September 14, 2004

• (washpost link, i tried linking through google so we'll see if that bypasses the registration stuff...)
• Dr. Laura is a moron.
• I, as a man, am apparantly both a child and a puppy, but still capable of scraping the ice of the windscreen. Who'd have thunk it?
• "When he scrapes the ice off your car windshield," Schlessinger says, "that is love-speak. Men are made of action. Action is largely how men communicate." So, if I put my foot up Dr. Laura's butt and break it off, that would be...
• (gee, sounds like the monkeymen don't necessarily agree with our good doc...)
• I say we take off and nuke the doc from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Sorry, that's my phrase for the day.
• I just don't get why the writer of the article is so impressed. A crackpot takes some behavior-modification theory, mixes in a little common sense and forges corn-laden "nuggets of wisdom." So what? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And Dr. Laura even less...
• corn-laden!
• Of course Dr. Laura is a moron. But this stuff is all true. Of course, it's also quite obvious: treat your husband as a person with his own thoughts, feelings, and predilections, and stop expecting him to be just like you. It misses the flip-side, of course, where he meets you halfway, but it's sound advice. And men *are* like puppies. So are women. It's common fucking sense, honey vs. vinegar, etc. This isn't rocket science, people, it's pop psychology, and any idiot can participate.
• Tinfoil beat me to it.
• i wonder, uncleozzy, why this stuff is so controversial because, as you say, it's just "common fucking sense."
• I think it's dangerous to look at only the moderate views of an extremist and say hey, this extremist isn't all that bad, many of their views make sense. Imagine the result if we did that with other extremists.
• "But this stuff is all true." Since when? Evidence? Where? Bollocks.
• I am man so so I must be able to have it all and do it all well. One of my favorite double standards...
• I am a sexless automaton progammed to hug! Beep beep beep! Who desires my cold, inhuman embrace?
• Come get it, big boy. *holds up can of oil, gives RoboQuid2000 "The Eye"*
• I don't like the glib assumption that all men and women work according to the accepted model; I've got nothing against girls who like to be dramatic, but cooey love-talk bores the hell out of me. I'm terrible at being "thoughtful", I'M always the one who doesn't want to gossip after a party, and I relate more to the puppy than the mother. Maybe that's why I can't make a relationship last longer than 30 days. Sorry. Forgot this wasn't therapy.
• I've never heard of this woman before. I think it's true that you'll get on better with husbands or with anybody if you accept that other people may not work the same way as you (that's maturity isn't it?). I think there was a time when some forms of feminism were, for some women, a barrier to accepting that. But Dr Laura does seem to be slightly in danger of installing (or re-installing) some barriers of her own in the way of rather hard-and-fast generalisations about men. I get a bit tired of being told I'm not interested in other people's feelings, or in talking about my own. If I can be allowed a bit of stereotyping of my own, I should say that women and emotions are a bit like men and cars: just because they talk about them a lot doesn't mean they are particularly capable of dealing with them sensibly. Suppose I'd better go and scrape the car now.
• one question i'd like to toss out there: are women and men essentially very different animals? or are the differences more societal than psychological?
• SideDish, you've said exactly what I was going to say here - I don't believe there is as much difference between men and women as there is made out to be. As far as I can tell, a lot of the differences are caused by social pressure, starting from the moment of birth. A number of the problems that are being dissected in the article are either: caused by people who can't think for themselves, or don't really understand why they got married in the first place. I'd also argue that Laura has not realized that marriage is a social construct - it's not something that's programmed into our minds - it's something that can be anything you want it to be.
• She's making gross generalizations and playing to stereotypes. Her characterizations are bound to fit some people and that's fine, but they shouldn't be taken as gospel.
• Sometimes I put my pee-pee in my girlfriend's woo-woo.
• Since when? Evidence? Where? Bollocks. Since the only actual message here is "realize that others (even *gasp* your husband) don't share your views and you will get along better," I think it's pretty evident and, as I said, "common fucking sense." And SideDish, it's not the message that's controversial, it's the messenger, and lots of people have trouble separating the two. I think onlyconnect hit the nail on the head here, if I read her comment right.
• "realize that others (even *gasp* your husband) don't share your views and you will get along better," By having dinner on the table when he gets home, not turning down sex, and acting more like a second-class citizen... according to Dr. Laura. What you say is correct, but that's not the message that Dr. Laura is trying to convey.
• Ooh, wait, I have a better way to say what I just said. You are all being total *women* about this. Look at what she's saying instead of how she's saying it. That's the male way! I hope that clears it up.
• This person seems to agree with Dr. Laura's sweeping generalisations and asinine truisms merely because it provides an opportunity for the kind of feather-lite observational whimsy which has kept a whole generation of chick-lit scribblers in Manolos. Does that mean that it speaks truth to generations of women, or that it is an accurate summation of male/female relationships? Er... yeah. No. Whatever. But then, I'm not really able to speak on behalf of men here, because obviously I'm actually a form of sub-human vermin (in the good Doctor's worldview).
• that's not the message that Dr. Laura is trying to convey In general, that is correct. She's an ass-backwards lunatic who would have all women either barefoot and pregnant or dolled up putting dinner on the table. Looking only at the examples given in the article (the primary source here), however, that's not the idea.
• From the wiki article : Schlessinger often gives her opinion on social topics during her radio show. Some are common-sense, others are controversial, especially in how they are phrased. These are some of her opinions that she has stated at least 5 times on her show. If a year is given after an opinion, then it was not addressed on her show before that year.: Children should only be put in day-care if absolutely no other options exist. Most two-paycheck couples do so for luxury goods, not survival. "Stay at home" moms are the best parents. Dads should work, moms should not (1997). (Earlier in her syndication, in 1996, she advocated either parent staying home.) Divorce, when there are children, should not occur unless there is Abuse, Addiction, or Adultery (her "three A's") Don't forgive those who wronged you unless there is Remorse, Responsibility, and Repair (her "three R's") Live-in arrangements outside marriage ("shack-ups") are immoral. Couples who lived together before marrying are more likely to divorce. Women who engage in sex outside marriage are "presenting themselves virtually as unpaid whores." All contraception is unreliable. Therefore, couples should abstain from sex outside of marriage. Teenaged girls who wear croptops and other revealing outfits are "sluts." (1998) Dating should not begin until age 17 or 18. Couples should not marry until their late 20s. Pre-marriage engagements should be lengthy. Couples should not marry unless they have been dating at least 2 years. Parents who have divorced should not remarry until all children are over 18. Adoption should be only by two-parent heterosexual families, with a stay-at-home mother. (1997 for the heterosexual part) Abortion is murder, and should only be done when the mother's life is in danger. (1996) (Unclear if she allows exceptions for "mother's health.") The pro-choice movement, especially Planned Parenthood, is "evil" and "deceptive." The National Education Association and the American Library Association want to allow children to access explicit materials online. The American Psychological Association (APA) promotes pedophilia (See Rind et al.)
• >>Women who engage in sex outside marriage are "presenting themselves virtually as unpaid whores." i never understood the concept of marriage as a "reward" or "payment" for women.
• Teenaged girls who wear croptops and other revealing outfits are "sluts." Woo! If Dr. Laura says they're sluts, it must be true. Time to go get me some teenaged sluts.
• Weiss's article makes sense, if you can get past the ad hominem problems with Dr. Laura's other views. The few choice Dr. Laura quotes addressed in the article are actually good advice, and can be equally applied to men and women. Women shouldn't expect men to behave and react just like they do, and neither should men expect this of women. And both are more likely to get what they want by giving what the other wants, rather than demanding and complaining. We *are* different, and whether that is hard-wired or societal (it's probably a bit of both), it doesn't change the fact. I've heard it said that women marry men hoping they'll change, and men marry women hoping they'll stay the same. Ultimately, both are disappointed. How you react to that disappointment makes or breaks a relationship.
• I wander what Mrs. Bishop's husband thinks of all this?
• So men and women are wired differently, and this is what causes so many problems in romantic/sexual relationships... therefore... people in homosexual relationships don't have those problems! And yet, Dr.Laura is outspokenly against homosexuality... what gives?
• It doesn't fit into her "Leave it to Father Knows Maybury" model of human interactions, most likely.
• And yet Andy and Barney were happiest when they were together, not in their deficient love lives...
• Andy and Barney were happiest when they were together, not in their deficient love lives... Andy and Barney had love lives?
• What a maroon, what an ignoranimous!
• Meaning Dr L.
• I'm still contemplating Andy and Barney. Was Barney even married?
• Sometimes I put my pee-pee in my girlfriend's woo-woo. posted by the quidnunc kid at 05:06PM UTC on September 14 Since when? Evidence? Where? Bollocks. Best accidental pairing of comments ever. I recently dated a girl who was a huge fan of Dr. Laura. She asked me to read one of the books - basically Dr. L's goal is a return to the 1950's. Now, I'm sure there are some out there who would love to come home to a hot dinner, a martini, and a subservient wife, but I'll take excitement, disagreement, and conversation any day.
• I'm still contemplating Andy and Barney. Was Barney even married? Berney married Thelma Lou at the end of the TV Movie "Return to Mayberry." I am ashamed that I know that.
• Andy and Barney had love lives? Don't make me look it up.
• So in other words, Dr. Laura doesn't think I should use "Put it in your mouth, it'll make you feel pretty" as a pickup line.
• Damn. I meant Barney, not Berney. I need a special dailing wand or something.
• Andy had several girlfriends over the years: Ellie Walker, the new lady druggist; Mary Simpson, the county nurse; Peggy McMillan, the rich girl that Barney forbid Andy to see; and Helen Crump, Opie's school teacher. Helen and Andy got married at the end of the series. I can't find anything about Barney's love life (I'm too lazy,) but that just goes to show ya, doesn't it?
• Too lazy to even scroll up the page to Tinfoil's post. D'oh!
• I find that I'm not as annoyed at Dr. Laura herself as I am at all of the women out there who eat this crap up with a spoon. If more women realized that they don't have to shoehorn themselves into these ridiculous "traditional" roles, maybe there wouldn't be an audience anymore and Dr. Laura would disintegrate and blow away.
• A whole bunch of Mayberry monkeys, thanks! As for Dr. Laura, never really took to her or any other moralizing radio personality. I appreciate the reminder that "you can't have it all" which might as well be this era's "you can't take it with you"--something that is undoubtedly true, but people don't stop to think about the validity of it. As the same time, I find myself agreeing with some of the other male monkeys who don't feel like puppies or children or any other role where we should be patronized--and Dr. L's insistence on that strikes me as trying to score a few cheap points with the insecure set. From what little I've studied of neurology, it seems that men's and women's brains are indeed 'wired differently' but those same studies didn't point to any appreciable difference in mental capacity or any other salient factor. So men are from earth, women are from earth. Deal with it. :-P
• Women who engage in sex outside marriage are "presenting themselves virtually as unpaid whores." WTF? That's the silliest comment I've ever read. The very definition of a whore is someone who gets paid for sex. If you don't get paid, you're not a whore.

• one question i'd like to toss out there: are women and men essentially very different animals?

  To paraphrase a friend of mine, there may be differences, but they're trivial and uninteresting compared to the differences or similarity between any given man and woman.

  So men are from earth, women are from earth. Deal with it.

  Bravo! As has been pointed out, if relationship problems are a function of opposite-sex pairings, same-sex relationships ought to be perfect. They aren't. Relationships are the hard bit.
• frankly, i relish the differences between myself and my sweetie.
• Should I send my man into the thread to complain about how I never notice things and never want to talk about my feelings? Don't even get him started about planning for the future. Sure, men and women are different. So are men and men, women and women - and cats come in variety too (though only two kinds - crazy or sleeping). And (as my psychologist friend tells me) there are a few secondary sex differences that are interesting, but these aren't them and they are far, far outweighed by the sheer human variety in both sexes. Shockingly enough, there are women around who don't like shopping, have a cosmetics drawer that consists of a toothbrush, toothpaste and a comb, and who really, really don't like sappy movies. (Period dramas - that's a different story. They have cool clothes and sometimes even swords, though usually only ceremonial.) Many women also prefer to express themselves in action than words. (Whereas my SO is a debater and excellent public speaker, as well as being a big sop). I do cook for him (he has no sense of how to spice things) - but he is a much better sewer and ironer (just like his father, who is also a good cook.) The basic "pay attention to your loved one, and the way they work" stuff is good - but it's so wrapped up in deeply stupid ideas about how people work based on their genitalia that it's just about useless.
• The so-called differences between men and women, was started by (only!) two people: John Gray, he of the Mars/Venus fame, and Deborah Tannen, "You Just Don't Understand." Certainly, their claims inflamed the popluar imagination very quickly, but both books were based on a miniscue amount of research. This article popped up on the SciTechDaily site last week on exactly this point. In short, there's a lot less evidence for believing that women and men communicate differently than there is for the idea that we each communicate differently as individuals. I don't know why this has to be read from a feminist perspective (leaving aside those who think that everything is gendered), one way or another. "Dr." Laura seems to be offering up her usual mixute of obvious and offensive homilies. Certainly, if my mate followed these rules, she'd either be dull, patronizing (shouldn't that be matronizing? But, I digress), or, like "Dr." Laura, both.
• Dr. L is clearly a bonehead but (another) one with an audience. Would that life were as simple as her mudande observations. And speaking of 1950's television: "Ward, you were a little hard on the Beaver last night, weren't you?"
• Barney's Girl was named Thelma Lou.
• I firmly believe that men and women are significantly different in terms of communication style, competitiveness, empathy, mate selection, dealing with stress, and a host of other traits. We see this in other animals, so why do we deny that it exists in us? I'll agree that there are wide differences from individual to individual within each gender, but *on average* there is a difference between us. And, as the man said, "Vive la difference!"

• I firmly believe that men and women are significantly different

  You keep repeating this, but unlike bonehead, you don't seem to be able to offer much in the way of evidence...
• Dr. Laura: slut, hypocrite.
• rogerd: bonehead's linked article was absolute shit. Among other errors of logic, it attempted to discredit an evolution-based theory of mate selection by citing modern fertility rates of pretty girls. That's laughable. I did state that my point of view was a belief, and it's mostly based on personal experience and the previously stated fact that similar significant gender differences exist throughout nature. But if it's evidence you want, theres the fact that worldwide (should eliminate cultural differences) men tend to play and watch competitive sports more than women. They also tend to fight (physically) much more than women. Across cultures and throughout history, men have been hunters and providers, while women have been caretakers and raisers of children. We've become enlightened in the past few years, but the tendencies that have helped us evolve and survive over generations are now in our genes. Of course there are exceptions to all this, but these are general tendencies, so exceptions don't disprove the rule. A more important question would be: Why are you threatened by the fact that we may be wired differently, and why do you think we would be the only animals on earth not to be wired differently?
• I started reading the article and then I realized that I don't give a shit what Dr. Laura has to say. Boring.
• "I think it's dangerous to look at only the moderate views of an extremist and say hey, this extremist isn't all that bad, many of their views make sense. Imagine the result if we did that with other extremists." A brilliant comment, onlyconnect. Thank you. For those of you who agree that men and women are very different, recall that all people have different traits, qualities and patterns of behaviour, and that these change over time and in and out of distinct cultures. I was raised in rural Missouri, and I don't fit the traditional male model in many ways. My wife, who grew up in Quebec, would probably make 'Dr.' Laura's blood curdle (if my wife didn't gut the bigot first). People who are comfortable being strong and independent (like me and my wife) don't feel the need to modify behaviour in order to fit in with some outdated moralist's opinion of appropriate gender roles and duties. One's sex doesn't compel one to be aloof or dependable or sanctimonious -- one's character does that.
• men have been hunters and providers, while women have been caretakers and raisers of children I read somewhere that there are only two roles that are dominated by one gender across the planet - men in warfare, women in child rearing. Everything else changes depending on your culture - women farm and men watch animals in one, men farm and women watch animals in another. I've never read anything about hunting (earlier than my period), but the man as "provider" image doesn't fit with reality of hunter-gatherer societies - most of their calories come from gathered food. And for the last few thousand years, women have not only farmed, raised animals, made bread, cheese, and beer, but worked in mines, pottery industry, as silk throwers and woolspinners and printers. (And this is just the stuff I've come across lately). Women have worked in every working class job - usually in the adjunct positions which had less status, but which in reality are no less difficult. So for thousands of years, women have had to learn the same mechanical skills as men. bonehead's article is very good. The point about pretty women is not illogical - it's pointing out that there is no known evolutionary advatage to having a pretty wife, so evolutionary explanations just don't work. But the main thrust of the argument is that psychological studies have been reporting the statistical differences without reporting the very large overlaps. So, if women are slightly more X, this is reported, but the fact that 80% of men are just as X as 80% of women is not reported. And a female at the male end of communication, I think this is a damn good point to be made.
• rocket88 - "significant gender differences exist throughout nature." Well, yeah, they do, but not in the way you're proposing. For lions and tigers and bears, oh my, the male hunter bringing food home to the family thing doesn't seem so universal. Not to mention hyenas, ,eagles, and all the other birds who either cooperate in feeding the young, or where the females take over the whole duty. We don't have a video of early man's involvement, but I'd bet you that women hunted with men in those days until they had kids to raise.
• Rocket88, keep telling it like it is. The salient differences are there, though of course culture modifies them and exceptions always exist. Evolutionary psychology is part of the evidence, and is discussed by a growing number of authors such as Robert Wright. The Greatest Generation was not comprised of servant-automatons and machio warriors, and they led fuller lives than most do today, in this so-called Enlightened age of knee-jerk naysayers. Dr. Laura has a penchant for black-and-white statements expressed in an oft-times unnecessarily condescending manner, but she also cuts thru much of the BS clouding the minds of so many of her callers.
• Ah, Baby-baby, you said it all .... Monkeyfilter: Sorry. Forgot this wasn't therapy. I started reading the article and then I realized that I don't give a shit what Dr. Laura has to say. posted by Sullivan Sulli, I'm with ya'. What a waste of time.
• I personally would like to see Dr. Laura and Dr. Phil in a Thunderdomish deathmatch. With Tina Turner officiating, of course.
• I think there are innate differences in personality, aptitudes, and so on between men and women overall, and that most human societies reflect them pretty clearly. But then I've been reading Steven Pinker's Blank Slate. The thing is, as he puts it: "equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group". Or indeed, by rigid social traditions.
• Good point Plegmund. I've always believed that equality is an unattainable goal, since we're not equal, and never will be. Equal opportunity, however, is attainable, and should be what we're shooting for.
• there is no known evolutionary advatage to having a pretty wife, so evolutionary explanations just don't work Depends what you call pretty. I think in most cultures, pretty = healthy (symmetrical, good hair & teeth, proper waist-to-hip ratio, etc), which is an evolutionary advantage. Pretty also often means youthful-looking, and youth is an evolutionary advantage.
• Proper waist-to-hip ratio my ass!
• ...but that's to them, not necessarily to you for having them.
• Yeah, rocket88 is absolutely right. Think it of from another angle - it is an evolutionary advantage to find the characteristics of a healthy, fertile mate "pretty". The concept of prettiness isn't some external, universal absolute. Beauty is in the genes of the beholder*. Hence, for example, the runaway sexual selection for large-buttomed women in the Samoan isles. If twelve-inch-long serrated teeth were currently the best way to ensure you have kids and grandkids, right now we'd all be anxiously checking our sabres in the mirror and wondering if Lindsay Lohan's had enamel implants. *I have no idea if Richard Dawkins has ever used this phrase, but he should have. Naturally, it's a crude shorthand. Should actually read, "Beauty is in the complex interplay of genes, developmental factors and environmentally specific genetic expression of the beholder, all dedicated to the passing on of the genes of the beholder to the beholder's grandchildren. Oh, and don't get the beholder started on those meme things, it's late and the beholder's tired."
• But for bearing babies, women really should be wide-hipped and a bit fat (plump, but healthy) - yet that's not "pretty", at least not in North America. Female athletes, though very healthy, may stop menstruating due to lack of body fat; I often wonder how many models suffer from that too. As for differences and equality: No, women on average will never be as physically as strong as men, but many women do have more uper body strength than many men - and even more lower body strength. Brain-wise, there's even less difference - in fact, much of the difference with how men and women preform has been linked to stereotype effect (believing you won't do well can lead to not doing well). Statistical differences should never be used on an individual level - they have no meaning except when talking about averages, and again, there is a very large overlap between men and women. But the biggest thing I have noticed is that people who believe that men and women are more different than alike are often people who grew up in cultures with strongly defined gender roles. Even just within North America, we have many different subcultures with stronger and weaker gender roles. The kind of people I grew up with (especially in high school) either didn't believe in or defied conservative gender roles - girls disliked shopping, liked books, half never wore make-up (the other half did, but then half the boys did, too - those crazy goths), some programmed computers, all liked sci-fi, and fantasy and disliked romance. The boys were skinny nerds who liked hanging out with girls, some did drama and arts, none liked sports (the only friend I have who can stand to watch any sport is my female and rather femme roommate). I also grew up knowing a fair number of know more bisexual and gay men and women. The overall effect was that I've never found that men and women I know well talked that differently, or have different interests - they like the same movies, books, activities - and communication style is predicated on personality, not gender. But I've since meet people who grew up with girls who wore makeup that wasn't gothic, where boys played sports, and gender roles were conformed to. If that is the way you grew up, I can imagine that you would believe that men and women thought and communicated differently. But the fact that this doesn't even translate into subcultures of western society should be a clue that most of the difference is cultural, not innate. I know that it is a saying "Vive la difference!" - and to some extent I understand it. For straight men and women, the physical differences between the sexes seem to be very attractive - or so my fiance says so (whereas I (as a bisexual) find that I am more often attracted to features that men and women share). But I don't think that people are really attracted to people who communicate very differently from each other - most successful straight (as well as gay) couples I know are really alike when it comes to communication style. Talkative, argumentative people seem to get on best with each other, whereas quieter, less confrontational people seem happier with someone who is like them. It's not that I haven't seem unalike people together, but when communication styles differ radically, it seems to become a real problem in the relationship. (I've also heard from social scientists that the idea that "opposites attract" doesn't usually work either - it does happen, but most people are attracted to people like themselves, even if what they notice are the few differences.)
• But for bearing babies, women really should be wide-hipped and a bit fat (plump, but healthy) - yet that's not "pretty", at least not in North America. Female athletes, though very healthy, may stop menstruating due to lack of body fat; I often wonder how many models suffer from that too. But, how many guys do you know who actually find stick-thin models attractive? I mean, really attractive? If you look at models who serve as (to put it bluntly) wank-fodder, as opposed to ones who are just fashionista clothes-hangers, they have much fuller figures, notably large breasts and very rounded buttocks. That plumpness is no longer considered highly attractive in North America or affluent Europe is simply a factor of environmental triggers; fat no longer indicates good health or high status. Compare pictures of noted beauties from a few centuries ago... I've also heard from social scientists that the idea that "opposites attract" doesn't usually work either - it does happen, but most people are attracted to people like themselves, even if what they notice are the few differences. Well, for biological traits, like normally attracts like - assortative mating is the general rule (although there are, of course, numerous exceptions). Generally, where this rule crumbles is at the extremes - to take a fairly obvious example, people generally go for partners of who are comparable in height to them. However, when you get to very tall or very short people, this trend flips round, and they tend to get it on with people at the opposite end of the scale. Hence, lots of tiny rockstars dating 6 foot 6 models. As far as social opposites attracting, I don't know the evidence, but it seems plausible that it's a folk tale based on the fact that you remember unlikely-seeming couplings far more than you do two average people having very average sex. I wouldn't say that it's purely like-for-like, though - for most successful couples I know, the term 'complimentary' seems most appropriate. Alike enough to be compatible, but different enough so that there's little redundancy. Just thinking out loud there, though. Naturally, as highly complex social animals, there's a wide range of non-innate factors that play a role in mate choice (for example, I doubt very much that I have either a genetic or developmental predisposition to people who wear flares). And like all behavioural triggers, they can get seriously buggered-up during development and childhood, to the extent that some people can only become aroused by (say) soft fruit, or a 1967 Buick LaSabre. But in terms of the general impulses, and common factors amongst populations, the explanation of evolved behaviour based upon the combination of genetics and development seems to be extrememly powerful. Furthermore, the question has to be asked... if not from evolved biological impulses, where do such triggers come from?
• I'd hit it.
• The effect of evolution on mate selection doesn't necessarily determine whom you marry, or develop a long-term relationship with. There are other forces at work there, such as personality compatibility and shared interests. You're using a different part of your brain, and it's quite likely that you'll choose someone who doesn't fit the 'healthy & fertile' ideal that your genes prefer. That primitive, genetics influenced, part of your brain comes into play when you catch a glimpse of a woman in a sundress walking in the park as you're driving to work, making your head spin around reflexively, and almost causing you to crash headlong into the stopped car in front of you. (Based on a true story)
• Of course men and women are different. The acid test is this: Take 10 men and say 'Ace of Spades' to them and 8 of them will start playing air guitar ... Take 10 women and say 'Ace of Spades' to them and they will all look blank!
• At least one of the other two out of ten would rather play poker.
• ddc - I will be testing that. Of course, since everyone I know is under 30 and mostly North American, it might not work :)