Re: this seemed appropos!

Subject: Re: this seemed appropos!
Date: Sat Jan 15 2005 - 16:51:54 EST

>"Historically, the most
> powerful women have either not taken husbands, or have
> chosen rather weak and ineffectual men"

Ever consider the possibility that there are women who like to
dominate their man? What does this say for the man? "He is a Week man"!!!
Or perhaps he dominates the bedroom. Or the checkbook. Or the kitchen. Or the
garden. Who cares.

Every relationship is a balance of power, where both parties happily agree to
their role, whatever that may be. It could be that men traditionally demand too
much from their partners, which would explain why it's the women with lower IQs
that are more likely to get married with men with higher IQs (the ones taking
advantage), and why the women with higher IQs are more likely to avoid such an

The feminist movement was not a hoax! It just takes a smarter woman to realize
that, as a wife, she has the power to decide what her role will be. In the
past, most women had no choice but to take the role of a traditional wife...
Quite the social improvement...



Quoting Digini Dorfman <>:

> > A second study, which was by researchers at four
> > British universities and reported last week,
> > suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would
> > rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums,
> > than equals. The study found that a high I.Q.
> > hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is
> > a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased
> > by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in
> > I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each
> > 16-point rise.
> Yes. Exactly.
> It seems clear to me that most of recorded history
> shows marriage to be a pretty bad deal for women.
> Finding a desirable situation has historically been
> pretty tough.
> It follows that, more than likely, a rising percentage
> of women would realize this, the higher their IQ. For
> an intelligent woman to find such a situation would be
> increasingly difficult, the stronger her evolutionary
> response.
> I'd call it simple survival. Historically, the most
> powerful women have either not taken husbands, or have
> chosen rather weak and ineffectual men. *Just think
> of any female monarch in Europe from say 1000 AD to
> 2000 AD.* If they had taken the type of men who lead
> nations as husbands, what power would have been left
> for them?
> > So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel
> > hoax?
> Maybe. Depends on how you look at it. Things
> certainly (unfortunately) haven't gotten any better
> for women. Things may have, though...
> (fortunately?... unfortunately?) gotten slightly worse
> for men.
> The shift in power takes place not only between the
> genders, but in the infrastructure of power within
> society. Formerly, the top needed the men to control
> the women. Now they can do it with having to go
> through a 'middleman'.
> ~Digs
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Post your free ad now!


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:05 EST