It Seems The Study Of Anthropology Makes Me A Misogynistic, Backwards Thinker.

[BigDon]

Nothing that will cheese off the moderators, I promise.

My brothers are insisting I get out more and so I've been increasing the number of social events I go to and seriously, some young women of the business professional (executive) type take offense at the oddest things.

The discussion, which I didn't even start, was on the AMC show the Walking Dead, then went to zombie apocali in general. (Anybody know the actual plural of apocalypse?)

Which then went to the subject of organizing redoubts, strong holds where people can rest a bit.

And then what *I* said was:

"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."

That's an old, old formula I've never seen refuted.

Wow, the effect was like dousing cats with ice water. They got spittin' mad. And starting putting words in my mouth and paraphrasing what I said in the worst way.

One woman got in my face, just chewing me out and expected me to back up or something. She ended up looking straight up at me, yapping like a crazy person while I looked straight down at her and I barely resisted the temptation to kiss her on the end of the nose, she was that close.

(I figured that wouldn't help my case at all.)

Who's wrong here?

Am I a lunkhead or were these women overly defensive, possible due to their corporate enviroment?

[geonuc]

Getting out and being social is overrated. Too many people take offense where none is intended.

[Noclevername]

Getting out and being social is overrated. Too many people take offense where none is intended.

As someone who hops around with at least one foot in my mouth most of the time, I second that.

[Buttercup]

Getting out and being social is overrated. Too many people take offense where none is intended.

Yeah. Or they Know Everything. Or they must be listened to (you keep quiet). Or you're beginning to enjoy a conversation and some lunkhead hones in and ruins it. :-\

However, it's no fun "sitting around staring at 4 walls" either.

[Ara Pacis]

Or you're beginning to enjoy a conversation and some lunkhead hones in and ruins it. :-\

This is so true. I've listened on conversations between women and I can agree that most are not enjoyable, so you really don't want someone ruining the few that are. :P

[caveman1917]

However, it's no fun "sitting around staring at 4 walls" either.

Isn't that why we have computer monitors now? :)

[geonuc]

And, no, you weren't wrong, at least not in principle. Humans tend to engage in sex given the opportunity.

[Ara Pacis]

Don, a man can't be right if he can be left.

[Buttercup]

My guess as a woman? She/they took offense because it seems you're placing the blame for pregnancy on the woman; as if women are more promiscuous than men.

[korjik]

My guess as a woman? She/they took offense because it seems you're placing the blame for pregnancy on the woman; as if women are more promiscuous than men.

Which is wierd, to me at least. I would think the exact opposite with that same statement, and not consider promiscuity to be a good or a bad thing. Then again, except in cases where the man needs to be converted into fertilizer, I dont think pregnancy is something you assign blame too.

The thing is to me, is that it seem that Don is implying that the offendees never even tried to refute his statement, they just went after him cause he said it.

[Nick Theodorakis]

My guess as a woman? She/they took offense because it seems you're placing the blame for pregnancy on the woman; as if women are more promiscuous than men.

To jump off Buttercup's point here: I'm not a woman, and and I don't even play one on the internet, but I can see how this can happen. There are examples, right here on this very thread, of comments that are at best insensitive and at worst misogynistic, that prove her point.

NIck

[Ara Pacis]

To jump off Buttercup's point here: I'm not a woman, and and I don't even play one on the internet, but I can see how this can happen. There are examples, right here on this very thread, of comments that are at best insensitive and at worst misogynistic, that prove her point.

NIck

Context matters. Be careful here, Nick. Teasing is often recognized for the irony and fun it is, but defending women who may feel they don't need to be defended or who may feel they can defend themselves is almost always recognized for what it is.

[Drunk Vegan]

My guess as a woman? She/they took offense because it seems you're placing the blame for pregnancy on the woman; as if women are more promiscuous than men.

I read BigDon's statement once and didn't see anything wrong with it; in my opinion it's a completely neutral statement of fact (whether the fact is 100% accurate may be debatable but it's hardly cause for emotional response).

Then I saw Buttercup's response and I applied my political correctness filter that I have to use in a corporate setting because I have a boss whose primary job function seems to be reading things in my emails that I didn't actually type. I read it again and came up with this:

"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."

If your eyes/ears happen to be the type that are unnecessarily looking for subtext, the Can part of that statement might ruin the neutrality by suggesting that the women becoming pregnant is a choice - "women who can" - rather than simply a reality of what will happen in pre-modern and/or post-apocalyptic living.

To make the statement completely neutral it'd have to be something like:

"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the women will be pregnant."

Or maybe:

"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the women will be pregnant at any given time because there's no way to prevent it and it's the only way to maintain population levels."

- If you want to be really specific.

[HenrikOlsen]

If your eyes/ears happen to be the type that are unnecessarily looking for subtext, the Can part of that statement might ruin the neutrality by suggesting that the women becoming pregnant is a choice - "women who can" - rather than simply a reality of what will happen in pre-modern and/or post-apocalyptic living.

It's a necessary modifier, it's half of the women capable of breeding, not half of the women in total.

And I'd be nasty and say that it's still true for societies with easy access to contraception, as that simply reduces the number of women who can get pregnant. Societies with easy access to voluntary abortion changed the ration of pregnancies carried to full term instead so that would muddy statistics a bit.

[Drunk Vegan]

It's a necessary modifier, it's half of the women capable of breeding, not half of the women in total.

I agree and that's how I read it as well. I'm just saying that I think that's the spot where certain people might misinterpret it because of the two possible meanings of "can:"

1. Is physically possible
2. Is able of causing to happen by action

[SeanF]

I agree and that's how I read it as well. I'm just saying that I think that's the spot where certain people might misinterpret it because of the two possible meanings of "can:"

1. Is physically possible
2. Is able of causing to happen by action

According to BigDon's original post, he said, "can be pregnant" and not "can get pregnant," which would seem to quite clearly indicate he was using meaning 1 and not 2.

[Romanus]

There are individuals from various interest groups who get up every morning convinced that Overwhelming Entity X is out to destroy them. The two most likely responses to this are apathy or permanent rage; neither can be reasoned with.

[redshifter]

No matter what someone says, there is always someone else out there who will be offended/take it personally.

[profloater]

As a teenager I remember a little group: says one boy with an ironic tongue in cheek "the trouble with women is they take everything so personally." Immediate irate response from the girl; "Well I don't!"

Obviously that memory is not representative of any generalised group and not necessarily relevant to the OP

[BioSci]

"As a rule of thumb, in any large group of men and women without access to modern birth control, half the woman who can be pregnant, will be pregnant."

That's an old, old formula I've never seen refuted.

Although one could argue about specific %, as a rule of thumb regarding human social groups your estimate is not bad and highlights normal human behavior over time.
Exceptions would require a non-normal selection of people, short-time frame in the group, or some other constraining factor.

Am I a lunkhead or were these women overly defensive, possible due to their corporate enviroment?

To some women, all men are lunkheads around certain topics - especially if they are "direct" or perceived to be "indelicate"

[Delvo]

Although one could argue about specific %...

If the statement had just been that "some noticible fraction" of the women would be pregnant, then probably nobody would have cared. The fact that the number is so far off, in the direction it is, is probably the cause of the reaction. It requires that an average woman spend half of her fertile years pregnant. I think everybody knows that's just not reality even without doing any calculations on it, but the math also isn't hard. With a 40-week gestation, that would be one pregnancy per 80 months if each one went "full term". A year is 0.65 of that, so the number of pregnancies someone would have would be 0.65 times the number of years she's fertile. Depending on how many years you figure that is, that's something like 15-20 pregnancies apiece, on average... and it goes up if you adjust for whatever the rate of early terminations is, since that shortens the average cycle you're talking about to something less than 80 weeks. It probably ends up at something like a couple dozen pregnancies, on average.

Not only does that just scream unrealism for any era of history or prehistory, but it also implies that the speaker seriously believes that the natural state for women is just popping out babies one after another after another after another after another after another at such a spectacular rate. If that's not what is meant, then it's up to the person who's doing the talking not to casually throw out numbers without having first considered what the numbers actually should be.

(This reminds me of a case several years ago on another forum where someone said something about quantities in a political subject, and when the actual numbers and illustrations of what those numbers actually meant were pointed out to her, her reaction was "Don't throw numbers at me". Some people really seriously don't like numbers even when they are relevant & important to the subject. But any given audience you find yourself talking to will probably include some like that and some others who will notice what's really going on with the numbers, regardless of how much or how little you pondered them ahead of time yourself.)

[profloater]

If the statement had just been that "some noticible fraction" of the women would be pregnant, then probably nobody would have cared. The fact that the number is so far off, in the direction it is, is probably the cause of the reaction. It requires that an average woman spend half of her fertile years pregnant. I think everybody knows that's just not reality even without doing any calculations on it, but the math also isn't hard. With a 40-week gestation, that would be one pregnancy per 80 months if each one went "full term". A year is 0.65 of that, so the number of pregnancies someone would have would be 0.65 times the number of years she's fertile. Depending on how many years you figure that is, that's something like 15-20 pregnancies apiece, on average... and it goes up if you adjust for whatever the rate of early terminations is, since that shortens the average cycle you're talking about to something less than 80 weeks. It probably ends up at something like a couple dozen pregnancies, on average.

Not only does that just scream unrealism for any era of history or prehistory, but it also implies that the speaker seriously believes that the natural state for women is just popping out babies one after another after another after another after another after another at such a spectacular rate. If that's not what is meant, then it's up to the person who's doing the talking not to casually throw out numbers without having first considered what the numbers actually should be.

(This reminds me of a case several years ago on another forum where someone said something about quantities in a political subject, and when the actual numbers and illustrations of what those numbers actually meant were pointed out to her, her reaction was "Don't throw numbers at me". Some people really seriously don't like numbers even when they are relevant & important to the subject. But any given audience you find yourself talking to will probably include some like that and some others who will notice what's really going on with the numbers, regardless of how much or how little you pondered them ahead of time yourself.)

But...uncontrolled pregnancies, and lack of modern practices, tend to kill women, they will keep having babies until they die or become unable, so the 50% figure is not outrageous at all.

[Paul Beardsley]

the 50% figure is not outrageous at all.

It's a surprising figure, in my opinion, but if it's true, then so be it. From what I can gather, BigDon has studied the subject, and others who have studied the subject have said he is correct. If someone who has studied the subject can give an educated refutation, then I am happy to listen and change my mind. But a "that can't be right!" reply is not good enough.

[HenrikOlsen]

It probably ends up at something like a couple dozen pregnancies, on average.

Not only does that just scream unrealism for any era of history or prehistory, . . . .

Try actually looking at the records and you'll see that it's not that far off, especially remembering the times where children who die before they're baptized aren't registered.

By your own numbers, 15-20 , not "a couple dozens".

Also remember that repeated pregnancies will affect the mother to the point where she's no longer counted as a breeder and you end up with something around 15 actually being a realistic number. 2/3+ of which will likely result in children dead in infancy.

[novaderrik]

some people just get so emotionally wrapped up in their point of view on different things that they get all offended when someone comes in and offers up an impartial opinion that is based on nothing but logic..

[Van Rijn]

Who's wrong here?

Am I a lunkhead or were these women overly defensive, possible due to their corporate enviroment?

You said they were young. I'd expect a big part of the issue is that it is just too far outside of their personal experience, so it wouldn't make sense to them. Birth control has become ubiquitous, and there's no real social stigma associated with it anymore. They're too young to remember when it was different. Even their parents are probably too young to remember when it was much different.

[Paul Beardsley]

What particularly galls me is that one should expect a more civilised response to an incorrect statement. When people foam at the mouth at the deliverer of a fact, it really does them and their group no favours at all.

[Fazor]

I find that hilarious BigDon. Considering how many young women around here are pregnant when there *IS* access to birth control.

And I do appreciate ButterCup's input, because I can very much see how these statements make it look like you're placing blame on the women. I don't think you are, and neither am I. That's one of those "medical conditions" that takes two to make it happen. Or some really advanced science equipment, I guess.

[publiusr]

Perhaps a better phrasing --"in restricted environs desperation may lead to a higher and unsustainable birth rate." That's dry enough, one would think.

[HenrikOlsen]

Except that this is an observation on environments that are neither restricted nor desperate.