The He-cession
What pray tell raises your suspicion? I am all for skepticism, it's healthy. But I can't stand intellectual laziness wherein one doesn't bother to specify or address one's cause for doubt.
But supposing the data were true, what then? Does it alter you perspective, does it enlighten you as to the ailments of our times?
If you don't give evidence, then there probably isn't evidence. Too, just because you throw numbers out doesn't make them correct. It's not uncommon for people to misrepresent actual studies for their own agenda.
The real trouble is just that there is no evidence for this. And this is an opinion article.
And opinions are worthless.
Not anymore they aren't. People can get a blog full of opinions going and have some top notch coporate sponsors and reel in a fuckton of money.
My opinion is that I'm not going to read that article anyway.
thanks for sharing.blackhawk tactical pants.
— Spambot
"I could have done worse!" exultantly cried the murderer Lebret, sentenced at Rouen to hard labor for life. — Félix Fénéon
And after all that, at the end of the day, we're expected to let you put your MAN THING in our LADY PLACE.
or at the very least put our MAN THING in your LADY FACE.
There is so much dumb in that article I dont know where to begin............
Why can't the men who are complaining bite the bullet and gets nursing or education jobs?
Or why can't they eat cake?
Nursing and education are noble service jobs, but there aren't enough to replace all the men and those jobs aren't for everybody. Particularly men whose acumen is labor and working with their hands.
I know. Let them read books. Right?
this just shows that men are the cause of their own problem then.
beggars can't be choosers although many do try.
soo if men are really concerned on being able to financially support themselves they can swallow their pride and take whatever job they can.
but if they can't swallow their pride then by all means let them eat cake.
You're still making it an us vs. them thing, which it isn't. Remember, if men start taking nursing jobs then there won't be more nursing jobs, just more unemployed women. The unemployment will remain the same, which affects everyone.
"take whatever job they can get" - when you've worked manufacturing for a decade or more and you get laid off, no job may be available. At least, not one that you're qualified for and rakes in enough to pay the mortgage.
Women and children knew deep in themselves that no misfortune was too great to bear if their men were whole. - John Steinbeck
"[B]eing good is a fearful occupation; men strain at it and sometimes break in two." - Ray Bradbury
Who even still cares about this anyway? There's real news going on right now. The hee-heee-cession!
Pure comic genius, Ritt. hahahaha
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ you.
Ritt: B-Grade Nathanial Parker. For when you can't afford the Real Thing.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Nice! A promotion!
Why can't the men who are complaining bite the bullet and gets nursing or education jobs?
Or why can't they eat cake?
Nursing and education are noble service jobs, but there aren't enough to replace all the men and those jobs aren't for everybody. Particularly men whose acumen is labor and working with their hands.
I know. Let them read books. Right?
this just shows that men are the cause of their own problem then.
beggars can't be choosers although many do try.
soo if men are really concerned on being able to financially support themselves they can swallow their pride and take whatever job they can.
but if they can't swallow their pride then by all means let them eat cake.
You're still making it an us vs. them thing, which it isn't. Remember, if men start taking nursing jobs then there won't be more nursing jobs, just more unemployed women. The unemployment will remain the same, which affects everyone.
"take whatever job they can get" - when you've worked manufacturing for a decade or more and you get laid off, no job may be available. At least, not one that you're qualified for and rakes in enough to pay the mortgage.
Women and children knew deep in themselves that no misfortune was too great to bear if their men were whole. - John Steinbeck
i'm not making it an us vs them it is called a he-cession so obviously men need to get their shit together and go back to school or something and swallow their pride if they can't pay the mortgage instead of killing their families and themselves because they are too embarrassed hopeless to make things work. you have to make sacrifices and compromises and if you're not willing to do that then by all means let the he-cession continue. And maybe you should reread Steinbeck's quote over and over and over again. Once again i have to add you are not your job!
What say you?
The He-cession's Raw Deal by David Paul Kuhn
I say where's Tyler Durden when you need him?
I say, Tyler isn't real
ejrathke wrote:
>>If you don't give evidence, then there probably isn't evidence.<<
No. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
No pray tell, what could possibly be one's dispute with this data? That the averages are untrue?
>>It's not uncommon for people to misrepresent actual studies for their own agenda.<<
What possible agenda could there be to post false averages that could be easily contradicted with the correct averages?
Again, you could hold this data to be true and still hold your position that "you don't give a rip". But don't state you "don't give a rip", because you think the data is misrepresented unless you have evidence to support that claim.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
The burden of proof is usually on the accuser.
No kidding.
It's called the preponderance of the evidence.
This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.
I posted the graph that demonstrates the gap in male unemployment over female unemployment. Thus the probability or accuracy of the claim that more males are unemployed than females is LIKELY.
It's nothing short of amazing that that fact is in contention.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
No. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
If you believe this then there's just no hope for you. And i fail to be impressed that they put up a graph. A graph without citation is just a bunch of lines.
>>If you believe this then there's just no hope for you.<<
Quite the contrary.
The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true. -- Irving Copi
>>And i fail to be impressed that they put up a graph. A graph without citation is just a bunch of lines.<<
Again, why would the lack of a "citation" (it is a graph of the known, listed, and verifiable unemployment averages over the last few years, what possible citation could you be looking for?) constitute it being false?
In your head,
Lack of citation = false data
Why? How do you know simply based on the lack of citation?
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
I'd reason that it may be because you are impaired.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
And after all that, at the end of the day, we're expected to let you put your MAN THING in our LADY PLACE.
I'm afraid the two of you suffer from the misconception that because the claim that this Great Recession is disproportionately affecting males more so than females that proponents must advocate the subjugation of females by males.
False.
The oppression of females by males in pre-war and post-war industrial society was as unjust as is today's predicament.
Modern industrial society is founded upon competition for resources. While competition for resources is prevalent in nature, homo sapiens accommodated for this reality for eons prior to the advent of industry by cooperating amongst one another.
Conversely, modern industrial society has us in a state of constant competition. Culture wars, gender wars, land wars, oil wars, etc. Each faction attempting impose its will on others so as to secure its power at the expense of its opponents'.
All today's Great Recession is is the pendulum swinging the other way.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
No kidding.
It's called the preponderance of the evidence.
This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.
I posted the graph that demonstrates the gap in male unemployment over female unemployment. Thus the probability or accuracy of the claim that more males are unemployed than females is LIKELY.
It's nothing short of amazing that that fact is in contention.
You seem to know HOW it works, but unable to understand how to actually implement it.
... the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy,
Convincing is the key word here. You're just pulling these numbers out of thin air as far as anyone can tell. Are you supposing that that person blog is source enough that it is all factually checked and double-checked? Lack of citation doesn't not necessarily mean false data. What it does mean is unverified data.
Do you believe everything you read? Why should we just accept these accusations that you ...oops, my bad, david paul kuhn presents? I don't know the guy from Adam and I'm just going to take whatever dribbles off his keyboard as gospel? Not bloody likely!
It just so happens that I have spent the last FOUR years studying this exact topic and have laboriously compiled my own graph that irrefutably shows your graph is wrong.
There. Argument over. That shows CONCLUSIVELY that, yes, there was a large dip in the employment but that it has completely regained ground and leveled off. Your graph is WRONG, mine is the CORRECT graph.
Lack of citation does not inherently equal falseness. It does, however, render the graphs and numbers you give as facts useless in any real sense for purposes of this discussion. Simply: "Unemployment averages over the last few years" according to whom? David Paul Kuhn? You? My aunt Wilma? It is customary - required, in fact - to cite a reference in a case such as this. Quotes are attributed. Data are cited.
Example:
"Source: Beaureau of Labor Statistics."
The graph in Mr. Kuhn's article is uncited, thus one cannot take its points as "known" or "verifiable". It may as well be regarded completely fabricated unless one takes your word (or, presumably, David Paul Kuhn's) for its accuracy.
Now. As to "what say I" in re: "Tyler Durden is apparently out of work and very much pissed at his mum about that", I would point out first that Mr. Durden was himself a symptom of psychosis brought about in part or whole by the prolonged sleep-deprivation and sexual ambivalence and/or frustration on the part of The Narrator, a fictional character. Further, I would add that, contrary to any perceived "message" of the novel Fight Club, the problem at hand is not so much a result of being a "generation raised by women", but may be - specifically regarding your male/female unemployment dichotomy - caused in-part by the continued clinging to traditional job roles by too-large a percentage of the male population, as was suggested earlier. Again, the data presented is insufficient to provide a fully satisfactory answer and the arguments in David Paul Kuhn's editorial are not compelling enough to be taken as gospel.
If we do accept that men are losing jobs at a higher rate than women, and they may well be, then what? Isn't that their problem? What do we learn from this? That there remain a great many whiners who continue to look for scapegoats rather than deal with and fix their own problems?
Lastly, varied opinion is encouraged at chuckpalahniuk.net, but personal attacks and ad hominem childishness of the sort you have inserted into this thread are not. If you cannot continue without further name-calling, I suggest you find a forum that would welcome you.
This is why we can't have nice things.
As usual, Nate is faster and better.
This is why we can't have nice things.
MY GRAPH IS WINNAR!
Damn right.
This is why we can't have nice things.
In all fairness it looks like you took the time to read the article and provide valid well-thought out arguments against it with some moderate research into the matter. Whereas i never even clicked the linked and just based my post on everyone's reaction to it and drew some red and blue lines on an empty graph chart. So, ultimately, i think there were no winners.
now get to work.
I'm afraid your economic illiteracy is showing.
Unemployment data for the U.S. can only come from the Department of Labor. While it is unfortunate that the graph listed in the article isn't properly attributed, it is more LIKELY to be an editing error than it is to be an agenda driven falsehood. Particularly since the author within the article writes:
By 1982, men's annual average unemployment rate surpassed women's for the first time, according to Bureau of Labor data.
And it is verifiable: Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
This proves that any suspicion of the data is unfounded and likely attributed to this online community's rose colored lenses.
>>The graph in Mr. Kuhn's article is uncited, thus one cannot take its points as "known" or "verifiable".<<
Yes you can. If you are skeptical of the evidence, then you need to put it to the test. The preponderance of evidence has been listed, if you refuse to believe it or acknowledge it then you ought to be able to state why, and not simply because, "I don't like authors whom list their middle name."
This is intellectually lazy. Which appears common on these boards.
>>caused in-part by the continued clinging to traditional job roles by too-large a percentage of the male population, as was suggested earlier.<<
Of course. The only reason hospitals and schools are constructed at all, is because it is a "traditional" occupation.
The human species, and men in particular need goals. And nothing is quite more verifiable in achievement than material achievement. And nothing is more material than a large building, or a fixed vehicle, or completed widget.
The lack of such goals and validity usually renders the human species bored, and doomed to frequent online communities wherein he can don a clever avatar that will express to others how "clever" he is.
>>Again, the data presented is insufficient to provide a fully satisfactory answer and the arguments in David Paul Kuhn's editorial are not compelling enough to be taken as gospel.<<
Opinions vary. And the ones from people whom wear rose-colored lenses are the worst. But at least they think themselves clever.
>>Isn't that their problem?<<
Of course. Let them eat cake.
And when they HAD jobs as waiters, tire changers, movie projector handlers, chauffeurs, and launderers...that was also their problem. They should of studied more, or at least cheated on their exams more.
>>but personal attacks and ad hominem childishness of the sort you have inserted into this thread are not.<<
People respond in kind, "Tuffy". If you would kindly re-read the thread, you would notice that my welcome here was well short of welcoming.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
In all fairness, you dare accuse me of "believing everything I read" wherein you "sheepishly" (you know what context I am using that in) decide to follow suit based on the reactions of others?
That takes some Cheney sized testicles.
Or Bush sized aptitude.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
I assure you, nate's testicles are much larger than Lon Cheney's. I don't even know what he has to do with this conversation.
I think we can all agree he was the best Phantom, though.
This proves that any suspicion of the data is unfounded and likely attributed to this online community's rose colored lenses.
No, it shows that it only took you over a week and damn near a hundred replies to finally, at long last, do the simple homework details that even a sixth-grader is schooled in.
>The graph in Mr. Kuhn's article is uncited, thus one cannot take its points as "known" or "verifiable".<
Yes you can. If you are skeptical of the evidence, then you need to put it to the test. The preponderance of evidence has been listed, if you refuse to believe it or acknowledge it then you ought to be able to state why, and not simply because, "I don't like authors whom list their middle name."
This is intellectually lazy. Which appears common on these boards.
If it seems intellectually lazy it is only in response to the lazy writing. YOU started this thread and posited the idea. Therefore, YOU are the one that needs to convince of us anything. Why should any of us care one way or the other on any topic someone posts unless they give some valid arguments to go back and forth with? Dumping a blog with uncited sources is akin to posting a link to a Cracked.com page and saying it's truth.
You've brought a rubber knife to a gunfight.
Edit: fuckit. I give up on trying to format all of that right.
edit: that should fix it, i think. -glamhoth
In all fairness, you dare accuse me of "believing everything I read" wherein you "sheepishly" (you know what context I am using that in) decide to follow suit based on the reactions of others?
That takes some Cheney sized testicles.
Or Bush sized aptitude.
No, it shows that it only took you over a week and damn near a hundred replies to finally, at long last, do the simple homework details that even a sixth-grader is schooled in.
You are obtuse one aren't you? You'd have made a great Republican.
The article already lists within it exactly where the data comes from. Of course if you actually read the article for yourself...maybe you wouldn't look like such a jackass right now.
>>Dumping a blog with uncited sources<<
1. It's not a blog, genius. It's a syndicated column.
2. It's sources are cited, within the article, it is unfortunate that the graphic that accompanies the editorial doesn't include unambiguously where the data comes from. But that still isn't any reason to dismiss it out of hand.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
No, it shows that it only took you over a week and damn near a hundred replies to finally, at long last, do the simple homework details that even a sixth-grader is schooled in.
You are obtuse one aren't you? You'd have made a great Republican.
The article already lists within it exactly where the data comes from. Of course if you actually read the article for yourself...maybe you wouldn't look like such a jackass right now.
>>Dumping a blog with uncited sources<<
1. It's not a blog, genius. It's a syndicated column.
2. Its sources are cited, within the article, it is unfortunate that the graphic that accompanies the editorial doesn't include unambiguously where the data comes from. But that still isn't any reason to dismiss it out of hand. If the data was questionable, one needs to state why it is questionable.
It took a week to finally get the real objection, because it took a week.
There still isn't a substantive argument because there has only been a pedestrian attempt to address the thesis.
This is bound to happen when posters don't bother to read but impulsively state, "who the hell is David Paul Kuhn?"
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
[bearchaser=] Nate's not obtuse, he's acutey [/bearchaser]
This is bound to happen when posters don't bother to read but impulsively state, "who the hell is David Paul Kuhn?"
such a seemingly simple question right off the bat and yet we still have no answer.
This is bound to happen when posters don't bother to read but impulsively state, "who the hell is David Paul Kuhn?"
such a seemingly simple question right off the bat and yet we still have no answer.
Irony:
To be accused of arguing ad hominem when the first post is,
"who the hell is david paul kuhn?"
The reason why it hasn't been answered Nate, and please read this slowly:
It is irrelevant to the thesis.
You may want to use a dictionary, but that is as simple as I can state it.
Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
This is bound to happen when posters don't bother to read but impulsively state, "who the hell is David Paul Kuhn?"
such a seemingly simple question right off the bat and yet we still have no answer.
Irony:
To be accused of arguing ad hominem when the first post is,
"who the hell is david paul kuhn?"
The reason why it hasn't been answered Nate, and please read this slowly:
It is irrelevant to the thesis.
You may want to use a dictionary, but that is as simple as I can state it.
It isn't relevant? He wrote the damn thesis that we're supposed to be talking about. How the hell is that not relevant?
It's you isn't it?
Seriously? Why men in particular? Oh you're right. Because my goals, as a woman, simply include baking pies and making babies? This comment is assinine and offensive.
The oppression of females by males in pre-war and post-war industrial society was as unjust as is today's predicament.
What planet are you living on? I am, in no way, trying to turn this into a feminist or anti-man discussion, and I'm just gonna' say my piece and let the more on-topic discussion continue, but really..... Let's say your info is accurate. Please tell me how men pwning the unemployment rate is IN ANY WAY equal to the historical treatment of women.
Also - you say you didn't get a very good welcome.... This isn't the place for it. You want a welcome, go to the new member's forum and post an intro.
/endrant
The reason why it hasn't been answered Nate, and please read this slowly:
It is irrelevant to the thesis.
Or Bush sized aptitude.
I don't know how you guys can even read the thing and start arguing the stuff inside it.
This turkey doesn't even get off the ground high enough to shoot at for me.
Remember the good ol' days when the womens just shut up and fixed our dinner after a long, hard day of man work?