<p>Ok heres how it goes. In a marriage a dude has to be superior or at least equal to the woman financially. The woman usually tends to be superior in terms of looks. Guys look for the hot babes, girls look for rich dudes. Feminism can say all they want, naturally a man is not gonna be happy if his wife is much more sucessful than him. Of course, nowdays the feminists are trying to disturb natural order, and trying to make men more femanized.</p>
<p>The only thing that a $200 000 paycheck tells me is that the guy is a really good ass-kisser. The stoic cowboy, the clutch QB, the obsequious i-banker... All paragons of American masculinity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
An educational system that cannot properly deal with ADHD males in their teens. All the guys I know who dropped out of school couldn't sit still in class, so they smoked tons of weed to self-medicate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ADHD is an over-diagnosed media-hyped "disorder" that probably affects far less kids than what the Ritalin company would want you to believe. If some of these kids didn't feel entitled to being entertained all the time, maybe they could buckle down and hit the books once in a while.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only thing that a $200 000 paycheck tells me is that the guy is a really good ass-kisser.
[/quote]
Or girl...</p>
<p>I think that biology is vastly less important today than it was in the past. </p>
<p>For instance, look at the institution of marriage from the perspective of an evolutionary psychologist. Women, in the past, were left in an extremely vulnerable situation if they had children and no man, as it was uncommon for women to work outside the home. Thus, women required the institution of marriage to assure that they would have resources to take care of their children. If you look at the human objective in life as reproduction (or "gene propagation" to put it in rather darwinist terms), then the male required marriage to assure him that he was raising his own children and not those of another man (before DNA testing, only the woman would really know whose child she was having). In today's society, the need for marriage based on purely evolutionary reasons is diminished - women are able to raise children on their own, and men can more easily discover the parentage of their children. </p>
<p>The same principles apply to dating if you assume that one is dating in order to look for a potential spouse - evolutionary explanations are much less significant than the socialization of both men and women in society. Even if you dating just for dating, however, prevailing social attitudes play a huge role. One can't deny that looks are important when it comes to physical attraction for a partner - but what is "good-looking" is to a very large extent dictated by society. It is natural to look for a healthy person to date, but if "healthy" is defined by society to mean "Hollywood-celebrity thin", for example, than socialization is effectively perverting biology.</p>
<p>Edit: A reference - Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, "The Evolutionary Psycology of Marriage and Divorce," in Linda Waite (ed), The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 2000</p>
<p>
[quote]
ADHD is an over-diagnosed media-hyped "disorder" that probably affects far less kids than what the Ritalin company would want you to believe. If some of these kids didn't feel entitled to being entertained all the time, maybe they could buckle down and hit the books once in a while.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not necessarily overdiagnosed. The problem is that attention span fits along a spectrum and there is no fine line for diagnosis. The other problem is that people's attention span vary from one thing or another.</p>
<p>The problem we should be blaming ADHD on is the educational system, not the individuals.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that biology is vastly less important today than it was in the past.
[/quote]
For women. Not for men.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One can't deny that looks are important when it comes to physical attraction for a partner - but what is "good-looking" is to a very large extent dictated by society.
[/quote]
Agreed. Men care about looks way more than women though. I'm saying that will never change. So yes, the standards of what looks good will change, but the relative value of looks for men & women will not. Who knows, maybe in the future women will become more superficial and be interested in looks just as much as men.</p>
<p>This article clearly states that the reason behind this income disparity is a shift in the ratio of women to men in college. Women now outnumber men in college and, statistically speaking, college graduates make more money than others- so logically women will make more.</p>
<p>This statistic should have little effect on cc posters because they presumably will go to college.</p>
<p>"women are able to raise children on their own." This is true, but every study ever says that children in a single parent home are at a disadvantage. The parent has less time to spend with her kids (reading, studying, role-modeling, etc) so they will be less likely to succees in school and, later on, in life. </p>
<p>Biologically mothers may not need husbands, but socially it is still undeniably important.</p>
<p>Sounds like it's really the other way around. Women are finding it hard to date poor men.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While the headline for this thread would indicate that more well off women are shunning dating men who earn less, it seems that the women with higher salaries than their romantic partners are running into hostility from the men that they date.
[/quote]
I think you forgot to read the second page of the article. Let me quote some things from it:</p>
<p>"'I dont want to be paying for the guy Im with all the time'"</p>
<p>"The discomfort over who pays for what seems to be not really about money, plain and simple. Instead, it is suggestive of the complex psychology of what many of these women expect from their dates (for him to be a traditional breadwinner) and what they think they should expect (Oh, I just want him to be a nice guy).</p>
<p>"Thrupthi Reddy...watched her date...not even flinch when she handed the waitress her credit card. [She was] Initially miffed"</p>
<p>"'I have to say that I didnt like his career'"</p>
<p>"'its never explicitly said, but there are nuances,' she said. 'Things are said like, Boy Im going to be really broke after this dinner.''"</p>
<p>
[quote]
women who have "achieved equality" in the economic sense still feel pressured to behave in a tradionally "female" manner
[/quote]
And women who have "achieved equality" still get angry when their men make less than they do because she should be able to provide for them.</p>
<p>Quote:
"An educational system that cannot properly deal with ADHD males in their teens. All the guys I know who dropped out of school couldn't sit still in class, so they smoked tons of weed to self-medicate. " </p>
<p>Quote
"ADHD is an over-diagnosed media-hyped "disorder" that probably affects far less kids than what the Ritalin company would want you to believe. If some of these kids didn't feel entitled to being entertained all the time, maybe they could buckle down and hit the books once in a while."</p>
<p>Quote
"It's not necessarily overdiagnosed. The problem is that attention span fits along a spectrum and there is no fine line for diagnosis. The other problem is that people's attention span vary from one thing or another.</p>
<p>The problem we should be blaming ADHD on is the educational system, not the individuals."</p>
<p>To expand on the last, all symptoms consistant with ADHD are present in the general population. A "disorder" is diagnosed when those symptoms are in excess of say, the 98 th percentile, and are associated with predicably morbidity ( think blood pressure, vision, obesity, IQ). I think that the observation that so many boys ( and I would add perhaps especially URM boys) have difficulties in this area, means perhaps it should not necessarily be considered a disorder, but rather an important subgroup that needs to be addressed, rather than punished or excluded in the classroom. Of course this means diverting resources from all of OUR gifted kids, less appealing than prescribing medicine...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Men only flaunt their success to get women. Women don't need to flaunt their success (or even be successful) to get men. They just need good looks. Then again, they might not even need that...
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>He's right, this isn't an attitude, its biologically hardwired in. Men flaunt their success, they work out, they conquer other men and level cities for women. Women really DON'T have to do much to get a guy if they look good, it's that simple. That's not to say that you will find a GOOD guy. A good guy screens his girl, but there is ALWAYS going to be the guy who's cool with just having the hot chick. He might not know anything about her, yet he's content to know that she's hot. And nowadays, men are getting so desperate even unattractive (read: women who don't take care of themselves, any women can make herself fairly decent looking with care and exercise like men) women find it easy to find partners.
Men have always been the gatherers, hunters, and warriors . Women have always nurtured and cared for the young and kept the men alive (hell, what good are you if you can't take care of your own offspring?). Biology shows that we are here to replicate and pass on our genes, and this isn't even at a conscious level. It's not something you think about, and it's not something your body ever recognizes. This command is coded into the human gene to survive long enough to replicate and to pass on genes in hopes of extending and improving future generations. </p>
<p>Personally I wouldn't have a qualm with this, but I can definitely understand how the guys feel, but at the same time a lot of them are self sabotaging, such as saying "I'm gonna be so broke after this date." Sadly enough I know guys who say far worse, so of course it seems that way, but all guys aren't like that :-p</p>
<p>about the whole ADHD thing; boys are at a disadvantage from the start.</p>
<p>boys get testosterone! theyre meant to have excess energy, and girls are not. Ever wonder why only the guys get ritalin? </p>
<p>schools attempt to make these boys sit in a desk for 6 hours a day starting with age 6. the system is rigged against them.</p>
<p>on top of this, the majority of preschool/elementary school teachers are women, whose methods tend to favor girls (not intentionally, but it works out that way), just like if the teachers were male, the teaching would be geared towards boys, because teachers usually teach in a style that would help themselves learn.</p>
<p>so by the time the kids reach eighth grade, where they can start thinking for themselves, the boys are completely disinterested.</p>
<p>what we need is an education reform.</p>
<p>Poor men are under-represented in male-female relationships. URM status means the tides will soon turn. :)</p>
<p>One thing I found interesting is how the women mentioned in this article all claimed (according to the author) that they didn't flaunt their wealth or status. A woman pulling out her credit card on a date and paying for the several drinks downed by her date IS flaunting! A woman bringing a guy home to her swanky high-rise digs IS flaunting. A woman driving a premium car IS flaunting! Just as men are doing the same thing when they try to impress women with their wealth.</p>
<p>The thing I found sexiest about certain men when I was younger, and still do to this day, is THEIR BRAINS. Nothing is more attractive than a smart guy, no matter what financials he brings to the table. Nothing is more grotesque, no matter how rich, than a stupid/dumb/ignorant man. No thanks.</p>
<p>These young ladies should concentrate on their work and forget the guys, until they are at least in their 40's.</p>
<p>"These young ladies should concentrate on their work and forget the guys, until they are at least in their 40's."-LOL, you are kidding right?</p>
<p>I'm with you - there needs to be another educational reform since the 1970's.</p>
<p>I don't know which is more difficult to understand: Quantum Mechanics or Chick Logic</p>
<p>What's the difference, anyway?</p>
<p>
[quote]
These young ladies should concentrate on their work and forget the guys, until they are at least in their 40's.
[/quote]
Spinsters in the making.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He's right, this isn't an attitude, its biologically hardwired in. Men flaunt their success, they work out, they conquer other men and level cities for women. Women really DON'T have to do much to get a guy if they look good, it's that simple. That's not to say that you will find a GOOD guy. A good guy screens his girl, but there is ALWAYS going to be the guy who's cool with just having the hot chick. He might not know anything about her, yet he's content to know that she's hot. And nowadays, men are getting so desperate even unattractive (read: women who don't take care of themselves, any women can make herself fairly decent looking with care and exercise like men) women find it easy to find partners.
Men have always been the gatherers, hunters, and warriors . Women have always nurtured and cared for the young and kept the men alive (hell, what good are you if you can't take care of your own offspring?). Biology shows that we are here to replicate and pass on our genes, and this isn't even at a conscious level. It's not something you think about, and it's not something your body ever recognizes. This command is coded into the human gene to survive long enough to replicate and to pass on genes in hopes of extending and improving future generations. </p>
<p>Personally I wouldn't have a qualm with this, but I can definitely understand how the guys feel, but at the same time a lot of them are self sabotaging, such as saying "I'm gonna be so broke after this date." Sadly enough I know guys who say far worse, so of course it seems that way, but all guys aren't like that :-p
[/quote]
</p>
<p>+1
This is exactly what I told my friends.
Biological evolution is what drives men and women to make the choice of their partners.</p>