Taramere Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I thought I'd give people another opportunity to stop arguing and pay some attention to me. A variation on the earlier link, it's on topic, as a visual representation of pain, anger and GENDER WARFARE ON LOVESHACK Link to post Share on other sites
CommitmentPhobe Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 If you 'think' (term used loosely) that a rapidly diminishing pool of single men of the age that is statistically likely to marry a woman age 35 or above does not constitute a tough sell, well I probably can't help you. Most men over 35 who are not confirmed bachelors have already been married. Most women 35 or over who get married will be married by men older than they are. Thus, not many women over 35 will be married by single men. That is practically the definition of a tough sell. It's not me that needs help and I have never heard such garbage. I have never heard a male friend go on about the opposite sex like this. I have never seen anyone try and debunk a whole age bracket of women , backing it up with statistics and words such as "tough sell". I can't believe you even gone so far as to think about this in the first place. I have no idea what would drive you to do that. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Except that if one goes by your reasoning as outlined above, fewer 35 year old men will get married, too. Because, after all - "most people are married before age 35." Men are vastly more likely to marry a younger woman than vice versa and the difference in odds accelerates with age. Anyway, it's all goofiness, because the average age of first marriages is rising rapidly, as I'm sure you are already aware. Only if you consider a change of 2 years over 120+ years as 'rapid'. Do you? Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I have no idea what would drive you to do that. And we're back to toe-staring and muttering about motives. Nice one. Link to post Share on other sites
CommitmentPhobe Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 And we're back to toe-staring and muttering about motives. Nice one. Well you do have to wonder, I've noticed plenty of digs at women in their 30's from you, but I've never noticed you give out any dating advice. You also seem to be unable to empathise with the category of women you're hell bent on trying to create a complex for. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Well you do have to wonder, I've noticed plenty of digs at women in their 30's from you, but I've never noticed you give out any dating advice. Maybe you're not looking in the right places. You also seem to be unable to empathise with the category of women you're hell bent on trying to create a complex for. I'm just stating opinion and sharing some facts I've found. I'm not engaging in psyops here, but I'm also not going to conform to groupthink simply because of a desire to be accepted. Link to post Share on other sites
serial muse Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Men are vastly more likely to marry a younger woman than vice versa and the difference in odds accelerates with age. Only if you consider a change of 2 years over 120+ years as 'rapid'. Do you? Oh, with the making up numbers and misrepresenting trends by massaging the data to show what you want it to!! Presumably what you meant to say but somehow left out is that the average age of first marriages decreased by the middle of the last century and then increased again - for men. So, if we were to actually consider the average ages of both men and women, and to look at the actual trend over the past 50 years - yeah, I'd call it rather rapid. The average age of first marriages for both men and women has increased by about 5 years since 1960. And that's only up to 2005. Does that help? And isn't it great how the data show different things when you look at all of them, instead of just the choice bits that tell you what you want to hear? God. Just stop already and give it up. Now, as to your other point. I think the thing you're missing here is that you can offer your opinion all you want, but if you want to present a so-called logical argument and claim it's proof of your beliefs, then your argument ought to at least, you know, follow logic. That's all I'm saying. Link to post Share on other sites
CommitmentPhobe Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Maybe you're not looking in the right places. I'm just stating opinion and sharing some facts I've found. I'm not engaging in psyops here, but I'm also not going to conform to groupthink simply because of a desire to be accepted. This isn't about groupthink This is about you making post after post denigrating 30 year old + women. Of course you're not going to think carefully about the vibe you're putting out because you think any problem with the opposite sex can be cured by throwing some money at it. I'm fed up with dudes like you and the divides you cause by going on the offensive with your insecurities. Link to post Share on other sites
Sam Spade Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I admire honesty in people, but only if it's combined with introspection. Screaming out your anger and hatred without taking a look inside and figuring out whether the anger's really stemming from one of your own personal fears or issues (rather than being someone else's fault) isn't so much honest as uncontrolled, self indulgent - and, potentially, abusive to others. A man saying he thinks a woman loses her value as she gets older: If that's his opinion, it's his opinion. Books, the media, things she overhears from men as she's growing up - all of these will drum home to a woman that men tend to have the highest level of physical attraction to women in a certain age group. As a woman, how much you perceive that as a "you are losing your value" message depends on how much you accept that your value is defined by men. If you derive your sense of value from various sources (men's perceptions of you being just one of those) then it probably hurts less when a man tells you "sorry, you're past it." Of course it still hurts, and of course most of us prefer to be around men who have sufficient sensitivity to avoid constantly making statements that are hurtful in that way. Just as, I'm sure, most men don't want to be around women who make it clear that they value most highly those male assets that tend to decline with age. I think it probably is very true to say that many women perceive the messages others give them using a combination of instinct and emotion rather than, necessarily, logic. I think a lot of men do as well. When you hear or read a conversation between men about women, there are often all kinds of assumptions being made that seem to tell more of a story about the man's emotions: What kind of man he dreams of being...what kind of women would help him to feel (about himself) the way he wants to feel. What kind of woman would threaten his sense of self or his reputation in other men's eyes. For a woman who's very capable of applying logic, of course it would be irritating when a man who is driven by anger or aggression patronises her with a "women are illogical, emotional etc etc" comment. It's annoying when people claim superiority for themselves through stereotypes (eg about gender, nation, religion) when they personally seem to lack the stereotypical qualities they're lauding as "better". It's annoying because....well, shallow thinking and obtuseness is annoying. It obstructs interesting conversation and the learning process. Woggle, this isn't a woman thing. It's an human thing. Name me the man on this board who complains the loudest and most frequently about women. That's right....it's you. I'm not saying that as an attack, it's just an observation. You must know yourself that most of what you contribute on this board involves complaining about women. Rejecting pretty much all that is popularly perceived as "feminine". You're bound to encounter more than what might feel like (to you) your fair share of female negativity. Did you look at the "things women like about men" thread, or do you make a point of staying away from any thread like that? Taramere is the kind of girl that I'd marry even if she was 50 years older than me . More to the point, i think the source of the bitterness is the fundamental discrepancy in how partners are perceived by each gender. I can tell you for sure that guys have much less 'dealbreakers' than women. When they commit to a woman, it is not because she's beautiful, kind&sweet, and intellectually stimulating *all at once*. If she has physical atributes + one of the other qualities, she is generally a great catch. Women on the other hand insist on the "whole package", which is a statistical impossibility (unless all women are perfect ; well they are, but not in all the important practical ways ). Hence the bitterness over being blunt/honest - "Who do you think you are, girl?" vs. "How dare you not be perfect, man?!" is the kind of schism that results. "You're not super bright, but I love you anyway" is probably not going to go down well with a woman. While I personally would not care if my girlfriend told me this and gave me a hug after that. Since I cannot pretend to have an unbiased opinion, let me ask plainly - which view is more rational? Link to post Share on other sites
serial muse Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Taramere is the kind of girl that I'd marry even if she was 50 years older than me . More to the point, i think the source of the bitterness is the fundamental discrepancy in how partners are perceived by each gender. I can tell you for sure that guys have much less 'dealbreakers' than women. When they commit to a woman, it is not because she's beautiful, kind&sweet, and intellectually stimulating *all at once*. If she has physical atributes + one of the other qualities, she is generally a great catch. Women on the other hand insist on the "whole package", which is a statistical impossibility (unless all women are perfect ; well they are, but not in all the important practical ways ). Hence the bitterness over being blunt/honest - "Who do you think you are, girl?" vs. "How dare you not be perfect, man?!" is the kind of schism that results. "You're not super bright, but I love you anyway" is probably not going to go down well with a woman. While I personally would not care if my girlfriend told me this and gave me a hug after that. Since I cannot pretend to have an unbiased opinion, let me ask plainly - which view is more rational? It's not rational to put these thoughts in others' mouths and call it truth. No, you cannot say "for sure" that guys have fewer dealbreakers than women! Of course you can't say that. And you know, I've seen plenty of threads on these here boards where people say things like, women are less rigid when it comes to looks, etc. That's the stereotype, if we must go there - men are pickier about looks, women are pickier about personality or whatever. I think it's all bunk and not useful in any real way; some people want some stuff and some other people want some other stuff, some men are super-picky and some women are very laid-back, and vice versa. Why is it so hard for people to talk about this in an individual way?? Link to post Share on other sites
serial muse Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Well, as in just about every single one of Woggle's threads, THIS one has a "why do women...when men..." title. It is designed to TOTALLY pit men against women. That's what Woggle seems to enjoy. Yes, that's true. Sad, really. As though there were only two points of view in the world. Turning everything into men vs. women really robs those relationships of their richness and variety, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 So, if we were to actually .... look at the actual trend over the past 50 years .... And isn't it great how the data show different things when you look at all of them, instead of just the choice bits that tell you what you want to hear? So in your world throwing out over half of the data is 'looking at all of them'? Just wondering. Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 This is about you making post after post denigrating 30 year old + women. I'm not blackening anyone, I'm merely stating opinion and pointing out facts. Usually the facts follow when I'm asked to defend my opinions, which shouldn't even be needed but I try to oblige when I can. Link to post Share on other sites
The Collector Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I thought I'd give people another opportunity to stop arguing and pay some attention to me. A variation on the earlier link, it's on topic, as a visual representation of pain, anger and GENDER WARFARE ON LOVESHACK Oh dear, that is indeed Loveshack's gender wars, if not the entire history of humanity, distilled into five minutes. Link to post Share on other sites
CommitmentPhobe Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I'm not blackening anyone, I'm merely stating opinion and pointing out facts. Usually the facts follow when I'm asked to defend my opinions, which shouldn't even be needed but I try to oblige when I can. "Facts" Alright then, have it your way . Link to post Share on other sites
Sam Spade Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Sam, I think you should read through Woggle's threads before you try to understand why us women get sick and tired of his woman bashing. It goes WAAAAYYYYY beyond just getting something off your chest. Maybe, but Woogle is my uncle (in a parallel universe where Carhill is my dad), so he can do no wrong . You never go against the family, no matter what! Link to post Share on other sites
Jersey Shortie Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Woogle, exactly what "bile" are women "spewing" here about men that you find offensive? Cause I got to tell you that I have seen a few posts here and there that aren't so nice towards men but the overwhelming majority seems to be geared to women. But I am open minded enough to know that I am probably biased, as YOU probably are as well. It's not a question of women getting mad at "honesty". It's the obvious disrespectful remarks that are attempted to be passed off as "truth" that are nothing more then that person's comments colored by their negatives views and experiences with the opposite sex. And Woogle, considering the comments you make about women, I find your openning post quite ironic. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Woggle Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 It is not my intention to make women mad but I do not bite my tongue. I admit that my threads have a men vs women element but I just don't see how you can talk about modern day relationships without it being men vs women. We have vastly different experiences in the dating world and men and women barely like each other anymore these days. If there were no sexual attraction we would probably be segregated by now. The genders are already divided and I just take my side instead of waving the white flag like most men do. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It is not my intention to make women mad but I do not bite my tongue. I admit that my threads have a men vs women element but I just don't see how you can talk about modern day relationships without it being men vs women. We have vastly different experiences in the dating world and men and women barely like each other anymore these days. If there were no sexual attraction we would probably be segregated by now. The genders are already divided and I just take my side instead of waving the white flag like most men do. Speak for yourself. I love my fiancé and also like, respect and trust him. I only date men I like. I would not cook for you. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The genders are already divided and I just take my side instead of waving the white flag like most men do. dude, i already tried that and she took the white flag away and turned it into a dish rag. Link to post Share on other sites
bean1 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Men who bash the female gender are just plain insecure. Just like women who bash the male gender are insecure as well. They attack them because they don't have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up for themselves. Anyways, I appreciate men who speak honestly. I love the classic, "Do I look fat?" I asked my BF if I was getting out of shape, he said "yeah, you're getting kinda soft" even though I weighed the same. Sure enough I hadn't hit the weights in a good 4-6 months (!) so I went back to weight training. He was right, I lost my muscle mass. OK... I'm certainly not fat (118 @ 5'5) but I like to take care of myself. Women should appreciate an honest man. Link to post Share on other sites
Sara Sissi Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It's all a matter of sensitivity to the circumstances. Honesty can be good on some occasions, but men (and women) sometimes do not seem to appreciate when a comment is appropriate and when it isn't. The easiest way is to take note of the person's reactions to specific comments: if they do not like it, there is no point in doing it over again because it's only hurtful. Or else, the content of the comment may be ok, but the manner in which it was expressed no. So: think before you speak! (Although, said this, i know perfectly well how it feels to be the other side, as I am very straightfoward and if I have been hurt by someone end up telling him things I should have just kept to myself!) Link to post Share on other sites
clv0116 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Women should appreciate an honest man. "What else does the box say Steve?" "It says you need to hit the treadmill honey." I doubt Cheerios will be buying that ad soon. Link to post Share on other sites
bean1 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 "What else does the box say Steve?" "It says you need to hit the treadmill honey." I doubt Cheerios will be buying that ad soon. Probably not, but the giddy old ladies at the nursing home all have one thing in common: they weren't so uptight and took things in stride. A lot of women are pretty darn uptight about things like that and their life would be a lot easier if they weren't! At least, I found that this attitude keeps my relationship strong and happy. Link to post Share on other sites
serial muse Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 So in your world throwing out over half of the data is 'looking at all of them'? Just wondering. In my world, clv, understanding trends is not just about memorizing two points on a graph and then ignoring what goes on between them. It's called the wonderful world of science. You know, I was sitting here thinking to myself, what is he even arguing about?? I'm not sure if you're just arguing to argue, but on the off-chance you're interested in getting to truth, then I stand by my original statement. Those 1890 numbers that you're in love with are meaningless without context. As it happens, that number represents a brief peak, but since the U.S. census doesn't have data previous to that, you wouldn't know that unless you'd actually gone back to do some real research. Starting our little trend at 1890 is actually pretty arbitrary, too - don't you think it's a bit unscientific to simply assume - given that there's a big old dip in the numbers in the mid-20th - that one could possibly place a line across two endpoints, make a guess about what it all means, and call it a day? Christ. Seriously, what are you even bothering to argue about this for?? We could go into context and historical marriage ages if you like...in medieval times, nobility were often married quite young (as business deals) but commoners married at quite old ages - in their mid-20s, in fact. And at a time when they didn't have nearly as much hope of surviving childbirth! Just imagine. But all that crap is irrelevant, because what we're interested in here is whether or not people are going to be willing to marry at later ages in the upcoming and foreseeable future, or whether it will always be "stigmatized" in the way YOU stigmatize it. In other words, we're interested in this latest trend that you're trying to devalue. That's exactly the trend that matters. And here it is, in case you missed it - in the last 50 or so years - perhaps one could say, during the latest evolution in gender roles in the U.S. of A. - the average age of marriage has risen pretty rapidly. Yes, rapidly. In fact, I went back to get more recent numbers, and found that the average age of marriage has increased by about 6 years, since the 2007 numbers are 28 (men) and 26 (women). Does that mean that it'll be 35 next year? Of course not. But it does mean, as I said, that the age is changing pretty rapidly. Does that mean that your personal age issues are becoming a bit, er...out of date, and that maybe you shouldn't feel quite so confident in telling other people what to think and claiming your beliefs as fact? YES. Just deal with it already. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts