Bethie
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster
01 May 2011, 1:36 pm
01 May 2011, 1:53 pm
Bethie wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
It's not necessary to observe every single person on the planet to make a general observation.
No, to make a "general observation", you must take a much larger number of people than you have met and will meet in a lifetime from the demographic you are making claims about,
insure it is representative as far as race, age, geographic region, socio-economic class, and dozens of other factors,
and apply appropriate methodology conducive to an unbiased result,
from which you must draw the appropriate conclusions.
"I think womenses care too much about income." is not in any way a scientific statement.
It is an opinion. About your experiences. Of the women you've met and the themes you've perceived. Thus far.
Another_Alien wrote:
I haven't always lived in a small town, and I also read what's going on in the world. Obviously there's individual variation in human behaviour, but fundamental general behaviour hasn't changed much at all - by age or gender. Shakespeare's observations of human behaviour are remarkably similar to the way we act today (allowing for social/technological changes obviously). We underestimate the degree to which we're programmed by nature, and 400 years is a flicker in evoloutionary terms.
Don't equate ancient gender roles with nature.
"Ironically, I think women in some ways were valued and respected more as human beings pre-modern feminism and it's resulting raunch/beauty culture backlashes."
Is this comment from you on a previous post a 'scientific statement?'
Why is it okay for you to make such a general observation, but I can't? And as you're only half my age you've probably met far less people.
Shakespeare isn't 'ancient'. Ancient history ended more than 1,000 years before Shakespeare was born. If you actually read Shakespeare I'm pretty confident you'll find that human behaviour hasn't changed that much.
01 May 2011, 5:58 pm
Another_Alien wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
It's not necessary to observe every single person on the planet to make a general observation.
No, to make a "general observation", you must take a much larger number of people than you have met and will meet in a lifetime from the demographic you are making claims about,
insure it is representative as far as race, age, geographic region, socio-economic class, and dozens of other factors,
and apply appropriate methodology conducive to an unbiased result,
from which you must draw the appropriate conclusions.
"I think womenses care too much about income." is not in any way a scientific statement.
It is an opinion. About your experiences. Of the women you've met and the themes you've perceived. Thus far.
Another_Alien wrote:
I haven't always lived in a small town, and I also read what's going on in the world. Obviously there's individual variation in human behaviour, but fundamental general behaviour hasn't changed much at all - by age or gender. Shakespeare's observations of human behaviour are remarkably similar to the way we act today (allowing for social/technological changes obviously). We underestimate the degree to which we're programmed by nature, and 400 years is a flicker in evoloutionary terms.
Don't equate ancient gender roles with nature.
"Ironically, I think women in some ways were valued and respected more as human beings pre-modern feminism and it's resulting raunch/beauty culture backlashes."
Is this comment from you on a previous post a 'scientific statement?'
Why is it okay for you to make such a general observation, but I can't? And as you're only half my age you've probably met far less people.
Shakespeare isn't 'ancient'. Ancient history ended more than 1,000 years before Shakespeare was born. If you actually read Shakespeare I'm pretty confident you'll find that human behaviour hasn't changed that much.
you expressed your opinion and called it genetic programming. big difference.
i have yet to see the statistics you are referring to, about successful men vs. successful women.
01 May 2011, 6:50 pm
trojan51
Deinonychus
Joined: 10 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
02 May 2011, 12:02 am
It is true that gender roles come from nature.
But I wouldn't mind marrying a woman of higher or lower or equal status to me. Its really about me being physically attracted to her, how she treats me, and other factors.
But gotta admit, a woman of high status is kinda hot 
02 May 2011, 3:03 am
02 May 2011, 4:30 am
hyperlexian wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
It's not necessary to observe every single person on the planet to make a general observation.
No, to make a "general observation", you must take a much larger number of people than you have met and will meet in a lifetime from the demographic you are making claims about,
insure it is representative as far as race, age, geographic region, socio-economic class, and dozens of other factors,
and apply appropriate methodology conducive to an unbiased result,
from which you must draw the appropriate conclusions.
"I think womenses care too much about income." is not in any way a scientific statement.
It is an opinion. About your experiences. Of the women you've met and the themes you've perceived. Thus far.
Another_Alien wrote:
I haven't always lived in a small town, and I also read what's going on in the world. Obviously there's individual variation in human behaviour, but fundamental general behaviour hasn't changed much at all - by age or gender. Shakespeare's observations of human behaviour are remarkably similar to the way we act today (allowing for social/technological changes obviously). We underestimate the degree to which we're programmed by nature, and 400 years is a flicker in evoloutionary terms.
Don't equate ancient gender roles with nature.
"Ironically, I think women in some ways were valued and respected more as human beings pre-modern feminism and it's resulting raunch/beauty culture backlashes."
Is this comment from you on a previous post a 'scientific statement?'
Why is it okay for you to make such a general observation, but I can't? And as you're only half my age you've probably met far less people.
Shakespeare isn't 'ancient'. Ancient history ended more than 1,000 years before Shakespeare was born. If you actually read Shakespeare I'm pretty confident you'll find that human behaviour hasn't changed that much.
you expressed your opinion and called it genetic programming. big difference.
i have yet to see the statistics you are referring to, about successful men vs. successful women.
No - we were both expressing opinions.
It's not difficult to find stuff about the single successful woman 'epidemic', e.g.:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... AMate.aspx
And I don't know why you're being so hostile. As I've said, I'm happy to date low maintenance women, and I'm happy to date successful women. The whole point of the thread is to lament stupid dating rules - perpetuated by BOTH sexes.
02 May 2011, 9:15 am
Another_Alien wrote:
A lot of men on WP complain that it's unfair that we have to make the first move etc? Personally, I'm not bothered about this, but I am bothered that women care so much about a man's income (oh yes they do). It puts men in a very difficult position if we're trying to rebuild our careers, and we have to think carefully before taking financial risks (as men don't really care how much women make, from a dating perspective, women are much freer in this regard).
On the flipside, though, women on WP complain that they have to put so much effort into their appearance, and men's standards are unrealistically high when it comes to a woman's looks. And I don't deny this is true.
Sooo....
Who wishes sometimes that the social roles of the genders were reversed? This is nothing to do with fetish, just a practical wish.
In this role reversed world women would be expected to make decent money, make the first move, pay for the first date, etc., but they wouldn't have to put quite as much effort into their appearance as they do now.
On the flipside, men would have to put a bit more effort into their appearance (more hours down the gym, etc.), but they wouldn't have to make great money, make the first move, etc.
I don't know if I'd really want to live in a world like this. But I sometimes think my life would be easier if I did.
On the flipside, though, women on WP complain that they have to put so much effort into their appearance, and men's standards are unrealistically high when it comes to a woman's looks. And I don't deny this is true.
Sooo....
Who wishes sometimes that the social roles of the genders were reversed? This is nothing to do with fetish, just a practical wish.
In this role reversed world women would be expected to make decent money, make the first move, pay for the first date, etc., but they wouldn't have to put quite as much effort into their appearance as they do now.
On the flipside, men would have to put a bit more effort into their appearance (more hours down the gym, etc.), but they wouldn't have to make great money, make the first move, etc.
I don't know if I'd really want to live in a world like this. But I sometimes think my life would be easier if I did.
I'm from a very different culture so this all is quite unfamiliar to me. In Finland it is common that a woman makes more money than her husband (assuming a woman is married at all) and one does see a good deal of husbands pushing baby carriages in the parks. I know a number of stay-at-home dads, but no stay-at-home-moms at all.
Any Finnish woman I know puts effort in their appearance, but it's for themselves not for men. I don't know about British or American women, but over here women have the education, financial security and social status not to stress too much about attracting men.
I need to be sexually and physically attracted to a man I view as a potential partner. I expect a man to take care of himself and not try to compensate it with money. For me at least, money doesn't make nearly as much difference as you suggest compering to other traits.
I don't see it being of much importance who makes the first move.
Whenever I went out with my ex, I would pay for at least my share and quite often everything, because I am financially better off than him. Your wording makes it sound like ugly women wouldn't be able to get a partner and that beautiful women couldn't be ambitious.
Last edited by Lilya on 02 May 2011, 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bethie
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster
02 May 2011, 10:35 am
Bethie
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster
02 May 2011, 10:37 am
02 May 2011, 12:00 pm
Another_Alien wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
It's not necessary to observe every single person on the planet to make a general observation.
No, to make a "general observation", you must take a much larger number of people than you have met and will meet in a lifetime from the demographic you are making claims about,
insure it is representative as far as race, age, geographic region, socio-economic class, and dozens of other factors,
and apply appropriate methodology conducive to an unbiased result,
from which you must draw the appropriate conclusions.
"I think womenses care too much about income." is not in any way a scientific statement.
It is an opinion. About your experiences. Of the women you've met and the themes you've perceived. Thus far.
Another_Alien wrote:
I haven't always lived in a small town, and I also read what's going on in the world. Obviously there's individual variation in human behaviour, but fundamental general behaviour hasn't changed much at all - by age or gender. Shakespeare's observations of human behaviour are remarkably similar to the way we act today (allowing for social/technological changes obviously). We underestimate the degree to which we're programmed by nature, and 400 years is a flicker in evoloutionary terms.
Don't equate ancient gender roles with nature.
"Ironically, I think women in some ways were valued and respected more as human beings pre-modern feminism and it's resulting raunch/beauty culture backlashes."
Is this comment from you on a previous post a 'scientific statement?'
Why is it okay for you to make such a general observation, but I can't? And as you're only half my age you've probably met far less people.
Shakespeare isn't 'ancient'. Ancient history ended more than 1,000 years before Shakespeare was born. If you actually read Shakespeare I'm pretty confident you'll find that human behaviour hasn't changed that much.
you expressed your opinion and called it genetic programming. big difference.
i have yet to see the statistics you are referring to, about successful men vs. successful women.
No - we were both expressing opinions.
It's not difficult to find stuff about the single successful woman 'epidemic', e.g.:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... AMate.aspx
And I don't know why you're being so hostile. As I've said, I'm happy to date low maintenance women, and I'm happy to date successful women. The whole point of the thread is to lament stupid dating rules - perpetuated by BOTH sexes.
that article points out that it is because of women deciding to postpone marriage, as well as men's own insecurities and judgements that the women are single. according to the article it is not caused by women wanting to reach upward for better educated and higher status men, as you keep suggesting. i don't think the article supports the point you are trying to make.
and for every single woman, there is a single man... if there is a massive epidemic of single successful women as the article suggests, then it stands to reason that there are also single men, unless there is an explosion of polyandry going on somewhere.
also note that you did not express your ideas as opinion - you expressed them as some kind of truth, which is really not the case (i bolded the word you used). simply arguing you didn't express your opinion as fact doesn't make it true when your own words belie you. you further suggested:
Another_Alien wrote:
Women who say 'I don't care about status, money, etc.' are usually women who aren't particulary successful themselves
and really, them's fighting words.
02 May 2011, 12:11 pm
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
A lot of men on WP complain that it's unfair that we have to make the first move etc? Personally, I'm not bothered about this, but I am bothered that women care so much about a man's income (oh yes they do). It puts men in a very difficult position if we're trying to rebuild our careers, and we have to think carefully before taking financial risks (as men don't really care how much women make, from a dating perspective, women are much freer in this regard).
On the flipside, though, women on WP complain that they have to put so much effort into their appearance, and men's standards are unrealistically high when it comes to a woman's looks. And I don't deny this is true.
Sooo....
Who wishes sometimes that the social roles of the genders were reversed? This is nothing to do with fetish, just a practical wish.
In this role reversed world women would be expected to make decent money, make the first move, pay for the first date, etc., but they wouldn't have to put quite as much effort into their appearance as they do now.
On the flipside, men would have to put a bit more effort into their appearance (more hours down the gym, etc.), but they wouldn't have to make great money, make the first move, etc.
I don't know if I'd really want to live in a world like this. But I sometimes think my life would be easier if I did.
On the flipside, though, women on WP complain that they have to put so much effort into their appearance, and men's standards are unrealistically high when it comes to a woman's looks. And I don't deny this is true.
Sooo....
Who wishes sometimes that the social roles of the genders were reversed? This is nothing to do with fetish, just a practical wish.
In this role reversed world women would be expected to make decent money, make the first move, pay for the first date, etc., but they wouldn't have to put quite as much effort into their appearance as they do now.
On the flipside, men would have to put a bit more effort into their appearance (more hours down the gym, etc.), but they wouldn't have to make great money, make the first move, etc.
I don't know if I'd really want to live in a world like this. But I sometimes think my life would be easier if I did.
I'm from a very different culture so this all is quite unfamiliar to me. In Finland it is common that a woman makes more money than her husband (assuming a woman is married at all) and one does see a good deal of husbands pushing baby carriages in the parks. I know a number of stay-at-home dads, but no stay-at-home-moms at all.
Any Finnish woman I know puts effort in their appearance, but it's for themselves not for men. I don't know about British or American women, but over here women have the education, financial security and social status not to stress too much about attracting men.
I need to be sexually and physically attracted to a man I view as a potential partner. I expect a man to take care of himself and not try to compensate it with money. For me at least, money doesn't make nearly as much difference as you suggest compering to other traits.
I don't see it being of much importance who makes the first move.
Whenever I went out with my ex, I would pay for at least my share and quite often everything, because I am financially better off than him. Your wording makes it sound like ugly women wouldn't be able to get a partner and that beautiful women couldn't be ambitious.
I know that gender roles are more fluid in Nordic countries, and that's great.
02 May 2011, 12:24 pm
02 May 2011, 12:46 pm
02 May 2011, 12:57 pm
Wait a second Another_Alien I might be missing something here. Are you trying to say that "marriage is collapsing" because more women want to be educated and financially independent?
02 May 2011, 1:02 pm
Sallamandrina wrote:
Wait a second Another_Alien I might be missing something here. Are you trying to say that "marriage is collapsing" because more women want to be educated and financially independent?
No, please read what I said. It's collapsing because, generally, they won't marry much less successful men. And most young African American men are less successful than their female peers.
Though I'm bound to add that a woman who won't marry a less successful man doesn't really want to be independent does she?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| In a 1st, Scientists Reversed A Person's Type 1 Diabetes |
13 Nov 2024, 6:45 pm |
| YouTube’s role in shaping autism perceptions |
11 Nov 2024, 3:05 pm |
| What do you think about YT's The Aspie World? |
30 Jan 2025, 6:04 am |
| A World That Doesn't See Me |
31 Jan 2025, 12:46 pm |
