Western vs. Thai Women

Here is a link to a very interesting article I found, about Western Women and Thai Women:

http://www.stickmanbangkok.com/reader/reader1029.html

Intellectual and Professional Women

This post is a slightly-edited version of a comment I left at GL’s blog in response to a feminist’s claim that…

“Men date women, arguably, who reflect themselves and satisfy their ideals of what a woman should be. That is why it is fairly common for men to date women with the same educational or professional background, for instance. It goes without saying that smart men find smart women attractive or that employed men would also want their partner to be professionally employed as well. Imitation is the best form of flattery so it is not surprising that men seek women who are mirror images of themselves.”**

I find this to be a completely bizarre argument. It is derived from feminst-Marxist-egalitarian doctrine. Men do not date women who “reflect themselves” and are “mirror images” of themselves. Throughout history, great Men such as World Leaders, Scientists, Entrepreneurs, etc. have married traditional, SAHM-type women, and many have attributed their success partly to the support of their wives in their homelife, etc. This has been the norm throughout most of human history, except for the last 50-odd years in the West, which really represents a crazy anomaly in the greater scheme of things.

As for the fact that Men should date women from the same educational & professional background etc… this is something that we have been brainwashed into believing by the feminist-media and popular culture. And in my experience, most thinking Men eventually grow out of this brainwashing.

I’m not here to boast, but I am something of an intellectual. I am a professional, a Masters’ graduate, Mensa member, etc. But the fact of the matter is… a woman’s academic or professional accomplishments are VERY VERY LOW on my own list of requirements for a potential girlfriend or spouse. I am much more interested in her level of physical fitness and attractiveness, and qualities like a pleasant disposition, emotional intelligence/sensitivity, loyalty, character, etc. These are CULTURAL things not taught at any University. For a long-term relationship, I would also look for things like domestic skills, a positive attitude to child-rearing, etc.

Any academic/intellectual stuff is more like a minor, optional bonus. Not an essential requirement by any means. If I want to have an intellectual conversation, I can phone my stockbroker. Or come chat on the blogs.

I have no desire to sleep with some other corporate clone. Such a man-woman contributes nothing new or different into my life. I might as well sleep with another Man. (Not.)

And by the way, isn’t wanting to have sex with someone who is “a mirror image” of yourself is the sign of a narcissist?

Sorry feminists, but we’re just not buying what you’re selling anymore.

(**The entire original article can be viewed at: http://www.polishmarriage.org/Stories/submissive-women.html)

Bad Boys, Badder Girls, and An Ugly View Of Life

Women’s attraction to “jerks” and “bad boys” is a well-known occurrence. You know… that phenomenon where all the pretty (and not-so-pretty) women run after the 5% of guys who are unemployed, drug-addicted, possibly-criminal gangsters, or worse. While all the time totally ignoring their more polite, cultured, accomplished, and intelligent counterparts.

Now this issue has been debated ad nauseum, both in the blogosphere and elsewhere. The general consensus that seems to have been reached is that this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Bad boys are subconsciously perceived by women as being “strong”; and this is some sort of innate genetic thing. Call of The Wild and all of that.

So that’s that then.

Then again, maybe not…

A few years back, I read about a study that was conducted sometime during the 70’s or 80’s. Researchers asked highschoolers from 2 different countries to choose which of their classmates they considered to be the most popular and attractive, and give reasons for their choices.

Now, one of these groups was American, and the other was Chinese (or maybe Japanese, I don’t recall exactly). The results of this survey were interesting…

The American results were as one would have expected from a Western country. The extroverted, aggressive, sporty/cheerleader types won the vote hands down.

The Asian results, however, were the exact opposite. The majority of the Asian students voted their quiet, introverted, sensitive, and intellectual classmates as being the most popular and attractive…

Their responses indicated their appreciation of these types for their reserved dignity & leadership, intelligence, and empathetic advocacy, among other things.

Now I can imagine that this has probably changed somewhat within the last 30+ years with the amount of Westernisation that has taken place in East Asia.

But the broader point here is that this suggests that attractiveness and popularity are more a result of culture and socialisation, than they are genetic. Our ideas of what we think are attractive qualities, physically and personality-wise, are informed by the messages we receive from the culture we live in, including the media.

The post-60’s Western culture has made “good” “bad” and “bad” “cool”. And the overwhelming majority of modern Western[ised] Women are psychological basketcases, wrecked by Feminism and the Cult of Entitlement that have taught them that they can do no wrong, and jaded from a lifetime (however long or short) of promiscuity in a permissive society.

They say that “water always finds its own level”. Given that so many Western Women are a psychological mess, is it any wonder that they are attracted to those Men who as just as messed up as they are?

Money: A Sign of Greater Virtues?

“Real women love rich men not for their money, but for their qualities that brought that money.”

This post was inspired by an article entitled Rich Man and Russian Brides: Poor-Guy-Good-Girl Test Failed over at Natalie’s blog. The basic premise behind this article is that there exists a strong correlation between a Man’s material wealth, and his possession of greater qualities like intelligence, competence, “virility”, “vitality” and a “great personality”.

I’ll be specifically addressing the (supposed) correlation between Money and these Greater Qualities in this post; and I’ll be discussing some further issues in Part 2.

(The context of this article is, of course, that of Western Men seeking Russian/FSU Wives, but I think the issues can be generalised fairly easily.)

In her article, Natalie tells us that…

“[Material wealth is] Just one more Secondary Sexual Characteristic for a Homo Sapiens. [...] social success is no substitute to other Virile Virtues, – it is nothing but an essential[??] [...] evidence of them… Like lion’s mane and rooster’s spurs used aptly to overcome other males, it indicates vitality [...]”

Not necessarily. Why? Well… let’s start by talking about Serious Wealth.

Serious Wealth has two main sources: Inheritance and Entrepreneurship.

Now… Entrepreneurship almost never starts before age 35, so the majority of budding entrepreneurs would not have accumulated serious wealth before the age of at least 40. Given that the median age of Men seeking FSU Women is 37, by using material wealth as evidence of greater “vitality”, what one has effectively done is…

[a] Eliminated over 50% of Men [all those under 40] who do have the “vitality” to generate serious wealth (or which is supposedly indicated by serious wealth) but have not accumulated it yet.* ; and

[b] Given a free pass to an even larger proportion of Men [almost all the rich ones under 40 and a good proportion of those older…] who have “family money”.. i.e. wealthy primarily due to Inheritance and not significant efforts on their own part… which I’m sure you’ll agree is not (necessarily) an indicator of any greater qualities.

[*Of course I assume here that they do, nevertheless, have ADEQUATE resources to maintain a family.]

Now, lets take a More Middle Class Example…

Here, the issue of REAL WEALTH vs. PERCEIVED WEALTH comes strongly into play…

This best illustrated using an example (and I’ll use American currency throughout for simplicity…) Take two Western Guys, John and Steve. John earns $ 30 000 a year, and Steve earns double that, $ 60 000 a year…

John buys himself a $ 50 000 car [on some residual plan that takes a huge chunk out of his salary every month, plus will bite him in the ass later on.]

Bling, Bling.

Steve, being more responsible, buys a much more modest $ 35 000 car. Steve’s excess income goes into savings, investments, property, whatever. John meanwhile gets further into debt buying more Bling… designer clothes, etc.

Now John and Steve goes to Russia to woo the some lovely Natasha, Svetlana, Olga, or whoever. (John with his not-yet-paid-for designer clothes, and pictures of his $50k car in tow… ) Now the punch-line…

Steve is actually both WEALTHIER and (more importantly) more MATURE, SENSIBLE and RESPONSIBLE than John, but is unlikely to be perceived as such.

I should add that, in the West including the U.S. this behaviour [John's] is more the norm than the exception… & thus apparent material wealth becomes a very poor indicator of actual wealth [in this earnings bracket], let alone greater qualities.

(And yes, this story is a tad silly, but I think it does effectively illustrate the point.)

This situation may also be exacerbated by the backgrounds of the individuals concerned… suppose these guys are both professionals in their late 20′s or early 30′s; and John comes from a much wealthier family than Steve…

Even if Steve is smarter, more hardworking, earning more – he will have issues like paying off student loans, taking care of parents, etc… while John’s education, first car, first apartment even may have been wholly or partly financed by Daddy.

I’ll be writing more on this in a while, so please do stay tuned

Your comments & suggestions, and (constructive) criticism are most welcome.

(To Be Continued in Part 2)