What do women really look for in men?

Madam_X

Pug160 wrote: »

There's an element (sometimes large element) of truth to most generalisations - I thought that was the point? Anyway, I think I'll leave this until another date, as some ladies don't want to engage in a proper debate and just want to trample on certain men - simply because they don't agree with them.

But if you're a woman reading that stuff and it doesn't apply to you, then you're bound to dispute it - hardly unreasonable. Wouldn't you do the same if it were in relation to men? It's not simply a case of "not agreeing" - I don't think anyone would disagree that what you say does happen.

Gongoozler wrote: »

You implied it.
I think there are probably lots of (male) scientists out there that've studied biology/evolution/anthropology that may actually agree with the stuff you're calling 'bollox'. But then you'd dismiss that too, right? Because it's coming from a man.

In fairness, that's a bit of a leap - she hasn't in any way implied she'd dismiss views merely on the basis of them coming from a man.

jaffacakesyum

Pug160 wrote: »

There's an element (sometimes large element) of truth to most generalisations - I thought that was the point? Anyway, I think I'll leave this until another date, as some ladies don't want to engage in a proper debate and just want to trample on certain men - simply because they don't agree with them.

Yeah, gotta hate those women. Just like those sneaky blacks who don't engage in proper debate and just want to trample on racists. :rolleyes:

smash

Madam_X wrote: »

But if you're a woman reading that stuff and it doesn't apply to you, then you're bound to dispute it - hardly unreasonable. Wouldn't you do the same if it were in relation to men?

He's arguing cos he doesn't tick off anything on the list!

Eve_Dublin

Gongoozler wrote: »

You implied it.
I think there are probably lots of (male) scientists out there that've studied biology/evolution/anthropology that may actually agree with the stuff you're calling 'bollox'. But then you'd dismiss that too, right? Because it's coming from a man.

No, I'm dismissing it because genuinely, you're talking out of your hole.


What scientists? What studies?

Pug160

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

So you can generalise about any auld ****e and there's an element of truth to it because it's a generalisation?



All Irish men have small willies. It has an element of truth because it's a generalisation. Agreed?


The reason you're "leaving it till another date" because you're trying to pass of your ****e talk as fact and you know in your heart of hearts you're talking bollocks.


Good night.

I actually got stereotype confused with generalisation. I'll have to be forgiven for that, however, I stand by everything else I have said. The Irish men having small willies is a terrible comparison anyway, as I've never in my life heard that. Lots of men agree with what I say - we have experienced it in out lives. It may not be the truth - but it is our truth and our reality.

Miss Lockhart

I don't want much in a man - mainly somebody who is not an asshole and who is intelligent. They need to be very independent also - I can't stand clingy types. A good sense of humour is always nice.

Daveysil15

Gongoozler wrote: »

So tackle generalisations with more generalisations..?

Yeah but the difference is the generalisations men make are much worse than the ones women make, or at least that's what certain posters would have you believe.

Eve_Dublin

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

When you're only at the going for a drink stage it doesn't really matter if you're on the dole or a high flying "50 shades" douchebag lawyer but most women won't have someone on the dole as their boyfriend and even if they have a job they could be in line for replacement if someone with a very good job comes along.

Evolutionary pre programming at work. Women are subconsciously thinking about the stable environment for their future kids

Pug160 wrote: »

When the woman has a very good and/or well paid job it makes a difference though. She will only lower her status standards if she's not attractive and gets a man who's fairly handsome - and even then she'll not go too far down the pecking order.

To the poster challenging my claims that these posters are talking out of their arses/trolling, show me proof. Prove me wrong. Go on!

not yet

smash wrote: »

Mel Gibson?

Other then him....? sure he's a pussy anyway.

Eve_Dublin

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yeah but the difference is the generalisations men make are much worse than the ones women make, or at least that's what certain posters would have you believe.

Ah here's himself! As I said, flies to ****.

Ruudi_Mentari

smash wrote: »

Mel Gibson?

Makebelieve.. vanity project. He coined the phrase melfish!!

is What Mel Wants IRL. The eradication of all Jews and a woman who'll stick around

smash

Ruudi_Mentari wrote: »

Makebelieve.. vanity project. He coined the phrase melfish!!

He did a shít job cos I've never heard that!

Daveysil15

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Ah here's himself! As I said, flies to ****.

Is that why you're still here then Eve?

not yet

What about what men want, why don't we ever get a look in...!!

Jaysus you would think women ran the world...oh wait,they do.

I'll shut up now.

Eve_Dublin

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Is that why you're still here then Eve?

Oooh burn! :rolleyes:

Ruudi_Mentari

smash wrote: »

He did a shít job cos I've never heard that!

You heard it here last.

Gongoozler

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

No, I'm dismissing it because genuinely, you're talking out of your hole.


What scientists? What studies?

Oh Wibbs where are you when you're needed.
Give me some time and I'll find you all the studies. it's not like I have them at hand or anything ya know. If you've ever watched programmes on this sort of stuff, or read articles, you'd know what I'm talking about.

smash

This thread used to be fun!

jaffacakesyum

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yeah but the difference is the generalisations men make are much worse than the ones women make, or at least that's what certain posters would have you believe.

Yeah sure boards.ie is full of man-hating threads, lazy generalisations about men, threads about men's issues hijacked because "oh think of the women"...

Oh no wait, that's the other way around. God aren't we terrible people for arguing against sexist generalsations Davey

Madam_X

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yeah but the difference is the generalisations men make are much worse than the ones women make, or at least that's what certain posters would have you believe.

Ah in fairness Davey - look at this thread asking the reverse question: there isn't a slew of women going on about how men are bastarding this that and the other. I found two posts making negative comments about men, and one was from a man, the other I'm not sure of their gender.
And the thread is far more good-natured than this one. It's hardly irrational to object to the wording of some of the posts on this thread.

catallus

Madam_X wrote: »

Ah in fairness Davey - look at this thread asking the reverse question: there isn't a slew of women going on about how men are bastarding this that and the other. I found two posts making negative comments about men, and one was from a man, the other I'm not sure of their gender.
And the thread is far more good-natured than this one. It's hardly irrational to object to the wording of some of the posts on this thread.

This was a good natured thread until it was hijacked by a particular poster, who seems hell bent on trolling the posters here, and they rise to it!

Pug160

By the way, i'm not going to be pedantic and look at dictionaries, but I'm guessing (and I may be wrong) that a generalisation is more of an individual opinion, whereas stereotype has at least a certain following and generally has an element of truth. This is what I was getting at earlier.

And to the woman talking about racism, that was a low blow and has nothing to do with this topic.

Eve_Dublin

Gongoozler wrote: »

Oh Wibbs where are you when you're needed.
Give me some time and I'll find you all the studies. it's not like I have them at hand or anything ya know. If you've ever watched programmes on this sort of stuff, or read articles, you'd know what I'm talking about.

When you're only at the going for a drink stage it doesn't really matter if you're on the dole or a high flying "50 shades" douchebag lawyer but most women won't have someone on the dole as their boyfriend and even if they have a job they could be in line for replacement if someone with a very good job comes along.

Evolutionary pre programming at work. Women are subconsciously thinking about the stable environment for their future kids

When the woman has a very good and/or well paid job it makes a difference though. She will only lower her status standards if she's not attractive and gets a man who's fairly handsome - and even then she'll not go too far down the pecking order.

To support exactly what was stated in these posts? I know for a fact Wibbs wouldn't back the claims above up when talking about modern Ireland.

Women wanting a man who can support their children is not unreasonable but these men are implying women (not even some women) are gold-diggers. That's a very different thing.

Daveysil15

Madam_X wrote: »

Ah in fairness Davey - look at this thread asking the reverse question: there isn't a slew of women going on about how men are bastarding this that and the other. I found two posts making negative comments about men, and one was from a man, the other I'm not sure of their gender.
And the thread is far more good-natured than this one. It's hardly irrational to object to the wording of some of the posts on this thread.

And who do you think this thread is been hijacked by?

Eve... I've lost count of how many male posters you've had issues with. You just never stop. Telling people they're talking bollox etc. You're only stirring things up as usual. You say these threads attract the spasmos and yet you continue to post in it yourself. What does that say?

jaffacakesyum

Pug160 wrote: »

By the way, i'm not going to be pedantic and look at dictionaries, but I'm guessing (and I may be wrong) that a generalisation is more of an individual opinion, whereas stereotype has at least a certain following and generally has an element of truth. This is what I was getting at earlier.

And to the woman talking about racism, that was a low blow and has nothing to do with this topic.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable analogy. Point out the flaw in it.

What's the difference between "most women are __xyz____" and "most black people are __xyz____"? The 'xyz' being a lazy generalisation with no basis whatsoever.

Eve_Dublin

Daveysil15 wrote: »

And who do you think this thread is been hijacked by?

Eve... I've lost count of how many male posters you've had issues with. You just never stop. Telling people they're talking bollox etc. You're only stirring things up as usual. You say these threads attract the spasmos and yet you continue to post in it yourself. What does that say?

It says I've nothing better to do than argue with sexist men on Boards.ie?

Ah give it a rest, Davey. Don't play the innocent. You're always posting on threads like this spewing your sexist bile. I stand up against sexist comments made about women and that's it. AH is full of them. I'll continue to do so while I've nothing better to do.

Doc Ruby

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

What's the difference between "most women are __xyz____" and "most black people are __xyz____"? The 'xyz' being a lazy generalisation with no basis whatsoever.

It is bollocks in fairness. Anyone who would generalise about half the population is an idiot. Ask what ten women want and you'll get ten different answers.

Although big muscles seem to be nine of those.

Gongoozler

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

To support exactly what was stated in these posts? I know for a fact Wibbs wouldn't back the claims above up when talking about modern Ireland.

Women wanting a man who can support their children is not unreasonable but these men are implying women (not even some women) are gold-diggers. That's a very different thing.

But it's not a different thing. That's the point.
You take it like an insult that some women want a wealthy man, whereas many studies (such as this one that I've just found http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712609X417319/abstract) have shown that it's what lots of women do and it makes sense in terms of survival and reproduction.

Maybe you personally don't look at the wallet of a man before you talk to him, that's grand, just calm down a bit. No one's saying you do it. And in a way there's kinda nothing wrong with it.
Think about all the ways both men and women make efforts to attract their gender of preference - grooming, etc. it's all about getting the best mate, being able to provide best for your children, and yourselves.

Pug160

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I think it's a perfectly reasonable analogy. Point out the flaw in it.

What's the difference between "most women are __xyz____" and "most black people are __xyz____"? The 'xyz' being a lazy generalisation with no basis whatsoever.

I never said most women, I was compartmentalising them, and saying that certain women do tend to be attracted to certain men. This is not unfair and is nothing like racism whatsoever.

Eden3

Im looking for everything I haven't found yet ....!:D. Honest answer ....:)