« Your move, Mike | Main | Nifong's Swan Song »

Women and Men and Societal Lies

I was listening to a popular FM radio station this morning on the way to my bus, and I heard a discussion between a male and female disk jockey about what sort of person each gender finds attractive. The female disk jockey opined, as is common, that men judge women primarily by their physical appearance, while women are more likely to look below the surface. The male disk jockey countered that by noting that women are quick to overlook character flaws in a handsome male, such as Brad Pitt or Russell Crowe. A quick consideration brought me to the guy's side; a glance at magazine covers, top-name stars and calendar models reveals that women are every bit as attracted to physical beauty as men, but they are apparently more willing to lie about their motive. After all, there's a reason why firefighter calendars sell out in days, but there is no demand for calendars with accountants known for their integrity. Women first judge men by their appearance just as often as men do women. The difference in actual lewd conduct seems to be far more due to environmental opportunity and peer pressure, than to a superior ethical position for one gender.

Society lies. The male/female stereotypes are one example, but there are many other places where a little contemplation shows the conventional opinion to be far from accurate. Rising gas prices must be the result of corporate greed rather than poor planning by governments, for example, or that the party which historically supported Slavery and resisted Civil Rights legislation, is yet the party which best defends minorities and looks out for their rights. Or the claim that talk radio, which allows direct feedback from listeners, is unfair and biased, while network television, which not only does not allow for counterviews to its positions, but has also been caught in several deliberate frauds in recent years, is still somehow more professional and responsible. Or the notion that only one race can act in a racist manner. Or the claim that the nation which frees a country from a despot, is worse than that dictatorship for protecting itself.


Comments (39)

DJ,Good post. I w... (Below threshold)
Matt:

DJ,

Good post. I would suggest that the difference in lewd conduct is not as pronounced as you think. It has been my observation that many women are just as capable and willing to engage in lewd conduct as men are. They are generally a little more circumspect in what they blurt out when in mixed company though.

Ultimately looks are superficial... When looks fade a person better have a bank-account sufficient to keep the romance going.

DJ,You're absolute... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

DJ,

You're absolutely right. I have grown tired over the years of women who have been attracted to me for purely physical purposes.

The comment above was somew... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

The comment above was somewhat tongue in cheek (not wholly).

But it is an issue that the physical attraction has led itself to women choosing men who will not be supportive and emotionally kind and be family-oriented.

If women continue to choose based on physical appearance, it is not only the guys like Lee Ward who suffer in the short term, but the women themselves as well.

Somehow I fooled my beautif... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Somehow I fooled my beautiful wife into being attracted to me. Luckily, being a sensible woman, she had no desire for a "bad boy", and she has since shown me how smart I was to let her catch me!

We're mostly homosexuals tr... (Below threshold)
kim:

We're mostly homosexuals trapped in the opposite sex's bodies. And we're nearly all beasts with two backs.
==================================

And in this aspect I do thi... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

And in this aspect I do think that conservatives need to admit the undeniable positives about both John Kerry and Bill Clinton. They did not pick their partners based on physical attributes.

Marriage partners, anyway.<... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Marriage partners, anyway.

I disagree respectfully, ne... (Below threshold)
kim:

I disagree respectfully, nehemiah. I understand Bill was leering at Hillary in the Yale library and she called his bluff. The rest, as they say, is history. I'm a great admirer of her daughter.

I also don't believe Theresa is physically unattractive. It's the use of her money that repels. Don't men who marry for money work hardest for it?

Heh, sometimes pronouns are so revelatory; I almost changed that one to 'their'.
======================

Kim mentions Bill leering a... (Below threshold)

Kim mentions Bill leering at Hillary.

Interest in the thread immediately dies off.

Coincidence?

Well, in my early 20's, I w... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Well, in my early 20's, I would have leered at Stabenow.

OK, I exaggerate, but you get the point.

Sure. Or the notion that De... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sure. Or the notion that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible in office. Or the notion that the media is biased towards liberals. Or the notion that those who disagree with a President do so because they hate him, and not because they have legitimate concerns.

It's always easy to see the mote in someone else's eye...but one's own illusions tend to be quite a bit more difficult to accept. What other people believe is clearly beliefs, while we each think we individually don't really have illusions. We each of us humans, of all political and religious worldviews, each think that our worldview is not a deceptive approximation based on our own prejudices; no, the way we think is just "the way it really is".

Well Jim, that last paragra... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Well Jim, that last paragraph you wrote sure describes yourself almost perfectly, but I'm not sure what you mean by "we".

If by "we" you me far leftists and far righties, than I'll agree. If you mean, all humans, than you are off the mark.

Your first paragraph was very humorous though.

Thanks for proving my point... (Below threshold)
jim:

Thanks for proving my point, P. Bunyan.

The irony is delicious.

By the way, the Clinton administration was fiscally responsible and brought us a surplus; the so-called Liberal media jumped all over the Clinton impeachment and overwhelmingly supported the Iraq invasion; and Pat Buchanan has made a great deal of the same arguments liberals do about this President and his war.

But those facts always seem to slip out of focus, because they dont' fit the ideology...and the ideology isn't viewed as an ideology, because it's "just the way it is".

Holy Cow,Are you f... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Holy Cow,

Are you for real, jim?

You mean the Reagan surplus and the Clinton recession (which economists acknowledge), right? Or is it "just the way it is" for you?

Like I said...... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Like I said...

Aha hahahhaha!!!!O... (Below threshold)
jim:

Aha hahahhaha!!!!

OK then.

I could go into the economics of it, get deep into why supply-side really is voodoo economics; remind many of you that Reagan actually raised taxes 3 times in his 2nd term, and how the 90's boom resulted from Clinton doing the exact opposite of supply-side theories;

But that would only prove my initial point further: it is a natural tendency of each person to think that other people's worldviews are opinions, while that person's is the only way things "really are".

And then I could get all quantum physics about it too.

But instead, I'll just say that you're right. Those humans who are conservatives are divinely chosen by God - a registered Republican - and given the one true correct outlook on the universe, and all others have opininos.

Oh, and here's another fasc... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, and here's another fascination aspect of humanity:

If someone you hate was in charge when something good happened, they can't be responsible for it.

Thus we have the fascinating case of Reagan being responsible for the Clinton-era boom....but not the H.W. Bush recession. And of course, Carter not being responsible for the Reagan boom.

On the other side of things, we have Giuliani being credited with lowering NY crime during his first term as Mayor. And not Dinkins, who happened to be from the other party, even though the crime rate started dropping while Dinkins was still in office.

Can we give Carter the cred... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Can we give Carter the credit for the release of the hostages on the day of the Reagan inauguration? After all, he missed it by just one day (after over a year of fruitless negotiation)?

OK. Can we also give Reagan... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK. Can we also give Reagan credit for secretly selling arms to Iran? Among many other legal and moral crimes lumped together as the mess of Iran-Contra?

Or is that something that didn't happen, because it doesn't fit the ideology?

By the way, I've never hear... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

By the way, I've never heard of this "Carter economic boom". If you can explain it to me with your non supply side economics and your non-quantum physics, I will actually consider becoming a liberal. I had always heard that the economy under Carter was horrendous, with gas price hikes, double digit inflation, etc. Who knew it done on purpose to usher in the "boom". What a genius. Too bad he lost 44 states in his re-election bid.

Someone's looks are almost ... (Below threshold)

Someone's looks are almost always the first thing that attracts another. Male or female. The only difference is that in the longer run women are more likely to overlook a man's personality faults if he has enough money and a man is more willing to overlook a woman's personality faults if she looks good enough on his arm.

The first thing we experien... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

The first thing we experience when meeting new people is visual.
If there is a physical "attraction" it will be felt then.

The differences between men and women will then come into effect.
Women will make concessions on looks, for lets say financial security, emotional needs etc.
Guys............ummmmm well I'm sure guys make concessions some where, I'll have to do more research ..lol joking

The point I took from this post is, that pertaining either to men and women or society, one must always try to look deeper than just the surface.

By the way, I've never h... (Below threshold)
jim:

By the way, I've never heard of this "Carter economic boom".

Nehemiah, here's my point:

To credit all of Clinton's successes to H.W. Bush or Reagan's administration, makes just as much sense as crediting all of Reagan's success to Carter's administration.

But both of these would be a result of someone not realizing that their opinion - that either Clinton ***or*** Reagan was the most evil, horrible President in living memory.

When people take their opinions as facts, and everyone else's opinions as simply and plainly wrong, then they will be led to make these sorts of conclusions, that are blind to more complicated realities.

Above should read:... (Below threshold)
jim:

Above should read:

"But both of these resulting assessments would be a result of someone not realizing that their opinion - that either Clinton ***or*** Reagan was the most evil, horrible President in living memory - was based on their *worldviews*.

Taking worldviews to either of these extremes is what can result when one does not fully realize their **worldview** is not fact - just at best an **approximation** of reality that must be left flexible enough for contrary information to be allowed to merge."

Above should read:... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Above should read:

"Yes, I know I'm just another lefty trying to hijack a thread about men and women to try and drum up support for my political viewpoints based on false premise."

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

just another lefty tryin... (Below threshold)
jim:

just another lefty trying to hijack a thread about men and women...

Interesting theory, John F Not Kerry.

Sorry, what was the whole second half of this article?

The male/female stereotypes are one example, but there are many other places where a little contemplation shows the conventional opinion to be far from accurate. Rising gas prices must be the result of corporate greed rather than poor planning by governments, for example, or that the party which historically supported Slavery and resisted Civil Rights legislation, is yet the party which best defends minorities and looks out for their rights. Or the claim that talk radio, which allows direct feedback from listeners, is unfair and biased, while network television, which not only does not allow for counterviews to its positions, but has also been caught in several deliberate frauds in recent years, is still somehow more professional and responsible. Or the notion that only one race can act in a racist manner. Or the claim that the nation which frees a country from a despot, is worse than that dictatorship for protecting itself.

Huh. Seems like men and women weren't discussed at all, and non-conservative viewpoints on a variety of issues were discussed instead.

So I don't consider responding to this by showing you guys there might be a mote in your eye too, as "hijacking the thread."

What is it that made you forget about this whole second half of the article?

Your dazzling intellect!</p... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Your dazzling intellect!

His intellect dazzles himse... (Below threshold)
kim:

His intellect dazzles himself. I'm amused at all the ways he can avoid engagement.
============================

Jim is a one trick pony. ww... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim is a one trick pony. ww

Well, he's certainly convin... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, he's certainly convinced himself that his spin is the one true gyroscope. Hey, it is, in his world. And mine in mine. We're whirling while our world whirrs.

Go ahead with the quantum physics; it's been awhile since the last Uncertainty Principle uncertain discussion. Or what about the wonder of a universe intelligently discoverable?
=========================

I don't think that women ar... (Below threshold)

I don't think that women are prone to look beneath the surface. I know too many of them who have made the worst possible decisions and have the most unrealistic expectations. (The same sorts who'd say that not getting a "bad one" and not ending up divorced is a matter of "luck.")

Of the few men I've talked to about choosing a mate (well, one that I recall) the idea of long term and lost looks was right up front. Fantastic advice, really, the guy I was talking to said that he always tried to imagine her, 20 years in the future, waking up in the morning with the flu. Not only no looks, but sicker than a dog, cranky, crabby, and puking. In that situation would he still *like* her?

Bill has that with Hillary ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Bill has that with Hillary each morning, with a slight change of adjectives: instead of "sicker" in the last sentence above, replace with "uglier".

You ride the bus?</p... (Below threshold)
Paul A'Barge:

You ride the bus?

"...he always tried to imag... (Below threshold)
LAB:

"...he always tried to imagine her, 20 years in the future"

Synova, I wonder about that, especially if he'd only known her for two minutes. Relationships are a bit of an effort, and not even happily married couples "like" each other all the time. Beneath the surface, there are a lot of intangible elements that will link two people together. Some of us still have to come to terms as to what the act of marriage means on a personal level, but this man's perspective would explain why he is still "single".

Oh, I'm pretty sure that he... (Below threshold)

Oh, I'm pretty sure that he took more than two minutes before deciding he couldn't live with a woman. ;-)

But I think that he was taking the effort of a relationship into account and the fact that he wouldn't feel the same every day and that there would be bad days.

I think that's wise, and rather perceptive. I doubt very much that he's still single and I expect that if he got married, he's still married.

Love can blind a person to reality. This is just imagining a moment in time when there is no attraction, no glamour of emotion, and asking, "Do I *like* this person? Could I live with this person on the bad days?"

I know too many people who are "in love" but don't "like" the other person. I'm not talking about getting into a spat, being cross or cranky, or just having an off day. I'm talking about they don't *like* the person... it's just that they are in love.

It's stupid.

And ends badly.

Synova, I see what you are ... (Below threshold)
LAB:

Synova, I see what you are saying. When I first read your comment, it sounded like you were speaking of some men that were still looking. I have never been able to separate like and love, however. That is just my perspective. :)

It is a modern, and mistake... (Below threshold)
kim:

It is a modern, and mistaken, notion, that marriage is supposed to lead to happiness.

Half do, half don't, no matter what the rules or results of the preliminary bouts.

I'd guess that sex doubles the natural odds of 25%
==================================

So... I managed a google se... (Below threshold)

So... I managed a google search that actually found that guy I mentioned. I got an e-mail back. He's been married for 20 years, too. :-)


And kim, you're right about that the idea that marriage is supposed to lead to happiness is a mistaken notion. Not that being happy is a bad thing or something people shouldn't want in life but my advice, if I were to give only one bit of advice, is to never make your spouse responsible for your happiness. No one deserves that burden.

It ain't heavy, it's my bot... (Below threshold)
kim:

It ain't heavy, it's my bother.
==================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy