On looks, leagues and other such irritants...

Page 4 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

30 Nov 2010, 12:16 pm

billsmithglendale wrote:
mv wrote:
billsmithglendale wrote:
Starygrrl, I like your reply, but I am thinking it is too black and white --

When the ideal person comes, sometimes it transcends all boundaries if the match is good enough. I have a MBA, my wife only has a AA degree -- yet she relates to me better than many of her better-educated peers, and she brings more to the table in terms of running a household and being a good mother. The things I talk about with her are over the head of most people, grad students included, yet she is able to keep up and is willing to learn. An exception, I'm sure, but not hopeless or uncommon.

I'm not disputing that some men, especially those at the top of academia (i.e. the Phd's you refer to), want to marry their academic equal -- however, plenty of men are just looking for a nice woman who is pleasant to be around, pulls her weight with regards to the household (bonus points if she does more than that), and will be a good mother.

I also find it hard to believe, at least with my experience, that women aren't looking for provider types. For all of the talk about equality in the workplace and women having the same goals as men professionally, I have seen far too many women take advantage of child leave, milk the government and the job for all of the benefits they could get, and then run out the door as soon as that term was over to switch to child-rearing full time.

I don't dispute that there are career-oriented women who are serious, but I don't think they are the majority when you take into account plans or intentions around childrearing. Those who milk the system, like I mention above, do ruin it for everyone (e.g. they diminish the trust in a sexist way), but also point out that there are some things in life more important than your career. Yes, the top 10% may stay committed, but many women change their tune when the biological clock goes off.

But yeah, with you on everything else -- seldom do I see a woman go for a guy with less education than herself, and with women now the majority at schools, and the majority of the population, the odds are working against any guy who doesn't at least get a Bachelors.


It's so interesting, billsmithglendale, but I found your response so much more black-and-white than starygrrl's, which I found quite nuanced, comparatively.

I think where your experiences break down for me is your comments on "milking the government" and similar. The quite simple truth is that someone has to have the babies (if we're to continue the human race) and someone has to care for them full time and raise them. I'm one of the higher-educated types that starygrrl talks about, but to me, what's vital is the CHOICE to do this babyhaving / babyraising in a way that's best for me and my children. It is much, much better for me to work full-time and pay for childcare; I'm a better person and partner because of it, and no one "provides" for me (or has, *ever*, other than my parents when I was young). I had the opportunity to stay home with both of my children for 3 months, but no one was "milked" for this choice, other than my very own savings account. There is no mandatory paid child leave where I live, such an animal does not exist. I am lucky to have had the opportunities I've had, some people are not so lucky. Some people cannot afford to have children, and some have them despite not being able to afford them. I don't agree with that, but that's not my lookout.

So, I ask you: who are you expecting to further the human race? Does it only exist for you in a meaningful way if it follows your dictates and choices? I don't mean to be harsh with you; I have a difficult time with communication, but when you write things like you have written, to me that's the complete erosion of trust in a sexist way.


Hi mv,

Thanks for the reply -- I was a bit worried that my example of milking the system was both too extreme and inflammatory -- I didn't mean to come off as sexist as it sounded.

I in fact am one of the people who waited to have kids until we could afford a house and our finances were in order -- I'm 34 now, as is my wife. Much as I would rather her stay home with our child, it looks like we will have to turn to child care out of necessity. This is disappointing, because I was raised by a mother who stayed at home, and enjoyed the attention and extra activities and freedom this allowed. I'm pretty disappointed in my country that compared to my parents, and grandparents, who could easily afford a single-income household on a pretty moderate income, I'm making a pretty good income, yet combined with my wife, we can barely get the essentials here -- truly a sign of big changes in the world economy and standards of living. If anything, the first world is regressing back to third world standards, even as the third world comes closer to our standards.

But I digress -- I'm all for having children. If anything, I wish more intelligent people would have children -- as it is, too many of the least-qualified are having kids. I think getting welfare or public assistance should require mandatory birth control -- our system rewards the wrong people and allows them to reproduce while the financially responsible foot the bill and go childless.

On my point above -- it's not to not have children. It's that women should remember that this is one of the reasons why the marketplace treats women differently than men in the job market, because a good % of women will either drop out of the workforce or be otherwise hindered by child-rearing. Promoting someone to a VP slot (which means they are in charge of something important), only to have them duck away for two 4 month maternity periods in 3 years, is not a good return on your money or good planning. This isn't to say women shouldn't be promoted to VP slots -- what it is saying is that companies can't count on employees to be honest about their plans, and that companies manage around this by using discriminatory policies. It's not right, but this is part of the reason why. And I have yet to see more than 10% of all women in any workplace I've been in (all white collar, corporate workplaces) be that career-woman stereotype. Most do turn to motherhood, and their work does lapse as a result.


Oh, I'm so with you on all this! I had my first baby at 35, and though I'm glad I waited, it's still very expensive. I think my point was that it's unfair to penalize women in the workforce because someone, somewhere, sometime has to have and raise the babies. I understand from a business standpoint why your first choice wouldn't be to have an executive leave for such an arbitrary thing as having a baby, but I still think we need to shift the paradigm. Otherwise men continue to get all the responsibility in the work-world, and the glass ceiling remains firmly in place.

My grandmother quit her nursing job after she had kids, it was what was done then. But I know she missed it and her first calling wasn't being a stay-at-home mom. My mom worked full time my entire life; she and my dad joked about leapfrogging each other on the pay/responsibility scales over the years. So, my experience and nostalgia derived therefrom are different from yours, I think.

And your comment on intelligent people having babies gave me a wry chuckle. My favorite part of the movie "Idiocracy" is the first five minutes, where it's explained how cultural pressures bifurcated society in such a way that we bred out our own intellectuals and productive members of society. Have you seen it?



billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

30 Nov 2010, 1:00 pm

Idiocracy is one of my favorite movies, and actually one of the reasons I decided to finally get on the ball and have a baby.

What is scary is how true it is -- one need only watch a show like "Maury" here in the U.S. to see it in action -- urban idiots cranking out kids by the dozens, with different women (also idiots), while you and I foot the tax bill. What's sad is that so many of these children will end up as criminals or otherwise unproductive, not ready for the 21st century info economy, and doing more harm than good to our economy.

Meanwhile countries like China and India continue to pass us by in areas like Mathematics -- so basically, their children will be outperforming western world children by the time I am in my 60s.



Shadwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 568
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

01 Dec 2010, 9:02 am

billsmithglendale wrote:
Idiocracy is one of my favorite movies, and actually one of the reasons I decided to finally get on the ball and have a baby.

What is scary is how true it is -- one need only watch a show like "Maury" here in the U.S. to see it in action -- urban idiots cranking out kids by the dozens, with different women (also idiots), while you and I foot the tax bill. What's sad is that so many of these children will end up as criminals or otherwise unproductive, not ready for the 21st century info economy, and doing more harm than good to our economy.

Meanwhile countries like China and India continue to pass us by in areas like Mathematics -- so basically, their children will be outperforming western world children by the time I am in my 60s.


There is some bad genetics out there no doubt, but poverty is a reason why people have a lot of kids the world over. It's like a survival tactic. They also have terrible schools and its not their fault. People talk down on welfare but they forget rich people are the biggest welfare queens there are.



billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

01 Dec 2010, 11:30 am

Shadwell wrote:
billsmithglendale wrote:
Idiocracy is one of my favorite movies, and actually one of the reasons I decided to finally get on the ball and have a baby.

What is scary is how true it is -- one need only watch a show like "Maury" here in the U.S. to see it in action -- urban idiots cranking out kids by the dozens, with different women (also idiots), while you and I foot the tax bill. What's sad is that so many of these children will end up as criminals or otherwise unproductive, not ready for the 21st century info economy, and doing more harm than good to our economy.

Meanwhile countries like China and India continue to pass us by in areas like Mathematics -- so basically, their children will be outperforming western world children by the time I am in my 60s.


There is some bad genetics out there no doubt, but poverty is a reason why people have a lot of kids the world over. It's like a survival tactic. They also have terrible schools and its not their fault. People talk down on welfare but they forget rich people are the biggest welfare queens there are.


Oh, I don't dispute it -- don't get me started on the corporate/military-industrial complex and how it rapes the taxpayer (and everyone else).

Yes, poverty is a cause, as is ignorance and religion (for those who refuse to use contraception). But there's more to it, at least here in the U.S. I say the following as a true moderate (I'm a Democrat but conservative on certain issues) -- well-meaning people during the 80s and 90s actually did more harm than good to our urban poor by not holding them to a higher standard. Instead, they decided that the culture of poverty was "their culture" (when nothing could be father from the truth) and that we should all respect it and celebrate it (the corporate entertainment industry had big stakes in this as well). This was condescending and insulting, but the urban masses embraced this and took it as carte blanche to continue things like unmarried childbearing, lack of interest in education, and living off of the public dole (because they "deserved" it). So really, condescension by the middle and upper-middle class made the problem worse.

One stat I can throw at you right now, as an example -- African-Americans had something like a 20% illegitimacy rate in the 1920s (very close to the rest of the population), but this has now ballooned to 80%. Mere poverty didn't cause this -- obviously that community has more money now than then, during what was one of the worst periods for that ethnic group post-Civil War. There were other political factors, but clearly this community is not living up to the dream of Dr. King in the 1960s -- they let themselves down, and we did as well by letting them and even encouraging them.

The other thing to look at -- incentives, which are what drive most of us to do what we do. Until the mid-90s, the welfare system incentivized poor urban mothers to have children -- each additional child was a bonus to the check. We also didn't kick people off of the rolls until the 90s, regardless of whether they tried to find another job or not. So while we basically rewarded one group for spitting out children left and right, we did not similarly subsidize the middle class to do the same. So effectively we are creating an artificial environment where one set of genes, including the criminally-prone, chronically unemployed, and drug addicts, is able to out reproduce the actual tax-paying side. And look how fast it can happen -- I'm 34, and If I were a poor urban man, I might actually be a grandfather by now -- I'm barely a father as it is (just had a baby recently). Multiply that over a hundred years, and the numbers start working against us.

Clearly Maury is not strapped for fathers with multiple children by different mothers, or women who want to blame their baby on multiple men (sometimes as many as 20 at a time, on the early Maury shows of that type) -- it's a scary situation, and makes idiocracy not so unlikely. Meanwhile birthrates are falling in most first-world nations, except the U.S.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

03 Dec 2010, 5:59 am

Shadwell wrote:

There is some bad genetics out there no doubt, but poverty is a reason why people have a lot of kids the world over. It's like a survival tactic.


If your survival is threatened, the LAST thing you would do is choose to spend time and precious resources on a child,

let alone having MANY for that purpose, thereby lessening each one's chance of survival.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,774
Location: None

03 Dec 2010, 6:21 am

I don't see how having kids reduced poverty. It makes it worse. Yet another mouth that cant be fed.



Hector
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,869

03 Dec 2010, 7:37 am

How about the perception that though you are poor, having several children ensures that after they grow up, they will look after you in old age. One may underestimate the difficulties involved in raising children, but the perception is there even if it is on shaky grounds.



kruger4
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 264

03 Dec 2010, 12:29 pm

Honestly I don't believe in leagues anymore, leagues are something that is made up by teenagers. Most of my friends still believe in it but I don't. After seeing so many ugly men get hot women, it's obvious to me how everything works, after all, in life everything is possible.



billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

03 Dec 2010, 1:35 pm

kruger4 wrote:
Honestly I don't believe in leagues anymore, leagues are something that is made up by teenagers. Most of my friends still believe in it but I don't. After seeing so many ugly men get hot women, it's obvious to me how everything works, after all, in life everything is possible.


Remember that you are talking about one kind of league, that of looks. Teens gravitate towards lookism in their social tiering because as a teenager, you really don't have any assets. Your parents might, and you might have some good toys, but you don't have a real income, nor a real need to consider that.

Rest assured that as adults, we definitely make divisions according to class, education, earnings, and occupation. Some hybrid of these determines who we think is our social or romantic "equal" vs. other people. And yes, we all still do value looks to some extent -- it's just that this variable isn't necessarily the dominant one when making that decision.



Aspie1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,633
Location: United States

04 Dec 2010, 11:33 am

billsmithglendale wrote:
Remember that you are talking about one kind of league, that of looks. Teens gravitate towards lookism in their social tiering because as a teenager, you really don't have any assets. Your parents might, and you might have some good toys, but you don't have a real income, nor a real need to consider that.

I disagree. When you're a teenager, there is an asset that can make or break your chances in dating (except in New York and centers other major cities). That asset is a car. In my high school, having a car was a strict prerequisite to having a girlfriend. It wasn't written anywhere, but it was a given. If you didn't have a car (and you were a guy), dating was pretty much out of the question for you. On the plus side, it didn't matter if your car was a clunker you bought off a junkyard for $400, but you absolutely had to have a car. Sadly, I had no money at the time, and my family was too poor to buy even that (not that I expected it, but still), but it probably wouldn't make a difference, given my virtually nonexistent dating skills at the time.



billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

06 Dec 2010, 11:44 am

Aspie1 wrote:
billsmithglendale wrote:
Remember that you are talking about one kind of league, that of looks. Teens gravitate towards lookism in their social tiering because as a teenager, you really don't have any assets. Your parents might, and you might have some good toys, but you don't have a real income, nor a real need to consider that.

I disagree. When you're a teenager, there is an asset that can make or break your chances in dating (except in New York and centers other major cities). That asset is a car. In my high school, having a car was a strict prerequisite to having a girlfriend. It wasn't written anywhere, but it was a given. If you didn't have a car (and you were a guy), dating was pretty much out of the question for you. On the plus side, it didn't matter if your car was a clunker you bought off a junkyard for $400, but you absolutely had to have a car. Sadly, I had no money at the time, and my family was too poor to buy even that (not that I expected it, but still), but it probably wouldn't make a difference, given my virtually nonexistent dating skills at the time.


Yes, you are right -- a car is pretty key, and you are right, even at a snobby school (which I went to), even having a clunker is better than no car at all. I stand corrected on that, but I stand by the rest of my statement.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,715
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

19 Feb 2013, 5:57 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Josef_V2, you are cracking me up! i really love your take on things. hope we hear more from you.


Yeah, that robot was really cute, I wonder who built it.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,715
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

19 Feb 2013, 6:00 pm

Josef_V2 wrote:
ToadOfSteel wrote:
CrinklyCrustacean wrote:
ToadOfSteel wrote:
What if someone is ugly on the outside and the inside?

What do you define as "ugly on the inside"? I ask this because I think we have different ideas of what that phrase entails.


Bitter, psychopathic, monster, etc... basically think of me and you'll get it...



**Scanning**

Scan report:

Monstrous lifeforms: 0
Psychopathic signs: 0
Bitterness signs: 153589
Depression signs: 236987
Excessive Fat : 47.856%


I miss you, my toy.



DialAForAwesome
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,189
Location: That place with the thing

25 Feb 2013, 10:03 am

This thread was made 2 days after my dad died. :(

Anyway, you'll know how good looking you are just from how others treat you. If you're like me and your appearance gets laughed at or you get told you're ugly repeatedly, every day since you became old enough to walk, then you're either ugly or just unlucky. THAT is how you know.

It is generally a bad idea these days for guys (not so sure about girls) to try to date out of their looks range, or their league, because they'll just get slapped with all sorts of labels or, in some cases, even lawsuits. I wish I was kidding or exaggerating. Unfortunately, I've experienced every kind of rejection except for being threatened with lawsuits.


_________________
I don't trust anyone because I'm cynical.
I'm cynical because I don't trust anyone.