Lets actually pick apart what the problem is with the dating market

[mem11363]

SS,

This makes total sense to me. Would far prefer high EQ, above average IQ, kind, loving, fun person over average to low EQ, high IQ person.

 

Perhaps other women who are peers are not so much "hung up on it" as they are giving off the same vibe you do with the need to have some show of gratitude for the concession you've made by dating someone who is not technically your peer. The both of you vying for first chair in the relationship rather than being able to share it? You and those women are expecting the same genuflections from each other and come up without. It can feel like you don't "click" or mesh well.

Some people are okay with being expected to show appreciation for the technical difference you mention; does your GF come from an area or family dynamic that viewed her as a second class persona to others? I did some freelance design work for a catering company one of my friends owns. I agreed to help with the food prep one day when she was short staffed and brought a girl I was mentoring along to she if she could be hired on. The girl was from Myanmar and was a refugee. She was quite taken aback that I would agree to do the same work she was hoping to get hired on to do daily. She, without angst, stated that the work was unbecoming of me but fine for her. She was worried for my pride and honor........ Maybe your GF is comfortable with being "lower" and is just grateful that you accept her. And maybe YOU need that in a relationship?[/QUOTE]

 

 

Well, maybe, and maybe that's precisely a precondition for having a good relationship rather than a bad thing as necessarily implied above . Of course i need "gratitude" in a relationship (which is no different from me being grateful for having a good woman like her). I find it exceedingly cute when my gf playfully and pridefully proclaims - "My professor!". The status difference greatly facilitates clear gender roles. I'm not opposed to dating a highly accomplished woman (my ex is doing a PhD in rocket science - literally (aerospace engineering)), but level of accomplishment actually means very little for the quality of the relationship (except very little patience, and high demands): she had much lower level of emotional intelligence and health than my current gf. I'm not saying there is correlation between accomplishment and emotional health, but that the latter matters more than the former. So, of course I need a woman who is patient and understanding rather than one who gives me the attitude as soon as there is any little problem. You tell me who is likely to have the patience - the alpha- laywer/manager type (who also probably secretly resents me for not making more money than her, but won't admit it), or the cute girl with strong family values and an okay day job (who also probably appreciates the decent salary, security and flexible schedule)?

 

Also, what distinguishes my gf from any other girl I've dated or encountered is that she's quite open or unapologetic about the things that matter to her - she wouldn't date someone who isn't handsome, ans she wouldn't date someone with a low-class job. Initially I'd get put off by that, but I'm changing my mind to actually consider it pretty healthy, since she isn't any less caring for that. I can also see some ways in which it could be unhealthy, but even so it is much healthier than a fierce mess with unresolved emotional issues. Big part of a relationship is taking care of each other in different ways, and what the super-busy exceedingly accomplished woman can offer is not necessarily for me.

 

 

Finally, it's not like she's some destitute third world mail order bride:rolleyes: - yes, she's Asian and traditional, but she has grown up here & her family is respectfully rich (and speaking of role models - her mom is extremely independent business owner), and she's getting a professional mater's degree and will be making her own money, but the point is that apparently there is enough status differential she feels comfortable with. (My job is well paid, but won't make anybody rich, but it's secure, considered prestigious in the community and blah, blah, blah . But, of course I'd prefer to be with someone in whose eyes this is a big deal, rather than someone who will be somewhat dissatisfied with the level of success it brings.)

 

Here's a trivia fact: I've been rejected by a greater proportion of women on my socio-economic level than "below". If it was *just* about my personality, the rate of rejection would have been constant across socio-economic lines...

[Woggle]

In women's mind it's even worse - a guy's expectation to be appreciated in a relationship is an offence commensurate with rape, and basically just another proof of male dominance, insesitivity, and general uselessness .

 

Yup. We are supposed to take their crap and like it and if we don't we have an insecure male ego that is threatened by a strong woman.

[sally4sara]

SS,

This makes total sense to me. Would far prefer high EQ, above average IQ, kind, loving, fun person over average to low EQ, high IQ person.

 

And it is what I'm trying to get to here. Sadly, it couldn't possibly be what I'm talking about - I'm a woman and can only be trying to paint a guy in a poor light rather than talking about real compatibility. No real surprise when the thread is riddled with men talking about how their problems in the dating world are caused by women.

Sorry - not your doing mem. I'm just smarting over such an obvious indication that it might not be about compatibility for Sam but really is what he thinks I'm trying to imply - he needs to not just be treated sweet, but worshiped. I was giving him polite regard, but he isn't receptive to it since it isn't unearned adoration........I gotta be tearing him down right?

 

No one is too smart or too stupid to have a good relationship. They just can't have a good relationship with everyone.

No one is too rich or poor to have a good relationship. They just can't have a good relationship with everyone.

And the people they can't have a good relationship with are not malfunctioning or incapable of having good relationships for themselves.

We just have to meet the right person.

[gypsy_nicky]

Yeah, whatever, and you're totally picking a fight here.

In terms of educational and professional "status", I have a doctorate, and that automatically puts 97% of the population (male or female) "beneath" me, and that's not an "attitude", that's a statement of fact - look it up in the census data.

However, unlike most women, I'm not hung up on that, and I'm perfectly happy dating a woman of lower educ/professional status, as long as she's a lovable, loving, great, sweet person that treats me well. And my gf is all that, and then some . So, what I think of a person is conditional primarily on their personal quality, than on status variables.

 

As for "similar" status women - well, on average, they're not nearly as appreciative of what i represent, hence my conclusion that they're more pain than they are worth.

 

this.

 

Sally4sara, samspade was describing the most obvious part of his relationship that actually contributed to make the dynamics of his relationship work (the woman is in a lower economic position).

 

Reading his other posts it seems to justify everything the article I posted- outlining the common malaise plaguing the successful career woman today 'wanting more and having more from men' which is impossible if your in the top rungs on the economic ladder.

[tami-chan]

this.

 

Sally4sara, samspade was describing the most obvious part of his relationship that actually contributed to make the dynamics of his relationship work (the woman is in a lower economic position).

 

I think you misread. SamSpade's gf is not of "lower economic position". She is of lower educational position-being that she is still in graduate school, trying to finish up her Masters and SamSpade already has his PhD. Consequently, he earns more than her. Per him, she comes from a well-off family.

[gypsy_nicky]

I think you misread. SamSpade's gf is not of "lower economic position". She is of lower educational position-being that she is still in graduate school, trying to finish up her Masters and SamSpade already has his PhD. Consequently, he earns more than her. Per him, she comes from a well-off family.

 

she is in a lower socio economic position.

 

Her family doesn't count in their relationship.

[sally4sara]

this.

 

Sally4sara, samspade was describing the most obvious part of his relationship that actually contributed to make the dynamics of his relationship work (the woman is in a lower economic position).

 

Reading his other posts it seems to justify everything the article I posted- outlining the common malaise plaguing the successful career woman today 'wanting more and having more from a men' which is impossible if your in the top rungs on the economic ladder.

 

It is a possible situation some people might face. I have met people who have been raised with everything money could buy and they are insatiable; always wanting more stuff and never happy even when they get it.

I've never noticed it only being the daughters the rich folks in my area have raised though. It is their son's too. And many studies have shown that testosterone does lend to status seeking behavior, so I would think more men would feel an urge to be looked up to rather than more women needing someone to look up to. It would be an assumption to think that while more testosterone causes status seeking, not getting that extra dose would create the opposite effect. I would think it would just make people with lower testosterone, less status seeking.

Perhaps when women seem to desire a higher status male it is because men seek to be of higher status and the gender roles were constructed to cater to their desires and flatter them for it.

But I don't think a highly educated woman with career success would be naturally incapable of being satisfied with a male who is a peer instead of one holding an increase over her. Now if she were monetarily over indulged - that could make her harder to satisfy as I've seen that to be true for everyone, male and female alike.

I think relationship success has much more to do with individual compatibilities than it does a woman being of a lower economic background than the man. Perhaps in the past, some marriages stayed together where they would otherwise have not through the woman being financially dependent on the man, but that doesn't mean that is a recipe for real compatibility. That is just prostitution "till death do you part".

[tami-chan]

she is in a lower socio economic position.

 

Her family doesn't count in their relationship.

 

Well, yes, technically. But family background counts. That is her "socio" part. Somebody who is a stripper might be economically better off than a teacher because of the amount of money they earn from tips or what not, but does that make her more socio-economically well off than the teacher? No. Socio-economics is very broad and encompasses several areas in a person's life.

 

However, I do understand what you are trying to say.

[Pizzaman81]

Well, yes, technically. But family background counts. That is her "socio" part. Somebody who is a stripper might be economically better off than a teacher because of the amount of money they earn from tips or what not, but does that make her more socio-economically well off than the teacher? No. Socio-economics is very broad and encompasses several areas in a person's life.

 

However, I do understand what you are trying to say.

 

I'm adding to what Tami-chan is saying. It's all about what type of family background and how an individual is brought up.

 

Shouldn't see your potential mate's family as secondary in your choice. Remember the person for most of his/her life is raised by their parents and influence by family background.

 

If the family never punishes for stealing or whatever (these are just examples) how would you expect your mate to react to stealing? Or worse yet, do you think your mate would look down if your kids steal?

 

It all matters... we just think it's only the two of us, but the world is more complicated than that.

[gypsy_nicky]

No. Socio-economics is very broad and encompasses several areas in a person's life.

 

However, I do understand what you are trying to say.

 

yes if the stripper in question was raised in a higher socio background.

[gypsy_nicky]

I'm adding to what Tami-chan is saying. It's all about what type of family background and how an individual is brought up.

 

Shouldn't see your potential mate's family as secondary in your choice. Remember the person for most of his/her life is raised by their parents and influence by family background.

 

If the family never punishes for stealing or whatever (these are just examples) how would you expect your mate to react to stealing? Or worse yet, do you think your mate would look down if your kids steal?

 

It all matters... we just think it's only the two of us, but the world is more complicated than that.

 

now your trailing off and talking about the persons personality and disposition stemming from background. Were not talking about that.

 

These won't matter much to women if the person in question was higher up in the socio economic ladder. Being poor while young does not mean being poor the rest of your life and its also the same with saying that if you were born poor then your socialized into being poor. This social conditioning can be transcended if you are 'buying your way' up into another social class.

[mem11363]

You present your views in a mature, clear and nuanced manner. You are an example of high EQ AND high IQ - the best combo.

 

I think your message below is spot on.

 

SS,

This makes total sense to me. Would far prefer high EQ, above average IQ, kind, loving, fun person over average to low EQ, high IQ person.

 

And it is what I'm trying to get to here. Sadly, it couldn't possibly be what I'm talking about - I'm a woman and can only be trying to paint a guy in a poor light rather than talking about real compatibility. No real surprise when the thread is riddled with men talking about how their problems in the dating world are caused by women.

Sorry - not your doing mem. I'm just smarting over such an obvious indication that it might not be about compatibility for Sam but really is what he thinks I'm trying to imply - he needs to not just be treated sweet, but worshiped. I was giving him polite regard, but he isn't receptive to it since it isn't unearned adoration........I gotta be tearing him down right?

 

No one is too smart or too stupid to have a good relationship. They just can't have a good relationship with everyone.

No one is too rich or poor to have a good relationship. They just can't have a good relationship with everyone.

And the people they can't have a good relationship with are not malfunctioning or incapable of having good relationships for themselves.

We just have to meet the right person.

[Sam Spade]

 

Thanks for clearing up your needs and her comfort levels and how they work together for your relationship. I am not implying either of those qualities or their interactions to be a bad thing. It is what it is and if it is bad - its not like it is bad for me or you or her if she truly is happy being thought of the way you think of her.

It was to illustrate that your needs and how they might not have been met prior to this girl you now date, was not a "problem in the dating market" but a problem for you.

We all have needs. When they are met it isn't because we found one that behaves "right", it is that we found one we are compatible with. When we have not met one that is compatible with us - we are not meeting people who are "wrong", we are meeting people who are wrong for us.

 

 

Yep, well what I describe is precisely one of the "problems" in the dating market discussed in the thread, depending how you look at it. The difference is that for me it's not that much of a 'problem' since I've accepted it as the way things are and I'm much happier for it:). It is much easier to negotiate succesful relationship and fulfill each other's needs when telling it like it is vs. rationalising . I don't consider myself to be particularly cynical, but I'm no fan of political correctness either.

[Sam Spade]

SS,

This makes total sense to me. Would far prefer high EQ, above average IQ, kind, loving, fun person over average to low EQ, high IQ person.

 

And it is what I'm trying to get to here. Sadly, it couldn't possibly be what I'm talking about - I'm a woman and can only be trying to paint a guy in a poor light rather than talking about real compatibility. No real surprise when the thread is riddled with men talking about how their problems in the dating world are caused by women.

Sorry - not your doing mem. I'm just smarting over such an obvious indication that it might not be about compatibility for Sam but really is what he thinks I'm trying to imply - he needs to not just be treated sweet, but worshiped. I was giving him polite regard, but he isn't receptive to it since it isn't unearned adoration........I gotta be tearing him down right?

 

No one is too smart or too stupid to have a good relationship. They just can't have a good relationship with everyone.

No one is too rich or poor to have a good relationship. They just can't have a good relationship with everyone.

And the people they can't have a good relationship with are not malfunctioning or incapable of having good relationships for themselves.

We just have to meet the right person.

 

 

That's a nice digression, but not mem's point at all, which I believe as well: all else equal, emotional intelligence is more important than a high IQ. A high IQ is great, of course, but it's of lower importance, so it's a bonus rather than a prerequisite.

Think of it as two intersecting but non-overlapping sets. Of course the area of intersection is smaller than either of the sets. Related, of course you have a higher probability of picking up an observation from either of the sets than their intersection. And this is indeed the most fundamental difference in how men and women approach dating. Men will prioritize the qualities that are important to them, and as long as their minimum criteria are met, they will stop looking. In other words, I, like many men, am perfectly happy with a sweet, emotionally intelligent woman, even if she's not incredibly intelligent. Of course, I will be extremely happy if she turns out to also be very intelligent, but if she isn't I won't love her any less because of that, and more importantly - I am certainly not going to pass her over to continue my search for a woman who is BOTH sweet/emotionally intelligent AND has a high IQ.

 

Women, on the other hand, will shoot strait for the intersection of traits (thereby minimizing their chances), and in the process will pass over multiple perfectly fine men just because they may fall short in one or several of the areas on the checklist.

[tami-chan]

I'm adding to what Tami-chan is saying. It's all about what type of family background and how an individual is brought up.

 

Shouldn't see your potential mate's family as secondary in your choice. Remember the person for most of his/her life is raised by their parents and influence by family background.

 

If the family never punishes for stealing or whatever (these are just examples) how would you expect your mate to react to stealing? Or worse yet, do you think your mate would look down if your kids steal?

 

It all matters... we just think it's only the two of us, but the world is more complicated than that.

 

I absolutely agree. But I think that is one of the glaring differences in how many Western and non-western (specifically, Asians) choose partners. Many Westerners have the same attitude as gypsy_nicky-"family does not count". For most Asians, family absolutely counts. If there is someone in your family who is in jail or been to jail...that's already a big no....or someone who has been in the sex business., etc.etc...yes, it's not a fair set-up and attitudes are changing....

 

I remember I was once invited to a Filipino party in Germany and in the party I noticed that many of the Filipino women married to Germans have Filipino kids. I was told that in the Philippines when a woman has a child out of wedlock and ends up not marrying the father of the child-her chances of getting a "good" husband diminishes significantly and so these women marry foreigners-usually western Caucasian men. It is believed that western men are more understanding and tolerant about these things. The same thing with bar girls/strippers/sex workers. Most Asian men from good families will not marry these women even if they stop doing what they were doing and have made good in their lives. Like I said, it is not fair....

[Sam Spade]

It is a possible situation some people might face. I have met people who have been raised with everything money could buy and they are insatiable; always wanting more stuff and never happy even when they get it.

I've never noticed it only being the daughters the rich folks in my area have raised though. It is their son's too. And many studies have shown that testosterone does lend to status seeking behavior, so I would think more men would feel an urge to be looked up to rather than more women needing someone to look up to. It would be an assumption to think that while more testosterone causes status seeking, not getting that extra dose would create the opposite effect. I would think it would just make people with lower testosterone, less status seeking.

Perhaps when women seem to desire a higher status male it is because men seek to be of higher status and the gender roles were constructed to cater to their desires and flatter them for it.

But I don't think a highly educated woman with career success would be naturally incapable of being satisfied with a male who is a peer instead of one holding an increase over her. Now if she were monetarily over indulged - that could make her harder to satisfy as I've seen that to be true for everyone, male and female alike.

I think relationship success has much more to do with individual compatibilities than it does a woman being of a lower economic background than the man. Perhaps in the past, some marriages stayed together where they would otherwise have not through the woman being financially dependent on the man, but that doesn't mean that is a recipe for real compatibility. That is just prostitution "till death do you part".

 

 

 

Family background matters, though I'm not sure how much exactly. My family is screwed up, and my gf's is not exactly happy (2 divorces in hers).

 

Related, the effect of a well off background can go either way: my gf's family is well off, but it is entirely due to her mother starting a business from scratch and making it on her own. So although they are well-off now, she's very frugal (I hope this sticks in the long run).

 

Re: testosterone --> i actually came across a study (long time ago, can't find the reference), that compared the testosterone levels of men in different professions; lawyers, bankers, and academics were in the top 5.

 

 

In any case, socio-economic position matters insofar people self-select into different professions. I think it is pretty safe to assume that a woman who is a CEO is probably a bit less nurturing than one that has decided to be am elementary school teacher or some other profession like that.

(Conversely, people who self-select themselves into say, academia, like to hear themeslves talk and to have others listen to them .)

 

At the end of the day personal compatibilities matter the most, but all else equal, the details discussed in this thread are not inconsequential.

 

Indeed, this is precisely the reason for the ongoing frustration with the dating market: anybody who dates is necessarily exposed to a broad cross-section of society, and whether we like it or no, some patterns do exist...

[Sam Spade]

Well, yes, technically. But family background counts. That is her "socio" part. Somebody who is a stripper might be economically better off than a teacher because of the amount of money they earn from tips or what not, but does that make her more socio-economically well off than the teacher? No. Socio-economics is very broad and encompasses several areas in a person's life.

 

However, I do understand what you are trying to say.

 

Well said, it definitely encompasses more than the cash on hand; Her mom has money, but they are not an "old money" family. She achieved some level of comfort and security, but much like many other small business owners it is an insecure and very exhausting position, in spite of the comfort. Actually I read somewhere that even succesful small business ownere encourage their kids to enter the prestigious professions rather than keep struggling with the business...

 

In the past the term nuveau-riche was mostly derogatory because it refered to people with self-made wealth who have the money but were not integrated in all the aristocratic traditions and connections that actually ruled the day...

[Woggle]

I don't think that successful women are impossible to please. I was married to a woman who is going nowhere in life unless she makes some serious changes and she was never happy about anything. My wife makes good money and for the first time ever in a relationship I actually feel appreciated. I think no matter what a woman's background is it all boils down to her attitude.

[gypsy_nicky]

I absolutely agree. But I think that is one of the glaring differences in how many Western and non-western (specifically, Asians) choose partners. Many Westerners have the same attitude as gypsy_nicky-"family does not count". For most Asians, family absolutely counts. If there is someone in your family who is in jail or been to jail...that's already a big no....or someone who has been in the sex business., etc.etc...yes, it's not a fair set-up and attitudes are changing....

 

I remember I was once invited to a Filipino party in Germany and in the party I noticed that many of the Filipino women married to Germans have Filipino kids. I was told that in the Philippines when a woman has a child out of wedlock and ends up not marrying the father of the child-her chances of getting a "good" husband diminishes significantly and so these women marry foreigners-usually western Caucasian men. It is believed that western men are more understanding and tolerant about these things. The same thing with bar girls/strippers/sex workers. Most Asian men from good families will not marry these women even if they stop doing what they were doing and have made good in their lives. Like I said, it is not fair....

 

no again to your first paragraph. Your describing the parental forces bestowed on the asian kids, hence its not really the kids making the decision but from parental pressure. This also happens in many cultures.

 

not true. Although the Philippines is considered a conservative 'backward' culture they share many similarities with American culture in terms of dating.

[tami-chan]

no again to your first paragraph. Your describing the parental forces bestowed on the asian kids, hence its not really the kids making the decision but from parental pressure. This also happens in many cultures.

 

are you Asian? I am Asian have lived in Japan and the Philippines(even lived in the Islamic part)...and have lots of Asian relatives and friends. I think it is safe to say I know the culture well...

 

not true. Although the Philippines is considered a conservative 'backward' culture they share many similarities with American culture in terms of dating.

LOL ..."backward", considered by whom? You are going to tell me it is not true on what basis? have you lived in the Philippines? How many Filipinos do you know? Sure, the Philippines share a lot of Western practices....but it is also largely a very Catholic country....there is no divorce, abortion is definitely illegal and child support for kids born out of wedlock? let's not even go there...

 

I am, of course generalizing..

Edited December 21, 2009 by tami-chan

[tami-chan]

gypsy_nicky: Here is an article(from the Philippine newspaper "Malaya") about a provision that was being introduced in the Philippines early this year (this YEAR!!!! not 50 years ago)...you tell me if in the Philippines they have a more liberal (or western) attitude toward women who have children out of wedlock:

 

"Attempt to ‘stigmatize’ single parents in women’s empowerment bill deplored"

 

BY WENDELL VIGILIA

ONE of the principal authors of the proposed Magna Carta for Women yesterday assailed some colleagues for trying to insert a provision in the measure allowing schools to expel or deny admission to faculty members and students who got pregnant outside marriage.

 

Rep. Janette Garin (Lakas, Iloilo) said her fellow Lakas Representatives Eduardo Zialcita (Parañaque) and Raul del Mar (Lakas, Cebu), the deputy speaker for the Visayas, were strongly pushing for the provision. This, she said, caused the non-passage of the measure before Congress went on a month-long Lenten break last week at the height of celebrations of women’s month.

 

"That provision will be detrimental to the advocacies we have long fought for. First, it will worsen the stigma and public ridicule on the single parents. Being a single parent alone is hard enough as it is. Let us not aggravate it by giving them that fear of losing their jobs or being kicked out of the school because they decided to continue their pregnancy," she said.

[gypsy_nicky]

are you Asian? I am Asian have lived in Japan and the Philippines(even lived in the Islamic part)...and have lots of Asian relatives and friends. I think it is safe to say I know the culture well...

 

LOL ..."backward", considered by whom? You are going to tell me it is not true on what basis? have you lived in the Philippines? How many Filipinos do you know? Sure, the Philippines share a lot of Western practices....but it is also largely a very Catholic country....there is no divorce, abortion is definitely illegal and child support for kids born out of wedlock? let's not even go there...

 

I am, of course generalizing..

 

of course your generalizing. Yes I have lived in that country. And in others as well. Does not mean if there's none of those things happening overtly they're not happening.

[gypsy_nicky]

gypsy_nicky: Here is an article(from the Philippine newspaper "Malaya") about a provision that was being introduced in the Philippines early this year (this YEAR!!!! not 50 years ago)...you tell me if in the Philippines they have a more liberal (or western) attitude toward women who have children out of wedlock:

 

"Attempt to ‘stigmatize’ single parents in women’s empowerment bill deplored"

 

BY WENDELL VIGILIA

ONE of the principal authors of the proposed Magna Carta for Women yesterday assailed some colleagues for trying to insert a provision in the measure allowing schools to expel or deny admission to faculty members and students who got pregnant outside marriage.

 

Rep. Janette Garin (Lakas, Iloilo) said her fellow Lakas Representatives Eduardo Zialcita (Parañaque) and Raul del Mar (Lakas, Cebu), the deputy speaker for the Visayas, were strongly pushing for the provision. This, she said, caused the non-passage of the measure before Congress went on a month-long Lenten break last week at the height of celebrations of women’s month.

 

"That provision will be detrimental to the advocacies we have long fought for. First, it will worsen the stigma and public ridicule on the single parents. Being a single parent alone is hard enough as it is. Let us not aggravate it by giving them that fear of losing their jobs or being kicked out of the school because they decided to continue their pregnancy," she said.

 

the word here is "attempt"

[tami-chan]

the word here is "attempt"

 

Context ...Attempt to stigmatize "LEGALLY"...the lawmakers were trying to pass a provision in a law.

 

check this statement out: "...First it will WORSEN the STIGMA..." what does that tell you? that it is already bad...or worse....

[gypsy_nicky]

Context ...Attempt to stigmatize "LEGALLY"...the lawmakers were trying to pass a provision in a law.

 

check this statement out: "...First it will WORSEN the STIGMA..." what does that tell you? that it is already bad...or worse....

 

Can you leave out the sarcastic smilies. If you want to win an arguement by riling people up emotionally do it somewhere else.

 

Don't try to reverse the mistake you made and put it on me. If anything its you that made the mistake of taking the context wrongly. The lawmakers were trying and yet your posts imply that they already succeeded.

 

Don't need to check 'this statement out'. Doesn't mean anything. Your getting evidence from one newspaper article and lumping the whole population into it.