Search Box

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Judging women

In a post on August 16th, I quoted a feminist who had commented on this blog that "men aren't judged primarily on their appearance, as women are."

This is something that a lot of feminists seem to believe, and is worth exploring.

What feminists don't understand is that judging a woman as a human being and judging her as a potential sex partner are two completely different things. Some women seem to think they are one and the same. I'm a fairly typical guy in this regard: I judge women the same way I judge men: on their intelligence, toughness, sense of humor, friendliness, honesty, and lack of egocentrism.

Now, judging a woman as a potential sex partner is another matter entirely. A woman's sexual desirability is almost purely a matter of her looks.

But I don't conflate the two.

(Likewise, I'm capable of saying, wow, he's a good-looking guy, and not mistaking that quality for character.)

Do a woman's looks affect her personality? I'd say IQ and sociopathy are distributed more or less randomly. But it's my vague impression that the women with the most pleasing personalities tend to be 6's, 7's, and 8's. (And yes, I'm using the numerical ratings so despised by feminists, but I'm using them for the sake of convenience, not as a measure of anyone's overall worth as a human being.)

Women who are 9's and 10's tend to be spoiled, and to think themselves far more interesting than they are. Most have developed somewhat passive personalities, as so much in life just gets handed to them. I also tend to associate them with a certain type of craziness, as a fair number of the ones I've known have had eating issues.

Women who are 3's, 4's, and 5's tend to be a little boring, as they sometimes lack social confidence. But they also tend to be the most accomplished. (Go to any Ivy League campus and you'll see they predominate.)

Women who are 1's and 2's can end up bitter against men. Sometimes to the point where they become fire-breathing feminists.

Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to all of these tendencies. And I have no scientific basis for any of this, just some vague personal impressions.

But, the main point here is -- and I think I can speak for most guys when I say this -- I never confuse looks with character.

Nor do I confuse gender with personality, as the feminist quoted above seems to do.


Anonymous said...

I'm curious, what would your example of a perfectly average looking woman be, and what would a "perfect ten" (assuming such exists) be? Maybe name a couple celebrity examples.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Honestly, beauty is in the eye, as they say, so for me to lilt my ideas of what constitutes average and a ten would be a little silly. But, since I"m a silly guy, and I hate it when people beg off questions with such platitudes, here goes anyway.

My examples of tens were listed in the following post:

I suppose average-looking women might include politicians like recent Cabinet member Kathleen Sebelius, or SEC Commissioner Mary Schapiro or Angela Merkel. That may be a little unfair as I'm comparing young actresses to middle-aged women (who may had been better-looking when younger), but you get the idea.

Anonymous said...

It is fundamentally true that women are more discriminating in their choice of mate – more likely to choose based on ability to provide for their future children etc, etc.

But – do most women have sex fantasies about Brad Pitt or Jonah Hill?

And in terms of short term sex partners – a lot of women would jump into bed with some stud in college.

The balance is much different – but I think the same factors do play, even if to a lesser extent, on the female side.

Which makes all the anguish coming from feminists about the male focus on female beauty less credible.

John Craig said...

Ed --
All true, thank you.

Steven said...

A friend once amusingly said to me that a 0 is a woman with no arms and legs.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yikes, your friend is worse than me.

Steven said...

I just read this in an a article about porn:

"As for the argument that it objectifies women, well, of course it does – and what’s wrong with objectification? Contrary to many of my feminist peers, I don’t consider it short-hand for dehumanisation."

Doesn't sexual desire for somebody who walks past you in the street necessarily objectify them- turn them into a sex object- for men or women? Don't we all have that as part of our sexuality- seeing others as physical bodies we are turned on by? I don't even like the term.

'The old are kind, the young are hot,
love may be blind, desire is not'
-L Cohen.

Does the media sexualise women more than men? yes, probably. I recently saw a collage of GQ covers and all the men had suits while all the women were posing in a provocatively sexual.

Do men generally focus on women's bodies (objectify them) more than vice versa? I don't know but if they do, its probably related to our evolved psychology- women may be more interested in other things like confidence, sense of humour and status. They are also interested in looks but perhaps for men it is a bigger part of the pie of what makes somebody sexually attractive.

In a long term relationship, I'm sure men still do very much value personality and character.

Some musings for you.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Thanks, I agree with your balanced and commonsensical musings completely. Yes, men and women evolved differently, but neither gender is immune to beauty.

And if men are not valued for their looks, why are the models in GQ and elsewhere always young and good-looking?

Mike said...

John, I read this and thought,he said that in a perfectly reflective way that I would (you more eloquently than I would have) Some women I've known said that they look at things like a man's hands (and maybe a few other parts..) I once gave a my shirt to a friend's girlfriend who had fallen in a creek. He stood there like a dumbass while she shivered. I had on a t-shirt, so I wasn't going to freeze. When she returned it a week later, she told me I smelled great. She got another chance to check that out after she dumped his lame ass.
So I think the olfactory has a good bit to do with it also.
I think Sting, (of all people) once derided fragrances; he said that people started splashing them on in the middle ages when it was not possible to bathe for 6 months... Of course I use deoderant myself.
I think you are spot on in re: to 9's and 10's having developed a way to look right through someone they deem unworthly of their attention. I tend to focus on the positive attributes of a woman's beauty. She might have gorgeous eyes, or nice hair. Maybe she is a 4 or 5, but if she is friendly and with it intelligence wise, I can run with that. If I compliment a girl, I tell them I'm married, but just like to recognize a pretty girl, usually gets me off the hook as being a dirty old man (58)
Sorry to ramble, John, like your observations.

John Craig said...

Mike --
Thank you.

Nice move with the t-shirt.

Interesting about fragrances having developed during the Middle Ages, makes sense.

I'm not sure that disclaimer about being married would get me off the hook, I suspect it would just make me look like an even dirtier old man.