More Superficial: Men or Women?

Melange

K-9 wrote: »

It's interesting that the higher wage and greater social prestige thing still carries on to this day. Often now, it's more on a socio economic basis or just pure snobbery.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here: are you trying to say that one job ought not be considered socially inferior to another (which is valid IMO) nor be able to command a higher wage than another (which is an inevitable function of supply and demand)?

Jonny Blaze

I dunno.. but we all have to agree that guys who wear pink shirts are superficial.....

and bent!

Melange

Jonny Blaze wrote: »

I dunno.. but we all have to agree that guys who wear pink shirts are superficial.....

and bent!

Hey! :eek:

johnny_knoxvile

Women aint superficial at all, i mean look at Heff's 3 girlfriends in the Playboy Mansion, they are proof true love exists in the world. The love him despite his age and array of rainbow coloured pjamas.

omyatari

depends if you count in the "metro-sexuals" as men.

i like my men manly, aka bit of a beard, somewhat lazy but handy around the house etc.... a hygenic version of Onslow from keeping up appearances. and maybe abit younger and muscular.

in that case, yes, women would be more superficial.

all for equality and stuff, but i wouldnt want a man that takes up more shelve space in the bathroom and has more moisturisers then me.

Jonniboy

Exactly!

And why would you? Who came up with the idea for metro sexuals anyway?

Who sat down one day and said "you know what? I think i would look great in pink... or saffron yellow.. even though im straight!!"

I mean what real man ever cared if his skin was "properly moisturised" either!!

They should be punished...

constitutionus

women.

hands down. you can be the most ugly inbred freak with the personality of a stone but if youve got status and money women will be all over you.

guys will DEMAND a good looking woman and wont settle for less unless theyre plastered.

on the side topic of the thread i get a great laugh out of the "oppressed" women excuse for their complete lack of contribution to mankind.

fact is women in general, like most people TBH, want a handy number and coasted though evolution on their back because the alternative was to fight wars, mine , plough fields or work in a stone quarry where you could be crushed to death. the education arguement is nonsence. what college did the guy who invented to wheel go to? who taught newton the laws of physics he made up?

ya can rattle off all the lists of over qualified biddies from prestigious instituions all you want, the fact is odds are your using an operating system on your computer created by a bloke called bill gates whos a college dropout. if anything all it proves is that women like to conform and see those institutions as a place to validate themselves. where were the girls gates went to school with? why didnt they leave with him en mass? because they wanted nice safe little jobs in IBM where they only had to do what their superiors told them and didnt have to build a company from scratch. something women abhor.

its no coincidence that the modern "empowered" woman came about with the advent of the office job. because its a handy pre existing system they can slot into and convince themselves theyve made something of themselves when once again theyve just mooched off someone elses work. female entrepeneurs are practically non existant in this country for the same reaon they make up the same number of homeless people.

you dont want to take the risk.

even in politics. in 2007 two women had the shot at leading the labour party. what did they do? left the running open for eamon gilmore and had a two way bitch fest for the SECOND in comand.

that tells you everything you need to know about women. ya talk a good arguement, but when push comes to shove you not only dont ACT, you turn to a MAN to sort you out. just look at the unions. the only reason a womans running the teachers union now is because theres virtually NO men left in the profession .

Wibbs

IMHO it also would help if we discuss what is meant by superficial. It looks like we're defining superficial from a male perspective and viewpoint too. One man's(or woman's) superficial is another's important. Lets look at attraction. yes men are generally the more visual gender, as a woman's viability as a purely reproductive partner is displayed more externally than a mans. Is this superficial? Not really. It could be just as easily argued that's simply how we are wired by evolution. It becomes superficial if the culture or individual only regards that and nothing else. Women tend to be wired to look for more subtle traits in a male, again wired in by evolution. Equally superficial if taken to the extreme.

Women place more store on social interaction and their social interaction tends to be more complex and fluid. Just because many men don't see this and write it off as superficial, doesn't make it so. It's actually anything but superficial.

Lets look at human endeavour. Again we're prone to take this from the mae perspective. Both men and women do this. Feminists of many hues often tend to do this too. Yes building science and art and all that stuff is part and parcel of civilisation, but so is the culture and society that backs that and allows that to grow on both an individual and societal level. Yes we stood on the moon, but Mr armstrong and his mates wouldn't have gotten there, without a legion of women behind them. Just because she may have not being carrying a slide rule(and many were BTW) doesn't mean they didn't play as equal a role. It's a perspective thing I reckon.

The other factor that is often overlooked by men bigging themselves up as a group, I compare to the Sean connery effect. The amount of bald older men who like to lump themselves in with sean is a bit sad. yea he may be bald and older like you but you aint sean. Just because you changed the spark plugs in your car doesn't make you edison. Men seem to have a disproportional amount of genius at the the top level compared to women(more morons at the bottom end too). Women's intelligence curve tends to be flatter. So in a room of a 100 men, most will be very average, with say a glut of 20 who are morons and a glut of 20 who are genius level. In the women's room the average is slightly higher, but the gluts are smaller, so the men tend to dominate at both the top and bottom ends of the scale. Throw in male hormone and the drive that usually follows and that skews this even more.

I know in business, I personally have tended to favour dealing with women. If I was hiring I would tend to prefer women, depending on role and with some caveats(pregnancy being an economic issue as a small biz I would have difficulty with. Another being that a large group of women has a more complex dynamic that I'm not as privy to and can cause issues, but both these are small issues.). This tendency has come about organically in my case. It certainly wasn't planned, but I find women better to deal with and actually BS me less funny enough. A view I would not have taken 10 years ago. You live and learn.

In the end I would regard both genders as complimentary to each other. I would also hesitate to ascribe much differences between them and concentrate on the diffs between individuals. Where IMHO the diffs are far larger. That said I would acknowledge the big diff between the mating strategies of both as IMHO that's where men and women differ the most.

My 2 cents anyway.

Wibbs

constitutionus wrote: »

hands down. you can be the most ugly inbred freak with the personality of a stone but if youve got status and money women will be all over you.

Hands down, you can be as poor as a church mouse with no taste and have the personality and intelligence of a stone, but if you've got looks and a hot bod men will be all over you.

I would say men that ascribe that standard to women are those who can't hope to have the women's standard that they describe applied to them. Same goes for women who bleat on about how men only go for looks.

guys will DEMAND a good looking woman and wont settle for less unless theyre plastered.

Only men with the aforementioned status. Men without it take what they can get as they can "demand" little or nothing.

Das Kitty

I think both sexes are equally superficial when it comes to looks. However, where the superficiality is directed is different.

Both women and men are just as shallow as one another when judging the looks of women.

Men: "She's Hot", "Wouldn't touch her with a barge pole"
Women: "What's she wearing?" "Awful haircut" "Lay off the fake tan love"

It's to a far lesser extent with men being commented on.

liah

constitutionus wrote: »

women.

hands down. you can be the most ugly inbred freak with the personality of a stone but if youve got status and money women will be all over you.

guys will DEMAND a good looking woman and wont settle for less unless theyre plastered.

on the side topic of the thread i get a great laugh out of the "oppressed" women excuse for their complete lack of contribution to mankind.

fact is women in general, like most people TBH, want a handy number and coasted though evolution on their back because the alternative was to fight wars, mine , plough fields or work in a stone quarry where you could be crushed to death. the education arguement is nonsence. what college did the guy who invented to wheel go to? who taught newton the laws of physics he made up?

ya can rattle off all the lists of over qualified biddies from prestigious instituions all you want, the fact is odds are your using an operating system on your computer created by a bloke called bill gates whos a college dropout. if anything all it proves is that women like to conform and see those institutions as a place to validate themselves. where were the girls gates went to school with? why didnt they leave with him en mass? because they wanted nice safe little jobs in IBM where they only had to do what their superiors told them and didnt have to build a company from scratch. something women abhor.

its no coincidence that the modern "empowered" woman came about with the advent of the office job. because its a handy pre existing system they can slot into and convince themselves theyve made something of themselves when once again theyve just mooched off someone elses work. female entrepeneurs are practically non existant in this country for the same reaon they make up the same number of homeless people.

you dont want to take the risk.

even in politics. in 2007 two women had the shot at leading the labour party. what did they do? left the running open for eamon gilmore and had a two way bitch fest for the SECOND in comand.

that tells you everything you need to know about women. ya talk a good arguement, but when push comes to shove you not only dont ACT, you turn to a MAN to sort you out. just look at the unions. the only reason a womans running the teachers union now is because theres virtually NO men left in the profession .

Joan of Arc, and consider that women were globally treated as poorly as they are in the Middle East currently for millennia. Our only disadvantage is that we are, physically, the weaker sex, and men sure as hell know that and take advantage of it.

Now shut your trap, your post is quite disgustingly misinformed about pretty much everything.

Overblood

hazys wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Wibbs

liah wrote: »

Joan of Arc, and consider that women were globally treated as poorly as they are in the Middle East currently for millennia. Our only disadvantage is that we are, physically, the weaker sex, and men sure as hell know that and take advantage of it.

Now shut your trap, your post is quite disgustingly misinformed about pretty much everything.

Maybe, though he does raise some points. I do think in general women would be more risk averse. Les do extreme sports etc, though I would reckon that's down to testosterone diffs and brain wiring. There are less female psychopaths and sociopaths too. They may have different priorities too. Child bearing and rearing and family and social ties for a start. Yes no man is an island, but that goes double for women(which is really bad maths right there:D).

So yes i would agree that more women are risk averse. That said most men are. Most guys I know wouldn't dare to start up their own biz, or even push themselves in a different social direction or emotional or psychlogical direction. Most men settle into some job or other that pays the bills and don't stick their head above the parapet(except behind a keyboard). They may enjoy it, they may not, but they're also standing on the shoulders of the few too. You ask them are they happy and they usually don't have a ready answer or if they do it's rehearsed. It's usually "emmm ummm, ehhh, well yes, I've a new position the dept. and it's looking good and sales figures are up etc. Oh yea the wife is nice too".

The reality is most people are drones. And that's fine. Hell I'm a drone in many many ways, but I'm happy in myself enough to acknowledge it. Most people haven't had a new thought since they left their teens. Just a fettling of existing ideas. New ideas tend to freak them right out. They hit their 30's or so and they're no longer grass they're silage. Still useful but not alive as such.

So to say one gender or another has the market cornered on being average or not moving the human race forward is daft, no matter which gender it;s aimed at.

BTW constitutionus, Newton himself said "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants", where do you think he learned of those giants? Sitting under an apple tree? Nope. Try again. Newton had a very good education and psuhed himself constantly. He looked to and expanded upon previous work by people such as kepler, copernicus and galileo, among others. He hardly "invented" the laws of physics. He made huge strides in the field and is among one of the truly great geniuses of history, but to reduce his work and especially his influences in the way you have, does little for his achievement and would horrify the man himself. He was also as mad as a march hare, but that's by the by.

el_tiddlero

Darkbloom wrote: »

A philosophy degree's a waste of time.

Time is a relative concept, completely imaginary, and therefore, impossible to waste.

BAMN. Lawyered.

constitutionus

jaysus wibbs, didnt know you knew newton personally (and yeah i knew he was a nutter, most genius's are)

the point i was making was guys like him did what they did for fun not because there was academic merrit in it.

copernicus near go killed for what he figured out, so did galelieo. einstiens did his three ground breaking papers working on the side in a patent office and were all in building with adequate lighting thanks to eddison monkeying around with tungsten in his garage. christ the jet engine was invented by the son of a miner arseing about in his dads shed who had no qualifications at all (which is why the toffs wouldnt pay attention to him and he had to go to boeing in the states to be taken seriously)

the girls like to harp on about their victimisation when the truth is they just dont bother their arse getting involved in things like that. im 36 now, they were banging on about how girls academically were out preforming boys left right and center back in my day so where are all the companies set up by women?

fecking nowhere becase most of em decided to become nurses, teachers and marketing people.

womens problem has been and always WILL be other women. i mean is it REALLY a conspiracy that the dail has so few female members? or can you literally not pay a woman to vote for a girl.

your right, most people ARE drones but theres a reason when someone does snap and decides to do something different its usually a man, its just the way were wired.

SeekUp

994 wrote: »

A woman's looks indicate fertility, so obviously men judge more on looks; a man who was attracted to infertile women wouldn't pass on his genes, after all.

That doesn't make any sense . . . A woman can be awful to look at, and be able to bear many children! And vice versa -- there are many conventionally beautiful women who flood the waiting rooms of fertility clinics every day. Hip size, well, I think that's another story. (Child-bearing hips and all that . . . :P)

constitutionus wrote: »

on the side topic of the thread i get a great laugh out of the "oppressed" women excuse for their complete lack of contribution to mankind.

fact is women in general, like most people TBH, want a handy number and coasted though evolution on their back because the alternative was to fight wars, mine , plough fields or work in a stone quarry where you could be crushed to death. the education arguement is nonsence. what college did the guy who invented to wheel go to? who taught newton the laws of physics he made up?

Who do you think was busy keeping things together while men had the luxury of sitting around all day, figuring out their inventions? Who was feeding the children - and the men, for that matter)? (And I know for a fact that women ploughed fields as well!) I'm not saying that we don't all benefit from the well-touted achievements of men, I just can't believe that you don't want to acknowledge any of the contributions made by women, or that you can honestly sit there and use the phrase "complete lack of contribution to mankind" when talking about the female sex.

Or maybe I should just have ignored the thread in the first place!

Blangis

So men are superficial if they evaluate women purely on their looks - i.e. by not taking the trouble to get to know them as people.

Are women then superficial if they evaluate men purely on their status?

The answer is, nobody cares. Because low status men have either decided to work their way up the status ladder, or to settle for a certain status and the type of woman that comes with it.

The difference between the sexes is the relentless aspirations of women. They always want more. This whole idea of "superficiality" is an invention of low value women. By hitting us with this guilt trip they are trying to get us to undo millions of years of genetic hardwiring.

Is that so much to ask? One thing?

constitutionus

besides the washing machine name anything the average person uses everyday that a woman invented.

ya needed a bloke to invent the bra for fecks sake.

im not dismissing womens contributions but there few and far between compared to mens and its not down to some conspiracy to "keep the woman in her place".

the jobs you just mentioned, raising kids and keeping a home, ARE the cop out women were happy to do up to the modern age when the alternative was pushing that fecking plough .

Chocoholic84

Ahhh people, Wossy is probably sniggering to himself at everyone's defenses being up because of his posts! Don't feed the trolls

Hmmm, what does superficial even mean?! Going by looks alone? Well tbh, everyone likes a different sort of "look", and anyone who says they're with their OH purely cos of their personality is lying, so I would say men and woman are equally superficial.

Although saying that, you do get a lot more groping perverts being men rather than women on a drunken night out :rolleyes:

GenericName

I remember hearing the explanation a few times before that the disparity in significant invention could be down to the disparity in testosterone. The same thing that makes men more prone to obsessive stalking and trainspotting, allows the single mindedness to pursue an idea for years.

Now I'm guilty to plenty of chauvinist comments, so that could be one more!

yay_for_summer

constitutionus wrote: »

the jobs you just mentioned, raising kids and keeping a home, ARE the cop out women were happy to do up to the modern age when the alternative was pushing that fecking plough .

Cop out? Dude, look after a few kids for a few days while trying to get meals cooked and keep the house going.

*heads to the field with the oxen*

SeekUp

And also, while some women were happy to do it, many didn't have a viable alternative.

"Here husband, take care of the kids while I pursue my interest in XYZ."

Yeah, right.

I'm not saying it's an excuse, I'm just saying that's often the way it was.

*shrug*

WindSock

johnathan woss wrote: »

The vast majority of great authors ..... men.
The vast majority of great artists .... men.
The vast majority of great poets .... men.
The vast majority of great scientists .... men.
The vast majority of great philosophers (if not all) .... men.

All that striving for perfection through the arts and sciences are done for the love of women though (unless gay)

So....well done women for nagging and avoiding those men until they came up with something better :pac:;)

allabouteve

WindSock wrote: »

All that striving for perfection through the arts and sciences are done for the love of women though (unless gay)

So....well done women for nagging and avoiding those men until they came up with something better :pac:;)

I'm impressed by your logic.:pac:

Seonad

constitutionus wrote: »

besides the washing machine name anything the average person uses everyday that a woman invented.

Whilst I don't really think the intention of this thread was to discuss female and male achievements...


Here's a list for you:http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0768070.html

On the matter at hand, I think I could sit here and discuss various examples of superficiality from both men and women equally. Genetic predispositions have already been mentioned so there's not much point in me harping on about them again. On a day-to-day basis I would have to consider women to be the more superficial sex. I have seen more than my share of fake smiles and attitudes from other women, however when it comes to choosing partners I find men are the bigger culprits.
About a year ago one of my friends was going through a bit of a dry spell. Anytime I was heading out and invited him, he would inquire if there would be any pretty girls there for him. Queue me loosing my temper with him one day and it hasn't occured since.
Although I'm just using one example-and in doing so perhaps making rather large generalisations-it's what I've experienced on the whole.

johnathan woss

Seonad wrote: »

Whilst I don't really think the intention of this thread was to discuss female and male achievements...


Here's a list for you:http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0768070.html

So the Barbie Doll is one of woman's great contributions to humanity?

I reckon that list is full of lies anyway.
I randomly googled one of the things on it .... the refrigerator.

Here is what wikipedia says:
"The first known artificial refrigeration was demonstrated by William Cullen at the University of Glasgow in 1748. Between 1805, when Oliver Evans designed the first refrigeration machine that used vapor instead of liquid, and 1902 when Willis Haviland Carrier demonstrated the first air conditioner, scores of inventors contributed many small advances in cooling machinery. In 1850 or 1851, Dr. John Gorrie demonstrated an ice maker. In 1857, Australian James Harrison introduced vapor-compression refrigeration to the brewing and meat packing industries. Ferdinand Carré of France developed a somewhat more complex system in 1859. Unlike earlier compression-compression machines, which used air as a coolant, Carré's equipment contained rapidly expanding ammonia. The absorption refrigerator was invented by Baltzar von Platen and Carl Munters in 1922, while they were still students at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. It became a worldwide success and was commercialized by Electrolux. Other pioneers included Charles Tellier, David Boyle, and Raoul Pictet. Carl von Linde was the first to patent and make a practical , and compact refrigerator."

Oops no mention of Florence Parpart even though that list claims she INVENTED the refrigerator.

Vinta81

Women.

Wibbs

Seonad wrote:

On the matter at hand, I think I could sit here and discuss various examples of superficiality from both men and women equally.

Agreed.

On a day-to-day basis I would have to consider women to be the more superficial sex. I have seen more than my share of fake smiles and attitudes from other women

I agree, particularly towards other women. Then again IMHO women are far more socially competitive with each other than men. They're also more socially aware than men(obviously in general on both counts). While this may come across as more superficial, again I look on how one defines superficial. It takes a fair bit of social intelligence to play that game and most men would be utterly lost in the nuances. I know I find it very difficult at times to keep up and cos of a few close women mates, I can speak woman pretty well(though the irregular verbs are lost on me:D) It may also have a societal/evolutionary role too. Just not an obvious one. Now Windsock was tongue in cheek with her post, but maybe there is much to that too. Women tend to act as social brakes on much of mens OTT behaviour. They tend to calm them down and often grow them up too, especially emotionally. Maybe it's just me but I would say most of the men I have known who are socially inept or emotionally stunted, usually have had few women in their lives, especially as long term lovers. Is it a chicken and egg thing? maybe, but maybe not.

however when it comes to choosing partners I find men are the bigger culprits.
About a year ago one of my friends was going through a bit of a dry spell. Anytime I was heading out and invited him, he would inquire if there would be any pretty girls there for him. Queue me loosing my temper with him one day and it hasn't occured since.

Again I would say it's just a different way to choose a reproductive partner. In men the visual is used as a bigger indication of a woman's reproductive and social fitness. Again of course it's inexact and it's more subtle than that, but it runs deep. Women with wrinkle free skin, a healthy weight, a good hip waist ratio have been shown to less likely to be infertile http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4953-barbieshaped-women-more-fertile.html As fertility in women is far more related to their youth, youth signals also interest men more. Small chins, big eyes, large foreheads, "dainty" features are all signals of high oestrogen levels in development. Symmetry of facial and body features are all signals of consistent healthy development in the womb and in early life all the way up to adolescence. All come under the blanket term of "pretty girls" your friend asked about. So while it was understandably irritating to hear repeatedly, it is equally understandable why he asked in the first place.

Now women look for physical features too. Studies have shown women have more orgasms with symmetrical men and men with higher testosterone. They are more attracted to men whose immune system compliments their own and are more fertile with same. It has been even suggested that the idea that "it's in his kiss", is where woman subconsciously sniffs/tastes the man's immune system compatibility. Women are more attracted to high social value men(men mistake this as just meaning rich). They're mre attracted by men with stable emotions. The list is long in a womans checklist, it's just women are far less obvious on the surface, even sometimes to themselves. Hence you will hear more women say "I don't understand it but I felt a spark for this guy and he's not my type at all". that's the checklist kicking in on a subconscious level. Just the same way of Eva Mendes walked up to a guy. He would just feel the attraction for her. So they may be less obvious than a guy leering at a pair of bra puppies but make no mistake they're equally judgemental.

My 2 cents anyhoo.

johnathan woss wrote: »

Oops no mention of Florence Parpart even though that list claims she INVENTED the refrigerator.

Yes there were some of that list of dubious authenticity. The beehive for gods sake, that's been around for literally thousands of years. Unless we're talking about the hairstyle? Lists like that, with holes like that do no one any good. It belittles the target groups actual achievements. I have noted this one to be more common on US websites, though not confined to them. I suppose the education system is to blame. After all to listen to many Americans Edison invented everything in the 19th century(which he didn't, not even close. Not even the lightbulb).

One thing I found really funny was that the female posters started out by saying how women were prevented from being educated, and becoming famous inventors/writers/explorers etc. and then they listed many of the women who did indeed become famous by doing just that. If those women were capable of doing what they did, there was nothing preventing the other women of their times from doing the same. Except for the fear of failure.. Since success guaranteed their freedoms (sortof).

Women seem to think that they hold the Title when it comes to discrimination, and yet men have been discriminated on looks, age, size, religion, colour, etc for centuries. Doesn't really count though, in the big scheme of things, because... We're Men! And Men have to face adversity! woohoo!

Its true that women were indeed excluded from many areas of employment and education, which were considered unseemly for them (depending on the country involved). The problem is that posters seem to be including all countries under the same blanket ban. During the eighteen hundreds, France held more relaxed viewpoints on the education of women, whereas Britain held more traditional viewpoints. And these perceptions shifted over time.

Also when I see these posts about women being downtrodden, I have to wonder are these people aware that women held many rights men couldn't be allowed to have. The avoidance of being conscripted to fight in just about every war up to WW2, and even then restrictions existed. Even now, I don't see too many countries with all female battalions... Or women working on Trash collection.. There are still plenty of jobs out there that have a clear majority of men working there, because women don't want those jobs.. (but that's ok, somehow)

I see women as being more superficial than men on one single point. Equality. They all say they want it, but they don't, really. They want the rights & salaries that men have, and at the same time retain the bonuses of being a woman. Its not about equality, and yet many women preach that they still deserve it, despite their lack of motivation to get out there and get it. I figure they just want it handed to them. Personally, I don't have a problem with a woman wanting to be equal with me. Fair game. If only, it was going to be that though.

Lastly, women check men out just as much as we do them. We look at their faces/bodies, but women look at our faces/bodies/clothes. Not really much difference.

As for them looking for an emotional aspect more than men, I think that's just a stereotype that hasn't been updated in the last 100 years.

SeekUp

Deleted User wrote: »

They want the rights & salaries that men have, and at the same time retain the bonuses of being a woman.

So in order to get paid the same amount as my male coworker who holds the same position as myself, I have to give up my boobs and sass? No thanks. :pac: