"The Girls in Their Summer Dresses" – Irwin Shaw (1939)(classicshorts.com)
classicshorts.com
"The Girls in Their Summer Dresses" – Irwin Shaw (1939)
https://www.classicshorts.com/stories/dresses.html
88 comments
I love literature - there's something about the writing of a real writer compared with the rest of us slobs, it's like the difference between someone's functional diagram or photo and a painting by an artist. IME it's also by far the best way to explore many very human things (thus humanities), as Shaw gently and subtly - and so effortlessly and quickly - leads us deeply into these issues.
The unsaid tension between them, over commitment, devotion to each other - why not spend Sunday alone together? - and the fate of their marriage. I get the sense of people, or at least Michael, who is not really ready to commit fully, and the negotiated peace that Frances accepts.
Not the point of the story itself (which IMHO is to explore real humanity, not give pat, perfect answers), but I don't understand other people:
If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Imagine how overjoyed Frances would feel, how special she would feel, if Michael responded - 'hey, if it bothers you, it won't happen again', and maybe, with a wicked smile 'but I'm going to need to look at you a lot more.'
And imagine how not respecting her feelings makes her feel - and it's every effing time you leave the house together, for the rest of your lives. Is it really worth it to cop some brief stares?
Is there anything better in the world than seeing your partner happy? Even omitting the feeling of seeing that joy, purely selfishly, what would make Michael's life better. I guess, in my reading, he's not ready to try it and find out.
(And any general statement must make many assumptions about the relationship. I think every relationship is unique and they cover an inconceivably - I mean, we really can't conceive of them all - wide range. It's all a bespoke arrangement between two people. Some are open, some closed, some long distance, some together every moment for decades, some passionate, some practical, some angry or sad or joyful or whatever. IME we almost shouldn't be using this same word for each one; it's like saying everything with a processor is a 'computer'.)
The unsaid tension between them, over commitment, devotion to each other - why not spend Sunday alone together? - and the fate of their marriage. I get the sense of people, or at least Michael, who is not really ready to commit fully, and the negotiated peace that Frances accepts.
Not the point of the story itself (which IMHO is to explore real humanity, not give pat, perfect answers), but I don't understand other people:
If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Imagine how overjoyed Frances would feel, how special she would feel, if Michael responded - 'hey, if it bothers you, it won't happen again', and maybe, with a wicked smile 'but I'm going to need to look at you a lot more.'
And imagine how not respecting her feelings makes her feel - and it's every effing time you leave the house together, for the rest of your lives. Is it really worth it to cop some brief stares?
Is there anything better in the world than seeing your partner happy? Even omitting the feeling of seeing that joy, purely selfishly, what would make Michael's life better. I guess, in my reading, he's not ready to try it and find out.
(And any general statement must make many assumptions about the relationship. I think every relationship is unique and they cover an inconceivably - I mean, we really can't conceive of them all - wide range. It's all a bespoke arrangement between two people. Some are open, some closed, some long distance, some together every moment for decades, some passionate, some practical, some angry or sad or joyful or whatever. IME we almost shouldn't be using this same word for each one; it's like saying everything with a processor is a 'computer'.)
> If something will make your partner happy, why not do it? Imagine how overjoyed Frances would feel, how special she would feel, if Michael responded - 'hey, if it bothers you, it won't happen again', and maybe, with a wicked smile 'but I'm going to need to look at you a lot more.'
I think he knows he won't keep that commitment. He doesn't want to lie to her, even though it would score immediate points. I can respect that on some level.
But constantly gawking at random women for long enough durations to be obvious to the wife is both strange and cruel. Not to mention how it probably feels to the women. 1939 might have predated women's studies and ideas like the male gaze becoming mainstream, but I think we underestimate the extent that people one basic right and wrong in these situations without the benefit of academic analysis. I think most guys notice attractive women around them but have the decency and discipline to not gawk.
I think he knows he won't keep that commitment. He doesn't want to lie to her, even though it would score immediate points. I can respect that on some level.
But constantly gawking at random women for long enough durations to be obvious to the wife is both strange and cruel. Not to mention how it probably feels to the women. 1939 might have predated women's studies and ideas like the male gaze becoming mainstream, but I think we underestimate the extent that people one basic right and wrong in these situations without the benefit of academic analysis. I think most guys notice attractive women around them but have the decency and discipline to not gawk.
What I noticed when reading this was just how well he's able to write realistic dialogue. I could never write a real conversation between people. It's hard enough to be one of the partners and answer with my own words let alone conceive of what the other partner would say.
> If something will make your partner happy, why not do it?
Good practical advice, but my take is that the point of the story is to play on the irony that they were both making the same error.
They were both acting out of incompatible irrational instinct, the man and his lust, and the woman and her possessiveness, neither willing to sacrifice it for the sake of the other. Even going as far as to win the other over, the man through rational argument, the woman through emotional appeal.
It's a very elaborate and realistic tension.
Good practical advice, but my take is that the point of the story is to play on the irony that they were both making the same error.
They were both acting out of incompatible irrational instinct, the man and his lust, and the woman and her possessiveness, neither willing to sacrifice it for the sake of the other. Even going as far as to win the other over, the man through rational argument, the woman through emotional appeal.
It's a very elaborate and realistic tension.
As I said, the practical advice wasn't the point of the story itself.
Regarding the story, I don't know that I quite see it like you do: Michael confirms to Frances that he will cheat on her someday. Frances suspected that, and connects the oggling to it; it's not especially possessive to object.
Regarding the story, I don't know that I quite see it like you do: Michael confirms to Frances that he will cheat on her someday. Frances suspected that, and connects the oggling to it; it's not especially possessive to object.
Maybe possessive isn't the right word, but she wants to be the "sole object of his desire."
I call this an irrational instinct because she continues to want this in spite of Michael's cruel confession. Frances has a right and reason to object, but she never considers the option of leaving, arguably the most rational course of action.
That said, I dont think there is a single objective truth in fictions like this, but it's certainly interesting to hear all the different interpretations!
I call this an irrational instinct because she continues to want this in spite of Michael's cruel confession. Frances has a right and reason to object, but she never considers the option of leaving, arguably the most rational course of action.
That said, I dont think there is a single objective truth in fictions like this, but it's certainly interesting to hear all the different interpretations!
> That said, I dont think there is a single objective truth in fictions like this, but it's certainly interesting to hear all the different interpretations!
Yes, indeed, that is the point. I am not asserting that I'm 'right'.
I think we are coming together on the interpretation. I see most of what you said. To me the story depicts the trade-offs made for the relationship. Is it rational to leave? Frances won't find a relationship which isn't messy and require compromise (I'm not excusing Michael at all).
Yes, indeed, that is the point. I am not asserting that I'm 'right'.
I think we are coming together on the interpretation. I see most of what you said. To me the story depicts the trade-offs made for the relationship. Is it rational to leave? Frances won't find a relationship which isn't messy and require compromise (I'm not excusing Michael at all).
Is it really worth it to cop some brief stares?
There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze. That said, I'd somewhat agree, then just buy a pair of sunglasses and not crane my neck. (This is basically the state of my marriage. Except, I would refuse any come-on. My wife knows this. It's not a sacrifice, unless it really is a sacrifice.)
There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze. That said, I'd somewhat agree, then just buy a pair of sunglasses and not crane my neck. (This is basically the state of my marriage. Except, I would refuse any come-on. My wife knows this. It's not a sacrifice, unless it really is a sacrifice.)
> There's a reason why the most authoritarian regimes in history had you avert your gaze.
You're comparing keeping your eyes to yourself with your partner to authoritarian dictatorships?
You're comparing keeping your eyes to yourself with your partner to authoritarian dictatorships?
Yes. There are clearly different levels of severity and magnitude here (So no false equivalence, Jack!) but the act of averting your gaze is particularly submissive, IMO, and the act of asking it to be done is particularly aggressive.
I do not ask my wife to avert her gaze, and I would not. It's a pernicious thing to ask of a human being. I would not ask anyone to censor that level of their experience and information gathering. So long as there's no signaling and no touching, truly what is the harm? Everyone should be free to exercise their curiosity. That is, truly, a human right.
The very idea of it puts me in mind of a propaganda piece about the "male gaze" which was on Feminist Frequency. (Not the one that comes up easily in the search, but one which had no dialogue in the soundtrack.) The hate of men that comes off that thing is quite palpable!
I do not ask my wife to avert her gaze, and I would not. It's a pernicious thing to ask of a human being. I would not ask anyone to censor that level of their experience and information gathering. So long as there's no signaling and no touching, truly what is the harm? Everyone should be free to exercise their curiosity. That is, truly, a human right.
The very idea of it puts me in mind of a propaganda piece about the "male gaze" which was on Feminist Frequency. (Not the one that comes up easily in the search, but one which had no dialogue in the soundtrack.) The hate of men that comes off that thing is quite palpable!
I hope you are just Internet philosophizing - a popular pastime - and you don't confuse it with real life and real relationships. That sort of thing is meant as an intellectual exercise and an outlet for (whatever someone is feeling), not as reality.
It's not a power struggle; it's not a fight for survival. It's not the sympathetic nervous system, but the parasympathetic: not fight/flight/freeze, but growth and nurturance, compassion and love. I love to see them happy; I'm heartbroken to see them sad, and they feel the same. I want them to have everything. That's a normal, healthy relationship.
It's not a power struggle; it's not a fight for survival. It's not the sympathetic nervous system, but the parasympathetic: not fight/flight/freeze, but growth and nurturance, compassion and love. I love to see them happy; I'm heartbroken to see them sad, and they feel the same. I want them to have everything. That's a normal, healthy relationship.
I love to see them happy; I'm heartbroken to see them sad, and they feel the same. I want them to have everything. That's a normal, healthy relationship.
Sorry, but that sounds like a one-sided relationship. No one can have everything they want in reality. It's always subject to negotiation, game theory, and economics. If partners always talk to each other in good faith, it all works out. Good partners keep each other in line.
My wife doesn't let me have everything, and sometimes makes demands of me. I make demands of my wife, and she doesn't get everything either. It all comes down to honesty and accountability. Getting everything you want is either bribery or fantasy.
Sorry, but that sounds like a one-sided relationship. No one can have everything they want in reality. It's always subject to negotiation, game theory, and economics. If partners always talk to each other in good faith, it all works out. Good partners keep each other in line.
My wife doesn't let me have everything, and sometimes makes demands of me. I make demands of my wife, and she doesn't get everything either. It all comes down to honesty and accountability. Getting everything you want is either bribery or fantasy.
I wouldn't mention it, if it wasn't in context of relationships. Between the two of us, you are looking for problems AFAICT. You take "I want them to have everything" to some extreme and then critique it - it's finding things to critique.
Good relationships follow the HN guidelines (not coincidentally): Be curious, not judgmental and don't leap to conclusions; e.g., what did I mean by that? There are many possibilities. Be charitable in interpretations - did I really mean that my partner should have literally everything?
We end up in a debate that has nothing to do with anything I think or say, I'm just cornered - put in a spotlight to defend a position that has nothing to do with me.
Good relationships follow the HN guidelines (not coincidentally): Be curious, not judgmental and don't leap to conclusions; e.g., what did I mean by that? There are many possibilities. Be charitable in interpretations - did I really mean that my partner should have literally everything?
We end up in a debate that has nothing to do with anything I think or say, I'm just cornered - put in a spotlight to defend a position that has nothing to do with me.
Thanks for clarifying.
So "I want them to have everything," isn't an argument for just acceding to a demand to avert your gaze? Wanting your partner to have everything is as emotionally understandable and foolish as wanting your child to have everything.
So "I want them to have everything," isn't an argument for just acceding to a demand to avert your gaze? Wanting your partner to have everything is as emotionally understandable and foolish as wanting your child to have everything.
I genuinely want you to have everything too, including great relationships. Good luck.
These are excerpts from a song by Lucinda Williams. I think of it sometimes in life, especially when people seem to demand that life and relationships be a lonely struggle for survival. I read that it was written for a friend of Williams who committed suicide.
These are excerpts from a song by Lucinda Williams. I think of it sometimes in life, especially when people seem to demand that life and relationships be a lonely struggle for survival. I read that it was written for a friend of Williams who committed suicide.
The breath from your own lips
The touch of fingertips
A sweet and tender kiss
The sound of a midnight train
Wearing someone's ring
Someone calling your name
Somebody so warm
Cradled in your arm
Didn't you think you were worth anything?
Millions of us in love
Promises made good
Your own flesh and blood
Looking for some truth
Dancing with no shoes
The beat, the rhythm, the blues
Too late to edit the parent: I'm not suggesting the GP is somehow suicidal in any way at all; I only meant that as context for the lyrics. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Why don't you refer GP to a suicide hotline while you're at it? Your attitude in this thread has been repulsive.
Don't you want to be with a partner that "wants you to have everything" also? Even if we don't take that literally, I think a healthy relationship has both parties honestly sharing their desires with each other. If you "just do something to make your partner happy," knowing it makes you less happy, isn't that being dishonest? I just struggle to understand how you don't see the relationship as one sided if one person is making sacrifices for the other and that value isn't reciprocated. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
There's miscommunication somewhere (maybe in my writing): I agree, it would be an unhealthy relationship if it wasn't both ways.
But to pick on a specific word (perhaps not meant so specifically), I don't think reciprocation is necessary or optimal, though maybe it's sufficient. It's not a transaction or a deal; you help the other because you love them, not to get anything back. It doesn't have to be equal or balanced or 'fair', but both should see to it that their partner's needs are met - you still have needs. It's 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. And abilties and needs will shift over the long term. One may need much more than the other. Sometimes one person will be much more able than the other. It will never balance out.
> If you "just do something to make your partner happy," knowing it makes you less happy, isn't that being dishonest?
If you mean that's all you are doing, then it sure isn't healthy (I suppose it could be honest if you are open about it with yourself and your partner). But do you make sacrifices like that? All the time, of course, with joy and love, and pride to be part of that relationship, and to know they do the same.
Anyway, that's one vision of a relationship, but I think it's a healthy one and I suspect some elements are pretty universal.
But to pick on a specific word (perhaps not meant so specifically), I don't think reciprocation is necessary or optimal, though maybe it's sufficient. It's not a transaction or a deal; you help the other because you love them, not to get anything back. It doesn't have to be equal or balanced or 'fair', but both should see to it that their partner's needs are met - you still have needs. It's 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. And abilties and needs will shift over the long term. One may need much more than the other. Sometimes one person will be much more able than the other. It will never balance out.
> If you "just do something to make your partner happy," knowing it makes you less happy, isn't that being dishonest?
If you mean that's all you are doing, then it sure isn't healthy (I suppose it could be honest if you are open about it with yourself and your partner). But do you make sacrifices like that? All the time, of course, with joy and love, and pride to be part of that relationship, and to know they do the same.
Anyway, that's one vision of a relationship, but I think it's a healthy one and I suspect some elements are pretty universal.
Oooh buddy your poor wife.
Her: “Can you please not ogle every woman that walks by our table?”
You: “How dare you impose this authoritarian regime upon me you man-hating harpy!”
Her: “Can you please not ogle every woman that walks by our table?”
You: “How dare you impose this authoritarian regime upon me you man-hating harpy!”
Well, yes.
A beautiful “battle of the sexes” themed story, all dialog, similar to “Hills Like White Elephants” (that one was published in 1927, maybe Shaw was influenced by it? Or it could be the influence of his theater background).
This being 1939, one shouldn’t visualize the women Michael was ogling similar to the Distracted Boyfriend meme, luckily there’s a movie called “The Fifth Avenue Girl” from 1939 that gives an idea what they were wearing at the time, https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/1222/fifth-avenue-girl/#over....
I read this story for the first time; another story that he published in 1939, “Main Currents of American Thought” is widely anthologized (I personally found it dreadful).
This being 1939, one shouldn’t visualize the women Michael was ogling similar to the Distracted Boyfriend meme, luckily there’s a movie called “The Fifth Avenue Girl” from 1939 that gives an idea what they were wearing at the time, https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/1222/fifth-avenue-girl/#over....
I read this story for the first time; another story that he published in 1939, “Main Currents of American Thought” is widely anthologized (I personally found it dreadful).
Looked up clips from that movie, and they look like the distracted boyfriend girl but with longer sleeves, so I don't think it is such a big difference.
Regardless of what the women of Fifth Avenue in 1939 looked like, this story is very much the distracted boyfriend meme. It would have been the perfect illustration for this.
I cannot relate to this Michael. When I am in a relationship I have tunnel vision. Prettiest girl in the world could come up to me and I would walk right past her to go spend time with the girl of my obsession.
Ironically I feel as though this attitude of mine tends to be detrimental during the dating phase. I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.
I definitely can. Independent of how happy, in love and sexually satisfied I might be in a relationship, I seem to always have an eye out for pretty women. It feels like I could have this same exact conversation if I had a insecure partner, or a partner who is unable to accept that attraction to other people doesn't necessarily stop when in a relationship, or if I were a bit more of an uncaring dick like Michael. I've just never had the need/urge to act on it. Meanwhile I've been cheated on twice. I think there are far more important concerns in a relationship than whether I think some other girl is pretty.
> I've just never had the need/urge to act on it.
Yes, I see many things in the world that I like/want, and don't act on it. If I see someone at the next table say something outrageous, I don't butt into their conversation.
Yes, I see many things in the world that I like/want, and don't act on it. If I see someone at the next table say something outrageous, I don't butt into their conversation.
> Ironically I feel as though this attitude of mine tends to be detrimental during the dating phase. I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.
Without knowing you or your partners at all ... I'd expect people to feel uncomfortable because you are not seeing them - you are acting on your "obsession" (to use your word), and not based on them and the attention need, want, when and how, who they are, etc. They could be anyone; it has little to do with them as a person, and that understanding for and compassion for the individual is the whole point of a (healthy, IMHO) relationship.
Without knowing you or your partners at all ... I'd expect people to feel uncomfortable because you are not seeing them - you are acting on your "obsession" (to use your word), and not based on them and the attention need, want, when and how, who they are, etc. They could be anyone; it has little to do with them as a person, and that understanding for and compassion for the individual is the whole point of a (healthy, IMHO) relationship.
How long of a relationship have you been in? I think your experience is common early on during the honeymoon phase but it’s rarer if you’re talking about multi-year, cohabiting long term relationships or marriages.
That usually doesn't last.
Rarely though, it does, but it does require a woman to be... the type to want to stay in that type of relationship, because it can be a turn-off for many women.
There's a certain socially-conservative but possibly valid (when it comes to long-term familial integrity) train of thought that goes like this: Husband adores wife more than kids. Wife adores kids more than husband. Kids take adoration for granted until they experience loss, and no one really adores the husband... and somehow this may be a more stable arrangement than we give it credit for. The general sense is that men are happiest in families where they retain a romantic fascination with their wives (even over the love for their kids), and that this is becoming a rarer and rarer thing leading to more marital-security erosion.
Rarely though, it does, but it does require a woman to be... the type to want to stay in that type of relationship, because it can be a turn-off for many women.
There's a certain socially-conservative but possibly valid (when it comes to long-term familial integrity) train of thought that goes like this: Husband adores wife more than kids. Wife adores kids more than husband. Kids take adoration for granted until they experience loss, and no one really adores the husband... and somehow this may be a more stable arrangement than we give it credit for. The general sense is that men are happiest in families where they retain a romantic fascination with their wives (even over the love for their kids), and that this is becoming a rarer and rarer thing leading to more marital-security erosion.
Instead of piling on I’ll instead link to a heartening clip from Malcolm in the Middle where Hal and Lois resolve the question of who loves whom more.
https://youtu.be/C3ouolMALIM
https://youtu.be/C3ouolMALIM
What I love about this is how much is said between the lines. The red pill type folk want to talk about a lot of this stuff explicitly and that makes people feel uncomfortable. But it's clear from dialogue like this that the ideas are understood by many and perhaps can be discussed, even on children's TV.
This is one of the reasons I love comedy. It's the only way to tell the truth and find out what other people think. If someone laughs at something, then they believe it.
As for Malcolm in the Middle, I was far too young to understand dialogue like this when I watched it, but even as a child I could tell there was something "more" to it then there seemed. It's such a high quality show.
A big difference between American and British shows is the British ones seem clearly divided between for children and for adults. Stuff like Doctor Who, which is made for children, seem to have nothing to stimulate the adult brain. But perhaps that means stuff for adults, like Black Mirror, can be more efficient by ignoring the child demographic completely. I'm glad both approaches exist.
This is one of the reasons I love comedy. It's the only way to tell the truth and find out what other people think. If someone laughs at something, then they believe it.
As for Malcolm in the Middle, I was far too young to understand dialogue like this when I watched it, but even as a child I could tell there was something "more" to it then there seemed. It's such a high quality show.
A big difference between American and British shows is the British ones seem clearly divided between for children and for adults. Stuff like Doctor Who, which is made for children, seem to have nothing to stimulate the adult brain. But perhaps that means stuff for adults, like Black Mirror, can be more efficient by ignoring the child demographic completely. I'm glad both approaches exist.
I've got tunnel vision as well. I cannot say I obsess, but I don't have eyes or desire for anyone but her.
> I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.
I've done this. There's a balance in remaining an individual and committing fully to a relationship. I think there's a lie in the idea of being subsumed by a relationship. You have to maintain your heading and keep the winds of purpose at your back. Don't lose speed just because your heart is full. If she's game, she'll be more than capable of keeping up.
> I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.
I've done this. There's a balance in remaining an individual and committing fully to a relationship. I think there's a lie in the idea of being subsumed by a relationship. You have to maintain your heading and keep the winds of purpose at your back. Don't lose speed just because your heart is full. If she's game, she'll be more than capable of keeping up.
> Ironically I feel as though this attitude of mine tends to be detrimental during the dating phase. I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.
Maybe think of it as reason for a confidence boost: that this awesome person seems to want to be with you? So try to be a little comfortable and more confident with that, so you're less likely to smother or come across as insecure?
Some people need to be told the opposite. They find someone and get too cocky, take the person for granted, or even lose interest because the great person was found too easily (and emotion-stupidity is implying to them, if it was too easy, then they could do better).
(Grain of salt: I've managed to lose more than my share of awesome gfs. Much less an expert, than a cautionary tale.)
Maybe think of it as reason for a confidence boost: that this awesome person seems to want to be with you? So try to be a little comfortable and more confident with that, so you're less likely to smother or come across as insecure?
Some people need to be told the opposite. They find someone and get too cocky, take the person for granted, or even lose interest because the great person was found too easily (and emotion-stupidity is implying to them, if it was too easy, then they could do better).
(Grain of salt: I've managed to lose more than my share of awesome gfs. Much less an expert, than a cautionary tale.)
(and emotion-stupidity is implying to them, if it was too easy, then they could do better)
It could be some kind of subconscious statistical sophistication. There's a mathematical argument somewhere, that you should date 7-10 times or so, then pick the best one that comes after that sample.
It could be some kind of subconscious statistical sophistication. There's a mathematical argument somewhere, that you should date 7-10 times or so, then pick the best one that comes after that sample.
> I give them way too much attention and they lose respect for me.
"Respect" seems like a bizarre lens to view this through. Are you sure you aren't misinterpreting the situation?
"Respect" seems like a bizarre lens to view this through. Are you sure you aren't misinterpreting the situation?
Respect doesn't mean fawning over somebody because you want to sleep with them, and confusing the two of them shows a lack of self awareness that makes it quite rational to avoid dating you.
You can't respect what you don't understand. Perhaps seek first to understand your potential partner, in a way that you can only arrive at through deep and personal conversation. Then you'll both know if she's truly deserving of your respect.
You can't respect what you don't understand. Perhaps seek first to understand your potential partner, in a way that you can only arrive at through deep and personal conversation. Then you'll both know if she's truly deserving of your respect.
> I would walk right past her to go spend time with the girl of my obsession
It sounds like you're already aware of this, but that's got to be unsustainable (let alone un-reciprocated).
It sounds like you're already aware of this, but that's got to be unsustainable (let alone un-reciprocated).
This is classic codependent behavior.
Wow. That was quite something.
I too looked at the pretty women. But in forty years of marriage I never once took it even half a step further. I think my wife was secure in the knowledge that I really was only looking.
I too looked at the pretty women. But in forty years of marriage I never once took it even half a step further. I think my wife was secure in the knowledge that I really was only looking.
Women also look at the pretty men.
Is that a comeback? I believe research finds that men are more visually attracted than women, and certainly our society emphasizes female beauty orders of magnitude beyond it's consideration for male beauty.
But all that is irrelevant. The question is never about general classes of billions of people, but about two specific individuals: Does person A look, and does person B care, and vice versa?
But all that is irrelevant. The question is never about general classes of billions of people, but about two specific individuals: Does person A look, and does person B care, and vice versa?
Is that a comeback?
From what I've seen, it's a statement of fact. Men do it more. Women still also do it.
From what I've seen, it's a statement of fact. Men do it more. Women still also do it.
Certainly some women do it.
Yes, so just like some men do it.
The old biogical gender stereotypes of lustful males and "innocent" women are a bit long in the tooth. The biological genders are not that different, with lustful women and "innocent" men just as likely but all forced to fit a single mold.
The old biogical gender stereotypes of lustful males and "innocent" women are a bit long in the tooth. The biological genders are not that different, with lustful women and "innocent" men just as likely but all forced to fit a single mold.
Men and women being held as exactly the same for ideological reasons is just as foolish as Victorian rangers killing all the wolves, because wolves are bad. There are clearly biological differences on average, or in some cases, in an overwhelming majority of cases.
But to your point, women certainly aren't fundamentally innocent.
But to your point, women certainly aren't fundamentally innocent.
Differences in male and female behavior being attributed to biological differences is just as foolish as considering the world flat, because "that's what we know is true". Males and females are known to take on similar activities and exhibit similar behaviors, showing that the stereotypical behaviors were not caused by the underlying biology.
But yes, there are certainly biological differences.
(Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.)
But yes, there are certainly biological differences.
(Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.)
Differences in male and female behavior being attributed to biological differences is just as foolish as considering the world flat
I think you need to look in the mirror for flat-earth-esque attributes there. (Or maybe young earth is a better analogy?) Are you saying all biology citing male-female differences in animals is also false? Or are you saying that human are somehow exempt because of our intelligence?
Smells like ideological wishing!
(Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.)
You're missing a key point of the analogy here. Left as a self-awareness exercise to the student.
I think you need to look in the mirror for flat-earth-esque attributes there. (Or maybe young earth is a better analogy?) Are you saying all biology citing male-female differences in animals is also false? Or are you saying that human are somehow exempt because of our intelligence?
Smells like ideological wishing!
(Apologies for copying your style of argument, I couldn't help myself.)
You're missing a key point of the analogy here. Left as a self-awareness exercise to the student.
If you are using the presence of differences not related to ours in other species as proof that our common differences in our behavior is biological, then it's going to be uphill from here.
Animal behaviors are all over the place. E.g., lionesses being the hunters, female apes reversing their rear ends into the faces of every male in the group until one bites, birds where the male is usually responsible for the chicks, female insects being much larger and eating the male, female fish absorbing the entire male to become a permanent part of their body, and animals that can change their sex at will. Unless you feel a need to groom your friends fur for bugs to eat, I wouldn't use other species as models for human behavior.
---
There are biological differences between the sexes, but when both sexes exhibit same behavior and preferences (even if numbers differ) despite positive enforcement of stereotypical behavior and preferences, then that is pretty conclusive evidence contrary to those being biological in nature.
The differences will at most, introduce a bias in the distribution. Similar to the other arguments about sports.
---
Now, as a fun exercise, try reading just these last two paragraphs between the lines, and see how the snarkiness at the beginning of my comment added nothing substantial but just detracted from the argument, making you upset and unreceptive from the start. This was the same I was trying to (but failed) to exemplify when I copied the format of your previous comment. Right or wrong, it doesn't help get a message across.
Either way, that's all from here. Have a nice day.
Animal behaviors are all over the place. E.g., lionesses being the hunters, female apes reversing their rear ends into the faces of every male in the group until one bites, birds where the male is usually responsible for the chicks, female insects being much larger and eating the male, female fish absorbing the entire male to become a permanent part of their body, and animals that can change their sex at will. Unless you feel a need to groom your friends fur for bugs to eat, I wouldn't use other species as models for human behavior.
---
There are biological differences between the sexes, but when both sexes exhibit same behavior and preferences (even if numbers differ) despite positive enforcement of stereotypical behavior and preferences, then that is pretty conclusive evidence contrary to those being biological in nature.
The differences will at most, introduce a bias in the distribution. Similar to the other arguments about sports.
---
Now, as a fun exercise, try reading just these last two paragraphs between the lines, and see how the snarkiness at the beginning of my comment added nothing substantial but just detracted from the argument, making you upset and unreceptive from the start. This was the same I was trying to (but failed) to exemplify when I copied the format of your previous comment. Right or wrong, it doesn't help get a message across.
Either way, that's all from here. Have a nice day.
Animal behaviors are all over the place. E.g., lionesses being the hunters, female apes reversing their rear ends into the faces of every male in the group until one bites, birds where the male
Arrgh. No, human behaviors don't have to be the same across species. Who in their right mind holds THAT opinion!?
Okay lose big points for good faith and intellectual honesty.
The differences will at most, introduce a bias in the distribution.
Sure!
Now, as a fun exercise, try reading just these last two paragraphs between the lines, and see how the snarkiness at the beginning of my comment added nothing substantial but just detracted from the argument, making you upset and unreceptive from the start.
You seriously need a mirror. Project much?
This was the same I was trying to (but failed) to exemplify when I copied the format of your previous comment. Right or wrong, it doesn't help get a message across.
Arrgh. Would you please go back and re-read!? Please try and find your projection! What you phrase of mine as an "argument," isn't, and shows exactly where you're making it!
Basically, you projected me saying something was your position, then mistakenly proceeded whatever this stuff above was.
Arrgh. No, human behaviors don't have to be the same across species. Who in their right mind holds THAT opinion!?
Okay lose big points for good faith and intellectual honesty.
The differences will at most, introduce a bias in the distribution.
Sure!
Now, as a fun exercise, try reading just these last two paragraphs between the lines, and see how the snarkiness at the beginning of my comment added nothing substantial but just detracted from the argument, making you upset and unreceptive from the start.
You seriously need a mirror. Project much?
This was the same I was trying to (but failed) to exemplify when I copied the format of your previous comment. Right or wrong, it doesn't help get a message across.
Arrgh. Would you please go back and re-read!? Please try and find your projection! What you phrase of mine as an "argument," isn't, and shows exactly where you're making it!
Basically, you projected me saying something was your position, then mistakenly proceeded whatever this stuff above was.
Women also have better peripheral vision.
This is a myth, often mixed with myths around color blindness and color vision.
For peripheral vision, it's important to note that only the fovea - a tiny dot at the very center of our vision covering 1.5 degrees field of view - has the ability to resolve details and strong color. The rest is an out-of-focus, low-resolution, monochrome mess: at 6 degrees you're at a quarter visual acuity, and at 30 degrees (1/16th acuity) things start to fall off even faster.
Note that our vision is not like looking through camera - you think your peripheral vision has color and detail because your visual cortex fills it in with its representation of what it saw or expects to see.
Even if women had more rod cells in their peripheral vision (either from more cells in total or fewer cells in the important fovea), they'd just get slightly higher resolution out-of-focus monochrome. To cure the blurriness, their cornea and lens would need to be vastly different.
For color vision, biological males (usually) only have one X chromosome, and mutations to cone cell related genes is "fatal": if it mutates slightly it just offsets color sensitivity, if it mutates too much it may cause a loss of sensitivity to a primary color altogether.
Biological females (usually) have two X chromosomes that each contain the necessary genes. If one mutates, it only a affects some cone cells. If it mutates slightly, you get tetrachromacy - sensitivity to a fourth primary color and stronger color perception at the cost of some light sensitivity to the original primary color. If it mutates fatally, it just means lost light sensitivity for that color - not lost color perception. This is not too dissimilar to how we became trichromatic - red and green are very close in the spectrum because one is likely just an old mutation of the other.
Biological males and females have differences, but they are rarely "males are better than females at X" or vice versa.
For peripheral vision, it's important to note that only the fovea - a tiny dot at the very center of our vision covering 1.5 degrees field of view - has the ability to resolve details and strong color. The rest is an out-of-focus, low-resolution, monochrome mess: at 6 degrees you're at a quarter visual acuity, and at 30 degrees (1/16th acuity) things start to fall off even faster.
Note that our vision is not like looking through camera - you think your peripheral vision has color and detail because your visual cortex fills it in with its representation of what it saw or expects to see.
Even if women had more rod cells in their peripheral vision (either from more cells in total or fewer cells in the important fovea), they'd just get slightly higher resolution out-of-focus monochrome. To cure the blurriness, their cornea and lens would need to be vastly different.
For color vision, biological males (usually) only have one X chromosome, and mutations to cone cell related genes is "fatal": if it mutates slightly it just offsets color sensitivity, if it mutates too much it may cause a loss of sensitivity to a primary color altogether.
Biological females (usually) have two X chromosomes that each contain the necessary genes. If one mutates, it only a affects some cone cells. If it mutates slightly, you get tetrachromacy - sensitivity to a fourth primary color and stronger color perception at the cost of some light sensitivity to the original primary color. If it mutates fatally, it just means lost light sensitivity for that color - not lost color perception. This is not too dissimilar to how we became trichromatic - red and green are very close in the spectrum because one is likely just an old mutation of the other.
Biological males and females have differences, but they are rarely "males are better than females at X" or vice versa.
Biological males and females have differences, but they are rarely "males are better than females at X" or vice versa.
At the upper long tail, biological males are better at basketball and tennis, for just two examples.
At the upper long tail, biological males are better at basketball and tennis, for just two examples.
Biological males are not better at basketball and tennis. Being exceptional at basketball seems to require being tall, and being exceptional at tennis seems to require a strong upper body, and having a greater representation of a gender will increase the likelihood that their outliers are in the set - and highly competitive sports are solely for outliers.
Being a male does not make you tall, it makes you somewhat more likely to be tall. But being a male doesn't change that I'd get sore neck talking up to female basketball players like Margo Dydek (218cm) and be absolutely destroyed in a match, or the fact the worlds tallest woman at 247cm would have made the average male look like a child.
Being male does not make you strong, but it gives you a slight advantage in growing strong (possibly including higher chance of experiencing a childhood that was more conductive to early muscle and bone growth). But being a male doesn't change that athletic and muscular sportswomen would consider my otherwise decent rather pathetic, and that no amount of dedicating my life to the cause would ever get me near the levels of a peak sportswoman.
Greater chance to have been born an outlier, not a benefit to the majority that weren't. Averages are misleading.
Being a male does not make you tall, it makes you somewhat more likely to be tall. But being a male doesn't change that I'd get sore neck talking up to female basketball players like Margo Dydek (218cm) and be absolutely destroyed in a match, or the fact the worlds tallest woman at 247cm would have made the average male look like a child.
Being male does not make you strong, but it gives you a slight advantage in growing strong (possibly including higher chance of experiencing a childhood that was more conductive to early muscle and bone growth). But being a male doesn't change that athletic and muscular sportswomen would consider my otherwise decent rather pathetic, and that no amount of dedicating my life to the cause would ever get me near the levels of a peak sportswoman.
Greater chance to have been born an outlier, not a benefit to the majority that weren't. Averages are misleading.
What is the overlap? That is, what percentage of women are equally as strong as some significant percentage of men? If it's 5%, that's much different than 25% or 50%.
I'm pretty sure it depends on which muscles we're talking about. Lower body is more equal than upper body, and I expect it's much more specific than that.
I'm pretty sure it depends on which muscles we're talking about. Lower body is more equal than upper body, and I expect it's much more specific than that.
> Biological males are not better at basketball and tennis.
Yup, for sure, you're not in a divorced from reality bubble.
Yup, for sure, you're not in a divorced from reality bubble.
Just FYI: reading your replies in this comment section is exhausting. It's like you try to be unpleasant to interact with.
Desire does run both ways. Ask any woman about Chris Hemsworth or Dwayne Johnson or any number of other affluent men.
It's always been fascinating to me personally how much literature flirts with the concept of polyamory but just never quite gets there (obviously non-monogamous relationships have existed since time immortal, but polyamory as a word and defined concept didn't really come around until the 1990s).
On an abstract level (I read it quickly so apologies if I missed cues), it feels like they have at least a somewhat functional relationship outside of the usual concerns of insecure attachment, freedom and jealousy. Perhaps if they had a better framework available for dealing with those concerns, they would have had a relationship that worked better for them.
On an abstract level (I read it quickly so apologies if I missed cues), it feels like they have at least a somewhat functional relationship outside of the usual concerns of insecure attachment, freedom and jealousy. Perhaps if they had a better framework available for dealing with those concerns, they would have had a relationship that worked better for them.
English-language literature maybe. But for example it was quite common until recent decades for upper-class French men (even politicians) to have mistresses quite openly and a lot of French literature deals with this.
Polyamory is just thinly veiled male cheating. Woman of course cheat too, but it's more strategic, if I get a second child from figure b, my social support network would stabilize. It's less about gene spreading, more about keeping already walking genes alive.
Here is a great 1989 recording of "The Girls in Summer Dresses" read by Canadian actor Jonathan Frid who played the reluctant, guilt-ridden vampire Barnabas Collins on the TV soap opera "Dark Shadows."
https://youtu.be/qI2Fe1f3BGU?si=1xPO-ISTyGzIyhvb
https://youtu.be/qI2Fe1f3BGU?si=1xPO-ISTyGzIyhvb
I like how they dance around whether they're going to "talk about the thing" but they eventually work their way all the way to Mike admitting he might one day actually physically cheat, which, aside from his open gawking, seems to be the deep tension in their relationship.
And then they end by going back to their coping mechanism of a busy social calendar that distracts them from having to fully be present in their own relationship.
And then they end by going back to their coping mechanism of a busy social calendar that distracts them from having to fully be present in their own relationship.
A nice short story.
Some things never change - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distracted_boyfriend
Some things never change - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distracted_boyfriend
Charlie Chaplin - Clip from Pay Day ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_Day_(1922_film) ) https://youtu.be/evU2Hbs9JJM
Huh! Did not expect to see Irwin Shaw on HN in a million years. Bread Upon the Waters is arguably his best work. Please give it a read if you have plenty of time to kill. Very long & engrossing. Basically, its a novel-length version of rayiner's rants, but way more entertaining. You realize why family-first is good, individualism bad, what happens if you substitute material success for family stability, etc. etc. - old fashioned moralizing in a convincing package. Cast your Bread Upon the Waters, for you will find it after many days. Not.
Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly (I'm not very good at these things), but I enjoyed what I perceived to be a movement of power in the relationship - at the beginning of the story, the wife appears to be the boss, but by the end of it she's reduced to begging to keep the relationship - the power balance has shifted (or been revealed for what it really was).
Will be singing this song all day: https://youtu.be/l_ownVNxioc
whalesalad(4)
A young married couple are lying in bed after making love. The young wife turns to her husband and says "Darling, if I died, would you marry again?"
The husband frowns and responds "Well, I've not thought about that, but I expect after a suitable period of mourning I may marry again".
The wife is less than pleased with his answer. "I see. Would you move into this house?"
"Why, probably. Yes"
Further incensed the young wife says "Oh! Would you let her sit in my favourite chair? Would you let her sleep on my side of the bed? WOULD YOU GIVE HER ALL MY THINGS, EVEN MY GOLF CLUBS?"
He replies "Not your golf clubs, she's left handed"