Why blacks were freed and women received equal rights?

[Torsten]

Aren’t you now (insinuating) assuming that only contributions of a financial nature (do count ) are meaningful?!

[MMMark]

Tues. 12/07/03 12:35 EDT
.post #197

Okay, now to get back to your question, which was[url=Why blacks were freed and women received equal rights? - #30 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]What is even your point?

You asked this with regard to what I said here; I said:

@MMMark

Would a woman who exhibits more “masculine” interests (such as conversance with war history, for example) really be more attractive to Carolla?

The “point” of this rhetorical question is that, in my opinion, a woman who learns more about (for example, World War II) does not (necessarily) make herself more attractive to Adam Carolla.

[url=Why blacks were freed and women received equal rights? - #33 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]Oh? Then what exactly where you “inferring” with the statement: etc.

I don’t know how to answer this question, since you’ve used the word “inferring” incorrectly.

The speaker implies, insinuates, intends;
the listener infers, interprets, construes.

When what I intend is close to what you infer, we are “communicating.”
When what I intend is far from what you infer, we are miscommunicating.

[url=Why blacks were freed and women received equal rights? - #32 by ClaytonB]

@Clayton

[/url]I think Carolla, in the “complains about women” clip, isn’t even talking about what women should be like.

This is a minor point, but I want to stress that I did not use the word “should.”

Let me first synopsize the clip and then respond to some of your observations.

0:47 - “But, things that men don’t care about. Encourage them to wanna do things, and focus on and spend time thinking about things, that men are not interested in.”

The fact that women’s magazines feature articles which women, and not men, are interested in, makes perfect sense. What doesn’t make sense is to complain that women’s magazines (quite understandably) do this. Does Carolla’s wife complain that men’s magazines feature articles which men, and not women, are interested in? What’s ironic is that by complaining, he exhibits in himself the very behavior he ridicules in “chicks”: wanting the other person’s behavior to change so he’ll be happier. It’s neither “manly” nor logical.

2:22 - “This is the problem with chicks …”

(paraphrased): When men look at pictures of carnage in Kosovo, they’re happy to be sitting on the sofa.
When women look at pictures of white sandy beaches, they’re unhappy to be sitting on the sofa.

Well, sure. The problem here is that Carolla has got the man and the woman looking at very different things, so of course their respective reactions are going to be very different. This is not a profound observation, and it’s not a “problem with chicks.” It’s a mundane fact of human nature that seeing a situation worse than our own tends to make us grateful for what we do have, while seeing a situation better than our own tends to make us envious of what we could have.

This “theme” continues until about 3:39, at which point Carolla begins ranting “How 'bout you broads pick up a textbook every once in a while” and also “How 'bout you learn something about World War II.” Their eighteen-year-old call-in listener “Rebecca” never does have her question answered, nor does she even get a chance to ask it.

So, why does Carolla suggest that women “pick up a textbook” or “learn something about World War II”? Is it because, as you suggest, that “…perhaps they should study history and put their current situation into perspective”? On the face of it, this seems plausible. But let’s consider something you said earlier:

@Clayton

Rather, I think he’s making a point that women have a propensity toward dissatisfaction with their status quo, whereas men tend to be happy with the status quo.

Although this might be Carolla’s point, it’s not a point I agree with. All humans, both women and men, act, and their human action demonstrates their dissatisfaction with their current status. We all act to improve our status, or at the very least, to prevent our status from degrading.

In your third paragraph, you point out that both women and men are materialistic.

I agree. By marrying, each hopes to get more of what she or he wants. This inevitably involves giving up something one values less to get something one values more, i.e., it’s a trade. Obviously, the less one gives up, the “better the deal,” and both sides haggle for this reason.

And this, to me, is what Carolla’s “complaining” all distills down to: He’s simply whining that he’s unhappy about having to give up so much to get what he wants. He’d rather not have to pay for expensive trips to sandy beaches in order to keep his woman happy (“happy” meaning “happy enough with what she’s getting in order to give Adam what he wants from her”).

So, while I find Carolla somewhat funny and entertaining, I don’t find what he has to say particularly profound or enlightening.

By the way, here’s another clip in which Carolla admonishes (young) women for their lack of war knowledge:

Adam Carolla – Women Don’t Know Anything About Wars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6t6Yfu3HEIThis seems to be a recurring peeve of his, but I find it all a bit silly. Women don’t need to “know anything about wars,” nor do they need to be funny, nor do they need to be interested in many of the things men, typically, are interested in. They already possess what they need to survive and thrive. It’s also hypocritical, since Carolla is attracted to, and married, precisely the type of woman about whom he “complains.”

His schtick seems to be “look at what big brains we men have, compared to you women.”
It’s juvenilia, a product which, apparently, one can make good money peddling.

[Laughing_Man]

This is rather humorous because the very battle that is being waged here (the dominance or lack of dominance of males) is the very discussion that kicked off the 19th century feminist movement. I do not know if any of you know such a fact, but it seems like lines are still being established.

1848- Seneca Falls, NY. The first convention on Women’s Rights in the United States. The question was whether women have the same inalienable rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence as men do. Women could not vote, could not own property (unless they were a widow in some cases), did not have the same liberties as men. Women wanted to get into the public sphere because they were denied such a spot and regulated to the domestic sphere. They were trying to move beyond the home, not stay in it. Three things helped them do that: Religion, Abolition and Temperance.

The religious aspect had been raging since Anne Hutchinson and the Puritans and it was asking the question of what the role of women was in the church. Could they be ministers? Could they even speak and understand the words of God and could they lead men to salvation?

The abolitionist aspect was one of seeing similarities between the conditions of slaves and that of women. Disallowed to own property, disallowed to vote, ruled by a patriarchal figure, subjugated to the domestic sphere.

The temperance aspect was one of witnessing the plight of a drunkard’s wife. The domestic abuse and the spending away of the family’s food for drink. The most notable examples of this were playwrights like ​Ten Nights in a Bar-room. Which represents the fall of a man from grace due to drink and the beating of his wife and event accidental murder of his daughter. Drunkness was invading the domestic sphere and women needed to go into the public sphere in order to prohibit it or to speak out against such activities.

​Anyways, please continue. I love reading this debate about gender roles (a cultural phenomena) are established in biology.

[John_James]

@Clayton

I’ll retract my statement that made a direct comparison between the contributions of the man and the woman. My argument only holds relatively. A woman who doesn’t earn an income could attempt to attract a more desirable male than the exact same woman in every other way except she doesn’t earn an income.

…I fail to see how the same isn’t true for men. (Because it is true for men.)

No one disputes that a man who earns a high income is - ceteris paribus - more desirable to women than the exact same man who earns no income or a low income. My point is that the reverse also holds. A woman with a high income is more desirable (can demand more concessions in the relationship in terms of decision-making power, or attract a more desirable mate) than a woman with a low income or no income.

First of all, that is not a point you made. I outlined both of the claims you made, and you’ve already retracted one of them.

Second, I would argue that’s an extremely hasty generalization. Men are far less interested in whether or not a woman has her own income. Particularly “desirable” men (i.e. men that have their own wealth). In fact that is so low on the totem pole I don’t even know why you would try to introduce it. If a woman meets the most important qualifications on a man’s checklist, by the time it gets down to how much money she makes, not only do most men not really care, many men actually prefer she not make much (or any). In fact, the more she makes, her desirability actually begins to decline in the eyes of more and more men.

You said it yourself there is a focus on the gap between his income and hers. His is expected to be higher. The higher her income, the more and more men are getting knocked out of the line…as they find her less desirable because they want to make more than their female counterpart, and you said yourself SHE HERSELF sees them as worthless if they make even the same amount as she does…let alone, less.

Yet now you’re telling me that a woman with high income is more desirable?

Have you not been getting enough sleep or something?

Look at the logic of dowries in 19th-century English high society… you can read a Jane Austen novel to get the idea of how it worked.

The same guy who specifically introduced the topic of “in more modern relationships where the woman also works”, and actually started this conversation about how relationships work in the modern world, and the dynamic between women who earn income and men who earn income…the very thing we’re talking about…this same guy is telling me to look at 19th century arranged marriages with dowries.

I honestly don’t know what’s up with you.

@Clayton

@John James

And finally, how exactly can you allege that a man who makes the same amount as a woman does is automatically valueless in her eyes? You’re telling me that a woman who makes $1 million/yr meets a man who makes $1 million/yr and determines “meh. This guy is worthless to me.” As if none of his million could/ would be spent on her? As if all he is to her is money? As if the woman is not at all interested in a long-term partner and companion, a father for all these children she’s going to bear, a provider for when she can’t be earning her million dollars? Give me a break.

I don’t think any of that.

What?? You spent an entire paragraph explaining the math. Indeed your entire post was basically predicated on this notion that “men are locked into competition with one another for access to wombs so that, as the average man becomes more productive, the price of the womb steadily rises” and that “The fundamental exchange that is occurring in the reproductive relationship is ‘you give me stuff, I give you children.’”

That’s what you said. You can scroll up and read your post if you want to. Your entire post was literally that there is a calculation taking place which rests on that “fundamental exchange” and that that is how this “net contribution” to the relationship is extrapolated.

All I had to do was increase the incomes to a higher level, or remind you of a couple other things a woman might be interested in other than a man’s money and now all of a sudden you are denying your previous statements.

The crux of the matter is that women earning income fundamentally alters the balance of the reproductive relationship.

No, once again, your argument was:

1. It is a fact that the man no longer actually supports the woman.

2. her net contribution to the relationship massively outweighs his contribution…because hers is “full-time work + child-bearing” and his is “only” full-time work only.)

And my argument is, both of those statements are false.

If you want to argue that it being possible/ socially acceptible for a woman to earn her own income gives her more choices as to her life situation, fine. I don’t disagree. In fact, that’s a large point of Farrell’s book. But to try to quantify it and essentially claim “well she ‘works full time’ AND bears the children, whereas he just works full time. Ergo, x + y > x” is just asinine.

First of all, as I pointed out, her “full time” is not the same as his “full time”. Men on average work something like an average of 4-5 or more hours per week than women. (This in fact accounts for more than 70% of the pay gap, in fact). Second, (odds are) her work is decidedly less valuable than his…as empirically show through her lower pay.

So this careless generalized term of “work full time” used to label what both the man and woman does so as to make it sound like all you have to do is add something to the woman’s schedule and she automatically does more is ridiculous.

And this idea that it is a “fact” that “the man actually no longer supports the woman” is just laughable. Sure more women are earning their own money. But I’d be willing to bet the percentage of women who earn enough to maintain their current lifestyle on their own, without their male partner is so small, it basically invalidates your argument immediately. And then when you want to bring kids into it, (which is what we’re talking about), it drops off almost completely.

[Centrist]

Because it was the right thing to do, right wing anti-Lincoln conspiracies aside.

[John_James]

@Centrist

Because it was the right thing to do, right wing anti-Lincoln conspiracies aside.

Well I guess that about clears everything up.

Where the hell were you 3 pages ago?!