Great discussion -- thanks to both. A question for the 'Heads (or whoever else, I guess): would there be anything problematic about a marriage equilibrium with a much bigger average age gap than the current one? If the average marrying woman was 28, and the average marrying man was, say, 36 -- would that be a bad thing? I can certainly see some *odd* things about that scenario. You'd be much less likely to find a mate in your academic peer groups, for one; wives would outlive their husbands by a greater degree than they do now. And the optics of the older guy/younger gal relationship can certainly be strange. But if men take longer to mature, to become ready to commit, to become Darwinically attractive... there's a cultural solution to that, isn't there? Is this where we're heading?

There are also these articles by F. Roger Devlin that are a lot more insightful than Hymowitz:
http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/2009/...-roger-devlin/ Roissy's response to Devlin:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/07/...ure-unleashed/

So if there is a problem, what is the solution?

Contra Will, what women want is shockingly similar. I've run the exact same game on ADD club girls, psychology professors(!!!!), and church girls and it has worked on all of them. Attraction switches are just not that different from woman to woman. This shouldn't really be that surprising. Men, no matter how different they are, tend to find the same women attractive as well.

I love Will but he talks way too much.

At approximately 55 minutes in Will says it is almost impossible to tease out nature from nurture and implies to some extent that this is a fatal flaw in evopsych. This is certainly true to some extent and it is also true that not all proponents of evopsych have had the noblest of motives but there is at least some science behind ep which is more that one could say for every other speculation Will made in this dvolg regarding male-female social behavior.

Kay Hymowitz: I saw a movie by Judd Apatow, and therefore American men are children. ADDED: My God, I am tired of my elders sh*tting on my generation. (If 'generation' is even an applicable term, and not a lazy and gross oversimplification. Which I think it is.) But if we run the numbers: my American cohort is the most racially, sexually, and socially enlightened in the history of man. Yet Kay Hymnowitz calls my generation, and, implicitly me, a child. What a ridiculous insult. Kay Hymowitz may be a "scholar" at the Manhattan Institute, but since when are hollywood movies legitimate sources of social data?

Because it needed to be said...

It's 1965, and you're a 26-year-old white female. You provide full-time care for your one small child, are pregnant with another and will stay at home to ensure your children are raised properly by someone profoundly invested in their intellectual and emotional advancement. Yup, you're an adult! Rightfully, many women in the last 40 years have begun pursuing non-traditional roles, presumably looking for a sense of satisfaction they weren't getting as stay-at-home moms. As a result, children are postponed. Does this make them girl-women? There is a massive difference between postponing marriage and being unable to support yourself financially, give back to the community and commit to relationships. I'm shocked that "adulthood" is defined so narrowly in this article. While I agree that Spike TV and Maxim are dangerous, do America's Next Top Model and Cosmopolitan not have a similar effect on this country's young women? As young women have begun to ask themselves what they want, it would seem young men have done the same. I find it appalling that the author implicitly applauds young women in their moving away from the traditional and possibly stifling role of

Trends in secular well-being over the last 40 years show that men have become happier, and women have decreased in happiness. This suggests the changing role of women in society has been a more turbulent experience for women than for men. It also suggests the changes haven't been as hard on men as Kay Hymowitz and her interlocutor suggest. In fact, I suspect the rise in premarital sex and serial monogamy that has accompanied said changes has primarily benefited men at the expense of women. All in all, I'm in the same boat as Will Wilkinson that society has become a better place, and that that important fact should always preface discussion of the relatively minor negative byproducts of those changes. That said... One such negative byproduct is this: As an economic market becomes more free, the inequality between rich and poor grows. But the poor also become better off in an absolute sense, because the absolute level of social wealth has also increased, benefiting the top as well as the bottom, even if the top has benefited more. In short, the economic market is not a zero sum game. But

I think the change in ethos Wilkinson and Hymowitz are talking about is starkly illustrated in two above-average t.v. shows: Thirty Something back in the 1980's, and Mad Men today.

Really interesting, if only there were more libertarian guys as charming as Will. But he and and Ms Hymowitz seemed to be talking past each other. I suspect its because they're referencing the experiences of two different socio-economic groups. Men in Will's world of high achievers/ policy wonks can be earning $150,000 at age 25 if they attend the right law or business school. And as I well know, THOSE men aren't confused about where they stand with women and have a ton of bargaining power at an early age. Plus, they all have expense accounts so picking up the check loses its symbolic meaning; they're always picking up the tab for everyone and the women know it. Which can be problematic, as a guy madly grabbing for the check or ordering the Cristal (etc) is one way he signals he's REALLY interested. But if he simply puts the bill on his house account, you'll need further clues.

I'm not convinced this is what she is really saying although Will didn't give her enough time to really let us know her opinions. I was really hoping that there would have been more discussion about the reasons for men delaying marriage (I don't think it has anything to do with figuring out who pays for dinner) and the consequences of such a delay (is society better off if men marry early? Will seems to think no and Kay seemed to think yes but there wasn't a lot of explication). One thing that never got mentioned was generational economics. Are 25 year olds today relatively better or worse off economically than 25 year olds 30 years ago? Is increasing income inequality a culprit in all this? This was such a potentially fascinating discussion.

I call for a rematch. Dan Savage vs. Kay Hymowitz. Sex isn't just for breakfast anymore.

Libertarians seem to hate the idea that humans are animals and can be studied as such. Thus Will can toss aside notions of male and female behavior with some sleight of hand about how in gender variation makes cross gender variation not worth discussing. One thing that I was hoping to hear was the argument that the reason so many young men are bitter is that they have been priced out of the sexual marketplace. I don't know the science on this but it seems a pretty easy conclusion that absent cultural norms promoting monogamy and marriage you end up with a large percentage of desirable women mating with a much smaller number of desirable men and leaving a group of men with no mates.

I was really hoping that there would have been more discussion about the reasons for men delaying marriage (I don't think it has anything to do with figuring out who pays for dinner) and the consequences of such a delay (is society better off if men marry early? Will seems to think no and Kay seemed to think yes but there wasn't a lot of explication).

It's hard to figure out, in part because our minds play tricks on us. I believed I delayed marriage until age 35 because marriage was a bourgeois decadent, patriarchal institution, a vestige of the pre-cultural revolution Dark Ages. But then quite suddenly at age 35 -- as if a biological clock struck midnight -- I dramatically changed my mind, got married and had two kids by age 40. I was just as surprised by this turn of events as everyone else. My belief system was stunned and never had a chance to catch up. In retrospect, I think my philosophy was a bogus rationalization. I think it more likely that I just seized the mating and parenting opportunity before my best options for a monogamous relationship and successful procreation began to

"Men in Will's world of high achievers/ policy wonks can be earning $150,000 at age 25 if they attend the right law or business school. And as I well know, THOSE men aren't confused about where they stand with women and have a ton of bargaining power at an early age." Haha, yeah I was noticing that too. There was especially that line about men needing to get out there and "finish graduate school" so they have a good bargaining position in the mating market. You have got to be kidding me. Wilkinson, libertarians, and political pundits in general have no ability whatsoever to think about, or sympathize with, the left side of the bell curve.

The elephant in the room that isn't being talked about here is female hypergamy. In a free sexual market, as Chris Rock said, 90% of women will end up chasing 10% of men. (The exact stat may be an exaggeration, but the principle holds.) Now of course this leaves a lot of men out in the cold, but, as anyone can see, it isn't exactly a recipe for female happiness either. In a free sexual market, the top men have no incentive to treat women well or to settle down. So, when a women says that "men" don't treat them well or don't want to commit, what they mean is that the top men don't treat them well or want to commit. I am perfectly prepared to believe that overall a free sexual market has lead to more unhappiness among women than men, but as you note those men with lower SES have been getting unhappier too, and, I would add, there are pockets of men with higher SES who have been seriously shafted as well.

Quoting Jason Malloy: Wilkinson, libertarians, and political pundits in general have no ability whatsoever to think about, or sympathize with, the left side of the bell curve.

Does anyone sympathize with the left side of the bell curve? My suspicion is that men on the left quarter of that curve have never had sex they didn't pay for.

Do you have stats for this? It seems pretty instinctive to me but I don't have any numbers to back it up and "sounds right" isn't exactly science.

I had to laugh when Will started talking about all the "male" privilige that still exists. What there is is "alpha male" privilige, which has always existed and which always will exist, but, to point out the obvious, most men are not alpha males. I grossly generalize, but the social hierarchy goes roughly like this: 1. Alpha Males (largely determined by social status)
2. Alpha Females (largely determined by looks, but education also has some role in granting access to certain kinds of high status males)
3. Beta Females
4. Beta Males Most males, especially in the dating market, are in fact in a subordinate position to women.

Quoting themightypuck: Does anyone sympathize with the left side of the bell curve? My suspicion is that men on the left quarter of that curve have never had sex they didn't pay for.

Everybody pays. It's just the currency that changes.

I wonder if Kay believes that it's imperitive for men to get married in their twenties since it's supposedly part of a socialization process? I believe this is the stance taken by conservative thinkers like George Gilder and James Q. Wilson. I read Gilder's book on the subject and he thinks that it is the best thing they can do. By the way, his daughter Louise, an author, once appeared on BHTV Science Saturday and was a gem. This postion reflects a mindset that collectively men who marry are happier, less prone to crime, alcoholism and the rest of it. Perhaps, this is an outdated concept due to the change in our society where people don't marry in their 20's and stay that way like my grandparents did. Personally, I believe that at a minimum marriage and parenting are one of life's important rites of passage. I know it's not for everyone but would encourage it for those who are ready and want to do it. John

What was the point of this diavlog? Peace-making between Will and Kay? First, I'm not convinced this is actually a real or prevalent problem. Second, if in fact it is, I think it is important to remember that we're not talking about a shift in relationship norms where men are now dependent upon women in the same manner that women were dependent upon men for so very very long. We're talking about a shift in relationship norms where women are simply much less dependent upon a mate and marriage than has been the case for much of the past. And not at the cost of increasing men's dependence upon women, I might add. When women's necessary dependence upon a mate and marriage (reproductively and financially) is lessened, how women value what men bring to the table is going to change. Deal with it. It could be worse. My mother in law tried to leave her abusive husband 6 months into their marriage, but her parents refused to let her come back home. She had no choice but to return to the marriage. The rest of the story is not very pretty. And

Well, equality represents societal trends but does not square with the inequality facts on the ground that, I agree, are not going to change any time soon. Men are still the ones beating and abusing women. Men are still the ones abandoning their children. Men are still the ones going to prison. Men are still the ones making more money. Women are still the ones with the pregnancy, childbirth and nursing. Women are still the ones who do the most housework. Women are still the ones who do the most caring for the young, sick and elderly. Etc., etc. etc.

Well, lets match sob stories. In today's situation a wife can cuckold a man and force him to pay child support for a child that isn't his. Or run off with a sexier boyfriend and force him to pay alimony for years. In our society a man can basically be forced into indentured servitude at the whim of his mate. Brutal. I am also not particularly impressed with a social structure that deprives significant numbers of men of the opportunity to find a mate at all.

Quoting Wonderment: Well, equality represents societal trends but does not square with the inequality facts on the ground that, I agree, are not going to change any time soon.

Men are still the ones beating and abusing women.
Men are still the ones abandoning their children.
Men are still the ones going to prison.
Men are still the ones making more money.
Women are still the ones with the pregnancy, childbirth and nursing.
Women are still the ones who do the most housework.
Women are still the ones who do the most caring for the young, sick and elderly.
Etc., etc. etc.

All unfortunately true. Makes one wonder why the men are complaining.

Quoting Thursday: I am also not particularly impressed with a social structure that deprives significant numbers of men of the opportunity to find a mate at all.

What social structure is depriving men of the OPPORTUNITY to find a mate?

Thursday, Hypergamy was the danger I was discussing in my first post on the "winner-take-all" free sexual market. I didn't think I was being that abstruse. But for the most part society appears to have become promiscuous rather than polygnyous. I can't say whether a move towards polygynous mating is in the pipeline, but there is no apparent trend in that direction over the last 20 years visible in the General Social Survey. The equal rise in celibacy for both men and women probably just suggests that disciplined Christians are waiting longer than ever to have sex as the average age of marriage rises, but it might also suggest that a growing minority of both men and women are being priced out of the free sexual market. As women can now easily obtain jobs, and men can now easily obtain sex, men and women with low mate value no longer have their meager bargaining chips for securing long-term mates.

OK, I have a dilemma. I live next to a largely Hispanic catholic church in Los Angeles, California. Every weekend there are marriages taking place where the brides and grooms appear to be in their 20's. This doesn't exactly fit into the getting married later or not at all paradigm that was discussed in this diavlog. What gives? John

Quoting bkjazfan: OK, I have a dilemma. I live next to a largely Hispanic catholic church in Los Angeles, California. Every weekend there are marriages taking place where the brides and grooms appear to be in their 20's. This doesn't exactly fit into the getting married later or not at all paradigm that was discussed in this diavlog. What gives?

John

Why assume that your local experience has to match the larger pattern? Also, I haven't watched the dvlog, did they assert that pattern for Hispanics?

Quoting Jason Malloy: Hypergamy was the danger I was discussing in my first post on the "winner-take-all" free sexual market. I didn't think I was being that abstruse.

You're first post neglected to mention the psychological mechanism that makes the sexual free market work the particular way it works. For example, unlike highly attractive men, highly attractive women haven't benefitted at all from the sexual revolution. Before, they would have more or less exclusive access to the top men. Now, while they still have access to those men, they have to share them with less attractive women. Very few women are being priced out of the sexual marketplace. Rather, given the fact that they can support themselves, they would prefer to remain celibate rather than mate with a less attractive mate.

But for the most part society appears to have become promiscuous rather than polygnyous.

Most men don't have the same ability to be promiscuous as women, so that is de facto polygamy. I don't think your stats don't show what you think they show. All that you have shown is that 15% of men and 13% of women younger than 36 didn't have sex in the past year. I guarantee that

1. Alpha Males (largely determined by social status)
2. Alpha Females (largely determined by looks, but education also has some role in granting access to certain kinds of high status males)
3. Beta Females
4. Beta Males

In the Donner Party, the first to die off were lone males.

Most males, especially in the dating market, are in fact in a subordinate position to women.

And after marriage, too. I think a big reason a lot of young men delay is that child custody and child support payment awards go in favor of females, who can leave whenever, for whatever reason.

"Before, they would have more or less exclusive access to the top men. Now, while they still have access to those men, they have to share them with less attractive women. Not so sure about that. If you're a hedge fund trader at Goldman, you're probably only sleeping with hot women. When exactly do the not-so-hot women get their chance with these guys? There are enough gorgeous women in NYC to keep these guys busy 24/7. Cmon, even their kids' NANNIES are hot looking. "Very few women are being priced out of the sexual marketplace. Rather, given the fact that they can support themselves, they would prefer to remain celibate rather than mate with a less attractive mate" In LA, you see tons of high-earning women married to "artsy" (i.e. low earning) men. And the men are usually better looking than their wives, total trophy husbands. You also see a lot of high-earning single moms, with 15 nannies in tow. They dont seem to be celibate, but clearly have no intention of marrying their freeloading actor/waiter boyfriends. But again, I'm reporting the behavior of a small group of society who can pretty much buy whomever/whatever they want.

1. It is extremely difficult to sleep with different or multiple concurrent 9s and 10s on a consistent basis unless you are an A-list celebrity or do nothing except chase women. On the other hand, if you are a very attractive guy it isn't hard to find a 6 or a 7 who is up for a fling. P.S. Someone working at Goldman isn't going to do as well as a charismatic bartender. Chasing women and/or maintaining multiple relationships takes time. 2. Money is extremely overrated for attracting women. Poor, but charismatic and good looking arty guys often have more status than big law/big finance guys.

Quoting AemJeff: Why assume that your local experience has to match the larger pattern? Also, I haven't watched the dvlog, did they assert that pattern for Hispanics?

No, they just talked in general about the mating habits of men and women. It did seem to deal with those who have higher educations, good jobs, bright futures, that sort of thing. Will talked a lot about himself and how at 36 he has not been married but is engaged to be. To be sure, he did talk a lot about himself and his experiences in the dating world. He said if a woman who he didn't know in a bar asked him to buy her a drink he would refuse to do so. Also, men should have graduate degrees before they consider getting married. Tidbits like that. Actually, I had a difficult time trying to ascertain what the point of the conversation was. I think Kay was of the "men should get married before they become problems" school of thought like George Gilder and James Q. Wilson but it wasn't developed too much. I plan on reading one of her articles on the subject. John

A young man is incomplete until he marries. Once he gets married, he is finished. But seriously, have you seen our latest crop of no-fault marriage laws? What man would want to marry in this legal environment? http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/

Thursday, I think you're using marriage and sex interchangably. Everybody wants to sleep with the hot bartender, but does any woman want to marry him, if they could have the highly-paid lawyer instead? Now some women WILL marry the bartender or at least let him hang around, but I doubt he was ever their first choice. Its called "settling". Re Goldman guys sleeping with 10's, clearly you've never heard of modeling agencies. One phone call, and a ton of 10 's will show up to any VIP room in the city. But only if the guys they're meeting are "high status". This sort of mild pimping goes on all the time. Same in Los Angeles...agents are always introducing hot women to their lawyers, bankers, and other friends who work 15 hour days and don't have time to meet anyone. And believe me, the women will always show up.

I find it incredible that these folks can talk for an hour and never mention birth control. This has to change the relationship between men and women, and in particular - 2+ generations after it became widespread - it has to change male behavior. Surely, birth control is driving human evolution at a fast clip. Here are some things that probably follow from widespread birth control: 1) Men no longer have to support a family; women can do that themselves.
2) Therefore, men are much less likely to attend college; 65% of college students are women.
3) A man only needs to support himself - therefore a $12K/year job suffices.
4) But this is true only if the man can't compete on status; high status men (and here Will has it wrong - men only compete with other men, not against women) will push even harder to excel. That's why the 1/3rd are still in college. OK - so this is a mess. I can't possibly say it all in one comment. Indeed, I'm not enough of a scholar to say it with any authority. But Will & Kay ignore the issue of birth control entirely, and thus I think they completely miss the point. For a story about an

Will is straight and dates woman?! Amazing.

Quoting dankingbooks:
Here are some things that probably follow from widespread birth control:

1) Men no longer have to support a family; women can do that themselves.

??? ??? ???

Makes one wonder why the men are complaining.

You do have to look at the demographics of the complainers. "Dude culture" and delaying marriage is -- as one poster pointed out -- not exactly the norm among poor immigrants. Nor is it the norm among the social circle of one of my daughters. Most of her friends are stationed at our local Navy base. The sailors have been too busy working their butts off since they enlisted at age 17 or 18 to be wondering if the boy or girl is supposed to pick up the check. Pay grade and rank, not gender, is surely the determining factor there. And no female electrician or plumber in the Navy is going to be waiting for a guy to open the door for her. A lot of these kids marry quite young and have children quickly, probably because the dislocations of 6-month deployments to war zones every year are so stressful. Divorces and break-ups are common, but there is strong pressure to procreate in wartime (which is basically all the time now). So I think probably it's the Will and Kay demographic (hyper-educated

Wonderment, You can admit though that although women do not often beat up their spouses or partners,they can and do beat them up emotionally, yes? Physical abuse is not the only kind of abuse that goes in relationships. I think there are people who are just poor partners in relationships, and they come in either gender. Men of course, sadly, tend to physically hurt their partners. I can't disagree with that.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/224...9:27&out=09:35 Guess the man/boy premise may not be too far off the mark ??

Where did I get the idea you were a woman? I could have sworn you were female. Did Bob refer to you as "she" in any of the comment mono-vlogs?

Lyle, though it may sound odd, from what I've read the rate at which men vs women engage in domestic violence against each other is about the same. The difference is in violence that results in serious injury. This could be related to Randall Collins' conception of some violence as not being intended as serious, such as when children fight in the hopes that an adult authority figure (parent, teacher) will break it up. I also chuckled at Will's recommendation that men go to graduate school. Aside from the fact that the large majority aren't cut out for it, do men with graduate degrees have more value in the eyes of women? Again, a comparison should probably control for IQ. I suppose doctors & lawyers have high status, I don't know about the rest. Kay also seemed to agree with Will that men prefer the sort of empowered, autonomous intelligent/educated woman that Will thinks feminists should be pointing out to men. I suppose men don't want dullards, but is that really the preference for men generally rather than for Will? The "American women suck" crowd regularly claim that traditionalist foreign women are preferable, and while I'm sure

Where did I get the idea you were a woman? I could have sworn you were female.

It must be the lingerie or the perfume.

Did Bob refer to you as "she" in any of the comment mono-vlogs?

Only three or four times.

Quoting kezboard: Where did I get the idea you were a woman? I could have sworn you were female. Did Bob refer to you as "she" in any of the comment mono-vlogs?

It happens with Wonderment a lot. I, for example, thought he was a Mexican. It turns out he is just another Jew. How boring. He still may be a Sephard, though.

Quoting T.G.G.P: Lyle, though it may sound odd, from what I've read the rate at which men vs women engage in domestic violence against each other is about the same.

Well, from what I have read, data on domestic violence is more or less crap. Feminists put all kind of, um, crap, which doesn’t belong there under the “domestic violence” category to inflate the numbers and make the problem appear bigger than it is. And no, I don’t think the move, suggested by Lyle, to count “emotional abuse” as domestic violence solves the problem. Emotional abuse, unless backed up by at least threat of physical violence, does not exist. So, counting only serious injuries is in my opinion the right methodology. We end up, as expected, with the violence initiated overwhelmingly by males, but we also end up with absolute numbers much smaller than often reported.

It happens with Wonderment a lot. I, for example, thought he was a Mexican. It turns out he is just another Jew. How boring. He still may be a Sephard, though.

If you think Jews are boring, sweetie, you're at the wrong website. Here's a sample from the A's of the alphabetical BH listings. Scott Aaronson, Joel Achenbach, Spencer Ackerman, David Albert, Jonathan Alter, Eric Alterman, Bernard Avishai, Colette Avital. If the A's are any indication, Jews are 47% of the Bheads. Also, NEWSFLASH: You can be both Mexican and Jewish. My heritage is both, although I was born in the USA. Just like President Obama. Plus, you've mangled "Sephardic" to make it sound more like someone who looks after sheep.

Quoting T.G.G.P: I also chuckled at Will's recommendation that men go to graduate school. Aside from the fact that the large majority aren't cut out for it, do men with graduate degrees have more value in the eyes of women? Again, a comparison should probably control for IQ.

Do you deny that, everything else the same, smarter men, better educated men are more attractive than less intelligent men? You realize that comparing high school jocks and nerds is not everything-else-being-the-same type of comparison. The fact that Kobe Bryant had good grades in high school and is fluent in Italian makes him more, not less, attractive. The same would be the case if he had PhD. Now, of course, there is an opportunity cost involved in gaining PhD, so it’s difficult to imagine a male specimen who would be able to endure that cost and still be able to acquire the level of basketball skills Kobe possesses.

Quoting Wonderment: If you think Jews are boring, sweetie, you're at the wrong website. Here's a sample from the A's of the alphabetical BH listings.

Scott Aaronson, Joel Achenbach, Spencer Ackerman, David Albert, Jonathan Alter, Eric Alterman, Bernard Avishai, Colette Avital.

If the A's are any indication, Jews are 47% of the Bheads.

Also, NEWSFLASH: You can be both Mexican and Jewish. My heritage is both, although I was born in the USA. Just like President Obama.

Plus, you've mangled "Sephardic" to make it sound more like someone who looks after sheep.

First of all, I googled to see if "Sephard" can be used as a noun, there was no intention of insult on my part. Second, I am little taken aback how defensive and humorless your post is. You are the last man I would expect to react in such a tribal manner. But, it cheers me up when I see liberals being nationalistic. For example, reading TwinSwords’s occasional xenophobic, anti-Chinese posts always makes my day.
Third, of course we all know how prevalent Jews are among intellectuals and among bhtv diavlogers. That still doesn’t mean I would be able to count them as well as you just did. To do so, I would have to be either a Jew or an anti-Semite, which I am neither.

I don't find it odd. I think domestic abuse goes both ways and equally. I can't disagree with murder or beating stats, but I refuse to believe those stats mean women are victims in greater numbers in domestic relationships.

Quoting JoeK: For example, reading TwinSwords’s occasional xenophobic, anti-Chinese posts always makes my day.

I have never said anything xenophobic, and I have never said anything anti-Chinese. Are you being dishonest, or do you have me confused with someone else?

Quoting JoeK: I would have to be either a Jew or an anti-Semite, which I am neither.

Perhaps, but your remark was anti-Semitic. (Substitute 'Black' or 'woman' in a suitably altered context, and you should get the idea.) Interesting, by the way, how by your lights what's objectionable is defending a group ("tribe") with which one identifies against an insult, not the insult that was directed against the group ("tribe") in the first place.

Quoting TwinSwords: I have never said anything xenophobic, and I have never said anything anti-Chinese. Are you being dishonest, or do you have me confused with someone else?

I haven't confused you with someone else. It was your post on the Chinese coworkers who were discussing politics on a corporate blog. I think we should continue discussion on that thread. Please wait until I post there which may take couple of days. Until that happens, you may console yourself with the thought that I don't consider what you wrote a moral failing.

Quoting JoeK: I haven't confused you with someone else. It was your post on the Chinese coworkers who were discussing politics on a corporate blog. I think we should continue discussion on that thread. Please wait until I post there which may take couple of days. Until that happens, you may console yourself with the thought that I don't consider what you wrote a moral failing.

I'll remind other readers of that to which you refer: I work for a major international corporation, a Fortune 50 firm. The thing about the job I fell in love with on my first day of work almost 20 years ago was that I was sitting in a meeting with people from France, Britain, Germany, Brazil, Japan, China, Switzerland, Canada, and the US. I have always relished my exposure to people from my company's regions: Latin America, Pacific, Europe, North America, and what we term "MEAF," or "Middle East and Africa." My boss is from Ghana. Currently he's in Kuwait. I am anything but xenophobic and while I understand you may have been confused, I am deeply offended that anyone would suggest I am. I love people of all races from all countries. As for the politics being discussed on my company's corporate blog: We have a lot of people in China. And

Quoting mvantony: Perhaps, but your remark was anti-Semitic. (Substitute 'Black' or 'woman' in a suitably altered context, and you should get the idea.)

Interesting, by the way, how by your lights what's objectionable is defending a group ("tribe") with which one identifies against an insult, not the insult that was directed against the group ("tribe") in the first place.

Ok, this does make me angry. Which of my sentences would be biggoted if "Jew" was substituted with "Black" or "woman"? Let me remind everybody what I said. I said that finding out that yet another commenter is Jewish is "boring". It means "as expected", "so ordinary" and such... It would be considered anti-Semitic only by the most adversarial of readers.
I would have never said it was boring had I learned Wonderment had been black. That would have been nonsensical. On the contrary, I would have said "How interesting!". Of course, that would have been considered racist as well.

Quoting JoeK: Ok, this does make me angry. Which of my sentences would be biggoted if "Jew" was substituted with "Black" or "woman"? Let me remind everybody what I said. I said that finding out that yet another commenter is Jewish is "boring". It means "as expected", "so ordinary" and such... It would be considered anti-Semitic only by the most adversarial of readers.
I would have never said it was boring had I learned Wonderment had been black. On the contrary, I would have said "How interesting!". Of course, that would have been considered racist as well.

First, boredom is unpleasant, so it shouldn't surprise you if your words are interpreted literally as entailing that your discovery that Wonderment is Jewish was unpleasant (and that the same would be so if you were to unexpectedly discover that any other commenter is Jewish), even if that isn't what you intended. Second, I spoke of making the substitution in a "suitably altered" context, and cooking up such a context isn't easy. But imagine that in the span of several weeks there had been many African-Americans doing diavlogs -- McWhorter, Loury, Dayo Olopade, Clifford Johnson, etc. -- and then, upon discovering that the next diavlogger is also black, someone remarks that it's getting boring

Quoting Wonderment: Well, equality represents societal trends but does not square with the inequality facts on the ground that, I agree, are not going to change any time soon.
Men are still the ones beating and abusing women.
Men are still the ones abandoning their children.
Men are still the ones going to prison.
Men are still the ones making more money.
Women are still the ones with the pregnancy, childbirth and nursing.
Women are still the ones who do the most housework.
Women are still the ones who do the most caring for the young, sick and elderly.
Etc., etc. etc.

Men still work longer hours for the sake of their families.
Women are still legally granted all the family planning decisions -- even after marriage!
Women still file false harrassment charges.
Women still fake domestic violence reports.
Women still make bogus rape accusations (the most common false accusation of any crime).
Women still abandon their children.
Women still give up their children for adoption without the father's consent.
Men still serve as uncompensated security for women.
Men still work more hours, job and home combined.
Men still support more people than women.
Women still haven't passed the moral test

It seems these discussions always focus on evopsych or whether men are good/bad. Two of the big factors in delayed marriage that I think the discussion is ignoring are the blue collar job market of the past two decades and the obesity epidemic. Also Hymonwitz asserts that this limbo period for men is a new historical phenomena. I don't think that true at all. In many societies men had to establish themselves financial before finding wives. Most men are not delaying marriage because of easy access to sex. America was blessed with cheap land and an expanding economy for a couple of centuries, now things are getting a lot tougher.

Whoa. Hi Tim G. My user name is the same except with an underscore instead of a space. I was trying to figure out if I had somehow posted in this thread by accident. Welcome to the forum.

Quoting Me&theboys: All unfortunately true. Makes one wonder why the men are complaining.

Good question. I think part of the psychology of being in a position of privilege (being white, being male, being rich, whatever) is to convince oneself that the privilege is really a burden.

Quoting TwinSwords: Good question. I think part of the psychology of being in a position of privilege (being white, being male, being rich, whatever) is to convince oneself that the privilege is really a burden.

That made me laugh, but I don't think it's true except for Victorian British imperialists.

Quoting TwinSwords: The suggestion was that democracy is messy and that important decisions should not be left to ordinary citizens, and that central planning and authoritarianism are a better model.

A digression from the thread, but this particular point doesn't seem to be all that different in practice in the US. I recently heard an interview with a government type (I don't recall the name and didn't catch which administration or party he was from) expressing pretty much the same thing. The specific case he was referring to encompassed the entire broad area of foreign policy about which he said "we don't let the citizens make their own decisions, they don't know what's good for them". There seem to be plenty of areas outside foreign policy where the same principal holds - that elites in power should and do make decisions for the unwashed masses. Any of us might agree with certain of these decisions, but to the degree accept or support their being made in this manner it seems to me we are essentially endorsing that view of government your Chinese friends were expressing.

Quoting Wonderment:
Level playing field? Gender equality? We're not even close.

Women have advantages of education, longevity, inheritance, votes, and family planning. You're right, men can't come close to matching those advantages. What we're seeing with you is an elite complaining about having their privileges questioned. That is the typical pattern. Do you, Wonderment, have the moral compass to even pay lip service to equality? Men more than passed this test and women haven't even started.

Quoting CinemaRing: Women have advantages of education, longevity, inheritance, votes, and family planning.

You're right, men can't come close to matching those advantages.

What we're seeing with you is an elite complaining about having their privileges questioned. That is the typical pattern.

Do you, Wonderment, have the moral compass to even pay lip service to equality? Men more than passed this test and women haven't even started.

I think CinemaRing has just exposed his (can there be any doubt?) value as an interlocutor. Don't like dem wymmins so much, do ya, kiddo?

Quoting CinemaRing: Men still work longer hours for the sake of their families.
Women are still legally granted all the family planning decisions -- even after marriage!
Women still file false harrassment charges.
Women still fake domestic violence reports.
Women still make bogus rape accusations (the most common false accusation of any crime).
Women still abandon their children.
Women still give up their children for adoption without the father's consent.
Men still serve as uncompensated security for women.
Men still work more hours, job and home combined.
Men still support more people than women.
Women still haven't passed the moral test of willingly advocating that they share their largesse with the opposite sex.
Men have passed that test but we're nice enough not to mention it.

An interesting mixture of rants and autobiography it seems. All of these are classic specially the one where "men serve as uncompensated security for women", I was just curious if occurred to you that the women would need security from other men ?? Unless you are aware of bands of scary lesbians running amok looking to kidnap them.

Quoting CinemaRing: Women have advantages of education, longevity, inheritance, votes, and family planning. You're right, men can't come close to matching those advantages.

Women have been deprived of education, inheritance, votes, and family planning rights for most of human history, thanks to men. In much of the world, they still are. This behavior hardly demonstrates a laudable male moral compass. And now that women have these things, they're not running around trying to prevent men from getting an education. Or from voting. Or from living longer. Or from inheriting. You need to look elsewhere for the source of the problem if you really think men "can't come close to matching those advantages".

Quoting TwinSwords: Good question. I think part of the psychology of being in a position of privilege (being white, being male, being rich, whatever) is to convince oneself that the privilege is really a burden.

It is sooo cute that the privileged still need to think of themselves as victims so that they can do whatever they were gonna do anyway but with a clear conscious. Take a country where a male islamic fundementalist is looking for rationalizations for beating his wife because she looked too long at him in a way that made him feel bad. Well she WAS the one that looked at him and she DID make him feel bad so it seems to be an open and shut case. Not that all muslim fundementalists beat their wives for such transgressions but all men who identify women as the source of their discomfort choose the route of blaming the victim when er um ... push comes to shove as they say.

Quoting TwinSwords: Good question. I think part of the psychology of being in a position of privilege (being white, being male, being rich, whatever) is to convince oneself that the privilege is really a burden.

Maybe. I think part of the psychology of being in a position of privilege is more commonly that one starts to believe one deserves it and develops an attitude of animosity towards any who encroach on the privileges. I can't help wondering if the not unusual trend of men leaving professions that women start to enter in large numbers is connected to the higher ratio of women to men in higher education. If men are choosing not to pursue education because that's something women do, that would be infortunate. In general, women seem far more comfortable sharing roles with men than men do with women. I can't see how the latter is an asset for men in today's world.

The central question is whether our culture works with or against our biology. I found will both convincing in many ways and, as always, annoyingly smug. His focus on men being put out by a "loss of status" is incorrect, as kay pointed out ( i do see this being more salient to my fathers generation/baby boomers). But he is correct that by focusing on your own individual needs, you don't need to "figure out" the opposite gender as if it were a monolith that should want one thing. The problem for men, imho, is the lack of an acceptable ideal. I think many men want to achieve manhood, but our culture no longer defines it in a way that is broadly accepted. for people that tend towards introspection and intellectual life, this is not a big handicap. But, males are highly variable, and more men than women are going to be below average (ie. there are more men w/ iq less than 100 than there are women), and perhaps a life of introspection and nuance is not going to happen for them. until there is a new broadly accepted ideal of masculinity, i predict there will be

Quoting popcorn_karate: The problem for men, imho, is the lack of an acceptable ideal. I think many men want to achieve manhood, but our culture no longer defines it in a way that is broadly accepted.

I think this is true, but that it's equally true for women -- basically, whatever you do and however successful you are in the areas you choose to focus on, you will fail to meet up to someone else's standard. I think we just have to learn not to worry about this, and same for men. I have trouble seeing it has something more generally significant (which is why the who pays thing just seemed overblown from the beginning -- that never seemed all that tough to work out, although perhaps representative of this broader issue). Behind the male/female thing, I'd even say that this lack of a clear ideal is kind of a problem which increases as society gets more free, offers more options, and allows people to imagine themselves fitting in in a variety of ways. If you are not expected from birth to take on a particular place in society, whatever it may be, or to see an

Quoting Me&theboys: Maybe. I think part of the psychology of being in a position of privilege is more commonly that one starts to believe one deserves it and develops an attitude of animosity towards any who encroach on the privileges.

I can't help wondering if the not unusual trend of men leaving professions that women start to enter in large numbers is connected to the higher ratio of women to men in higher education. If men are choosing not to pursue education because that's something women do, that would be infortunate. In general, women seem far more comfortable sharing roles with men than men do with women. I can't see how the latter is an asset for men in today's world.

Squid ink. There is no such thing as "male" privilige. There is "alpha male" privilige. If you are not one of the top males, you will most likely be in a subordinate position to women. The failure to discern the differing positions of alpha and beta males is one of the most elemental errors in these kinds of discussions.

Quoting Tim G: It seems these discussions always focus on evopsych or whether men are good/bad.

well if there is anything relevant to the fact that brain strutures laid down by evolution might have an effect on our ways of thinking then evopsych will have some resonance especially in the area of sex differences. Someone will correct me if I am wrong but I would think that most of the "latest" neurological structures ( thickened cerebral cortex and frontal lobes ) are fairly similiar between males and females. The biggest differrences lay in the more antique regions and so the socially affected primate structures are the ones that probably are the most contentious between the sexes. The question is how to mediate between the different ways of thinking provoked by this heterogenious environment.

Squid ink. There is no such thing as "male" privilige. There is "alpha male" privilige. If you are not one of the top males, you will most likely be in a subordinate position to women.

The failure to discern the differing positions of alpha and beta males is one of the most elemental errors in these kinds of discussions.

Only if you define beta male circularly as any male who, for example, doesn't beat his wife. However, the more common pattern is for the subordinate male who gets pushed around by the alphas at work or at the bar to come home and beat the shit out of his wife and/or kids (especially when drunk).

Quoting AemJeff: I think CinemaRing has just exposed his (can there be any doubt?) value as an interlocutor. Don't like dem wymmins so much, do ya, kiddo?

Strange response, Jeff! You're so steeped in ideology that your response to disconfirming facts is ad hominem tripe? Seems so, but why don't you take another stab at it: interlocute with me and we can both love women for who they really are.

Quoting Wonderment: Only if you define beta male circularly as any male who, for example, doesn't beat his wife.

However, the more common pattern is for the subordinate male who gets pushed around by the alphas at work or at the bar to come home and beat the shit out of his wife and/or kids (especially when drunk).

Naw, most likely he goes home after getting bossed around by the alphas at work and gets bossed around by his wife. The henpecked husband is vastly more frequent than the abusive husband. Furthermore, it is the alphas who are more likely to hit women. Because they can get away with it. And the dirtiest little secret of all is that most women stay with their abuser, not because they are afraid of him, but because his dominance turns her on. Again, alpha male privilige:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/02/...rown-is-alpha/

Quoting Me&theboys: Women have been deprived of education, inheritance, votes, and family planning rights for most of human history, thanks to men. In much of the world, they still are. This behavior hardly demonstrates a laudable male moral compass. And now that women have these things, they're not running around trying to prevent men from getting an education. Or from voting. Or from living longer. Or from inheriting. You need to look elsewhere for the source of the problem if you really think men "can't come close to matching those advantages".

Presumably we are talking about our own culture, where women have all the privileges I mentioned. Thanks to men (yes, men acted honorably for the sake of equality), we have the laws on the books to guarantee these rights. I'm sorry to say it, but it looks really funny when you pretend that women don't have the advantages I mentioned. Some might call it denial. I live today, here and now. You?

Quoting Thursday: Squid ink. There is no such thing as "male" privilige. There is "alpha male" privilige. If you are not one of the top males, you will most likely be in a subordinate position to women.

The failure to discern the differing positions of alpha and beta males is one of the most elemental errors in these kinds of discussions.

Not sure why you tagged this reply to my post. I was talking about privilege in general, not "male privilege", so your alpha/beta distinction is irrelevant as a response to my point. And, I think you're wrong, though I'm happy to look at any data you have that supports your claim about beta males' subordinate position to women. Absent that, I'm not much persuaded by claims about "how the world is" based on someone's personal experience.

Quoting Thursday: Naw, most likely he goes home after getting bossed around by the alphas at work and gets bossed around by his wife. The henpecked husband is vastly more frequent than the abusive husband.

Furthermore, it is the alphas who are more likely to hit women. Because they can get away with it. And the dirtiest little secret of all is that most women stay with their abuser, not because they are afraid of him, but because his dominance turns her on. Again, alpha male privilige:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/02/...rown-is-alpha/

This is an example from the item you're touting as dispositive:

Chicks dig power, and slapping a girl around is a form of power, whether we like it or not. Girls get moist in the nether regions for men who hit them, as we can deduce by the fact that most of the masochist victims go back to their punch-happy lovers.

That isn't a source, it's a clown masquerading as a misogynist.

The part of this diavlog that rang true for me was when Will talked about the mismatch in bargaining power between 20 something men and women.
The annoying part about dating in college had nothing to do with figuring out what women wanted or whether to hold the door open or pick up a check. Just pay attention and figure it out! The annoying part was always being outgunned by older and/or richer guys. And I never blamed the ladies either. Heck, if someone wanted to buy me dinner at Cafe Milano I'd sure as hell go. When my room mates parent where in town and would invite me to Kincaids I always said yes. What could solve this problem is a greater supply of older and/or richer women seeking younger financially unestablished men. In other words, go cougars!

Quoting CinemaRing: Presumably we are talking about our own culture, where women have all the privileges I mentioned. Thanks to men (yes, men acted honorably for the sake of equality), we have the laws on the books to guarantee these rights. I'm sorry to say it, but it looks really funny when you pretend that women don't have the advantages I mentioned. Some might call it denial. I live today, here and now. You?

Dude, your revisionist history aside, my point in mentioning history and other cultures is to show that women historically did not have these privilges because of men. Since men aren't prevented by women from having these privileges now, what's men's excuse for not having them, if indeed that is a true claim? The fact that many women in the Western world enjoy these privileges does not serve as support for your unsubstantiated claim that somehow men don't have these privileges, nor for your implication that this state of affairs is somehow women's fault. Man up and provide some data.

Quoting Me&theboys: Dude, your revisionist history aside, my point in mentioning history and other cultures is to show that women historically did not have these privilges because of men. Since men aren't prevented by women from having these privileges now, what's men's excuse for not having them, if indeed that is a true claim?

The fact that many women in the Western world enjoy these privileges does not serve as support for your unsubstantiated claim that somehow men don't have these privileges, nor for your implication that this state of affairs is somehow women's fault.

Man up and provide some data.

Do you doubt seriously that women are getting more education, votes, longevity, inheritance, and family planning control? Tell me which one you doubt the most and I'll datafy you.

Anyone who thinks that white males are privileged today should talk to Frank Ricci.

Quoting conncarroll:
What could solve this problem is a greater supply of older and/or richer women seeking younger financially unestablished men.

In other words, go cougars!

Yeah, but would you marry a cougar? I know I wouldn't. Unless, of course, it's Michelle Bachmann we are talking about. Oh boy, is that woman beautiful. And smart. And...principled.

Quoting CinemaRing: Do you doubt seriously that women are getting more education, votes, longevity, inheritance, and family planning control? Tell me which one you doubt the most and I'll datafy you.

Of all the points I made, that was the most minor - curious your choice to respond to that one rather than the others. Datafy me if you want, but that's not the data I'm interested in. The data I'm looking for is that which substantiates your implications that women are responsible for men's lack of participation/comparative disadvantage in the areas of education, voting, inheritance, etc.

Quoting AemJeff: This is an example from the item you're touting as dispositive:

That isn't a source, it's a clown masquerading as a misogynist.

Just because it's ugly doesn't mean it isn't true.

Quoting JoeK: Yeah, but would you marry a cougar? I know I wouldn't. Unless, of course, it's Michelle Bachmann we are talking about. Oh boy, is that woman beautiful. And smart. And...principled.

Joe, you're definitely off your game, man. Try harder!

Quoting AemJeff: Joe, you're definitely off your game, man. Try harder!

Try harder to do what? Didn't I bring a smile to your face? I don't have to make you people angry every time.

Quoting JoeK: Try harder to do what? Didn't I bring a smile to your face? I don't have to make you people angry every time.

Angry? Aren't we all having fun?

Quoting Thursday: I am also not particularly impressed with a social structure that deprives significant numbers of men of the opportunity to find a mate at all.

So you must be opposed to a social structure that permits any of the following, which all contribute to some men going without a mate: divorce and remarriage
bride prices
female infanticide
patrilineality (which causes families to favor giving birth to boys and creates a shortage of girls)
men marrying women who are younger than themselves
unequal rates of reproduction (after all, letting those alphas have more male offspring than those betas would just make matters even worse for the future betas) And I guess you'd be in favor of a social structure that encouraged polyandry, since part of a mate is better than no mate at all.

Quoting CinemaRing: Strange response, Jeff! You're so steeped in ideology that your response to disconfirming facts is ad hominem tripe? Seems so, but why don't you take another stab at it: interlocute with me and we can both love women for who they really are.

Speaking of tripe:

Men more than passed this test and women haven't even started.

Ad hominem tripe? What I see is somebody trying to excuse some apparent personal problems with a lot of unsupported and often offensively phrased psuedo-argumentation. That may be ad hominem, but there's no fallacy involved.

Quoting Me&theboys: [...]
I can't help wondering if the not unusual trend of men leaving professions that women start to enter in large numbers is connected to the higher ratio of women to men in higher education. If men are choosing not to pursue education because that's something women do, that would be infortunate. In general, women seem far more comfortable sharing roles with men than men do with women. I can't see how the latter is an asset for men in today's world.

Do you have data on this, delineated by major? I'm just asking, because I hear that women are indeed outperforming men in obtaining a higher education, but I feel that may be painting a distorted picture of reality, that is that women are becoming the primary breadwinners. I am a little suspicious of the above, because in my mere anecdotal experiences, it seems the top paying fields are still dominated by men (Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, MBA's, etc), its just this is outshone by like a bazillion nurses which are mostly women. P.S.
Im told nurses pay has gone up substantially in the last few years, but I don't really know if it is considered a good job

Quoting Me&theboys: Of all the points I made, that was the most minor - curious your choice to respond to that one rather than the others. Datafy me if you want, but that's not the data I'm interested in. The data I'm looking for is that which substantiates your implications that women are responsible for men's lack of participation/comparative disadvantage in the areas of education, voting, inheritance, etc.

Women are responsible for nothing and men for everything? I've heard that before. I think we all know the ideology: when women are on the short end, society is to blame and when men are down, it's their own fault. It is a moral failing to ignore one's advantages and pretend they're earned. Men have learned this, to their everlasting credit. You figured it out yet?

Only three or four times.

That must have been it, since I can't see the lingerie or smell the perfume, although believe me, I'm very sad about that.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Do you have data on this, delineated by major? I'm just asking, because I hear that women are indeed outperforming men in obtaining a higher education, but I feel that may be painting a distorted picture of reality, that is that women are becoming the primary breadwinners.

I am a little suspicious of the above, because in my mere anecdotal experiences, it seems the top paying fields are still dominated by men (Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, MBA's, etc), its just this is outshone by like a bazillion nurses which are mostly women.

P.S.
Im told nurses pay has gone up substantially in the last few years, but I don't really know if it is considered a good job or not (Other then RNs)

Well, I'm not trying to claim a correlation between the increase in women's participation in higher education in general and an increase in women in certain professions or as primary breadwinners. There may well be some correlation, but I am not aware of the data. My post was wondering whether the general increase in female participation relative to male participation in higher education and the tendency for men to abandon fields that women move

Quoting CinemaRing: Women are responsible for nothing and men for everything? I've heard that before. I think we all know the ideology: when women are on the short end, society is to blame and when men are down, it's their own fault. It is a moral failing to ignore one's advantages and pretend they're earned. Men have learned this, to their everlasting credit. You figured it out yet?

I think I've encountered you under another name in this forum. Either that or that first line is pure plagiarism. Your reply is not even close to an answer, nor close to a relevant response to what I said, which was: "The data I'm looking for is that which substantiates your implications that women are responsible for men's lack of participation/comparative disadvantage in the areas of education, voting, inheritance, etc.," Based on your reply, I'll assume that the data will not be forthcoming, and I'll consider you to be just another guy with just another opinion which there is no compelling reason to take seriously.

Quoting AemJeff: Speaking of tripe:

Ad hominem tripe? What I see is somebody trying to excuse some apparent personal problems with a lot of unsupported and often offensively phrased psuedo-argumentation.

That may be ad hominem, but there's no fallacy involved.

Still not up to dealing with the substance, then?
Noted.

Quoting Me&theboys: I think I've encountered you under another name in this forum. Either that or that first line is pure plagiarism. Your reply is not even close to an answer, nor close to a relevant response to what I said, which was: "The data I'm looking for is that which substantiates your implications that women are responsible for men's lack of participation/comparative disadvantage in the areas of education, voting, inheritance, etc.,"

Based on your reply, I'll assume that the data will not be forthcoming, and I'll consider you to be just another guy with just another opinion which there is no compelling reason to take seriously.

The data are the existence of the disparities. Or are you claiming that women have had no hand in creating the conditions under which we live? I would not be surprised that you would not feel any sympathy for men, but it's a moral failing, not an argument.

Quoting CinemaRing: Still not up to dealing with the substance, then?
Noted.

Dude, by all means! Post something substantive. Then we'll see what we're all up to!

Quoting themightypuck: At approximately 55 minutes in Will says it is almost impossible to tease out nature from nurture and implies to some extent that this is a fatal flaw in evopsych. This is certainly true to some extent and it is also true that not all proponents of evopsych have had the noblest of motives but there is at least some science behind ep which is more that one could say for every other speculation Will made in this dvolg regarding male-female social behavior.

I caught that too, I think Will definitely has it wrong there. I believe there is a great deal if biological basis for vast differences in the behavior of men and women. His words suggested the following argument which I will paraphrase, since it may be hard to tease out the biological basis of differences as opposed to the societal basis, lets not jump to the biological basis to explain things...
ok, but that leaves the other default, the environmental basis free and clear as the go to rule.
I think this is off. The society we live in today allows parity to the extent

Quoting Jason Malloy:
...

That said... One such negative byproduct is this: As an economic market becomes more free, the inequality between rich and poor grows. But the poor also become better off in an absolute sense, because the absolute level of social wealth has also increased, benefiting the top as well as the bottom, even if the top has benefited more. In short, the economic market is not a zero sum game.

But the sexual market is not the economic market. As the sexual market becomes more free, the inequality between the "rich" and the "poor" grows as well. But the difference is that the "poor" do not become better off in an absolute sense in a free sexual market. In fact the "poor" become worse off in an absolute sense, and that well-being has been directly transferred from the bottom to a person higher up on the food chain. So the sexual market, more or less, IS a zero sum game. There are only so many desirable mates to go around. In a restricted sexual market, the desirable mates are divided more evenly, in an unrestricted sexual market it's more winner-take-all.

In short, Karl Marx was right after all, he was just

Quoting JonIrenicus: In that one emboldened set of text you have removed the possibility of being far left. You do not equate "my neighbor has more than me" with That makes me WORSE off. That the material wealth of "poor" people has increased over the decades is meaningless to many lefties, all they can see is what neighbor Jones has, relating those less well off than Mr and Mrs Jones as being in the comparative gutter.

[...]

From what I have read, people in general, once a certain minimum standard of life has been achieved, happiness is indeed a function of how they rank economically with their peers, not their absolute income. So I am not really sure with what the problem is with wanting a distribution of wealth with a low rho, instead of just endlessly obsessing over the GDP. Edit:
I really don't even think the rank and file Republicans really dislike redistribution in his/her heart of hearts, but has only taken up that battlecry because the elite Republicans have agreed to take their side in various cultural issues.

Quoting AemJeff: Dude, by all means! Post something substantive. Then we'll see what we're all up to!

Deja fait, monsieur! I'm very amused that you'd get into your ad hominem foolishness with me, when I simply countered the one-sided portrait that Wonderment tried to pass off. You can't bear a ray of sunshine on that, though, can you? My words are fairly anodyne next to hers. This would be a good time for you to ask yourself why you didn't take personal exception to her distortion. I'm not sure you're man enough to stand up to a woman, though, if she might accuse you of misogyny for telling the truth.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: From what I have read, people in general, once a certain minimum standard of life has been achieved, happiness is indeed a function of how they rank economically with their peers, not their absolute income.

So I am not really sure with what the problem is with wanting a distribution of wealth with a low rho, instead of just endlessly obsessing over the GDP.

Edit:
I really don't even think the rank and file Republicans really dislike redistribution in his/her heart of hearts, but has only taken up that battlecry because the elite Republicans have agreed to take their side in various cultural issues.

From what I can tell, aside from severe hardship in life of either the economic or emotional sort, or a massive positive event or windfall, people are as happy as they are ever going to be.
Generally happy people tend to stay that way, and vice versa. Now yes, if ones economic issues prevent the fulfillment they desire over their lifetime, it may have a negative impact, but what exactly are those desires? To live in a mansion? Or simply to be able to have traveled every few years?
Once you are

Quoting CinemaRing: Deja fait, monsieur!

I'm very amused that you'd get into your ad hominem foolishness with me, when I simply countered the one-sided portrait that Wonderment tried to pass off. You can't bear a ray of sunshine on that, though, can you? My words are fairly anodyne next to hers.

This would be a good time for you to ask yourself why you didn't take personal exception to her distortion. I'm not sure you're man enough to stand up to a woman, though, if she might accuse you of misogyny for telling the truth.

You're really not reading the thread very closely; and despite your protestations, your posts seem laced with hostility toward the entire female gender. You haven't even accurately noted the gender of the other participants in the conversation, despite explicit assertions on that specific point. And, even though you seem to have memorized the term "ad hominem," and seem to feel pretty free to complain about such claims made toward you, your posts are laced with it. Anodyne? Angry and touchy, and full of unsupported assertions, I'd say.

Quoting CinemaRing: Presumably we are talking about our own culture, where women have all the privileges I mentioned. Thanks to men (yes, men acted honorably for the sake of equality), we have the laws on the books to guarantee these rights. I'm sorry to say it, but it looks really funny when you pretend that women don't have the advantages I mentioned. Some might call it denial.

I live today, here and now. You?

He lives in the past, because that is the most fertile material by which he can piss on his society, make it look even worse in comparison to utopia. You see it in the comparison of the state of men and women here from several posters. So let me ask those who think what I am saying about you is nonsense.
What exactly would you need to see to say that men and women in our society, TODAY, were essentially equal in the eyes of society?

Quoting conncarroll: The part of this diavlog that rang true for me was when Will talked about the mismatch in bargaining power between 20 something men and women.
The annoying part about dating in college had nothing to do with figuring out what women wanted or whether to hold the door open or pick up a check. Just pay attention and figure it out!

The annoying part was always being outgunned by older and/or richer guys.

And I never blamed the ladies either. Heck, if someone wanted to buy me dinner at Cafe Milano I'd sure as hell go. When my room mates parent where in town and would invite me to Kincaids I always said yes.

What could solve this problem is a greater supply of older and/or richer women seeking younger financially unestablished men.

In other words, go cougars!

Yeah, but the supply of... tolerable cougars is not exactly enough to sate the number of young men who need the release.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Yeah, but the supply of... tolerable cougars is not exactly enough to sate the number of young men who need the release.

Yeah, and the deficit of oxygen to your thinkin' parts hasn't slowed your self-satisfaction.

Quoting JoeK: Well, from what I have read, data on domestic violence is more or less crap. Feminists put all kind of, um, crap, which doesn’t belong there under the “domestic violence” category to inflate the numbers and make the problem appear bigger than it is. And no, I don’t think the move, suggested by Lyle, to count “emotional abuse” as domestic violence solves the problem. Emotional abuse, unless backed up by at least threat of physical violence, does not exist. So, counting only serious injuries is in my opinion the right methodology. We end up, as expected, with the violence initiated overwhelmingly by males, but we also end up with absolute numbers much smaller than often reported.

I don't think it was a feminist organization that put together the data, and it definitely did not include "emotional abuse". Also, if a woman claimed to be a victim of domestic violence would you deny it if she had no serious injuries?

Quoting JoeK: Do you deny that, everything else the same, smarter men, better educated men are more attractive than less intelligent men? You realize that comparing high school jocks and nerds is not everything-else-being-the-same type of comparison. The fact that Kobe Bryant had good grades in high

Quoting graz: Yeah, and the deficit of oxygen to your thinkin' parts hasn't slowed your self-satisfaction.

/golf clap
I think this is a better approach, the assaults against my general arguments go much worse. But then, I guess you can't see that within your own mind can you?

...and marry a high-status man right now, before I get too ugly to attract one. Thanks for the advice, Kay!
There's a lot of goofiness in Kay's original article. First off, just because people are choosing to get married at a later age at the same time that Will Farrell has become a famous actor, does this mean that Will Farrell's goofy-dude schtick is directly contributing to men not wanting to get married (or that because men are not getting married, they identify to Will Farrell types more)? Is it not possible that *married* young men *and* unmarried young men watch dumb dude movies, and that movies featuring men acting like goofballs have been around forever. Secondly, isn't it the most obvious manifestation of male privilege that guys feel totally entitled to sit around being bums and complain that girls don't like them because they're not rich or because they're too choosy, instead of thinking "Well, maybe it's because I'm an asshole/I'm a boring conversationalist/I'm unattractive/I have poor personal hygiene"? The problem with the "nice guy" is that he feels entitled to have a girlfriend simply because he's nice. Nobody ever

when I simply countered the one-sided portrait that Wonderment tried to pass off. You can't bear a ray of sunshine on that, though, can you? My words are fairly anodyne next to hers.

Think of me as Juan Dermont.

Look at Will's blog post on Kay's article--that's precisely the point he's making and it's not separate from the point about nostalgia for lost power. Once upon a time, the "acceptable ideal" of masculinity WAS having power/being the man of your house and the "acceptable ideal" of femininity was to submit to that order. Feminism redefined the ideal for women: first, by getting rid of (or at least making a dent in) an ideal based around submission and second, by unleashing a contradictory ideal based around being able to simultaneously hold one's own with men and have them pay for you. This poses its own little problems--who pays for dinner etc--but for women, it seems to be working; most young women I know feel quite comfortable and confident working a long day at an iBank and then having someone pay for their night out. The bigger problem for men, and Will says this in his piece, is not simply the logistics of dealing with women whose self-image is so contradictory, but that there's no "acceptable ideal" of masculinity to replace an ideal of power. A man confident in his own masculinity

Quoting AemJeff: You're really not reading the thread very closely; and despite your protestations, your posts seem laced with hostility toward the entire female gender. You haven't even accurately noted the gender of the other participants in the conversation, despite explicit assertions on that specific point. And, even though you seem to have memorized the term "ad hominem," and seem to feel pretty free to complain about such claims made toward you, your posts are laced with it. Anodyne? Angry and touchy, and full of unsupported assertions, I'd say.

Yes, it is a sin to be hostile to poor ideas and weak thinking, isn't it. Even worse when you're challenging sacred cows. So let's compare: I countered the mistakes I saw in Wonderment's post with alternative assertions of fact that contradicted theirs. You countered my assertions -- right or wrong, although I'm pretty sure I'm all right -- with loose ad hominem attacks, an absence of engagement on the substance, an attempt at mockery, an irrelevant complaint about gender confusion, and a very special try at painting me with the sad brush of characterological shortcomings. I win! [victory lap]

Quoting thouartgob: An interesting mixture of rants and autobiography it seems.

All of these are classic specially the one where "men serve as uncompensated security for women", I was just curious if occurred to you that the women would need security from other men ?? Unless you are aware of bands of scary lesbians running amok looking to kidnap them.

I'm glad to see we're in agreement on this. Did you also describe the antecedent post as a mixture of rants and autobiography? If you didn't, perhaps you missed part of my meaning.

I countered the mistakes I saw in Wonderment's post with alternative assertions of fact that contradicted theirs.

Now there's more than one of me? One Dermont

Quoting Wonderment: Well, equality represents societal trends but does not square with the inequality facts on the ground that, I agree, are not going to change any time soon.

Men are still the ones beating and abusing women.

Men are still the ones abandoning their children.

Men are still the ones going to prison.

Men are still the ones making more money.

Women are still the ones with the pregnancy, childbirth and nursing.

Women are still the ones who do the most housework.

Women are still the ones who do the most caring for the young, sick and elderly.

Etc., etc. etc.

http://fora.tv/2009/03/24/Ask_a_Scie...s_Like_Monkeys

Quoting CinemaRing: The data are the existence of the disparities. Or are you claiming that women have had no hand in creating the conditions under which we live? I would not be surprised that you would not feel any sympathy for men, but it's a moral failing, not an argument.

That's just not going to do as a serious explanation. The existence of disparities is not an indicator of the cause of the disparities. For that, you need data of another sort. Until you have that data, all you have is an opinion, which just doesn't cut it for most people, although apparently it suffices for you.

Quoting kezboard: ...and marry a high-status man right now, before I get too ugly to attract one. Thanks for the advice, Kay!
There's a lot of goofiness in Kay's original article. First off, just because people are choosing to get married at a later age at the same time that Will Farrell has become a famous actor, does this mean that Will Farrell's goofy-dude schtick is directly contributing to men not wanting to get married (or that because men are not getting married, they identify to Will Farrell types more)? Is it not possible that *married* young men *and* unmarried young men watch dumb dude movies, and that movies featuring men acting like goofballs have been around forever.

Secondly, isn't it the most obvious manifestation of male privilege that guys feel totally entitled to sit around being bums and complain that girls don't like them because they're not rich or because they're too choosy, instead of thinking "Well, maybe it's because I'm an asshole/I'm a boring conversationalist/I'm unattractive/I have poor personal hygiene"? The problem with the "nice guy" is that he feels entitled to have a girlfriend simply because he's nice. Nobody ever

This seems like a straw man argument.

Quoting T.G.G.P: I'm really surprised nobody has linked to Roy Baumeister's "Is There Anything Good About Men?"

Everyone should read Roy Baumeister's article. He makes many very valid points and plausible explanations and sees things in a way that I doubt many people, men or women, have ever considered. one of his key points is that human culture (social structures and practices created by men) exploits other men. So, in the end, men are the problem for men. It would be easy to read this piece on a very superficial level and draw ought from is conclusions in order to confirm already held prejudices. But that would be to misunderstand the larger and broader implications of the material regarding the obstacles and solutions to achieving the kind of world many of us want to achieve.

Quoting themightypuck: This seems like a straw man argument.

...a boring, unattractive, smelly one at that.

Quoting Me&theboys: That's just not going to do as a serious explanation. The existence of disparities is not an indicator of the cause of the disparities. For that, you need data of another sort. Until you have that data, all you have is an opinion, which just doesn't cut it for most people, although apparently it suffices for you.

You're not going to admit the moral failing of your lack of sympathy here, but it speaks for itself. Next time perhaps you will do better. Men have done it and women are capable of that degree of empathy, too, I believe.

Quoting CinemaRing: You're not going to admit the moral failing of your lack of sympathy here, but it speaks for itself. Next time perhaps you will do better. Men have done it and women are capable of that degree of empathy, too, I believe.

Still skirting the issue, I see. I can have sympathy for a phenomenon/behavior/situation and for a group of people affected by/exhibiting it without agreeing to unsubstantiated claims regarding who or what is responsible for the phenomenon/behavior/situation. The two are not related.

Thanks. That was good. The thing about more male chimps falling our of trees was especially interesting.

Quoting Me&theboys: Still skirting the issue, I see.

I can have sympathy for a phenomenon/behavior/situation and for a group of people affected by/exhibiting it without agreeing to unsubstantiated claims regarding who or what is responsible for the phenomenon/behavior/situation. The two are not related.

That's right. You'll agree to anything but that women have some responsibility.

Quoting CinemaRing: That's right. You'll agree to anything but that women have some responsibility.

Let's talk specifics about responsibility. You claim that women have advantages with regard to voting that "men can't come close to matching", and you imply that women are somehow responsible (or, given the above, partly responsible) for this state of affairs. What is the basis for this assignment of responsibility? Same with your longevity claim. What is the basis for the assignment of responsibility for men's longevity, or lack thereof, to women?

Well, uh, forgive me, but I was thinking specifically of the part where Will goes on for a few minutes about how women's equality means men have to give up their entitlement to women if they follow a few very simple steps (be chivalrous, provide for the family) and now they're forced to deal with women on an individual basis and perhaps try to create egalitarian relationships, Kay says, "Well, I don't think they mourn their male privilege, I think they're just frustrated that they can't get girlfriends." That's exactly what Will meant. The idea that you're entitled to a girlfriend or a wife if you do the following things is completely a symptom of male privilege.

Quoting stephanie: I think this is true, but that it's equally true for women -- basically, whatever you do and however successful you are in the areas you choose to focus on, you will fail to meet up to someone else's standard. I think we just have to learn not to worry about this, and same for men. I have trouble seeing it has something more generally significant (which is why the who pays thing just seemed overblown from the beginning -- that never seemed all that tough to work out, although perhaps representative of this broader issue).

yes, but... I really think the "becoming a man" thing is different than becoming a woman. Women have biological ways of becoming "women" (menarche and child bearing), whereas men have traditionally had to Do Something to become a man. I think Joseph Cambell is not completely off base on that, and that there is a psychological difference. But, I hear you that gender roles for women are unsettled also, and particularly any woman that decides not to have children will probably come in for disapproval in some quarters. I'm not convinced it is only my male perspective that makes me think there

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I don't see it the same way as you. The people in question were born years after the pill and the womens' rights movement. Privilege seems like it should mean more than simply being frustrated that things aren't working out how you want. Moaning about how things are is a terrible strategy for improving one's lot that I can imagine privileged and non-privileged alike engaging in.

I haven't read the actual paper, but from the abstract Theodore Wright's paper on The Identity and Changing Status of Former Elite Minorities might be relevant to the gripes among men today. The thing that doesn't fit is that men have risen in relative happiness (women used to report higher happiness, but that has gone down) since the rise of feminism, as have blacks in America since the civil rights era.

Quoting Me&theboys: Let's talk specifics about responsibility. You claim that women have advantages with regard to voting that "men can't come close to matching", and you imply that women are somehow responsible (or, given the above, partly responsible) for this state of affairs. What is the basis for this assignment of responsibility?

Same with your longevity claim. What is the basis for the assignment of responsibility for men's longevity, or lack thereof, to women?

Instead of having you dive deeper into your responsibility denial, I think it would be more productive for you to take responsibility for advocating a really important corrective where one is needed. What you would like to personally take responsibility for? You know that women are given unfair advantages that are nowhere near as subtle as the self-evident bias they receive in the schools. What would you like to make your number one issue to correct?

Quoting Me&theboys: Everyone should read Roy Baumeister's article. He makes many very valid points and plausible explanations and sees things in a way that I doubt many people, men or women, have ever considered. one of his key points is that human culture (social structures and practices created by men) exploits other men. So, in the end, men are the problem for men.

Here is that fallacy again. Baumeister sees everyone as creating our social structures and practices. Even women participate in that, believe it or not. In your mind, human culture is solely and simply a male creation. Thanks for the compliment, that's an astounding amount of awesome creativity, but it's really kind of failing to notice how human culture is actually created.

Quoting CinemaRing: Instead of having you dive deeper into your responsibility denial, I think it would be more productive for you to take responsibility for advocating a really important corrective where one is needed.

What you would like to personally take responsibility for? You know that women are given unfair advantages that are nowhere near as subtle as the self-evident bias they receive in the schools. What would you like to make your number one issue to correct?

I've chosen to make my number one issue the eradication of unsubstantiated opinion as a factor in the decision-making processes of the general public and the reinstatement of rational, logical, critical thinking as the primary intellectual goal for all people. I've been trying to take you under my wing and get you to see how rational thought processes and critical thinking work, apparently to no avail. I'm certainly not going to indulge your desire to discuss claims that have not even been substantiated, thus granting them legitimacy by proxy. Substantiate your claims and then we'll have a discussion about them. I have neither the time nor the interest to discuss your opinions.

Quoting CinemaRing: Here is that fallacy again. Baumeister sees everyone as creating our social structures and practices. Even women participate in that, believe it or not. In your mind, human culture is solely and simply a male creation. thanks for the compliment, that's an astounding amount of awesome creativity, but it's really kind of failing to notice how human culture is actually created.

Maybe you could provide some quotes substantiating your claim about Baumeister's position. Here are quotes substantiating what I wrote about his claim: ".... culture mainly arose in the types of social relationships favored by men. Women favor close, intimate relationships. These are if anything more important for the survival of the species. That’s why human women evolved first. We need those close relationships to survive. The large networks of shallower relationships aren’t as vital for survival — but they are good for something else, namely the development of larger social systems and ultimately for culture." "...the women’s sphere remained about where it was, while the men’s sphere, with its big and shallow social networks, slowly benefited from the progress of culture. By accumulating knowledge and improving the gains from division of labor, the men’s sphere gradually

Quoting Me&theboys: I've chosen to make my number one issue the eradication of unsubstantiated opinion as a factor in the decision-making processes of the general public and the reinstatement of rational, logical, critical thinking as the primary intellectual goal for all people. I've been trying to take you under my wing and get you to see how rational thought processes and critical thinking work, apparently to no avail. I'm certainly not going to indulge your desire to discuss claims that have not even been substantiated, thus granting them legitimacy by proxy. Substantiate your claims and then we'll have a discussion about them. I have neither the time nor the interest to discuss your opinions.

You conceded the majority of my argument when you asked to talk about voting strength and longevity; to your credit, you didn't bother arguing my easy points. Now you allow us to infer that you lack the decency to take responsibility for anything at all under the sun or the moon, especially if it involves sympathizing with a man. Yes, that is typical of an adolescent, so I have to be open to the possibility that

Quoting CinemaRing: You conceded the majority of my argument when you asked to talk about voting strength and longevity.

No, I didn't. That is a logical fallacy. Are you sure you don't want some tutoring in how to think rationally and logically? Ad hominem attacks are another poor argumentation style. Why resort to that if your argument stands on its own (which remains to be seen, what with the lack of data and all)? Go ahead and explain for all of them the basis for your assignment of responsibility for them to women.

"...the women’s sphere remained about where it was, while the men’s sphere, with its big and shallow social networks, slowly benefited from the progress of culture. By accumulating knowledge and improving the gains from division of labor, the men’s sphere gradually made progress. Hence religion, literature, art, science, technology, military action, trade and economic marketplaces, political organization, medicine — these all mainly emerged from the men’s sphere. The women’s sphere did not produce such things, though it did other valuable things, like take care of the next generation so the species would continue to exist." I just love all these spheres! Big circles of descriptions of phenomenon. We humans do love our narratives. I have not read this author, but he does sound interesting. However, I have to quibble with the stark lines drawn in the paragraph above. It seems to me that we are all dependent on each other in ways that would make it impossible for men to do what they do without women and vice versa. So, for instance, because of the caretaking role, women can take some credit for creating the atmosphere in which culture could be created and thrive as it has done. And since the thread is so

Quoting badhatharry: And since the thread is so long....perhaps one of you (Me or Cinema) can describe just what it is that you are arguing about.

Cinema has made some claims that I have questioned, and I have asked him to produce data that substantiates them. He prefers to just keep making the claims and to draw unwarranted conclusions about me rather than provide the data requested. All in all, not worth getting up to speed on, IMO, since no substance has been forthcoming.

Quoting Me&theboys: Maybe you could provide some quotes substantiating your claim about Baumeister's position. Here are quotes substantiating what I wrote about his claim:

".... culture mainly arose in the types of social relationships favored by men. Women favor close, intimate relationships. These are if anything more important for the survival of the species. That’s why human women evolved first. We need those close relationships to survive. The large networks of shallower relationships aren’t as vital for survival — but they are good for something else, namely the development of larger social systems and ultimately for culture."

"...the women’s sphere remained about where it was, while the men’s sphere, with its big and shallow social networks, slowly benefited from the progress of culture. By accumulating knowledge and improving the gains from division of labor, the men’s sphere gradually made progress. Hence religion, literature, art, science, technology, military action, trade and economic marketplaces, political organization, medicine — these all mainly emerged from the men’s sphere. The women’s sphere did not produce such things, though it did other valuable things, like take care of the next generation so the species would continue to exist."

"....culture is a powerful engine of making life better. Across many generations, culture can

Quoting Me&theboys: No, I didn't. That is a logical fallacy. Are you sure you don't want some tutoring in how to think rationally and logically? Ad hominem attacks are another poor argumentation style. Why resort to that if your argument stands on its own (which remains to be seen, what with the lack of data and all)? Go ahead and explain for all of them the basis for your assignment of responsibility for them to women.

Sorry, no fallacy. Just an inference that you don't find appealing. I'm still hoping you'll show you're an adult and take responsibility for something on your own. Don't bother responding, though, if you still find that beyond you. Adolescents are boring.

Quoting CinemaRing: It's strange, because none of those quotes declare that culture is a male creation. In fact, the first quote can easily be read in the opposite way.

Does he say that men compete with each other? Well, sure, but that's obvious. Women compete with each other, too, but that's not tantamount to a claim that women's biggest problem is other women.

Does he say that men create social structures? Well, certainly, but he also says that women participate in their own way which is different but just as significant. The house's architect does not determine the quality of life of the residents.

Having said that, I'm really curious: do you yourself think that culture is solely a creation of men? You are going out of your way to defend that position and it seems to give women so little credit. What's your actual view?

Based on your interpretation of Baumeister, I suspect you define culture very differently than Baumeister does. How about, before we get started, you define very specifically what you mean by culture? If you're talking about the practice of throwing birthday parties and apologizing for farting in public and running the local art museum's

Quoting CinemaRing: Sorry, no fallacy. Just an inference that you don't find appealing.

I'm still hoping you'll show you're an adult and take responsibility for something on your own. Don't bother responding, though, if you still find that beyond you. Adolescents are boring.

Cinema - Your posts are the ones that ring of adolescent frustration, not mine. Re-read them if you doubt me. That, combined with the fact that I am 180 degrees different from the caricature you have in your head, makes your posts very difficult to take seriously, though I have tried hard to do so. If you want to have a conversation with a grown-up, you need to be able to have a grown-up conversation. Focusing on and responding to what people say, rather than what you imagine they say or imagine they think or incorrectly infer about what they say, is an important aspect of rational, grown-up conversation. Your contribiution to this thread has been anything but grown-up.

Quoting Me&theboys: Cinema - Your posts are the ones that ring of adolescent frustration, not mine. Re-read them if you doubt me. That, combined with the fact that I am 180 degrees different from the caricature you have in your head, makes your posts very difficult to take seriously, though I have tried hard to do so. If you want to have a conversation with a grown-up, you need to be able to have a grown-up conversation. Focusing on and responding to what people say, rather than what you imagine they say or imagine they think or incorrectly infer about what they say, is an important aspect of rational, grown-up conversation. Your contribiution to this thread has been anything but grown-up.

There is still time for women to attain the ethical excellence of men, you included. I hope I have encouraged you in that.

Quoting Me&theboys: Based on your interpretation of Baumeister, I suspect you define culture very differently than Baumeister does. How about, before we get started, you define very specifically what you mean by culture? If you're talking about the practice of throwing birthday parties and apologizing for farting in public and running the local art museum's fund raising campaign rather than the establishment and primary control of a society's rules and institutions and practices regarding what is right and wrong and in what areas of society people can and cannot participate, I need to know that, because my opinions regarding the role of women in controlling and influencing and creating those very disparate aspects of culture varies.

You can't make a definition? Interesting. FYI, I'm speaking English as a native.

Quoting CinemaRing: You can't make a definition? Interesting.

FYI, I'm speaking English as a native.

Establishing definitions for terms that are the basis for a debate is standard procedure. If you prefer not to participate, so be it.

Quoting CinemaRing: There is still time for women to attain the ethical excellence of men, you included. I hope I have encouraged you in that.

Time to go our separate ways. I'll let the record of our conversation stand for itself.

The simplistic "Darwinian" rationale for male promiscuity misses that it's no longer reproductively successful. Sure, it feels great for men to have lots of sex partners, but it does little or nothing to keep you afloat in the gene pool. These Pick Up Artists talk as if they're still raping and pilaging their way accross the Eurasian steppes, but they're really just having lots of sterile sex. And those determined to remain reproductively sterile usually stay emotionally so as well. The better male bet is now more closely aligned with the trusty female strategy -- quality, not quantity. Yet there's still a grain of truth to the dude-culture complaints. Most girls do want a guy who *could* have lots of girls, and maybe even has. But then he choses instead to marry her and stay home to try and raise healthy kids. So maybe all the young dudes aren't so crazy after all.

Humans are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers. The evolutionary adaptive period selected for genes that we have now, evolution has not yet replaced them. You would be correct in believing that the "pickup artist" lifestyle actually results in a man producing fewer children than boring old monogamy. I conjectured on how humanity might evolve in response to current features not forseen by evolution (such as birth control) here.

Well put. I wish more people understood this sort of thing.