h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

this has been frustrating me. without sounding ultra-feminist, can anyone give me more than an emotionally-charged opinion on women, and how they obtain power without becoming sex objects?

listen: men are judged by their achievements, accomplishments, intelligence and social status. when one sees a brooding man alone at a table, one wonders what deep thoughts he may be brewing.

women may also be judged on the above, but in any and every case, her shagability is also in question as a constant. when she broods, she is a self-centered "bitch," or bloated and pms-ing. when her intelligence is ever mentioned (IF it is ever mentioned), it is as a novelty, and not of permanent value.

for most men, sex is something they "DO" to the female, not something they share. is the woman alone in wanting any of that, or, once again, are they being "nagging females?" why is that?

is this phenomenon the same in other countries as well, or is this simply an american handicap?

...or have i just been wrongly influenced by too many immature men?

Just as with men, if you want power you have to be prepared to give up virtually everything. A normal family life, people to confide in, holidays, all the fun bits in life. Life at the top is lonely. As for the 'shagability' issue it is something that happens, but I have always thought that women did something similar to men (though this may just be influenced by TV - A certain diet coke advert springs to mind), also don't women evaluate each others 'theoretical' shagability, and then bitch about each other?(a friend of mine brought up the wearing ultra short skirts, and the 'what are you looking at' chestnut, and my gf brought up the fact that they just dress like that to outshine each other - and the above thought came out of that.) Just to give my qualifications for the above answer, I have none, I am about as sensitive as a brick when it comes to human interactions, but I thought I would throw my £0.02 in. Sorry
BCNU - Crescent

'when one sees a brooding man alone at a table, one wonders what deep thoughts he may be brewing'

That might be what *you* think, but part of your brain is tuned to noticing and thinking about men. Most men could see that same scene, and unless the guy in question looked like a potential threat, he wouldn't register on their conscious mind.

Being a straight male, part of my brain is hardwired to pay particular attention to women. However, though there may be a constant background monitoring of potential shagability, it's more a kind of environmental awareness, and doesn't mean I'm sex-obsessed - I also have a significant abount of brain matter devoted to making sure I don't fall off my bicycle, stick a fork in my eye while eating, or collide with various bits of my surroundings, but that doesn't mean I'm accident-obsessed.

Though I'm not sure exactly how common we are, there definitely *are* men who place a real value on female intelligence - though it may sound odd, I find a woman standing in a bookshop looks much more attractive than the same woman would look just standing in the street. If a gorgeous woman opened her mouth and started talking nonsense, I'd instantly find her much less attractive.

When someone is described as intelligent, in the media or elsewhere, there are several possible reasons, whatever the sex of the subject.

a) The subject is intelligent compared to society as a whole.
b) The subject is intelligent compared to others of their kind.
c) The subject is intelligent compared to the describer in question.
d) The subject is thick, and the describer is attempting flattery.

e.g. case c) explains why almost any sportsman or woman who could recite the alphabet or mount a horse without falling off the other side gets praised for their genius by the average sports journalist.

In *any* group of people, however dumb, there are going to be some who qualify for praise via case b). If they're attractive as well, then d) also applies.

There *are* men who appreciate warmth, sharing and closeness, but it's not exactly the kind of thing that's easy to communicate to potential partners. In fact, it's the kind of thing a man might well be reluctant to mention until he starts to really trust someone - if he started being senstive from the moment he met a woman, there's a good chance she'd either classify him as a wimp, or think it was just part of a plot to get into her pants. Also, even sensitive guys can have very hard shells - you could meet many every day and never know it.

On the other hand, if someone just wants a one night stand, there are loads of places they can go to get drunk and meet their next partner.

Life sucks, doesn't it, and no, it's not an all-American problem.

(Suggested reading : 'Why Men Don't Iron' by Anne and Bill Moir - I wouldn't agree with *everything* in it, but there's a lot of truth in there, and it's very thought-provoking.)

the same does hold true with men, i think: an "attractive" man (this is a variable) can ruin himself by:

a: being narcissistic
b: being clingy and desperate
c: spouting utter nonsense

i'm sure there are many other ways, and the same holds true for women, as well.

as for intelligence, i was once told by several male friends, that, while the idea turned them on, female intelligence mainly intimidated them because (in their opinion) men instinctively want something to take care of and protect.

as for communication, some women aren't so good at that, me being one. i find this disability somewhat crippling when entering into relationships, as it's akin to two limbless people trying to pick up a water glass.

and, yes, life sometimes sucks...

why must you have to give everything up? are you speaking simply professionally, you mean? i'm more curious about walking down the street sort of every day power, i think.

i suppose most women do attempt to out-do eachother. if you're told to go to a casual party, and you take "casual" at face value, you are more than likely going to find other females there, getting attention for breaking the attire reccommendation, yes? ...but then, women are silly creatures. ...so are men.

perhaps it's all a bunch of nonsense.

I think what you're describing as power could also be termed self-confidence. I think that flows from knowing what you're good at and doing that with courage and conviction and everything else you have. I don't know as sex-appeal is ever really the thing that men look for in women in non-romantic situations; I think it's more important to be easy to talk to, to be a responsive person, and to help people feel more confident about themselves. That goes for both men and women.

If you want to talk about actual, temporal power, New Zealand has/has had two women Prime Ministers in succession.

One was elected to the post, one was not (she took the top job in a leadership challenge). The current PM is not married (she lives in a de facto relationship). Her predecessor is married and has several children. It's fair to say neither are considered great Hollywood beauties (but then Hollywood also thinks Janeane Garofalo can pass for homely, so what do they know?). On the hand, appearance is reasonably important for any politician, and on the current PM-elect's election posters, she looked about ten years younger.

They can also be just as good at mudslinging as the male pollies, The past PM used her opponent's lack of children against, questioning whether someone who wasn't a parent could understand the needs of the average family.

While they're very different women, they have one thing in common: the long hard slog to get where are today, leaders of the two biggest political parties in NZ and political careers spanning two decades.

If you want to talk about actual, temporal power, New Zealand has/has had two women Prime Ministers in succession.

One was elected to the post, one was not (she took the top job in a leadership challenge). The current PM is not married (she lives in a de facto relationship). Her predecessor is married and has several children. It's fair to say neither are considered great Hollywood beauties (but then Hollywood also thinks Janeane Garofalo can pass for homely, so what do they know?). On the hand, appearance is reasonably important for any politician, and on the current PM-elect's election posters, she looked about ten years younger.

They can also be just as good at mudslinging as the male pollies, The past PM used her opponent's lack of children against, questioning whether someone who wasn't a parent could understand the needs of the average family.

While they're very different women, they have one thing in common: the long hard slog to get where are today, leaders of the two biggest political parties in NZ and political careers spanning two decades.

Argle! Damnable double postings!

I wonder if you haven't internalized some of society's gender stereotypes. If you read women's magazines that pretend to hold all the answers to women's lives while obsessing on appearances, you get exactly what you deserve for it -- low self-confidence. Watching American television non-stop without really contemplating how skewed the shows have become for commercial reasons will similarly mess with your brain.

I went through a period in college where I ate books on gender and sexuality theory, and the result was a much better understanding on what human nature is (and what it isn't necessarily). While there's no need for you to do the same, I would recommend taking a critical view of the world around you. If you see that certain influences are bringing you down, eliminate or cut back on them for a while and try to find something better.

You should never feel that society is dictating your limits. Only you can do that. If you accept society's pitiful standards, you have only yourself to blame. If you raise the bar, you will find that other people respond positively. They did for me, and I've never once wanted to look back.

that's a very good solution. it's true about my internalizing; i am only basing my viewpoint on where i stand, and have seen things in the past. for that reason, i have eliminated women's magazines, which are sickeningly ridiculous. you never see men's mags about such bizarrely facetious topics!

thank you.

that's a very good solution. it's true about my internalizing; i am only basing my viewpoint on where i stand, and have seen things in the past. for that reason, i have eliminated women's magazines, which are sickeningly ridiculous. you never see men's mags about such bizarrely facetious topics!

thank you.

Perhaps you've not seen some of the men's mags in the UK if you think facetiousness is a female preserve!

When I'm sat alone at a restaurant, I always think that people must be thinking "What a sad git - he can't find any friends to go out with!" so I'm not sure I agree about how it's perceived...

As for the "men instinctively want something to take care of and protect" (yes I know you were posting someone else's opinion, so I'm taking issue with them, not you), I really hate this, and in particular the presumption by a woman that this is something I want. I find the passive weak and feeble thing *really* unattractive (whether it's a show misguidedly put on for my benefit or not), but so many women seem to want to slip into this routine.

But maybe I'm just strange and unusual in not liking it.

In my case I'd say I have *some* protective instinct, but only for things I think are worth protecting, which wouldn't include someone permanently being passive (or even worse, permanently *acting* passive).

There are many things that may be endearing in small quantities, particularly in someone you find generally attractive, but would get very annoying extremely quickly if overdone. The weak little girly act is certainly one of those as far as I'm concerned.

I have to say that that is the one thing that hacks me off about some of my friends - highly intelligent and capable women with good careers and a razor sharp brain. As soon as a man's on the horizon, its all "I know nothing about the politics of the middle east, but I do love fluffy kittens!"

Arrrghhhhhh!

I don't know much about fluffy kittens but I like what I know.

*attempts to calm herself down after her first rant of the day*

So, how long till the next one? * prepares to synchronize watch * ()

Q: can anyone give me more than an emotionally-charged opinion on women, and how they obtain power without becoming sex objects?
A: Power comes from domination. Anyone (man or woman) who can dominate others can achieve power. Some women obtain power by controlling men who have power. They may accomplish this by sheer force of will (Hillary Clinton) or by employing their shagability (Elizabeth Taylor). My question is, "Why seek power?"

Q: for most men, sex is something they "DO" to the female, not something they share. is the woman alone in wanting any of that, or, once again, are they being "nagging females?" why is that?
A: Of course not all men are incapable of the higher form of sex as a communion/connection event, but most men just haven't evolved to that point. Those that have are likely to be perceived as less masculine. Sorry, that's life in the big city.

Q: is this phenomenon the same in other countries as well, or is this simply an american handicap?
A: I've an idea that it is worse in some countries (e.g., Mexico or some Islamic countries) than in America, and better in others (though none come to mind).

Q: ...or have i just been wrongly influenced by too many immature men?
A: Too many immature men. My free, unsolicited advice - worth every penny - is that you explore why you are attracted to immature or unenlightetend men and see if you can resolve that point and move forward.

I, too really detest the 'I'm just a helpless girly' routine. It just makes me think (and sometimes say) 'Oh for God's sake, woman! Have some self-respect!'