She bragged about her "awesome" friends and how they just can't seem to find a man.
So common is this it makes one sit back and say,
"OK, why is this such a common phenomenon? Why are there so many "successful, gorgeous, and amazing" friends of female journalists that just "can't seem to find a man? More so why do these journalists keep bragging about their "amazing" friends who just can't seem to find a guy?"
The answer is in the myopic view of women, especially those in journalism. They are incapable of asking what men want, and instead ply their own standards of either what they want or what they think men should want in terms of a suitable and compatible mate. This results not just in a mismatch between the traits Larissa's "successful, gorgeous and amazing" have and what men are looking for, but complete and utter confusion on the part of the ladies.
Of course to the outside observer, this is funny. Women telling women what men should like in them, is like my friend Steve telling me how I should breath while in labor. It doesn't apply. But what makes it worse is when a woman dares to ask a man what he wants OR a man simply speaks the truth about what men want, they are lambasted, lectured and villainized. Women even go so far as to TELL MEN WHAT THEY SHOULD LIKE IN A WOMAN (You ever been called "shallow?" You see the "fat acceptance" movement? You ever have a woman's personality listed as the primary reason you should date her?)
The reason for such a vitriolic response to fact and truth (instead of what it should be - acceptance) is because women have been brought up and brainwashed (primarily by their own selves) to believe what they WANT. Not what the reality is. And so any time someone dare introduce an ounce of reality into their fragile and delusional world, they get angry. Never mind that the purveyor of truth is trying to help you. Never mind this article would help Larissa's "successful, gorgeous, and amazing" friends (SGAF's henceforth). The irony/hilarity/sad thing is most women reading this right now are having their emotions blind them to the gold nugget of help we're trying to give them.
Now, even though I doubt most of Larissa's SGAF's will listen, in a vain attempt to bring an end to young female journalists wondering aloud how their "amazing" friends aren't snatched up by men, permit me some explaining. Specifically, let's look at what qualifies a woman as "gorgeous, successful and amazing" in the eyes of a woman and compare it to what men want.
When it comes to "gorgeous" women give other women, especially their friends, such a large handicap it dwarfs the tonnage of affirmative action handicap we've given to Barack Obama on the economy. I don't know how many arguments I've had with heterosexual women about how "pregnant is not beautiful." There I am, the heterosexual male. THE authority on what is or is not "gorgeous" in the female sex, and I have a bunch of women, who have NO INTENTION OR DESIRE to date other women and therefore are NOT authorities on female beauty, arguing with me about whether a pregnant woman is beautiful. "Gorgeous" means (and I'll say it again, despite saying it many times before):
Tight ass
Pretty face
Long legs
Long hair
Big boobs preferable
That's it. Period. End of discussion.
How many of the SGAF's actually have all those traits? Probably none. But Larissa can't tell her friend Amy, "You're ass is too big" and thus needs to keep the lie up.
"Successful?" I think we've covered this before. Successful in what? Engineering? Surgeon? Oil platform driller? Accountant?
OR
"social worker, teacher, nanny, marketing executive, designer consultant, fashion consultant?" ie-somebody who not only doesn't make a lot of money, but relies on men disproportionately paying more in taxes to create a government make-work job to make you feel like you're "an independent woman?"
Also, as mentioned in Ed Thatch's post, how much money do those ladies save? Because, let's just say for the sake of arugment, the SGAF does make $100,000. How many of them blow through that and spend $120,000? Isn't success supposed to be how much money or wealth you have saved up? Not how many pairs of shoes you have? And don't even get me started about student debts. I'd surmise the majority of Larissa's SGAF's have a negative net worth and are heavily reliant upon the Daddy-Government-Hubby complex for their livelihood and subsidy.
"Amazing?" Really? Did she really do something to AMAZE you? Like if I met your group of SGAF's I would be AMAZED with each and every one of them? Notice in my previous post I LIST THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS of my male friends. They have done things that ARE amazing. I have done things that are amazing. So when you compare your typical SGAF's accomplishments of,
"Earned my Masters in English, and I like to travel, I TOTALLY LOVE SUSHI, OMG! And I'm like really conscious about the environment."
to
"I scaled 10 11,000+ foot peaks in a year, did two 1,500 mile plus motorcycle rallies, put myself through college, wrote 4 books, taught myself motorcycle repair, and I'm a ballroom dancer"
you can understand;
1. you're not amazing, you're actually quite common, common to the point there's millions of women just like you out there
2. you do not prompt an inkling of desire to consider you a potential candidate for marriage
3. compared to me, you're so boring and NOT-amazing, my hobbies and interests are more rewarding than having sex with you.
In the end what men want is so simple, it's laughable more women haven't figured out what a HUGE advantage it would give over their competitions.
A physically attractive woman who is
nice
responsible
reasonably intelligent
and likes sex
How 5 simple variables seem to elude the 150 million American women (even with all the brainwashing and propaganda) is beyond me and worth a Double Face Palm Award.
No comments:
Post a Comment