[evol-psych] Re: Article: Men Choose Romance Over Success
- 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
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.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Julienne
> 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
> However, if my choice is, and it has been many times, between a manyou are
> with only money to offer, well...yawn.
> >Whether you are attracted to a man's money or his personality,
> >ultimately doing Evolution's bidding. 'Personality' is layman'sterm for
> >evolutionary 'fitness'.algorithm, then
> Did I mention the word "personality"? No.
> >If you are not in the thrall of your fitness maximization
> >you should choose a man who is poor AND lacks personality. Youshould have
> >a relationship with him as a matter of charity.is the
> Wow! - I think you just overdosed on your monthly
> allotments of "shoulds". :)
> >When it comes to relationship, EVERY woman does what she thinks
> >best evolutionary strategy, whether she chooses a man over hislooks, his
> >wealth or his personality. It is quite irrelevant whether youhave decided
> >to focus on one of these traits, all or some combination of theabove.
> 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,
> PS You might use a little caution with "all",
> "should", "EVERY", and other such absolutes. :)
- 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<Snip>
> 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?