Degeneration

It's not unheard of to meet a man whose wife makes more then he does. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

agreed!

This thread has a lot of generalizations - which is really an excuse to make judgements on people because you can't be bothered to learn about individuals. A few bad experience is no excuse to write off a group of people, instead learn to be a better judge of character. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Completely agree!

Completely agree! Originally Posted by Hanna Darling

You completely agree with a generalization about a generalization being an excuse to be judgmental? WTF am I missing here? Irony? No, I see the irony. Maybe we need a puppy and an analogy!



Look when Larry Summers said what he said, he was vilified by the PC crowd, not because what he said wasn't true but because the PC crowd did not take the time to educate themselves with the science of the matter.
I just sold my house to a woman making a million bucks and her husband making 200k, but I am under no illusion that women will ever, on average, make more than men. If you look at the studies pregnancy is a huge factor in that equation and I do not see men giving birth anytime soon. So generally speaking men make more than women and probably always will. And generally speaking there will always be generalizations about points. EVERYBODY does it.

agreed! Originally Posted by ..

We can all agree to that but agreeing to the exception does not make the generalization less true.

I just sold my house to a woman making a million bucks and her husband making 200k, but I am under no illusion that women will ever, on average, make more than men. And generally speaking there will always be generalizations about points. EVERYBODY does it.
Originally Posted by WTF

was she a provider?

was she a provider? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

we all provide something or other. One day the payee , the next day the pay-her.

She provides a school, she then hires teachers to provide a safe educational enviorment to teach shit to a bunch of lucky lil bastards. Same concept Hedi Fleiss did for Charlie Sheen minus the sex!

What else you need to know this morning!

we all provide something or other. One day the payee , the next day the pay-her.

She provides a school, she then hires teachers to provide a safe educational enviorment to teach shit to a bunch of lucky lil bastards. Same concept Hedi Fleiss did for Charlie Sheen minus the sex!

What else you need to know this morning! Originally Posted by WTF

a buddy of mine bought a church...so this preacher he knew would have a place...then along came this woman who got government money for running a charter school and paid him triple what he paid the year before for the church so she could convert it into a charter school...theres so much waste and over payment and ppl living off the taxpayer its unreal

a buddy of mine bought a church...so this preacher he knew would have a place...then along came this woman who got government money for running a charter school and paid him triple what he paid the year before for the church so she could convert it into a charter school...theres so much waste and over payment and ppl living off the taxpayer its unreal Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Damn shame when a school can make more than church! WTF is this country coming to?

Your one liner about telling men what they wanted to hear was great. Olivia's post was insightful as was WTF's. PJ linking the intelligence studies took balls, and Laurenitis agreeing with someone he previously clashed was refreshing. Still, political correctness and pettiness were in a far too abundant quantity. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

You're dealing with humans, not machines. As social creatures who can usually be easily controlled by social disapproval; political correctness can exercise dramatic power -- even when it is compelling one to tell an outright lie. Political correctness is a new name, but the phenomenon is not new at all.

In order to disable political correctness; people either have to care so little about the feelings of others that they might also have some negative traits to go along with it or be reliably anonymous so that they will not have to suffer social repercussions.

Perhaps you don't fully grasp the power of political correctness. I had a friend who was an anti-illegal-immigration activist. He handed out anti-illegal-immigration flyers on his own time and dime. Someone was "offended," found out where he worked and called his employer. He was out of work the next day.

Here we go again with making women nod by telling a half truth that is positive about women. I agree and admire the fact that women care less about money when it comes to employment, but when it comes to a potential spouse, money is a much more important factor for women than men. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

In many cases -- though not all -- this is true. What you are alluding to is female hypergamy -- the innate desire of women for a man of higher social status. Within our current environment in which materialist philosophy of various sorts reigns supreme; the predominant view relates a man's wealth to his social status. HOWEVER, this view is not universal. There are women out there who see men who have attributes other than wealth as being of high social status, depending upon their values. Methinks that dealing in p4p world may have a jading effect.

It is true that I was able to attract a subset of females through ostentatious display of wealth. But I was able to attract a different subset through a display of academic prowess and yet another subset through demonstrable skills as a warrior.

Studies showing that women are more orgasmic with men they believe to be wealthy neglect the fact that the women in the study interpret hypergamous impulses within the framework of cultural values delivered through TV, etc. A different sampling of women -- say, Amish women as an extreme example -- would have given different results.

Furthermore, even though women want "the best" -- by definition there are 100 women for every one man that is in the top 1% of whatever attribute is being defined as "the best." Frankly, then, about 99% of women will have an expectation for something that will never be in a monogamous society. Some other woman is going to get "the best."

And what happens? Well, some settle and are resentful. But others make lemonade out of lemons. Maybe they can't have a guy out of the top 1% in attribute X; but they can have a guy who is in the top 1% of attribute Y and in the top 5% of attribute X.

In other words, because women outnumber men 2:1 in higher education and higher education is a huge predictor of relative incomes; Lauren is right that in the future the number of women whose income exceeds that of men will increase dramatically. If their hypergamous tendencies stay oriented materialistically, they will hit a brick wall and remain mateless. Instead, they will reorient their hypergamous tendencies toward other desirable attributes.

That doesn't make me nod, and I don't find it flattering. The phrases "less catty" and "dramatic" are codes for how feminine values have become mainstream. Maher's examples were "Feelings are more important than fact" and the real issue for me on this forum "Sensitivity is more important than truth." Originally Posted by woodyboyd

This reminds me of a thought experiment I used to do in an ethics class that I taught in order to demonstrate the primacy of existence over consciousness.

A student is blindfolded, told to sit in a chair, and told that he is about to receive sexual favors from a beautiful woman. That is what he believes will happen. Then, I take out my .357 magnum, and shoot him in the head at point-blank range.

The question is: does he get sexual favors, or blown away? Obviously, he gets blown away.

The key point here is that concealment of a fact of reality does not protect one from the consequences of that fact. People who insist on being "offended" as a way of curtailing undesired information -- thereby forcing others to lie to them -- cannot escape the consequences of the underlying reality.

Using PJ's data, there are four times more male morons than female ones, but four times more male geniuses. This is a completely neutral study but look at where the emphasis was here and what got Summers fired. People ran to discredit or minimize the female genius number but were mum on the male moron number. That is what is so sad. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

This is a manifestation of female supremacism -- not feminism. Female supremacism holds that men and women are identical except in arenas where women are superior.

In the distant ASPD forums, the data would be accepted and discussed not discredited. As for the male geniuses I have seen, about half are socially inept, yet I can't recall social ineptness in any extremely intelligent woman I have met. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

Perhaps your perception of social ineptness differences is colored by the fact you are sexually attracted to intelligent women. (*grin*)

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I like your show

Natalie's post I wouldn't put in the petty or PC category, but I think it is worth looking at.

...

That doesn't make me nod, and I don't find it flattering. The phrases "less catty" and "dramatic" are codes for how feminine values have become mainstream. Maher's examples were "Feelings are more important than fact" and the real issue for me on this forum "Sensitivity is more important than truth." Originally Posted by woodyboyd

Feminine values have become mainstream? Is feminine not mainstream? Do you mean to say they've become masculine, and what values are you referring to?

I suppose it proves Lauren's point that generalizations are quite worthless—something we all know, but for some reason has to be repeated anyway. Men trying to tell me my gender is smarter than theirs when it's a blatant attempt to get in my pants isn't all that flattering either.

People who insist on being "offended" as a way of curtailing undesired information -- thereby forcing others to lie to them -- cannot escape the consequences of the underlying reality. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Exactly. People should want to lie, not have to! LOL

. Female supremacism holds that men and women are identical except in arenas where women are superior. Originally Posted by Laurentius

What is: the former HDH Forum of aspd, Alex?

What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan, 1892

[quote=Laurentius;764134] The key point is that concealment of a fact of reality does not protect one from the consequences of that fact. People who insist on being offended as a way of curtailing undesired information -- thereby forcing others to lie to them -- cannot escape the consequences of the underlying reality.


Well stated!

Men trying to tell me my gender is smarter than theirs when it's a blatant attempt to get in my pants isn't all that flattering either. Originally Posted by Natalie

LOL! Depending on the context, if it is a hobby thing I think just booking you would be enough for a guy to convey the intention of getting in your pants. I love playing scrabble, but I don't usually book providers for that.

In a civie thing ... well ... my approaches haven't been that crude and unsophisticated since I was a teen.

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;764807]

The key point is that concealment of a fact of reality does not protect one from the consequences of that fact. People who insist on being offended as a way of curtailing undesired information -- thereby forcing others to lie to them -- cannot escape the consequences of the underlying reality. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Agreed, that is well stated.

The truth is a touchy thing. It's one thing to expect truth, it's another to create an environment where people feel they can't tell you the truth. If you can't provide a measured reaction, let your emotions take over, or are unable to treat people with dignity and turn the other cheek when you feel slighted or wronged - then don't expect people to be honest. Most individuals I've met loathe being dishonest, but do not feel the other party makes honesty a livable option. They do indeed create a wall with anger and spite, irrational behaviour, or making the person feel worse than they already do. I don't know how many times I've heard an SO talk to their partner like a stupid child when they hear something they don't like.

With all the changes in my personal life it's become a motto for me: To expect unconditional honesty, you need to provide unconditional understanding. People also need psychological privacy, they need to talk when they're ready, you cannot impose terms, and demand instantaneous honesty.