Holy shit. The most sexist article I've ever read. And one of the stupidist.

[cali]

Forgive me for posting an excerpt of an article from the National Review, but it's supposedly a "serious" journal.

What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status — thus the commonness of younger women’s pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse. The Demi Moore–Ashton Kutcher model is an exception — the only 40-year-old woman Jack Nicholson has ever seen naked is Kathy Bates in that horrific hot-tub scene. Age is cruel to women, and subordination is cruel to men. Ellen Kullman is a very pretty woman, but at 56 years of age she probably would not turn a lot of heads in a college bar, and the fact that she is the chairman and CEO of Dupont isn’t going to change that.

<snip>

You want off-the-charts status? Check out the curriculum vitae of one Willard M. Romney: $200 million in the bank (and a hell of a lot more if he didn’t give so much away), apex alpha executive, CEO, chairman of the board, governor, bishop, boss of everything he’s ever touched. Son of the same, father of more. It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs. Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We don’t do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He’s a boss. Given that we are no longer roaming the veldt for the most part, money is a reasonable stand-in for social status. Romney’s net worth is more than that of the last eight U.S. presidents combined. He set up a trust for his grandkids and kicked in about seven times Barack Obama’s net worth, which at $11.8 million is not inconsiderable but probably less than Romney’s tax bill in a good year. If he hadn’t given away so much money to his church, charities, and grandkids, Mitt Romney would have more money than Jay-Z.

<snip>

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/313504/boss

[LiberalAndProud]

1. My son will be surprised to hear of his high-status status.

He has the sons to prove it.

Making a note that Kevin D. Williamson makes shit up.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Yeah. That's why women are always throwing themselves at Tucker Carlson and George Will.

If anyone knows "sexy", it's The National Review.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

5. These guys write about macho rugged men...

But they are not.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. "CHICKS DIG THE BOW TIE, MAN!"

"THEY DO!!!"

[UnrepentantLiberal]

23. The high pitched whiny voice when he's caught in a lie

gets em every time.

[treestar]

29. It's such BS

It is sad that they show what they want to believe. If anything the ladies flock to rock stars. The good looking ones.

[wordpix]

53. Tucker Dancing with the Stars Carlson? (video)

For a good laugh in case you missed it---

[Drunken Irishman]

3. My grandfather had four daughters and no sons...

He was a World War II vet, fought on the beaches of Normandy and kicked some Nazi ass. This is a guy who played football for his high school, blew out his knees and tried to play football at his university, fucked up his knees some more. At the age of 19, while skiing on his birthday, he heard Pearl Harbor was bombed, went down the very next day to enlist, couldn't because of his knees, was later drafted, and then, of course, with his shit knees, trudged through the snow, where he got frostbite, and fought in a war.

I don't want to hear Romney is special because he had all sons. I don't want to hear that Obama is somehow a pansy because he had all girls. My grandfather was the toughest son of a bitch you'd ever come across - but he was also the most caring. He had something Romney doesn't have and it's empathy. Now maybe he got that by having all daughters ... but it's also something Obama shares. Empathy is far more important than status.

When Romney was living the life of luxury in France, many men, many of whom only had daughters, were fighting in the jungles of Vietnam.

Romney is not a man - he is a coward and an elitist. He lacks empathy and understanding of issues that are important to women. He thinks he gets it because he lives the type of logic that is espoused in this article ... namely that a MAN knows what a woman should want.

Romney has a woman-problem because he's a jerk and anti-woman. Maybe if he had had daughters, he would've been more perceptive to their concerns. But he didn't and for whatever reason, he's decided to be one of the most anti-woman candidates to ever run for president.

So, sorry, Kevin, I'll take my grandfather and President Obama over your candidate any day of the week.

Oh yeah, and my grandfather was also raised by three women - his grandmother, his mother and his mother's sister because his dad walked out on his mother before he was born.

[a la izquierda]

4. I wish I could rec your post.

This article is appalling.

[phylny]

7. Thanks for your response.

My husband is the father of all three of our daughters. He is former football playing, motorcycle riding, car fixing, golf playing, former second lieutenant army airborne ranger. He is a wonderful father and husband. Fuck anyone who would question his "manhood" or suggest that a father of boys is somehow a superior man.

[longship]

21. Good post here ^^

The OP is clearly about an article written by a misogynistic guy.

Your response is perfect.

[Mad_Dem_X]

41. +1,000,000

Excellent post!

[Raine1967]

43. I love this post.

... and I adore you DI.

[calimary]

52. WOW, what a post!

mitt romney isn't fit to touch the hem of your grandfather's garment, Drunken Irishman. No doubt in my mind who's the bigger man (and FAR BETTER man).

[Rhiannon12866]

79. Superb and thoughtful post...

[gollygee]

82. Love it!

Great post.

[hifiguy]

84. Marvelous post!

[MrScorpio]

88. Do me a favor and post this in the comment section of that article

Those assholes need to read this.

[still_one]

6. I notice that the article is written by a man /nt

[deutsey]

11. Of course, Ann Coulter is capable of crapping out such tripe, too. n/t

[still_one]

39. ok, you gave me a second example of a man /nt

[deutsey]

48. She's a maaaaan, baby!

[trumad]

8. The Douche who wrote this.

[HiPointDem]

14. hubba hubba (sarcasm). is that coal dust on his face? what is that disgusting thing?

[longship]

22. Coal dust!!!

Coffee all over my iPhone now.

[HiPointDem]

24. seriously, that's the ugliest beard i've seen in a long time. he looks like wooly willy:

[longship]

26. Damn you, HiPoint!!!

My iPhone's taking a beating this AM.

[deutsey]

46. LOL

[jsr]

38. The pinnacle of human evolution

From an evolutionary point of view.

[wryter2000]

66. LOL

I'm ovulating right now.

[deutsey]

9. See...the mask has fallen off completely

There was a time not too long ago where something like this would've appeared way off on the margins of acceptable discourse...only to be laughed at and mocked by the mainstream.

Now it's become the mainstream. It's always been there, but those who hold such views were careful to hide them. They feel no need to do so anymore.

[HiPointDem]

15. +1

[wordpix]

55. It's the Grand Old Misogyny Party, all right

[Blue_Tires]

92. +1000

[redgreenandblue]

10. This theory is soon to be tested empirically.

And I am betting Romney will lose the female vote by a large margin.

This is almost Onion material.

[HiPointDem]

12. sexist, racist, classist and fascist. it's got it all.

[Shankapotomus]

13. So we should elect a president based

on rap culture rules? Because Romney has fat stacks, bitchin' rides, cool cribs and can get "bitches"? Really? Has it come to that? Clearly the Right is losing their minds. They are trying to appeal to voters and shore up their dwindling political self-esteem by boasting about their candidate's material assets?

Can't wait to see the MTV edition on Mitt Romney's Fat Stacks and Bitching' Cribs.

New low for the right wing.

[reformist2]

17. Obsession with money leads to moral bankruptcy. As Jesus said,

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." - Matthew 6:24.

[DetlefK]

18. So, his theory is based on not knowing statistics???

General population: male:female is about 50:50
size of dataset: several billion people

successors of Forbes billionaire list: male:female is about 60:40
size of dataset: estimated 100 to 1000 people

And it has never occurred to him, that the 60:40-ratio might be a statistical glitch, predicted by both common sense AND statistics?





What do women want?
I'm just a guy, but for a long-term relationship I would place my bet along the lines of humor, trust, respect, stability and intelligence (not necessarily in that order). Oh, and large genitals of course.

[Thor_MN]

32. It has been noted that after wars, the ratio of babies skews towards males

The proposed mechanism is that infrequent sex favors the faster Y sperm, while frequent sex favors the endurance of X sperm.

So I guess while the Forbes Billionaires are getting lots of money, they aren't getting much of anything else.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. This is what happens when Republicans try to be "funny" and "edgy": It's pathetic, is what it is.

The only one who's ever come close to being able to pull it off was PJ O'Rourke. That's about as high up the humor food chain as they can go.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Dubya also has two daughters. As did Nixon.

What a stupid point.

[reformist2]

25. Almost makes you wonder if they envy what goes on in China...

[yellowcanine]

44. LBJ also had 2 daughters.

Romney is "more powerful" than LBJ was? I don't think so.

[seabeyond]

27. From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote

and yet again, an excellent example how they stupid evo psych argument looses.

[seabeyond]

30. the subtle and not so subtle value of male babies over female babies is the first breathe

of bestowing male privilege in our society.

[hifiguy]

47. Nice straw person.

Every aspect of human beings - and every other animal for that matter - has been subject to the dictates of Darwinian natural selection. To flatly state that psychology has not been subject to the same Darwinian dynamic, absent any supporting evidence, is simply ideological blindness. It's "true" because you wish it to be true. Same dynamic as the religulous types.

This article is a piece of laughable garbage but your faith-based blindness is showing.

[seabeyond]

49. yes, i recognize that not only do SOME men promote this garbage on du, the truly believe....

they gotta believe

make it so.

[hifiguy]

54. I ask these questions seriously:

1. Do you believe that evolution accounts for the present nature of the modern human species?

2. If so, would you agree that evolution is responsible for the physical characteristics of modern humans - bipedalism, large brain, etc?

3. If so, what leads you to conclude that certain patterns of behavior and brain wiring would be exempt from the dynamic of Darwinian natural selection?

4. What extrinsic and testable - i.e., falsifiable - evidence supports a conclusion that for some reason, the only part of human beings that is exempt from Darwinian natural selection is the internal wiring of the brain?

5. Do you agree that insights into the evolution of the human brain and human behavior might be gained by investigating the behavior patterns of our closest evolutionary relatives such as chimpanzees, bonobos and other Great Apes? If not, why?

Human beings are not a tabula rasa as a group or as individuals. Human beings are the product of tens of millions of years of evolution. That is not an opinion. That is a cold, hard, iron-clad fact. Human behavior cannot be explained by some notion that while the physical form has evolved, the brain is "created anew" in each person, wholly free of the vestiges of evolution. Evolutionary biology does not work that way. If one part of the organism is a product of natural selection, all of the organism is a product of natural selection in some way. Every animal on earth has certain predispositions hard wired into the brain. Baby alligators head for water, predators are born with hunting instincts, prey animals have herding instincts. Humans are capable of self-examination and self-modification; they can, in other words, change their minds. But this does nothing to invalidate the notion that certain behaviors - and it doesn't really matter which ones we are discussing - may be as intrinsic to humans as washing themselves is to kittens.

[seabeyond]

59. and i say seriously... we have already had this conversation. i know this is a popular cult like

practice escalating in our society today that men are in such need of. i get that.

i also know when it is a waste of time to bother with discussion. as i said, we had this conversation and you ignored ALL criticism and critique of this new style guessing game of evo psych that is all about male dominance and control.

why would i "seriously" bother with the same poster on the same issue when the info was conveniently ignored in the past?

[hifiguy]

60. I am not asking questions about men and women per se.

I am asking questions about the evolutionary biology of human beings and the science thereof, which you have always categorically refused to answer. Let's reduce it to ONE question - do you believe Darwinian natural selection/evolution is responsible for human beings existing as they do today? Can you manage to answer that one question yes or no?

I choose to take this silence as a total inablity or unwillingness to even answer yes/no questions. You either accept the scientific method and that which follows from it or you don't. On that point you could not have made yourself more clear.

[seabeyond]

62. oooohhhh, and if you do not answer, then..........

fuck that shit.

i gave the reason i am not having this conversation. i took your serious, seriously. and wasted a hell of a lot of time. you ignore. you like your evo psych. fine. go at it haus. good luck finding those timid women after your money.

some men are in need

[hifiguy]

70. Why do refuse to answer whether you believe in

evolution and Darwinian natural selection? It's a simple question. No political implications whatsoever. Do you believe that evolution and Darwin's theory of the evolution of species are best explanation for why modern human beings are what they biologically are?

For that matter, do you accept the scientific method in any way?

Do you have any idea how foolish you are making yourself look by refusing to answer this simple inquiry? I ask rhetorically.

Also, I might point out that I have never endorsed evolutionary psychology in any unqualified way. What I have said is that it is a hypothesis that is worth testing via investigation through the scientific method.

[DonCoquixote]

78. One cannot make the jump from Darwin

to supporting Misogynist jerks, science is not the problem, but the way people use it to support ideas that would fall FLAT.

As far as what women want, or have even been programmed to want by evolution, you would need to show a lot more evidence to make Mr. Williamson article hold water. You could just as easily say that men are a weaker species that dies quicker than women (true and proven statistically) has less role in the survival of the species than men do (no Mothers,no children) and that they made the culture to deny these facts.

and as far as this quote:
" What I have said is that it is a hypothesis that is worth testing via investigation through the scientific method. "

The danger is not in the testing, but that you, whether you wanted to or not, wound up supporting the views of the OP, which are not scientific in the least. Fake, unproven science is as deadly as myth.

[hifiguy]

81. That's why hypotheses are tested.

Not every hypothesis is right and the scientific method is the only legitimate way to falsify a hypothesis. Any scientist worth his or her Ph.D. will tell you that far more hypotheses turn out to be false than not. That does not invalidate the process of experimentation and observation but rather, supports it.

I do not support the article cited in the OP because it attempts to prove far too much, and is based on no extrinsic evidence. It is a pile of crap. The political agenda behind it is blatant and silly.

That said, since every aspect of human beings has been subject to the process and dynamics of Darwinian natural selection, it seems rash to conclude that nothing in the wiring of the human brain has been subject to that process. Each and every particular is not the product of evolution, particularly given humans' capacity for self-awareness and self-directed choice. It does not logically follow that certain general proclivities have served no evolutionary purpose.

I should know, as I am dx'd Asperger's, which is a sort of "mutant" variation in human brain wiring. I have lived my entire life with a set of meta-proclivities which define what it is to have an Asperger's mind.

[DonCoquixote]

87. as a fellow aspie

You also need to know that what makes perfect sense in our heads can be deadly to others, as we flat out do not get social cues. We need to be aware that while making a point about science may not seem to help people like the OP writer, it does, because most people will NOT take the time to separtate logic and emotion, which is something National review makes a lot of loot by exploiting.

[hifiguy]

90. Interesting, DonC

I can't help but separate logic from emotion, as every outside stimiulus gets put through the logic processors first. That's the way I am wired. The only things I have direct emotional responses to are animals and the arts - music, literature and film.

Still, I will always stand up for and defend logic, reason and the scientific method. Reason is the one tool that human beings have that works. Reason has flown man to the moon, eradicated dread diseases and been responsible for the deveiopment of civilization

I prefer written communications such as DU so that I don't have to respond to the things I don't get like body language. I can take words, which I understand perfectly, and use them reflectively and carefully after analyzing someone else's argument or observations.

What irritates the hell out of me is that there are so many DUers who refuse to separate logic from emotion or even try to do so. Arguing with such people is like trying to teach my cat calculus - an exercise in pointlessness.

I'd be happy to continue a discussion of the issues that come with Asperger's in a PM, so feel free to DU mail me.

Cheers!

[cali]

80. uh, human beings are also the product of

nurture. you're just arguing that nature is the sine qua non bar any other. And by nurture, I also mean cultural effects over generations. And this is every much as a cold hard fact as your claim.

It's not just nature. It's not just nurture. It's nature and nurture. And it's so easy to demonstrate the truth of that: Humans haven't evolved detectably for thousands of years, but we have changed how we interact with the world and how we view it, enormously. Of course, it possible that we don't yet have the scientific tools to measure subtle changes, but even were that true, the enormity of the influence of environment can't be diminished.

[hifiguy]

83. Never said that nurture can't have an effect.

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2012, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

But nature sets out the biological framework within which nurture operates. That framework is not determinative, but it is influential and serves to set the ultimate boundaries of what is and is not possible. Humans are the only creatures we know of that are self-aware and have the potential for self-examination and self-directed change. One would be a fool to deny that.

It would also be foolish to say that the biology of the brain as it has evolved over millennia has no effect. This is not an either-or proposition. All animals exhibit hard-wired behavior patterns of some sort and human beings are animals. My personal hypothesis is that these also influence human beings and that certain meta-patterns became hard wired over the course of evolutionary history. Such patterns are clearly not as determinative of human behavior as they are in, say, a lion or a crocodile, a wildebeest or a bird. That does not mean that they do not exist as a kind of backdrop to consciously made choices or the influences of environment.

As I noted downthread, I am dx'd Aspergers. There is a certain set of meta-characteristics, which are hard-wired in the brain, which define autism spectrum disorders. Please don't try to make the case that nature is not determinative of at least a significant part of human behavior. The argument doesn't stand up, and every person on the autism spectrum is proof that it does not.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. The National Review and Republican Party are not known for their deep understanding of Evolution

And sadly, like many people who carry water for the religious right and persist in deluded, cartoonish interpretations of reality, they have far too much influence over the education of our children.

[treestar]

28. They are really losing it

Now they are being sexist about it being superior to have sons rather than daughters? Gimme a break.

[seabeyond]

31. reading thru some of the replies and the article.... geeezus. just kill off the girl babies. nt

[yellowcanine]

33. Junk science. I guess the author hasn't heard of the scientific truth that correlation does not

equal causation. For example, on the "wealthy families have more boys" question, there may be a simple explanation. More baby boys are conceived. The biological reason for this is that baby boys are weaker and thus die at a higher rate both before and after birth than girls. More males are born prematurely, for example, and more males die of SIDS. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that wealthy mothers should have better pre-natal care (thus fewer premature births) as well as more access to medical care for the baby after the baby is born than the rest of the population. Within a population this could mean a few more boys on average for wealthier families. It even explains the animal data because higher status animals would have better nutrition for mother and baby. And you can't prove anything by comparing two families - the Romneys and the Obamas, as the author does. That is just ignorance of how science works.

[seabeyond]

34. a couple more facts is older mothers tend toward male babies and i did read that

during lean times women tended to girl babies which would support the nutrient thing.

i would guess that marriages into wealth would trend to marry older.

interesting though

[WilliamPitt]

35. EarlG got an unintended shout-out in the article

"Some Occupy Wall Street types, believing it to be the height of wit, have begun to spell Romney’s name 'Rmoney.'"

[yellowcanine]

36. Young women can swoon over college professors also.....

Just sayin - this is crap science no matter how you look at it.

[MadrasT]

37. "Conventional biological wisdom" is misogynistic tripe.

This article is appalling.

[Alduin]

40. What is that guy smoking?

Seriously, what woman wants a milquetoast guy named Willard? And I don't believe that Rmoney gives any money to charities. He hoards it in his overseas bank accounts.

[yellowcanine]

42. I guess the author has not heard about Henry VIII.

Boy heirs were not so easily acquired in spite of his status, wealth and multiple wives.

[Coexist]

68. perfect.

[hifiguy]

45. Somewhere out in the far reaches of the cosmos

William F. Buckley is thinking happened to my magazine.

[Chorophyll]

50. Holy effing sh*t on toast points

I can't even read this thing. I can't even. Where to begin?

Gender essentialism, vast oversimplification of the concept of natural selection, and a general attitude of "my (white, male privileged class) experience = UNIVERSALNESS!!!11!"

I cannot believe that people like Kevin D. Williamson haven't been laughed off the face of the earth by now.

[wordpix]

51. The stupidest piece of BS I've ever (partially) read, and I couldn't finish it b/c it's a waste of

my time.

[get the red out]

56. Penis envy?

Does this go back to some kind of Freudian penis envy crap? Where a woman was supposed to always envy a man his penis until she gave birth to a son? I remember reading some kind of archaic bullshit like that somewhere.

Thirty years ago I was a college Freshman, and the crap spewing out of people in public and the media was considered ancient and idiotic THEN. I'm waiting for guys to start buying armor and lances on eBAY so we can REALLY return to the Medieval times.

[hifiguy]

57. Freud made a lot of excellent observations.

That was not one of them.

[seabeyond]

74. +1. lmfao. ah ha. that certainly is the feel since bushco stepped into office. nt

[nolabear]

58. And if this was a trend we'd die out. Women are in fact a far more precious resource.

Those Neanderthals can't get past the "Knock 'em on the head and kee 'em prisoner while you tell yourself they like it" mentality. Women sometimes do gravitate toward powerful men because they get PROTECTION FROM THE ASSHOLE SHIT MEN DO TO THEM AS A WHOLE. It's making the best of a very bad situation.

But I digress. My point is that if we have a high male to femal raito we die out. Women, who can only produce a few humans, should be prized and cosseted by men, who can produce exactly NONE. Not a single one. But rather than bowing to our precious and necessary part of the evolutionary partnership, the less secure males among us simply delude themselves about how much we need them and how, if it comes down to it, we can be controlled.

Here's to the men smart and secure enough to be our partners, and not to try to be our masters, whether it's by imprisoning our bodies or trying to convince themselves of their superiority in the National Review.

[siligut]

61. Oh baby, not only a huge sell-out, but a cultist and spoiled-rotten, walking personality disorder.

Let me at 'em. NOT. Utterly contrived crap, for brainwashed 14 yr olds.

[Delphinus]

63. Unbelievable.

My god, what century do we live in?

[Initech]

64. Wow my brain hurts after reading that.

[wryter2000]

65. Love Mike B's response

After reading this tone-deaf piece, I can only speculate about the car Mr. Williamson drives -- particularly, the length of its hood.

[Fawke Em]

67. Didn't realize I was in China where male children are more valued.

Not only is this article sexist in its assumptions of women, it's also sexist in its assumptions that, unless a male's Y-chromosome sperm hits the egg first, then both he and the female children are crap.

[seabeyond]

75. yup. glaringly. nt

[Quantess]

69. Was that supposed to be humor?

Was that supposed to be witty or something?
I actually feel a little sorry for the author. What a nitwit.

[redqueen]

71. Do I detect the rancid stench of desperation?

Why, yes. Yes, I do.

[Yavin4]

72. Tucker Thinks That Women Are Only Attracted to Money

In his view, all women are prostitutes, which does explain the GOP mindset.

[HangOnKids]

73. Professor Obama?

What an ASSHOLE. That would be President Obama. This was written by a twelve year old, and I am being generous. I would love to see what this freak pens after the election. Utter garbage and Rmoney dick sucking piece, oh shit I am being redundant.

[rocktivity]

77. I didn't know the National Review had a syndication deal with The Onion.

If this were published there, it would actually be kind of funny.


rocktivity

[Zorra]

85. *sigh* Unfortunately, there is no cure for flat out stupid. nt

[dawg]

86. I don't understand why a man would even want to believe that.

I dream of having a woman want me because of the person that I am, not because of my "status" or my ability to provide.

[Care Acutely]

89. did you seriously see the guy who wrote it?

It's not like he has a lot of options, I mean, his personality has fairly effectively spoken for itself. Money is probably his last hope. And for that, he'll get exactly the kind of shallow, feckless, faithless person he deserves.

[dawg]

91. There's nothing in his looks that would prevent him from landing a good woman.

The wort parts are self-inflicted anyway. Maybe he does believe that money is his best hope but, to me, that is how a loser thinks. I would rather be alone than be with a woman who only wanted me for my money.

[seabeyond]

93. there is a payoff. it is simply more societal conditioning that has a payoff for men

hence the ever growing and promoting of this behavior. especially feeling the loss of control and a strong need to grab hold some way. it never works. it is a false assumption that control of another can bring them an happy relationship.

but it is society conditioning this is who they are. this is who women are. and it works for them because they have not gotten comfortable with self.

it doesnt make sense that a person would want this either. a lot of people make poor choices, are hurt and dont get it. repeating their actions.

i was talking to hubby about something. i told him, i never bad mouth you. just a sense of loyalty. my hubby that always sees things differently than i, but almost always arrives at the same place says.

i dont either, but it makes no sense to. i think when a man is saying all kinds of nasty about his wife, how stupid are you for picking that person. lol

two totally different ways of seeing it. i thought it cute.

[dawg]

94. Just another way of pushing us to worship the almighty dollar!

That's the way to get hot babes! Forget all about personality, character or even looks. They are wired by evolution to go after the big bucks, so work, work, work!

If evolution truly had that much of an influence over who women were attracted to, it would be to men with all the characteristics of a good hunter and faithful provider: fit, tenacious, patient, generous, kind. Money would not register, because it did not even exist during most of our evolution.

[seabeyond]

95. especially since the time we are talking

there was not a lot of 'hot" or money, lol.

look at all the zillions that have gotten past this supposed quirk and marry about there age, about their social scale, and no more or less. a whole lot of both genders not meeting their evo bro and sistah expectation.

are we really gonna push it all the way to beginning of time and ignore all of history that set woman up to be financially dependent on men? and now women are financially independent how there is a huge evolutionary hurtle we have crossed, without the need to be taken care of.

there is so much wrong in all this.

i am more for... KISS

keep it simple stupid.

like you

find someone you like, respect, value, appreciate that reflect your own moral/intergrity beliefs and enjoy life.