I see the point you try to make, but it is a broad-brush generalisation that does not apply to most people I know. In the spirit of lightheartedness, let me try and quantify with some examples.
The women (their level of attractiveness) - the men they chose. How their incomes compare.
Schoolteacher (above average attractiveness) - local radio journalist. His income level slightly higher than hers.
Charity sector executive (spectacularly attractive) - charity sector executive - Both earn about the same income
Charity sector executive (quite attractive) - Phd student - he is penniless
Marketing executive (total sex goddess) - struggling artist - he is penniless
PR professional (older, reasonably attractive) - struggling artist - he is penniless
Charity sector executive (average looks) - gravedigger - his is the lower income
Schoolteacher (very attractive) - complete parasite - she supports him and does all the frickin’ housework too!
Journalist (quite attractive) - journalist - about the same income.
Charity sector executive (me - average looks) - photographer - about the same income.
The women I know who “married up” are not in my immediate circle.
Hmm… nah, I like beauty… Beauty in nature, beauty in people…
But I see many people (including me) using beauty/beautiful as a synonym of attractiveness, which I think is a disservice to the word.
I think most, if not all, people have some beautiful feature in them. A smile, the face, the hands, the body, the hair, the eyes, etc. They have beautiful features. I like seeing them.
Now, few of those people I’d found attractive. Someone who is attractive is beautiful, but not everybody who is beautiful is attractive, and nonattractive people are not necessarily ugly.
But I like pretty and beautiful things. They make me happy and smile.
BTW, I wouldn’t (and haven’t) chose a relationship with someone based solely on looks.
Having been somewhat involved in the fashion industry I’ve been where the OP is. In fact I may be there right now. Too many photographer boyfriends, too many boring fashion and arts magazines. Too many token articles about using more diverse models and actresses and then a million ads and casting decisions proving the opposite. Too many marketing people inventing words for things you never needed to worry about before (see: cankles). Too many kids having daughters being told how pretty they are from birth.
I think perhaps the holiday season makes it worse. Switch off for a while if you can. Do some crafty things. Take a hike (as KarlGrenze said, there is so much beauty in nature, and it makes a mockery of any billboard ad or model reality show). Avoid the Dope discussions of famous women and ex-wives. Read a book that’s not about dating or love. Only watch British TV (now with actual old people!). Volunteer at your local SPCA. There’s only so much complaining you can do about unrealistic beauty standards for women in the media and double standards, despite their pervasiveness. Sometimes you just need a break, though I suspect part of the frustration comes from realizing that, as long as there are people around, getting a break is half the battle.
It’s kind of awesome how the Brits honestly will cast for talent and don’t look at the most gorgeous de-pored, unwrinkled things they can find. I’m always struck by the quality of their acting.
Here are some things (in no particular order) that I think are getting overlooked in all of this (IMO) false paradigm that men somehow have it better than women when it comes to finding a mate.
When it comes down to it the reality is that men and woman just experience their “peak” at different times of their life. Now it is true that increased life spans probably mean that in recent times men get to enjoy their peak longer, but in essence what it boils down to is that men start off unattractive to women and tend to get more attractive as they develop those attractive qualities that women tend to seek and women tend to start off attractive to men and then have those qualities decline. For every woman over 40 that is “invisible” there is a high school boy that can’t get a date because the object of affection is diddling a collage man.
This idea that it is somehow easier to acquire wealth and status than it is to acquire beauty is misleading at best. A whole lot of that is as much of a genetic/cultural lottery as is physical beauty. Where were you born? Did you go to a good school? Are your parents ambitions and did they instill that value in you? Are you smart? The point that I am making here is that it is not just as simple as me waking up one day and saying “hey, I think I will go get some money and status so that I can land a babe”. There are a lot of factors here that are beyond individual control.
Historically, woman have been the primary caregivers to children. This is really not all that different today, though we are making strides. So really if you woman folk have a lot of power over what men grow up to value. You can change it if you want to.
even sven, so stop shaving and wearing makeup. Put on sensible shoes. I did it a long time ago and there was very little, if any, change in the way people related to me.
even sven, please allow me, as a dude, to feed you from my box of chocolate-covered clues. And then feel free to tell me to fucko off.
Wimmin are like cars. Just like cars. Most of 'em are Camrys: not particularly inspiring to the eye, but not ugly; reliable, comfortable, good for meeting 90% of a guy’s needs (which is fine because 90% good helps us keep our minds off that other 10% which we really don’t need anyway). A few are Lotuses: Jaw-droppingly stimulating to the visual cortex, adrenaline pumps, absolutely useless for 90% of a guy’s needs, and let’s face it–not as relaiable and maintenance-free as they should be considering the price tag. And a few are 1972 Ford F-150s: They get you where you need to be, make good use of the maintenance provided, break down completely with no maintenance, appearance varies from “Ugly” to “Sweet!”, regardless of appearance they are always respected.
Every guy would be happy with a Camry. If he’s in a Lotus, he’s either got a Camry at home or has yet to realize that he will one day see more value in a Camry. No guy will ever be happy with just a Lotus. If he’s in the F-150 he will never need a Camry and will probably never want a Lotus…of his own.
This clue is brought to you courtesy of me and a bunch of guys I know who share the same belief.
I’m not sure it’s so much that women think it’s easier for men to make money or become successful (something women aspire to as well, btw – and would rather it be a point in their favor than against them when it comes to being attractive). I think it’s that many of the same qualities that are attractive to women (or at least are often assumed to be) are useful in other situations and generally make for happy, well-rounded people, unlike pure physical beauty. If you are educated, charming, funny and in a good job, you may not always have love but you are better off than someone who diets, surgeries and shops her way to attractiveness only to eventually be told she’s reached her expiration date.
ETA I can’t imagine someone who’s not a fan of being objectified appreciates being compared to a car.
This will sound really vain, but I honestly do thank God every day that I look the way I do (my pic should be up fairly soon in the portrait gallery so you can judge for yourself.) I have known many people who felt absolutely rejected in several areas of their lives because of their looks. My looks have given me a lot of advantages that I don’t deserve, and it is really unfair and arbitrary. That said, I do sometimes feel upset when people attribute my success or relationships to my looks- “Of course So and so is nice to you, you’re hot”, that sort of thing. I really wish there were a way to look past outward appearances, but unfortunately, it does not seem like there is. The best we can do is to try to “be the change”, as stupid as that is, and try to see past looks ourselves, and hope others will follow suite.
True. But don’t think this equivalent. The most attractive years of a woman’s life are over before they have ever really even done anything. Think about this for a minute.
A woman can travel the world, learn to speak multiple languages become a respected expert, create beautiful art, start a non-profit, learn how to burn up the dance floor, write a novel…whatever. She’s still not going to be as desirable as she was when she was a braindead college Freshman whose deepest thought is about crashing the Frat party and who could, if pressed, hold engaging conversations about network TV.
See how that would get you down more than “yeah, it was hard to get laid when I was a teenager?” Men get decades of high sexual attractiveness. We get at best one, and it’s wasted at a time when we are pretty stupid and shallow and often unequipped to enter into fulfilling relationships.
Furthermore, as mentioned, wealth, power, fitness and interestingness have their own rewards. Even if nobody thought it made you hotter, those things would still be great to have. If you were banished to the island of non-judgemental men, you’d still want these things. Being physically attractive is not really that rewarding, beyond the way that others treat you. If we were banished to the island of non-judgmental women, I imagine most of us wouldn’t really care. Additionally, in many cases being physically attractive is actively unpleasant. I’m about to pluck my eyebrows right now. Ouch!
As Martha Medea illustrates, this seems to be changing. There seems to be an increasing place for sophisticated, powerful, experienced women to attract mates who are below their income level. I’d rather see a level playing field than simple role reversal. But it’s better than nothing!
even sven, I most certainly relate to your position. I have, at times, felt as though God (metaphorically speaking, here) dealt women a worse hand by making them lose their attractiveness with every year past age eighteen.
However, both sexes in our society have their own problems to deal with, and it might seem just as trivial and irrelevant for me to complain about the male side of heterosexuality as it is for you to complain about how much men want beauty in a woman.
Isn’t is just annoying that you women are so choosy about when and with whom you will have sex? Why do you need to have “good sex” (as though there is such a thing as “bad sex”) with men that you find particularly attractive? Why can’t you just have sex all the time? Then we men wouldn’t have to spend as much time languishing in autoerotic purgatory.
Why do you women fail to care about games and sports so much? Isn’t it obvious that it really, really, actually does matter whether Zidane blew it for France in the 2006 World Cup final? Your failure to understand how this is more important than nuclear proliferation is mind-boggling.
I could topple on more typical male/female gender gripes, but it just doesn’t add up. Culture changes, but men will be men and women will be women. Men are going to want women that are pretty. Although we can’t really change this, you might strengthen your case if you first recorded a videotape of yourself getting absolutely furious (furious) over a bad call in a baseball game. Crinkle a Keystone Light can while you do it. And don’t fake it - you have to really mean it.
I suppose you were referring to my use of “men” and “women” to refer generally to heterosexual men and heterosexual women throughout my last post. It might have been better for me to make it more clear that I was (mostly) referring to straight men and women, but I did say “…it might seem just as trivial and irrelevant for me to complain about the male side of heterosexuality as it is for you to complain about how much men want beauty in a woman.” This phrasing indicates that I was trying to address the complaints one gender might have about the other in a heterosexual relationship, the sorts of complaints that are frequently jostled with in New Yorker cartoons and Dave Barry books and the like.
I don’t really see what the big deal is. I think women can be classy and elegant at any age, even if “hotness” is temporary.
I’ve also noticed that people’s physical attractiveness tends to increase or decrease depending on their personality. Some of the girls I know aren’t the most beautiful, but their personality makes it so they never have problems finding someone to be with, if they so choose. Same for guys.
Either way, I think you’ll find that most people are too self-absorbed to really notice or care what other people look like. Most people generally fall into either “normal” or “strikingly ugly” categories, for me at least.
It’s not just the fashion industry; it’s all around us. We are in the middle of an epidemic of narcissism that is likely to just get worse. I’m not sure if having thriving fashion/advertising/marketing industries is a symptom of it, or if the narcissism has come from these industries and all their corollaries being seen as a useful way for humans to spend their time.
