Women having difficulty finding men?

[lkanneg]

I'm not "attractive."  I'm beautiful.  <wince> social conditioning is now activated and pinching and beating me about the head for saying so, but...I'm not "skinny."  I am "slender," except for my bust, which is large, and my bottom, which is not large but is definitely well-rounded.  

Well, you apparently don't suffer from low self-esteem.

I do as much as the average person does, I'm sure.

[lkanneg]

Given my logic, I should be swamped with men.  

And, given your logic, are you?

Yep.

[lkanneg]

Men have a large array of behaviors that they are allowed to engage in that make them appear more attractive...have you ever had men attempt to pick you up in bars?

Mostly young or stupid men trying to imitate the behaviors that will get them a girl for the night.

Hee hee, that's what you think.

By the way - the guy in the expensive suit in the bar is most probably NOT rich - LOL.  Look for the tattered jeans.  Women can - can - be a bit silly in being manipulated with regard to a romp for the night.

Happily I never notice what men are wearing, unless it's spandex or in Day-Glo colors.  (I admit I do notice how men are smelling...I am so, so a sucker for a delicious-smelling man.)

[lkanneg]

Your example is of men using a woman's negative physical characteristic to judge her personality.  How does this show that men use a woman's personality to judge her looks?

Er... I believe the criteria was "being attracted to". I showed an example of men who were not attracted to a physically attractive woman because of her percieved attitude. Thus the measure of her attractiveness went down due to her personality.

I must've misread your initial post.  I was sure you said they said she was a bitch because she had no ass, which is not a personality trait.

[typhonblue]

Alternate theory:  the majority of people in supervisory positions are male, and these are the people that control the income and raises of those below them.  No matter how ugly a young woman is, she still has something attractive to men (heterosexual men, anyway)--a young height-weight proportional female body.  (You notice that the stats show that fat women drop off the charts, below ugly men as well, in salary loss.)  The majority of males in supervisory positions are also heterosexual.  An ugly young man has nothing that a heterosexual male boss finds attractive, hence the difference.

The article you're quoting does not include the effect on hieght on men's salaries.

So... ugly men are penalized more then ugly women. And short men are penalized more then fat women (something like 15% vs. 7%, I've read.) Further fat black women are not penalized compared to thin black women, so the fat thing seems to be an issue that only affects white women, for whatever reason.

As for your explaination... why would a heterosexual man prefer attractive men for raises, jobs, etc.? Is there some reason he should have a bias towards good looking men?

As for the cultural phenomena to expect women to work outside of the home... up till the 1950s a large portion of women worked outside the home BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE. And a majority of women work outside the home in other cultures as well BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

The only thing that changed was the fashion that dictated how rich women spent their idyll time. Instead of at home pursuing their various interests in art, music, etc. it became common for rich women to seek out work in an attractive and personally fullfilling setting.

As for women marrying up. Between unmarried women and men there is NO, repeat NO, wage gap, so there is no "men are already up compared to women" among the unmarried.

Finally, why does reproduction need to be controlled? To what end is it controlled?

[Sir Percy]

From Typhon:

(1)Women believe sex is something they give to men. (Thus elevating men's status via the gift of sex.)

(2)Men believe sex is something they take from women. (Thus degrading them in the process. If you take something, doesn't the person you've taken from have less?)

(3)The more sex a woman gives, the more degraded she becomes.

(4)The more sex a man recieves, the more elevated a man becomes. But at each transaction he feels like he is taking something from her and "sullying" her. (5)Most men are compassionate so probably feel like they should compensate the woman somehow (if they buy into this dynamic). The ones who aren't (and buy into the dynamic) relish the degredation.

(6)But what if this whole system is an artificial construct designed to get men feeling guilty and in debt to women for a mutually pleasurable and beneficial act?

Hmmm. I think point 1. is an accurately reported attitude. Most women do seem to think she is 'giving'. And she is. Giving of herself. I don't think this elevates his status however, except maybe in her own eyes and that's a cognitive dissonance. In our modern life, any status she provides him is questionable in any event. The whole mary-up / marry down issue bears this out.

Point 2 is a variable. Perhaps some younger men think this but a mature man is more likely to see his own involvement in sexual activity as gift-giving too. He is giving of himself. He is giving love, as she is. He is giving part of his physical self, she isn't. It is his semen that she recieves. On this balance of account, he gives more than she does.

Point 3 I find peculiar and distasteful. In whose eyes is she degraded? People who love one another do not feel degraded, they feel privileged. Perhaps this underscores the role of love in the sexual encounter.  'Hooking up' to my mind is  degrading to all.

Point 4. Sullying her? This has never been my experience. I suppose all things are possible but I doubt this is a general rule. How does an act of love sully? I guess when it isn't an act of love. Point 5, is linked. Accept 4 and 5 is almost ineveitable, but in my mind it is indicative of aberrance.

Point 6. Indeed it is a construction. Again, all things may be possible and I do get the strong impression that women (in general) do expect men (in general) to feel at an advantage that they should feel guilty about. I think this is a 'taught' thing. Part of the female 'lore'. Personally I think this is more a projection, deeply rooted. The one who is 'giving' less and taking more, unearned, feels guilty and projects that guilt onto the giver to reduce their own dissonance discomfort.

Maybe my experience is different. Maybe I have simply moved well past my very young, adolescent single days. Maybe what is described is a genuine, albeit immature and negative attitude amongst some people. But as a general rule? I suspect not.

From Galt:

That's how it is - and, worse, I think that the trade-off was pretty much sex for stuff that men produce (like building them a hut, LOL).

There is only speculation, albeit widespread and accepted as conventional wisdom, that men provide goods in exchange for sex. Similarly that women provide sex in exchange for goods. I personally see this as facile. There are far deeper biological imperatives and vulnerabilities involved.

[zarby]

Sir Percy,

I think you are looking at things from a mature and healthy viewpoint but not necessarily the prevailing viewpoint. Your analysis is probably more how things should be than how things are. I only dispute the notion that a man gives more because he gives part of himself -- not sure about that.

Attitudes are contradictory even within the same people. I think the attitudes summarized by Typhon are very real. At the same time though, I think female sexuality is being very much celebrated. Women who have sex a lot are being glorified. At the same time, they are sullied.

We live in a strange world. In a lot of ways, we are increasingly prudish. On the other hand, sex is everywhere -- TV, Magazines, Internet, Billboards, etc. There is little to no consistency in attitudes.

[the sad geek]

We live in a strange world. In a lot of ways, we are increasingly prudish. On the other hand, sex is everywhere -- TV, Magazines, Internet, Billboards, etc. There is little to no consistency in attitudes.

Oh, but it is consistent. If you want to have power over someone you make them addicted to a drug and then make them feel guilty about it. No self-worth + dependence = power. Add a sense of divinity to that and you're really in business.

[lkanneg]

As for your explaination... why would a heterosexual man prefer attractive men for raises, jobs, etc.? Is there some reason he should have a bias towards good looking men??

We all have a bias toward good-looking people, from infancy onward...it isn't even cultural, isn't that fascinating?  Just inborn. The bias of men towards shorter men isn't attraction-based, though--more hierarchical.

As for the cultural phenomena to expect women to work outside of the home... up till the 1950s a large portion of women worked outside the home BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE. And a majority of women work outside the home in other cultures as well BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.?

The cultural expectation was not that they work outside the home, though.  It was seen as something that ONLY WOMEN WHO HAD TO DO, did, as you say.  Like a man caring for his young children alone...only men that HAD NO CHOICE (like widowers) did so.  Cultural expectations have shifted remarkably in recent times.  Catching up with reality, it would appear, which is always a positive thing.

The only thing that changed was the fashion that dictated how rich women spent their idyll time. Instead of at home pursuing their various interests in art, music, etc. it became common for rich women to seek out work in an attractive and personally fullfilling setting.

I'm sure but...what does that have to do with cultural expectations of women working outside the home?  What rich women do is, well, a lot like what rich men do...inapplicable to the general population.  

As for women marrying up. Between unmarried women and men there is NO, repeat NO, wage gap, so there is no "men are already up compared to women" among the unmarried.

If you prefer not to call it a "wage gap," that's fine with me.  However, there is an income disparity.  It's okay, TB--the top of your head won't blow off if you acknowledge that.  You can still blame it all on the women.  

Finally, why does reproduction need to be controlled? To what end is it controlled?

*I* certainly don't want to control anybody's reproduction but my own.  However, in times past, reproduction was much like marriage in that it was not considered in the rather romantic, emotional, etc. light we tend to consider it in today; it was looked at in a much more businesslike light.  Given that, and the lack of effective safe contraception and paternity testing, the idea was to limit women having children to only when they were told to by the secular govt/religious govt/family govt, only by whom they were told to by the secular govt/religious govt/family govt.  If you lack ID methods and birth control, one of the only effective ways left to control fertility and genetic descent is to make sex seem as gross, evil, degrading as possible, especially for the gender that gets pregnant and gives birth, but definitely still for both genders.  Then make it kind of okay to have with the person chosen by the larger group for the individual (don't raise all barriers, though, or people may start to experiment outside marriage).   And just in case the gross, evil, degrading etc. stuff takes too strong a hold on the indoctrinated people and they show signs of refusing to have sex at all, make a rule that people in marriage HAVE to have sex no matter what or they are disobeying God and will probably be struck dead or go to hell or some such.

JMO!

[typhonblue]

We all have a bias toward good-looking people, from infancy onward...it isn't even cultural, isn't that fascinating?  Just inborn. The bias of men towards shorter men isn't attraction-based, though--more hierarchical.

Okay, so our theoretical boss rewards good looking men more then ugly men and good looking women less then good looking men (respective of ugly women.)

Why?

The cultural expectation was not that they work outside the home, though.  It was seen as something that ONLY WOMEN WHO HAD TO DO, did, as you say.  Like a man caring for his young children alone...only men that HAD NO CHOICE (like widowers) did so.  Cultural expectations have shifted remarkably in recent times.  Catching up with reality, it would appear, which is always a positive thing.

The cultural expectation was that non-wealthy women would provide materially for their families as men did. If they could do it in the home, fine, if they couldn't, they went out and got a job.

It was simple necessity, nothing to do with expectations.

Now, when wealth and prosperity came to a *majority* of people in the west, a new idea emerged of allowing working class women (married to men who worked and did not have aristocratic titles) to stay at home and produce nothing materially.

The shift in the 1960s was a fashion shift among married women whose husbands could afford to have them stay at home, from home-bound hobbies to going out and finding fullfilling, non-demanding work.

There is no expectation for married women(married to a man who can afford a homemaker) to work, it's more *fashionable* then it was in the 1950s, but there aren't any expectations.

I'm sure but...what does that have to do with cultural expectations of women working outside the home?  What rich women do is, well, a lot like what rich men do...inapplicable to the general population.

A majority of people in western nations are rich. A trip to any third world nation will prove the truth of this.

Again, working class women married to working class men (men who have to work for a living instead of relying on an aristocratic title) used to produce materially as well.

That all changed in the west between 1900-50. Working class women(married to men who have to work for a living) became units of consumption instead of production.

As for women marrying up. Between unmarried women and men there is NO, repeat NO, wage gap, so there is no "men are already up compared to women" among the unmarried.

If you prefer not to call it a "wage gap," that's fine with me.  However, there is an income disparity.  It's okay, TB--the top of your head won't blow off if you acknowledge that.  You can still blame it all on the women.  

There is no income disparity between unmarried men and unmarried women. I repeat. There is no income disparity between unmarried men and unmarried women.

[typhonblue]

Given my logic, I should be swamped with men.  

And, given your logic, are you?

Yep.

Well then, by your own admission you are not in the position to *know* the experiences of plain, non-slender women in the dating pool.

From my own observations and experience, we may not be *swamped* like a beauty such as yourself, but we are not doing too badly, so your sympathy is misplaced.

Now, sympathy *should* be given to short men who seem to get it coming and going. They are less likely to get married(-7%) and suffer a penalty due to their height in wages(-15%).

Fat women suffer less of a penalty in wages(-5%) although they are equally unlikely to be married(-7%). (By contrast a tall woman is -5% as likely to get married as an average or small sized woman.)

If a woman is fat, short and unnattractive, she can expect a reduction from her "perfectly proportioned" peers in terms of earning salary of 21%(minus overlap). By contrast, a short and unnattractive man can expect a reduction from his "perfectly proportioned" peers of 30%(minus overlap).

Finally the premium for attractiveness in the marriage game hits men *harder*. Attractive women are 4% more likely to be married then their unattractive peers. Unattractive men are -9% less likely to be married then their attractive peers.

http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0301.html

[Factory]

Women "marry up" as a general rule (I think 80% or so - but then we have to remember the ward nurse who "marries down" by marrying the guy with the MD doing his residency for low pay in plastic surgery - yeah, we get the drift).

One caveat to women "marrying up;" to be fair, you must admit that a lot more men are already "up" compared to women in the first place.  It'd be impossible for most women to marry down.  There aren't enough men that are "down" from women to enable the majority of women to marry them.

You've been drinking the Kool Aid lkanneg, you have to have been to in any way suggest that women that work are paid less than men who work.  Hell, they've even started to compare full-time employed men vs. part-time employed women - so they can get a big enough income gap to "rally the masses" with.

Nearly every single couple I have had for customers selling cars (been doing it about 5 years on and off...total number of couples has to be at least 200) the woman makes significantly MORE than the husband.  This isn't dependant on the type of cars either (meaning income stratification / job type is not skewed due to price of car line), since this happened at Cadillac/Hummer/GM dealerships as well as Nissan/Mitsubishi and now again at DaimlerChrysler.  Ask a finance manager of car salesman near you and they will likely say the same thing.

I'd say that if you ever seriously looked into that popular myth you'd fairly quickly find that it's based on data so twisted around (to get the desired result) as to be scientifically useless.

[Factory]

Given my logic, I should be swamped with men.  

And, given your logic, are you?

Yep.

Well then, by your own admission you are not in the position to *know* the experiences of plain, non-slender women in the dating pool.

From my own observations and experience, we may not be *swamped* like a beauty such as yourself, but we are not doing too badly, so your sympathy is misplaced.

Now, sympathy *should* be given to short men who seem to get it coming and going. They are less likely to get married(-7%) and suffer a penalty due to their height in wages(-15%).

Fat women suffer less of a penalty in wages(-5%) although they are equally unlikely to be married(-7%). (By contrast a tall woman is -5% as likely to get married as an average or small sized woman.)

If a woman is fat, short and unnattractive, she can expect a reduction from her "perfectly proportioned" peers in terms of earning salary of 21%(minus overlap). By contrast, a short and unnattractive man can expect a reduction from his "perfectly proportioned" peers of 30%(minus overlap).

Finally the premium for attractiveness in the marriage game hits men *harder*. Attractive women are 4% more likely to be married then their unattractive peers. Unattractive men are -9% less likely to be married then their attractive peers.

http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0301.html

I'm short...I can vouch for this with 36 years of experience.  Sucks, but hey...what do ya do?  Tall unattractive women have it better than short unattractive men - definitely.  Why do you think there's the stereotypical short/skinny guy with a huge fat woman?  It's all the other can get sometimes.

But looks are definitely #2 on the list for BOTH sexes.  People can be iffy-ish in terms of looks but snag a real catch based on personality/attitude.  Not always, and there ARE limits on how big of a differential on the scale, but being an ugly pig doesn't condemn you to singlehood any more than being hot as hell guarantees happiness.

I think way too much is made of this issue...since any way you slice it, it still comes out like whining.

As for the workplace...well, big tits still command a premium salary...plain and simple.

[gwallan]

As for the workplace...well, big tits still command a premium salary...plain and simple.

LOL I once heard a woman refer to affirmative action appointees as "token titties".

[lkanneg]

We all have a bias toward good-looking people, from infancy onward...it isn't even cultural, isn't that fascinating?  Just inborn. The bias of men towards shorter men isn't attraction-based, though--more hierarchical.

Okay, so our theoretical boss rewards good looking men more then ugly men and good looking women less then good looking men (respective of ugly women.)

Why? .

Actually, I think I've gotten the relative rewards mixed up at this point.  According to your stats, does it go (from most rewarded to least rewarded):

Good looking women
Good looking men
Ugly women
Ugly men
Fat women (are all fat women = ugly women?)
Short men (is there any difference reward-wise between ugly short men and good looking short men?)

If this ordering is wrong, could you rearrange it so it's right?

[

The cultural expectation was not that they work outside the home, though.  It was seen as something that ONLY WOMEN WHO HAD TO DO, did, as you say.  Like a man caring for his young children alone...only men that HAD NO CHOICE (like widowers) did so.  Cultural expectations have shifted remarkably in recent times.  Catching up with reality, it would appear, which is always a positive thing.

The cultural expectation was that non-wealthy women would provide materially for their families as men did. If they could do it in the home, fine, if they couldn't, they went out and got a job.

It was simple necessity, nothing to do with expectations..

No, the cultural expectation was that women would provide materially ONLY within the home.  It was considered shameful for women to have to work outside the home, and considered extremely peculiar for a woman to WANT to work outside the home--at least, the literature of the times that I have read indicates these beliefs as pervasive throughout US culture.  

Now, when wealth and prosperity came to a *majority* of people in the west, a new idea emerged of allowing working class women (married to men who worked and did not have aristocratic titles) to stay at home and produce nothing materially. .

Technology had a lot to do with this too, I think.

[The shift in the 1960s was a fashion shift among married women whose husbands could afford to have them stay at home, from home-bound hobbies to going out and finding fullfilling, non-demanding work.

There is no expectation for married women(married to a man who can afford a homemaker) to work, it's more *fashionable* then it was in the 1950s, but there aren't any expectations..

There is if she is childless; if she is not childless and they can afford it, it is culturally acceptable for her to stay home.  As I said, I've only encountered one situation where a woman was childless and unemployed and living with a man, and she was universally sneered at.

[

I'm sure but...what does that have to do with cultural expectations of women working outside the home?  What rich women do is, well, a lot like what rich men do...inapplicable to the general population.

A majority of people in western nations are rich. A trip to any third world nation will prove the truth of this..

My best friend would agree with you; she spent two years living in Tanzania.  However, what we are talking about are intercultural expectations; it doesn't matter that a lower-middle-class person here in the US is disgustingly rich by comparison to the vast majority of the population in, say, Tanzania.  Interculturally, it only matters where that person stands in relation to the majority in his or her own culture.  

[

As for women marrying up. Between unmarried women and men there is NO, repeat NO, wage gap, so there is no "men are already up compared to women" among the unmarried.

If you prefer not to call it a "wage gap," that's fine with me.  However, there is an income disparity.  It's okay, TB--the top of your head won't blow off if you acknowledge that.  You can still blame it all on the women.  

There is no income disparity between unmarried men and unmarried women. I repeat. There is no income disparity between unmarried men and unmarried women.

Well, TB...mindlessly repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, I'm afraid, which is all you're doing.  It would be much more convincing if you had as many reputable sources supporting your claim as there are out there that show that there is an income disparity between men and women.