"Women, on the other hand, do almost everything better. We’ve known this intuitively for a long time. If you didn’t, just ask your wife or your mother. But now there’s a raft of evidence that suggests women are better at everything — including investing."
That's David Weidner — in the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch — citing Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, John Ensign, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Edwards and riffing.
Remember it's okay to say one sex is superior to the other as long as you're saying women are better.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०६ टिप्पण्या:
Weidner just sounds like he's trying to get laid.
Weidner...hmmm, didn't a famous Weidner go down with the Titanic?
Here is just one example of why they are wrong: Mary Kay Letourneau
Or I should say one example of why Weidner is wrong.
Ah! Finally, all of the dehumanizing, oaf-making, demonizing, marginalizing of men/boyfriends/husbands/fathers in contemporary advertising and entertainment finally makes sense! It's not due to bias, men simply aren't deserving of better treatment because we're simply not as able.
Well, guys, at least the pressure is off, huh?
Widener not Weidener. My bad. Those "W's" followed by vowels got me all confused.
I hate it when people pander to women. They might as well just say, "Women are stupid, gullible, and weak."
We men are responible for the actions of Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, John Ensign, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Edwards? I don't think so.
Remember it's okay to say one sex is superior to the other as long as you're saying women are better.
People should be judged as individuals not by their gender. There are plenty of terrible women out there who make horrible decisions.
This guy obviously has never asked a woman:
1: For directions
2: To change a flat tire.
3: Keep a secret
4: Be brief
Men, if they are straight, have been treated poorly in the media over the last forty years. And that is disgraceful.
There is some truth to it - most women are superior to David Weidner.
If women are so superior, why do I have to let one hit the ball if there's going to be three hits on my side of the net?
"But now there’s a raft of evidence that suggests women are better at everything — including investing."
Yeah, the Raft of the Medusa.
Alternative theory: people in general will tend to live up to society's expectations of them.
More from the article: Look at the evidence: Hillary Clinton has proved a more-than-capable secretary of state.
HAHAHAHA
I get it. It's an Onion article. Weidner got his gigs confused.
Bull hockey.
The women involved with Weiner et al made equally poor decisions.
Wow, being physically stronger sure makes up for a lot.
As Ann notes, look who the wives of those men (and I use the term loosely) married.
It's been the Talking Points Memo since Weiner left-
Claire Shipman anybody?
Progressives....they're everywhere.. and nowhere--
Look for this "truth" to be nuanced once Bachman moves up in the polls, or Palin gets in..
So he says. But I'll bet his financial advisor is another dude.
Women are better at investing?
Really?
Women overall are 71% more likely than men to live below the poverty line in retirement.
About the article. Forget the male/female theme, the article is just stupid crap phoned in from a guy who had to write something by the deadline. Nothing more.
Women overall are 71% more likely than men to live below the poverty line in retirement.
That doesn't really have anything to do with investing itself. I think the investing idea is that women (on average) kind of leave their money alone instead of trading it constantly. Trading is high risk high reward way of going, and alot of people crap out.
My like minded cartoon shows a scowling wife stomping down the walkway carrying her suitcases While a sad man on the porch pleads, "But honey, if you leave me who will tell me all of the things that I do wrong?"
That doesn't really have anything to do with investing itself. I think the investing idea is that women (on average) kind of leave their money alone instead of trading it constantly.
That may well be, but we still have to make sure one of you hit the damned ball before we can send it back over the net. Get women in general to work on their sets and we'll get men to take less risk.
there’s a raft of evidence that suggests women are better at everything
Men still seem to hold the upper hand in combat operations.
I'd like to see the stats on which sex voted in larger proportion for those presumed fuck-nuts.
Someone, I think George Jean Nathan, wrote an article for the old Esquire about women's minds likening them to "sewers under rosebeds," if I remember right, and of course there is "Lady Chatterley's Lover," which is considered a great work of art by the artsy-tartsy crowd.
However, when Anthony Weiner texted that sort of language to women he did not know and had not even met, that was a direct, blanket, low-level insult to all women, and it says more about him than it does about women.
So, if men qua men "can't help it" as a group that means that the various subsets of "all men" also can't help it.
Here we have the real reason that black men can't seem to get it right. It's not that they're black and oppressed. It's because they're male. The female world of the ghetto is just the natural order asserting itself.
I'll bet Weidner would walk away from that logic as fast as he possible could, but it still follows from what he says.
There are possibly more competent women than there are competent men. That said, the Bell Curve for men has more outliers on both the left and right sides. Leading to more men in both the genius and idiot categories than is the case with women.
Purely my own observations over the years in the workplace, but men are far, far better at welcoming an obviously good-looking man into their midst than women are with an obviously good-looking woman.
56%: Women who voted for Barack Obama
43%: Women who voted for John McCain
49%: Men who voted for Obama
48%: Men who voted for McCain
*sigh*
Yes dear...
"there’s a raft of evidence that suggests women are better at everything"
Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?.
I dare not answer Nochlin's question in earnest.
I find women to be meaner and crueler than men, when either of the sexes are mean and/or cruel.
So no, women are not better than men.
Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, John Ensign, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Edwards?
Who are all these bad men having sex with? Virtuous women?
"Who are all these bad men having sex with? Virtuous women?"
Victims! All male-female sex is RAPE!
@MayBee 4:46
Goddammit, MayBee, would you please stop being so rational!
You're putting a real crimp in the narrative!
I guess getting them drunk first just to get into their pants got too expensive for Mr. Widener, and so he's going for plain, old flattery.
Women make better decisions? Don't you ever watch Judge Judy, man?
Remember it's okay to say one sex is superior to the other as long as you're saying women are better.
In junior high, we had to take a sociology class in which my teacher asked us if we’d ever vote for a woman for President. I asked him “which woman?” and he said “that’s sexist.”
I kid you not.
And why all the discussion of guys being horndogs?
Why not a discussion of why women love (emotionally and sexually) men of power?
The female desire for the alpha male may be completely natural. What it isn't by almost any stretch of the imagination is moral.
Women are better at everything? Like warfare and mathematics, clearly.
Who are all these bad men having sex with? Virtuous women?
Other than Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky – could you name any of them without googling?
I seem to remember women being part of all those scandals, too.
Remember the corollary: you can't say there are innate differences between male and females - it's all cultural. cf, Larry Summers.
Let's see: women are superior but they're no different than males.
And conservatives are the "wingnuts"? (okay, some are but they don't have a monopoly on the nuttery).
If only our Founding Fathers had been women--"Wise Latinas", perhaps?--our Constitution would be SO much better..
According to that guy's "study", women are better at everything, huh?
And yet, look around the room you're in right now. Odds are about 95% that every single thing your eye falls on was invented or developed by a man.
Just about everything in every sphere of human life: political thought, art, music, science and math, technology, building materials, architecture, food, textiles, etc, etc, etc. All of the innovations were by men.
And yet women are supposedly better at "just about everything".
I'm with Freeman Hunt. This is just rank patronizing of women. It's saying they're too stupid to look around at the world, too stupid to know when they're being pandered to.
"Women, on the other hand, do almost everything better."
Except:
Erections.
Making sperm.
Locker room talk.
Breaking shit.
Killing people.
Balding.
Sound effects.
Math.
trad guy/
My memory of such a cartoon (either New Yorker or Playboy) shows the wife w. suitcase and kids in tow about to leave with drunken husband drink in hand, singing: "I love a parade!" LOL
wv:lolie---yes it is..
Stacy McCain explained it best:
"Guys who make a big show of being on board with the feminist agenda are just doing it to ingratiate themselves with women, perhaps with the worst sort of ulterior motives."
http://theothermccain.com/2011/06/08/feminism-and-the-friendly-stranger/
Men like action, often without regard for the consequences.
Women do make better decisions and thus are awful passive bores.
The male desire for action is more fun.
It would probably be bad to say something like, women are much better at making money as prostitutes and strippers.
Women are stupid, gullible, and weak
Given the constraints of the discussion --- Remember it's okay to say one sex is superior to the other as long as you're saying women are better
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition"
Tim Leary
I think the closest thing to the truth that explains male and female differences is that we evolved with different roles, and women's genetics point them toward nurturing children and men's genetics point them towards competition for territory and resources over other men. That naturally makes men more curious and more risk-taking and more expansive and exploratory, while women are oriented towards the nuances of emotional relationships. It doesn't matter if the feminists think it's fair or nice, it's genetics. Genetics doesn't give a shit about fair or nice, it cares about what works. What works is a division of labor between the sexes of this sort.
How does that square with liberal women supporting abortion? Is it some male subterfuge designed to keep women pregnant and out of the workforce? Do women hate their bodies that much to kill the fetus because of the accursed men with the cunning to impregnate them?
Organizations like NOW have neutered men to the point that many of them are nothing more than entitled adolescents with no understanding of male values, morals and ethics. Weiner et al are the products of the women who apologize for them, tsk tsking at the predictable self-abasement men go through to get the attention they crave from the women they hate.
These so-called men are little more than a young child crying for attention and a binky in the mouth from the hooter-hider women who torment them. Another example of these women's distaste for men is when they finally give up on what they have created then go to the sperm bank to get impregnated with the cursed demon seed from the very men they marginalize.
Real men don't cop out to the last refuge of the scoundrel; "I have sinned!?"
Women do make better decisions, if what you want is a boring, sanitized, safe, PC world.
The air conditioned nightmare.
Fred Reed explicates this dilemma brilliantly. Read him.
add to Pogo's list:
Cowboy poet
Wise drunk
Add:
Comedy.
Pogo said 'better at breaking shit'. Better at building shit too.
And we have fun doing both.
Weinerschnitzel
______________
wv = schneiden German: to cut
I tell my wife that we (men) have evolved for thousands of years to: 1) hunt, kill, and skin our food, 2) poke with pointy sticks any strangers who attempt to infiltrate our village, and 3) be, or follow, a leader.
That usually mellows her out.
Read "Our Sexual Future" at Fred on Everything.
He really lays out the dilemma.
Can't post the link from my iPhone.
The question isn't who makes better decision. The question is what kind of world do you want.
Women ARE better than metrosexuals.
And yet, look around the room you're in right now. Odds are about 95% that every single thing your eye falls on was invented or developed by a man.
More telling, if women are better, how is it that they were oppressed by men for so many millenia.
Although its interesting that a society which invests so much time and energy making men more like women would promote this.
Women tend not to make decisions.
They're not uncomfortable with undecided issues.
Just as they tend not to abstract from complex situations, but just bear in mind that it's complex.
Men fix it.
look around the room you're in right now. Odds are about 95% that every single thing your eye falls on was invented or developed by a man.
Imagine how the Golden Gate Bridge, for example, would have turned out had it been designed and built by women...
Imagine how the Golden Gate Bridge, for example, would have turned out had it been designed and built by women...
For one thing, it would have quartz countertops.
Ever notice that the men who argue that women make better judgements are the metro-sexual types? Also ever notice that it is always the feminist types who struggle so mightily to convince us that women are superior to men? That is until they find one who has managed to accomplish her goals without being helped by some man.Then if the accomplihed woman is, heaven forbid a conservative[ahem-Sarah Palin] the feminists are on her like a pack of rabid wolves with the metro-sexual men cheering them on.
"Men like action, often without regard for the consequences.
Women do make better decisions and thus are awful passive bores."
Active or passive, you always have consequences. Men instinctively grasp that action is the best way to maintain control. Passing on the chance to act signals that you'd prefer someone else be in control, for the moment. A man's gotta know his limitations.
Let me suggest that women may make better decisions - except when it really matters.
I have repeatedly gotten in trouble with the women in my life when I opine that one of the worst things that has happened to our society was the passage of the 19th Amdt. giving women the right to vote. (Never mind that I had ancestors agitating for such as early as 1850).
After the expected shock and outrage, I point out that a higher percentage of women voted for both Slick Willy and O'Bama than men did (both would have likely won anyway, but...), and that that was because they tend to vote more emotionally than men do.
And, have you ever watched an organization of women try to make a collective decision? They take forever to make up their collective minds. Thank goodness that our military is still male dominated. Imagine having to let everyone have their say before a unit decided what to do.
Remember it's okay to say one sex is superior to the other as long as you're saying women are better.
And the woman is not Trig's mom who, by the way, is not a real woman.
I was going to ask him why then women aren't richer than men, but then I remembered...oh yeah, we're victims too.
Forgot my catechism for a sec.
If I pointed out that Eve made the first bad decision --- by eating that forbidden fruit---someone will say that men, not women, wrote the Bible.
And if women make such good decisions, how come so many of them have chosen a life of poverty by having children but not marrying?
There's really no way anyone can win the argument, on either side.
This sort of disingenuous self-effacing cod-humility, coupled with the barely-sublimated patronizing "You gals are just so much better at everything, yes you are!" is nothing more than a thread-bare vestige of ancient chivalry, which itself was just an attempt to placate the perceived fragility of feminine self-esteem and the perceived frivolity of feminine emotions. It's the old cape over the puddle, except the once-silken cape in crimson is now organic, "Fair Trade" hemp, in earth-tones.
What a wuss. We're men = we make bad decisions. OKAAAAY THEN!!!! Bout time we elected a woman for POTUS!!
Assuming he's a liberal man. Eminently quotable line for the next election.
wv: diptin... No, I guess i don't want to go there after all.
Just as it's a shame to unfairly benefit the African-American child of physicians, say, in the affirmative action college admissions games, I'd sure hate to see middle-class and upper-middle-class white women benefit unfairly via quotas and unearned promotions solely because an immigrant maid was allegedly assaulted, or a a maried Congressman flirted online with unsuspecting women.
Earn it, women. Yes you can. When you take the easy way up, everyone wonders if you're there because of your sex, or if merit competition earned you your place.
Years ago Saturday Night Live did a skit about a new book: Alan Alda Tells You How to Pick Up Chicks.
"And if saying that you've been trying to get in touch with your feminine side doesn't work, you can always tell them how you've been scarred by your painful divorce. You'll be layin' pipe like a demon in no time!"
Well fine then, we should have control of all the money.
What we don't have control of all the $$$? Then it's merely condescending.
Quite seriously, how many women have had to suffer from the "they're crazy one week a month" jokes at least from guys of a certain generation?
Well, men's dicks can make them crazy all the time. If one is a valid reason to shut someone out, so is the other.
Funny, I know a shit load of women who aren't good at anything except lying and getting money out of men.
Men are risk takers. They lose big and win big.
Minutiae that the female people in my life could work on:
Putting gas in the car.
Killing vermin.
Returning books to the library.
Starting a 2 cycle engine.
Picking up dog shit from the yard.
Tipping a "hot" female waitron.
Keeping receipts.
Making coffee strong enough to drink.
Fixing simple shit.
Pretty small list. I'll wash & iron my shirts.
Of course you women are better! The Wisconsin Supreme Court, many years ago, recognized this as a natural and unchangeable condition.
"[A woman] is purer and better by nature than her husband, and more governed by principle and a sense of duty and right, and she seldom violates her marriage obligations, or abandons her home, or denies to her husband the comforts and advantages of her society by any inducement or influence of others, without just cause. Actions against others for enticing her away from her home and her husband's society are not frequent. She is protected from such wrong, not only by her integrity of character, but by greater love for her family and the comforts and genial influences of home life. With the husband the case is different. He may not be his wife's superior in the sense of the common law, or in anything, and may be her inferior in many things, but he is charged with the duty of providing for, maintaining, and protecting his wife and family. He is engaged, for this purpose, in the business and various employments of the outside world, that must necessarily, more or less, deprive his wife of his society. The exigencies of even his legitimate business may keep him away from her and his home for months or years. He is exposed to the temptations, enticements, and allurements of the world, which easily withdraw him from her society, or cause him to desert or abandon her. Others may entice or induce him to do many things, for business or pleasure, which may deprive his wife of his society. The wife had reason to expect all these things when she entered the marriage relation, and her right to his society has all these conditions, and is not the same in "degree and value" as his right to hers.
Duffies v. Duffies, (1890) 76 Wis. 374, 45 N.W. 522.
In the immortal words of Annie Savoy, "You can look it up!"
What an outrageous comment by Weidner.
Men have done almost everything great in human history. That we currently elect perverts and idiots to office is a reflection of our lack of a coherent ethic and philosophy. Note that of the few women in political power recently, we can count some real loonies. The phenomenon is not limited to men.d
It's reasonable to assume that women would have different investing styles than men. In my experience, most women prefer to invest in real estate, but the author says that they are buy and hold stock investors. OK, those who buy stocks probably are, and, for significant periods of the past hundred years, buy and hold was a profitable, prudent strategy. Still, in recent times, that has not been the winning strategy. It seems that the purchase of gold was the winning hand. Can the author then say that Glenn Beck and his followers are smarter than most women? Not a chance.
It's one thing to have misandry on display for all to see, it's another to have another man do it to other men.
Remember it's okay to say one sex is superior to the other as long as you're saying women are better.
Unless you are refering to Judge Sumi.
All of this over-analyzing of Weiner's deceitful behavior is just media spin to turn Weiner into a victim.
Weiner is a lie and cheat. Want him as your congressman?
If women are indeed superior how is it that we men have been oppressing them for 40,000 years?
um, i could be wrong, but didn't most of those listed men... do what they did with women?
Another thing women can't seem to provide for themselves is physical security. Most feel as though they can't go out after dark unless you're with them. They could solve this problem by acquiring a weapon, learning to shoot, and getting a carry permit, but almost none of them ever do so. Instead of "taking back the night," why yield it in the frist place?
And with this, the Left jumps the shark, and the end is near.
The Misandry Bubble : http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html lays out exactly what has been happening, and what happens next.
(Not my blog, I just found this piece to be a brilliant analysis.)
A great analysis of our situation: http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
(Not my blog, just great writing.)
But the moral superiority of women is slipping. None of these men were acting alone and in most cases the women weren't prostitutes but were women who should have known better--if women really were morally superior these men would not have found willing partners. Weiner was able to get away with what he was doing for so long only because the women receiving his attentions didn't rat him out--the recipients of Weiners texts and tweets should have been outraged, but they were happy to play along, which says a lot about women today.
In Errol Flynn's autobiography, "My Wicked, Wicked Ways," he mentions putting a microphone in the bathroom to record the conversation of women. Turns out they were just as filthy (if not filthier) then men.
Women are definitely better at emasculating and whining.
What is funny is that a man who sucks up to women is revolting to women. Men who are not pushovers are attractive to women. This is pickup artistry 101.
Fortunately, more people are confronting feminism. Read this article.
Feminism, far from helping women, has actually exposed inherent female inferiority by making it far more visible than it was before.
A lot of aspects of female ability would not be scrutinized if not for feminists MAKING everyone scrutinize them.
The three fields where there is no way to impede meritocracy are :
Investment Management
Blogging
Stand-up Comedy.
In these 3 fields, talent is rewarded, and it is possible to be semi-anonymous in 2 of these 3 fields.
In these 3 fields, almost all the best people are men.
Of the top 100 Hedge Fund managers, how many are women?
Exactly zero.
And this is not a field where 'sexism' can work, as money will always follow the best returns.
I don't say this lightly, but Weidener's article is just about the most wrong article I have ever read.
I think that hedge funds is too narrow of a fund group to be relevant because women may just be adverse to hedge funds. A better example would be how many women are managers of mutual funds. I know that about 10 years ago the answer was 10%, and I am guessing that the number has increased since then.
you know what's not interesting. a bunch of men whining.
In regards to the post. Forget the male/female style, this article is merely foolish junk called inside from your guy that had to create a thing through the timeline.
http://chenguang61.blog.com/frogger-the-classic-game-within-the-game-globe/
http://rs123.posterous.com/gears-of-war-three-vs-resistance-3
http://rs326.skyrock.com/3059891737-Get-Paid-To-Play-Video-Games.html
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा