To: Jim Noble
Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them.
Bullshyt!
19 posted on
01/13/2005 5:08:29 AM PST by
bikepacker67
("This is the best election night in history." -- DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe 11/2/04 8pm)
To: bikepacker67
"Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. "
You are right in that the above sentence is absolute rubbish. Even in college women's dating habits/choices center on achievers and it triples after college. I'm sure these statistics of Dowd's come from women's feelings and not their actions.
34 posted on
01/13/2005 5:27:26 AM PST by
Monterrosa-24
(Technology advances but human nature is dependably stagnant)
To: bikepacker67
I don't have a source, but I have read that women are attracted to men "above" them, but avoid men "below" them. I guess a practical example would be the male executive who would marry a secretary, and a female executive who would not marry a window cleaner.
129 posted on
01/13/2005 6:38:41 AM PST by
Enterprise
("Dance with the Devil by the Pale Moonlight" - Islam compels you!)
To: bikepacker67
Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. It is a well known fact that women only want to "marry up" that is, to men who earn more than they do. This is why professional women (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.) often "can't find" a "proper" mate.
It is men who are willing to marry down (marry women who earn less than they do or are in a "lower" social class)like the Rockefeller who married a family maid.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson