Role Reversed World?

Post Reply New Topic

I sometimes wonder what would happen if one day every woman turned up for work/school/uni without any makeup on. It would be interesting to see how it changed everybody's perceptions of one another, and to see how people actually look.

I think if you are going to apply makeup, it should at least look like the following...

http://www.5min.com/Video/How-to-Moistu ... n-63956943

effortless, glowing, beautiful. It's supposed to highlight your best features, but that is secondary to it's primary job, which is to "Make Up" for what you lack.

This is a response to a number of posts.

- I didn't say women are gold diggers. I said that they want men who meet a certain standard, e.g. educated professional women want educated professional men, etc. It's not generally enough for a man just to be nice and good looking if he doesn't meet this 'standard'. Men, on the other hand, are far less fussy about this sort of thing. True, a male lawyer is highly unlikely to date a woman who works in KFC, but he will date a secretary or a dental receptionist.

- Women who say 'I don't care about status, money, etc.' are usually women who aren't particulary successful themselves, so they're not dating down by going for the ordinary guy. Even so, a college educated woman usually wants a man with a similar level of education.

- One poster said women want men with drive. This is a coded admission of what I'm saying. Drive = potential to be successful. You don't hear men saying they want a woman with drive, just a nice, attractive, girl will suffice. Why can't women be content with a man who's nice and good looking, even if he's not particulary driven?

- Whether it's easier to be successful or good looking depends on the individual. The irony is that many women in their 30s and 40s are successful but not attractive, whilst a lot of unemployed/underemployed men of this age are very good looking. In a role reversed world they could get together, but in the real world they won't of course.

- And personally I prefer women who are relatively low maintenance. I'd be more than happy for women to dress down more (without completely letting themselves go) if women in general - not just those on WP - were more relaxed about men's income/education/status/drive etc.

Another Alien, I would be quite surprised if you're in a quality relationship right now with your beliefs.

------------------------------------

Even in a world with reversed roles, I'd fail miserably.

I still wouldn't have a clue what these roles are.

Jonsi

They're not 'beliefs', they're observations. I want gender roles to be more relaxed. As I've said, I'm happy for women to be more low maintenance. You're not seriously arguing that women - in general - don't care about status/income/education/drive etc. much more than men do? Why are so many successful women single then? Answer - because the more successful they become the harder it becomes to find an equally successful man, and they're very reluctant to marry down.

I applaud women who don't care about these things, and I wish all women thought this way. But in general they don't.

And, no offence, but as you're only 18 income disparity isn't a subject on your radar screen at this point is it?

Not even going to argue it. Especially after that last comment.

I didn't mean to be personal. I was just making the point that the kind of issues I'm talking about don't generally arise until 20s/30s. Everyone's in the same boat at 18.

your "standard" is not universal, or those men who worked at KFC (who may not look like male models either), would never find a mate.

also, most people tend to date or marry poeple with similar education, so actually a male lawyer is most likely to date a female lawyer or equivalent professional such as a teacher.


i've been very successful, so you're wrong. me=educated member of a professional organization. easy answer.


drive doesn't necessarily mean monetary success or ambition. it means someone who is driven to work hard and do well in their area. i would date a particularly driven bread baker, if he was someone i was attracted to. an example of lack of drive is someone who sits on the couch and moans all day about their life situation.


you are applying your own subjective standards of beauty to women of that age group, of course. perhaps you may not be attracted to successful women in their 30s and 40s, but that doesn't mean that other men feel the same way. i think your statement here says a lot about your own biases (pure fluff in a sociological sense).


good for you. of course, i don't know any women (NT or otherwise) who actually care about much stuff like that (except they sometimes want to match their own education level, and i have elaborated on the concept of "drive" above).

maybe you are prejudging women and ruining your own chances. if you have already decided you cannot measure up, then i assure you... you cannot.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 01 May 2011, 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

answer: because too many men feed them the same bollocks you are presenting, and if they are successful they are often educated and would like to rise above the stereotpes you are clinging to.

I think we're both exceptions to the rule. You're happy to date men who are less successful/educated, and I'm happy to date women who are more low maintenance (up to a point).

However, whilst MOST men place too much emphasis on women's appearance, MOST women want more than just looks and nice personality. It varies from woman to woman, depending on their exact circumstance, but in general they care about stuff like career/education/other accomplishments much more than men do.

This can be demonstrated by statistics: there are far more single successful women than single successful men - successful men are snapped up even if they're fairly ugly, whilst men aren't likely to date a successful woman, unless they're physically attracted to her.

As you've asked about my own experiences, well let's just say that my romantic fortunes have varied according to my financial fortunes. Also, I vividly remember about 15 years ago (when I had a pretty good job) I was working out in the gym, and I overheard some women talking about me, and one said something like 'yeah, and he's got a good job'. Men just don't say things like that about women.

And I'm definitely not imtimidated by successful women. There aren't a huge number of high flying women in my small town, but I would definitely date a much more successful woman then me. Chances are they wouldn't want me though.

Having said all this, this entire thread is tongue in cheek, as there can never be a role reversed world. Men are genetically programmed to be attracted to fertile (i.e. young, pretty) women, whilst women are programmed to ensure their children inherit the best possible genes. So women are attracted to the most genetically superior men. As women don't know for sure who's genetically superior they (conciously and subconsciously) look at men's accomplishments, etc.

Obviously there's individual variation and some people - like us - are atypical, but it doesn't change the fact that (unfortunately) there's a general pattern of mating behaviour, and probably always will be.

It doesn't seem like role reversal is really what's desired. It seem that people perceive only the drawbacks from their own situation when other people don't seem to face those same drawbacks. They each want the perceived social benefits of the other gender but without the (often unknown) drawbacks.

For example, I don't think that men would necessarily prefer to have roles reversed if it meant spending time wearing makeup, and I don't think that women would necessarily prefer to have roles reversed if it meant they were judged more frequently based on their income.

It doesn't make sense to talk about reversing all aspects of gender socialization. It would be fair for whoever asks for a date to pay(and for both people to be okay with women paying), for women to feel comfortable asking, for both people to clean up after themselves at home and to share chores when necessary, et cetera.

Since each time a topic like this comes up it always degenerates into a shouting match of both men and women complaining that the other side has it better and doesn't really understand it's surprising that the same people keep posting in these topics. Everyone comes up with what they think are excellent arguments but no one on the other side is willing to consider opposing arguments so it doesn't matter how reasonable or astute your argument may be, because the people you are trying to convince aren't trying to understand or consider your claims, but instead are trying to find instances where your reasoning is bad.

Hm... $325 for 2 outfits and a gym membership / $7.25 Federal minimum wage = 45 hours wage labor

$325 a month x 12 months a year = $3,900 a year

So throw away what is for many people a quarter of their income for 24 outfits and a gym membership which neither guarantees time to visit nor thinness if they do. (That's not factoring in that concealer and haircut you mentioned.)

Not to mention the dozen other things I previously-named. A face full of make up, a tan, and impractically-high maintenance nails are what all those sugar daddy would-be benefactors Another_Alien is talking about are looking for for their money.

Last edited by Bethie on 01 May 2011, 12:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I sure would. There's a huge valuation difference between being decorative and having earning power.
Much more respect involved in being a verb versus an adjective.
Love cares not for either, of course, but when it comes down to it, I see financial stability as a quality that actually has a substantive purpose, as opposed to masochistic contortions in order to look like an exotic Barbie.

I don't mind it all so, long as people aren't hypocritical. In my experience, many of the men whining about being valued for their income think nothing of de facto rejecting fat or plain-looking women. ("F*ckability is important, so I simply CAN'T date a fattie.")

I would agree that absolving gender roles altogether would be most beneficial to both sexes, but I only see it becoming worse.
Ironically, I think women in some ways were valued and respected more as human beings pre-modern feminism and it's resulting raunch/beauty culture backlashes.

And that's what invalidates your argument. Generalizations based on assumptions. Don't tell me these are observations because, unless you've observed the entire planet's population of eighteen year olds, you can't seriously argue that it is the case. There are heavy aberrations between what applies to an eighteen year old even within small towns. Just like there are aberritions in women.

Bit of a silly argument there to be honest. It's not necessary to observe every single person on the planet to make a general observation. I haven't always lived in a small town, and I also read what's going on in the world. Obviously there's individual variation in human behaviour, but fundamental general behaviour hasn't changed much at all - by age or gender. Shakespeare's observations of human behaviour are remarkably similar to the way we act today (allowing for social/technological changes obviously). We underestimate the degree to which we're programmed by nature, and 400 years is a flicker in evoloutionary terms.

Last edited by Another_Alien on 01 May 2011, 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nevermind, I retract.