Woggle Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Playboy has some really great articles for real. I know that is not what it is known for but it is a very intelligent magazine.
MaxNoob Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Where I come from, if a man isn't married by a certain age (mid 30's, early 40's MAX), he is viewed as unstable and will be passed over for promotions... unless he is gay that is. Which is utterly stupid in addition to being against the law in the US.
RedRobin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I really don't Hugh Hefner cares about not being invited to the Whitehouse. He still can look back on his life and be able to say he truly lived. Also if the older Bush invited Eazy E to the Whitehouse it is not far fetched to think Hefner would be invited. Most presidents are friends with some pretty skeevy people. Not to gross anyone out... but I'd sleep with Hugh before I'd sleep with either of the Georges... in a heartbeat. For starters... Hugh never killed anyone or had anyone killed. My point was... if a man is looking for raw 'power'... it comes across as more believable if they have the little wifey by his side. Call me naive.. but I do believe that most of these men do legitimately love their wives... So, sleeping with lots of women doesn't come across the way some of the playas here think it does. People who pay attention don't take those men seriously. Not at all. They are almost comical in their 'aping' of real men. Either real men who legitimately understand the benefit of commitment and intimacy. or men who understand that leaving that appearance has value.
RedRobin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Which is utterly stupid in addition to being against the law in the US. ha ha. How old are you? There are lots of ways to discriminate these days that are quite subtle.
RedRobin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Playboy has some really great articles for real. I know that is not what it is known for but it is a very intelligent magazine. I never got wrapped around the axle about Playboy. It is pretty tasteful. The other ones I've seen are pretty gross. Playboy could stand to get rid of the breast enhanced though... or feature an 'all natural' special issue. Maybe they do. I haven't been keeping up, ha ha.
MaxNoob Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 ha ha. How old are you? There are lots of ways to discriminate these days that are quite subtle. An employer is an idiot for choosing anything other than the most qualified applicant. If they reject more qualified applicants because of marital status, that is to the benefit of competitors who hire in a non discriminatory manner. That's on top of putting themselves at risk of being sued for job discrimination.
Author verhrzn Posted June 26, 2012 Author Posted June 26, 2012 An employer is an idiot for choosing anything other than the most qualified applicant. If they reject more qualified applicants because of marital status, that is to the benefit of competitors who hire in a non discriminatory manner. That's on top of putting themselves at risk of being sued for job discrimination. From what I've read, it's not so much martial status that seals the deal. It's something about being married = long term investment. If a man is married, then he's more likely to have ties to the community (children in school, similarly married/situated friends) and thus less likely to up and leave for another company in another city. A married man is usually more "settled" than a single man. That's one of the big social concerns over countries like India and China... yeah, lots of men not having sex is sad, but there's also something about being married making a man "buy into" society more. A man with a wife/family is less likely to take financial/social risks, less likely to move around aimlessly, etc. So it isn't martial status per say, it's what martial status says ABOUT the individual. Also, apparently, a lot of men do their networking through their wives... something about women being more the social glue, so doing all the barbecues and dinner parties where you rub elbows with other industry types. Being married actually opens a lot of doors for men, professionally-speaking. 1
MaxNoob Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 From what I've read, it's not so much martial status that seals the deal. It's something about being married = long term investment. If a man is married, then he's more likely to have ties to the community (children in school, similarly married/situated friends) and thus less likely to up and leave for another company in another city. A married man is usually more "settled" than a single man. That what a non compete clause is for. An employer is risking millions by making these assumptions.
zengirl Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 If you read this article it places all the blame on men for why women are having such a hard time with relationships without ever looking at both sides. I didn't really see it that way at all or see any "blame Men" stuff in the article. It was pretty much a "Blame changing society" article, which would encompass blaming women and men, though not individual women and men, as we're all part of society. And yet none of us can control it -- it's a force greater than us. But I don't see a single part where she blames men, really. She only notes how men and women have changed in regards to love and marriage. The basic summation of the article is that: Finding real love, with loads of choices, is harder than back when people felt love and marriage were social necessities and followed set routes to get to them. Well, no ****. Of course that makes total sense. However, what I don't understand is that while the author is happy to cite some of the romantic "ease" of the 19th century, she doesn't mention all the downsides of 19th century society. I also disagree that there's no social pressure or social impetus to marry. I think there still is some, to some degree. There's just no social impetus to marry if you can't find someone you really want to marry and no need to put that duty above other things that may fulfill you.
RedRobin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) An employer is an idiot for choosing anything other than the most qualified applicant. If they reject more qualified applicants because of marital status, that is to the benefit of competitors who hire in a non discriminatory manner. That's on top of putting themselves at risk of being sued for job discrimination. define 'qualified'. At the highest level, especially, you have tons of competitors who are qualified on paper. They can afford to make finer distinctions. They start sifting people out by subtler things. The message is pretty clear when all the gents in front of you on the ladder are all married, and people look at the single guy askance when he shows up at the company Xmas party routinely single... or sporting a different girl every year... or chooses not to attend. You can see how that pressure would work it's way in, right? Anyway, unless the other person has definitive proof that was the reason they were not selected... it's a no-go. Also, if their competitors see things the same way... that unmarried men are spending too much time chasing tail (either inside or outside work) and not enough time on the job... then it is a moot point. Remember what they are screening for... Stability. Edited June 26, 2012 by RedRobin
RedRobin Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) So it isn't martial status per say, it's what martial status says ABOUT the individual. Also, apparently, a lot of men do their networking through their wives... something about women being more the social glue, so doing all the barbecues and dinner parties where you rub elbows with other industry types. Being married actually opens a lot of doors for men, professionally-speaking. You are right. This is something to think about if you are a professional woman. If he's not doing the same for you.. or pitching in on the planning... then you need to consider why you'd want to spend so much of your spare time boosting his career. This is why I would not be with a man who wasn't a true 'partner'... "Domesticity" these days have lots of meanings... When I was married, it always bugged me that I was supposed to be available to entertain his friends and their wives... who were lovely people... don't get me wrong. What was wrong was that he wouldn't reciprocate. So for me to have friends, I was obliged to always do it alone with them. Think of time as a "work" bucket, "spouse bucket", "hobby" bucket, and "friend" bucket. If you want to be in a committed relationship, the amount of time you have in each depends a great deal on how flexible and accomodating your spouse is. It needs to be balanced. Also, the more overlap you have in each, the more rewarding your life will feel. That's how it has been for me anyway. So, V, be careful what you wish for Edited June 26, 2012 by RedRobin
Els Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 OP, I fully admit that I didn't read the entire article. As for the portion that you quoted, though, I agree that women compete with each other about their own relationship statuses way too much. It's absurd. It comes to the point where some women gossip and laugh at (or pity) their friends who aren't married as they are, even if their friends are more successful financial, career, experience, and social-wise. I really wish that we could see that by encouraging such 'competition', we are really doing ourselves a disservice. A woman should not mainly be defined by her 'romantic success', just as how men are usually not. As for RR's comment, I think that some may pass over unmarried men, but I actually know employers who prefer unmarried men because they have no commitments (or, as they put it, 'distractions') and have greater capacity to put in an incredible number of hours to complete a project. It is assumed that a married man would have to go home to his family instead of spending days and nights at the office, and may not be able to travel at a snap of the finger's notice, or be transferred around branches easily. Sounds like you've had it a lot easier than I do. All you had to do was lose some weight, wear better clothes, use contacts or get lasic, and do something with your hair. Somehow I have to get rich without being a prodigy in anything and struggling in college. Aaaand.. 'all you have to do' is actually go to more social events and make an effort to make friends, ask more girls out, work out to gain muscles, and earn as much as that poster spent on hair, makeup, Lasix, and clothes. Sounds easy when you're the one saying it, right? Seriously, I know I vowed not to nag at you anymore, but it strikes me as really weird how you can tell everyone that what they did was 'easy' but you have 485356349653 reasons why you can't do equivalent things. Losing 40 lbs is nowhere near 'easy', but it was possible for her, and it's also not easy but possible for you to do all of the abovementioned things.
Author verhrzn Posted June 26, 2012 Author Posted June 26, 2012 OP, I fully admit that I didn't read the entire article. As for the portion that you quoted, though, I agree that women compete with each other about their own relationship statuses way too much. It's absurd. It comes to the point where some women gossip and laugh at (or pity) their friends who aren't married as they are, even if their friends are more successful financial, career, experience, and social-wise. I really wish that we could see that by encouraging such 'competition', we are really doing ourselves a disservice. A woman should not mainly be defined by her 'romantic success', just as how men are usually not. Oh absolutely, I'm right there with you. I think part of my dating misery comes from that competitive nature... that if you're single, there's something wrong with you. That if you're coupled/married, you're automatically better. I can think of at least 2 relationships in my social circle that are deeply unhealthy and miserable; yet, because those people are "coupled," they are somehow seen as more emotionally or socially mature than I am! There's a sense of smugness and superiority (to use another Bridget Jones' reference, "Smug Marrieds") that really gets under my skin. The worst part is, I can't get past the idea that they're right! That there IS something wrong with me because I'm single! It's why I kind of like articles like this... ones that explain that, sometimes it really ISN'T an individual's fault, but societal changes at large. Aaaand.. 'all you have to do' is actually go to more social events and make an effort to make friends, ask more girls out, work out to gain muscles, and earn as much as that poster spent on hair, makeup, Lasix, and clothes. Sounds easy when you're the one saying it, right? Seriously, I know I vowed not to nag at you anymore, but it strikes me as really weird how you can tell everyone that what they did was 'easy' but you have 485356349653 reasons why you can't do equivalent things. Losing 40 lbs is nowhere near 'easy', but it was possible for her, and it's also not easy but possible for you to do all of the abovementioned things. *Sigh* I know SD reads my posts, and yet he seems dead-set against believing anything I say. Ya know, like.... I already DO all of that stuff. I already go out to social events (I have had a social activity every night for the past 2 weeks!) I already have hobbies, make an effort to increase my friendships, spend money on hair and make-up, etc. As far as going to the gym and losing weight goes.... I have no idea how it happened, but yesterday I finally stepped on a scale again after having not done so since March. I've lost 7 pounds! I went from a 123-125lb range to suddenly being 116-118. I have NO idea how I did it. But it's the thinnest weight I've ever been, and it puts me smack-dab in the middle of the "Normal" range. And yet I'm still not getting male attention. So there.
Els Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Oh absolutely, I'm right there with you. I think part of my dating misery comes from that competitive nature... that if you're single, there's something wrong with you. That if you're coupled/married, you're automatically better. I can think of at least 2 relationships in my social circle that are deeply unhealthy and miserable; yet, because those people are "coupled," they are somehow seen as more emotionally or socially mature than I am! There's a sense of smugness and superiority (to use another Bridget Jones' reference, "Smug Marrieds") that really gets under my skin. The worst part is, I can't get past the idea that they're right! That there IS something wrong with me because I'm single! It's why I kind of like articles like this... ones that explain that, sometimes it really ISN'T an individual's fault, but societal changes at large. Well, using the two couples in unhealthy and miserable Rs as an example, don't you think there's something MORE wrong for them to choose to stay in those just out of fear of being alone/stigmatized, than with you for being single? I don't believe in absolvation of personal responsibility, as I think everyone is fully capable of making their own decisions and saying 'fsck society', but I completely agree that society still plays a huge part. It's even worse in Asian cultures. You're expected to solely focus on your studies til you graduate high school and college, then you're expected to automagically find the person you want to spend the rest of your life with during the next 5 years, marry them and pop out kids, and spend the rest of your life taking care of them. Deviate at any point along the way and you're abnormal/unwanted/etc. Wut? *Sigh* I know SD reads my posts, and yet he seems dead-set against believing anything I say. Ya know, like.... I already DO all of that stuff. I already go out to social events (I have had a social activity every night for the past 2 weeks!) I already have hobbies, make an effort to increase my friendships, spend money on hair and make-up, etc. As far as going to the gym and losing weight goes.... I have no idea how it happened, but yesterday I finally stepped on a scale again after having not done so since March. I've lost 7 pounds! I went from a 123-125lb range to suddenly being 116-118. I have NO idea how I did it. But it's the thinnest weight I've ever been, and it puts me smack-dab in the middle of the "Normal" range. And yet I'm still not getting male attention. So there. Hey, we're the exact same weight now. Good on you, V. I'm also 5'1" and I also went from 125 to 118-ish over the past year, and I swear passing college with flying colors was easier. I personally think that you need a paradigm shift more than anything else, but that falls in the category of 'vague suggestions', so I'll shut up about that.
MaxNoob Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 define 'qualified'. At the highest level, especially, you have tons of competitors who are qualified on paper. They can afford to make finer distinctions. The best for the job without taking martial status, race, etc. into consideration. Anyway, unless the other person has definitive proof that was the reason they were not selected... it's a no-go. You don't need definitive proof for a civil case. You think companies are learning to be subtle about this, but the record amount job discrimination cases last year says otherwise - almost 100,000. The message is pretty clear when all the gents in front of you on the ladder are all married Good evidence right here; calculate the odds of this happening by chance, which gets exponentially smaller with each extra person. Also, if their competitors see things the same way... that unmarried men are spending too much time chasing tail (either inside or outside work) and not enough time on the job... then it is a moot point. Remember what they are screening for... Stability. It's perfectly fine to reject a candidate if they actually haven't been spending enough time on the job. What you can't do is prejudge based on marital status. It's a disservice to your company to rely on shortcuts and assumptions, instead of more accurately judging an individual based on the content of his character.
seachangeoflove Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 realized what you were doing wrong. That was your own choice. What Im doing wrong? I am quite happy about my decisions. I have no regrets and please point out to me where Ive complained? nope, Ive had it pretty ****ing good if you ask me also, I worked hard to change. Change myself and my attitude and Ive asked out tons of men as I still don't get approached. what have you done? 1
Sanman Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 I'm always a little cynical of those hawking books, but there is definitely some truth to what the author was saying. For one thing, I agree that endless choice and all the talk of not settling can get take too far. Without societal pressure, people have more choices and the ability to carve out the relationships that they want. However, that does not necessarily mean that the choices we make as individuals are better than those made with societal pressure. Also, while many people talk about not settling for anything more than the image in their head, no one tells them that purple-haired, one-eyed, model-esque, multi-millionaire may not exist and if they do, may not want them. There used to be those that told young people to temper their wants and dreams. Today, everybody is told to chase their dreams and if they fall on their face, too bad. It does not matter if chasing that dream means that any other version of happiness may be ruined, which can often be the result of this unyielding dream chasing. The other point, that I think that one of the article commenters mentioned, is that you cannot have liberation of women in the workforce without equal liberation of men as homemakers. What happens is a shrinking of the number of people that are considered for relationships. As some men fail to make careers for themselves, the fewer very successful men will many more options and take advantage of that position. Hence, all of those not at the top will feel the suffering in some way. 1
Negative Nancy Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Why did you manage to hit 30 without getting married? If a woman turned down the relationship minded men in her 20's to have fun with the playboys, it's her own damn fault if she finds herself to be in her 30's and "all the good men are taken." Same thing applies if she didn't date at all in her 20's because school or work was more important. Why did you manage to hit 30 without having had a girlfriend? As many women on here (including myself) have stated numerous times, most men in their 20s usually do NOT want to settle down, so it's men's fault because all they want to do is party and f*** around. And why should we settle down with someone 10+ years older just for the sake of settling down? Don't you as well want someone close to your age (or even younger ) yourself? If women in their 20s are "expected" to settle down in order to escape the contempt of the frustrated men on here, so should men in their 20s then. 1
zengirl Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Oh absolutely, I'm right there with you. I think part of my dating misery comes from that competitive nature... that if you're single, there's something wrong with you. That if you're coupled/married, you're automatically better. I know many people who don't think that way though, so why can't you just choose not to think like that. It's bizarre to think that a miserable married life, being married to the wrong person, is better than being happy alone, IMO. I was happy alone --- though I wanted a partner --- when I was single, and I think you HAVE to be to develop a healthy R. There used to be those that told young people to temper their wants and dreams. Today, everybody is told to chase their dreams and if they fall on their face, too bad. It does not matter if chasing that dream means that any other version of happiness may be ruined, which can often be the result of this unyielding dream chasing. Well, that's fair enough, though I don't think more societal choices, less gender roles, and less societal pressure naturally translates to "Chase whatever dream you want." That's just a trend of certain generations of parents and their offspring, which is going away today anyway. I think it's great to say, "Make your choices, based on what's right for you, and not society" but frankly stupid to say, "You can have whatever you want."
Sanman Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Well, that's fair enough, though I don't think more societal choices, less gender roles, and less societal pressure naturally translates to "Chase whatever dream you want." That's just a trend of certain generations of parents and their offspring, which is going away today anyway. I think it's great to say, "Make your choices, based on what's right for you, and not society" but frankly stupid to say, "You can have whatever you want." Well, it is not necessarily loose gender roles and societal changes that were the only factors. However, people and society often do not factor in the unintended consequences of some of this choice either. It is great to have women in positions of power and on equal footing in the job market. However, that displaces good jobs for men, which means fewer possible choices of spouses with similar success. In the same way, the American push for education at any cost has led to many college students and those with even higher education to lose out and unable able to compete with the ever greater level of competition. I know PhDs with 30k/yr adjunct jobs at 35 years old and no prospects of marriage. In the 1970's, such a man was fewer and far between. Today, the overeducated and underemployed comprise the bulk of my friends.
Author verhrzn Posted June 26, 2012 Author Posted June 26, 2012 Well, it is not necessarily loose gender roles and societal changes that were the only factors. However, people and society often do not factor in the unintended consequences of some of this choice either. It is great to have women in positions of power and on equal footing in the job market. However, that displaces good jobs for men, which means fewer possible choices of spouses with similar success. In the same way, the American push for education at any cost has led to many college students and those with even higher education to lose out and unable able to compete with the ever greater level of competition. I know PhDs with 30k/yr adjunct jobs at 35 years old and no prospects of marriage. In the 1970's, such a man was fewer and far between. Today, the overeducated and underemployed comprise the bulk of my friends. Though that begs the question, why haven't men flowed into the places that women vacated? The home, more traditionally "feminine" jobs. Health care positions are still aplenty in this country, yet nurses are still traditionally female. House husbands are still kind of rare. If we're arguing that women are becoming men, then why haven't the men turned around and become women?
Titanwolf Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 If we're arguing that women are becoming men, then why haven't the men turned around and become women? It's probably because they haven't had the reverse, male equivalent of feminism. It wouldn't work, men are extremely resilient lol (as they should be).
zengirl Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Well, it is not necessarily loose gender roles and societal changes that were the only factors. However, people and society often do not factor in the unintended consequences of some of this choice either. It is great to have women in positions of power and on equal footing in the job market. However, that displaces good jobs for men, which means fewer possible choices of spouses with similar success. In the same way, the American push for education at any cost has led to many college students and those with even higher education to lose out and unable able to compete with the ever greater level of competition. I know PhDs with 30k/yr adjunct jobs at 35 years old and no prospects of marriage. In the 1970's, such a man was fewer and far between. Today, the overeducated and underemployed comprise the bulk of my friends. There is the chance, however, that those people would have no opportunities for education without that same push, no? I suppose men have "lost out" on jobs because of women entering the job market, but it's hardly fair to be kept from following your chosen profession, or even unduly hindered in doing so, simply by the luck of birth that is unchangeable. I'm not saying everything is easy for everyone with choices -- I'm saying it isn't. But at least choices give people chances. I am fairly young, so wasn't alive for the 70s. I'm sure, however, that people then and now and in every time that's ever existed talked about how much "simpler" or "better" it was in the "old days." We idealize the past. Really, 19th century romance was hardly romantic at all and was riddled with class politics and economic concerns. Really, it was hard to change your class back then -- if you weren't born to an educated family, you probably weren't going to be educated. Male or female. I just don't get the comfort in "knowing your place" I guess --- I find much more comfort in being able to impact my place and make my own choices, rather than have them not just handed to me but forced upon me. At any rate, if someone wants an education that guarantees success, they can get one today. Engineering. Certain kinds of software. Medicine, though that one takes a bit of time to payoff, sure. Hell, nurses (college-educated and highly trained) still do well, if one can't be a doctor. I'm not talking billions and a private jet success, mind you, but good, steady, lifelong income, and a high starting salary. There are still careers in which you can write your own ticket. But why should every PhD get to write his/her own ticket? Why should half the potential workforce not be in the market just to lessen 'competition'? I see no good reasons for any of that. Your argument just seems. . . lazy to me. That's not to say people aren't down on their luck these days, sometimes to no fault of their own, but to say society's bad because people are down on their luck . . . well, choices didn't do that. People have been down on their luck at many points in history, some hardly marked by great selection.
Sanman Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Though that begs the question, why haven't men flowed into the places that women vacated? The home, more traditionally "feminine" jobs. Health care positions are still aplenty in this country, yet nurses are still traditionally female. House husbands are still kind of rare. If we're arguing that women are becoming men, then why haven't the men turned around and become women? Listen, that is a question I have as well. Frankly, while there are some men in that position, many women do not seem to be looking for it. Look in the paying for dates thread. Many women still want their initial dates paid for by men. They still want to be treated 'like a woman' rather than having to wear the pants and support a man. I know several men in female dominated fields and the truth is that with the pay in some of those fields, men simply cannot compete with other men in traditional fields like business and tech that make much more money. There simply is not enough money left over to afford some of the nicer dates women like. I know a great guy who is a special ed teacher and underemployed as a teaching assistant because there is a glut of teachers in the area. He makes 25k. Some of his colleagues in elementary schools make little more than that as full-time teachers. After paying bills, there really is not enough to afford dating. Luckily, he met someone through our friends and she actually makes significantly more than him. In my field, I decided on a more lucrative specialization and took a fellowship whereas a female colleague took a job at a school making roughly the same amount (35-40k). The difference is that she was able to date and marry while we were in graduate school to a man with substantial means (in his 40s, in business, making over 200k). Thus, her job is superfluous and her money is hers. I did not have such a luxury as dating is a lot harder for a poor man/ man in school than it is for a woman. Despite being in a relationship with a wonderful woman that splits the financial costs (and many women will not) it can still be hard to pay for these things after bills and loan payments.
Author verhrzn Posted June 26, 2012 Author Posted June 26, 2012 Listen, that is a question I have as well. Frankly, while there are some men in that position, many women do not seem to be looking for it. Look in the paying for dates thread. Many women still want their initial dates paid for by men. They still want to be treated 'like a woman' rather than having to wear the pants and support a man. I'm just going to address this part. I do fairly well in my profession. By no means lucrative, but not too shabby. Given my druthers, I'd happily pick a partner who made equal, to even a little less, than I do. (Ideally, my partner would either: have a job he loves and is amazing at, but doesn't pay super well... or a job that he doesn't mind and pays decent.) My concern has always been less "what's his income?" then "what are his financial decisions like?" If he can support himself and live decently on $20,000 a year, then who the heck cares that it's a "low salary"? He's obviously a budgeting whiz, which is very attractive to me! Okay, now my actual point. Traditionally, I have always paid for myself. Sometimes, I even pay for the guy. But each time, this has resulted in me ending up with guys who were not into me. I think the majority of women who want guys to pay for their meals aren't looking for a rich man (there are outliners and gold diggers, of course)... it's not the money that matters, but the guy's interest. A guy paying for you on a date is a HUGE sign of investment on his part. He wants to pay for you, which means he's interested. In other words, men paying for women is about women trying to gauge the guy's interest. If he doesn't pay, doesn't offer to pay.... pretty much guaranteed he is not into you, because he's not willing to put forth an investment. Just wanted to address that part of your post.
Recommended Posts