Are single women more prone to "poach"?

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?

Quote:

nasty classist put down indicating I am less than your standards of writing abilities, it is the same as the lame classist spelling flames

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.

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 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. 

Michelle wrote:

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.

Huh?  remind claims a noun is a verb so she can deliberately misread the study and consequent posts, but you're rapping Al Q for being a meanie over grammar?!  Give me a break!  He wasn't the only one who felt this was a little past the point of reason.

Perhaps we could ask remind to, you know, stop making stuff up as a means to avert this kind of quibble?

An even if gramatically incorrect, I totally agree with "remind" that targetting is an active process descriptive of women's treatment; it is well illustrated by this study, the media's gloating over this piece of "news", and the very hostile reaction our critiques received here.

Michelle wrote:

Look, al-Q made, like, the hundredth snarky comment about remind's grammar and spelling here.  He could have told her, hey, you can't just call a noun a verb in this case.  But no, he had to go further and make a snarky comment about how he's noticed her grammar errors before on babble.  Yeah, we know he has, because he's mocked her a number of times for it before.  She has mostly ignored him when he's done it, but this time she called him on it.  And I agree with her.

In this case, yes, grammar was actually a substantive issue.  His put-down of her grammar in general was not.  And it's part of a pattern on his part, so since it turned into a fight here, I called him on it here.

Okay, but I still think the reaction was a little over the top, and it's not like remind doesn't provoke, either.

TB: Didn't you say that studies find what they set out to find?

I wrote: "Studies tend to find what they set out to find, their working hypothesis." However, my comment was not a study; there was no working hypothesis. If you think the bias here is merely my own, I urge you to take a wider view instead of settling for what could be termed a cheap shot.

Exactly.

And, yes, remind, you do provoke some people by playing fast and loose with language in order to twist meaning into a shape more friendly to your biases. 

Michelle wrote:

Don't we all do that? :)  Maybe some of us more than others, I suppose...but heck, we're all spin doctors on our pet subjects, aren't we?

To a degree, sure - but claiming what is clearly a noun is a verb "to me" is way beyond the pale, and it could be argued that this is actually begging for a grammar flame.  I can't guarantee I wouldn't have jumped on it, too, had I been reading the thread at the time instead of coming in after the exchange.  Seriously, how much self-control do you expect us to have?!  ;-)

I, too, am glad we don't share the same standards, Martin.

Unfortunately, your second paragraph is too oblique for my comprehension skills. You may have to state what you want me to observe more clearly.

martin, your quest to win the title of World's Most Sensitive New-Age Guy appears to have robbed you of your sense of humour.

I hope it's worth it.

I think the title of that article and the opening few paragraphs were mocking the findings of the study, not reinforcing them.

If a passing reference to "your biases" is deemed "considered analysis", we just don't have the same standards, Caissa. (And I'm glad.)

(Back-edited) You can consult a bar chart of Burkley&Parker's survey in this account to gauge to what extent the media spin put on their findings is misleading.

Caissa, I made my points in posts 2, 5, 17 and 21, so I won't repeat myself. remind's points in posts 13, 22, 28 and 31 are even more to the point. See also Coyote in posts #15 and 25, and G.Pie in #30. Maybe others; no time to re-read the whole thing...

Every time I read a thread on gender issues here, I regret it.

Ok str8 up this is the str8 goods.

Women and Men, POC and white ppl, White ppl and FN, etc

We are different BUT equal.

A lot of women do like attached men better that's true it's been known for awhile it aint even a concious decision on the women's part it's just the mating game.

The problem comes when people start attaching their own bias morality, ethics, etc to that they cant accept people for who they are

This new bullshit where between any group of people there can't be any difference from white males for them to be equal is actually a step baccwards because it ignored unique issues present in communites as well as unique things to be celebrated.

Idk what the whole argument of the target thing is but, w.e Ill go see it after.

But really though people are too insecure/scared/racist/sexist to see that differences dont mean something is better or worse it just means different.

And there's a difference between acknowledging/accepting/celebrating a difference and puttin a spin on it to be demeaning.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Examples:

You could say many women like an attached man better

All Women are "evil husband-stealers".

A lot of youth of color are in gangs.

Youth of color are murdering, drug dealing, stealing criminals.

A lot of people in the 3rd world are illiterate.

3rd world ppl are illiterate, dumasses or some shit.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Point being that differences are there but when the prevailing Euro-centric/patriarichal/white supremist societies biases are put into play it twists anything in the other to be bad,evil,inferior etc.

That's the problem nigga

Quote:

Look, al-Q made, like, the hundredth snarky comment about remind's grammar and spelling here. 

If by "hundredth" you mean "second," well, yeah, I agree with you.

[ed.] By the way, both times were in the context of remind's upbraiding someone else for his or her use of language.  I'm sorry, I'm weak; but when someone mounts her moral high horse and blasts another's language use, and does so wihile mutilating the language herself (and yes, writing "grammer'), she's opening herself up for ridicule.

I think so. 

I don't see this getting any better, and it looks like the thread topic has been exhausted.  Closing this.