Jack-ass Dean Tyler

The BBQ Pit
321

JDT replied to me:*Even if the quote you gave about women controlling 86% of personal wealth was correct, it does not mean that women on average have more wealth than men.

It depends what you mean by average. If women control 86% of all of the personal wealth in America, then that indicates that the MEAN wealth for men is much less than the mean wealth for women. The MEAN would be fine with you if it supported your dogma. However, now you wish to look at the MEDIAN or the MODE. You might have some luck here, but with a disparaging MEAN like that, odds are against you I would say.*

How can you imagine that the mean average is useful in discussing this issue, no matter which side it supports? It’s irrelevant to the important question. We are debating, or at least I thought we were, whether most women have more economic power than most men, so the median and modal averages are the only ones that are useful.

If only the mean average is considered, we could have a situation in which one incredibly rich woman controlled 52% of all personal wealth in the US and all other women were penniless, and you could still conclude from that that “women have more economic power than men.” But it would be completely meaningless if the object is to determine how men and women on the whole compare in terms of economic power.

  • Do you see how it’s possible for a few women to control a great deal of wealth, just as one man named Bill controls a great deal of wealth, without necessarily implying that most women (or most men named Bill) have more wealth than most men (or than most men not named Bill)?

As an aside, I would suggest that you not bring up incredibly rich MEN, because that only means that the average guy is poorer. See if you can find a rich woman to use as an example. *

Oh Jack, you are still stuck on this meaningless “mean” thinking. Look, if two hundred rich women, say, control 80% of personal wealth, and one rich guy controls 5% of it, that says nothing at all about how much wealth the vast majority of (non-rich) women control compared to the vast majority of (non-rich) men! There may be less money left for everybody else all together, but it does not mean that the “average guy” therefore has less than the “average gal.” The remaining 15% of wealth is controlled by nearly two hundred million men and women (ignoring the economic power of children for the moment) and we have no information at all from the above data about how rich the actual average (median or mode) woman is likely to be compared to the average man. And in fact, the information we have about this from more meaningful sources, as I pointed out, indicates that in fact the average woman is poorer than the average man.

*Because if you’re only looking at total personal wealth, a few extremely rich people can skew the data without providing any meaningful information about trends for the majority of the population.

Well, there’s a whole lot of rich men and a whole lot of rich, beautiful widows (all thanks to circumcision, I might add). So? *

(?? Circumcision makes men rich? Circumcision makes women beautiful? Circumcision makes women widows? ??.. No, let’s not go there, it’s off-topic anyway.) “So”, even if we have a “whole lot of rich men” and a whole lot of rich women, we do not have enough of them to conclude that the average American is rich. See my earlier post: the people who control large amounts of the money are not a correspondingly large amount of the population. Which is why mean averages are meaningless here. As I keep saying.

*I’ve been observing people and society for years. What I see is that society does make a different place for men and women. What I see is that an office-presentable woman can get up to a pretty good salary very quickly after high school. Any man out of high school is not worth all that much, though. I think that as men get into their thirties, they generally can start to approach how much a woman can make. *

Unfortunately, Jack, your personal “observation of people and society” is not a substitute for actual data. If you look at this report on Recent Trends in Wages, Incomes, and Wealth in the United States, you will see that (based on a Current Population Surveys sample of tens of thousands of households, which I think is more than your “observation” can cover), median hourly wages for male workers in the period 1973–1997 have always been higher than the corresponding wages for female workers. (In constant dollars, men’s wages fell by about $2 in that time period and women’s rose by less than $1, but the changes don’t come close to covering the initial gap.) You’ll also see that median wages for men with only a high-school education are higher than those of women with only a high-school education; in fact, men’s wages are higher than women’s at every income level. (Even women with a college degree earn less than $2/hour more than men with a high school degree.)

So if you’re trying to say that “some office-presentable [whatever that’s supposed to mean] women just out of high school earn more than some male high school graduates,” well, duh. Some red-headed left-handed refrigerator repairmen earn more than some Ashkenazi Jewish choral conductors from Cincinnati, too; we can all come up with anecdotal evidence consisting of a few cases in personal experience. But if you’re trying to generalize that into support for your claim that most women have more money than most men, your conclusion is entirely contradicted by the results of more meticulous large-scale studies. Generalizing from your own “observations” to the population in general is a bad idea.

*Your tendency, on the other hand, seems to be simply to back off from complicated arguments (or ones that contradict your position) with a few contemptuous or disparaging remarks to hide your incomprehension or insecurity at being disagreed with.

You know what this statement reminds me of: A column by the now deceased, Mike Royco (Sp?) [Royko]. He was talking about some math teacher who was a stripper. He was quoting some woman who said that men who go to strip bars to see someone like a math teacher naked are just insecure with strong women who might test them. Mike Royco said that the men just want to see “hooters.” *

Does anybody here understand what is meant by this comparison? Or Jack, can you explain it to me more clearly?

*that’s the way to reveal yourself as an absolute poster child for incurable close-mindedness.

I don’t have to prove everything that I say.*

Then why are you here at the Straight Dope, where we always expect people to prove any assertion about fact that another poster challenges?

*In this forum, that would be like feeding Fillet Mignon to a hound dog. It would be a waste. *

Tell me, Jack, if intelligent, interested people, who research their arguments carefully and are skeptical of unsupported assertions, aren’t good enough for you to bother backing up your statements with factual evidence, then who is?

*If I perceive that someone genuinely needs information, I’ll help them. *

Does this mean that you provide support for your claims only to people who are ignorant and credulous enough to believe them without challenging them? Then I agree with you about one thing at least, Jack: you really are wasting your time on these boards.

322

I think he wants to see your “hooters”.

323

Ah. Thank you, Cantrip. (Forget it, Jack.)

324

JdeMobray,

Jack said:
You may as well be saying that somehow a pocket-watch could just be created naturally. Never happen. . . . Something so complicated as a woman’s clitoris would not have evolved unless it gave some evolutionary advantage.

JdeMobray said:
> What do you suppose Dawkins would make of your second quote? <

Jack responds:
You know, as I look at my quote, I see that I have phrased my point very badly. Anyway, somehow, if something so complicated as the clitoris comes into existence, it is because it is making a set of atoms more stable. That’s what Dawkins would say. Further, Dawkins might poetically say that the clitoris is the negative to some positive in the male. So, two sets of atoms are more stable.

> Okay, the book in question was Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond (if you missed the last post). . . . .Additionaly, it won both the Pulitzer prize and the Phi Betta Kappa award in science, so I think we can safely assume the work qualifies as peer-reviewed. <

Well, you can safely say that this work is the most talented piece of politically-correct work in that year, anyway.
325

TwistofFate,

> Jack, do you honestly think that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong? <

A lot of American men circumcised as adults wish they would have had an attitude such as this. Come to think of it, maybe they did have that attitude since the rest of the world is intact.
326

spooje,

> Maybe they just messed up yours, JDT. I still got some e-rotic sensitivity left in mine.<

You still have your sulcus, but your Ridged Band was amputated in your circumcision.
327

jab1

> Which means the uncut guys started war on the cut ones, which blows JDT’s theory that cut men are more aggressive right out of the fucking sky.<

Couple of problems with what you said. Circumcised men are more aggressive. I believe that this is so because they are more impulsive. Not that I'm any kind of military strategists or anything, but I would assume that impulsivness is not a positive trait that will help one wage international war.
Also, the civil war in Korea started out as two intact sides fighting one another with the aid and assistance of several international powers on each side. Fortunatly or unfortunatly, what would become South Korea had the Americans on their side and that's how they became the circumcision capital of the world.
328

Kimstu,

> median hourly wages for male workers in the period 1973–1997 have always been higher than the corresponding wages for female workers. <

Their wages are still pretty close, though. There's more women than men. So, women probably do control most of the wealth. You need to e-mail Robert Sheaffer and let him chew you up and spit out your bones.

>So if you’re trying to say that “some office-presentable [whatever that’s supposed to mean] women just out of high school earn more than some male high school graduates,” <

You haven't shown anything that says that this statement isn't true.

> Does anybody here understand what is meant by this comparison? Or Jack, can you explain it to me more clearly? <

I was only illustrating how you see some deeply questionable reasoning that happens to jibe with your worldview in some of my actions. You see what you want to see sometimes because you can't face the truth for some reason.

>Then why are you here at the Straight Dope, where we always expect people to prove any assertion about fact that another poster challenges? <

I'm here because I expect the pro-circumcision people to prove that circumcision is a good thing. The burden of proof is on them, not me. I'm raising questions and I expect answers.

> Tell me, Jack, if intelligent, interested people, who research their arguments carefully and are skeptical of unsupported assertions, aren’t good enough for you to bother backing up your statements with factual evidence, then who is? <

I'll back up my statements when I think that it will do some good. I'm not going on a wild goose chase every time I open my mouth, though. Besides, "intelligent" or otherwise objective people would not need me to point out how insane it is to amputate a large portion of a baby's penis.
329

JDT: Their wages are still pretty close, though. There’s more women than men. So, women probably do control most of the wealth.

Let’s see. You think that because women make up 51% of the US population (and most of that skew is caused by a greater proportion of women among the elderly, who are mostly not in the workforce), that offsets the 10–20% discrepancy between men’s and women’s median wages? Would you be good enough to show the math behind your reasoning on that one, Jack?

  • You need to e-mail Robert Sheaffer and let him chew you up and spit out your bones. *

Sigh. I presume that this is the “skeptic” Robert Sheaffer who runs the antifeminist pro-patriarchy site from which you originally got the little factette we’ve been discussing (“women control 86% of personal wealth in the US”). Which, by the way, is the only evidence that that site provides for the supposedly superior economic power of women.

And which, of course, does not in any way contradict my oft-made point, which is that even if that statement is true, it does not mean that most American women have more economic power than most men. And, in fact, studies such as the ones I cited about median wages and poverty indicate that, in fact, most women have less economic power than most men.

Neither Robert Sheaffer nor you have said a damn thing that undermines that conclusion. All you can do is continue to repeat the one little scrap of PARADE magazine trivia that indicates that more of the aggregate wealth is in female hands, which even if true has no bearing on the wealth of most women. I have now explained that three or four times, and I expect that you will respond with the same damn scrap of trivia, but there seems to be nothing I can do to remove your ignorance on this one.

As for your comment that I didn’t show anything to disprove your claim that “some office-presentable women with high-school degrees may make higher wages than some men just out of high school”: of course I didn’t, because I don’t disagree with it. That is why I wrote “well, duh!” after your claim when I first quoted it, indicating that I thought it was obvious. What I do disagree with, however, is the notion that it can be reliably generalized to the wages of most high-school-educated women and men, and the data from the studies I cited bear me out in that.

I’m afraid, Jack, that I’m going to have to give up on you entirely at this point. I knew we had very different beliefs and opinions about a lot of things, but that doesn’t necessarily preclude the possibility of respectful and mutually enlightening disagreement. I’ve shown you not only some sympathy for your personal sufferings but agreement with whatever statements of yours I thought reasonable (e.g., there is no medical necessity for routine infant circumcision, it may be true that women control 86% of personal wealth, etc.). But you have shown yourself completely incapable of admitting you’re wrong about anything, and that makes real discussion fundamentally impossible. It’s not right for me to waste other posters’ time and bandwidth with multiple explanations of something that you are committed to rejecting in defiance of fact and logic. So as far as I’m concerned, the last word is all yours.

330

Drat. And I’d hoped we’d all taken control of our senses finally.

{ahem}

DNFTT

10Q.

Esprix

331

Esprix,

Please notice that JACK revived this thread. First time I’ve ever seen anyone revive a thread directed against them.

332

it stands to reason that…

(whips out ak-47 hidden under coat)

[MAJOR HIJACK]
EVERYBODY DOWN ON THE GROUND! THIS IS A HIJACK!

YOU! ON THE GROUND!! YOU OVER THERE!! GET OUT FROM UNDER YOUR DESK WHERE I CAN SEE YOU!!

(sprays gunfire into the air)

MODERATOR! CLOSE THIS POINTLESS THREAD!!
NOW! DO IT!
[/MAJOR HIJACK]

333

You’re wrong. You’re the one trying to prove points, it is up to you to support them. Sorry, I know you don’t have any way of supporting them, but that is still the way it is.

Btw, I’m not “pro-circumcision” I’m pretty much totally neutral. However, your reasons are ludicrous and have no basis in reality. Even the anti-circ people I’ve talked to think you’re a nutcase.

334

Like, say, andros f’rinstance.

Sorry, 'Sprix, but he’s just too funny not to feed at this point. I’ve managed to turn four friends into SDMB lurkers entirely on the basis of Jack’s posts–we’ve turned it into an email MST3K kinda thing. That much entertainment and amusement is worth a little feeding, especially when it’s allowed me to convert 4 new SD readers.

Preach on, Brother Jack. Please don’t ever buy a clue–you just wouldn’t be you any more.

335

I was hooked on this thread from the very first post… “This jackass wants publicity… lets name a thread after him and feed it religiously so as to -encourage- this sort of verbal acting out that JDT is doing because he needs attention”.

Nicely done. Do you feel loved yet, Jack?
Second… foreskin restoration is something that a number of men stand behind adamantly. Its not something Im prepared to scoff at seeing as my parents were nice enough not to butcher my precious clitoral hood. (Thanks mom and dad!)

Third, its incredibly difficult to find non-biased information concerning circumcision on the net. Anyone putting forth the effort to build an -incredibly- detail oriented and informative site is generally going to have a personal opinion on the surgery that’ll shine through every piece of evidence they present. Its like finding a non-biased site on Christianity.

Its hard to argue with hundreds of years of snipping, but then… we’ve done other ridiculous things for thousands of years and no one bats an eyelash when someone takes a stance against it… (Slavery, Religious Wars, treating AIDS victims like rabid dogs, etc)

There comes a point in time where you just have to use common sense to decipher whats right and wrong. We’re born essentially perfect… granted, there are deformities and health problems here and there… but if its something that EVERY baby is born with, theres probably a reason. We do have a few dispensable body parts (i.e. tonsils, appendix), but no one pulls those out shortly after birth, just for preventative measures.

I was relatively young when I had my son and made the decision to have him circumsized based on the old “He has to look like his father, or he’ll be abnormal” myth. This is one of my biggest regrets to date. Had I been given the access to as much information as we have today (Thank you almighty Internet), I never would’ve subjected my baby to such an outdated procedure.

I didnt bat an eyelash at my decision until this summer when I fell in love with an uncircumsized male and experienced all manner of jitters about being intimate with him. All of the sudden it was -incredibly- important that I understood what a foreskin was, what it did, whether or not I should be worried about it, etc.

I found alot of interesting arguments for both cases. I fully understand the removal of the foreskin for medical purposes, as much as I understand the removal of tonsils or the appendix. But as a preventative measure, I find it ridiculous.

Ive read in a couple of different places (I’ll locate the sites if anyone is interested) that routine circumcision started to curb masturbation. This makes sense in that its -alot- easier to manually stimulate an uncircumsized penis and they dont tend to suffer from chafing, even without any form of lubrication. I, for one, am not against masturbation. I find it a healthy, normal function of the human body and condone and quite happily indulge in it myself. This makes circumsizing my children to keep them from masturbating a rather hypocritical and cruel thing to do. Most people no longer have their children circumsized for that reason, Im sure. Its just become so ingrained that no one bothers to question the procedure anymore.

Mindless acceptance is never a good thing. (See Racism, Sexism, Ageism, etc etc)

To argue some of JDT’s points, however.

I dont think theres anything wrong with Chronos’ penis. In one of the sites I remember reading (I believe it was http://www.mothersagainstcircumcision.org ) that the glans of an uncircumsized penis are generally -alot- more sensitive than a circ’d penis due to being sheathed and thus protected from unwaranted stimulation that would otherwise dull it. (rubbing against underwear constantly throughout the day and whatnot)

I’d feel incredibly silly trying to explain what the most sensitive part of a males penis is… just as I’d laugh at a male who tried to explain to me what makes me orgasm hardest.

(I noticed JDT mentioning that the clitoral orgasm was the most pleasurable for a woman. shakes head Not every woman, I’d much rather hit that lovely G-spot while on top of my sweetie anyday.)

There seems to be alot of misinformation concerning circumcision -everywhere-… so in the end, you just have to make decisions based on common sense and whats more comfortable for you as a male.

And as for women who complain that they “dont like the look of an uncircumsized penis”… Thats the equivalent of a male saying… “I dont like women with natural breasts/a clitoral hood/etc” Sure, there’s men who’re -like- that… but I for one wouldnt touch them with someone elses hands.

336

I just wish people would stop posting intimate details of their sex lives so that JDT can have a good old wank over it (visions of sticky keyboard ::shudder::).

I think he is here with two items on his agenda. One is to alert the world to the evils of circ’ing. I am anti circumcision but he is quite frankly demented on the subject.

The other item is to entice people into sharing info of an intimate nature so he can wank to it.

He’s a sick puppy with a nasty little fetish which is ceasing to be particularly amusing.

337

Damn fucking happy smilie face get the hell out of my post. NOW!!!

338

grin People are so uptight. I’m really bad at being modest or reserved when it comes to discussing sexual topics. Nothing I write is done in an effort to give someone a reason to jerk off… but if Im really that damned interesting, have a go at yourself. If I find something sticky on my keyboard, then expect a brawl… Otherwise… even if some lonely wank gets off to what I have to say… Im sure -someone- took it the right way and therefore, it was worth posting about.

339

I found this on ebay (actually a friend of mine found it and showed it to me)
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=512152209

The stirring question, “DEAR GOD, WHY CIRCUMCISION?”…gave birth to this book. The Holy SPirit unravels and reveals the multifaceted mega-nificent mystery of “WHY CIRICUMCISION” right before our eyes, making it plain as day. No other verse in the entire Bible has more to say about circumcision than Colossians 2:11. All other preceding or subsequent references to circumcision are as stepping stones up to, or down from, this mountain top verse. This verse is as high as it gets on the subject of circumcision. The heart of the doctrine of circumcision resides in this one succinct sentence. This verse reveals the truth of the significance of the covenant of circumcision. Here, in this verse, God clearly removes all doubt about the covenant of circumcision by explaining the doctrine itself. What God introduced in Genesis regarding circumcision finds its fulfillment in “the circumcision of Christ” at Calvary’ “DEAR GOD, WHY CIRCUMCISION?” Why not a pierced ear or a tattoo…BUT CIRCUMCISION! LEARN WHAT CIRCUMCISION HAS TO DO WITH CRUCIFIXION! We know “What” circumcision is, but this 135 page, new, mint 5 1/2" X 8 1/2" paperback tells “WHY” it is! Circumcision was selected by God Himself, for His people to observe. The reason “IT” was selected is as profound as the ritual itself. The answer will ABSOLUTELY amaze you! Penetrating depth into an ignored and overlooked subject. The best (and possibly the only)serious book on biblical circumcision in existence. A will never think of circumcision the same way again. THINK HIGHER, not lower; HIS WAY, not our way.It is DEPTH, not disrespect; INSIGHT not irreverence; PROFUNDITY not perversity that underlies this revealing truth about circumcision. A must addition to any serious Bible library. Written by ordained evangelist minister, Rev. Gaylord Millspaugh.

Here is the cover of the book: http://fathom.org/opalcat/livejournal/foreskin-book-cover.jpg

340

OpalCat:

NOOOOOOOO! It’s the anti-DICKANETICS!