As usual, any characteristics specific to men are put in the most pejorative light possible. In his article concerning the myth of the Asian fetish, Ray Fishmen states: “We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own.” Yet when it was discovered that women show a much stronger preference for men of their own race, he somehow managed to refrain from calling them bigots. Curious. When it was reported that women place a greater premium on intelligence and ambition (both of which are euphemisms for “greater earning potential”) Mr. Fishmen refrains from calling women shallow, money-grubbing gold diggers. Curious.

Bill Rogers

Boston

men have fragile egoes?

QED.

Since you seem disposed to Latin, let me inform you that what you have done is called an ad hominen attack. Not only have you not demonstrated anything, you have failed to address the issue at all. I recommend a Philosophy 101 course.

When it was reported that women place a greater premium on intelligence and ambition (both of which are euphemisms for “greater earning potential”) Mr. Fishmen refrains from calling women shallow, money-grubbing gold diggers. Curious.

How is an understanding:

1) that this is an extremely sexist world in which women still make significantly less money; and

2) that it takes a lot of money to raise kids and provide the advantages they need to succeed in life (so they're not dependent on paltry incentives such as public schools dispensing cell phones for good grades)

evidence of shallowness or gold-digging?

Very curious.

Men don't seem to get that the looks-for-money bargain (crude, but apparently still vital) is one of their own making.

Along with a basic Philosophy course, I recommend a basic reading comprehension course. Read the original posting and you will notice two things: 1) I never said men do not have fragile egos and, 2) I never said that women were shallow gold diggers. I was asking about the disparity in the style of reporting of facts that I do not dispute.

Concerning issue 1): I am one of those old fashioned people who believe in data. I do not dispute that men have fragile egos; all human beings have fragile egos. More to the point, however, is that men’s egos are more fragile than women. While I do not have the data in front of me, anecdotal evidence of my experience seems to support the notion. I will, of course, adjust my thinking as the facts are made available. I could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time; it wouldn’t be the first time today. My dispute – again for those who do not read carefully – is not with the idea, but in the un-evenhanded way it is reported. My contention that dollyemu failed to demonstrate anything is correct. The citation of a specific instance is never enough to establish a correlation between type and quality. I did not point out that not only is dollyemu’s attack ad hominen, it is against a straw man; she (he?) is (incorrectly) claiming to have refuted something I never – in fact – claimed.

Issue 2): Again please read my entry; I never claimed women were shallow gold diggers. I was asking why the fact that women place more emphasis on income is not reported in a pejorative light the same way that men’s fragile egos are. SlateReaders’s entry is true but trivially so; it is not to the issue. It is perfectly reasonable that women should place more emphasis on income. I was just wondering why that fact is not reported negatively, the way facts about men are. (By the way, SlateReader, if it is true that women place more emphasis on income for good reasons, perhaps it is true that men have fragile egos for good reason. No, I guess not.) I couldn’t help but notice SlateReader failed to mention the other aspect of women’s behavior the report mentioned. Not as easy to excuse?

The facts, however interesting, are irrelevant.

"Along with a basic Philosophy course, I recommend a basic reading comprehension course."

Calling people uneducated and illiterate? That's the kind of ad hominem attack you claim to abhor.

And are you the person who started this post? If you failed to type "Asian" correctly in the heading, double shame on you. It's driving me crazy.

"(By the way, SlateReader, if it is true that women place more emphasis on income for good reasons, perhaps it is true that men have fragile egos for good reason. No, I guess not.) I couldn’t help but notice SlateReader failed to mention the other aspect of women’s behavior the report mentioned. Not as easy to excuse?"

I didn't respond because I don't think that the study is correct in its conclusion that all women exercise a significantly greater preference for their own race, which yes, I believe would make them racist, just as men doing the same would make them racist.

I've read many criticisms of the study, some of which argued that the conclusions focused on women's supposed deficiencies instead of those of men. The presentation was somewhat different, but it was the same study.

The article, as a piece of serious scientific journalism, was kind of silly. From my experience of living in a big city it's obvious that many white men have a marked preference for Asian women, which may or may not amount to a "fetish."

I'm not the only one:

"Are "Asian Fetishes" A Myth? We're Gonna Have To Go With "No"

<link>

I've read discussions of this study (or its raw data) here and in the New York Times. The only conclusion that I agreed with was that Asian men tend to have a much more difficult time in the dating market. I know that from what I've observed and read and a discussion with a male friend who's Asian.

All the other conclusions that journalists have picked up and run with have struck me as b.s.

What kind of truths do you really expect to obtain from an experiment based on speed dating?

You seem to be actually incapable of responding to what is written. Not only have you not addressed my original point (no one has), you are – again – putting words into my mouth. Reread everything I have written: I never claimed to abhor ad hominem attacks; I was simply pointing out that one had been made.

As far as typing “Asian” incorrectly: mea culpa.

"“We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own.” Yet when it was discovered that women show a much stronger preference for men of their own race, he somehow managed to refrain from calling them bigots."

Actually, women are almost always bigoted, even when they do date outside of their race. When they do, it's usually because they have a preference for ANOTHER race and are closed-off to dating their own.

"More to the point, however, is that men’s egos are more fragile than women. While I do not have the data in front of me, anecdotal evidence of my experience seems to support the notion."

I doubt this is true and I'd like to see someone justify/prove that is. Women are just allowed to display their insecurities, to the point that we fail to notice some of them. When a man displays some of the same insecurities he is viewed with suspicion.

In many cases women get to have their cake and eat it when they play the 'male ego card'.