Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[evol-psych] Re: Article: Men Choose Romance Over Success

Expand Messages
  • idn17
    there is nothing wrong with either gender wanting to be successful, in fact it is a healthy dynamic for them personally and for the world in most cases. I d
    Message 1 of 186 , Sep 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      there is nothing wrong with either gender wanting to be successful,
      in fact it is a healthy dynamic for them personally and for the
      world in most cases. I'd worry about someone who didn't have some
      hopes and dreams involving work, or at least a good work ethic.

      Any mentally healthy man or woman would want to be with someone who
      pulls their own weight or does their share. Even in the old times
      women (unless very wealthy and the man too could also be among the
      idle rich, have slaves, or cheap servants etc.)were worked to the
      bone. Child rearing is not easy. Taking care of a household is not
      easy, and historically not enough credit has been given to the women
      who held the home together. It is looked upon as "she doesn't work".
      There are endless comedies, tales etc. about the man who thinks the
      woman doesn't do anything all day, and they switch, and he can't
      wait to get back to work. I have even known women who work because
      it's easier than running the house and raising kids.

      Still, true, a woman or her parents would have wanted her making a
      good match to a man who was employed, owned a small business, a
      farm. Money, even to have just enough, is a great thing. It gives
      freedom from worry, health, a nice comfy home, warm clothes, heat.
      No one is knocking that. I would discourage any child of mine from
      marrying a lazy person who wouldn't pull their weight, male or
      female, because it will create much trouble and resentment. Even my
      grandmother still said it's as easy to love a rich man as a poor
      man, but I never listened. I am fine though. Not rich, but have
      everything I need with not too much worry. I have worked since I was
      12 years old and thankfully now enjoy the work I do at least most of
      the time, and have no desire to quit. So now many women at least in
      the modern world, are often, thankfully in the position where they
      don't have to go for a Daddy Warbucks. There are many kinks of
      course to be ironed out both personally and as a society, but aren't
      there always? It can also relieve some pressure on the man. Maybe
      she can support him through medical school. If she stays home, women
      still generally do most of the household chores... and to the
      chagrin of many, studies say even if she works outside the home, she
      still does most of the housework. That seems to be evolving though,
      I see many younger couples where they will clean together on a
      weekend.

      A wealthy man who flashes his wealth will always attract the woman
      who wants to do nothing or have lots of money for status symbols. So
      it is true as Edgar says, these guys often get women. So do the
      others though, maybe their moderate lifestyle and somewhat more
      enlightened ways, and the fact that a woman is a friend first and
      not a trophy, though she can look great too it is not a requirement,
      is more important. The ones who flash their incomes or cars or fancy
      gifts as bait to get someone, then complain the woman is
      superficial, greedy and does nothing, if they tried just finding
      friends first, they may have a happier life.

      Then again, male peacocks open their fans and strut. it's the same
      dynamic, and it is definitely a part of human nature too, but it
      doesn't make it the best option for a happy life. Back to the same
      old thing, nature couldn't care less if we are happy as long as we
      feed and breed.

      Males, females, we all suffer and are a mix of enlightened ideas and
      ancient biology. Devil on one shoulder, Angel on the other. The Gods
      are laughing at us, with our needs to be happy and the crazy lengths
      we go to to find happiness sometimes, but personally I try to
      anyway! Sometime I succeed and sometimes I fail, but don't want to
      give in and go back to the caves, thank you. So we all hobble along,
      sometimes the blind leading the blind.
      iris


      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Julienne
      <julienne@...> wrote:
      >
      > At 06:55 PM 9/1/2007 +0530, Ligesh wrote:
      > >On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:12:53AM -0400, Julienne wrote:
      > > > When a man shows a photo of himself with his
      > > > car, his message is that he wants to be
      > > > judged as a man by his car. A woman with
      > > > her own car isn't excited about his. She's
      > > > more interested in literacy levels and EQ.
      > >
      > > I don't know why wealth is so demonized.
      >
      > Who's demonizing money? I've never complained about having too
      much.
      > However, if my choice is, and it has been many times, between a man
      > with only money to offer, well...yawn.
      >
      > >Whether you are attracted to a man's money or his personality,
      you are
      > >ultimately doing Evolution's bidding. 'Personality' is layman's
      term for
      > >evolutionary 'fitness'.
      >
      > Did I mention the word "personality"? No.
      >
      > >If you are not in the thrall of your fitness maximization
      algorithm, then
      > >you should choose a man who is poor AND lacks personality. You
      should have
      > >a relationship with him as a matter of charity.
      >
      > Wow! - I think you just overdosed on your monthly
      > allotments of "shoulds". :)
      >
      > >When it comes to relationship, EVERY woman does what she thinks
      is the
      > >best evolutionary strategy, whether she chooses a man over his
      looks, his
      > >wealth or his personality. It is quite irrelevant whether you
      have decided
      > >to focus on one of these traits, all or some combination of the
      above.
      >
      > Well...if this were as rigidly true as you seem
      > to believe, then you men wouldn't have as many
      > problems with so many of us women as you do -
      > we'd be totally predictable. We're not. And we're not
      > because we are not just driven by any evolutionary
      > imperative. We have gone beyond mere imperatives,
      > or "maximization algorithms", to create beyond
      > mere mechanical auto-responses.
      >
      > Catch me if you can,
      >
      > Julienne
      >
      > PS You might use a little caution with "all",
      > "should", "EVERY", and other such absolutes. :)
      >
    • Mark Hubey
      Veblen was an economist (what we today would call a literary economist ) the kind of an economist like Marx and Adam Smith. His writings on academia should
      Message 186 of 186 , Nov 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Veblen was an "economist" (what we today would call a
        "literary economist") the kind of an economist like
        Marx and Adam Smith.

        His writings on academia should be required reading.



        Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
        > "Veblen told the truth to people who basically intellectually eradicated him
        > while claiming to tell the truth." Even IF this were true-he actually died
        > of natural causes (not eradication) in his 70s, he freely published and
        > taught his truths to his last days (without eradication) and his works
        > survive his death (avoiding eradication)-it changes the subject from the
        > 'glass houses' questions.
        >
        > * Who cashed more 'intellectual welfare' checks than Veblen? What job
        >
        >> did he have outside useless idle academia and the patron funded,
        >> civilization saving nattering class did Veblen hold from which to cast
        >> aspersions at idle academics, the whole useless educational system and
        >> his own patrons?
        >>
        >
        > If Humanities and Arts are 'intellectual welfare' kings and queens? Would
        > Veblen not be an 'intellectual welfare' baron or duke? On what basis is his
        > ivory tower to be accepted as actually and validly higher enough to look
        > down upon the ivory towers of Humanities, Arts and Academia?
        >
        <Snip>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.