dondon151 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Attack the argument, not the person behind it. It is also interesting how you and dondon decided to ignore the rest of his post and only pay attention to the "women generally prefer men with money" part. The weakest link of the chain is the easiest to be broken, hm? The rest of his content is factually correct, and since Tryhard already summed it up on his latest post, I don't need to repeat him. See if you can address that. let he who is without sin cast the first stone... so there are two problems here. the first is that in the post that i lampooned, achelexus made an empty assertion with nothing to support it, which is why my response made any sense at all. the second is that in the post which raven described as misogynistic, achelexus linked two assertions as if that constituted a sound argument - the premise is flawed. this is all very simple, and there's no reason for you to get your panties in a bunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) I probably wasn't very clear there. I mean that you two only addressed the part on which he says that women prefer rich men while ignoring the rest of his content. Indeed, I agree with you that it is a hasty assumption with little evidence supporting it. My point is that both of you decided to focus on the weakest link of the chain while handwaving the rest of his content, which seems factually correct. Now whether you care about checking if his content is factually correct is an entirely different thing, it seems that merely invalidating an argument is enough (but it shouldn't, if our intent is to discover the truth). Also, speaking about how faultly one addresses content (what I did with regards to you and Lord Raven) is not the same as merely attacking the person (what Lord Raven did to him). It is trivial to counter-attack this point of yours. Edited December 2, 2014 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I probably wasn't very clear there. I mean that you two only addressed the part on which he says that women prefer rich men while ignoring the rest of his content. i don't disagree that women may not pursue higher-paying jobs on average, but there are many reasons for them to do so other than desiring a manly breadwinner. i can't speak for lord raven on this. try not to call me out on things i've not said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) I interpreted his post as women are gold diggers (exaggerating) because they seek lower paying jobs on average which makes zero sense to me Edited December 2, 2014 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achelexus Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) I interpreted his post as women are gold diggers (exaggerating) because they seek lower paying jobs on average which makes zero sense to me It's not that they're gold diggers because they seek lower paying jobs, it's that men seek higher paying jobs because women care more about it(on their partners) than men. Anyway I think that this is the study, I don't have much time right now but I'll check for sure later: http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/TownsendWasserman_AttractivenessSexDifferences_1998.pdf Edited December 3, 2014 by Achelexus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axie Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) That's probably one of the most sensationalist things I've ever seen on this board... Attack the argument, not the person behind it. The phrase by lord raven was "That's probably one of the more misogynistic things I've heard on this board..." What is misogynistic? The thing Achelexus wrote. Therefore, what is being attacked? The argument. Please check your grammar before parroting "attack the argument"~ As for the subject at hand: even if what Achelexus said was true (I don't think it is), you could say such a thing happens because men don't expect women to have a high paying job, because most of them want a wife who takes care of the house and eventually the children, because women are not seen as equal as men when it comes to working. Most gender issues can and will be traced back to sexism and reinforcement of gender roles. This is a can of worms and I'm not sure if this thread should open it considering the arguments being used. Edited December 3, 2014 by Axie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) The phrase by lord raven was "That's probably one of the more misogynistic things I've heard on this board..." What is misogynistic? The thing Achelexus wrote. Therefore, what is being attacked? The argument. Please check your grammar before parroting "attack the argument"~ Affirming someone said something misogynistic is the same as saying he is being misogynistic. If I say "screw you", no one will tell me I am exempt of being considered rude, even though what I said is rude. Please don't try to sound smarter than you are only to entangle yourself on your own words. you could say such a thing happens because men don't expect women to have a high paying job, because most of them want a wife who takes care of the house and eventually the children, because women are not seen as equal as men when it comes to working. Most gender issues can and will be traced back to sexism and reinforcement of gender roles. This is a can of worms and I'm not sure if this thread should open it considering the arguments being used. How can you claim that most men want a wife who follows the submissive woman role? Women are not equal as men when it comes to working for various reasons (I'm not speaking about gender roles here), but I don't want to get into that either. Let us leave the can of worms closed, hm? Edited December 3, 2014 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axie Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Affirming someone said something misogynistic is the same as saying he is being misogynistic. No, it is not. It absolutely is not. This makes no sense no matter how you slice it, how in the world can you even say this? People are unaware of the implications of what they say all the time. In fact, the difference between saying something is misogynistic/racist/etc and saying someone is misogynistic/racist/etc is a big point of discussion among all sorts of activists because the latter is a much heavier accusation than the former. I don't need to be smart(er) to point out how lunatic this argument is, wtf. If you think both things are the same then it's your problem but it's not how things work. If both things were the same it would impossible to "attack the argument" without "attacking the person behind it" (which, actually, would make your point moot regardless). How can you claim that most men want a wife who follows the submissive woman role? I was not claiming that happens, because I don't even think men or women necessarily want to "marry up". My point was that even if that happened, it could still be a signal of sexism against women, rather than women simply being more gold-diggers than men. Everything can be interpreted both ways, specially without (many) studies to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.