GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Male and Female Imponderables – She Blinded me with Science

POSTED BY: PENGUIN
UPDATED: Friday, August 25, 2006 04:29
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3620
PAGE 2 of 3

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:39 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by msg:
What a coincidence M4P..I used to be a ballerina:) It's part of the reason my feet are so tiny. I've been on pointe since I was 12.



I remember - you ABT goddess! That's why I mentioned it!

I started too old, and my feet are too big. I think I'm like 6'2" on pointe - scary!

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:54 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by SeaOtter:
Quote:

Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
Did anyone see that movie the guy who played The Operative was in? A British movie called Kinky Boots, or possible Sexy Boots, I can't remember. Anyway, it was about a shoe factory that was closing down and The Operative, who was a transvestite, convinced them to change their market to sexy boots for men who dress as women. It was a really funny movie, kinda shmaltsy, and The Operative was brilliant.



He was also in a film out for rental called, The Inside Man. He's great in that, too.





He was also in La Amistad. Which was really good. Though I don't remember him in it since it was years and years ago that I saw it last.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:57 PM

TRISTAN


Howdy, all! Just got home a little while ago...my brain is numb.
I have missed so much that I will neevr catch up again, and I still have two days to go before I get back in front of a computer! Oy!
Y'all don't forget me...

______________________________________

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:58 PM

PENGUIN


And you are???


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:05 PM

TRISTAN




______________________________________

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:08 PM

PENGUIN





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:36 PM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


So here's an Imponderable for y'all. Actually, this is beyond 'imponderable', this has gone straight to the 'wtf?' range.

"Don't Marry a Career Woman" http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/21/careers-marriage-dating_cx_mn_0821wom
en_print.html


Gals, you may want to have a towel ready. I was steam-coming-out-my-ears, frothing-at-the-mouth angry when I first read this. I'm much calmer now though.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:50 PM

DANCINGNEKO


Exactly...


Tristan....Tristan....nope, no idea....*shrugs*

Oh well, Welcome to the thread Tristan!


(Yes, I am kidding! I luvz my favorite "older-twin-brother-of-Mal's" who has a warrior woman of his own. )


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:00 PM

MSG


Ck- you think that's bad you should see the short films from the 50's. They have one about why you should major in home ec in college. I froth in rage every time I see it!


Tristan sweety- hope you get back to us soon, but seems like we've both been AWOL for a few.Hang in there!
I choose to rise instead of fall- U2



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:09 PM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


Well sure, but the major difference is that those were made in the 50s rather than being written in 2006 and sounding as if the author wants to go back to the 50s. I don't generally have a problem with antiques , though I can see how it would be majorly frustrating if the school is still showing that sort of film. (Who lives in Utah? You live in Utah! Sorry, too much chocolate ( http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/choccy/) for me today. )

I'm on a mailing list for women in my industry (we only make up about 9% of the industry overall), and boy howdy did they hate this article. We're fairly used to being told that we can't do our jobs because we don't have a Y chromosome, but having Forbes tell men that they shouldn't marry women like us because they'll be unhappy, sick, and have a dirtier house, well now, that's going a bit too far.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:22 PM

WHITEFALL


Urgh, well, the link doesn't work for me, maybe that's for the better, you guys don't need me launching in to yet another feminist tyrade from my high and mighty high school perch. Let's just leave it at, that's sick and twisted, CK, keep fighting the power!

Ugh, but then... I did a litttle more digging, I couldnt find the article, but I found this:

"While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner."

First off, have they done studies on how likely career men are to cheat?! And I know this could just be a literary device thing, but I'm a little sickened that they put feminist in quotes... I take quotes to mean where you change your intonation in order to discredit the thing in quotes. And... bah, ok, i'll stop.




"But, these strong women characters?"

"Why aren't you asking 100 other guys why they don't write strong women characters?" -Joss Whedon

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:07 PM

SEAOTTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Whitefall:
Ugh, but then... I did a litttle more digging, I couldnt find the article, but I found this:

"While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner."


I think that's the point. That those careers make women behave more like what men have always been perceived to be. They're not doing the nurturing thing, they're doing the survival thing.

(Before either gender gets angry at me, I am a woman with a career and think that women should have them if they want them)

What I am trying to say is that having a career gives women fulfillment that other women find in the home. Different kind of fullfillment will lead to different priorities.

So, to me, what you are describing the article as saying is, settle down with a woman who doesn't want a career becuase then you and your family will be her first priority. She'll be less likely to cheat on you because you are her world. (note: not because she loves you more or thinks more of you)

(wasn't able to get the link to work. maybe the morons pulled it.)


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:20 PM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


Whitefall, that's a direct quote from the article. I think the outrage over the article has been so harsh and so widespread that it's crashed the site a few times, so they keep moving the article. At the moment, it seems to be working here: http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_l
and.html
That link also includes a rebuttal from the *woman* writer for Forbes who wrote the current front page story (on robots!).

But since the article keeps disappearing, I'll paste it here.
Quote:

Point: Don't Marry Career Women
By Michael Noer
How do women, careers and marrage mix? Not well, say social scientists.

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure…at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?

Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse's parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married--it's just that they are less likely to be so than non-working women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub.

To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.

If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).

Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.

In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect. "I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed," Johnson says. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of "low marital quality."

The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners," researcher Adrian J. Blow reported in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, "and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals."

There's more: According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.

And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating. According to one recent study on "Marriage and Divorce's Impact on Wealth," published in The Journal of Sociology, divorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77%.

So why not just stay single? Because, academically speaking, a solid marriage has a host of benefits beyond just individual "happiness." There are broader social and health implications as well. According to a 2004 paper entitled "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?" marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances," higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.

A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn't mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.


Now for the record, I should point out that my problem is not with the statistics cited in the article (though I do suspect that they are one-sided and misleading at the very least). No, my problem is that it takes the statistical findings, and blames it all on the wife, letting the husband off scott free. If a husband and a wife both work 40+ hours a week, whose fault is it that the house is dirty? Hers? His? Or both?

And for crying out loud, if a man whose wife has a career gets ill, how in the world is it her fault? Maybe he should learn to take better care of his body, and stop eating like he's still in college.

Anyhow, I've actually had this argument out in other venues (one very brave man posted to the women's list I'm on and said "well actually, my wife makes more than me, and I agree with these sentiments" -- I replied back and asked if he would still marry his wife, knowing what he knows now), but I was curious what everyone here would make of it. Agree/disagree/vote for castration/everyone calm on down, whatever. Just curious to hear.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:24 PM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


Woah! Sorry CK - I'll definitely ponder some next time I get a chance - that looks really interestin', but I have to love you and leave you all right now! Just dropped in to say 'hello' (I don't want to go the way of Tristan and be forgotten for all eternity...) so hello! Love you! Still rainin' here in 'New Melbourne'! Don't mind though...! Got to take my car to the garage now! Also I have a crappy meeting... so catch you all much, much later...

Mwaaah - Magdalena x x x x x x x




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:53 PM

DESKTOPHIPPIE


Am I the only one who thinks that you're a hell of a lot more likely to get divorced if you try to choose the "perfect" wife instead of marrying someone you fall in love with? I mean, correct me if that seems stupid, because it seems bloody obvious to me.

And does anyone else notice how it seems fine for a man not to want kids, but if a woman doesn't she's seen to be lacking some important personality trait? She's even seen as being selfish and cold. Just for deciding against having kids?

Don't mind me. Having an Equality Now moment. *seethes*




More animations available at http://desktophippie.googlepages.com

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:44 PM

GOAT


*writes will, takes deep breath and puts on flame retardant suit to increase probability of surviving the upcoming flaming*

Quote:

Originally posted by Whitefall:
First off, have they done studies on how likely career men are to cheat?!



Didn't the study the author referenced say that "highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat. "? It sounds like the author is thinking: "people with a career are more likely to cheat. women are people therefore career women are more likely to cheat" which technically may be true, but it skews the facts a bit.

Why is it that if a man doesn't like it that his wife makes more money than he does he's automatically a chauvinist? I imagine that if I were in that situation, I would be a little uncomfortable with it but that comes from me belief that I need to pull my weight (not just in the monitary sense) and I tend to get uncomfortable when I'm not. Uncomfortable enough to make me leave or be eternally unhappy? No, but uncomfortable none the less. On the other hand, I can't really see myself marrying someone who would be completely comfortable being in the opposite situation (me making more than her) either.

I think that the article brings up some important personal and cultural questions but is a little off on the proposed solution. Which is more important: money and status or family? Is it important to have a parent (notice I did NOT say "the wife") at home while kids are growing up? If that is important, who stays home and how do you decide that?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:17 AM

ODDSBODSKINS


see, two conflicting side's of me want to answer this, and i can't decide which of them to give full reign =S

there's my scottish side, and he just say's 'loada bollocks' and goes for anothe drink, and there's my english side, which smiles slightly, giggles condescendingly and says 'well you know, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics'


i'm torn between glib responses, i need help >.<

_______
jailbait.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:26 AM

SPACEANJL


I'm cross-eyed with rage at present, so excuse any typo's. WTF was that article?!?

I have a few things to contribute here - husband earns more than me, but that's because I took a decision to downsize (we're both hopeful that I can take my writing somewhere) I've earnt more than a partner before, and there can be a real ego problem.

But because I work part-time, our families are both keen that I start the next generation. I am not keen. If I want something that whines at odd hours of the night, and pukes up on my furniture, I have a cat. And they don't see that writing is anything more than 'scribbling', a 'hobby', and that I should spend more time on the housework, if I'm not breeding.

Husband is, however,used to coming home to a house that has not been dusted, and to a wife who stares at him blankly, muttering about guns and where to put the chase scene.

However, both of us like to cook, so we share that out.

I married the man because he doesn't give a good gorram if the shelves are dusted, as long as I'm happy. His dearest wish is that I pull a 'Rowling' and make us both very rich! (he is also not keen on sprogs.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:26 AM

JAMESTHEDARK


I have to run with the grain on this one. Whoever compiled that piece of gos se should be dragged out into the street, stripped naked, and flogged through town with frozen salmon.

Really, it just makes me appalled to be a member of my gender. Blegh.

--------------
I ain't lookin' for help from on high. That's a damn long wait for a train don't come.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:30 AM

EMMARIGBY


Hi Guys! I'm back and ready to impoderable some more! After I've caught up of course. It seems like I'll have to take a moment to build up a suitably large and vitriolic steamed arguement to let loose about sexism dressed up in bad science!
But right now I have to get on a train and make my way home (just got back from Madagasca and took an internet access break in my 48 hour journey to say howdy!)

___________________
Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:06 AM

MAL4PREZ


G'morning!

Oh, what a fun article.

OK, he's saying that career women lead to bad marriages, and offers statistics to back it up. To quote:

"wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of 'low marital quality.' "

OK, fine. But he's ASSuming something about the correlation. It may very well be that men who are unable to accept their wives being employed and intelligent and strong-willed are bad for marriages. Hmmm.

Dick.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:19 AM

PENGUIN


Quote:

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
Hi Guys! I'm back and ready to impoderable some more! After I've caught up of course. It seems like I'll have to take a moment to build up a suitably large and vitriolic steamed arguement to let loose about sexism dressed up in bad science!
But right now I have to get on a train and make my way home (just got back from Madagasca and took an internet access break in my 48 hour journey to say howdy!)

___________________
Hissssssssss!



WE WANT PICTURES!!!!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:49 AM

ZEEK


OK I'll start by saying the article is stupid and I doubt any intelligent man is saying to himself, "gee I guess I'll just look for some poor, out of work, homebody to marry".

However, I also think people need to calm down. Look who the article is written to. It's for men. It's trying to tell them what statistically will make a better marriage. Obviously all the blame will land on the women, because the man can't be someone else. It could say, "men are terrible husbands when they marry a career woman", but that would sorta offend the target of the article. Either way the article can be summarized as saying, "statistically marriages involving a career woman are more likely to be rocky". Which they apparently have statistics to back up. It's not the worst article ever. It's just pointless.

As was said before, get married for love not for statistically likelyhood of success.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:52 AM

RUGBUG


But Zeek, he goes about the article in a completely disingenuous way. He is twisting the statistics to suit his hypothesis. For example:

This assertion

Quote:

The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you.


isn't directly at women, but he uses it as if it is. What about all the marriages that end in divorce because the husband cheated? All those stay at home wives that have been dealing with the same issue for decades? In the recent past, statistical evidence showed that men were more likely to cheat (this is changing these days). So he takes a statistic, gets real ambigious about gender and then tries to use it against women.

And this:

Quote:

According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.


Again, he uses this against women when it actually supports a conclusion that men or women would be happier in marriage if they and/or their partner were uneducated and earned less than $30K a year.

And here:

Quote:

marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances," higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.


What about benefits for women? Studies show that married women report being less happy than their single counterparts, while married men report being happier when married. What are the actual gender breakdowns for increased longevity and health?

And that whole statement is predicated on the assumption of a "good marriage." What are the effects of a bad marriage on longevity, happiness of children, and income?

The article is misogny wrapped up as psuedo-science. It is banking on the fact that people are going to look at the "statistics" and believe. The article is riddled with logical fallacies, despite the author's attempt to throw the reader off at the end with his authoritative sounding "correlation does not imply causation" statement.

And welcome back Emma! How was Madagascar?

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:34 AM

ZEEK


He's saying the likelyhood of a woman meeting someone to cheat with goes up when she's out working instead of home all day. My guess is that's 100% true. It's not an attack on women. It's just the way things are.

The second one again is just statistics about people. The reason it comes off as against women is because the article is written to men about choosing a wife.

For the third quote he obviously isn't going to list the benefits to women, because again the article is written to men about choosing a wife.

You make valid points and all, but if he did include that information in this particular article then it wouldn't make sense.

I think it's just a "take a deep breath" situation. Again I doubt any men are going to shun career women because of this article. The thing I found more funny was how the counterpoint didn't counter the point. The counterpoint should have been listing why a career woman makes a good wife. Not why lazy men are bad. Really I think a lot of educated men like career women. Being able to have an intelligent conversation with your SO is a huge plus.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:43 AM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


Quote:

Look who the article is written to. It's for men.
That's actually part of the problem, though, Zeek. It may have been written with a male audience in mind, but it wasn't published by a men's magazine. It was published by Forbes, which is a magazine (and associated website) that many "career women" read. The rebuttal to that article was written by the woman who wrote the current cover story for Forbes.

I've seen people elsewhere say that much worse has been said about men in women's magazines like Cosmo. I think that's an apples to oranges comparison, but it does bring to light one of the glaring problems with the article: it was aimed at men, while shunning the exact type of women who are most likely to read Forbes in the first place.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:44 AM

RUGBUG


Quote:

Originally posted by Zeek:
but if he did include that information in this particular article then it wouldn't make sense.



But in doing so, the author is being intellectually dishonest. He is misleading, nay lying, to his readership. That's really the problem I have with the article. On a whole, it doesn't really upset me all that much. No steam coming out of my ears, just sadness that people would be gullible enough to give this article any credit whatsoever...and sad that a viewpoint like this still exists.

For another, albiet funny, take on marriage...and one that holds just about the same scientific merit as the article up for discussion...I give you song lyrics:

"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife. Go for my personal point of view, get an ugly woman to marry you."

Sadly, I could twist some of the "statistics" the author used to make the same case for marrying an ugly woman.



***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:48 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Rugbug

Although you are absolutely right in all of your points, the fact remains that career women have more access to the oposite sex. The have that access on a frequent basis. Additionally, a career woman is more likely to be thrust into semi intimate relationships with the opposite sex then a "stay-at-home-mom".

Just like career men are more prone to stray because they are flattered by women they meet. An intelligent sucessful woman being flattered by intelligent successful men is a breeding ground for disaster.

Does this mean that stay-at-home-moms don't stray, of course not. Does this mean that all career women are skanks waiting to happen of course not.

The fact remains that in todays society, unfortunately - To have and To Hold, Forsaking all others, unto death do us part REALLY means - until something better comes along or I get sick of you st.


----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:18 AM

RUGBUG


FMF, I don't disagree with the author's assertion...or with the fact that career people have access to a larger pool of possibilities. My problem with that argument is that he uses it against women, when the same statement applies to men in equal, if not larger, portion. He convienently gets 'gender-less' but his article is villifying career women, thus an automatice assumption of the reader that his genderless comments are in reference to women. Is it the author's responsibility that people make that leap? No. But that is his intention.

Like I just said, a Pretty woman has access to a larger pool of possibilities than an ugly one, but does that mean marriage to her will be bad, unstable or likely to fail?

And I agree with you that marriage is often seen as "until something better comes along" instead of "til death do us part."

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:22 AM

WHITEFALL


FMF, if I may, I will quote Monkey Island in saying about your sig: "Good use of the TM."

WELCOME BACK EMMA!!!!

Anyhoo..... I think CK is exactly right, most of the women who are going to read the article are going to be so called "career women", so he's asking for a fight when publishing that.

And reading the article again, it's so much a blame game. Sometimes he refers to "career women", or worse, "these women", as if they were some group with a membership that he was excluding, it's just a statistical crap thing. His target audience is men: but that does not excuse his absurdly chauvanist attitude, talking down to career women and glorifying the housewife, while never saying anything about a househusband. (I know, I know, the target is men, blah blah blah....)

As for divorces, I think the recent increases are only partially because of the faster-paced western lifestyle. I think partly it is that if divorce had been acceptable before (which up until 50 or so years ago, it just plain wasnt) people would have done it. Instead, we have that odd tradition of culture references of bad marriages (all those old guys/gals on TV shows and such who half-jokingly insult their wives/husbands behiund their backs, like marriage is the worst thing they ever did...)..... Partially the new divorce rate is more people not putting up with the other person's .

"But, these strong women characters?"

"Why aren't you asking 100 other guys why they don't write strong women characters?" -Joss Whedon

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:09 AM

ZEEK


Would it help if the article said that the same reasoning should be used by career women finding a husband? I think the worst part of the article is that it assumes all men are career minded. Otherwise it would fit his idea of expertise in different tasks just fine if the man stayed home.

Either way I don't think anything in the article is saying that men aren't just as likely to stray because they work.

Furthermore shouldn't women be happy about this article? Any idiot who wouldn't date a career woman because of this article isn't a guy you'd really want anyway, right? Really you should be praising this author for weeding out the bad candidates for you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:11 AM

MSG


Hey may I point out correlation is not causation. There is a 92% correlation between an increase in the number of storks in Europe and an increase in the number of babies being born. And I feel fairly confident in saying the storks aren't bringing the babies. Correlation can happen anytime with all sorts of random things. Causation can only be proven if all other contributing factors are eliminated. This article is probably a result of the author's bad marriage or secret fear and resentment of the women he works around and he's arranged support for it cleverly:) It's just fluff.


EDIT_ oh and EmmaHUGS and tell us all about the trip:)

I choose to rise instead of fall- U2



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:13 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Question:

If one is female and has a stalker that is female - does that add to the creepy factor?





----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:46 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Question:

If one is female and has a stalker that is female - does that add to the creepy factor?


Nope that just adds to the sexy factor.

I wish I had a stalker. Seems like they'd be fun. Almost like a pet.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:49 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:

Originally posted by Zeek:
Quote:

Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Question:

If one is female and has a stalker that is female - does that add to the creepy factor?


Nope that just adds to the sexy factor.

I wish I had a stalker. Seems like they'd be fun. Almost like a pet.



You can have mine. Names Kaneman. Creepy!


----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:00 AM

RUGBUG


Kaneman is following you around? What a shame. Someone has too much time on their hands.

As for females stalking other females...stalking is just creepy, no matter the sex.

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:10 AM

ZEEK


I think that's one of the things I take too much of a macho perspective on. I figure that I could always take the woman who's stalking me. So, where's the danger? I know I've seen Fatal Attraction. It was sorta creepy. But Michael Douglas shoulda just kicked that chick's butt after she killed their rabbit.

I can say that some dude's are rather creepy though. I've seen some semi stalkers in action. The way they store up loads and loads of pictures of the person is freaky. They even show them off like it's some sign that the girl totally likes them. "Look at all these pictures I've scrounged together of so and so...she's totally into me"....uh not really how it works buddy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:37 AM

RUGBUG


Zeek, how would you feel if a man was stalking you?

I think that's what FMF was asking. Would a same sex stalker be creepier than an opposite sex one.

River6213, who I think is one of Kaneman's other personalities, or vice versa, said she saved some of the pictures from the "putting Faces with names" threads. That creeped me out.

(Although, somehow I don't find it creepy that I have some pics of our BDHs saved. It's all about perspective, I guess )

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:50 AM

ZEEK


Quote:

Originally posted by RugBug:
Zeek, how would you feel if a man was stalking you?


Again it probably wouldn't be too creepy. I'd just be like "dude I don't swing that way". He couldn't do much to me without breaking the law and then I'd just have him arrested.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:32 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Afternoon all. Net down all day. Didn't get a gorram thing done.
Tryin' to catch up with all the career women talk and stalker pondering.

Yes FMF, a little strange having a stalker of the same sex. But stalking is stalking.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:55 PM

ODDSBODSKINS


i think they'de pretty pretty evenly mached on the stalke-creepy ratio, i mean, a bloke is more like to feel beaingt you up (not, of course, to discount the creepy-female martial-artist stalker minority) but a woman would come up with so much better headfucks!

_______
jailbait.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:55 PM

JAMESTHEDARK


There's something I've noticed in my wanderings of this life:

Men are far more likely to go psycho.
Women are far more frightening when they go psycho.

Men are statistically much more likely to be dangerous, with something like 90% of all serial killers being males (And, understandably, 98% of all rapists of any description). I'm not exactly sure why. Maybe we've just got CRAZY scratched into the Y chromosome. Or maybe its related to the 'If-I-Drink-Myself-Into-A-Coma-She'll-Have-Sex-With-Me' gene...

That said, when women go over the edge, they go all out. Perhaps it's simply that a woman gone psychopathic is so rare that it is all the more shocking when it occurs. I can't say for sure. But whatever the reason, crazy chicks are damn frightening.

So, yes, I would be freaked out if I had a female stalker. No, I wouldn't be tickled pink; I'd be locking my doors at night. Same as if I'd accumulated a male stalker.

New query: Is it odd to activate every Gay-dar in a mile wide radius, even though one isn't homosexual? I ask this because an unsettlingly large number (more than I care to count, to be honest) of bisexual or gay males have expressed interest in me. It's kinda creepy, more so because I don't want any of it, and make sure others know that.

Blegh. Still sick. Need to lie down now.

--------------
I ain't lookin' for help from on high. That's a damn long wait for a train don't come.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:37 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:

Originally posted by JamesTheDark:

New query: Is it odd to activate every Gay-dar in a mile wide radius, even though one isn't homosexual? I ask this because an unsettlingly large number (more than I care to count, to be honest) of bisexual or gay males have expressed interest in me. It's kinda creepy, more so because I don't want any of it, and make sure others know that.

.



I would worry more if you were setting off women's gaydar!


----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:37 PM

MSG


hmmm psycho women...perfect for my rant. I am soooooo MAD at my cleaning lady right now. Usually when she has extra time she cleans the blinds or the fridge. Today, she re-arranged both my dressing table top and my dresser top ( which has dozens of bottles and other stuff I have arranged according to how and when I use/need it) and made some weird like pyramid with the bottles and just generally messed with all my stuff and I am &(%*%$%^%#^*%^&*O$#*@$(*&%@#$@#@)(*&#)(@)&* really upset about it. on a good day, I HATE having my stuff messed with and this has been a sh ty week and I am just so frustrated and angry right now, because I have to spend all this time trying to put everything back and I hate that she messed with my stuff and *&(#@(*^&%#)_*(&^#%@&^%$(^%#@(%^_$@_&*#!^((^%*!#_&*($&_*%@ sorry just really annoyed beyond all reason, probably 'cause of the aforementioned week of death where I have been pulling 12-14 hour days every day! OK venting done. I return you to your regularly scheduled imponderables:)

I choose to rise instead of fall- U2



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:44 PM

PENGUIN


Now calm down dear...


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:50 PM

MSG


slowly calming. I just really hate when someone messes around with my stuff. It's just annoying. I compare it to someone logging on to your computer and messing with the icons, adding some, deleting some moving them etc...it's irritating, but she's such a great cleaner and all...

I choose to rise instead of fall- U2



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:07 PM

WHITEFALL


Or maybe logging on to your FFF.net account and posting with your screen name? Cause we all know that never happens...

"But, these strong women characters?"

"Why aren't you asking 100 other guys why they don't write strong women characters?" -Joss Whedon

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:25 PM

MSG


hey- that's a mistake. If MisterG would just log off LOL

I choose to rise instead of fall- U2



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:47 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


OK peeps. If your stalker asks if you have laundry to do- does that mean it wants to SEE the laundry.

Why do I now feel as if I need a bath?

shh! what was that?


----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:45 PM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


Quote:

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
Hi Guys! I'm back and ready to impoderable some more! After I've caught up of course. It seems like I'll have to take a moment to build up a suitably large and vitriolic steamed arguement to let loose about sexism dressed up in bad science!
But right now I have to get on a train and make my way home (just got back from Madagasca and took an internet access break in my 48 hour journey to say howdy!)


Welcome home Emma!! We've missed you and can't wait to hear about Madagasca!! (Don't suppose the little furry things really sing "I like to move it, move it!"??)

Magdalena x x x

EDIT: Now that I have read all the POVs I must say that I too am just pretty sad that someone could write this article for a magazine which apparently has an intelligent target audience and get it published! "Does that seem right to you?" Why did the publisher let this go to print? What were the real motives? It is kind of pitiful that the statistics have been presented in such a way that a less intelligent individual might say "hey - that really makes sense" but to put it in Forbes Magazine??? Maybe the editor thought the author deserved the backlash that would inevitably occour, or maybe it's (as they say) 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'...???

On the stalker thing - nobody wants one! Believe me! I had one which my Policeman friend put firmly in his place when they 'met' and he was creepy to say the least, but it did not escalate the way one of my friends had happen. She took out an intervention order which prevented him from coming within 200m of her and when she saw him from her appartment window she called the Police. He was arrested with a loaded gun adn a suicide note on him. Apparently he was planning to kill her and then himself - the note read something creepy about them being together for all eternity since they couldn't be together in this life... eeek! *shudders*

I think any stalker is creepy just coz of the complete detatchment from reality that must occour for them to start this behaviour. Fantasy is one thing... projecting it as some sort of reality is quite another... *shudders again*




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
One shot on Ma(ude) Reynolds
Mon, October 21, 2019 15:02 - 1 posts
76th Independent Battalion Part 48
Mon, October 21, 2019 10:01 - 1884 posts
Happy Halloween
Sat, October 19, 2019 10:11 - 3 posts
North Richland Hills, TX CSTS Event Sunday, October 13 2019. Serenity Charity Screening. Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog Charity Screening.
Sun, October 13, 2019 00:12 - 1 posts
THE ROOKIE PICKED UP
Mon, October 7, 2019 16:19 - 13 posts
Prodigal Son
Tue, October 1, 2019 20:47 - 4 posts
Nathan Fillion's The Rookie 2nd season starts 9/29/2019 10 pm eastern ABC
Sun, September 29, 2019 21:58 - 1 posts
Arcata,CA CSTS Event Sunday, Sept. 29th 2019. Serenity Charity Screening.
Fri, September 27, 2019 02:27 - 1 posts
Denver, CO CSTS Event Saturday, Sept. 28th 2019. Serenity Charity Screening.
Fri, September 27, 2019 02:15 - 1 posts
New Berlin, WI CSTS Event Saturday, Sept. 28th 2019. Serenity Charity Screening.
Fri, September 27, 2019 02:06 - 1 posts
Irvine, CA CSTS Event Sunday, Sept. 22th 2019. Serenity Charity Screening and the Fallen Stars.
Sun, September 22, 2019 00:43 - 1 posts
Rocker Ric Ocasek, The Frontman Of The Cars, Has Died
Fri, September 20, 2019 20:40 - 5 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL