<p>
Better than being a waiter ;)</p>
<p>Biologists will tell you that physical characteristics that are viewed as sexually attractive generally correlate pretty well with reproductive fitness. My experience is that men and women are equally likely to seek mates who display the indicia of reproductive fitness, but that men are more likely than women to be derided as shallow for doing so.</p>
<p>It’s also my experience that men as well as women are attracted to mates who display indicia of social fitness, such as having an occupation that rates high in prestige, and income, but that women are more likely to be dismissed as golddiggers for doing so.</p>
<p>I’ll admit to having been much more interested in dating women with prestigious occupations, back in the day.</p>
<p>
I don’t think men actually care about the women’s profession as much as her looks/personality. In fact, it could be argued that women having a prestigious profession could actually be viewed as negative by her male mates (male superiority complex).</p>
<p>As quoted in the passage above:
</p>
<p>You guys need to realize social skills will get you far with most women. You don’t need 200k in student debt to get a date.</p>
<p>
But not any less degrading than the fact that men, in general, value a woman’s physical appearance including youth over all other criteria in mate selection. The typical man would select a prettier waitress over a less attrative woman lawyer any day of the week.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I basically agree. Generally speaking, a man who is a smooth talker can get lots of women even if he is average in the money and looks departments. And the art of hitting on women can be learned a lot more easily than the effort and talent required for 3 years of law school and passing the bar.</p>
<p>But I don’t think anyone here is contending otherwise. The main point is that – generally speaking – women place a lot of value on man’s income and status in terms of who they are attracted to. Similarly, men – generally speaking – place a lot of value on a woman’s physical appearance.</p>
<p>These are simple, relatively obvious, facts. But some people have take issue with them. I think people need to appreciate that there is a difference between how the world is and how we want the world to be. In other words, there is a difference between “is” and “should.”</p>
<p>Just my humble opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most men who cared, in their youth, about their own profession and education care something about their mate’s, or use equivalent selectors such as intelligence.</p>
<p>There are relatively few men in this day and age who view high accomplishment, income or professional prestige as negatives. What turns many men off to many women with those attributes is similar to what turns off many women to scientists, engineers, lawyers, etc — such careers are often associated with traits that are undesirable either in general or in a marriage. Being “anal” or “type A”, long work hours, inability to be a stay-at-home spouse, and so on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The study cited earlier in this thread would seem to suggest otherwise. </p>
<p>In any event, the fact is that men and women – generally speaking – place different values on different attributes. How would a professional man assess (as a potential girlfriend or wife) a woman who was 28 years old, beautiful, intelligent, sweet, and an aerobics instructor without much in the way of professional ambition or career prospects? For many professional men, such a person would be close to ideal as a partner and it wouldn’t really bother them that the woman is unlikely to have a prosperous career. His parents would be excited that he is dating this girl and eager to have her as part of their family.</p>
<p>How would a professional woman assess (as a boyfriend or husband) a man who was 28, handsome, intelligent, nice, and a physical trainer without much in the way of professional ambition or career prospects? Positively no doubt, but I suspect that many professional women would not see him as close to ideal. Her parents might be happy for her, but may not see him as a “great catch.”</p>
<p>Just my humble opinion.</p>
<p>The athletic-trainer examples don’t address whether men are turned on or off by professional status in women, they are about whether men and women are evaluated by the same standards in the dating market (of course the standards differ).</p>
<p>If you kept all other attributes of the 28-years old professional trainer female and changed her profession to lawyer, her dating appeal would likely rise. If, on the other hand, she were a rainmaker, a 90-hour-per-week worker, a workaholic en route to partnership at a competitive firm, her appeal would probably drop for most men, despite having higher income. </p>
<p>This is entirely consistent with the Freakanomics study that was quoted:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point is that as a woman’s salary and professional accomplishment escalates, it starts to become negatively correlated with her ability to provide sex, children, nurturance or even simply her time. At the top end, professional success starts to be more associated (given intelligence, education etc already needed for moderate success) with attributes like greed, ruthlessness, workaholism, aggressiveness, and others that are deleterious to a happy mating. Spouses of 40-hour a week lawyers tend to be happier than those of 100-hour a week lawyers.</p>
<p>I think LS’s point was rather that there’s a differential in terms of the career prospects men and women are expected to have in order to be an eligible romantic prospect.</p>
<p>That’s correct and undisputed; the point that LS raised for dispute was in his comment that:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but you seemed to be arguing that the profession/desirability curve was similar as between men and women:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The study suggests that the curve is actually very different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly I doubt it. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I note that the one study that’s been cited in this thread does not draw a distinction between lawyers with demanding jobs and lawyers without demanding jobs. I also note that the vast majority of attorney jobs are at least somewhat demanding. In any event, it’s difficult to de-couple the income and demandingness of a legal job. The two are clearly related.</p>
<p>From personal experience, I would add that my wife (who was an aerobics instructor without much in the way of career prospects when we met) was not ecstatic when I quit my $190k per year BIG(f?)LAW job to hang out a shingle. Even though I have a much more flexible schedule now and can take time off to watch the kids just about any time she needs me to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not an unreasonable interpretation, but not the one that I intended. The point I attempted to make was: that what starts to hurt women datingwise as they move up the professional food chain is similar to what dogs certain male professions at all levels of the food chain.</p>
<p>The comments about lawyerhood and working hours were in reference to women, not all lawyers. My guess would be that if a woman has a law degree and uses it in a relatively lucrative but 40-hr per week profession different from lawyer, that would work for her rather than against her (relative to having some non-lawyer profession without the law degree, and relative to being a 90-hr lawyer; how it rates exactly compared to a 60-hr lawyer is hard to say and probably circumstance dependent.)</p>
<p>I suppose one relevant natural experiment would be to examine the romantic prospects of trust fund babies when they grow up to be men and women: given that they don’t need careers, does this alter the behavioral dynamics involved in courtship? Does money still scare men off?</p>
<p>disclaimer: I have not yet read pages 2 & 3 of this thread.</p>
<p>What women respond to (not what they say they want) in today’s society is complex but the subject has been well-explored. For better or worse, money is only a small factor. I encourage you to look it up (enough out there to become a full-time pursuit) instead of doing something indirect like getting a JD.</p>