Virgo Cluster wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
>
> ** Mark Sobolewski **
> > I really can't talk about the state of young women
> > since I guess I'm an old fogey whose circle of
> > associates range between late 20's beyond.
> > I've heard that the younger generation is
> > very different than what had gone before.
>
> I'm older than you (by 7 years and 3 days [1]), but I live
> in a small university town whose median age, according to
>
> http://houseandhome.msn.com/pickaplace/nf_Overview.aspx
>
> is 23.3, with 63.8% of the population single. For the
> U.S. the numbers are 36.5 and 41.7% (Dec. 2003 figures).
>
> [1]
>
> Message ID:
mark_sobolewski-D16434.19140512092002{at}nnrp05.earthlink.net
> Message ID: dd95baf2.0306011653.5a757f1e{at}posting.google.com
>
> ** Mark Sobolewski **
> > I wouldn't be surprised if many young women were
> > surpassing young men. However, as I think you've
> > pointed out in other threads, these young women
> > will be all that much more at a loss to try to
> > find young men who aren't "slackers". "Clerks"
> > is one of my all time favorite films.
> >
> > "I'm not suppposed to be here!!!!"
>
> I agree, which is why I'm curious about the motives
> of some of the posters in putting down these women.
> Is it because they feel they can't compete (sorry guys,
> but if this isn't it, I should tell you it sure comes
> across like this), or do they want a barely literate
> couch potato?

Let's try rephrasing this: Let's say a woman says
she doesn't want to have sex with multiple strange men.
Could I argue then that she comes across as afraid that she's
lousy in bed?   Let's say that she does sleep with the
football team to prove otherwise.  Does this come across to
you that she's secure, or insecure?

The question isn't whether a man can compete, it's whether
he _wants_ to or HAS to.  I don't think men necessarily
want a "barely literate couch potato".   It's maybe
the fact that the couch potato isn't a problem.

> When I was in college all the guys (well, all the
> science/math/engineering guys, but I'm sure that's
> who posts here -- right? -- since the humanities
> fields have been taken over by post-modern feminist
> issues, or at least that's what the regulars in here
> are always saying) were always complaining about how
> there were no girls in their classes.

This explains why so many of these guys don't mind
"competing" with such women: Because they were just
happy to have a female body to interact with in the first place!
I remember the early days of USENET and how any woman
could instantly become a celebrity.

Science/math/engineering guys are largely regarded
as "geeks" in this culture and unattractive to women
which is strange because other cultures, including
western and eastern europe, respect such men and
think of them as good, reliable breeding stock.

> If I were a
> woman, I would be a little curious why guys complained
> when there were no girls in their classes, but then
> when girls began to show up they -- or rather the guys
> in the next generation, but if I were trying to argue
> this point I'd probably try to blur this issue of
> the populations being different -- complain that
> too many girls are let in.

I'm reminded of a dilbert cartoon where dilbert is
at career day and explaining to the class about
their dating options.  Female engineers, he said,
could have their pick of the litter and date as much
as they liked.  While male engineers, he said,
could spent their friday nights playing video games
to kill time.  A little girl raised her hand and asked
"Would I _HAVE_ to date an engineer?"

There's no guarantee that such women would want to
date cootie covered engineers just because she's there
with them all day.  By the same token, I think that
once these men escape into the real world and find
women who are working for a living and who can appreciate
a decent breadwinner, they might develop a greater
sense of self-esteem.

> Since I was one of those guys who was always complaining
> about the lack of girls in science fields, to maintain my
> logical sanity (if for no other reason, although there
> are other reasons), I can't go along with this whining
> about all the women in college and the workplace today.

This may be (and this is a compliment) that you think
you're competitive.  That kicking out the "losers" or
the guys at the bottom of the engineering barrel will
go out on the street so you can get more chicks to hang
out with.  Hey, it's THEIR problem they're not in your
league, eh?

Doesn't that appear to be incredibly short-sighted?
That because such men can't think to date women
in some other department (or even outside the university
system), they want to chuck out their fellow man just
to get some warm bodies in...

What's really strange is to hear such ruthless
free-market thinking taking place in universities
which are hotbeds of protective socialism.

> ** Virgo Cluster **
> >> Another thing that got me to jump into this thread
> >> is that it just seems stupid for these guys to expend
> >> so much effort in trying to show how superior men as
> >> a group are over women, because all this does is make
> >> whatever meager accomplishments these guys have seem
> >> that much less.
>
> ** Mark Sobolewski **
> > :-)
> >
> > Actually, I'm rather proud of my own personal
> > accomplishments in a humble fashion.  It's not
> > just what I've accomplished despite the odds
> > I faced at times, but also what I have overall.
> > If I compare myself to the rest of the US population,
> > I think I'm in the top 20% of so. That's not
> > a bad feeling.
>
> In my spare time over the past three years I've read
> a huge number of the early soc.singles posts. The main
> reason I do this is that people seemed to know how to
> argue better back then, which made the posts a lot more
> interesting than present day posts.

I haven't checked it out recently.  I think a lot of
the lure of the early days was how people were a lot
more technical to get on the system to begin with.

In some ways, not much really changed.  Much of
the flaming language hasn't changed much, yes?

> I mention this
> because I've read a _large_ number of your early 1990's
> posts, so I probably know more about your social progress
> than anyone else here.
>
> ** Mark Sobolewski **
> > Back to accomplishments: What makes a person
> > a success in the long run is going to be how
> > well they balance their personal and professional
> > life. With many impressive career women you see,
> > most will wind up having to drop out as their
> > accomplishments become a liability in their
> > personal life.
>
> I'm probably more insulated from this than you and
> others in here are (and this might account for my
> greater sympathy), since university faculty are still
> largely male, at least in the mathematical sciences,
> and I rarely have dealings with people outside of
> work as I'm somewhat of an introverted hermit.

I noticed this too during the 90's DESPITE a huge
amount of university resources dedicated to weeding
out white males and putting white females and
usually chinese staff into the sciences.

Most of these guys seemed ok.  I went out for beer with
them and they didn't seem especially politically correct.
I think most of the PCer men during this era was
the geeks in the graduate classes who were going
to enter the workplace who wanted to tread lightly
so they could get laid and not lose their job.

The fact that these men persist to dominate the sciences
really does raise some eyebrows and lend some credibility
to Sommers point about women's intrinsic scientific
abilities (provided women hearing hearing him didn't
swoon that is :-)

> Also,
> back during my dateable years (I use this term since
> I was never given much of an opportunity to actually
> date, so they weren't really my dating years), as a
> graduate student I was totally invisible to any woman
> of the type you're talking about (it also didn't help
> that I looked like I was still of high school age
> throughout my 20's), so I had no meaningful contact
> with this type of woman when I was younger either.

I think most of these types of girls usually got their
MBA's or law degrees.

> ** Virgo Cluster **
> >> Although I generally try to be objective about things,
> >> I do have my own issues that I whine about from time
> >> to time on Usenet, and overall I'm probably just
> >> a tad bit more to the center than Mark Sobolewski
> >> or Trainspotter is.
>
> ** Mark Sobolewski **
> > How?  I'm curious how you're more toward the center
> > than I am.
> >
> > Do you deny that women's equality has no doubt
> > caused economic and social stress with little to show
> > for it?  Do you deny that the women's vote has led
> > socialism persisting in the states?
>
> When I say more towards the center, I mean more towards
> the side of "career women". Maybe to you I'm closer to
> their point of view (because I disagree with your last
> paragraph), but I'm pretty sure the typical type of
> woman [2] who gets disparaged in soc.men wouldn't put
> me on the feminist side, not with all the issues I
> have from my dating problems when I was in my 20's
> (I'm married now).
>
> [2] I'm specifically talking about the _type_ of
>     woman, not the women who happen to argue with
>     guys in soc.men.

I'm well aware that the women you're talking about, the normal
career woman, probably doesn't think too much about
gender issues.  Most generally like mullah: they
like it that employment opportunities gave them more money
and they like to date guys with money.  Generally, they
like money and don't bog their pretty little heads
trying to overphilosophize or rationalize it.

Am I close?

Yet, these women aren't really much better than
the man-hating feminists because they ultimately engage
in all kinds of personal nastiness and game playing
to get what they want.  They very often develop
an animosity towards men not as "sexists" but just
pissed off because they don't necessarily get everything
they want and they don't want to compromise.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 5:02:44 PM ---