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.
As far as broad strokes go, I still say Brown Cow Theorem. Stopping to try and qualify every statement which does have far-reaching values and applications with every conceivable caveat and exception would make every single post read like paralegal gibberish -- yet the failure to do so causes a rapid downward spiral in discussion.
I'm not sure I'm following. If the goal is to ignore the individual you're speaking with then that's not a discussion. It's speaking from your pulpit. Few are interested. Frankly, if I wanted to read an essay that objectively addresses gender issues I would not look to CD because any statement made is rooted in the poster's particular pasture of cows.
Quote:
Thing about stereotypes: There are quite a lot of stereotypes out there about men, and if you read even one and think to yourself "Well, that one's actually kind of true..."
...then uh-oh. It's quite a can of worms.
I have a hard time with that. I guess I can agree on some things like men, in general, love sex. If something is physiologically based, no problem. When we get into psychosocial dynamics there is simply no way to make matter of fact statements. To do so, variables need to be ignored. The nature argument typically fails.
I think it's meaningful to the person making the assertion and it's fine to appreciate another person's pov. I don't think it's appropriate to extend generalizations to people we engage with and that's what we're doing on a message board. Sharing our experiences and engaging each other. Many attempt to ignore this fact and I don't understand why. The "it's all men or all women or in general, but not you" disclaimers makes for poor conversation. If there is data that agrees with personal experience that does not mean there is an absence of variables. There is always criteria for pretty much everything and I think it's far easier to recognize when we acknowledge the person we're talking to.
I certainly do not take any male on this forum to be a representative for men at large. They speak for themselves as far as I'm concerned.
The first bolded part would make a "relationships" forum essentially pointless if ANY discussion comes up about what men think or women think, about what men do or women do, wouldn't it? It would mean every response needed to be started with the caveat "I can't speak for every man/woman, but here is what I think."
I honestly don't know, but IF I were to go hit find all posts by and trace your relationship forum history as far as I could, would I find that caveat (or something similarly applicable) all over the place? Would I ever find phrasing anywhere which said "Men tend to [insert action or thought here]" or something similar applied to women, in justification of a general view?
I know there are just as many Why do Men...? threads throughout this forum as there are Why do Women...? threads. Some are created by silly people with a grudge and some are created because someone has observed something repeatedly and they've begun to question.
As an educated individual, wouldn't you say repeated observation begins to lend itself to a question of generality? That generality may be local, may be regional, may be cultural -- but it does speak of a sampling of sorts, does it not?
I'm not sure I'm following. If the goal is to ignore the individual you're speaking with then that's not a discussion. It's speaking from your pulpit. Few are interested. Frankly, if I wanted to read an essay that objectively addresses gender issues I would not look to CD because any statement made is rooted in the poster's particular pasture of cows.
Inarguable. Then again, I'm not exactly a novice when it comes to published research (reading and evaluating). Isn't most research published either published by an individual with a specific goal, making that "from their pulpit", or by a group with some form of agenda, making that only a larger pulpit?
Does any of that, even if we were to recognize "research" as sweepingly valid, invalidate the human power of observation? Because I'm not a recognized authority does that mean I'm incapable of valid observation and analysis of the things I see and hear and therefore must keep my piehole forever closed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
I have a hard time with that. I guess I can agree on some things like men, in general, love sex. If something is physiologically based, no problem. When we get into psychosocial dynamics there is simply no way to make matter of fact statements. To do so, variables need to be ignored. The nature argument typically fails.
Then many thousands of psychologists and psychiatrists need to be swiftly unemployed (verb transitive).
The first bolded part would make a "relationships" forum essentially pointless if ANY discussion comes up about what men think or women think, about what men do or women do, wouldn't it? It would mean every response needed to be started with the caveat "I can't speak for every man/woman, but here is what I think."
The way I read posts that exactly what I assume. Nobody here can speak for anyone but themselves. What I see on the forum, mostly, is people coming here with their individual problems/situations. People offer advice based on their personal experience. They do not offer advice that can be found in APA annals. The threads that include generalizations end up like this one. That's the way this forum reads to me at least.
Quote:
I honestly don't know, but IF I were to go hit find all posts by and trace your relationship forum history as far as I could, would I find that caveat (or something similarly applicable) all over the place? Would I ever find phrasing anywhere which said "Men tend to [insert action or thought here]" or something similar applied to women, in justification of a general view?
I would be very surprised if you found a post of mine making such a statement about men. Perhaps if I were drunk, I don't know. You will find me using (general you) when addressing some posters, but that's typically a passive/aggressive move on my part.
Quote:
I know there are just as many Why do Men...? threads throughout this forum as there are Why do Women...? threads. Some are created by silly people with a grudge and some are created because someone has observed something repeatedly and they've begun to question.
As an educated individual, wouldn't you say repeated observation begins to lend itself to a question of generality? That generality may be local, may be regional, may be cultural -- but it does speak of a sampling of sorts, does it not?
Repeated observation under what conditions? Who is doing the interpreting? Who is addressing bias? There are too many variables at play here for me to put any stock in broad brush maneuvers by anyone, many, the masses. If you review the posts in this thread, and any gender thread, you will see exactly why observations provide little insight. I have to go. I'll try to get back to this thread a bit later.
The way I read posts that exactly what I assume. Nobody here can speak for anyone but themselves. What I see on the forum, mostly, is people coming here with their individual problems/situations. People offer advice based on their personal experience. They do not offer advice that can be found in APA annals. The threads that include generalizations end up like this one. That's the way this forum reads to me at least.
Which means there CAN BE no productive questions regarding the nature/activity of men or women.
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.
That's a lot of time wasted, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
I would be very surprised if you found a post of mine making such a statement about men. Perhaps if I were drunk, I don't know. You will find me using (general you) when addressing some posters, but that's typically a passive/aggressive move on my part.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Repeated observation under what conditions? Who is doing the interpreting? Who is addressing bias? There are too many variables at play here for me to put any stock in broad brush maneuvers by anyone, many, the masses. If you review the posts in this thread, and any gender thread, you will see exactly why observations provide little insight. I have to go. I'll try to get back to this thread a bit later.
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.
If it seems I'm twisting this and being mildly argumentative, imagine (though you cannot know for certain) how it looks from my perspective when I ask a simple enough question regarding ANY validity to personal observation and you attempt to cloud it with what amounts to scientific rhetoric (the quoted portion above).
Take your time; unless some mod disapproves of my thoughts in general this should be waiting when you get back.
I thought it was said somewhere in the middle of this thread that affinity for power is a personality problem, not a gender problem, -- how did it get back to "men vs women", "us vs them" ? This is beside the point in this thread, regardless of smartlax's attempts to justify his viewpoints by sweeping male-female generalizations.
I thought it was said somewhere in the middle of this thread that affinity for power is a personality problem, not a gender problem, -- how did it get back to "men vs women", "us vs them" ? This is beside the point in this thread, regardless of smartlax's attempts to justify his viewpoints by sweeping male-female generalizations.
It didn't, OTHER than my making reference to the way men and women each tend to attempt to downplay and/or belittlej, ie., diminish the "opposing" side's views, typically with little or no regard for any point which might be made.
Beyond that, the closest thing to any he vs she reference is the fact that this is a relationships forum. Maybe you're gleaning something from Braunwyn's posts which I am not; I, however, am discussing people (to mean both genders) and observation (given the semi-debate between B and myself regarding validity/invalidity of human observation), so it can't be me.
As far as I'm able to tell, an affinity for power IS a personality problem which is by no means isolated to gender. However, if it HAD gotten back to any such thing it would be no means be "beside the point" of the thread since the OP is the question to men regarding whether they're intimidated by the possibility of their SO's earning more than they. A quite natural follow-up would be the question of why, which was the root of several pages prior to my having even entered this arena outside my own initial post.
It didn't, OTHER than my making reference to the way men and women each tend to attempt to downplay and/or belittlej, ie., diminish the "opposing" side's views, typically with little or no regard for any point which might be made.
I still hope you mean "people". "People tend to downplay other's POV". I could agree with that. Several men expressed that "It. Doesn't. Matter." to them if their SO makes more money. There are two camps here - those for whom it doesn't matter, and those for whom it does. The line does NOT, should not, lie along the gender division, here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Sasquatch
As far as I'm able to tell, an affinity for power IS a personality problem which is by no means isolated to gender. However, if it HAD gotten back to any such thing it would be no means be "beside the point" of the thread since the OP is the question to men regarding whether they're intimidated by the possibility of their SO's earning more than they. A quite natural follow-up would be the question of why, which was the root of several pages prior to my having even entered this arena outside my own initial post.
for the bolded part. As for someone trying to explain "why", tying the reasons to genders, - see the bolded part.
I am dating a lawyer right now and she makes a little more than double than me. Am I intimidated? Nope. I was living just fine before I met her. However, one of my employees is dating a pharmacist and she makes 4 times as much as him and he says it makes him feel really inadequate. To which I ask why? I mean if you like a person, what does it matter?
No it doesn't intimidate me. I like my women to be successful. I expect them to earn the same amount of money as me or more. Call me picky or whatever but the amount of income a person makes tells ALOT about them. One of the things i am specifically looking for is a successful woman. Its a deal breaker issue. I've been with women who make less than me and its just a hassle at this point. I am just more well suited with successful women.
I agree, killer...a high earnin', powerful woman is super-sexy to me.
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.
for the bolded part. As for someone trying to explain "why", tying the reasons to genders, - see the bolded part.
