a question for american men

weirdness you wouldn't get in america.

i love my job and it pays like shit. some of the clients are quite wealthy. in america i would be expected to defer to them. here it's slightly awkward...
after a few months in the job i figured out a serious problem: my clients were often feeling like they should defer to me, with some of them being obviously very uncomfortable having me work for them. why? because they have 'common' accents and i speak in an accent associated with a higher social class. i started deliberately slaughtering the english language and, like magic, my clients were comfortable in my company.

We have a bit of a parallel in the US. Northern accents with a wide variety of variations, same with the South, all of which have some harsh and lovely variations. Anyway, the north trumps the south. That is, if you're from the south and in the north you are automatically 10 IQ points dumber than the locals, which leads to southerners taking the shirts off the cocky Northerners backs for underestimating them.
 
We have a bit of a parallel in the US. Northern accents with a wide variety of variations, same with the South, all of which have some harsh and lovely variations. Anyway, the north trumps the south. That is, if you're from the south and in the north you are automatically 10 IQ points dumber than the locals, which leads to southerners taking the shirts off the cocky Northerners backs for underestimating them.
oh, we get that with regional accents too. there are various surveys out there showing stereotypes associated with each one. but the upper class accent is the same over the entire country.
 
We have a bit of a parallel in the US. Northern accents with a wide variety of variations, same with the South, all of which have some harsh and lovely variations. Anyway, the north trumps the south. That is, if you're from the south and in the north you are automatically 10 IQ points dumber than the locals, which leads to southerners taking the shirts off the cocky Northerners backs for underestimating them.

It's always fun to watch a Northerner who has come south to work discover they are in reality dumb as a post. It's a shock for them.
 
oh, we get that with regional accents too. there are various surveys out there showing stereotypes associated with each one. but the upper class accent is the same over the entire country.

That's because back in the dark ages, ie before trains, only the rich, ie people with horses, ever left the environs of their own village.
 


All else equal, they'll take the larger dowry.



i learned that phrase taking british economics in school - and the one thing that was clear from writing those essays was that 'all being equal' was really an imaginary starting point. with regards to men and women, there is absolutely NO such thing.

but if you want to get hypothetical?
2 guys of exactly the same appeal to me, between whom i would not be able to choose? if one was earning a low-medium wage and the other ultra-rich, i'd choose the one earning less. big money scares me, as it makes people vulnerable to robbery, puts their dependents at risk so you see the need for additional security, and fame brings about press-intrusion. and then it's about what did they do to earn that much money? i would think the man who gave away ALL his wealth to charity to become penniless a fool, but the rich man who gave away/invested a large proportion of it to help others so he was no longer rich but could still live happily? that would impress me.

i'm interested in people for who they are, not what they have in their bank account. fashion labels and name-dropping, flash cars or obvious displays of wealth intended to impress bore me to tears. i won't be more impressed by a duke than a grant-student, or vice-versa - i need to find out what makes them tick and then decide if i like them. nor has celebrity-status ever impressed me in its own right. how a man treats other people, how he respects himself and others, is what counts. a good person is a good person, regardless of wallet size.
 
i learned that phrase taking british economics in school - and the one thing that was clear from writing those essays was that 'all being equal' was really an imaginary starting point. with regards to men and women, there is absolutely NO such thing.

Precisely.

The very concept is ludicrous.
 
There's another common myth, that a rich man can "get" any woman.

He can't.

Clearly, a man who is willing to throw lots of money around can get a woman, that's for sure... but will that woman be around if he loses all his money?

You reap what you sew.
 
There's another common myth, that a rich man can "get" any woman.

He can't.

Clearly, a man who is willing to throw lots of money around can get a woman, that's for sure... but will that woman be around if he loses all his money?

You reap what you sew.

I think you mean "sow."
 
There's another common myth, that a rich man can "get" any woman.

He can't.

Clearly, a man who is willing to throw lots of money around can get a woman, that's for sure... but will that woman be around if he loses all his money?

You reap what you sew.

It's a myth firmly believed by losers, just to soothe their feelings. Any person who thinks it is true, reveals more about themselves than anything it says about the women they know.
 
i learned that phrase taking british economics in school - and the one thing that was clear from writing those essays was that 'all being equal' was really an imaginary starting point. with regards to men and women, there is absolutely NO such thing...


(You did notice the genderless construction of the original statement).

Mere sophistry— I stand by my original assertion.

 
It's a myth firmly believed by losers, just to soothe their feelings. Any person who thinks it is true, reveals more about themselves than anything it says about the women they know.

The entire notion that a man who has money will get women more easily than a man who doesn't, is the refuge for the poor man... poor in intellect, and poor in personality.
 
seriously, do you honestly believe a woman's interest in you is directly proportional to the size of your wallet?

(not judging, just doing a little statistical investigation)

Absolutely not.

There may be many women for whom this is true, but there are many women for whom it is not. Most marriages are made when the couple is too young for it to be certain how successful either one of them will be financially, and if the woman turns out to be the primary bread-winner, I know of no evidence that this causes her to dump the man. Financial stress does break up marriages, but if financial success on the part of the woman causes a break-up, it's more likely to be the man having his pride wounded than the woman feeling unprovided for.
 
Absolutely not.

There may be many women for whom this is true, but there are many women for whom it is not. Most marriages are made when the couple is too young for it to be certain how successful either one of them will be financially, and if the woman turns out to be the primary bread-winner, I know of no evidence that this causes her to dump the man. Financial stress does break up marriages, but if financial success on the part of the woman causes a break-up, it's more likely to be the man having his pride wounded than the woman feeling unprovided for.

thanks, zuke :cool:
 
Back
Top