudice in others.

 

 

 

Fixed....

 

To think that all women are anything is just as unfair as lumping all of us guys into a category....Come to think of it, that is probably the point that Kamille was trying to get across with this thread.

 

Exactly! It is unfair and counterproductive because it only perpetuates miscommunications, anger, resentment and victim mentality on both sides.

 

/Rant

 

I read so many threads in the dating section and just think: "Why don't they just stop whining?"

 

You resent women/men? You think the resentment is appropriate?!? Stop dating. Seriously. Why seek the company and attention of the gender that you resent and you feel resents you so much? Since you've stopped dating, I suggest you do not offer advice about something you know nothing about.

 

The pure lack of confidence or self-awareness has become so absurd it is laughable. "The MEDIA says my sexual desires make me a pig!!!" Oh yeah? Since when does any man let the media dictate what he should think? What sort of confident and self-aware man lets such a personal and individual thing as their sexuality become shaken by just what some collective but undefined "media voice" has said? Have some sense of personal identity and confidence. Some of the views by men on this board are making me think that men are in general more delusional nowadays.

 

If half of the advice on this board was true, I must be "ten-feet-tall, a billionaire male-model celebrity professional athlete, and have the world's largest c**k" for my successes in dating. I'd love it if any of that were true, but I'm just a pretty normal guy that has moderate self-confidence and self-awareness. For some reason that has led me into great relationships with fantastic women...

 

But they MUST have been cheating on me left and right, and using me because I paid for dates, or secretly manipulating me to serve their crazy feminazi agenda... right?

 

/Rant over

 

Thanks! My experiences are exactly the same as yours. I'm a pretty normal girl that has moderate self-confidence. I don't get hung up on it though and just usually do my best to enjoy life and be thankful for the people who have made it this great. Like you with women, I've had great relationships with fantastic men.

 

 

 

Agreed!

 

It's not brain surgery to date. Dating is the easiest and most natural thing in the world. Two people find each other and are attracted. They go out. Sometimes it goes further into a relationship, sometimes not. Sometimes they fall in love and other times, not. Sometimes they get married and other times not.

 

There are no guarantees about forever after. Just enjoy life, as it comes. And if you're positive enough, you too will get to cum.

cum Nice touch there TBF.

 

 

Exactly! Not every date is meant to turn into a whirlwind romance (reference to TBF intended ). So why should I resent all man-kind just because one guy isn't as into me as I wish he would be? It doesn't change who I am, the love I have for my friends and family.

 

 

 

It's frustrating, and only natural the genders get into conflict about all the BS in dating. Dating has become an institution of BS with all the insanity out there.

I feel like we live in an internet-fueled era where dating has become an industry. Think of all the dating websites, relationship advice and than all the rom-coms (He's not that into you, the Ugly Truth). All these e-book explaining 'how to catch a man' or ' how to get women' usually rely on a hefty dose of gender stereotyping and its a gender stereotyping that is reductive of both men and women.

 

It's not all bad - I'm all for people getting out of their comfort zones and trying new things if they aren't happy with their situation. But at the same time, if I were to listen to most of those relationship advice books geared at women, I would have to believe that men never want commitment and that they are all players.

 

(Most) Men are far from being afraid of commitment and even, far from being players in my experience. Let's face it, both men and women are capable of loving with abandon.

 

The key thing though is that BOTH SIDES need to learn to UNDERSTAND ONE ANOTHER. I get more irked at men and women who sit there believing the usual worst case thoughts and condemn whole genders for a few bad apples. I get mad at the women who simply stick to "all men are horny lying pigs" and men who stick to "all women are lying gold digging opportunists". It's counterproductive.

 

thanks D-Jam. We definitely agree on this.

[threebyfate]

Exactly! Not every date is meant to turn into a whirlwind romance (reference to TBF intended ). So why should I resent all man-kind just because one guy isn't as into me as I wish he would be? It doesn't change who I am, the love I have for my friends and family.

Not all my dating experiences or STRs were whirlwind scenarios. That's why we date, to find someone compatible and sometimes, just for the sheer helluvit!

 

It's like saying:

 

I've cut myself 4 times while making assorted dinners. I'm never going to use a knife or make dinner again. It's all the fault of the knives.

 

How careful were you while using the knives? Did you select the right knife for the job? Are you a spazz?

 

And most importantly:

 

Did you not enjoy your dinners?

[meerkat stew]

Meerkat, Alec Baldwin's Jack Donnaghee is probably my favourite character on television right now: he's a funny, confident, brilliant NBC boss.

 

Sure he's funny, but he's kinda slimy too. Moreover, he's a foil for Tina Fey's character -and- a leading man -and- a clown. Also, only one example. Other than in reality type shows, white men who are not the leading man and are business leaders are generally portrayed negatively.

 

What is the goal of the thread then? If men perceive women as the enemy, it's because they feel like they are getting the short end of the stick in some respect. And what I was trying to point out, just because you manage to have a good life doesn't mean that you have to stand by and watch political and social injustice. Despite the fact that I am happy with my life, when I raise legitimate men's issues, I'm told like a broken record that my views are merely a product of "bad attitude" or "you must have been burned or hurt," or ... ANYTHING other than a rational consideration and either agreement with or rebuttal of the point in a reasoned way.

 

No one has responded thoughtfully to any points I have made. That's fine, but I'm not going to lie down on my views just because people try to shout me down or just dismiss my POV outright. THAT IS THE PROBLEM at it's core, and that is why many men DO in fact perceive women as the enemy. They will not engage in meaningful discussion of men's concerns, and when men express those concerns, they are either told to "man up" or that their concerns are not legitimate in a very conclusory way. Or most commonly, they are told dismissively that their views are illegitimate because of some character flaw (the very essence of ad hominem).

 

Women and their issues are not treated as such. People don't tell women, "well your issues are invalid because they represent YOUR bad attitude or YOUR character flaw." Disagreement, rational, fair disagreement, is the life and breath of all social issues, including gender issues, and the message men get culturally today in the U.S. is that "your concerns aren't legitimate... that is all." But when bogus issues like the "glass ceiling" or "wage gap" are brought up instead, we are expected to pay rapt attention to the "received truth" of these completely politicized sacred cows is discussed.

 

So you can say that "men and women are not enemies" all you want, and when I tell you that many men out there, experienced, professional, middle-aged men who will participate in the leadership of this country -shortly- (not college kids who are brainwashed as they walk in the door, but men who have actually -lived- the truth of the matter), after 20-40 years of being told that if a political issue does not involve women's rights or children's rights it it illegitimate, do in fact have an adversarial attitude about women and women's issues, both politically and socially, you might want to consider not dismissing such a contention out of hand.

[Kamille]

 

What is the goal of the thread then? If men perceive women as the enemy, it's because they feel like they are getting the short end of the stick in some respect. And what I was trying to point out, just because you manage to have a good life doesn't mean that you have to stand by and watch political and social injustice. Despite the fact that I am happy with my life, when I raise legitimate men's issues, I'm told like a broken record that my views are merely a product of "bad attitude" or "you must have been burned or hurt," or ... ANYTHING other than a rational consideration and either agreement with or rebuttal of the point in a reasoned way.

 

No one has responded thoughtfully to any points I have made. .

 

I'm sorry you feel we haven't responded thoughtfully to any points you have made. I thought some of us did try.

 

The point of the thread is to avoid getting defensive 'just because' the posters are a man or a a woman. It's to see injustices beyond zero-sum games analysis of gender dynamics. I could start arguing with you or I could agree with you that gender relations are changing and that it men might be experiencing a loss of identity from that. But honestly, there are plenty of other threads on this board where you can do just that.

 

Here, the goal is to discuss how seeing things outside of the usual binary actually might actually be more productive to hearing each other out.

 

I am interested in your arguments, however. I'm wondering if you could post a study that proves that the 'wage gap' is b.s.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Kamille

[meerkat stew]

That still accounts for a very small percentage of the entire female gender. If Woggles views on women were even halfway correct, then this world would be a very depressing place.

 

Female cheating in marriage and otherwise is approaching and surpassing male cheating in volume, and between 40-60% of all people, depending on the poll/study, are stating that they either have or would consider cheating. It -is- kind of a depressing place we live in as far as integrity goes these days unfortunately.

 

Shows like "The Sopranos" glamorize infidelity to an extent, but despite the fact that those cheating male characters were sympathetic in certain respects, the overall portrayal is evil and unhealthy. We watch fascinated, but are repulsed at the same time. OTOH, female targeted shows like "Desperate Housewives" and all soap operas literally glamorize female cheating without much negative baggage or consequences at all.

 

Woggle is correct in that though most people are anti cheating as far as their stated ethics, there is a double standard in how male and female cheating is treated. Male cheating is often described as "well men are wired that way and can't truly be loyal," which is an obnoxious sexist statement that doesn't seem to piss anyone off despite that it's false.

 

Female cheating is often described as "there must have been something missing in the relationship" (i.e. it's -your- fault Mr. Man), or "you must not have been fulfilling her needs" also placing the man at blame. Both these are utter hogwash, women cheat for the exact same reasons men do, yet women are often portrayed as being forced into it, while men are portrayed as being unable to help themselves. See the difference? Does anyone find anything at all wrong with either or both of these portrayals?

 

"The bad ole husband -made- me do it." v "I can't help myself." And yes, I have seen firsthand many women adopt a "you go girl" attitude about female cheating. Women are the masters of rationalization, and get a group of them together and they can quickly and facilely rationalize most any bad behavior, even violent behavior by a "favored" woman.

 

Men see the world as it is and seek to change it to the way they want it to be (even if that involves beating someone to death with a club) . Women see the world as they want it to be and then talk themselves into believing it is that way. That's the most sexist thing I will say in this thread and it's true for the most part.

[Sam Spade]

Sure he's funny, but he's kinda slimy too. Moreover, he's a foil for Tina Fey's character -and- a leading man -and- a clown. Also, only one example. Other than in reality type shows, white men who are not the leading man and are business leaders are generally portrayed negatively.

 

What is the goal of the thread then? If men perceive women as the enemy, it's because they feel like they are getting the short end of the stick in some respect. And what I was trying to point out, just because you manage to have a good life doesn't mean that you have to stand by and watch political and social injustice. Despite the fact that I am happy with my life, when I raise legitimate men's issues, I'm told like a broken record that my views are merely a product of "bad attitude" or "you must have been burned or hurt," or ... ANYTHING other than a rational consideration and either agreement with or rebuttal of the point in a reasoned way.

 

No one has responded thoughtfully to any points I have made. That's fine, but I'm not going to lie down on my views just because people try to shout me down or just dismiss my POV outright. THAT IS THE PROBLEM at it's core, and that is why many men DO in fact perceive women as the enemy. They will not engage in meaningful discussion of men's concerns, and when men express those concerns, they are either told to "man up" or that their concerns are not legitimate in a very conclusory way. Or most commonly, they are told dismissively that their views are illegitimate because of some character flaw (the very essence of ad hominem).

 

Women and their issues are not treated as such. People don't tell women, "well your issues are invalid because they represent YOUR bad attitude or YOUR character flaw." Disagreement, rational, fair disagreement, is the life and breath of all social issues, including gender issues, and the message men get culturally today in the U.S. is that "your concerns aren't legitimate... that is all." But when bogus issues like the "glass ceiling" or "wage gap" are brought up instead, we are expected to pay rapt attention to the "received truth" of these completely politicized sacred cows is discussed.

 

So you can say that "men and women are not enemies" all you want, and when I tell you that many men out there, experienced, professional, middle-aged men who will participate in the leadership of this country -shortly- (not college kids who are brainwashed as they walk in the door, but men who have actually -lived- the truth of the matter), after 20-40 years of being told that if a political issue does not involve women's rights or children's rights it it illegitimate, do in fact have an adversarial attitude about women and women's issues, both politically and socially, you might want to consider not dismissing such a contention out of hand.

 

Yep.

Also, I'm in academia and I know plenty of people whose entire research agendas revolve entirely around "women's issues" . And they find issues where I find merely profoundly uninteresting empirical facts. For example, more than 50% of the scientists in Biology are female. But less than 30% in computer science are.

Therefore, there is some exceedingly serious problem with computer science that must be chewed over and over again at the national level. (But of course there is nothing wrong with Biology)

Edited December 17, 2009 by Sam Spade

[Kamille]

 

Shows like "The Sopranos" glamorize infidelity to an extent, but despite the fact that those cheating male characters were sympathetic in certain respects, the overall portrayal is evil and unhealthy. We watch fascinated, but are repulsed at the same time. OTOH, female targeted shows like "Desperate Housewives" and all soap operas literally glamorize female cheating without much negative baggage or consequences at all.

 

Woggle is correct in that though most people are anti cheating as far as their stated ethics, there is a double standard in how male and female cheating is treated. Male cheating is often described as "well men are wired that way and can't truly be loyal," which is an obnoxious sexist statement that doesn't seem to piss anyone off despite that it's false.

 

Female cheating is often described as "there must have been something missing in the relationship" (i.e. it's -your- fault Mr. Man), or "you must not have been fulfilling her needs" also placing the man at blame. Both these are utter hogwash, women cheat for the exact same reasons men do, yet women are often portrayed as being forced into it, while men are portrayed as being unable to help themselves. See the difference? Does anyone find anything at all wrong with either or both of these portrayals?

 

I agree that both those portrayals are unfair and untrue MS and yes I do find them problematic. Yes men can help themselves and yes woman should be held accountable for their actions.

 

But I'm not sure I follow your examples. how does Desperate Housewives glamorize female cheating anymore than the Sopranos (or Mad Men) does for men?

[Sam Spade]

My resentment about the current state of gender relations stems more from politics and the workplace, but does bleed over into relationships also.

 

I came of sexual age in the early 80s, and have been told by prevailing culture for the entirety of my adult life that as a white man in the U.S., I am either a pervert, pedophile, stalker, abuser, crook, cheater, player, defacto slavemaster or dupe, and that my natural desire for sex is alternatively either repellent and unwholesome, or completely acceptable, depending not on any objective criteria, but rather entirely on how the woman who is the subject of my attention perceives me as a mating prospect. I can deal with that though.

 

Men, specifically white men, are bashed mercilessly in U.S. culture in every cultural and media outlet, and we don't have the emotional support network most women have so we vent it out here on the net. You don't like that? Tough. But actually, I can deal with being bashed by 200 different images a day pretty well too. Demoralizing, but not all that big a deal because I'm a man, not a woman.

 

Despite the bashing, despite the reverse sexism that no one cares about, despite the cultural onslaught designed to emasculate me, I have created a happy, healthy, prosperous social life for myself with many male and female friends, and have had many happy relationships over the years. I attract more women at this point in my life, and have more sex than ever, so on that level I get by fine. I am not bitter about my life, it has been blessed, and massively fortunate compared to others, but does it mean I should stand silently and tolerate lies, and cultural and political machinations going forward? I will not deal with that.

 

I am still told, to this day, that women in the U.S. remain second class citizens and victims of some good ole boy patriarchy that neither I nor anyone I know benefitted from one iota. I'm still told that BS factors like a wage gap or glass ceiling exist in society when they so plainly do not other than in the bad statistics used to manipulate women's naivete and gullibility politically. I have watched women benefit from social, cultural and political policies and cultural double standards over and over again at my direct, qualifiable and quantifiable expense. This is where I draw the line at being silent, and if it means people simplify it into assuming I think women are "the enemy" fine, thoroughly inaccurate, but fine.

 

I think the above sums up my and many of my contemporary male friends' attitudes accurately. We have managed to have happy lives despite gaining no benefit whatsoever from the past, yet have been presented with the full bill for the cataclysmic transformation of the present. I can stomach that, life has been infinitely more fair to me than many on the planet, but I can not and will not stomach being told I still have more to pay, or that I am somehow still to blame as some white male oppressor of women, minorities or anyone else. Have had quite enough of that over the past 30 years, yet still hear it each... and... every... day.

 

Enjoy the rapidly forming backlash, the declining marriage rate, and the shortage of men who want to marry and have families in the U.S. going forward. It is going to get worse before it gets better because the generation of men in the U.S. just behind me, the men I know of that generation at least, is even more fed up than mine is. Unfortunately, the privileged attitudes I see from lots of women both in daily life and on the net means there will be no quick end to the brewing gender conflicts, nor will there be any winner.

 

I am still waiting to hear a rational answer to this.

[betamanlet]

Yep.

Also, I'm in academia and I know plenty of people whose entire research agendas revolve entirely around "women's issues" . And they find issues where I find merely profoundly uninteresting empirical facts. For example, more than 50% of the scientists in Biology are female. But less than 30% in computer science are.

Therefore, there is some exceedingly serious problem with computer science that must be chewed over and over again at the national level. (But of course there is nothing wrong with Biology)

 

 

Something really scary I heard was that it is problematic that only 20% percent of congress is female. This is a democracy, and people vote for who they want, not who they are told to want. So if there is eventually a requirement that a % of congress MUSt be female, then people will eventually be forced to pick people they may not have. They might have wanted to elect John Doe, but instead, since there are too many men, have to pick someone that they didn't want.

[Sam Spade]

I agree that both those portrayals are unfair and untrue MS and yes I do find them problematic. Yes men can help themselves and yes woman should be held accountable for their actions.

 

But I'm not sure I follow your examples. how does Desperate Housewives glamorize female cheating anymore than the Sopranos (or Mad Men) does for men?

 

 

Tony Soprano is gritty and conflicted (and that's why this is such a good show), while The Wives definitely come across as exceedingly self-righteous and entitled.

 

There. The fact that it is not immediately appatent is troubling in its own right and in line with meerkat's and Woogle's (and mine) points.

[meerkat stew]

Here, the goal is to discuss how seeing things outside of the usual binary actually might actually be more productive to hearing each other out.

 

Sorry, I don't see any way to discern the above from the thread title. When seeing a thread title such as this, I analogize it to someone beating me over the head with a club and telling me "Hey I'm not the enemy, it's this club that is hurting you!" (without the violence it's an apt analogy to how many men feel).

 

And the fact is that most economic, social and many interpersonal (where sex and mating are concerned) realities of day to day life -are- zero sum. One person's gain is another person's loss. For example My internet commerce and presence are more heavily monitored and restricted because a power grabbing government has been able to convince a largely female constituency of absurdities such as "70% of young children are sexually assaulted via the internet" a hilariously ridiculous statistic I saw on a billboard the other day, or "50% of all traffic fatalities are caused by drunk drivers," another completely ridiculous cooked statistic used to stir up MADD such that I can't drink ONE beer and drive home without tripping the current .008 breath alcohol content. But if I did so, I would have to dodge 12 ineptly driving women chattering on cellphones to get to my driveway.

 

I am interested in your arguments, however. I'm wondering if you could post a study that proves that the 'wage gap' is b.s.

 

There is no study, unfortunately, but there have been conservative (Im not a republican nor democrat btw) fittings of existing studies to make them less biased.

 

Participants sell their labor in the market for dollars. Their labor is more valuable as experience level increases. Wage studies do two things inevitably that skew them towards the desired political result. 1. They do not remove women who have left the workforce for significant amounts of time due to raising children or whatever other reason, and 2. They do not remove the oldest (55-60) and highest paid quintile (admittedly mostly male but NOT representative of the current bell curve) from the study.

 

Among similarly situated men and women who have not left the workforce for extended periods of time between the ages of 20-45, there is no statistically significant wage gap whatsoever, nor is there any statistically significant glass ceiling.

[Sam Spade]

Something really scary I heard was that it is problematic that only 20% percent of congress is female. This is a democracy, and people vote for who they want, not who they are told to want. So if there is eventually a requirement that a % of congress MUSt be female, then people will eventually be forced to pick people they may not have. They might have wanted to elect John Doe, but instead, since there are too many men, have to pick someone that they didn't want.

 

That, and also, people (conveniently) tend to forget that THE most powerful politician outside of the White House (the House speaker - Nancy Pelosi), is a woman...

 

People didn't nominate Hillary for the presidency because she run a horrible campaigh, not because she was a woman .

[Kamille]

Tony Soprano is gritty and conflicted (and that's why this is such a good show), while The Wives definitely come across as exceedingly self-righteous and entitled.

 

There. The fact that it is not immediately appatent is troubling in its own right and in line with meerkat's and Woogle's (and mine) points.

 

 

Yes, the wives come across as exceedingly self-righteous and entitled - and yet when the latino one cheated, it broke up her marriage. the other women who cheat in there are usually meant to be understood as airheads (I don't recall any of the other three wives cheating - but I could be mistaken). And like I said, I don't identify with those women or their lifestyles.

 

Yet, in The Sopranos, most of the cheating is 'secondary', just a way to spice up the story line. In Mad Men, where Draper's cheating is meant to showcase him as an alpha male. So how is that not a glorification of male cheating?

[Kamille]

That, and also, people (conveniently) tend to forget that THE most powerful politician outside of the White House (the House speaker - Nancy Pelosi), is a woman...

 

People didn't nominate Hillary for the presidency because she run a horrible campaigh, not because she was a woman .

 

Sorry, see - this is one of the impasses of binary gendered thinking. By your admission, it shouldn't matter that faculty isn't evenly ditributed along gender lines, and yet you have issues with woman in power.

 

It cuts both ways: why shouldn't the most powerful politician outside of th eWhite house be a woman?

[Sam Spade]

Participants sell their labor in the market for dollars. Their labor is more valuable as experience level increases. Wage studies do two things inevitably that skew them towards the desired political result. 1. They do not remove women who have left the workforce for significant amounts of time due to raising children or whatever other reason, and 2. They do not remove the oldest (55-60) and highest paid quintile (admittedly mostly male but NOT representative of the current bell curve) from the study.

 

Among similarly situated men and women who have not left the workforce for extended periods of time between the ages of 20-45, there is no statistically significant wage gap whatsoever, nor is there any statistically significant glass ceiling.

 

 

There have been extensive studies of the workforce in the federal government that has established that women make less money than men BECAUSE women typically have had less years of experience on the job AND less years of education. Controlling for all relevant spurious alternative explanations results in no statistically significant wage gap.

 

Related, there is also a self-selection problem - on average, women are less motivated than men by money (vis-a-vi other characteristics of the job), while for men money is the main decision criterion. As a result, there is also a tendency for men to self-select into higher paying jobs (but with possibly poorer quality of life) while women may employ different decision criteria and self-select into lesser paying jobs with other advantages.

 

The point is, nobody is paying different wages for the same job based on the presence or absence of an additional hole .

[meerkat stew]

Something really scary I heard was that it is problematic that only 20% percent of congress is female.

 

My gripe is that women (and many men) will accept statements such as the above without one bit of analysis. But such malarkey is primarily targeted to play on women's sensitivity to the "victim" role. How many women are actually RUNNING for congressional office? what percentage compared to men? Of course stats such as the above conveniently omit the whole picture, and rely on gullibility to be accepted at face value without question.

[Kamille]

 

There is no study, unfortunately, but there have been conservative (Im not a republican nor democrat btw) fittings of existing studies to make them less biased.

 

Participants sell their labor in the market for dollars. Their labor is more valuable as experience level increases. Wage studies do two things inevitably that skew them towards the desired political result. 1. They do not remove women who have left the workforce for significant amounts of time due to raising children or whatever other reason, and 2. They do not remove the oldest (55-60) and highest paid quintile (admittedly mostly male but NOT representative of the current bell curve) from the study.

 

Among similarly situated men and women who have not left the workforce for extended periods of time between the ages of 20-45, there is no statistically significant wage gap whatsoever, nor is there any statistically significant glass ceiling.

 

Thanks and very interesting. I will look into it for the population I study.

 

Yet, it raises questions about child-raising: it is an important aspect of society and should be recognized as a valid activity for whichever parent chooses to cut back in order to take care of a child (father or mother).

 

Also, the example you give or zero-sum game : the first is linked to the economy (the very example of zero-sum since resources and currencies are limited) - and to a public-policy poll. The other is based on an actual measure. All you're really saying is that the way we measure things as an impact on our lives.

 

Do you think dating and relationships are equally amenable to statistics?

[Sam Spade]

Sorry, see - this is one of the impasses of binary gendered thinking. By your admission, it shouldn't matter that faculty isn't evenly ditributed along gender lines, and yet you have issues with woman in power.

 

It cuts both ways: why shouldn't the most powerful politician outside of th eWhite house be a woman?

 

Beats me where EXACTLY you got the idea that i have ANY issue with women in power ??? I don'g give a rat's ass about my bosses or politicians gender as long as they are competent.

 

What I do have an issue with is cooking up a problem where there is NONE. If you are competent, you will be rewarded - regardless of your genitalia.

[Kamille]

My gripe is that women (and many men) will accept statements such as the above without one bit of analysis. But such malarkey is primarily targeted to play on women's sensitivity to the "victim" role. How many women are actually RUNNING for congressional office? what percentage compared to men? Of course stats such as the above conveniently omit the whole picture, and rely on gullibility to be accepted at face value without question.

 

 

Agreed, but then part of the context is social context and history which make it so some social categories are less likely to run and be selected to run for congressional office.

[meerkat stew]

There have been extensive studies .

 

Cool we have an actual academic, gladly defer to your knowledge of such studies. I've never been able to find any myself, but haven't looked that hard either admittedly. I read this little book called "How to Lie with Statistics" back in the 70s, and haven't been much of a believer in studies since

[Kamille]

What I do have an issue with is cooking up a problem where there is NONE. If you are competent, you will be rewarded - regardless of your genitalia.

 

Same here. And in my very humble opinion, that doesn't mean I can be oblivious to the power-relations which have structured the labour market the way it is. That is I can recognize advantage and privilege and I can recognize that it's a lot murkier then race and gender - even though these factors do factor in.

 

I'll be honest, I feel the people, men and women, who hold negative gendered views are all part of 'cooking up problems'.

[meerkat stew]

But I'm not sure I follow your examples. how does Desperate Housewives glamorize female cheating anymore than the Sopranos (or Mad Men) does for men?

 

When I watch cheating in the Sopranos, the vibe I get is "this is what criminal a-holes who have no respect for women do." When I watch cheating in female targetted shows such as Desperate Housewives or soap operas, the vibe I get is "naughty little secret." Am I being unfair.

 

As far as "Mad Men" goes, so glad you brought that up, as it is one of the worst as far as portraying the white American male businessman. I can rant about that show endlessly, or can spare you another 8 paragraph post, your choice just say the word