betterdeal Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 All. Other. Things. Being. Equal. I. Was. Not. Being. Serious.
betterdeal Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Just do what you want to do, is what life comes down to. If you don't like women, don't waste your time and energy wondering how you'll get a date with them.
SummersEve Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Guys who think women suck should know that yes we do but not on you, ha ha.
kalikula Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I am so, so tired of all the woman - hating men here who constantly spew ignorant generalizations, seek and post biased articles and studies that support their prejudices, and dominate many threads with this sad nonsense. Guys - we know what you think. It's miserable and embarrassing to read, especially over, and over, and over. Can't you think of any other subjects to contribute here on LS - maybe things you know something about? Obviously, the subject of women is one you are profoundly ignorant about. Agreed. This forum is a joke! I will merely say this: As an expert on the subject, from an evolutionary psychology standpoint men value physical attractiveness greater than women do, and women value resource acquisition (earning power) more than men do. Why, you ask? Because if men are designed to seek out long term mates of who they will help raise babies with, their primary concern is to seek out someone of high reproductive value, who has cues of high estrogen, such as a low hip to waist ratio, facial features that vary depending on estrogen level, and low fluctuating asymmetry. This is the most important consideration for men because those who pick out more fertile women will have more babies. Why should women value physical attractiveness less and earning power/ambition more? Because if women have offspring with merely the best genetic quality men, in evolutionary history their offspring may die quite easily if their mate is unable to provide for her. Thus they benefit the most from choosing a man who shows that he is able to provide resources such as food, shelter, territory and protection for their offspring. If you would like to add some super witty response such as "BS! Women are more shallow than men!" then perhaps you should first come up with a superior theory to evolutionary mate psychology and create an even more extensive body of research to back said theory up. Then I may consider it.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Agreed. This forum is a joke! I will merely say this: As an expert on the subject, from an evolutionary psychology standpoint men value physical attractiveness greater than women do, and women value resource acquisition (earning power) more than men do. Why, you ask? Because if men are designed to seek out long term mates of who they will help raise babies with, their primary concern is to seek out someone of high reproductive value, who has cues of high estrogen, such as a low hip to waist ratio, facial features that vary depending on estrogen level, and low fluctuating asymmetry. This is the most important consideration for men because those who pick out more fertile women will have more babies. Why should women value physical attractiveness less and earning power/ambition more? Because if women have offspring with merely the best genetic quality men, in evolutionary history their offspring may die quite easily if their mate is unable to provide for her. Thus they benefit the most from choosing a man who shows that he is able to provide resources such as food, shelter, territory and protection for their offspring. If you would like to add some super witty response such as "BS! Women are more shallow than men!" then perhaps you should first come up with a superior theory to evolutionary mate psychology and create an even more extensive body of research to back said theory up. Then I may consider it. But resourcefulness may not be translated all of the time as wealth. In fact there is social value and attractiveness in singing. That couldn't be figured out at first but then it was believed that social expression could be linked with how successful offspring were. Sort of a primitive EQ. Those children had a better chance of surviving and thriving because of their unique and valued social skill. This would also explain why those with social skills are valued and not just looks etc. If a man was rich and a woman beautiful but they couldn't follow basic social convention they may even be considered almost unmateable (depending on the flaw of course). A man may be considered resourceful because of his determination, intelligence, social skill or technical skill (maybe he's a great mechanic). Again all of these things are varietal.
Author musemaj11 Posted March 30, 2011 Author Posted March 30, 2011 Well, to be fair... all other things being equal, most women would choose a guy who makes more money. Which is fine in itself. But the problem is how is it fair that women keep wanting the government to do social engineering in their favor such as the affirmative action in order to artificially even out the playing field? What if men start asking the government to make a law that bans a marriage between a less wealthy woman and a wealthy man? That would be ridiculous, but in essence its no less dumb than those women who are suing Walmart because they promote more men than women.
kalikula Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I've never heard that argument before. In evolutionary history a man would be resourceful if he was able to protect his offspring, provide food and shelter, and have good social skills. I don't disagree that intelligence and social skills are attractive but they in themselves often lead to greater wealth and success.
Mr.Cairo Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I mean, a woman might meet two guys around the same period of time. She might have the same level of chemistry with each of them, find them equally attractive/intelligent/charming/funny, they have the same hobbies/interests, same values/goals/etc. ... In such an instance, I do think most women would choose the guy who makes more money or has a higher earning potential. As I, if I am the man with the more money, would choose to have my fun because hey, if a woman can have what she wants, so can the men with the money to make it happen.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Which is fine in itself. But the problem is how is it fair that women keep wanting the government to do social engineering in their favor such as the affirmative action in order to artificially even out the playing field? What if men start asking the government to make a law that bans a marriage between a less wealthy woman and a wealthy man? That would be ridiculous, but in essence its no less dumb than those women who are suing Walmart because they promote more men than women. When is the last time that you went out on a date with someone you like and respect? Seriously, not everything is some grand female conspiracy to make men blah blah blah. People are going to be unfair, everywhere, all the time. Each group is going to have it's bastards and its heroes. Most people are just trying to get along, have a family and retire on some cheap lakefront property. As for affirmative action etc. If members of a maligned group don't tend to be granted opportunites, then they stay maligned. Wal Mart are a bunch of pricks that don't choose from the most qualified applicants for ****ty managerial jobs. They pick from the most testically applicants. It isn't right, it isn't goddamn fair. Yes it should be changed. Quite frankly, I am verging on being a single mother through no fault of my own. My husband has made choices I have no control over. If I go to work at Wal Mart, I deserve the same chance to get a promotion as my endowed friend does if I am as productive etc. If Wal Mart are a bunch of misogynistic pricks then the government should step in because I live in a country where we demand equal respect. I am willing to put in just as much as anyone else no matter what their genetalia, I should be able to get as much back out. Why should my daughter have fewer resources available because her one involved parent just happens to be female? I've never heard that argument before. In evolutionary history a man would be resourceful if he was able to protect his offspring, provide food and shelter, and have good social skills. I don't disagree that intelligence and social skills are attractive but they in themselves often lead to greater wealth and success. True enough, everything in that whole attractiveness category tends to be quite interlinked, the rich man often has decent social skills, intelligence and can have the time to work out and keep his appearance up to date. And since these traits can often be clustered together we may perceive other rick folk that don't have all of the above as possessing traits they don't have. Illusion may be a valuable evolutionary skill, and perhaps even lying.
Author musemaj11 Posted March 30, 2011 Author Posted March 30, 2011 Why should my daughter have fewer resources available because her one involved parent just happens to be female? If you can find yourself a 'resourceful' husband, she shouldnt have to. The less women holding good jobs, the more men with good jobs available for you to choose from.
P&R Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Correlation does not imply causation. I dislike it when people make broad statements like this.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 If you can find yourself a 'resourceful' husband, she shouldnt have to. The less women holding good jobs, the more men with good jobs available for you to choose from. Why in the Hell would I ever want to venture into marriage/relationship territory again after my experiences with it? Why should I have to in order to provide for my daughter when I am willing to do the equal work of a man?
impz Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Correlation does not imply causation. I dislike it when people make broad statements like this. QFT. It might be a mediating factor. It's meh for me when people do so.
SummersEve Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Women want to marry a guy who's got something to offer them besides stupid insults.
dreamingoftigers Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Maybe I don't want marry a rich man, maybe I just want to be happy and not have any stupid expectations on me. Maybe I just want some freaking peace and stuff to settle down, married or not.
Pyro Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 If the title of this thread were true then I would not be engaged.
waynebrady Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Give a woman a lot of money and she will still want someone who has even more. Equal opportunity is social unfairness. It is a disturbance in the natural order. Women are inherently dependent. Give a man a job, his paycheck will also feed at least one woman and one child. Give a woman a job, her paycheck will go to a shoe store because her husband's paycheck already feeds her and her child. Yes, this is an exaggeration, but its not far from the truth. Fairness is if affirmative action is given to men. A law that 'potentially' favors a woman with no one to feed over a man with a wife and a child to feed is an unjust law. Besides, any employer knows that a man with dependents relying on his paycheck makes a much more dedicated worker. Equal opportunity is like communism. It is good as an idea but nothing more. I honestly don't think that is true. Women want to have the upper hand, the advantage over their man. So naturally they want to make more money than their boyfriend/husband. It's well known that women want to be chased, they want men to jump through hoops and put it in all the effort to win them over. This gives them the upper hand over the man. It's also well known that women want the man to love the woman more than she loves him. Again this gives the woman the upper hand. Women also have the upper hand sexually, but there is nothing to be done about that though That's biology. The one who wants less sex has more power than the one who wants it more. The fact that they want/have the upper hand in these 3 aspects leads me to believe they also want to have the upper hand financially aswell.
Mr.Cairo Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I honestly don't think that is true. Women want to have the upper hand, the advantage over their man. So naturally they want to make more money than their boyfriend/husband. It's well known that women want to be chased, they want men to jump through hoops and put it in all the effort to win them over. This gives them the upper hand over the man. It's also well known that women want the man to love the woman more than she loves him. Again this gives the woman the upper hand. Women also have the upper hand sexually, but there is nothing to be done about that though That's biology. The one who wants less sex has more power than the one who wants it more. The fact that they want/have the upper hand in these 3 aspects leads me to believe they also want to have the upper hand financially aswell. Sup Darwin, shaved your beard yet .
dreamingoftigers Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Statistics, please? oh sorry, missed this. Not tonight but will go hunting around tomorrow, tired and want to go to bed.
waynebrady Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Sup Darwin, shaved your beard yet . Whats your point?
orangelady Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Give a woman a lot of money and she will still want someone who has even more. Equal opportunity is social unfairness. It is a disturbance in the natural order. Women are inherently dependent. Give a man a job, his paycheck will also feed at least one woman and one child. Give a woman a job, her paycheck will go to a shoe store because her husband's paycheck already feeds her and her child. Yes, this is an exaggeration, but its not far from the truth. Fairness is if affirmative action is given to men. A law that 'potentially' favors a woman with no one to feed over a man with a wife and a child to feed is an unjust law. Besides, any employer knows that a man with dependents relying on his paycheck makes a much more dedicated worker. Equal opportunity is like communism. It is good as an idea but nothing more. The world according to musmaj eh. Strange, but a lot of my female friends are married to men who don't have much but he does have a job and they work too. I think the kind of women you are talking about are hot looking women. I notice only pretty women can afford to attract rich men as men with a lot of money only want a pretty face and someone to look after his home and children. Regular women are not into money because they know they can't snap up a wealthy man with their not so attractive looks. So women like me, we just want a kind man, who is bothered enough to at least have a job - not an abundance of money.
orangelady Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 dot, don't even bother with these guys. They have no interest in reality. If you've noticed, each one of these guys has their own OCD item. With the OP, it's money. With another, it's American women = sluts and whores. With another, it's all women are superficial. It's neverending obsession that guarantees they won't be able to date. Another zero sum game. Spot on. I agree with you. Although I think the OP may have had an experience where he loved a woman but she went for someone else with a lot of money. Just a hunch. But yeah...it's a sad world.
orangelady Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I am so, so tired of all the woman - hating men here who constantly spew ignorant generalizations, seek and post biased articles and studies that support their prejudices, and dominate many threads with this sad nonsense. Guys - we know what you think. It's miserable and embarrassing to read, especially over, and over, and over. Can't you think of any other subjects to contribute here on LS - maybe things you know something about? Obviously, the subject of women is one you are profoundly ignorant about. Hahahahaha I know.......I think when men spew ignorant generalizations like that, it's usually an experience they had. Yeah...but think about it, if there were no biased posts, would there be much to talk about?
Recommended Posts