Labels

Friday, November 7, 2014

Choosing Hats and Wives.

It is a betting opportunity that stops Oz on a particular track. Flemington and the 'Cup'.  While at the home of the Anglophile world November 5th is celebrating the fine attempt at a change of Government tried by Guy Fawkes, Oz goes to the races and lays its bets. 

We get the pre and post race crowd in the Tavern, such as it is in this modest Island to the south of Flemington, and we also see the bookies taking bets on the hats that the ladies wear.

Most chaps that come here take their hats off. We have special hat stands for them as many are rather hefty and don't manage hooks well. 


And of course my own 'Dress hat'  has its special stand, near the door too.


But the ladies often keep theirs on.  They have spent some time and effort on the selection, especially at this time of the year.  If they are going down to the Crypt to pay their respects, they will generally wear something to cover their head. The mantilla is usual as it is simple and modest.


But the ladies at the races go to far greater lengths. They put more effort into choosing their colours and a hat for the day than most men and women put into choosing a mate for life. And so it was that my fine customer and mate Steve was sitting and discussing 'Not all Women are Like That', as one does, when several be-hatted ladies walked by. He had to wait while everyone looked. We shall get back to him.




A bold ensemble created by a Darwin fashion designer has won the fashions on the field competition at the Melbourne Cup.

Christine Spielmann teamed up with fashion designer Nadia Foti and milliner Joanna Roberts, who both grew up in Darwin, to create the winning outfit.

"It's pretty surreal, I'm still not sure I've taken it in." 

She said the win was the result of months of consideration.

"Too much planning, it started in January, but that's only because my designer lives in Melbourne," she said.

As part of her prize Ms Spielmann won a $2,500 voucher at a major department store and accommodation in Melbourne. She will also enter into the Victorian fashions on the field final.

Not all eyes were soley on the hats, although much effort was made to focus attention upward. It is possible that a hat of that ilk will come back if blown off, which says a lot about the thought that miliners put into their work. Let the lady sashay a while before we look at others.




As you can see, there were other contenders and runners-up and as far as I know none dropped dead in the stalls or broke a leg, as happened to some of the four-legged runners.

 It does rate a mention however that some ladies did not neglect other items for the hoi-poloi to look at: some goggle eyed.


The usual feminist retort of "My eyes are up HERE !!" clearly is not well regarded at Flemington, regardless - or maybe in spite of - the hats, and especially when it is such a tiddly hat: more of an after-thought than a head covering. Not much of a chest covering come to think of it.

Lord knows what a dyed-in-the-cauldron Feminazi would look at if a lady wasn't wearing a hat.


I guess that answers that !

But back to Steve and his consideration that Not All Women are like Hilary Clinton.

Steve was giving thought and voice to the more important matter of choosing a mate. And while it is from a chap's perspective, the same complex equations need to be worked through by ladies.

Talking about the current sad state of dating and marriage in the USA will often elicit “Not All Women Are Like That” or NAWALT. 
The first thing is not to contradict whoever makes that claim. Why? Because it is true. Not all women are skanks, attention whores or predators. (but most will wear a hat). The MRA cause is not helped by attacking people who speak truthfully. Better to examine the assumptions behind “Not all women are like that” and then reply. (So) this chat does that.

Some are easier to spot than others. 

Its the hat that gives the game away.


There are three unrealistic assumptions behind NAWLT. They are:
1. Perfect Detection (Zero Error)
Not every woman is a suitable partner. Some women are sociopaths and exploiters. A great date may not be a great wife. So a man has to choose. If her errs, it costs. Because of anti-male laws, this cost is high.
Choose the wrong wife and half your assets vanish. If you have children,it is unlikely you will see them. Plus the threat of false accusations.
As the cost of selecting the wrong woman increases, the error rate has to go down. Lowering the error rate takes more time and resources.
Eventually cost of finding a partner exceeds the benefit of finding a partner. At that point, looking for a partner becomes pointless.
2. Zero or Low Cost Of Error
The cost of error (selecting the wrong woman) also influences the risk of selecting the wrong woman. That is because the risk associated with an error is a function of both cost of error and the chances of the error occurring (Risk of Error = Cost of Error * probability of error).
A low cost of error can mitigate a high probability of error. But a low cost of error for spouse selection is not a valid assumption, especially for today.
3. Infinite Time And Resources Available For Search
It is generally agreed that one should be slow to marry. This is because compatibility is a complex matter and takes time to correctly assess. If it takes 100 years to find a suitable mate, what is the point? Most people do not live that long.
Furthermore, only so much time and resources can be devoted to a mate search. Could the energy be better directed elsewhere?
There is another aspect to mate searching. When a man considers a woman for a wife, he is testing two hypotheses. The first one is “Is she suitable?”. The second hypothesis is “Is she not suitable?”.
When you do hypothesis testing, the hypothesis you assume to be true by default is important. This is called the null hypothesis. It is what you assume true in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is designated Ho or H1.
The remaining hypothesis is called the research or alternative hypothesis. It is the hypothesis you adopt only when there is evidence for it. It is designated Ha or H2.
You decide which hypothesis to reject or not reject based on evidence. If the evidence is in favor of the alternative hypothesis (Ha or H2), you accept it and reject the null hypothesis (Ho or H1). If the evidence does not support the alternative hypothesis (Ha or H2), you retain the the null hypothesis (Ho or H1).
Now set up a hypothesis test for the mate selection problem assuming what NAWLT advocates say is true. Since not all women are like that, it logically follows that the null hypothesis is Ho: She is suitable. The alternative hypothesis is Ha: She is not suitable.
The hypothesis test is now:
Ho: She is suitable  vs.  Ha: She is not suitable
There are four outcomes to this test
a. She is suitable when she really is – Correct decision
b. She is not suitable when she really is not suitable – Correct decision
c. She is suitable when she really is not – Error. This is called a false positive or Type I error
d. She is not suitable when she really is suitable – Error. This is called a false negative or Type II error.
Which outcome has the most potential for damage? 
Outcomes a and b are correct decisions, so they incur zero or low cost. Outcome d, the false negative, is unfortunate, but not that costly.
The most costly outcome is c, the false positive. That means our man is now married to a skank, sociopath or gold digger. Thus our man wants to minimize the false positive rate.
But if our man reduces the false positive rate, the false negative rate increases. He winds up rejecting suitable women to keep from selecting non-suitable ones.
This is what men face today. The cost of bad wife selection is so high that he is forced to turn away good women for fear of mistakenly choosing a bad one.
 http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/11/15/how-to-deal-with-not-all-women-are-like-that/

Clearly choosing a hat is far easier. 

All that being said and digested, my lady friend the Southern Gal added a few choice quotations for Steve to mull over.
“The Holiness of God is not evidenced in women when they are brash, brassy, boisterous, brazen, head-strong, strong-willed, loud-mouthed, overly-talkative, having to have the last  word, challenging, controlling, manipulative, critical, conceited, arrogant, aggressive, assertive, strident, interruptive, undisciplined, insubordinate, disruptive, dominating, domineering, or clamoring for power. Rather, women accept God’s holy order and character by being humbly and unobtrusively respectful and receptive in functional subordination to God, church leadership, and husbands.”~James Fowler

“Earth has nothing more tender than a woman’s heart when it is the abode of piety.”~Martin Luther
“Those who would defend anti-feminist traditionalism today are like heretics fighting a regnant Inquisition. To become a homemaker, a woman may need the courage of a heretic…. Feminists claimed a woman can find identity and fulfillment only in a career; they are wrong. They claimed a woman can, in that popular expression, ‘have it all’; they are wrong – she can have only some. The experience of being a mother at home is a different experience from being a full-time market producer who is also a mother. A woman can have one or the other experience, but not both at the same time. Combining a career with motherhood requires a woman to compromise by diminishing her commitment and exertions with respect to one role or the other, or usually, to both.”
~ F. Carolyn Graglia, A Brief Against Feminism, pages 369-370

There. Much to think upon. Good hearts are to be found, like good hats.

Now, I must put my dress hat to work and escort a lady in a mantilla down to the Cellars for a peek at the Grail.

Have a Drink of a Fine Foreign Bevvie of Distinction while I am away.....

Pax.






14 comments:

  1. Desperate trouble for the world if Clinton gets in, which it is more than likely she will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get a hard hat, Sir. I will provide a stand.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  8. I have directed the Bouncer to removed some comments and politly asked Susie to leave the Tavern. I gave a polite warning . 'Enough', I said. It was ignored.

    I was informed in the last comment that I would be photographed, at a distance, as 'proof' of being seen. This is 'stalking' behaviour which could be tendered as evidence in a civil action. While the comments are deleted, they are retained.

    ReplyDelete

Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..