Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Has anyone met any well known people?
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Has anyone met any well known people?
Posted: 1/14/2010 11:04:45 AM
Yeah, I too worked with the movie industry quite a bit there up until 9/11. I mostly met producers and directors more than actors. I can't remember the whole list but the most famous person I spent any time hanging around was Harrison Ford. He looked so surprisingly much like my Dad in real life. And, he behaved in many ways like him as well. I had heard bad things about him but I didn't see anything other than a nice, fun guy. He really seemed like he could be just what he was before he got into movies.. a carpenter. There was a jail cell built on the set that really locked and was hard to get out of. Some of the ADs knew how to get out without a key but Harrison didn't. They gave him a bit of a hard time about it and it frustrated him. At one point he got fed up and got a key, brought one of the ADs in with him and threw the key outside...
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 32 (view)
 
socially acceptable prejudice
Posted: 8/20/2009 8:11:08 PM
Color-blind is pretending that an obvious fact doesn't exist resulting in making you look less friendly and more likely racist to people who are of another colour.

e.g.
http://www.predictablyirrational.com/pdfs/pcgame.pdf

I was at a major brawl in Sackville only 7 years ago at a night club that was entirely a race fight. It shut down the place and resulted in most of the security staff being treated by paramedics and over a dozen squad cars needed to keep things in check. The pizza corner in Halifax is patrolled due to violence. The bulk of that violence was whites and blacks fighting with each other. Feel free to ask a Halifax cop. There was a bar where Hooters is now that was blatantly racist ("no FUBU" on the actual dress code only excludes one race) and probably one of the reasons for it burning. These are all recent large scale incidents and post High School. Racism is pretty alive and well around here.

There are many places you can go in HRM where racism appears pretty much non-existent. But there are some extremely racist areas. When I can actually walk down the street and have someone come up and think that he talk to me in offensive terms about another race just because I'm white and in their neighbourhood then racism seems to be pretty alive and kicking.

(For those who think it only got off topic with racism, it was off topic on the second post. The OPost started by accepting that personal preferences are just that. It was just the social acceptability that was in question. Racism might even be more on topic.)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
socially acceptable prejudice
Posted: 8/14/2009 9:36:34 AM
Just reading profiles and 3 in a row openly said that they did not like skinny or short men. But it's not just in personal profiles (which are really a public proclamation). I've asked women about this in public and they really don't mind in the least stating for all to hear that short and / or thin men are unattractive. This seems to be generally pretty acceptable and is frequently affirmed by women nearby. (Sometimes there's a lame caveat for any smaller guys in earshot.)

People have preferences, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's the socially acceptable part that interests me.

I'm just wondering what would happen if someone voiced their negative opinion on women's size in general if it would be accepted (tolerated?) so widely. Or, even if it was voiced about an overweight man. People seem to be careful about stereotyped and prejudiced statements regarding the overweight but, thin or small, if you are a man, seems to be fair game.

Maybe we should get some folks together and do an experiment out at one of the local meeting places...
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 85 (view)
 
Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:21:37 PM
James,

I only suggested the alternate filters as an ideal situation to put in contrast the actual filter to what people tend to think it is. I'm not saying POF should change anything they're actually doing. I'm saying they shouldn't be deceptive about it. And, I'm saying it will take all of about a minute to change the way the filter is worded. They can still make the newly worded filter based on the same criteria. I really don't care. They should make the criteria clear and up front as well. The mod in this thread didn't even know what they were!

Not understanding the filter has nothing to do with being smart. The current wording is ambiguous. It's double meaning is so unclear that most people think it means something it doesn't and that's not the readers fault. It's the writer's fault. And it's intentional at this point given that POF has known about this for years.

I mentioned people I spoke to beyond the threads. No one I've communicated with, who hasn't read the threads, and has the filter, understands what it does. And that's a lot of people. I gave a conservative estimate of 30. That's actually a pretty good sample size for this sort of thing.

I challenge anyone one to try it (again - this challenge has been made a lot of times). Turn the filter off and turn it on and record the number of first contacts looking for sex. The impact is near 0. The reason it's near 0 is because that isn't what the filter's supposed to do; but it damn sure looks like it should.

 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 83 (view)
 
Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:37:44 PM
Moderator, If you go to help -> contact us, and enter in any message that has a quote of the filter then you'll get that automated response that I pasted in.

James, I can speak for the fact that it's been tried out a number of times in longer threads than this on this topic and it really doesn't have any impact on the messages. When you turn the filter off or on it doesn't change the number of messages getting to you requesting sex. That's probably because the kind of person it's stopping isn't really the kind of person who contacts people who AREN'T looking for intimate encounters and then requesting them. It probably would be nice if there were two filters.

Must not have previously messaged someone who has Intimate Encounter selected as what they are looking for. (what it actually currently does and a small wording change that would make it more honest)
Must not have previously messaged someone looking for sex. (using some kind of Bayesian filter cribbed from open source spam blocking software, and/or perhaps from multiple independent reports)

In past threads on this topic that I've participated in people who come to learn what it does do tend to be surprised that it does not actually block people who tend to send messages out requesting sex. And really, that's exactly what it sounds like it does. Do you think doesn't? I've probably chatted with at least 30 people who had the filter who thought it blocked the people who send out dozens of messages asking for sex to those who aren't requesting it on their profile. It doesn't. Blocking people who ask for sex from people who clearly want it on their profile is a very different thing. I think that people should be allowed to do that. But the current system doesn't make it clear what you're blocking.

Again, we're off topic and probably now in danger of being moderated redundant because this has been discussed to death. POF has no interest in correcting it. And really, all it would take is some improved wording.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 80 (view)
 
Filtering out Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex.
Posted: 7/9/2009 1:25:26 PM
The filter says, "Must not have messaged users looking for intimate encounters or sex"

POF's quote on what the filter does exactly:
"Plentyoffish users have the option to select if they wish to be available for contact from others that have made contact with those looking for Intimate Encounters. Once you have contacted more than four users looking for Intimate Encounters you are restricted from contacting members that have this feature in place. This block cannot be reset."

And even that isn't quite specific enough, what they mean is that the person contacted had Intimate Encounters selected in their profile, not that the initiating had anything in their message or profile that intimated any such thing.

These two pieces of information are not in the same place.

I have yet to find anyone using the filter who thought that it meant what POF thinks it does. So sure, people can filter on whatever criterion they want. But this is not doing that, it's deceptive to the person using the filter.

It's also deceptively implemented. You don't get told this in bold pink letters signing up on POF or when you send messages to IE people. Generally rules are to prevent objectionable behaviour. When someone isn't committing any kind of objectionable behaviour it's unlikely that they will look to see if there are any rules against it. Lots of people get trapped by this filter who were not committing objectionable behaviour by any stretch of the imagination. If someone participates in the forums a lot then often times discussions get taken outside the forums. To email someone on an issue unrelated to intimate encounters because of some other relationship with them (know them in real life, forum post, whatever) really doesn't sound like the kind of thing the filter was meant to protect (judging by the wording, not the implementation).

Most of the people using the filter were probably really hoping it was a smarter filter based on the content and habit of first contacts. That's certainly what it looks like to most users. And yet for some reason, it does absolutely nothing to stop the number of messages that you receive that pretty much amount to, "wanna fuck?"

but I meander off topic... now the thread is becoming redundant...

footnote:
I find that terribly humorous... the word "cannot" in POFs description. Apparently the POF server is running completely out of control. Pretty soon the machines will rise. A correct wording would have been, "it's our policy not to reset this filter."
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Yahoo Bots are out in force and they're quite convincing
Posted: 7/6/2009 2:30:15 PM
There were some bots on here for a bit. I believe it was probably mostly for research because they didn't have a commercial motive. One was most certainly a troll bot.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 55 (view)
 
how many women have orgasms whil giving head
Posted: 7/5/2009 12:49:36 PM
mmmmm grocery shopping with Hilly...
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Bullying in the Workplace
Posted: 5/16/2009 10:42:02 AM
Not to be contrary JBT but, while I believe the quoted number likely has a very large confidence interval that doesn't mean it was pulled out of thin air. One can give a rough conservative estimate of the frequency of bullies and the time they take away from actual productive work for themselves and their targets. Also, one might try to account for the fact that bullies will attack more productive individuals in order to protect their own position. It's a task fraught with a lot of potential error but even if we allow for order of magnitude differences like as little as 5.6 million (which I find to be highly unlikely given Australia's GDP) it's not nothing.

Couldn't we easily guess the proportion of actual hours consumed in just the bullying activity to within a factor of two? What are people's guesses on the proportion of bulliers in the work place. 10%? 5%? And, how many workplace hours are spent bullying? I'm sure most people's experience might converge on a fairly common answer, and the deviance not be overly much.

Even a small survey could give you enough data to say that the 56mill estimate was between 25 mill and 100 mill. That's not very accurate, but even the low number is a substantial cost.

Some might call a Fermi problem like this pulling it out of your ass, but it's not like there is no actual number and you can't even get close.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 62 (view)
 
The bimbo-ization of women and its effects on relationships
Posted: 5/10/2009 11:38:01 AM
These are reality shows and most people here seem to be missing the point of reality shows.

The target market of these shows is not for people to get their thrills seeing sex or some flat stereotypical ideal.

That "bimboization" of women isn't there to titillate or suggest some ideal, it's there to make women watching it feel better about themselves. Th target market is watching to see others humiliate themselves. That's what the show is about in the first place. Starting with the first reality TV show, Candid Camera, reality TV has always been about people embarrassing, humiliating, or otherwise making fools of themselves.


[and off topic]
"...women control who gets sex or not. "



The only thing a woman can control sometimes is who does not have sex with her. Attractive people tend to be able to have sex with a pretty good variety of partners be they male or female and control who does and does not. Even then, I've met very attractive women who can't get the men they want to have sex with them. Unattractive people don't have nearly as many options.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 44 (view)
 
Are US Men Obsolete?
Posted: 5/2/2009 8:08:00 AM
I don't think I've ever wanted to be needed by a woman in any of the traditional ways being discussed here, and if I did I've always noticed there there's plenty available to make me feel that way if I wished. So I don't think I appreciate the OP's pain in that way.

And yet, I still wish to feel needed. The need is not satisfied in any particular behaviour society may or may not wish to attach to me as a man. It is simply that I am needed in that persons life as a man. And it comes right down to what it means to be a man and that's just got to vary a whole lot among individuals if we're ever to consider ourselves a truly liberated society where every person is treated equally. For some couples there may be such a completely equal nature to the division of living life in every way that defining the need of a man (or woman) is purely sex and attraction.

But we're not supposed to base relationships on sex. Are we?

There are many posts on this topic. When we see so many posts like this it suggests that many men aren't finding themselves needed when they were counting on being needed as their way of feeling useful in society. Or society has a big hole in it if a large proportion of the population feels this way.

Who raised these men?

Is convincing them that the role they seem to desire isn't necessary anymore the best response? What about the typical response of "get used to it"? Are these just dysfunctional men who feel a desire to be needed in a way that puts them in a power position and that is what they are complaining about?

It's interesting that I don't see as many posts from women on feeling as if they are not needed. Does it suggest that women rarely feel the need to be needed. Or, is it just more common that women can get that need fulfilled when they wish in ways that appeal to their fundamental nature. And, if these ways are out there perhaps they don't appeal to men? Are there ways that men are needed that perhaps aren't being valued?

I'm in a questioning mood today...

"It seems to me that most people must have a predisposition that soldiers weren't going to be doing much with their lives anyway" -
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 44 (view)
 
sexual super powers
Posted: 4/14/2009 11:33:51 AM
Some powers requested thus far are easily classified as being about their own pleasure or their partner's pleasure. Other ones, it's not so easy. For the one's that are easy to categorize...

(ratio of my pleasure to other's pleasure)
male 2:10
female 3:2
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 101 (view)
 
number one priority
Posted: 11/26/2008 3:29:31 PM
Whether they were my "natural" biological parents or not is pretty irrelevant to the story I wrote.

You're absolutely right that a person** dating another person who already has kids is a different story. I was intentionally writing a different story to give some context, and some understanding that sometimes kids don't come first. Not sometimes, as in little ways, but in really big ways, as the story reveals.

And when you take a defensive position at the outset that your children will always come first it's possible that you preclude a relationship like I described.

(Having been a single custodial parent myself, and having read other posts on the thread, your characterization of this only about men dating women with kids is not correct.)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 99 (view)
 
number one priority
Posted: 11/26/2008 2:03:08 PM
I feel like I should put, "see post 102", every few posts now.

I'd just like to add that...

My Mother loves children. She had 5 of her own. She adores her grandchildren. She was the oldest girl of a dozen and second "Mom" to many of them. She was a Nanny when we got older, and the children in her charge still run up to her and throw their arms around her when they see her and yell, 'Nanny!' She was like a second Mom (maybe first really) to my son when he mother left. I knew, and know, my Mother loves me tremendously and always did what she felt was in my best interest. To this day she still worries about me.

My Father is a strong silent sort of fellow but surprisingly sensitive. Being brought up like an only child he didn't know much about kids starting out. He just knew he wanted my Mom. But he grew to love his children and I remember the time he spent teaching me to work on the car. There was no doubt in any of our minds that our father would provide for us and give us whatever we needed. There was no doubt we were among the most important people in the world to him.

But my Mom put my Father first 100%. And he did the same for her over, not just their children, but anyone. That was not negotiable in our house. Just about the most stupid thing you could try to do was come between them. And you know what? He still sleeps in her bed every night about 45 years later in a house that's usually devoid of the children they raised to be able to go out and have families of their own.

And, if you ask them, they're both very happy about that.

I feel very fortunate to have parents like them, that still love each other like crazy to this day. I certainly wouldn't trade it to have had any of my childish demands met, or an extra activities class, or even to know how to play the violin.

Use that information to prioritize as you will.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 236 (view)
 
Has feminism destroyed all men?
Posted: 11/19/2008 3:47:13 PM
I think they were conceived in poor taste but I do not think that proves there is a feminism agenda to ruin men.


You're right, the ads don't. And the article cited doesn't say there is one. It's only posters on here who've claimed that.

But the fact that the ad compaign didn't meet many objections from the general public indicates there is a pervasive tacit acceptance of misandry in society.

What many men are chalking up to a feminist agenda, misandy, has been going on long before the feminist movement. By attempting to counteract the female stereotyping in society feminism has revealed the problems with male stereotyping. Some feminists were / are misandrists (some who had strong positions within feminism, like Dworkin). But I don't think it follows that feminism promotes misandry. In fact, it sheds a light on it. It's really not up to feminism to fight misandy (unless, as imene1 says, their goal is to promote equality of the sexes rather than promote equality of women and women's rights – in which case feminism is a misleading name for it).

As an aside, I think it's a mistake for the feminist movement to label radical feminists as such. It suggests they're part of the movement. They should label them misandrists if they want to truly separate themselves. Radical Muslims and Christians are not called that by Muslims and Christians.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 234 (view)
 
Has feminism destroyed all men?
Posted: 11/19/2008 2:51:53 PM
More than one half of the child victims were girls (51.5%) and 48.2 percent were boys...
... hmmm? Why wasn't that profiled on this allegedly "unbiased" website? Interesting...


I'm not going to argue that the website isn't biased but this is a ridiculous argument to say that it is. The website discusses deaths. Your statistic* is about abuse overall. Furthermore, the website is countering the argument that men are always perpetrators with solid facts about women being about 3x as likely to be the ones who kill their children. Your statistic has nothing to do with perpetrators and doesn't undermine the main argument. In fact, you keep saying it's more girls, which is true by number, but not by proportion, because there are more girls in the population (51-52% female). That means it's actually about equally likely for any one boy or girl (and still contrary to what most people believe). Given that more boys die (60%) it's hard not to argue boys are more severely abused.

The mensnewsdaily article is that it's wrong to always portray women as the victims when they are more often than not the perpetrators on children, the most helpless in society. Maybe the article should have taken a more extreme stance because when you look through the results it gets worse for women and kids. Mothers are not just killing children, they're usually killing babies.

Do you honestly believe that the best way to inform public policy is with a scandalous campaign generally designed to promote a fear of men and falsely portray women as innocent?

*I only mean yours because you reported it here. Of course, it is a statistic from the original report and I'm in no way implying it's something you made up.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Nova Scotian daters
Posted: 11/18/2008 5:29:03 AM
Isn't it necessarily a fact though, that some people are a bit better than everyone else? If that is the case then wouldn't they have a responsibility to know it and act accordingly? Or should they do their best not to stand out? And who am I to judge when a person isn't if they think they are?

And, if a person thinks they are better, and they're obviously not, then why should it irritate anyone else? You'd think you'd be happy for them for at least having that high an opinion of themselves, even if it is misguided. Someone who is truly inferior may only be able to be happy by thinking they are better. Do you begrudge them their happiness? Even if they think you're inferior, why would you ever care?
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 116 (view)
 
Best Things about being single!
Posted: 11/17/2008 7:26:04 PM
yeah, linnylou got it in spite of the fact I was clearly having a seizure typing that...
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 113 (view)
 
Best Things about being single!
Posted: 11/17/2008 3:12:36 PM

gf calls: girls night friday
me: for sure lets do it

relationship me
gf calls: girsl night friday
me; give me a minute I'll call u back.


In that kind of circumstance relationship you needs to act like single you unless there are specific plans for that day already made. Then you'll have nothing to like about being single. :)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Nova Scotian daters
Posted: 11/16/2008 7:19:25 PM
I've not known too many snobs who put their efforts into undermining another class. They may feel and think things that tend to classify people and that are negative. But they don't generally actually do anything about it, or care enough to have anything to do with it. Undermining was a little over the top. By definition, snobs separate themselves from what they see as a lower class.

Sure, defining yourself as better than someone else is weaker than being able to have your sense of self stand on it's own.

What I find are the people who undermine are the one's who take a position that no person should get too far above their station or begin to think too much of themselves. And that is a side effect of the maritime hatred of snobbery. If I have my choice between that attitude and the snobs... send me the snobs. I'll take artificial self aggrandizement over socially imposed self deprecation any day.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Nova Scotian daters
Posted: 11/15/2008 8:00:58 AM
How one falls behind at times...

Paige...

I did have fun Saturday, I was going to talk to you but you seemed busy. And I don't even think you're interested in me. :)

consider if this was a conversation...

Lauren: My perception is that if us women are not interested in all men- we are snobs

Humphrey: [noting the downhearted tone in Jane's statement he retorts with a wry smile] Slim, not all women are snobs. It's just you.

Do you think that, observing that conversation, George is calling Jane a snob? If so, please watch any early Bogie and Bacall movie for a primer in sarcastic banter. :)

(I tend to have a hard time telling if anyone is a snob... It took me decades to figure out my own sister was one. Which I wouldn't say if I didn't know she was proud of it. It's not necessarily a bad thing. But I have noticed that believing it is the utmost in terrible thinking does seem to be a Maritime trait. I've noticed Ontarians and Americans often have an easier time embracing snobbery.)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 207 (view)
 
Has feminism destroyed all men?
Posted: 11/15/2008 7:46:29 AM
ismene1...

To argue that society, economics, and politics should be such that a woman should not need a man in a particular role is neither extreme feminism nor anti-man. To argue a woman should not want a man for such things would be extreme and potentially anti-man. But I didn't say that. So no, I don't have it misconstrued. The wording of the definitions you cite is euphemism and convenient editing on your part.

The wikipedia definition is THIS:

"Feminism is defined as the belief of the political, social, and economic equality of women. It is a discourse that involves various movements, theories, and philosophies which are concerned with the issue of gender difference, advocate equality for women, and campaign for women's rights and interests." (I cannot find the sentence you quoted on there. Perhaps you mistook your source?)

And the second definition in Websters is...

"organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

So, to simplify it down to "equality of the sexes" as THE definition is misleading at best (especially when you're the one arguing that feminism is a many coloured rainbow). Feminists advocate for the rights of women. That is not advocating for equality of the sexes. Sometimes it is, but not always. It's also not radical feminism or extremist. It is what it means to be a feminist.

Perhaps you were just confused about what I thought it was because nothing I said was radical feminism.

Given that I have no desire to argue that feminism is a bad thing or misconstrue it as a radical movement maybe you were stuck?

Maybe I was over the top when I said that calling it a simple movement for equality of the sexes was false. But, it is misleading. So we're tied. :)

Instead of just repeating yourself in reply to my argument, settle it. If feminists argue for equality of the sexes cite me an instance of a feminist argument, discourse, or even suggestion that men should be freed of their traditional roles in society just as women should be. Then you get to win. (and I'll be happy either way because it would be interesting to find out that I was wrong about that)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 206 (view)
 
Has feminism destroyed all men?
Posted: 11/15/2008 4:27:22 AM

Feminism simply means "The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes." (wiki)


That's clearly false. It's focused on the equality of women to men. But, in any instance where men would need to be made equal to women feminism is deafeningly silent or acutely defensive. The simple idea that men are still considered to have pretty defined roles in society while feminism struggles to insure women do not casts this definition to a dustbin. In fact, until feminists argue as vehemently that men should have no roles as women they'll never achieve their goal.

Let's take a simple family role, that men often gladly take on and are happy to accept–protector. Feminists do not argue that men should abandon this role. They do argue that women should empower themselves to no longer feel they need a man in this role. Which is wise to an extent. But they need to actually argue both. In order to provide equality they would need to argue that men should oppose the sometimes subtle, and sometimes overt, demands that they behave as the protector in a relationship.** A man who was a real feminist, according to the wiki definition, would do exactly that.

And then, when we turn it like this, I'm wondering if that's what anyone really wants?

**I'm not saying he shouldn't do what he wants, if he wants to feel like a protector. What I'm saying is that as a matter of principle he should oppose any attitude that that is a role he must undertake.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Nova Scotian daters
Posted: 11/14/2008 1:07:50 PM
Oh Paige, not all women are snobs.. it's just you... :)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 187 (view)
 
Has feminism destroyed all men?
Posted: 11/13/2008 7:17:14 PM
I do question whether sexism and differeing gender expectations can still be at the heart of those choices. Why do women make those choices?


More accurately it's, "why do men make they choices they do?" It is men who are willing to sacrifice their home life and family in pursuit of extra money they don't need because they believe it is their duty. Women usually are making the wise choices here probably because feminism has liberated them. For some reason everyone thought that because men had the role that had the power they don't need to be liberated from it. But it's still a role, and a prison because of it.

Maybe the only way to correct the issue is not insist employers pay men and women the same regardless of work but to outlaw the behaviours that give men the financial advantage. Force them to take vacations and limited work hours as they do in Europe. That's the main reason places like France have far less of a pay inequality.


 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
The L Word
Posted: 11/13/2008 12:19:46 PM
He's working up to saying "you're a woman to love."

 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 178 (view)
 
Has feminism destroyed all men?
Posted: 11/13/2008 10:51:21 AM
The stuff on military testing of women is an old myth.

They do not have more endurance for physical activities. Looking at any marathon or ultra-marathon statistics will bear that out.

They do not have a higher pain tolerance. Psychological testing has proven it is substantially less on average. This myth comes from nurses and is considered reflective of the fact that they take note of women who weather pain well and men who complain. However, they fail to notice the opposite occurs at a much higher frequency. The fact of child birth is often brought up, but most women in western society get drugs to relieve the pain. Furthermore, when women who've passed a kidney stone are asked to compare it to the pain of child birth they generally agree the former is much worse. And it is much harder for a man to pass a kidney stone than a woman. So, we all go through painful events.

Instead of perpetuating these myths let's talk about things that women actual can excel at physically.

The first is that they require less energy and are more compact. They're more green. :) Therefore, it's long been argued that they make more ideal astronauts. It's unclear that there's any difference in the long term effects of the loss of bone density in microgravity. What is clear is that we're more reluctant to send women into space, just as we're reluctant to put women on the front lines in combat.

Women tend to have a less dense musculature. Because of the way it is designed they have less explosive power and absolute strength but are much more capable at stationery endurance. If they have to hold a fixed position for a long time they have much higher endurance than men. Thus, they are often better at stealth activities. If you bet who can hold their balance longer on one foot always bet on the woman. It's not because the balance is so much better as it is because the woman's muscles will be much less likely to fail.

Of course, all these things are on average... the proof that we implicitly know this is why it's so remarkable when the roles reverse. We only take notice of the unusual.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 169 (view)
 
Has feminism destroyed all men?
Posted: 11/13/2008 6:09:15 AM
This is something I've debated on another thread. Depending on the industry, a 6 week (the average maternity leave) break will have greater or lesser impact and I would argue that there are a lot of industries where the impact with be almost nill in terms of skills lost, but that still slam women for the time.


The difference between men and women with respect to family and work attitudes is so much more vast than this that it explains a large portion pay compensation differences. The research is in from the very founders of the equal pay movements.

See, for example...

money.cnn.com/2006/02/28/commentary/everyday/sahadi/index.htm

"Farrell identifies 25 work-life decisions that men and women make in the course of their careers that have a direct bearing on their earning potential.

Farrell found, for instance, that men are more likely to opt for doing that which can lead to a higher paycheck, including:

Relocate or travel extensively for work
Take on more hazardous assignments
Work in the hard sciences
Take jobs requiring greater financial risk
Work in unpleasant environments (e.g. prisons or coal mines)

Women, by contrast, are more likely to seek "careers that are more fulfilling, flexible and safe," Farrell writes. But the tradeoff is that "the pay can be lower because more people compete to be fulfilled, causing the supply to exceed the demand."

Even among highly paid women -- those who make over $100,000 -- Farrell found they are more likely than men at the same pay level to forfeit some pay in exchange for more free time. (And by "free time," I just mean free from the office. But often women reduce their work hours so they can take care of their families.)"

also see...

money.cnn.com/2006/02/28/commentary/everyday/sahadi_paytable/index.htm
www.forbes.com/home/ceonetwork/2006/05/12/women-wage-gap-cx_wf_0512earningmore.html

Taking an aggregate showing a male wage advantage and using that to tell a story of female oppression is misleading at best with what is known about the subject now. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But the effect is quite dramatic when you take a class of University students, divide them across gender lines, and then ask them to stand to the 25 questions and half the class stands for almost every one and the other half stands for almost none. If your goal isn't to make money and you aren't willing to do what another person will do, then you're going to make less. If you belong to a group that, on average, behaves this way, the group will, on average, make less.

(BTW, I don't endorse this behaviour. I think men should be encouraged to not take extraordinary measures to provide financially for their families and recognize that there are other things that are equally or more important.)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Single in Halifax?
Posted: 11/9/2008 3:51:23 PM

going out to bars with freinds is always fun...but wouldnt use that night to try to meet someone...its a girls night out....and time to relax and have fun.....


So clearly, meeting someone is neither relaxing nor fun. Or perhaps it's only one of those...

This does bring up the point that I've noticed that, for many, meeting new people often seems to be pretty anxiety provoking. Perhaps people aren't meeting because they've been conditioned no to try... too much negative for the positive?
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Single in Halifax?
Posted: 11/8/2008 5:49:21 PM

The people u meet in bars are not usually the kind of people you want to stay with once the booze wears off


What's fascinating is that everyone who goes to the bars says this.

I think that it's all in the way people behave as opposed to who they are. When people are out in the bars they do things they wouldn't normally do and interact with people they wouldn't normally interact with. And therefore it's not necessarily the people per se that you wouldn't want to stay with. But it's more like you've had a fine meal presented to you on a garbage can lid.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 90 (view)
 
Quotes, Sayings or lines that best describe or move you
Posted: 11/5/2008 6:31:11 AM
'It goes against the American storytelling grain to have someone in a situation he can't get out of, but I think this is very usual in life. There are people, particularly dumb people, who are in terrible trouble and never get out of it, because they're not intelligent enough. It strikes me as gruesome and comical that in our culture we have an expectation that man can always solve his problems. This is so untrue that it makes me want to cry — or laugh.'

from the same interview

'I didn't learn until I was in college about all the other cultures, and I should have learned that in the first grade. A first grader should understand that his or her culture isn't a rational invention; that there are thousands of other cultures and they all work pretty well; that all cultures function on faith rather than truth; that there are lots of alternatives to our own society. Cultural relativity is defensible and attractive. It's also a source of hope. It means we don't have to continue this way if we don't like it.'

- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Frustrating aspects of Online Dating!
Posted: 10/31/2008 11:37:34 AM
Just as a followup JB regarding reality... there actually have been AI profiles here on POF and other dating sites. So, at that point the reality argument starts to break down quite a bit.

I do agree with something that is intimated by the idea of thinking of it all as real. Most of the problems complained about here happen quite often in fact to face meetings. There are many liars who ply their trade in social settings. Maybe the lie wouldn't be their appearance so much as all of those other things like marital status, occupation, income, relationship status, etc. Who among us hasn't come across someone like that? Or, at the very least, counselled a friend who was a victim.

Also, this whole non face to face meeting isn't really all that new. Pen pal meetings in the military and newspaper personals have been around for a very long time.

I guess my feeling is that, in general, none of that stuff has much to do with the method of meeting. For me the frustrating thing is something LBP mentioned. It's very hard to get a feel for what someone really looks like in a picture, no matter how honest the person tries to make the photo. Movement, pace of interaction, expression, they are all so very important to feeling a sympathetic commonality and sense that you could have a feeling of companionship. That's why, in general, I usually try to meet fast.

Also, Kitten I don't think there was anything particularly gold diggerish about what you wrote but someone might read something into the way you placed these sentences...

<div class="quote">So... one meet, I offered to pay half the bill, he accepted. I said good bye. The end.

It suggests that one led to the other. In fact, why even mention the first sentence? You seemed to be relating how these meetings were about people who were deceptive. How was this deceptive on in any way indicative of his character in a negative way?
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Nova Scotian daters
Posted: 10/24/2008 7:44:50 AM
While it is true that women outnumber men in Canada (1.04 women for each man), and it is higher in NS (1.06) it is also true that NS has the highest median age. The difference is small and most of it is in the seniors.

So, it is an age thing.

:)

(derived from Stats Can 01)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Nova Scotian daters
Posted: 10/23/2008 11:34:38 AM
I've been hearing complaints lately about Nova Scotian daters. A close female friend told me a guy just came up to her recently, spoke with her for a minute or so exchanging pleasantries, and immediately asked her out. Her response was, 'are you from out of town?' Her experience with local guys was that they tend to want the avoid the whole 'asking out' part.

I haven't noticed anything particular about NS women but I'm sure other have. Has anyone else noticed anything peculiarly good or bad that Nova Scotians seem to have in common in terms of meeting, dating, starting relationships, or staying in them?
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 68 (view)
 
Best Things about being single!
Posted: 10/21/2008 7:12:22 AM
Hold on a second...

The argument is...

A) women tend to prepare meals for men - ok, that's a given

B) men tend to be less healthy - stats to back it up, good

C) conclusion, women plan better diets...

C does not follow from A and B.

Now, there are arguments that could be proposed that are more sound. For example, it's well established that married men live longer than single men. However, it's also well established that married women do as well. So it's unclear that has anything to do with diet as touch has health benefits and married people engage in less risky behaviours.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 50 (view)
 
Are there ANY success stories from men on POF?
Posted: 10/16/2008 10:54:31 AM

Well okay I put it differently. Why does each side feel it is a waste of time? Am I the only one who thinks that it seems to be a very elitist process. That people are looking for perfection and not willing to talk to anything that appears less.


Yeah, meeting people on the internet is vastly more elitist than real life. In real life people always meet you with at least a polite smile and never turn you down based on something as silly as how you look.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Obscure songs
Posted: 10/15/2008 7:24:48 PM

Lots of not so obscure songs are difficult to make out or understand too.
What the hell is a real estate novelist (Piano Man)?


That's the correct lyric. I suppose it's a little open to interpretation but I'm sure he was trying to say that the character thought of himself as being a novelist but was actually a real estate agent. He's creating an image of lonely people in the bar with unfulfilled dreams.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 49 (view)
 
Best Things about being single!
Posted: 10/15/2008 9:43:55 AM
It seem to me what most people think is the best thing about being single seems to be avoiding the controlling and (what they find now) objectionable behaviours of a companion. Clearly some are talking about actual prior relationships. Yet, those were the companions you chose in the past? Is it possible, that even though you intellectualize it as something you don't like, that in actual fact many of those things are what make you actually feel loved?
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 834 (view)
 
Can you cheat on a person you are truly in love with?
Posted: 10/14/2008 11:21:03 AM
great post lovinvixen
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 54 (view)
 
The Fine Game
Posted: 10/13/2008 11:16:06 AM
since a lot of points are gained by having sex...

Exactly what are they using to define when sex has occurred?

(I'm having a hard time working out a score here)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 808 (view)
 
Can you cheat on a person you are truly in love with?
Posted: 10/12/2008 12:56:45 AM
i agree with what you're saying, and i do believe that it is possible for a person to be in love with more than one person at once. however cheating has no place in a polyamorous or or polygamous relationship anymore than it does in a monogamous relationship. cheating shows a lack of respect for your partner or partners, is based on deception, and reflects an attitude of self-interest.


True, I never said that polygamy or polyamory was cheating, or even implied it. It was just an example against the thinking here that suggests if you do cheat you can't possibly really be in love or that you can't cheat if you are. Cheating or not has far less to do with being in love than with integrity, respect, and empathy.

If you want a partner who won't cheat it's those kinds of character traits you should be looking for, not whether they love you.


 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 803 (view)
 
Can you cheat on a person you are truly in love with?
Posted: 10/11/2008 9:55:13 AM

ts different for men and women for most guys sex is a mainly a physical raher than an emotional act. However it is the opposite for most women the emotional part is what is about for them and the physcal comes second. Which is why it usually easier for men to cheat...


And yet, the stats show they cheat in about the same proportions...

funny that...

We must be so very different, men and women.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 800 (view)
 
Can you cheat on a person you are truly in love with?
Posted: 10/9/2008 11:03:22 AM
There seems to be a pretty clear consensus that cheating is impossible if you're truly in love. (whatever that means)

It follows then , that pretty much everyone here believes that it is impossible be in love with more than one person at a time. Because, if you could be in love with more than one person you could cheat on one of them.

So, in general, everyone seems to be suggesting that bigamy and polygamy is not possible with genuine love. Polyamorous relationships are made of people who are not truly in love with each other. And cheaters, who claimed to be in love with both of the people they were with, were liars.

The question was "can you?", possibly meaning you personally but usually meaning. "can someone?"

And then I'm reminded of cultural relativism...
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 120 (view)
 
Do you believe in angels?
Posted: 10/1/2008 4:24:31 PM
RE: msg 119

You can usually take data out of context just fine as long as it's quoted correctly because data is data while the context is someone's interpretation. The correlational finding (the first quote) is a summary of data. The qualification of the study is an opinion. It does nothing to contradict the data. Nearly every scientist puts a similar qualification statement in their studies, especially if they are writing to a lay audience. No single study is definitive, especially a correlational one, with respect to cause so the statement quoted in msg 119 is little more than redundant.

My critique of this research has always been that the correlations are generally influenced by one powerful outlier, the US. It's possible that the US is both very religious and high in these social problems for completely unrelated reasons unique to that one country. Similarly, one who was religious might argue that places at the opposite end, such as Japan, that was once strongly religious, have low rates of these societal problems because of the continuing influence of it's religious history on culture and not it's relatively new found secularism. If one extended the search to non-prosperous countries then there are some highly religious nations with generally low rates of homicide or abortion, etc. (Tibet for example).

(BTW, I've seen this same study cited as support for religion because the US is most religious and wealthiest, therefore God has blessed them with this wealth. The authors are neutral in their conclusions about cause.)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 118 (view)
 
Do you believe in angels?
Posted: 10/1/2008 10:13:33 AM
Killer, if all you need is personal testimony from someone that they've seen God and the afterlife then you're not looking. There's loads of people who'd gladly call you and give you the first hand eye witness account you're looking for.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 113 (view)
 
Do you believe in angels?
Posted: 10/1/2008 6:28:06 AM

WHAT...no tooth fairy????


I never said there wasn't a tooth fairy. I have coins to demonstrate his/her existence and heard stories from others that he/she is real. I can't entirely rule out the existence of a tooth fairy just like I can't entirely rule out the existence of God.

(And yeah, I know it was a couple of years old but the Bill Maher movie coming out sort of brought the meme to the fore again)
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 99 (view)
 
Do you believe in angels?
Posted: 9/30/2008 12:20:13 PM

I'm agnostic.


People tend to use the terms agnostic and atheist fairly loosely. Sometimes they mean the same thing. For example, the author of the God delusion, Richard Dawkins, thought by many to be one of the more famous atheists, admits to being agnostic when pressed. The reason he admits this is because it's the only honest scientific answer. However, he will also state that simply admitting that you can't disprove the existence of God does not mean you treat the idea with any credibility. One can accept a possibility and attach a probability to it. Most scientists are agnostic but the probability they attach to God's existence is similar to the probability they attach to the Tooth Fairies. Thus, sometimes they adopt the label of atheist because they feel it's more representative to the average person of their true position.

You can't prove God doesn't exist. But then again, you can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. In fact, there's substantially more tangible evidence for the latter in most people's lives. Presenting the argument as if it's equally valid either way is an illusion. One could concede that they can't prove God doesn't exist while still making various sound arguments about the probability that would affect the rationality of believing or not believing.

One of my favourite examples of how truly unsolvable this problem is, as a humanity issue, comes from Carl Sagan when asked, "If God came down here before you today and said, 'I am God, believe in me.' would you admit the existence of God?" Sagan responded, "no." To a theist this is just proof of what a completely unreasonable fellow Sagan was. They lean back and go "hmmmph, you just don't get it." To a scientist this is a perfect example of just how reasonable a fellow Sagan was because of the many principles of science unsatisfied by such an encounter (and if you understand this debate why Contact is such a fascinating take on it).
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 143 (view)
 
is sex everything in a relationship?
Posted: 9/24/2008 12:57:26 PM
the relationship should hold itself together, with or without sex


The self awareness, self deprecating humour, and grasp of irony that brings about the ability to say just the right thing that, if one didn't know better, would look really idiotic, is in such great abundance here that I'm genuinely amazed on a daily basis.

bravo
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 23 (view)
 
What does your soul really look like?
Posted: 9/19/2008 3:21:25 PM
It looks just like me only fitter with better hair except on Mondays when we look pretty much the same.
 dontmakecookies
Joined: 11/1/2006
Msg: 80 (view)
 
is there anything wrong that women cant reply to emails..yes or no thats all u have to say
Posted: 9/19/2008 3:19:40 PM

I find it interesting that people assume rules change once you are on a computer.Imagine if someone came up to you on the street or in a store and asked you a question....you looked them up and down and then walked away.THAT would be extremely rude and snotty to do.Isn't not responding the same concept?


Imagine a different scenario...

You're in the grocery store and 50 people stop you at once and begin asking you questions. You get confused and run out. Are you rude?

You're looking at it from your perspective of sending one simple message and feeling ignored and potentially judged unfairly. But you really don't know the perspective of the receiver.

You also don't know how the message is interpreted either.

So, maybe in some cases it is the same concept as you describe but I would argue that A) you can't know if it is and it's presumptuous of you to think it is; and B) even if it were the same in some cases, you don't know what went through the other person's mind and how they understood what happened.
 
Show ALL Forums