|
|
|
Spader
New Member
USA
1 Post |
 Posted - 07/31/2001 : 22:51:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As a single guy, I am quite disturbed that more women don't hit on me. It used to happen all the time in high school, but once I got to college they all stopped for some reason. I (of course) refuse to believe it is because I have become less attractive, but I honestly have no good reason for this reversal of fortune.
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh?
|
 |
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 02:28:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nope, Wendy is right on. Female choice and male-male competition are well-verified aspects of modern sexual selection theory in evolutionary biology.
I would not go as far as to suggest that sexual selection in HUMAN societies are necessarily as well verified as you suggest. Human dating behaviour is mediated by a whole lot of things, evolutionary factors being part of that. In fact, the occurence of at least SOME women who act the part of "hunter" in romantic relationships falsifies the hypothesis that there is some kind of inevitable evolutionairy imperitive out there which decrees that men are hunters and women the hunted.
I think we should look carefully at other, more "mundane" reasons for the dating behaviour discrepency. How about the sexual double standard for the sexes? (i.e. women who sleep around are sluts, men who do are just being men). How about perhaps a more primary human propensity for going for win-win situations? (i.e. women can benefit from political emancipation but need not consistently apply this freedom to their personal lives..)
It may be convenient to convince oneself that men and women are just different. But that requires some serious selective attention of the kind which skeptics are not known for...
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 07:31:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In fact, the occurence of at least SOME women who act the part of "hunter" in romantic relationships falsifies the hypothesis that there is some kind of inevitable evolutionairy imperitive out there which decrees that men are hunters and women the hunted.
Agreed, I've always done the pursuing in my relationships thus far. However, I'm also rather, er, uhm, how to say militant and excessively blunt? So that fear of rejection might be a factor in my tentative pursuers (I tend to have a lot of male friends and try to ease them away if they seem a little too.... attached.) Perhaps aggressive women can be a turnoff for some guys (or some women may think that) and the sexes modify their behaviour accordingly? In quite recent history, no man wanted a wife that talked back and had a rebellious mind of her own (Imagine the husbands of the first women politicians and what they must have gone through). How long ago was the Victorian Era? Give us a bit more time and things will likely change.
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 10:00:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
[quote](Perhaps aggressive women can be a turnoff for some guys (or some women may think that) and the sexes modify their behaviour accordingly?
I think you have a good point here. Especially in terms of what people BELIEVE the rules of dating and gender to be. I often encounter men who bemoan the fact that women do not approach them first, and then speak to women who claim that they want to, but fear that men are intimidated or repulsed by that sort of behaviour. Seems to me that the signals are crossed, probably due to some degree of buy-in into societal gender stereotyping...
[quote]In quite recent history, no man wanted a wife that talked back and had a rebellious mind of her own (Imagine the husbands of the first women politicians and what they must have gone through). How long ago was the Victorian Era? Give us a bit more time and things will likely change
Oops...I had not thought of that one...VERY good point. Although, I would like to know what your thoughts are on my hypothesis that women may, at present, be having their bread buttered on both sides, as it where: given political and economic emancipation, but with the added benefit of old-style "put them on a pedestal" social politics...
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 10:07:06 [Permalink]
|
Have you read the online April 1998 Scientific American article How Females Choose Their Mates? It contains some valuable insights on the matter at hand.
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0498issue/0498dugatkin.html
quote:
quote:
Wendy is right on. Female choice and male-male competition are well-verified aspects of modern sexual selection theory in evolutionary biology.
I would not go as far as to suggest that sexual selection in HUMAN societies are necessarily as well verified as you suggest. Human dating behavior is mediated by a whole lot of things, evolutionary factors being part of that. In fact, the occurrence of at least SOME women who act the part of "hunter" in romantic relationships falsifies the hypothesis that there is some kind of inevitable evolutionary imperative out there which decrees that men are hunters and women the hunted.
The article (and I) should have made it clear that the claim at hand is most certainly not an "inevitable evolutionary imperative" or any sort of biological behavioral determinism, the concept of which is eschewed in evolutionary psychology. Rather, it is that men are more likely to compete for female attention than vice-versa, which explains Orpheus' original observation. The presence of certain counterexamples does not militate at all against such a claim, which is hypothetically predicted by evolutionary theory and validated in studies on humans, other primates, mammals, and animals.
quote:
I think we should look carefully at other, more "mundane" reasons for the dating behavior discrepancy.
I am more interested in ultimate causes than proximate causes of human behavioral patterns, but as you wish. I'll give it a go.
quote:
How about the sexual double standard for the sexes? (i.e. women who sleep around are sluts, men who do are just being men).
This particular double standard is significantly exhibited cross-culturally, and hence harkens back to an evolutionary ultimate cause (the very same one as it so happens in this case). Sexual promiscuity as a reproductive strategy is far more evolutionarily adaptive for men than women "because males can produce millions of sperm, whereas females' eggs are few and far between." From a perspective of optimizing reproductive fitness, men can spread their seed (somewhat) indiscriminately and hope for the best, whereas it behooves women to be far more choosy in mate selection.
quote:
How about perhaps a more primary human propensity for going for win-win situations? (i.e. women can benefit from political emancipation but need not consistently apply this freedom to their personal lives..)
The question then is why would they not want to actively pursue relationships? Is it merely social conditioning, or is there s |
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 10:32:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oops...I had not thought of that one...VERY good point. Although, I would like to know what your thoughts are on my hypothesis that women may, at present, be having their bread buttered on both sides, as it where: given political and economic emancipation, but with the added benefit of old-style "put them on a pedestal" social politics...
I think that you have a very good point there, and agree with it. My father's sisters were always very militant feminists (I do not consider myself a feminist) so I'm pretty close to this topic. I don't use my gender as a 'crutch' as some extreme feminists do (please do not take this to say that all women who are feminists do so; that is not my intent) and I don't see any point to bashing either 50% of our species, as the only thing any of us have absolutely in common is physiology, and sometimes not even that (very small percentage of chromosone abnormalities. BTW, what causes hermaphrodism? Must investigate.) Extremists on both sides are always the ones that make the news; and as such must be taken into account. How many people advocating moderate stances do you see on the 6 o'clock? Maybe moderates should start protesting extremists 
On women's options for jobs: Snake has said in another thread, that women have always had the same options as men. Had options, yes, but choosing to be a nurse would be socially acceptable, whereas choosing to be, say, a mechanic, would not be as acceptable. This does not just affect your working life, it can affect your relationships with everyone around you. Not everyone is going to put their career over the rest of their lives. The same problems have been faced by men going into fields that are traditionally women's (caretakers, hairstylists, figureskating? heh) The MAJOR problem now, from my point of view, is that some people presume that a woman in a high position
A. got her job because she slept with someone
B. got her job to appease the PC crowd
and/or
C. is overall less competent than a man in the same field. (for some positions, I agree with this. Few women can gain the kind of musculature that a man can for construction work, drilling rigs, or military ground troops. Sorry if i step on any toes with that last one.)
I think that this situation is decreasing as more people in the workforce have worked with women. My mother used to have to face sexual harrassment daily. I haven't run into it as much, although I have had one boss that for some reason, kept switching between looking at my chest and my face(*flick up*flick down*flick up*flick down* excuse me, do you have a facial tic?). And my chest is nothing to beat me over the head and drag me off for.. so.. was it an attempt to demean me due to my gender? was it totally unconscious on his part? or is he really just a dickhead with a boobie fetish?
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement.
Edited by - kristin on 08/01/2001 10:52:38 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 11:22:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Oops...I had not thought of that one...VERY good point. Although, I would like to know what your thoughts are on my hypothesis that women may, at present, be having their bread buttered on both sides, as it where: given political and economic emancipation, but with the added benefit of old-style "put them on a pedestal" social politics...
The MAJOR problem now, from my point of view, is that some people presume that a woman in a high position
A. got her job because she slept with someone
B. got her job to appease the PC crowd
and/or
C. Is overall less competent than a man in the same field. (for some positions, I agree with this. Few women can gain the kind of musculature that a man can for construction work, drilling rigs, or military ground troops. Sorry if i step on any toes with that last one.)
I think these phenomena spring from the more general problem of resentment against those who are thought to advance not on merit but other considerations, such as gender, race, socio-economic status, etc.
We have observed similar presumption and resentment in organizations that practice extreme forms of affirmative action, most especially colleges with very stringent admission policies (say, 20% or less of the applicants are enrolled). I myself attended a military academy, which accepted only around 10-15% of the applicants in any given class and practiced a form of aggressive affirmative action towards women and minorities. There was significant resentment on the part of the European males who had difficulty getting into the school towards women and minorities (like myself) who were perceived as less qualified. I often encountered the attitude that I was there just because I was Hispanic (to which I responded that IMHO the National Merit Scholarship was the deciding factor). Whenever a woman underperformed physically, militarily, or academically, the male cadets often commented that she did not belong there and would not be there but for unfair recruitment practices. Such perception and associated resentment has been scientifically studied at Stanford and other campuses, which had at one point implemented similarly aggressive affirmative action policies.
This is the unforeseen Achilles' heel of affirmative action (whether de dicto or de facto) that it creates anger and resentment on the part of those being discriminated against, and thus can possibly harm rather than help race/gender relations in general.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 15:42:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Snake has said in another thread, that women have always had the same options as men. Had options, yes, but choosing to be a nurse would be socially acceptable, whereas choosing to be, say, a mechanic, would not be as acceptable. This does not just affect your working life, it can affect your relationships with everyone around you. Not everyone is going to put their career over the rest of their lives
Joan de Arc, Maddam Currie, Golda Meir, and many others who were leaders in their fields(no pun on Joan, ha ha). Is it their fault or socities that other women didn't choose to follow? If those women could do it why not others?
My mother was a nurse, by choice. She loved what she did. She was told not to go into the profession because of a hearing problem but she fought to do so anyway. I think if she had chosen anything else she would have done it too, she was strong in may ways. I'll never know, she's dead but maybe we can get Van Prauge to ask her. I KNOW my x-sister didn't choose nursing because she's a women. She very pushy and does what she wants,the bitch.
I'm tired of people using excuses for their own lack of fortitude or nerve to go against the crowd. Not in this day and age anyway.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 17:00:03 [Permalink]
|
Times change. I just finished up a 20-year hitch in the USAF. I joined in 1981. My mother told me she wished the military had been more of an career option back when she was 21.
Our only argumnet was over my choice of a career field. Mom wanted me to go into admin so I could have a desk job and wear the "pretty blue uniform". I went with electronic maintenance.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 23:36:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Mom wanted me to go into admin so I could have a desk job and wear the "pretty blue uniform". I went with electronic maintenance.
Yikes! Well, another one in coveralls most the time...
Unbearably shy in face to face encounters. Most people I work with can not reconcile the quiet person that's there the first week with the gregarious outgoing person I can become when I'm comfortable around people.
But to Orpheus' original question. Don't know if I would ask a guy out or not, would really have to know him first. Which means probably never... or at least 20 years down the road maybe.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2001 : 23:56:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Unbearably shy in face to face encounters. Most people I work with can not reconcile the quiet person that's there the first week with the gregarious outgoing person I can become when I'm comfortable around people.
Hehe.. me too. I have always been attracted to aggressive females, not sure why. Something, though, is really cool about a woman who knows what she wants and does what she has to in order to get it. I also tend to be attracted to women who are better than I am at anything (except peeing standing up, eh?)
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 00:07:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But to Orpheus' original question. Don't know if I would ask a guy out or not, would really have to know him first. Which means probably never... or at least 20 years down the road maybe.
Here's a little hint for anyone who's shy.
Take a deep breath and ask yourself, what's the worst thing that could happen? Then go for it. It might get easier each time.
And why take life so seriously, everything is a learning expierence.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 11:10:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Snake has said in another thread, that women have always had the same options as men. Had options, yes, but choosing to be a nurse would be socially acceptable, whereas choosing to be, say, a mechanic, would not be as acceptable. This does not just affect your working life, it can affect your relationships with everyone around you. Not everyone is going to put their career over the rest of their lives
Joan de Arc, Madam Currie, Golda Meir, and many others who were leaders in their fields (no pun on Joan, ha ha). Is it their fault or society's that other women didn't choose to follow?
Society's fault, clearly. The alleged choice simply was not there for the vast majority of women.
Your precious few (glaring) counterexamples does no damage whatsoever to the claim that back then women generally encountered very strong societal resistance in the certain professions, such as those of arms, medicine, and law. The claim at hand here is clearly probabilistic, not deterministic. It is not “Society absolutely forbade women working in certain career fields,” rather, ‘tis “Society strongly discouraged women working in certain career fields.” If women were statistically highly underrepresented in such fields, this is prima facie evidence in support of the latter claim.
quote:
If those women could do it why not others?
Those particular women were exceptionally driven individuals, who broke through societal barriers with phenomenal effort. No one should have to do this to work in any field; rather, people should be allowed to fulfill their full potential as they choose.
p.s. I've noticed an odd pattern in various forums here to cite a few counterexamples in order to destroy a deductive straw man caricature of an inductive argument and associated conclusion. This is not skepticism, but mere fallacy.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 14:35:20 [Permalink]
|
Boron10, right on! Strong women = turn on, weak women = turn off!
quote:
I also tend to be attracted to women who are better than I am at anything (except peeing standing up, eh?)
Watch out! Women can now buy little cardboard/stiff paper funnel thingies that allow them to pee standing up, just like us!
http://www.whizzy4you.com/
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2001 : 16:54:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hehe.. me too. I have always been attracted to aggressive females, not sure why. Something, though, is really cool about a woman who knows what she wants and does what she has to in order to get it. I also tend to be attracted to women who are better than I am at anything (except peeing standing up, eh?)
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh?
Well Boron, I never said I don't go after what I want - wouldn't be my age and going back to school - again! However, like I said - must feel comfortable around people first.
No problems being gregareous here either - no face to face.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
