Mustachian Ladies (Feminism, langugage, and the real world vs. the PC ideal)

[tooqk4u22]

Am I the only one who is tired out by all the genderisms? 

Couldn't we start focussing on humanism, or some variant which explains what makes for a successful relationship?  It is a skill set which can be different from relying on general attraction trends.  Some folks seem to have learned this skill set by having parents role model it successfully, but loads have not.  Given that we are all prone to aging and gaining weight and making and losing money it would be good to have another model out there that is taught, rather than relying on instinct to carry the day.

I am sure we are all tired of it but when talking about one gender attracting another genderisms are a natural part of the equation - and it is the basis of the thread.

To go off topic a bit (even if it is the genisis of this thread)......those on this forum and people like us in the world it seems that the crux of the matter is finding someone with similar goals and anti-consumerism mindset.  Ignoring gender altogether (see this can be done) the theory/conclusion seems to be that it is difficult to find this given the consumerist nature of our society.  Is it impossible, no. People also can't get hung up on finding the perfect person that meets these common goals and anti-consumerist mindset.  It also relative - I am spendy compared to many here, DW if is spendy to me but downright frugal to her friends. 

[totoro]

I'm just suggesting that the focus could shift a big from what men and women are attracted by to understanding how relationships work and where the greatest satisfaction arises.  Gender is real and a factor, but interpersonal relationships have such a huge impact that understanding successful ones -  is far more important imo than identifying that girls need to be "attractive" and boys need to be "successful" to attract a partner.

I think things are kind of mixed up in the debate.  One is the general offensiveness of attitudes based on entrenched inequality.  It is offensive and real but it is not interpersonal unless you are in relationship with someone who has these attitudes.  We can combat this attitude with awareness and social movements.   

I always remember reading a list of advice from a fellow in his 90s.  Top of the list was, "be careful who you marry, this one decision can influence 99% of your happiness".  I have found that to be true.  If that is true for others we should perhaps be focussing on the qualities that create relationship happiness which, for me, is a high compatibility of interests and background.   Learning about your self and relationships is likely an effective way to counter genderisms and concerns about them.  I have found the more authentic you are in yourself the more likely you are to make authentically satisfying choices in a partner. 

 

[tooqk4u22]

Who you marry, if that is your goal, is the most important aspect of happiness and financial soundness - setting aside spending habits, divorce is expensive for all. 

I agree with authenticity but we (people) still apply those shallow filters described above partly because it is inate.  Conversely, while we are applying these shallow filters other side is trying to compensate and make themselves more likely to not be filtered out.  And because meeting someone generally requires being in a social setting (even if it is among similar lifestyle oriented people) people will still be doing this dance at some level because there is always competition for mates.

The authentic qualities that you describe are the things that keep a relationship going, but I am not sure they are entirely what starts it.   There has to be some immediate physical/emotional attraction.  I know there are stories about couples who were friends for years and then wow suddenly they were attracted to each other - but even then I'll bet they would say there was some connection upfront before really knowing the one another.

[totoro]

I agree with you.  Will always be somewhat of a factor and there in initial attraction stages.  I am probably not articulating what I am trying to say well.  I suppose it is that based on my own personal experience and the experiences of those I know there is a bigger gap in understanding successful relationships and how to create them than is created by "shallow filters".  Divorce may be a huge and devastating financial and emotional cost to this knowledge gap - far greater risk than shallow filters for a mate imo.  Also, marriage was a quote - I meant any successful relationship including same sex relationships.

[tooqk4u22]

You're articulating it fine, I get what you are saying - basically don't judge a book (individual) by its cover (shallow filters). 

I had to think about your marriage comment for a minute and looked back my prior post - sorry, I didn't mean to exclude anyone. To me marriage is synonymous with long relationship and usually is the desired outcome - but because it is not legally or religously accepted across the board there is a clear difference.  And the reality is that if they aren't long term relationships heading for marriage/civil union/life-partner/etc then they were short relationships and therefore probably not good ones. 

Again, didn't mean to exclude anyone and meant it more inline with what you say "any successful relationship". 

Funny thought though - I guess the whole gender argument is moot with same sex relationships....is it? I don't know...how would two women in a committed relationship discuss this thread.....would the more frugal one be stereotypically accusing the other one of spending like women (jokingly of course)...or would it be a gener neutral conversation. 

[totoro]

Yes, that would disappear, but external "shallow" attraction and chemistry still comes into play.

I don't know.  I think what I'm trying to say is that I wish there was a way to assist people with having very very successful and happy relationships.  Initial attraction and stereotypes are factors that can be misleading or unfair, and feminist theory has identified some of the inequality - although men can be impacted by this a lot too, but this is so much less of an issue to longer term happiness than basic skills like positive communication, commitment and internal security that I feel like the focus is not in the most effective place. 

It is like we are reading the Harlequin Romance series start of an affair and analyzing it, but really it is the day to day living with another person that is confusing and potentially life-derailing.

I guess PCism has become another form of rhetoric for me that can highlight a truth while obscuring the path to happiness.  Kind of like war, soldiers are viewed as heroic and that can be a truth, but returning from war with PTSD means the hero and their family have to live out the underlying reality of the unspoken yet critical impacts of war each and every day unprepared. 

Sometimes we talk about specific issues that are good to highlight, but we miss the whole picture.

[Bakari]

Totoro - I totally agree with everything you are getting at.  I also find it a very interesting topic (so much more so since I went through a divorce - I married my first girlfriend, who I met in high-school/college, and was still in-love-with after 7 years).  I've read a lot about it.  I especially like John Gottman's work, who really looked at relationships scientifically and systematically, instead of the more common approach, (even of therapists and other "experts") to "rely on instinct"

Communicating and cooperating with another human so intimately in a healthy and productive way is (oddly) not innate.  Like financial management, I think its something public schools should address.

However, I think (as took was getting at) its a false dichotomy to contrast it to attraction.  You can't have a healthy relationship if you don't have a relationship in the first place. 

I totally acknowledge that the initial filters are impacted by stereotype and social expectation, and that this impacts women just as much as it impacts men (and is at least as much a problem). 

I didn't mean to discount any of that when I wrote the first post - it just didn't happen to be the topic I was responding to.

[totoro]

I agree that Gottman is excellent. 

I wasn't actually trying to say that attraction did not matter or gendered filters weren't there - I think they are.  I just don't get that hot to trot about it anymore.  I find the PC/feminist discourse this gets all the attention pointing out that stereotypes are damaging and there needs to be social change.   While true, I think when looking at attraction and where it leads we ought not to ignore the raging wildfire of relationship breakdown rates in our society.  We also ought not to ignore the impact on both sexes - but that is a separate topic.

Again, just my opinion, but if we had as much attention paid to relationship training and success factors as we do to PC or not PC issues related to attraction then things might improve and grief would be prevented for families.  Equality rights are very good academic topics to focus on, and easy to get behind, but interpersonal success seems to linger in the sidelines.  I think it should be both taught in high school and be a specific university discipline.

[Jamesqf]

Couldn't we start focussing on humanism, or some variant which explains what makes for a successful relationship?  It is a skill set which can be different from relying on general attraction trends.

The problem here is that before one can put the "having a successful relationship" skillset into use, one must first manage to attract someone with whom to have the relationship.  It doesn't matter if you are (or potentially could be) a world-class master at relationships if your attraction skillset is negligible.

[totoro]

Is that really such a problem?  This is the age of internet dating!

You can also work on how you interact with others and seek out communities of like minded people.  I haven't noticed too many folks around me having issues meeting people or attracting someone. 

However, if this is a problem, then I agree, learn some skills and put them to use - loads of ways to do that. 

I think this and my posts are really deviating from the OPs topic - sorry!

[Bakari]

The problem here is that before one can put the "having a successful relationship" skillset into use, one must first manage to attract someone with whom to have the relationship.  It doesn't matter if you are (or potentially could be) a world-class master at relationships if your attraction skillset is negligible.

ha - makes me think of the book The Game by Niel Struass (which will definetly be required reading before dating age if I ever have a daughter).  The people who are the absolute best at attraction turn out to be beyond awful at relationships.  Totoro is probably on to something.

Is that really such a problem?  This is the age of internet dating!

That said - and going back to a question from a while ago...

I've got a question for all the guys out there who are lamenting the fact that many (but not all) women think that men with money are attractive.

Aren't you implicitly assuming that women are, to a degree, interchangeable?  My thought is, if I were looking for a partner, and a potential partner thought that my worth and attractiveness were defined by how much money I am willing to spend on them, that person would not be a good match for me. 

...I certainly don't lament that consumer minded women aren't interested in me, because, of course, its mutual.
I suppose if I lament anything, its that some women - who, in my opinion, I have a lot in common with and might potentially connect with - automatically make certain assumptions about a person who lives in an RV in a trailer park (much as we make certain assumptions about Taco Bell guy).  Those assumptions may be totally subconscious, but if a person is scanning dating profiles or deciding who to talk more to at a party, they have to use some filter to figure out who to focus on, because there are tens of thousands of potentially eligible singles in any given area.
Another interesting one is height - while its equivalent in some ways to men's focus on a potential partner's fat percentage, its different in that there is this whole segment of culture devoted to reassuring women that its ok to have a little excess fat, that they can still be beautiful, who attack the modeling, advertising, and porn industries for only showing thin women, and chastise men for focusing on it. 
There is really no equivalent to that to encourage women to be introspective about their preference for height in a partner.  Add on top of that that, unlike excess fat, height is totally out of a person's control and being short isn't a health risk, while being overweight is.
The bottom range of heights listed as attractive by the average (US) woman starts exactly at the height which is average for (US) men - automatically excluding fully half of all males.  Even the shortest women want a man at least 5'7", which is already above the 25th percentile.
Yes, but I suppose that has nothing to do with the initial money question.  Just lamenting the filters in general.

I think this and my posts are really deviating from the OPs topic - sorry!

Thats ok!  Its all interesting.  I never had any particular point.  I just wanted to encourage the discussion.
By the way, great name!
I liked that movie a lot.  Especially the cat bus.

[AJ]

I suppose if I lament anything, its that some women - who, in my opinion, I have a lot in common with and might potentially connect with - automatically make certain assumptions about a person who lives in an RV in a trailer park (much as we make certain assumptions about Taco Bell guy).

I can relate to this feeling. Not so much in a dating capacity, but even just when trying to find friends with similar interests. We (in general, as a society) use income as a proxy for competence and ambition, a degree as a proxy for intelligence, and age as a proxy for maturity. Because, of course, everyone will tell you they are competent, intelligent, and mature. How else can you filter out the people who are either lying, or are too stupid to know they are stupid (to be somewhat frank)? I have no good answer...I wish I did...

Another interesting one is height - while its equivalent in some ways to men's focus on a potential partner's fat percentage...

I think a better equivalent might be breast size. I suppose it is still more easily altered than height, but it is likewise unrelated to health and lacking in advocacy groups. I'm too afraid to google around for the average breast size men list as attractive from my work computer right now, but I would be interested to see how it lines up with the averages.

[totoro]

You guys just need to stop buying in and analyzing - sorry to be blunt.  There are women out there that will not care about height.  Trust me. "Even the shortest woman" is a generalization.  And it only takes one compatible person.  Spend your energy focussing on a different question.  Ask, what do I really truly want in a partner.  I even recommend writing it out and writing what your relationship will feel and look like.  This is all about what you create with one other person, not what society in general finds attractive.

As for breast size, whatever floats your boat but I would say that this as a focus may turn out to be somewhat of a letdown in 20 years if this is your focus.

[Bakari]

It is pretty rare to find a guy explicitly say that he won't date someone with breasts below a certain size, but it is super common to find an explicit minimum height requirement.  Also, there are lots more guys who specifically like average or small breasts, but very few women who actively prefer short men.

And it only takes one compatible person.

Not really true.  That one person could live in China, or Australia, or Mozambique, or even San Jose (50 miles from here) and I'll never meet her. 
As an analogy - In theory it only takes one sperm to fertilize an egg, but any less than 15 million sperm, and a guy is considered infertile.

Ask, what do I really truly want in a partner.  I even recommend writing it out

oh, believe me, I have.  Its even online! http://www.biodieselhauling.org/Super.txt
That is exactly what makes it so challenging -> I have very specific requirements.  Think of a vin diagram.  My circle of who I am interested in is already very small.  So anything that makes the circle of who is interested in me makes that center intersection point ever more infinitesimal.

[Jamesqf]

Is that really such a problem?  This is the age of internet dating!

You can also work on how you interact with others and seek out communities of like minded people.  I haven't noticed too many folks around me having issues meeting people or attracting someone.

I am not responsible for your lack of observational skills :-)

But since you mention the internet dating thing, you'll perhaps have noticed that it makes it pretty darned easy to apply those trivial filters.  So I search for shared interests: someone who likes to hike, bike, ski, &c - and discover that almost every one sets an age range that excludes me.  (In fact, I know exactly two women who share my interests in such things, and they're in a long-term relationship with each other.)  Then add in a few not-so-trivial things like incompatible religious opinions, or living on different sides of the continent, and there aren't a whole lot left.

[totoro]

Bakari - it is great that you have written out the list.  It might not be as good to publicize.  There is a difference between setting a focus for you and setting criteria for others that they have to meet - it makes people uneasy.  When looking online, it might be better to talk about you and set a few minimum criteria for others such as: non-smoking, within seven years of age, interested in long-term, live within 10 km.  After that, talk about what you bring to the table.  Sorry if you already know that.

As for it only takes one.  This is the truth but it does not mean there is only one compatible person out there for you.  That would be pretty darn unlikely.  I know short men and obese women who have found very compatible partners online.  You may have an unusual lifestyle or interests, but someone out there is going to share them or be interested in them.

Jamesqf - yes, those filters are there.  But then, there are always going to be folks who are looking for different things than the majority.  For one couple I know, it was yoga.  They have a large age difference, lived in different places (California and Vancouver, BC), have different racial/religious backgrounds - but it works and they have a lovely three year old together now. 

For internet dating, living in a smaller town/area can be a limit too.  As for age, I've always found for myself that too great of an age difference and things are not as compatible anyway.  Not everyone feels this way though.  If your goal is to find a compatible partner then do what it takes to have what you want - keep trying and get some objective feedback from friends.

[AJ]

Bakari - it is great that you have written out the list.  It might not be as good to publicize. 

I disagree, I think this is a great thing to publicize! What someone is looking for in a relationship is highly correlated to who they are as a person, and helps others in their filtering. For example, I assume that since Barkari values intelligence and high self-esteem, that he himself has these qualities. That may or may not be true, but it is a better filter to apply than height, income, or breast size :) Why not just be upfront about what you're really looking for, bypassing the proxies? Like we've all been saying, there are so many fish in the pond you have to filter them out somehow - this seems like a much more accurate way to filter them.

Plus, (and I struggle with how to say this in a way that isn't unwittingly creepy...) as someone who meets almost all the requirements, I can tell you there is something flattering and endearing about knowing you meet someone's rather selective idea their ideal mate. OTOH, if most of the items on the list didn't fit me, I would be turned off from the person (which, I believe, would be the desired result).

[totoro]

Hmmm.... almost all the criteria.... so.... Oregon and California are not that far apart.  Just sayin'

[Bakari]

Hmmm.... almost all the criteria.... so.... Oregon and California are not that far apart.  Just sayin'

She's married.

Also, I have a girlfriend.  All of this has been hypothetical discussion.

Thanks though.  Not like the same thought didn't occur to me...

[totoro]

Matchmaking fail.  Oh well, hypothetically it could have succeeded but for those two tiny details.  Glad my mental picture of a lonely RV dweller has been replaced.

[AJ]

Matchmaking fail. 

Ha ha. Yes, strictly hypothetical as far as mate selection goes. However, I do think some of the same concepts can apply for finding like-minded friends IRL. Breast size and height notwithstanding...

[Erica/NWEdible]

oh, believe me, I have.  Its even online! http://www.biodieselhauling.org/Super.txt
That is exactly what makes it so challenging -> I have very specific requirements.  Think of a vin diagram.  My circle of who I am interested in is already very small.  So anything that makes the circle of who is interested in me makes that center intersection point ever more infinitesimal.

"-put active effort into staying strong and healthy - able to run several miles, and do real push-ups and pull-ups"

So you're ruling out women who kip but don't dead-hang? Well that's your problem, right there. ;)

[Bakari]

So you're ruling out...

No ma'am:

"Extra bonus super fun pack: (less important, but sure would be nice)"

Furthermore, I would consider kipping real.  Just not assisted, or let-downs only.

[dionysiandame]

It has nothing to do with women being a money sink, or being less frugal, nor does it have anything to do with women being housewives or subjugated. 
Its just a question of what (most) women tend to find attractive in a potential partner, whether it is conscious or subconscious (for example, women who say they don't care what per partner makes, still rates the same man dressed in expensive clothes as more attractive), and whether it is nature or nurture (always an interesting, and almost impossible to answer conclusively, question)

And its not limited to America.  I remember reading an article about how many educated professional women in Russia were having a hard time finding husbands not because the men were intimidated by them, but because - even though they were fully capable of supporting themselves - none of them had any interest in a man who made less them then, and there were relatively few men in professional careers.

I understand that the whole "politically correct" movement spawned in response to very real discrimination, but when we let indignation get in the way of admitting reality to ourselves, I think we do ourselves and society a disservice.
I would love it if humanity was 100% egalitarian in every way too, but I find it more useful and interesting to try to learn about what is then to just get angry that it isn't what "should" be.

On one hand I would love to say that "money" or, at least financial responsibility, did not effect who I chose to marry but ultimately it did and had nothing really to do with how much he made as opposed to how he chose to make it. I spent 4 years in a relationship with a man who worked for his parents store; this isn't bad, I think entrepreneurship is wonderfully and considering his parents were immigrants who came here with nothing, their success is the American dream. But that's just the thing, it was their success, the bloke had no interest in doing anything to expand upon or even add value to his parents' creation.

There's a sense of entitlement that comes from having things just handed to you and he smelled like silver spoon from half a block away. I'm a hustler and a bit ambitious, so I expect the same qualities in any man I'm with or he won't understand why "just enough" wasn't good enough for me. Coming from a household culture where it was, daily, hammered into my head that I would have to work twice as hard to be considered half as good (AA, raised in the south) I can't accept willful mediocrity.

That said, I have always been honest and upfront about this, while I've watched some of my female friends beat around the bush about the issue and then dump a bloke because he comes across as "cheap."

Great questions though. They definitely gave me some good thought fodder for tonight's dinner discussion.

[ErinG]

http://tablet.wpri.com/10023/4873013
This is a link to a local news story titled "Ways To Save Money in the Dating World"

Not quite as deep as the discussion here, but relates to some of the comments. Quotes an unnamed study, which would be interesting to see and then devolves into discussing coupons and 1st dates. Could have been better. :(

[elindbe2]

One thing about money and dating.  I think generally women aren't attracted to men BECAUSE they have money.  They're attracted to men who have a personality that leads them to obtain money.  Men with that ambitious, risk-taking, extroverted attitude tend to do well in the business world.  And I think it comes down ultimately to chemicals: testosterone, cortisol, etc.  The attraction comes from a person with the right biochemistry, and the worldly possessions a person has can be a symbol of that biochemistry.  So, acquiring money is only going to make you more attractive if it alters your biochemistry (it makes you more confident, ambitious, testosterone-driven, etc).  Money is correlated with attraction but not causative.

I think the take-home point would be:  money doesn't matter that much, what matters is attitude and the underlying biochem that creates that attitude.  Money is just a symbol.  Kind of like large hips and a narrow waist on a woman are just a symbol of childbearing ability.  Neither of these things is necessary for attraction, they just tend to be qualities that symbolize the underlying biology that people are subconsciously seeking.

[needmyfi]

The whole subthread of the  Taco Bell slacker reminded me of something that happened long ago. I was a 19  year old college dropout, (not to brag but at that age very easy on the eyes,), and was waiting tables.  There was a slightly built, short, average looking and mostly bald 27 year old bus boy (not a waiter even like me but a busboy) who was very quiet and largely ignored.  For some reason I became really interested in him and once while we were talking suggested we go out to coffee.  He turned out to be absolutely incredible, well read, well travelled and well mannered and I was already starting to develop this huge crush on him.  He asked me about my aspirations, which at the time I have to admit I didn`t really have.  Then he stated "you and I would never work out ~I know I have lots of potential but I really need someone to motivate me."  Needless to say it was a first and last date.  Six months later he was married to a stunningly beautiful 29 year old woman who was a local newscaster!

[Bakari]

One thing about money and dating.  I think generally women aren't attracted to men BECAUSE they have money.  They're attracted to men who have a personality that leads them to obtain money.  Men with that ambitious, risk-taking, extroverted attitude tend to do well in the business world.  And I think it comes down ultimately to chemicals: testosterone, cortisol, etc.  The attraction comes from a person with the right biochemistry, and the worldly possessions a person has can be a symbol of that biochemistry.  So, acquiring money is only going to make you more attractive if it alters your biochemistry (it makes you more confident, ambitious, testosterone-driven, etc).  Money is correlated with attraction but not causative.

I think the take-home point would be:  money doesn't matter that much, what matters is attitude and the underlying biochem that creates that attitude.  Money is just a symbol.  Kind of like large hips and a narrow waist on a woman are just a symbol of childbearing ability.  Neither of these things is necessary for attraction, they just tend to be qualities that symbolize the underlying biology that people are subconsciously seeking.

You are getting at the same idea I was, but I question which is cause and which is effect.  When a typical male sees large hips and narrow waist he is consciously thinking "sexy", not "fertile".  Similarly, a woman may not consciously be attracted to the money, they are attracted to a certain personality type (what I simplified as ambition earlier).  But the conscious manifestation of attraction is not necessarily a direct reflection of the roots of that attraction.  I propose the the entire reason a "personalty that leads them to obtain money" is attractive is because it leads them to obtain money (resources and social status). 

The whole subthread of the  Taco Bell slacker reminded me of something that happened long ago. I was a 19  year old college dropout, (not to brag but at that age very easy on the eyes,), and was waiting tables.  There was a slightly built, short, average looking and mostly bald 27 year old bus boy (not a waiter even like me but a busboy) who was very quiet and largely ignored.  For some reason I became really interested in him and once while we were talking suggested we go out to coffee.  He turned out to be absolutely incredible, well read, well travelled and well mannered and I was already starting to develop this huge crush on him.  He asked me about my aspirations, which at the time I have to admit I didn`t really have.  Then he stated "you and I would never work out ~I know I have lots of potential but I really need someone to motivate me."  Needless to say it was a first and last date.  Six months later he was married to a stunningly beautiful 29 year old woman who was a local newscaster!

That is just a delightful story, thank you for sharing! :)

[Jamesqf]

"I believe that all of us ought to retire relatively young.  I don't propose this as a duty but as something more - a right"
-Fidel Castro, 1967

Apologies for getting off track, but I found this bit of hypocrisy amusing: he's what, 86 now, and still effectively running Cuba.

[elindbe2]

I propose the the entire reason a "personalty that leads them to obtain money" is attractive is because it leads them to obtain money (resources and social status).

I disagree.  It's because on average in our genetic history it led them to obtain resouces and social status.  Your biology can't pick a winning horse every time, it just makes its best guess based on past results.  As a speculative example, there's the old cliche that women love musicians.  That's probably because they see passion applied to something, which "tricks" their biology into believing this person will have worldly success. 

I admit that cause and effect do get pretty hard to pick apart when discussing anything biological.  Look at our dismal scientific understanding of nutrition.

[grantmeaname]

I don't think using a totally genetic explanation for behavior is appropriate, either, which complicates the analogy further. See also: nutrition.

[elindbe2]

I don't think using a totally genetic explanation for behavior is appropriate, either, which complicates the analogy further. See also: nutrition.

Completely true.  Taking biology out of context, environment and culture doesn't work well.  You can't explain eating behavior just from genetics, stripped of food culture.  But it does play in as a factor.

[tooqk4u22]

One thing about money and dating.  I think generally women aren't attracted to men BECAUSE they have money.  They're attracted to men who have a personality that leads them to obtain money. 

Yes they are, initially anyway.  Take two scenarios with the same guy:

Night 1 - outfitted with nice designer clothing, a rolex, a fancy expensive car and a bank roll to buy drinks with


Night 2 - dressed presentably but not fancy, no accessories, a honda civic and no flashing the cash.

I wager that the guy gets more attraction on Night 1, but Night 2 would potentially result in an interactiont that is more meaningful.