challenge to the defenders


————————————————–

challenge to the defenders
careerbitch

I challenge the defenders of this article — Teflon, JohnJameson, slats7, TermiOn, & JLSeagull — to go to the source: read the original research articles that Noer cites, then come back to this message board and give us a little book report.

You must know — since I’m sure you all took some science courses in college (you seem to know SO much) — how to consume and interpret scientific data. Of course you understand the conditions necessary for determining causality, right? And I’m sure you fully understand the difference between correlational and experimental findings, the role of confounding variables, controlling for covariates, interpretation of regression analyses, etc. So after applying that knowledge as you read these articles, you should (if you can, in fact, read) clearly understand the myriad errors and omissions in Noer’s “article” (read: op ed).

On a different note: What happened to you boys? You might want to work out some of those hostilities; they can lead to scores of health problems. Yikes.

08-24-2006 12:41 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
rykov

CB,

I applaud your efforts, but you fail to realize the irrefutable proof that your noted individuals can always go back to. You are obviously female (most notably because you disagree with their opinions) so your use of scientific facts actually negatively impacts your argument.

What you don’t realize is that by being perceived as female, you can only access “female logic”. When female logic is applied to scientific data, it turns that data into militant femenazism. Obviously, militant femenazism is inferior in scientific value to a good ‘ol Male Opinion (see how Male Opinions are capitalized? This is to help convey that they are more important than your silly little “facts”, “actual research”, and “meaningful scientific analysis”).

So, that being said, they will always be able to refute any of your claims by falling back on the strength of their opinion, which, being a Male Opinion, is superior in quality to any argument you could field.

08-24-2006 12:48 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
careerbitch

Indeed, I have noticed that quality of the Male Opinion: it doesn’t require evidence. Thanks.

08-24-2006 12:55 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
slats7

Careerwhore, since you’re the “prosecutor” in this little kangaroo court, the burden of proving Mr. Noer wrong falls upon YOU, not the defense. Get to work, darlin.

08-24-2006 01:34 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
careerbitch

Good strategy: deflect attention away from your ignorance via cheap shots. Nice job, son.

08-24-2006 01:46 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
mikesurf

I’m sure you’ve convinced everyone you’re unbiased, unemotional, logical, intelligent, and of course, not misogynistic in the lease by throwing about gendered insults like “whore” and that ever so condescending “darlin.”
congrats.

08-24-2006 01:52 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
Termi0n

mikesurf wrote:

I’m sure you’ve convinced everyone you’re unbiased, unemotional, logical, intelligent, and of course, not misogynistic in the lease by throwing about gendered insults like “whore” and that ever so condescending “darlin.”
congrats.

Hey “Mike” why dont you use that same logic on the feminists throwing emotional tantrums all over this messageboard.

The most pathetic feminists are male feminists.

08-24-2006 02:06 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
mikesurf

I’m sorry, it’s difficult for me to take someone seriously who is so emotionally distraught over being intellectually challenged that they can’t type a response without including an attempt at insult.

08-24-2006 02:13 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
Termi0n

mikesurf wrote:

I’m sorry, it’s difficult for me to take someone seriously who is so emotionally distraught over being intellectually challenged that they can’t type a response without including an attempt at insult.

So I guess to you women are exempt?

08-24-2006 02:24 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
mikesurf

Obviously, since I am a pathetic male feminist who couldn’t possibly be genuinely offended by the article in question unless it’s because I’m kowtowing to those crazy emotional **bleep**-creatures.

08-24-2006 02:31 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
slats7

Yeah, like “whore” is worse than “bitch.” I’ll respect her when she shows respect for herself. Instead of taking on Mr. Noer, she cowardly outsourced the job to others. Typical woman.

Anyone But Hillary in ’08

08-24-2006 02:36 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
Termi0n

mikesurf wrote:

Obviously, since I am a pathetic male feminist who couldn’t possibly be genuinely offended by the article in question unless it’s because I’m kowtowing to those crazy emotional **bleep**-creatures.

Obviously.

Message Edited by Termi0n on 08-24-2006 02:37 AM

08-24-2006 02:36 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
mikesurf

And you, sir, are a hilarious stereotype who must hate himself to swallow such misandry as is contained in this article simply to keep himself from agreeing with women.
and just to see if it’s also a bad word- **bleep**.

08-24-2006 02:40 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
duerra

All insults aside, I do think it is careerbitch’s responsibility to post a defense here, not send the men off to read the research that was already presented. The research was presented, now it’s your turn to offer a counterpoint with your own research.

This shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out. Though, I can’t say some insult wasn’t warranted with careerbitch telling the men to go out and “give us a little book report”, and also suggestiong we can’t read, etc. Of course, if she read the actual research (as she has clearly done, since she notes how it will clearly open our eyes to the “myriad errors [sic] and omissions”), then why not just tell us what those things are instead of telling us to go give you a book report?

Offended by the article or not, careerbitch is clearly just as hot-headed and lazy around here as anybody else that’s willing to whine and moan but not offer up anything of any debatable use.

08-24-2006 09:37 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
tessa

I figure that I will throw my hat into this ring (and any other ring that I can) to note the fact that you don’t even need to read the full research to contradict Mr. Noer. His last paragraph states:

“A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it’s important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn’t mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.”

However, he does not choose to apply this logic to the rest of his (flawed) argument. Is it possible that the reason that divorces are higher in relationships with a career woman resides with women without a career? Did he consider that women who are isolated socially because they remain home with children all day instead of working and who do not have their own source of income may be just as unhappy as your career “girl,” but do not have the social support network or financial independence to leave?

The fact that some women live lives of quiet desperation should not be forced to reflect back on those of us who do not.

08-24-2006 11:34 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
Thoughtful

I believe that the original point here was that the op-ed piece simply cites a correlation between women at work and problems in the home. Career[Woman] is commenting on the fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Perhaps we should confine our comments to the original post rather than resorting to name-calling.

08-24-2006 11:40 AM

————————————————–

Re: challenge to the defenders
ParsonJim

Women have been identifying “men to avoid” for the purposes of marriage for decades. Why is it such a big deal if men finally do the same to women, in the name of equality, no less.

Don’t get your panties in a twist, ladies, this is just REAL EQUALITY, not the crap you’ve been fed in Women’s Studies. Enjoy it! Now, if we could just get you to have to register for the draft……

08-25-2006 03:21 AM

————————————————–

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: