jews and palestinians?
a little skirmish
capulets and montagues?
childs play.
tutsis and hutus?
a walk in the park
bras and aretha?
nope. not even close.
there’s no bigger ongoing conflict, no deeper gulf, no wider chasm than the difference between what qualities men find attractive in women, and what qualities women think men should find attractive
this struggle has been on going for centuries, with earliest recorded evidence of its existance dating back to the 18th century and the circumstances surrounding the unfortunate courting incident involving marie antoinette’s baby sister, latonya jackson-antoinette. ***editors note. he’s totally making this up***
although it seemingly has the ability to transcend gender, this is a phenomenon unique to women. most men are typically clueless when it comes to women and their inate schizophrenicness when they’re deeming what is and isn’t attractive this week, so we’ve generally stopped wanting trying to figure it out, chalking it up to, well, women and their inate schizophrenicness. we just hope that the qualities we happen to possess are ones that they find attractive, and many times we’re genuinely surprised when they actually do.
on the other hand, not only do women typically remain intentionally (more on this tommorrow) clueless about what men find attractive, this intentional cluelessness has a nasty edge, sometimes manifesting as a literal scoffing and thumbing of the nose at what we deem important and why.
two comments left on this site perfectly illustrate my point:
1. “If a man had a choice between a degreed woman who was a bit crazy and a 6 in the looks/body department and a non-degreed, non-crazy woman that was an 8 ,he’d probably pick the non-degreed woman”
–forReal, from “link of the week: the eligible bachelor paradox”
although forReal’s comment admirably attempted to convey the general thought process of a man, the fact that she was compelled to use the qualifier “probably” lets me know that if this were the “hot/cold” game, she’d be hovering somewhere around “room temperature”.
not only is that “decision” not much of a decision at all, i’d go as far to say that no man who has existed or will ever exist in the history of the planet would ever even fathom passing over an attractive, uncrazy women for a crazier and less physically attractive woman just because the crazy chick happens to own a sheet of paper that lets people know she owes over 70 g’s in college loans.
i’m not going to say that we don’t give a sh*t about your ”paper” (because we do…a bit. your degrees look nice hanging up in the study, and, from what i’ve read, your resumes can help our kids get into the best kindergartens) but in regards to “mattractiveness”, it generally don’t matter.
yet, despite the fact that thousands of years of human history have proven time and time again which qualities men typically prioritize when seeking a romantic mate, many women refuse to believe this…implying and insisting that a man who values a women’s physical mattractiveness and maternal potential over her master’s degrees and money is completely baseless and sexist.
this state of mind is further embodied in the following comment:
2. “I mean, how many men claim to want a strong, independent woman… but really don’t? How else would you accont for the number of actual smart, attractive, strong, independent women out there who are single!? Huh?!”
–
my homie from across the pond wendy, bless her little heart, actually attempted to list adjectives such as “strong” and ”independant” in the same sentence as “attractive”, a comment which actually would have fit better in highlights magazine‘s “what doesn’t belong” section. you can even argue that in this sense, the words “strong” and “attractive” directly contradict each other.
again, i’m not saying that a woman’s “strength” and “independance” don’t matter. they’re both very admirable qualities for a marine that one should be proud of, but if wendy listed “water drinking” and “human” in lieu of strong and independant, the sentence still would have read exactly the same. one important quality surrounded by two that really dont mean sh*t.
***back tommorrow with part 2***
—the champ