Diane Rehm yesterday, interviewing an expensive matchmaker: REHM: And, Janis, you said that your clients are men. So you don’t take women who may have lots of money looking for a male? SPINDEL: No, thank you.
Spindel's men are not a random cross section. They're highly successful men consciously pursuing a long-term relationship.Even if being opaque comes naturally...as humans, men can override their nature simply by deciding to.
Spindel gets to cherry pick the non-opaque men, and then match them with the naturally non-opaque women. Who did she use as her pool of men for women? It's normal for women to complain. The key is to gauge what they're complaining about. What's her criteria for 'unsatisfied'?
That said, the naive interpretation may be correct. Perhaps women aren't satisfiable, or maybe even they don't know what they want.
If a majority of matchmakers feel women still need good looks and youth more than boardroom success to succeed in the dating market, then feminist organizations should be hedging their bets by contributing to the SENS foundation.
Yes, but this goes back to her "need" for a high status man. The wife implores her husband to produce more in the same way a husband may implore his wife to look better. (Obviously, one type of imploring is culturally acceptable and the other has been beaten out of us, but you know I'm right. =)
Sure, women have to compete against hot girls in the media as well as pornography. But women are hypergamous in the first place, so men are always effectively directly competing against the top men. Women and men are both discouraged and disempowered by the winner-take-all nature of the mating market, the former more caused by technology (porn and media) and the latter female instinct.
The standard fare of a married women’s "What's mine is mine, what yours is mine" attitude is pretty much the heart of this. As a man this attitude doesn’t really bother you with a low income partner (you both work your ass off and have little to show) while it bothers you immensely with a high income partner (you both work your ass off and YOU still have little to show, she goes and buys shoes, toys, etc). I think this imbalance is often overlooked in modern times.
Something else that may have been missed: obviously as most men want to marry some hot babe the naive response might be that a hot babe with degree and high income potential is a better choice.
A little thought, however, makes you come to the conclusion that hot *intelligent* babe will cut your stones off and feed them to you and then get her pet gorilla to pound you to mush in a divorce fight.
Do you have a proposal for which traits we get to play with as potential adaptations and which traits we don’t?
My point goes more to the credence we place in these historical reconstructions. Perhaps the most important preliminary consideration is how plausible is it that the mechanism responsible for the trait is modular.
The notion that women are particularly inscrutable isn't new. It doesn't seem be limited to mating contexts.
"it's obviously evolution!" "no, it's obviously a cultural adaption!" don't you guys think that maybe you should be more careful with using ev.psych. if it's so easy for a bunch of people to say totally opposite things?
I'm sympathetic to the plight of low-status men and agree it gets short shrift in the popular mind compared to that of women, but it seems marriage prospects are the least of their worries - it's low-status women who have trouble finding a marriage partner, as I understand it. Low-status men not marrying is probably more about not having a job or being in prison than it is about failure of the mating market. Do low-status men even want to get married, keeping other social issues constant?
It's more personally empowering because the general experience of being human is you have greater control over your ability to succeed in career than you have over your physical appearance. (As an extreme analogy, it would be more personally empowering to be judged on your vocabulary, than on your height.) At least, that's the assertion I was making.
It's due to the influence of a PC feministic society that refuses to acknowledge the realities of human sexuality and male/female differences. See my reply to Drewfus above.
Spindel's men are not a random cross section. They're highly successful men consciously pursuing a long-term relationship.Even if being opaque comes naturally...as humans, men can override their nature simply by deciding to.
Spindel gets to cherry pick the non-opaque men, and then match them with the naturally non-opaque women. Who did she use as her pool of men for women? It's normal for women to complain. The key is to gauge what they're complaining about. What's her criteria for 'unsatisfied'?
That said, the naive interpretation may be correct. Perhaps women aren't satisfiable, or maybe even they don't know what they want.
If a majority of matchmakers feel women still need good looks and youth more than boardroom success to succeed in the dating market, then feminist organizations should be hedging their bets by contributing to the SENS foundation.
Alas, such thinking is rare in this world.
Yes, but this goes back to her "need" for a high status man. The wife implores her husband to produce more in the same way a husband may implore his wife to look better. (Obviously, one type of imploring is culturally acceptable and the other has been beaten out of us, but you know I'm right. =)
Scott H.,
Empowering for whom? Women or men?
Sure, women have to compete against hot girls in the media as well as pornography. But women are hypergamous in the first place, so men are always effectively directly competing against the top men. Women and men are both discouraged and disempowered by the winner-take-all nature of the mating market, the former more caused by technology (porn and media) and the latter female instinct.
Is it really more empowering when you are judged relative to your peers? I mean top 1% is top 1%.
The standard fare of a married women’s "What's mine is mine, what yours is mine" attitude is pretty much the heart of this. As a man this attitude doesn’t really bother you with a low income partner (you both work your ass off and have little to show) while it bothers you immensely with a high income partner (you both work your ass off and YOU still have little to show, she goes and buys shoes, toys, etc). I think this imbalance is often overlooked in modern times.
“Sperm are cheap, eggs are expensive”
I like this phrase. It alone explains more about human life than tomes of literature from "cultural studies."
Which is to say, it's hyperbole. But since no hyperbole is called for in that context, "oh wow, lol" fits.
Something else that may have been missed: obviously as most men want to marry some hot babe the naive response might be that a hot babe with degree and high income potential is a better choice.
A little thought, however, makes you come to the conclusion that hot *intelligent* babe will cut your stones off and feed them to you and then get her pet gorilla to pound you to mush in a divorce fight.
Do you have a proposal for which traits we get to play with as potential adaptations and which traits we don’t?
My point goes more to the credence we place in these historical reconstructions. Perhaps the most important preliminary consideration is how plausible is it that the mechanism responsible for the trait is modular.
The notion that women are particularly inscrutable isn't new. It doesn't seem be limited to mating contexts.
Let me help you with your English:
"lit·er·al·ly/ˈlitərəlē/Adverb:
...
2. Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling."
I could literally do this in my sleep.Literally? Oh wow, lol.
"it's obviously evolution!" "no, it's obviously a cultural adaption!" don't you guys think that maybe you should be more careful with using ev.psych. if it's so easy for a bunch of people to say totally opposite things?
I'm sympathetic to the plight of low-status men and agree it gets short shrift in the popular mind compared to that of women, but it seems marriage prospects are the least of their worries - it's low-status women who have trouble finding a marriage partner, as I understand it. Low-status men not marrying is probably more about not having a job or being in prison than it is about failure of the mating market. Do low-status men even want to get married, keeping other social issues constant?
It's more personally empowering because the general experience of being human is you have greater control over your ability to succeed in career than you have over your physical appearance. (As an extreme analogy, it would be more personally empowering to be judged on your vocabulary, than on your height.) At least, that's the assertion I was making.
It's due to the influence of a PC feministic society that refuses to acknowledge the realities of human sexuality and male/female differences. See my reply to Drewfus above.