Womens' attitudes, post recession.

magneticimpulse

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Hmmm...you could easily argue that man having developed to the point of being able to study and understand the mechanism of nature that was originally documented by the likes of Darwin and Wallace et al means, in effect, it no longer applies.

You can go ahead and study the mechansims of nature all you want, but it wont change it. You cannot deny that we are all made up of DNA, RNA, nucleic acids and proteins (animals and humans).

Hell you can even try to change or mimic it, but why would you want to when nature has already set in place an elegant subconscious method for natural selection of the fittest?

Maybe the pure fact that humans were better at this selection has meant we have become maybe the top of the species ladder and developed the way we have.

Why would you want to change millions of years of evolution in one Saturday night in a Galway pub? Although I do admit putting alcohol into the equation limits man's ability for a deconvolution of a selection of fine ladies.

Logical Fallacy

Cicero wrote: »

not sure it would be that easy....

Good, because i am not saying it is that easy to prove, merely saying we could head off down that route and come up with something interesting.

I don't believe it is...just because we have TV's, Cars, electricity etc, doesn't mean we have progressed much further either biologically or socially in the last few centuries..we still organise ourselves mostly, as a family unit, we still react to hormones, pheromones, body shape and all of the other "animal" instincts....a significant % of the worlds population are living in poverty...and those who aren't are merely 2-3 wage packets away from homelessness...

But, the simple fact is that we have a concept of poverty, animals don't. Once again, not saying it is that simple, just saying the rules to the game have changed, almost completely. Animals can kill for what they need, we kill and go to jail. Animal reactions are basic, human reactions are tempered by self awareness.

It would be quite difficult achieving self-actualization while standing naked, hungry and cold at the side of the road.....

lol, i didn't say turn it upside down, i merely said you could rearrange certain things in order of importance or impact based on modern society as opposed to the late 50's/60's when Maslow was developing his thoughts around things.

Logical Fallacy

magneticimpulse wrote: »

You can go ahead and study the mechansims of nature all you want, but it wont change it.

Hell you can even try to change or mimick it, but why would you want to when nature has already set in place an elegant subconsious method for natural selection of the fittest?

Maybe the pure fact that humans were better at this selection has meant we have become maybe the top of the species ladder and developed the way we have.

Why would you want to change millions of years of evolution in one Saturday night in a Galway pub?

You have completely missed my point. I am not talking about changing it, i am talking about removing ourself, slowly , over time, from the process of purely biological interests in reproduction...which is what humanity has done.

stupidusername

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

People love to mention the old biology of everything but that simple fact is that even since Darwin first opened his notebook society and the world we live in is a vastly different place. Go back a few evolution points and the original factors that mates would have looked for in each other is largely moot.

Hell, i would go so far as to say you could rearrange Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but that's just me.

humans haven't changed at all really. I mean sure the things we think we need have changed, we've become more greedy but basic instinct comes down to survival and reproduction. all of it does in one way or another. we are animals and even though we might know we do something we might not understand why.

humans haven't changed what they look for in a mate at all. not as far as i can see anyway. someone looking for a wealthy mate, this is because that person knows they can be taken care of, therefore their safety is much more assured. and this is what a person wants for their offspring. as far as I can see it call all be explained in animal terms.

magneticimpulse wrote: »

You can go ahead and study the mechansims of nature all you want, but it wont change it.

Hell you can even try to change or mimick it, but why would you want to when nature has already set in place an elegant subconsious method for natural selection of the fittest?

oh don't get me started on natural selection.. humans, due to our own 'intelligence' have screwed up the race. but that's another discussion

Red Hand

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You have completely missed my point. I am not talking about changing it, i am talking about removing ourself, slowly , over time, from the process of purely biological interests in reproduction...which is what humanity has done.

To a degree, I agree. Some people when they reach a certain standard of living, they may not want kids cause for whatever reason (have interests/careers/don't want to give up freedom etc). But these, obviously, will always be a minority imo. They will be bred out.

In the past, these people would still have had the same inclination, but because of lack of birth control/societal demands or whatever, they weren't able to do this.

We in Ireland are only 200 years away from a population boom.

(Edit: Hmmmm...I may have picked up the wrong end of the stick)

Rabble Rabble

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You have completely missed my point. I am not talking about changing it, i am talking about removing ourself, slowly , over time, from the process of purely biological interests in reproduction...which is what humanity has done.

Clearly it hasn't. You are stating a "fact" with no proof whatsoever.

I already posted this. Women on dating sites generally are asked for their height, and their preferred height of their partner. It is never ever smaller. Despite the fact that a 5'11'' woman is excluding lots of men from her search, she still does because she is not attracted to smaller men, even though modern society she does not depend on the physical strength of the man for protection - we have the police for that - or financial potential.

In an even more obvious example men fall for beauty, youth and body shape - all of which represent fertility and health.

I'll believe that things have changed when 50 year old men, of low stature and little money can grab the hottest and richest 19 year women and people dont bat an eye; or an 60 year old woman and a 30 year old man were commonly seen couples.

The whole thing is based on our evolutionary background.

magneticimpulse

^ exactly. When evolution came on topic...i did mention there are exceptions. Invariably, these people cannot reproduce. They have no interest in reproduction and therefore it does not matter. But their genes/DNA willnot be passed on as a result. And their biological presence/genetics is wiped out from the selection.

So I still think that all this is regardless of a recession. Because regardless of money, humans will still want to reproduce and will only stop doing so if the world ends.

Stheno

magneticimpulse wrote: »

[edit: i actually now recall the remainder of 2007...i remember a few occassions, where i said i was an air hostess or nurse from waterford or clare and the reaction i got from guys was completely different as oppose to when i told them my real occupation

There were a couple of studies done 18 months - 2 years ago, where female MBA students went out as a group and in one case told men they met that they were doing MBA's and in another case told them they had more traditional female careers (nurse, air hostess e.g.) The studies found they were more likely to get more interest from guys when they said they were nurses/air hostesses etc, it got a bit of press at the time.

Personally for me, what a guy does is important, but from a different perspective, I tend to work long hours, I can have periods where I have to study quite a lot to update my qualifications, and I occasionally have to travel with work. In that regard a guy who works a regular 9-5 role, and wants to eat dinner at seven, evenings and weekends free to do stuff together etc is never going to be happy, and neither am I Never brought it up on a first date though!

miec

"How much are you earning?"

I have not read all the replies to this thread but in all of my 39 years on this planet (I am a woman) I have never asked a stranger how much do you earn, I barely even ask friends that, I would be mortified to ask someone their earnings. The only time this has come into the equation was when I was getting married and when I lived with someone, otherwise, what a person earns is no one elses business. I am glad to say too that no one has ever asked me that question either. I do ask what someone does for a living mainly to have something to talk about, I personally don't care about what someone does unless it is illegal / sinister, or they have spent most of their adult life (in good times and recession) unemployed. Otherwise I don't care, it is the person that matters.

On to the whole height thing with women though, I have dated men smaller than myself, I'm 5 7 and the smallest guy I dated was 5 4, and I must admit, it felt uncomfortable. I dare not wear heels with him and I felt slightly embarressed as I could easily pat him on the head, although I really liked him, I prefer someone either my height or taller, my preference is taller men, I don't know why, it just feels nice, I guess in the same way that men like women with smaller waists and a nice shapely/curvy body that is propertional. In essence we are quite base creatures but I always add a caveat, if I met a man who had fantastic qualities and a great personality but not much to look at, then I would rather him than a good looking man who bored me.

donfers

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

I find it a bit off when a woman is being honest - as stupidusername is here - that she is shouted down. There is an animal nature to humans. I used to be on dating sites and this is what I noticed..

1) The taller the woman the more she wanted a taller guy. Her tallness did not make up for the guy. This was a desire to be "protected" sublimated to a conscious sexual urge - an attraction to tall people.
2) The richer the woman, or the better her job the more likely she was to mention the financial circumstances of her purported partner. As in "I have a good job, so should you".

So, during the boom the standards were raised. Thas all.

I love how when some woman is questioned or debated with (this is a discussion forum after all) some white knighter jumps in and says she is being "shouted down", truly disingenuous and insidious posturing that is never questioned

incidentally despite all the strawmen responses, all I am trying to do is determine if one is a supporter of the nature or nurture theories or do you just pick and choose as one goes to justify one's behaviour?

for example, it seems the same person is saying yes i am a big supporter of evolutionary theory when it comes to women choosing taller men and wealthier men as it means their offspring have a better chance of surviving and prospering

and then this person also says i am not a supporter of men who impregnate a lot of different women because even though this means he is increasing the likelihood of his offspring surviving and prospering I have unilaterally deemed it ethically wrong and decided to bring ethics into this side of the debate

be one or the other, call horrible behaviour for what it is or justify all this stuff using the biological argument, but saying society expects one form of behaviour (monogamy) yet on the other hand attempting to justify women asking a guy's salary or what car he drives is the epitome of a hypocritical one-sided and inconsistent argument

it's not about right or wrong, it's about being consistent in the views you hold

stupidusername

donfers wrote: »

for example, yes i am a big supporter of evolutionary theory when it comes to women choosing taller men and wealthier men as it means their offspring have a better chance of surviving and prospering

yet i am not a supporter of men who impregnate a lot of different women because even though this means he is increasing the likelihood of his offspring surviving and prospering I have unilaterally deemed it ethically wrong and decided to bring ethics into this side of the debate

be one or the other, call horrible behaviour for what it is or justify all this stuff using the biological argument, but saying society expects one form of behaviour (monogamy) yet on the other hand attempting to justify women asking a guy's salary or what car he drives is the epitome of a hypocritical one-sided and inconsistent argument

it's not about right or wrong, it's about being consistent in the views you hold

I am being consistent, you're just not understanding me.

are you saying that you understand why our instincts may tell us one thing, but you think we as humans and being more intelligent than animals should know better ethically than to let our instincts take over?

clearly the idea of monogamy amongst humans hasn't come from nowhere, I mean I don't know much about history but it's not just society deeming it acceptable, it must be the way humans have always done it. I don't know though. in terms of monogamy any animal you can point out if they're monogamous or not, whereas humans in our infinite wisdom don't know whether or not we're monogamous. maybe we are a monogamous species and it's the defects in the race that are the exceptions. I don't know.

MidgetWrestler

Didn't expect a debate on natural selection, as the original post was intended to be a positive observation on my experiences in the real world over the past year or two. I noticed an improvement, and wanted to see if it was just me, or had others noticed it too.

Having said that, and read the replies, natural selection is what it is... survival of the fittest, and the demise of those unwilling to adapt. As humans, I think we are probably the most adaptive of all the species, we create tools to do what our hands can't.
Other than the wheel, probably the most important invention of the industrial age, was the light bulb.. it paved the way for shift work.. until then, industrial work on a large scale was limited to daylight hours only. Now I'm not looking to start a fresh debate on industrial advances, but just as an example, look at how quickly the human body and mind can adapt to shift work. The circadian rythm is still there, and while it affects us, it no longer dictates us. Anyone there who works long hours or shifts knows this.
These days, the fittest don't longer always survive, and the weak sometimes prosper.. Society, us, we as a people, have interfered with the process of selection to such an extend, that it does not apply in the same way as it does in nature. Call it un-natural selection maybe?

Logical Fallacy

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Clearly it hasn't. You are stating a "fact" with no proof whatsoever.

I already posted this. Women on dating sites generally are asked for their height, and their preferred height of their partner. It is never ever smaller. Despite the fact that a 5'11'' woman is excluding lots of men from her search, she still does because she is not attracted to smaller men, even though modern society she does not depend on the physical strength of the man for protection - we have the police for that - or financial potential.

In an even more obvious example men fall for beauty, youth and body shape - all of which represent fertility and health.

I'll believe that things have changed when 50 year old men, of low stature and little money can grab the hottest and richest 19 year women and people dont bat an eye; or an 60 year old woman and a 30 year old man were commonly seen couples.

The whole thing is based on our evolutionary background.

Apologies, didn't mean to be implying that i was right and everyone else is wrong...i just felt it was fairly obvious that far more complex communicative skills, emotional spectrum and societal influences mean that human coupling is a far more complex game than that of animals.

Sure, people might look for this and that with regards to partners, but humans have the interest caveat of being able to completely derail any partners advances by putting there foot in their mouth, revealing a characteristic or habit that they find distasteful etc.

I would basically say it's a lot more complex than you are making it out, and far more complex that the mating rituals of animals and the subsequent "survival of the fittest" (which wasn't even Darwin terminology ) are no longer based in the simplicity of physical attributes. As you yourself have said, what need for strength now in a society where safety,food and shelter can be guaranteed by other means?

magneticimpulse

Just watching the Apprentice with Donald Trump and I have to say, I dont know what it is, but I find that guy extremely sexy. I know he is a very rich man, but it isnt that at all. I love how he has control, power and knows exactly what he's looking for.

So I suppose it throws Darwins theory sort of out the window for terms of being attractive. Donald Trump is not the sexiest of men by any means, but theres just something there....it must be my subconscious mind playing tricks.

Another man I find an attraction for is Julian Assange (ok we dont know about his court case in sweden etc)....but another guy I know I should not be attracted to but I am. He's always so calm, its like yeah, the americans want to kill me for wikileaks etc...but Im making the world a better place what have you. Again, another attraction i cant put finger on as to why. I just think its funny, how the laws of attraction work.

stupidusername

magneticimpulse wrote: »

Just watching the Apprentice with Donald Trump and I have to say, I dont know what it is, but I find that guy extremely sexy. I know he is a very rich man, but it isnt that at all. I love how he has control, power and knows exactly what he's looking for.

So I suppose it throws Darwins theory sort of out the window for terms of being attractive. Donald Trump is not the sexiest of men by any means, but theres just something there....it must be my subconscious mind playing tricks.

Another man I find an attraction for is Julian Assange (ok we dont know about his court case in sweden etc)....but another guy I know I should not be attracted to but I am.

but see that's the thing, it's not just about being physically attractive, it's about being able to provide, protect and giving good genes. it's all tied in. I often find some men who i'm not physically very attracted to attractive because of a part of their personality, like confidence. it's an admirable trait and what reason do I have for wanting to be with someone who's confident? I don't know, possibly cause it's going to mean we're treated better, or it may lead to more power in one way or another. i'm not very good at explaining myself :mad:

embracingLife

Have all of you been living under a rock-or are all of you just turned 18?!
This is the way it always has been!

I'm in my mid 30's and once a man gets into his late 20's women always ask these questions and in my own experience even more so now during the recession-not the opposite unfortunately.
Yes,yes maybe the venue is different and the wimmen mightn't be as direct than in other places but thats life in dear old Ireland.

A good example,a mate of mine is an unemployed solicitor but when he goes clubbing in any venue in Dublin,he doesn't say he's on the dole but just answers the "what do you work at?" question by saying "solicitor" and Bingo-he's in like Flynn!

Yet,when I tell birds my job-which is a trade and I'm working-I get blown off and the conversation dies totally by the attitude of the woman. Now,I'm not a total one dimensional person in case I'm going to get branded,but even my wide variety of sports/life experience/topics of conversation means nada when a woman hears what I work at.
I have spoofed and said I worked at another job and I've seen an immediate reaction from women to the positive.

Just my 2 cents! :rolleyes:

foxyboxer

embracingLife wrote: »

Have all of you been living under a rock-or are all of you just turned 18?!
This is the way it always has been!

I'm in my mid 30's and once a man gets into his late 20's women always ask these questions and in my own experience even more so now during the recession-not the opposite unfortunately.
Yes,yes maybe the venue is different and the wimmen mightn't be as direct than in other places but thats life in dear old Ireland.

A good example,a mate of mine is an unemployed solicitor but when he goes clubbing in any venue in Dublin,he doesn't say he's on the dole but just answers the "what do you work at?" question by saying "solicitor" and Bingo-he's in like Flynn!

Yet,when I tell birds my job-which is a trade and I'm working-I get blown off and the conversation dies totally by the attitude of the woman. Now,I'm not a total one dimensional person in case I'm going to get branded,but even my wide variety of sports/life experience/topics of conversation means nada when a woman hears what I work at.
I have spoofed and said I worked at another job and I've seen an immediate reaction from women to the positive.

Just my 2 cents! :rolleyes:

That's very true. I remember watching one of those tacky Sky One dating shows a few years back. The average-run-of-the-mill-looking guy in question worked in a chicken stuffing factory. Not exactly the most glamorous job in the world then.

During a speed dating event he was told to alternate his background work between Reality (The chicken factory) and Fantasy (that he was a fighter pilot for in the RAF). Needless to say the interest garnered by the Fantasy story provoked more interest. Very telling.

Kooli

foxyboxer wrote: »

That's very true. I remember watching one of those tacky Sky One dating shows a few years back. The average-run-of-the-mill-looking guy in question worked in a chicken stuffing factory. Not exactly the most glamorous job in the world then.

During a speed dating event he was told to alternate his background work between Reality (The chicken factory) and Fantasy (that he was a fighter pilot for in the RAF). Needless to say the interest garnered by the Fantasy story provoked more interest. Very telling.

Definitely interesting, but I'm not sure you can always assume that people's attitudes about a job are always money-related.

As has been said, your job is where you generally spend about a third of your life, so I want to know what it is if I am checking you out. Some jobs would be a huge turn-off, some would be a huge turn-on, for a wide variety of reasons, only ONE of which is money. I do think that for most people your job says a lot about you! It's as good a thing to judge someone on as any when it comes to brief getting-to-know you chat.

I would respond better to a pilot than a factory guy during speed dating simply because I would find it more interesting - and pilots earn feck all (I don't know about fighter pilots, but commercial ones).

embracingLife

What if you were told the chicken factory man owned the factory?

What would the women's reaction be then?!

On a side note,I know some men through my job who are very well off and they are-(shock horror)-builders/tradesmen, yet they are as intelligent,fully rounded human beings (even though they are covered in muck all day) than office lemmings who earn peanuts.

Come to think of it there's a man who owns an ordinary run of the mill business in Dublin who just bought himself a new Bentley! I can imagine what women say to him when they chat to him about his job and then see what he drives!

So,Kooli you are basing a man's personality mainly on his job rather than him as a person in his entirety? Of course only when you're "speed dating". Wow,I rest my case!

mood

Female here - the only reason I would ask anyone what they do is to make conversation. I find it hard to believe anyone would ask how much you earn or what car you drive.

OP I think you may have come across this so often because of the type of pub/bar you went to. Certain places attract a certain type of pretentious person. I had the misfortune to go to a certain well know club in Dublin once and the conversation consisted of where 'Mummy and Daddy holiday home was, LIKE!' said with a fake D4 accent!!! Worst night ever.

magneticimpulse

^ as mentioned before...the "job" question is not a man directed only question....a woman who's a rocket scientist lets say, doesnt go down too well from my own experience. however the times i did pretend to be air hostess or nurse i got a more favourable response.

Its unfortunate both sexes are judged on career.

As for if the guy owned the chicken factory? I went out with a pig farmer who owned a slaughter house. Now being vegetarian it wasnt the most ideal job i could think. But he was a nice guy, so i didnt hold it against him. However the smell of freshly killed animal just lingered on him mid week straight after work. That was alittle too much.

All in all...i do like Alan Sugar type of guys. Not cocky and full of themselves...but people who make the most of their life. Who really succeed. Doesnt matter how much money they earn in my opinion. Its the motivation, the ability to stay calm in all situations.

I have a demanding career and a risky one. At any given time, the building can explode if I make the wrong move. Its quite nerve wrecking...but at same time very exciting when stuff starts exploding in front of you and you have to stop it. For those reasons, i like someone who has a similar job/career to me. I like someone who understands that when you've burnt down the building at work that day, that it was a stressful day....and that you can moan about your job that evening....but the next day be fine about it. Someone who doesnt understand that type of job, I wont ever get along with. They wont understand the stress and the demands, the need for me to blow steam.

Doesnt matter if it was 10 years ago or 10 years in the future, i will always look for those qualities in a guy. On a night out i usually am always willing to chat to guys. But I can intimidate them by my job. Its not a usual "girly" job. I dont make a big deal of it...but guys can do. Hence the nurse or air hostess job normally goes down better. I mean trying to explain what i do...i usually lose people after the 1st two words.

Kooli

embracingLife wrote: »

What if you were told the chicken factory man owned the factory?

What would the women's reaction be then?!

On a side note,I know some men through my job who are very well off and they are-(shock horror)-builders/tradesmen, yet they are as intelligent,fully rounded human beings (even though they are covered in muck all day) than office lemmings who earn peanuts.

Come to think of it there's a man who owns an ordinary run of the mill business in Dublin who just bought himself a new Bentley! I can imagine what women say to him when they chat to him about his job and then see what he drives!

So,Kooli you are basing a man's personality mainly on his job rather than him as a person in his entirety? Of course only when you're "speed dating". Wow,I rest my case!

No I still don't think the chicken factory is that interesting, even if he owns it.

And I wouldn't judge a guys personality by his job, nor did I say that, but I would think it says a lot about him - it can be an indication of his values, his ambition, his interests, his priorities (not always is, but CAN be). It's a really important choice a man has made in his life. He puts a lot of his time into it. He has put potentially years into developing that career. There is no way it is irrelevant!!

For a lot of women, a question about a job IS a question about salary. For a lot of women it is just small talk. But it's possible that it is something else - another way of finding out more about the guy, but not necessarily about his wallet. Believe me yet?

mood

Kooli wrote: »

No I still don't think the chicken factory is that interesting, even if he owns it.

And I wouldn't judge a guys personality by his job, nor did I say that, but I would think it says a lot about him - it can be an indication of his values, his ambition, his interests, his priorities (not always is, but CAN be). It's a really important choice a man has made in his life. He puts a lot of his time into it. He has put potentially years into developing that career. There is no way it is irrelevant!!

For a lot of women, a question about a job IS a question about salary. For a lot of women it is just small talk. But it's possible that it is something else - another way of finding out more about the guy, but not necessarily about his wallet. Believe me yet?

What you do for a living is often the result of a decision who made when you were still a school kid so I don't think it says a lot about a person at all.

embracingLife

Yes,good point.

All in all, the main point here is that lots of wimmin judge a man purely on his job and don't attempt to get to know him more, on initial meeting.

Maybe we can get women's view of men turning them down on their job! Ooops,I didn't read the first 3 pages of this thread!

DwightShrute

magneticimpulse wrote: »

I have a demanding career and a risky one. At any given time, the building can explode... Its quite nerve wrecking...but at same time very exciting when stuff starts exploding in front of you and you have to stop it. For those reasons, i like someone who has a similar job/career to me. I like someone who understands that when you've burnt down the building at work that day, that it was a stressful day....and that you can moan about your job that evening....but the next day be fine about it. Someone who doesnt understand that type of job, I wont ever get along with. They wont understand the stress and the demands, the need for me to blow steam.

You are a professional arsonist and I claim my five euro.

iptba

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

There is an animal nature to humans. I used to be on dating sites and this is what I noticed..

1) The taller the woman the more she wanted a taller guy. Her tallness did not make up for the guy. This was a desire to be "protected" sublimated to a conscious sexual urge - an attraction to tall people.
2) The richer the woman, or the better her job the more likely she was to mention the financial circumstances of her purported partner. As in "I have a good job, so should you".

So, during the boom the standards were raised. Thas all.

I remember hearing somebody involved in running a dating site/agency on a BBC-5 live* discussion talking about their frustration that even women in their late 30s with incomes of £150,000+ wanted men of at least that income. They were frustrated as there was so few of such men around and they knew these women's biological clocks were ticking.

* I know it was British radio because it was Sterling

foxyboxer

iptba wrote: »

I remember hearing somebody involved in running a dating site/agency on a BBC-5 live* discussion talking about their frustration that even women in their late 30s with incomes of £150,000+ wanted men of at least that income. They were frustrated as there was so few of such men around and they knew these women's biological clocks were ticking.

* I know it was British radio because it was Sterling

Wasn't there an event similar to the below in Dublin a few years back?

"Oh no! I only earn £39,999 per annum gross! Man do I feel so inadequate!!" :rolleyes:

http://www.spoonfed.co.uk/london/event/speed-dating-elite-event-741172/

Raekwon

foxyboxer wrote: »

Wasn't there an event similar to the below in Dublin a few years back?

"Oh no! I only earn £39,999 per annum gross! Man do I feel so inadequate!!" :rolleyes:

http://www.spoonfed.co.uk/london/event/speed-dating-elite-event-741172/

Yeah, they are run quite regularly I believe. The next one is on in April in Café en Seine on Dawson Street in Dublin. It's called ELITE Speed Dating........yawn!

This special valentines speed dating event is strictly for professionals earning over 40K per annum.

€45 per ticket

The ticket price includes canapes and a glass of wine on arrival.

I would say that the majority of people that go to these events are a bunch of pretentious narcissists that are about as shallow as a puddle of piss.......and that's just the blokes........I dare not comment on the type of women that turn up

stylevirtuoso

Female in my very early 30's, I have never asked someone what they did other than to make conversation. I always pay my own way and l am a firm believer that if women want total equality then thats the only way to have it. This goes both ways though - male gold diggers exist too.
I am totally dumbfounded that nobody else has mentioned something I have encountered being from the country and living South Side Dublin for the last 9 years in the middle of a property boom now turned recession - guys snubbing girls for what the GIRLS do.
I know of numerous males who ask each other what their girl does - the best find is a doctor or, previously a solicitor and of course the parents must also have a gaggle of cash. These guys exist trust me! They target and trawl like professionals. They are looking for a studious girl which HUGE potential to earn and presentable enough so that the OTT flattery isn't weird just endearing.
They are usually looking at it from as much a status thing as women have been acquised off - i.e. if I land this bird I can afford a better house , a ski, sun and "cultural experience" holiday every year... the Range Rover, the second home..... perhaps even a mistress or two.
If its time for honesty then this demographic (yes, I'm not saying this is a generalisation merely a subsection of the male pop) needs to be included too.[/B][/B]

metrovelvet

This thread makes me think Ireland is stuck in 1990s sex and the city feminism.

It's 2011 already, move along.