You're just that guy who judges women no matter what. A strong woman? She must be a ball- breaker. A subservient woman? She deserves bad treatment and a whole bunch of your personal drama.

Either way or any way between seems like a losing situation for your judgment.

1. You are deliberately attempting to make other guests at this social function feel discomfort and disgust - literally timing how long it takes to drive those people away from the conversation.
2. You have set out to have a staged conversation on the pretense of innocent socialising when in fact you have a hidden agenda
3. You have made a massive assumption about how all men view and discuss their dates with women, based solely on your own personal experience. You do not have enough personal exerience to extrapolate that to all men.
4. You have made a massive assumption about how all women respond to and view men's conversation about women. You do not have enough personal exerience to extrapolate that to all women.

It is a cold way to treat friends and acquaintances.
It is a fundamentally flawed methodology for any kind of test.
It is a test that is wide open to confirmation bias
It is a test that relies on you 'reading' why those people have left - was it really the content of the questioning that made them leave, or was there something in your tone that was off-putting. Maybe the dishonesty inherent in such ulterior motives made you seem cold or strange, or pushy during the conversation. You have no idea and neither do I - because there was no control. Flipping the questions to looks does not control for changes in your own demeanour - you are not a mere observer in the test, you are a participant in the group and your participation changes the dynamics of that group and must therefore affect the results of the test, one way or another.

It is a test that relies on a wholly reductive view of gender.

Couching it in terms of wanting men to judge women on their behaviour and personality instead of looks does not remove the insidious layer of judgement you apply to women.

Maybe there's a communication breakdown here, trace, but your view of women does not seem very nice to me. Nor indeed does your view of men.

To throw one entirely unscientific personal experience out there to counter your entirely unscientific personal experience:

I was once a member of an online guild who believed I was a man. It was in the days before Teamtalk and other such things - all communication was text based - in game, in ICQ and mIRC. I became very good friends with several of the guild - to the point I eventually trusted them enough to 'come out' as female.

Back when they thought I was a guy I had the experience of talking with a group of men who thought there were no women present. Know what I discovered? The conversations were not different to the conversations I have with my girlfriends. One of them, the guild leader, was recovering from a nasty divorce and was now a single parent to his little girl. He was back on the dating scene - he would tell us about the women he'd dated - and you know what was of most concern to him? What she was like as a person. Did he tell us how awesome she looked? Sure. Did he tell us about her gorgeous smile, and beautiful hair? Yes. He was surprinsgly circumspect about what they'd done in the sack. There were odd comments about tits and ass. But the bulk of what he talked about was what she was like as a person - whether she was someone he could spend time with and whose company he enjoyed, and whether or not she'd get along with his girl. Oh yeah, and whether she believed in God. I remember that being a deal breaker with one woman. Rog was a believer - though not a bible-basher.

I've never forgotten that experience of being in a group of guys who didn;t know there was a woman there. I didn't keep my gender secret to test them or observe. It was the late '90s and being a woman in an mmorpg brought a lot of unwelcome bullshit from the mostly male players. To be accepted fully, I had a male character and initially stayed wholly in character throughout. As ad-hoc groups became guilds, then friends, I didn't want that acceptance to evaporate so i stayed male even when not in character.

I eventually came out and stayed friends with those people. The dynamic changed - and there was a tonal shift in how those men related tome now that I was known female.

It stayed with me though. Because it surprised me and confounded a lot of my expectations. The biggest lesson i took from it was that really, friends talk with friends in very similar ways whether they are male or female. The differences come in when the group is mixed. Maybe when groups are mixed, men act like men and women act like women - without the other gender there we are free to simply act as people.

I don't know. It's complicated. People are complicated. Taking a stopwatch to a social function and trying to deliberately freak out female guests with staged conversation does not give you a superior insight into people.

Couldn't you least have the good humor to include:
"tl-dr: How dare you would say that women would react by feeling the act of judging women for who they are as people is insidious and revolting, I feel your judgement is insidious and revolting!".

Look, if you want to dismiss it as anecdotal evidence at best, that I can understand. The control for myself was actually checked - this is not the first time I asked anyone else to do it and I did get feedback last time, but the truth is that while I did get feedback on people recreating the experiment itself I never got anyone to recreate the control or understand why it's needed - so the control for the type of questions asked was checked on a rather limited basis.
This is quite a higher level of scrutiny then I ever seen you use towards your own notions or even notions from others that you are more comfortable with, so the reason for why you are explaining the dismissal of them aren't genuine, but to a limited extent they are still somewhat applicable.

If you take issue with the generalization about how "all guys" pass judgement, I'll point you again to the fact the only people so far who have made that generalization in characterizing it as "behaving like women" were you and sundae - this started with me making an internal judgement with a friend and we are both guys, so it doesn't actually make much sense to think I am saying that not doing so characterizes "all guys".

Your issue with dishonesty and ulterior agenda's is being very dishonest with not just me and everyone else but with yourself considering the clear leeway you give your own dishonesty when the agenda for it were your own, but the message of lowering my expectations is well received.

As far as your friend, that resonates with my own experience as well, but that for me is the problem - the fact it took a divorce to get me to the point of having to face the need for judging them on whether they are decent human beings in the first place. The very fact that it was "an innovation" in how to treat or think of women and that it was not viewed or even accepted as part of the norm for guys to do (As you are demonstrating right now).

I don't think I ever used the term "ball breaker" in my life, or said that someone deserved bad treatment on the basis of being subservient, so I am guessing you are dressing me up with notions of guys that you know.

As far as your main statement, the answer is no: It can be won and has been won

edit: I actually I don't think I heard the second part said by anyone about anyone in my life, and my bullshit sensor is blipping bright red on that one. "They are subservient and thus deserves my personal drama" is generally not the sort of thoughts human beings are inclined to have, for several reasons, the most critical one is that people generally view their own motivations issues and point of view as legitimate and don't lump it up as their own "personal drama" to be used as a weapon to punish those who "deserve it". I am clearly missing a story there, but my gut instinct is that to think that someone would think this way about their own actions in the first place sounds like an incredible mis-characterization that's 99% the unlikely dressing of a villainous character archetype in the sort of stories we tell ourselves and 1% inspired by a real human being.

To prove you can't extrapolate, try that at a posh party, then try that at ghetto bar in Philly. I guarantee the results won't be the same, and I'd bet a shitload of money, at one of them you'd get cut or worse. I'll let you guess which one. This is exactly why nothing can be applied to women in general, one of the most complicated organisms in the universe. :rolleyes:

Right, I am now thoroughly confused.

Firstly, the tl;dr - makes no sense. My point had nothing to do with the content of your findings. I have no idea whether 'women' would find that particular set of circumstances uncomfortable. Secondly - I haven't set my observations out as some kind of psych test. I feel no need to apply a scientific method. It's just stray observations of the people I have met over the years and the interactions we've had. You are the one taking stopwatches to dinner parties to see how long it will take to drive your test subjects from the table.

I really don't understand how I am demonstrating this. And I think the fact it took a divorce for you to start judging women as human beings is kind of scary.

I suspect that the women leaving in disgust could just as easily indicate that they were not unwitting, and were instead opting out of participating.

Much like screaming and shouting "I don't scream and shout", It doesn't make the point you think it does.

Stopping to read what you are actually writing is rarely a bad idea.



It is - not for the reason your fucked up and distorted context loosing paraphrasing suggests, but it still definitely is on it's own right, and scarier is the fact that it's a completely normal and accepted psychological phenomena, for both men and women.

I was agreeing with Sundae's assessment that you would piss everyone off by conducting psyche experiments on them.

ok. But you seem to be arguing with a point I never made. I have no opinion on whether there is any validity in the point you were making about female behaviour and responses - I don;t in fact understand what it is you're testing them for - it was quite a confusing explanation.

I am responding more broadly to the idea that you and the other male friends you've encouraged to do this, are conducting ad-hoc pysche experiments on fellow guests in social situations and then extrapolating that out to female and male behaviour more generally.

But hey: if you want to treat the women in your life as test subjects then go right ahead. i'm sure it will work out well for you.

I've addressed that in the first round - Taking you for your word for what you are arguing for and assuming everything else it happened to expressed was coicndeintal (in the same spirit that giving old men who says "don't have no problem with negro's" the benefit of the doubt would require), even then it comes down to an ideological stance against verifying enecodtal experiences based on some false dicthonomy between "people" and "test subjects" that results in a sense that it's dehumanizing to consciously try and see how people reacts in various situations, even though you readily admit that you yourself do so subconsciously and that's completely fine...
It's like the sort of people who think buying coffee by outright avoiding the thought that it's probably made of beans grown on farm lands stolen from native villages by bribing government officals and then making them work in horrible conditions is somehow ethically superior to doing the exact same thing consciously. It comes down to a high horse in deliberately avoiding awareness. As I said - it's a radically opposite value system to my own, by which willful ignorance is kind of the most disgusting thing people can do.

Wow. Seriously, you have rendered me speechless. I have no response to that.

That's OK, best to keep the mouth closed when the bullshit gets this deep. :eyebrow:

Ahuh. I feel like we slipped down the k-hole at some point during this discussion.

Not to worry Dani, I'm sure it's nothing personal and all just part of some experiment. :p:

hehehehehe

The secret of trolling is keep the subject changing, often by claiming they're just rephrasing for clarity, or that the new statement is directly related, only slightly tangential, when in fact it's a U-turn or at least a ninety, and sometimes in a parallel universe. That keeps the trollee always on the defensive, responding, defending, unable to question or make a point. Didn't you learn that from tw?

You'd think I would have, right?

Mind you, learning from past mistakes is not a skill I've ever been accused of ;p

You guys really are assholes, but the way you are assholes is kind of interesting - Most other places I've been too are a lot more likely to explore and delve into such questions - hell even in the forum I met dana in back in the day was a lot more likely to go deeper on most issues - so you'd think such differences would come out more often, but this is actually the first place that outright reacts to so much of what I say like I am speaking alien this unanimously.

... And you actually get exposed to a lot less of it as well -This isn't key hole peeping content, it's more like the left side of my forehead tattoo.

It's not the issues, the issues are fine, it's you: the left side of your foreskin tattoo (bet it's a cross) is boring. Try a little less dicking around.

traceur: When I act like an asshole, people leave in disgust.
"You guys": That's unsurprising.
traceur: You're all assholes!

Yep.

Testing people and/or judging women as human beings is being an asshole, and expression utter disgust at doing something consciously is nothing but the lack of surprise.

...I think it's just about time for the ITAK clause.

It's well past time for the ITAK clause, it's time for Coventry.

ITAK?

^What Dana said^

From Cellar FAQ:

[BOLD MINE]

He's fond of acronyms. Makes him feel superior to make others ask what they mean so he has to explain it to them. He's threatening to take his ball and go home. He preys on unattached women he believes are desperate for the attention he gives them: so desperate that they can't do without him and will rally around him and appease his egocentric needy ways if he threatens to leave.

Failing that, it gives him an out before he is banned. A Peace With Honor ploy like Nixon's where he comes off as the bigger person...at least in his own mind. He doesn't have the integrity to just do it. He has to announce it (this is the second time) and make the aforementioned play first.

It's all about manipulation. Some, like JBKlyde, get into religion for what it can do for their agenda. This one gets into psychology for the same reason. Think of this one as a cross between JBKlyde and tw. It fools a lot of the people a lot of the time, especially those who are predisposed to identifying with others who appear to have deep convictions (even if those convictions aren't altruistic).

I don't think he's a Klyde. I think that is overstating things a little. Trace has been fascinated with psychology for as long as I have known him. I think he's probably genuinely surprised by the reaction to his stopwatch suggestion.

*shrugs*

Sometimes there isn't a middle ground to meet on.

... and thank you to the cellar ladies for caring enough to enter.
I saw the troll and FOR ONCE decided to walk away. Old dog-new trick and all.

Wiki description for a 1958 movie;It should have been a great success, tapping into the feelings of many wives. :lol2:

:lol:

The only time there is no middle ground is when both sides refuse to admit it exists.



Now...Back to the show.

:corn:

Even if the theory "there's always middle ground" is true, it only takes one side to refuse to admit it exists.

Unless you're saying that the "middle ground" in that situation is the other side doing everything that the refuser demands.

Yeah.

Well, it's a slippery slope...

OMG Grav. Just stop talking about my snatch.

A new study, behind a paywall except this synopsis.
Sorry to hear this. Their reasoning about family and goals seems sound, but in law, I wonder how much influence the old boy network holds sway?

I hear this second half spoken in the voice of the Freedom Caucus of the House of Representatives.

Am I alone in this regard?

Dana, I don't think this thread has developed exactly the way you intended, but it's been interesting to say the least. :D

Hehe. No threads ever develop as intended. Unless the intention is to launch a thread and see where the wind blows it.

I've found it interesting, if mildly disturbing towards the end, but hey - I've had dates like that.

Disturbing? The descent and departure of he who must not be named, or some other trend? And not the end, the current pause, ain't no fat lady singin'. ;)

... Yup you are/were. I think it's just about time for the GFY clause. :cool:

Texas 1928, reaching for the stars.

Did she make it?

I don't think so, I don't see her on the ballot for the 1928 election.

Minnie Fisher Cunningham.
No, she didn't win, but she was the first woman from Texas to run for the Senate.

Thanks, HM, I didn't realize she was a big time mover/shaker.

This sucks.

We think of women in academia, attending, no less teaching, as fairly recent. But this shows a woman teaching geometry to boys who look very skeptical, way back in the 13th century.
Of course she must have memorized the lessons because women clearly can't understand math. :lol: Cue monster...:bolt:

She's an Irish lass just taking a break from sewing knots into the drapery.

.

Wow. 1943 isn't a terribly long time ago. Some of that stuff is really startling.

When I think about the men Grandad used to work with (and this came directly from his stories) shirking off, thieving, having altercations that could only be sorted by fisticuffs, drinking on the job... You'd think any company would welcome the chance to have some nice civilised ladies working for them for a change!

And yes, I am well aware that women can do all of the above.
I just mean that in 1943, with men in short supply, they should have taken what they could get!

In fairness, a lot of that notice seems aimed at making the working environment comfortable, encouraging and welcoming for the ladies.

In much the same way one might tailor the environment to make it more suited for children.

I know. It's just so patronising.
I shouldn't expect anything different from the time I suppose. But as you say, it was so recent. Dad was born by then, so it was only a generation ago.

The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that the women they were discussing were specifically women of the day. If you had been indoctrinated from birth that your appearance was your number one priority and responsibility, then yes, you would be uncomfortable, unhappy, distracted, and inefficient if you were thrust into an environment that ruined your appearance at every turn. If you had been taught subservience from day one, yes, you would not be good at taking the initiative. For heaven's sake, quite a few if not most of the women being considered for the position had been born in a time when women weren't allowed to vote. That speaks to the men of the day, yes, but it also speaks to the nature of the women such a system produces.

On the one hand, yeah, "women" were only like this at the time because of the culture in which they'd been raised, and there is nothing deterministically feminine about any of the stereotypes they were attempting to address. On the other hand, it was a reality that the vast majority of the women these men would be dealing with were, in fact, like this.

working-class women had pretty much always worked though. The stereotype was a stereotype - true for some, not true for some. Femininity, which included things like housekeeping (fucking hard work for most at the time) was like a swan on the water - it looked graceful and easy, because you couldn't see the legs working. That notice was written by someone who couldn't see the legs - it assumes a level of fragility that wouldn't have applied for a lot of women.

Deferrence to men and assumptions that men would generally know more and take a leadership role was pretty ingrained for most people though. As was a degree of dependence for women - the idea of the man as essentially the adult with an understanding of the world and a paternal authority and women as more childlike an so on. I think much of that would have been absorbed and accepted as natural. My comment about making the workplace welcoming in similar tones to making a place suited for children was not really about them patronising women, so much as it was an observation of how the tone of the advice demonstrates the way men and women were separated hierachically and culturally in similar ways to the separation between adults and children. The idea of women as sitting somewhere between children and adult males is a pretty old one.

Working class women? What is that? I always figured it was women living in the section of society where all the neighbors worked at mostly manual labor jobs, although some were more skilled than others. That included the wives/daughters of the men that had those jobs, but were students or housewives. Not the same as working women who may be part of the working class neighborhood.

When the big war push came, the working women still had jobs, although they may have changed jobs for new horizons, or more likely more money... if the government felt the job they wanted to leave wasn't on the essential list. The women moving into the jobs vacated by men going into the service, or created by big increases in production, were mostly fresh out of school or housewives. They had numerous motives for seeking jobs but they didn't have experience in a corporate environment, or skills.

Not only was production ramped up, but efficiency was aggressively pursued, not just to save money, but increase output. In that environment, training new people only to have them quit or get injured was a major obstacle for both goals. With those goals in mind, instead of just letting capitalism work as it always had, this list was created as a proactive attempt to tackle the reasons new hires washed out.

Yes, it seems clumsy. But like Clodfobble said, the men in management had the view of the times, and so did the women then. Little changed from the view of their parents and grandparents. The frailty and emotionality of women was accepted as a truth by both sexes... sometimes as a handicap sometimes as a weapon.

My brother and I were surprised to find out my mother smoked when she met my father, then immediately quit because he didn't. When questioned about it she replied, "Everybody did". Before TV and Internet, not being part of the social life in the neighborhood was not a happy prospect. There were no wife homemakers, no husband child carers, you were what was acceptable or be excluded. Any woman that tried to be a mechanic or machinist was looked at as peculiar, even if sometimes secretly envied.

Both my grandmothers were financially subservient to my grandfathers.
My Nanny - the one I knew and spent a lot of time with - was a very difficult woman (possible mental health issues) married to a very gentle man.
My other grandmother, who died when I was a baby, was married to a very difficult man who did not support her or the family. They stayed married, of course, but the amount of money he handed over for "housekeeping" barely fed them. And he then complained about the meals.
It is such a familiar story of the time - books and plays mention it all the time, whether it's a feature of the plot or just an incidental detail.

Great Aunt Alice stayed a spinster (awful word) to further her career and then look after her parents. She had to make a choice.

Mum handed over the family's finances to Dad, with pretty poor consequences. He was - and is - an impulse spender. Something I either learned or inherited. They are comfortable now, although Grandad's small inheritance and Auntie Alice's certainly helped. But it's more from Mum's pensions, which she did not tell Dad about, and felt she didn't need to as they were taken directly from her pay-packet.

So this is one and two generations ago. Women - strong women - still being financially dependent on men. Not sharing the costs.

Life has changed. Or should have changed. I grew up sharing the costs. I'm poor. I explain this at the outset of any evening out - I'm willing pay my way or I don't go. Men and women have been kind enough to pay for me, but I do not expect it or think it's rude if they don't.

The rich don't count. They've always had different rules.
And maybe the middle class did too.
But where I came from, no woman was seen as frail - unless she was actually ill.
She just had to hand her life over to her man. And if she worked all day and still came home and cooked and cleaned and blacked the stove, she'd better make sure she cleaned the steps, or her neighbours would stop by to find out why not.

FTR, all of the above is simply anecdotal and not really meant to be a rebuttal.
Y'all know I'm not really anti-male.
I'm just sharing.

My family has one of those on both sides of my family tree.
On each side, it was the the youngest girl.

And even as a kid it bothered me.
Why should the youngest girl be the one who did not leave home
to have her own family, or go to college, or have a career of some sort ?

Now, all my G-parents, aunts, and uncles have passed, except the one on my Dad's side,
and she is 91 living alone in the family home ... even her aged dog has passed.

And it still bothers me - what might have been ...

.

Showing up in books and plays is a pretty good indication is was common, or at least common enough, to lend reality to the story.

Ours was Aunt Dot, but I don't feel bad for her, she did it her way and a damn good job of it I think.