Wondered that myself. It makes her posts really tough to read. Attention seeking behaviour?
Wondered that myself. It makes her posts really tough to read. Attention seeking behaviour?
Last edited by stupidyank; 10-04-2008 at 04:22 PM.
Posh, Victoria, VBarrett, whatever or whoever you really are at least all this crap is now confined to one small, confined space on this board, instead of having to be exposed to this verbal diarrhea everywhere.
P.S. Get over yourself.
I think the following is appropriate
well, well, well, this place is starting to smell like troll droppings.....
Cheers, RICK
whatever it takes:)
The response I get when I ask my wife if I can get another watch:
"...the short answer, Yes with an IF.....the long answer, No with a BUT!"
I see way too many women (and men) settling, in every sense of that word, in regards to a mate [/COLOR][/SIZE]AND themselves. Why wouldn't you want to be at your absolute best for yourself and future husband or wife? And I don't mean this strictly from a monetary sense either. Wanting someone with good value systems, character, morals, family background, and education is the right thing, or is it?
Are some women's or men's standards too high or are they right they need to be?[/QUOTE]
I just don't understand why women seeking a "quality" life seem to be looking for somebody else to provide the basis for it for them. Whether it's through the acquisition of material goods, or the pursuit of a moral life, or the "nobility" of public service. If a woman envisions a certain lifestyle for herself, shouldn't she seek to achieve the things that provide the basis for that lifestyle herself? Why do women seem to subsume their identities into whatever relationship they're in at the moment? Maybe it's hardwired, I read a story by an evolutionary psychologist today that claimed very few women will ever find happiness solely through establishing a successful career.
There is also a segment of the upper middle class that seems to believe that a combined income of somewhere around the 95th percentile will gain them acceptance when they're in the presence of the truly wealthy. They can usually be identified through their overthought mannerisms as well as a set of very subtle tribal markings (L's, V's, C's, G's, etc.). My complaint with these people is that they seem to see the value in themselves only so far as it is reflected off the perceptions of other people. They seem to be interested only in learning about things that other people have already studied, and determined to be valuable.
Now I'm sure that there must have at least one thing about this person's occupation that could have been interesting. At least more interesting than running DCF models on excel all day, or binding pitchbooks. Maybe if she had been taught to explore, and develop her curiosities more while she was at this boarding school, rather than taught to behave in a prim and proper way, she would have gotten a better response from this guy with the plain job. I mean, nearly everybody is a part of this thing that we live in, wasn't she in the least curious about how the whole thing works, and how this guy fit into it? I don't mean to be all fluffy, but I think her response was a bit tactless, and I can understand why this guy's feelings were hurt (although I wouldn't have responded in the same way. Women just seem to be so concerned with who they're getting ****ed by, and not so much about who they're ****ing.
HBB (Angus)
PAM 001A (DSN)
PAM 111H (Little Hero + Angus)
PAM 127E (Angus)
VC 1755 (Andrew)
Rolex GMT Master II
Very interesting post. I've thought the same thing. All women say is that they want gender equality, and if that's true they would choose to dictate their own success and destiny by bettering their situation on their own instead of finding a rich man to do it for them. watch one episode of "real housewives of orange county" to see what i'm on about.Originally Posted by Archronos
posh please use the same color font as everyone else, as your posts are no more important.
To anyone whose experience with women has led them to believe that all women are shallow gold-diggers who want nothing more than to hitch their plastic wagons to a rich man...my sincere condolences. I do know a few toxic women like that, and any sensible man would do well to steer well clear of them. Most of the women whom I do know are warm, accomplished women with their own lives and their own success, and they have partnered with similar men. And BTW, most of these women are beautiful as well as accomplished -- so it's not a case of either/or.
Although I have not seen the Housewives reality show, it would surprise me if those publicity-whores are in any way representative of a typical American woman... Look around you, do some volunteer work, take some classes, go to church or temple -- are the women who are intellectually active and engaged in the community really all gold-diggers? Give your sisters a little more credit than that.
Last edited by quizvan; 12-11-2008 at 10:11 PM.
First things first. "Real" Housewives of Orange County is NOT representative of the new American woman. It's ENTERTAINMENT, sir. There are cameras and everyone is showboating for the cameras and viewers at home. Recently, a social theorist and scientist whose name escapes me DID say that people believe what they see and that the media of today could end up instructing people as to the "realities' of the world, totally redefining social truths as we know them. I didn't believe him--until now.
Oh, and about the color of my font, I'll take that into consideration. My posts are no better than anyone elses, which is absolutely true. But I think they are at the very least better than yours. Now:
The woman in question in the original post is actually very accomplished and works for T. Rowe Price making almost six figures. She, and a lot of my girlfriends who all have high income careers, are not trying to hitch their wagon to any man. Even my stripper/high class hooker friends are taking care of themselves. In almost every case that I know of in my social circles, the men are running after us. I see it every time we go out and every time we get together for parties. If the girl doesn't already have a man (and sometimes even if she does), there's a dude trying to get with them. Most are financially stable and some just plain are not.
This is the best time to be a woman in the world because we're getting better jobs, better educations and have greater opportunities to be everything we want to be anywhere we to be it. And some have speculated that all this is to the detriment of men, which I can somewhat see. I mean, I have several girlfriends who plan on having babies BY THEMSELVES and one who already does. I see this as at once liberating but also indicative of something else. Is it the quality of the men that has declined? I don't even pretend to know.
I do know this: 100 years ago, for the most part, we wouldn't have had any choice but to marry who could offer us the type of life we wanted for ourselves AND our children. That has changed COMPLETELY. We can now, as statistics in industrialized nations worldwide show, do everything on our own. This is both a good and bad thing, I think, sociologically. Men need women, even though you may not like us all the time, and we want you (even though we really don't need you).
You pretty said what I was thinking. There are some women like that but by and large all I come in contact with are attractive, accomplished women who want a man in their life to compliment them, not validate them. This was confirmed by a friend who works for the Washington, D.C. branch of It's Just Lunch. He says he see far more men with ridiculous expectations than any woman he works with on a daily basis. In addition to their crazy expectations (along with some low opinions of women based on former dating experiences), they also have "challenging" levels of attractiveness, which boggles his mind further. Oh, and the men he sees are not anywhere near affluent, unlike many of the women he sees who are mostly well off. So in addition to their expectations running on high, looks running on low and wallets running on empty, they still want goddesses.
It's whatever!
Hidden Content
Check out my section for more faux lux tips, snark, commentary and fun!:Hidden Content
The woman in question in the original post is actually very accomplished and works for T. Rowe Price making almost six figures. She, and a lot of my girlfriends who all have high income careers, are not trying to hitch their wagon to any man. Even my stripper/high class hooker friends are taking care of themselves. In almost every case that I know of in my social circles, the men are running after us. I see it every time we go out and every time we get together for parties. If the girl doesn't already have a man (and sometimes even if she does
This is the best time to be a woman in the world because we're getting better jobs, better educations and have greater opportunities to be everything we want to be anywhere we to be it. And some have speculated that all this is to the detriment of men, which I can somewhat see. I mean, I have several girlfriends who plan on having babies BY THEMSELVES and one who already does. I see this as at once liberating but also indicative of something else. Is it the quality of the men that has declined? I don't even pretend to know.
I do know this: 100 years ago, for the most part, we wouldn't have had any choice but to marry who could offer us the type of life we wanted for ourselves AND our children. That has changed COMPLETELY. We can now, as statistics in industrialized nations worldwide show, do everything on our own. This is both a good and bad thing, I think, sociologically. Men need women, even though you may not like us all the time, and we want you (even though we really don't need you
But here again you're working on the same set of assumptions. You are assuming that these men running after these women want the same thing that women want. If a man wants to get laid, all he has to do is "run after" as many girls as he can get through in a night until he "wins" one. You might interpret this as being the result of some infatuation or true desire to be with a particular individual with a particular set of characteristics (educated, "high salary", etc), but men tend to set very short term goals with women through their 20s and 30s, and it's more likely that any particular man chatting up a party of girls is looking for one particular feature that is common to all of them. It is also kind of odd that the more educated, and better paid a woman is, the less desireable she seems to be to most men. This is something I don't really understand, but it probably has to do with the evolution of our political system, and cultural values in response changes in the structure of the economy in the last century. Salesmen use the same tactic, pitch as many people as you can, and you will eventually get a response. In this case, you only need 1 win (although 2 or 3 would be nice too), so it's best to proposition as many women as you can until you get your win, and go home. The situation resembles a very basic game theory model.
I know 100k sounds like a lot in some parts of the country, but around Washington it really isn't. Most of the people that I know (I refuse to call it a social circle) are earning nearly 100k, are in their mid 20s, work in places like the White House, the Hill, Booz, Accenture, IBM, FBR, McKinsey, AT Kearney, government agencies, Sidley Austin, lobbying, etc, and there aren't that many of us that feel that marrying somebody else that makes 100k is going to actually make any of us truly wealthy, or even wealthy enough that there would have been a significant difference had any of us married somebody that made 50k or 35k for that matter. Later on in life this might translate to a 50k to 100k per year differential for the vast majority of people, but it's much easier to move from the 35k to 150k level (all you have to do is choose the right education) than it is to move from the 150k to 300k level (which, let's not kid ourselves, is still upper middle class around here [with a salary like this you'll still have to work unless you've invested wisely]).
I also think that this is a great time for women. Women are more financially independent, educated, and better represented higher up in the career latter than they were 20 years ago. Has the quality of men declined? I don't know, but the gap between men, and women for this particular measure of "quality" has certainly gotten smaller. These issues could be related. With women entering the workplace we have qualified women displacing some previously qualified men, so let's say half of 40% of the male population is no longer quality, and 40% of the female population now is. If half of this "non-quality" male segment of the population would have been qualified 30 years ago, but no longer is, I guess there could be a genuine argument for stating that the quality of men (wrt available resources[?]) has actually declined, (and that the "quality" of the population as a whole has probably increased).
As for men needing women. I'm not really sure about this one. I certainly need my girlfriend, but anything can happen, and if we broke up, I would be fine in a week. I think that most men don't really need women for companionship, and a lot of them actually prefer purely sexual relationships through their youth and middle adulthood. Now "a lot" is an ambiguous term, and I don't have any hard numbers, only anecdotal evidence, but I see a lot of women in their mid to late 30s that are coming to terms with the fact that there is a chance that they will never find love, or have children. The more highly educated ones (excluding MBAs) also tend to have a harder time developing relationships, probably resulting from time constraints. The one thing that I do notice however, is that women never stop looking for a relationship. If they haven't developed one in their 30, they continue trying through their 40s, and so on.
I would also think that raising a child on your own would be a very lonely task, but my mother handled it reasonably well so I guess there are those people that would welcome such a challenge.
HBB (Angus)
PAM 001A (DSN)
PAM 111H (Little Hero + Angus)
PAM 127E (Angus)
VC 1755 (Andrew)
Rolex GMT Master II
I agree with a lot of what you say, however, I do not agree that younger men are less hurt when they break up from a relationship. I have seen study that say often times they are more hurt. Women are more likely to want to be in a relationship when single, but men are more emotionally hurt for longer when they break up. Thats what the studies have shown.The woman in question in the original post is actually very accomplished and works for T. Rowe Price making almost six figures. She, and a lot of my girlfriends who all have high income careers, are not trying to hitch their wagon to any man. Even my stripper/high class hooker friends are taking care of themselves. In almost every case that I know of in my social circles, the men are running after us. I see it every time we go out and every time we get together for parties. If the girl doesn't already have a man (and sometimes even if she does
This is the best time to be a woman in the world because we're getting better jobs, better educations and have greater opportunities to be everything we want to be anywhere we to be it. And some have speculated that all this is to the detriment of men, which I can somewhat see. I mean, I have several girlfriends who plan on having babies BY THEMSELVES and one who already does. I see this as at once liberating but also indicative of something else. Is it the quality of the men that has declined? I don't even pretend to know.
I do know this: 100 years ago, for the most part, we wouldn't have had any choice but to marry who could offer us the type of life we wanted for ourselves AND our children. That has changed COMPLETELY. We can now, as statistics in industrialized nations worldwide show, do everything on our own. This is both a good and bad thing, I think, sociologically. Men need women, even though you may not like us all the time, and we want you (even though we really don't need you
But here again you're working on the same set of assumptions. You are assuming that these men running after these women want the same thing that women want. If a man wants to get laid, all he has to do is "run after" as many girls as he can get through in a night until he "wins" one. You might interpret this as being the result of some infatuation or true desire to be with a particular individual with a particular set of characteristics (educated, "high salary", etc), but men tend to set very short term goals with women through their 20s and 30s, and it's more likely that any particular man chatting up a party of girls is looking for one particular feature that is common to all of them. It is also kind of odd that the more educated, and better paid a woman is, the less desireable she seems to be to most men. This is something I don't really understand, but it probably has to do with the evolution of our political system, and cultural values in response changes in the structure of the economy in the last century. Salesmen use the same tactic, pitch as many people as you can, and you will eventually get a response. In this case, you only need 1 win (although 2 or 3 would be nice too), so it's best to proposition as many women as you can until you get your win, and go home. The situation resembles a very basic game theory model.
I know 100k sounds like a lot in some parts of the country, but around Washington it really isn't. Most of the people that I know (I refuse to call it a social circle) are earning nearly 100k, are in their mid 20s, work in places like the White House, the Hill, Booz, Accenture, IBM, FBR, McKinsey, AT Kearney, government agencies, Sidley Austin, lobbying, etc, and there aren't that many of us that feel that marrying somebody else that makes 100k is going to actually make any of us truly wealthy, or even wealthy enough that there would have been a significant difference had any of us married somebody that made 50k or 35k for that matter. Later on in life this might translate to a 50k to 100k per year differential for the vast majority of people, but it's much easier to move from the 35k to 150k level (all you have to do is choose the right education) than it is to move from the 150k to 300k level (which, let's not kid ourselves, is still upper middle class around here [with a salary like this you'll still have to work unless you've invested wisely]).
I also think that this is a great time for women. Women are more financially independent, educated, and better represented higher up in the career latter than they were 20 years ago. Has the quality of men declined? I don't know, but the gap between men, and women for this particular measure of "quality" has certainly gotten smaller. These issues could be related. With women entering the workplace we have qualified women displacing some previously qualified men, so let's say half of 40% of the male population is no longer quality, and 40% of the female population now is. If half of this "non-quality" male segment of the population would have been qualified 30 years ago, but no longer is, I guess there could be a genuine argument for stating that the quality of men (wrt available resources[?]) has actually declined, (and that the "quality" of the population as a whole has probably increased).
As for men needing women. I'm not really sure about this one. I certainly need my girlfriend, but anything can happen, and if we broke up, I would be fine in a week. I think that most men don't really need women for companionship, and a lot of them actually prefer purely sexual relationships through their youth and middle adulthood. Now "a lot" is an ambiguous term, and I don't have any hard numbers, only anecdotal evidence, but I see a lot of women in their mid to late 30s that are coming to terms with the fact that there is a chance that they will never find love, or have children. The more highly educated ones (excluding MBAs) also tend to have a harder time developing relationships, probably resulting from time constraints. The one thing that I do notice however, is that women never stop looking for a relationship. If they haven't developed one in their 30, they continue trying through their 40s, and so on.
I would also think that raising a child on your own would be a very lonely task, but my mother handled it reasonably well so I guess there are those people that would welcome such a challenge.
Good to see you're back P!
actually posh, 99% of the women in miami are exactly like that show. i know, i've dated many of them.
glad to see you attack me with a lovely "shut the **** up" picture...what a lady! why so defensive and angry? do you constantly need people to reaffirm you and your posts so you get that "special" feeling? the majority of people do hate your font, it's pretentious and hurts my eyes.
i'm so glad they gave you your own section so i don't have to stare at your ridiculously shallow posts everywhere i turn...they really are painful to read. for the love of god get over yourself
you know what, keep the red, that way i'll know right away which posts to overlook
Honestly I am old school punk so I think most of what you say is bull**** however I think that you are "settling" by living in Maryland or DC as you think so highly of yourself yet you live in those ****holes?!?
Being west coast all the way I would rather have a junkie shoot icewater in my vains before living in that metro area and yes I have been there btw so dont waste the breath.
I still think you are a dude..
I will let my boy Mike Miur of Suicidal do the speaking in this little number he threw together for people just like you drone;
No bull****
I hate the things you believe
Your truth is built upon lies
I can't believe in a trend
I won't be living no lie
No bull****
I hate everything you say
I ain't got time for your ****
I refused to be played
I won't be living no lie
No bull****! That's where I stand
No bull****! That's how I'm living my life
No bull****
I hate the way that you are
I can't believe in your ways
I refuse to be hip
I won't be living your lie
Last edited by stolikat; 12-12-2008 at 07:01 AM.
Interesting post as always Posh...
"Wanting someone with good value systems, character, morals, family background, and education is the right thing, or is it?"
At the end of the day regardless of how perfect we think we are we are all flawed in many ways. So whoever you choose to have relationships with you take the good with the bad. Is it good to want these things from your partner? Of course! No different than I chose not to date women that 1) Didn't have a good relationship with their dad. 2) Were on any medication stronger than birth control. I typically experience much less drama and had healthier relationships. (side note: if a woman did say yes to 1 & 2 they were typically wild in the sack!)
The typical banter that you described with your friend I referred to as the 'interview' and felt that we all should carry resumes with us when dating.
So the short answer is these things are important, and you take the good with the bad. We should want to improve the odds of having a healthy relationship...because they are a LOT OF WORK!
BWP
I forgot to mention; I took notice of how many people I knew who got engaged their senior year of college. Regardless of how up and down, breakups, cheating, or short term. There seemed to be a rush as if the only place you will meet someone to marry is at a University. I just ran into a girl that got divorced and the first thing she did was enroll at the U for another degree...and she wasn't looking for a career change.
Last edited by BigWatchPilot; 12-12-2008 at 08:12 PM.
Old thread is old.
women need to be hot
men need to be rich.
Folks, it's simple. Don't sweat too much
i like your philosophy i am gonna try it out this saturday
LOL. This is sad, but it seems to be true now.
Most of the women I knew before I met my wife were vapid gold digging whores, for lack of a better term. It only seems to be getting worse according to my friends in the dating scene still. It seems like the amount of women glued to their Facebook/Twitter/Myspace accounts and posting inane garbage from their phones goes up exponentially every day, and the ages that deem this acceptable behavior continues to increase as well.
If I am outside my normal social circles with my wife and I am talking to a group of people where the topic strays towards what we all do for a living, most women my age seem to think an Exploration Geologist is someone who digs up dinosaurs or is a school teacher. It's really pretty sad. The amount of focus that is put on flash these days, instead of substance is fairly disconcerting to say the least. Feels very much like what the prequel of Idiocracy would be like.
On the road to recovery.
The women hot/men rich standard is a sign of social decline. Both are legitimate signifiers of a good mate, I suppose, but if this is what it ultimately comes down to, society is in a pretty sorry state. Wealth and attractiveness have always played a big role in determining marriages, but used to be bolstered by a lot of other factors (like family alliances or social position) that were unquestionably overconstraining and stifling (read any Jane Austen novel, for instance), but helped ensure social stability. Without it we are just a buch of atomized materialistic pleasure-seekers living in isolated little boxes and getting most of our pleasure digitally or chemically. Sad indeed...
This is intriguing if you mean what think you mean, which you may not. It sounds as if you think that unless you marry for those old social norms, which ensure social stability read: class stratification (e.g. a caste system), then the marriage is essentially worthless, a sign of societal decline if nothing else. Is this what you mean? Are those mores the sole purpose of marriage or should they be the sole purpose?
Hidden Content
Check out my section for more faux lux tips, snark, commentary and fun!:Hidden Content
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks