Are Women Always More Empathetic?
It doesn't appear so--at least when it comes to putting their husbands down when yucking it up with their girlfriends. Cassy Fiano at Wizbang has some advice for wives who male bash:
Good advice, especially for women who think they are the ones who are so "empathetic" and caring in their relationships.
Women, say it with me: MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY.
And this "harmless" disparagement of husbands among wives is not harmless either, ladies. It may seem like it's just fun and games to put down your husband when you're gossiping with your girlfriends, but it isn't. Would you say that kind of stuff to his face? Would you tell your husband that he can't take care of himself if his life depended on it, that he's selfish and doesn't pay enough attention to his family? If you wouldn't, then don't go around laughing about it with your girlfriends without a second thought. Men seem stoic and unbreakable, but they aren't. If your husband heard you telling your girlfriends how selfish he is, how he never helps out around the house, how he's such a mess, how he can't take care of himself... even if you meant it in jest, I can guarantee you that it would kill him inside. And you, loving wife, would probably never even know it.
Good advice, especially for women who think they are the ones who are so "empathetic" and caring in their relationships.
Labels: Male Bashing
posted by Helen at 11:20 AM
242 Comments:
The term "empathy" is batted around a lot, and I think it could use some deconstruction. I think it really has two very different meanings:
1)*understanding* someone else's motivations and feelings
2)really *caring* about someone else's motivations and feeling
These are not the same thing. A dishonest salesman, for example, may be very good at understanding a prospect's feeling, but not have the prospect's well-being as an objective or even a consideration. Meaning #1 refers to a skill, meaning #2 refers to the use of that skill. There are in fact quite a few people who choose to use their high emotional intelligence for emotional manipulation of a malign nature.
And you, loving wife, would probably never even know it.
That one line is the secret key to the entire thing.
because if we do say its upsetting to us, we are wimps, and ha ha, joke joke joke.. and next time the wife will have a better joke about her hubbie.
If we dont say it, we are told we are neanderthalls, or we love the pain or one of the many other comments or that we dont care for anyone but ourselves.
One frequently hears that women are love driven and men are respect driven (it seems to be (largely) valid from my observations). Both sets would do well to remember that.
She can trash talk all she wants, but we all know who's got the cooties...
I am not sure it has anything to do with empathy. I think most women do this sort of male-bashing mindlessly. I've been in conversations where I've asked women "would you like your husband to be joking about your foibles with their buddies?" Some women look at me like I've got two heads and just amp up the bashing, but most get the rebuke.
It's disturbing to me to read that so many men feel they can't speak to their wives about this.
@marbel"It's disturbing to me to read that so many men feel they can't speak to their wives about this."
Resolving a man's grievances with his wife through talking would feels to a husband like resolving a woman's grievances with her husband through boxing. It's not that women are wimps, it is that on a physical level most can't compete. Likewise, many husbands aren't afraid of their wives, they just cannot match her level of dialogue.
Personally, I'd rather step in the ring with the world champ than argue with my wife.
Ah - that's because in arguments women don't "fight fair."
For example - you're arguing about something that happened five minutes ago and she hits you with something you said or did five years ago. Even worse, the fact that you did something once or twice means you "always" do it. Most guys have an internal timer that tells them when an incident no longer "counts" for arguing purposes. Especially if they've already apologized, made amends, grovelled, spent time in the doghouse, or whatever. All's forgiven. Incident closed. Bringing it up again would serve no practical purpose, so very often it's forgotten.
For many women, however, forgiven does not mean forgotten. Men don't always get this. I know I don't. It seems unfair somehow. But that's "guy rules."
Personally, I'd rather step in the ring with the world champ than argue with my wife.
I guess I don't see that as arguing. "Honey, when you talk to your friends about me like I'm a doofus, it really hurts my feelings." Seems like a guy ought to be able to say that to his wife, and be listened to.
Anyway, I'm not arguing with you either.
I should also have added - I think there are women, like Mrs. Obama, who use male-bashing as a tool. Not all women do it mindlessly; some are quite mindful of what they are doing and why.
I once asked my girlfriend when she had last heard a woman say something positive about a man. The deer-in-the-headlights look I got was more eloquent than any words could have been. To her credit, she later asked the same question of a group of female colleagues, and got the same result.
I agree with Marbel, it's not an empathy thing. Racists don't lack empathy amongst their "own kind", they've just dehumanized a certain sub-group of people. The whole point of in-group/out-group behavior is that one does not empathize with the out-group, but that does not necessarily reflect on the in-group's capacity for empathy.
As for women being "always more empathic" than men, don't make me laugh. The prevalence of female maliciousness towards men just makes me think that among many women, men are the out-group. This will, of course, fast make them the out-group among men. Men appear to be much more aware of this than women, which leads me towards the conclusion that men, not women, are the more empathic.
@marbel: "I guess I don't see that as arguing."
I also want to be clear that I'm not trying to make arguing with words sound as bad as fighting with fists. The parrallel was just about how nature has equipped each (normally, but not universally) with different strengths and weaknesses.
You're right, a man should be able to tell a wife her mockery hurts him. It just isn't that simple. You are often countered with accusations of being too sensitive (a real man could take it) or controlling. Not to mention often times in the marital dynamic, arguments can be triggered over the most minor of comments. No one, man or woman, likes to feel criticized, they just tend to react to it differently.
I think Mrs. Obama is trying to connect with the women's vote, and a sad fact of our current political landscape is that the more women disdain men, the more the vote democrat. I think she's trying to connect with Hillary's base.
On loveandrespect.com's board, when someone suggested to a wife that it would motivate her husband for her to be more respectful and less condescending, she responded "what, you want me to be Mary Poppins?"
I responded to her that she had bought into feminist dogma, where she won't even consider just being nicer (or even not being so mean). I also asked her to imagine a situation where her husband was told to treat her better, and he responded "what, you want me to be Pee Wee Herman?" and she would get an idea of how husbands feel.
Needless to say, she just went on another tangent of her rights and his responsibilities. I tuned out after a few minutes, so I can imagine why her husband did after a few years.
No one questions that men should be good to their wives, I just don't understand why the reverse is such a sore spot.
For all President Bush's faults, when compared to how his predecessor treats women and to how the likely successor's wife talks about men, the first family is refreshing.
This isn't just something that happens in conversations among the girls. Women are often seen treating their husbands with barely-concealed contempt. I've observed this in public settings and among couples I know. I'm also thinking of a woman I knew at work who seemed smart, fun, and nice until I saw her with her husband and heard the way she talked to him.
Sometimes men treat their wives this way, but I've seen this mainly in couples in their late 60s and beyond.
trust has said it, better than i could have. I would say its part of the symptomology of a feminist world.
I dont like to argue, i am physically bigger, i have a better grasp at irony and dark sarcasm. So as i have said if i argue, i usually will win, but the moment i win an argument i will lose.
the only misunderstandings we have had is because she thinks in american, and i think in british.
i lucked out, but i have seen people fight and they (generally women) will use anything to win, tears, bringing up comments that happened 3 years before. Some of these women are manipulators, if they dont get their own way, its not been unknown for them to make up claims of abuse. (hell in some places shouting at a woman can be considered abuse).
http://www.womensaidnel.org/files/about_dv_01.html
This list may help you to recognise if you, or someone you know, are in an abusive relationship - Criticism; verbal abuse; shouting; name calling; threatening; telling you that you have no choice in any decisions; persistently putting you down; breaking trust; lying to you; withholding information from you; being jealous; having other relationships; breaking promises; isolation; checking telephone calls; telling you where you can and cannot go; preventing you from seeing friends and relatives; harassment; following you; checking up on you; destroying your possessions; breaking things; punching walls; threatening to kill or harm you and the children; sexual violence; rape; physical violence; punching; slapping; hitting; biting; pinching; kicking; pulling hair out; pushing; shoving; burning; strangling; denial; saying the abuse doesn't happen; saying you caused the abusive behaviour; being different in public; begging for forgiveness; saying it will never happen again. This list is not exhaustive but highlights the varying range of emotional, mental, physical and sexual types of abuse
which if you look at that list, you could say, every man/woman/in any relationship has abused someone else.
so why do you think some men dont shout at their wives or speak loudly.
I think my three faves from the above list are "criticism", "checking up on you" and "saying abuse doesn't happen" can all be considered abuse.
Thankfully it makes note that the list is not comprehensive so I'm sure "compliments" will be added at some point in the near future.
Do enough women really, I mean really, buy into this? It seems like some sick 1984 War is Peace gobbledygook. I'd like to think that it's a minority of women that believe this stuff or have this man hatred thing, but the older I get the more it seems that isn't the case.
*shrug*
As i told my 9th wife, See!
@jl: "I'd like to think that it's a minority of women that believe this stuff or have this man hatred thing, but the older I get the more it seems that isn't the case."
_______
I think what we are witnessing is that it is a minority, but it is growing. The minority view is promited through education and media. Girls are being marinated in feminist propaganda from kindergarten through university (and in various forms in adulthood after that).
Thus saith trust: No one questions that men should be good to their wives, I just don't understand why the reverse is such a sore spot.
One of the biggest freaking mysteries of my life.
JL,
The problem is not if women necessarily buy into it or believe it but rather, does the law buy into this and believe it is abuse and the answer is often, "yes." e.g. Take a look at some of the domestic violence reporting laws and you can see that the list that Mercurior gave is part of what is considered "abuse."
Here is a post I did on Tennessee law with a link:
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/11/my-efforts-at-educating-officialdom.html
@helen: Take a look at some of the domestic violence reporting laws and you can see that the list that Mercurior gave is part of what is considered "abuse."
_______
Soon to be added: silence.
When my wife and I went to the Love and Respect marriage conference last year, and Dr. Eggerichs mentioned he was in a town (New York I think) when a marriage conference entitled "Silence Abuse" was being held. It was basically about how husbands abuse wives by withdrawing during conflict. Dr. Eggerichs gave an appropriate commentary: shame on them.
Um... isn't the word "empathic"?
Trust,
What a catch 22. It sounds like nothing a man does is right, if he withdraws, it's abuse, if he engages verbally by raising his voice, it's verbal abuse. This indoctrination to generations of women is dangerous and it does effect laws as well as relationships when women are bombarded with negative messages about what used to be normal male interactions being considered pathological.
I think that a lot of "feminist" women, who have bought into the kindof junk peddled my the Gloria Seinem, MS magazine,and feminist "scholars" etc, need to be brouhgt back down to reality. They need to be forced to understand that the twaddle they have learnt came from man-hatin' folks who really nee3d psycholical counselling, insteadof being allowed to write book, go on lecture tours, etc.
How does the average man, who is at the recieving end of feminist -hatred rectify the situation,and also protect himself these days? Dunno, becasue now a days, raise your voice to your wife or a female partner,and you will locked up in a pair of silver bracelets by the cops, accusedof domestic violence,and all the BS that entails.
Dont have any good answers to this most vexing problem.
It's only hearsay on my part, and I haven't heard about it otherwise, but i did look it up:
http://www.zsuzsana.com/lovezsu/silenceabuse.htm "One of the surprising observations the psychologists made was how the dominant male in a relationship or family, the husband or male partner, dominated his wife/partner by silence."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_silence_abuse (If a husband does not speak to his wife in any meaningful way and is intentionally trying to hurt or control her, that would be a form of abuse.)
I hope it doesn't gain any more traction than this. A friend of my wife's moved out recently to "find herself." (probably having an affair, but i digress). I wonder if the people who think he's abusive for withdrawing to watch football instead of arguing would think she's abusive by leaving the home.
Sad I always feel the need for an obvious disclaimer: I'd say the same if it were reversed, but that is less common because we don't have as much tolerance for male misbehaviors (nor should we).
Perhaps men need to consider how women relate to one another to understand Mrs Obama's comments. My wife is a nurse so for all of her career, she's worked with other women and few men. She has told me many times that she'd rather work as the only woman with a bunch of men than work with a bunch of women. She describes how women tear each other down, back stab each other, etc. It seems that women relate to each other similar to what was portrayed in the movie "Mean Girls." If that's the case, then it should surprise no one that they treat the men in their lives just as badly or worse than they treat each other.
Most men are different or at least we used to be. We grew up learning how to relate to one another on the playground. Taunting and ridicule were both common and most of the time not serious. That's how we joke with each other in my office today - we good naturedly make a joke at our own expense as often as at someone else's. No one ever has any hard feelings about it because we can all take a joke. Perhaps the fact that everyone in my office but perhaps 2 people are veterans might make a difference, I honestly don't know. When you've gone through basic training and years of military service, you learn not to take things personally. We used to say, "F&&k them if they can't take a joke."
Women grew up tearing each other down and they mean it. That's very different from how most men I know relate to one another. Boys might get into a fight and be the best of friends afterwards. Men can get into an argument with each other and go out for a beer afterwards. Women develop enemies.
"One of the biggest freaking mysteries of my life."
"No matter how much any woman ever loved a man, it would always give her a glow to see him commit suicide for her."
(H.L. Mencken, "The Smart Set", 1912)
I don't hold that out as a universal principle.
It's bloody close, though.
One of the great things about being a young and recently married man who reads this site is that I'm prepared.
Very rarely has my former fiancee and now wife ever mindlessly bashed males or been disrespectful to me- and when she does, I make it clear (diplomatically as possible) that it's unnacceptable.
I of course have to monitor myself carefully so as to do the same for her, because she won't straighten me out at as early as I will her.
We've been married six months now (together five years) and we're very happy and respectful of each other.
Early & firm correction of such behavoir seems to be a successful strategy so far. I'd advocate it to everyone.
You just have to be careful to extend the same respect you demand.
@michael.
Congratulations. I wish you both the best.
The problem is not if women necessarily buy into it or believe it but rather, does the law buy into this and believe it is abuse and the answer is often, "yes." e.g. Take a look at some of the domestic violence reporting laws and you can see that the list that Mercurior gave is part of what is considered "abuse." - Dr. Helen
I respectfully disagree on this. Well, partially.
While I am fully in agreeance that the laws supporting this insanity are a problem and must be struck down for the good of western civilization, I still think that a prevailing female attitude that despises men is a very large problem in a country that allows women to vote and hold positions of power. The laws will not change if such a large segment of the population supports these laws and feels they are just.
I fear that Trust is right and that it is too late to turn the tide of misandry without a lot of things getting broken along the way.
JL,
Point taken.
Now if we could just get this message to a wider audience!
If women want the experience of romance that they read about in their novels they need to surrender to their husbands (i.e. a "my hero" attitude).
That triggers off in the husband a desire to please the wife. i.e. surrender puts her in control.
No where does feminism (or any other major part of American culture) teach this basic fact of BIOLOGY to men and women. I think that only minor Christian groups tech this. And people wonder why there is so much dysfunction in M/F relations.
If D&S didn't look so scary people might learn more from watching those involved at play. The job of the dominant is to please the submissive. This is inbuilt in human nature.
Over the years I've noticed that when women want to shut down a disagreeing man they will say "You don't have to shout" or "Stop yelling" in response to a barely raised voice or a clipped articulation. When I was less mature than I am now, my typical response was "That wasn't yelling. THIS IS YELLING!"
I've also noticed that in online chat rooms if a man objects to male bashing or misandry, there is a 100% chance that a woman will respond by calling him a whiner or "little boy", with emphasis on the little.
Of course if you really want to piss off a woman all you have to do is use the C word.
@m.simon,
In other words, women are attracted to masculility and male confidence. So tearing them down will consequently leave a wife disatisfied with the results.
The two women I work with love to receive flowers at work. If flowers arrived and I had to guess who they were for, I would always bet money on the women who didn't call her husband an idiot the day before.
Real men won't admit that they would be hurt, not even to themselves. Because we aren't. Those of us that are manly men, that is.
i hear that auto, (sarcasm mode on) and also a real man should suck it up. he should be out doing stuff, killing a bear with his teeth making fire.. hear me grunt etc..
instead of whining about x or y. women have had it tough since the days of the patriarchy.(sarcasm off) Its as jl says part of the whole ethos of being a feminist, (there are exceptions of course but i dont count those). the idea is pervasive in the modern society. that men are somehow lesser beings. and deserve all the abuse because of x..
while i was typing my reply to auto, one came in if only i was quicker i could have predicted what was going to be said.. which i did.
now i dont know if he was using sarcasm, or what. but thats a typical comment, "Real men won't admit that they would be hurt, not even to themselves. Because we aren't. Those of us that are manly men, that is.", and i have heard so many of the same things spouted by people who want to deny mens right to speak out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
mercurior, many people have dulled their minds by insulting those who disagree rather than engaging in dialogue. If they disagree with one's position on affirmative action, they don't make a better case, they call them a racist. If they don't like one's position on the family courts and divorce law, they don't bother explaining why the laws are right, just call them a sexist. If they don't like one's opposition to homosexual marriage, they don't explain why they think it is for the best, they just call opponents homophobes. If they don't like it when they are stood up to, they say one is too big of a wimp to take it (and if one takes it, say they are a wimp for putting up with it).
It's easier to insult than articulate.
Real men won't admit that they would be hurt, not even to themselves. Because we aren't. Those of us that are manly men, that is. - Skyler
I sort of see where you are coming from, and I agree to an extent that I wouldn't be "woe is me" so much as "WTF lady? Are you really that stupid?". Either way, do I really want to support someone such as this?
Whether the man is emotionally crushed or simply pissed-off at someone taking for granted all of their hard work, the end result is the same. The marriage or relationship is weakened if not destroyed.
When life hands you balls, make lemonade.
My basic point of difference with most of the comments is in their definition of feminist.
Not all feminists hate men. I don't. And my Father, who is 'to me' the greatest feminist that ever lived definitely does not hate men.
There are places in this world where women cannot get an education simply by being female. The stupidity of some Idiots that call themselves feminists should not equate with the movement for equal rights for women.
I personally don't prescribe to gender defined roles, and my spouse finds it suits him perfectly. I like to drive, he hates it - we live in California, I drive. He likes his clothes packed in a very specific way - I do the laundry, he puts away the clothes. He loves to cook, but I'll be damned if he gets home two hours after me and have to get dinner started then - so mostly I cook.
That said, I can't ever imagine myself bad mouthing him to anyone. I mean, yeah I'll get pissed at him and say stuff to him. But, to anyone else he is a saint - which he really truly is.
I am his cop out though - usually when he does not want to do something, he'll lay it at my feet. I, being the 'good wife' give out the conspiratory 'don't mess with me' glare to back him up.
I don't really get women who don't like men. Maybe it boils down to not having a loving father. I love my Dad - my Hero- and searched for my man in his mould - my Hero too.
Oh I don't really believe in the submission part. Neither would I ever let anyone dominate me. But, I give of myself completely and freely to the man I love. And by some miracle he loves me right back - extra pounds and all. :-)
You’re terrific Dr. Helen,
I’m an “alpha male” who is continually astonished about how often my female counterparts are exceedingly insensitive to others feelings. I am one of those classically stoic types who rarely expresses opinions or emotions, because I believe in large part, ones initial thought or feeling about a topic ought to be reflected on. Thus, I sit quietly considering issues and “others shoes”, while many chime in with the first (often intensive, and thoughtless) thing that comes to mind.
Alice,
"Maybe it boils down to not having a loving father"
I think this is a piece of it--in many cases of women who don't like men, their negative feelings can be traced back to how they feel their father treated them. However,this does not mean that they are correct. Sometimes the father does not deserve the blame. The woman feels that he should have treated her more like the princess she believes herself to be, and when she does not get that adoration from dad, because maybe he was just an average joe who worked hard, came home and was beat, the woman feels cheated and angry, and later mistreats and makes digs at all men. Most of this happens without the woman even realizing what she is doing or why but it is still just as damaging-- often to innocent men who did not deserve such vitriol or insensitivity.
Craig Smith,
And your way of reflecting and thinking is just as valid as someone else who can immediately process emotional material and have some nifty--or insensitive-- response. People have different styles of relating. In a relationship, it is important to understand that different ways of relating are okay and one is not "better than the other." I talk to many women who do not understand why their partner does not go through a whole drama everytime they disagree. Some people are logical and do not get upset easily or dismiss disagreements as just part of a relationship. It is hard for women at times to understand that some people think differently. If women are so empathetic, wouldn't they know that?
As Emerson made us all say at the conference: "Not wrong, just different."
Short, yet profoundly true.
I did some searching to find some of the more current behavioral research on empathy and gender. The literature is a mess! Most of the work is done through self-report measures, very little of the literature is based on hard datal, and it is quite often driven by theory rather than measurement.
The neuroscientific approach is quite promising and seems to be divided between people who are focusing on mirror neurons and those who are developing a very complex (to me anyway) model that involves many different parts of the frontal lobes, insula, and the amygdala. Structural and neuronal developmental differences likely underly the gender differences in empathy.
For my part, I believe that on average, women are indeed more empathic than men. It makes sense in their role as primary caregiver and how crucial empathic attunement is to infant health and development. Individual men and women vary from the mean of course, but my wager is that women are hard wired to be more prone towards more empathy.
Trey
Dr. Helen and All,
A general comment and a few thoughts in response to specific posts....
General - I appreciate Dr. Helen's work in running her blog and providing the forum. Presumably, she gets some satisfaction out of doing it, but I suspect she's created more happiness for others (if only by sheer numbers) than she has for herself. Thanks.
Titan Saturnae, 12.15 3/12 - I hear your point, but, in my own life and with respect to close relationships generally, I view being "love driven" and "respect driven" as pretty closely connected. I couldn't love someone I didn't respect and wouldn't feel loved by one who didn't respect me. I'd argue that bridging the gap here might be a matter of finding language that is understandable to both sides (e.g, frivolous example, - him telling her "I spend a lot of time at work; it's my life and I want to share it with you" rather than implicitly stating "I work hard; I'm a big important guy" or her telling him "You need to come to my work function. To handle this best, I need you as my teammate" versus "You never support anything I do.")
Alice, 8.02 3/12 - As between two people, I think gender roles are a piece of cake - you find what works. You driving rather than your husband works well for the two of you as individuals. In restaurants, I immediately hand the wine menu to whomever will be drinking the wine. Typically, this is my girlfriend, as I prefer beer to wine. Although I pick up the tab most of the time, it makes no sense for me to pick the wine that someone else will be drinking, especially when they know a lot more about it than I do. The problem, in my view, with "gender roles" is that there is no clear lay of the land. I have been publicly yelled at by women I don't know for (A) not holding a door for them and (B) holding a door for them. I have been (jokingly / kindly) criticized by a female subordinate at work in front of colleagues for not preceding her through a revolving door. I have been told by close female friends that they would think less of a man who didn't pick up the tab, even if the woman asked him out. Gender roles (or any other roles) as between two people are, in my view, between the two of them. The problem, again in my view, is that public gender roles are very confused at the moment and, again in my view, tend to allow woman to pick what they want when they want it (e.g., treat me equally at work, but push the revolving door for me or be criticized).
As I think you implied in your post, "feminist" is a loaded term that has been politicized (or was born that way) and which carries a lot of freight with it. What it means will depend a lot on who hears it. The phrase "equal rights" is heading that direction, too, perhaps. I think that girls and women should have access to education, period, and opportunity on the same terms that men do. Access to opportunity on the same terms that men do.
To oversimplify, I think there is disagreement over whether "equal rights" equates to "equal opportunity" or "equal outcome." If the former, I'm all for it. If the latter, it's extremely problematic. Based on collegiate sports experience with Title IX and Lawrence Summers' experience, I suspect "equal outcome" is at least in the running for the meaning of "equal rights." If that's the case, I won't take the "equal outcome" argument seriously until I see protests in the streets with respect to gender integration of our Speech Pathology departments. And in that case, I would counter-protest to argue that it's asinine to force women out of Speech Path programs to force guys into it in the name of bean-counting.
To illustrate what I mean, in a discussion with a member of my HR department, I was told that "no one cares if you make partner" because "there are enough of you." My immediate thought was "there's one of me, and I haven't been promoted, so how can there be enough of me at the next level." Of course, by "you" she didn't mean "me."
I'm good at my job, so I'm not overly worried about being promoted. I am worried about working in an office and living in a culture where this logic prevails. If my house is on fire, I'm pretty sure that I won't care about the demographics of the department, but will care mightily that they're strong enough to carry me out of the house.
I will continue to judge folks by their worth, as opposed to their gender or their melanin, but I won't act as if others in positions of power do.
Real men won't admit that they would be hurt, not even to themselves.
Real men punch out other men that make fun of them for admitting to having been hurt.
Usually, self-described "real men" and "alpha males" are real men until they have to be real men. Then a lot of them start crying.
All this self-description stuff is just an ego manifestation.
Wow.
These comments (and the original post) add up to a string of anecdotes and generalizations ("men are like this" "women all think..." taken as evidence that men and women are inherently SO different. As usual, the women are "shown" to be more lacking. In this case: "insincere, calculating, and cruel (and men seem naive at best).
Women and men are more the same than they are different. Our greatest differences PERSIST because of the narrow roles we're expected to fill in the world.
I cannot relate in the slightest to the scenario described in the post. Why is it even in gendered terms? "Individuals should respect their partners."
Women and men are more the same than they are different
I think so many problems exist because of people who refuse to accept that men and women are different.
If female feelings ran deeper than those of men, things like - my area of expertise - the great symphonic masterpieces of music history, would have been written by women: They weren't, they were written by men... exclusively, and without even a single exception.
@rachel: "Individuals should respect their partners."
I agree. But the fact remains that in the current climate, male-bashing is accepted and female-bashing isn't. We have it half right. Neither should be.
The fact that men and women are different doesn't mean they have no similarities. Those facts aren't a contradiction.
Generalizations can be useful and aren't always sexist.
Marbel, I would love an example.
I didn't say that men and women are exactly the same. The point is, the differences between individuals is much greater than the difference between the groups (men vs. women). Furthermore, the psychological differences between men and women are much subtler than the obvious biological differences, are hugely variable and are influenced by particularities of time, place, and culture.
What do you expect to accomplish through all this gender essentializing? Actually, this comments section (and most commentary on this blog) comes off as a gossip session much like the scenario Fiano describes, only women are the butt of the joke (for once! right, guys?). Your resentful digs at women aren't that far off from Mrs. Obama or others bitching about their incompetent husbands. Maybe it serves both sexes to let off a little steam about the opposite sex (and more significantly, about their sig. others) but it just sounds... unintelligent (whether you're a man or a woman) when you characterize people's flaws as markers their gender.
Real men won't admit that they would be hurt, not even to themselves.
I would be mighty ticked off if my wife was tearing me down in front of others.
In fact, if your marriage vows included the traditional words "to honor", "to love" or "to cherish", then such behavior is a violation of those vows.
Thankfully, I don't have to worry about it, my wife is great and wouldn't dream of dissing me in front of anyone.
rachel --
Men are larger.
Men and women have different hormone ratios.
Women bear children.
Women nurse children.
Men have more body strength.
Women are balanced lower on the body.
The sexes have different brain ratios.
These physical things are differences and influence the emotional and intellectual development of the individuals.
The point is, the differences between individuals is much greater than the difference between the groups (men vs. women).
Cite please. I disagree, your assertion notwithstanding. Also, your assertion is moot, as we are comparing men and women, not dwarves and giants.
This one I feel strongly about. In my relationship I have informed my girlfriend that the Marie Claire's are not acceptable, the Oprah/Tyra rants are to be left at the door, and if she chooses to engage in kind of misandry, and I learn about it- we are done. Furthermore, I don't want to hear her girlfriends doing it around me, even if I am in the same room while she is on the phone. I cherish and celebrate her wonderful qualities, all I ask is that she do the sam. Period. It has been a tussle. But we have come to an understanding, and a deeper respect for eachother.
A brief history of Male Bashing:
Married men and women did work together more as a partnership until 1978. In 1978 the professional divorce rate when up substantially. Professional men were confused at the time, and expressed their confusion to family lawyers at the time because they hadn't "done" anything.
In 1978 Cosmo and a few other magazines were determined to be a direct cause of divorce. Cosmo was a the source of jokes in the family law-divorce business in the late 1970s.
It can be labeled "male bashing", but the consequences for families are so catastrophic it should be labeled "family destruction".
Women who allow a third party to defame and demean their husbands should call these parties "home wreckers".
"Also, your assertion is moot, as we are comparing men and women, not dwarves and giants."
I cannot decipher your meaning. Sorry. The relationship between men and women is certainly multi-dimensional. If that's what you mean, I agree.
Pointing out the obvious biological differences between the sexes is not an argument for describing the sexes according to outdated generalizations (i.e. women are manipulative, emotional, etc.), which is the behavior I was responding to. I certainly never said women are larger than men. It's the discreet psychological differences I'm skeptical of. The fact that women and men have neural differences does not tell us much about the WAY men and women are psychologically different. Neuroscience does not have that capacity now and it probably never will.
It's plausible that women's role as the bearer of children correlates to phychological particularities, but unfortunately we can only speculate. Our speculation is not empirically testable, and it's not productive. In fact, emphasizing psychological sex differences ignores the breadth of our diversity and minimizes the experience of the many individuals who do not fit into your binary.
Rachel wrote: "Our greatest differences PERSIST because of the narrow roles we're expected to fill in the world."
Rachel, read up on the differences in the male and female brains.
Those differences are not cultural, they are biological, and they affect us deeply. There is some good hard science that refutes your statement.
Trey
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hollywood has promoted this male bashing phenomenon... think about the popular TV show, "Sex in the City" ??? But perhaps the guys need this a little.... : )
Rachel sez:
"The point is, the differences between individuals is much greater than the difference between the groups (men vs. women)."
--
That phrase is right out of the feminist playbook. You are simply parroting (and not even effectively parroting: You should use "are" instead of "is").
With some of the obvious biological differences, not even you can make that statement with a straight face. My dick is bigger than yours, honey. lol
You also can't make that statement about statistical differences between men and women with regard to behavior, any more than you can make it about humans and chimps: We share 98% of the DNA. The difference between individuals is greater than differences between humans and chimps. I guess.
Rachel sez again:
"I cannot decipher your meaning. Sorry."
-----
He's not responsible for your denseness. I understand him perfectly. Make an effort to think past the feminist talking points that were drilled into you in some school.
Why are more men in the top jobs in the country in the hard sciences?
Is it because the differences between individuals are greater than the differences between men and women, as Rachel asserts without proof?
No, it's probably because it's true that women's IQs are grouped in the middle and men's IQs have a bar-bell shape. And that you will therefore find far more men out on the right-hand tail, no matter how Rachel WANTS things to be and no matter how hard she stomps her dainty little foot.
ok, alice, and rachel and everyone else, (mostly women), There are always exceptions to everything we say, always. we say the word feminist because the current batch, are anti male, not that all of them are, jsut the ones we come across, we dont want to say all these but this, except these and that.
Men are different, socially, physically, mentally, genetically, to pigeon hole everyone is the same does a disservice to everyone.
i am great at technical computer stuff, so is my wife, but she loves cars, and can repair them, i cant. but they are exceptions.
if there is no difference between men and women, how come a lot of nurses are women, is that institutuionalised sexism.
ok physiological differences, mens eyes are at a different angle, so we can judge distances. same with our ears, we triangulate.
People are different, from each other, but some differences go deeper. But in todays legal world, in todays feminist run world. men are being told to fit in with real men cry or suck it up or whatever the latest rubbish is.
remember a few years ago a professor said womens brain run different than mens.. he was forced to quit.
rachel check this out
http://www.womenshealthresearch.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hs_sbb_10diff
Pain – Some pain medications (known as kappa-opiates) are far more effective in relieving pain in women than in men.
if thats not a biological difference.
then theres the brain structure
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/14/gender.brain/index.html
And on that Y chromosome are at least 21 unique genes unique to males which control many of the body's operations down to the level of the cells," Dr Legato said.
She also said those genetic differences explain other differences, like why men can drink more alcohol than women without becoming intoxicated.
"Women do not have the enzyme in their stomach that degrades alcohol which men have," she said
But that hasn't stopped Michael Gurian, psychologist and author of "What Could He Be Thinking?".
He believes there are about a hundred structural differences that have been identified between the male and female brain.
heres more brain differences between men and women
http://www.womenshealthresearch.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hs_facts_brain
this affects male society, as does female brains affect female society. (but as always there are exceptions to everything but i dont count those)
Another area for Rachel to look at is the game of chess.
Girls seem to be less interested in the game (which may be a gender difference in itself), but the ones who want to play are not discriminated against in any form in the local chess clubs I have seen. If anything, they are promoted. And some of the boys who are good at chess may have autism / Asperger's issues and learn their skills on their own anyway. Just like women can do. I'm explaining all of this because Rachel is going to assert that this is all socialized.
Despite that, you see the same statistical patterns shaking out on local, state, national and international levels. You see the same ratio between Judith Polger and the best men at local levels.
Yeah, some women can beat some men at chess. So what. Some women are taller than men. So what.
The statistical patterns are what they are - and there are most certainly differences there, year after year, between men and women.
Facts are stubborn things, Rachel.
Rachel will post 10 feminist talking points (also known as "lies"), and by the time people start substantially disputing them, she will have posted another 10.
She does this because she doesn't CARE what the truth is. She wants to shove through her agenda. In that sense, she's not really worth responding to. She's not on the up-and-up, just like other feminists I have seen.
Marbel, I would love an example.
It seems that while I was sleeping a lot of people tossed some information your way. I guess you have some examples now.
I am not a psychologist nor have I read lots of studies, as some here have. I've just tried to observe and understand people - in school, in the workplace, now as a stay-home mother. It just doesn't take much to see that generally speaking there are differences between men and women in the way they process information, the way they communicate, the way they respond.
The commentary on this blog has been very instructive to me. Sure, there are some rude comments, some guys here who seem to hate women (or certain types of women) but mostly these guys want to be heard, and it seems that they feel women in general aren't listening.
Maybe it serves both sexes to let off a little steam about the opposite sex (and more significantly, about their sig. others)
While I don't have any studies to back this up, I am guessing that in healthy relationships, people don't feel a need to blow off steam to outsiders about their significant others (or the opposite sex in general). They need to blow off the steam with the person, so they can fix the problem. Or maybe that's just been my experience.
The sexes have different brain ratios.
Sounds scientific!
She does this because she doesn't CARE what the truth is. She wants to shove through her agenda. In that sense, she's not really worth responding to. She's not on the up-and-up, just like other feminists I have seen.
Yeah, this blog is all about the truth. Heh.
Facts are stubborn things, Rachel.
Indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgar
She and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Zsófia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. "Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis.
As long as we are on the subject, does anyone really think that the reason that the average Russian is a stronger chess player than the average American is due to Russians being innately superior mentally or due to the fact that they play more chess? I await much diploma waving!
http://www.biblicalwomanhoodonline.com/article8.htm
Gentlemen
What kind of woman do you want? Do you want a nice submissive woman who wants to be your helpmeet? Do you want your wife to compete or complete? Read the article from the website I posted above and ask yourselves if you want to be married to this type of woman. Here are a couple of paragraphs I cut and pasted in from that article.
These differences are beautifully illustrated all throughout Scripture. In Genesis, the foundational principles of the roles of men and women are laid out. Have you ever just sat and meditated on the implications of the verse, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18)? We were created to be the completer of man, not the competitor. Our job is to further the ministry of the husband God has given us.
When we recognize these God-ordained differences and live accordingly, there is great blessing! I am so thankful to have a husband who leads our family, lovingly cares for me, and provides for the needs of our home. I would not get along very well on my own (especially if my car broke down!). But the same is true for him. He needs me to do my job of cooking, cleaning, keeping the house, and meeting his needs so that he can fulfill his responsibilities.
Let us rejoice and thank God for making us different by design.
Both men and women browse through Crystal Paine's website and ask yourselves. Men - do you want this type of woman? Women - Do you want to be this type of woman?
"As long as we are on the subject, does anyone really think that the reason that the average Russian is a stronger chess player than the average American is due to Russians being innately superior mentally or due to the fact that they play more chess?"
--
IS the average Russian a sronger chess player? I know they have more world champs, but is the average Russian better?
In any case, this is off topic. You'll note that the best Russian players are MEN. That also holds throughout the world, in every country. No matter what the local customs / attitudes towards women / social settings. No matter how the society is structured. You see the same distribution patterns among men/women in Russia and every place on the planet.
And - whether the Polgars were pushed hard or not - with the very best training, they are not even close to becoming a world champ and never will be. And those are the best women in the world.
Georgia:
That is an area where men differ. Some men want the sit-at-home, not-able-to-figure-out-anything type of woman. They apparently want to support her and shield her from the cold cruel world and all the rest.
I'm not one of those men. I don't want to support a leech, especially a helpless one. There are other men who think the same way I do. It doesn't mean that the only other alternative is to have a competitive harpy - the trick is to find a woman who isn't a bitch. And sit-at-home women can VERY MUCH also be bitches. Believe me.
And that's fine. The men who want a sit-at-home have less competition for one. They should be happy too.
fgfm sez:
"Yeah, this blog is all about the truth."
---
Well, on this blog forum or any forum there are some people who are fair about things and who want to think about and get closer to the truth.
And then there are other people who have an agenda - and they aren't above lying, making up "studies" on the spot and generally doing whatever underhanded things they can to push through their agenda.
I'd prefer to discuss things with the former type of person rather than the latter. I think that Rachel either falls into the latter category or she is just young and doesn't realize that her school feminism isn't the whole truth. Or both.
By the way fgfm:
If you find some Google link that the average Russian player is better than the average American player, it doesn't mean that you are the ULTIMATE VICTOR AND THE SMARTEST DEBATER IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD BAR NONE AND YOU RULE TOTALLY.
It just means that I am asking because I don't know.
fgfm: "Yeah, this blog is all about the truth."
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I have yet to see one post of yours interested in truth. It's amuzing for someone whose sole contribution is is nothing but being a smartass to ding others for not caring about truth.
Alice is right on the money, I think. My dad (whom I called daddy all the way into my forties) was one of the best men I ever knew, and he adored me, in a healthy and non-spoiling, non-brat enabling way. My sister and I both married men who share many of his traits. My husband is a big hairy alpha male - cars, guns, and the knowledge and skill to survive one of those post-terrorist-attacks-while-the-government-can't-take-care-of-things scenarios that Dr. Helen's husband has often posted about. (Helen - I bought the Jeff Cooper book you talked about recently - hub came home and saw it and said "Hey! I haven't read Cooper in years! You get this for me?" And I said no, me!) He's also a really good dad to a little girl. He knows I respect him, and he knows that I know that there is an awful lot of stuff he can do that I can't do, and that he is the one who is ultimately responsible for the safety and welfare of our family. And I know that he knows that if I were to disappear, in about two months my husband and daughter would resemble the father and son team from the second Mad Max movie - the kid with the pith helmet and the big gun, with the dad who flies a plane? Them.
So we respect each other's territory and we only fight about the little stuff. And I don't bash him to other people - except his sister, who is one of my best friends and who knows his foibles like I do.
My sister told me a long time ago - you don't tell your family and friends when your husband or boyfriend is acting like an ass or really bugging you - because you will eventually forgive him and move on, but they won't. You will have permanently trashed him in their eyes.
Mr. Simon: I figured out a long time ago that having a romantic experience similar to those in novels is possible only if you don't live with each other. No matter how alpha and wonderful your male is (mine is), no matter how much you depend on him (I can't quite say "surrender", but I guess I do), daily contact will rub that glossy sheen right off. And we don't even share a bathroom.
once again fgfm, has gone off on a tangent, not interested in the studies provided, slight diversions are and should be ok, but when those take over a topic.
the point is that yes men are women are different, so are the higher brains and the lower.
its when one group, dismisses another because they are less than them. Thats when there is a serious problem.
jg, i see my wife as my partner, where i am weak she is strong, and where i am strong she is weak. Unfortunatly, people like fgfm, and rachel and others, have fallen for the i am better than x because of.. they have that expectation of being more powerful, better.
so they act like spoilt children. But the indoctrination continues, that men are somehow either idiots, wimps, or that they are part of a grand conspiracy to put women down.
"and once again there are exceptions to everything, but i dont count those"
and yes marbel, its true, some men hate women for whatever reason, som want to just be heard, but we arent allowed to be. i hate users, i have dealt with money grabbers only on the look out for money and thats it they will do anything to get their own way (this is what the modern 3rd wave of feminism is all about IMO). do i think all women are like that.. no definatly not i am married, and am happy.
its the frustration that men feel about not feeling able to speak, due to certain people on this blog and others. Men arent the enemy, we just want equality with everyone else. But this is against the agenda of feminists and the feminised men.
they effectively turn men into 4th class citizens.
I do find it amusing that often the very same feminists who argue men and women are basically the same, are also the ones who are proponents of laws and social conditioning based on differences.
JG, I wonder if part of the chess differences that you note have to do with male advantages in spatial processing. I am not a player, and wonder if along with the planning and strategic aspects of chess, these is also a spatial component. On average, us guys really do that quite well, and it may be involved. What do you think?
Trey
FGFM said...
The sexes have different brain ratios.
"Sounds scientific!"
It's empirical dumbass, that makes it scientific. Look it up.
A.
" Are Women Always More Empathetic "--
assumes most women most of the time are more empathetic than most men.
I think that is crazy.
Women show almost NO empathy at all for men-- they are narcissistically (sic) focused on female needs and wants and "rights" and entitlements and male needs , wants-- even rights-- are pretty much irrelevant to most women. Or worse-- they actively seek to harm men and boys-- to further female self-interest.
Women are gynocentric and misandrist.
Women typically are so self-centered and selfishly devoted to their own gender-- they are incapable of genuine empathy with a man. Tolerance would be an admmirable goal for most women- forget about caring/empathy. Just stop the hate and abusiveness, and harming men and boys, by ignoring their needs and destroying their civil rights.
Women as empathetic-- as they vilely abuse their "loved ones"-- when they are male ?
Women have no difficulty at all expressing hatred and contempt for men ( grossly undeserved)-- because they dehumanize them and so everything is permitted.
Even the author of the cited article-- who asked women to stop abusing their "loved ones" --admits that all women do it and enjoy it.
Pretty ugly... and then read the comments from "Sara" below the cited article.
And men DO NOT get together and bash women -- and never have. Men have a lot more fun and interesting things to do -- than sit around and run down women.
B.
The selective, limited nature of women's "empathy" is on display right now as it is every day,ad nausem.
Gov Spitzer is a monster per most women.
Now read the media accounts of the call girl/ prostitute/sex worker ( not a slut or a whore becauase she is smart enought to charge for her "services").
She is portrayed as a victim and women will rush to her defense.
Its all so predictible.
Women empathize with women, no matter what-- and justify their behavior no matter what. Men-- they condemn --no matter what. Most women have no neutral moral rules/priciples, so they cannot engage in moral analysis. Everything is always about them--
Vagino-Americans.
Yes-- the prostitute , we learn is an "aspiring singer" and comes from a "broken home" was abused ( isn't every woman who gets caught?) , has been homeless, fears losing her $ 11,000 a month apartment because her sugar daddy "walked out on me". "Its a difficult time" and she "hasn't slept for days".
She has not been charged with a crime,
a lawyer has been appointed for her ( we pay for her lawyer),
and she will soon be an adored and celebrated hero for most women-- as a victim of male bestiality.
( Why don't we attack the supplier
and not the user here? The pusher is the source of drug enforcement efforts, not his client. )
This woman and her coming-soon hagiagraphy is a symbol for today's woman. Its all there.
@lovemelikeareptile: "Women empathize with women, no matter what-- and justify their behavior no matter what."
______
Unless, of course, she is engaging in an affair with womanizing president, or accusing him of sexual harrassment. Then feminists will soley focus on protecting the man who subscribes to their agenda.
caliban: Um... isn't the word "empathic"?
They are both adjectives with the same meaning.
The point is, the differences between individuals is much greater than the difference between the groups (men vs. women).
I've heard this phrase used with race also. That a randomly select black man and white man will have more in common biologically, then two randomly selected white men. It sounds unrealistic.
This FGFM is really an embarassment.
He clings to the out-dated Standard Social Science Model, where any differences between individuals and between groups --race or gender-- are almost soley due to environmental differences.
He does so because his political ideology requires that model.
That model never had any empirical support and is now a relic to be studied in the history of science as an example of how politics controlled science.
But that Model is epidemic and endemic in the media, academia ( arts and soft sciences), the government, the law, our culture-- for political reasons. Liberals control our culture and their ideology depends on radical environmentalism.
FGFM clings to that model because of ignorance and/or emotional reasons-- ie-- it allows one to hold onto to important personal beliefs that simply cannot be challenged. Its a personal problem , basically.
The SSS Model was primarily a political ideology that was deliberately implemented by Franz Boas, the sociologist, and his students-- mainly Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict-- back in the late teens and 1920s.. Boaz hated the biological approach-- admittedly a bit crude in the early 20th century-- and sent Mead out to find a negative instance of "adolescent angst"-- and she claimed to have discovered such in Samoa.
Mead 's Samoa " research" was debunked by Freedman in 1983. It was questioned when it came out in at least one review. Its complete bullshit-- Mead never even lived with the natives, and the adolescent girls were so embarassed at her questions about sex, they told her a lot of tall tales, which she dutifully repeated.
She also claimed that three primitive societies show the entire range of possible roles and temperaments and behaviors for men and women . Unfortunately, her own notes contradict this and the claim was fanciful when it was made. Sex "roles" ( a conclusory term)' are universal and all societies have been patriarchies-- men held the major positions of social, economic and political power. Mead herself agreed in REDBOOK in her old age in the 70s.
Mead's-- and Boaz's-- goal- show that behavior is almost infinitely malleable and biology plays almost no role in human behavior..
It was a triumph of ideology over science--
The nature- nature debate was over 35 + years ago.
Nurture was driven from the field by sociobiology and behavioral genetics-- the former focusing on species typical behavior and the latter on individual and group differences-- eg the relative contribution of genes and environment to variation in traits, behavior, etc.
Nurture still reigns, though-- for political reasons.
Liberalism depends on environmentalism.
Feminism is wholly based on the absolute truth of environmentalism-- the "social construction of gender"-- although feminism is so irrational they tend to be essentialists when discussing the good qulaities of women and the bad ones of men.
((Feminsm has rarely been attacked by scientists-- even back in the 60s and 70s-- because it is so absurd, that scientists don't want to waste their time with such idiocy. So by sheer reptition of uncontradicted assertion-- the lies of feminism gained traction in our society. Like Hitler said in Mein Kampf ( which has a great chapter on propaganda)-- if you lie often enough , people accept it as truth eventually. ))
FGFM --his "answers" ASSUME that environment is the source of most differences -- and that people who disagree are bigots, racist, sexists, etc.-- benighted fools at best. He is totally unaware of the research bearing on the question-- and he certainly would never consult it.
FGFM is still living in the Dark Ages of politically motivated environmentalism. Since he did not come to this view by examing the empirical research , he cannot be dissuaded from it by pointing to the research or though rational discussion.
FGFM is still living in the Dark Ages of politically motivated environmentalism. Since he did not come to this view by examing [sic] the empirical research , he cannot be dissuaded from it by pointing to the research or though rational discussion.
I think that you guys ought to branch out into phrenology and alchemy.
IS the average Russian a sronger [sic] chess player? I know they have more world champs, but is the average Russian better?
Yes.
In any case, this is off topic. You'll note that the best Russian players are MEN. That also holds throughout the world, in every country. No matter what the local customs / attitudes towards women / social settings. No matter how the society is structured. You see the same distribution patterns among men/women in Russia and every place on the planet.
Funny how when three women were trained from an early age that two of them became Grandmasters and the other became an International Master.
And - whether the Polgars were pushed hard or not - with the very best training, they are not even close to becoming a world champ and never will be. And those are the best women in the world.
And all from one family where the father set out to train his children in chess from an early age. Don't you think that if more girls were trained in chess like that that one of them could eventually be world champ? Or are you going to stick to some crackpot theory where womens' brains are wired in a way that prevents them from reasoning in an abstract manner at a high level? I'm not buying it.
FGFM --his "answers" ASSUME that environment is the source of most differences
I absolutely do not think that. I do, however, think that you and most of the people who post on this blog are crackpots.
The SSS Model was primarily a political ideology that was deliberately implemented by Franz Boas, the sociologist, and his students-- mainly Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict-- back in the late teens and 1920s.. Boaz hated the biological approach-- admittedly a bit crude in the early 20th century-- and sent Mead out to find a negative instance of "adolescent angst"-- and she claimed to have discovered such in Samoa.
Mead 's Samoa " research" was debunked by Freedman in 1983. It was questioned when it came out in at least one review. Its complete bullshit-- Mead never even lived with the natives, and the adolescent girls were so embarassed [sic] at her questions about sex, they told her a lot of tall tales, which she dutifully repeated.
Say, could you rant about John Dewey for a little? I always find that highly entertaining.
I've heard this phrase used with race also. That a randomly select black man and white man will have more in common biologically, then two randomly selected white men. It sounds unrealistic.
You sound pretty stupid. What most people mean when they say that sort of thing is something along the lines of the best black baseball player being closer in ability to the best white baseball player than the worst black baseball player. While we are on the subject, here's something for you crackpots to ponder:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/13/commentary/sportsbiz/index.htm
The percentage of black major league players is now 8.4 percent, not counting those who are foreign born, according to the Institute for Diversity and Ethics and Sport. That's a touch less than half the level it was at only 10 years ago. Some teams, such as the Atlanta Braves and Houston Astros, have no black players on their rosters
The level of condescension I experienced here, as someone with a minority opinion, is unbelievable. There is no cause to insult my intelligence, police my grammar or imply that you know anything about my schooling. Even more frustrating is the fact nobody has responded to my points in a substantive way. I can't be bothered to repeat them at length (what's the point?) Clearly, there are differences between men and women (once more: I never denied this). But what level of difference justifies treating the other sex as an adversary? Are women (or men) so unknowable and incomprehensible that we have to describe them in terms of vague stereotypes.
I think a lot of you are assholes, but I'm not naive enough to think that you're assholes simply BECAUSE you're men.
Don't bother responding to me personally as I won't check back.
rachel,
i sincerely hope that i never came across as condescending to you. I enjoy dialogue with people who disagree with me, and if disagreement is the only reason somsone is rude, then I would have to agree with you that it is imappropriate.
Trust
" Could you rant about John Dewey"
Its like a turkey-shoot with FGFM-- he is so helpless and inept you pity him.
1. My comments do not fit the definition of "rant" by any neutral judgment-- its used as a conclusory pejorative by the befuddled FGFM who has no idea what I am referring to. He doesn't show why it is a "rant"-- he merely asserts it is.
2. He has nothing to say, no way to defend his position, so he changes the subject.
More idiocy from FGFM
1. All you inane, nasty rejoinders assume race or sex differences are environmentally determined-- and anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, a 'crackpot".
2. If you do not think that then assert what you do think. You will ignore the request to provide your theory of group and individual differences, since it can then be attacked as vacuous.
3. Who cares if you think people here are 'crackpots"-- eccentric people with bizarre ideas, stated in an authoritative way and immune to contrary evidence.
But that is an apt description of yourself.
However. stating an opinion is worthless unless it is just a matter of taste. Provide the bases for this opinion.
More silence.
The study of the biological bases for individual and group differences is not eccentric and is in no way bizarre. The nature-nurture question is probably the oldest one in the study of human behavior.
You are just totally ignorant of any empirical research-- and your questions and claims are vacuous.
Example-- The Bell Curve was a very simple, watered-down-for-the masses presentation of the simple analysis of one data set. It was merely a replication of scores of previous research studies and was in now way controversial on a scientific level.
Its claims are indeed minimized to avoid offense to the tender-minded liberal who will be reviewing the book-- by political criteria.
You apparently think it was a "crackpot" book-- well, check The Wall Street Journal, Dec 13,1994-- where some 50 research scientists in the field of IQ published a statement of 25 points based on this--
"Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported".
Thats Bouchard Minn), Carroll (UNC), Eysenck (London) Gottfredson(Delaware), Jensen (Berkeley), Lynn ( Ulster), Plomin (London), Rowe (Arizona) and about 45 more scientists in the field.
The Bell Curve wasn't even remotely controversial -- except politically-- to the willfully ignorant Luddite.
Rachel,
You're running into something called "disagreement". This is not found in women's studies courses and on women's studies forums. The people who disagree with feminism are merely shut down, shut up and banned.
I don't know anything about your background, but I know that at the first sign of disagreement, you act like Margaret Dumont in the Marx Brothers' films (she's the one who is always on the verge of fainting or swooning when Groucho makes a sarcastic comment).
Get in the real world, buttercup. It will really do you some good.
Chess--
FGFM explicitly adopts the view of Lazlo that genius is wholly environmental and that you can learn to be a genius at anything with early training.
No idea has so roundly been refuted as this claim. It was famously uttered around 1915 by John Watson, the founder of Behaviorism , the most radical enviromnmetal approach ever proposed.
((Behaviorists were like the guy found searching for his keys in front of a lit doorway, when he dropped them in front of a dark doorway down the street. Asked why he was looking here instead of there, he said " Because the light is better over here."
That sums up Behaviorism. ))
FGFM-- you assert that early training of girls will eventually result in a female being world chess champ.Hence, since less than 1% of the top chess players are women, it must be mean ole discrimination and bigotry that is holding back the gals.
Is there a male conspiracy to deny gals equal rights to-- PLAY CHESS ?
That is paranoia run amok... but in environmentalism there has to be a mean ole hateful conspiracy to explain any observable differences , because they cannot be innate,.
So you get ludicrous conspiracy theories-- the most primitive explanation of all.
As Schopenhauer noted-- upper -class women were schooled in playing the piano in the 1700 and 1800s -- and produced no significant works whatever.
Its the well documented sex differences in visual-spatial ability.
Of course, you have no idea what that research says-- and have no desire to read it. A flat-earther till the end.
No one is selling anything-- so whether you buy or not is irrelevant.
More inane prattle from Eddie Haskell/ FGFM
He doesn't respond to arguments-- he ignores the sword through his chest and out the back... because he has no knowledge and no answer..
so he throws out insults about "phrenology and alchemy" .
FGFM thinks making assertions is sufficient to prove them.
Please explain why the fields of sociobiology and behavioral genetics are like alchemy and phrenlogy,
Silence from the flat-earther.
Again guys what kind of woman do you want?????
"Again guys what kind of woman do you want?????"
--
Not a bitch. Does her share. Fair, mature, not a little-girl game-player. Awareness of the real world.
Did I mention "not a bitch"? Oh yeah, and if she's high-maintenance, she finances it with her own money.
Personally, I don't want a "know it all" (instead: intelligent), I don't want a career housewife and I don't want a bitch. Weight in proportion to height.
I guess that kind of covers it for me. Other men want different things.
Uh-oh. It sounds like Rachel is a "damsel in distress".
Quick, all you self-described real men and alpha males, here's an aggrieved little lady that you can rescue.
A.
The gender war is a battle between two types of women-- low and high testosterone, home and family vs. career. Its that simple.
(Read Friedan's Feminine Mystique from 1964 and its bizarre assault of the "home-maker", that defies any sense of decency or normality. Or The Second Sex circa 1955-- where the author declares women must be prevented from choosing to be a home-maker , an idea advanced by the old feminist in the 19th century. Feminism was pathological and totalitarian from the start.)
The career girl type just doesn't get the home-maker type and vice versa. They disagree profoundly about what women should be and do and what is in women's self-interest. And that disagreement is biologically based.
Men don't have a choice-- they have to work. Men with different values or attitudes about being a man-- still have to work-- and there is really not much debate about what being a man is about. I would speculate that there is a lot less variance between men than between women in what they think is appropriate for their gender.
B
This woman's assault on the "traditional woman" is indicative of the fight between women. She holds the woman who lives according to her Christian faith and chooses to be a home-maker ---in contempt.
WHy ? If she can find a reliable man and they can agree on how they want their marriage to work and raise children-- why is it any of your damn business? Why the need to attack her?
Tend your own garden.
Apparently you are so threatend by her you seek assurance from men that this type of woman is so very unattractive.
Bad news.
Most man, I dare say, like feminine women. I liked the woman described in that reference to the Christian web-site. A very appealing mate I would think. There is something very appealing about that kind of woman, at least to me. Probably hard to find one. She sure isn't into bashing men and rspects their role in the family. Sounds great to me.
She has a lot of great qualities and she would need a husband who would make sure her needs were being met and would be reliable and committed-- sort of like I remmeber it was with my grandparents.
Christians. Born 1907 and 1912. The definiton of a traditonal marriage. I never saw my Grandmother do any work outside the house and I never saw my Grandfather do any work inside the house--- unless it was a repair ( he was an engineer).
My Mother said she could never imagine her parents one without the other. Though she was 5 years younger, Granny developed Alzheimers and a nursing home was the only option it advanced so quickly.
My grandfather at 81 was as healthy and as functional as always--- but he sold the house and everything and moved into the nursing home with her... till she died two years later. He lived for 5 more years and never acknowledged that she had died.
Its hard to imagine that level of commitment nowadays.
There was a whole lot of good about the "tradtional marriage"-- I saw it work for a lot of folks when I was a kid.
And there was sure not all this rancor-- mainly from women-- the career girl types, hi testosterone, more male-like in their values.
Male bashing came from "man-haters" in the 60s and 70s -- and normal woman shunned that stuff... but I am in the Deep South and a feminist is a strange bird down here.
I never hear women bash men --
The home-maker with Christian faith as depicted by your reference-- beats the career girl everytime for me--
its sorta why men like Mary Ann over Ginger. Its hard to beat a woman who bakes apple pie. When you get such loving devotion, you sure want to return it.
" June, I'm home. Where's Wally and the Beaver."
" Now Ward, don't be too hard on the boys..."
Lovemelikeareptile:
I remember that my grandparents were also that way.
The problem is: We are no longer in the year 1910.
Technological progress has rendered the modern housewife's job obsolete if she doesn't have a lot of young children. A hundred years ago, hard-working women worked in the home. They had to. Today, women who don't want to work stay home. The type of woman staying home is fundamentally different.
Second, marriage and divorce are substantially different today as compared with 1910. A man who just has a housewife at home is going to get drilled in a divorce. And divorce is not uncommon. Alimony is still ordered today (a dirty little secret that feminists don't want to let out) - in fact over 7 billion a year.
Third, since the type of woman who stays home is fundamentally different today, boredom with that kind of woman would be a major issue with me. Some men apparently resolve it by having the boring dope at home, and then getting some exciting stuff on the side (like Eliot Spitzer). I don't approve of that kind of behavior, if men are married they should stick to the wife, and that's why I would never be married to a career housewife.
Things have changed. That's a fact.
There was a whole lot of good about the "tradtional marriage"-- I saw it work for a lot of folks when I was a kid. And there was sure not all this rancor-- mainly from women-- the career girl types, hi testosterone, more male-like in their values.
Whether it started with women or men, there are a lot of men (and women) who equate "not earning a paycheck" with "not contributing to the family." Women often equate a woman who doesn't work as weak and an unequal partner in the marriage.
I'm sure there are marriages like that, but that's not been my experience (as a homeschooling mother who hangs out with a lot of other homeschooling mothers). It's not limited to Christians, either.
"Women often equate a woman who doesn't work as weak and an unequal partner in the marriage."
----
Yes, and today (not in 1910), they are probably right.
Not to be contrarian (oh, who am I kidding?) but might a lot of this "male bashing" be reciprocal?
Just about every guy I work with talks his wife down to me. A few months back one man's wife got lost driving in Boston and had to call her husband for directions. Much sport was made of this, with the knowing looks and the remarks and jokes and what have you. As if nobody who is not a woman could ever get lost driving in Boston. The undertone was clear: "Ha ha. Silly B****."
I'm constantly hearing jokes and remarks about idiosyncracies that I would never discuss outside my marriage if my wife had them.
You can point out that MEN.ARE.NOT.THE.ENEMY. but it will only stick if men realize that WOMEN.ARE.NOT.THE.ENEMY.EITHER.
I'm not justifying husband-bashing behavior. Wife bashing disgusts me and I know that The Missus finds husband-bashing revolting (she occasionally points out cases of it to me in forums that she regularly visits and wonders why these people even got married if they hate each other so much)
Frankly, I'd just like to see couples treat each other with respect. Too much to ask, I'm sure.
Most housewives I see live vicariously through their husband's careers and lives. If the housewife's husband is a doctor, she is a "doctor's wife" and knows lots of stuff about medicine, because "her husband - who is a physician - said [this or that] ...".
They are heavily into describing the stuff they have. The neighborhood they live in, the car they drive. And NONE of it was earned by the housewife. And she's usually bragging about it, while the husband is not. He knows life is a struggle. She has no idea.
They are shielded from the real world. They are focused on themselves. They are petty. All of that causes their opinions to be pretty much worthless. THAT'S why they are boring. The stuff coming out of their mouth is useless.
"As if nobody who is not a woman could ever get lost driving in Boston."
--
No, but I never hear as much about lost husbands calling their wives to help.
The joking comments COULD have been because the lost person is a helpless idiot. Not because she's a woman.
Greg:
Comments about women in general are different than comments about YOUR WIFE in particular.
The same as comments about men in general are different than comments about a particular woman's husband.
An issue here is that women are bashing their very own husbands. Why are they with them? Don't they have the least shred of loyalty?
Just to recap: Bashing a group of people is different than bashing your own spouse.
"Just about every guy I work with talks his wife down to me."
--
That hasn't been my experience. Men tend to shut up about problems at home.
Even in your example, it sounds like OTHER men in the office were making fun of the woman who called.
Georgia said...
Again guys what kind of woman do you want?????
Let me tell you about the woman I've been happily married to for almost 25 years.
We met in college when we were both non-traditional (older than 18-22) students. She immediately impressed me by not playing the bullshit games every other woman I'd dated had played. Those games are just a form of manipulation.
She knew I didn't have much money at the time. Once on a date, she said, "You're spending too much money on me." I almost passed out.
We married while still in college so we had to work and go to school. Money was incredibly tight for our first few years. Instead of letting it tear us apart, we developed a partnership that stands to this day. We discuss all major financial transactions (save one*) and come to agreement.
My wife stopped her classes so I could finish my bachelor's degree. I then worked to put her through nursing school. We've done this for each other several times because we know that we're in this together. I've always supported her going for more advanced classes (she's an operating room nurse) because it's important to her and helping her career is the best form of life insurance I can give her.
We joke a lot but we don't tear each other down - not to each other and not to our friends. Born on Halloween, she's sometimes a spooky little woman but that's just her nature. She tells me I'm handsome even when I don't agree. To me, she's very beautiful. Others might disagree but their opinion doesn't matter.
I've known quite a few people who've been divorced but I know even more people who have happy, long term marriages. Those with good marriages have a lot of traits in common with us. I'm not saying that we've found the magic formula for marital happiness but it works for us and our friends.
*My wife once said, "Whatever makes you happy" in a conversation, so I went out and bought a 1/4th share in an old airplane ($8000). She admits she said it and swears she'll never say that again.
"Don't bother responding to me personally as I won't check back."
---
Immature and self-centered.
I can't read that any other way.
No time to read every comment before work today, but as someone who was married for many years to a man who would NOT engage in any sort of controversial conversation, let alone an actual shouting match, I DO think silence is verbal abuse. It's passive-aggressive and manipulative and rude. It says, "You're not worth talking to. You're not worth my time and effort unless you're stroking my ego." I'm tired of men AND women acting like children. Don't you think both sexes have a bit of compromising to do if a marriage/relationship is going to work out?
Madeleine:
It is evident that he doesn't see any value in engaging in the "controversial conversation". Many times the "controversy" is just nagging. Sometimes it's the wife trying to push her viewpoint through for the umpteenth time. In any case, you certainly weren't making it productive for him, or it WOULD have been worth his time.
Plus, it could very well be that he feared getting arrested. No, I'm not kidding.
If a man has a wife who escalates things, getting involved in a "controversial conversation" can lead to problems. Men have gotten arrested for simply holding the hands of a woman who is pounding him with her fists. Men have gotten arrested because women are upset. Smart men don't get into that situation, stupid men do.
Tether--
1. You've must never have lived with a narcissist. NOTHING is worth their time that doesn't feed their inflated sense of imaginary importance. I just wish I'd figured it out before I wasted 25 years trying to solve the problem. 2. The only physical abuse in our marriage consisted of him throwing things at me, shoving me against walls and even grabbing me by the throat on one occasion. That's what he did when he finally decided to "talk." 3. The attitude that it's OK to ignore someone because you don't like what they have to say is what will keep me happily single for the rest of my life. Nothing anyone has to offer in a relationship is worth that kind of lonliness.
its better to say nothing at all, than say something hurtful.
Silence is golden, the bliss of sitting with your partner both doing their own things, in a companiable silence, its heavenly.
You cant and shouldn't talk every moment god gives you.
But madeleine, you tried to solve a problem, which possibly isnt a problem to begin with. To many men solving a problem means a woman Nagging on and on and on and on, till he changes. You must have loved him when you married him, you must have know what he was like before you married him. And yet you still married him, then you expected him to change, why couldnt you let him have his personal space/time. and spent it in companiable silence.
Not everything has to be a problem to be solved. So silence is abuse, speaking is abuse, talking is abue, making comments about them is abuse.
Silence could mean he hadnt got anything to talk about. Thats what men do. we dont really need to talk to hear our own voices. So why change something that essentially gives you peace and quiet.
(the physical abuse it is wrong, but you could say there are forms of it that can be justifiable, like being nagged for 3 years constantly, until you snap. and you lift the person who was nagging and bullying and insulting you, off the floor and growl leave me alone, yes that was abuse, but she was abusing me for much longer).
Men can be abused, and thats in the person who is being abused.
i would direct you madeleine to this site and if you read it you will see that taking the same criteria, women can abuse men, but thats ok. Criticism, is a big one, if you criticize him for being silent, isnt that abuse in itself?
Not that i am excusing HIS behaviour, or anyone who abuses people, but there can be reasons some bad, some good. And there are always exceptions to everything i say, but i dont count those)
(sorry for the repeat everyone)
http://www.womensaidnel.org/files/about_dv_01.html
This list may help you to recognise if you, or someone you know, are in an abusive relationship - Criticism; verbal abuse; shouting; name calling; threatening; telling you that you have no choice in any decisions; persistently putting you down; breaking trust; lying to you; withholding information from you; being jealous; having other relationships; breaking promises; isolation; checking telephone calls; telling you where you can and cannot go; preventing you from seeing friends and relatives; harassment; following you; checking up on you; destroying your possessions; breaking things; punching walls; threatening to kill or harm you and the children; sexual violence; rape; physical violence; punching; slapping; hitting; biting; pinching; kicking; pulling hair out; pushing; shoving; burning; strangling; denial; saying the abuse doesn't happen; saying you caused the abusive behaviour; being different in public; begging for forgiveness; saying it will never happen again. This list is not exhaustive but highlights the varying range of emotional, mental, physical and sexual types of abuse
madeline --
The lack of verbiage constitutes verbal abuse? So then, the presence of veriage constitutes no verbal abuse?
I am confused. But then, I'm not very Orwellian.
Don't you think both sexes have a bit of compromising to do if a marriage/relationship is going to work out?
Of course. That's the very definition of a fair relationship. Is that how yours was?
Would he describe your relationship as such? He's not here and all we have is your viewpoint, which may differ radically from his. His, by the way, being of equal worth to yours.
The attitude that it's OK to ignore someone because you don't like what they have to say...
The attitude that it's OK to constantly hammer on a point because you don't like that they disagree...
Was that present in your relationship, or were you indeed calm, always rational and willing to entertain his point of view?
It's really pretty simple. The wife has to answer one simple question every day (and or in each situation):
Whose team am I on?
Rachel wrote: "But what level of difference justifies treating the other sex as an adversary? Are women (or men) so unknowable and incomprehensible that we have to describe them in terms of vague stereotypes."
Rachel, you bring up a new and interesting question. I did not see any mention of the point about adversarial gender relationships in your earlier posts, even when I went back to read them.
In answer to your question, there is not enough difference between the sexes for us to be adversarial in my book. I see us as complimentary. And the vague stereotpyes suck.
We disagree about the amount of the neurological differences and the progress that neurologists are making on figuring out just what all that stuff does though! I find the current advances in brain function fascinating and really promissing! Course I am nerdy that way!
Using cloned stem cells is being theorized as a way to possible cure or lessen all sorts of brain problems. That would be amazing! And they are not just talking about Alzheimers and bipolar and seizure disorders, they are talking about antisocial personality disorder and stuff like that too.
Right now, it is all theory and no application, but the hard scientific literature on discrete brain functioning is growing exponentially. Come along for the ride, do some reading in the field, it is fascinating and has practical applications.
And sorry about the rude stuff, I hope you hang in there and stick around.
Trey
I think that abuse is overused. A partner not talking to you out of disdain is hurtful and rude, but I think it is very different from abuse.
Abuse happens to people who cannot protect themselves. Like when a bigger or stronger person assaults someone smaller or weaker. It happens when the victim (a true victim) does not have the resources or strength to protect themselves.
People who stay in a bad relationship are often abusing themselves by not getting out! Their fear may abuse them, but not the silent partner. The silent partner is bing a jerk. I suggest a divorce.
Claiming abuse when we are uncomfortable or hurt, but quite able to protect ourselves, is a way of justifying our lack of personal responsibility or fear. That is part of the cult of victimhood, and it is ruining this country.
Trey
I think there are a few things at work here. First, in text, I think some people may be interpreted to be more sarcastic than they intend. It's hard to read tone in type.
Second, some people may be so used to only hearing their views expressed and tolerated that they think opposing views and criticism is an attack.
Third, some people feign hostility or offense to shut down opposing views.
I'm not accusing anyone in particular, but I think some of the above may have contributed to the deterioration of dialogue. Let's please keep in mind that most people mean well, even if their views aren't what's best, and that if people disagree, they disagreed before they got here, so it isn't personal.
I hope everyone has a great weekend. :)
madeleine-
As is so commom with women-- her views flow directly from her experiences. But thats anecdotal evidence.
.
If you have lived with an actual narcissist-- that PDO is very rare, less than 1 % of all PDOs.. So thats an uncommon experience.
Personal experience is great in generating hypotheses-- but not in proving them.
Its best to bracket your personal experiences when you investigate issues.
" Silence is verbal abuse "-- Orwellian indeed.
The definiton of "intimate partner abuse/violence" is infinitely elastic and gendered. Feminists create the definition-- and put it in the law-- because it serves their anti-male ideology of characterizing maleness as inherently abusive.
Everything a man does-- and doesn't do-- is abuse.
Domestic "violence" is quite rare. What most people refer to as violence-- hitting and beating up-- occurs in fewer than 1% of relationships.
The key is -- what qulifies as "violence".
If you applied the infinite list of battering behaviors to women--
- A man is abused by his wife evey .008 seconds--
example-- wife taking too long to dress for social outing was engaging in passive-aggressive behavior reflecting her basic narcissim and sociopathy and hatred of men .
example-- constant requests from wife of husband per
" Does my butt look to big in this ?"--
deemed abusive, as the man is forced to lie or suffer the consequences of emotional battering an d pouting and sexual withholding..
" Butt ? I wasn't even aware you had one, dear "
One cite I saw referred to telling a woman she is "fat and ugly " as severe abuse !
Thats nonsense-- its vile-- but not criminal.
How many women insult their husband's sexual equipment /prowess and income -generating capacity-- easily as hurtful to men as the fat comment to women.
Think the feminists find that " abuse"
We are talking about criminality here.
Everything is abuse if your agenda is finding "abuse".
Its politics.
The politics of hating men.
Georgia: What kind of woman do you want?
Some men on here like their wife to work and some don't. I would guess these are some of the common traits: a woman who is moral, is not bitchy, stands by her man through hard times and good times, loves her man, wants to have sex with him, and does not gossip about his foibles. Most of the men on here are conservative or libertarian so they probably want a woman with similar political views.
Marbel: Women often equate a woman who doesn't work as weak and an unequal partner in the marriage.
One my co-workers is a single mom so of course she has to work, but she said she would be really bored if she didn't. My mom is a SAHM and she stays busy doing various things: she grows flowers and vegetables, walks the dog, cooks, does laundry and cleaning and she doesn't like watching TV for very long. She also loves to read. She also babysits her grandchildren sometimes.
Larry J: We married while still in college so we had to work and go to school. Money was incredibly tight for our first few years. Instead of letting it tear us apart, we developed a partnership that stands to this day.
One of my friends was engaged to a woman whose dad had a lot of money and she expected my friend to provide a certain comfortable lifestyle. He saw the red flags and broke it off. Now he is married to another woman and they are just renting an apartment while he finishes school.
hell i love it when someone can argue back at me using logical arguments, even if we eventually disagree, so long as they have tried thats all that matters, and i dont mean descending to insults.
But i do say that, in the case i mentioned about me, i felt shame, but i had enough, i was pushed past my breaking point. and so i did what i did. today that would be called abuse, and i would have been arrested and or lost my job, but she knew she was in the wrong. So in that case i was justified, everyday for 3 years got to me. i still feel bad for what i did but it was the only way i could let her know it was annoying me (i did try everything else but she used those as jokes and causes for more abuse)
being silent for a man doesnt really mean he loves a a person less, or is bullying them with their silence. men love to relax by not speaking or thinking or doing anything. hell rowan thought i was sulking when i used to go and read, no i was relaxing my my own way.
One of my friends was engaged to a woman whose dad had a lot of money and she expected my friend to provide a certain comfortable lifestyle.
There seems to be a lot of young people out there that expect to start out with the same standard of living that it took their parents decades to achieve. This is often a recepie for disaster. Unrealistic expectations is a cause for heartbreak.
I've heard a cynical saying that goes something like this:
"Never marry a woman whose father still calls her "princess" because she'll probably expect to be treated as one."
That's not as bad as the saying:
"Never eat at a place called 'Mom's'
Never play cards with a guy named 'Doc'
And never go to bed with a woman whose problems are bigger than your own."
He saw the red flags and broke it off. Now he is married to another woman and they are just renting an apartment while he finishes school.
This is a smart way to go, especially in today's housing market. It's a great time to buy a home if you have a good income and don't have a home to sell, but your friend may end up moving to find employment after graduation. It sounds like this couple is being smart about money.
"Would you say that kind of stuff to his face?"
Um, yes. Who was that written for? Women who are afraid of their husbands? That seems like it would be the bigger problem.
"Would you tell your husband that he can't take care of himself if his life depended on it, that he's selfish and doesn't pay enough attention to his family?"
Are we assuming that these things are true? I'm confused. Because if they are then why are we so worried about this guy's feelings again? If they aren't true then isn't the bigger problem the lying?
"Men seem stoic and unbreakable"
Really? Where? 1856?
so zelda its ok to verbally abuse men read my last post, you will see a quote that says criticism is abuse.
its ok to abuse so called "wimpy" men then. Its called respect zelda.
the bigger problem is, the idea that belittling anyone is ok. that its better to tear someone down rather than build them up, it shows that the other person lack empathy, hell even lack the respect of the other.
But its not about women who are afraid of men, its about women constantly demeaning their partners, the people they should love and cherish. and yet its applauded. Why is that zelda?
why is it ok to demean men, yet if a man was to do that to a woman, he would be tarred and feathered.
"so zelda its ok to verbally abuse men read my last post, you will see a quote that says criticism is abuse."
What "New Age Feel Goodery" produced that definition of criticism?
"its ok to abuse so called "wimpy" men then. Its called respect zelda."
Depends, how big is his mom?
"the bigger problem is, the idea that belittling anyone is ok. that its better to tear someone down rather than build them up, it shows that the other person lack empathy, hell even lack the respect of the other."
I don't have to respect everyone. And the bigger issue is actually that its not clear from the writing if these wives are talking about husbands who live up to the accusations or not. Its relevant to the discussion.
"But its not about women who are afraid of men, its about women constantly demeaning their partners, the people they should love and cherish. and yet its applauded. Why is that zelda?"
Should they? That's not clear to me yet. Are these husbands guilty of being lazy and emotionally unavailable to their families or not?
"why is it ok to demean men, yet if a man was to do that to a woman, he would be tarred and feathered."
So its actually 1256?
Are we assuming that these things are true? I'm confused. Because if they are then why are we so worried about this guy's feelings again? If they aren't true then isn't the bigger problem the lying?
Let's assume they are true. You took a vow to honor and respect your husband, through good times and in bad. He did the same.
Let's assume they are not true. You took a vow to honor and respect your husband, through good times and in bad. He did the same.
And it's not so much hurting his feelings you have to worry about, rather it's your own self-interest. When you bite the hand that feeds often enough it will strike back. Whether emotionally, physically, mentally, or financially. It's popular to assume that men and women are the same except for hair-length and plumbing. We aren't. Men are stronger, faster, and have a higher median IQ* than women.
We also (fortunately for women) have a sense of honor and decency in western civilization, and dont treat you like cattle as is the case in some 3rd world nations. But part of the deal is that women act like ladies and appreciate our efforts, lest men begin to question why they extend honor and decency towards them.
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm
"You took a vow to honor and respect your husband"
Those aren't the vows I took but that's okay.
"And it's not so much hurting his feelings you have to worry about, rather it's your own self-interest. When you bite the hand that feeds often enough it will strike back. Whether emotionally, physically, mentally, or financially. It's popular to assume that men and women are the same except for hair-length and plumbing. We aren't. Men are stronger, faster, and have a higher median IQ* than women."
So I should watch my smart mouth so I don't get yelled at, hit, locked in the root cellar or cut off from my allowance? Got it.
"We also (fortunately for women) have a sense of honor and decency in western civilization, and dont treat you like cattle as is the case in some 3rd world nations."
I'm actually from a Third World country originally but I'm so very much lucky and appreciate to be here where most honorable men treat me so nice.
"But part of the deal is that women act like ladies and appreciate our efforts, lest men begin to question why they extend honor and decency towards them."
I'm just going to keep being cranky and "abusive" and have pretty hair and a 25" waist because that's worked for me so far and its a lot less work.
Those aren't the vows I took but that's okay.
No, maybe not that exactly, but Judeo-Christian based vows have many derivatives that ultimately subcribe to respecting and honoring one another. A "new age" wedding may be different, though I can't imagine in what manner.
I'm just going to keep being cranky and "abusive" and have pretty hair and a 25" waist because that's worked for me so far and its a lot less work.
That is your choice. This country is still relatively free. It won't work for you in another decade or two, however.
JG-
A.
My grandparents were alive and well through the 1980s. 1910 is not the time period that is relevant, but it doesn't matter. Men and women are the same today as they were 10,000 years ago and more.
B. Technological progress is irrelevant.
1. How could that make the home-maker's calling "obsolete"- Children need to be raised, homes managed, husbands assisted , hot sex scheduled, social lives directed etc.
It is true that caring for the hearth was much more labor intensive 100 years ago-- but so were men's typical jobs. Its irrelevant.
2. Women do not stay at home because they don't want to "work"-- women "work" because they don't want to-- or much less often,cannot afford to-- stay at home.
3. Women were not "forced" to stay at home against their will by all the hard work required at home-- or by discrimnatory laws.
Thats all feminist myth. Women chose to stay home. The move into paid employment for women had nothing to do with the ending of discrimnatory laws or women being 'freed" from domestic slavery by technology to become "real persons" through market participation.
That was precisely the point of Friedan's mendacious The Feminist Mystique in 1964. She could not figure out why so many women were choosing to be home-makers when the market of paid employment was open to them...
They must be psychologically crippled by an evil male conspircay that has fooled them into being confused about their "real" best intersts.
Friedan was a liar and a husband-beater-- she was a radical from the get-go and was never a typical suburban house-wife-- who awoke to " Is this all there Is ?" and found the "women's role" suffocating-- FOR ANY AND ALL women.
((Hell-- how many men have wondered "Is this all there is" when heading off to the factory at 6 am.
Its call life Ms Friedan. Its not a gender thing).
4.. Women's participation in the work force is what needs to be explained-- not being a home-maker-- the "role" women have performed for milennia and which most prefer.
5.. The role of the housewive- homemaker is still as important as it was 100 years ago and 1000 years ago and 10,000 years ago-- as it will be 10,000 years hence.
C
Essentially you are saying that a woman who is a full time home-maker today is a different "type" of woman than in the past--a boring, parasitic, useless slug, a "dope" shielded from the 'real " world, living vicariously through her husband ( the janitor or carpenter or mailman or constrction worker or auto mechanic)--- unless she is caring for a passle of tots.
What mindless misogyny.
1. Thats straight out of Feminism 101-- if the goal is economic, social and political power equal with men-- the home-maker must be attacked and marginalized and depicted as sick-- like you just did in your post.
2. You are a feminst, JG. You have bought their nucleur assault on the home-maker.
3. No one before feminism ever thought that a home-maker was not contributing to the family-- are you kidding ! She was central to the family-- without her, everything fell apart-- and men all knew it and respected her work. And the sane ones still do-- those who have kids.
Your characterization of women who are full-time home-makers is bigoted and misoygynistic. Its as full of stereotypes as vicious as any feminist bashing men.
Heal thyself !
D.
Anecdote-- My mother was born in 1931 and raised in the 40s.. she commented that if a woman was to go out and get a job-- it was a source of gossip in the community.
" Mrs. Jones has had to go out and seek paid employment "
" Shocking-- whats wrong with that family. What's the matter with Mr Jones ?
Unless Mr Jones was dead or disabled, no self-respecting man would stand for his wife working for pay-- as it was a statement to the community that his efforts were inadequate to support the family.
But this is Misssissippi I am talking about, so maybe it was and is different elsewhere. I doubt it. In the 60s my father used to give his paycheck to my Mother and never thought anything ill of it.
No one doubted the centrality of the home-maker and her contribution to the family.
E.
It may be Southern men-- but I have never met a man who did not respect women's roles as Mother and home-maker-- or thought she needed to help support the family. Thats our job.
Heck-- all us guys remember Mama.
F. Elitism--
So women are "liberated" to do really meaningful work like most men-- digging ditches, delivering the mail, building homes and highways, janitorial work-- Your view of life is elitist.
Most people have jobs-- not careers.
And being a homemaker is as stimulating as your average male wage-earning job.
" Stimulating " to whom ?
Insufferable elitism-- and misogyny.
It might work a little longer for me, I'm from one of those Third World countries where the women age slowly. I'm going to chance it. By then, my husband will be too old to hit me very hard and he won't be able to move that quickly anyway.
I don't have to respect everyone.
And no one has to respect you, either. If you don't treat those around you with respect, don't be surprised if they show disrespect for you, too. You know, that old fashioned notion of doing onto others as you would have them do onto you thing.
If you tear down and belittle your husband, don't be surprise if he ends up hating you if he doesn't already. If he was doing that to you, how long would you tolerate it? Why should he tolerate your attitude?
Didn't she mention the 25" waist?
Zelda's Husband
"You are a feminst, JG. You have bought their nucleur assault on the home-maker."
---
I haven't "bought" anything. I'm not working off theory - I'm working off what I have seen with my own eyes. Honest injun.
As for the rest of it, we disagree. It's going to stay that way. Yes, I think permanent sit-at-homes today are users and lazy. For my part, I'm suspicious of your praise of sit-at-homes -- it's not warranted, in my mind, so I wonder where it's coming from.
All I can offer is this: I have had some friends and relatives with your opinion. Some of them have drastically changed their attitudes after life events (e.g. divorce among other things).
I haven't changed my attitude at all. I am operating off what I see in life.
As a stay-at-home mom I'm offended by JG's remarks and I'd formulate a well-considered response but Oprah's going to be on soon and I was hoping to call some friends to exchange some gossip before it starts. Then I'll probably be pretty tanked from the wine and anti-depressants and calling for take-out. Maybe tomorrow, its Saturday so my husband will be home and he'll pick up the slack leaving me free to have some "Me Time" as we like to say in my world.
I think its "Honest Native American" now, btw, or even just "Honest". And we call it sitting "criss-cross". Kind of a surprising slip-up for someone who seems a little on the touchy side.
Third, since the type of woman who stays home is fundamentally different today, boredom with that kind of woman would be a major issue with me.
Having or not having a job doesn't make a woman boring or exciting. My wife worked before our kids were born, and chose to stay home after they were born. She is the same wonderful, caring, loving, and exciting person today as she was then.
In fact, I would say her attitude is better today because when we both worked, it was fairly common to spend the first hour home together reliving and venting about the crazy and stupid things that happened during the day with bosses, colleagues, customers, etc., etc.
Her stress level is noticeably lower now even with two little girls in the house.
As for being a sit-at-home mom, she does nothing of the sort. When she is not herding our two girls, she trains for marathons, serves on the board of a local philanthropic organization, serves on the regional Red Cross board of directors, and volunteers one day per week in our first grader's classroom.
She keeps our home life organized and finds time to pursue personal interests and community service projects. In short, not much time for sitting.
Finally, I don't believe most states have alimony for divorced spouses. However, if a divorcing couple has kids, then the higher wage earner can expect to take a hefty financial hit in the form of child support, even if the custodial parent has a job. Your ire should be directed at judges who award exorbitant alimony or child support, not stay at home moms.
And we call it sitting "criss-cross".
LOL. The first time my daughter said "criss-cross apple sauce" I looked at her and said "Huh!?" I had no idea sitting Indian style had been politically cleansed. Too funny....and sad.
Dogwood:
I think "boredom" wasn't very precise on my part. I guess "lack of respect" is closer to how I think.
I'm noticing, though, that the guys with stay-at-home wives are coming out of the woodwork. I have no need to rile people up, and there is probably no need to further state my opinion about these women.
I WOULD say, though: If they tend towards getting into conflicts with people out in the real world based on the husband's position, put a leash on them. Because I wouldn't hesitate today to legally go after these types of women - and maybe bankrupt you in the process.
If she's all sugar and spice, you don't have to worry about what I just said.
If they tend towards getting into conflicts with people out in the real world based on the husband's position, put a leash on them.
I have no idea what this means, but I do need to ask: What kind of people are you hanging out with? Yikes!
Maybe you just need to hang with some normal people!? Just sayin'.
"If they tend towards getting into conflicts with people out in the real world based on the husband's position, ..." **
** Meaning: Bullying people based on their husband's position, all the stuff he bought her and his supposed status in life.
You've never seen a mouthy housewife, Dogwood?
Really? Never, ever?
Anyway, I think I'm finally winding down with my housewife rants. I don't have to pay for them, so in the end analysis it doesn't matter much to me.
Meaning: Bullying people based on their husband's position, all the stuff he bought her and his supposed status in life.
Ah, okay, understand now.
I think these types, for the most part, can be identified and avoided prior to the wedding vows.
How they treat others, especially those in lower paying jobs, is a big clue.
Secondly, bragging about how much daddy makes, or the stuff he has, or how much stuff daddy gives to the little princess, are other important clues.
I think if you date someone long enough to see how they react in a variety of circumstances, then most of the status seekers can be avoided.
"Meaning: Bullying people based on their husband's position, all the stuff he bought her and his supposed status in life."
What kind of bullying is okay. I'm curious because it seems to me that you find the real issue to be the housewifeliness whereas I tend to find any kind of bullying kind of annoying...I don't even spend much time analyzing its origin.
"You've never seen a mouthy housewife, Dogwood?"
Maybe Dogwood doesn't put up with any backtalk from his woman. Maybe that's why he seems to get along so well with his lazy, man-using wife. Or maybe you just showed your hand. One of those.
"I think these types, for the most part, can be identified and avoided prior to the wedding vows."
---
I'm talking about how they bully OTHERS out in life. The OTHERS have no choice in this, but the hapless husband is financing her flights of ego. That's the problem - she has no responsibility, but the backing of the dupe who married her.
I have seen some incredibly mean actions by women of this type in my life. I can honestly say that if one of these women crossed my path again, she and her husband would now have more trouble than *she* bargained for.
So these men can be grinning, oblivious idiots - supporting a housewife like this - but they may run into problems if she crosses the wrong person.
Re: Backtalk from his wife
Many men with housewives are literally under their thumb. The men WANT that apparently. They want to serve the Queen Bee. They can literally be domestic tyrants. He maybe lucky if HE doesn't get a pimp slap from HER.
I guess if they're happy, that's their business.
Yes, I've seen mouthy housewives, and I've seen mouthy career women, but not very many as I tend to avoid unpleasant people as much as humanly possible.
In general, unpleasant and egotistical people will be such regardless of their employment status.
The only question is how and where those personality traits will be expressed.
Seriously, I think you need to start hanging out with nicer people. I've never seen someone so angry at other peoples wives!
What happened to you?
Look, some people are simply mean and nasty, men and women. Just walk away. If you can't walk away, then take pity on the fools and don't let them get under your skin.
You can't control how they behave, but you can control your response to their behavior. Treat them with respect, even if they don't deserve it, then flush the encounter from your brain as soon as they leave the premises.
After really nasty encounters, I've found that a bottle of cabernet and one of my favorite cigars helps immensely, but your mileage may vary.
Such people do not deserve the emotional energy you expend hating them, but they can be wonderful excuses for drinking and smoking.
ZELDA-- is FGFM.
He got hosed so he changed his name and gender ( he ois probably confused about the latter-- a CAH person and all) and is now posting as ZELDA.
Oh goody. Zelda's shown up with her dictionary so she can look up alternate meanings to words and take them out of context.
"...whereas I tend to find any kind of bullying kind of annoying...I don't even spend much time analyzing its origin."
You certainly don't spend much time analyzing yours, nor do you appear annoyed with yourself.
Humor. Pretty obvious "zelda" isn't female, just by the writing style.
Makes even more sense that it's fgfm.
They're all the same, even though they think they are all so clever. Wonder who's next?
They all need to step out of their safety zones and see how the rest of the world lives. But that probably scares them more than anything else. Imagine finally waking up and seeing that all you have been told, and all you have learned from those of your political persuasion, is bullshit.
A myth has been perpetrated on you by those you trusted. Horror!
But really, in the back of your mind, hasn't something been there all along, asking?
"You certainly don't spend much time analyzing yours, nor do you appear annoyed with yourself."
Analyzing my what? My origin? The origin of my bullying? My genitalia? I'm getting hit on a number of fronts (so to speak), could you narrow it down?
"Pretty obvious 'zelda' isn't female, just by the writing style."
I write like a man, do I? All sensitive and gooey and crying on the inside because my wife talks about me with her lady friends over appletinis but with a crispy, stoic coating?
"They're all the same, even though they think they are all so clever."
Who?
"Imagine finally waking up and seeing that all you have been told, and all you have learned from those of your political persuasion, is bullshit."
What persuasion is that? There's an impressive lack of clarity here.
Excellent post.
Absolutely describes why neither I nor any other sane man will marry an American feminstaazi shrike.
The modern, Hillary Clintonesque she-male is also the reason birth rates in the U.S. are dropping like a stone, divorces remain popular (despite the ongoing, never-ending expense), and the country is being overrun by foreigners. A real woman is the center and guardian of a home, not some arrogant, gainsaying, cigar-smoking, crop-haired butch, more concerned with the acquisition of filthy lucre than family...of the which media continually glamorizes!
The question is ... is the squaw with her butt welded to the sofa (a.k.a. the American housewife) WORTH it?
A lot of people wonder what is so great about this that men would promise their future earnings and money and eternal support and all that.
Why?
Is she really worth all that? She isn't even going to stay young. Really.
Umm (after much thought) ... I decline. As for the rest of you:
Are you friggin' nuts? LOL
A real woman is the center and guardian of a home, not some arrogant, gainsaying, cigar-smoking, crop-haired butch, more concerned with the acquisition of filthy lucre than family...of the which media continually glamorizes!
This is the same type of statement we criticize modern feminists for making, but in reverse.
They say: "A real woman doesn't stay home with the kids, instead she pursues her career."
You say: "A real woman doesn't work, instead she takes care of hearth and home."
Modern feminists are wrong to criticize or ridicule stay at home moms, and men are wrong to characterize career women as nothing more than lucre-seeking shrills.
What we need to focus on is ensuring that each and every American has the opportunity to pursue the life he/she finds most fulfilling.
My wife chose motherhood over career, others will choose career over motherhood, still others will try to do both.
To each his/her own and that is the way it should be. Surely we can all agree that people should have choices on how to live their lives.
The question is ... is the squaw with her butt welded to the sofa (a.k.a. the American housewife) WORTH it?
Is a person's worth or value to a family, community, or country strictly limited to the size of their paycheck?
How utterly sad.
"Is a person's worth or value to a family, community, or country strictly limited to the size of their paycheck?"
Look, Bunky, the lack of a paycheck is also not an indicator that someone has higher worth to family, community or country.
Welfare recipients are usually taking more than they contribute. Housewives are usually taking more than they contribute. Your mileage may vary, but remember that you have a stake in it. You want to believe.
This is like a teenage guy I recently talked to. He had a 10-year-old Chevy. He was proud of it. He clearly overpaid for it, and a good chunk of the overpayment was on credit.
I didn't say anything. He was proud of it.
Mostly in real life, I don't say anything when a man is making payments on a woman who isn't worth payments. I don't get it, but I don't say anything.
Frankly, I'd just like to see couples treat each other with respect. Too much to ask, I'm sure. -Greg
When my wife and I married thirty-mumble years ago, we agreed NEVER to speak ill of the other in the presence of others, nor to tell embarrassing stories about the other. This has served us well. I honor my wife around other people, and she honors me. This leads to much harmony when we are not in public.
In this instance, love means never having to say "I'm sorry".
zelda --
"Analyzing my what? My origin?"
Don't be dense. I gave you a quote to refer to, read it.
Sorry, O, you know how it is with us guys...not always too quick on the uptake. Stoic as hell though.
Spell it out for me because while your question makes perfect sense to you I can't make heads or tails of it. Are you calling me a bully? Because if you are then I'm going to kick your ass behind the bleachers after school on Monday.
Seriously, have I bullied someone?
To each his/her own and that is the way it should be. Surely we can all agree that people should have choices on how to live their lives.
That was feminism was supposed to do - give women choices. But then it turned out that women who chose to stay home were shunned because they were letting down the sisterhood. Even mothers who wanted to stay home with their babies rather than send them to daycare were scorned and told they'd be better mothers if they worked and weren't with their kids all day. Self-fulfillment and all that.
Nothing wrong with working mothers, of course. Like you say, we're supposed to have the choice.
My neighbor lady and I solved that problem. At 8:30 I drive next door and its a tougher commute than you'd think because at that same time she is driving over to my house so there's a lot of jockeying of cars and such.
I clean her house and care for her children and watch Oprah on her TV while she cleans my house and cares for my children and watches Tyra on my TV. At 5:00 I drive home and feel satisfied with the knowledge that I'm earning a paycheck as a nanny/housekeeper. Its the perfect arrangement.
Marbel--
Feminism has never been about choice.
The house wive-homemaker- was always depicted as a crippled, inferior,parasitic, human being-- and women should be prevented from choosing to be full time mothers and home-makers by law and all children should be cared for by the state.
People never read what feminists have written.
See-
---Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 1898-- whose condemnation of the home-maker led to a defense of women from President Teddy Roosevelt ( a male conspirator, keepin' em in their place, no doubt)
--de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949-- which contains most of the themes of feminism, from a woman who was a servile handmaiden to Satre .
-- and The Feminine Mystique, Friedan, about 1964-- one of the most dishonest books ever written.
Google those names and F. Carolyn Graglia's discussion in
Domestic Tranquility, -p 105 through 132... 'Friedan's malignant description of housewives as parasites, analogous to schizophrenics and men missing part of their brians and "less than fully human....",
It is impossible to exaggerate the hatred of the house-wife and home-maker found in feminism.
It was and is integral to the movement and those that deny it, are simply uninformed or lying.
zelda --
Yes, in this thread and on others.
Apparently you do get confused. I wasn't the one referring to you as a guy and I didn't ask a question, I made a statement.
Meet you behind the bleachers. Don't leave your car running.
Dogwood's description of a housewife is acceptable. She is active in her community and shows independence. She balances taking care of herself and her family. This woman that I described in the my above post seems to have lost herself. Although she is very religious she seems to worship her husband to the point that he has become her God. (Reread her last sentence)
"When we recognize these God-ordained differences and live accordingly, there is great blessing! I am so thankful to have a husband who leads our family, lovingly cares for me, and provides for the needs of our home. I would not get along very well on my own (especially if my car broke down!). But the same is true for him. He needs me to do my job of cooking, cleaning, keeping the house, and meeting his needs so that he can fulfill his responsibilities."
This same woman proclaims that in order to be a biblical wife and mother you must lay down hobbies, interests and personal time. Sacrafice and selflessness is the only way. This is an example of how altruism is evil. To put others above yourself to that extreme does not indicate mental stability. The bible quotes: "Love thy neighbor AS thy self" That scripture is NOT saying put others first and your self second. AS means - in the same degree; in the presently existing condition; in or to the same degree; in accordance with......
That tells me that if you do not take care of yourself both physically and mentally how can you be any good for others?
The Bell Curve wasn't even remotely controversial -- except politically-- to the willfully ignorant Luddite.
Thanks for confirming that you are a crackpot.
"When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract parts of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States tested back in the early 1930s... Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to "folklore" that "Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence." It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups repeatedly tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests showed radically different results--during an era when there was very little intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews." - Dr. Thomas Sowell
Georgia:
If you are going to become a "lawyer" in interpreting every word of the Bible, you are going to have to go back to the Greek and Hebrew it was written in. Differences in translation and interpretation inevitably creep in.
What you are doing is silly (in my opinion), but it is downright worthless if you are not even doing your hairline interpretations in the original language. And if it's too much effort for you (or to get a man to do it for you) then just give up.
I recently got an e-mail from a friend. It concerns true friendship. It is an experiment he believes every man should try, and that it really works.
No longer having a wife, or a dog, I cannot personally perform this experiment. So if any of you intrepid husbands out there, in the name of science, would care to perform this experiment and report your findings, I, for one, would be interested in the outcome.
Here is the simple friendship experiment.
Take you wife and your dog, and put them in the trunk of your car for an hour.
At the end of that time, pop the trunk back open, and see which one is truly glad to see you. Voila!
This same woman proclaims that in order to be a biblical wife and mother you must lay down hobbies, interests and personal time. Sacrafice and selflessness is the only way. This is an example of how altruism is evil.
Georgia -
"And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." Luke 9:23
Of course this does not address the need for a homemaker's "me time" directly. Every person needs to take care of him or herself. But when the family suffers because of the wife/mother's demands for more and more time for her hobbies, pleasures, or "finding herself" - then something is wrong.
I'm sure some housewives become boring because are out of balance. Dogwood's description of his wife does not make her sound boring.
Lovemelikeareptile -
Feminism has never been about choice.
You are probably right; I should have said that's how feminism was sold. Freedom! Choices! At least that's what I recall from my college days in the late '70s.
This same woman proclaims that in order to be a biblical wife and mother you must lay down hobbies, interests and personal time.
This would not be my wife's interpretation of a Biblical wife, nor would it be mine.
The husband is to take care of the wife, the wife is to take care of the husband. If each put the interests of the other first and foremost, then the needs, wants and desires of each will be fulfilled.
Seems to work for us, anyway.
Sacrifice and selflessness is the only way.
Marriages can't work without these two. All partnerships require sacrifice and selflessness.
The key is that both husband and wife do their fair share of both.
I think the biggest problem created by feminism is the idea that everything in life is a battle for power and control between men and women.
Put that concept into marriage and presto, instant destruction of the traditional family.
Dennis Prager makes an interesting argument about why modern women are so depressed.
http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/03/11/why_are_so_many_women_depressed_part_i
I don't agree with all of what Mr. Prager writes, but I do agree that unfulfilled expectations are a let down. And feminism did raise expectations to dizzying heights. Many of these expecations have been pitched as rights or entitlements, and when these entitlements aren't met there is anger (at anyone else who can be blamed, such as husbands who are preceived to be holding them back), and when the expectations are met they are a let down because they weren't as fulfilling as feminists promised.
Note: I said feminists, not women.
Men may not be the enemy, but, here, women clearly are.
@cham: "Men may not be the enemy, but, here, women clearly are."
_______
I do no believe that is a fair statement. There are plenty of good women out there that do not subscribe to the feminist nonsense.
cham --
Um, no. Only those who throw the first swing. Were you to be fair, you would mention the quite pleasant exchanges between men an women here as well.
Me? I only want equality. Anyone who wishes to keep equality from me or anyone else is perforce an enemy. Explain to my how this is wrong.
JG
If you don't like a bitch then don't be one yourself. Cheap shots hurt all people. My main point is that I want to see people live up to their potential. Children do not stay small forever. They grow up and move on. Traditions and religions are often an opposing force to individual growth and potential. This is not about men against women or women against men. I would be more than happy to learn from both men and women. Good men are wonderful to be around.
Oligarchicella -
Who have I bullied exactly?
FGFM
Thanks for confirming you have the most laughable affliction-- arrogance combined with ignorance.
A.
1.Do you know anything about IQ or IQ testing ? No
2. Anything about statistics and research methodology ? No
3. Do you know that the 15 point difference in IQ between American blacks and whites is the single most replicated finding in the history of psychology ? No. ( see r definitive world-wide review by Richard Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence, 2006-- the volume is available on Amazon for a penny. Great source.)
4. Can you provide a methodological critique of the elementary level, spoon-fed "The Bell Curve" that substantiates your claim that it is not valid ? No.
Can you do anything but call people 'crackpots" when they eviscerate the empirical bases of your political ideology, leaving you spittering spittle in a Babinski (look it up FGFM).
B
Thomas Sowell - background--
has done zero empirical work on IQ,
he has never published any research in the area of IQ,
he is an economist
who often writes on racial issues from a libertarian viewpoint and
as a traditional economist, he is a classic environmentalist.
C.
Did you consult the reference I provided ?
From 50 research scientists who have spent their professional lives doing original research in the area of IQ --published in the Wall Street journal in 1994 ? per The Bell Curve
Of course not ?
Confirmatory Bias with you is a a titanic obstacle to learning.
D
1.Sowell apparently is referring to tests of European immigrants in the early 1900s ( and white mountaneer children in the 1930s)-- their performance on the "abstract part of the test ". He supplied no citations.
Recent immigrants circa 1910 would have a language issue obviously.
White Mountaineer children in the 1930s ? No research is cited.
2.Jews ? were tested as below average then -- and much later they revealed that they were above average. Sources ?
What does this "claim" about IQ testing ( then in its infancy) of foreign-language speaking European immigrants in the early 1900s and mountaneer children in the 1930s have to do with the modern testing of English speaking American high school students etc. ?
Is he claiming that present day IQ tests are biased against minorities? -- that position was definitively refuted in Bias In Mental Testing , Jensen, 1980. His exhaustive review of the literature established that IQ tests are indeed not biased.
No knowlegeable person debates the issue of bias anymore.
Is he claiming that IQ tests do not reliably and validly measure 'IQ"-- that issue was settled decades ago .
Sowell cannot attack IQ testing and IQ by directly addressing these two questions-- because they are no longer the subject of debate.
IQ tests are not biased aginst native-speaking minorities and they are the most reliable and valid measures in the history of psychology.
quite a few of the women on this blog, including the great dr helen, they are a pleasure to talk too. i love it when people can argue with logic and not rely on insults, or questioning ones orientation.
I may disagree with some of the women, but that doesnt mean i hate them all.
The people on this board, we have had great discussions Male and female alike, and while i dont agree with all their points, i have respect for them because they havent sank to other means, like fgfm, like zelda, like a few others, and we all know the ones i mean. they dont sink to the insults that others do. So for that i respect their opinions, (i may not agree but i respect it)
but thats the point, men can give respect to people who disagree with them, so long as they dont rely on histrionics, but the comments about women making comments about their partners, shows a lack of respect. to someone thats in their lives, someone possibly important.
If they dont respect their partner, then why are they with them. There must be a need for these "lazy, stinky men", whether its a martyr syndrome, or financial reasons or masochism. If you dont respect your partner, then get a divorce.
JG says: "And if it's too much effort for you (or to get a man to do it for you) then just give up"
I feel people can agree to disagree without cheap shots. Something hit a nerve with this man but I am not going to let him get to me. I like the rest of the people on this blog. I hope to continue to post here.
"i love it when people can argue with logic and not rely on insults, or questioning ones orientation.
i have respect for them because they havent sank to other means, like fgfm, like zelda"
Zelda, here, having never questioned anyone's orientation but actually having been a victim of it.
I've reacted, jovially, to the idea that when women get together and talk about their husbands they are tearing at the very fabric of their marriages and systematically destroying the self-esteems of their noble husbands. I was told that I should shut up or prepared to be beat down by that same noble husband. I was informed that I was lucky not to marry someone from my country of origin. And I was mocked for carrying a dictionary.
And never did anyone answer the question of whether or not the husbands from the blog post that started this whole thing were guilty of being lazy and negligent or not.
If I'm guilty of anything its not taking any of this very seriously. It was Friday, we had finished our lessons for the week, the kid were playing outside and I had some fun at your expense.
zelda, did i mention you. No i didnt. it wasnt aimed at you, it a past thing.
but thats not the point zelda, its lack of any respect, if they are lazy, or whatever, thats beside the point. it shows a lack of respect talking about your partner in a negative fashion. IF they are then that should be discussed with your partner. not blabbed to others.
But dont you see, having fun at the males expense, is the very thing we dislike. Thats the point, the lack of respect for another group. (and i dont mean respect for the sex, but the individual). if you partner made comments like that about you to their friends. how would you feel. upset, hurt, betrayed by someone you loved. Yet apparently its different if its a woman talking about a man. WHY? both have feelings. Thats the question you have to ask yourself. Does it matter if they are lazy, or whatever. does that justify treating them like a joke. I dont think so.
There are exceptions, to everything i say, but i dont count those.
Um, I believe you did mention me. Specifically.
I think the passage from the original blog post is ridiculous. I think the angst this topic seems to arouse is deserving of great mockery. But you shouldn't assume that that means that I talk about my husband and any complaints I might have about him to anyone.
@Mercurior: "zelda, did i mention you. No i didnt. it wasnt aimed at you, it a past thing."
__________
You mentioned her specifically as an example of those who have sank to other means.
I tend to agree with your opinions moreso than hers, merc, but the fact remains that you did accuse of her of sinking.
No offense intended, friend, but I would have responded had I been in her shoes as well.
:)
oops... apologies. My reply was redundant since she already pointed it out.
i did mention people sinking to insulting others, but i never mentioned she questioning orientation, i do think she tried to sink, by making fun of a few of my comments, like when was it 1262, when i said tarred and feathering, meaning i was old fashioned. But once again, its called a hypothetical question. i did say imagine, if this happened. i use the words IF, a lot.
"i love it when people can argue with logic and not rely on insults, or questioning ones orientation.
"i have respect for them because they havent sank to other means, like fgfm, like zelda"
Zelda, here, having never questioned anyone's orientation but actually having been a victim of it.
Zelda did take 2 sentences seperated by other words, to prove she did question my orientation. (i was talking about someone else, who did.)
"Men seem stoic and unbreakable"
Really? Where? 1856? and "why is it ok to demean men, yet if a man was to do that to a woman, he would be tarred and feathered."
So its actually 1256?
both those comments seem to turn my comments into a joke. But thats the point, making jokes, not thinking its a serious subject, all shows a disrespect to people.
Gotcha. :)
This blog has been referred to with some interesting comments on vox day's blog as well.
trust and zelda, please read what i really said
"i love it when people can argue with logic and not rely on insults, or questioning ones orientation.
I may disagree with some of the women, but that doesnt mean i hate them all.
The people on this board, we have had great discussions Male and female alike, and while i dont agree with all their points, i have respect for them because they havent sank to other means, like fgfm, like zelda, like a few others, and we all know the ones i mean. they dont sink to the insults that others do. So for that i respect their opinions, (i may not agree but i respect it)"
so zelda was misquoting me, either on purpose or by accident. to give me a bad image.
It was probably unintentional, merc. I misread you too, and I'm one who almost always agrees with you.
Don't be obdurate zerda.
dont worry trust. yes it could be, i agree, but i have known some people to do it on purpose. I cant tell, so i cover both bases, if its an accident it maybe she is thinking in another language. if it was by accident thats ok, if it was on purpose, then thats not.
"so zelda was misquoting me, either on purpose or by accident. to give me a bad image."
i dont get upset, or angry, i just get frustrated on occasions, when arguing the obvious to people who wont see. i almost always agree with you too trust. not all the time. but i respect you for your opinions. I do type in british, because i am one.. i have disagreements with my wife because she hears it in american.
Men seem stoic and unbreakable, but they aren't.
Guys if your wives trash you maybe you should take a listen to what comes out of your mouths. Are you sarcastic? What about your choice of words? The tone in your voice? How about having the last word? Silent treatment?
My husband is an aethist. He never cuts me below the belt. When I used to go to church especially in the bible studies, there were some very angry men. Maybe believers are not so nice. Again good men are wonderful to be around. The nicest ones I met were not from the church.
sometimes georgia, its not the mans fault, it could quite possibly be the woman misreading, mis hearing or having a preconceived idea of what the man is like.
can you appreciate that sometimes, a woman can be at fault too?
a little mental trick, its easy and it doesnt hurt. read the same thing you put, but put men for women, women for men and so on. here it is.
"Women if your husbands trash you maybe you should take a listen to what comes out of your mouths. Are you sarcastic? What about your choice of words? The tone in your voice? How about having the last word? Silent treatment?"
Now is that right or wrong? (i am not having a go, just its an interesting trick, reverse the argument and see how you would act) i bet most women, will have acted like that towards men. So why is it one rule for one sex, and another for the other. when its the same.
There are exceptions, but i dont count those ok. i am not angry, or upset or anything, just putting my views
ZELDA
A.
Thinks the gals getting together and bashing their male "loved ones" is great fun !
What's the problem , she wonders ? It doesn't reflect societal acceptance of abuse of one group by another . Its just fun -- and funny !
And she thinks its a legitimate question-- if all the men-- deserve it !
Its no big deal-- and you guys who find it abusive and complain-- heck, she'll just mock your concern at the acceptability of abusing men.
Its not like men are a legitimate group like blacks or gays or Hispanics-- or women !
Everything is allowed with men for Zelda.
B .
How about--
Would you want your husband running you down with other men for your chronic vaginal dryness and relaxed attitude toward feminine hygiene ?
Or sharing his dissatisfaction with your huge butt and no-bra needing, hirsuite figure -- as the boys get together to out-do each other as to which wife is the biggest piece of shit ?
With you winning ?
...and this is a common event everywhere.
Think you might be upset as a woman as to the socail meaning of this ?
C.
Ever wonder what is it about women that they enjoy making abusive comments about their male 'loved ones" to other women at a hen party ? Pretty indicative of a small person.
Men typically have more interesting and enjoyable things to do than sit around and run down their women for real or imagined faults or dislikes. Men don't engage in the blood-sport of shaming their women to other men-- and other men don't want to hear it if they did. Its only women who think its such fun to say hutful things about 'loved ones " to the gals.
D.
Your posts are quite explicit-- you have no problem with bashing men ( they deserve it ) and you think it deserving of mockery that men find it offensive .
E.
You repeatedly attempt to twist others words or intent or invent out of thin air -- that men here are threatening you with violence for your 'smart mouth".
This is a sexist mode of putting men on the defensive.
The issue is not retaliation against the women -- the issue is the appropriateness of airing such abusive comments to others and what kind of woman enjoys bashing her "loved one " to others.
Stop playing the pussy card.
F.
Perhaps if you were in an environment where it was acceptable to openly abuse you you would have more empathy.
But as a woman, empathy for men is almost impossible for you.
That you find this abusive behavior acceptable and mock concern about it from its victims, indicates that you consider the dehumanization of men a trivial issue.
Is there any other group you and your gal pals abuse at the hen party hoedown-- Niggers? Jews ? Spics ? The Homeless ? Queers ?
Post a Comment
<< Home