From this Psychology Today article.

A good dad must possess two qualities: the ability to acquire and accumulate resources, and the willingness to invest them in her and her children.

Giving women things that are worth something doesn’t count, because it’s still useful to the man. What matters most in courtship, in terms of gifts, is giving women pretty stuff that has no worth whatsoever. This illustrates to the woman 1) that you can afford to do so, and 2) that you are willing to do so.

Then you get nookie. ::

I’ve done a lot of study on sexual desire in women over the years, for a number of reasons. One of the primary reasons, however, is that it’s still an area that hasn’t been sufficiently explained by science.

This article over at the New York Times is an excellent summary of where science is today in understanding the desires of women, and if I had to sum it up it’d be something like: women are sexually attracted to most types of sexual behavior–even stuff they claim not to be attracted to.

It’s been known for a while now, for example, that many straight women are attracted to women–even if they’re also attracted to men. I’ve always had something of a pet theory about this, which goes like this: women are attractive to both men and women because they’re beautiful and humans find beautiful people attractive. But to be attracted to a man one must have a particular modification–a disorder if you will–that allows it.

It would seem logical that this would be for evolution purposes; evolution would have to make men attractive to women to keep the species going, but this wouldn’t necessarily reduce how attractive women find women.

Anyway, just a thought I’ve had–not really a full theory. One thing this doesn’t account for is the myriad of experiments where gay men have shown very little sexual reaction to attractive women.

But yeah, it’s a great read if you’re into this type of psychology. ::

[ What Women Want | nytimes.com ]

My God. This reads like a f’ing Onion headline.

“Scientists Discover Women Aren’t in Science and Engineering Because They Don’t Want To Be“ ¹

Now two new studies by economists and social scientists have reached a perhaps startling conclusion: An important part of the explanation for the gender gap, they are finding, are the preferences of women themselves. When it comes to certain math- and science-related jobs, substantial numbers of women – highly qualified for the work – stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else.

Wow, that’s monumental. Massive studies to figure out what people instinctively knew but didn’t want to talk about. The answer has been right in front of us since the gap has been there. All you have to do is ask real women.

The irony is that simply asking women, and having them tell you that they weren’t interested, doesn’t seem to be enough for the equalers. Their responses are discounted as if womens’ own desires couldn’t possibly be the primary factor.

Sir, I asked 1,000 women and most of them said they just didn’t want to do Calculus.” So the people with the agenda say, “You *asked* them? What the hell do they know? Dammit, go find the real reason they’re not in science.

Gee, that’s uplifting for women. Don’t trust them to tell you what they want for themselves just because the answers don’t seem right to you. Yay for giving women respect. Once again political correctness distorts the interpretation of reality.

Here, try this–I know this isn’t scientific but you’ll get the idea. How many women do you know? How many girls about to be women do you know? Great, now how many of them want to be computer scientists? How about mathematicians? Yeah, me too. Now extrapolate. Brilliant!

More from the article:

Rosenbloom and his colleagues used a standard personality-inventory test to measure people’s preferences for different kinds of work. In general, Rosenbloom’s study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers – and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.

Personal preference, Rosenbloom and his group concluded, was the single largest determinative factor in whether women went into IT. They calculated that preference accounted for about two-thirds of the gender imbalance in the field. The study was published in November in the Journal of Economic Psychology.

Let’s try a simple explanation. Men and women are different and hence have different interests. But when women have the desire and drive to be in IT and other engineering-type vocations, they can excel at it to the point of making most men look silly — just like in any other field. The difference is just that there are less women with this particular drive than men.

And so what? They also have uteruses. Should we try and determine why? What malfunction caused men to be born without them?

Pretending we’re all the same isn’t going to make it so, no matter how much money we dump into that agenda. We’re different, and it’s a good thing. Accept that we’re all fundamentally equal according to the precepts of secular humanism and move on with life.:

Notes

¹ [ The Freedom to Say "No" ]
² And yes, I am aware of the arguments that society can be programming women to not want these things, but that’s a separate problem from why are they not in the fields. The answer to that question (or at least 2/3 of it) is that they don’t want to be. So if you want to find out why they don’t want to be, that’s fine, but don’t lose site of the fact that their desires are what are manifested in the numbers.

[ Swedish vs. British Club Girls ]

A study has shown that depressed women tend to have more sex. This is not a surprise to me, nor is it to many people.

This is going to sound horrible, but women usually have lots of sex with lots of people in order to fill a hole (I told you). I’ve seen the rushing undercurrent of damaged goods below the surface of many sexually open women; it’s quite conspicuous once you know what you’re looking at.

And yes, I know my title isn’t what the study found, but I think it’s true as well. Unhappy women have more sex, and the women having the most promiscuous sex tend to be unhappy.

So what does this mean for the average single guy? Take note of any woman throwing her stuff around; she quite likely has issues with complicated names.:

Laser pointers are so compelling to men because of the male obsession with exerting one’s will. When we shine a laser pointer two blocks away onto someone’s garage there’s a part of us that’s saying, “I own that house. Watch me make my mark all over it…”

It’s a weapon tool for expanding our scope of influence. When we shine our beams into the sky or onto the chest of a person standing 100 yards away, we do it to become more powerful. We’re pulling those far away things into OUR realm of control.

Just as an added twist, try showing a gay guy a laser pointer some time. Show him how you can “touch” stop signs and license plates and make them light up from hundreds of yards away. He’ll be roughly as impressed as the average woman, i.e. not much at all.

Laser pointer obsession comes from the desire to dominate and control the environment. That’s why men love laser pointers.:

[ Miss Teen South Carolina Answers Important Question ]

The weird part is that this woman became MORE attractive to some men after hearing her response.

I think this is going to be the starting point when I try and help future friends who are having partner problems. I have a number of thoughts on the matter as well — some specific, some broad — but this single nugget seems to capture them all. It’s about independence and being happy with yourself. If you don’t have that then any relationship you enter into is bound to have issues.

Again, for posterity:

You’re not ready to meet your future spouse until you’re ready to be single for the rest of your life.

Most guys know about the nice guy paradox. It’s where they’ve been told since they were young — both by women and by society in general — that women like “nice” guys. And because they’ve been told this over and over, most guys grow up trying this approach only to have reality kick them in the groin.

This bothers guys. A lot. Why would women claim to want someone who will treat them nice, but then repeatedly turn down or mistreat those that give them exactly what they claim to want? Well, I have the answer, and like most major truisms it’s pretty simple:

Women like when guys are nice to them, but only when they don’t have to be.

Think about that. Most guys exclusively using the “nice” approach are doormats, and many are so because that’s all they can be. They lack the attributes to attract a woman based on pure gravity (physical size/strength/prowess, ambition, sexuality, intelligence, money, etc.). As a result, these guys are essentially forced to grovel in order to attract a mate, which is patently unattractive.

Quite simply, women like powerful men to be nice to them, not feminized pseudo-men. A weak man being nice to a woman is essentially an act of submission, like a beggar bowing his head and calling you sir. Sure, they were respectful to you, but they just asked you for money so it’s not as meaningful as if it came from a peer or superior.

To get the true benefit of “nice” in the way that women enjoy, one has to be able to attract that same woman without being nice, i.e. by the sheer force of masculine character. Only once that foundation of primal respect is in place can the higher-order offerings such as kindness be appreciated. It’s counter-intuitive and it’s unpleasant, but we’re dealing with nature here. Don’t fight the rules. To do so is as pointless as picketing gravity or boycotting inertia.:

I’m not going to comment much on this other than to say that I enjoy this type of debate. It’s the type of discussion that leads to true learning — one direction or the other.

Link: Happy Housewife vs. Mad Mommy