Althouse: At the Mountain Retreat Café...

August 8, 2009

At the Mountain Retreat Café...

... sit down and talk about something.

81 comments:

Chennaul said...: Wow....

That is one great looking space.; 8/8/09, 12:52 PM
JSF said...: Has anyone noticed a way of stfling dissent on this Blog is:

A) Not listen to the arguement but head straight to the Ad Homs

B) Attack our hostess for having a diverse Commenter crowd. I would hope that our friends on the Left have not forgotton Volitaire: I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

So far, all I'm seeing from our Lefties is Free speech for ME but not for THEE

C) Our Hostess is on Summer vacation and recentlt married. Instead of wishing her well, the debate stiflers (those who only want One Political party to the conversation) are bothering her about both.

Which side walks in lcokstep again?; 8/8/09, 12:53 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: We talked about book clubs here once.

I joined a book club. It meets for the first time later this month.

There are a few differences between it and the ones we read about:

(1) Aside from me, it's currently all men. So far there has been no mention of snacks. I do not think there will be any.
(2) Book selection takes place within defined parameters. There is a particular focus.
(3) Membership by invitation.

We shall see how it goes. I will be interested to find out if it differs or ends up the same as other book clubs.; 8/8/09, 12:55 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: On second thought, I guess (2) isn't really different. Others have a focus, Oprah's book picks, for example. The only difference is in the focus itself.; 8/8/09, 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: A notably polite group of men, if there has been no mention of snatch yet.; 8/8/09, 12:58 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Not a one.; 8/8/09, 1:08 PM
traditionalguy said...: Have you two Honemooners gone river rafting or not on this beautiful day in the mountains?; 8/8/09, 1:14 PM
Bissage said...: Freeman, (1) was way funny.

I was in kind of a crappy mood, so . . . thanks for the laugh!; 8/8/09, 1:24 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Aside from me, it's currently all men.

The gentlemanly thing to do it to let you choose the next book.; 8/8/09, 2:12 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I pick for October.; 8/8/09, 2:22 PM
GrannyClampett said...: Aside from me..they're all men

That's interesting because our staff at the library where I work have a difficult time getting men to join book clubs. They are pretty much exclusively women.; 8/8/09, 2:26 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Funny you should mention October.

The sox have lost the first two of a four game series at Yankee Stadium.

Both losses were grueling for me because of the way both games have been played.

The first one was a punishing rout early on.. so of course hoping against hope you sit there and the beating continues until the Yanks run out of bats.

The second was the complete opposite. Nothing Nothing in extra innings. Every little thing mattered until the home field advantage of the Yankees was too much of a burden for the sox to overcome. It usually it, thats why it's called an advantage.

The game stars again about a half hour from now.; 8/8/09, 2:28 PM
Ralph L said...: it's currently all men. So far there has been no mention of snacks
This does not compute. Or else, snacks will occur without question. Otherwise, find a new leader.

So, what is the focus? Victorian romantic novels?; 8/8/09, 2:39 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I think it's probably BYOS.; 8/8/09, 2:44 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: BTW Althouse.. and Meade ;)

I don't like the way all those cups block everything there. Its in poor taste.

It doesn't look right.. I hope Palladain would back me up here.

Hey, what happened to Palladian?

Trooper has also shined with his absence.; 8/8/09, 2:49 PM
Ralph L said...: That's the first floor-mounted chandlier I've seen. Bet it needs frequent cleaning.; 8/8/09, 2:50 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Close. It's romance novels featuring abduction by pirates. Surprisingly, this only narrowed the selection of available romance novels by 32%.; 8/8/09, 2:52 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I didn't see Palladian at the wedding monday night either.

Not that I was counting heads or anything.

This is all very peculiar. Very fishy.; 8/8/09, 2:53 PM
Ralph L said...: Trooper did express congratulations, but he hasn't been on her blogroll for a while. Don't know the backstory.; 8/8/09, 2:53 PM
blake said...: My WAG is that Freem's book club is science-fiction oriented. Hard science-fiction even.; 8/8/09, 2:58 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: No, but I bet you could have a huge men's book club with that focus. I can't imagine any of these men, or really hardly any men at all in general, joining a library book club.; 8/8/09, 3:03 PM
The Dude said...: I read War and Peace last year - found two women who had read it - tried to talk to them about it. Their response was "It was long, and I don't remember it." I was all "What about Pierre at the battle of Borodino, or why did Prince Andrew have to die? Nothing. Meh.

Maybe I should have mentioned the link between Leo Tolstoy and Bo Derek - that, at least, would have rung a stray bell or two.

Currently reading the Fagles translation of The Aeneid. Yeah, gonna find lots of folks to talk to that about.; 8/8/09, 3:07 PM
Ralph L said...: Romantic novels are not the same as modern Romance novels. If it's the latter, you'll spend the whole time discussing euphemisms for body parts and acts. And pirate lore, of course.

Science fiction would certainly explain the inbalance of the sexes.; 8/8/09, 3:09 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: That's the first floor-mounted chandlier I've seen. Bet it needs frequent cleaning.

Well.. its a cheap banner add. Like you need to be reminded they serve liquor?; 8/8/09, 3:10 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Honestly, I'll be very surprised if there are any novels at all.; 8/8/09, 3:17 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'm not an expert but that room wreaks hodgepodgery.

Don't get me wrong it might be good to take Oliver Sacks people there.

No.. not the one on fifth avenue.

The game is on - I have to go. Go Sox!; 8/8/09, 3:26 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Unrelated to the book club, anyone know of a good book about the differences in social structures among men and women?

I've been thinking about this a lot. I think that groups of men almost always have a very distinct pack hierarchy, and the men who operate well within that do very well socially no matter what their individual positions are in the pack. Women don't seem to have that type of structure; they have something else, but I haven't figured out what it is. I'm sure someone else has.; 8/8/09, 3:29 PM
Ralph L said...: Then what was lured you into this book club? No snacks, no novels, just men.
OK.; 8/8/09, 3:36 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: The fact that no one has to make any snacks, and that I probably won't have to read anything bad or anything that I hate.; 8/8/09, 3:41 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Thought of an instance where I can support Huckabee: I would support him for Senator. He would have to use his Senate term to build limited government credibility to make another Presidential run. Perfect!; 8/8/09, 3:43 PM
Ralph L said...: I haven't figured out what it is
Every man for herself. I mean, every woman for herself.

Maugham (I think) wrote a short story about a group of couples sharing a country house for a season. The organizer included one slighty bitchy, flirty woman to give the others someone to complain about and prevent arguments within the circle of women.

It might have been Saki.; 8/8/09, 3:50 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: But is that a structure? Amorphous group versus outsider/s? Or is there a structure? If so, what is it?; 8/8/09, 3:53 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: More on men in pack hierarchy:

I think social success in these groups is NOT determined by who is highest in the hierarchy. That is a measure of something, but you can be the lowest guy in the hierarchy and be socially successful. The key seems to be acting within your hierarchical position, whatever that may be. If you have a male who is constantly challenging or abdicating for a higher or lower position than the one he naturally falls into within the group, he will come off as socially stunted or somehow strange. Other men won't know exactly how to interact with him.

The groups of men that seem the most close-knit and full of harmony are the ones where the social structure is accepted by all. Then all are well-liked, all get along, and there is very little real conflict. (They may disagree vehemently in opinion, but there is little or no interpersonal conflict or falling out.)

Just a theory.; 8/8/09, 4:15 PM
blake said...: The best groups I've been in have all been fluid. The person in charge at the moment was the person best suited to be in charge.

Granted, some people are more oriented toward being leaders.; 8/8/09, 4:18 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I definitely agree with that. There will always be fluidity as circumstances change and as new members come and old members go. But the framework will always be there, and various member will tend to certain places within that.; 8/8/09, 4:22 PM
blake said...: I don't think guys think about it much, if at all. And you're right: There's a definite do yer job/get 'er done kind of thing that doesn't look kindly on internecine squabbling.; 8/8/09, 4:24 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I don't think guys usually think about it at all, but it is interesting.

Also, men bond by busting each other's chops. (Lower in the hierarchy, more you're busted on, but it appears to be a sign of affection, not dislike.) Women do not do that.

A new man can walk into a group of men, and they may bust on him mercilessly. He will leave thinking, if he's socially adept, well-liked and at ease.

There is no busting of chops regularly among women. I can't even imagine it. I have seen it done as an attempt to somehow emulate men, but it rings false.; 8/8/09, 4:29 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: Regarding the Huckster, see this.

And, if anyone wants to help me show how CNN and the NYT were being highly deceptive, do a find for "the FAX I sent" here. He hasn't responded to three emails, two voicemails, and a FAX. I need people who have a few minutes free to try to get the answers to those two questions from some official there. Once again: the goal of this is to make CNN and the NYT look bad. (The NYT article was from the guy who asked Obama the "best, worst, etc." question during a press conference.); 8/8/09, 4:30 PM
BJM said...: Living in earthquake county a tower of glassware is verboten which is a pity as it adds so much to the ambiance of the room.

Are those real cow hides on the chairs? Something one would not see in the SF Bay Area...although a few old timey steak houses in the hinterland counties do have antlers and cow horns on the walls.

Our favorite steak house, now long gone, was a vertible horror show of stuffed game and trophy heads, they occupied every flat space in the main dining room. But their 2" thick porterhouse and velvety creamed spinach were to die for.

What's on the menu at the Mountain Retreat Cafe?; 8/8/09, 4:31 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: A big social mistake men can make is to treat the busting of chops as a malicious endeavor either in the doing or in the receiving.; 8/8/09, 4:38 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: A social mistake women can make is to assume that, if they are in a group of men, they are "one of the guys." A woman is never "one of the guys." Not really anyway. That doesn't mean that she is not a member of the group, but only that she is not a man and need not mimic one.; 8/8/09, 5:25 PM
Michael Ryan said...: Ann, don't feed the bears there.; 8/8/09, 5:50 PM
Simon Kenton said...: "Women are raised from infancy to inhabit victim space, so when a group of them get together, they pick their oppressor."

-- Jeannie Zandi; 8/8/09, 5:53 PM
Revenant said...: Freeman, you're mistaken about the "busting chops" thing among men. It is acceptable among peers; it is NOT acceptable, generally speaking, between a superior and a subordinate.

Among peers, good-natured mockery is recognized for what it is. But when it is directed up or down the power hierarchy it becomes harder to distinguish it from actual criticism. For example, if a coworker mentions he's leaving early, I might kid that he's slacking off. If our BOSS did that, we'd wonder... wait, does he really think I'm slacking off?; 8/8/09, 6:08 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: That's a good point, Rev. If there are official positions involved, That's different. Groups, as I'm talking about them, can only form among the peers. "Groups" of multiple position levels are different and usually not organic.

A should have specified that I meant hierarchies within groups of peers.; 8/8/09, 6:19 PM
rhhardin said...: I remember at work some dressing of a huge white stuffed sheep in black bra and panties and the women went all non-hierarchical the next morning.

Apparently a little humor in the computer room puts them off.; 8/8/09, 6:40 PM
Ralph L said...: he will come off as socially stunted
Mostly, he'd be resented as pushy.

Men bond with physical activity (see boot camp) and especially strongly from shared danger (see combat). I don't think it works as well for women. I think the mother-instinct makes them more naturally self-centered, except toward their children or their protector.

We were talking about Dorothy Sayers' Gaudy Night at JOM (someone named her child for Harriet Vane). This women's college at Oxford was proud of itself for fixing things, when it turned out they'd actually screwed everything up and gotten someone killed.

Why women stay with someone who abuses them is one thing I don't get. The makeup sex can't be that good. I've known some male doormats, too, however.; 8/8/09, 6:44 PM
David said...: Revenant said...

"Freeman, you're mistaken about the "busting chops" thing among men. It is acceptable among peers; it is NOT acceptable, generally speaking, between a superior and a subordinate."

True, but except in formalized and titled hierarchies (rare outside of government these days) men will generally have a much more expansive definition of who is a peer. Women will get excluded by other women on the basis of "you are not part of my group." They guard group access. Men will allow lots of group members, as long as the members more or less behave.

Freeman, did you have brothers? A particularly accessible father? You have the man thing pretty well nailed, I think.; 8/8/09, 6:47 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: An idea for Freeman..

Let them become aware of the ovious .. always.

Its a quick way of letting them know you are there and at the same time not getting yourself pined down as controversial.

Once you do that they will start to think of you as a buddy.

At the beginning the establishment of a bond of trust is paramount.; 8/8/09, 7:05 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Once you have their ears..

Its all up to you.; 8/8/09, 7:06 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Think of men as someone who like a pet needs constant affirmation in order for them to know they have the secret to life's happiness.

The approval of a woman.; 8/8/09, 7:10 PM
blake said...: I bust my boss's chops all the time and vice-versa, as do my co-workers. It's just context, and having a non-douche-y boss.; 8/8/09, 7:11 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I know that's all I want.; 8/8/09, 7:12 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Just because the sox lost dosent mean I'm looking for a rock to crawl under.

I'm used to disappointment. I would not love woman w/o it.; 8/8/09, 7:18 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: its early for music.. its early in Colorado.

Sometimes Althouse will post late unexpectedly.

Thats where we find Amba. Amba lurks later than anybody I have the pleasure of meeting here.

Amba is an Althouse godsend.; 8/8/09, 7:28 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I have a song that I like and of course it's nothing to do with health care or anything of the kind. But the song does have to do with what we have been able to accomplish with the expectations we have won the hard way.

Its Good To Be King

Or soon to be retitled "it WAS good to be King at one time when we still could.
We mess with success at our own peril.
History (the chinese) will not be kind to us.; 8/8/09, 8:50 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: We have started giving people the expectations that only Hollywood delivers.. the may start to believe those in exchange for the real ones any minute now.; 8/8/09, 9:04 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: We were told that he would sow the seed of love.

But then the message changed (no pun intended). It was no longer about turning fish into men but about fishing for a tell, a gossip, for enemies.

Brother against brother.; 8/8/09, 9:17 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/8/09, 9:34 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Is socialized medicine worth burning down the mission?

If it is then by all means lets do it.

Just dont ask for it back when you need it. its not going to be there.; 8/8/09, 9:38 PM
knox said...: Also, men bond by busting each other's chops. (Lower in the hierarchy, more you're busted on, but it appears to be a sign of affection, not dislike.) Women do not do that.

Oh yeah??? Well some of us do, you big jerk! You call that writing???; 8/8/09, 9:49 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: How did we get here?
Is always an appropriate question.

Once in a lifetime.

Name me a socialised anything and I will show you a Ponzy Madoff scheme.

Just because its bigger doesn't meant its going to be safer!!!

Dios mio ayudanos!; 8/8/09, 9:49 PM
blake said...: lol @ knox; 8/8/09, 9:50 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: btw. I'm assuming people are listening to the words in these songs.

If you are not then.. too bad.

They are sadly meant for you ;); 8/8/09, 9:54 PM
David said...: There is something fisheye about this Althouse woman. I have notified the Obama administration of this threat.; 8/8/09, 10:14 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Also LOL @ knox. See what I mean?

I was recently included on an email exchange between a bunch of men. (I don't know how I ended up on there; I think I was just in on the first email because someone wanted all of us to see a certain link, and it went from that point.) They were absolutely ripping on each other. Endlessly.

I finally sent a Reply All just to say, "I cannot begin to tell you all how different the emails you exchange between each other are from those exchanged between my female friends."; 8/8/09, 10:26 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/8/09, 10:29 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: sorry there was a fishy problem with the comment.; 8/8/09, 10:32 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'm going to play a song about the Sodini story.

Again this is not like i'm saying something positive about waht happened!
its a discussion we where already were having in our own heads for the longest when Alhouse posted a very narrow quote on the story. Of course we pounced on it as Althouse prob knew we would. (thats why we like her admit it)

I did something here that was open to misinterpretations.

But thank God for Amba. She saved my hide at the last minute. Just the way Heroes do.

Its it true.. or not?; 8/8/09, 10:36 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'm cheking my spelling..; 8/8/09, 10:55 PM
Michael Haz said...: Aside from me, it's currently all men. So far there has been no mention of snacks. I do not think there will be any.

There will be snacks. The snacks will be beer. You will be expected to bring a sixer. It's protocol. Don't buck the system.

Bring chips, too.; 8/8/09, 11:21 PM
Bissage said...: Don't forget that the process of male bonding requires a special set of language skills. Link.; 8/9/09, 7:03 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: In case I gave the wrong impression, I do not wish that women also regularly busted each other's chops. I just think the difference between men and women in general is interesting. I like men the way they are and women the way they are.

Still no explanation of the social structure of women though... doesn't anyone know? I think maybe a group of women is more consensus oriented. There really doesn't seem to be much of a hierarchy. But I could be totally wrong about this.

And again, ha ha on snacks. I'm thinking odds are good that the meeting will be held in a restaurant.; 8/9/09, 8:23 AM
jaed said...: Women have overlapping circles, I think. There will be one group of a few women who hang out together. There will be another group, different women. The groups may share a member or two. Multiple groups - how many depending on the size of the total set of women. Communication and coordination via the shared members rather than down a hierarchy.

The groups may or may not have status attached. (In junior high school, definitely. Among adults, sometimes - there might or might not be an ordering function on the groups.)

But I think women's social structures go pathological more easily than men's. There's more fluidity and it's a lot easier to deny that someone is being bullied, because it's less blatant than the male version of bullying. The circles-of-association thing plays into this because there's nothing worse than being kicked out of *all* the circles. That doesn't seem to happen often with men - once a man is accepted as a group member, he may be low man on the totem pole but he isn't cast out.; 8/9/09, 9:58 AM
Shanna said...: I finally sent a Reply All just to say, "I cannot begin to tell you all how different the emails you exchange between each other are from those exchanged between my female friends."

Heh. This reminds me of my first job after college. There were 3 women I think in my department and the rest were mostly 20something males. I think every day there was some group email, that had about 50 joking comments as follow-up. And every birthday card was a contest to write funnier/meaner comments. And we never had birthday cake, we just had a card and beer.

Then we got a few more women in the office, and all of a sudden we had to have a birthday cake once a month. The other way was more fun.; 8/9/09, 10:40 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: Mmmmm, cake. I would be thinking, "Yay! Now we don't have to have beer all the time! I don't even drink. Hooray for cake!"

Someone emailed me, and I think she nailed the female social structure. Women pair off. Sometimes they have to be in large groups, but they will usually pair off at first chance into one-to-one conversations. Some women do this to gossip about the group, but that is not at all universal. They may talk about anything, but they'll do it in pairs.

Also, notice that if you have three women by themselves, all will be included, but two of the women will usually be more actively engaged with each other.

I don't think men share this tendency to pair off with other men.; 8/9/09, 11:48 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: In fact, when a man wants a one-to-one conversation in a mixed group, he almost always has it with a woman! At least on reflection that's what I've observed.; 8/9/09, 11:53 AM
dick said...: freeman,

I find it interesting that women seem unable to go to the restroom unless they are accompanied by a friend. Why is that?; 8/9/09, 1:18 PM
blake said...: Actually, dick, if you think about it, Freem just explained that.; 8/9/09, 2:04 PM
Shanna said...: Mmmmm, cake. I would be thinking, "Yay! Now we don't have to have beer all the time! I don't even drink. Hooray for cake!"

Well, yes cake is lovely, but it requires more effort and forethought and made the whole thing more formal. At 22 I was like "yay, beer!". But after that job I can never drink another Miller High Life again, which for some reason was the office drink of choice.; 8/9/09, 8:05 PM
Torontoescors said...: mountain Retreat cafe is one of my must visit place in my life...; 8/1/11, 10:23 AM