September 24th, 2008, 15 Comments »
A while ago, I had an idea for a website. It would be a kind of calendar site and tracker for men to keep tabs on their wives and girlfriends’ menstrual cycles. There are lots of these sites for women, but I couldn’t find any targeted at men.
In my very ad hoc survey, I found that most men had little or no idea about their partner’s cycles. The site wouldn’t specifically be aimed at getting notified about their partner’s PMS, but was more designed as a holistic heads-up. Men could use it as they saw fit. Presumably users would get email alerts or sync the information to their own digital calendars. I would take pains to make it as lighthearted as possible. I even had a good name: HerAuntFlo.com.
It wasn’t a very good idea, though, as I got a negative reaction from most people I talked to about it. No matter how I positioned it in conversation, it sounded kind of sexist to a number of women. So, like 90% of my ideas, I dropped it.
Today, Gillian sent me a link to PMSBuddy. It’s pretty much exactly what I describe, though it’s specifically targeted at the PMS-wary (or weary, I suppose) among us. The site’s slogan is “saving relationships, one month at a time”.
I’m kind of on two minds on the execution. On the one hand, I do think there’s a little value in the service. After all, it could theoretically help men behave more sensitively. On the other hand, is it fundamentally sexist?
Maybe the sexism lies in the male user’s reasons for signing up?
UPDATE: Tim (who has some entertainingly bad photos from MLS) sent me a link over Twitter to a coincidental TechCrunch profile of another site concerned with women’s cycles, Go28Days. Their spiel: “maximize your chance of conception or avoid pregnancy naturally”.
15 Comments »
May 26th, 2008, 9 Comments »
Reddit points to what promises to be a controversial article about women’s preferences for work:
Now two new studies by economists and social scientists have reached a perhaps startling conclusion: An important part of the explanation for the gender gap, they are finding, are the preferences of women themselves. When it comes to certain math- and science-related jobs, substantial numbers of women - highly qualified for the work - stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else.
I’ve always felt that a goal of 50-50 splits in all workplaces seemed a little artificial. Men and women are different, and so each profession probably has a natural ratio of men to women. Some are going to be 75-25 in favour of women, and others are going to be 60-40 in favour of men.
Of course, we need to design a working world where women don’t face discrimination or inequity, regardless of what job they want. That’s tricky, and it’ll only get trickier if we start making assumptions about what women want.
There was another interesting point in the article, discussing how men and women tend to differ in achievement:
Women who are mathematically gifted are more likely than men to have strong verbal abilities as well; men who excel in math, by contrast, don’t do nearly as well in verbal skills. As a result, the career choices for math-precocious women are wider than for their male counterparts.
This is pretty anecdotal, but that was definitely true for my high school class. The smart boys were good at Math and the sciences, but usually not top of the class in English or Literature. The top-performing girls, conversely, seemed to be good at everything.
9 Comments »
December 20th, 2007, 12 Comments »
Continuing on trivial topics, and inspired by this R-rated rant about bangs, it’s time for a poll. Two polls, actually. Please, you know, only vote in the appropriate gender box.
For those of you reading this in RSS, you’re going to have to visit the post to experience the poll magic in full effect:
And, to be clear, we’re talking about ‘bangs on women’ (keep your off-colour jokes to yourselves–no, hang on, email them to me), in both cases.
UPDATE: I was complaining to Gillian–my source for new music, and she sent me the bangs link–about how every indie rock chick seems to have bangs.
Leslie Feist: Bangs.
Jenny Lewis: Bangs
Tegan and Sara: Bangs. Bangs.
I’m not a big fan of bangs. Particularly the kind of bluntly cut, straight across ones. Clearly, though, I’m in a minority.
Speaking of Feist, does anybody else think that she’s the Chrissie Hynde of her generation? Distinctive voice, great songwriter, bangs?
12 Comments »
August 15th, 2005, 11 Comments »
In a recent post describing her latest ridiculously high standard (her term–they sound fair enough to me), Jen recounted some shortcomings of a suitor. These included the following crimes:
-HORRIBLE Kisser. Like, worst I�ve ever encountered. Sad but true. Although he can, Man should not kiss with (stiff lips and) tongue alone. Picture if you will (or don�t if you�d prefer not to): open mouth, seal it with other open mouth, swirl tongue around while leaving lips completely still. Drooling ensues.
-He wore pants with pleats. PLEATS!
-Goofy teeth! (Not horribly goofy, but I’m strangely hyper-sensitive about teeth.) For Christ’s sake, your father is a doctor! Don’t tell me you couldn’t have had braces when you were younger!
It’s that middle one that threw me. Pleats are verboten? Why didn’t I get the memo? I know I’m sartorially-challenged, but this had me really worried. Happily, Jen clarified in a later post:
The thing with pleats is that they add extra fabric to to the front of your thighs. If they’re not able to lie absolutely flat from waist to mid-thigh, they’ll just pucker and pooch out and look silly. This means that if your beer-gut prevents you from actually wearing your pants on your natural waist, or means that your body does not have a flat surface from navel to crotch, you can NOT wear pleats.
I actually thought pleats were designed for people with beer guts, in order to give them, you know, some more breathing room. But what do I know?
11 Comments »
