As I was reading through my usual blogs, I came across this most interesting and highly debatable post on The Dog's Name.
While Indy has his own opinions (well-backed up as usual) on the subject and I know that there are many people out there who feel the same way, I disagreed with this so much that I had to blog about it (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Indy):
"Women will give a less than physical perfect man a chance to show he has possibilities...a man won't give you a chance unless he finds you physically perfect (which is different for every guy, but it still holds true)"
" A guy will assess you very quickly by looks along, he will "thin-slice" you into either a yes or a no, just as women do. As he gets to know you he will either downgrade you as he finds you have no characteristics he admires beyond looks, or upgrade you if you do. But if you are an initial "no" then chances are he won't even give you the time to show him your "deeper" qualities. Women tend to have a third intitial classification which could be termed "maybe" and it is from the maybe catagory that a man may advance his cause with "deeper" characteristics."
I am obviously not a guy, but I have a hard time believing this. I mean, "if you are an initial "no" then chances are he won't even give you the time to show him your "deeper" qualities," are men really this shallow?
I understand that looks are that important. But I find it hard to believe that there isn't a guy out there who went out a with a woman who wasn't "physically perfect" to him who then later changed his mind. Either by learning more about her or by other means. It may not happen often but I think it's a bit of a stretch to insinuate that most men would never give a girl a second chance if she isn't as perfect as he is used to (I know many guys who've at least slept with women they've called a "bag head"...of course, not the most knoble of men, but still...)
But then again, I may be way off on this (men baffle me).
Of course Indy's point in the blog was that women are that shallow as well. Not so much with looks, but with money: "While you might argue that no-one you knows would go out with a man for money, how many do you know that would go out with a man if he had none?"
Now I'm not one to be called a feminist, far from it, but I had the impression in this day and age that women were kind of done with the whole gold-dogging attitude of generations past. Yes, if you do open gossip magazines you read about trophy wives and rich men with young women, but that's not the general population. I personally don't know many women who would turn down a man because he doesn't make enough money and I certainly don't know any women that are dating men because they have money.
Maybe I don't hang out with shallow enough people, I don't know. But from the way I see it, most women these days are out there in the work world and bringing in the big bucks like the men do. No, there is no equal pay yet for women and yes men do earn a lot more. But women are more independent, more ambitious (look at the number of women who put off childbirth to further their career), I just don't see that it is even neccessary for a woman to depend on a man for money. Yes in the earlier times it was, as women didn't have a real place in the workforce, but that can no longer be used as an excuse.
And just because a man has no money, in no way implies he has no ambition, so that can't be used as an excuse either. Many talented and ambitious writer, artists, social workers all have promising careers and motivation up the ying yang and yet don't make much. It would be silly to insinuate that money is important in a man because it implies he has ambition.
While some might find that women get defensive about this subject because we can not admit how truly shallow we are, I just can't agree.
Yes, I understand that looks and money can and do play major parts in our relationships. But insinuate that men won't settle for anything less than "physical perfection" in a partner and that women wouldn't give a poor man a chance is a bit too risky for me.
(BTW this is not an attack on Indy at all, for I can understand where he is coming from and his opinions are very honest, I just merely found that the comment section on his blog was too enclosed for a debate. I also know that there are people who would agree or disagree with my views, as well as Indy's, and this is why blogging can be such great fodder for argument ).