Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

China’s ‘Leftover’ Women
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
caniff



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
sirius black wrote:
LOL...you doubted the phrase. I proved it was a legitmate phrase. You doubted men were intimidated by Harvard educated women and thenlater admitted it.

No clinging...lol...you were proven wrong. It happens. Deal with it.

Except this isn't what happened at all. I never doubted the phrase. I doubted its validity and relevance. And I was right to do so, since you still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that attractive Harvard graduate girls have a hard time finding mates, or that men (except for "some men", which is so vague as to be meaningless) are intimidated by them. You would have us believe it was such a big deal that they would all actively go out of their way to lie about it, or not be able to find any men. I said this sounds like absolute nonsense (because an attractive girl would have no need to do so), and you have yet to prove otherwise. Bottom line is most men would probably happily date a nice, attractive young girl who graduated from Harvard. Unless she's not actually attractive or nice.

Beyond that, you are clinging, and your non-point has been shown to be totally irrelevant to the discussion (I am not alone in pointing this out). You should probably take your own advice and deal with it.


Perfect timing - just finished the popcorn!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:

In that case, I'm calling BS. Either these "attractive" women aren't as attractive as they think, or they're all holding out for Brad Pitt (or whoever) and have ridiculously high/unrealistic standards. Beyond that, the idea that attractive educated women would have any problem finding mates seems exceedingly unlikely.


From my own personal experience as a single mid-30s male, this pretty much sums it up (unrealistic standards). It's either that or they have a significant personality problem that one can generally pick up on immediately.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
Bottom line is most men would probably happily date a nice, attractive young girl who graduated from Harvard. Unless she's not actually attractive or nice.

It seems pretty likely that most men who reject women who graduated from Harvard do so for other reasons than the fact that they went to Harvard. And I'd bet that the way the that the fact is presented is an even bigger determining factor for the relationship than the fact itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
sirius black wrote:
LOL...you doubted the phrase. I proved it was a legitmate phrase. You doubted men were intimidated by Harvard educated women and thenlater admitted it.

No clinging...lol...you were proven wrong. It happens. Deal with it.

Except this isn't what happened at all. I never doubted the phrase. I doubted its validity and relevance. And I was right to do so, since you still haven't provided a single shred of evidence that attractive Harvard graduate girls have a hard time finding mates, or that men (except for "some men", which is so vague as to be meaningless) are intimidated by them. You would have us believe it was such a big deal that they would all actively go out of their way to lie about it, or not be able to find any men. I said this sounds like absolute nonsense (because an attractive girl would have no need to do so), and you have yet to prove otherwise. Bottom line is most men would probably happily date a nice, attractive young girl who graduated from Harvard. Unless she's not actually attractive or nice.

Beyond that, you are clinging, and your non-point has been shown to be totally irrelevant to the discussion (I am not alone in pointing this out). You should probably take your own advice and deal with it.


So your guess has no facts or articles. The 'H bomb' reference has numerous articles written about it. Enough men aire intimidated by it for articles to be written about it.
Cyber yelling and calling it irrelevant and repeating it ad nauseum to make it appear so because you say so doesn't make it so.

lol...good thing there is a thread. My last word on it. Anyone can make of it what they will. I don't have to say anymore.

The inescapabe FACT is that these women had men interested in them UNTIL they found out they went to Harvard. That is a fact. Articles have been written about it. You can assert otherwise and guess all you want.

So, go ahead, have the last word via some tirade to mask my point was proven.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Cosmic Hum



Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
The inescapabe FACT is that these women had men interested in them UNTIL they found out they went to Harvard. That is a fact. Articles have been written about it. You can assert otherwise and guess all you want.

So, go ahead, have the last word via some tirade to mask my point was proven.


This was hardly a fact. At best someone's incredibly lame excuse as to why some man/men suddenly became less than interested in them.
And when you are looking for excuses...any excuse will do...in this case apparently going to Harvard was IT...nothing else...only that.

Hard to have a conversation with people who believe in 'facts' such as this.
Here's another guess at this...maybe the 'fact' that those women believe in that 'fact', is enough to turn men off.
You know...like the self fulfilling prophesy.
Hey...this guy seems interested in me...wait till I tell him that I went to Harvard...that will send him a running...and sure enough...
But hey...just a guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
The inescapabe FACT is that these women had men interested in them UNTIL they found out they went to Harvard. That is a fact. Articles have been written about it. You can assert otherwise and guess all you want.

So, go ahead, have the last word via some tirade to mask my point was proven.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself... It is most certainly not a fact. That articles have been written about it may be a fact, but that does not mean the claims being made are factual. Articles have also been written about alien poop being the shape of a pizza slice. Doesn't make it a fact.

But hey, keep clinging if it makes you feel better! I wouldn't want to force you to let it go and admit that your non-point holds no relevance and is almost certainly just plain wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
The 'H bomb' reference has numerous articles written about it. Enough men aire intimidated by it for articles to be written about it.


Ok. I earlier accused you of not speaking woman. I stand by that. When a woman is rejected by a male that she desires her ego will not permit rational analysis. It will never be that she is fat, has a bad attitude, speaks with irony and snark, is dirty, is unfeminine, fat, fat, fat etc. It's always going to be "he is intimidated" or "he is afraid of commitment" or "he doesn't want a strong woman" etc. Learn to speak woman. The female ability to rationalize her situation is awesome. Men do it too, but not so much in this situation. If a man is rejected by a woman he'll think "i'm not good enough for her b/c of money/looks etc". You're thinking somewhat like a man and applying it to women.

Point is, a male will not reject a feminine, thin, sweet, feminine, thin, thin, thin, woman who is broadly in his league for any reason if he is seeking a mate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Single People Should Get to Have Weddings, Too.

So this is where we are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Single People Should Get to Have Weddings, Too.

So this is where we are.


I saw that, too. The Atlantic has decided to double down on its THE END OF MEN BUT LONG LIVE DISCUSSION OF THE SEXES bullshit. Expressing disdain for this pattern will not win you many upvotes in the Atlantic comments sections, however.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I welcome their hatred.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Fox wrote:
Single People Should Get to Have Weddings, Too.

So this is where we are.


I saw that, too. The Atlantic has decided to double down on its THE END OF MEN BUT LONG LIVE DISCUSSION OF THE SEXES bullshit. Expressing disdain for this pattern will not win you many upvotes in the Atlantic comments sections, however.


What % of female commentary is nothing more than the rationalizing of a current situation? 80%? More? Do they have anything interesting to say?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Woman Who Married Herself

Quote:
Chen - who also goes by her English name of Only - carried out the ceremony this weekend, complete with flower girl, cake and ring, as a protest against the pressures on women in Taiwanese society to get married.

The Taiwanese government has just stepped up its publicity campaign to encourage marriage and parenthood in order to boost the island's very low birthrate.

Many Taiwanese women are delaying marriage because they want to have an education and a career. It is thought that they then find it hard to meet the expectations of potential husbands and parents-in-law to put housekeeping and child-rearing ahead of their jobs.

Only, who turns 30 in December, has taken a stand against these pressures and is committed to accepting herself as she is. She says "I feel that marrying myself represents a promise to really love myself."

Her wedding to herself has attracted some negative comments online from people saying it is just a ploy to rake in wedding gift money, but there have also been thousands of messages of support from women around the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Fox wrote:
Single People Should Get to Have Weddings, Too.

So this is where we are.


I saw that, too. The Atlantic has decided to double down on its THE END OF MEN BUT LONG LIVE DISCUSSION OF THE SEXES bullshit. Expressing disdain for this pattern will not win you many upvotes in the Atlantic comments sections, however.


What % of female commentary is nothing more than the rationalizing of a current situation? 80%? More? Do they have anything interesting to say?


Women are often patient and willing to listen, even if they won't come around. I cannot remember if they have anything interesting to say.

Its the men who are the worst. In a post where I attacked a blogger for a click-bait mislead of a title, one commentator suggested I couldn't appreciate the suffering women went through because I couldn't see past my male privilege. It was an article imputing sexism, that of typing being the province of the female, slowing the adoption of the personal computer (in the title), although in the first paragraph the author admits that the first personal computers cost roughly $8,000 (adjusted for inflation).

The Atlantic does this to collect clicks. It will lure one in with a click-bait title, and then the article will supply something much more moderate and well-reasoned. This happens often, but its particularly egregious with The Sexes articles.

Here's an example of what I mean outside of The Sexes theme: La Loi, C'est Moi

James Fallows wrote:
SCOTUS Update: La Loi, C'est Moi

JUN 24 2012, 1:49 PM ET

I am not enough of a Supreme Court buff to have any confident idea of what the majority will rule on the Obama health care plan.

But confidence in the very idea that the Roberts majority will approach this as a "normal" legal matter, rather than as one more Bush v. Gore front in the political wars, grows ever harder to maintain, especially after the latest labor-rights ruling. It is worth reading carefully this lead editorial in yesterday's New York Times. In short, the same five conservative Justices who in their pre-appointment phase had inveighed against "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench," while promising to live the gospel of judicial "humility" if confirmed, went out of their way, in a ruling written by Samuel Alito, to decree new law contrary to what Congress had ordered and other courts had long approved.*


Note what happens here. There's the click-bait title, Roberts is the law unto himself. First paragraph, an artful hedge. Second paragraph, a tentative case for linking how Roberts was expected to rule with previous rulings such as Bush v. Gore (which itself was a terrible, cynical ruling).

Fallows wrote this on June 24th. The ruling was on June 26th. Now, some of us predicted that the court would rule 5-4 to uphold the act under the Tax provision but not under the Commerce Clause decision. You know, those of us who have some familiarity with Constitutional Law.

So Roberts was the one to break the tie and uphold the Affordable Care Act. What is Fallows's response?

Quote:
I am not equipped to swim into the maelstrom of Supreme Court deepthink underway right now, including analyses of the long-term implications of Roberts's ruling for the Commerce Clause. (Two good starting points, by Epps pere et fils, and this from the NYT). I attach another, from a reader, below.

The main point is: the observable facts about the Chief Justice's vision and beliefs are very significantly different today from what they were before 10am EDT. The change is all to the good, for the Court and the country.


No, dude, you were wrong. You made a prediction, based off ignorance, and got your ass handed to you. Here's why its significant. The liberal law professor commentariat was barking that, oh, hey, the Obamacare Mandate is totally constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Fallows conveys that belief nicely in his June 24th post.

Quote:
Underscoring the point, a Bloomberg poll of 21 constitutional scholars found that 19 of them believe the individual mandate is constitutional, but only eight said they expected the Supreme Court to rule that way. The headline nicely conveys the reality of the current Court: "Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection."


Yeah! Just survey a bunch of law professors, what could be more reliable?

How about attorneys who practice Constitutional law?

Quote:
You’ll notice attorneys look to do especially well at predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases, although the authors caution against reading too much into that, given the small number of attorneys represented in the survey. A statistical model the authors came up with — one that relied on some basic characteristics about each case — did a lot better than most, accurately predicting the outcome of 75 percent of the cases.


Fine, don't read too much into the attorneys's predictions, but be cognizant of the fact that "constitutional law scholars" aka law professors have a horrendous time of performing a task that essentially amounts to counting to five. In fact, Supreme Court attorneys gave the odds of the court overturning the PPACA at a mere 33%. How did they get that? There were 4 definite votes for the PPACA and 3 definite votes against it: the swing votes were Roberts and Kennedy (just trust me, its apparent if you read the oral argument transcripts). Now, there were two grounds upon which SCOTUS could affirm the Act, and only one ground was needed. So only one justice of two need be persuaded on one ground of two. The odds actually look less favorable for the Act being stricken down than 33% all things being equal, but whatever.

Anyway, Fallows happily proclaims that Roberts had overcome his degradation and affirmed the Act, although again, Fallows is unable to really wade through the Constitutional issues. Dude, your panel of liberal professors was wrong.

Here's what really got me going. One of the other Voices cited Fallows's media criticism arguments in one of his posts. Fallows was calling out pundits for predicting poorly and not getting called on it. So in the comments, someone (*ahem*) points out that, hey, there is a recent example of Fallows doing JUST WHAT HE IS CRITICIZING IN WHAT YOU'VE QUOTED. *link* So down from on high comes the Voice himself to opine that someone is being "deeply unfair" because Fallows hedged that he was "not enough of a Supreme Court buff to have any confident idea of what the majority will rule on the Obama health care plan." Well, if you're not enough of a SCOTUS buff to have any confident idea of how the majority will rule, then feel free not to comment on it. Again, look at the click-post title: La Loi, C'est Moi. It doesn't matter, and Fallows can't wriggle out of it like most authors would, because Voices write their own titles.

The truth is, the PPACA ruling should have shut the liberal legal commentariat down. It certainly messed up Jeffrey Toobin's book. You know, Jeffrey Toobin, the CNN legal analyst who falsely reported, not predicted, falsely reported that the Court had struck down the PPACA?

Nevertheless, Toobin was at least honest enough to man up and admit he was wrong. (He's still a hack).

Quote:
"I'm eating some crow," he continued. "It's important for me to be gracious and not to pretend that I didn't get something wrong."


I guess its too bad Toobin doesn't have click-bait titles to hide behind.

/rantover
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to the topic.

10 Myths about China

Quote:
5. In the fast-changing relations between men and women in China, the losers are the “leftover women.”

For all the inches of text devoted to the subject, “leftover women”—a pool of educated thirtyish women who can not find a partner in China—is a concept invented and sustained largely by men. Take a look at the numbers, and you find real demographic challenge: leftover men.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know why you'd read The Atlantic. You're a white heterosexual married male in the South. Do you think blacks read Stormfront and hope the mods let their comments through? You put a lot of work and thought into that comment. I'm sure there are dozens of legal focused non-msm sites that would greatly appreciate the contribution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International