TFLYTSNBN wrote:n7axw wrote:As for your evaluation of the Clintons, I'm not going there even though I disagree.
I 'm aware that I'm a bit too close to comfort to pc on this one and I don't like pc. But I'm going to say it anyway. Public comment on women's bodies is disrespectful. They come in all shapes and sizes and as the bearers of life deserve respect. I personally judge men by how they treat the women around them.
Don
-
I will get PC myself. A lot of women are unfairly presumed to be stupid just because they conform to the prevailing standards of attractiveness. Hence my reference to the often presumed, inverse correlation between breast size and intellect.
The PC issue set aside, the characteristics that most men find attractive generally correllate to fertility. The preference for a 2/3s waste to hip ration is essentially universal. Healthy skin and hair are also favored. There is more variance in preferences for other attributes. However; intelligence and professional success arev
Women judge men just as much as men judge women, but the criteria are different. Women place more emphasis on intelligence and financial success.
All of the alleged sexism aside, most wealthy countries have assertive mating where high earners marry each other. There are exceptions. I do know a successful attorney who is married to a mail carrier. This accounts for much of the economic disparity that liberals complain about.
The problem isn't so much economic disparity as the reality that upward mobility has been disappearing. Our forebearers left the old world looking for a fresh start and to get away from the class structure. It's taken only about 200+ years to recreate what we fled. Just as well start naming our oligarchs dukes, earls and barons.
Don
-