|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by jenk on 01:30 PM January 4th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Lets take a 4 point difference, when the error rate is probably comparable, then make all sorts of unsubstantiated statements as to preferences and actions.
Could it be that women who are in busy careers do not get out as much as less educated women? Maybe that more educated women have higher standards for the income of mates and have trouble finding men of those standards, where as men do not generally view a woman's salary as relevant? Maybe education has nothing to do with intelligence? Perhaps women who work in a career outside the home are more likely to be liberal, more likely to have been exposed to feminist party lines in college, and less likely to value family?
There are many possibilities here, and not all of them are because men want less intelligent women. I have not found many men who would enjoy a stupid wife. Most intelligent men I know view intelligence in their mate as important. My husband would never have married a stupid woman. Wacky and a little insane, yes, but stupid, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thomas on 01:48 PM January 4th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen,
I haven't been posting much of late, but this article caught my attention enough for me to respond. And what happens? I come to the thread and find that you've already made my points :(
The article states They also found that 88 per cent of the top-earning men were married, compared with 80 per cent of the poorest men.
These figures contrast with the female category where 82 per cent of the top-earning women were married, as opposed to 86 per cent of the lowest earning.
From what I've seen, these studies usually report an uncertainty of 3% or 4% -- if they report their uncertainty at all. If that's the uncertainty in this case (and there is an uncertainty), the study showed at most a tiny difference in marriage prospects based on intelligence for men and no difference for women.
This report shows the extent to which the fields of psychology and sociology have been infected by "feminist science" -- decide in advance what you want to conclude, then skew the data acquisition techniques, any associated instrumentation, and the analysis in order to lead to that conclusion. If necessary, simply refrain from reporting your uncertainty.
If someone tried to pull off this sort of thing at a conference on physics (still a very male science), the person would be laughed out of the hall.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not married, but if I ever do, I would prefer a woman who is intelligent enough to cook me a meal. High educated women can't cook, at least most of them.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:21 PM January 4th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the sentiment. The domestic role has been so derided by so many people for so long (not least of all feminists) that we assume that it takes no intelligence to do it well. I think that being a good house spouse would take not only intelligence but a strong, self-motivated mind. A person who lives at home must structure his or her own time, and that takes discipline. I hear feminists say that traditional women show higher rates of depression. If this is so, it is because of the stress involved in creating your own schedule, your own meaning independent of an employer or company. I think that for those with the self-motivation to consistently do enjoyable and meaningful things on their own, being a house spouse could be very fulfilling.
-Hawat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:57 PM January 4th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Depression occurs for housewives for that reason, and you are very astute to see that. Also, the isolation which is easy to fall into can be difficult, especially in the winter. However, we have choices to not be isolated, and to schedule our time. There is actually a whole web phenominon, Flylady.com. which helps housewives (and husbands) learn to manage their time and get control of their lives.
I have noticed that lack of schedule, lack of deadlines, too many choices, can be as stressful, if not more, as a pre-planned day with expectations.
We all have power over our fates. To sit and play victim is useless.
I take flak over not working by some MRA's. However, working was easier on me than not in many ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:39 AM January 5th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I take flak over not working by some MRA's. However, working was easier on me than not in many ways.
Here's my prediction for publication in the Journal of Unverifiable Results (unverifiable, perhaps, during the lifetimes of most people alive today): Societies with a large number of Stay at Home Mothers will inherit the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Cain on 02:48 PM January 5th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Its starts off by merely mentioning a study whose focus was i.q, Then goes on to tell us the disparity being cited is linked to "top earnings" are we to assume that all top earners are also in the top i.q range.
It would seem, at least to me, that any women in the top earning bracket would have gotten there after a lengthy stay in one of our feminised schools of "higher" learning. That in itself would explain a great deal. Im surprised the disparity isnt greater.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by NoLoveLost on 12:35 PM January 6th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Being smart and being a smart-ass.
Those that tend to be the latter regard themselves as more intelligent than they really are. Those that are in the former category rarely rely upon tactics of the latter. I have this notion in mind that real intelligence is comprised of how much one let's their heart lead them in addition to how much intellectual might they bring to bear.
But that's just me...
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
