babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
G Pie it is actually a very short study brief, just 3 pages including graphs, though the pdf is 5.
Yes, I saw that value judgement too, along with the glossing over of men's more inclined to "poach" behaviour, than women's.
That the questions they asked participants, were from "eharmony" a religious fundamentalist owned dating service, just threw the whole thing out the window for me.
Just another form of putting a scarlet S on single women, who suddenly and mysteriously turn into a 'madonna' when they get attached/married and who can then suddenly be trusted not to "poach" nor be interested in anyone else even.
Actually, the article is riddled with the gender-unspecific term "mate poaching". Nowhere is there a use of the word "poach" which restricts it to females, and what's more, the preamble should make it clear to anyone that the term is gender-neutral:
Huh. 57% of MEN. Poaching.
What's more, I was unable to find even a single instance of "target" being used as a verb to replace "poach". In every use of the word "target", it's a noun, sometimes referring to a male, sometimes to a female.
Remind didn't read this article.
DUH
nuff women have said
"Listen Ill trust my man around my girls but, if I got a good man Im not trusting my girls around my man" LOL
It put in a weird way to imply something bad on a woman's part and somehow men are immune to it which aint true but tkae that for what it is both sexes cheat lol
snert they were recounting another study's findings, not detailing their own.
I take target as a verb not a noun.
You just make it up as you see fit? You don't look at the context of the surrounding words??
I don't even know what to make of that.
I am thinking of this in particular snert, should have been more clear.
"Target" is clearly a noun in that paragraph.
I know functionally it is michelle, but in reality look at the sentence structures, when discussing men, they use the passive indicator "interested" as the verb, while with women they use aggressive verbs "poaching" and "pursuing".
thus imv, the words 'the target" is used as a passive aggressive objectifier, as it is used for the word woman, whereas when they discussed men in relations to woman's actions, they did not use the terms "the target" at all, they used the word "man" upon 2 occassions.
They did not say " the attached target".
Thus target imv, becomes an operational verb. Men just "target" women, would have been simplier to say. No?
I think "target" is a status blind term whereas "poach" or "poaching" is marriage specific. Someone should do a study on who obsesses over such things. Or who would obsess?
Isn't this a well-known fact?
I think this empirical confirmation, if it holds up statistically, represents yet another triumph for the paradigm of evolutionary psychology. If a man is attached to a woman already, that means he's already passed one woman's seal of approval as a desirable mating partner. It's a viable reproductive macro to have ingrained.
I think "target" is a lot less inflammatory than "poaching" too. "Poach" implies that the target of the "poaching" - the person being "poached" - is an innocent victim. Which, of course, puts the "poacher" (male or female) in the role of the evil tempter/temptress, the homewrecker, etc.
Statistics show that some number out of 10 times, there is a man and a woman involved about 50-50 each in a given consensual relationship
LLLLET me tell you bout the birds and the bees, And the flowers and the trees, and the moon up above...
There is a cookie called "married men" because they taste so good. (To women, i guess). I have heard it from single ladys that they were chased (unknown to them) and caught by married guys. I have also met a few ladys who admitted to going after married guys "to see if I could get him". And men being pigs, they were usually successful. (For a while at least).
I think that for matters sexual, "sisterhood", and "brotherhood" mean nothing.
Secrecy and fatherhood and motherhood are the things that matter. "go forth and multiply" is the prime directive.
It was an interesting academic article. Some good online discussion worthy of a seminar discussion on the article.
I'd love to debate this quote with Martin from post #17, but since he is out of here for a few days we'll have to pursue it at a future time.
Studies tend to find what they set out to find, their working hypothesis.
"I guess 'target' wasn't used as a verb - my mistake" would have also been simpler to say. No?
The best indicator of future behaviour, is present/past behaviour.
I've noticed before how you're rather sloppy in your distinction between verbs and nouns, so this is no major shift.
A few months ago I was addressing a group of about 20 young women, relating a standup comedian's bit on how a guy will say, "My buddy's girlfriend is great; I'd like someone just like her," while a woman will say, "My friend's guy is great, I want him." The women to whom I told this were rather enthusiastic in agreeing that this is how things are.
Chris Rocc LOL it's true tho
If you read the report's data, or even the thread itself, you would have found many more men are that poaching way, than women, please do stop with the sexist imaginings. It is unpleasant.
Well Al' q, if you have been the "target" and have experienced being a "target" you come to understand it as a verb. The same can be said for many more words that apply specifically to women, and not men.
And it is so nice of you to be so classist on top of sexist.
The little rift between the sexes is astonishingly widened by simply teaching one set of catchwords to the girls and another to the boys. ~Robert Louis Stevenson
I would have girls regard themselves not as adjectives but as nouns. ~Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "Our Girls"
It's hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head. ~Sally Kempton, Esquire, 1970
Wasn't this covered 30 years ago with the Naked Ape?
How? Your examples are both nouns.
By the way, how was I being classist?
According to your perceptions, try being a target as a woman. Target is an actions towards.
Classist= "I've noticed before how you're rather sloppy in your distinction between verbs and nouns, so this is no major shift."
nasty classist put down indicating I am less than your standards of writing abilities, it is the same as the lame classist spelling flames
I see some nouns in respect to women as actually being verbs.
Personally, I have found that women flirted more (not quite going after me, but close) when I was in relationships than when I was single and desprate. I think single and desperate scared them off.
Perhaps though that was just flirting for practice? Just honing their skills on a safe test model?
Or perhaps a satisfied man is more attractive?
I am not that social so I do not know if married guys go after married women or single women. And do married women go after single or married guys in general?
Perhaps some of us knows insiders from one of the dating sites. People lie but perhaps the best info woud be informal from those sites?
Talking in specific about the study's findings, and your questions would be answered, at least for oklahoma men and women, if you read it.
So, by your logic, upper class people have the best grammar. Nobody told me that back on the farm.
I'm not talking about class, I'm talking about careless thinking, which is reflected in a sloppy way of expressing thoughts.
Oh so now I am a "careless" thinker eh?
al-Q, all this could be avoided if you could just stop with the spelling and grammar flames on babble. You've been here for years, so you know that they're against the rules. Could you just cut it out? Mocking babblers for poor grammar and spelling is out of bounds and you do it far too often.
I'm confused and was when I was following this early. Did the debate over noun vs. verb having implications for responding to the study or was it a flame?
It was an interesting study not unlike many you find in social psyc. with all the strengths and weaknesses thereof.
I think we all might be taking this one study far too seriously.
So it sets out to prove that single women are more likely to find married men attractive than single men. The fact that men rated higher regardless of attachment status is not particularly newsworthy. It's the differences between women (single, not-single) that are being studied.
We can certainly read all sorts of biases into this but I think it's relatively simple. I think the researchers wanted to look at an under-studied area, and they found one. They were working with as much sexism, internalized and otherwise, as any of us, in choosing what they focussed on and why.
As for interpreting the results, well, again, I think we could all blather on and on about what we think they mean. Including me.
I think this is a slow-news-day story.
Perhaps more internalized sexism than us maysie, as it was Oklahoma for pete's sake. ;)