Is it worse for women?

[nolla]

I was talking / debating with a (male) friend about plastic surgery. My view was that there is something "off" about it. I couldn't quite explain it, though. Anyways, he pointed out that women have harder time with the expectations in this time and culture. In his opinion this is what makes women to go under the knife. He says it is woman against woman rivalry (not filling expectations of men). If you are pretty they envy you and you are glad for it, if you are not pretty, you are the jealous one. So, the reason for the knife would be to boost your self-confidence. I cannot entirely disagree on this one.

So, how do you girls see this? Does it seem like men have easier lives with this kind of expectations? Me, I don't personally have any desire to "build up my muscles" or anything. I don't care. I find it hard to believe it would be much different (psychologically) if we talk about women.

(Oh, I'm sorry if this is wrong forum to discuss this. I couldn't figure out a better one)

[whatever]

I think that this quote by Ani DiFranco, who I don't really listen to but my sister does, sums up basic thoughts on female views of each other pretty well:

And God help you if you are an ugly girl
Course too pretty is also your doom
Cause everyone harbors a secret hatred
For the prettiest girl in the room

But then again, I tend to hang out with odd girls and men, I don't really care that much about how others look unless I'm in a snarky and critical mood, which happens about 5 times in a year :devil:

[disregard]

I think that if you always feel that you aren't pretty enough, it isn't your looks that are to blame, but low self-esteem. Not unlike the beautiful straight-A student that starves herself and feels that she's ugly and fat. When you do not accept yourself as you are, you will use aspects of your person(ality) as scapegoats.

[ajblaise]

Girls, can you settle this?: Do more girls dress and try to look good for other girls or for guys?

[Usehername]

I think it's definitely true that women primarily dress up and look good for other women--men are generally way more relaxed and are happy if you throw on mascara and show a little bit of skin after a long winter.

[Jennifer]

I think it's a self-esteem issue.

In general, men seem to get hung up on their virility/power and lose self-esteem when they feel weak.

Women seem to get hung up on their appearance and how they come across to others and lose self-esteem when they feel ugly -- which can include appearance but also "who they are" personality-wise. [Another word for it: "Desirability"]

We can explore why that is, but that's the typical pattern in western culture at least.

I agree that women are far more hung up on their own appearance than responding directly to the complaints of guys; it's the same way with the condition of the home too. (The guy will not care what the house looks like, typically; but the woman will feel embarrassed about letting anyone in while it's a mess... to her, anyway.)

I think good self-esteem allows one to feel desirable and worthwhile regardless of appearance.

[nolla]

I think that if you always feel that you aren't pretty enough, it isn't your looks that are to blame, but low self-esteem.

Yes, I agree, but do the other women?

In general, men seem to get hung up on their virility/power and lose self-esteem when they feel weak.

Ok, I can buy that. To me it seems like some of the low-esteem guys compensate by building muscles. I've actually heard someone say it out loud: "I was bullied in school, but then I went to gym" And that guy was huge.

Women seem to get hung up on their appearance and how they come across to others and lose self-esteem when they feel ugly -- which can include appearance but also "who they are" personality-wise. [Another word for it: "Desirability"]

It's the same way with the condition of the home too. (The guy will not care what the house looks like, typically; but the woman will feel embarrassed about letting anyone in while it's a mess... to her, anyway.)

So it comes down to nature? Male = strong, female = desirable. I'd like some opinions on this one...

But, are you implying that while women need to seem like good child-bearers (beautiful means good genes) they also need to show that they are able to maintain a good household?

We can explore why that is, but that's the typical pattern in western culture at least.

My friend referred to corsets and such that were used before (our) western culture. Chinese feet, Egyptian make-up.

[ptgatsby]

So it comes down to nature? Male = strong, female = desirable. I'd like some opinions on this one...

It's probably a bit more complex. Males are about strong, maybe, but a lot more about being dominant (as defined as having selection of mates). Social status, money, resources... these are the basic things that determine their ability to secure high-value (and often, multiple) mates.

Course, then you get into circular issues, like having beautiful women around you implies high status.

But the other side of this is that women want to be desired by the high-value males. Since the ability to compete (at the genetic level) tends to decrease over time, and because fertility does as well, women have a lot more pressure to do it "now" rather than later. And of course, fertility - being young - is a major desirability factor for men.

Both want to be desirable, but their time preferences and mate selection differs.


But, are you implying that while women need to seem like good child-bearers (beautiful means good genes) they also need to show that they are able to maintain a good household?


I like to generalise it. Women need to seem desirable, and whatever the high-status males want, they'll tend to try to be. And vice versa.

A good household runner was very useful before women's liberation, and it is still present in much of the world. Now there are other factors, including those that were commonly male (ie: good job, etc). The shift isn't absolute(and it works somewhat against the genetic preferences), but it is happening.

Of course, this is all under the surface. I could say that young/fertile/etc doesn't matter to me - I don't want kids afterall - but it still defines what I find attractive.

[Jennifer]

Both want to be desirable, but their time preferences and mate selection differs.

Yes, "desirability" was still a vague word, I know; but it implied a passivity that seems typical more for women (i.e., "the object of desire") whereas the men do need to be desirable but usually in response to some active movement on their part.

It's a hard topic to talk about due to capturing the right nuance but we will come up with some more appropriate terminology here, I suppose...

I like to generalise it. Women need to seem desirable, and whatever the high-status males want, they'll tend to try to be. And vice versa.

Yes, I can't make it too specific. I guess I see a bit of a connection with women and biological concerns such as attracting mates as well as doing the "nesting" thing -- it's just very hard to nail it down directly. And men attract mates but usually through the virility/prowess factor... and many males apply that prowess directly towards pursuing mates.

Women tend to "passively pursue" males -- they purposefully put themselves out there and attempt to present themselves in a way that gets them noticed. But again this is generalization. It's funny that some people still frown upon women who actively pursue men. The last guy I talked to, it was funny -- when I pushed to meet with him (by suggesting places to go) and seemed too eager, he got really squidgy and I had to back way off before he felt comfortable getting together; it was like he needed to feel like he was the one doing the chasing.

[nolla]

Women tend to "passively pursue" males -- they purposefully put themselves out there and attempt to present themselves in a way that gets them noticed.

Here we come back to the make-up and plastics. So, it isn't all woman thing ("I want to look good for myself") but more like a silent competition of women to get the men? Again a big simplification, but... does most of the low self-esteem among women come from this feeling of not being "beautiful enough" compared to the others?

[Hmm]

I think both men and women have pressure to impress the opposite gender just in different ways. Some of it is in all in our heads and some of it is legitimate.

[Jennifer]

Here we come back to the make-up and plastics. So, it isn't all woman thing ("I want to look good for myself") but more like a silent competition of women to get the men? Again a big simplification, but... does most of the low self-esteem among women come from this feeling of not being "beautiful enough" compared to the others?

Sigh. Well, I cannot tell if that is it... but I know lots of times I'm very happy with myself -- until I get around someone else who I think is prettier, or has a nicer voice, or seems just "better" (i.e., more desirable/attractive overall) than me.

Then I feel like crap and have to consciously buck up and tell myself I'm fine as I am and fight the bad feelings. (i.e., I stop comparing to everyone else and just compare to myself... am I the best that *I* can be?)

I still don't know if it's about men. It's simply that my self-image takes a hit because I'm not as desirable as I realize someone might be. But like I said, that standard is highly unrealistic. It's like I have to "woo and win" myself over, not someone else per se.

[ptgatsby]

Women tend to "passively pursue" males -- they purposefully put themselves out there and attempt to present themselves in a way that gets them noticed. But again this is generalization. It's funny that some people still frown upon women who actively pursue men. The last guy I talked to, it was funny -- when I pushed to meet with him (by suggesting places to go) and seemed too eager, he got really squidgy and I had to back way off before he felt comfortable getting together; it was like he needed to feel like he was the one doing the chasing.

That's not really unusual.

If you think that an alpha male can have as many women as he can protect (from other males :D )/resources can support, then the women that are left over are "inferior".

Think of it like a game. You have equal amounts of males and females. In order to have maximum reproductive success, the males want as many high-value females, while the females want the highest value male (they can get). Since males need to both 'support' and 'protect' (read: offspring and mate guarding), it costs them resources in the long run, so they can only "hold onto" so many females at a time. Granted, I'm ignoring the whole slew of tendencies for females to cheat in the system, males poaching others indirectly, etc.

Given that there are equal amounts, this means that some males go without mating - it is unlikely that this is ever the case for women. A male may want to trade up, as in get the maximum use of his resources, but in a choice between no mate and a mate, he'll always pick a mate.

By design, the males have to compete with each other for the females. The females, however, do not have to compete with each other directly. Their strategy is therefore to appeal to the traits the dominant males are seeking. By virtue of evolution, these traits are mostly related to the ability to have children. The resulting tendency is for them to want to appear young and fertile.

The males are less defined because there are mixed strategies, but in all cases, if a female is hunting a male, then she is inherently signalling her inability to have attracted a high-value male. By default, the implication is that all females are 'claimed' - not because it is true, but because that's the heurestics involved. A male would need to challenge and claim another male.

We've grown a lot since this would fully apply, but we still have tendencies like this.

Women, however, have it really bad because they automatically have to rate themselves against other women to determine their value. It's always been a problem for them, but the media does make it worse, to some degree. It means they believe themselves to be less attractive than their "real" competition. Similar effect with males, however, in that males tend to value their mates less after being exposed to "perfect" images. However, it isn't new.

In summary, the short of it is... marriage is the greatest thing for men since the beginning of time. Otherwise the majority of us wouldn't have secured a mate. That, and nature is strangely cruel to women - they all would pretty much get a mate, but have been programmed to feel like they need to be perfect (or better than, I suppose), just so that they want to upgrade/keep their mate.

[nolla]

ptgatsby, good comment! Gives certain dimension to the question... It really is a big thing that while a man can (theoretically) have dozen or more children a year, the same time woman can have one. So, women go for quality, while men go for quantity.

I still don't know if it's about men. It's simply that my self-image takes a hit because I'm not as desirable as I realize someone might be.

For you to be desirable, you need someone to desire for you. So, that would be a man, wouldn't it? Maybe the passive man-hunting is so passive that it is hard to realize?

[ptgatsby]

ptgatsby, good comment! Gives certain dimension to the question... It really is a big thing that while a man can (theoretically) have dozen or more children a year, the same time woman can have one. So, women go for quality, while men go for quantity.


It's a major part of it, for sure :D

The things to keep in mind is that men can play a mixed strategy - they can be strong or rich or popular or high status (or... or...). They can also be romantic, dependable, agressive... all sorts of traits. Women find all of these things attractive for that reason.

Women, however, have a much narrower strategy. It's not absolute - as you say about a good household runner - but it is much stronger. That strategy works on whatever males are more interested in, which tends to be age and fertility.

The above, of course, relates to the big picture/game theory of mate selection, in other words, the way we likely evolved. Modern culture really blurs the lines now.

[nolla]

It's a major part of it, for sure :D

The things to keep in mind is that men can play a mixed strategy - they can be strong or rich or popular or high status (or... or...). They can also be romantic, dependable, agressive... all sorts of traits. Women find all of these things attractive for that reason.

Women, however, have a much narrower strategy. It's not absolute - as you say about a good household runner - but it is much stronger. That strategy works on whatever males are more interested in, which tends to be age and fertility.

I guess it's mostly about which of the trends is more popular. Other than that, some research show that a type of women prefer non-dominant males. This is explained through the parenting role of father. The dominant male doesn't have a whole lot of time to take care of the puppies since he's out there spreading seed...

The above, of course, relates to the big picture/game theory of mate selection, in other words, the way we likely evolved. Modern culture really blurs the lines now.

I can imagine very dramatic scenes in a stone-age tribe of 10 males and 10 females... The dominant male can't watch over the harem all the time. There probably was a lot of the "mixed strategy".

[Anja]

"I learned the truth at seventeen
That love is meant for beauty queens
And high school girls with clear-skinned smiles
Who married young and then retired."

"The valentines I never knew
The Friday night charades of youth
Were meant for one more beautiful
At seventeen I learned the truth."

Janis Ian, circa 1967

I understand that plastic surgeons evaluate candidates for surgery to insure than their motivation is a healthy one. I'm certainly not sure how they go about that or what makes them qualified to act as psych folks. And I have my doubts about turning down a great deal of money by many of them.

My main concern for it would be physical health reasons.

I've never been exactly sure who I "dress" for. Certainly as a teen I dressed for male attention.

I like fun clothes and enjoy wearing them. Even more so I enjoy a comment or compliment.

Guess it would depend on the occasion and the people I was going to be with.

In my teens I would have loved to change nearly everything about my face. I suspect I've grown into it.

And the little crow's feet and signs of age aren't bothering me. Yet, anyway. I rather fancy having a bit of grey in my hair to "prove" that I have survived the many challenges of life. And some laugh wrinkles to prove that I have laughed many times.

My children are gone now
No excuse for more grey
I think it's the spouse now
Who makes me that way.

I like it! I love it!
Earned every bit of it.
A clever disguise
To make me look wise.

And if anyone thinks
That I hadn't a care
Though my life as I lived it -
Just look at my hair!

[ptgatsby]

I guess it's mostly about which of the trends is more popular. Other than that, some research show that a type of women prefer non-dominant males. This is explained through the parenting role of father. The dominant male doesn't have a whole lot of time to take care of the puppies since he's out there spreading seed...

Excellent point - that's pretty much it.

A child's chance of survival and ability to have children can be well supported by good genes, lots of resources, dedicated parents... And it can be hurt by the lack of all of those two. So, in the end, males get to try a few different ways of doing things, and women are influenced in different ways.



I can imagine very dramatic scenes in a stone-age tribe of 10 males and 10 females... The dominant male can't watch over the harem all the time. There probably was a lot of the "mixed strategy".

Then you have the huge harems held by those that are rich, etc. And the Kahn types, which make up measurable % of males in an area (and the world - I think 0.5% of men are his descendents!)

And the methods change. Young males, for example, are attention seekers. Physically competing over females, for example. But older males tend to use status and wealth, instead. Women can mate with either and have the same level of success, roughly, but men can't use both strategies at the same time, unless they are at the very top of each strategy.

(As you can tell, I love this subject :D Sorry for the rambling)

[Anja]

More of Janis's song:

"The rich-relation beauty queen marries into what she needs."

[Mondo]

I am amazed by how many intelligent, beautiful young women get involved with the superficiality of sorority life and let guys judge them so easily and let them determine what they do with themselves. It's a damn shame!

It's amazing that women and men alike seem to fall in love with those who will treat them the worst. It seems so counter-intuitive.

[Jennifer]

....For you to be desirable, you need someone to desire for you. So, that would be a man, wouldn't it?

Dammit. :(

I hate validation needs.

Maybe the passive man-hunting is so passive that it is hard to realize?

Are you saying the only way to know for sure that one is worthy of love is to be loved by another?

...It's amazing that women and men alike seem to fall in love with those who will treat them the worst. It seems so counter-intuitive.

It's because the people who treat them the worst long-term are the ones who are fulfilling what they need (however misguided) in the moment, and maybe vice versa.

The same guy I mentioned before was actually a really nice guy -- thoughtful, smart, mostly open-minded, I enjoyed talk to him for long periods of time on the phone. When I saw him, though, the same niceness made him as passive as hell and unwilling to take any risks or show active interest. He even bitched about his last gf, who dumped him to go run to the bars every weekend with more Type A guys he apparently despised... but after spending the evening with him, I was left understanding why she might have found that more desirable.

It's a real crap shoot, and assertiveness is a double-edged sort. You want someone who is sensitive and non-domineering yet assertive and shows initiative and takes some risks. Not an easy combination to find (and especially in the young adult crowd including the sorority girls you mentioned, where everyone is still trying to figure out who they are and come into their own).

[Jack Flak]

Are you saying the only way to know for sure that one is worthy of love is to be loved by another?
It's scientifically inconclusive up to that point, aye?

[bluemonday]

Girls, can you settle this?: Do more girls dress and try to look good for other girls or for guys?

Do women try to look attractive for men? Gee, I dunno, do bears sh*t in the woods?

I would like to add that I think it's very unfair that women are so much better-looking than men. A few mutant specimens aside, men are a bloody ugly lot.

This actually means that not only do us girls have to put up with less attractive partners (due to ancestral selection along non-aesthetic lines) but we also tend to have more superficial partners - double whammy.

It must be good to be a lesbian.....or a peahen....

It's scientifically inconclusive up to that point, aye?

balderdash and piffle! you can be loved by another and be entirely undeserving. No-one "deserves" love. Just as no-one deserves wealth. It’s a lottery out there.

[cascademn]

Here we come back to the make-up and plastics. So, it isn't all woman thing ("I want to look good for myself") but more like a silent competition of women to get the men? Again a big simplification, but... does most of the low self-esteem among women come from this feeling of not being "beautiful enough" compared to the others?

Um...apparently I'm the only one on here with self-esteem issues, but this statement certainly applies to me.

I don't think I try to 'look good' for other women. I don't really care what other women think of me. I want to 'look good' for men.

Perhaps I don't think my personality has ever really been appreciated, or recognized, or sought out, in the past, so maybe that's why I put so much emphasis (admittedly wrongly, I know it's an esteem thing but I can't really get rid of it) on my appearance, and like Jennifer wrote earlier, when I feel ugly, I feel completely undesirable and like no one in the world will ever want me.

I'm never going to get plastic surgery, because it just doesn't seem 'right' to me and I want to be liked for who I am. However, at the same time, through growing up and in all sorts of venues (work and extracurricular) I always hear guys talking about 'hot girls', and contrasting them to 'but-her-faces', and I have a hard time really believing that guys don't care that much about a woman's looks (at least in this thread, the guys' responses have been such that a girls appearance isn't that important, and the woman just needs to get more self esteem rather than focus on her appearance. But that's kinda a lie in my opinion. Attraction IS important, and men want to be with attractive women).

Random comment -- say you have a woman in her 20's or 30's with thinning hair, and by her late 30's she very well may need a wig. What say you, men? Is that something a woman can easily slough off and still find tons of suitors who really want her? Obviously looks aren't ultimately important when it comes to a friendship, but I think it's bull that it's crocked up to a simple esteem issue when the reality seems to point towards attraction/desirability being a key factor in the initial pairing and romance. Obviously longevity is going to need a lot more than that though.

[Jack Flak]

balderdash and piffle! you can be loved by another and be entirely undeserving. No-one "deserves" love. Just as no-one deserves wealth. It’s a lottery out there.
'Tis but logic, friend. If you are loved, you have proved yourself lovable. My line: "You're adorable...Know how I know?" "How?" "Cause I adore you!"

[bluemonday]

say you have a woman in her 20's or 30's with thinning hair, and by her late 30's she very well may need a wig. What say you, men? Is that something a woman can easily slough off

:rofl1:

[bluemonday]

'Tis but logic, friend. If you are loved, you have proved yourself lovable.

lovable yes
deserving of love, not necessarily

bluemonday 1
Jack Flak 0

[Jack Flak]

No you FAIL. Deserve wasn't in the question. Besides, "deserve" is an irrelevant concept, always.

[bluemonday]

Are you saying the only way to know for sure that one is [b]worthy[\b] of love is to be loved by another?



It's scientifically inconclusive up to that point, aye?

:banned:
:woot:

[Jack Flak]

Where is the word deserve? I stand by my win.

[bluemonday]

Where is the word deserve? I stand by my win.

you stand alone! :yes:

[heart]

I would like to add that I think it's very unfair that women are so much better-looking than men. A few mutant specimens aside, men are a bloody ugly lot.

Men are not ugly. Women are not "better looking" than men, just different. I prefer looking at men over looking at women if given a choice, the male body has its own beauty and believe me it's not "a few specimens" there's a lot of beautiful men out there in everyday life.

I would never be so bold as to tell them, but I notice them.

[bluemonday]

Men are not ugly. Women are not "better looking" than men, just different. I prefer looking at men over looking at women if given a choice, the male body has its own beauty.

maybe not in Colinwood - you should get out more

[Jack Flak]

"Worthy of love" can only possibly be defined by being loved. I really don't understand all this argee bargee. :P

[bluemonday]

I really don't understand all this argee bargee. :P

clearly :P :P

[Ivy]

I think that if you always feel that you aren't pretty enough, it isn't your looks that are to blame, but low self-esteem. Not unlike the beautiful straight-A student that starves herself and feels that she's ugly and fat. When you do not accept yourself as you are, you will use aspects of your person(ality) as scapegoats.

How can I put this delicately? I'll try. This is fairly insightful but it rings a bit hollow coming from a total smokin' hottie such as yourself. It's hard to pin down cause vs. effect here. The straight-A student who is ugly and fat may have low self-esteem because she's considered ugly and fat. And that probably makes her overeat and neglect her appearance, which keeps her from escaping her ugly and fatness.

I don't (usually) think I'm ugly but I've been various degrees of fat since the 3rd grade, and it sucks major ass. I really do have healthy self-esteem otherwise and I think if I could magically be not-a-fatty it would be nothing but positive.

[heart]

maybe not in Colinwood - you should get out more

Actually Indiana has the best looking men I've seen so far. Cornfed. :D

Well, all I can say is: Open your eyes to male beauty!

[heart]

How can I put this delicately? I'll try. This is fairly insightful but it rings a bit hollow coming from a total smokin' hottie such as yourself. It's hard to pin down cause vs. effect here. The straight-A student who is ugly and fat may have low self-esteem because she's considered ugly and fat. And that probably makes her overeat and neglect her appearance, which keeps her from escaping her ugly and fatness.

I don't (usually) think I'm ugly but I've been various degrees of fat since the 3rd grade, and it sucks major ass. I really do have healthy self-esteem otherwise and I think if I could magically be not-a-fatty it would be nothing but positive.


I continue to have issues with my facial features (called ugly in school), it never really goes away. But I wouldn't go through the expense or PAIN of plastic surgery to fix any of them. But if I suddenly woke up one morning and looked better it would be nothing but positive.

[entropie]

I continue to have issues with my facial features (called ugly in school), it never really goes away. But I wouldn't go through the expense or PAIN of plastic surgery to fix any of them. But if I suddenly woke up one morning and looked better it would be nothing but positive.

fuck facial features, if the heart sucks, the whole person sucks ! And that's not the case here *slips on slime* :D

[burkeus]

Actually Indiana has the best looking men I've seen so far. Cornfed. :D

Well, all I can say is: Open your eyes to male beauty!

Where's Indiana

[bluemonday]

Actually Indiana has the best looking men I've seen so far. Cornfed. :D

Well, all I can say is: Open your eyes to male beauty!

when my head's not up my @ss, my tongue is in my cheek
my eyes are always open.

[entropie]

My heart and eyes are closed, but I am intrested to hear your ideas xD

[bluemonday]

My heart and eyes are closed, but I am intrested to hear your ideas xD

only 'cos i blew smoke up your ass. men are tooooo easy.
what's that weird xD thang. that's kinda creepy...

[entropie]

cross laughing eyes with a big mouth xD, dont you watch cartoons ?

Hold it for a minute there. I will walk to the gas station and get me some more booze.

Be right back

[heart]

men are tooooo easy.


That's part of their charm.

[bluemonday]

cross laughing eyes with a big mouth xD, dont you watch cartoons ?


curiously enough....no
i am well-advanced for my years

[bluemonday]

That's part of their charm.

i prefer the harder complex ones.

[Bella]

"Worthy of love" can only possibly be defined by being loved. I really don't understand all this argee bargee. :P

What about people that are forever attracted to and in love with those who are bad for them, types that hurt them on some level. They love that person out of a place of messed-up-ness, not because the other person is worthy of their love or lovable.

[Jack Flak]

What about people that are forever attracted to and in love with those who are bad for them, types that hurt them on some level. They love that person out of a place of messed-up-ness, not because the other person is worthy of their love or lovable.
I know this situation all to well. The only sensible conclusion is: Nothing such as worthiness of adoration is valid; The joy of adoration, however, is.

[Bella]

I know this situation all to well. The only sensible conclusion is: Nothing such as worthiness of adoration is valid; The joy of adoration, however, is.

So you can carry on, though someone isn't worthy? Wow. I make work of making the adoration go away as soon as I have realized someone isn't worthy.

[nolla]

Are you saying the only way to know for sure that one is worthy of love is to be loved by another?


I was trying to ask if your self-doubt comes from unconscious (as passive as it can get) man-hunting. See:

Sigh. Well, I cannot tell if that is it... but I know lots of times I'm very happy with myself -- until I get around someone else who I think is prettier, or has a nicer voice, or seems just "better" (i.e., more desirable/attractive overall) than me.

Then I feel like crap and have to consciously buck up and tell myself I'm fine as I am and fight the bad feelings. (i.e., I stop comparing to everyone else and just compare to myself... am I the best that *I* can be?)


I still don't know if it's about men. It's simply that my self-image takes a hit because I'm not as desirable as I realize someone might be. But like I said, that standard is highly unrealistic. It's like I have to "woo and win" myself over, not someone else per se.

The first part you say you don't like yourself when you compare to other women. Now, this is the unconscious part. Then you say you consciously need to fight it. Then you doubt if it is about men. My question: What else could it be? Why do you need to be desirable if it isn't about men?

[nolla]

I don't think I try to 'look good' for other women. I don't really care what other women think of me. I want to 'look good' for men.

I always hear guys talking about 'hot girls', and contrasting them to 'but-her-faces', and I have a hard time really believing that guys don't care that much about a woman's looks (at least in this thread, the guys' responses have been such that a girls appearance isn't that important, and the woman just needs to get more self esteem rather than focus on her appearance. But that's kinda a lie in my opinion. Attraction IS important, and men want to be with attractive women).

I think the reason you get the looks-don't-matter-too-much responses around here is because we are mostly N-males. I am sure if you could collect and test all the men who think the looks are the main thing, most of them are S.

Sure, looks are a big thing, but to me it seems like many good looking women doubt themselves.

Random comment -- say you have a woman in her 20's or 30's with thinning hair, and by her late 30's she very well may need a wig. What say you, men? Is that something a woman can easily slough off and still find tons of suitors who really want her? Obviously looks aren't ultimately important when it comes to a friendship, but I think it's bull that it's crocked up to a simple esteem issue when the reality seems to point towards attraction/desirability being a key factor in the initial pairing and romance. Obviously longevity is going to need a lot more than that though.

This is somewhat different case, since losing hair is telling the male that she isn't healthy. It is automatic response of animals not to mate with sick individuals and the loss of hair is often sign of sickness. If we talk about slightly overweight girls or imperfect faces, there is no biological reason to turn them down.

[Jennifer]

I think the reason you get the looks-don't-matter-too-much responses around here is because we are mostly N-males. I am sure if you could collect and test all the men who think the looks are the main thing, most of them are S.

Maybe.
Somewhat.
There's enough randy/carnal N guys around here, though.
Once the drive kicks in, both S's and N's can be pretty carnal.

Sure, looks are a big thing, but to me it seems like many good looking women doubt themselves.

That is one thing I am amazed over... how everyone is insecure on some level. Women always seem to be insecure about their looks. I know no matter how many compliments I get, I regularly feel like I'm deficient that way and want to look even better. (Then I say "screw this" and focus on something else.)

This is somewhat different case, since losing hair is telling the male that she isn't healthy. It is automatic response of animals not to mate with sick individuals and the loss of hair is often sign of sickness. If we talk about slightly overweight girls or imperfect faces, there is no biological reason to turn them down.

Possibly. It depends on how you define "slightly overweight" and "slightly imperfect/asymmetrical."

Because we're not talking about "slightly thinning," we're talking "substantial hairloss"... so your analogy should properly refer to "substantially overweight" or "substantially asymmetrical" to remain valid. And all three are signs of reproductive unacceptability.

I also think that an attractive bald woman is someone guys actually find hot... her baldness has nothing to do with her attractiveness. There are just few women who can pull it off because of their insecurity over hair loss, and that throws off their inner grace.

[bluemonday]

attractive bald woman

example please?

[Jennifer]

example please?


Geek alert.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/startrek/images/3/3f/Ilya.jpg

But note how perfectly shaped her head is.

Women with less-perfect heads are helped appearance-wise by hair.

[bluemonday]

Geek alert.
But note how perfectly shaped her head is.
.

you may have a point
but she'd be much more attractive (and indeed, less threatening)
if she wasn't an egg-head

[Jennifer]

you may have a point
but she'd be much more attractive (and indeed, less threatening)
if she wasn't an egg-head

So do you think hair "softens" women and makes them look more nurturing and less threatening?

I guess I have to make a confession: I prefer having hair. ;)

[nolla]

Possibly. It depends on how you define "slightly overweight" and "slightly imperfect/asymmetrical."

Because we're not talking about "slightly thinning," we're talking "substantial hairloss"... so your analogy should properly refer to "substantially overweight" or "substantially asymmetrical" to remain valid. And all three are signs of reproductive unacceptability.

Hmm... Maybe... I guess we really should be talking about the "norm" for beauty set by the extremely beautiful.

I also think that an attractive bald woman is someone guys actually find hot... her baldness has nothing to do with her attractiveness. There are just few women who can pull it off because of their insecurity over hair loss, and that throws off their inner grace.

Yes, completely bold women are hot. But they needs very feminine face and they can't have "square-shaped" head. So, it doesn't work for most. With hair they would be hot anyways...

[Victor]

Sure, women are attracted to resources and men are attracted to fertility - otherwise we would not be here.

But we know this, so it is recursive.

And not only do we know it, we can share it with each other. So it is recursive in our own minds and between one another.

And even thinking this makes us vulnerable, and sharing this makes us unbearably vulnerable. So we prefer to retreat to treating ourselves and each other as objects.

We are so abject we treat each other as objects.

But this makes us feel comfortable because it removes us from our vulnerability.

But vulnerability is the very basis of creativity; vulnerability is the ground of love; and vulnerability is deeply and profoundly enlivening.

But we prefer to be abject objects rather than enlived and enlivening.

But most of all, we hide this choice from ourselves.

And why not?

Who could possibly admit to being an abject object for comfort's sake?

[bluemonday]

So do you think hair "softens" women and makes them look more nurturing and less threatening?

I guess I have to make a confession: I prefer having hair. ;)

egg-head=intellectual
'twas a subtle allusion to a previous post
too subtle, apparently ;)

PS. i shaved all my hair off a few years ago.
it was very liberating, especially from work....

[ptgatsby]

Maybe.
Somewhat.
There's enough randy/carnal N guys around here, though.
Once the drive kicks in, both S's and N's can be pretty carnal.


No real difference in drive. Ns just are less aware of how it influences their decision. Actually, Oberon's "I just realised I preferred redheads" thread comes to mind immediately.

[nolla]

No real difference in drive. Ns just are less aware of how it influences their decision.

I don't deny my preferences, but they have proved to be very easily changed as the time goes by. I don't think I could make a list about the things that attract me. And this is maybe the reason why I say many women think less of themselves than they should. There are many things that can make them attractive.

[ptgatsby]

I don't deny my preferences, but they have proved to be very easily changed as the time goes by. I don't think I could make a list about the things that attract me. And this is maybe the reason why I say many women think less of themselves than they should. There are many things that can make them attractive.

Studies in speed dating have shown that (men and women) we tend to adjust preferences very very quickly. Our actual mate selection process is more or less entirely arational (meaning, below awareness) - we rationalize after the fact.

For example, if you do a survey on your preferences, then go through speed dating, your preferences next week will tend to match the person you ranked highest during the speed dating, not your previous preferences.

It is more notable for women than men, however this is mostly because men are simple :D

The same goes for our securities in terms of mate selection. It is buried really deep - everytime we walk around, we are evaluating ourselves, others... It influences us all the time.

[Hmm]

I don't deny my preferences, but they have proved to be very easily changed as the time goes by. I don't think I could make a list about the things that attract me. And this is maybe the reason why I say many women think less of themselves than they should. There are many things that can make them attractive.

Studies in speed dating have shown that (men and women) we tend to adjust preferences very very quickly. Our actual mate selection process is more or less entirely arational (meaning, below awareness) - we rationalize after the fact.

For example, if you do a survey on your preferences, then go through speed dating, your preferences next week will tend to match the person you ranked highest during the speed dating, not your previous preferences.


This is true and why I pay no attention to what people say their preferences are anymore. The only downside to that is that it can make you question a person's sense of loyalty and commitment once you're involved with them.

[nolla]

Oh, I just realized. We haven't answered the question. Is it harder for women? This far we have found out that:

Men have ability to have more babies than women
which means that
- Women go for quality
- Men go for quantity

Some men are highly popular among women
which means
- They set the standard of the "desirable man"
- The desirable men as a group show what is the kind of woman they prefer
- So the desirable men define the desirable woman
- This is a loop: Popular women choose popular men who choose popular women. (what does it mean?)

Women value themselves by comparing themselves to the other women
- Can you get a popular man?
- If not, does that mean you are unsuccessful?

The popular men set the standard for what is desirable woman
- If a man has to "settle for less" than the standard, is he unsuccessful?
- Does the non-dominant male realize his place and "settle for less" automatically?

Role of a father is also important to consider
- Why would a woman prefer a weaker man?
- Are the non-dominant males doomed to be fathers of the dominant male's children?

[nolla]

The only downside to that is that it can make you question a person's sense of loyalty and commitment.

I don't think that loyalty or commitment come from the attractiveness of the mate.

[bluemonday]

Oh, I just realized. We haven't answered the question. Is it harder for women? This far we have found out that:

Men have ability to have more babies than women
which means that
- Women go for quality
- Men go for quantity


Last I checked, Men still can't have babies.*

Men go for quantity - perhaps.
Women go for quality - they may go for it, but do they find it?

It is safe to assume in this and all other matters, that it is always harder for women.

(*if they can, this might be an exception to the above rule)

[Hmm]

I don't think that loyalty or commitment come from the attractiveness of the mate.

You're right it doesn't however if someone feels attracted to many different types of mates then they may feel trapped and struggle within a commitment to just one type.

[Victor]

Oh, I just realized. We haven't answered the question. Is it harder for women? This far we have found out that:

Men have ability to have more babies than women
which means that
- Women go for quality
- Men go for quantity

Some men are highly popular among women
which means
- They set the standard of the "desirable man"
- The desirable men as a group show what is the kind of woman they prefer
- So the desirable men define the desirable woman
- This is a loop: Popular women choose popular men who choose popular women. (what does it mean?)

Women value themselves by comparing themselves to the other women
- Can you get a popular man?
- If not, does that mean you are unsuccessful?

The popular men set the standard for what is desirable woman
- If a man has to "settle for less" than the standard, is he unsuccessful?
- Does the non-dominant male realize his place and "settle for less" automatically?

Role of a father is also important to consider
- Why would a woman prefer a weaker man?
- Are the non-dominant males doomed to be fathers of the dominant male's children?

This is called calculating concupiscence.

And is the work of abject objects.

[whatever]

Just a question (and sorry if this was already addressed- I didn't feel like reading back a few pages) how does the availability of birth control change these dynamics? Will some women, like some men, start going for quantity instead of quality? :huh:

[Hmm]

Just a question (and sorry if this was already addressed- I didn't feel like reading back a few pages) how does the availability of birth control change these dynamics? Will some women, like some men, start going for quantity instead of quality? :huh:

Yes.

[ptgatsby]

Men have ability to have more babies than women
which means that
- Women go for quality
- Men go for quantity


This is the preference - with monogamy the norm (although I'd actually say it is a quasi-norm because there is an awful lot of cheating), these two things have influence, but are no longer the overall outcome of the mating scene. It's just an inclination that has ramifications.


- They set the standard of the "desirable man"
- The desirable men as a group show what is the kind of woman they prefer


It isn't the men that set the desirable man, exactly... rather it is the traits themselves that make the male desirable to women, as a whole. The man is like a container of 'traits' that women want.

Think of it through an evolutionary lens - the traits that women find desirable lead to that trait being passed more frequently to children, along with the desire of those traits. Likewise, traits that indicate better chance of survival tend to stay around to be noticed/found desirable.


The popular men set the standard for what is desirable woman
- If a man has to "settle for less" than the standard, is he unsuccessful?
- Does the non-dominant male realize his place and "settle for less" automatically?


Generally, speaking, yes. Guys do get rated on their mates a fair bit. However, any male that gets a female is successful, so the standard is a bit different.

Even though males have an over-inflated sense of their mating worth, they do automatically adjust. It comes about naturally - if women think they can do better, they upgrade, leaving the male without a mate. This happens until a female agrees to be with the male.

This also makes sense - a guy gains a lot by being overconfident (ie: it's a mate or lose situation for him!). It signals that he is 'dominant', he is expendable in the large picture, etc. Women, on the other hand, just want to optimize their mate.


Role of a father is also important to consider
- Why would a woman prefer a weaker man?
- Are the non-dominant males doomed to be fathers of the dominant male's children?

Generally, the logic would be that she cannot secure (or does not believe she can secure) a higher value male.

Non-dominant males are not doomed to be fathers of the dominant males... it actually happens the other way around. The ideal strategy for a non-dominant male is to seduce dominant male's mate(s) and have the dominant male use his resources and abilities to raise the child (more successfully than a less dominant male). It also is effective because the female gains multiple genetic sources while preserving her status (and her children's status), and also can secure a second available mate if need be.

Or so the theory goes, heh. Society makes reading our primitive tendencies rather... difficult.

[nolla]

Last I checked, Men still can't have babies.

Heh, well, yeah. I don't know how I can say what I meant without the image of big-bellied Schwarzenegger popping in your head.


Women go for quality - they may go for it, but do they find it?

In this case the quality means "a man that every woman supposedly wants". This isn't exactly what I personally think is quality, but in eyes of evolution it is.

It is safe to assume in this and all other matters, that it is always harder for women.

Why?

[nolla]

Think of it through an evolutionary lens - the traits that women find desirable lead to that trait being passed more frequently to children, along with the desire of those traits. Likewise, traits that indicate better chance of survival tend to stay around to be noticed/found desirable.

I think we can very narrow those traits down to being "successful" and something that the other women want. For example: Why would a young woman have a relationship with older man that has a lot of money. He has poor genes (older you get the less you have quality sperm) and the ability to make money is surely not up to genes anyways. There is (from evolution perspective) no reason for the girl to be with the man. (besides, old people are wrinkled :) ) So the man is successful, and that is the only thing that matters?

Non-dominant males are not doomed to be fathers of the dominant males... it actually happens the other way around. The ideal strategy for a non-dominant male is to seduce dominant male's mate(s) and have the dominant male use his resources and abilities to raise the child (more successfully than a less dominant male). It also is effective because the female gains multiple genetic sources while preserving her status (and her children's status), and also can secure a second available mate if need be.

I really don't follow the logic here. The non-dominant has a reason to stick with the woman (he wouldn't have anyone else anyways) but the dominant is prone to go away hopping from bed to bed. Why would he want to secure someone else's children when he probably doesn't have time for his own children?

You're right it doesn't however if someone feels attracted to many different types of mates then they may feel trapped and struggle within a commitment to just one type.

Nah, I wouldn't worry about that. Sure many women can be pretty, but when youre with one you don't think about that until she leaves you.. :)

This is called calculating concupiscence.

You use such a hard vocabulary that I can hardly ever understand your point. Could you explain it with more simple words. (I actually checked the dictionary and I still find it very hard to get the meaning)

[ptgatsby]

I think we can very narrow those traits down to being "successful" and something that the other women want. For example: Why would a young woman have a relationship with older man that has a lot of money. He has poor genes (older you get the less you have quality sperm) and the ability to make money is surely not up to genes anyways. There is (from evolution perspective) no reason for the girl to be with the man. (besides, old people are wrinkled :) ) So the man is successful, and that is the only thing that matters?

There are two good reasons, though...

1 - His success is likely related to his genes (ie: any success is a signal of good genes), even if age works against him

2 - His resources ensure a high rate of survival for her children, allowing her genes to continue beyond her direct children.

Keep in mind 'old' doesn't mean the same thing in evolutionary terms. When your life ends around 30, which may even be optimistic, "old" has a very different meaning! Sperm quality wouldn't of been a significant issue, most likely.

All the male has to do is signal things that have worked in the past. The big two are money and status in the present, least in the long run. Younger males get away with being vastly overconfident (which in theory, signal future money and status, giving women the incentive to get them before they are 'out of reach')


I really don't follow the logic here. The non-dominant has a reason to stick with the woman (he wouldn't have anyone else anyways) but the dominant is prone to go away hopping from bed to bed. Why would he want to secure someone else's children when he probably doesn't have time for his own children?


Just to be clear - the goal here is to have the woman cheat on the dominant male so that the dominant male wouldn't know it wasn't his. That means the non-dominant male doesn't have to spend any resources raising the child, and the dominant male does.

The reason why the equilibrium is reached is because if all males follow the 'sleep around' strategy, none can ensure their resources are properly directed to their children. It is always better for the high-resource groups to mate guard, and this always means that those without mates gain by poaching.

[anii]

"The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Wolf is a now classic that best addresses this issue.

Women only compete with women for limited resources because they are on the bottom tier. Just like Blacks and Latinos and just like _______ and _______.

As long as there is a power differential and an inequitable distribution of power and wealth, marginalized groups will fight each other for resources.

When they should really all just decide to join forces and fight the privileged group.

Anyone for a Bloody Revolution? :devil:

[bluemonday]

Women only compete with women for limited resources because they are on the bottom tier.
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at your arse.

[nolla]

1 - His success is likely related to his genes (ie: any success is a signal of good genes), even if age works against him

2 - His resources ensure a high rate of survival for her children, allowing her genes to continue beyond her direct children.

I can agree on number two. For some reason I find it very hard to believe that success is related to genes (in this world or the one we were evolved in). I can agree , though, that being unsuccessful can sometimes be because of bad genes. So I guess it is "playing it safe" to choose a successful mate.

Just to be clear - the goal here is to have the woman cheat on the dominant male so that the dominant male wouldn't know it wasn't his. That means the non-dominant male doesn't have to spend any resources raising the child, and the dominant male does.

Wait a minute. Isn't it like a statistical fact that men are the cheaters?

Women only compete with women for limited resources because they are on the bottom tier.

As long as there is a power differential and an inequitable distribution of power and wealth, marginalized groups will fight each other for resources.

Whoah... Good comment. You just took my mind off the genes and filled it with feminism. So, the question turns around into: How would the world be if women had the role of men in the society for, say, the last ten thousand years? Would the men now be obsessed with their looks (Does this "metrosexuality" thing imply that men have already lost their control :) )? Would it have been even theoretically possible for a society dominated by females to survive until this age? Are there any societies anywhere that are female-dominated?

Damn, this conversation has been really something. I have had this revelation feeling for several times now.

And, yeah, I'm up for a revolution. :devil::yes:

[FDG]

Oh no, ptgatsby trying again to understand how relationships work using logic, no no nooooo make him stop please

This is true and why I pay no attention to what people say their preferences are anymore.

Depends on how they have understood their preferences. Like if I say I like dark-haired girls because I've always liked brunettes so far, I am not creating an artificial preference, simply saying what my natural reactions are.

[nolla]

Oh, btw, what the fuck is this stuff:

Similar Threads

Cheer up! There are people worse off than you!
The Artist's Worse Obstacle

I just saw this in the bottom of this page. Those threads are not similar in any way... Who comes up with this stuff?

[ZiL]

Whoah... Good comment. You just took my mind off the genes and filled it with feminism. So, the question turns around into: How would the world be if women had the role of men in the society for, say, the last ten thousand years? Would the men now be obsessed with their looks? Would it have been even theoretically possible for a society dominated by females to survive until this age? Are there any societies anywhere that are female-dominated?

Damn, this conversation has been really something. I have had this revelation feeling for several times now.

And, yeah, I'm up for a revolution. :devil::yes:


I had just been thinking about this today - what would the world be like if women had been in the same position as men. The question arose in my primate behavior class, while we were watching a video about the only polyandrous group of New World monkeys, lol. It is so hard to hypothesize how that would be. Later I was watching CNN for a minute and they were talking about Sarah Palin, and the host said they were about to bring in four "smart, independent and undecided" women to discuss tonight's debate. The way he said it made it sound like these types of women were something of a rare breed - women are half the population! It just drove home to me the fact that despite women making up such an equal portion of the population, interviews exclusively with a number of women are looked at as out-of-the-ordinary and usually restricted to "women's issues." Even to me, it is odd to see only women making up a panel on cable news. It's hard to imagine hypothetical situations like this when our everyday experiences and understandings of the world are still deeply tied to male-dominated history.

There are matrilineal societies, but of course matrilineality doesn't guarantee women more power, though their roles in keeping the matrilineage strong are vital. Smaller band societies tend towards more equality, I guess - there is a fairly even division of labor - with men hunting and women gathering and both being necessary for survival. Women are needed for survival and so retain a level of status. But as for female dominated societies, I can't say I've ever heard of any. If there are some, I need to stop slacking because I'm an anthropology major....

[Lucifer]

I do not have the time to read this entire thread, but I am interested to hear what the members have come up with.

I would appreciate a summary from someone who has read a majority of this thread and is also willing to bring up all the prominent thoughts.

[Mondo]

Summers' remarks on women draw fire - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/)

Do you guys think this is true?
I have certainly met women who are brilliant at math and science.

However, I have met more men with such an aptitude, is it unreasonable to say that there are more men who have an exceptionally strong aptitude in math and science than women?
Or if certain societal pressures were lifted off women- the pressure that women shouldn't pursue mathematics because it is a man's subject- would we find an equal number of men and women in the math/sciences?

[ptgatsby]

I can agree on number two. For some reason I find it very hard to believe that success is related to genes (in this world or the one we were evolved in). I can agree , though, that being unsuccessful can sometimes be because of bad genes. So I guess it is "playing it safe" to choose a successful mate.

Either way, sure :D


Wait a minute. Isn't it like a statistical fact that men are the cheaters?


Not exactly. Men certainly are more known for cheating, but with genetic testing, it turns out women, who say they don't cheat, have an awful lot of children that are not with her husband.

I'm generally of the opinion that the dynamics of selection determined a lot of the male dominant societies, but there is no reason why that cannot change. Everything is changing now, really...

[ZiL]

Summers' remarks on women draw fire - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/)

Do you guys think this is true?
I have certainly met women who are brilliant at math and science.

However, I have met more men with such an aptitude, is it unreasonable to say that there are more men who have an exceptionally strong aptitude in math and science than women?
Or if certain societal pressures were lifted off women- the pressure that women shouldn't pursue mathematics because it is a man's subject- would we find an equal number of men and women in the math/sciences?

Good question. Hard to say if the number would be equal, but I'm sure there would be a surge in numbers. The advanced physics class I took in high school (2-3 years ago) had a male/female population ration of like 25:7. I wish there had been more females to balance it out, because a lot of the guys were smart but immature, so it felt like you were having to deal with the boy's club first before you could ever get down to work seriously. It wasn't an optimal environment, and if she wasn't into the subject to begin with, I could see a girl easily being turned off the idea of studying physics seriously in college. I was pretty good at physics, but I had to waste so much energy trying to get the guys in my groups to focus, that it really hurt my ability to enjoy the subject. And the fact that there were only 7 girls in the class contributed to the underlying stereotypical feeling that "maybe girls just weren't good at it." Usually a wide gender disparity in a class shouldn't contribute to feelings of inferiority, but since this particular stereotype already exists, it's kind of hard not to be reminded of it when you find yourself surrounded by a lot of males and not so many females.

But that's just my experience.

Edit: Meant to add that I saw no indication that the female students did any worse than the males on average.

[nolla]

The host said they were about to bring in four "smart, independent and undecided" women to discuss tonight's debate. The way he said it made it sound like these types of women were something of a rare breed - women are half the population! It just drove home to me the fact that despite women making up such an equal portion of the population, interviews exclusively with a number of women are looked at as out-of-the-ordinary and usually restricted to "women's issues."


Yes, this kind of attitude clearly brings out the fact that women are nowhere near being equal to men. Personally I find it ridiculous, but still can somehow understand, since feminism is really a young movement.

Summers' remarks on women draw fire - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/)

Do you guys think this is true?
I have certainly met women who are brilliant at math and science.

However, I have met more men with such an aptitude, is it unreasonable to say that there are more men who have an exceptionally strong aptitude in math and science than women?
Or if certain societal pressures were lifted off women- the pressure that women shouldn't pursue mathematics because it is a man's subject- would we find an equal number of men and women in the math/sciences?

It is silly that they are offended by the comment. There are differences between man and woman. You can see many of them with your eyes. It would be stupid to claim that the minds would be identical and made for exactly the same purposes if our bodies aren't. But, it is good to find out how big the differences are. We don't know if women aren't in the sciences because they were never expected to be.

[nolla]

Not exactly. Men certainly are more known for cheating, but with genetic testing, it turns out women, who say they don't cheat, have an awful lot of children that are not with her husband.

Really!? Now, mothers, come clean and confess.. How many bastard children do you have? :devil:

But seriously, where did you get that info? Links, please... (if it turns out true, I will never trust a woman again :) )

[Mitzy]

Girls, can you settle this?: Do more girls dress and try to look good for other girls or for guys?


i think when girls dress fashionably they do it for the women. but when they throw on something sexy and skimpy, its obviously for the men.


at the same time, i dont think its a matter of trying to impress either

its about competition and self esteem

there will be always someone better
people try to top it and look better than the one that looks better than them
cycle goes on
no one will ever feel suffice

[nolla]

at the same time, i dont think its a matter of trying to impress either

its about competition and self esteem


So, what is the prize of the competition? I don't think that women compete each other only because they love to compete. The only prizes that I can see is either the respect of other women or the admiration of men. It must be to impress someone.

[ptgatsby]

But seriously, where did you get that info? Links, please... (if it turns out true, I will never trust a woman again :) )

Egad, I've been cited! Give me some time, I'll get back to you :D

(Now I get to pray my memory isn't getting me into trouble!)

[Mitzy]

So, what is the prize of the competition? I don't think that women compete each other only because they love to compete. The only prizes that I can see is either the respect of other women or the admiration of men. It must be to impress someone.


they compete to win and to feel better about their own selves

at first, they show off to other women and flaunt themselves. so yeah, they do compete to compete

its not really much about guys...
guys are just like accessories

more guys you have around, the more there is to show off to other women and make them jealous

the more desirable you are to guys, the better woman you are. the better woman you are, the more you win the game

of course this is all surface

in the end girls get tired and want something more real with a man
in which case thats when the girl stops trying so hard
and THATS when they let themselves go and just put on a pair of jeans t shirt and mascara

cuz when it comes to guys
its whats on the inside that counts, not the outside. and thats when girls become all mushy and generally follow the whole 'feminine' role..

[nolla]

So there are many prizes? First the regained self-confidence, then the respect of women, then the trophy-guys, then later on, self-improvement?

[Mitzy]

word.

its a chain/cycle

[ptgatsby]

Really!? Now, mothers, come clean and confess.. How many bastard children do you have? :devil:

But seriously, where did you get that info? Links, please... (if it turns out true, I will never trust a woman again :) )

I googled up what I remember - the most likely reference that I am thinking of is covered in "Genetic Ties and the Family". But looking at it now, the reference is probably biased towards those that would get tested, so take it with a large grain of salt. The data itself comes from reports from paternity testing in the states and australia.

The most I'll say is that it is highly suggestive that women under-report their own cheating, meaning that the gap might be much narrower than we think.

[nolla]

I googled up what I remember - the most likely reference that I am thinking of is covered in "Genetic Ties and the Family". But looking at it now, the reference is probably biased towards those that would get tested, so take it with a large grain of salt. The data itself comes from reports from paternity testing in the states and australia.

The most I'll say is that it is highly suggestive that women under-report their own cheating, meaning that the gap might be much narrower than we think.

Thanks. Looks like an interesting book, I'm going to go through as much as possible at google books. (I only read the story of a man who has to pay child support for a child that isn't his, and is denied to see the child. WTF? I have to read this through...)

[Cindy]

I was trying to ask if your self-doubt comes from unconscious (as passive as it can get) man-hunting. See:



The first part you say you don't like yourself when you compare to other women. Now, this is the unconscious part. Then you say you consciously need to fight it. Then you doubt if it is about men. My question: What else could it be? Why do you need to be desirable if it isn't about men?

To be an influential part of a group?
Beauty gives power over men and women alike.
Looking good gives the illusion that you are also strong and healthy.

BTW I didn't read any further down the thread than this.

[nolla]

To be an influential part of a group?
Beauty gives power over men and women alike.
Looking good gives the illusion that you are also strong and healthy.

You are right that power is an important factor in this. Very important. We could even turn the whole question about power and say that men are mostly the ones that have power and the women are the ones trying to take some of it away. The men don't have the need to use their looks, as it is enough to know your business. But women are treated unfairly, so they need to put on the make-up and the short-but-not-too-short skirt and gain some more power over the men.

This is actually interesting point of view because we can see that the feminists who refuse to play along and rather burn their bra, will lose power, thus making it harder for feminism to succeed.

[Cindy]

The power would be more equal if what most women are naturally good at was valued by the majority ie. the value of a successful parent having as higher status value as being a successful executive. I wish I had an example that was less loaded.

Looks are a matter of luck, we are competing with luck lol.
There is endless opportunity to get smarter however learning to be prettier is limited. Choosing to use our looks as a determining point for confidence is a trap, the scope needs to be broader.

Looks have their power, even for a man with a sexy face, yet men have a broader range of possible successes to rate their confidence on (and so do girls but we don't see it so easily) hence being ugly is not going to weigh as heavily on a mans self esteem.

So there is my thinking but can't beat the feelings eh.
Perhaps it's heavily built into our subconscious, or perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree lol.

[edel weiss]

This is actually interesting point of view because we can see that the feminists who refuse to play along and rather burn their bra, will lose power, thus making it harder for feminism to succeed.

Feminism would actually say that a woman shouldn't need to 'play along', just to gain power. If she wants to wear make up, good for her. If she feels like she has to wear make up because that's what people expect, it's not very healthy.

[nolla]

Feminism would actually say that a woman shouldn't need to 'play along', just to gain power. If she wants to wear make up, good for her. If she feels like she has to wear make up because that's what people expect, it's not very healthy.

I agree, they shouldn't. But most of the women I know do make up because it is expected of them. But then again, I wear trousers and not skirt because that is expected of me.

[edel weiss]

I agree, they shouldn't. But most of the women I know do make up because it is expected of them. But then again, I wear trousers and not skirt because that is expected of me.

:D Same here. I wouldn't mind wearing skirts sometimes, but it is expected that I wear pants, so I stick to that. I guess that's not much better than women who feel they have to dress up because that's what they're supposed to do.

[placebo]

I was talking / debating with a (male) friend about plastic surgery. My view was that there is something "off" about it. I couldn't quite explain it, though. Anyways, he pointed out that women have harder time with the expectations in this time and culture. In his opinion this is what makes women to go under the knife. He says it is woman against woman rivalry (not filling expectations of men). If you are pretty they envy you and you are glad for it, if you are not pretty, you are the jealous one. So, the reason for the knife would be to boost your self-confidence. I cannot entirely disagree on this one.

So, how do you girls see this? Does it seem like men have easier lives with this kind of expectations? Me, I don't personally have any desire to "build up my muscles" or anything. I don't care. I find it hard to believe it would be much different (psychologically) if we talk about women.

(Oh, I'm sorry if this is wrong forum to discuss this. I couldn't figure out a better one)

My first reaction:
I feel like that's an excuse and women only do that to themselves, being so attentive and taken by society's expectations and what they feel others expect them to be. Women don't have it harder in THIS day and age. WOMEN HAVEN'T HAD IT BETTER. Men have just as many expectations to live up to. Men 'should be' macho, strong, reliable, stable, etc etc etc, just as much as women 'should be' pretty, sexy, sociable, etc etc etc. I feel that men and women have equally difficult problems in this day and age, and it doesn't matter what gender you are, it matters how well you as a person let yourself be affected by the messages around you. Women should be proud that they are WOMEN. That they can reproduce, create babies, that we are rooted to LIFE itself. Men should be proud of whatever they should be proud of too. Men are typically one rung up the ladder ahead of women, just because of how most of society places them, but they still have their problems. Lots of men have reaaaaal mental problems, are violent, lose their sense of reality more than women do, etc.

Women are super-sexualized in western society, and that's the only reason why there is this type of pointless expectation. I personally feel that if people rely so strongly on some fabricated ideal of 'prettiness' to measure up a person, then their opinion isn't really worth much anyway. Unless you look unbelievably deformed or something, going under the knife doesn't seem necessary. I tell that to my sister who wants to get a nose job and wants to get rid of a few hardly noticeable freckles on her face that, but she doesn't see it the same way, and I don't quite get it.

[EJCC]

To be an influential part of a group?
Beauty gives power over men and women alike.
Looking good gives the illusion that you are also strong and healthy.


Has anyone seen the movie "American Psycho"? I would compare the female need to impress their fellow women to the scene in which Bateman and his coworkers compare business cards. (obviously it isn't that extreme, but still. you see my point.) I'm not sure what the point of it all is, but it's human nature, I suppose.

And it's not like guys aren't insecure, too. I'm sure their pressure to be muscular is equal to our need to be thin. And at least overweight women can be perceived as beautiful in the mainstream media (see America Ferrera, Nikki Blonsky, Queen Latifah, etc. etc.). I can't remember the last time when a potbellied man was considered handsome. Or a bald one. How sad!

[sarah]

I think we can very narrow those traits down to being "successful" and something that the other women want. For example: Why would a young woman have a relationship with older man that has a lot of money. He has poor genes (older you get the less you have quality sperm) and the ability to make money is surely not up to genes anyways. There is (from evolution perspective) no reason for the girl to be with the man. (besides, old people are wrinkled :) ) So the man is successful, and that is the only thing that matters?

Heh -- but since when have all people been thinking only of making babies when looking for a mate to settle down with? I realize some of our reasons for choosing a particular person are unconscious, but we do have a lot of control over most of what we choose to find attractive, don't you think?

Besides, it doesn't seem to me that all young people want to hurry up and settle down and reproduce like crazy these days. Sure, they have serial dating relationships, but education and career often come first. I know a lot of people in their 30s who are finally deciding that now they want to get married -- and NOT in order to start a family -- they just want a permanent life partner. It seems to me that by the time you're 30+ years old, unless parenthood is a must for you (and for many people it isn't), you're not just looking for someone who looks like he/she might have ideal genetic material. I can't believe that anyone here would choose a person who embodies genetic desirability over one with whom they share compatible lifestyles, taste, opinions, etc.....?

As for age and wrinkles and why a younger woman would marry an older man? Um, it's not always for money and social status. I've always thought a man who possesses emotional maturity was priceless, and many more older men tend to know who they are, what they want, and how to compensate for their faults a lot more than the hoardes of young guys who are idealistically looking for perfection in a mate (so as to compensate for all their imperfections, which they don't like to think about let alone label as such). As for visible signs of aging, well, we all get there eventually. My husband's 25 years older than I am (we married when I was 31 and he was 56), and I'm not spooked by any of his signs of aging, especially since I'm getting gray hair and crows feet myself. ;)

Sarah
ISFP