Quote:
Originally Posted by woodyboyd
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodyboyd
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodyboyd
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."
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodyboyd
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodyboyd
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.
|
Perhaps your perception of social ineptness differences is colored by the fact you are sexually attracted to intelligent women. (*grin*)
