all you independent women...

ztoical

panda100 wrote: »

Ive noted this too.All the posts thus far have been based on financial independence,which while important doesnt make u an 'independant' women.
First of,when I speak of an independant women I dont talk of it in the destiny childs sense. Having more money than your partner doesnt empower you as a female and a women. I also dont agree with any of this pussycat doll 'I dont need a man ' nonsense. A truly confident.liberated female will realise that Its nice to have company of the opposite sex.

The idea of an independant female is one that is not just confident but satisfied and happy with who and where she is in life.
While Im independant in my thoughts and ideals I often feel pressured by Irish society,in many aspects of my life. I feel pressured to be succesful financially (which this thread has reinforced!), pressure to look good, pressure to have a boyfriend,pressure to be the most popular. Somedays I give into these pressures and feel a bit down/bad about myself for having achieved almost none of those things.But then I realise that this is only what Irish society dictates me to be and I realise that Im happy being just me and thats when I feel like an independant women

+1

My last post on this topic was more focused on the taking the name issue but thats where this thread had originated from. I did say and do feel that independance does not equal money, thats being self sufficient in my eyes. I think its always greta to earn your own money and pay your own way but I also don't think there should be any stigma attached to getting some help from your parents or friends or the goverment when its needed [and I really stressed needed I'm not taking about people scamming money cus they couldn't be arsed working]

I don't even like the word independent all that much I'd rather be a strong person then an independent woman [mainly cus that stupid song comes into my head] I'm not the best at putting things into words [I could draw something but I'm behind on my deadlines already without adding extra jobs on] so I'll use an example of what being a strong person means to me:

My mum is a doctor, she moved to a mid size town in the middle of the country [about 25 odd years ago]. She set up her business and it started very small, only a couple of people coming to see her each week. She went to functions held by local business groups to introduce herself and get to know other people and she was told by many of these business people to not bother, she should be a house wife. There was no place in the town for another doctor and there was no way anyone would ever go to a female doctor.

This was the message she got again and again and it wasn't just from men, women told her the same. Some of there women were teachers in the secondary school I ended up going to, the very women telling me to go to college and make something of myself had told my mother she was wasting her time setting up her business in the town.

This wasn't something that happened over a week, it went on for the first 3 or 4 years she was working but she kept going. Ignored them, didn't try to argue or reason with them just worked her ass off and not only did she do well, she now has the largest doctors practise in the county.

Now I know attitudes have changed to women and work [thou they are still no equal in alot of places] but my point was that it would have been so easy to just go home and do nothing. We have a reversal of sorts now with women who want to stay home and be full time mums getting sh!t cus they should be out working. I feel it takes a strong person to do what they want to do and damn the people who try and put them down...hope some of that makes some sense.

Ginny

I suppose in my circle of friends I'm the most independent, as in, none of them have ever lived on their own. Some of their lives are very couple-centric, I actually think a good few of them spend way way too much time together, I don't think I could do that I need my space physically and mentally.
As for it being financial etc, I think being independent financially is they way people physically see you're independent, whereas individuals themselves see it more of a mental thing.
I'm covering both right now I'm phyiscally independent and mentally independent, but even while in a relationship I think I was a lot more independently minded then any other girl in my group.

cuckoo

narco wrote: »

finally! someone who could say waht i was trying to but failed!
independent thought! there you go!

thankyou tallaght01!

Ah, but surely independent thought is something that can be taken for granted with all us smart, opinionated boardsie women?

Firetrap

Being independent in my eyes isn't necessarily financial independence but the ability to do things without having to get help from other people. I don't make any big deal about it - it's the way Mr & Mrs Firetrap brought me up. I know of women who can't bear to do things like have a meal in a restaurant by themselves or go to the cinema or shopping. Lads do these things all the time and nobody bats an eyelid.

tallaght01

To play devil's advocate here for a moment......

Lots of women on here saying they're independent and strong. Don't need a man to do things for them, and are self reliant.

BUT, it always strikes me that women like stronger men, a but rougher round the edges. Or alternatively, guys with lots of cash.

Not all women, of course. However, my frame of reference is reasonbly good. In 9 years of university, I met a LOT of nerds

No matter how funny and caring they were, they never got the girls. Gilrs talk about "intelligence" in a guy, but the guys in the physics class were not pulling the hotties lol

Whereas most of my friends/social group from back home were a bit rougher. Guys I knew who were total ****, but were pretty rough round the edges were almost invariably more successful with the ladies than the guys who were in the chess club at uni

I always took that to be an evolutionary throwback to times when women needed a strong man to provide for them. Women like strong guys over week guys. they also like guys who can provide a good standard of living.

But how do we reconcile this with the tales of independence we've read in the thread above.

If soeone were to argue that a self sufficient, independent woman will only need a decent human being for companionship, then why does the type of guy who is successful with women not belie this?

Just a though, not neccesarily my opinion.

Obviously, this doesn't relate to me, as I'm perfect enough that I give the best of both worlds

Crumble Froo

this is a very very interesting post. i himmed and hawed about replying, as the answer is going to be quite personal to me. but anyway...

tallaght01 wrote: »

To play devil's advocate here for a moment......

Lots of women on here saying they're independent and strong. Don't need a man to do things for them, and are self reliant.

BUT, it always strikes me that women like stronger men, a but rougher round the edges. Or alternatively, guys with lots of cash.

i think, for the most part, it's about a balance. i can only speak for myself, but i would say that i am quite independent and strong. and i can say that i dont need a man. but.. maybe this is just due to a bit of a ****ed up past on my part, but yes, i do like a strong man, someone who can look after me and makes me feel like i am loved/wanted, and who would 'protect' me. that probably sounds really weird. it looks really weird to me there in written words, but that's kinda just how it is for me.

as for money... well, my fella's more broke than me, so im pretty sure i dont come in under the 'guys with lots of cash' category.

Not all women, of course. However, my frame of reference is reasonbly good. In 9 years of university, I met a LOT of nerds

No matter how funny and caring they were, they never got the girls. Gilrs talk about "intelligence" in a guy, but the guys in the physics class were not pulling the hotties lol

the guys who are kinda destined to only ever be loved as freinds?
yeah, i've known a few of them in my time. gone out with a couple, actually, but obviously, never quite worked out. i think for most of it, it's intelligence+persoanlity+looks. looks are very very subjective, though.

Whereas most of my friends/social group from back home were a bit rougher. Guys I knew who were total ****, but were pretty rough round the edges were almost invariably more successful with the ladies than the guys who were in the chess club at uni

what about relationshipwise? i've seen the wanker guys go from girl to girl, nothing ever lasting any sort of length of time, only to see the 'nerds' meet someone and for the relationship to go on for aaaaaaaaages.


i think, at the end of it, what' essential is a balance of all the attributes, and the girls' personal taste.

cuckoo

tallaght01 wrote: »

BUT, it always strikes me that women like stronger men, a but rougher round the edges. Or alternatively, guys with lots of cash.

Not all women, of course. However, my frame of reference is reasonbly good. In 9 years of university, I met a LOT of nerds

No matter how funny and caring they were, they never got the girls. Gilrs talk about "intelligence" in a guy, but the guys in the physics class were not pulling the hotties lol

I must be a statistical aberration then as i swoon for guys who can do things with equations, and have dated them in the past. Oh, dear, maybe i'm not a 'hottie'?!?

Although, for full disclosure, i still have my physics soc hoodie

Like narco said, how many of the 'players' have long term relationships?

But, to advocate devilishly myself, i do like that when a guy's arms are around me they feel strong.....but due to biology and stuff 90%+ of men's arms would feel strong to me.

tallaght01

cuckoo wrote: »

Like narco said, how many of the 'players' have long term relationships?

.

Fair points, both of you.

Do you think (coz I do lol) that the "players" have less long term relationships because they don't want them.

They usually tend to be the ones ending the "acquaintance", for want of a better word. You don't see them getting dumped so often, or am I wrong?

Whereas (and tell me if I'm being too harsh here, but I think it might be true...) the physics guys tend to fall head over heels easier once they get any female attention, so are less likely to dump you.

Am I being too harsh?

Nevyn

Why is it an issue ?

Surely everyone is looking for a partner that is an equal, another grown up who is in control of thier own life.

tallaght01

It's an "issue" becuase I think it exists as a phenomenon.

It's not a personal issue for me, as I'm happily dysfunctional

But, in the context of the thread, it's a question that begs asking.

I think women prefer men who are "macho" (again a word I hate-smacks of 1980s cinema ) than guys who are wimps.

Why this would be the case, when "independence" should negate the need for a strong man, is a fair question.

Nevyn

becasue it is not that long ago women were dependant on thier father or husbands, fathers 'kept' thier daughters until they married a man who 'kept' them and footed the bill.

I think every preson should strive to be independant and in charge of thier own lives.

Macho is not quiet the term for it in my book.

Also many don't get the diffeence between dominant and domineering.

ztoical

tallaght01 wrote: »

I always took that to be an evolutionary throwback to times when women needed a strong man to provide for them. Women like strong guys over week guys. they also like guys who can provide a good standard of living.

Its always interesting when evolution is brought up cus in alot of animal structures the females looks after everything and provide for the males. Even with our close relatives like chimps and bonobos the females are at least equal provide. In evolutionary terms women would be attracted to men for their genetic material ie does he have the goods to not just give me a baby but a healthy baby.

there was an interesting medical piece a year or two ago [don't ask me to find it I will have to go through a million magazines] about a study that showed women would be attracted to a man with very masculine features for mating [this is the wording they had used] as that would produce a child more likely to live and attracted to men with softer features as long term partners to raise children [I'm assuming those would the children from the big masculine man] Of course this is all in our subconscious - take that whatever way you want to.

I can't speak for other women only for myself and wither a guy is strong or rich or whatever has never been a factor but then I'm not a very good girly girl - I read comics and watch horror films and normally end up with the guys who are into those things too.

tallaght01

Thaedydal wrote: »

becasue it is not that long ago women were dependant on thier father or husbands, fathers 'kept' thier daughters until they married a man who 'kept' them and footed the bill.

I agree this may be the reason. But what i'm trying to get at is the reason why girls still seem attracted to a strong, possibly father-figure type guy, nowadays.


Ztoical, I take your point about evolution. However, we don't share the same evolutionary pathway to the other species you mention. In human evolution, we depended on the strength of the male to a large extent. Strong males survived.

Having said that, as we've never conclusively proved the theory of evolution, you can argue that we can't rely on that argument.

What i would say is that evolutionary studies rely on people drawing their own conclusions from raw data.

I know the study you're talking about. You say, for example, that women were attarcated to stronger men to give them a baby as "as that would produce a child more likely to live ".

In reality the study showed that women were attracted to stronger men to give them a baby, and the authors suggested that it might be because they would produce a child more likely to live.


We always have to be careful with evolutionary studies.

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

becasue it is not that long ago women were dependant on thier father or husbands, fathers 'kept' thier daughters until they married a man who 'kept' them and footed the bill.

That simply isn't true in an Irish context, most people lived off the fat of the land, families worked as teams to keep themselves.

Tallaght,

First of all Irish men macho! Who do you think you’re kidding!
If there is a shower of mamies boys on the planet, they are lost in the amazon and they have given into the oedipus complex.

I'm a tremendously independent woman, I'm the kind of woman you could drop on a mountain in Kazakhstan with a water bottle and I'd be too busy relishing the challenge of finding my way home, to start fantasing about chopping your balls off.
The unhappy side effect of this outlook is that almost nobody in my life sees a purpose in offering me the tiniest bit of support, emotional or physical. People haven't even the grace to worry about me.

Relationships and life partnerships aren't just about company. The main purpose is to face the world and its challenges as a team, to help each other achieve your goals and to offer support in adversity.
When the **** hits the fan at 3 am, I want to have someone reliable, who will come be there for me, weather I need them or not.
And who will let me do the same for them.
That’s the kind of person I want to be a father to my children.

I also have spent more than my fair share of time with nerds who can't get lucky.
Do you know what their problem is poor communication skills and/or frighteningly dull personalities.
Players have a salemans approach to the dating game. They knock on more doors, and they put more effort into winning you over.
Why wouldn't they be more successful!

panda100

tallaght01 wrote: »

Not all women, of course. However, my frame of reference is reasonbly good. In 9 years of university, I met a LOT of nerds

No matter how funny and caring they were, they never got the girls. Gilrs talk about "intelligence" in a guy, but the guys in the physics class were not pulling the hotties lol

Having spent 7 years in uni I can honestly say confidently that the exact same applies to men.The quiet,intelligent but dowdy and plain girl never gets the guys .Its always the gorgeous,buxom,pretty girls who have mens undivided attention even If there are complete bitches and as dense as a stack of plates.
Does this make men any less 'independant'?

Yes women like strong men,just as men like pretty women.Both sexes are at fault.It has nothing to do with evolution etc but a warped sense of priorities from both males and females.
If anything I think its societys fault,I genrally blame everything on society as a socialist Its my job! From an early age in fairytales we are made to believe that its a strong alpha male that will come in and rescue us. For men,its the pretty damsel in distress who need rescuing. These types of messages are constant throughout our lives brainwashing us into beliving that for a male to be a male he must be strong,muscular,confident and support us weak females in our hour of need.

tallaght01

moonbaby wrote:

The main purpose is to face the world and its challenges as a team, to help each other achieve your goals and to offer support in adversity.
When the **** hits the fan at 3 am, I want to have someone reliable, who will come be there for me, weather I need them or not.

I disagree with the above. I think you're looking on relationships in a functional sense

panda100 wrote: »

Having spent 7 years in uni I can honestly say confidently that the exact same applies to men.The quiet,intelligent but dowdy and plain girl never gets the guys .Its always the gorgeous,buxom,pretty girls who have mens undivided attention even If there are complete bitches and as dense as a stack of plates.
Does this make men any less 'independant'?

Yes women like strong men,just as men like pretty women.Both sexes are at fault.It has nothing to do with evolution etc but a warped sense of priorities from both males and females.
.

Totally agree.

I've trotted out the old stereotypes often enough in my time, about how looks don't matter, and it's all about personality. But I've dated a reasonable amount of women where, if we're being honest, that doesn't apply. Same way the funniest guys in the world, if they're ugly, don't get the hot ladies, regardless of all the talk about how important a sense of humour is.

I agree, the chess club ladies don't get the guys either. Hotter ladies will get the hotter guys, as a rule of thumb.There's no point in me trying to deny that.I will admit, most guys don't like the bolshy "I don't need a guy" personality, because we like to do a bit of the big man provider jazz

But, I raised the issue in relation to women, as this is the ladies lounge....and I never claimed not to need women

.

tallaght01

tallaght01 wrote: »

I disagree with the above. I think you're looking on relationships in a functional sense

Those words don't make any sense to me, what aspects of relationships don't serve a function?

We are talking about independance and its affect on relationship. So my comment pertains to LTRs.

ellenmelon

i think im an independant woman..just not as much as id like to be at the moment, with my full on college schedule (9-5 on a good day, 9-10 during rehearsals etc) im unable to work as regularly as i would like so im more reliant on my partner than i would wish but this year will hopefully be different.