« New comment policy | Main | Breastfeeding and IQ »

November 14, 2007

Comments

That Columbia U. speed dating experiment Dowd cites had another finding, which unlike the men-like-hott-chix finding is genuinely surprising: women are much less likely than men to accept the idea of interracial/interethnic dating and marriage. If a man thinks a woman is attractive and otherwise desirable he generally doesn't much care what race or ethnicity she is. Women, in contrast, are more likely to prefer to date within their own groups.

I would be cynical and say that men's lack of strong racial/ethnic preferences is a consequence of the Woman Shortage - beggars can't be choosers, and all that - but in fact I don't really think it's that simple.

Peter,

That IS interesting. Maybe strong race preferences among men got selected against, as they limit one's chances at seed-spreading? Whereas they were selected for among women, because women invest so much more, genetically, in every child they conceive and feel safer with a familiar-seeming father?

Maybe strong race preferences among men got selected against, as they limit one's chances at seed-spreading? Whereas they were selected for among women, because women invest so much more, genetically, in every child they conceive and feel safer with a familiar-seeming father?

That sounds quite reasonable.

overeducated and overearning women are slowly weeding themselves out of the gene pool.

it's the passive contribution to the emerging idiocracy.

Once again, men just seem to be showing good common sense to avoid women like the one from the quote above.

From my experience in the "underclass", there is admittedly some discrimination by women, but a good number of it is from the men as well. Not because they don't like the idea of powerful women and dismiss them like soulless and unfeminine like some men do, but because there are some men who feel uncomfortable with being the loser in their relationships. Since I refuse to date women who have finished college and have good careers, and girls who are younger than me, I've more or less closed off any possibility for a relationship until I finish school. I don't need the pyschological pain of wondering if she really loves me, or if she'll leave me for another man who is richer and has a college degree. Frankly, I don't want to be a drag on her and her finances, and it's best that I wait until I meet her level so I would be able to date a proper woman. Dating a young woman just reinforces my own screw ups, and dating a woman my age who didn't finish school is impossible since those women are the low IQ ghetto/white trash women that nobody wants to date or be affiliated with in public in any type of long term relationship.

She also trots out "the men are too busy dating young bimbos to look at me" lament. The whole article is another set of excuses about why she's still single.

Once again good old Maureen Dowdy is fighting the good fight for women everywhere, trying to use guilt to get men to give up their sexist ways.

Unfortunately, only the men that women are least interested are likely to take the message to heart.

Women's racial preferences may be influenced by the widespread use of the Pill.

I remember an Americam woman friend. "I like good restaurants." "Oh?" "Yes, I don't care about the food but the restaurant has to have class."

Marc: what does one have to do with the other? Why is it riskier for a woman to settle down with a man of another race than it is for a man to settle down with a woman of another race?

Women might have some conflicting cuckolding strategy signals for race, since they couldn't pass a child off on a same-race cuckold. That seems like a reach, though.

Makes me kind of wish that the NY Times never made her column free.

Remember the glorious days when the NYT op-eds were mericfully locked behind the subscription wall, and you could go to the "Most Emailed" page and easily find the most worthwhile current articles? Now the ME signal-to-noise filter is flooded with opinion column spam, and it's much harder to find the quality articles.

While men seem to prefer "hott chix", it's obviously not essential; just look at all the extremely unattractive married or otherwise attached women. I think people's preferences in the extremely artificial environment of speed dating are not really a good reflection of their actual decision-making.

While men seem to prefer "hott chix", it's obviously not essential; just look at all the extremely unattractive married or otherwise attached women.

I've never understood that phenomenon myself. Is their desire to be with somebody so overwhelming that they'll overlook the unattractiveness of their partner? I don't think it's sex since one would presume than an ugly sex partner would reduce sexual attractiveness.

Oh boy, nothing like a Dowd article about M-F relations to get the ol' boys steaming. She was simply pointing out that nothing has changed in such a long time -- men still prefer bimbos -- best are sexy-looking non-(financially) threatening chicks. Wow, what a revelation.

When the guys evolve a little bit more, the chicks (presumably also evolving) will have a little better selection, and the whole race will improve, yay!

Re: Racial preferences, my hypothesis is this:

When a girl meets a new guy, she's much more likely to be thinking about getting married.

When a guy meets a new girl, he's more likely to be thinking about getting laid.

A white guy who would prefer to marry a white girl might not mind having a girlfriend who is not white.

i.e. guys are more willing than girls to date somebody who is not marriage material for them.


Aaah, the dating game. I wonder what their WORDSUM scores were. :)

Money is generally one of the biggest reasons for divorces. Seems like it's one of the biggest reasons for breakups too.

Anyway, the above quote that Half Sigma attributed to Dowd is actually a quote from *another* article, not her own. Let's be fair around here for once. One of these days Half Sigma will learn to not let his prejudice interfere with interpretation of what he's reading (yeah right!).

It's obvious that Dowd's piece is yet another variation of the "men are scared of smart women" theory of gender relations.

Maureen Dowd should do her research as to how people really live their lives - hp: According to this year's Current Population Survey research of 50,000 households, women who have graduate degrees and/or top salaries are more likely to marry than their less accomplished sisters. Among 35- to 39-year-old women, some 88% with advance degrees have married compared with 81% of women without college degrees.

I think this is Maureen's personal problem rather than a major issue for educated women.

Men are scared of women who are more successful than them. I have a theory. Because women tend to have better social skills on average, smart women are less likely to fall off the social skills cliff that affects excessively smart men. Hence intelligence tracks success better for women.

HS can confirm or deny this by redoing his IQ versus money analysis on men and women separately.

I think this is Maureen's personal problem rather than a major issue for educated women.

Yes, it's been a pet issue of hers for years. She still is very beautiful, and apparently has been "romantically linked" to Senators and A-list actors. But it's possible she's not quite as in demand as she was during her fertile years, which she apparently considers a national crisis.

I think she'd be happy if:
1. Men were as enamored with her Pulitzer as she is with their Senate seats.

2. She could retain as much of her SMV (sexual market value) with age as Senators and Michael Douglas types do.

I don't have much sympathy for her. Most women even in their prime can't be a contender for a Senator or Michael Douglas. If she can contend for uber-alphas like that, then she could have surely found a handsome, intelligent, and accomplished man (perhaps a good-but-not-famous attorney, or corporate vice president) who would not be intimidated by her achievements. But she seems to have overshot even her considerable gifts in this area, boo hoo.

Theory: Dowd, with all her nonsense, is obviously smart and ambitious. Yet, men don't like her. Her conclusion: Men don't like smart & ambitious women (not men just don't like me because of my numerous personal defects).

An honest comparison between herself and other equally intelligent and educated (and undoubtedly less obnoxious) women - who are in fact more likely to have a husband than less educated or less intelligent women for obvious reasons - might really clear things up for her.

I found that Columbia study very suspect.

Small sample size (12 black women) of humanity grad students at a liberal university a poor proxy for the general population.

Its amazing how poor a study can by and still be accepted as long as the news media can still get a story out of it. Slate just had a credulous article on how women have to wait 20 seconds longer for their drinks at coffee shops. When you actually read the study you can see that its construction is so poor that it was a total waste of the investigators time- indeed if this project actual had any purpose in the first place.

Probably no point more than generating a few headlines, which it did.

A good-looking woman is a good-looking woman, regardless of her race. And guys like good-looking women. I don't think it's much more complicated than that. I think every guy here can think of women he has seen from other ethnic groups that he finds attractive.

I think "Maureen Dowd complaining about something" should be her column's new title.

When will they bring back TimesDelete?

I think she'd be happy if:
She could retain as much of her SMV (sexual market value) with age as Senators and Michael Douglas types do.

Maureen Dowd actually was "involved" with Michael Douglas at one time.

The comments to this entry are closed.