Men should start judging women's success too.

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah and then you see a waitress who looks like Scarlett Johansson and that mindset is outta window.

My point is that women have been looking to men as providers of food, shelter, and clothing for as long as men have been looking to women as sperm repositories. Fair or not, that's how it is.

I have to wonder, though ... How many women that have become wealthy on their own have then "settled" for a man whose earning ability is dismal, to say the least? How many women that have become wealthy on their own have been happily married to the same man for 30+ years?

[opinion=mine]

It seems to me that while most men are willing to "marry down" economically if the woman is pretty enough, most women are only willing to "marry up" economically, even if the man she's marrying is bug-ugly.

[/opinion]

Fnord, I can't disagree with you. I was brought up by self-sufficient parents, we lived hand to mouth and all worked on the farmstead. I know that the kind of people you describe do exist. I find them difficult to relate to. I forget how different my life is to other people's sometimes.

I was raised similarly, but in a suburban / edge-of-town environment.

Those people I described seem to be everywhere - I have yet to meet a self-made woman who "married down" economically, or a self-made man who wasn't married to a "hot-looking" partner (or dating as many "hotties" as he could afford).

Disclaimer: I live in the Anaheim / Los Angeles area, where beauty and wealth seem to be more highly prized (socially) than intelligence.

I never thought of this particular double-standard before. So true though.

I have met "power couples" which is what the article writer seems to be advocating and, like you say, the self-made woman is not marrying down economically.

The Los Angeles area does have some well known examples of self-made women who married down economically but they are celebrities. There's Britney Spears who famously married far below herself economically to Kevin Federline. That didn't work. There's also Demi Moore who married Ashton Kutcher. That didn't work out either but it lasted a lot longer than Britney's did, perhaps because the gap was smaller.

Among non-celebrities? I haven't seen it either. Just power couples.

society, however, is ok with men referring to women as "dogs" which is a negative judgement about looks. It is more common for women to judge job status and men to judge physical status. This isn't a double standard so much as a different standard, which the article writer is unlikely to change. It's as though the article secretly written by a professional woman trying to sway men away from gorgeous bimbos.

I suppose that's possible. A 50-something professional woman jealous of gorgeous young-girls in their 20s.

But women also judge men's looks (he's too fat, too short too skinny...etc) waaaaayy more frequently than men's judging women' social status.

It's irrelevant who wrote it and what's his/her intentions, the article's message is valid and very strong, and mass-adopting it would greatly empower men in the dating market, making them closely equal to women and make them immune against "The Rules" games, and it would also empower successful women in the dating market.

I actually thought it was interesting that a man wrote this article. As if he wants to have this mindset but doesn't want to be the only one.

Like he doesn't want to be the only one showing up at a dinner party with a plain looking woman (though successful and intelligent) while other men are with gorgeous girls.

Basically he's trying to persuade other men to choose their partners using their brains instead of genitals. Obviously it's a hard thing to do? Otherwise they wouldn't write an article about it.

Personally I see nothing wrong with choosing either kind of women if they make them happy.

It would only apply to people badly needing a self esteem boost. If someone is well-educated, well rounded, and possesses a reasonable amount of self regard they won't need to "empower" themselves. Self-improvement is awesome, but "self-empowerment" smacks too much of Stuart Smalley to me.

This actually made me realise the benefits of being involved with someone who's so different to you. Wouldn't guys being interested in girls with completely different traits help to regulate society genetically?

What happens when successful men only date successful females? Two tier society? Wont u get people accelerating away from other people?

Although I do think it's just a stupid lesson in abstract thinking overall. There always have been successful people involved with successful people. And just the opposite too. All the abstract ideas of what people think are going on now and what they think should be happening are all happening at the same time anyway. The world is too large and too diverse for thinking like this.

Major you're a major-loser. lol j/k

oops I just said something taboo

Yes, but only in an economical and ironic manifestation....

I am engineer, while my partner is secretary. Both good jobs in my oppinion, but for long time we depended on my income. Would not know, what sense it would do, to give up the man that I love, to get instead some guy, that I dont love, and that offers me money I dont really need.

Majro, yes, men need to empower themselves in the dating realm.
The average men, in the current state of dating market, are ...well.... very weak (and it's the fault of the men themselves) and at great disadvantage, not only they are expected to do the first move and face rejections after rejections but they are also expected to be economically well and overall having "interesting character" but they are increasingly being demanded by women to have good looks and good shapes hence why the increasingly use of gym and supplements.

While in return, all what men they demand from women is good looks and loyalty - so while men have to work their asses to meet women's demands, all what the women have to do to be competitive in the dating market is getting nice looks and loyalty (which the latter can so easily be adopted or faked), and getting nice looks isn't hard for most young girls nowadays, with all the make up, surgeries and hairstyle tricks is all fairly easier than becoming financially successful, independent, sociable, handsome, interesting and ...and .....and.... all this have unequally empowered women in the dating market by making them the nitpickers while men are the nitpickees.

These dynamics made the typical average man to keep asking out and getting rejected/flaked/friendzoned till he settles for the first woman who accepts him, whether this woman is quality or not is pure luck, while made the average women to pick the best choice of the suitors who ask her out based on more refined standards: Looks, character, personality and finance.


What's innovative in this article that, unlike what the whiny MRAs want to bring 'balance' back to dating by wishing women to go back to kitchen and standing against the river of progress , the author is asking men that it's time to increase their own value themselves in the dating market by putting demands other than sex and looks.