U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 05-31-2010, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Texas
28,114 posts, read 23,035,285 times
Reputation: 33627
US, we have something in common...I don't care what anyone else thinks of me, either. Barring family and friends, and that is only in the 'am I a good person?' sense. I follow the rules and a strict code of honor, but that's for me...not for anyone else.

Of course it's deeper. That is why one of my original posts went along the lines of how a better question would be WHY men care what their SOs earn. Why they are more peeved about it when it's their SO, etc, etc.

Anyone who blames their behavior on a reaction to 'what society thinks' is a waste of time in my book. Especially if the resulting behavior is hurtful to others (as in the case of men who freak out when their wives make more money).

Hurting or putting down people because that's what you think being a man is...ha!
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2010, 08:56 AM
 
19,081 posts, read 12,048,521 times
Reputation: 13229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Sasquatch View Post
Which means there CAN BE no productive questions regarding the nature/activity of men or women.
I'll have to think on this statement, but right now I agree. It might depend on what's being addressed, but I suspect most advice given in this forum is applicable to either gender.

Quote:
Which would also invalidate any argument of your own where you failed to qualify by separating any assertion toward how women behave or think from a clear statement of opinion.
I'm not following. Typically I'm not coming from a space of how women behave, rather how people behave under specific conditions. With that said, clearly there are significant societal conditions that differentiate the genders. I recognize that, but then I'm still left with nature arguments and they don't fly.

Quote:
That's a lot of time wasted, eh?
I do think gender debates waste time, yes.

Quote:
Although I'm not going to waste time arguing whether you ever said any such thing or not regarding any statement about generalizations of men or women (you suggest no, I'll just take your word for it), I WOULD have to ask about whom you're (you/specific) speaking when you passively-aggressively use the pronoun you (you/general), since that would apply to men or women or BOTH and we've already ascertained that sweeping statements have no place in real discussion.
Whoever is annoying me. It came to mind because I did it recently, tho, I can't remember which thread. Given the TOS on all forums it's not like we can tell a person s/he's full of cr*p if that's what we're thinking. So, I'll address 'people' with that pov and state that I think they're full of cr*p.

Quote:
Are you saying that uncertified (WHO does the certification? WHO did the FIRST certification?) observation IS invalid? Have we reached the point where the things I see and infer, unless I hold a board certification, have now taken on the nature of epistemology, wherein I'm forced to question not only whether knowledge is knowable, but if not then HOW would I know this? I think this has finally boiled down to a yes/no response.
No, that is not what I'm saying. I rushed through that post and didn't communicate my point well. Sorry about that. Whoever is making the statements should qualify their statements. For example, when I state that the men in my life are awesome, intelligent, kind, creative, successful, etc, I'm speaking of the men in my life. It doesn't mean most men or all men. 'So, by 'who' I meant the criteria that makes up the framework of my social circles, which is specific (education, upbringing, economic status, etc).

If I am going to generalize those statements to include those that are outside my little corner of the world, and then someone comes along and states "well, there are men that are not successful, globally most men are not successful by western standards, men are generally lazy" then I would have to obviously expand the scope of my personal framework. Not all men or most men should be judged based on the opportunities afforded to the men I happen to know.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Corydon, IN
2,985 posts, read 2,300,392 times
Reputation: 5629
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
US, we have something in common...I don't care what anyone else thinks of me, either. Barring family and friends, and that is only in the 'am I a good person?' sense. I follow the rules and a strict code of honor, but that's for me...not for anyone else.

Of course it's deeper. That is why one of my original posts went along the lines of how a better question would be WHY men care what their SOs earn. Why they are more peeved about it when it's their SO, etc, etc.

Anyone who blames their behavior on a reaction to 'what society thinks' is a waste of time in my book. Especially if the resulting behavior is hurtful to others (as in the case of men who freak out when their wives make more money).

Hurting or putting down people because that's what you think being a man is...ha!

I agree with you to quite an extent, with one caveat which remains despite whatever we might wish:

Ultimately, unless we lead an isolated life, we have to deal with society, which means being able to operate within societal norms and parameters.

Which means to some extent remaining subject to what society thinks.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Corydon, IN
2,985 posts, read 2,300,392 times
Reputation: 5629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
No, that is not what I'm saying. I rushed through that post and didn't communicate my point well. Sorry about that. Whoever is making the statements should qualify their statements. For example, when I state that the men in my life are awesome, intelligent, kind, creative, successful, etc, I'm speaking of the men in my life. It doesn't mean most men or all men. 'So, by 'who' I meant the criteria that makes up the framework of my social circles, which is specific (education, upbringing, economic status, etc).

If I am going to generalize those statements to include those that are outside my little corner of the world, and then someone comes along and states "well, there are men that are not successful, globally most men are not successful by western standards, men are generally lazy" then I would have to obviously expand the scope of my personal framework. Not all men or most men should be judged based on the opportunities afforded to the men I happen to know.

Which brings us back full-circle to my earlier assertion of conversation and casual debate being made impossible because every statement needs qualifiers, caveats and a bibliography, ultimately reading like a legal document JUST to have the opportunity to render an opinion or thought.

As for the rest (which I didn't quote this time) I think stan4 summed it up: You can't just STOP conversation because "you just never know". That's as crippling and nonsensical as people who make statements and MEAN them in an all-encompassing way rather than implying the obvious presence of exception, or the opposing people who want to scream about invalidation because "this ONE time I knew a guy who didn't do that!"
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 09:41 AM
 
19,081 posts, read 12,048,521 times
Reputation: 13229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Sasquatch View Post

MORE to the point and something I stated earlier, a hard-science scenario operates with the aforementioned rules. They're looking to see whether A or B happens, it's practically a yes/no. The social sciences are different because of not only the freedom of human will but because so many "recognized sources" out there have an agenda, be that agenda power, funding or social/emotional bias.
Agreed. This is why matter of fact doesn't work and nature arguments fail. The limitations are what they are.

Quote:
I won't argue that; however, each of those observations, while personal, is still reflective of a portion of the larger picture. As I stated before, it may be regional or entirely local, or from a broader perspective depending on a person's exposure -- but ultimately people WILL make observations and some form of evaluation based on that set of observations. Otherwise (although I WON'T argue there's a degree of willy-nilly out there) everything would be utterly random.
I'm not arguing that people aren't making observations and that observations aren't shared. Sure they are, but so what? Just because a group of people come to a specific conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion has merit. For example, many men on this forum claim that since it's women that mostly file for divorce (an observation) this means that women do not value marriage, commitment, whatever. Is that true just because a group of people are in agreement?

Quote:
Are you seriously telling me you've never head a psychiatrist or psychologist laugh at a question during an interview and say "We now know that..."? Let alone with regard to applying that statement to either men or women? Seriously?
I'm not following. Do you have an example in mind?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 09:47 AM
 
19,081 posts, read 12,048,521 times
Reputation: 13229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Sasquatch View Post
Which brings us back full-circle to my earlier assertion of conversation and casual debate being made impossible because every statement needs qualifiers, caveats and a bibliography, ultimately reading like a legal document JUST to have the opportunity to render an opinion or thought.
Well, what can I say. Just because a person has an opinion doesn't mean it's a fact. Some readers might receive the opinion as fact, others will only see it as an opinion. So is life.

Quote:
As for the rest (which I didn't quote this time) I think stan4 summed it up: You can't just STOP conversation because "you just never know". That's as crippling and nonsensical as people who make statements and MEAN them in an all-encompassing way rather than implying the obvious presence of exception, or the opposing people who want to scream about invalidation because "this ONE time I knew a guy who didn't do that!"
I don't think anyone is stopping the conversation. If anything, I see it as furthering a conversation. I want to know why a person has a particular pov. Claims of "that's just the way it is" does not lend to discussion.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Corydon, IN
2,985 posts, read 2,300,392 times
Reputation: 5629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Agreed. This is why matter of fact doesn't work and nature arguments fail. The limitations are what they are.

I'm not arguing that people aren't making observations and that observations aren't shared. Sure they are, but so what? Just because a group of people come to a specific conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion has merit. For example, many men on this forum claim that since it's women that mostly file for divorce (an observation) this means that women do not value marriage, commitment, whatever. Is that true just because a group of people are in agreement?

I'm not following. Do you have an example in mind?

Two things:

First thing --

Did we really just spend all that time going over sweeping vs generalization only to have you say so what? when a group of people share observations and arrive at a specific conclusion?

To cite your own example, while it ISN'T valid for a group of men to say that women do not value marriage or commitment because said group has collectively observed the majority of divorces being initiated by women, does it invalidate their conjecture, or does it beg the question Why would they think that? since it's not one or two, but a group?

Second thing --

You know good and well what I mean by the question of whether or not you've ever heard any psychiatrist or psychologist in some form of interview (I'll clarify and say typically on some form of informational television or documentary) saying "Now we know..." with regard to either men or women, specifically. If you choose to discuss this meaningfully we'll gain nothing by pretense and I refuse to believe you've never, ever watched ANY documentary or PBS show discussing some form of social, gender-based difference or research in all your life.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Corydon, IN
2,985 posts, read 2,300,392 times
Reputation: 5629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
I don't think anyone is stopping the conversation. If anything, I see it as furthering a conversation. I want to know why a person has a particular pov. Claims of "that's just the way it is" does not lend to discussion.

It's not furthering conversation if every single thing needs absolute clarification to the Nth degree. I'll cite your "I don't follow" quoted in my post above, the one I addressed. It's a fine example.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Texas
28,114 posts, read 23,035,285 times
Reputation: 33627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Sasquatch View Post
I agree with you to quite an extent, with one caveat which remains despite whatever we might wish:

Ultimately, unless we lead an isolated life, we have to deal with society, which means being able to operate within societal norms and parameters.

Which means to some extent remaining subject to what society thinks.
Yeah, but that's simplistic. As long as you follow the rules and understand what you can and cannot have based on how you choose to present yourself, then you really shouldn't care.

I would say 90% of your choices don't have to be affected by what society thinks unless you're trying to impress people.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 12:02 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 12,048,521 times
Reputation: 13229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Sasquatch View Post
Two things:

First thing --

Did we really just spend all that time going over sweeping vs generalization only to have you say so what? when a group of people share observations and arrive at a specific conclusion?
lol Maybe I'm getting lazy.

Quote:
To cite your own example, while it ISN'T valid for a group of men to say that women do not value marriage or commitment because said group has collectively observed the majority of divorces being initiated by women, does it invalidate their conjecture, or does it beg the question Why would they think that? since it's not one or two, but a group?
That's what comes to mind for me. Ime, the reasoning offered is disappointing. For that matter, I can't say there is clear consensus to be found either. It can get pretty random.

Quote:
You know good and well what I mean by the question of whether or not you've ever heard any psychiatrist or psychologist in some form of interview
I really don't. Nothing came to mind, so I asked. Perhaps an example would give me an ah ha! and I'd get it.

Quote:
(I'll clarify and say typically on some form of informational television or documentary) saying "Now we know..." with regard to either men or women, specifically. If you choose to discuss this meaningfully we'll gain nothing by pretense and I refuse to believe you've never, ever watched ANY documentary or PBS show discussing some form of social, gender-based difference or research in all your life.
I don't watch a lot of documentaries that address gender or the social sciences. I have watch NOVA series in the past, and most of the series I spent time with focused on genetics (iRNA).

I just googled- "Now we know" pbs gender- The first hit notes gender gaps. I am familiar with the closing gender gap in HS math. Is this the sort of thing you're referring to?
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top