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  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:43 pm    Post subject: Re: China’s ‘Leftover’ Women Reply with quote

Fox wrote:

sirius black wrote:
Its still a somewhat patriarchal world where men like to be the ones who earn more than their wives.


Patriarchy, or rationality?

Quote:
The New York Post reports that a study to be published in the Journal of Family Issues in October found that women who earned more than their husbands, were almost 40% more likely to divorce than their lesser-earning counterparts.


The average fellow isn't stupid; he's realistic about the character of his potential mates. Assuming his life ambitions do not include being served with a no-fault divorce and seeing his children only on weekends, why would he choose to marry a woman earning more than himself, given this makes that outcome substantially more likely?


Right, so pace Sirius, we can just as reasonably state that even in the liberated, post-feminist West, wives prefer their husbands to be the main providers. This seems to be deeply rooted in the minds of both sexes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:00 pm    Post subject: Re: China’s ‘Leftover’ Women Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
sirius black wrote:
As for women from Ivy league schools or highly accomplished, if they are attractive or even reasonably so, many men are intimidated by this.


How do you know this?

sirius black wrote:
Its still a somewhat patriarchal world where men like to be the ones who earn more than their wives.


Patriarchy, or rationality?

Quote:
The New York Post reports that a study to be published in the Journal of Family Issues in October found that women who earned more than their husbands, were almost 40% more likely to divorce than their lesser-earning counterparts.


The average fellow isn't stupid; he's realistic about the character of his potential mates. Assuming his life ambitions do not include being served with a no-fault divorce and seeing his children only on weekends, why would he choose to marry a woman earning more than himself, given this makes that outcome substantially more likely?


Much has been written about women with Harvard and Yale degrees and their problems with dating.

http://www.theglasshammer.com/news/2007/09/28/the-h-bomb/
Category 2 was called “dropping the H-Bomb.” The formerly friendly conversation turned stone-cold serious. “Whoah!” the men would say, and put both palms up in a defensive gesture, as if warding off the attack of a psychotic Doberman.
“You must be really smart and stuff.”
“You should be buying me drinks.”
“ Um, I have to go to the bathroom.”
Requests for our phone numbers were less frequent. In fact, results were so reliably negative that sometimes we would go straight to the H-Bomb to disburse unwanted advances from annoying guys. Worked like a charm.
When we started practicing law in New York, this experiment proved only too easy to replicate in the real world.
So why are so many men threatened by smart successful women, particularly those who might earn more money than they do? The H-Bomb phenomenon of letting a guy know that you have a high-powered and high-paying job can perversely cause strain in your dating life


You can speculate on the whys but I have worked with, befriended or dated women with Ivy league degrees and that was a constant topic.

As for the rationality aspect, everyone is getting divorced. Divorced is more the norm than staying marriage so that is inconclusive. I'm sure you will find men who earn a lot get divorced a lot as well.

People stayed in unhappy marriages years ago partly out of economic necessityas well as social pressure. You needed to stay together economically decades ago. If someone is indenpendently self sufficient, be they man or woman there is one less reason to stay married if you're unhappy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ So you're actually trying to tell us that some attractive, charming young woman who graduated from Harvard is going to have troubles finding a mate? Because of this so-called 'H-bomb' anecdote (and not because of an alternate explanation, like her not being either attractive or charming)? Right...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:15 pm    Post subject: Re: China’s ‘Leftover’ Women Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Much has been written about women with Harvard and Yale degrees and their problems with dating.


I'm not disagreeing with the circumstances, I'm disagreeing with the analysis. "Men are just intimidated by how awesome and brilliant we are," is a narrative. "Divorce is more likely when wives out-earn their husbands," and, "Most divorces are instigated by women," are statistics. I don't care why these women think men aren't interested in them. That's not data, that's something between self-flattery and self-condolence.

sirius black wrote:
As for the rationality aspect, everyone is getting divorced.


There are certainly plenty of divorces, but there are also certain statistical factors that lead to divorce at higher or lower rates (one of them being the one pointed out in this thread). Everyone is not getting divorced at the same rate, Sirius, and you don't get to excuse this massive cultural dysfunction with the old, "Hey man, everyone's doing it," line. A generation of children are being raised by daycares and TV in broken households. If this is what you want to act as an apologist for, that's your choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:27 am    Post subject: Re: China’s ‘Leftover’ Women Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
sirius black wrote:
Much has been written about women with Harvard and Yale degrees and their problems with dating.


I'm not disagreeing with the circumstances, I'm disagreeing with the analysis. "Men are just intimidated by how awesome and brilliant we are," is a narrative. "Divorce is more likely when wives out-earn their husbands," and, "Most divorces are instigated by women," are cstatistics. I don't care why these women think men aren't interested in them. That's not data, that's something between self-flattery and self-condolence.

sirius black wrote:
As for the rationality aspect, everyone is getting divorced.


There are certainly plenty of divorces, but there are also certain statistical factors that lead to divorce at higher or lower rates (one of them being the one pointed out in this thread). Everyone is not getting divorced at the same rate, Sirius, and you don't get to excuse this massive cultural dysfunction with the old, "Hey man, everyone's doing it," line. A generation of children are being raised by daycares and TV in broken households. If this is what you want to act as an apologist for, that's your choice.


Higher earning women do not depend on their husband for their livelihood, so they have greater freedom of choice when it comes to how they spend their lives, yes that is horrible. You are an apologist for the point of view that women belong at home in the kitchen, or doing housework and chores. I wonder, how much older are you then me. If you were at least a few decades older this thread would start to make sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am a thirty year old, liberally-inclined man. Nothing would please me more than your position being correct. Unlike you, however, I am unable to subordinate my pattern-recognition capabilities to culturally-driven fantasies.

There is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this issue. Trying to get you to see the light on this is like trying to get Junior to see the light on evolution: it will not and cannot happen. I am not trying to persuade you. I am not trying to engage you. Just as I gave up on bashing my head against Junior's wall of biblical lieralism, I refuse to keep bashing my head against your wall of feminism. You live your culture. Reap its natural results. I sincerely hope that you are happy with them, Leon. Time will tell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
I am a thirty year old, liberally-inclined man. Nothing would please me more than your position being correct. Unlike you, however, I am unable to subordinate my pattern-recognition capabilities to culturally-driven fantasies.

There is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this issue. Trying to get you to see the light on this is like trying to get Junior to see the light on evolution: it will not and cannot happen. I am not trying to persuade you. I am not trying to engage you. Just as I gave up on bashing my head against Junior's wall of biblical lieralism, I refuse to keep bashing my head against your wall of feminism. You live your culture. Reap its natural results. I sincerely hope that you are happy with them, Leon. Time will tell.


Ok, but I find the idea that you think I'm a feminist incredibly funny. The reason I said that I imagined you as being decades older is that all of this is so overwhelmingly normally and mainstream now, that to use a word like feminism to describe it is bizarre. It's like the other thread, with you calling Kuros an economic reductionist. It's like you are willfully overlooking all the major reasons to narrow in on some relatively minor cultural reason, and instead of responding with substantive ideas you dismiss things as feminism, are you sure that in your above analogy, that you aren't Junior, and I'm not Fox?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JustinC



Joined: 10 Mar 2012
Location: We Are The World!

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Underwaterbob wrote:
Junior wrote:
A successful executive career woman functions better in China than a street sweeper. She is the superior organism, why isn't she churning out more babies than your average alcaholic coal miner with a low IQ?


Maybe she's the "superior" organism, but she's not the superior reproducer, which is what matters more to evolution.

Like Fox was saying: every one of those successful executives' positions is supported by a legion of lower class workers. The street sweeper is gonna win out in the end simply because their profession leaves them with time for family and is in much higher demand.


Except that due to the gender imbalance, the streets sweeper is likely not getting married, also due to chinas culture, where women are loath to marry a man who can't provide them with a house. They both lose equally, but one loses with a much better position in life.


I can't imagine street sweepers in the West are inundated with marriage proposals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This reminded me of this thread.

http://www.theatlantic.com/video/archive/2012/10/trouble-with-women-in-the-workplace-this-1950s-film-is-here-to-help/263803/

The video is pretty funny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Ok, but I find the idea that you think I'm a feminist incredibly funny. The reason I said that I imagined you as being decades older is that all of this is so overwhelmingly normally and mainstream now, that to use a word like feminism to describe it is bizarre.


Leon, have a look at the dictionary definition of feminism. The mainstream is feminist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GF wrote:
Leon wrote:
Ok, but I find the idea that you think I'm a feminist incredibly funny. The reason I said that I imagined you as being decades older is that all of this is so overwhelmingly normally and mainstream now, that to use a word like feminism to describe it is bizarre.


Leon, have a look at the dictionary definition of feminism. The mainstream is feminist.


Yes, and basically the dictionary definition, at least by dictionary.com, is someone who wants equal rights for women. Equal rights, oh the horror. All though I doubt that the dictionary definition is what Fox, and others are referring to. I think part of what Fox is referring to is the culture where women are increasingly expected to work, and there is a stigma against stay at home moms. There are legitimate issues there, I guess, but feminism is such a loaded, and almost dated term, that its funny to see it. I doubt that anybody here would argue that women shouldn't have the same legal rights, so we all are probably, technically, feminists.i
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Junior



Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Fox wrote:
I am a thirty year old, liberally-inclined man. Nothing would please me more than your position being correct. Unlike you, however, I am unable to subordinate my pattern-recognition capabilities to culturally-driven fantasies.

There is nothing more for you and I to discuss on this issue. Trying to get you to see the light on this is like trying to get Junior to see the light on evolution: it will not and cannot happen. I am not trying to persuade you. I am not trying to engage you. Just as I gave up on bashing my head against Junior's wall of biblical lieralism, I refuse to keep bashing my head against your wall of feminism. You live your culture. Reap its natural results. I sincerely hope that you are happy with them, Leon. Time will tell.


Ok, but I find the idea that you think I'm a feminist incredibly funny. The reason I said that I imagined you as being decades older is that all of this is so overwhelmingly normally and mainstream now, that to use a word like feminism to describe it is bizarre. It's like the other thread, with you calling Kuros an economic reductionist. It's like you are willfully overlooking all the major reasons to narrow in on some relatively minor cultural reason, and instead of responding with substantive ideas you dismiss things as feminism, are you sure that in your above analogy, that you aren't Junior, and I'm not Fox?


Lol it would appear that many are prone to letting socio-psychological drives overrule logic.

I simply pointed out to Submarine Bob that the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record is dramatically obvious- even to a non-specialist without any knowledge of comparitive morphology. Not even mainstream evolutionists deny it.

The morphological and biochemical gaps between modern groups of eg vertebrates and their closest presumed ancestors are so undeniably huge that it takes a feverish imagination to accept them. And it becomes even more incredulous year on year as science uncovers ever more of the basic structure of species at a cellular level to reveal unbridgable differences on the microbiological level.

Evos will, for example tell you that amphibians eveolved from fish. yet the first presumed amphibian- icthyostega- is radically different from its claimed nearest ancestor the rhipidistia fish. If you want me to go into these massive differences (some of which are not obvious at a simple glance) do say so.

Its not enough to fill these massive gaps with imaginary hypothetical, unknown "ghost lineages" time and again. If evolution- the dramatic morphological transformation of millions of species- ocurred, it would be blatantly obvious in the fossil record. We've unearthed multimillions of fossils over the past century. If darwinism were true, the majority of this record would necessarily consist of clearly transitional forms. It doesn't: there aren't any. All we see time and again is species unchanged from how they are today. No matter how far back you go.

I don't doubt that there is natural variation within species and that certain populations concentrate extremes of this limited range, which is acted upon by natural selection. But that does not result in radical or novel morphological change, neither has it ever been observed to do so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
GF wrote:
Leon wrote:
Ok, but I find the idea that you think I'm a feminist incredibly funny. The reason I said that I imagined you as being decades older is that all of this is so overwhelmingly normally and mainstream now, that to use a word like feminism to describe it is bizarre.


Leon, have a look at the dictionary definition of feminism. The mainstream is feminist.


Yes, and basically the dictionary definition, at least by dictionary.com, is someone who wants equal rights for women. Equal rights, oh the horror. All though I doubt that the dictionary definition is what Fox, and others are referring to. I think part of what Fox is referring to is the culture where women are increasingly expected to work, and there is a stigma against stay at home moms. There are legitimate issues there, I guess, but feminism is such a loaded, and almost dated term, that its funny to see it. I doubt that anybody here would argue that women shouldn't have the same legal rights, so we all are probably, technically, feminists.i


The definition was probably formulated by men in the ivory tower, and misses the emotional reality behind feminism ‘on the ground,’ the mixture of resentment, pride, and lust that made and still make up the guts of it, underneath the smooth dermis of equal rights claims. This pathology is part of why feminism has never been able to show the kind of moderation proposed by the dictionary definition. Always impatient, always dissatisfied. So there is a distinction to be made: while someone like Fox is definitely feminist in the abstract, the mainstream is both feminist in the abstract and in its emotional reality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
GF wrote:
Leon wrote:
Ok, but I find the idea that you think I'm a feminist incredibly funny. The reason I said that I imagined you as being decades older is that all of this is so overwhelmingly normally and mainstream now, that to use a word like feminism to describe it is bizarre.


Leon, have a look at the dictionary definition of feminism. The mainstream is feminist.


Yes, and basically the dictionary definition, at least by dictionary.com, is someone who wants equal rights for women. Equal rights, oh the horror. All though I doubt that the dictionary definition is what Fox, and others are referring to. I think part of what Fox is referring to is the culture where women are increasingly expected to work, and there is a stigma against stay at home moms. There are legitimate issues there, I guess, but feminism is such a loaded, and almost dated term, that its funny to see it. I doubt that anybody here would argue that women shouldn't have the same legal rights, so we all are probably, technically, feminists.i

Feminism, as it has evolved, isn't about "equal right" (which women have had for a long time), it's about framing every single issue in the world as women being the victims of men. Just as Marxist like to frame everything as being the fault of capitalism, or race baiters like ya-ta boy like to make every single issue about race. It's a classic dialectical divide-and-conquer paradigm and a bane on our culture that benefits a few at the expense of the money. In a lot of ways it disempowers and manipulates women into believing they should be a certain way. There are plenty of feminists who look down on the idea of women having children and being housewives; as if it were something shameful (so let's not pretend otherwise).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
Leon wrote:
GF wrote:
Leon wrote:
Ok, but I find the idea that you think I'm a feminist incredibly funny. The reason I said that I imagined you as being decades older is that all of this is so overwhelmingly normally and mainstream now, that to use a word like feminism to describe it is bizarre.


Leon, have a look at the dictionary definition of feminism. The mainstream is feminist.


Yes, and basically the dictionary definition, at least by dictionary.com, is someone who wants equal rights for women. Equal rights, oh the horror. All though I doubt that the dictionary definition is what Fox, and others are referring to. I think part of what Fox is referring to is the culture where women are increasingly expected to work, and there is a stigma against stay at home moms. There are legitimate issues there, I guess, but feminism is such a loaded, and almost dated term, that its funny to see it. I doubt that anybody here would argue that women shouldn't have the same legal rights, so we all are probably, technically, feminists.i

Feminism, as it has evolved, isn't about "equal right" (which women have had for a long time), it's about framing every single issue in the world as women being the victims of men. Just as Marxist like to frame everything as being the fault of capitalism, or race baiters like ya-ta boy like to make every single issue about race. It's a classic dialectical divide-and-conquer paradigm and a bane on our culture that benefits a few at the expense of the money. In a lot of ways it disempowers and manipulates women into believing they should be a certain way. There are plenty of feminists who look down on the idea of women having children and being housewives; as if it were something shameful (so let's not pretend otherwise).


Yes, this is why I find the idea of me being a feminist so funny. Feminism still has things to say about the Middle East, or similar places, so a Saudi feminist is someone I could respect, but most self identified feminists in western countries tend to have to much unnecessary resentment. If a family decides that one spouse stays home, and can afford to do so, then it's up to them, and not really greater societies business. Just like its not greater societies business if both spouses choose, or more realistically, have to work. My mom has made more money then my dad go most of my life, and it's never been an issue, nor has the housework, or anything else, which is part of the reason I'm so skeptical of a lot that's been said here.
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  Next
Page 4 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