赶明儿我也写一美国上流社会系列，码字胡吹谁不会，没吃过猪肉还见过猪跑，<时尚>，<名利场>杂志上搜罗搜罗猪毛篡两本书，蒙不了有钱人我还蒙不了傻子，搂到蓝子里都是菜，搞几十块稿费也是好的。大纲目录如下，请有眼的编缉从速上门联系：
在美国，有皮肤科医生是上流社会的标志
在美国，有心理医生是上流社会的标志
在美国，有同性情人是上流社会的标志
在美国，和青少年线上交谈是上流社会的标志
在美国，有四到八个孩子是上流社会的标志
在美国，在家吃饭是上流社会的标志
在美国，有拉丁裔保姆是上流社会的标志
[奇文共赏]在美国，当家庭主妇是上流社会的标志
-
thursdaynigh
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 2004-06-01 16:43
Serious? Yes, I do think so. At least that's my interpretation of his intentions. Pretty much all advertisements operate on the same premise -- the average consumer sees a celebrity endorsing a product and feels the urge to imitate, because using the product makes them feel a little more "just like Mike."thursdaynigh wrote:Jun啊, 真有人会看了他的文章就会自动混淆是非地觉得: "当家庭主妇是上流社会的标志" = "当了/有了家庭主妇, 就是上流社会的一员"?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts ... eussociety
The data are from US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, therefore can be considered without ideological bias.
The denominator is total households (110 million). Single men and women are not counted in the 110 million households (about 30 million individuals).
About 49.5% are heterosexual married couples with or without children. About 50.5% are composed of 1) Single mother households, 2) Single father households, 3) heterosexual unmarried couples living together, 4) male couples living together, 5) female couples living together.
BTW, my impression from this data is really: Wow, a lot more people live together than apart. Single people ARE outnumbered.
Keep in mind that this is sort of a "slice in time" picture. Other census data show that a majority of American eventually marry (at least once) in their lifetime. Of course, that's no guarantee that they stay married.
Talk about losers, I heard on the news that the average age of marriage for Dutch women is now 30 years old.
I'm neither promoting nor discouraging marriage or unmarried cohabitation. This is just plain data. This is real world.
The data are from US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, therefore can be considered without ideological bias.
The denominator is total households (110 million). Single men and women are not counted in the 110 million households (about 30 million individuals).
About 49.5% are heterosexual married couples with or without children. About 50.5% are composed of 1) Single mother households, 2) Single father households, 3) heterosexual unmarried couples living together, 4) male couples living together, 5) female couples living together.
Sure. That's a logical possibility, but I doubt a man who uses "This is how things are in US" and "This is what upper class Americans do." to support his argument would go for it.不排除美国LOSER越来越多的可能.
BTW, my impression from this data is really: Wow, a lot more people live together than apart. Single people ARE outnumbered.
Keep in mind that this is sort of a "slice in time" picture. Other census data show that a majority of American eventually marry (at least once) in their lifetime. Of course, that's no guarantee that they stay married.
Talk about losers, I heard on the news that the average age of marriage for Dutch women is now 30 years old.
I'm neither promoting nor discouraging marriage or unmarried cohabitation. This is just plain data. This is real world.
我知道, 我知道, JUN看着我觉得我粉LOSER.
Are you kidding? You are the pillars of the community and the hope of mankind. It's childless people like me who are a waste of space and resources.
I just think it is completely uninformative to derive life goals and wisdom from population statistics. So if 51% of Americans are morons, does that encourage aspiring young people to grow up to be morons?
No individual person chooses to marriage, cohabit, have children, not have children, because of some abstract data that correlate this with that or because 50.5% households are unmarried people living together. If someone does, well, I'm sorry...
And success? That's a whole other can of worms. I don't even know where to begin... Don't want to even touch it... (I'm almost tempted to condemn the concept of success, but that's because I'm crazy...)
再加一篇，今天usatoday报纸上的。
Do smart girls finish last in love?
Answer: No. In fact, the success penalty is a myth. High achievers are marrying and having families ― they’re just doing so later in life. And that’s something to address with thenext generation.
By Laura Vanderkam
Back in my single days, my friends and I used to joke about a dating dilemma we called "dropping the P-bomb."
"Where did you go to school?" a gentleman would inquire at a party.
"Oh, in New Jersey." We'd smile and try to change the subject. No luck.
"Where in New Jersey?"
"Um, Princeton?"
We'd grip our drinks and wait. Would he scurry away? That's what we expected ― especially as we began collecting graduate degrees and serious paychecks.
(Illustration by Web Bryant, USA TODAY)
Growing up as a smart, ambitious girl in America, you can't miss the assumption that neither of those attributes wins you points in the love game.
In 2002, Sylvia Ann Hewlett's book, Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, claimed that only 60% of high-achieving women in their 40s and early 50s were married vs. 76% of men and 83% of extremely high-earning men. Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd subsequently rued that despite succeeding beyond the dreams of her Irish maid ancestors, her odds of landing a husband might have jumped if she, too, never aspired to anything beyond keeping house.
Dumb it down, we learned. Men don't make passes at girls who wear glasses.
There's just one problem. It's not true ― not anymore. A growing body of research finds that the success penalty ― the lower marriage rates among high-achieving women vs. their lower-achieving sisters ― has nearly disappeared.
'Volley with an equal'
"While there are certainly some men who want a woman to play fetch for them, the majority of men, and certainly the ones we would want to date, are definitely looking to volley with an equal," says Christine Whelan, author of the new book Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women. As children of egalitarian baby boomer moms and dads hit their 20s and 30s, high-achieving women now marry at the same rate as others, they just do so a few years later. The first part of that sentence is reason to celebrate. The latter is more worrisome. Later marriages tend to mean later and fewer births, and this country needs the bright kids bright moms raise. Though given how quickly society has changed on the first count, there's every reason to hope that soon young women will succeed in changing the second part, too.
Whelan, herself a Princeton grad who's getting married next summer, combed through years of Census data, studies and a Harris poll that she commissioned. The finding? Hewlett and Dowd missed a big shift that's just showing up on the radar among high achievers, whom Whelan defines as women with graduate degrees and/or incomes in the top 10% for their age.
In the bad old days ― alas, as recently as the 1980s ― a woman with a graduate degree was 16% less likely to be married by age 44 than a woman with a high school diploma. Now, while 55% of women with graduate degrees marry by age 29 vs. 61% of other women, after 30, the odds reverse. A single, 30-year-old woman with a graduate degree has about a 75% chance of getting married. A single 30-year-old woman with less education has about a 66% chance.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research reports that women ages 28 to 35 who earn more than $55,000 a year (roughly the top 10%) are just as likely to be married as other women who work full-time. Indeed, Whelan's survey found that 90% of high-achieving men want a spouse who is as smart as they are, and 71% say a woman's success makes her more desirable as a wife. Maybe it's because these men do want to marry Mommy ― 72% of moms of high-achieving men worked outside the home as they raised their sons.
So why does the myth persist? Blame the higher age of first marriage for women with graduate degrees or high paychecks ― fueled by a belief that starting a family during grad school, or during the early years of a "big" job, is impossible. These women marry, on average, around age 30; women overall first marry at about 25. From ages 25 to 30, Whelan notes, "you'll go to many weddings on your own," believing bad news after bad bouquet tosses.
Reason to worry
But though it's reassuring to know the odds of marrying are good, the older age of first marriage for high-achieving women is not so reassuring. Despite headlines about professional women becoming single moms by choice, most won't have children out of wedlock, so later marriages mean later births. Indeed, America's brightest people ― men and women ― tend to delay childbearing.
This may be a choice, though it's too bad for society that successful people aren't so successful in the Darwinian sense.
But even this, I believe, will change. New York's sidewalks these days are clogged with $700 double strollers pushed by the nannies of high-achieving parents who can afford such wheels. Trendsetting Manhattan's preschool age population soared 26% from 2000-04; from Britney Spears to Angelina Jolie, young moms are becoming hip.
When women decide that they want to get married, they tend to make it happen. They approach dates with open minds. They ask to be set up. They seal the deal.
Until now, young women haven't adopted that mindset in graduate school or in the early years of their big careers because they believe the myth that it's impossible to have it all.
If the marriage penalty can disappear in a generation, though, there's no reason that young women can't demand that suitors, schools and employers work on a different timetable when it comes to families, too.
That will take guts, but so does being honest during party chitchat. In time, we can learn to do both.
Laura Vanderkam, author of the forthcoming Grindhopping: Build a Rewarding Career Without Paying Your Dues, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, October 18, 2006 in Forum commentary, Lifestyle issues - Forum | Permalink
Do smart girls finish last in love?
Answer: No. In fact, the success penalty is a myth. High achievers are marrying and having families ― they’re just doing so later in life. And that’s something to address with thenext generation.
By Laura Vanderkam
Back in my single days, my friends and I used to joke about a dating dilemma we called "dropping the P-bomb."
"Where did you go to school?" a gentleman would inquire at a party.
"Oh, in New Jersey." We'd smile and try to change the subject. No luck.
"Where in New Jersey?"
"Um, Princeton?"
We'd grip our drinks and wait. Would he scurry away? That's what we expected ― especially as we began collecting graduate degrees and serious paychecks.
(Illustration by Web Bryant, USA TODAY)
Growing up as a smart, ambitious girl in America, you can't miss the assumption that neither of those attributes wins you points in the love game.
In 2002, Sylvia Ann Hewlett's book, Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, claimed that only 60% of high-achieving women in their 40s and early 50s were married vs. 76% of men and 83% of extremely high-earning men. Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd subsequently rued that despite succeeding beyond the dreams of her Irish maid ancestors, her odds of landing a husband might have jumped if she, too, never aspired to anything beyond keeping house.
Dumb it down, we learned. Men don't make passes at girls who wear glasses.
There's just one problem. It's not true ― not anymore. A growing body of research finds that the success penalty ― the lower marriage rates among high-achieving women vs. their lower-achieving sisters ― has nearly disappeared.
'Volley with an equal'
"While there are certainly some men who want a woman to play fetch for them, the majority of men, and certainly the ones we would want to date, are definitely looking to volley with an equal," says Christine Whelan, author of the new book Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women. As children of egalitarian baby boomer moms and dads hit their 20s and 30s, high-achieving women now marry at the same rate as others, they just do so a few years later. The first part of that sentence is reason to celebrate. The latter is more worrisome. Later marriages tend to mean later and fewer births, and this country needs the bright kids bright moms raise. Though given how quickly society has changed on the first count, there's every reason to hope that soon young women will succeed in changing the second part, too.
Whelan, herself a Princeton grad who's getting married next summer, combed through years of Census data, studies and a Harris poll that she commissioned. The finding? Hewlett and Dowd missed a big shift that's just showing up on the radar among high achievers, whom Whelan defines as women with graduate degrees and/or incomes in the top 10% for their age.
In the bad old days ― alas, as recently as the 1980s ― a woman with a graduate degree was 16% less likely to be married by age 44 than a woman with a high school diploma. Now, while 55% of women with graduate degrees marry by age 29 vs. 61% of other women, after 30, the odds reverse. A single, 30-year-old woman with a graduate degree has about a 75% chance of getting married. A single 30-year-old woman with less education has about a 66% chance.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research reports that women ages 28 to 35 who earn more than $55,000 a year (roughly the top 10%) are just as likely to be married as other women who work full-time. Indeed, Whelan's survey found that 90% of high-achieving men want a spouse who is as smart as they are, and 71% say a woman's success makes her more desirable as a wife. Maybe it's because these men do want to marry Mommy ― 72% of moms of high-achieving men worked outside the home as they raised their sons.
So why does the myth persist? Blame the higher age of first marriage for women with graduate degrees or high paychecks ― fueled by a belief that starting a family during grad school, or during the early years of a "big" job, is impossible. These women marry, on average, around age 30; women overall first marry at about 25. From ages 25 to 30, Whelan notes, "you'll go to many weddings on your own," believing bad news after bad bouquet tosses.
Reason to worry
But though it's reassuring to know the odds of marrying are good, the older age of first marriage for high-achieving women is not so reassuring. Despite headlines about professional women becoming single moms by choice, most won't have children out of wedlock, so later marriages mean later births. Indeed, America's brightest people ― men and women ― tend to delay childbearing.
This may be a choice, though it's too bad for society that successful people aren't so successful in the Darwinian sense.
But even this, I believe, will change. New York's sidewalks these days are clogged with $700 double strollers pushed by the nannies of high-achieving parents who can afford such wheels. Trendsetting Manhattan's preschool age population soared 26% from 2000-04; from Britney Spears to Angelina Jolie, young moms are becoming hip.
When women decide that they want to get married, they tend to make it happen. They approach dates with open minds. They ask to be set up. They seal the deal.
Until now, young women haven't adopted that mindset in graduate school or in the early years of their big careers because they believe the myth that it's impossible to have it all.
If the marriage penalty can disappear in a generation, though, there's no reason that young women can't demand that suitors, schools and employers work on a different timetable when it comes to families, too.
That will take guts, but so does being honest during party chitchat. In time, we can learn to do both.
Laura Vanderkam, author of the forthcoming Grindhopping: Build a Rewarding Career Without Paying Your Dues, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, October 18, 2006 in Forum commentary, Lifestyle issues - Forum | Permalink
一声叹息。这篇美国的文章，虽然不算明摆的胡说八道，可是一样不知所谓，在我看来。百分之多少多少的男人女人如何如何，结婚不结婚，成功不成功，这里大家都各有各的亲身体会，冷暖自知，还用得着Maureen Dawd来指手划脚。她还好意思拿出＂我成功，所以我找不到丈夫＂的旗号！人家大概第一受不了她的脾气，第二就算想娶她，她还瞧不起人家，非嫁Bill Clinton级别的稀有动物。这跟成功不成功有什么关系？她的前辈或许没她那么成功，可比她亲和多了，肯吃苦奉献多了，没她那么挑剔。
现在的普通男人当然对女人的学历没脾气，他敢有脾气吗？这么多女人都是高学历的，而且大学里女生只有越来越多，比男生还多。上哪儿找低学历的正常女人？非坚持这个那个条件，还不只有打光棍？除非你是站在金字塔尖的头狼，爱挑谁挑谁。
说真的，一个心智相对正常的直男，面对一个心智相对正常，尊重自己，有理有节，相处和谐的女人，会仅仅因为她学历比自己高，赚钱比自己多，就不要吗？天哪，世界上有那么多能让两个人过不下去的原因，从价值观相背到卧室里不和谐到HLA markers／气味不吻合，太太的高学历和高工资能排老几啊。
又是一个迷信＂科学研究＂，连常识也没有的例子。今天在花生顿邮报上看到文章说，美国教育系统整天宣传孩子的self esteem，而中国韩国没这说法，为啥美国学生数学这么差，人家孩子数学这么好？可见要数学成绩好，跟孩子的self esteem高没有直接关系，孩子不需要自尊心强才能提高数学成绩。嘿，多新鲜哪，他就差没说自尊心越低数学成绩越好了，真笑死人。
现在的普通男人当然对女人的学历没脾气，他敢有脾气吗？这么多女人都是高学历的，而且大学里女生只有越来越多，比男生还多。上哪儿找低学历的正常女人？非坚持这个那个条件，还不只有打光棍？除非你是站在金字塔尖的头狼，爱挑谁挑谁。
说真的，一个心智相对正常的直男，面对一个心智相对正常，尊重自己，有理有节，相处和谐的女人，会仅仅因为她学历比自己高，赚钱比自己多，就不要吗？天哪，世界上有那么多能让两个人过不下去的原因，从价值观相背到卧室里不和谐到HLA markers／气味不吻合，太太的高学历和高工资能排老几啊。
又是一个迷信＂科学研究＂，连常识也没有的例子。今天在花生顿邮报上看到文章说，美国教育系统整天宣传孩子的self esteem，而中国韩国没这说法，为啥美国学生数学这么差，人家孩子数学这么好？可见要数学成绩好，跟孩子的self esteem高没有直接关系，孩子不需要自尊心强才能提高数学成绩。嘿，多新鲜哪，他就差没说自尊心越低数学成绩越好了，真笑死人。
她这篇文章分析的是整体状况，和个人经验不一样。就算是个人经验，快乐和痛苦也各有不同。经验写出来是提供一种信息，并非就是要拿着当生活指导。
那句certainly those men we want to date，可圈可点。
美国如此，中国就更是如此了。网上还不时跳出对女博士女教授私生活半想象半窥视的文章，不少人，特别是those we don't want to date，就爱拿着当回事儿。比较不幸的是，这样的人偶然会在生活里遇到。
那句certainly those men we want to date，可圈可点。
美国如此，中国就更是如此了。网上还不时跳出对女博士女教授私生活半想象半窥视的文章，不少人，特别是those we don't want to date，就爱拿着当回事儿。比较不幸的是，这样的人偶然会在生活里遇到。http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了
搬家了搬家了
结婚没孩子的时候也可以“花钱不用跟人商量，时间全是自己的，家务不爱干就可以乱着”。尤其我这种懒人不觉得家里有什么家务。有了孩子之后后面两点比较难一点。Knowing wrote:说实话到不是loser 不loser 的问题，我觉得单身挺爽的。花钱不用跟人商量，时间全是自己的，家务不爱干就可以乱着。俩人合着过虽然好像开销少了，也就头几年，一生了孩子不但省下来的钱都要花到孩子身上，还得从自己身上额外扣克下大学学费。单身开销虽然大点，至少都是花在自己身上啊。反正，结婚生孩子经济上绝对是不上算的, 除非结婚对象比自己富有一倍以上。不过这样结婚对象不是不合算么？总之，俩人里至少有一个经济上吃亏。
生孩子经济上是肯定不合算（农村养儿防老的除外）， 可是幸福感是另外一回事。
为什么老说美国学生数学差， 我不觉得阿， 我碰到很多数学很厉害的。中国学生比较会考试也许。
现在偶是胡军的扇子。
很严谨，看来对人类心智绝对正常是不抱希望了。一个心智相对正常的直男，面对一个心智相对正常
伪科学论证的几个特点： 1. 编造论据，2. 逻辑混乱，3. 自信爆棚。看到这种人我有时候真想扇啊。
----宽容的分割线---
王晓峰的大作否？此人一贯旗帜鲜明地反对超女。昨天在《三联》杂志上看到一篇特别损的文章。说谁在追星。说是电视台的节目都有非常细致的观众群划分。像好男儿、我形我秀这类的节目的定位好像是职高的小女生。不把精力宣泄出来就生事的那群人，啥啥的。
我倒觉得给小姑娘的精力一个宣泄口不是坏事，为什么小男孩可以看黄片，小姑娘不能看追星节目？像《三联》这样一味的堵实在不是一本“先进”的杂志应该做的。现在好像越堵小姑娘逆反心理越重，扰民程度越甚。其实应该有人告诉她们，追星无可厚非，不过请学会摆正追星在生活中的位置，这样就可以更愉快地追下去。
Last edited by 火星狗 on 2006-10-19 8:55, edited 1 time in total.
The more I think about it, the more I suspect Maureen Dawd wants a man like Bill Clinton. Yet she is far less successful than Hillary Clinton. So, what does that prove? That you have to be VERY SUCCESSFUL and VERY INTELLIGENT to marry a man like Bill, and you have to be not so rigid about monogamous principles to stay married to him. 
Of cause! She seeks more than love and companionship in a marriage. She seeks power and social status. In the other words, she wants a trophy husband that makes her look good. Why else does she need a husband? I am sure she doesn't have problem getting laid or paying her own bill.
Maureen Dowd annoys me because her problem is essentially the problem of a social climber, but she dresses it up as the problem of "SMART SUCCESSFUL INTELLIGENT" women to cash in on other women's anxiety. I always want to tell those women, seriously, don't worry about your phd, your fat paycheck and your title, men do not give a f__k when the lights are off.
Maureen Dowd annoys me because her problem is essentially the problem of a social climber, but she dresses it up as the problem of "SMART SUCCESSFUL INTELLIGENT" women to cash in on other women's anxiety. I always want to tell those women, seriously, don't worry about your phd, your fat paycheck and your title, men do not give a f__k when the lights are off.
有事找我请发站内消息