Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some stereotypes are based on truth, some are not. And moreover, they tend to contradict one another. How can "women," as a collective, be both "warm, mothering types," and "psycho b*tches?" Yet both personas are stereotypically attributed to "women" as a group. How can "men," as a whole, be both "strong, manly providers" and "oblivious, blundering fools," yet both are stereotypes?
Some stereotypes are based on truth, some are not. And moreover, they tend to contradict one another. How can "women," as a collective, be both "warm, mothering types," and "psycho b*tches?" Yet both personas are stereotypically attributed to "women" as a group. How can "men," as a whole, be both "strong, manly providers" and "oblivious, blundering fools," yet both are stereotypes?
Because, for example, a woman can be both mothering to her offspring and a psycho to the person she's married to or dating. It's not inconsistent at all. As far as men being "strong, manly providers," that's more a description than a stereotype. Women don't "stereotype" men as being strong or providers and, in fact, these days many women consider themselves to be the equal of men and "don't need them at all."
I don't find stereotypes offensive, ever really, but its generally just a bad way to think, not just about genders. They can used to excuse a behavior, make a false assumption based on anecdotal evidence that DOES NOT apply to others, etc etc.
City-data is full of subtle, seemingly non-offensive gender stereotypes about both male and females. Just read the comments section on the Carolyn Hax—stereotype overload there. But it is what it is. Stereotyping is a low level of thinking that should be saved for split second decisions at most.
If you can't see beyond that, well, good luck in life cause you're probably going to need it.
Men do not openly share equality with other men, with out some how earning it.
Yet the liberals and their push for equality, demand it with out earning it.
Many women jump on this band wagon, like grabbing a welfare check.
I have only met a rare few truly mature women, that can have an intelligent conversation, with out them having some hidden agenda.
Mind you I have no agenda but the conversation at hand.
I have no angles to work and nothing to sell .
Simply wanting to get to know the other person.
So there are some stereotypes that I have of my own, that protect me from abuse .
It's not like it's easy , it takes a lot of discipline , however often enough, I see the consequences of ignoring this fact ,leading to trouble.
Not really. Men of all economic classes identify women as gold diggers.
Yes, that's my point.
Men of ALL economic classes claim women are "gold diggers." Even men with little gold to dig. That suggests "gold digger" is more often a term of abuse than an accurate description.
Why would that bother you? Do you mean to say that you don't think that women take a man's monetary value into account? That's demonstrably false. If you took a perfectly normal guy and told women he was a janitor, most women would pay little to no attention to him. That's reality, not nonsense.
It's always fascinating to me how when we say that men care a lot about looks, men are able to think about that and go "...yeah, sounds about right." We realize that it's a fairly accurate generalization and don't need to get all defensive and go "hey, I know guys who don't ..." Yeah, that's great, nobody cares about the guys you just made up. In contrast, when we say that women care a lot about money, all the women are like "no, in fact I never even consider that!" Yeah, you do. You just don't feel like saying so. It doesn't mean that's the ONLY thing you consider, but it's pretty high up there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by upndown
Not really. Men of all economic classes identify women as gold diggers. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need pre-nups, now, would we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by upndown
Because, for example, a woman can be both mothering to her offspring and a psycho to the person she's married to or dating. It's not inconsistent at all. As far as men being "strong, manly providers," that's more a description than a stereotype. Women don't "stereotype" men as being strong or providers and, in fact, these days many women consider themselves to be the equal of men and "don't need them at all."
Quote:
Originally Posted by upndown
The woman doesn't have to bring "nothing" to be a gold-digger. She just has to have an economic disadvantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by upndown
Actually, stereotyping and generalizations are known to have developed because they're beneficial for survival.
And how's that working out for you?
These are the kind of things I find offensive and I can't imagine how believing how all women are gold diggers would help you at all in life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
