Real Talk - the 19th
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
sturg33
I
Your wife seems amazing.
Mine has come around to taking my recommendation.
She wouldnt take my opinion seriously in the operating room... why should she? I dont know shit. I shouldn't have as much of say for her patients as she does. She has the knowledge. She has the skin in the game.
The same is true for society
acesfull86
Well-known member
Out of curiosity, what did you recommend she do in 2024? Because you said you didn't vote from Trump.
sturg33
I
Well funny enough she voted for Trump. I guess I have convinced her that the left is insane. And shes backed off her abortion stance after we have had a baby and lost a baby.
She voted for Trump specifically though bc there was a major push from optometrist lobbies to put fda warnings on lasik procedures (which would hurt her business substantially)... and the Biden administration was very seriously considering doing it
But in the locals, she ask me to vote for and does it
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Every semester I get a large (very large in the case of the current semester) sample of young people in their late teens/early 20s. It is an interesting thang. I could write some very long posts about my observations.
I'll boil it down to a few:
1) In terms of aptitude, the median when comparing males and females is the same. There are some subtle differences in the tails.
2) In terms of effort, the median is similar, but a different set of differences in the tails.
3) The subjects I teach tend to be male dominated and this is reflected in my class composition. This semester being a exception. I'm curious if it is a one-off or the start of a trend.
4) In terms of relationships between the sexes, I see mostly positive thangs. I don't see the disconnect that so many people are alarmed about.
5) I feel that I have a lot of inside information about these kids. I've been thinking about ways to monetize that. My department chair shuts them all down. He's where all my most brilliant ideas go to die.
6) I have a whole lot of other thoughts about race, ethnicity, immigrants, student athletes, etc. This semester has been especially interesting in that regard.
7) One dimension that doesn't get as much attention as it should is introversion/extroversion. It makes a huge difference. I say this in part because most academics are introverted. No doubt there is self-selection. But I think being introverted confers certain advantages, at least in the scholastic sphere.
I'll boil it down to a few:
1) In terms of aptitude, the median when comparing males and females is the same. There are some subtle differences in the tails.
2) In terms of effort, the median is similar, but a different set of differences in the tails.
3) The subjects I teach tend to be male dominated and this is reflected in my class composition. This semester being a exception. I'm curious if it is a one-off or the start of a trend.
4) In terms of relationships between the sexes, I see mostly positive thangs. I don't see the disconnect that so many people are alarmed about.
5) I feel that I have a lot of inside information about these kids. I've been thinking about ways to monetize that. My department chair shuts them all down. He's where all my most brilliant ideas go to die.
6) I have a whole lot of other thoughts about race, ethnicity, immigrants, student athletes, etc. This semester has been especially interesting in that regard.
7) One dimension that doesn't get as much attention as it should is introversion/extroversion. It makes a huge difference. I say this in part because most academics are introverted. No doubt there is self-selection. But I think being introverted confers certain advantages, at least in the scholastic sphere.
Last edited:
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I think it's really funny that your entire argument is based on a sample that is your friends.
May I ask a question, this friend group, mainly your friends? Or your wifes friends? Or blended mutuals.
Also how many autistic women have you met? Because if you have met a single one, they'll tell you every single thing about their interest. But even ignoring that. you're conflating that you and your friends share an interest in politics, to some form of social intelligence, when really it's not a great sign.
The example you cited of disinterest is the "lead woman" not wanting to discuss politics, likely because it's going to lead to a shitty night for a lot of people. If you're around to have fun, why the fuck would you want to sour that with a contentious debate. One of my good friends is very conservative. We don't talk politics at parties because we don't want to put a sour taste in anyone's mouth. My brother in law is a libertarian, we shoot the shit but never in big groups again, because we're not trying to harsh the vibe.
sturg33
I
My entire argument is definitively NOT based on a sample that is my friends.
but it is glaring observation that two groups in very similar life experiences behave politically completely opposite of each other. And one group goes out of their way to understand and learn, and the other isn't interested in doing so.
This is MORE pervasive the lower down the marriage and income stream we go
All originated from my group. Mostly the husbands and their wives married in. My wife's college friends were all commies (Brown University - duh)
I have an autistic woman who reporrs directly to me on my team. She lives in Austin, TX. And you're right - she tells me everything she is interested. Her biggest interests are K-pop, legos, and board games. She has no interest in politics. I also happen to know she votes dutifully democrat, bc.... well, one of the 3 reasons I mentioned in my post
Certainly fair. I don't think they would want to have a shitty night. My point was that when the men were together - it wasn't a shitty night. It was an engaging desirable night that lasted til 2 or 3 am every night. There were lots of arguments, disagreements, and insults. And it was fun.
The women weren't interested in having those conversations together (when they presumable would be agreeing) nor with the larger group.
And I agree with you - women don't want to argue. It's not a strength of theirs (intellectually arguing anyway). They don't enjoy it. I do have a few "very political" female friends in SATX. They are involved and interested in politics. But the funny thing about them, they cannot handle hearing someone like me making a counter argument. They shut it down. My wife just tells me not to bring it up, because it will upset them. I point out that they have no issues telling me their beliefs, and I have no issues listening to them. But the minute they are hit with a counter argument, it's as if it's a personal attack of offense
Curious, no?
sturg33
I
Post # 3: Protecting our women from violence
The political beliefs of men and women have always differed, and become more pronounced in 1980, when women began more aggressively favoring Dem candidates to Republican candidates, compared to their male counterparts. This gap has widened over the years and is it all time highs today. When we look at single women vs married women, its even more pronounced, and the rate of single women is growing every year which likely predicts this trend getting worse.
The gap is even scarier among young men and women. The gap among 18-29 year olds in the 2024 election was a whopping 32 points.
This is a major problem and one that should cause concern. As we established in post #1, society does not function without men physically enabling it to. However, women have the same political power, and want things drastically different than men. They prefer the nanny state, fighting climate change, they want abortions, they want less police (or, they say they want less), they want racial justice, they want the rich to pay their fair share, they want to close the non-existent pay gap, they hate the idea of raising families. Men want liberty, they want to start businesses, they want less taxes, they want fiscal responsibility, they want strong borders and laws enforced.
These two interests aren't even in the same ballpark. Polling shows the top interested between men and women are basically opposite. And yet, women hold more political power than men. They outnumber men, and they show up to vote more than men. We could blame men for not showing up, but they are the ones working the oil refinery on Tuesday, whereas the woman's marketing job is giving them the day off to go vote for Zohran.
See the problem here? Elections are a peaceful proxy to physical conflict & war. We debate ideas, and vote on them to determine how we create policy for all of us. But what happens when our ideas are so different from each other? We've talked on these boards at length how we are essentially living in two different countries, and each election feels like life or death for the losing side.
Do we expect men to simply agree to be ruled by ideals they fundamentally hate because they should just be nice? At what point do men simply say "we're stronger than you, do as we say or there will be conflict that we will win."
I know that concept may come across as extreme... but that's how it was in world history up until very recently, when the west created the peaceful representative republic we've come to love. But how long does that last? How long do men simply accept they must give up half their income to feed foreigners and release animals from prisons before actually saying "no."
------
Conclusion: Elections are a peaceful proxy for war. And the growing political divide between the people who make society function and the people who are voting to undermine it will eventually come to conflict if not reversed
The political beliefs of men and women have always differed, and become more pronounced in 1980, when women began more aggressively favoring Dem candidates to Republican candidates, compared to their male counterparts. This gap has widened over the years and is it all time highs today. When we look at single women vs married women, its even more pronounced, and the rate of single women is growing every year which likely predicts this trend getting worse.
The gap is even scarier among young men and women. The gap among 18-29 year olds in the 2024 election was a whopping 32 points.
This is a major problem and one that should cause concern. As we established in post #1, society does not function without men physically enabling it to. However, women have the same political power, and want things drastically different than men. They prefer the nanny state, fighting climate change, they want abortions, they want less police (or, they say they want less), they want racial justice, they want the rich to pay their fair share, they want to close the non-existent pay gap, they hate the idea of raising families. Men want liberty, they want to start businesses, they want less taxes, they want fiscal responsibility, they want strong borders and laws enforced.
These two interests aren't even in the same ballpark. Polling shows the top interested between men and women are basically opposite. And yet, women hold more political power than men. They outnumber men, and they show up to vote more than men. We could blame men for not showing up, but they are the ones working the oil refinery on Tuesday, whereas the woman's marketing job is giving them the day off to go vote for Zohran.
See the problem here? Elections are a peaceful proxy to physical conflict & war. We debate ideas, and vote on them to determine how we create policy for all of us. But what happens when our ideas are so different from each other? We've talked on these boards at length how we are essentially living in two different countries, and each election feels like life or death for the losing side.
Do we expect men to simply agree to be ruled by ideals they fundamentally hate because they should just be nice? At what point do men simply say "we're stronger than you, do as we say or there will be conflict that we will win."
I know that concept may come across as extreme... but that's how it was in world history up until very recently, when the west created the peaceful representative republic we've come to love. But how long does that last? How long do men simply accept they must give up half their income to feed foreigners and release animals from prisons before actually saying "no."
------
Conclusion: Elections are a peaceful proxy for war. And the growing political divide between the people who make society function and the people who are voting to undermine it will eventually come to conflict if not reversed
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
These women are largely friends because they're married into a friend group. So I'm sure the superficialness of their conversations largely comes from the fact they're a collection of people who are together because of their significant others. So if they can latch onto something shared experience wise it likely would be what they talk about.
As far as your discussion with "'very political' female friends" have you considered your tone? Like if you are talking to them with the attitude of "I'm the man, I know better" you probably won't get someone interested in a debate if you're acting a rightful cunt.
Some people can sniff out someone being a douche, and choose not to engage.
I think you mentioning that you want to "argue" and a debate shouldn't be an argument, if you're getting to that point, then you're not having a logical debate. It's not because of people being proven wrong or whatever, but that everyone is attacking a belief, which a belief cannot be changed easily. If I were to tell you that there's no god, there's no positive end to that debate. Similarly if I were to tell you that it's a good idea for the government to be compassionate at times and take care of it's citizens not just exist for the wealthy few there's no positive end to that debate.
ALternatively, I think you're wrong because I think again, that being interested in politics has nothing to do with gender. My father in law knows nothing about politics. He has opinions but most of them are pretty wishy washy. My mother in law though knows a ton about politics, including volunteering for local elections, ballot clerking, etc. it's stupid to bias things on your perspective, because it's your perspective.
As far as your discussion with "'very political' female friends" have you considered your tone? Like if you are talking to them with the attitude of "I'm the man, I know better" you probably won't get someone interested in a debate if you're acting a rightful cunt.
Some people can sniff out someone being a douche, and choose not to engage.
I think you mentioning that you want to "argue" and a debate shouldn't be an argument, if you're getting to that point, then you're not having a logical debate. It's not because of people being proven wrong or whatever, but that everyone is attacking a belief, which a belief cannot be changed easily. If I were to tell you that there's no god, there's no positive end to that debate. Similarly if I were to tell you that it's a good idea for the government to be compassionate at times and take care of it's citizens not just exist for the wealthy few there's no positive end to that debate.
ALternatively, I think you're wrong because I think again, that being interested in politics has nothing to do with gender. My father in law knows nothing about politics. He has opinions but most of them are pretty wishy washy. My mother in law though knows a ton about politics, including volunteering for local elections, ballot clerking, etc. it's stupid to bias things on your perspective, because it's your perspective.
sturg33
I
I assure you, I walk on the most fragile of egg shells. These people have passionate beliefs, and are convinced wholly that if someone were to disagree, they must be a very bad person.
Their arguments are hollow and superficial. They are bumper stickers. And the moment I might engage in a differing opinion, they get upset. One person in particular I'm thinking about is a co-worker of my wife. My first interaction with her, she made the comment to the effect of "I'm not really interested in the opinions of white men." That was not in response to anything I said... she just said it. Mind you, this is a white woman from Wisconsin
ya know, women
The rest of your post... I'm not interested in all the stories of "I know someone who loves politics and someone who doesn't"
That's not the point of my 2nd point. The point of my 2nd point is that men have a deeper desire to understand, whereas women stay at the superficial levels on things not deeply personal to them.
As I said... majority of us men. Majority on reddit are men. Majority on twitter are men. The places for discourse and debate are dominated by men
Women dominate instagram
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I don't know if you really are doing what you say, but honestly, who cares. I'm just making a simple point.
Like if you look at your argument, I don't think most people's discussion of politics are more than bumper stickers. Like you think you really understand how the government works? Cause I"m sure you don't. I'm sure most of your discussions are the same as they are here. Largely pointing and laughing at people.
Maybe that person who didn't want your opinion is because you are just saying the obvious shit that people say. And you're not wrong, someone shutting you down like that isn't interested in a debate. So why go seeking it? I mean to be fair if an unsufferable cunt liek you I'd probably say something similar. Because it's funny as hell.
I don't think men have a deeper desire to understand, I think some people have a deeper desire to understand, and it's not men or women. It's people who're curious. And it's finding the thing they're interested in. WHich may be how something works, it may be taking care of something, it may be playing video games, who the fuck knows. For example, every person I work with be it male or female has no drive to figure out how something works. Me I've rebuilt an espresso machine, I figured out how to get a dishwasher working, done some emergency plumbing, fixed the POS, repaired various shit, etc. because I enjoy challenges.
sturg33
I
That's great. You are pillowing into a "some people do x, some people do y, who the fuck cares anyway you're fucking annoying"
that's your right. I am making my arguements based in data and human behavior that has been studied forever. You're making your argument on the assumption that I'm annoying, and you know a mother in law who says differently.
We can move on. You've yet to address the substance of my argument. You've only offered hypotheticals and anecdotes. If you believe that women in general seek to debate, understand, and learn at the exact same rate as men, then there's nothing to discuss because we are operating in two different realities
that's your right. I am making my arguements based in data and human behavior that has been studied forever. You're making your argument on the assumption that I'm annoying, and you know a mother in law who says differently.
We can move on. You've yet to address the substance of my argument. You've only offered hypotheticals and anecdotes. If you believe that women in general seek to debate, understand, and learn at the exact same rate as men, then there's nothing to discuss because we are operating in two different realities
sturg33
I
I've made 3 points in this thread:
1. Society functions exclusively because of men, yet men hold less political power
2. Men seek to understand more than women, yet women hold more political power while understanding less
3. Women's political power threatens everything men care most about, and at some point, men will not tolerate that anymore
I haven't seen a counter argument to any of those yet... mqt said "no." Zito says we're all the same. thethe I believe is responding with his heart
1. Society functions exclusively because of men, yet men hold less political power
2. Men seek to understand more than women, yet women hold more political power while understanding less
3. Women's political power threatens everything men care most about, and at some point, men will not tolerate that anymore
I haven't seen a counter argument to any of those yet... mqt said "no." Zito says we're all the same. thethe I believe is responding with his heart
sturg33
I
There is an entire political party (D) that's mainstream position is that rich people should be punished because they are rich... that white people should be punished because they are white. That some races deserve more power than others. That poor people should get more benefits than non poor people
These are all discriminatory, and they face zero political consequences for this bigotry.
There would be less of these insane leftists if we restored the decision making in this country to the people who are most equipped to hold it
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I think rich people should be applauded for their success. I also think they should pay more taxes. No sure that's the same as wanting them to be punished for being rich. Maybe some of these women are not into a political chat with someone who conflates those two thangs.
sturg33
I
Do you think "pay more taxes" is a punishment?
I think we can overcome all of this and move the conversation back to normal times. As strong men during a difficult time we will have to be sure the systems in place that warped women’s minds are torn down and replaced with something more conducive to societal expansion and prosperity.
What does any of that mean in practice? I have absolutely no clue but it’s very clear there was a coordinated global effort to “empower” women so that we would get to this point
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I just said the two should not be conflated.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
these women in your social circle may also not want to engage with someone who routinely accuses people he disagrees with of being mentally ill, commies and defenders of pedos and murderers.