Author Topic: FIRE featured on CBS this morning  (Read 2934 times)

HankWilliams

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« on: June 11, 2019, 07:36:27 PM »
Hey yall, fyi saw this posted today on CBS This Morning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOP2f5p2ws8&t=1s
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 08:37:40 PM by HankWilliams »

FiveSigmas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2019, 07:59:42 PM »
Nice to see another positive (if short) segment in the mainstream media. I particularly liked that the couple they focused on wasn't one of the big headliners (and they weren't actively pushing a book/blog).

Thanks for sharing, Hank!

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2493
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2019, 08:19:13 PM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

FIREstache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2019, 08:50:50 PM »

They say that saving aggressively is a new trend.  LOL  I've been doing it for over 15 years.

FIREstache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2019, 08:57:04 PM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

Right near the top, it says, "“There’s this mind-set in FIRE discussions that you have to cut out everything that’s not essential, but what’s essential to a white male is very different from what’s essential to me,” as if all white men consider the same things to be essential.  This forum shows that's definitely not the case.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3662
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2019, 09:13:44 PM »
Right near the top, it says, "“There’s this mind-set in FIRE discussions that you have to cut out everything that’s not essential, but what’s essential to a white male is very different from what’s essential to me,” as if all white men consider the same things to be essential.  This forum shows that's definitely not the case.

Quote from: nytimes
While none of these women have a silver bullet for saving money, they tend to practice similar habits. They drive old cars, eschew restaurants and bars, turn down social outings, make food from scratch, shop at thrift stores (if at all) and institute “no-spend weeks” (just what they sound like). For fun, they entertain at home or do free activities like hiking.

Crazy different.

Maenad

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Minneapolis 'burbs
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2019, 03:23:42 AM »
The "bro-heavy archetype" is more common in other spaces. The FI subreddit had to institute a rule banning posts generalizing genders because so many guys were bitching about how all the women they tried dating just wanted them to spend money and wimmin' amirite?

Since FIRE is easier on a high income, and since technically-minded people can find it easier to budget, play with spreadsheets, optimize spending, etc., the community as a whole skews higher-income and engineer-type-heavy. From my work experience, Bro culture can be really bad among male engineers in the industries around computing.

I think a lot of the media get their impressions from Reddit, since it's just so easy to find and easy to scan and get a feel for. And there's sensationalism going on - who wants to write about someone who spent 20 years patiently saving and tracking their spending to retire in their mid-40s, or *gasp* mid-50s, when you can focus on the retire-at-32 crowd?


Linea_Norway

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5144
  • Location: Norway
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2019, 03:38:38 AM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

From the comments:

MJ
Los Angeles, CAJune 8
Times Pick
@Krakatoa I am also on a lot of those anonymous FIRE forums. Self-identification is unnecessary when there is a constant stream of comments about how "Women are expensive" and "Marrying a woman is counter to FIRE goals".

Yes, it has been mentioned on this site that when you have saved up a large amount of stash as a single, and you want to marry a women with normal means, that the marriage could become very expensive, as could a potential divorse. But we have also warned a woman in the same situation, against marrying a guy without means with shared finances. It is more about the difference in stash that enters the marriage than about the difference in genders.

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8108
  • Location: Don't Ask
  • Resting up for 2020
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2019, 04:03:21 AM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

From the comments:

MJ
Los Angeles, CAJune 8
Times Pick
@Krakatoa I am also on a lot of those anonymous FIRE forums. Self-identification is unnecessary when there is a constant stream of comments about how "Women are expensive" and "Marrying a woman is counter to FIRE goals".

Yes, it has been mentioned on this site that when you have saved up a large amount of stash as a single, and you want to marry a women with normal means, that the marriage could become very expensive, as could a potential divorse. But we have also warned a woman in the same situation, against marrying a guy without means with shared finances. It is more about the difference in stash that enters the marriage than about the difference in genders.

This forum is a lot less sexist than reddit. I've barely peeked into the fire areas over there, but I saw a huge amount of gross comments in a short time. It *was* about gender there. Like Maenad said, that's likely one cause of her impression.

I know people who think there's still subtle sexism here, but I haven't seen it to that level.

wageslave23

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2019, 07:16:57 AM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

From the comments:

MJ
Los Angeles, CAJune 8
Times Pick
@Krakatoa I am also on a lot of those anonymous FIRE forums. Self-identification is unnecessary when there is a constant stream of comments about how "Women are expensive" and "Marrying a woman is counter to FIRE goals".

Yes, it has been mentioned on this site that when you have saved up a large amount of stash as a single, and you want to marry a women with normal means, that the marriage could become very expensive, as could a potential divorse. But we have also warned a woman in the same situation, against marrying a guy without means with shared finances. It is more about the difference in stash that enters the marriage than about the difference in genders.

This forum is a lot less sexist than reddit. I've barely peeked into the fire areas over there, but I saw a huge amount of gross comments in a short time. It *was* about gender there. Like Maenad said, that's likely one cause of her impression.

I know people who think there's still subtle sexism here, but I haven't seen it to that level.

Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9968
  • Age: 61
  • Location: NorCal
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2019, 07:33:15 AM »
Except for when the FIRE movement started (Hello, YMOYL), I think this story nailed it! Thanks for the link!

Malkynn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2019, 07:58:51 AM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

From the comments:

MJ
Los Angeles, CAJune 8
Times Pick
@Krakatoa I am also on a lot of those anonymous FIRE forums. Self-identification is unnecessary when there is a constant stream of comments about how "Women are expensive" and "Marrying a woman is counter to FIRE goals".

Yes, it has been mentioned on this site that when you have saved up a large amount of stash as a single, and you want to marry a women with normal means, that the marriage could become very expensive, as could a potential divorse. But we have also warned a woman in the same situation, against marrying a guy without means with shared finances. It is more about the difference in stash that enters the marriage than about the difference in genders.

This forum is a lot less sexist than reddit. I've barely peeked into the fire areas over there, but I saw a huge amount of gross comments in a short time. It *was* about gender there. Like Maenad said, that's likely one cause of her impression.

I know people who think there's still subtle sexism here, but I haven't seen it to that level.

Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

Yep.

Society socialized both men and women to care about such things, and many people are shallow and care deeply about appearances.

I've been on many an awkward date where men became uncomfortable to agitated when they found out about my profession.

Hell, even just talking to men I'm not dating, it's been awkward when they find out I make more than they do.

Breaking social norms is difficult for everyone.

fattest_foot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2019, 09:02:09 AM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

This NYT article features the same woman, and yet, you get vastly different takes on her personal viewpoints.

Considering the CBS one has video of her actually speaking those points, the NYT article is clearly just the author's biased opinion. It's the sad state of journalism in 2019.

wageslave23

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #13 on: June 12, 2019, 09:05:39 AM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

From the comments:

MJ
Los Angeles, CAJune 8
Times Pick
@Krakatoa I am also on a lot of those anonymous FIRE forums. Self-identification is unnecessary when there is a constant stream of comments about how "Women are expensive" and "Marrying a woman is counter to FIRE goals".

Yes, it has been mentioned on this site that when you have saved up a large amount of stash as a single, and you want to marry a women with normal means, that the marriage could become very expensive, as could a potential divorse. But we have also warned a woman in the same situation, against marrying a guy without means with shared finances. It is more about the difference in stash that enters the marriage than about the difference in genders.

This forum is a lot less sexist than reddit. I've barely peeked into the fire areas over there, but I saw a huge amount of gross comments in a short time. It *was* about gender there. Like Maenad said, that's likely one cause of her impression.

I know people who think there's still subtle sexism here, but I haven't seen it to that level.

Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

Yep.

Society socialized both men and women to care about such things, and many people are shallow and care deeply about appearances.

I've been on many an awkward date where men became uncomfortable to agitated when they found out about my profession.

Hell, even just talking to men I'm not dating, it's been awkward when they find out I make more than they do.

Breaking social norms is difficult for everyone.

That's interesting.  Because as a mustachian I could care less how much a woman makes or what her networth is as long as she's not massively in debt, but I wouldn't see a downside to her making a lot of money even if its more than me.  Hell, I'd be the first one to suggest if she loves her job, that I'd be happy to be a stay at home dad.  But then again I don't find my identity in job title or salary or networth. 

mizzourah2006

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
  • Location: NWA
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2019, 09:33:56 AM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

This NYT article features the same woman, and yet, you get vastly different takes on her personal viewpoints.

Considering the CBS one has video of her actually speaking those points, the NYT article is clearly just the author's biased opinion. It's the sad state of journalism in 2019.

That is interesting. I guess I get the NYT articles idea around having women as FI role models for other women to emulate or relate to makes sense, but the author seems to imply that FI is somehow different for women, but then when she describes what the do

Quote
They drive old cars, eschew restaurants and bars, turn down social outings, make food from scratch, shop at thrift stores (if at all) and institute “no-spend weeks” (just what they sound like). For fun, they entertain at home or do free activities like hiking.

Nothing about that is unique to being a woman. Then the author goes on to describe another Vietnamese woman that sends money home to parents. I will claim ignorance on the Vietnamese culture, but is that only an expectation of female offspring? That seems to me to be a cultural thing, not a female thing. It just seemed to me that the author of the NYT article was all over the place.

therethere

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2019, 09:48:13 AM »
Ugh I really hate that article title. What is different about a woman saving money versus a man? Half of FIRE is adjusting your priorities, whatever they may be. Just another article creating a divide where there isn't really one.

It really just means... These women found that there were no women based FIRE blogs/advocates and jumped in to fill the niche.

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3384
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2019, 10:13:44 AM »
I always find it weird when people see there being some huge chasm between FIRE for women and FIRE for men. In my case, I have planned and orchestrated the entire FIRE process for me and my boyfriend, and can confirm that it is exactly. the. same. for both of us. We live in the same apartment, eat the same food, use the same toiletries, and have identical investment portfolios. It's JUST MATH. Get your savings rate up to X% by increasing your income or lowering your expenses, and retire in Y years. Either gender can blow a bunch of money on crap and call it essential.

HankWilliams

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2019, 10:28:01 AM »
Wow did this thread take a crazy spin.

I just thought it was huge that the idea of saving early and FIRE being on CBS was pretty cool.
If it turns just one person (man or woman) on and they save money and cut down on their debt, then... good job CBS.

Anyways, carry on....

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3662
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2019, 10:36:55 AM »
Wow did this thread take a crazy spin.

I just thought it was huge that the idea of saving early and FIRE being on CBS was pretty cool.
If it turns just one person (man or woman) on and they save money and cut down on their debt, then... good job CBS.

Anyways, carry on....

The CBS story was a great representation of FIRE pursuers. They seemed middle class enough not to scare people.

It was the NYT article that set us off.

Malkynn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2019, 10:51:54 AM »
I first saw the same person here, but it started as a bit negative on MMM, but as I read it, I thought why the headline when the are following the recipe.

Headline:
For These Women, a FIRE That Burns Too Male and Too White

Fed up with the bro-heavy archetype of the FIRE trend (“financial independence, retire early”), women are carving out their own niche in the frugal-living movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/business/fire-women-retire-early.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab#commentsContainer

From the comments:

MJ
Los Angeles, CAJune 8
Times Pick
@Krakatoa I am also on a lot of those anonymous FIRE forums. Self-identification is unnecessary when there is a constant stream of comments about how "Women are expensive" and "Marrying a woman is counter to FIRE goals".

Yes, it has been mentioned on this site that when you have saved up a large amount of stash as a single, and you want to marry a women with normal means, that the marriage could become very expensive, as could a potential divorse. But we have also warned a woman in the same situation, against marrying a guy without means with shared finances. It is more about the difference in stash that enters the marriage than about the difference in genders.

This forum is a lot less sexist than reddit. I've barely peeked into the fire areas over there, but I saw a huge amount of gross comments in a short time. It *was* about gender there. Like Maenad said, that's likely one cause of her impression.

I know people who think there's still subtle sexism here, but I haven't seen it to that level.

Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

Yep.

Society socialized both men and women to care about such things, and many people are shallow and care deeply about appearances.

I've been on many an awkward date where men became uncomfortable to agitated when they found out about my profession.

Hell, even just talking to men I'm not dating, it's been awkward when they find out I make more than they do.

Breaking social norms is difficult for everyone.

That's interesting.  Because as a mustachian I could care less how much a woman makes or what her networth is as long as she's not massively in debt, but I wouldn't see a downside to her making a lot of money even if its more than me.  Hell, I'd be the first one to suggest if she loves her job, that I'd be happy to be a stay at home dad.  But then again I don't find my identity in job title or salary or networth.

Yeah, and as a Mustachian, I don't care that my DH had less than half the earning potential that I do.

Plenty of women will respect you for driving a Sentra, especially if it's paid off. Don't get hung up on what judgemental people are judgmental about. Just don't date them.

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2493
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2019, 10:56:48 AM »
Wow did this thread take a crazy spin.

I just thought it was huge that the idea of saving early and FIRE being on CBS was pretty cool.
If it turns just one person (man or woman) on and they save money and cut down on their debt, then... good job CBS.

Anyways, carry on....

Ya, My fault, I posted the NYT article, because I saw it before seeing this post.
I thought it interesting how different the point of view shown by each.

Arbitrage

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2019, 12:58:06 PM »

Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

I've been surprised to discover how concerned a female friend of mine (divorced, now out of a long-term relationship and dating again) is with what her potential dates do for a living and whether or not they have advanced degrees.  Whether or not they have at least a Master's Degree is actually a hard filter for her, and their current career is definitely way up there on her list as well.  She's not (otherwise?) particularly shallow, but these criteria definitely are a reality for someone whom I'd say is pretty normal. 

I suppose that I haven't been truly single for almost twenty years, so I'm willing to accept that I'm naive about these things. 

As for the general discussion on the exclusionary nature of the FIRE movement, I'd believe that it could feel like a turnoff for those not well-represented in the movement's icons.  Clearly, the basics and the math won't be very different based upon your race/gender, but people still need to identify with something to really imagine themselves in that place.

FiveSigmas

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2019, 01:21:37 PM »
Ya, My fault, I posted the NYT article, because I saw it before seeing this post.
I thought it interesting how different the point of view shown by each.

I agree that it was an interesting contrast. Thanks for adding the link.

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2493
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2019, 02:00:27 PM »
I'm surprised at all the surprise that a woman would look to a man to provide her a comfortable life!
 It has only been a tiny blip in civilization that it would not be the norm for a woman to rely on a man
 for all her financial status. Society has made a fast change but it far from an equal situation,
there is still a good chance that sex appeal will attract money and money will get you sex.
  Yet, into days society finances have become a team effort.

 That said, the gold digger Youtube videos are a hoot.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gold+digger+prank+hooman

Bernard

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2019, 02:23:24 PM »
A few years back, and running for many years, there was a dude on talk radio, named Tom Lykis . His entire show was about how guys could get laid easily. "If she doesn't put out on the third date, dump her and move on."
He offered even ATM printouts of his account to lure chicks into believing the victim is wealthy. His theory was simple: men try to attract the hottest chick they can get, and women try to attract the wealthiest dude they can get.
The guy was as shallow as it gets, but on principle he was correct, yes?

Wrenchturner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2019, 02:53:48 PM »
A few years back, and running for many years, there was a dude on talk radio, named Tom Lykis . His entire show was about how guys could get laid easily. "If she doesn't put out on the third date, dump her and move on."
He offered even ATM printouts of his account to lure chicks into believing the victim is wealthy. His theory was simple: men try to attract the hottest chick they can get, and women try to attract the wealthiest dude they can get.
The guy was as shallow as it gets, but on principle he was correct, yes?
There is some truth to it.  Socioeconomic priorities are not entirely socially constructed or influenced.  They are also genetic, see evolutionary psychology, James Damore situation, etc.  Men and women have different wiring for ambition, cooperation, aggression, etc.  There are outliers and overlap.  This type of dimorphism is rooted(quite literally) from long before we were humans, and even before we were animals.

FireLane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Location: NYC
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2019, 03:16:58 PM »
There is some truth to it.  Socioeconomic priorities are not entirely socially constructed or influenced.  They are also genetic, see evolutionary psychology, James Damore situation, etc.  Men and women have different wiring for ambition, cooperation, aggression, etc.

There are a lot of people who believe this, but there's no evidence for it. It's just popular prejudice dressed up in the fashionable scientific language of the era, much like phrenologists used to claim that bumps on the head corresponded to personality traits:

Quote
Experts used to attribute gender inequality to the "delicacy of the brain fibers" in women; then to the smaller dimensions of the female brain (the "missing five ounces," the Victorians called it); then to the ratio of skull length to skull breadth. In 1915 the neurologist Dr. Charles L. Dana wrote in this newspaper that because a woman's upper spinal cord is smaller than a man's it affects women's "efficiency" in the evaluation of "political initiative or of judicial authority in a community's organization" — and thus compromises their ability to vote.

Nowadays we talk about DNA and brain scans, but the basic fallacy is the same. We don't know enough about human behavior in general to say with any confidence which aspects of it are cultural and which are genetic. To claim that we can catalogue specific differences between men and women is a step beyond even that.

Malkynn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2019, 03:19:19 PM »

Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

I've been surprised to discover how concerned a female friend of mine (divorced, now out of a long-term relationship and dating again) is with what her potential dates do for a living and whether or not they have advanced degrees.  Whether or not they have at least a Master's Degree is actually a hard filter for her, and their current career is definitely way up there on her list as well.  She's not (otherwise?) particularly shallow, but these criteria definitely are a reality for someone whom I'd say is pretty normal. 

I suppose that I haven't been truly single for almost twenty years, so I'm willing to accept that I'm naive about these things. 

Sorry...what's the problem with preferring that someone have graduate level education???

Everyone has their preferences, maybe she gets off on diplomas.

I mean, if she's using a graduate degree as some kind of proxy for income, then that's just stupid.

Arbitrage

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2019, 03:30:45 PM »

Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

I've been surprised to discover how concerned a female friend of mine (divorced, now out of a long-term relationship and dating again) is with what her potential dates do for a living and whether or not they have advanced degrees.  Whether or not they have at least a Master's Degree is actually a hard filter for her, and their current career is definitely way up there on her list as well.  She's not (otherwise?) particularly shallow, but these criteria definitely are a reality for someone whom I'd say is pretty normal. 

I suppose that I haven't been truly single for almost twenty years, so I'm willing to accept that I'm naive about these things. 

Sorry...what's the problem with preferring that someone have graduate level education???

Everyone has their preferences, maybe she gets off on diplomas.

I mean, if she's using a graduate degree as some kind of proxy for income, then that's just stupid.

Did I say there was a problem?  It was an observation.

Wrenchturner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2019, 04:01:23 PM »
There is some truth to it.  Socioeconomic priorities are not entirely socially constructed or influenced.  They are also genetic, see evolutionary psychology, James Damore situation, etc.  Men and women have different wiring for ambition, cooperation, aggression, etc.

There are a lot of people who believe this, but there's no evidence for it. It's just popular prejudice dressed up in the fashionable scientific language of the era, much like phrenologists used to claim that bumps on the head corresponded to personality traits:

Quote
Experts used to attribute gender inequality to the "delicacy of the brain fibers" in women; then to the smaller dimensions of the female brain (the "missing five ounces," the Victorians called it); then to the ratio of skull length to skull breadth. In 1915 the neurologist Dr. Charles L. Dana wrote in this newspaper that because a woman's upper spinal cord is smaller than a man's it affects women's "efficiency" in the evaluation of "political initiative or of judicial authority in a community's organization" — and thus compromises their ability to vote.

Nowadays we talk about DNA and brain scans, but the basic fallacy is the same. We don't know enough about human behavior in general to say with any confidence which aspects of it are cultural and which are genetic. To claim that we can catalogue specific differences between men and women is a step beyond even that.

I'm not convinced you have discredited the whole field of evolutionary psych with this post.  My upper body strength is not socially conditioned.  I know zero/50 rv technicians that are female.  Nursing women produce differing breast milk based on the sex of their baby.

Male animals behave way differently than female ones.  There is plenty of evidence for dimorphism.  Males and females are asymmetrical and unequal, but that mostly becomes a semantic problem of what "equality" even means, since different people have different priorities.  And maternal mammals have far different selection mechanisms than competing male mammals, for instance.  The carriage of a fetus into infancy has Darwinian outcomes.

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
  • Retired at 42
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2019, 08:40:02 PM »
I couldn't view the video but the NYT article really baffled me. As a woman who FIREd single I just don't see anything different between my FI and RE journey and life and what a white techy guys would be.  "Girl things" like make up.and grooming can be cheap, clothing can be inexpensive just as hobbies can. Even jobs can be the same and earnings the same. I don't spend any more than any males I know so why does a woman need a woman-centric FIRE blog? Other than to dispell the myth that all FIREees are high earning white engineers.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 08:45:14 PM by spartana »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8480
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2019, 08:52:58 PM »
What is different about a woman saving money versus a man? Half of FIRE is adjusting your priorities, whatever they may be. Just another article creating a divide where there isn't really one.

Vanguard and Fidelity, among others, have often made the case that retirement planning for women is notably different than it is for men.  For one thing they make less money on average, meaning they typically have a lower savings rate.  And then they tend to live longer after retirement, so their money has to last longer.  Both of these factors influence how a person's chosen asset allocation should evolve over the course of a lifetime, with the general summary being that women aiming for traditional retirement age (and thus still planning to work for decades) should consider choosing a higher stock allocation than a man of the same age would.  Their savings need to grow a little faster and last a little longer.

It's a tiny point, in this context, but I've seen it mentioned on the Vanguard website often enough that I thought it worth mentioning as part of this conversation.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8480
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2019, 08:57:30 PM »
I'm not convinced you have discredited the whole field of evolutionary psych with this post.

I'm not convinced we have to.  Evolutionary psychology is widely considered a sham science in academic circles.  They're a relatively recent field, and they immediately and negligently overstepped the bounds of their data and spent their first decade publishing unsupported speculation as if it were accepted fact.  Plus, lots of it was gross and is now only cited by incel red-pill types desperately looking for a justification for their anger management problems.

There's got to be some value in there somewhere, but as of 2019 evolutionary psychology is a punchline more often than anything else.

deborah

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8459
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2019, 09:04:02 PM »
When I saw the NYT article, I laughed, since we appear to have more women than men in MMM. Various polls have come out with that result, and other things, like meetups, journals, Camp Mustaches... point in the same direction. Certainly they don't point to this forum having an enormous majority of men.

the_gastropod

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 162
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Brooklyn, NY
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2019, 09:10:20 PM »
The CBS video was really good. Couldn't believe what a dork the contrarian guy at the end was, though. "Find something you love, never work a day in your life, and spend what you have". Think he totally missed the point.

brooklynmoney

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Location: Crooklyn
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2019, 09:23:54 PM »
Having a high paying job as a woman requires a lot more investment in personal grooming than it does for men usually.Clothes, shoes handbags etc. yes there are beauty hacks ie I paint my own nails and I buy my makeup at Duane Reade. And my bag does not cost $1k which I would say is not unusual in offices I have worked (many Goyard bags and big ones). Yes men can wear custom suits and fancy briefcases but it’s usually only on Wall Street that you see that not in everyday offices like all the things I named above women usually do. Are the principles of FIRE the same yes. Are some of the challenges different yes. Let alone structural issues like leaving the workforce to care for family or children which women do at a much higher rate, the pay gap and longer lifespans. Things in general are probably more complicated for women for these reasons. I love FIRE and this message board but I would also really dig a women centric FIRE blog as well.



Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3384
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2019, 09:30:21 PM »
When I saw the NYT article, I laughed, since we appear to have more women than men in MMM. Various polls have come out with that result, and other things, like meetups, journals, Camp Mustaches... point in the same direction. Certainly they don't point to this forum having an enormous majority of men.

Adding another data point, this is certainly the case in the various Vancouver FIRE clubs/meetups at least - every event I've been to has had as many (or more) women than men, and plenty of representation across races and careers as well. As far as the white tech bro stereotype, I think I know like, one, maybe two guys that fit that profile, and that's it - everyone else is something different.

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
  • Retired at 42
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2019, 10:22:34 PM »
Having a high paying job as a woman requires a lot more investment in personal grooming than it does for men usually.Clothes, shoes handbags etc. yes there are beauty hacks ie I paint my own nails and I buy my makeup at Duane Reade. And my bag does not cost $1k which I would say is not unusual in offices I have worked (many Goyard bags and big ones). Yes men can wear custom suits and fancy briefcases but it’s usually only on Wall Street that you see that not in everyday offices like all the things I named above women usually do. Are the principles of FIRE the same yes. Are some of the challenges different yes. Let alone structural issues like leaving the workforce to care for family or children which women do at a much higher rate, the pay gap and longer lifespans. Things in general are probably more complicated for women for these reasons. I love FIRE and this message board but I would also really dig a women centric FIRE blog as well.
But not every woman who FIREs or has a high earning job works in the kind of profession that requires those things - just like many higher earning men don't. Wall street business attire probably isn't required for most jobs. As for leaving the workforce or down grading to a less demanding job or child/eldercare stuff, I agree that those tasks fall to more women then men but that is usually by choice (or societal or cultural expectations) and its something g that can be shared by a couple.

I do think most FIRE blogs should focus on various potential situations that could effect individuals -  whether male or female. The singles, couples, parent/s, divorced, lower income earners, people with disabilities or dealing with disabled kids or elderly parents, etc. All of those thinge are going to change a person's dynamics on how they work, save and reach FIRE.

JTColton

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2019, 01:43:33 AM »
Seems like there is more and more coverage in media about FIRE, it's a good thing I think overall but I cant help but think that the movement is considered a "threat" to the status quo which explains some of the unbalanced coverage. If everyone worked hard, save like mad, then dropped out of the work force and consumed less I think the economy would have to drastically and rapidly re-balance.


Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

Shocking! So women care more about security and men care more about looks?  News at 11...


I've been surprised to discover how concerned a female friend of mine (divorced, now out of a long-term relationship and dating again) is with what her potential dates do for a living and whether or not they have advanced degrees.  Whether or not they have at least a Master's Degree is actually a hard filter for her, and their current career is definitely way up there on her list as well.  She's not (otherwise?) particularly shallow, but these criteria definitely are a reality for someone whom I'd say is pretty normal. 

I suppose that I haven't been truly single for almost twenty years, so I'm willing to accept that I'm naive about these things. 

Sorry...what's the problem with preferring that someone have graduate level education???

Everyone has their preferences, maybe she gets off on diplomas.

I mean, if she's using a graduate degree as some kind of proxy for income, then that's just stupid.

I don't think there is anything wrong at all with the application of individual standards to partner selection, so long as it goes both ways. Women don't get to filter by "must have M.S" or "must be 6' tall and have good job" while decrying men as sexist when they filter for "no single moms" or "no fatties".  I was told my thoughts on screening a person for a relationship based on financial health as an indicator for sound decision making and risk aversion were "harsh" and "horrifying" by several posters in the 40 yo GF with 80k debt thread.


Malkynn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2019, 03:41:22 AM »
Seems like there is more and more coverage in media about FIRE, it's a good thing I think overall but I cant help but think that the movement is considered a "threat" to the status quo which explains some of the unbalanced coverage. If everyone worked hard, save like mad, then dropped out of the work force and consumed less I think the economy would have to drastically and rapidly re-balance.


Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

Shocking! So women care more about security and men care more about looks?  News at 11...


I've been surprised to discover how concerned a female friend of mine (divorced, now out of a long-term relationship and dating again) is with what her potential dates do for a living and whether or not they have advanced degrees.  Whether or not they have at least a Master's Degree is actually a hard filter for her, and their current career is definitely way up there on her list as well.  She's not (otherwise?) particularly shallow, but these criteria definitely are a reality for someone whom I'd say is pretty normal. 

I suppose that I haven't been truly single for almost twenty years, so I'm willing to accept that I'm naive about these things. 

Sorry...what's the problem with preferring that someone have graduate level education???

Everyone has their preferences, maybe she gets off on diplomas.

I mean, if she's using a graduate degree as some kind of proxy for income, then that's just stupid.

I don't think there is anything wrong at all with the application of individual standards to partner selection, so long as it goes both ways. Women don't get to filter by "must have M.S" or "must be 6' tall and have good job" while decrying men as sexist when they filter for "no single moms" or "no fatties".  I was told my thoughts on screening a person for a relationship based on financial health as an indicator for sound decision making and risk aversion were "harsh" and "horrifying" by several posters in the 40 yo GF with 80k debt thread.

I'm of the personal opinion that no one owes anyone their attraction, so I have no problem with anyone having any particular preference.

Of course, the more particular the preference and the more stringent, the more likely that person is to be found undesirable themselves, but again, no one owes them any attraction either.

Wrenchturner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2019, 07:08:57 AM »
I'm not convinced you have discredited the whole field of evolutionary psych with this post.

I'm not convinced we have to.  Evolutionary psychology is widely considered a sham science in academic circles.  They're a relatively recent field, and they immediately and negligently overstepped the bounds of their data and spent their first decade publishing unsupported speculation as if it were accepted fact.  Plus, lots of it was gross and is now only cited by incel red-pill types desperately looking for a justification for their anger management problems.

There's got to be some value in there somewhere, but as of 2019 evolutionary psychology is a punchline more often than anything else.

Sentiments are interesting but arguments are better.  Feel free to engage in the latter.  Is my back hair a construct?  My testicles?  My beard?  Why is it assumed that genetic selection and dimorphism ends at the bottom end of the brainstem?  It seems to me that the burden of proof lies mostly on the skeptics. 

Now I don't mean to suggest there aren't social forces that affect outcomes in the workplace, for instance.  But it is critical for society to assess the cause of an undesirable outcome rather than presume it is willful malice or even faulty.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 802
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2019, 08:09:43 AM »
I'm not convinced you have discredited the whole field of evolutionary psych with this post.

I'm not convinced we have to.  Evolutionary psychology is widely considered a sham science in academic circles.  They're a relatively recent field, and they immediately and negligently overstepped the bounds of their data and spent their first decade publishing unsupported speculation as if it were accepted fact.  Plus, lots of it was gross and is now only cited by incel red-pill types desperately looking for a justification for their anger management problems.

There's got to be some value in there somewhere, but as of 2019 evolutionary psychology is a punchline more often than anything else.

Sentiments are interesting but arguments are better.  Feel free to engage in the latter.  Is my back hair a construct?  My testicles?  My beard?  Why is it assumed that genetic selection and dimorphism ends at the bottom end of the brainstem?  It seems to me that the burden of proof lies mostly on the skeptics. 

Now I don't mean to suggest there aren't social forces that affect outcomes in the workplace, for instance.  But it is critical for society to assess the cause of an undesirable outcome rather than presume it is willful malice or even faulty.

1. You argue for evolutionary psychology, but every example you give is of a biological difference. So I would say to you, "Sentiments are interesting but arguments are better."

2. Here's an analysis of 1000's of done over 20 years that finds virtually no differences in behavior between genders:

https://www.apa.org/research/action/difference

"[Hyde] analyzed how prior research assessed the impact of gender on many psychological traits and abilities, including cognitive abilities, verbal and nonverbal communication, aggression, leadership, self-esteem, moral reasoning and motor behaviors. Hyde observed that across the dozens of studies, consistent with the gender similarities hypothesis, gender differences had either no or a very small effect on most of the psychological variables examined. Only a few main differences appeared: Compared with women, men could throw farther, were more physically aggressive, masturbated more, and held more positive attitudes about sex in uncommitted relationships."

3. Here's a recent study on the idea of gender brain dimorphism:

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468

"Here, analysis of MRIs of more than 1,400 human brains from four datasets reveals extensive overlap between the distributions of females and males for all gray matter, white matter, and connections assessed. Moreover, analyses of internal consistency reveal that brains with features that are consistently at one end of the “maleness-femaleness” continuum are rare. Rather, most brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males. Our findings are robust across sample, age, type of MRI, and method of analysis. These findings are corroborated by a similar analysis of personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors of more than 5,500 individuals, which reveals that internal consistency is extremely rare. Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain."

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2493
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #42 on: June 13, 2019, 08:36:49 AM »

Not to highjack the thread, but I would definitely say that bro culture aside, when it comes to dating women (in general) care more about a potential mates ability to provide more than men do (in general).  As a modest male, I have been warned by MANY female friends and relatives that driving a cheap car, wearing cheap clothes will turn away most women.  And these are friends and family that are relatively down to earth, humble, etc.  I was shocked when they said that it would lower their first impression of a guy if they were driving a Nissan Sentra.  On the other hand, I've never heard a single guy my whole life say "she's cute but she doesn't have a lot of money so I'm not interested" or "she's hot but she's only a bartender, so no real future".  Obviously this isn't all women or all men, but more than I expected.

I've been surprised to discover how concerned a female friend of mine (divorced, now out of a long-term relationship and dating again) is with what her potential dates do for a living and whether or not they have advanced degrees.  Whether or not they have at least a Master's Degree is actually a hard filter for her, and their current career is definitely way up there on her list as well.  She's not (otherwise?) particularly shallow, but these criteria definitely are a reality for someone whom I'd say is pretty normal. 

I suppose that I haven't been truly single for almost twenty years, so I'm willing to accept that I'm naive about these things. 

Sorry...what's the problem with preferring that someone have graduate level education???

Everyone has their preferences, maybe she gets off on diplomas.

 I think most would agree it often goes past the degree to signs of wealth that become the attraction.
Quote
I mean, if she's using a graduate degree as some kind of proxy for income, then that's just stupid.
Well you said it's stupid, I think it may be wise, as Ashley Montague said,
"I've been rich and I've been poor, rich is better". Why not select among the "better"?
Of course then if you really want to show wisdom, you're welcome to select among those that are in the "better" category.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 08:44:35 AM by BTDretire »

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
  • Retired at 42
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #43 on: June 13, 2019, 09:33:44 AM »
^This preference for a higher degree isn't just something women may look for in a mate but men too. A guy on this forum said he weeds out women based on if they have degrees or not. For him it wasnt about income potential or classism, but more about being intellectual equals. I'm sure lots of people feel this way regardless of their gender. I think the same goes for a job. Some people would feel that a blue collar worker (male or female and even a degree holder and high income person) wouldn't match up.with their vision of a compatible mate.  If your (very adorable!) GF was a wrench turning grease monkey and you were a fancy pants wall street lawyer, you might feel the relationship is unequal even if money or prestige weren't an issue.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 09:39:15 AM by spartana »

Wrenchturner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #44 on: June 13, 2019, 10:34:54 AM »
I'm not convinced you have discredited the whole field of evolutionary psych with this post.

I'm not convinced we have to.  Evolutionary psychology is widely considered a sham science in academic circles.  They're a relatively recent field, and they immediately and negligently overstepped the bounds of their data and spent their first decade publishing unsupported speculation as if it were accepted fact.  Plus, lots of it was gross and is now only cited by incel red-pill types desperately looking for a justification for their anger management problems.

There's got to be some value in there somewhere, but as of 2019 evolutionary psychology is a punchline more often than anything else.

Sentiments are interesting but arguments are better.  Feel free to engage in the latter.  Is my back hair a construct?  My testicles?  My beard?  Why is it assumed that genetic selection and dimorphism ends at the bottom end of the brainstem?  It seems to me that the burden of proof lies mostly on the skeptics. 

Now I don't mean to suggest there aren't social forces that affect outcomes in the workplace, for instance.  But it is critical for society to assess the cause of an undesirable outcome rather than presume it is willful malice or even faulty.

1. You argue for evolutionary psychology, but every example you give is of a biological difference. So I would say to you, "Sentiments are interesting but arguments are better."

2. Here's an analysis of 1000's of done over 20 years that finds virtually no differences in behavior between genders:

https://www.apa.org/research/action/difference

"[Hyde] analyzed how prior research assessed the impact of gender on many psychological traits and abilities, including cognitive abilities, verbal and nonverbal communication, aggression, leadership, self-esteem, moral reasoning and motor behaviors. Hyde observed that across the dozens of studies, consistent with the gender similarities hypothesis, gender differences had either no or a very small effect on most of the psychological variables examined. Only a few main differences appeared: Compared with women, men could throw farther, were more physically aggressive, masturbated more, and held more positive attitudes about sex in uncommitted relationships."

3. Here's a recent study on the idea of gender brain dimorphism:

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468

"Here, analysis of MRIs of more than 1,400 human brains from four datasets reveals extensive overlap between the distributions of females and males for all gray matter, white matter, and connections assessed. Moreover, analyses of internal consistency reveal that brains with features that are consistently at one end of the “maleness-femaleness” continuum are rare. Rather, most brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males. Our findings are robust across sample, age, type of MRI, and method of analysis. These findings are corroborated by a similar analysis of personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors of more than 5,500 individuals, which reveals that internal consistency is extremely rare. Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain."

My examples were biological, indeed, but they were not sentiments.  Let's not conflate the two.  My argument is that Darwinian forces continue up the brainstem and there's no good argument against that.

I don't think there is a male or female brain exactly, or that they could even be identified with MRI.  And if you look at personality traits, men and women do differ between agreeableness and neuroticism, when assessed using the Big Five.  Not to mention preference between people and things(feminine/masculine respectively)

But the Blank Slate idea is definitely nonsense.  Stephen Pinker made that clear.  Jordan Peterson made a strong case here, with citations:
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-gender-scandal-part-one-scandinavia-and-part-two-canada/

Why are gender differences most apparent in the most egalitarian countries?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8480
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #45 on: June 13, 2019, 10:36:34 AM »
Yay, tangent time!

Sentiments are interesting but arguments are better.  Feel free to engage in the latter.

Okay, here's an argument for you.

Genes code proteins.  Proteins perform biological functions in the body, including facilitating structural development.  There is no structural analog for 90% of the behaviors evopsych would like to call heritable.  The foundational assumption of the field is a lie.

As a particularly high profile example, much of the early work in the field focused on success of rape as a viable reproductive strategy.  They argued that a rapist was more likely to be successful in perpetuating his genes because he could impregnate many women, and that his numerous children would then grow up to be rapists who would be more successful than non-rapists, and that this discrepancy acting over thousands of generations explains the prevalance of rapists in society.  See, it's just biology!  Evolution made me do it! 

Except that there is no gene for being a rapist.  Rape is a 100% learned behavior, made possible by our physical anatomy but not made necessary by our physical anatomy.  Self-immolation is also made possible by our physical anatomy, but there's no gene for that either.

Quote
Why is it assumed that genetic selection and dimorphism ends at the bottom end of the brainstem?

Because neural development in cognitively normal brains is entirely environmentally controlled.  There is no genetic basis for which language you speak or which music you like or how you like to dance.  Culture is not biologically heritable.  The entire premise of evolutionary psychology is that psychological traits like culture are controlled by genetics, which has been disproven like a thousand different times.  If you take a Japanese newborn baby and raise him in a Congolese family in the Congo, he will 100% grow up Congolese.  He will like Congolese food and Congolese women.  There is exactly zero genetic component to his psychology, as proven by countless studies from all over the world.  Humans LEARN how to be human.  It is only the blueprint for our physical structure that is genetically controlled, and fortunately the way your brain works is not related to it's initial structure.  It's far more plastic than that, being a neural network and all.

Quote
 
It seems to me that the burden of proof lies mostly on the skeptics. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, my friend.  If you think rape is heritable or the moon is made of green cheese, that's on you to convince me of your crazy ideas.  I don't have to disprove every questionable theory you come up with.

Quote
But it is critical for society to assess the cause of an undesirable outcome rather than presume it is willful malice or even faulty.

I'm not alleging any malice.  Culture is absolutely learned and passed on by exposure to shared environments.  The fact that it's entirely independent of genetics doesn't mean it's not perpetuated.  It just means that evolutionary psychology is barking up the wrong tree, trying to ascribe causality where there is none instead of focusing on the real drivers of these problems.  Which are social, not biological.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 11:55:56 AM by sol »

Wrenchturner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #46 on: June 13, 2019, 10:40:03 AM »
^This preference for a higher degree isn't just something women may look for in a mate but men too. A guy on this forum said he weeds out women based on if they have degrees or not. For him it wasnt about income potential or classism, but more about being intellectual equals. I'm sure lots of people feel this way regardless of their gender. I think the same goes for a job. Some people would feel that a blue collar worker (male or female and even a degree holder and high income person) wouldn't match up.with their vision of a compatible mate.  If your (very adorable!) GF was a wrench turning grease monkey and you were a fancy pants wall street lawyer, you might feel the relationship is unequal even if money or prestige weren't an issue.

You are welcome to disparage grease monkeys but have some respect for wrench turners, would ya!

Women definitely select for high status men, that's for sure, but there are many ways of signalling status.  And proxies like a Master's could be used.

It's also partly framing; a mechanic and a lawyer might not have much in common but that's only partly about status. 

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
  • Retired at 42
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #47 on: June 13, 2019, 10:51:05 AM »
^This preference for a higher degree isn't just something women may look for in a mate but men too. A guy on this forum said he weeds out women based on if they have degrees or not. For him it wasnt about income potential or classism, but more about being intellectual equals. I'm sure lots of people feel this way regardless of their gender. I think the same goes for a job. Some people would feel that a blue collar worker (male or female and even a degree holder and high income person) wouldn't match up.with their vision of a compatible mate.  If your (very adorable!) GF was a wrench turning grease monkey and you were a fancy pants wall street lawyer, you might feel the relationship is unequal even if money or prestige weren't an issue.

You are welcome to disparage grease monkeys but have some respect for wrench turners, would ya!

Women definitely select for high status men, that's for sure, but there are many ways of signalling status.  And proxies like a Master's could be used.

It's also partly framing; a mechanic and a lawyer might not have much in common but that's only partly about status.
Well I was a wrench turning grease monkey (and am adorable ;-)) so I can't disparage them too much. I'm also educated with 2 degrees but find that men are equally socially conscience of their potential mate's career and education status as some women seem to be. But maybe that's just been my experience and not the norm.

Wrenchturner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #48 on: June 13, 2019, 11:34:01 AM »
^This preference for a higher degree isn't just something women may look for in a mate but men too. A guy on this forum said he weeds out women based on if they have degrees or not. For him it wasnt about income potential or classism, but more about being intellectual equals. I'm sure lots of people feel this way regardless of their gender. I think the same goes for a job. Some people would feel that a blue collar worker (male or female and even a degree holder and high income person) wouldn't match up.with their vision of a compatible mate.  If your (very adorable!) GF was a wrench turning grease monkey and you were a fancy pants wall street lawyer, you might feel the relationship is unequal even if money or prestige weren't an issue.

You are welcome to disparage grease monkeys but have some respect for wrench turners, would ya!

Women definitely select for high status men, that's for sure, but there are many ways of signalling status.  And proxies like a Master's could be used.

It's also partly framing; a mechanic and a lawyer might not have much in common but that's only partly about status.
Well I was a wrench turning grease monkey (and am adorable ;-)) so I can't disparage them too much. I'm also educated with 2 degrees but find that men are equally socially conscience of their potential mate's career and education status as some women seem to be. But maybe that's just been my experience and not the norm.

Hard to say, I suppose.  It's definitely the case that civil movements and technology have changed the dynamic.

Sol I'll have to reply to you later, I can't deal with all these nested quotes on mobile. 

ScreamingHeadGuy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Down the street from the Frozen Tundra
Re: FIRE featured on CBS this morning
« Reply #49 on: June 13, 2019, 01:03:45 PM »
The CBS video was really good. Couldn't believe what a dork the contrarian guy at the end was, though. "Find something you love, never work a day in your life, and spend what you have". Think he totally missed the point.

Thank you - I thought the same thing.  What a consumer sucka.