What traits/characteristics are "reasonable" to expect from a spouse?

[mak1277]

I was looking at it more like "What does society think are reasonable expectations to have in a relationship?" Society would tend to call someone who married a billionaire because of his money a "gold digger," for example, or that a guy who insists on only dating women with DDs  a "pig." On the other hand, it's relatively normal to let these sorts of factors influence dating decisions, as opposed to being set rules.

"Socially Acceptable Statements":
I am attracted to intelligence
I like large breasts
I like tall men

"Socially Unacceptable Statements":
I only date people who are smarter than me
I only date women who are DDs 
I only date men who are 6'2" or taller

So one of the main points of this entire blog is to challenge the norms about consumer culture.  Why are we (the royal we) so quick and happy to challenge those norms, but we don't accept someone who challenges other norms?  Who cares what is "socially acceptable", as long as you're not hurting anyone by taking a position?  I see nothing at all wrong with any of the three "socially unacceptable statements" you listed. 

[Cottonswab]

Caveat emptor to anyone that marries someone with more than a 15 point difference in IQ.

When growing up, my family had a very broad distribution of IQ (70 to 140).  My parents likely had at least a 20 point IQ difference.  It was really amazing / awful to see, first hand, how big differences in IQ have big effects on  relationships. 

[golden1]

My only issue with having conditionals on a relationship or a marriage, is that people and circumstances don't remain static. 

Now when you are talking raw intelligence, that is going to remain pretty static unless there is a traumatic brain injury or rapid decline due to a neurological illness, rare, but it does happen.  Would it be acceptable to divorce if your husband became mentally disabled or suffered dementia? 

Ambition and drive can and will change over the course of a lifetime for many people as their goals and priorities change.  A death in the family, a major experience can change what a person values. 

I guess I see value in seeing marriage more as a journey than a destination.  Lots of characteristics of people change over time and good marriages are resilient to that because respect and love underlie all of the surface stuff.  The man I married almost 20 years ago is not the same man that he is today (Thank God).  Marriages based on mostly practical considerations are fine, but I feel they are limited.  It is okay to use looks, intelligence, earning power as sorting criteria, but just realize that there has to be more than that for a marriage to survive the long haul.  What happens to your roles when the kids are grown and gone?  What happens to your life when your husband who has been gone 80 hours a week is suddenly retired and home all day long? 

This discussion reminds me a bit of Pride and Prejudice - when Elizabeth Bennet's friend Charlotte marries Mr. Collins.

[LalsConstant]

1. Character is paramount.  Would you trust this person intimately and completely?  Anything else, you can generally work with to a large degree.

2. I will take up for the unpopular opinion here.  I don't think that "Captain and First Officer" remark is off at all.  That's very much how my parents did it.

I think what people miss in that is that on a ship, the First Officer is not simply another interchangeable subordinate, this is someone of great skill and experience.  The Captain may have the higher authority, but the dependence on the First Officer is very high.

In fact the First Officer is the one who actually runs the ship as far as the seamanship goes.  So why do they bother to have a Captain at all then?

The purpose of having a Captain is so that when there's a battle or a crisis or an impasse, there's clearly one person who is in charge.  A vessel on the high seas without firm leadership is doomed under any number of circumstances.  The First Officer accepts that although the Captain will not always be correct, the value of this clarity more than offsets any mistakes a Captain will make because the alternative is not workable.  You cannot manage by committee in a high stakes situation.  Even if five people on the vessel are all competent to command during a battle, that would be chaos if they all assumed the role of commander.

If differing gender utility is perceived, and I for one would argue such a perception is reasonable even if it is varied between individuals, at least somewhat culturally relative, and otherwise imprecise, it is reasonable there would be gender-differentiated expectations.

Personally I think good husbands are called to be leaders and that asserting that leadership is only a good and positive thing.  It's fine to disagree with the "Captain and First Officer" model but just because someone looks at a marriage that way doesn't mean they're some horrible person.  If it really bothers you, consider instead that at least someone who agrees with this model is asserting a positive self concept, and sees some positive personal value in themselves in one of those roles and is likely to seek a spouse who will value taking the other role.  How is that in any way a problem?

[golden1]

Really?  A marriage should be run like a ship or a military organization?  I agree that is a good model for crisis situations where decisions have to be made in a hurry and followed through on, but it is no good model at all for a long term relationship. 

If it really bothers you, consider instead that at least someone who agrees with this model is asserting a positive self concept, and sees some positive personal value in themselves in one of those roles and is likely to seek a spouse who will value taking the other role.  How is that in any way a problem?

It is a problem because it gives too much power to one person in what is supposed to be a relationship of equals.  It also defines marriage as a functional relationship of duties and responsibilities when a marriage should be about so much more than that.  Love, support, trust, friendship, honesty, growth...there is no place for that in an authoritarian relationship.  People aren't "roles" and "self concepts"in my view.  The personal growth of the other individual is limited if you cement the "leader" "follower" roles at the beginning of the relationship.  There is also a huge potential for abuse if one spouse is submissive to the other. 

I get that it can be comfortable to have that type of relationship where everyone's role is explicitly defined, but I would argue it is not an ideal, and not the most evolved marriage one can aspire to. 

[Philociraptor]

I get that it can be comfortable to have that type of relationship where everyone's role is explicitly defined, but I would argue it is not an ideal, and not the most evolved marriage one can aspire to.

Here's the "No true Scottsman" fallacy hard at work. What's most important in a marriage is personal fulfillment of the two partners. That can be achieved many ways, and won't be the same for any couple. Splitting the financial and child-rearing responsibilities is a common way to achieve this.

In answer to the question in the topic, whatever the hell you want in a spouse; just be mindful when putting your desires out there, some people get butthurt easily.

[mak1277]

I get that it can be comfortable to have that type of relationship where everyone's role is explicitly defined, but I would argue it is not an ideal, and not the most evolved marriage one can aspire to.

Here's the "No true Scottsman" fallacy hard at work. What's most important in a marriage is personal fulfillment of the two partners. That can be achieved many ways, and won't be the same for any couple. Splitting the financial and child-rearing responsibilities is a common way to achieve this.

In answer to the question in the topic, whatever the hell you want in a spouse; just be mindful when putting your desires out there, some people get butthurt easily.

Well said...you beat me to it.  The only way there could ever be one "ideal" type of marriage is if everyone was identical. 

[mak1277]

There is a reason First Mates mutiny:

Speaking of different strokes for different folks, I even know some married couples that are into THAT.

[GuitarStv]

Rule 34.

[sheepstache]

I was looking at it more like "What does society think are reasonable expectations to have in a relationship?" Society would tend to call someone who married a billionaire because of his money a "gold digger," for example, or that a guy who insists on only dating women with DDs  a "pig." On the other hand, it's relatively normal to let these sorts of factors influence dating decisions, as opposed to being set rules.

"Socially Acceptable Statements":
I am attracted to intelligence
I like large breasts
I like tall men

"Socially Unacceptable Statements":
I only date people who are smarter than me
I only date women who are DDs 
I only date men who are 6'2" or taller

So one of the main points of this entire blog is to challenge the norms about consumer culture.  Why are we (the royal we) so quick and happy to challenge those norms, but we don't accept someone who challenges other norms?  Who cares what is "socially acceptable", as long as you're not hurting anyone by taking a position?  I see nothing at all wrong with any of the three "socially unacceptable statements" you listed.

I think NumberCruncher and I are thinking along similar lines so I'll say my take on it. I think it's that in some cases we (btw the 'royal we' usually refers to someone referring to themselves, as an individual, in the plural, so I assumed you meant the general we) don't really buy that the person is genuinely attracted to some trait. To put it in consumer culture terms, some people here have iphones and really value them. That's fine. But some people in the world care about iphones only as status symbols. Or because they've bought into the idea that iphones are the best without having really thought it through themselves.

I would say I don't know that 'socially unacceptable' is quite accurate as I know plenty of women who are like, 'Ooh, I have to marry a doctor!' We even have the expression 'trophy wife' to refer to the practice of men displaying status through their spouse. Which, I take the fact that there's an expression for it to mean it's accepted but also the expression carries a bit of an attitude of playful scorn.

Edited because I meant to add:

The difference here is serpentstooth never asked for an opinion, and we kinda made it about her relationship, which isn't nice.

Sorry, Serpentstooth!

Ha ha, I know she's being a really good sport.

[SisterX]

I get that it can be comfortable to have that type of relationship where everyone's role is explicitly defined, but I would argue it is not an ideal, and not the most evolved marriage one can aspire to.

Here's the "No true Scottsman" fallacy hard at work. What's most important in a marriage is personal fulfillment of the two partners. That can be achieved many ways, and won't be the same for any couple. Splitting the financial and child-rearing responsibilities is a common way to achieve this.

In answer to the question in the topic, whatever the hell you want in a spouse; just be mindful when putting your desires out there, some people get butthurt easily.

Well said...you beat me to it.  The only way there could ever be one "ideal" type of marriage is if everyone was identical.

It DOES become a problem when one party abuses the other.  And these types of relationships do FREQUENTLY involve at least some forms of abuse, particularly emotional.  This is one of the reasons why abuse is far more common among traditionally religious people: it's considered "traditional", and therefore not actually abusive, even when it is.  I believe that's what Golden was talking about when saying that relationships can evolve beyond that.
My feeling is that if you need such distinctly defined roles, you are going to be in a world of hurt when circumstances come up which prevent someone carrying out that role.  If your wife is laid up and can't cook, well, take-out for everybody because cooking is women's work so the husband never learned!  If the husband dies, what is the wife supposed to do for money?  Work?  Help taking out the trash because that was the husband's job?  On this website we talk about diversifying our investments--why can't we point out that someone should do the same in their relationship roles?  A good relationship involves the growth of both parties.  You cannot grow if you're stuck in the same place you were at the beginning of your relationship. 
I feel the need to point out that at least S&M relationships have safe words where one party can call off an activity at will.  What's the safe word in a marriage where one person is always the Captain?  How can a woman (since it's almost always the woman who's submissive in the relationships you're idealizing) actually have her own sphere if her husband can come in at any time and say, "No, you're doing it wrong.  I want it to be done like this."  It's not really her sphere if he has the ultimate authority to make changes.

[mak1277]

I get that it can be comfortable to have that type of relationship where everyone's role is explicitly defined, but I would argue it is not an ideal, and not the most evolved marriage one can aspire to.

Here's the "No true Scottsman" fallacy hard at work. What's most important in a marriage is personal fulfillment of the two partners. That can be achieved many ways, and won't be the same for any couple. Splitting the financial and child-rearing responsibilities is a common way to achieve this.

In answer to the question in the topic, whatever the hell you want in a spouse; just be mindful when putting your desires out there, some people get butthurt easily.

Well said...you beat me to it.  The only way there could ever be one "ideal" type of marriage is if everyone was identical.

It DOES become a problem when one party abuses the other.  And these types of relationships do FREQUENTLY involve at least some forms of abuse, particularly emotional.  This is one of the reasons why abuse is far more common among traditionally religious people: it's considered "traditional", and therefore not actually abusive, even when it is.  I believe that's what Golden was talking about when saying that relationships can evolve beyond that.
My feeling is that if you need such distinctly defined roles, you are going to be in a world of hurt when circumstances come up which prevent someone carrying out that role.  If your wife is laid up and can't cook, well, take-out for everybody because cooking is women's work so the husband never learned!  If the husband dies, what is the wife supposed to do for money?  Work?  Help taking out the trash because that was the husband's job?  On this website we talk about diversifying our investments--why can't we point out that someone should do the same in their relationship roles?  A good relationship involves the growth of both parties.  You cannot grow if you're stuck in the same place you were at the beginning of your relationship. 
I feel the need to point out that at least S&M relationships have safe words where one party can call off an activity at will.  What's the safe word in a marriage where one person is always the Captain?  How can a woman (since it's almost always the woman who's submissive in the relationships you're idealizing) actually have her own sphere if her husband can come in at any time and say, "No, you're doing it wrong.  I want it to be done like this."  It's not really her sphere if he has the ultimate authority to make changes.

"The relationships I'm idealizing?"  You're kidding right?  My whole point is that any relationship works if it works for the people on it....there is no "ideal" relationship.  Just because you prefer a specific way of interacting with a mate doesn't mean it's the only way that works.   If you and I have different ideas of what works that's totally fine. As long as we both find someone who is compatible then we are both going to be fine.

[SisterX]

I get that it can be comfortable to have that type of relationship where everyone's role is explicitly defined, but I would argue it is not an ideal, and not the most evolved marriage one can aspire to.

Here's the "No true Scottsman" fallacy hard at work. What's most important in a marriage is personal fulfillment of the two partners. That can be achieved many ways, and won't be the same for any couple. Splitting the financial and child-rearing responsibilities is a common way to achieve this.

In answer to the question in the topic, whatever the hell you want in a spouse; just be mindful when putting your desires out there, some people get butthurt easily.

Well said...you beat me to it.  The only way there could ever be one "ideal" type of marriage is if everyone was identical.

It DOES become a problem when one party abuses the other.  And these types of relationships do FREQUENTLY involve at least some forms of abuse, particularly emotional.  This is one of the reasons why abuse is far more common among traditionally religious people: it's considered "traditional", and therefore not actually abusive, even when it is.  I believe that's what Golden was talking about when saying that relationships can evolve beyond that.
My feeling is that if you need such distinctly defined roles, you are going to be in a world of hurt when circumstances come up which prevent someone carrying out that role.  If your wife is laid up and can't cook, well, take-out for everybody because cooking is women's work so the husband never learned!  If the husband dies, what is the wife supposed to do for money?  Work?  Help taking out the trash because that was the husband's job?  On this website we talk about diversifying our investments--why can't we point out that someone should do the same in their relationship roles?  A good relationship involves the growth of both parties.  You cannot grow if you're stuck in the same place you were at the beginning of your relationship. 
I feel the need to point out that at least S&M relationships have safe words where one party can call off an activity at will.  What's the safe word in a marriage where one person is always the Captain?  How can a woman (since it's almost always the woman who's submissive in the relationships you're idealizing) actually have her own sphere if her husband can come in at any time and say, "No, you're doing it wrong.  I want it to be done like this."  It's not really her sphere if he has the ultimate authority to make changes.

"The relationships I'm idealizing?"  You're kidding right?  My whole point is that any relationship works if it works for the people on it....there is no "ideal" relationship.  Just because you prefer a specific way of interacting with a mate doesn't mean it's the only way that works.   If you and I have different ideas of what works that's totally fine. As long as we both find someone who is compatible then we are both going to be fine.

You're right, wrong language by me.  However, the point still stands that a relationship where one party is ALWAYS subordinate to the other is abusive and is not, in fact, healthy and workable.  Even if the people in it don't see what's wrong, because frequently it takes something big, scary, and horrible to make a victim of abuse see that they are, in fact, a victim of abuse.  To them, it is normal.  I don't want to ever normalize or approve of abusive relationships, nor do I think we should brush them off as, "Well, it works for them."

[mak1277]

I get that it can be comfortable to have that type of relationship where everyone's role is explicitly defined, but I would argue it is not an ideal, and not the most evolved marriage one can aspire to.

Here's the "No true Scottsman" fallacy hard at work. What's most important in a marriage is personal fulfillment of the two partners. That can be achieved many ways, and won't be the same for any couple. Splitting the financial and child-rearing responsibilities is a common way to achieve this.

In answer to the question in the topic, whatever the hell you want in a spouse; just be mindful when putting your desires out there, some people get butthurt easily.

Well said...you beat me to it.  The only way there could ever be one "ideal" type of marriage is if everyone was identical.

It DOES become a problem when one party abuses the other.  And these types of relationships do FREQUENTLY involve at least some forms of abuse, particularly emotional.  This is one of the reasons why abuse is far more common among traditionally religious people: it's considered "traditional", and therefore not actually abusive, even when it is.  I believe that's what Golden was talking about when saying that relationships can evolve beyond that.
My feeling is that if you need such distinctly defined roles, you are going to be in a world of hurt when circumstances come up which prevent someone carrying out that role.  If your wife is laid up and can't cook, well, take-out for everybody because cooking is women's work so the husband never learned!  If the husband dies, what is the wife supposed to do for money?  Work?  Help taking out the trash because that was the husband's job?  On this website we talk about diversifying our investments--why can't we point out that someone should do the same in their relationship roles?  A good relationship involves the growth of both parties.  You cannot grow if you're stuck in the same place you were at the beginning of your relationship. 
I feel the need to point out that at least S&M relationships have safe words where one party can call off an activity at will.  What's the safe word in a marriage where one person is always the Captain?  How can a woman (since it's almost always the woman who's submissive in the relationships you're idealizing) actually have her own sphere if her husband can come in at any time and say, "No, you're doing it wrong.  I want it to be done like this."  It's not really her sphere if he has the ultimate authority to make changes.

"The relationships I'm idealizing?"  You're kidding right?  My whole point is that any relationship works if it works for the people on it....there is no "ideal" relationship.  Just because you prefer a specific way of interacting with a mate doesn't mean it's the only way that works.   If you and I have different ideas of what works that's totally fine. As long as we both find someone who is compatible then we are both going to be fine.

You're right, wrong language by me.  However, the point still stands that a relationship where one party is ALWAYS subordinate to the other is abusive and is not, in fact, healthy and workable.  Even if the people in it don't see what's wrong, because frequently it takes something big, scary, and horrible to make a victim of abuse see that they are, in fact, a victim of abuse.  To them, it is normal.  I don't want to ever normalize or approve of abusive relationships, nor do I think we should brush them off as, "Well, it works for them."

Of course you're right. But I don't think anyone here is advocating for an abusive relationship.

[oldladystache]

I'm almost afraid to admit that one of the things I looked for was the ability to beat me at scrabble. That indicated intelligence, understanding of the language, liking for board games.

I realized only later that it wasn't much fun to play scrabble any more, since he was able to beat me. But he was terrible at monopoly, I found out later.

We were married 35 years.

[Cressida]

At the risk of provoking an argument I'd rather avoid, you shouldn't use derogatory language like "mansplain" as a lead since it automatically weakens your position by effectively starting with an ad hominem attack.

I don't think you know what "ad hominem" means.

If a man says, "you women all want X," that's pretty much the definition of mansplaining, and whether or not you like the term, it's an offensive thing to do. Calling someone out on something they're manifestly actually doing is pretty much the opposite of an ad hominem attack. Go bone up on your logic.

[SisterX]

Since Cressida did an admirable job taking down your first point, I won't bother to top that.  I'll just say, in response to this,

I feel the need to point out that at least S&M relationships have safe words where one party can call off an activity at will.

Not always, consensual non-consent is a thing.

that S&M, as it turns out, is not actually my thing.  A feeling of being submissive to or dominant over another person does not turn me on, thus I've never delved too deeply into that world.  What I'd heard about the community is that everyone who is responsible has some sort of safe word, to make sure things don't get taken too far.  So, thanks for the correction.

[Cressida]

I don't think you know what "ad hominem" means.

If a man says, "you women all want X," that's pretty much the definition of mansplaining, and whether or not you like the term, it's an offensive thing to do. Calling someone out on something they're manifestly actually doing is pretty much the opposite of an ad hominem attack. Go bone up on your logic.

I don't think you understood the point of my post so I'll elaborate a bit.

I'm looking at this from the standpoint of rhetoric. You will note that I didn't say anything about SisterX's statement being wrong with regards to the use of "mansplaining". My issue is the term is derogatory (which someone else can explain much better than I can) and it's an ad hominem attack because it carries unspoken weight behind it that make certain accusations about person it is addressed at. In short, while it might feel good to knock someone down a peg, you are unlikely to illicit any change from them by doing so.

In other words, even if an argument is logically correct, you automatically "lose" if the other person tunes you out and dismisses anything you have to say.

First of all, you're still using "ad hominem" wrong. An ad hominem argument is one where you dismiss someone's argument through the mechanism of attacking their character rather than their argument. Saying "your argument offends people" is attacking the actual argument and is therefore not an ad hominem attack.

As to your second point, that all depends on whether you care. Some people will never change, and on a forum, sometimes the goal is to persuade more reasonable folks who may also be reading.

[Cassie]

Happy marriages come in many shapes, sizes, etc.  what works well for one couple would be hell for another.   Also what I have observed in more traditional relationships is that when something happens to upset the roles both partners adapt.   I am thinking of the WW2 & Korean war generations.  Say the man gets hurt & can't work often the partners switch roles.  Or the man when older has a stroke so the wife takes care of things she never did before: budget, car, bigger buying decisions, etc.  These generations had a lot of loyalty to their marriages & rolled with what life had to offer.   I also think that when you have a loving marriage it is like putting $ in the bank.  So imagine 25 years of bliss.  Now the person has a major stroke & is irritable, not as smart, can't do much, etc.  Do you divorce him or her?  No you start withdrawing some of the love from the bank so to speak & the past happiness keeps you going.  Now if this happens at year 2 probably not going to hang in there as long.   I married young 2x's & should have put more thought into marriage partners like Serpentooth did instead of just "falling in love."    When my kids were raised I divorced & was happily single for awhile.  When I wanted a new mate I actually made a list of what I wanted & read it every night before I went to bed.  Interesting about 3 weeks later I started to meet a lot of men.  I think I was more open to it.  anyways when I dated someone I really thought about what was on my list & if not I dropped them.  I am now married to someone that is perfect for me & we have been together 16 years.

[pachnik]

Happy marriages come in many shapes, sizes, etc.  what works well for one couple would be hell for another.   Also what I have observed in more traditional relationships is that when something happens to upset the roles both partners adapt.   I am thinking of the WW2 & Korean war generations.  Say the man gets hurt & can't work often the partners switch roles.  Or the man when older has a stroke so the wife takes care of things she never did before: budget, car, bigger buying decisions, etc.  These generations had a lot of loyalty to their marriages & rolled with what life had to offer.   I also think that when you have a loving marriage it is like putting $ in the bank.  So imagine 25 years of bliss.  Now the person has a major stroke & is irritable, not as smart, can't do much, etc.  Do you divorce him or her?  No you start withdrawing some of the love from the bank so to speak & the past happiness keeps you going.  Now if this happens at year 2 probably not going to hang in there as long.   I married young 2x's & should have put more thought into marriage partners like Serpentooth did instead of just "falling in love."    When my kids were raised I divorced & was happily single for awhile.  When I wanted a new mate I actually made a list of what I wanted & read it every night before I went to bed.  Interesting about 3 weeks later I started to meet a lot of men.  I think I was more open to it.  anyways when I dated someone I really thought about what was on my list & if not I dropped them.  I am now married to someone that is perfect for me & we have been together 16 years.

+1  My parents have been married for 50+ years.  In their younger years, my dad took care of dealing with contractors/tradesmen for their rental properties.  Now my dad's health isn't so good but my mom's is excellent.  She has taken over in dealing with the rentals.  I was so impressed when she went through one of their properties with a builder and talked about what needed to be done.  She's spent decades at my dad's side while he did and now she's in charge.  (of course they confer together). 

I also had an early marriage that was a disaster.  Then I too made a list of qualities I wanted in my new spouse.  Plus, worked on myself big time.  My husband and I have been together very happily for 8 years now. 

[jka468]

I think it's rather weird that your head went there, as I didn't even think of that type of relationship.

I'd phrase it more as a captain/first-mate dynamic that many women seek.

I believe most women, and probably most men, would rather be co-captains in their relationship with equal authority.

You're living in fantasy land. This has nothing to do with male/female dynamics; it has everything to do with human nature. In every relationship, male/male, female/female, mixed or group, there is going to be a leader.  It doesn't always have to be stated, nor does leadership necessarily equate to totalitarianism, but it always shows in some form. From jocks, to nerds to geeks to the workplace to relationships there is going to be a leader; sometimes it's 80-20, sometimes 60-40, but it's never ever 50-50. Men, in general, tend to implicitly acknowledge this, and women, in general, like to think that everyone is equal and co-leaders (this term is laughable), but real world dynamics end up being what they are.

Just watch any group dynamic between men, there always end ups being a leader of some sort and the other men tend to fall in line quickly because they understand that this dynamic is best for getting things done and taking action. As well, I'm not denying that some women will like to lead, and some men will like to be lead, but the most abundant dynamic that men and women tend to enjoy is male leadership with acknowledged and valued female input. I seriously question what planet some of you posters live on where this is not acknowledged.

I think it's rather weird that your head went there, as I didn't even think of that type of relationship.

I'd phrase it more as a captain/first-mate dynamic that many women seek.

Same thing as both imply that a woman would want a subordinate role in the relationship.  I believe most women, and probably most men, would rather be co-captains in their relationship with equal authority.

I agree Spartana - who wants their partner to be in charge of them?? Not me.

I read this thread and asked my BF if he thought one of us was the captain and the other one was the first mate. He thought about it for a second and said "yeah, you're definitely the captain. I like that you're a natural leader". So not all men feel a desperate need to be the head of their household / treat their wife like a child.

(I'd actually argue that we're co-captains, but whatever - the BF acknowledged that he has just as much input into decisions as I do, but says I 'lead' our shared life - probably true, I do a lot of the planning, facilitate our discussions about our future, etc).

You inadvertently proved my point here. Your BF was at least honest with you and understood that you were the leader of the relationship, which is not surprising given the selection bias of this site. The type of man who would state "we're co-captains/leaders" is the absolute worst type of man because he can't acknowledge whatever reality he is living in (most likely due to ego preservation).

1. Character is paramount.  Would you trust this person intimately and completely?  Anything else, you can generally work with to a large degree.

2. I will take up for the unpopular opinion here.  I don't think that "Captain and First Officer" remark is off at all.  That's very much how my parents did it.

I think what people miss in that is that on a ship, the First Officer is not simply another interchangeable subordinate, this is someone of great skill and experience.  The Captain may have the higher authority, but the dependence on the First Officer is very high.

In fact the First Officer is the one who actually runs the ship as far as the seamanship goes.  So why do they bother to have a Captain at all then?

The purpose of having a Captain is so that when there's a battle or a crisis or an impasse, there's clearly one person who is in charge.  A vessel on the high seas without firm leadership is doomed under any number of circumstances.  The First Officer accepts that although the Captain will not always be correct, the value of this clarity more than offsets any mistakes a Captain will make because the alternative is not workable.  You cannot manage by committee in a high stakes situation.  Even if five people on the vessel are all competent to command during a battle, that would be chaos if they all assumed the role of commander.

If differing gender utility is perceived, and I for one would argue such a perception is reasonable even if it is varied between individuals, at least somewhat culturally relative, and otherwise imprecise, it is reasonable there would be gender-differentiated expectations.

Personally I think good husbands are called to be leaders and that asserting that leadership is only a good and positive thing.  It's fine to disagree with the "Captain and First Officer" model but just because someone looks at a marriage that way doesn't mean they're some horrible person.  If it really bothers you, consider instead that at least someone who agrees with this model is asserting a positive self concept, and sees some positive personal value in themselves in one of those roles and is likely to seek a spouse who will value taking the other role.  How is that in any way a problem?

You stated this perfectly, thank you. The other rabid posters on here end up hearing "first-mate" and think the man must be Hitler to her Polish Jew. That kind of thinking is what is what I find most terrifying from some posters, that their minds automatically go to an extreme without any thinking.

[jka468]

I think it's rather weird that your head went there, as I didn't even think of that type of relationship.

I'd phrase it more as a captain/first-mate dynamic that many women seek.

Please, mansplain to us all some more what we ladies look for in relationships.  Don't, you know, bother reading what actual women have been saying we look for in relationships, which is a partnership.  That's just silly.

As usual, a woman relates a post I make to HER experience, and ONLY her experience. This site self selects for many traits associated with independence and leadership, and you're surprised when women on here shout "NOT ME!". Do you really think that the mindset of women on this site reflects that of the mass populous? Look outside of your small box every now and again.

While a bit "taboo" to talk about in this day and age, it's a well know stereotype (and stereotypes have some basis of truth) that women generally do not enjoy making decisions. This is even being studied under other pretenses...

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/11/20/job-authority-women-depression/

As an aside, I can say I'm no longer shocked by number of divorcees this site has on the boards. It makes a lot of sense now.

[jka468]

a captain/first-mate dynamic that many women seek

many women desire to "look-up to" their man in a variety of ways

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. I know you really want it to be true, but try to distinguish your wants from reality.

You're a troll who shouts "sexism" and "racism" any time someone doesn't agree with your world view, so don't worry, I won't take what you have to say too seriously. I know it's easy to use those naughty words as a debate tactic rallying cry on the internet, but to anyone with a modicum of intellect it just makes you look silly.

[jka468]

I get that it can be comfortable to have that type of relationship where everyone's role is explicitly defined, but I would argue it is not an ideal, and not the most evolved marriage one can aspire to.

Here's the "No true Scottsman" fallacy hard at work. What's most important in a marriage is personal fulfillment of the two partners. That can be achieved many ways, and won't be the same for any couple. Splitting the financial and child-rearing responsibilities is a common way to achieve this.

In answer to the question in the topic, whatever the hell you want in a spouse; just be mindful when putting your desires out there, some people get butthurt easily.

Well said...you beat me to it.  The only way there could ever be one "ideal" type of marriage is if everyone was identical.

It DOES become a problem when one party abuses the other.  And these types of relationships do FREQUENTLY involve at least some forms of abuse, particularly emotional.  This is one of the reasons why abuse is far more common among traditionally religious people: it's considered "traditional", and therefore not actually abusive, even when it is.  I believe that's what Golden was talking about when saying that relationships can evolve beyond that.
My feeling is that if you need such distinctly defined roles, you are going to be in a world of hurt when circumstances come up which prevent someone carrying out that role.  If your wife is laid up and can't cook, well, take-out for everybody because cooking is women's work so the husband never learned!  If the husband dies, what is the wife supposed to do for money?  Work?  Help taking out the trash because that was the husband's job?  On this website we talk about diversifying our investments--why can't we point out that someone should do the same in their relationship roles?  A good relationship involves the growth of both parties.  You cannot grow if you're stuck in the same place you were at the beginning of your relationship. 
I feel the need to point out that at least S&M relationships have safe words where one party can call off an activity at will.  What's the safe word in a marriage where one person is always the Captain?  How can a woman (since it's almost always the woman who's submissive in the relationships you're idealizing) actually have her own sphere if her husband can come in at any time and say, "No, you're doing it wrong.  I want it to be done like this."  It's not really her sphere if he has the ultimate authority to make changes.

Look, EVERYONE gets it, YOU were abused either mentally/phsyically/emotionally or some combo, and you're never putting YOURSELF in that situation again, but STOP pushing your agenda on to others. You use the word "abuse" as an ultimate crutch but don't follow up with any facts or intellectual discussion. All you say is that this situation "may" end up with abuse (guess what, any situation can) and then use a logical fallacy to label anyone who thinks like that as a potential "abuser". In reality, many many women would love a situation like this, where their input is valued and needed, but they don't bear the ultimate responsibility of a final decision. That doesn't make the men and women in these situation "bad" people and the men "abusers"

Your appeals to emotion using another naughty word like "abuse" do no work with people who think critically, it's sad honestly.

[Cressida]

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. I know you really want it to be true, but try to distinguish your wants from reality.

You're a troll

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*you* are calling someone a troll. OK then!

[Elaine]

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. I know you really want it to be true, but try to distinguish your wants from reality.

You're a troll

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*you* are calling someone a troll. OK then!

+1

[jka468]

Really?  A marriage should be run like a ship or a military organization?  I agree that is a good model for crisis situations where decisions have to be made in a hurry and followed through on, but it is no good model at all for a long term relationship. 

I get that it can be comfortable to have that type of relationship where everyone's role is explicitly defined, but I would argue it is not an ideal, and not the most evolved marriage one can aspire to.

You completely missed the point with your first question, but I digress.

What, in your opinion, is the most evolved type of marriage that one can aspire to? Has marriage been getting closer to or further away from your evolved state over the past 50 years?

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. I know you really want it to be true, but try to distinguish your wants from reality.

You're a troll

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*you* are calling someone a troll. OK then!

I apologize in advance for being a straight white cis-male. I will try to atone for all of the privilege that has been afforded to me. I may even take a few tolerance/sensitivity classes for good measure.

[RetiredAt63]

Wow this is getting weird. 

Um, yes women like having some control - in "traditional" marriages it was the home that was their domain.  So many women got upset when their husbands retired and started tying to give input in how to run the home that this should be obvious.

Marriage is not an emergency - so why does there need to be a "captain"?  Can't two people in a relationship switch roles depending on circumstances?  The one who knows more about cars (or the one who will be the main driver) gets more input there, the one who knows more gardening gets more input there, whatever.  If a man loves to cook he will obviously care a lot about the kitchen.  If a woman is a clone of DIYdiva she will care about her workshop and tools.  The only time there could be issues is if one person *has* to be the boss because of perceived superiority in all areas - and that is going to be a crummy person to live with.  Would you want to live with someone who was "always right"?

[RetiredAt63]

Well, obviously posters like jka468 should not marry women like Spartana or myself.  There would be too many mutinies by the "first mate".

And what happens when the captain is more spendy than the first mate?  Are his spends "necessities" while hers are "optional"?  Captains have veto power, so she could be spending life feeling very much the unequal partner.  That could build a lot of resentment.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree as this isn't my belief or my experience or what I have seen or heard of based on the experience of other's. There is absolutely no reason for one person to be a leader and another to be a follower in a marriage - none. There is nothing in a marriage that can't be done in a cooperative joint manner by 2 reasonable adults IMHO.

[SisterX]

Look, EVERYONE gets it, YOU were abused either mentally/phsyically/emotionally or some combo, and you're never putting YOURSELF in that situation again, but STOP pushing your agenda on to others. You use the word "abuse" as an ultimate crutch but don't follow up with any facts or intellectual discussion. All you say is that this situation "may" end up with abuse (guess what, any situation can) and then use a logical fallacy to label anyone who thinks like that as a potential "abuser". In reality, many many women would love a situation like this, where their input is valued and needed, but they don't bear the ultimate responsibility of a final decision. That doesn't make the men and women in these situation "bad" people and the men "abusers"

Your appeals to emotion using another naughty word like "abuse" do no work with people who think critically, it's sad honestly.

Actually, I've never been abused.  I've lived an incredibly privileged life.  Doesn't mean I can't recognize abuse, and I've sadly gotten to witness the long-term effects of abuse on people.
The fact that you're getting so upset by having a few people on the internet challenging your beliefs is very much your problem.  If someone in a frequently suppressed group (race, sex, sexuality) is trying to tell you that your opinions about that group are offensive and just plain wrong, it's often best to listen to that person because they understand their own situation a lot better than you do.  If you make a comment where someone says, "That's racist," you should shut the hell up and think about why someone would say that.  Same thing if a woman says your comments are sexist.

[RetiredAt63]

I've started listening to Chris Hadfield (on CD) read his book An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth.  He is so positive about his wife, Helene, and their life together.  Obviously his career came first (fighter pilots go where they are stationed, same for test pilots and astronauts) but they were definitely a team.  And when a spouse is having to cope with this lifestyle they need to be strong and adaptable.  When he was stationed in Star City, they both learned Russian.  So strong men can be just fine with strong women.

Side note - RAH always said his wives were smarter than he was, and more competent - and he was plenty smart and competent. 

Other side note - there are disadvantages to being tall.  Now that astronauts can only get to the ISS by Soyuz, tall people literally don't fit, and are grounded.

[jka468]

Look, EVERYONE gets it, YOU were abused either mentally/phsyically/emotionally or some combo, and you're never putting YOURSELF in that situation again, but STOP pushing your agenda on to others. You use the word "abuse" as an ultimate crutch but don't follow up with any facts or intellectual discussion. All you say is that this situation "may" end up with abuse (guess what, any situation can) and then use a logical fallacy to label anyone who thinks like that as a potential "abuser". In reality, many many women would love a situation like this, where their input is valued and needed, but they don't bear the ultimate responsibility of a final decision. That doesn't make the men and women in these situation "bad" people and the men "abusers"

Your appeals to emotion using another naughty word like "abuse" do no work with people who think critically, it's sad honestly.

If someone in a frequently suppressed group (race, sex, sexuality) is trying to tell you that your opinions about that group are offensive and just plain wrong,

And this is where we will fundamentally disagree. At least when it comes to first world, western cultures, there are no more frequently suppressed groups; it isn't 1950 anymore. The victim mentality that these supposedly "suppressed" groups foster is a shame, as this is a time of unparalleled equal opportunity no matter what the background.

There are many many free thinkers out there from all backgrounds and colors who share this view, and understand how damaging the victim mentality can be to any culture or subgroup. IMO, this is a fundamental form of ego preservation, as it is a million times easier to blame an omnipotent supressing force for one's own shortcomings, rather than address them head on. Why is this idea of personal responsibility and accountability so divisive on here, especially when this is a core concept of mustachianism?

Well, obviously posters like jka468 should not marry women like Spartana or myself.  There would be too many mutinies by the "first mate".

And what happens when the captain is more spendy than the first mate?  Are his spends "necessities" while hers are "optional"?  Captains have veto power, so she could be spending life feeling very much the unequal partner.  That could build a lot of resentment.

 

Ha Ha - yeah doubt he would want most of the women on this forum as his partner.

While I do agree with him that it is often a natural thing for groups of people to have a leader and followers in many activities as well as in a job/professional life (and I had an real life Captain who's authority I had to follow - although I doubt he would flog me if I disobeyed, just a nice little Court Martial and some jail time :-)!, marriage isn't the same thing at all. There are only 2 people in it, both who are adults and can make rational decisions based on their own desires and what they think is important to the marriage. Both will have, in most cases, an equal say-so on matters. Even if one person is more knowledgeable about something than the other, that doesn't mean the other person has any less say-so on the topic if it involved them or the shared aspects of their marriage.

What happens when decisions come to a head? Who makes the final decision? Are people in marriages really tallying up each time one person gets their way and then using that as a bargaining chip to keep things equal later on? What you may deem as compromise is still a form of leadership, as in every decision making process one person is eventually going to assert or persuade their viewpoint on to the other and win out. This form is subtle but it is still happening; no relationship is making sure everything is exactly 50/50. As well, I think a less knowledgeable parter on a particular subject absolutely has less say so in the matter. Everyone should be able to recognize their own shortcomings, and part of being in a relationship should be leveraging our partner's strengths to make the best decisions, not butting heads on issues for the sake of feeling like an equal in everything. It's okay to suck at certain things and not be an equal; this is the foundation of what marriage was built on.

When looking at a dynamic called push/pull leadership/persuasion, I think a big difference in the talking points here is that people are thinking of leadership in a relationship as 100% push; push being that one is actively asserting their viewpoint on the other person with minimal regard for their input. Leadership can also come in the form of pull, which is a more nuanced way of having the other person agree to something.

For example, think about if your boss came in and said "hey, you're doing xyz for me and we're doing it abc way, end of discussion!", compared to your boss saying "hey, I know you're the best here at doing xyz and it would be a huge help to the team if you did it in abc way. I'd really appreciate if you can get this done".

Now, both push and pull can end up with the EXACT same outcome, but in the former scenario one is probably resentful, and in the latter scenario one probably feels like a valuable member of the team. Both situations offer leadership, but one appeals more than the other. There is a huge amount of research on this leadership dynamic. I don't understand why most people on here simply assume that leadership in a relationship is always push. Either way, I just don't see how any relationship, especially a romantic one, is 100% egalitarian; unless you have a tally board for things then someone is calling the shots more than the other.

[RetiredAt63]

jka468

You are missing the point (again).  We all know that on any particular situation one person in a dyad is going to be more in a leader role.  We are simply pointing out that who is in the leader role is going to shift back and forth based on the situation.  It is imbalanced if one person is always in the leader role.  There are lots of examples on the forum of one spouse who is in leader mode re improving personal finances and one spouse who is being coaxed (that is your pull) into it.  That doesn't mean that person is in leader mode for everything.  And sometimes the actual dynamics are different than the perceived dynamics - sometimes the person who seems to be the leader may have been shoved into that role, because the other person just won't do the heavy lifting in that area.  I can think of lots of situations  - one looks after the couple's social life, one looks after car maintenance or house maintenance, one looks after holiday prep, whatever.

You don't give your age, but you sound young - the young tend to be more fixed in their ideas, the old tend to have learned to be flexible.

Anyway, we seem to have highjacked the thread, so let's give the others a breathing space from all this.

Now, both push and pull can end up with the EXACT same outcome, but in the former scenario one is probably resentful, and in the latter scenario one probably feels like a valuable member of the team. Both situations offer leadership, but one appeals more than the other. There is a huge amount of research on this leadership dynamic. I don't understand why most people on here simply assume that leadership in a relationship is always push. Either way, I just don't see how any relationship, especially a romantic one, is 100% egalitarian; unless you have a tally board for things then someone is calling the shots more than the other.

[rockstache]

As a woman, I didn't look for someone I could look up to or admire. I looked for someone that shared my values and was just generally awesome. I see relationships as partnerships of equals. That doesn't mean you have to split household tasks down the middle or can't admit to differences in abilities - just that you work together towards common goals. There shouldn't be one partner who is put on a pedestal.

A pedestal of awesomeness?

Though I admire my husband for his general awesomeness, there have been some women who thought he was a douche.

It just so happens that we all have different definitions of "awesomeness."

Of course there are different definitions, and that's great. Otherwise we'd all be fighting over the same people. :) I think he's awesome, and he thinks I'm awesome, but that doesn't seem relevant.

The comment before was that "If you're a woman, I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't consider it controversial that women tend to want someone they look up to and/or admire," in reference to intelligence. This seems to state that (1) intelligence means respect/admiration (2) it would not be reasonable to expect higher intelligence in a female partner.

The conclusion, to me at least, is that women should not be looked up to or admired in relationships, at least not as much as men. This bothers me.

I don't think it's farfetched to state that many women desire to "look-up to" their man in a variety of ways; and those ways will differ from relationship to relationship. I think this is what PI was getting at.

OTOH, coming as a man, I don't think there is a very strong desire in men to "look-up to" their women in the same way. Most men want to admire their women and obtain a certain respect for them, but not necessarily look-up to them.

I want to (and do) respect my spouse (as I hope he does me), but the "look up to" phrase sort of rings of a more daddy/daughter than equal partner role. Yuck. There may be women out there who are looking for that kind of thing, but I don't know them.

I think it's rather weird that your head went there, as I didn't even think of that type of relationship.

I'd phrase it more as a captain/first-mate dynamic that many women seek.

You're right, it's really weird. And actually quite common in traditional conservative circles who profess many of the exact same beliefs you have written here. Man talks to Father and asks for woman's hand in marriage. Father gives permission  and hands off daughter from his 'covering' to the new husband. If they are really into it, maybe daughter attended a purity ball where she pledged her virginity to her future spouse with her dad standing in also. 

And here's the thing: I'm a pretty conservative religious woman myself. But this stuff is often perpetrated by men who groom their daughters in order to keep women in a certain role for their own gain, and not because the women/girls were offered a conscious choice.

[SisterX]

And this is where we will fundamentally disagree. At least when it comes to first world, western cultures, there are no more frequently suppressed groups; it isn't 1950 anymore. The victim mentality that these supposedly "suppressed" groups foster is a shame, as this is a time of unparalleled equal opportunity no matter what the background.

There are many many free thinkers out there from all backgrounds and colors who share this view, and understand how damaging the victim mentality can be to any culture or subgroup. IMO, this is a fundamental form of ego preservation, as it is a million times easier to blame an omnipotent supressing force for one's own shortcomings, rather than address them head on. Why is this idea of personal responsibility and accountability so divisive on here, especially when this is a core concept of mustachianism?

Wow.  Just wow.  There is...SO much wrong with this that I'm not even going to bother arguing.  Because that would be a waste of time, clearly.  You're wrong, but nothing is ever going to make you see that.  Enjoy your blissful ignorance about this topic.
Also, you should probably look up the definition of compromise, because the second half of this post shows that you really lack an understanding of it.  It is entirely possible for two reasonable adults (both male and female) to come up with a solution to a problem or issue together.  You still don't seem to understand that, and it's a sad world view, honestly.  We're not dogs or chickens, needing alphas to run around and show us the way.  We're people.  On a society-wide scale, leaders will always emerge because not everything can be done by consensus.  But in a marriage?  It is perfectly possible for two adults to come to consensus on most matters.  I don't know how you're not grasping that concept yet.

[FrugalToque]

This string of messages has been flagged for moderator consideration.

I apologize in advance for being a straight white cis-male. I will try to atone for all of the privilege that has been afforded to me. I may even take a few tolerance/sensitivity classes for good measure.

That's not what you need to apologize for.  It's rather this:

And this is where we will fundamentally disagree. At least when it comes to first world, western cultures, there are no more frequently suppressed groups; it isn't 1950 anymore. The victim mentality that these supposedly "suppressed" groups foster is a shame, as this is a time of unparalleled equal opportunity no matter what the background.

It's when you're a white, heterosexual male who fails to notice that other groups don't have it as good as you do.  There is far too much evidence of this truth, whether it's black kids getting shot by police, women getting laid off while on mat. leave., or gays not even being able to marry in some places.

It's utterly absurd to think that all of the problems of bigotry and prejudice that have plagued our society have suddenly disappeared.  Only someone at the highest level of privilege could possibly think so.  The fact that, in terms of overall life quality, a lesbian black woman of today has it better than a white man of 100 years ago, even if true, is irrelevant.

Please stop speaking for the purpose of hearing your own voice and start listening to what the people in those other groups are actually telling you.  You don't get to tell them what their lives are like.  You don't get to overwrite their experiences.

Regards,
Toque.

[Dr.Vibrissae]

This string of messages has been flagged for moderator consideration.

I apologize in advance for being a straight white cis-male. I will try to atone for all of the privilege that has been afforded to me. I may even take a few tolerance/sensitivity classes for good measure.

That's not what you need to apologize for.  It's rather this:

And this is where we will fundamentally disagree. At least when it comes to first world, western cultures, there are no more frequently suppressed groups; it isn't 1950 anymore. The victim mentality that these supposedly "suppressed" groups foster is a shame, as this is a time of unparalleled equal opportunity no matter what the background.

It's when you're a white, heterosexual male who fails to notice that other groups don't have it as good as you do.  There is far too much evidence of this truth, whether it's black kids getting shot by police, women getting laid off while on mat. leave., or gays not even being able to marry in some places.

It's utterly absurd to think that all of the problems of bigotry and prejudice that have plagued our society have suddenly disappeared.  Only someone at the highest level of privilege could possibly think so.  The fact that, in terms of overall life quality, a lesbian black woman of today has it better than a white man of 100 years ago, even if true, is irrelevant.

Please stop speaking for the purpose of hearing your own voice and start listening to what the people in those other groups are actually telling you.  You don't get to tell them what their lives are like.  You don't get to overwrite their experiences.

Regards,
Toque.

+ 1
There is quite a lot of empiric evidence of systemic bias. It's not the same thing as calling people an overt racist or sexist, but we should recognize that bias does exist. When we are in a privledged group, it may be difficult for us to detect, or even realize how some actions affect others when they are more subtle.

Let me offer as an example a story one of my friends.  She was at a business lunch at a nice restaurant with her boss and a client, both male, when the waiter called her Princess. She was taken aback, but didn't say anything, because as she put it: I failed to respond in a commanding or clever manner; I just stared. Because it was appalling. Because I am quite clearly an adult.

When asked if the boss or client reacted, she added: That's an interesting question. Neither one of them reacted at all. Later in the lunch, the client (who was Brazilian) was talking about how women are considered so invisible in Japan that men would ignore his female translator and speak directly to him in Japanese even though he knew no Japanese. I commented that the misogyny in America was much more subtle, and my boss said that he didn't think there was any misogyny in America anymore. I said "the waiter called me princess." My boss said, "you know, I was sitting right here and heard him say that, but I didn't think you'd find that offensive." So, not ideal, but better than my boss or the client calling me "princess."

[wepner]

What is proper etiquette when doing business with a translator? Seems like focusing all your attention on either person wouldn't be great but you should probably error on the side of talking to the business partner right?

[jka468]

 What happens when decisions come to a head? Who makes the final decision? Are people in marriages really tallying up each time one person gets their way and then using that as a bargaining chip to keep things equal later on? What you may deem as compromise is still a form of leadership, as in every decision making process one person is eventually going to assert or persuade their viewpoint on to the other and win out.

I believe most couples find an acceptable-to-both compromise/middle ground in most cases. Say one spouse wants a new Tesla and the other wants a used Yugo. They discuss and decide to compromise and get an somewhat inexpensive hybrid sedan instead. There are no winners or losers, no "scores" to tally up, just two people who made a rational decision based on each of their wants. The goal is to reach a compromise that is satisfactory to both people and not just one or the other. I believe most successful marriages work this way. If someone insists that they do it "their" way and is not open to compromise, then the other person has to make a choice - either give in and accept that or leave the relationship.  Most married/coupled people want to remain in in their relationships and so are willing to make compromises (and even sacrifices) to find an acceptable middle ground that both enjoy.   That's why I think, going back to the OP, that compatibility is the trait I would look for in a mate as that encompasses everything from having similar financial and lifestyle goals to those subtle things that make a relationship work over many years - like willingness to compromise for the good of both people.

Compromise is sometimes good in theory, I just don't see this happening in actuality. And in your example I would say that both people end up losing out, totaling to a net negative outcome. At least if one person got what they wanted, without making the other resentful (maybe just a little disappointed), the net utility would have been 0, or slightly positive.

Also, I think this idea of constant compromise is very much connected with declining marriage rates and later age of marriage on a macro scale (which I have already discussed on here), along with a few other reasons. As to this decline being good or bad, well that depends on your viewpoint I guess.

[jka468]

This string of messages has been flagged for moderator consideration.

I apologize in advance for being a straight white cis-male. I will try to atone for all of the privilege that has been afforded to me. I may even take a few tolerance/sensitivity classes for good measure.

That's not what you need to apologize for.  It's rather this:

And this is where we will fundamentally disagree. At least when it comes to first world, western cultures, there are no more frequently suppressed groups; it isn't 1950 anymore. The victim mentality that these supposedly "suppressed" groups foster is a shame, as this is a time of unparalleled equal opportunity no matter what the background.

It's when you're a white, heterosexual male who fails to notice that other groups don't have it as good as you do.  There is far too much evidence of this truth, whether it's black kids getting shot by police, women getting laid off while on mat. leave., or gays not even being able to marry in some places.

It's utterly absurd to think that all of the problems of bigotry and prejudice that have plagued our society have suddenly disappeared.  Only someone at the highest level of privilege could possibly think so.  The fact that, in terms of overall life quality, a lesbian black woman of today has it better than a white man of 100 years ago, even if true, is irrelevant.

Please stop speaking for the purpose of hearing your own voice and start listening to what the people in those other groups are actually telling you.  You don't get to tell them what their lives are like.  You don't get to overwrite their experiences.

Regards,
Toque.

+ 1
There is quite a lot of empiric evidence of systemic bias. It's not the same thing as calling people an overt racist or sexist, but we should recognize that bias does exist. When we are in a privledged group, it may be difficult for us to detect, or even realize how some actions affect others when they are more subtle.

Let me offer as an example a story one of my friends.  She was at a business lunch at a nice restaurant with her boss and a client, both male, when the waiter called her Princess. She was taken aback, but didn't say anything, because as she put it: I failed to respond in a commanding or clever manner; I just stared. Because it was appalling. Because I am quite clearly an adult.

When asked if the boss or client reacted, she added: That's an interesting question. Neither one of them reacted at all. Later in the lunch, the client (who was Brazilian) was talking about how women are considered so invisible in Japan that men would ignore his female translator and speak directly to him in Japanese even though he knew no Japanese. I commented that the misogyny in America was much more subtle, and my boss said that he didn't think there was any misogyny in America anymore. I said "the waiter called me princess." My boss said, "you know, I was sitting right here and heard him say that, but I didn't think you'd find that offensive." So, not ideal, but better than my boss or the client calling me "princess."

I just fail to see this still, in fact, due to this thinking, any legitimate concerns of white straight males seem to be poo-pooed away these days as if they can't possibly matter. I mean look, we have a black president, women make up nearly 60% of college graduates these days, and there are open gays in every aspect of life now with a majority of states allowing for marriage (as a side note I can't wait to see the 10yr divorce rate for gays in 15-20yrs from now).

And as for your example, this is the precise reason why many males don't take concerns, even legitimate ones, of women too seriously; there is way too much crying wolf. First off, who knows the context of the how the waiter said it, and hell, even if it was in a condescending way, they are JUST WORDS. Males on a playground growing up go through 10x worse on a daily basis. My best friend, working at the Chicago Board of Trade, was called a "F*cking retard" by his boss at least once a week for the first year. At restaurants and at work I've been called the name "kid" or "sport", I've more than once been referred to as "cracka" by urban youth when walking around town and minding my own business. They are just words and I don't view it as systemic anything, just people being people and saying words that can't affect me.

People are so "affected" these days, it's laughable. I grew up poorer and less privileged than 99% of people I know, but I'm supposed to check my privilege because I'm a white male? Sorry, not gonna happen.

This string of messages has been flagged for moderator consideration.

I apologize in advance for being a straight white cis-male. I will try to atone for all of the privilege that has been afforded to me. I may even take a few tolerance/sensitivity classes for good measure.

That's not what you need to apologize for.  It's rather this:

And this is where we will fundamentally disagree. At least when it comes to first world, western cultures, there are no more frequently suppressed groups; it isn't 1950 anymore. The victim mentality that these supposedly "suppressed" groups foster is a shame, as this is a time of unparalleled equal opportunity no matter what the background.

It's when you're a white, heterosexual male who fails to notice that other groups don't have it as good as you do.  There is far too much evidence of this truth, whether it's black kids getting shot by police, women getting laid off while on mat. leave., or gays not even being able to marry in some places.

It's utterly absurd to think that all of the problems of bigotry and prejudice that have plagued our society have suddenly disappeared.  Only someone at the highest level of privilege could possibly think so.  The fact that, in terms of overall life quality, a lesbian black woman of today has it better than a white man of 100 years ago, even if true, is irrelevant.

Please stop speaking for the purpose of hearing your own voice and start listening to what the people in those other groups are actually telling you.  You don't get to tell them what their lives are like.  You don't get to overwrite their experiences.

Regards,
Toque.

You are in Canada right? I wonder just how much "diversity" you've actually been exposed to. I, for one, actually grew up in a rough, inner city, blue collar neighborhood with "diversity", and went to public schools with "diversity". Anytime I have some social justice warrior telling me just how wrong my views are, they invariably grew up in a suburb and now like to shop at Trader Joes. When I ask why they themselves aren't living in a diverse neighborhood, they always seem to hem and haw (but hey, the rent would be a whole lot cheaper). They have no idea how life actually is around those neighborhoods, it's all just keyboard jockeying or shouting from a pulpit.

Now, does that mean any race, creed or affiliation is "bad" or "good"? Absolutely not, there is bad and good in everything. But for me, I actually understand why blacks are shot more (and just look up FBI violent crime stats), how women crying constant misogyny is silly when it's already been proven that the wage gap is a myth and women are now crushing men in college, and how gays are now very much equal in every aspect (not that rational people even give two craps about who someone wants to have sex with).

[GuitarStv]

I just fail to see this still, in fact, due to this thinking, any legitimate concerns of white straight males seem to be poo-pooed away these days as if they can't possibly matter. I mean look, we have a black president, women make up nearly 60% of college graduates these days, and there are open gays in every aspect of life now with a majority of states allowing for marriage (as a side note I can't wait to see the 10yr divorce rate for gays in 15-20yrs from now).

It's not the fact that you're a privileged white male that people are taking issue with.  You haven't raised any legitimate concerns in this whole thread.

And as for your example, this is the precise reason why many males don't take concerns, even legitimate ones, of women too seriously; there is way too much crying wolf. First off, who knows the context of the how the waiter said it, and hell, even if it was in a condescending way, they are JUST WORDS. Males on a playground growing up go through 10x worse on a daily basis. My best friend, working at the Chicago Board of Trade, was called a "F*cking retard" by his boss at least once a week for the first year. At restaurants and at work I've been called the name "kid" or "sport", I've more than once been referred to as "cracka" by urban youth when walking around town and minding my own business. They are just words and I don't view it as systemic anything, just people being people and saying words that can't affect me.

So, first you explain that you think the women are lying about the treatment they receive.  Next you indicate that they shouldn't care about being treated poorly by men.  Finally, you end indicating that nobody should take offense to anything that's ever said.  Apparently you would prefer to live in a world where you're called a 'fucking retard' and race/sex is regularly brought up when you walk around, because that's just 'people being people'.

it's already been proven that the wage gap is a myth

No, it hasn't.

gays are now very much equal in every aspect

By your own words, they are not treated equally by the state:

with a majority of states allowing for marriage

When you start contradicting yourself, it really seems as though this is just an attempt at trolling rather than discussion.

[jka468]

I just fail to see this still, in fact, due to this thinking, any legitimate concerns of white straight males seem to be poo-pooed away these days as if they can't possibly matter. I mean look, we have a black president, women make up nearly 60% of college graduates these days, and there are open gays in every aspect of life now with a majority of states allowing for marriage (as a side note I can't wait to see the 10yr divorce rate for gays in 15-20yrs from now).

It's not the fact that you're a privileged white male that people are taking issue with.  You haven't raised any legitimate concerns in this whole thread.

And as for your example, this is the precise reason why many males don't take concerns, even legitimate ones, of women too seriously; there is way too much crying wolf. First off, who knows the context of the how the waiter said it, and hell, even if it was in a condescending way, they are JUST WORDS. Males on a playground growing up go through 10x worse on a daily basis. My best friend, working at the Chicago Board of Trade, was called a "F*cking retard" by his boss at least once a week for the first year. At restaurants and at work I've been called the name "kid" or "sport", I've more than once been referred to as "cracka" by urban youth when walking around town and minding my own business. They are just words and I don't view it as systemic anything, just people being people and saying words that can't affect me.

So, first you explain that you think the women are lying about the treatment they receive.  Next you indicate that they shouldn't care about being treated poorly by men.  Finally, you end indicating that nobody should take offense to anything that's ever said.  Apparently you would prefer to live in a world where you're called a 'fucking retard' and race/sex is regularly brought up when you walk around, because that's just 'people being people'.

it's already been proven that the wage gap is a myth

No, it hasn't.

gays are now very much equal in every aspect

By your own words, they are not treated equally by the state:

with a majority of states allowing for marriage

When you start contradicting yourself, it really seems as though this is just an attempt at trolling rather than discussion.

-I never said the story was fabricated. I stated that it is silly to get up in arms over it. When did people get so easily offended, seriously? And I prefer to live in the real world, where every minor infraction or hurt feeling isn't a call to arms and a slight against my identity. Getting so upset over "princess" screams of insecurity IMO.

-Yes, it has, when you hold factors like specific job and time worked constant. You can even look up many articles on the issue from feminist beacons such as HuffPo. Google is your friend; here you go, read point #5, written by a well known feminist...

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/#3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Quote: "FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."

You're laughably misinformed on this issue and subject to a group agenda, so how about you question just what else you may be misinformed about. Raw data is God, don't let a middle(wo)man shape the narrative for you, which far too many people let happen.

-It's not a contradiction. Gays are in the news, in sports, in corporate America, everywhere. While I don't mind gay marriage personally, I think it was a poor PR move and a divisive one at that to push so hard for it over the past 10 years or so (marriage is dying anyways, and my hypothesis is that in 20yrs the gay marriage divorce rate will be higher than the hetero divorce rate due to a number of factors). Like I said, rational people don't mind gays, I don't at all, the pushback now, especially from people who are just like "live and let live" is that homosexuality is being so strongly pushed in popular culture that people are just saying enough is enough. Gays are only 3-5% of the population, but if you watch the mainstream media all the time you would think 50% of America is gay. Like I watch ESPN to see dudes dunking and throwing TD passes, not to find out about Michael Sam's shower habits and watch him make out with his partner. People are also made to feel that if you don't have 6 gay friends, repsect all gays and participate in a pride parade then you are a bigot homophobe. I don't respect anyone or think anyone is "so brave" based on who they screw; I'll do that based on other criteria.

[golden1]

People like the poster above are why we can't have nice things.

You're living in fantasy land. This has nothing to do with male/female dynamics; it has everything to do with human nature. In every relationship, male/male, female/female, mixed or group, there is going to be a leader.  It doesn't always have to be stated, nor does leadership necessarily equate to totalitarianism, but it always shows in some form. From jocks, to nerds to geeks to the workplace to relationships there is going to be a leader; sometimes it's 80-20, sometimes 60-40, but it's never ever 50-50. Men, in general, tend to implicitly acknowledge this, and women, in general, like to think that everyone is equal and co-leaders (this term is laughable), but real world dynamics end up being what they are.

This is not true in our relationship.  There is no one person who is a leader.  That would be stupid.  I have different capabilities as does my husband.  I defer to him in his areas of expertise and he defers to me in mine.  That makes a lot more sense then one person being a leader in all things.

[Cressida]

-Yes, it has, when you hold factors like specific job and time worked constant. You can even look up many articles on the issue from feminist beacons such as HuffPo. Google is your friend; here you go, read point #5, written by a well known feminist...

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/#3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Quote: "FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."

Christina Hoff Sommers is not a feminist.

[SisterX]

-Yes, it has, when you hold factors like specific job and time worked constant. You can even look up many articles on the issue from feminist beacons such as HuffPo. Google is your friend; here you go, read point #5, written by a well known feminist...

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/#3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Quote: "FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."

Christina Hoff Sommers is not a feminist.

I take more issue with the fact that, nowhere in there does it say that these things aren't still problems.  The fact that women are regularly assaulted on college campuses is a HUGE problem, whether the number is 1 in 5 for 1 in 2 million.  It shouldn't fucking happen.
Oh, the wage gap is a myth because women don't work as many hours?  Why not?  Could it perhaps be because more women are providing for children on their own and can't work as many hours because of their tiny dependents?  Or because women are expected to take care of the lion's share of the domestic duties, and so can't work as many hours?  Or because women aren't frequently given access into the kinds of jobs which provide overtime (like construction) or high-up positions which demand a large amount of a person's time (like CEO)?  Or all three?  Those things are still problems, and the article never says that they aren't, the author just took issue with the numbers which were used.

[Dr.Vibrissae]

Look jka, I get it when women tell you they don't like something you've said you feel attacked and get a little defensive. In case you aren’t aware, your posts come off as antagonistic, and as if you don’t have a very high opinion of women.  The princess example was just to illustrate that two people coming from different experiences might perceive the same event differently.  I don't think pointing out that bias exists is a 'victim mentality' nor do I think that addressing the experiences of women and minorities somehow diminishes the issues of men and people in the majority. Feel free to offer an example of a white-male concern that has been pooh-poohed in this thread.

As for the LGBT community, visibility is not the same thing as equality. Since attitudes on gay marriage have improved at the same time that activists have made a concerted effort to raise awareness and advance litigation on the subject, I have to disagree that it was a poor PR move.

In an effort to reduce the foam: I tend to agree that a person can have any criteria they like, although their results may vary. I would think it’s unreasonable to limit yourself based on options that aren’t likely to influence longterm compatibility. Religion, finances, attractiveness (to each other), level of intelligence, level of education, cultural background are all things that can influence marital satisfaction. Having a specific trait like double D’s less so.

[Cressida]

People are so "affected" these days, it's laughable. I grew up poorer and less privileged than 99% of people I know, but I'm supposed to check my privilege because I'm a white male? Sorry, not gonna happen.

I actually kind of get this, but: Sorry. Yes, you are.

It reminds me of an article I read by an African-American columnist about the Adrian Peterson abuse situation. The columnist told a story about riding the subway in D.C. in a predominantly black neighborhood, so that the subway had predominantly black riders. There was a white parent who was letting her child misbehave and run around, and the columnist felt a solidarity with the other riders because (she believed) they all felt that African-American parents would be stricter with their child. The phrase I recall was something like, black children are disciplined while white children are taught that "the world is theirs for the taking."

And I (a white person) immediately thought, "I fucking wasn't taught that the world was mine for the taking! I got smacked around by my parents and they made me feel worthless! What the hell!"

But I had to stop short and consider where my anger was coming from. Was I really angry at the columnist for saying I was privileged in a particular way that I did not feel privileged? No. Actually I was angry at my parents for being such crappy parents and angry that I was being forced to live through that experience again.

And whatever I was feeling, it didn't mean that I was allowed to dismiss the columnist's entire argument and experience because I didn't like the way it made me feel. I don't get to do that. That's her experience and it's one I don't have.

I don't expect any of this to resonate with jka, but I think it's an important point.

[FrugalToque]

Your reply to me was rather caked with irrelevancy.  As if I somehow have to defend my position by listing all of the people I know who aren't white, hetero men.

I will instead reply to the following remark you made, apparently quoting a feminist, which demonstrates that you're not actually listening to the arguments other people are making:

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/#3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Quote: "FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."

So, what you'd like us to do is ignore all the ways in which women are treated unequally and then we'd just see that there's no discrimination?

Shall we just ignore:
Occupations - that women are kept out of the highest paying occupations
Positions - women are kept out of the highest echelons of those professions?
Education - Why should we have to ignore education?  I thought women had conquered education with their majority of graduates?  Or are they graduating with majors that don't earn them the same pay?
Job tenure - that women are, through single motherhood, motherhood, expectations of eventual motherhood, the requirement to maintain continuous medical coverage for their children and other societal forces, required to take more stable, less risky jobs?
Hours per week- that women are, generally speaking, saddled with more domestic chores and duties and can't work as many hours?

So again, I would urge you to listen to what women are telling you about why their lives are the way they are, instead of finding excuses and rationalization for continuing their mistreatment.

Oh, and please be aware that calling a woman "princess" is totally inappropriate in a work environment.  Words like that infantilize a woman and tell everyone that her opinions and contributions can be ignored.

Toque.

[jka468]

-Yes, it has, when you hold factors like specific job and time worked constant. You can even look up many articles on the issue from feminist beacons such as HuffPo. Google is your friend; here you go, read point #5, written by a well known feminist...

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/#3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Quote: "FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."

Christina Hoff Sommers is not a feminist.

So you are now allowed to control what she labels herself? She calls herself a feminist, just doesn't agree with many of the new wave opinions.

Argue the facts that I presented, not the what you think she should be called.

Your reply to me was rather caked with irrelevancy.  As if I somehow have to defend my position by listing all of the people I know who aren't white, hetero men.

I will instead reply to the following remark you made, apparently quoting a feminist, which demonstrates that you're not actually listening to the arguments other people are making:

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/#3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Quote: "FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."

So, what you'd like us to do is ignore all the ways in which women are treated unequally and then we'd just see that there's no discrimination?

Shall we just ignore:
Occupations - that women are kept out of the highest paying occupations
Positions - women are kept out of the highest echelons of those professions?
Education - Why should we have to ignore education?  I thought women had conquered education with their majority of graduates?  Or are they graduating with majors that don't earn them the same pay?
Job tenure - that women are, through single motherhood, motherhood, expectations of eventual motherhood, the requirement to maintain continuous medical coverage for their children and other societal forces, required to take more stable, less risky jobs?
Hours per week- that women are, generally speaking, saddled with more domestic chores and duties and can't work as many hours?

So again, I would urge you to listen to what women are telling you about why their lives are the way they are, instead of finding excuses and rationalization for continuing their mistreatment.

Oh, and please be aware that calling a woman "princess" is totally inappropriate in a work environment.  Words like that infantilize a woman and tell everyone that her opinions and contributions can be ignored.

Toque.

Jesus Christ, what are you talking about? Just admit that you were wrong. I seriously don't know what else to do besides point out the facts as blatantly as I have; if that doesn't convince you, nothing else will and you can just continue living in whatever unjust world you think you live in. Practically every one of your points that you listed out are addressed in the link to the U.S. Department of Labor's report on the "wage gap". To address some of your points...

Occupations: Quote: "In 2007, women accounted for 51 percent of all workers in the high-paying management, professional, and related occupations. They outnumbered men in such occupations as financial managers, human resource managers, education administrators, medical and health services managers, and accountants and auditors."

Education: How is this even a problem? Women are able to major in whatever the hell they want!? It's not big bad men who pay social workers less than computer scientists, it's the free market! There is no problem here whatsoever for women, and as stated, more women get degrees now.

Job Tenure: Motherhood is a choice now, Roe vs. Wade anybody? No one forces a woman to become a mom, stop blaming others. I have absolutely no duty as a childless man to cater to mothers who now willingly make that choice. Please explain to me why I should? Either agree that everyone, men and women, should be given the same privileges at work, and more time off, or that women knowingly choose to have children and potentially harm their career.

This same idea is again addressed in the report. Childless women have ZERO, NONE, ZILCH pay gap with men in the same field. Comparing childless John and childless Sally is what is called apples to apples. If there was a discrepency here then I would be the first one to make a fuss about it, but there isn't. Comparing childless John to two (conscious choice) kids Sally is apples to oranges. Why should she be afforded the exact same career path as John if she ends up taking more time off for maternity leave, childcare, sickdays, etc.? My labor is not a subsidy for someone to pop out kids and then complain how childless people have all the perks. Once again, Mustachianism is about personal responsiblity, and this is the antithesis of personal repsonsibility. Women now choose to have kids, but they think concessions should be made for them when having kids, c'mon.

Hours per week: This is addressed in the report. Holding factors constant, women tend to work LESS hours per week then men.

It's okay, I know I'm shattering your world view, and you don't even have to say your wrong, but just stop spouting nonsense.

-Yes, it has, when you hold factors like specific job and time worked constant. You can even look up many articles on the issue from feminist beacons such as HuffPo. Google is your friend; here you go, read point #5, written by a well known feminist...

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/#3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Quote: "FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing."

Christina Hoff Sommers is not a feminist.

I take more issue with the fact that, nowhere in there does it say that these things aren't still problems.  The fact that women are regularly assaulted on college campuses is a HUGE problem, whether the number is 1 in 5 for 1 in 2 million.  It shouldn't fucking happen.

OMG, this is so dumb, stop shifting the goalposts. Women ARE NOT regularly assaulted on college campuses, that's a complete lie. It does matter what the number is, as false numbers simply appeal to dishonest emotions, if it was actually 1 in 5 then why in the world would parents send their daughters to these rape factories, ahem I mean colleges? No one stated it wasn't a problem at all, it was stated that blatant lies and propaganda to demonize men and "college rape culture" is simply wrong. Why do you make apologies for blatant lies that are spouted?

Look jka, I get it when women tell you they don't like something you've said you feel attacked and get a little defensive. In case you aren’t aware, your posts come off as antagonistic, and as if you don’t have a very high opinion of women.  The princess example was just to illustrate that two people coming from different experiences might perceive the same event differently.  I don't think pointing out that bias exists is a 'victim mentality' nor do I think that addressing the experiences of women and minorities somehow diminishes the issues of men and people in the majority. Feel free to offer an example of a white-male concern that has been pooh-poohed in this thread.

Notice the ad hominem, rather than discussing any of the facts that I presented.

Most people are ill informed; I have no less opinion of women in general than I do of men in general. It's the fact that I present facts and raw data to support my claims and not one person here can go "oh, I see. I guess I was mininformed by unreliable narrarators. I'll do more research on this topic and see where it shifts my attitude." No, instead they'd rather bunker down, shift the goalposts and and attack my character rather than my facts.

People hate hate hate to admit that they have been mislead, and that's what mainstream media does to people in regards to all of these topics. You know what sells advertising and papers and internet clicks: sexual assault and rape, battles between the sexes, divorce, blame on men/women so that the other side can point a finger, racial tensions, war. You know what doesn't sell: the truth in regards to all of that. I'm not calling men, women, anyone, devils or saints, I'm just saying stop clouding ideas with bias.

[jka468]

Oh, and please be aware that calling a woman "princess" is totally inappropriate in a work environment.  Words like that infantilize a woman and tell everyone that her opinions and contributions can be ignored.

Toque.

^this. And it's also not appropriate to call a woman (especially one you don't know) Princess or any variation even in a social setting. Just plain wrong, insulting, and humiliating. But then maybe Sweet Cheeks didn't realize that when he said women were being "insecure" :-)!

This is simply misconstruing my point. I never said that it was appropriate, and I wouldn't do it, especially in a work environemnt (it was actually a waiter who said this in the story) but my point is that this, of all things, is what someone needs to get all heated and up in arms about? If 'princess' is someone's call to arms then yes, it's insecurity.

PS: You can call me Sweet Cheeks anytime you want Spartana. I don't squat all the time at the gym for nothing.