This is the second of two parts. Basically, it's the same note but it needed to be split up. As much as I say, there's no way both of these could have been in the same note. Alright, let's get started.
As I mentioned in the first part, there are six types of women (given the reference frame previously discussed). Three ways to overrate or underrate, two methods of rating inaccuracy (under and over). I don't have any special names for each type, so...here.
A. Looks Overraters
These are the women who overrate their looks by two points but are actually spot-on with their personalities. Usually fashion decisions have much to do with this, and it's actually the easiest type of the six to get out of. Maury has makeover shows all the time that help women out of these situations. This is the type with the fewest members, because 1) very few women overrate their looks, and 2) most of the women who do overrate their looks also overrate their personalities.
B. Equal-Opportunity Overraters
And those women would fit here. These are the women who not only think spandex really fits all, but will stand there and tell you that you're an idiot for not understanding that the appeal of spandex is that it stretches out. Just ick. Same goes with blue hair, 15-inch nails, those fake eyelashes (for those who see me regularly, feel free to hate on mine - a la Katt Williams and his perm in The Pimp Chronicles), and similar items. Stuff that accentuates is fine, but if God doesn't recognize you (one time for Eddie Griffin) then something is wrong. Personality should be able to tell people that. Denial can be an unattractive thing, especially if the subject in question is attractiveness. This type doesn't have many members either, but it has more than the first type. I'm sure everyone can see the pattern developing...actually, I think I mentioned it in the first part. On to the next.
C. Personality Overraters
This is easily the most populated of the three types of overraters. Whole bunch of overraters think they're the greatest things to hit the earth since...whatever one wants to put here. This can manifest in several manners:
1) They can overrate their resumes.
I know I've mentioned this once or twice, but the very accomplishments that women require men to have to get with them are the things they use as lines of demarcation to separate themselves from and/or disqualify certain men. "You have to have at least a master's to have a chance with me"..."I have a master's, what would I want with you". Stuff like this here...show me a man who places primary emphasis on a resume and I'll show you a man whose best possible relationship outcome is a boring marriage. A woman's letters - whether they state a degree, an organizational membership, or whatever else - aren't going to take care of the children at night, console her husband/SO if he has a bad day, or generally foster a happy home life. I know most divorces are due to money. I also know that most happy marriages aren't.
2) They can overrate particular attributes.
You like football: great. You can watch an entire game without talking about the players' looks. Congratulations. Do you know what an A gap is. The difference between an X receiver and a Z receiver? Can you point out Sam, Will, and Mike before a play starts? I use football because it's an easy example, and also because I'm fortunate to know women who really like football. Matter of fact, a woman saying she likes football does nothing for me. I know a lot of women who can at least watch a game (baseball will have me at hello, but that's another discussion for another time). It's not the 90s anymore: between the women who actually like football and those who pretend to like it to catch men, that market is saturated. Matter of fact, if a woman can't at least tolerate one sport she may as well stay on the bench.
3) They can overrate their value/worth to men - or at least, classify said value/worth incorrectly.
I'm not trying to say that women should have any paucity of confidence at all. What I am saying is that sometimes women go overboard with what they expect from men. I dated one woman who was absolutely furious with me because we didn't talk on the phone one day (some of my friends were visiting from out of town and we played basketball and hung out all night: I left my phone in the clothes I wore down there, changing into something else to play ball). That was the only day of our relationship that we didn't talk. Out of roughly six hundred. A woman's value to us isn't measured by the amount of time spent on a phone. It can't be counted via a Tiffany's receipt or a Ruth's check. It can't be measured by the things a man says, or even the things a man does. It can only be measured by the feeling that a man has behind his words or actions - and if a woman doesn't know what that feeling is, no words or actions can solve that problem.
That's not even getting into the "you should do X, Y, Z for me" nonsense that many women unduly place on men.
Now, on to the other side...
D. Personality Underraters
As sure as I am that I'm sitting here typing this, I'm sure that women overrate the mess out of other women when it comes to personality - which is funny to me because I often hear women say that "I don't hang around females because they cause too much drama" and offer similar statements that don't exactly paint women as a whole in the most positive of lights. I always hear women say they're better at doing dirt than men because they know how to hide it. I could go on with examples of this, but suffice to say that women talk about other women enough (which in itself also helps accentuate this point) that it should be dang near impossible for this overrating to happen. But it does. I think the folks at VSB (commenters, not authors - and some are female) refer to the reasoning behind this as "chick logic". If I could count the times I've heard "I'm not that special: there are lots of women like me, you just have to look" and other unicorn-assorted falsehoods...well, I'd spend a lot of time counting.
I think the most amusing instances are when women overrate their friends. Let me explain something: if a woman's friends were as attractive as them, then a man would talk to one of the friends. Men choose the women they choose because of things they see (not always with their eyes) that make them unique. Using myself an an example: most every time I've tried to talk to someone, there was someone I chose her over (and of course, an accompanying reason: some of which were better than others). Point of the matter: no matter how dubious it may be, there's a draw that a woman who is approached has which her friends do not. It's that simple. That and the fact that....women know their friends aren't 100% on the up and up. "Neither are we"...true. However, men tacitly decide to accept - at least momentarily - the faults that their intended women have. Nothing a woman can - okay, is willing to - tell a man in the beginning is going to drop her that much in his eyes.
All this overrating of others is pretty much an underrating of themselves (in actuality, it is by comparison), because they see themselves as being further to the left side of the curve than they really are.
*I realize I said a lot of this in the first part, which is why I tried not to go into too much detail. Ah well.
If a man tells an underrater she's special - and most underraters I know are smart enough to tell the difference - it's likely because he means it. As has been mentioned previously, women measure themselves up against their friends and other like-minded women. Men measure women against all other women. If a woman's friends are all wonderful people, then it stands to reason that she may not understand her place on the curve in comparison to the general populace. I'm not saying "trust what the man says". I am saying to listen a little bit, and that women will (or at least should) be able to tell through the man's sentiment - which they have to feel. Hate to say it; but true feelings of love aren't spoken, written, or acted upon. They're felt. That's why they're feelings.
E. Equal-Opportunity Underraters
Women who fit this type are the ones who say they're alright in both areas. "I'm not ugly or anything, but I'm not going to be on the cover of a magazine" or "I think I'm a cool chick, but I'm no cooler than anyone else you'd meet on the street" are common things you'll hear them say. These are the women most likely to encounter men who see them with something other than their eyes. These women often see themselves through their struggles: work issues, having to get a paper done, balancing the gym and the volunteering, whatever. Men often see them as they are (or would be) without those struggles - mainly because they see themselves helping to alleviate those struggles. Now onto the one I intentionally saved for last.
F. Looks Underraters
I have to switch into second-person for this, because there's no way I can stay calm enough to go third-person all the way through.
Y'all make me sick. Not literally, but you may as well. Sometimes I want to pull mirrors out in front of you and ask what you see. Dated a couple...no, a few...women who were this type and it ran me ragged. Once an ex told me she wasn't beautiful and I wanted to bang my head against the wall. Other than obvious nonsense, this has to be the single most irritating thing I deal with when it comes to women. It's more irritating than personality underrating because personality underrating is a bit more nuanced and essentially inarguable. I can't win an argument with you about you as a person. I'll try all I can to get a point in so you can see that you win if/when I win, but it's a much tougher road to travel. Looks arguments are, at least to me, insanely pointless in that I don't know how you can argue against your own looks. This is especially true in the cases of FB friends who have pictures of themselves all over their pages. We can go one by one all the way through your albums until you see the light. I can get a lot of cosignage through my male friends. I understand that sometimes you don't want to embrace your looks because you think men will focus on them instead of your other attributes. Let me say this for the people in the cheap seats: men who are liable to do this are not worth your time in the first place. Once more: men who are liable to do this are not worth your time in the first place. If they can't see all of you and appreciate all of you, let them go. They don't deserve you anyway. Now, back to the subject: I've never said this publicly before, but this seems like as good a time as any. Some of y'all are just as attractive as the famous women I always talk about (Richelle, Tamron, Lisa, Maryam, Monica, and so on). There are two differences: 1) they're famous, and 2) I can mention them by name and not worry about embarrassing them or myself. Some of you are among the most attractive women in the world - yeah, I said it - and I say that not because I've seen everyone, but because I've seen you and cannot fathom any significant improvement over you.
Alright, I'm done.
As I mentioned in the first part, there are six types of women (given the reference frame previously discussed). Three ways to overrate or underrate, two methods of rating inaccuracy (under and over). I don't have any special names for each type, so...here.
A. Looks Overraters
These are the women who overrate their looks by two points but are actually spot-on with their personalities. Usually fashion decisions have much to do with this, and it's actually the easiest type of the six to get out of. Maury has makeover shows all the time that help women out of these situations. This is the type with the fewest members, because 1) very few women overrate their looks, and 2) most of the women who do overrate their looks also overrate their personalities.
B. Equal-Opportunity Overraters
And those women would fit here. These are the women who not only think spandex really fits all, but will stand there and tell you that you're an idiot for not understanding that the appeal of spandex is that it stretches out. Just ick. Same goes with blue hair, 15-inch nails, those fake eyelashes (for those who see me regularly, feel free to hate on mine - a la Katt Williams and his perm in The Pimp Chronicles), and similar items. Stuff that accentuates is fine, but if God doesn't recognize you (one time for Eddie Griffin) then something is wrong. Personality should be able to tell people that. Denial can be an unattractive thing, especially if the subject in question is attractiveness. This type doesn't have many members either, but it has more than the first type. I'm sure everyone can see the pattern developing...actually, I think I mentioned it in the first part. On to the next.
C. Personality Overraters
This is easily the most populated of the three types of overraters. Whole bunch of overraters think they're the greatest things to hit the earth since...whatever one wants to put here. This can manifest in several manners:
1) They can overrate their resumes.
I know I've mentioned this once or twice, but the very accomplishments that women require men to have to get with them are the things they use as lines of demarcation to separate themselves from and/or disqualify certain men. "You have to have at least a master's to have a chance with me"..."I have a master's, what would I want with you". Stuff like this here...show me a man who places primary emphasis on a resume and I'll show you a man whose best possible relationship outcome is a boring marriage. A woman's letters - whether they state a degree, an organizational membership, or whatever else - aren't going to take care of the children at night, console her husband/SO if he has a bad day, or generally foster a happy home life. I know most divorces are due to money. I also know that most happy marriages aren't.
2) They can overrate particular attributes.
You like football: great. You can watch an entire game without talking about the players' looks. Congratulations. Do you know what an A gap is. The difference between an X receiver and a Z receiver? Can you point out Sam, Will, and Mike before a play starts? I use football because it's an easy example, and also because I'm fortunate to know women who really like football. Matter of fact, a woman saying she likes football does nothing for me. I know a lot of women who can at least watch a game (baseball will have me at hello, but that's another discussion for another time). It's not the 90s anymore: between the women who actually like football and those who pretend to like it to catch men, that market is saturated. Matter of fact, if a woman can't at least tolerate one sport she may as well stay on the bench.
3) They can overrate their value/worth to men - or at least, classify said value/worth incorrectly.
I'm not trying to say that women should have any paucity of confidence at all. What I am saying is that sometimes women go overboard with what they expect from men. I dated one woman who was absolutely furious with me because we didn't talk on the phone one day (some of my friends were visiting from out of town and we played basketball and hung out all night: I left my phone in the clothes I wore down there, changing into something else to play ball). That was the only day of our relationship that we didn't talk. Out of roughly six hundred. A woman's value to us isn't measured by the amount of time spent on a phone. It can't be counted via a Tiffany's receipt or a Ruth's check. It can't be measured by the things a man says, or even the things a man does. It can only be measured by the feeling that a man has behind his words or actions - and if a woman doesn't know what that feeling is, no words or actions can solve that problem.
That's not even getting into the "you should do X, Y, Z for me" nonsense that many women unduly place on men.
Now, on to the other side...
D. Personality Underraters
As sure as I am that I'm sitting here typing this, I'm sure that women overrate the mess out of other women when it comes to personality - which is funny to me because I often hear women say that "I don't hang around females because they cause too much drama" and offer similar statements that don't exactly paint women as a whole in the most positive of lights. I always hear women say they're better at doing dirt than men because they know how to hide it. I could go on with examples of this, but suffice to say that women talk about other women enough (which in itself also helps accentuate this point) that it should be dang near impossible for this overrating to happen. But it does. I think the folks at VSB (commenters, not authors - and some are female) refer to the reasoning behind this as "chick logic". If I could count the times I've heard "I'm not that special: there are lots of women like me, you just have to look" and other unicorn-assorted falsehoods...well, I'd spend a lot of time counting.
I think the most amusing instances are when women overrate their friends. Let me explain something: if a woman's friends were as attractive as them, then a man would talk to one of the friends. Men choose the women they choose because of things they see (not always with their eyes) that make them unique. Using myself an an example: most every time I've tried to talk to someone, there was someone I chose her over (and of course, an accompanying reason: some of which were better than others). Point of the matter: no matter how dubious it may be, there's a draw that a woman who is approached has which her friends do not. It's that simple. That and the fact that....women know their friends aren't 100% on the up and up. "Neither are we"...true. However, men tacitly decide to accept - at least momentarily - the faults that their intended women have. Nothing a woman can - okay, is willing to - tell a man in the beginning is going to drop her that much in his eyes.
All this overrating of others is pretty much an underrating of themselves (in actuality, it is by comparison), because they see themselves as being further to the left side of the curve than they really are.
*I realize I said a lot of this in the first part, which is why I tried not to go into too much detail. Ah well.
If a man tells an underrater she's special - and most underraters I know are smart enough to tell the difference - it's likely because he means it. As has been mentioned previously, women measure themselves up against their friends and other like-minded women. Men measure women against all other women. If a woman's friends are all wonderful people, then it stands to reason that she may not understand her place on the curve in comparison to the general populace. I'm not saying "trust what the man says". I am saying to listen a little bit, and that women will (or at least should) be able to tell through the man's sentiment - which they have to feel. Hate to say it; but true feelings of love aren't spoken, written, or acted upon. They're felt. That's why they're feelings.
E. Equal-Opportunity Underraters
Women who fit this type are the ones who say they're alright in both areas. "I'm not ugly or anything, but I'm not going to be on the cover of a magazine" or "I think I'm a cool chick, but I'm no cooler than anyone else you'd meet on the street" are common things you'll hear them say. These are the women most likely to encounter men who see them with something other than their eyes. These women often see themselves through their struggles: work issues, having to get a paper done, balancing the gym and the volunteering, whatever. Men often see them as they are (or would be) without those struggles - mainly because they see themselves helping to alleviate those struggles. Now onto the one I intentionally saved for last.
F. Looks Underraters
I have to switch into second-person for this, because there's no way I can stay calm enough to go third-person all the way through.
Y'all make me sick. Not literally, but you may as well. Sometimes I want to pull mirrors out in front of you and ask what you see. Dated a couple...no, a few...women who were this type and it ran me ragged. Once an ex told me she wasn't beautiful and I wanted to bang my head against the wall. Other than obvious nonsense, this has to be the single most irritating thing I deal with when it comes to women. It's more irritating than personality underrating because personality underrating is a bit more nuanced and essentially inarguable. I can't win an argument with you about you as a person. I'll try all I can to get a point in so you can see that you win if/when I win, but it's a much tougher road to travel. Looks arguments are, at least to me, insanely pointless in that I don't know how you can argue against your own looks. This is especially true in the cases of FB friends who have pictures of themselves all over their pages. We can go one by one all the way through your albums until you see the light. I can get a lot of cosignage through my male friends. I understand that sometimes you don't want to embrace your looks because you think men will focus on them instead of your other attributes. Let me say this for the people in the cheap seats: men who are liable to do this are not worth your time in the first place. Once more: men who are liable to do this are not worth your time in the first place. If they can't see all of you and appreciate all of you, let them go. They don't deserve you anyway. Now, back to the subject: I've never said this publicly before, but this seems like as good a time as any. Some of y'all are just as attractive as the famous women I always talk about (Richelle, Tamron, Lisa, Maryam, Monica, and so on). There are two differences: 1) they're famous, and 2) I can mention them by name and not worry about embarrassing them or myself. Some of you are among the most attractive women in the world - yeah, I said it - and I say that not because I've seen everyone, but because I've seen you and cannot fathom any significant improvement over you.
Alright, I'm done.
Part of me really wants to poke holes in your argument. But, you paraphased some of the things I've said, "urgh!" And, the fact that I just sent my friend an IM on how much I appreciate her and she's always surprised by my deep heartfelt compliments, cuz I'm "f n awesome", yet I replied she's "f n awesome, too".
ReplyDeleteI don't subscribe to using numbers or rating people. I think it's a bit degrading and superficial of some sort (those might not be the right vocab, but I have some feelings about it, and in summary I don't like it). But, nonetheless, with or without the use of numbers/rating, people over or underestimate themselves. I know I tend to play the modest card a lot (and sometimes I really am just 'playing' because boasting is not cool and a bit egotistical, but mostly because I rather let people judge or assess for themselves, which they are gonna do with or without me telling them I'm the shht). But, on a real level my friends and I, do underestimate ourselves or at least can't fully grasp what it is that others are saying about us. Maybe, it has to be the group dynamic of awesome chicks/friends who hang around each other that make you feel, well, average.
"I do have a response for your comment (I figure responding is the least I can do if people take the time to comment) below."
ReplyDeleteThanks, but no need to respond especially since I'll periodically go through the archive to read what I've missed (and maybe it'll spark a comment or to). Nonetheless, I'll take the exchange of thoughts put into words.
~Joy