It's amazing to me how conservatives are scared of how gays are going to ruin marriage. Gays can't "ruin" marriage because straight people already turned it into a joke. You really can't tell me that people marrying for money or [insert celebrity here]'s 20 hour marriage is meaningful.

Is there anyone else here who plans to never get married?

Wow, the Google Ads nest to this is telling me I can browse photos of Cute Girls and "Sexual Abuse". Thanks Google Ads for making me feel a bit sick.

That's just total B.S. and it only gives the MRA groups ammunition to point out how *all* women are money grubbing harpies who only want half. May I ask if this writer is married to a millionaire or billionaire? If not then she needs to completely retract her article because she's not living up to her own standards.

I feel a letter-writing campaign coming on.

She's trying to bring back the "MRS degree"? Aren't universities clogged with enough time-wasters?

I particularly like the suggestion to become a member of an art museum or give big bucks to charity for your own personal agenda, rather than contributing to such things because you value them.

I actually think it's a good sign that wealthy men are starting to value intelligence over big breasts. I don't think the article was encouraging women to marry simply for money. I think it was giving advice on how to meet succesful men and find one you actually have feelings for.

I hate to say it but I think Nicole has a good point. My grandmother used to tell my mother, "It's as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is to fall in love with a poor man." Of course, it's all not very romantic, but it is practical.

I'm vaguely reminded of when my grandfather told me I should find work as a secretary or a teacher in case my marriage didn't work out and I was strapped with my kids.

Mind you, I have a college degree (not in education) and I don't have a husband or even a boyfriend. But just in case that marriage that's just around the corner doesn't work out...

What is it with these money-oriented magazines that they need to occasionally do something stupid to generate web traffic? Fortune or Forbes did something recently with a "most powerful" list of celebrities that had no relevance to anything, other than attempting for the mag to get more hits.

This seems like the same deal -- write a piece of bullshit that will obviously offend a lot of women who might otherwise check out the magazine in the hopes that they'll see how much other cool stuff in it, and then they can mea culpa in the next issue and hope to grab some of us as future subscribers/web visitors.

I mean -- marry rich? [rolls eyes] If they want to give interesting advice to women, why not profile self-made rich women and see what made them so? See what challenges were inherent in being business people and which were more targeted at them being women (and how did they conquer each)? Why not ask these sorts of questions so that women can join the ranks of the rich and have overly-appointed offices that will have to subscribe to Money Magazine for their waiting lounge?

Even if they felt that such an idea was too "feminist" or something, and felt that advising women to marry rich was really more practical and realistic, the basic advice to be educated and interesting is not nearly enough. Women who want to be set for life, and not merely for their most attractive and marketable years, would need good advice from divorce lawyers about negotiating a strong and wife-friendly prenuptual agreement and enforcing same if the marriage really isn't until death they do part. I mean, if women are supposed to be mercenary about such things, it behooves the institutions encouraging mercenary behavior to at least help women succeed at such behavior, instead of merely playing at it until they've produced and heir and a spare and are then left penniless as soon as "arm candy" comes back into fashion.

I've lived a long life, and (almost) every one of the women I knew who married money, were then screwed over by the men who had the money to screw 'em but good.

Especially in the cases where the wives had used their expertise to "help" their husbands' business or careers.

Saw my father do it to my housewife mother, although he had relatively little bread, what financial clout he had, he eventually used to control and thwart her.

However, after my mother died, my father lectured us all, brother and sisters, on the importance of a career and not marrying early. (Although I doubt he saw the connection, consciously.)

Well, I married up and money does make life easier. But money comes from sources other than marriage and those other sources don't come with the same stigma.

Being assumed to be a gold-digger is no fun. Having people ignore our happy marriage and our supreme compatibility at it's face simply because he makes a whole lot more money than I do is really, very irritating to both of us, especially since neither of us think his financial success is anything more than an expression of our fucked up capitalistic society that values some things more than others.

Example: We both blog. I maintain about 5 different websites and he maintains 1. His one site earns more than all five of mine put together. Does that mean I work less than him? No. Does that mean I'm less valuable than he is? No. Does that mean we are fortunate that together we can pursue our individual interests because he has more than enough money for the two of us? Yes.

I once heard a speaker say, "When you marry for money, you earn every penny of it."

"That's of course until you're served with divorce papers and find yourself with no job, no work history and...well, generally just fucked."

Or until (the more likely scenario) he starts beating you, or sexually abusing your kids, or he starts insisting that you let him take you anally six times a week...

I agree with everyone that marrying solely for money is not a recipe for happiness, but I don't think, but I don't think that was what the article was encouraging. Wanting a man who's succesful and financially secure doesn't make me a gold digger as long as I have feelings for him and he has other qualities I value. A lot of wealthy men are also very intelligent, good looking, and kind. Getting educated and making an impact for the better is a great way to meet wonderful men. If most of them happen to be wealthy that's great. I think the message of the article was that successful men like women who are the whole package and not just arm candy. Is there anything wrong with marrying a great catch(succesful, intelligent, attractive) who wants a women who's more than looks?

Nicole, the article was laying out a strategic plan for living your life SOLELY to meet someone rich. I don't think that anyone is saying that marrying rich is a bad idea--just that basing your life decisions on the idea that you should marry a billionaire is not only morally questionable, but intensely bad advice.

So an MBA is the new charm school?

The original article purports to be gender neutral (-ish)

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2007/07/01/100116670/index.htm?postversion=2007070309

The tagline reads: "Sure, the challenge is steep. But this field guide to the mating habits of the ultrarich shows just what it takes to land Mr. or Ms. Big."

MSNBC reprinted the feature and changed the tagline to feature "Richie Rich."

The Money only pays lip service to men seeking to marry a billionaire-ess, more or less invalidating the existence of Martha Stewart (selfmade billionaire). Whatevs.

btw I see Chatzky's face on the MSNBC page...can we vote her off the island?

It would be a bad idea if the tips given were bad, but furthering your education and getting involved with good causes can only enrich one's life whether they meet someone though it or not. I also don't see anything wrong with taking steps to meet a great guy. It's hard to meet great catches. They aren't going to just line up at your door. Bars and clubs suck, and colleges(my college anyway) are filled with immature frat boys. I'm planning on attending design school because I've always dreamed of being a fashion designer, but I also like the fact that being in that envirnment will help me meet high quality men. I don't mean just rich. I'm talking about the whole package. I'd die if I married someone like Henry Cavill. There is certainly no one at my college or the local bar of that quality. Anyone with high standards needs to be proactive in finding someone that meets them.

Nicole, congratulations, you've just validated the assumptions upon which the patriarchy is founded. Why bother with design school? Why not save time and just be a realtor?

Thing is, Nicole, "great" or "successful" need not equal "wealthy".

This is just gross. I will never, ever understand women like this.

I work my fucking ass off and I have a decent salary, but nowhere near the stratosphere this article is talking about. Believe you me, I DEFINITELY have days where I think how nice it would be if I could just HAVE enough money to not have to work nearly as hard as I do. Then I meet a rich guy (I know plenty -- ladies, they're no better than the rest of the fish out there, I promise) and I remember why I spent so much time and money getting myself educated so I could support myself. Anyone who tries to impress me by showing off how much money he can spend has earned himself my disdain. I can spend money too -- what's so great about that? The fact that I can drop 250 bucks on a bottle of wine doesn't make me a good person, or even a very interesting one. I understand a little bit about some of the things "the rich" find interesting for whatever reason -- and I often find them indescribably boring and pathetic. I cannot understand someone who would want to spend her life pretending to be interested in the unimportant little details of her husband's self-absorbed, high society lifestyle. Their lives are NOT more glamorous than ours -- they just have enough money to make us think they are. Give me a bucket of buttery popcorn, a cheesy sci-fi flick, and a group of good friends, over a yacht club presentation with billionaires, ANY day of the week.

Marrying for money cannot possibly be worth your self-worth and self-esteem. If it is, I recommend therapy.

It would be a bad idea if the tips given were bad, but furthering your education and getting involved with good causes can only enrich one's life whether they meet someone though it or not.

Nicole, I'm not sure why it's not obvious that intentions matter as well as outcomes, a critique that can be made both of the article and its advice.

For instance, an article that encouraged high school girls to get into the best college they could, because the best colleges have the most gang-rape-invested parties would be a fucked up article, even if the advice to get into the best school possible is good. That this article is giving good advice (be smart and well-educated!) does not outweight that it does so for a dumb and counterproductive reason (so you'll be better bait for a rich dude!). The intention is to encourage women to marry for money; that its encouragement comes in the form of resume boosting is not helpful. So the intention of the article is a problem.

The intention of the advice is bad too, in a different way. Telling women that they ought to get MBAs as today's equivalent of an "MRS degree" encourages women to have a shitty time at business school. Finding a man is not reason enough to spend years (and tens of thousands of dollars) on an advanced degree in which a woman holds no personal interest. Her experience, should she not find a mate, will suck, and she will be filled with regret, as her intention for entering into the program will have been for naught. So will her life really have been improved if she gets this advanced degree? Her resume will look more accomplished, but it won't gain her much in her life skill set, because she won't want to use any of her MBA training, not having had any organic interest in business in the first place. So ignoring the problematic intentions encouraged in the piece ignores the main reason why it's bad advice disguised as good advice -- people who undergo improvement efforts without consonant intentions are not so improved.

Outcomes matter, but intentions matter equally. Trying to fit the current bill associated with Rich Man Bait will not inadvertently improve the lives of women through the acquisition of resume fodder obtained for the wrong reasons.

Jane- I'm not quite following...what's wrong with being a realtor?

efk- couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I was trying to figure out a way to word it. But you did it. Kudos!

On a related note, check out this article in Psychology Today (of all places) rehashing just about every social-Darwinian "man as breadwinner, woman as uterus" stereotype out there.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

Here are some gems:

"Women's desire to look like Barbie—young with small waist, large breasts, long blond hair, and blue eyes—is a direct, realistic, and sensible response to the desire of men to mate with women who look like her. There is evolutionary logic behind each of these features. "

[discussing polygamy] "In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man."

"The presence of sons thus deters divorce and departure of the father from the family more than the presence of daughters, and this effect tends to be stronger among wealthy families. "

"Why not save time and just be a realtor?"
I don't want to be a realtor. Becoming something for the SOLE purpose of getting a man would be stupid.

"Thing is, Nicole, "great" or "successful" need not equal "wealthy"."

That's true. There are undesirable rich men, but there are a lot of great catches in business, media, entertainment, etc. that you won't find at any town in America. High quality men are hard to find.

I don't see anything wrong with looking for a guy who is an amazing catch. I don't think anyone should be something they don't really want to be in order to get someone, but there is nothing wrong with making an active attempt at finding that special person. I don't want to lower my standards or end up alone(which is fine if that's what you want), so I need to do things that will get me in the circle of the type of men I want. I've mentioned how I'd love to be with someone like Henry Cavill. Bill Hemmer is another guy that I'd love to date. I'm not going to find guys like that at the local pub.

I haven't had time to read this yet, but didn't Forbes run the same article last year? I remember their bulletin boards had the usual set of characters that come out of the woodwork when this kind of thing surfaces, and it degrades into the ever predictable, "avoid American women."

I've mentioned how I'd love to be with someone like Henry Cavill. Bill Hemmer is another guy that I'd love to date. I'm not going to find guys like that at the local pub.

I'm not trying to be rude, but... are you joking? I mean, everyone has celebrity crushes, but most of us don't think these crushes are actually *realistic*. I live in Los Angeles, I'm an entertainment lawyer, and I even know a couple celebrities -- and they're just a completely different breed of person. Not any worse or any better... but they just live in a completely different world. I mean, if you happen to run into someone like that and it happens to work out and you date, great -- but you cannot go into the entertainment industry thinking you'll nab yourself a movie star boyfriend. It's just completely unrealistic, not to mention it's one of the most difficult industries in the world to break into in any meaningful way.

Nicole, I understand your point (even if I believe it to be misguided), but I don't have any idea why you're trying to make it specifically in response to an article that does, in fact, suggest that women orient their lives around trying to marry a rich man, on the premise that the life of a rich man's wife easier than any other way of living.

Your suggestion that one lowers one's "standards," ends up alone (heaven forfend!) or marries a "catch" (defined as a great guy with a greater bankroll, evidently) is a false set of choices, just like the article presents a false set of choices (marry a rich man and be happy, or be miserable -- sorry, lesbians!). Life is full of complexities, and neither people nor love relationships are so easily categorized.

If you want a specific "type," good luck to you, but I could tell you story upon story about unhappy women who married a "type" instead of a man. Seek a "type" at your own peril.

And, for the record, I married a catch -- we met at a top 5 law school, and we've both worked at high-paying private law firm jobs. I didn't know it when I met him (as he's an unassuming sort), but his family's loaded too. His family money hasn't made our lives any easier, because we each work -- by choice -- and therefore we each contribute to the financial health of the household. Had I tried to find my "catch" I would have missed him. Instead I tried to find a kind, brilliant, funny and loyal person and wound up with a "catch." It's worked out a lot better than the marriages I've known of people who were lauded for finding a "catch."

Two years ago I worked an internship as a lab assistant for my mom at a government-funded biomedical research facility. I was surrounded by people who'd spent upwards of ten years and thousands of dollars getting their degrees, and who were making less than $60,000 a year while trying to live in one of the worst housing markets on the east coast. All of them were struggling to make ends meet. Then, they would find out that I was going to college for music, and would have the gall to ask "But what are you planning to do for money?"

So I told them "oh, well I'm seriously looking into the trophy wife option".

In the stunned silence that followed, I would make my exit to go back to helping my mom run 2-D gel Electrophoresis.

Anyway, as for the article, I don't see anything wrong with the concept that there are good wealthy men out there who are looking for smart, ambitious women to marry, and good on those couples. But you know what, there are good middle class and lower class men looking for the same thing. Wealth does not make you a smarter person, a nicer person, a more loyal person, or a more loving person. It makes you a wealthier person. At my private university I've met just as many rich misogynistic assholes as poor or middle class misogynistic assholes. Maybe more. Our capitalistic society wants us to believe that the "best" people get the money, but that's not true.

Our capitalistic society wants us to believe that the "best" people get the money, but that's not true.

Amen, Genny. Perfectly put.

Money makes a few things in life easier. But it doesn't make life better.

Nicole, I guess it depends on how you define "catch" and "success." My SO has multiple graduate degrees, a moderately sized trust fund, and an incredible work ethic. Sounds like a catch right? Only you wouldn't have found him any where near a yacht club.

His work ethic means that he refuses to touch his trust fund (he feels it isn't his money since his grandparents were the ones who worked so hard to earn it), he spends his days teaching kids and writing academic papers, and earns about a 1/3 of what I do. So would he be successful or does his earning power alone determine success?

Actually I don't think high quality (in terms of generosity and kindness) men are all that hard to find. I know lots of them but most of them work for non-profits or in other similarly low-paying jobs.

Also, ekf, that was a brilliant post.

An article that advocates goldiggery and parsitic clinginess. You're right Jess, this article has no class.

"just like the article presents a false set of choices (marry a rich man and be happy, or be miserable -- sorry, lesbians!)"

OTOH, maybe the idea of landing a rich lesbian or bisexual woman was why the article writer said "Mr. or Ms. Big" instead of just "Mr. Big"?

A lot of what I wanted to say since my last comment has already been said, so I'll keep it brief:

Nicole, you probably won't find someone like Bill Hemmer at your local pub. I wouldn't find someone like Eva Mendes at my favorite watering hole, either. But it's completely unrealistic for me to believe that I would ever meet her anyway. It's not lowering my standards to accept that I likely won't meet someone like her; it's an understanding that even quality human beings aren't perfect. If I'm having a hard time finding what I'm looking for, it's worth investigating the possibility that I need to reconsider what I *think* I want.

Ultimately, your preferences are up to you (as is the case for all of us), and I would never presume to tell you whom you should be looking for. It's just that an article like this recommends what I believe to be a very unhealthy way for a woman to find a man and is rooted in the questionable assumption that richer must be better.

I'm not trying to be a movie star. I'm pursuing a career in fashion, and I'm six credits away from my degree in broadcast journalism with a minor in internaional studies, so who knows. I never said I'm specifically looking to date those guys. They're just examples of the type of guys I go for(successful, good looking, intelligent etc.). I don't think I need to be a movie star to do that. I just have to put myself in their circles. I mean, I've seen Miss USA contestants with pretty famous celebs.

Ugh. I'm never buying Money magazine again.

The problem is that the article presupposes that a woman desires to marry a man with wealth, rather than seek wealth itself. It presents the idea as though it's a viable financial plan for women. And you know, you expect this from, say, Forbes. But Money? Here's the thing: I'm a woman and I read Money because I want to accumulate wealth. Like the boys. And when I read something like this, I feel disrespected on some level. I'm a financially successful woman, not marriage bait.

Wow...I've had it totally wrong all this time...I used to think finding a husband should be about finding someone you have a lot in common with, someone you love being around, someone who has the same goals in life and views of the world as you do. But now I know I was all wrong - he's just gotta be rich! Screw compatability!

"I don't see anything wrong with looking for a guy who is an amazing catch. I don't think anyone should be something they don't really want to be in order to get someone, but there is nothing wrong with making an active attempt at finding that special person. I don't want to lower my standards or end up alone(which is fine if that's what you want), so I need to do things that will get me in the circle of the type of men I want. I've mentioned how I'd love to be with someone like Henry Cavill. Bill Hemmer is another guy that I'd love to date. I'm not going to find guys like that at the local pub."

Nicole your approach to finding the perfect man for you, is almost the exact same approach I took to finding the perfect woman for me, and I found the woman of my dreams. I wanted an independent minded, native born, Asian woman, who could cook, discuss politics, and would love to travel. so I got a job that sent me to an Asian country, entered the necessary social circles there, and found my wife (and after 8 years of marriage, and 2 kids, we are still happy with each other).

Most importantly it doesn't sound like you're a gold-digger, and I don't think you would lower your standards in favor of money, so I see your outlook on life as healthy.

I hope you find the man of your dreams, if you have not already.

I do have bit of advice though; don't be in a hurry. You're only 21, so you could wait 14 more years (if need be), also I highly recommend enjoying the single independent life for at least a few more years before you enter into a long-term partnership/marriage.

Take it from me infants are a lot more easier to deal with in your 30s than they are in your 20s, and marriages is a lot more fun after you have proved to yourself that you can take care of yourself, alone, if need be (also don't discount men who are a few years younger than you, which is hard not to do if you're only 21).

I do have bit of advice though; don't be in a hurry. You're only 21, so you could wait 14 more years (if need be)

At the risk of troll-baiting...

Please tell me this is a joke. Maybe it's just me, but I never saw the "expires on 35th birthday" tattoo lasered onto my ass.

My great grandmother told me that it was as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor one; I file it with the pieces of survival-advice I do not need, because many good jobs are now open to women. She did not have that option; as a single-mom shopgirl during the Depression, it was rich man or bust. But the constraints placed on her by class and gender aren't an approach to life: they were symptoms of the oppression she lived under.

At least trying to marry into money seems like a more practical path to wealth than, say, buying lottery tickets...

But riskier. Even if you marry money, you're stuck with the husband, whom you may or may not want. But the worst thing that can happen if you buy a lottery ticket is that you're out a buck or two.

At least trying to marry into money seems like a more practical path to wealth than, say, buying lottery tickets...

...but decidedly less practical than, say, going to school and getting an education in something that can at least pay your bills until you're able to parlay what you REALLY love into dollar bills.

Nicole your approach to finding the perfect man for you, is almost the exact same approach I took to finding the perfect woman for me, and I found the woman of my dreams. I wanted an independent minded, native born, Asian woman, who could cook, discuss politics, and would love to travel. so I got a job that sent me to an Asian country, entered the necessary social circles there, and found my wife (and after 8 years of marriage, and 2 kids, we are still happy with each other)."
Cool. I actually love Italian men, so hopefully I'll get a chance to work in Italy.

"Please tell me this is a joke. Maybe it's just me, but I never saw the "expires on 35th birthday" tattoo lasered onto my ass."

I don't think he was saying that. It is a medical fact that female fertility begins to decline at about 35. If a woman wants three biological kids she can't wait much longer. Egg freezing might change this in the near future though.

It is a medical fact that female fertility begins to decline at about 35. If a woman wants three biological kids she can't wait much longer.

It's a fact in the aggregate, not a deadline for each and every woman.

And, y'know, there's nothing inextricable about marriage and kids. You can always have your biological kids when you're single. For that, it helps a lot to have your own money. In which case, TLF's advice is the way to go.

Thanks Nicole

I really didn't mean anything by the waiting as much as 14 years comment. I was really just throwing out an arbitrary number. Anybody can wait as long as they want to get married, but yeah in the back of mind I was probably sub-consciously thinking about fertility dropping off at age 35. Though a lack of fertility is by no means a reason to stop thinking about marriage. Sorry for inadvertently implying that.

However, I can't see myself ever wanting to get married unless procreating was one of the stated goals of the marriage. If my wife and I every get divorced, I will probably never marry again (because I can't see myself ever wanting children again), but that is my personal value, and I would never advise anyone to live by my values. If you want to get married (or re-married) later in life, then there is nothing wrong that. Marriage is a choice like any other, and what a person wants to do with their life should not be of somebody else's business or concern.

okay, honestly...if you're looking to marry someone, of course its great to go for someone who values your intelligence over your looks. but what this article seems to say is that you should be pursuing higher education NOT primarily for your own benefit but so that you'll be more attractive to men.

what it failed to mention was that another thing an MBA will give you is a FUCKING WELL-PAYING JOB. i mean its not like everyone with an MBA is making millions but really, if you're going to get an advanced degree, then not put it to use? its sad.

"but what this article seems to say is that you should be pursuing higher education NOT primarily for your own benefit but so that you'll be more attractive to men."

Exactly.

Read "Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady" sometime. Florence King's college in the Fifties was filled with women who were in college for the primary or sole purpose of meeting future husbands -- and they completely missed out on what they were theoretically there for in the first place. You know, an education.

That's exactly what this article sounds like it's proposing -- and it's very troubling. If you live your life and make your choices with the primary intent of catching a Good Catch, you miss out on, you know, your life. Pursuing careers and hobbies because they interest you, not because they'll put you into Good Catch circles.

And as to "I actually think it's a good sign that wealthy men are starting to value intelligence over big breasts"...

Everything I've read says that the new arm candy/ trophy wife has to be conventionally beautiful as well as brainy with prestigious credentials. It's not about genuinely valuing intelligence. It's about upping the ante of the trophy.

Another comment on the entire "looking for a great catch" thing: the only times I've ever landed a boyfriend (including the one who's now my husband) were those times when I was specifically not looking for a relationship, but just doing my own thing.

"They're just examples of the type of guys I go for(successful, good looking, intelligent etc.). I don't think I need to be a movie star to do that. I just have to put myself in their circles. I mean, I've seen Miss USA contestants with pretty famous celebs."

and

"I wanted an independent minded, native born, Asian woman, who could cook, discuss politics, and would love to travel."

To me, there's something fundamentally off with this approach to finding a partner. It just seems so consumerist - like you've gone through a procedure as if you were buying a house or car. Sure, you may eventually meet the "type" you're looking for, and everyone has preferences for what they want in a partner, but it disturbs me that you're basing your choices on superficial things like having money or being Asian. What happened to finding your soulmate (for want of a better term)? Is that really dependant on what nationality or salary-bracket they happen to have? I can't help but feel you risk missing out on making a genuine connection with someone if they fail check off against some kind of internal list, especially one that includes their net worth. Personally, I'd respect it a lot more if you wanted to meet someone who was, say, feminist, or someone who had a strong sense of social justice - see the difference between those things and "good looking and rich" or "Asian"?

Plus Nicole, what you're doing is social climbing, and I imagine you're wanting the fame and riches that are associated with a relationship with a rich/famous person - that appears to be your priority in finding a fulfilling relationship. Nowhere have I heard you mention as a criteria - "someone I love". So I assume you're saying you could only love someone who was "successful" (and we all know what you mean by that). And, no offence, but that makes you come across as a little bit consumerist and shallow. You're probably not going to get much endorsement of that approach to life on this website, from what I've read.

This article is about the commodification of relationships - how to put a monetary value on "love". Or better yet, forget love, and focus on money. If you find love while you're doing a bit of good ol' gold-digging, it's a "bonus". They've definitely got it the wrong way round.

Feminists fought for women's equality so that we wouldn't have to make decisions about our lives based on finding a man to make us financially secure. We can now be financially secure (at least in the Western world for the most part) on our own merits, which means that our relationships need to have nothing to do with how much our prospective partner earns (i.e. how "successful" they are), and everything to do with whether we love them or not.

To me, it sounds as though (like everything else in our advert-saturated world), your partner is being turned into a commodity, a status symbol to attain, whose value is determined by what they look like, and how much money they earn. Sure, it helps if you get on with them, but that's almost an afterthought. It's just another example of our obsession with the superficial at the expense of really meaningful things in life. And it's just another manifestation of society's obsession with accumulating more money - including by getting with a rich partner. Basically, I'm making the philosophical argument that your "standards" in terms of a partner SHOULDN'T include how much they earn. I don't think that's a recipe for a lasting relationship (what if they go bankrupt?), and it's kind of morally reprehensible.

And particularly if you're a woman, you should aim to actively rebel against the pressure to snag a rich man, because frankly, it's anti-feminist. Not saying that women shouldn't marry rich men, but that earnings shouldn't be a consideration in terms of choosing a partner, and certainly not in terms of choosing your own career!

Sorry - I thought my first comment hadn't posted so I posted again - the second one was subject to a bit more thought and a lot more editing! I don't usually keep repeating myself... much.

On a related note, check out this article in Psychology Today (of all places) rehashing just about every social-Darwinian "man as breadwinner, woman as uterus" stereotype out there.

It's like someone specifically wrote this for me to cite as Exhibit A when I try to explain how anything can be explained in evo-psych terms, since we're looking at sparse and inconclusive data from a contemporary lens based on contemporary assumptions. Somehow, our contemporary assumptions and stereotypes are confirmed damn near everywhere in evolutionary psychology.

Which, of course, is what happens when disciplines with little or no intellectual content try to ape the natural sciences in a play for legitimacy.

I love how this article, which seems to have a definite preference for male-authored references, invoked "irony" for something other than its attempt to contrast "ideology" with the highly technical lab work that these guys are doing.

Well Ledlight

To be totally honest when I went to Japan, I had no intention of finding a wife, but I was looking for my dream woman, and I found her. I don't see a problem with looking for the perfect woman (or man) for you. Why settle for second best? And when you make life decisions isn't it best to think them out in great detail well in advance?

To continue with my honesty strain, as a 24 year old man heading to a country I realistically knew little about, I had no intention of ever getting married. At 24 I intended to never have kids, and I did not want to ruin a great relationship with the burden of a marriage commitment. I feel in love with the woman who later became my wife, because she and I had shared interests, shared goals, and our desires complemented each other's very well. I would have loved to have just being an unmarried couple with her forever, but then we started to talk about children, and that was when we discovered that we actually wanted to have a family, so we got married.

I don't see why you have fault with acting upon an Asian fetish, Ledlight! Well I am proud of mine, and I take great pride in the fact that wife and children are still Japanese citizens. Who are you to criticize someone else's fetish?

Also there is nothing wrong with social climbing. What, should we all prefer to languish in mediocrity?

Good on you Nicole for wanting to self-actualize. Never accept second best, and always live to make yourself a better person. Also it is better to find the right man (or woman), and then let yourself fall in love with him (or her)? Nicole you have made it perfectly clear that you know very well who is the right man for you, and I feel confidently that you will not give your love to someone who doesn't deserve it.

But now I know I was all wrong - he's just gotta be rich! Screw compatability!

Just rich? Where's the assurance of continued liquidity after the warranty period is up and it turns out you got a lemon (to adopt the consumerist idiom encouraged by this article and some of the comments)? Wealth alone won't do it. The true dream team is "good balance sheet, dodgy EKG". That way you've got a graceful way out that doesn't involve getting a prenup invalidated.

Just following this lovely article through to its natural conclusions.

I never thought a radical like me would ever in a million years feel sorry for billionares.

But never say never.

I'm a carpenter, I'll never see even a million dollars in this lifetime and the closest I ever came to a billionare was installing a glass door on Steve Ross' office, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that any woman who's with me is there because she loves me.

I have always been more concerned about whether I could love a woman, then if a woman could love me.

I probably make as much or less than a carpenter, but there is no doubt to anyone that I love my wife.

Why she chose me, I have no idea, but I believe it was mostly because I gave (and give) her every reason to feel good about herself, and because there has never been a day that I have not wanted to give her my love (and there never will never be a day in which I won't want to give her my love).

I feel sad for any man who cannot bring himself to unconditionally love a woman.

I have always been more concerned about whether I could love a woman, then if a woman could love me.

I probably make as much or less than a carpenter, but there is no doubt to anyone that I love my wife.

Why she chose me, I have no idea, but I believe it was mostly because I gave (and give) her every reason to feel good about herself, and because there has never been a day that I have not wanted to give her my love (and there never will be a day in which I won't want to give her my love).

I feel sad for any man who cannot bring himself to unconditionally love a woman.

Sorry about the double post.

Why is everyone so seemingly focussed on "finding someone"? Really, if there's one thing I've learnt, it's that you should live YOUR life. You are likely to find someone fulfilling, and if it's not "forever" you'll only learn from it.

I mean, I really believe monogamy is unnatural but with our social condition it's almost impossible to have an open relationship that isn't exploitive.

So monogamy can be rewarding - but why not take the time to flirt and play while you can? Falling into a serious relationship is just as exciting, if not more, if you're not looking for it!

I don't see anything anti-feminist about wanting to marry a successful(It's not really about the money for me.) and good looking man or doing the things to maximize the chances of that happening. I would never marry him if I didn't have feelings for him, and I could never marry someone I wasn't physically and intellectually attracted to. That's hard to find around most everyday places. If you saw my friends boyfriends you'd know what I was talking about. Feminism is about women having choices and being masters of their own destiny. Women should be able to do whatever they want(as long as it infringe on the rights of others). If that means being a lawyer, a politician, a model, a stay-at-home mom, or marrying a rich man then that is her prerogative. I do want a lasting monogamous relationship. Casual relationsgips just aren't my thing. This makes me no better or worse than anyone else. I can't help it if I'm picky, and I refuse to lower my standards.

I don't think he was saying that. It is a medical fact that female fertility begins to decline at about 35. If a woman wants three biological kids she can't wait much longer. Egg freezing might change this in the near future though.

Don't you know that eggs AND sperm start detriorating after a person's 20s, equally? If I'm impregnated by a man over 35, I have a much greater chance of conceiving a kid with Down's Syndrome, autism, webbed feet, etc. I thought we all knew this?? Really, if I wanted the best offpring possible, I'd get a 19 year old donor. But I don't base my relationships on whether or not the man would be a prime selection for reproducing.

As far as this article, it looks like 2 authors did their damnest to waste 3 pages of trying to complete a word count. I mean, the writing is terrible. I also can't think of anything more painfully lame and torturous than changing your lifestyle to meet "driven, successful" people. God, I can only IMAGINE the conversations that take place at one of these charity dinners...blah blah blah. Give me a dive bar, a cute, fashionable, high sex-driven boy who can cook, and I'm a happy girl.

Think about it - if you were a wealthy, successful person, would you want to hook up with a partner who has tailored his or her lifestyle to meet people with your cash flow? Heh.

A relatively small thing, but can we please stop using the fishing metaphor for marriage and relationships? "A great catch" "Landing a boyfriend", etc - it makes me think of nets and hooks and lures, and has nothing to do with a healthy relationship.

Also, the article? Blech. Meeting one's mate shouldn't be a series of goals and tests. It's not buying a sofa. "I'm looking for *this* kind of man"? Please. Everyone has things they want in a partner, but love will surprise you with the packaging most of the time.

"Also there is nothing wrong with social climbing. What, should we all prefer to languish in mediocrity?
Good on you xxx for wanting to self-actualize. Never accept second best, and always live to make yourself a better person."

I don't want to troll/airhead-bait either, but . . .

There is an equation used here--richer = better--and a metaphor--climbing the ladder of success-- that is conflated with the concept of self-actualization. The result is a cliched medley of pop-psy.

I could agree that self-improvement and self-knowledge can lead to advancement in self-actualization. However, a large component of self-knowledge involves understanding oneself within a social context and understanding how that context impinges upon the self. For example, the social message that equates 'success' with money and 'better' with social status are endemic to our culture. Buying into it without thinking about its implications leads not to self-actualization, but to being a cog in a system that perpetuates itself through you.

This thread attempts to analyze components of that social message as it is delivered to women--marry for support--and to men and women about women--they are grasping, gold-digging bitches. The implications of such messages are inimical to self-actualization.

Nicole—I appreciate your questions on these threads; I assume that you come here as I do, to learn from others about issues that effect us all. It does you no good to be patronized by a troll who would encourage you to stick to the status quo and not learn from the thoughtful posters here.

Don't you know that eggs AND sperm start detriorating after a person's 20s, equally? If I'm impregnated by a man over 35, I have a much greater chance of conceiving a kid with Down's Syndrome, autism, webbed feet, etc. I thought we all knew this?? "

Actually, the fertility decline in men is much slower, which is why it's not uncommon to see men in their sixties fathering children. Women that age need to use donor eggs.

To me, there's something fundamentally off with this approach to finding a partner. It just seems so consumerist - like you've gone through a procedure as if you were buying a house or car.

Seriously. And Itazura, don't you think it's demeaning to refer to your wife in terms of your Asian fetish? :shudders:

Actually, the fertility decline in men is much slower, which is why it's not uncommon to see men in their sixties fathering children. Women that age need to use donor eggs.

Hey, if you want to risk DNA damage in your offspring with a wealthy "sperm time bomb," be my guest! At least older women's eggs aren't as likely to provide false hope. I'd rather see outright that the produce was foul outright rather than biting into an apple that looked shiny and red, but was rotten inside.

No one was looking for damage relating to older dads until fairly recently. You ought to Google this subject and see for yourself.

A couple of things:

First, Itazura and his "Asian fetish": I jokingly refer to my interest in my husband as my "albino fetish." It's true, I have a thing for young guys (meaning not old enough for normal graying, not cradle robbing) with white, silver or platinum-blond hair and pale skin. So I joke that that's my fetish. But I could have, and have had, attractions to people who don't look like that. Itazura probably finds Asian eye shape to be attractive. Given that he found his wife *in* Japan, where there are millions of Asian women, it is highly unlikely that he fell in love with her just because she's Asian; it's simply a part of why she was attractive to him, and attraction is part of the reason we fall in love. There's nothing wrong with it, although phrases like "Asian fetish" do conjure up creepy, sordid images of mail-order brides. I didn't just fall in love with my husband because he's an albino; if he were dumb as a post it would never have happened. I'm sure Itazura's wife has many traits he finds attractive and lovable, not just the shape of her eyes.

However, as for this article.

I find the advice given by this kind of article to be utterly contradictory. If you want to be rich, it's because you want money that is under your control. The money is not under your control if it belongs to your husband. Period. It is much, much better to advise women who want to be rich to marry guys who are poor, have little ambition, but are very loving and caring and great with kids. Then have them be househusbands and raise your kids and keep your house clean while you climb to the top of your profession. This is hard work, but the finding the man part is easy and the working for a job part is fulfilling and exciting, assuming you picked a job that you can enjoy and that will make you wealthy.

It's bad enough that if you marry an equal, sex discrimination and anti-mother discrimination will probably lead him to end up making more than you, especially if you have kids. To actively seek out such an inequality is asking for trouble. I don't think that the guy abusing you or raping your kids is *more* likely than that he'll just divorce you and marry a trophy wife when you're 40, unlike a poster above, but I do think that no matter what happens, he'll have control and you won't. Even if you have a great marriage, he could die and you'll have nothing but his life insurance and existing assets. And you'll always be in the position of taking care of *him*, being *his* support, meeting *his* needs. A woman who's reading Money in the first place is not likely to find this all that appealing.

"Hey, if you want to risk DNA damage in your offspring with a wealthy "sperm time bomb," be my guest! At least older women's eggs aren't as likely to provide false hope. I'd rather see outright that the produce was foul outright rather than biting into an apple that looked shiny and red, but was rotten inside."

With amniocentesis I think this is really a non-issue. Most older men father healthy babies anyway. I'm not even saying I want to marry a much older man. Guys in their thirties and forties usually have no trouble conceiving a healthy baby.

"Feminism is about women having choices and being masters of their own destiny."

Yes, feminism is about having choices. But choice is an illusion if the field of choices is limited. And choice is an illusion is we are socialized to make only certain choices. To choose freely necessitates an awareness of how our social context impinges upon free action. With great effort we can expand our field of choices.

As far as women being "masters" of our own destinies, there's a whole discourse on how language works in self-formation that I don't have the energy for right now!

I sorta thought this article WAS a joke, or at least a fantasy. "One cautionary note: Before you start making repeated visits to your target's golf club or home, remember that stalking is a crime in all 50 states and Washington, D.C." I mean c'mon. It's like those articles, how to survive in the Alaskan wilderness; how to survive being dropped in the desert with only a spoon.

The thought of never having to worry about money again and getting to take trips around the world is a nice fantasy for all of us, but I don't know that many people are really going to set our sights on marrying a billionaire...

Re: what Nicole was saying. One thing to remember is that women who are very very attractive tend to have a lot of great guys tripping after them. I don't think that "having means" is very many people's No. 1 criteria - but if a woman gets more offers for dates than she can handle attention from guys who are smart, handsome, kind and attentive, why not limit herself to the successful ones?

Guys in their thirties and forties usually have no trouble conceiving a healthy baby.

Correction, COUPLES in their thirties and forties can have no trouble conceiving healthy babies, IF they can conceive. Men are just as responsible for this, and yet women are seen as the ones who have "failed" if there's a miscarriage even though the father's sperm might be to blame.

One thing to remember is that women who are very very attractive tend to have a lot of great guys tripping after them.

Panting over symmetrically cute boys and girls in your early 20s is totally understandable...I have a friend in her early 30s who is very "conventially" pretty, in that "pure and natural cheerleader" way. There are indeed men her age who are "tripping" over her, but they all have major control and drama issues. Basically, if you are still going after people who are attractive to the masses after a certain age, you have a problem. (It's another matter altogether if you've matured enough to appreciate a unique combination of features you personally find ridiculously hot, as you would develop any palette.)

So let's say in this case you have a wealthy man who likes "pretty" women, and women who make a hobby our of pursuing these men. Together that makes a hot mess...I guess if that's a valid choice for you, then go for it.

Don't even put wealth into the equation when you're looking for a partner. It's the intangibles that really matter.

Do what it takes to make enough money to cover your own needs and some of your wants and don't rely on a partner to better your financial position. It's nice if it happens, but dating or marrying for that premise is likely to lead to a world of hurt.

Dang it! I currently subscribe to Money and now I think I am going to write a letter telling them that I won't be renewing my subscription due to this outrageous article. And I really liked that magazine. Oh well...I can always go to the bookstore once a month or so and sit down and read it!

Jane - well, it's always great if you can find someone who is "hot" that other people don't appreciate. Means you have much better odds. But most of the time I've found that my tastes don't differ that much from those of the masses. Thankfully though when I was single I found that even after being picky on the basis of smarts, personality, kindness etc. there were still a fairly good selection of attractive girls who would entertain offers of my company, so those were the ones I pursued.

“One thing to remember is that women who are very very attractive tend to have a lot of great guys tripping after them.�
Let me correct that for you: They would have a lot of *guys* tripping after them. Not a lot of *great* guys. My experience is that very pretty girls always attract very many losers, and yes control freaks as well. And beyond casual sex I would personally like to know that a guy is interested than just my looks. But maybe that’s just me.

“but if a woman gets more offers for dates than she can handle attention from guys who are smart, handsome, kind and attentive, why not limit herself to the successful ones?� Because after weeding out all the creeps there aren’t going to be that many guys left. (What kind of dating world do you live in where there exist so many “smart, handsome, kind and attentive� men?? ). And because “smart, handsome, kind and attentive� are not interchangeable with each other so it’s not like, well, if smart-handsome-kind-and-attentive man A had more money than smart-handsome-kind-and-attentive man B then I’ll take A over B. It’s not like I am picking myself a dress. And if I did then that would only make me a mercenary hussy (sorry I just like how that sounds).

I wish successful were not used as a synonym for successful at making money.

"if a woman gets more offers for dates than she can handle attention from guys who are smart, handsome, kind and attentive, why not limit herself to the successful ones?"
One thing that is driving me nuts is that "successful" and rich are being used interchangeably. Money does not equal success.

Itazura-
"I wanted an independent minded, native born, Asian woman, who could cook, discuss politics, and would love to travel. so I got a job that sent me to an Asian country, entered the necessary social circles there, and found my wife."

"To be totally honest when I went to Japan, I had no intention of finding a wife, but I was looking for my dream woman, and I found her."

These two statements are completely contradictory...you wanted an asian woman so you found a job in Asia...but you had no intention of finding a woman? WTF? And, "I don't see why you have fault with acting upon an Asian fetish!"
I do, you know why? Fetishes are demeaning. It's one thing if a guy likes me because of who I am, and is attracted to people of my race. It is another thing for a guy to be attracted to people of my race just because he thinks we're "hot." The first one is just a natural attraction. The second one is demeaning and generalizing.

My experience is that very pretty girls always attract very many losers, and yes control freaks as well.

Which means that girls who are pretty to the masses have to shoulder the burden of keeping the losers away from the rest of us! ;) Seriously though, my friend has a rather frustrating time trying to do this.

"Seriously. And Itazura, don't you think it's demeaning to refer to your wife in terms of your Asian fetish? :shudders:"

No, my wife does not feel that my unwavering love of her heritage is demeaning, and she is happy that I totally accept her culture and that I encourage her to practice her religion (despite that I am anti-religious institution) and keep her traditional ways. I am very proud of my wife's ethnic back ground, and I wouldn't want to change anything about it (and my wife is a very traditional Japanese woman). My Asian fetish goes deep, in fact many people call me an all Asian patriot, and one of my stated goals is to bring the Asian nations closer together (like EU), which is why I oppose Abe's support of the Japaneses revision of history, and I am looking forward to his political defeat soon. I love everything cultural, traditional, and artist about the Far East, and I am not in the least bit ashamed of my love (and sexual thrill that I feel) for all of it. And my wife is proud that I take so much pride in her. More than likely I will eventually apply for Japanese citizenship, as that is where I want to make my home, and I only returned to the US because I had few issues in this country that I had to work out first.

However, I live in a US state where Japanese is widely spoken, and my Japanese in-laws spend so much time at my house on vacation that they pretty much live with me (I take a lot of pride in my in-laws as well, and I donate a lot of my time to catering my services for free to Japanese servicemen when they arrive for port visits in the US state that I live in).

My wife has never had a problem with my love for her, and my fetish for anything Asian has never presented a problem for us (she loves that I love her cooking, and that I also practice her cultural and traditional ways).

Rock Star & SarahMC - I actually wasn't equating success and wealth, although they often do go hand in hand.

sojourner - Well, I feel like people can have VASTLY different experiences dating based on how desirable they are (on all levels) and where they live. I don't think that many women have their pick of great guys, but I think a few certainly do.

Of course if someone is only left with a couple of guys after eliminating the creeps, then it doesn't make sense for her to be so picky.

Also you are right that it's not like people are interchangeable like that, but you only have some much time to judge someone in a dating situation.

"Fetishes are demeaning." If that statement is part of the feministing platform, then I have definitely come to the wrong place, and I am definitely not a feminist. I see no problem with exploring one's sexuality, and as long as your fetishes are not harmful to others, then there is nothing wrong with pursuing them. I have several fetishes that I am proud of, and none of my fetishes are harmful to myself or anyone else. If your fetish is antique furniture, then by all means I encourage you to collect antique furniture, and there is nothing demeaning to anyone if you get a sexual thrill out of sitting in your antique furniture (I have a couch I love to make love on). If your sexual thrill in uniforms, then by all means go out and try to date servicemen. If Foreign accents turn you on, then by all means go travel aboard (I did).

I thought "Full Frontal Feminism" was about making feminism sexy.

"It does you no good to be patronized by a troll who would encourage you to stick to the status quo and not learn from the thoughtful posters here."

Don't put words in my mouth Grace.

I would never advise a young woman to accept the status quo, in fact I have spoken out against the status quo in almost everyone of my post on this site.

I encouraged and advised Nicole not to accept second best, and to always want to better herself. I don't see that advise as meaning "accept the status quo." Also I informed everyone that social climbing in not wrong, and I am sticking to that proclamation, because I think it is foolish to want to languish in mediocrity. There is nothing wrong with entering into high class social circles, and there is nothing wrong with picking romantic partners that will improve you socially as a person. You can be a feminist and still want to rise to the top, can't you? And you won't get to the top if you pick men (or women) that are complete failures, and that's a reality of western civilization whether you want to accept it or not. Yes, as a progressive we want more upward mobility chances for everyone, but to not act upon a chance to better your social standing is foolish, unless it goes against your conscience or standards. I could have made a lot more money had I acted against my conscience and standards, but I still raised my social standing by acting upon other comfortable and appropriate upward mobility openings. They are out there, but they (the comfortable and morally conducive social upward openings) are a little more difficult to find, but don't stop looking for them.

Itazura, you have really been giving me the creeps. I never said it was demeaning for you to LOVE your wife. You used the word "fetish," which suggests to me that you view your wife as an embodiment of Asia or something. You admit that you fetishize your wife's culture. Your wife is a person, not furniture. If someone told me they were with me because I was an exciting novelty to them, I'd be seriously creeped out and offended.

And for chrissakes, stop pretending that material wealth is the only measure of success. What's a "complete failure" to you? Someone who doesn't amass X amount of money by a certain age? Nobody is advocating "languishing in mediocrity," but your language suggests that you have very narrow definitions of "mediocrity" & "success."

Itazura, you have really been giving me the creeps. I never said it was demeaning for you to LOVE your wife. You used the word "fetish," which suggests to me that you view your wife as an embodiment of Asia or something. You admit that you fetishize your wife's culture. Your wife is a person, not furniture. If someone told me they were with me because I was an exciting novelty to them, I'd be seriously creeped out and offended.

And for chrissakes, stop pretending that material wealth is the only measure of success. What's a "complete failure" to you? Someone who doesn't amass X amount of money by a certain age? Nobody is advocating "languishing in mediocrity," but your language suggests that you have very narrow definitions of "mediocrity" & "success."

SarahMC

I never said my Asian fetish was why I feel in love with my wife, or the reason why I married her.

You made those assumptions on your own.

No, I do not see my wife as furniture. I see her as a beautiful traditional Japanese woman, who is serious about her culture, heritage and religion, active in her Nation's political discourse, and a great cook. She is my dream woman, but I would not have found her, had I not acted upon my Asian fetish. I went to Japanese because I was in love with the culture, the traditions, and the heritage, and I wanted to live the Japanese life style, not just experience the culture.

I have not mentioned the word "wealth" once, so I don't see how you can say that I equated wealth to success. I did mention upper class circles, but I don't see all upper class social circles as being the exclusive provinces of the wealthy. I see success as being a part of something that gains board social appeal, being responsible for propagating something that has gained broad social appeal, or being a part of something that benefits all of humanity. Success is usually measured by the group accomplishment, not the individual accomplishment. If Nicole wants to pursue men who are part of something successful (that doesn't go against her conscience or standards), then we should encourage her to do so.

Failure in my opinion is anything that languishes, fails to adjust to the times, or is poorly planned or thought out. Kind of like the neo-cons and the Bush administration's agenda.

Soooo why would you think any of us would promote failure?

Still a little skeezed by your use of the word fetish. But I don't feel like turning this into another 400-poster.

SarahMC

Can you honestly tell me you have no fetishes? Rhetorical question don't answer it.

"Soooo why would you think any of us would promote failure?"

I never said any of you did, but I disliked that Ledlight accused Nicole of social climbing (I didn't see that she had that desire in any of her comments), and it sounds to me like Ledlight was suggesting that we should prefer to languish in mediocrity. I consider Feministing.com and "Full Frontal Feminsim" (I gave the book to my parents, my sister, and to one of the women at my work) a success, which is why I want to be a part of it (in a small capacity), but I think it gives the wrong message to women when you indirectly suggest that they should not pursue successful men, only because the stupid "Money Magazine" advised women to marry for wealth.

No, my wife does not feel that my unwavering love of her heritage is demeaning, and she is happy that I totally accept her culture and that I encourage her to practice her religion (despite that I am anti-religious institution) and keep her traditional ways.

Itazura, you're starting to piss me off.

What you describe here is not a "fetish." If you're a fetishest, then you're being dishonest about how you truly feel about your wife. Conversely, if the remark above describes your true feelings (and I don't mean to suggest it doesn't), then you are misusing the word "fetish," so you really should knock it the fuck off because it's fucking annoying.

"Fetish," from Merriam-Webster:

1 a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : PREPOSSESSION c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
2 : a rite or cult of fetish worshipers
3 : FIXATION

In other words, if you have a fetish for your wife, then YES, YOU ARE DEMEANING HER BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING HER INTO AN OBJECT. If you're not demeaning her, you're not a fetishest. It's a simlpy question of English.

As to this:

I thought "Full Frontal Feminism" was about making feminism sexy.

Then you would be wrong. Feminism is not about the quest to be sexy. We already have enough people telling us that every motherfucking thing we do has to be sexy. We don't need feminists regurgitating the same message every other goddamn person does. Feminism, instead, is about self-actulaization. The whole point of Jessica's book is to draw attention to why feminism is still relevant for women our age (teens, twenties, thirties).

Sorry guys. I had to get that off my chest.

Also, Itazura: define "mediocrity" and explain how ANYONE here has suggested we should pursue MEDIOCRE, as opposed to decent but potentially not-rich, men.

Jeez. I just wrote a long post in response to you and accidently erased it. To make it easier for both of us, I'll say this: What TLF said.
No, I don't have any fetishes. If I did, it'd be wrong of me to find a guy who has whatever quality I fetishize and proceed to commodify him as though he's a cool souvenier.

And when you say things like:
I think it gives the wrong message to women when you indirectly suggest that they should not pursue successful men, only because the stupid "Money Magazine" advised women to marry for wealth.
you are using the terms interchangably.

This is getting boring.

Fetish* a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc. : Victorian men developed fetishes focusing on feet, shoes, and boots.

That was taken from the dictionary on my mac OS.

I hate the use of the word abnormal, but yes I develop a degree of sexual arousal when I observe Asian culture items, such as Kimonos, Geishas, shoelessness in the house, and etc.

Sorry if my Asian fetish offends you TLF.

Further sorry for assuming that feminism could be sexy.

"Also, Itazura: define "mediocrity" and explain how ANYONE here has suggested we should pursue MEDIOCRE, as opposed to decent but potentially not-rich, men."

Yes, Ledlight's comment was an implied accusation that Nicole was wrong for wanting to social climb, and it seemed to me to be like a suggestion that Nicole should prefer to languish in mediocrity, which was why I questioned Ledlight's comment in the counter comment I wrote.

Medicority* the quality or state of being mediocre.

Again, taken from my mac OS dictionary.

I thought "Full Frontal Feminism" was about making feminism sexy.

Then you would be wrong. Feminism is not about the quest to be sexy. We already have enough people telling us that every motherfucking thing we do has to be sexy.

"Sexy" doesn't, in this context, mean "sexually arousing." I've worked in a lab and done "sexy" projects - those that are intellectually and spiritually arousing, hip, and cutting-edge.

Jesus. Define the terms you're using. When you talk about social climbing, it sounds like you're advocating hanging out with hoity toity folks exclusively, in hopes that you'll eventually become one of them and leave your old life of "mediocrity" behind.
How would you describe someone who devoted her life to rescuing animals and finding them homes? Founding her own such-and-such rescue group. She's not rich by any means. She prefers a beer in a pub to a sail on a fancy yacht.

Well isn't it nice for you that you snagged yourself a nice, traditional Japanese woman who's more than happy to live her life playing out your fetish. If I were her I'd constantly wonder if you loved me or my Asian-ness. Like I said, it sounds like you got yourself a nifty souvenier.

Ah, Itazura. I think you can't help but make trouble even when you have no intention of doing so.

I think it is possible that Itazura's forthrightness about sexuality is off-putting to people sometimes. I choose to interpret it as the frankness of someone who has spent considerable time outside of the (puritanical buzzkill) US. I am not frequently put off by his comments, but the times I have been , I have elected to consider whether I would be equally concerned if one of the women members had made the comment. The answer, thus far, has universally been "No."

Fetishizing one's wife/love is not, per se, demeaning or anti-feminist. Especially since he has said comes here (at least in part) to share feminist discourse with his wife, I think it's a little unfair to call foul on Itazura for having sexist attitudes about her.

SarahMC

I have told you how I see my wife. I do not see her as a cool souvenir.

So since you have no fetishes, then does that mean that nothing gives you sexual arousal? Rhetorical question, please don't answer. However, if nothing gives you an arousal, then I feel very sad for you.

Have you ever thought about what kind of man (or women if the cases be) you want? Please do answer that question, but I won't be offended if you don't.

I am trying not to be your enemy, but it seems like that you are pushing me in that direction.

I wish Itazura's wife would join in. I've thought more than once that I'd like very much to hear her persective. Say hello for me, if she's reading tonight, Itazura.

"Fetishizing one's wife/love is not, per se, demeaning or anti-feminist. Especially since he has said comes here (at least in part) to share feminist discourse with his wife, I think it's a little unfair to call foul on Itazura for having sexist attitudes about her."

Uh, no. We are WELL within our rights to call him on his sexist behaviour and posts, REGARDLESS of his claimed reasons for posting here.

And count me as another person that is skeeved out by his posts on this thread.

Like TLF said, you're not even using the word "fetish" correctly.

If you're aroused by soft music & candles, that doesn't mean you have a soft music & candle fetish. People get aroused by certain things; that doesn't mean those things are fetishes.

I know exactly what kind of man I want. We've been together for almost 5 years. I think his hair is sexy but I don't have a brown-curly-hair fetish.

Thanks Peepers

But I don't think I have a sexist attitude towards my wife, unless complete love and devotion for her is considered sexist.

I suppose I fetishize (not a word) my wife in that I worship her, but she is not an object of my Asian fetish. I don't see her as an object at all, and my Asian fetish was not my reason for falling in love with her or marrying her (I have already stated why I fell in love with her and why we decided to get married). I can be a good husband and still have fetishes (anyone can).

Itazura, who are the editors of your Mac OS dictionary? I think Merriam-Webster is a pretty well-established authority on the English language. Steve Jobs, on the other hand, while a genius when it comes to technology, might not be the absolute best source to consult for English language questions.

As to this:

Further sorry for assuming that feminism could be sexy.

You could really use a class in basic logic. Saying that feminism isn't ABOUT being sexy is not the same as saying feminism CAN'T be sexy. But this might be along the same lines of your calling pretty much any kind of sexual arousal a "fetish." If you're going to debate in the English language, learn to say what you mean, and to understand what you read.

Medicority* the quality or state of being mediocre.

Thanks for the laugh. This is the least useful definition of "mediocrity" on the planet.

And by the way, when I asked you HOW anyone here had encouraged seeking out mediocrity, I wasn't asking you to REITERATE your unsupported statement. I was asking you to EXPLAIN it. I really really hope you understand the difference.

ARGH. I hate to be so demeaning, except, as I said before, you are really fucking pissing me off.

Sigh...

At the risk of sounding pedantic, Itazura, fetishize is indeed a word.

Sorry I don't live up to your standard TLF. However your attack on me has not caused me to think less of you. I like reading your posts, I think your extremely intelligent, and you contribute more to this great site than I ever will.

Um... complimenting me doesn't end the argument. Thank you for your kind words, but you haven't responded to my points. If you don't want to continue the debate, that's fine, of course.

As for living up to my standards, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know you, so I don't know how I could have any standards about you. And I wasn't attacking YOU, I was attacking your ARGUMENT. Yeah, I was being kind of heated about it, but you're also simply refusing to listen to what Sarah and I and others have been saying. You need to understand that "fetish" means something other than what you seem to think it means. I'm sorry if you really like the word, but you're either using it incorrectly, or you're saying really horrific things about your wife, for which you should rightly expect to be taken to task on a feminist website.

fetishize didn't and still doesn't show up in my spell checker. I was pretty sure it was a word, and I forgot to put a "?" before the ")".

But I don't think I have a sexist attitude towards my wife
Yeah. I meant it seems unlikely that you have sexist attitudes about your wife. I see how that was unclear. I also see that I need to utilize spell-check. (Sorry about my lazy errors, folks.)

Law Fairy, you do indeed sound pedantic. Arguing over the definition of a word is silly. If you look at what Itazura actually is saying, it is completely un-objectionable.

I was not ending the argument, I haven't left yet. have I?

"Ah, Itazura. I think you can't help but make trouble even when you have no intention of doing so."

Itazura means to make trouble in Japanese.

Sorry if my understanding of "fetish" was wrong, but I have always felt that a fetish was a sexual arousal that somebody developed for an object that was not directly related to sex. At least that was what I had learned in my psychology class in high-school.

I don't have access to a whole lots of resource books at the moment, and my internet access range is limited, thus I can't really argue for the English language right now (which is what I meant when I said sorry I don't live up to your standards). I am listening to what you and SarahMC are saying, I wouldn't be responding if I wasn't. Are you listening to what I am saying?

Are fetishes (as I understand them) demeaning? Because if so, I have never felt wrong for having them, and I have found happiness by acting upon them.

I see social climbing as entering into higher social circles, and I don't see that as a bad ambition, as long as the higher social circles do good things. And one can bring their friends along with them when one enters into higher social circles.

Derek, I am looking at what he is actually saying. And I find it HIGHLY objectionable. I'm worried that you don't, apparently.

Or should we just throw definitions out the window and pretend words mean whatever we want them to? In that case, I am Jesus Christ, the Queen Mother, and a superhero. And by that I mean I'm a female. Don't argue with my definitions! It's silly!

When you refer to your affinity for your wife as a fetish, yes, that particular fetish is demeaning. You're calling her an object.

Aaaand as I expected, you have not defined "higher social circles!" Stop talking around yourself.

Derek: The meaning of a word means A LOT when it's incorrect usage completely changes the sentiment of one's words.

Itazura, thank you for your last comment -- this one, to me, seems much more to be responding to the substantive points we've brought up.

My short response is that simply experiencing sexual arousal from atypical or not "inherently" (meaning traditionally, as defined by cultural norms -- a whole other can of worms in itself) sexual stimuli is not what I would consider to be fetishistic. So if that's all you're saying, I don't see a major problem with that, nor would I call it a fetish.

I don't have time to respond more in-depth than that, unfortunately. I'll try to come back later and see if we've moved further on by then.

What makes one social circle better than another, I wonder? Because there must be some specific thing that is normally used to put them on a scale....Oh, wait...that is money, or privilege. And that all boils down to classism. Blech.

SarahMC - I think if you're offended by the way someone's word choice, the correct thing to do is to ask them what they mean by the word. But maybe that is just me.

In any case -- why is it anyone's business how two people choose to have a relationship? As long as they are happy? Sometimes objectification can be HOT.

shfree, exactly. Which is probably why these folks are dancing around the phrase instead of coming right out and defining it. Though it's pretty obvious when you look through the comments and see how often "wealth" are "success" and "high social circles" are used interchangably.

I disagree with you, SarahMC. I believe it is not harmful, per se, to sexually objectify (or even fetishize aspects of) one's lover, wife, etc. If one is not also aware of the lover’s subjectivity and autonomy, then, yes, it becomes harmful.

Close couples do all kinds of things. Some of them, in any other context, would be demeaning. Good for them.

Itazura has given nobody reason to believe that he does not acknowledge and value his wife’s subjectivity and autonomy. To the contrary, he frequently mentions her in a way that suggests he values her perspective. He also shares this site with her, reading some of it to her because her English is limited. That does not sound to me like someone who is demeaning another person.

"When you refer to your affinity for your wife as a fetish."

I never said that, and I certainly never meant to imply that. I never used the word "affinity" I used love, devotion, and worship, and I stated that my Asian fetish was not the reason I fell in love with my wife or the reason why we decided to get married (but it was what led me to her).

What are higher social circles? We could go on forever on a definition for that one. Here, I'll try to make it short. to me a higher social circle is a group of people, community, or sub-culture that encompasses highly successful people or people that have become elevated to a higher social standing based on their success in business, art, cultural advancements, science, politics, religion, and/or etc.

"Of course if someone is only left with a couple of guys after eliminating the creeps, then it doesn't make sense for her to be so picky."

That depends on how much she values having a partner in the first place.

For another example, suppose a straight woman doesn't want to marry a father and isn't left with any available men after ruling out the ones who have children. Does this automatically mean she should change her mind about stepmotherhood and try to marry a father? No, it means she should ask herself "would I rather marry a father or stay unmarried?"

"He also shares this site with her, reading some of it to her because her English is limited."

She is not here right now, but when she gets home, after a day of shopping (I took care of the kids today, so that she could get some time off), I am sure that she will want to read the extent of this string. recently she has been putting stuff she has learned from you gals and guys into her own blog that is written in Japanese.

EG, oenophile, and TLF are the contributers she seems to like the most, not because of what they say, but because of the emotion they express.

Recognizing a person as a sexual being is different from sexually objectifying them.

"No, it means she should ask herself "would I rather marry a father or stay unmarried?""

This reminds me of a acquaintance I once knew (I liked her, but its hard to consider her a friend, as we never really spoke to each other). She decided to get a sperm donation, because she was tired of the men in her life, and didn't want to marry any of them. She was only 29 at the time, but she didn't want to be a new mom at an age over 30. People laughed at her, but I always thought she did the right thing. Why settle for second best, and why let bad luck deter you from you pursuing your dreams. I don't know if she ever found Mr. Right-for-her, but I know she loved her son, and no one ever accused her of being a bad Mom. I got lucky with my wife and kids, but sometimes you have to take fate into your own hands.

TLF, thanks for calling Itazura out on the thing that pissed me off the moment I saw it - "Languishing in mediocrity"? If I don't try to climb socially, I'm languishing in mediocrity? What the hell? I don't see why the society of all kinds of people isn't of value, whether or not that have achieved some measurable level of success.
If I have a group of friends in college, or high school, or, Christ, grade school, and I keep them all my life as I become increasingly successful, am I surrendering to this mediocrity? Seek society of people who make you happy, who encourage you to be better in all the ways that you can, people who are kind and decent and moral, people who are responsible and thoughtful, sure. Successful? Especially when used so interchangeably with "wealthy"? That's pretty suspect. Social climbing is all about the idea that the society you have isn't good enough, and you should find better. Frankly, I like the society I have just fine, thanks. I will continue to seek new people to be part of my society, but I'm sure as hell not languishing anywhere in the meantime.

"Recognizing a person as a sexual being is different from sexually objectifying them."

The wouldn't fit well on a bumper sticker, but I am adding it to my lexicon anyways.

It is possible to sexual objectify someone, and still see them as person. I lust for Beth Ditto, but I still respect her as a person, and I am a great admirer of what she does.

"If I have a group of friends in college, or high school, or, Christ, grade school, and I keep them all my life as I become increasingly successful, am I surrendering to this mediocrity?"

Your friends can advance with you. A lot of higher social circles are actually groups of people that became elevated socially together.

Languishing in mediocrity basically meaning doing the same thing everyday, and never acting upon ambition, goals, or visions. You can run in place, or you can run up hill. I have brought some friends with me in my social climb, and some friends have reached levels far above my own, but I feel sorry for the folks that aren't doing anything meaningful with their lives (that to me is languishing in mediocrity).

I feel sorry for the folks that aren't doing anything meaningful with their lives (that to me is languishing in mediocrity).

Great. What does that have to do with Nicole's desire to marry a financially successful man bordering on celebrity status? That's not making the most of one's life, which is what you're talking about (although why you call it _social_ climbing is beyond me; social climbing is and has always been an attempt to change ones status _in the eyes of others_, not to achieve personal satisfaction), that's a whole different ball game. In another stadium, across town.

to me a higher social circle is a group of people, community, or sub-culture that encompasses highly successful people or people that have become elevated to a higher social standing based on their success in business, art, cultural advancements, science, politics, religion, and/or etc.

Trouble is, success in any one of these things doesn't guarantee one won't be a douche in other areas (like being a good friend, or trustworthy, or kind). So if your primary motivation for hanging out with them is their success, you probably could also marry for money with no problem. It's just the nuance of golddigger vs. starfucker at that point.

For all the hassle of hanging out with douches, why not just read their books on finance or physics or whatever? And if they're not douches and you value them for their expert listening skills, then what the hell does being an archbishop or congresswoman have to do with anything?

I can't think of why one wouldn't want interesting friends. I bet we all want to see the world from within stimulating circles. But you can't get there by climbing, because the climbers' summit is only, at best, a hanger-on. You can only really get in by being an interesting friend. That means doing your own thing, and looking out for others. That's a taller order than it sounds, and hardly mediocrity.

Sorry, I don't see what point you are trying to make, and I don't understand what you are asking me, iscah.

I really don't care who Nicole pursues, and I am surprised that you do. If Nicole desires to marry a financially successful man bordering on celebrity status, that's her choice, and I support her, as long as she doesn't do anything against her conscience or lower her standards in favor of money. You can be a financially successful man bordering on celebrity status, and still be a good person.

I defined social climbing as entering higher social circles, and that is a good ambition, as long as the social circles in question do good things.

"I bet we all want to see the world from within stimulating circles. But you can't get there by climbing..."

Well I guess it depends on what you consider social climbing. Nicole mentioned finishing her degree, and getting a good job that brought her closer to the kind of men she wants to meet. I did the same thing in my quest to live the Japanese life style, and once I got there I met the woman of my dreams. There are all kinds of ways to enter higher social circles, but yes, through dedication and hard work, you can enter higher social circles, which is how I defined social climbing.

Itazura, did you not read what I wrote?
Seeing women (or people) sexual objects is not a good thing. Seeing them as sexual BEINGS is fine.

"A (potentially) financially successful *woman* bordering on celebrity status."

Jessica Valenti fits that description, and I am sure that some young man has a desire to meet someone like her, and I am sure she is good a person (and I know she does good things).

SarahMC, I maintain my position. Viewing your lover as a sexual "object" is not inherently deleterious. Appreciating that he or she is also a subjective agent of his/her own sexuality, life, relationships, etc. is what makes it not harmful.

I think you're mixing up "higher" and "different" when you talk about social cirles. "Higher" implies better. You didn't move up in the world, you moved laterally - to where you wanted to be. I'm happy for you - and I'm happy for Nicole, if she finds what makes her happy doing what she's doing. But I find her motives suspect.

You also have an annoying tendency to chose words, define them as you wish, and get confused/feign ignorance when others use and interpret them differently. How about this - you use the generally agreed upon meanings of a word, and we'll do the same thing, and then we won't have all these tedious posts about what "fetish" and "social climbing" mean.

As for what I was asking you, I think I was clear from the start, but I'll re-phrase:
You stated support for Nicole's intentions to place herself in a situation where she can, in essence, date celebrities.
You referred to this as "social climbing", and said that to do otherwise was to "languish in mediocrity".
You get called on this, because spending time with decent and worthwhile individuals who may not be successful, instead of specifically seeking those who are, is hardly languishing in anything, and the "mediocrity" label insults those of us who don't seek to leave behind the society in which we find ourselves.
Then, you say you really just meant that not doing anything worthwhile and interesting with your life is 'languishing in mediocrity".
Which isn't what you said before, and wasn't under argument in the first place.
Then you re-define social climbing to mean "entering the society of people who like", which isn't that same implication of "higher" social circles at all, and claim not to understand what anyone else is talking about. Are we there yet?

I've really started from a place of sympathy for you, Itazura, as I've watched your comments since you first turned up here, and I've felt that you've often been unfairly accused of trolling, but damn, I do start to understand why you piss people off.

Viewing strangers as items that exist for your sexual stimulation or gratification is a whole 'nother bailiwick.

"Seeing women (or people) as sexual objects is not a good thing. Seeing them as sexual BEINGS is fine."

No, I didn't see you write that, but it is something that I would want to see put on a bumper sticker or shirt.

I am not disagreeing with you or finding fault with what you write, and I don't think my view of the world is in contrast to how you see it.

However a lot of the women I sexually objectify, and I will admit that I sexual objectify some celebrities (like Beth Ditto), I still respect them as people, and I would never objectify a woman that I didn't admire for what they do (we can have our fantasies can't we).

Viewing strangers as items that exist for your sexual stimulation or gratification is a whole 'nother bailiwick.

What else did you think I meant by "sexual object?"

Sorry, that last point should be:
Then you re-define social climbing to mean "entering the society of people _you_ like", which isn't that same implication of "higher" social circles at all...

a good job that brought her closer to the kind of men she wants to meet.

If my partner told me I was exactly the kind of gal he wanted to meet, after checking the back of his skull for an alien implant, I would probably cry. I would have hoped to have surprised him. I would have hoped what he wanted was someone unique, someone he couldn't plan for. I would have hoped he was open to love in any of its myriad forms before I waltzed into his life.

If he told me he got the degree or job he did because he wanted to meet someone like me, I would feel stalked and betrayed. (And certain that the aliens simply replaced him wholesale with a loser instead).

If Mama told me years ago that I could save some time and move to India, get my fetishizing going on and let cupid take care the rest, I would have thought she had given up on my soul.

But hey, that's just me. And sure, we might have met ANY of those ways.

Higher implies elevated. How much do you really want to argue semantics?

I guess you could say I moved both lateral and up.

"You referred to this as "social climbing""

No I didn't Ledlight did, and I interpreted his criticism of Nicole as endorsing languishing in mediocrity. However I did say that I thought there was nothing wrong with social climbing. I was asked to explained what I meant by social climbing, and I did.

"You get called on this, because spending time with decent and worthwhile individuals who may not be successful, instead of specifically seeking those who are, is hardly languishing in anything, and the "mediocrity" label insults those of us who don't seek to leave behind the society in which we find ourselves."

Your putting words in mouth. I never said "leave your friends behind." I would never say that, and in fact I said that you could bring your friends with you, as you social climb, in fact most people social climb with their friends (I did just that). However I will say that you (or anyone) should not let your friends hold you back. Some people refuse to grow up, and instead languish in mediocrity, and I feel sorry for my friends who have chosen to do that (but most of my friends have risen with me, or advanced beyond me).

Sage

How would you feel if a guy you had been dating for several weeks told you that; "I have traveled all the way from the other side of the world to find you, and I know in my heart it is my calling and life's destiny to love you"?

Those were my words exactly, but my first words to my wife were; "I don't think this Canadian guy is going to leave your sister alone, unless I intervene." My wife doesn't remember those words, but thankfully she agreed to have a drink with me after the drunk Canadian sailor left the Roppongi club we were in, and then afterwards we agreed to meet on the 7th floor of the Tower Record's building in Shibuya at noon the next day.

Can't speak for Sage, but I'd feel stalked and objectified. I'd also think the speaker was giving me a line and/or had immature, unrealistic ideas about love. Someone who'd only known me a few weeks and wanted to put me on such a pedastal would only be setting us both up for disaster.

Itazura, I kept trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as I read this thread, but you really do see your wife as an object. She's the right race, she's beautiful, she's traditional, she can cook--pray, hath she a personality?

And why is it that when you stay home with your own kids for one lousy day so she can "have a break" (because child-rearing is, you imply, one hundred per cent her job)you expect a medal?

I'm glad this works for you two. Don't think for a second it would work for every man and every woman.

Itazura, I don't think it's my place to answer that. I can hardly take your romantic moments and pretend they were mine. I have my own, and just because they in no way involve anyone's life destiny, doesn't mean yours aren't fine for doing so. And vice versa.

However, this post was about aligning your life toward the proximity of a potential partner of a certain "sort". The problem I have with that is A) you have to have a "sort" in mind, and I find this somewhat closed-minded and ultimately disappointing because B) you are expecting predetermined things from this person, certain types of fulfillment on an agenda that predated him/her. S/he auditioned and got a role you were offering. I don't think that's fair to the other person, who should be free to choose her own qualities and be accepted for them even when they don't fit your agenda anymore (ie., she gives away most of her money, having had a spiritual or social cause revelation, he decides to radically alter his lifestyle (going vegetarian, becoming religious or UNreligious), or even something as simple as gaining/lose weight, cutting off long hair, or deciding he never wants to see his home country again). And regardless of whether it's fair, healthy people don't live their lives in stasis. So they WILL change over time, and they might not fit what you originally wanted someday. You'll have to change what you want then, anyhow, or live a life of disappointment.

There really is no shortcut to relationship happiness, and pretending there is by suggesting people get jobs or move to get there is wrong-headed. You can't transplant yourself anywhere and have better chances of *staying* together, and if you did meet this way, it's not the reason you're able to get along each day. That's more commitment and flexibility than destiny or deliberate engineering. The latter two concepts work against the former two.

So because of these reasons, I'm sure you can imagine what I'd think if someone told me loving me was their destiny. But I won't say it, because I know some people live this way, and get a lot of pleasure from it, and advertently or inadvertently trampling that wouldn't be any fun for me.

Besides, Laurel just kinda did the job for me. ;-)

Don't we all have our "types"? Not all tall, dark, handsome, and successful will be right for me, but that is how I narrow the search. I'm not going to date some overweight redhead who works at McDonald's. I'm not attracted to that. A guy has to be more than just tall, dark, and handsome. We have to have a connection on all the levels. It's true I know what I'm looking for, but when I find it it doesn't mean I view the man as an object. This is why I'm selective even after he meets my basic standards.

Nicole, for you, women's liberation was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

@Sage--Oh, cool. Thought I was presuming there, hence the disclaimer.

@ Nicole--I really don't have a physical (or fiscal) "type." I like an intelligent, funny man of integrity who shares some of my interests, who has his own stuff together (my definition, I guess, of "successful")and who respects me as an equal. Things like being obese (not just overweight) and/or working a minimum wage job past a certain age may be _signifiers_ of not having one's stuff together (or not), but they are not in and of themselves the turn-off. I've had long-term relationships with the tall, the short, the dark, the pale, the slim, the chunky, the rich, the poor, the handsome, and the plain--but never with the boring, the abusive, the stupid, the rude, the disrespectful, the possessive or the needy.

I'm currently dating a somewhat paunchy guy who reads comic books. We met at an academic conference. He teaches college. He just got his Ph.D. and his second book contract. He'll never be rich, but he makes a living doing what he loves, and that's exactly the brand of success I aim for in my own life. Since I've met him I've had the best sex of my life, traveled more widely than ever before, learned a lot, and had some mondo laughs. I'd have missed out on a lot had I kicked him out of my "datable" pool for being chubby and presenting a paper about Batman.

"Nicole, for you, women's liberation was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?"

Liberation gave women the choices to decide who they want to be with. What is liberating about not having standards? What is liberating about refusing to see that physical attraction does matter? It's the people who say women are too picky and/or shallow who are unliberated or maybe they're just jealous that they haven't been selective.

Ugh, reading through all this makes me happy that I have been single for a long time now, and thinking to continue that way, perhaps indefinitely. I think thats a little something that most people neglect to mention. Women or men are both perfectly capable of finding happiness alone, and in their own way.

Nicole, you make me sad (and a bit sick). You just don't get it. After reading all these comments, you still don't get it. You are a social climbing airhead. Enjoy.

"Nicole, you make me sad (and a bit sick). You just don't get it. After reading all these comments, you still don't get it. You are a social climbing airhead. Enjoy."

Ad hominem attacks sure are a great way for you to avoid intelligent debate. I smell jealousy. Ambition and high standards tend make people like yourself insecure. Just because you could never land a decent man doesn't mean you need to tear me down.

Sigh. Anyway.

I suppose if someone is actively looking for a significant other, having a checklist might be useful. And when I mean "actively looking" I mean by searching and/or writing personal ads, joining organizations and groups specifically to meet other people, going to singles nights etc.

However, to hold onto that checklist while just going about, living your life, that is kind of silly. Since attraction is more ephemeral than just surface qualities, and often times doesn't show up until you actually know someone. I know that I have met physically attractive people who had such sucky personalities that I saw them as less attractive than I initially did, and some rather plain folk that just were awash with hotness once I found out how fabulous they are as people. So it isn't about lowering standards, it is about not limiting possibilities.

But really, if you want to see developing relationships as akin to picking out a car, be my guest.

Nichole, I just wrote a long, intelligent, reasoned post telling you why I disagree with you, which you have chosen to ignore. Now people like me are jealous of your silly, shallow, superficial self? Naah.

You are more than welcome to date/marry whoever you want to, and I defy you to find one person here who has said you are not. Don't project your jealousy crap on me, or on Doctress Julia, or on any other woman (or man) who can see beyond your narrow "standards" re: what sort of partner is acceptable. You, not us, are the one who has to worry about what you'll do when your "catch," whose standards are identical to yours, trades you in for a younger, prettier model. Why wouldn't he? You'd do it to him if he ran out of money. After all, if he's a fish, you're a fish.

For me, ambition is a thing I have for myself, not the partner I snag because he has lots of money and looks like someone I saw on TV.

I'm very glad I don't have to live with your choices--which are, indeed, what feminism is about. And so I hope you do "land" your "decent man." I much prefer the sort of man I don't have to "land" or "catch" or trick into loving and respecting me, because I want to be able to love and respect him too.

Jealous? Suuuure. Whatever helps you sleep at night, Dollface.

Nicole, really now, don't revert to the old "jealousy" defense. People are rarely jealous of disembodied message board commenters. No one knows anything about you except that you seem to have really superficial ideals about what makes a valuable person, and enjoy telling message boards that you have the ability to follow through on these superficial ideals.

And now, due to the callous, dehumanizing things you've said concerning "attraction", I doubt anyone wants to. Except Itazura. Okay, one.

I agree personality is very important, but physical attraction is also essential. I hang out with guys who have great personalities all the time. The difference between those relationships and romantic ones is that attraction. The guy I marry I have to have both a physical attraction to and like as a human being. I want to have kids, so I obviously want someone with good genes, but that's only part of the equation.

Good genes. Yes. Well. Obviously. To compensate.

Hitch your wagon to a star and you will remain.....dust.

"Nichole, I just wrote a long, intelligent, reasoned post telling you why I disagree with you, which you have chosen to ignore. Now people like me are jealous of your silly, shallow, superficial self? Naah."
I read your post. I see nothing desirable about being in an intimate relationship with a chubby guy who reads comic books. He sounds like a good friend, but that's not my idea of a lover. I want romance, passion, commitment, and good genes.

"Good genes. Yes. Well. Obviously. To compensate."

Right...because I'm just an airhead who managed to graduate from high school a year early, get a degree in Broadcast Journalism(next month) with a 3.8 GPA, and support herself through local modeling. I'm such a mess.

Um, everyone, so what if Nicole has somewhat arbitrary standards for who she'd marry and rules out some wonderful guys for stuff that totally isn't their fault?

It's not as if anyone has a right to romance/sex/marriage/etc. with Nicole in the first place.

She's definitely not violating someone's rights by refusing to date him, no matter what her reason is.

That goes for the rest of us too. For one example, I only want to date men, and that preference of mine isn't oppressing women.

Nicole

I have been happily married for almost 8 years now. I have 2 great kids, my wife and have great conversations, and we are never bored with each other, so as I see it I made the best decisions for me.

I think it's good idea to know what you want, and to go after what you want.

The most important thing is that you never said you would divorce a man for money, so you are definitely not a gold-digger, and you have spoken often about your standards, getting your degree, and working hard to get a good job, so I see your life goals, ambitions, and visions, as liberated and feminist. You want to empower yourself without lowering your standards, and that is definitely feminist. Don't listen to Laurel or Sage, you are definitely not status quo, nor are you propagating a status quo ideology.

Your outlook on life is healthy, and I am sure that a lot of good, progressive, successful men will be attracted to you.

Nichole--So all that silly "best sex ever, Ph.D., two published books, intelligence, sense of humor, shared interests and integrity" nonsense is beneath you? That's cool. I'll settle for romance, passion, and commitment; you may keep your eugenics.

Really, what would you do if you and Richie Rich gave birth to an anencephalic? Who would you blame? And what do looks and money have to do with "good genes"?

I dont think its a good idea to compare opinions on partners or prospective partners to men being attracted to other men and women being attracted to other women. I hear talk about "standards" and in the situation of gays and lesbians its not because the opposite sex doesnt meet your "standards". People keep saying "high standards" and "lowering your standards" and I cant help but get the impression that by intention or not, that kind of thinking means relegating people to a lower level in their eyes.

And like I said, thats something I cant be fucking doing with. Id rather go without when it comes making sure my genes are passed on to another generation, simply because I dont want to run the risk of stepping on a superficial landmine.

Um, everyone, so what if Nicole has somewhat arbitrary standards for who she'd marry and rules out some wonderful guys for stuff that totally isn't their fault?

Agreed. We all have our preferences. No doubt we've all passed over suitable people because they didn't fit some standard we had and we simply didn't (or couldn't) devote the time and effort to find out otherwise. I don't think that's at issue here; as I said in an earlier comment, I wouldn't presume to tell anyone what she or he "should" look for in a potential mate (or even a simple hook-up).

It seems to me, though, that one of the sticking ponts of this sub-discussion is the use terms like "successful", "good genes", etc. as if they have a single, objective definition, that this definition is the socially predominant one, and that people who don't subscribe to that definition somehow have poorer tastes/judgement rather than simply employing different criteria.

What I usually try to do in the case of meeting a woman to whom I'm not attracted is to say that that woman isn't necessarily a good match for me, and not that she's generally undesireable.

Nichole, my GPA was 4.0. I am working on my 3rd college degree now. My writing has been published (for money) in 3 genres, and my art has been hung in galleries for free and appeared in newsletters for money. I teach kids who have already gotten their bachelor's degrees, and I have been a hand model, an art model, a paid "Elvira look-alike" and a DJ. The fact is, I consider my looks to be not that much above average.

By all this I merely mean to say the world is full of young women like you. I'm glad you're on the way to making your own career, and I really do hope you'll one day learn to value yourself above what [insert name of male TV personality here] might think of your looks.

It's not as if anyone has a right to romance/sex/marriage/etc. with Nicole in the first place.

Mina, no one's saying anyone should have sex with or marry Nicole.

What you're picking up on is that several people *have started not to like her* because of what she's said about what should be valued in a human being. Think about the "fat" threads and what guys said there if it helps. This is the same monster. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't like what I know of her because her comments represent really ugly things in the world to me.

In spite of this:

She's free to marry who she wants if he wants her.

She's free to tell us why she and her imaginary husband want each other.

We're free to not like her for it.

She's free to call people jealous who don't like something she said.

They're free to say that's ridiculous and lame.

She's free to say she values good genes and imply that other people's *husbands* don't have them. (See, very unlikeable, there again.)

I'm free to make a joke implying that what she has to offer, as evidenced by her comments, would make that value fortunate for her children.

She's free to say, "but I have a 3.8 and I'm a model!"

And we're free to notice that we're back at square one.

See, we're free. Free, free, free!

"What I usually try to do in the case of meeting a woman to whom I'm not attracted is to say that that woman isn't necessarily a good match for me, and not that she's generally undesireable."

I never make a judgment of someone on the first meeting, and I hate that when people do that to me. It takes a while to really discover if someone is attractive or not. My criteria has been, intelligence, strong morals, emotional stability, a healthy lifestyle (I never dated a woman who smoked, and it was hard to find women who didn't in Japan), a healthy outlook on life, a strong sense of self pride/self confidence, and high standards. You can't really tell if someone meets that criteria in a first date. I dated a lot of women before I met the woman who later became my wife. And my wife and I spent a year and half as an unmarried couple living in separate houses (few unmarried couples live together in Japan) before we started to talk about raising a family together (and if that topic had not come up, we probably would not have gotten married, but we would have stayed together).

I did date a few women I didn't find all that physically attractive before I met my wife. Dates are harmless, as long as they don't turn into one-night-stands (or worse, date rapes), and any woman that was attracted to me, but that I did not initially find attractive, I would at least want to get to know who she really was before I turned her down (and I know some women did the same thing to me). And there were some less than pretty women that I did develop meaningful relationships with (obviously they didn't work out, but I did find those women attractive after I discovered who they really were).

If you turn away all less than pretty women (or men), every single time, you may have inadvertently turned away your dream woman (or man).

If I was a single man I can honestly say I would find Nicole a lot more attractive than I would Laurel or sage based on the comment that all 3 of those women have posted here.

Nicole appears honest and genuine (and being ambition and having high standards are definite pluses in my book), but Laurel and Sage are mean spirited, unnecessarily combative, and competitive against other women in strange an odd ways.

Puh-lease,Itazura.

Judging by your former posts, your criteria are 1)Asian, 2)beautiful, 3)traditional, 4)can cook. No way would you give the time of day to anyone else. But if you did, and you didn't rape her because you didn't find her attractive enough, but she digs you, you'd reserve the right to sort of keep her hanging on the B-list for awhile until YOU decide who SHE is?

Damn, dude, I am SO sorry you're taken.

I think, Nicole, what is irritating people about your posts is the implicit accusation that anyone who does not have very specific, very rigid standards about what sort of man is "acceptable" has somehow settled, or does not have standards. This is condescending and rude.

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that it's important to be attracted to the person you spend your life with. No one here is advocating having sex with men you find physically repulsive.

At the same time, you have very superficial and closed-minded standards about what might be physically/sexually attractive. Perhaps this is just because you're young. I also skipped a grade in high school and finished college at age 20 with a GPA approaching 4.0 (3.96, actually) -- at the time, I, too, had a very narrow idea of what might constitute an "acceptable" mate. However, as I later met and dated different sorts of men, I found that sometimes, somehow, for reasons I could not comprehend or explain, I would wind up being attracted to guys I never would have thought I liked. Chemistry is funny like that -- sometimes it makes you attracted to men in person who, looking at their picture, you'd never really think you'd have liked them. Life is just funny like that -- it upsets your expectations, and throws you curveballs when you least expect it. I truly hope you find the flexibility to roll with the punches and adjust to the changes life will certainly bring to you.

In the meantime, comments like this are counterproductive and beyond rude:

I read your post. I see nothing desirable about being in an intimate relationship with a chubby guy who reads comic books. He sounds like a good friend, but that's not my idea of a lover. I want romance, passion, commitment, and good genes.

You don't live her life. Who the fuck are you to suggest her relationship doesn't have passion?

I wish you luck in finding a celebrity boyfriend. I can promise you it won't be easy, but I suppose it could happen -- I know a guy who's engaged to a celebrity. As it happens, they're both incredibly decent and normal people. She's definitely very conventionally attractive, and he's cute, but neither of them found the other because they had narrow and superficial and uncompromising ideas of what would be "acceptable" in a mate. Rather, they found they got along because they have substantial similarities in their backgrounds, values, and personalities. It just works out for them that they're both attracted to each other as well.

Conversely, I've seen people who based relationships on superficial metrics like physical attractiveness, and these relationships don't work out. In the next few years, you will discover, much to you chagrin, that youth is INCREDIBLY transient. Your 20s are the first time you really start to experience ACTUAL aging, versus just growing up. I'm still young as spit but I'm already noticing a drop in my energy levels and metabolism (so staying in shape and not gaining weight is a BITCH). Sorry to have to break it to you, but it's all downhill from here. So it might not hurt to consider the cute 5'11" guy with brownish hair and slightly paler skin and only a couple guest spots on his imdb profile, rather than insisting on a 6'2" dark-haired hunk with piercing blue eyes who has five movies lined up for the next year. In case you hadn't noticed, celebrity relationships break up ALL THE TIME.

But, feel free to do what you want. You'll live your own life and learn your own lessons. Just don't discount the lives of others, as you have been doing here.

"Think about the 'fat' threads and what guys said there if it helps."

I did think about that. I also thought about these posts:

http://feministing.com/archives/006305.html#comment-61038

http://feministing.com/archives/006305.html#comment-61062

Of course stuff like "You need A, B, and C in order to be sexy in order to be part of society" is a problem. The bad part is the "sexy in order to be part of society" part. Complaining about the "A, B, and C in order to be sexy" part totally misses the point.

For one example, suppose someone applied to rent an apartment he could afford and the landlady rejected him because "he's a chubby comic book reader therefore he turns me off therefore he'd be a bad tenant." That landlady rejecting a tenant for not turning her on is a bigger problem than her not feeling attracted to chubby comic book readers.

For another example, suppose a woman can't earn a roof over her head because the available men don't desire a housewife who looks like her and no available non-housewife work is open to women. Those employers all refusing to hire her are a bigger problem than those bachelors all not desiring her for marriage.

Im sorry this is from an older post, but I saw it and Ive had disagreements with similar sentiments before.

but I feel sorry for the folks that aren't doing anything meaningful with their lives

Ive always been curious of how you define a life with "meaning". This is going to sound a little odd coming from a staunch atheist and something of a nihilist, but I believe a life with meaning is whatever the person LIVING that life defines as meaningful. Someone’s description or opinion of a productive, meaningful, and basically life well lived is irrelevant in regards to how another person wishes to live their own life. Everyone has their own time, and fuck it if somebody else thinks its wasteful or sinful, just live it.

That is of course, as long were talking again about SELF. I am in no way saying people should be free do to what the fuck they want (particularly towards others) without consequences. But judgements on other peoples lives, particularly because they don’t ascribe to your own views on what is meaningful, is high on my list of “arrogant things people can do�. It clearly says to me: Im better than you!�

I never make a judgment of someone on the first meeting, and I hate that when people do that to me.

Same here. The point I was trying to make - and I may not have been clear - is that I recognize that what makes someone attractive to me may not be the same things that are attractive to someone else, and therefore if I decide not to pursue things further, it doesn't mean there's something fundamentally wrong with that person.

I never make a judgment of someone on the first meeting, and I hate that when people do that to me.

Ehhh, that's not quite right. Everyone makes SOME kind of judgment about a person the first time they meet. The key is keeping an open mind and recognizing that this is just a flip judgment and that your assessment of a person is NOT determinative of that person's character.

However, I see nothing inherently wrong with disliking someone upon first meeting them and just not wanting to see them again. People CAN reveal enough about themselves on a first meeting to signal to you whether or not you'd want to have ANY sort of relationship (friendship or anything else) with that person, and there's nothing WRONG with that. The key is not allowing someone's physical appearance to determine your judgment about the sum total of that person's character. I'm not suggesting you have to be open to being attracted to ANYONE -- I think you have a pretty good sense upon meeting someone whether or not you'd be physically interested in them -- but to discount the possibility that the person could be attractive to ANYONE who has standards is where the problem comes in. There's nothing wrong with meeting someone and realizing "this person just isn't the right fit for me." There's something VERY wrong with meeting someone and thinking "oh God, what a gross disgusting pig. No reasonable person could ever be attracted to this."

Some people on this board, unfortunately, have been conflating these two things...

@The Law Fairy--Both these posts are well-worded, and they say what I wanted to say in a much more wise, calm and reasonable fashion. Go you.

I never said I would divorce someone if he lost his money.In fact, I can't see myself getting a divorce for any reason other than abuse or infidelity. I wouldn't even marry someone solely for their money or celebrity. If that were true don't you think I'd be wanting to marry the most famous celeb or richest billionaire? I wouldn't marry Brad Pitt because he's not my type. It's just that the type of guys I'm attracted to are usually successful and have some degree of celebrity, but that's not the sole reason why I'm into them.

I also brought up the fact that I'm serious about academics to show that a person can be both focused on appearance and intelligence. I want a guy who is the same way. This doesn't make me shallow or a eugenist(Nothing I've said involves forced sterilization or any other government control of reproduction.). I want an intelligent, moral, and yes attractive man. I don't see what the big deal is.

Nicole, again, the "big deal" is that you're acting as though your standards are objective assessments of things like "attractiveness," and you have demeaned women here who suggest they are subjective, instead. Stop being rude and we'll stop caring.

If I was a single man I can honestly say I would find Nicole a lot more attractive than I would Laurel or sage based on the comment that all 3 of those women have posted here.

Nicole appears honest and genuine (and being ambition and having high standards are definite pluses in my book), but Laurel and Sage are mean spirited, unnecessarily combative, and competitive against other women in strange an odd ways.

Hey, if I can't be universally admired, I'll regrettably sacrifice Itazura.

All joking aside, here we have a man evaluating the potential *attractiveness* of two posters on a feminist board. He's attempting to use the old standbys of "she's more attractive than you" and "women are SO competitive" to intimidate them. Earlier, he tried the patronizing daddy-pat compliment approach to Lawfairy. This person has a history of inappropriate sexual comments in additon to using such offensive control tactics. Why is he still here? Can someone remind me what the new monitoring policy is again? How we gonna change the world when we can't seem to keep the trolls at bay?

Could this be democratic? Could we just weigh in on whether Itazura should go away? I thought he did go away on the Vagisil thread. Why are you back, Itazura? Whatever good this site is possibly doing his wife HAS to be outweighed by the distracting chauvanistic and inappropriate comments he inflicts on the rest of us, distracting and derailing threads.

Call me mean-spirited, but my vote is for the boot. That's one.

Sage,
Just because someone says things you don't agree with does not mean you have the right to silence him. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. You can respond or ignore, but trying to silence someone goes against freedom of speech. Are you opposed to that?

Laurel

I never mentioned beautiful as a criteria to be my dream woman, and if you don't believe me, just read back over my post.

My wife is beautiful (to me), but that is besides the point. A woman can be an independent minded, native born, Asian woman, who can cook, discuss politics, and love to travel, and still meet my criteria for attractive (intelligence, with strong morals, emotional stability, a healthy lifestyle, a healthy outlook on life, a strong sense of self pride/self confidence, and high standards). My wife met all of that criteria, which is why I consider her my dream woman (and that is why I love her, am completely devoted to her, and worship her).

Nicole, I made a career in First Amendment advocacy. Therefore, I'm happy to explain "free speech" in that context to you. Free speech, according to the First Amendment, means the government can't censor you. It does not mean that a privately-run newspaper, or publisher, or church bulletin, or internet community run by an editorial board can't decide that your contibutions are annoying them and they'd prefer getting on to other things. Just like you're free to give those theoretical woebegone suitors the air, they can, in fact, choose not to give every person a forum.

I'm simply advocating the expedition of that process, the process of getting on to more interesting and less offensive matters than Itazura. It's been done before on many other threads, but he's still around, so I guess we'll just keep it up until change happens. Because here you're quite wrong, the ultimate and oft-used answer to speech a community decides it doesn't like isn't more speech. In fact, it is silence! Silence here, and then Itazura can make his own website about ideal women he loves, what he loves to do with them, the hotness of animals and whatever wacky thing he wants, and the US government won't stop him as long as he's not breaking any laws. That's free speech.

Of course I have no right to show him the door myself. I'm not the editorial board or he'd be long gone long ago. I'm simply the latest among many contributors to weigh in on the matter of him.

PS--Are they not teaching the First Amendment in communication programs these days? That would actually explain a lot...

Nicole, Itazura certainly does have the right to say what he wants. However, he has no more right to use feministing's bandwidth to say it, than feministing chooses to allow him. If he were to be banned, that would be no infringement on his freedom of speech. It would simply be revoking a privilege he had previously been generously granted.

TLF

I love your comments.

Yeah Nicole, they (the owners of Feministing.com) could ban me if they wanted to, and at this point I wouldn't be hurt, but I would be disappointed. It would be like proving that Rush Sleazebag was not completely wrong when he called feminists fem-nazis. I hate saying this, but at times the attitude here is very mean spirited, and unnecessarily combative, and very nit picky. I could understand being upset with the “14 year� comment I made, it was a bad comment that I later wished I had not made, because I don't think infertility should be an issue when it comes to deciding whether or not to get married, and I apologized for that comment. But attacking me, because I defended your (Nicole's) desire to find the perfect man for yourself, was absurd. Who are they to past judgment on the choices you make, or to question your feminist credentials because you want to marry a successful man or social climb? Is wanting to marry a successful person, or wanting to social climb anti-feminist?

Who gives a flying fuck what Money Magazine thinks women should do. If you don't like Money Magazine, then don't buy (I don't). But just because Money Magazine is sexist, doesn't mean that Nicole is wrong for wanting her future husband to be a successful person. There is absolutely nothing wrong with chasing your dreams, or wanting to be around successful people, and there is nothing anti-feminist about those pursuits.

As far as Sage is concerned, Sage is a mean spirited person, is unnecessarily combative, is competitive against other women (even other potential feminists) in strange and odd ways. And she is the type of person that gives feminism a bad name.

It's true that the administrators here have a legal right to ban whoever they wish. However,
to do so to someone simply for giving an opinion contrary to others would be going against the principles in which The First Amendment was based on. It was instituted primarily to protect political dissent and unpopular speech. How can this website claim to support freedom of speech if it doesn't allow it to its own members? A website where only the majority opinion is allowed to be heard isn't any better than a country that silences minority voices. Opposing viewpoints and debate enrich the discussion.

Also, it's very hard to ban someone permanently from a website. He could always come back under a different username. Even if his IP is banned he could use a proxy or change his IP address.

Itazura, when you use buzzwords like "mean-spirited" and "combative" and "feminazi" I have to question your sincerity. This isn't The Southern Ladies' Forum For Women's Rights. The site is called Feministing. Most of the regular commenters here are radical feminists with an IN-DEPTH understanding of feminist theory and a desire to question the status quo. This means we approach these topics from a base viewpoint that understands the import of words, that realizes the power of the mainstream media, and most of all, that has been *raised* to some extent to see beyond the surface of flip articles like that in Money to the social attitudes that make it OKAY to write demeaning articles like that.

The fact that you make outrageous comments and then play innocent ("why the stir? Just because I have very narrow-minded and one-dimensional views about women you're acting like I've said something offensive! What gives, harpies?"), all the while complimenting me while insulting women with whom I am in near-total agreement, is beyond confusing. I am forced to conclude that you come here to stir up strife, and then point at feminists and say "Wow, well I tried, but I guess you guys really are just a bunch of mean, man-hating bitches!" You're here to prove your own pre-conceptions. The thing is, you really could have just saved yourself the trouble and made the whole thing up as you relate the tale to your bar buddies, and you and they would have been equally sure in your minds about the unreasonableness of us uppity wimmins. All the while, of course, breezing over the many logically reasoned responses to your (again, *outrageous*) remarks that clearly and calmly explain the many realistic and practical issues brought up by articles like this, and calmly and logically explain why your comments, and Nicole's, are problematic, demeaning, insulting, offensive, and backward-thinking.

Compliment me all you want. Until you give me an ACTUAL reason to believe otherwise, I'm forced to conclude you came here to troll.

Nicole, I don't know how to be more clear. This website is not the U.S. federal government. The women who run this website need not have even an ounce of respect for the First Amendment. And even though they in fact DO have a great deal of respect for the First Amendment, this does not make them hypocrites if they opt to ban someone who they deem to detract from, rather than add to, the discussions that take place on this forum. The one simply has nothing to do with the other. If these women called for Itazura to be arrested for his comments, then you would have a point. I've yet to see anyone call for his imprisonment.

As for unpopular speech, I will pay you a hundred dollars if you can prove to me that the ideas you and Itazura are spouting are LESS popular than the feminist ideals this website adheres to. Hint: you won't be able to prove this, because as numerous commenters have pointed out, you and Itazura are DEFENDING the status quo. It might not seem like it given the stir you've (intentionally?) caused here, but HELLO! YOU are the ones who decided to comment on a RADICAL FEMINIST WEBSITE. Don't come here and cry "oh poor me, no one agrees with me." Walk into any fucking pub in Santa Monica and you'll find a roomful of Neanderthals who think your ideas are just peachy.

I never said the mods don't have a right to ban whoever they want. I simply believe all opinions add to the conversation. I suggest you read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". It explains the value of allowing all sides to be heard. When we only listen to those who think like us we limit our ability to gain knowledge and insight. Sometimes after hearing the other side we completely or partially change our minds or stand stronger in our beliefs. Hearing what others have to say can only add to the debate even if they have different viewpoints. This is website that pertains to women's issues. Do these issues just affect left-wing feminists? There are conservative women with more traditional values out there. Do their voice not matter. If you claim to stick up for women you should be open to listening to those who have different viewpoints. I'm personally a libertarian. I enjoy discussion of political and societal issues, and it's boring discussing these things with only those who agree. Debate is healthy.

TLF

I have nothing but respect for you. I love your comments, my wife loves your comments, and I agree with everything you say (except when you accused me of being a bigot towards Christians, and when you accused me of defending the status quo), but why do you focus on the buzzwords, and not the content of my comments? I know the site is radical, and that's why I love it so much, but I said "unnecessarily combative", not just combative, I have no problem with being combative against anyone who is supportive of the Bush W war troop surge, or sexism in advertising, or anyone who says that we shouldn't vote for Senators Obama and Clinton, because they are a black man and a woman respectively. But I think it's unnecessary to be combative towards a potential feminist (Nicole I'm sorry to call you potential if you are firmly a feminist or firmly not one), because she expresses a desire to marry a successful man. If you think that Nicole's outlook on life is wrong or bad, that's fine, but there is no need to attack her in your criticism. Nicole is not a bad person because she wants a successful husband. Who doesn't want their spouse to be successful?

I do not endorse the word "fem-nazi", and I hate Rush Sleazebag with a passion, but I was pointing out why that term still gets used, whether we like it not.

Nicole should not have been attacked at all, the mean spiritedness directed at her was uncalled for, and the comparing of GPAs to prove... what I don't know, was just odd and strange.

No TLF, Nicole and I are not defending the status quo by point out that looking for the ideal spouse is not wrong, or by defending a woman's effort to enter into higher social circles. Neither of those positions is a defense of the status quo.

The support of the status quo implied being in favor of glass ceiling, unequal pay in the work force, or the myriad of other social conditions that reduces the value of women. Pursuing successful people as potential spouses, and working hard to obtain upward mobility, do not reduce the social value of women.

Itazura, this will be my last comment addressed to you on this thread.

You must have skipped the comments where I pointed out why we were arguing with Nicole. In short, SHE was being rude and demeaning to the other women here who don't have such narrow, strict, superficial criteria about the men they will date. You and Nicole both have been incredibly demeaning to the women and men here in suggesting that anyone who doesn't match up to your vaunted standards is "languishing in mediocrity." You and Nicole are suggesting that EVERYONE should have ideals like yours. YOU guys are the ones being unnecessarily combative and mean-spirited. Your snarky aside about "well no wonder people think you're a bunch of nutjobs" is counterproductive and cannot be designed to do ANYTHING besides provoke.

"Marrying up" is as old as sexism itself. To try to pretend this isn't the status quo is just bizarre. The status quo embodies a LOT more than just the glass ceiling, etc. You can fight the status quo on one issue and uphold it on another (just take a look at modern rap music). Your last paragraph is somewhere on the level of "I have black friends, therefore I am not racist."

And at the risk of turning this comment thread into even more of a broken record, Nicole is not advocating "working hard to obtain upward mobility." She's advocating nabbing a "successful" guy. And yes, this DOES reduce the social value of women because it suggests that our best chance for living a more "successful" life is to convince a more "successful" guy to marry us.

As for the GPAs, again, Nicole was the one who brought the subject up. I can't speak for anyone else, but I offered mine to demonstrate that her high GPA did not make her standards the "right" ones, as she seemed to be suggesting.

You throw a lot of terms around here without explaining or backing them up. I'm just getting tired of asking you to explain your arguments, when all you offer in return is a basic reiteration of the statement. I'm bored of this silly circular game, so I'm done.

BTW

TLF

"("why the stir? Just because I have very narrow-minded and one-dimensional views about women you're acting like I've said something offensive! What gives, harpies?")"

I never said any of that, so please don't put words in my mouth, which is exactly what you did when you used quotation marks.

I believe that falls under the category of libel.

TLF

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I never accused anyone of languishing in mediocrity.

My question to Ledlight was "What, should we prefer to languish in mediocrity?" Don't accuse me of attacking anyone other than Laurel and Sage, both of whom viciously attacked me first.