//why don't people come over for dinner parties :-(
We talked about the volume of blood in Blue Whale's menstruation and made no less then 3 "Red Tide" jokes last time we hung out. You can invite as many people over as you want. No one wants punch after that conversation.
... "declining frequency of ejaculation" hypothesis as a significant contributing factor to the decline in sperm quality over time...
The decline in sperm quality has more to do with the inability to swim straight and number of sperm per ejaculation. Then it does the quality of the genetic material. Still, I will keep with my "ultra-frequent auto-ejaculatory routine" just to be safe.
So anyway, to get sorta on topic, would do you think is the societal or evolutionary advantage to have vapid wives (or husbands)?
Well, as my mom puts it, there are 3 categories of people. The Zombies, the Sheep, and Us. The zombies are the bottom third of the IQ range. The sheep are the middle of the IQ range. The "us" are the top third of the IQ range. The zombies are pretty much useless. The sheep do what they're supposed to and get jobs and have families because they are supposed to. Because that's what you do. The "us" people do their jobs and maybe have families, but they have all this brain left over for pursuing hobbies and various geekeries.
Last time I checked, 2/3 > 1/3. Thus, it is easier to find mates among the zombies and sheep than to look solely among the us. So maybe the reason a lot of people have vapid spouses is that a lot of people are vapid.
You have to find a mate in order to reproduce...so those that settled for what they could get probably outnumbered those that held out for someone awesome. Especially since there are 2x as many of the non-awesomes.
So anyway, to get sorta on topic, what do you think is the societal or evolutionary advantage to have vapid wives (or husbands)?
Trick question. You're assuming that there are non-vapid women.
Actually, I'm sure the evolutionary advantage of vapidity is that vapid people don't consider the consequences of their actions, so they're more prone to just do stuff. Thinking people will proceed cautiously or wait longer to get married, whereas vapid people just rush into it. They have the weight of numbers, basically. More random sex and more children produced means they've a greater likelihood of spreading their genetic material. This is purely conjecture on my part, but it seems somewhat reasonable to me.
the buffers on the ends of your thingies
Aww. It's so cute when you talk science. You're looking for "telomeres" which cap off chromosomes. They're like the caps on shoe laces, in a sense. And yes, I'm sure there is a degradation, to an extent, in the germ cells in the testes over time, which leads to a certain decline in the quality of sperm. However, I doubt it's that significant, because even if there are enough problems to cause a mistake, we still create a shit ton of sperm, so I'm willing to be that the majority is still perfectly fine.
Clearly, Scott Johnson and I need to obtain funding. For a study. Purely for science, of course.
I've known people that seemed vapid, vacuous, shallow, boring, dull, unintelligent, mean, asshole-ish, snobbish, arrogant, etc. and once I got to know them on a more intimate level there was a lot more to them and their redeeming qualities outweighed or negated their less than pleasing qualities.
Kate, no one is saying that every person that seems shallow is actually shallow. You, on the other hand, seem to be taking the stance of "No one who seems shallow is actually shallow because I know people that seemed shallow and they turned out to be okay." While that may not be what you are actually trying to say, it sounds like it is. I have known people that were every bit as horrible, boring, and self-involved as they seemed on the surface. I lived with one for a little less than a year. This is why we say "the plural of anecdote is not data."
Some people who seem shallow or vapid are indeed that way. Some are not. That's really what it comes down to.
I'm going to go out on a limb on why weddings were all the women talked about. It is usually a safe common ground. I can't honestly talk to many of my female relatives about my interests or work; their eyes glaze over and they start to just nod politely. You can try and talk about other things like politics, religion, philosophy, but that can also be a mine field just waiting to go off.
With weddings you can generally easily see if someone is wearing an engagement ring or wedding band. Its an easy visual cue without having to know anything about her and makes for really easy conversation fodder since you can just ask for the proposal story, ask how they met, etc. Wedding planning and stories tend to have similar elements as well which makes it easy for some of these women to relate to each other. There's always going to be the fantastic wedding party member that goes out of their way to help out, there's the clash of what you want vs what an overbearing relative might want, there's the struggle of figuring out finances (Oh did you know you could do X to save money? Oh yes, we did Y instead but it worked just as well!), dance music selections, themes, the horrible wedding party member, etc. Sharing those stories and struggles might make them feel like they have more in common than they actually do. They might not want to talk politics or religion, especially if someone has an opposing view and they don't want to get into a heated verbal discussion with a stranger.
I can be shy when I meet new people, particularly women. I get along much easier with men but, maybe because they seemed more interested in geekery and I can participate in those discussions easily because I feel like my knowledge gives me a better footing there. If I were going to try and get another new woman to open up I think a safe route would be the wedding story (provided you can see the easy visual cues to ask about it). Off the top of my head I can only think of one woman I know who wouldn't want to talk about her wedding but that's fine since we share geekeries.
@ Nuri: That isn't my stance at all. You have completely misunderstood me. My stance is that you shouldn't make snap judgments about people and that shallowness isn't the only personality flaw that one could complain about. I am making the case that one should gather enough data to accurately assess a person. My stance is that Rym and Emily's cursory, limited and shallow anecdotal evidence that these women are all vapid and the relationships are unhappy/unequal/doomed is insufficient.
Of course it's insufficient by itself. Shy doesn't equal shallow. It's possible they just didn't feel like opening up in an unfamiliar situation...but their observations were not limited to this one group, and the anecdote led to a broader question.
It's not about why these particular men are with these particular women who may be uninteresting. It's about a greater trend observed by many of us: people being married to people they don't like or mesh with; people wanting to be away from their spouses to the point of working late hours or making a point to constantly go out without them. This DOES happen, regardless of the depth of the spouse. It's a deeper problem than the spouse being boring.
The question is why do people marry people that they don't really want to be *with.* The answers are many. There is no one reason that works for every bad relationship, but a lot of it is because of outside pressure or perceived expectations. Another reason is that it's really freaking hard to find someone who doesn't rub you wrong in at least one way, so people settle. Also, oxytocin.
I hate to do this,(and it could be that all of the women described may be dull), but let's hold up a mirror and look at it from this perspective:
I went to my husband's work holiday party. I didn't really want to go, but it is important to him and I want to be supportive. I don't know any of these people at all and I am not tech savvy, so it is difficult to enter the conversation. Some of the other ladies were discussing their weddings, so I joined in. It isn't my favorite topic, but at least we have it in common. Anyway, I mostly kept my mouth shut as much as possible because these situations are notoriously awkward. I came to find out that a girlfriend of one of my husband's co-workers went around trashing me and all of the other women at the party. She called us boring and questioned why our husbands would want to be with us at all. I really can't get over the arrogance and presumption at such comments. I'm not into technology and video games are a sore subject for me (as my husband plays them to the exclusion of most other activities) and I wasn't particularly interested in engaging with random people at a work function. How dare someone so wholly unconnected with me question my merits as a human being and a partner?!
Another reason is that it's really freaking hard to find someone who doesn't rub you wrong in at least one way, so people settle.
I wouldn't call someone rubbing you the wrong way on occasions settling. I get annoyed at myself, so there is no way I am ever going to find another human being that doesn't annoy me on occasion. It comes down to what makes a person happy and fulfilled overall. I also think that too many people are ignorant of who they are and what they want and as such cannot accurately find a compatible person. People are also far too eager to jump into and continue relationships because they do not want to be alone, because they have kids, because they want financial stability, etc.
Kate, your personal experience does not mean that every other woman is the same as you. The reason why they "dare" to call you boring is that you were...at that particular function. If you are going to get upset about people making a judgment about you based on your behavior at a single function, then either do not go to that function or do not act that way. I mean seriously, people make preliminary judgments about people all the time. If I hang out with someone once and they are utterly disinterested in anything that goes on, is it any surprise that my first impression of them is that they are boring?
It's unrealistic to ask people not to judge anyone based on a single meeting. If I get a creepy vibe off of a guy the first time we meet, I'm going to avoid him. I'm not going to say, "well, maybe he's a really awesome guy and he's just trying too hard, and comes off as a closet rapist!" If you're worried about what other people are going to say, then step up your public performance. Otherwise, accept that people are going to talk. If you don't care enough to interact with them much, then why does their opinion of you even matter?
You sit here and say you weren't interested in getting involved, and then you get enraged at their opinions of you. You can't have it both ways; if you want someone to have the fully-informed view, then INFORM THEM. Don't expect them to make the leap for you. People will judge you based on what you present.
Indeed. I can't read your mind. If you present a boring front at a social event, I'm going to think that you're boring. It's the evidence I have in front of me, and if I don't find a scrap of something that says "this merits further investigation," I'm not going to bother investigating further. I have limited time and energy in a day, so I'm inclined to expend it in those places that will give me the most return. If you really pay attention to someone in a conversation, you can usually figure them out and gauge whether or not you think they're worthwhile. Sometimes you're wrong, but when you get good at it, you can wind up being pretty spot-on about people.
Kate, your personal experience does not mean that every other woman is the same as you. The reason why they "dare" to call you boring is that you were...at that particular function. If you are going to get upset about people making a judgment about you based on your behavior at a single function, then either do not go to that function or do not act that way. I mean seriously, people make preliminary judgments about people all the time. If I hang out with someone once and they are utterly disinterested in anything that goes on, is it any surprise that my first impression of them is that they are boring?
It's unrealistic to ask people not to judge anyone based on a single meeting. If I get a creepy vibe off of a guy the first time we meet, I'm going to avoid him. I'm not going to say, "well, maybe he's a really awesome guy and he's just trying too hard, and comes off as a closet rapist!" If you're worried about what other people are going to say, then step up your public performance. Otherwise, accept that people are going to talk. If you don't care enough to interact with them much, then why does their opinion of you even matter?
You sit here and say you weren't interested in getting involved, and then you get enraged at their opinions of you. You can't have it both ways; if you want someone to have the fully-informed view, then INFORM THEM. Don't expect them to make the leap for you. People will judge you based on what you present.
Gah, that was pretty harsh. But I feel that Nuri is correct because as a forumite, I have noticed this myself, but was reticent to say so. As a side, I'll be frank, I'm not very good at wording things, and when I try to say something or try to bring a point across, it's because of how I word it that it is misconstrued as something else or the intention behind it is misunderstood. Anyway, I didn't want to say anything because I didn't want it to come off as an insult...but I'm glad somebody did come forward and say it in a way that was both critical and honest.
I love Kate; I think she's awesome and talented, and I have a lot of fun with her. Both of us are perfectly willing to speak our minds to each other, even when it is critical. It's usually not personally critical, but conceptually critical. That's part of what makes each of us not boring...we have opinions!
I 100% agree with Nuri, but I have one other thing to add.
It seems like a lot of attention is being paid here to what topics are being discussed. There are excuses being made that a person can't say anything because the discussion is about a topic that is no good for them. To that I say, bah!
First of all, if you are averse to the topic, you can always change it. At any function there is always going to be someone who you can discuss something different with. It's a rare case where every single person present is discussing one topic with no stops, and you are effectively left alone on the side.
Second of all, a geeky person can hold an intelligent discussion about absolutely anything. I can talk about romance novels and weddings as well as I can talk about video games. There are two key strategies I have to discussing something that you know nothing about.
Strategy one is to be inquisitive. I can give you a real world example of this strategy in action. I know nothing about alcoholic beverages. I don't drink them or care about them. Yet, I was able to discuss Pete's brewing for quite awhile out of sheer curiosity. What is malt? You just put it in a bucket? How does the timing work? Do I really care about beer brewing, not so much. But I'm a geeky person who enjoys learning, period. I like to learn anything about anything. Therefore if someone knows something about something I do not know, I can converse with them via inquisition.
Strategy two is the tangent. If someone is talking about weddings, I don't have much to say directly. I can say that I think weddings are silly, and people spend too much money on them. I can say that I would just have a free wedding at the courthouse and a party in the backyard. Other than that, I'm fresh out. There's also not a lot to be inquisitive about. Weddings don't really hold any great mystery for me.
So I make a tangent that is interesting. I can toss out the wedding cakes I saw online that are shaped in various awesome, often geeky, ways. I can toss out an argument about how diamonds are evil and not actually valuable. I can always bring in some Jewish wedding discussion as well.
Even if I'm stuck in a room with people who are only discussing something I really have no interest in, like my favorite example, Romance Novels, I can still use these two strategies. When did you start reading them? Why do you like them? What's your favorite? Why is it your favorite? How much do you read? What else do you read?
Even if every person is discussing something I actively dislike, I can if I so choose, discuss it. A flamewar is easiest, but other options exist as well. Why do you like (horrible thing)? How did you discover (horrible thing)? Is there anything you would change about (horrible thing)?
If you want to hold back, there's nothing wrong with that, just know that you will be judged based on that. If you don't want to hold back, the topic of conversation not being to your liking is not a barrier to entry.
I think you guys misunderstood that Kate was pretending to be one of the vapid women that Emily was complaining about, it was not actually her life experience ;-p
Scott, If only you would humor us into going hiking :-p
Kate, your personal experience does not mean that every other woman is the same as you. The reason why they "dare" to call you boring is that you were...at that particular function. If you are going to get upset about people making a judgment about you based on your behavior at a single function, then either do not go to that function or do not act that way. I mean seriously, people make preliminary judgments about people all the time. If I hang out with someone once and they are utterly disinterested in anything that goes on, is it any surprise that my first impression of them is that they are boring?
It's unrealistic to ask people not to judge anyone based on a single meeting. If I get a creepy vibe off of a guy the first time we meet, I'm going to avoid him. I'm not going to say, "well, maybe he's a really awesome guy and he's just trying too hard, and comes off as a closet rapist!" If you're worried about what other people are going to say, then step up your public performance. Otherwise, accept that people are going to talk. If you don't care enough to interact with them much, then why does their opinion of you even matter?
You sit here and say you weren't interested in getting involved, and then you get enraged at their opinions of you. You can't have it both ways; if you want someone to have the fully-informed view, then INFORM THEM. Don't expect them to make the leap for you. People will judge you based on what you present.
THAT WASN'T MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE! That was just a possible look from the people in question's perspective. My problem is that an entire group of people are being judged based on one awkward party. This wasn't an individual analysis of each person based on meeting each one individually. First impressions can tell you a lot, but to judge an entire group of people for what could be a function of group dynamic so harshly to re-affirm an existing bias is just snobbery at best and prejudice at worst. To label them all boring is one thing. Emily was bored by them, so from her perspective they were boring. To say that they are all terrible matches for their significant others just seems wholly unsupported, nasty, condescending, and uninformed. Everything you are saying works on an individual basis. This isn't the case in the scenario presented.
long post
Part of measure is to use accurate information to make reasoned judgments that are relevant to the situation at hand. If they were dull at the party, then all one can accurately say is that they were dull at that one party. If they are dull at several parties, then all one can accurately say is that they are dull at parties. The judgments made earlier in this thread have huge assumptions and make some huge leaps that based on the information at hand there is no way they could have been supported by anything more than conjecture. Also, these are all subjective measurements. Your measure of a person and mine may be completely different. One can also take certain measure as to the person doing the judging when they are unwilling to give any benefit of doubt (or even in this case recognize that they are making a huge leap based on the limited information at hand). We all have to make certain judgments of others in order to get along in our lives. Some of these are based on who we would prefer to socialize with, do business with, who we want to be alone in dark places with, etc. Should we not approach this task with reason, fairness, and *gasp* kindness on occasion?
To say that they are all terrible matches for their significant others just seems wholly unsupported, nasty, condescending, and uninformed.
But in my life experience, this has almost always been the case. Most of the husbands at IBM seemed to hate their wives. They avoided them, and hid their hobbies from them for fear of disapproval. I lent one sad example Firefly, which he was excited to watch because his wife was out of town and couldn't stop him. These pairs, sadly, seemed to be going down the same path. If my experience with someone is nothing more than them either a) sticking only to perfectly "safe" topics or b) admonishing/diminishing their husbands-to-be whenever the conversation turns to their hobbies, then I will, based on that experience, have a low opinion of said person unless further evidence contradicts that initial impression.
To me, someone who sticks to "safe" topics and will not claim to any hobbies is boring. If that's the face they choose to present, and won't deviate from it, there's no reason to seek their company.
To me, someone who has nothing to add to a conversation but to actively diminish their partner's hobbies if ever they come up is petty. If that's how they treat their partner in public, especially considering that they're already sticking to what they consider "safe" topics, I don't even know what to think of them. It's just sad.
It' not just that they were dull. It's that, every non-crew party I ever attend has the same pattern: wives and girlfriends being safe and boring, husbands and boyfriends (and unmatched girls and guys) jumping into the conversation. This party was the rule, not the exception.
It's also not just the above, but the fact that they were so, to put it politely, passive-aggressively mean to their partners, again, the rule, not the exception. Look at how many women claim to have difficulty relating to other women, or prefer hanging around guys. Why do the female SOs seem to always be the outsiders to the social situations unless they're alone with all of the other SOs? Why do the male SOs, in the same situation, do the opposite? Why are the women always so down on their husbands' hobbies?
The real problem here isn't any particular party. It's that almost all parties I attend are like this. It's a pattern that disturbs me greatly. The only difference between all of those other parties and this one is that there is a thread about it.
@ Rym, if these women are being mean to their S.O.s (for whatever reason) and their S.O.s continually take it (for whatever reason), then it sounds like both groups are equally at fault and should be avoided. Let's not confuse the issues of them being dull (from your perspective) and them being passive aggressively mean.
Here is a scenario I have noticed in certain couples, and this is just a few personal examples and in no way means that this "data" (glares at Nuri for the constant condescension of her quip and the fact that she thinks that I think my personal experience is a rule - you should know me better than that): The couple loves each other and shares a few common interests; however, the male geek wants to be able to invest the same amount of time into his geekeries that he did in his college years, leaving little time, energy ans attention to contribute to the relationship and/or family that he professed to want and helped create. He is emotionally distant and his default status in any scenario is his geekery, not necessarily in fulfilling his responsibilities to the household or engaging with his partner in another activity. The female may or may not share the same geekeries as the male, but usually they invest less time in their geekeries, because the male has so disengaged that they bear many of the burdens of the partnership. As the male seeks out more and more time to invest in his geekeries the female feels more left out and becomes angry, needy, and aggressive.
Tome, someone who has nothing to add to a conversation but to actively diminish their partner's hobbies if ever they come up is petty. If that's how they treat their partner in public, especially considering that they're already sticking to what they consider "safe" topics, I don't even know what to think of them. It's just sad.
This is what bothers me the most. I got enough of this in high school. I see my mom do this to my dad with regards to golf. Why the hell is this socially acceptable?
Also, I don't encounter this in the science field.... Don't get me wrong, there is much talk of weddings and babies... ugh.. but at all work functions we've had with SO's they tend to be just as interesting and engaging. I think this has a lot to do with being in a field that is dominated by one gender or another. A male scientist is INFINITELY more likely to find a female who is interested in some form of science then a male IT worker is going to find a unattached female IT worker.
Face it, Science rules and all of you unlucky single tech people (I.E. Not Rym, James or Alex) are doomed to a life of singledoom or settling for a chick that doesn't care a lick about what you do as a career. HAHAHAHA, you might make triple the money of a scientist but, think about it, when you send 50 hours in a lab with a bunch of young coeds staring at sperm samples... well you know what happens next.
//my workplace is a freaking incestious pit of relationships with coworkers
Okay Kate, way to not read the rest of the thread before you got upset. Scott pointed out that it was not, in fact, your personal experience. I explained that my post didn't depend on that being YOUR personal experience. You were stepping into SOMEONE's shoes, and the things I said apply to EVERYONE. Also, in the first post where I said that, I said I realized you MAY NOT ACTUALLY FEEL THAT WAY, but it was how you were coming across. But gee, I guess what I was actually saying was OMG KATE, YOU ARE SO DUMB TO THINK YOUR STORY IS THE LAW!
Stop getting personally offended by something I didn't say. I don't think you think your own story is law in every case. However, your posts here certainly come across that way, which is what I pointed out.
It applies whether it is you, personally, or some random person I don't know: If you don't want to be judged on something, then don't put it out there. If you WANT to be judged on something, DO put it out there.
if these women are being mean to their S.O.s (for whatever reason) and their S.O.s continually take it (for whatever reason), then it sounds like both groups are equally at fault and should be avoided.
I agree entirely. There's a reason that, my true social circle consists pretty-much entirely of the FRC and my professional contacts related to GeekNights.
...text...
The disturbing thing about this trend, which I do see all the time (I believe), is that it's almost always the female who has few or no deep hobbies compared to the husband. Emily spends as much time animating and arting as I do podcasting and gaming. The idea of wanting her to do any of that less would be crazy to me.
I think the issue is only actually apparent when there is an imbalance of depth in the hobbies of a couple. If one party has deep interests into which they prefer to be engaged regularly, and the other party has more shallow interests, the latter party will inevitably feel like they're competing for time/affection/whatever, due primarily to the fact that they project their own depth of interest onto the partner, and cannot relate to the desire for more depth. e.g., consider a world where the only two possible hobbies are wine and computers. If Joe likes wine OK and computers OK, but Sue grows grapes, makes wine, attends wine conferences, and lectures regularly on wine (and likes computers OK), Joe will have difficulty understanding Sue's depth of interest, and this will lead to conflict.
Two people with similarly deep interests (even if those interests are unrelated) can get along a great deal better than two people with different depths of interest, even if the interests there are the same.
Comments
Last time I checked, 2/3 > 1/3. Thus, it is easier to find mates among the zombies and sheep than to look solely among the us. So maybe the reason a lot of people have vapid spouses is that a lot of people are vapid.
You have to find a mate in order to reproduce...so those that settled for what they could get probably outnumbered those that held out for someone awesome. Especially since there are 2x as many of the non-awesomes.
Actually, I'm sure the evolutionary advantage of vapidity is that vapid people don't consider the consequences of their actions, so they're more prone to just do stuff. Thinking people will proceed cautiously or wait longer to get married, whereas vapid people just rush into it. They have the weight of numbers, basically. More random sex and more children produced means they've a greater likelihood of spreading their genetic material. This is purely conjecture on my part, but it seems somewhat reasonable to me. Aww. It's so cute when you talk science. You're looking for "telomeres" which cap off chromosomes. They're like the caps on shoe laces, in a sense. And yes, I'm sure there is a degradation, to an extent, in the germ cells in the testes over time, which leads to a certain decline in the quality of sperm. However, I doubt it's that significant, because even if there are enough problems to cause a mistake, we still create a shit ton of sperm, so I'm willing to be that the majority is still perfectly fine.
Clearly, Scott Johnson and I need to obtain funding. For a study. Purely for science, of course.
EDIT: I hate you so much.
Some people who seem shallow or vapid are indeed that way. Some are not. That's really what it comes down to.
With weddings you can generally easily see if someone is wearing an engagement ring or wedding band. Its an easy visual cue without having to know anything about her and makes for really easy conversation fodder since you can just ask for the proposal story, ask how they met, etc. Wedding planning and stories tend to have similar elements as well which makes it easy for some of these women to relate to each other. There's always going to be the fantastic wedding party member that goes out of their way to help out, there's the clash of what you want vs what an overbearing relative might want, there's the struggle of figuring out finances (Oh did you know you could do X to save money? Oh yes, we did Y instead but it worked just as well!), dance music selections, themes, the horrible wedding party member, etc. Sharing those stories and struggles might make them feel like they have more in common than they actually do. They might not want to talk politics or religion, especially if someone has an opposing view and they don't want to get into a heated verbal discussion with a stranger.
I can be shy when I meet new people, particularly women. I get along much easier with men but, maybe because they seemed more interested in geekery and I can participate in those discussions easily because I feel like my knowledge gives me a better footing there. If I were going to try and get another new woman to open up I think a safe route would be the wedding story (provided you can see the easy visual cues to ask about it). Off the top of my head I can only think of one woman I know who wouldn't want to talk about her wedding but that's fine since we share geekeries.
My stance is that Rym and Emily's cursory, limited and shallow anecdotal evidence that these women are all vapid and the relationships are unhappy/unequal/doomed is insufficient.
It's not about why these particular men are with these particular women who may be uninteresting. It's about a greater trend observed by many of us: people being married to people they don't like or mesh with; people wanting to be away from their spouses to the point of working late hours or making a point to constantly go out without them. This DOES happen, regardless of the depth of the spouse. It's a deeper problem than the spouse being boring.
The question is why do people marry people that they don't really want to be *with.* The answers are many. There is no one reason that works for every bad relationship, but a lot of it is because of outside pressure or perceived expectations. Another reason is that it's really freaking hard to find someone who doesn't rub you wrong in at least one way, so people settle. Also, oxytocin.
I went to my husband's work holiday party. I didn't really want to go, but it is important to him and I want to be supportive. I don't know any of these people at all and I am not tech savvy, so it is difficult to enter the conversation. Some of the other ladies were discussing their weddings, so I joined in. It isn't my favorite topic, but at least we have it in common. Anyway, I mostly kept my mouth shut as much as possible because these situations are notoriously awkward. I came to find out that a girlfriend of one of my husband's co-workers went around trashing me and all of the other women at the party. She called us boring and questioned why our husbands would want to be with us at all. I really can't get over the arrogance and presumption at such comments. I'm not into technology and video games are a sore subject for me (as my husband plays them to the exclusion of most other activities) and I wasn't particularly interested in engaging with random people at a work function. How dare someone so wholly unconnected with me question my merits as a human being and a partner?! I wouldn't call someone rubbing you the wrong way on occasions settling. I get annoyed at myself, so there is no way I am ever going to find another human being that doesn't annoy me on occasion. It comes down to what makes a person happy and fulfilled overall. I also think that too many people are ignorant of who they are and what they want and as such cannot accurately find a compatible person. People are also far too eager to jump into and continue relationships because they do not want to be alone, because they have kids, because they want financial stability, etc.
It's unrealistic to ask people not to judge anyone based on a single meeting. If I get a creepy vibe off of a guy the first time we meet, I'm going to avoid him. I'm not going to say, "well, maybe he's a really awesome guy and he's just trying too hard, and comes off as a closet rapist!" If you're worried about what other people are going to say, then step up your public performance. Otherwise, accept that people are going to talk. If you don't care enough to interact with them much, then why does their opinion of you even matter?
You sit here and say you weren't interested in getting involved, and then you get enraged at their opinions of you. You can't have it both ways; if you want someone to have the fully-informed view, then INFORM THEM. Don't expect them to make the leap for you. People will judge you based on what you present.
It seems like a lot of attention is being paid here to what topics are being discussed. There are excuses being made that a person can't say anything because the discussion is about a topic that is no good for them. To that I say, bah!
First of all, if you are averse to the topic, you can always change it. At any function there is always going to be someone who you can discuss something different with. It's a rare case where every single person present is discussing one topic with no stops, and you are effectively left alone on the side.
Second of all, a geeky person can hold an intelligent discussion about absolutely anything. I can talk about romance novels and weddings as well as I can talk about video games. There are two key strategies I have to discussing something that you know nothing about.
Strategy one is to be inquisitive. I can give you a real world example of this strategy in action. I know nothing about alcoholic beverages. I don't drink them or care about them. Yet, I was able to discuss Pete's brewing for quite awhile out of sheer curiosity. What is malt? You just put it in a bucket? How does the timing work? Do I really care about beer brewing, not so much. But I'm a geeky person who enjoys learning, period. I like to learn anything about anything. Therefore if someone knows something about something I do not know, I can converse with them via inquisition.
Strategy two is the tangent. If someone is talking about weddings, I don't have much to say directly. I can say that I think weddings are silly, and people spend too much money on them. I can say that I would just have a free wedding at the courthouse and a party in the backyard. Other than that, I'm fresh out. There's also not a lot to be inquisitive about. Weddings don't really hold any great mystery for me.
So I make a tangent that is interesting. I can toss out the wedding cakes I saw online that are shaped in various awesome, often geeky, ways. I can toss out an argument about how diamonds are evil and not actually valuable. I can always bring in some Jewish wedding discussion as well.
Even if I'm stuck in a room with people who are only discussing something I really have no interest in, like my favorite example, Romance Novels, I can still use these two strategies. When did you start reading them? Why do you like them? What's your favorite? Why is it your favorite? How much do you read? What else do you read?
Even if every person is discussing something I actively dislike, I can if I so choose, discuss it. A flamewar is easiest, but other options exist as well. Why do you like (horrible thing)? How did you discover (horrible thing)? Is there anything you would change about (horrible thing)?
If you want to hold back, there's nothing wrong with that, just know that you will be judged based on that. If you don't want to hold back, the topic of conversation not being to your liking is not a barrier to entry.
Oh yeah, measure is unceasing.
Scott, If only you would humor us into going hiking :-p
That was just a possible look from the people in question's perspective.
My problem is that an entire group of people are being judged based on one awkward party. This wasn't an individual analysis of each person based on meeting each one individually. First impressions can tell you a lot, but to judge an entire group of people for what could be a function of group dynamic so harshly to re-affirm an existing bias is just snobbery at best and prejudice at worst. To label them all boring is one thing. Emily was bored by them, so from her perspective they were boring. To say that they are all terrible matches for their significant others just seems wholly unsupported, nasty, condescending, and uninformed.
Everything you are saying works on an individual basis. This isn't the case in the scenario presented. Part of measure is to use accurate information to make reasoned judgments that are relevant to the situation at hand. If they were dull at the party, then all one can accurately say is that they were dull at that one party. If they are dull at several parties, then all one can accurately say is that they are dull at parties.
The judgments made earlier in this thread have huge assumptions and make some huge leaps that based on the information at hand there is no way they could have been supported by anything more than conjecture.
Also, these are all subjective measurements. Your measure of a person and mine may be completely different. One can also take certain measure as to the person doing the judging when they are unwilling to give any benefit of doubt (or even in this case recognize that they are making a huge leap based on the limited information at hand).
We all have to make certain judgments of others in order to get along in our lives. Some of these are based on who we would prefer to socialize with, do business with, who we want to be alone in dark places with, etc. Should we not approach this task with reason, fairness, and *gasp* kindness on occasion?
To me, someone who sticks to "safe" topics and will not claim to any hobbies is boring. If that's the face they choose to present, and won't deviate from it, there's no reason to seek their company.
To me, someone who has nothing to add to a conversation but to actively diminish their partner's hobbies if ever they come up is petty. If that's how they treat their partner in public, especially considering that they're already sticking to what they consider "safe" topics, I don't even know what to think of them. It's just sad.
It' not just that they were dull. It's that, every non-crew party I ever attend has the same pattern: wives and girlfriends being safe and boring, husbands and boyfriends (and unmatched girls and guys) jumping into the conversation. This party was the rule, not the exception.
It's also not just the above, but the fact that they were so, to put it politely, passive-aggressively mean to their partners, again, the rule, not the exception. Look at how many women claim to have difficulty relating to other women, or prefer hanging around guys. Why do the female SOs seem to always be the outsiders to the social situations unless they're alone with all of the other SOs? Why do the male SOs, in the same situation, do the opposite? Why are the women always so down on their husbands' hobbies?
The real problem here isn't any particular party. It's that almost all parties I attend are like this. It's a pattern that disturbs me greatly. The only difference between all of those other parties and this one is that there is a thread about it.
Let's not confuse the issues of them being dull (from your perspective) and them being passive aggressively mean.
Here is a scenario I have noticed in certain couples, and this is just a few personal examples and in no way means that this "data" (glares at Nuri for the constant condescension of her quip and the fact that she thinks that I think my personal experience is a rule - you should know me better than that):
The couple loves each other and shares a few common interests; however, the male geek wants to be able to invest the same amount of time into his geekeries that he did in his college years, leaving little time, energy ans attention to contribute to the relationship and/or family that he professed to want and helped create. He is emotionally distant and his default status in any scenario is his geekery, not necessarily in fulfilling his responsibilities to the household or engaging with his partner in another activity. The female may or may not share the same geekeries as the male, but usually they invest less time in their geekeries, because the male has so disengaged that they bear many of the burdens of the partnership. As the male seeks out more and more time to invest in his geekeries the female feels more left out and becomes angry, needy, and aggressive.
Has anyone else noticed this situation?
Face it, Science rules and all of you unlucky single tech people (I.E. Not Rym, James or Alex) are doomed to a life of singledoom or settling for a chick that doesn't care a lick about what you do as a career. HAHAHAHA, you might make triple the money of a scientist but, think about it, when you send 50 hours in a lab with a bunch of young coeds staring at sperm samples... well you know what happens next.
//my workplace is a freaking incestious pit of relationships with coworkers
Stop getting personally offended by something I didn't say. I don't think you think your own story is law in every case. However, your posts here certainly come across that way, which is what I pointed out.
It applies whether it is you, personally, or some random person I don't know: If you don't want to be judged on something, then don't put it out there. If you WANT to be judged on something, DO put it out there.
I think the issue is only actually apparent when there is an imbalance of depth in the hobbies of a couple. If one party has deep interests into which they prefer to be engaged regularly, and the other party has more shallow interests, the latter party will inevitably feel like they're competing for time/affection/whatever, due primarily to the fact that they project their own depth of interest onto the partner, and cannot relate to the desire for more depth. e.g., consider a world where the only two possible hobbies are wine and computers. If Joe likes wine OK and computers OK, but Sue grows grapes, makes wine, attends wine conferences, and lectures regularly on wine (and likes computers OK), Joe will have difficulty understanding Sue's depth of interest, and this will lead to conflict.
Two people with similarly deep interests (even if those interests are unrelated) can get along a great deal better than two people with different depths of interest, even if the interests there are the same.