Skills and talent are less tangible than physical appearance. You can have a magazine that does a pretty good job of showing off someone’s physical assets–not as easy (or compelling) to have one showing that someone is able to factor a qudratic equation. You see someone walking down the street and you know if they look attractive, but you don’t know if they can play a tuba. And the subsets of people who are interested in each specific skill (such as mathmetical or musical ability) is much smaller than the subset of people who are interested in people who are physically attractive.
To answer the OP: Men are more visual-oriented than women. Hard-wired into biology. That’s it in a nutshell. Women are more likely to be drawn towards things that don’t have to do with a man’s appearance - things like wealth, personality, success, intellect, confidence, etc. Not that there aren’t women who want muscular-forearmed men or hunky guys but they are the less visually-oriented of the two genders.
That will likely never change on a fundamental level. Biology is biology. That being said, some societies have made it easier for women to rise on their intangible merits rather than their outward looks, and in fact America is already better off than many other places in the world in this regard.
**Mod Hat On **
Report, don’t Jr Mod
Do not make snide comments at other members in this forum.
That said, the concern about the OP and subsequent follow up comments is legitimate. I PM’d you some comments on this and I hope you take them to heart. I also suggest you read more and post less so you understand the community you’ve chosen to join a bit better.
Beauty is not imperative for baby-making around these parts. I see some really ugly women with babies everywhere I go.
The premise of the thread is false - a walk thru any Wal-Mart in the country will show you that.
There was certainly a time when this was true, and I have seen that there are a lot of girls in community colleges and whatnot who still seem to think that this is the case, but they’re really just screwing themselves over for the rest of their life by believing this.
Back in the day, the quality of the majority of your life was going to depend on who you married. Once you were in, you weren’t getting out. Your position in life was going to be entirely dependent on the career trajectory of the man you snagged. And, the best way to make sure that you could snag the man of your choice was to be good looking enough that you got a lot of suitors to pick from.
But so now we still have a whole bunch of girls cutting themselves, doing whatever it takes to be pretty, like their lives depended on it, and yet that’s not something that’s been true for 40+ years. Cultural inertia is a hard boat to turn.
If you have skills, you’re going to get a better job, make more money, be able to take better care of yourself, be able to do all the things you want in life using your own money, relate to men with a good work ethic and intelligence better and so get along better and be more likely to snag a decent one, and you’ll be more able to get a divorce from the one you’ve picked if he turns out to be a dud after all.
Don’t dump your entire life into a career before all else, but being smart, capable, and a hard worker is definitely a better and safer course to happiness than just trying to look good and hoping that you’ll find a sugar daddy that won’t dump you when you get too old.
**Epbrown01 ** and Beckdawreck, I don’t think your posts necessarily contradict the OP’s premise. The OP is not saying that being ugly precludes someone from getting married or laid at all, but rather, that women are valued more for looks than brains or whatnot. Even ugly women can get laid or married if someone finds them attractive, or, has no other women he can get (it’s mathematically impossible for every man to get an 8 or 10 spouse - someone has to marry the 2s and 3s.)
People who are not part of your life are for the most part not valued at all. Strangers are reduced entirely to their job and how it affects you at best, or simply background to your life no more important than a lamp or a bush. So when you say that nobody cares about women’s skill/talent it is more fair to say that nobody cares about anyone else’s skill/talent unless it directly affects them.
Well, you human traits either have objective value or subjective value. If you believe they are objective, then you’re likely religious and depending upon your particular religion, it’s probably due to something akin to the world being fallen or somesuch.
If you believe they are subjective, then all you’re really saying is that you want everyone to agree with you when they obviously don’t. That’s a common complaint had by nearly everyone. “Ah, if they’d only make me dictator of the world how wonderful the world would be.” If you’re asking why the male half of the world seems to disagree with you, then I would posit that men largely exist in a world where they assume that they can take care of their own needs and wants, so that means a large part of what they want in a partner is sex and sex with an attractive person seems like it’d be nicer than sex with an unattractive one. Men are relatively singularly minded, so it makes the object of that single-mindedness relatively more valuable. The good news though is that most women do end up with partners during their lives, so this complaint is really more of a “Why can’t I be with Tom Brady?” and the answer is, “The same reason I can’t be with Gisele Bundchen.”
Because a womans beauty is a proxy for her fertility. And the more fertile a woman is the more kids she can have, and the healthier those kids will be.
Same reason a lot of women value a man’s looks and socioeconomic status over his skill/talent.
We’re just monkeys trying to fuck someone who will give us kids who won’t die before procreation age.
Wonder if there is a personal reason for asking this question, which has been addressed in every aspect in libraries’ worth of both academic and popular volumes over the past sixty or seventy years.
I didn’t say it well, but beauty and hot looks do not make you more valued. Rather, valued or appreciated for a different reason. I have a SIL who’s, how shall I put this?, not attractive. Kinda, dog ugly really. But my brother could not adore her more if she was Miss America. They have really pretty kids too. And to add to it, she is very smart and gainfully employed. Go figure.
Society totally values women wearing water durable shoes.