Remind me of my generation. (I'm not necessarily talking about my daughter, or my niece, because neither of them is necessarily a whole lot like me.) I'm talking about the girls on Girls, the HBO show, and assuming that they are at least somewhat representative. One obvious difference is the word girls--it was anathema to us. We had grown up with girls being the only word used for women, of any age; and it absolutely did have pejorative connotations. There were millions of things that girls were not allowed to do. I'm happy that the young women of today have taken the word back.
My generation, graduating from college around 1970 plus or minus a few, was determined to NOT follow any traditions: we were different, we would say how it was, not listen to our mothers or fathers about it. Some of us were hippies and some of us were feminists of various stripes. I was in a "consciousness-raising group" in New York City in which the other members were way more radical than me--militant and heavily gay. Then later I was in a consciousness-raising group as an employee at the Bechtel Engineering Company in San Francisco. This organization was called Bechtel Women for Affirmative Action (BWAA), and in this group I was more radical than other people. A lot of the other women were still just figuring out how they felt about the whole thing. I remember being shocked and affronted when one of the (male) engineers told me that the executives on the fourteenth floor sent some of their secretaries down to the meetings to see what we were up to; knowing people and corporations as I do now: of course they would do that. I would probably do it myself. Anyway, both of these groups were fun and cool to look back on.
In the 80's it was all about Dress for Success and let's make the big bucks, which had a lot of conformity implications, and what I remember of the 90's is smooth small hair and the semi-casual urban uniform, and multi-tasking and having it all. The girls of the 90's didn't have time to make waves.
What I'm seeing on Girls, as I said before, reminds me of my time: girls who are sort of feeling their way into life, not really sure what their values are, determined to decide for themselves how to live their lives--and having some trouble knowing what to make of the work world. I had a lot of trouble fitting in to the work world, from clothes to being quiet and respectful to petty control issues like which way to line up the staples on a document.
And we were fighting for equal rights then, more than you modern girls can imagine. One of my deepest reasons for being a feminist was "no man is going to tell me what to do". For example: At Bechtel I was an Engineering Aide, which was kind of like a secretary with a calculator. Most of us had no relevant qualifications for this, but there was one woman who had an engineering degree, with honors, from UC Berkeley, and she was also working as an engineering aide, not an engineer. There was one man I worked for who wanted to take me (among several other people, males) to live in Beirut on a project, and the executives said "are you crazy? you can't take a young single woman to Beirut". Which actually worked out not too badly since the Lebanese civil war began a couple of years later, but it was disappointing at the time.
Lena Dunham, this blog is for you.
Monday, January 21, 2013
So am I some kind of throwback to an earlier time, or what?
A lot of my advice and opinions sound like they might come from the early 1900's: love is not all, marry a rich man, all men are looking for is a pretty face. The late 20th century/21st century view in the U.S. is that we don't need a man to provide for us, we are powerful ourselves; he doesn't have to be of any particular social class, you can just pick him for his (effable or ineffable) personal and spiritual qualities, and any man who cares only about looks is shallow and a jerk.
When I first became acquainted with evolutionary psychology, in the early 90's, I found a lot of this stuff offensive too. As a young woman, I would have burned the books: no quarter given for reactionary assholes.
Here's the thing: we are talking about human nature here, our unconscious feelings and thought processes. If you are interested but skeptical, look up this book: The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. Or The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond, or How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker. Your public library will have all these books, and they are all worth reading (although if you read them one after the other there will be quite a bit of repetition). One of the big points made by Robert Wright in The Moral Animal is that heredity is not destiny: just because something is a natural tendency doesn't mean we have to do it. We also have a behavioral tendency to grab things we want, and to hurt people who have hurt us, but we learn to control those behaviors.
But: it is much easier to work with nature than against it, and if you choose to marry a man who is not pre-rich, because you are happy with the lifestyle that comes with doing something worthwhile, like teaching, then go for it. But if you understand the issues, you can make better, more conscious choices.
And speaking of rich men vs. not: if I had it to do over, and slightly different circumstances, I think I would choose to stay home with my kids. Not because it is necessary, but because two jobs plus kids is really not fun. You are way overworked, tired, and stressed. And spending time with your kids is some of the best time you'll ever have, because kids are joyful, and as a parent you can share that joy with them. Which is not to say that kids are not also difficult, stressful, etc, etc, because they are. But if you are working and hanging out with your friends how much Joy do you experience, as opposed to pleasure, satisfaction, and the exhilarating but kind of gross feelings of partying? Not, I will venture, a lot.
When I first became acquainted with evolutionary psychology, in the early 90's, I found a lot of this stuff offensive too. As a young woman, I would have burned the books: no quarter given for reactionary assholes.
Here's the thing: we are talking about human nature here, our unconscious feelings and thought processes. If you are interested but skeptical, look up this book: The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. Or The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond, or How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker. Your public library will have all these books, and they are all worth reading (although if you read them one after the other there will be quite a bit of repetition). One of the big points made by Robert Wright in The Moral Animal is that heredity is not destiny: just because something is a natural tendency doesn't mean we have to do it. We also have a behavioral tendency to grab things we want, and to hurt people who have hurt us, but we learn to control those behaviors.
But: it is much easier to work with nature than against it, and if you choose to marry a man who is not pre-rich, because you are happy with the lifestyle that comes with doing something worthwhile, like teaching, then go for it. But if you understand the issues, you can make better, more conscious choices.
And speaking of rich men vs. not: if I had it to do over, and slightly different circumstances, I think I would choose to stay home with my kids. Not because it is necessary, but because two jobs plus kids is really not fun. You are way overworked, tired, and stressed. And spending time with your kids is some of the best time you'll ever have, because kids are joyful, and as a parent you can share that joy with them. Which is not to say that kids are not also difficult, stressful, etc, etc, because they are. But if you are working and hanging out with your friends how much Joy do you experience, as opposed to pleasure, satisfaction, and the exhilarating but kind of gross feelings of partying? Not, I will venture, a lot.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Being in Love
As I mentioned briefly in a previous post: being in love is desirable for forming a relationship, but it isn't everything by any means.
I, like many of you, was a child of divorce, and when I was your age I was deeply suspicious of being in love. This was because my mother said that she had been in love with my father; and she thought that being in love was a necessary and sufficient reason to get married; and she had nothing that reconciled those thoughts with the fact that she and my father had gotten divorced, causing great pain to them, and, especially, to me.
So I, in my younger years, did a lot of personal experimenting with love. And I can tell you these things from personal experience: it is very possible, even likely, to fall in love with men who would make terrible husbands for any number of reasons. Also: it is very possible to be in love with two people at the same time.
I am not saying that there is no such thing as being in love: there absolutely is. And it is one of life's best experiences, delivering euphoria in doses that it is hard to get in other ways. What's NOT true is that being in love means you will be happy with this person in the long term, and what's also not true is that true love lasts forever. This is a harsh reality, I know, and hard to come to terms with, so the way I prefer to express it is that being in love turns, if you are lucky and virtuous, into family love, the joy of both loving the same child, and being very fond of each other, and feeling like you have a life partner who is your best friend, and hopefully still having good sex. Hence the necessity for using your head as well as your heart when picking a husband.
I, like many of you, was a child of divorce, and when I was your age I was deeply suspicious of being in love. This was because my mother said that she had been in love with my father; and she thought that being in love was a necessary and sufficient reason to get married; and she had nothing that reconciled those thoughts with the fact that she and my father had gotten divorced, causing great pain to them, and, especially, to me.
So I, in my younger years, did a lot of personal experimenting with love. And I can tell you these things from personal experience: it is very possible, even likely, to fall in love with men who would make terrible husbands for any number of reasons. Also: it is very possible to be in love with two people at the same time.
I am not saying that there is no such thing as being in love: there absolutely is. And it is one of life's best experiences, delivering euphoria in doses that it is hard to get in other ways. What's NOT true is that being in love means you will be happy with this person in the long term, and what's also not true is that true love lasts forever. This is a harsh reality, I know, and hard to come to terms with, so the way I prefer to express it is that being in love turns, if you are lucky and virtuous, into family love, the joy of both loving the same child, and being very fond of each other, and feeling like you have a life partner who is your best friend, and hopefully still having good sex. Hence the necessity for using your head as well as your heart when picking a husband.
OMG I'm so fat!
Weight is a dangerous and difficult topic for women in the modern world. It is so critical to how people see us, and how we see ourselves, and yet...it is much harder to control than people think it is. If they develop a safe pill to keep us at our ideal weight, I will certainly be taking it.
If you have significant weight issues, I strongly recommend that you get, and read, this book: The Dieter's Dilemma: Eating Less and Weighing More, by William Bennett, M.D. and Joel Gurin. (It is out of print, and probably not in your public library, but you can find it, used, online). The book was published in 1984, and all (or almost all) of the research in it has been confirmed, over time, but most people, most doctors, and most diet experts are STILL not on the right page. I think this is because 1) if you are thin, you are happy to believe that it is because you are virtuous; 2) because people really, really want to believe that weight is something you can control, with a little willpower; and 3) it seems to make sense, that weight is a simple arithmetic function of calories in minus calories out.
It's not like that. At all.
Our bodies have a setpoint, which is called that because it is like the setting on your thermostat--it is a weight that your body, in some sense, wants to maintain. If you stuff yourself on purpose to gain weight, most people (though not all), will without trying return to near their original weight after they stop paying attention; and if you diet to lose weight, and then you stop paying attention, you will gain it back, plus often a bit more for good measure. The setpoint has a strong hereditary component: adopted children resemble their biological parents in weight, much more than their adoptive parents, and identical twins resemble each other more than fraternal twins.
The body's first and strongest line of defense in maintaining the fat it wants to have, is hunger, and lack of satiety (the feeling of being full, or satisfied), but if that doesn't work, it has other cards up its sleeve. Such as, depressing the metabolism, so that it conserves calories as much as it can. Or by inducing a powerful lassitude (reluctance to move). In people who have lost a lot of weight by dieting, it takes less and less energy to maintain their weight. You can think of it this way: if calories are restricted, our bodies (based on five million years of history), think famine, and do everything they can to keep the weight on, and to gain back whatever is lost.
There is one thing that induces the body to lower its setpoint: exercise. A lot of exercise. It varies from person to person, but many women have to exercise two to three hours, or even more, to maintain the body weight they think is correct. (Drugs such as nicotine and amphetamines also change the setpoint, but they have bad side effects. Such as addiction and death.)
Here's the rule on diet and exercise changes: don't do anything that you are not prepared to continue with, forever. Make incremental changes to both diet and exercise patterns.
The best advice on eating is vegetables, vegetables, vegetables, and fruit. Some whole grains, some meat or meat substitute (such as beans, nuts, and tofu). Very little refined sugar and very little added fat. No sweet drinks. This might seem like a painful or boring regime, but it actually is not. After a while your tastes adjust to this diet, and ice cream and cookies don't call to you the way they did.
And the best advice on weight is:
There's one bright spot in this tale, besides that you'll really love fruits and vegetables after you make the switch, which is this: most men (not all, but most) don't subscribe to the weight ideals of Hollywood and the fashion magazines. If you have body fat that hangs out on your hips and thighs, the average man doesn't even see this as a negative. Muffin top? Most men don't see it, unless you wear low, tight, pants. Find more flattering clothes.
The place where everyone unfortunately agrees that excess fat is bad (you, me, the American Medical Association, the average man) is in the stomach, and I believe that's for the evolutionary (unconscious) reason that a swelling belly in the ancestral environment, where everyone was leaner and not by choice, is a good indicator of pregnancy and a potential waste of sperm (from the gene's eye view). Meaning that men who were indifferent to, or liked, a swelling belly.....had fewer offspring. But even here: there are only a few (generally narcissistic and/or overcontrolling) men who care about a couple of extra pounds.
If you have significant weight issues, I strongly recommend that you get, and read, this book: The Dieter's Dilemma: Eating Less and Weighing More, by William Bennett, M.D. and Joel Gurin. (It is out of print, and probably not in your public library, but you can find it, used, online). The book was published in 1984, and all (or almost all) of the research in it has been confirmed, over time, but most people, most doctors, and most diet experts are STILL not on the right page. I think this is because 1) if you are thin, you are happy to believe that it is because you are virtuous; 2) because people really, really want to believe that weight is something you can control, with a little willpower; and 3) it seems to make sense, that weight is a simple arithmetic function of calories in minus calories out.
It's not like that. At all.
Our bodies have a setpoint, which is called that because it is like the setting on your thermostat--it is a weight that your body, in some sense, wants to maintain. If you stuff yourself on purpose to gain weight, most people (though not all), will without trying return to near their original weight after they stop paying attention; and if you diet to lose weight, and then you stop paying attention, you will gain it back, plus often a bit more for good measure. The setpoint has a strong hereditary component: adopted children resemble their biological parents in weight, much more than their adoptive parents, and identical twins resemble each other more than fraternal twins.
The body's first and strongest line of defense in maintaining the fat it wants to have, is hunger, and lack of satiety (the feeling of being full, or satisfied), but if that doesn't work, it has other cards up its sleeve. Such as, depressing the metabolism, so that it conserves calories as much as it can. Or by inducing a powerful lassitude (reluctance to move). In people who have lost a lot of weight by dieting, it takes less and less energy to maintain their weight. You can think of it this way: if calories are restricted, our bodies (based on five million years of history), think famine, and do everything they can to keep the weight on, and to gain back whatever is lost.
There is one thing that induces the body to lower its setpoint: exercise. A lot of exercise. It varies from person to person, but many women have to exercise two to three hours, or even more, to maintain the body weight they think is correct. (Drugs such as nicotine and amphetamines also change the setpoint, but they have bad side effects. Such as addiction and death.)
Here's the rule on diet and exercise changes: don't do anything that you are not prepared to continue with, forever. Make incremental changes to both diet and exercise patterns.
The best advice on eating is vegetables, vegetables, vegetables, and fruit. Some whole grains, some meat or meat substitute (such as beans, nuts, and tofu). Very little refined sugar and very little added fat. No sweet drinks. This might seem like a painful or boring regime, but it actually is not. After a while your tastes adjust to this diet, and ice cream and cookies don't call to you the way they did.
And the best advice on weight is:
- eat healthy (see above)
- exercise an amount that is comfortable for you, and that you can imagine continuing long-term.
- learn to love your body the way it is. Not easy, but possible. Watch What Not To Wear.
There's one bright spot in this tale, besides that you'll really love fruits and vegetables after you make the switch, which is this: most men (not all, but most) don't subscribe to the weight ideals of Hollywood and the fashion magazines. If you have body fat that hangs out on your hips and thighs, the average man doesn't even see this as a negative. Muffin top? Most men don't see it, unless you wear low, tight, pants. Find more flattering clothes.
The place where everyone unfortunately agrees that excess fat is bad (you, me, the American Medical Association, the average man) is in the stomach, and I believe that's for the evolutionary (unconscious) reason that a swelling belly in the ancestral environment, where everyone was leaner and not by choice, is a good indicator of pregnancy and a potential waste of sperm (from the gene's eye view). Meaning that men who were indifferent to, or liked, a swelling belly.....had fewer offspring. But even here: there are only a few (generally narcissistic and/or overcontrolling) men who care about a couple of extra pounds.
How Beautiful Do You Want to Be?
Since we have established that beauty is the primary determinant of a woman's value in the marriage market (not the only, remember, but the primary), you have some decisions to make about this.
If you are naturally gorgeous, you can stop reading this post now. And if you are naturally gorgeous, you know it, people have been telling you this all your life. So go on to the next post. Or maybe a different blog.
For anyone else, from "almost gorgeous" to "quite unattractive", the decisions are the same: how hard are you willing to work at being beautiful?
The things that make a person look her personal best (not necessarily in order) are clothes, makeup, weight and fitness, hair, and mood/self confidence. (Note: weight and mood are critical topics that are covered in other posts). You've seen the makeover movies, and the makeover shows, you know how it goes. Study these things: makeup (subtle is good, but a matter of personal judgment); what clothes look good on your body; what hairstyles are flattering to you. Spend the money on good haircuts: they are worth it. How to study these topics: books, internet, reality shows, ask your friends and/or relations.
Now, consider: how much upkeep are you willing to commit to, long-term? Because if you make yourself over for the dating scene and drop it after you're a couple, your man will become dissatisfied. Maybe not right away, but eventually. If you hate clothes and shopping and don't want to change that, then don't buy a sophisticated wardrobe. If you like hanging around in your boyfriend's t-shirt, or really ratty old clothes of your own, consider this: that look can be attractive, but in reality it is really only good on thin and beautiful people.
And as for fashion: forget about it. The number of straight men who are interested in fashion in any way is vanishingly small. Just don't be too dowdy, and wear stuff that flatters you.
About looking sexy: this is a sensitive topic, both to you and to him. You don't want to look like a slut, and you don't want to feel like, or be, a sex object, but there's nothing wrong with feeling attractive. Men differ on this topic: some are sensitive (maybe more than you are) about their girlfriend looking slutty, but they also want their friends to be envious......so, take a middle road until you know.
If you are naturally gorgeous, you can stop reading this post now. And if you are naturally gorgeous, you know it, people have been telling you this all your life. So go on to the next post. Or maybe a different blog.
For anyone else, from "almost gorgeous" to "quite unattractive", the decisions are the same: how hard are you willing to work at being beautiful?
The things that make a person look her personal best (not necessarily in order) are clothes, makeup, weight and fitness, hair, and mood/self confidence. (Note: weight and mood are critical topics that are covered in other posts). You've seen the makeover movies, and the makeover shows, you know how it goes. Study these things: makeup (subtle is good, but a matter of personal judgment); what clothes look good on your body; what hairstyles are flattering to you. Spend the money on good haircuts: they are worth it. How to study these topics: books, internet, reality shows, ask your friends and/or relations.
Now, consider: how much upkeep are you willing to commit to, long-term? Because if you make yourself over for the dating scene and drop it after you're a couple, your man will become dissatisfied. Maybe not right away, but eventually. If you hate clothes and shopping and don't want to change that, then don't buy a sophisticated wardrobe. If you like hanging around in your boyfriend's t-shirt, or really ratty old clothes of your own, consider this: that look can be attractive, but in reality it is really only good on thin and beautiful people.
And as for fashion: forget about it. The number of straight men who are interested in fashion in any way is vanishingly small. Just don't be too dowdy, and wear stuff that flatters you.
About looking sexy: this is a sensitive topic, both to you and to him. You don't want to look like a slut, and you don't want to feel like, or be, a sex object, but there's nothing wrong with feeling attractive. Men differ on this topic: some are sensitive (maybe more than you are) about their girlfriend looking slutty, but they also want their friends to be envious......so, take a middle road until you know.
How to Pick a Husband
That's right, I said, "how to pick". They don't pick you, you pick them. Women have all the power, especially if they know the game they are playing.
That's assuming you want a husband. And if you don't want one now but you think you will later, it's never too soon to start considering it.
There was this show a while back called "Judging Amy". In one of the episodes Amy's friends all (separately) tell her about the guy she's dating: "He's not your type". And Amy wonders aloud, "do I have a type?"
And the answer to that question is, "Oh yes, Amy, you DO have a type."
What her friends really meant, what people usually mean when they say something about someone's type, is that "he's not good enough for you", or "you can do better". Those sentiments have been unfashionable since my mother was a girl (World War II), in fact unsayable, except for in stories about olden times. Because: around that time a pernicious notion became all powerful: that Love was all you needed, and Love could strike any one at any time. (Pernicious, by the way, means harmful. And if you think I should just say harmful....maybe this won't be your favorite blog.) This notion worked well for World War II, when it was in everyone's best reproductive interest to get pregnant as soon as possible, in case the opportunity didn't come again, but on the whole, and particularly now, it is a terrible idea.
Being in love is a real thing, and I'll write another post about that, but it is NOT all you need for a successful marriage. It helps a lot, but there are other things too, things you need to consider logically. In traditional societies, young people were not allowed to make their own decisions about who to marry, and there are a lot of advantages to have parents do the picking. Namely they are older, wiser, and have more life experience.
So, for the logical half. The things to consider are,
That's assuming you want a husband. And if you don't want one now but you think you will later, it's never too soon to start considering it.
There was this show a while back called "Judging Amy". In one of the episodes Amy's friends all (separately) tell her about the guy she's dating: "He's not your type". And Amy wonders aloud, "do I have a type?"
And the answer to that question is, "Oh yes, Amy, you DO have a type."
What her friends really meant, what people usually mean when they say something about someone's type, is that "he's not good enough for you", or "you can do better". Those sentiments have been unfashionable since my mother was a girl (World War II), in fact unsayable, except for in stories about olden times. Because: around that time a pernicious notion became all powerful: that Love was all you needed, and Love could strike any one at any time. (Pernicious, by the way, means harmful. And if you think I should just say harmful....maybe this won't be your favorite blog.) This notion worked well for World War II, when it was in everyone's best reproductive interest to get pregnant as soon as possible, in case the opportunity didn't come again, but on the whole, and particularly now, it is a terrible idea.
Being in love is a real thing, and I'll write another post about that, but it is NOT all you need for a successful marriage. It helps a lot, but there are other things too, things you need to consider logically. In traditional societies, young people were not allowed to make their own decisions about who to marry, and there are a lot of advantages to have parents do the picking. Namely they are older, wiser, and have more life experience.
So, for the logical half. The things to consider are,
- Will this man be a good provider? A good money earner? Faithful? A good father?
- could I reasonably call this guy my best friend? Do we have similar interests? Share a sense of humor? Does he like to talk about stuff I like to talk about? These things will help a LOT when the love glow wears down.
- What is his family like? It's not that it can't work to marry someone with an unsuitable family, it just makes it a lot harder. And in general, the more they are like your family, the better that bodes....unless you are pretty sure that your family is too dysfunctional to count as a role model.
- Is he the same race, religion, and politics? How important are these things to you? Again--not necessarily deal-breakers, but.
- How good a catch are you for him? And (as a reminder, from (What do men want post)), how good a catch you are for him is mainly about looks. That is not 100% true, but--all other factors, for him, matter way less than they do for you.
And, here's a preview of something I'll write more about later: it is a really good idea to "marry down", ie, marry someone for whom you are a great catch, someone whose friends might tell him (at first) that you are out of his league. This man will be easy to catch, and he is more likely to be faithful and devoted in the future.
Does this mean you can choose anyone you want to? Well, no. Not unless you are gorgeous and of a wonderful temperament. What it means is that you can figure out who your real choices are, and pick from that list. Does that seem depressing? Really, it's not. Not unless you have a wildly inaccurate view of your own attractiveness--or unless you are reading from the Disney songbook, or otherwise subscribing to the Pernicious Big Lie that anyone can fall in love with anyone, and all you really need in order for prince charming to show up is a heart of gold.
Does this mean you can choose anyone you want to? Well, no. Not unless you are gorgeous and of a wonderful temperament. What it means is that you can figure out who your real choices are, and pick from that list. Does that seem depressing? Really, it's not. Not unless you have a wildly inaccurate view of your own attractiveness--or unless you are reading from the Disney songbook, or otherwise subscribing to the Pernicious Big Lie that anyone can fall in love with anyone, and all you really need in order for prince charming to show up is a heart of gold.
What Women Are Looking For
(in a man.)
Since you, reader, are almost certainly a young woman, in one sense it doesn't matter to you what women in general are looking for, all that matters is what you are looking for.
There is another sense, however, in which it does matter, what "women in general" are looking for, because the men who have that something are going to be much more popular, as a husband selection, than others. And this means that you will have lots of competition to get those men; or, to state it another way, those men are going to have lots of choices.
So, what do women want?
First, they tend to value what men value, namely looks, and for the same reason: looks are an important indicator of health and good genes.
But for women, there are other things that are at least as important, or more so, than looks. Namely, the probability of being a good provider. (Remember, we're not necessarily talking about you here: we're talking about most women.) In the ancestral environment (ie hunter-gatherer life), it was just as hard as it is today to be a single mother. Harder, because life was harder. The risks of starvation and other dangers were rarely absent.
What indicators are there of whether a man will be a good provider? Well, if he is rich, that's a good start. And since, unless we're talking about a very wealthy family, you probably don't want to marry someone who is old enough to be rich, then pre-rich is the best bet. And what is pre-rich? The young men who are most likely to become rich are those who are college-educated (or in process), and are hardworking and ambitious. My personal theory is that popularity with their peers (other young men) is also a good indicator, because that predicts doing well in a corporate environment, which most people are in, of one type or another.
Since you, reader, are almost certainly a young woman, in one sense it doesn't matter to you what women in general are looking for, all that matters is what you are looking for.
There is another sense, however, in which it does matter, what "women in general" are looking for, because the men who have that something are going to be much more popular, as a husband selection, than others. And this means that you will have lots of competition to get those men; or, to state it another way, those men are going to have lots of choices.
So, what do women want?
First, they tend to value what men value, namely looks, and for the same reason: looks are an important indicator of health and good genes.
But for women, there are other things that are at least as important, or more so, than looks. Namely, the probability of being a good provider. (Remember, we're not necessarily talking about you here: we're talking about most women.) In the ancestral environment (ie hunter-gatherer life), it was just as hard as it is today to be a single mother. Harder, because life was harder. The risks of starvation and other dangers were rarely absent.
What indicators are there of whether a man will be a good provider? Well, if he is rich, that's a good start. And since, unless we're talking about a very wealthy family, you probably don't want to marry someone who is old enough to be rich, then pre-rich is the best bet. And what is pre-rich? The young men who are most likely to become rich are those who are college-educated (or in process), and are hardworking and ambitious. My personal theory is that popularity with their peers (other young men) is also a good indicator, because that predicts doing well in a corporate environment, which most people are in, of one type or another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)