From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Fri May 31 2002 - 11:14:54 MDT
On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 02:11, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> I find a claim that women talk men into going to the city,
> against the better financial judgement of men, because women
> don't have to foot the bill to be pretty sexist. It makes a
> huge generalization that is demonstrably false regarding women
> wanting to go to the city more often and in women not caring
> about financial realities and in women not having to foot the
> bill. If you can't see that is out of line then I am sorry.
> But I believe it certainly is.
My hypothesis was only premised on two things:
1) Women have a significant preferential bias for urban living.
2) Men don't have a similar preferential bias.
Everything else I wrote follows from that. These premises are based on
what I have observed to be a fairly uniform pattern throughout all the
places I've lived. If I hadn't noticed the differences in behavior I
posit above, I wouldn't have even mentioned it. I never stated and
generally don't believe that men have better financial judgment than
women, but that any difference in bias will make one more price
sensitive than the other due to the difference between genders with
respect to their internal locale valuation algorithms.
I would normally be concerned that I had inadvertently posted something
stupid based on the initial negative reaction. However, since I
originally posted the "controversial" email, I've received a number of
off-list emails from women (and men) that essentially agree with my
hypothesis, some of which offered fairly lucid expansion on what I
originally wrote (it is a shame that posts of that quality didn't show
up on the extropians list). In fact, other than the one-liner negative
responses from you and Harvey, the feedback has been all positive.
Cheers,
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:32 MST