Confident, assertive and ambitious...

[deleted] · 2014-10-31T21:28:51+00:00

[permanently deleted]

myfatbrokethewall · 2014-10-31T20:57:54+00:00

I don't think those are the top three qualities that women look for in men.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17380374

BBC Internet survey participants (119,733 men and 98,462 women) chose from a list of 23 traits those they considered first, second, and third most important in a relationship partner. Across all participants, the traits ranked most important were: intelligence, humor, honesty, kindness, overall good looks, face attractiveness, values, communication skills, and dependability. On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). Sexual orientation differences were smaller than sex differences in trait rankings, but some were meaningful; for example, heterosexual more than homosexual participants assigned importance to religion, fondness for children, and parenting abilities. Multidimensional scaling analyses showed that trait preference profiles clustered by participant sex, not by sexual orientation, and by sex more than by nationality. Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals' trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness. United Nations indices of gender equality correlated, across nations, with men's and women's rankings of character traits but not with their rankings of physical attractiveness. These results suggest that cultural factors had a relatively greater impact on men's and women's rankings of character traits, whereas biological factors had a relatively greater impact on men's and women's rankings of physical attractiveness.

Here is an article about it that has an image with the traits: http://www.lehmiller.com/blog/2013/6/17/do-men-and-women-prefer-different-traits-in-a-romantic-partn.html

8% of women put "ambition" in their top 3 traits. 19% put "dependability" in their top 3, which is perhaps a provider trait. 44% put "intelligence" in their top 3 which is also perhaps a provider trait. Not sure if "confidence" and "assertiveness" were on the list of traits people were voting on.

That said, it makes sense for men and women to find attractive/want to be in relationship with whatever gives their genes the best chance of long term survival.

So it makes sense for women will be attracted to traits that would have made a man a good provider and protector throughout our evolutionary history. From the perspective of biology, it's more or less the purpose of a man in a relationship. It's not like a man can bear children. So a woman will be looking for good genes but also a strong man who will keep her and their children safe and fed.

But female genes matter too. How many men would rather be with a smart woman than a dumb one for example? Mating with a dumb woman could mean dumb kids. An ambitious woman might be more likely to give birth to ambitious children.

Female ability to bear children matters as well, hence male preference for fertile women.

Is that kind of mentality in so many women conductive to gender equality? If not, why haven't any "pro-equality" feminists ever really tried to address this?

I'd think for many/most feminists "gender equality" is about equal opportunity for women (or at most equal achievement, equal standing in society, whatever). It is/was about raising women from a state where many paths in life were denied to them, about overcoming obstacles to women's ability to succeed.

I think trying to tell women not to prefer successful men would be pretty extreme. But technically it might help women achieve more professionally. Having a man offer to provide for a woman would mean she could opt out of the professional world altogether. So maybe some of the more extreme feminists who want equal outcome, or think there need to be more successful women for equal opportunity do this. I am skeptical though, they could just push the wives of successful men not to drop out of the workforce rather than tell women not to care about a man's successfulness.

Anyway, I think successfulness in a man is a threshold kind of thing. For me, once you reach a certain level there are diminishing returns on additional successfulness. A man making a middle class salary might be a lot more attractive than an unemployed man living in his parents' basement, but would a rich wall street guy be more attractive than a programmer? Meh. I think at that point other traits become more important.

lev21pirate · 2014-10-31T19:51:08+00:00

That by going after the building blocks of success(even when they don't have those traits themselves), instead of directly going after the fruits of a man's success, would be more beneficial and less risky?

I'm not sure the "fruits of a man's success" is entirely out of the equation here.

I think the context of success is important to take into account: From personal experiences, I've seen very successful (socially) men in late teens early twenties discarded after their usefulness depreciated.

They were very confident & assertive socialites: Party animals, pushers ,captain of the basketball team. The fruits of their labor , if I can borrow the expression, were access to social gatherings. The women that dated them, at that time, didn't need to invest (as much) in the logistics of weekend outings or provide money for drugs/ liquor/ tickets to shows and so on, and could focus on careers & education.

The trade off was that , for many of these guys, education came in 2nd if not last. Once we got out of school, they were stuck with mediocre job opportunities and on financial shaky grounds. And then of course they got the "Maybe we should see other people" line , were swiftly kick to the curb in favor of someone else who was in a better position to provide ; A house , trips to Europe... better clothing or whatever.

Anyways , i'm rambling off a little but i think the point im trying to make is that women place an emphasis on their physical attractiveness since they can trade it for whatever is deemed necessary at that time.

Confidence, assertiveness, ambitious are hardly things that are self evident or even constant.

[deleted] · 2014-11-01T01:37:33+00:00

When I date women, I usually go for a woman who appears interesting to me who's passionate about what they do. Someone that's driven is a huge turn on for me, and I tend to view them as above those who are not so driven.

Compare and contrast;

a date with a woman who's average looks (to your perspective) who recently acquired a biology degree, works doing conservation work and is super positive/passionate about it

To..

A date with a woman who's "hot" by your standards. This girl doesn't really have much to offer, she dropped out of community college and stayed in her hometown. She still lives with her parents and her only social activity is going out to the bar or going to a party with friends. She works a retail job that she hates but doesn't seem to be searching for many other options.

Who do you want to be with or pursue a second date with? Do you think women want to date a guy who works in a cubicle who hates his job, or the guy who's a professor and does research in a field that he's passionate about and thrives on?

In the US (I like to think of this idea as an inherent value in other western nations, or nations that value its citizens' freedom) we are GUARANTEED "the pursuit of happiness".. Doesn't it bum you out when you surround yourself with people who don't even lift a finger in pursuit of their own happiness? Why would you date them or commit to a relationship with them?

Some women prefer guys in a suit, some prefer them in some dirty old clothes torn up from a construction job, others prefer them with a badge.. Everyone's different.

fiat_lux_ · 2014-10-31T19:01:24+00:00

You're approaching the "women are sex objects, and men are success objects" trope.

I'm pretty sure that by this time, most people agree on this matter. Even feminists agree that women are treated as sex objects, though some will deny or not care that men are treated as success objects.

What most of them are fighting over with more uniformity is that, "It is that way, but it shouldn't be that way."

That goes into the ancient miscommunication/disconnects where an rper says, "X is true", and bper responds, "It shouldn't be true and you should be ashamed for supporting it."

I actually sympathize with feminist grievances on this matter on a personal level, because I personally prefer being judged on my actions (a success object, even) rather than what I've been born with.

Lucy_Furr · 2014-11-01T06:54:37+00:00

what does a man want to be valued for?

what does a woman want to be valued for?

is the answer somehow projected onto members of their preferred gender?

oh whoa, magic!

[deleted] · 2014-11-04T09:08:32+00:00

Are women who romanticize men in suits

Never ever seen this. I know some quite shallow women, but they do not romanticize guys who look like they must sit in some office all day to need to earn a living. They romanticize playboys who don't work.

The suit is today the uniform of the office drone. (i.e. myself, fuck it)

OfSpock · 2014-10-31T20:45:16+00:00

There's a lot of pressure on women to not be shallow which is why 'good looking' doesn't appear on that list.

LaLaJoy · 2014-10-31T19:15:14+00:00

These qualities seem to be, almost universally, the top three qualities that women look for in men.

I disagree.

should one assume that the women who primarily look for these qualities in men are essentially just objectifying men to nothing more than a profession or an income?

Yes.

exit_sandman · 2014-10-31T20:58:58+00:00

No on all accounts.

The qualities may be very useful for (professional) success, but the attraction for them is genuine. Our evolution made sure we were practically born being attracted to these useful traits to make sure we don't have to rationalize our preferences (ask yourself, what works better: "oh, she has enormous mammary glands, therefore she is a more valid choice as a mate to make sure my offspring survives infancy" as opposed to "breasts (drool) ..." ?)

If women truly had to rationalize their preferences that way, they would probably be attracted to the traits they profess to like, since these are on a rational level often indeed more beneficial in our times than the huge muscles and non-existent conscience of a drug-dealing thug.

GridReXX · 2014-11-01T12:28:49+00:00

I look for those qualities in everyone... Along with a host of other qualities... Empathy and kindness being a few.

I don't care if you're a woman who is a working professional or a SAHM on the board of someone's benefit GALA.

Those qualities are universally beneficial to not getting screwed over in life.

I think men take offense that women now possess those qualities but if they were honest with themselves they would recognize those qualities are just good qualities.

FollowThisAdvice · 2014-11-02T18:47:28+00:00

As a confident, assertive and ambitious man these are the top three qualities I look for in a woman too.

Valuing certain traits as indicators of a good mate isn't objectifying if you still treat them as an individual.

A philosophy such as TRP which emphasises "abundance mentality", i.e. the replacability of any given self-propelled cum recepticle (sorry I mean woman) with another is inherently objectifying - what are women in this mindset but a particularly willful sexual accessory?

Title	Confident, assertive and ambitious...
Author	ExpendableOne
Upvotes	1
Comments	83
Date	October 31, 2014 6:45 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2kwrcr/confident_assertive_and_ambitious/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/confident-assertive-and-ambitious.284476 https://theredarchive.com/post/284476

Comments