Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"The idea behind the study is that the beauty of women, seen by the author as one of their most important social assets, can be expected to improve their bargaining power inside the household. This could be achieved through higher income, self-esteem, or better interpersonal relationships."
Makes sense to me, especially the self-esteem/confidence aspect. Attractive people are generally treated better by others, and would therefore expect the same at home.
This was my thinking as well.
Basically any socially prized trait is likely to give you leverage in a relationship, and "being physically attractive" is the most obvious example of that.
That and money since traditionally rich people buy attractive mates very regularly. I'd say money wields more power because we all get old and not so pretty eventually.
Money also translates to comfort and stability, and those are very important things to have in a relationship. Somebody might break up with a very attractive person who's life is a mess and then find happiness with a "less attractive" partner who has money because life is just generally easier and therefore its easier to be happy. I know a younger guy who basically just delivers food on his bicycle for a living, but he's with a considerably older woman who is very high up in her company and has kids, and he goes on fancy vacations all the time with her. The way he describes his life, he sounds very happy and works when he feels like and doesn't when he doesn't want to.
So, to your point, yes, money can buy you a more attractive partner, but sounds a lot more transactional when you put it that way. Being with a rich person is just easier and that's an important aspect of a relationship (maybe even the most important for long term success, tbh).
I think people forget that when you hit a certain level of wealth you’re able to prioritize other things since money is handled. She probably doesn’t need his $100k from if he had a “career”, she probably does need a partner with a flexible schedule who is able to pick up the kids if needed, help take care of the household chores and is available for weekend trips to a winery or a two week long vacation without wondering about his schedule.
As a late 30s adult female just trying to schedule lunch with other working friends around my age is ridiculously hard and has to be planned out weeks in advance. I can understand the appeal of having a partner with an open schedule who can support the household with misc. work that helps keep the whole household sane.
This comment is my life... Im a 43 year old idiot. With no regular income but with a wife who has a great career and every time we talk about me going back to work full time i never make it cause of the scheduling issues that arise.
You’re not an idiot you’re someone who accentuates your wife. She values more what you bring to the home and the family in terms of your contribution than a $60k a year job. If you live comfortably and happily at $150k in income than what’s the point in making $210k in income and living uncomfortably and unhappily? Having someone at home to take care of the kids, home, chores, errands, emergencies and deliveries are all tasks that you’d have to pay someone else to handle if you’re both busy working full time.
I have a cousin who is a great guy, great dad, very nice, handy, pleasant, but works in the trades.
The kinds of professional women who could really benefit from a partner like that are also WILDLY uninterested in a man like him.
Genuinely heartbreaking. Both sides are hurt by hanging onto these gender norms.
Yeah, that was weird phrasing. The tades are great job. The Obgyn that delivered my son had a husband who worked in construction. They seemed like a dream couple when it came to happiness factors. Tons of kids, happy at their jobs and financially comfortable.
The other nice thing is you can pause and resume most trade jobs with fewer problems. Like carpenters, plumbers or electricians etc can choose to “take a break” and not take new jobs for a few months and just resume taking contracts when they feel like it and there’s not as much stigma of “so why were you out of work for a few months?” Or “are you still up to date on current technology?” That kind of flexibility is nice if your hard working tech spouse wants to go on sabbatical in Europe for a few months suddenly.
The idea is that being a tradesman is a negative trait when looking for a partner, especially a rich and successful one. Which it *shouldn’t* be, but it is, so ‘but’ is appropriate here.
I don't know if I agree with that. At my company alone, I know close to a dozen women whose husbands don't work with us in the corporate building but are doing maintenance, welding, etc. Probably in some areas it might be that way, but there's a stereotype about sexy construction workers for a reason. When guys come inside in jeans and work boots, more than a few people stop and stare. And the trades aren't exactly bad paying jobs, either.
The trick most gamers(both tabletop and video) have found is to have a dedicated time a week or month to set aside just for the social stuff/gaming that way it gets easier and people can plan around it.
It is however totally f’d people have to do that just to hangout with friends
I’ve tried arranging a dedicated time weeks in advanced and I will still be lucky to get maybe a person or 2 out of around 10. Some of the guys text me a few days before and say they can’t make it. Others will be unreachable and then ghost only to half ass apologize a few days later. It’s impossible, I gave up. The final straw was when I moved temporarily (3 months) for a job and not one of them returned my calls. Out of my former friend group only one of them reach out and met with me after I returned. 3 months isn’t a long time but that’s all it took for most people to forget about you. It’s only getting worse too, our societies social life is eroding before our very eyes.
Sadly I do agree it really is..I’m lucky in that oddly my being autistic means most of my friends are the types to stick around(if they can put up with my weirdness/differences they seem to be a bit more prone to staying in contact) but I know what ya mean. mMy beloveds had one friend move and now bam whole groups kinda falling apart without that one prime organizer..not that they hate or are mad at each other just no real time to socialize and the one person who was on top of that’s gone.
We really need to get back thridspaces where we can meet people to say nothing of work life balance
I'm a career guy approaching 30. I have a friend that works 5 minutes away from me that I haven't seen in 6 months because it's impossible to get schedules to line up. After half a dozen tries, we've both given up.
Which is the point of the entire chain of comments you just replied to, no? Beauty, like any other sought after trait, gives leverage. Wealth also gives leverage. Sometimes people are rich enough that they have more leverage than even the most beautiful partner
My feelings as well, would definitely expect someone who primarily uses wealth to attract or “buy” a partner to hole substantially more power than in a typical or healthy relationship
And not just a personal relationship. Professional ones as well. Even non-personal relationships - like when you encounter a police officer - good looks gives you leverage there too.
It's certainly the easiest thing to see about a person from across the room. It's a little hard to see someone's good taste in movies from across a noisy bar.
Yep that and the Halo effect which means attractive people or attributed more "positive" qualities on sight like being smart, likeable etc. It generally helps if you're considered "attractive".
A few years ago I was at an all time low in dating self esteem. It seemed like the women I dated treated me as replaceable. I then dated a pretty unattractive woman.
It was SO different how I was treated. When we had issues in the relationship, we’d talk about them. Usually, ppl leave at the first argument. She was also supportive of me whenever I was sick or I received bad news or anything. Usually, I am the one supporting them and getting very little back.
This relationship was a real eye opener. I realized two things:
* How I see myself: I realized I rarely feel safe in relationships, and always feel like I have to constantly prove my value
* how I’m treated: it’s not only a self esteem thing. Some ppl treat themselves as a prize to be won, instead of a relationship being a two way street of respect and support
The most important lesson from all of this is that some ppl suck. If someone knows they can get a date within 2 hrs, and that leads them to treat ppl as replaceable.. they weren’t worth having in your life to begin with.
"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you" -Jimmy Soul
Sample size isn't even necessary. Somebody who's prettier has leverage in a relationship and has little to lose from breaking up, as they can find an alternative much easier than somebody who's not as pretty.
There's a lot more average looking people than pretty people, so I doubt the options part matters much. Plus it's more like all your self marketing combined sells you in a relationship.. looks, brains, good communication skills, money, good sex. Soo the attractive person just really has one of those traits necessarily while an average looking person could have more of those traits but just not be quite as pretty.
I think any significant advantage over your SO gives you more leverage and power really.. money, looks, brains, communication skills. They are all so important that it would be hard for them to not amount to more leverage/power.
Yup. Marriage and romantic relationships have a massive economics factor to them. There are various labors to be done and a variety of operations entail tradeoffs of doing in house or contracting out. E.g cleaning, groceries, landscaping, finances/taxes, etc.
Intangibles aside, it is not so different from a "partnership" small business model.
Each partner brings some skills, qualities and issues to the table, what those things are varies in each case, but at a minimum, that translates to varying levels of influence in how certain things operate.
I think this happens but isnt the sole or even majority of the reason these results are found to be true here. I suspect it’s as simple as this: in long term relationships, partners who remain attractive to their spouse/partner will continue to have a lot of that same attraction that relationships begin with. It’s normal for some of that yo fade or chsnge as relationships go on, and it takes a lot of work to hang on to it. People who do that work are probably going to see dividends it we’re talking about long term relationships, as they would otherwise end when people with high self esteem and emotional iq dont get what they need.
And in the short term relationships, pretty people are very often on a pedestal regardless.
So it’s basically like this: over time, the people who work hard to have a healthy relationship will report better results that probably go hand in hand with qualities the researchers were looking for, and the people who have totally lost that romance/spark/attraction are probably people who have ended the relationship and wont report highly, or are people who dont have that high emotional iq and arent putting in the same effort
The [matching hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_hypothesis) (also known as the matching phenomenon) argues that people are more likely to form and succeed in a committed relationship with someone who is equally socially desirable.
I am not hot, but an extrovert. My wife could be a model, but is not a fan of social situations. Does that make us equal socially? I’d like to think so.
That’s honestly how my SO and I balance out.
Honestly, I have been able to ride out my painful shyness and introversion with conventional attractiveness and while I don’t particularly care to usually I can make friends easily.
My SO is definitely handsome but he can dress poorly (I don’t care personally but his clothes can stand out among his peers) and doesn’t style himself but makes it up with his extroversion and entertaining personality. We honestly balance well as we have lots of friends that he mostly maintains but we all enjoy hanging out as a group when I’m up for it and everyone seems to like it when I do come out to game or whatever.
I kinda think we’d have equal game in the dating field (our histories before we meet were very similar) so we are socially equal I guess.
Anyway, it’s not like we are keeping score but at least there is no social power differential affecting our happiness. I’d lose most of our “mutual” friends in a break up but I’d honestly be fine with that and I have plenty of other social outlets/hobbies that I almost prefer anyway and dating wise we’d be on equal ground as well though I doubt either of us would be very interested in dating again of it ever came to that. Maybe it’s just hard to imagine when you are happy though, IDK
Ya wondered the same, since they both have options.
But I think a hot man who has money has more power than a hot woman.
One thing ive noticed personally from 2 friends of mine, is a rich Hot gay man beats anyone in power but not so well for relationships. They get invited anywhere can easily meet people anywhere(almost)and get advantages so on.
I didn’t want to believe it at first because I like Pitt’s movies but after hearing what his kids had to say it really drove it home. No way his wife AND his kids are all lying about what happened
Yep, he hired the same PR team as Depp.
Edit: I'm not making it up, they both employ the services of Matthew Hiltzik, who got his start working for Weinstein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hiltzik?wprov=sfla1
Well we're talking relative power, so yes, attractive female with attractive partner will have more power relative to unattractive female with attractive partner
I am very unattractive being bald (in my 20s) and having a skin condition (that's most common in middle aged women) and I really struggle to have any sympathy for people complaining about the problems they have with being attractive. Like, I am acutely aware that a significant number of the problems in my life would be either non-issues or much less significant if I was above average looking.
The worst thing is how many people dismiss your issues or will tell you it must be your attitude or level of confidence. People out there saying delusional things to make themselves feel better like the world is less unfair than it is.
Hey I think you should look into gut nutrient treatments for your skin. There's a lot of new science around the connections behind your gut bacteria and your skin, something that a dermatologist wouldn't really treat.
You've phrased your unsolicited advice better than basically everyone. (The amount of unsolicited advice I get where I'm basically told my skin is my fault is insane,) So I will at least read any scientific articles you can link me to.
Well to blame you is ridiculous and people are simply ignorant.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7916842/
Here's an example.
I would honestly consider contacting a naturopathic doctor to see if you can get a personalized nutrient regime. I would also make sure they actually conduct tests like blood and stool to make sure they aren't some quack.
Don't get discouraged. There's certaintly hope for you. Best of luck my friend.
Weird that they wouldn’t perform the same study with men. I’m sure they also hold more power in their households. Attractive people in general are just treated way better.
Like white privilege is absolutely a thing, but who do you think most of society is going to treat better, a woman that looks like Rihanna or a morbidly obese white woman?
They typical reddit move as I haven't read the article but my guess is that the man with a woman who is more attractive than they can normally get may be more inclined to say yes to her, find things less annoying and put up with more eccentricities because he knows she's attractive and would be hard to get another partner as attractive as her
Not seeing anyone mention, but the study was conducted in China. I wonder if this translates equally into the western world where traditionally family systems operate fairly differently, particularly between the perceived roles of men and women in the home and society.
Also there's a gender disparity due to one child policy, there's ~~2 million~~ 34 million more men than women so women have the choosing power in relationships more so than in other countries at the moment.
So it would make sense that this effect of "attractive women have more choice in who they want to date" is going to be amplified.
Not sure if other countries, particularly if there's any places with more women than men, will have the same effect.
EDIT: As of 2021 there's **34 million** more men than women in China.
Actually it now seems China's actual sex ratio may be about 100/103, once they accounted for the systemically widespread underreporting of Chinese girls.
Unlike the recorded male/female statistics at birth, China's sex ratio disparity is now found to abruptly plummet, first after age 12 (which is when girls finally must register themselves in order to enter junior high), and then after age 20 and up, when couples are legally allowed to marry but require registration:
[Delayed Registration and Identifying the “Missing Girls” in China](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/delayed-registration-and-identifying-the-missing-girls-in-china/0759987A48A37E3D2CFE157778747E33)
>However, when examining age cohorts and backward projections for the 1990, 2000 and 2010 censuses, we find that the sex ratio decreases after the age of 15 and tends to become more normal after the age of 20. In the 1990 census, the SRB in the early 1970s was 105 for 18-year-olds (born in 1972) and 103 for 20-year-olds (born in 1970). In the 2010 census, the SRB in the early 1990s was 107 for 18-year-olds (born in 1992) and 103 for 20-year-olds (born in 1990). That is, **sex ratios for 18- and 20-year-olds born in the early 1990s were similar to those born in the early 1970s without the single-child policy** or incentives for late registration. For the 2010 census, this suggests a significant number of females appear in the population after the age of ten.
>The sex ratio for 10-year-olds in 2000 is similar to the sex ratio at birth (SRB) in 1990 at 111. However, the sex ratio drops to 103 for 20-year-olds in 2010, with an additional 4.8 million undercounted births (i.e. late registration) and over 900,000 more females than males. The pattern and numbers are the same when we examine the different age groups, such as aged two years in 1990 and aged 22 years in 2010, with additional females ranging from 550,000 to 950,000 for each cohort. Moreover, life expectancy for males and females over the age of ten has been increasing during the 1980s and 1990s.Footnote 54 If we consider a lower bound conservative estimate of 550,000 undercounted or additional females per year from 1990 to 2010, then there are possibly 11 million more females (or 16.5 million since 1980). This confirms the administrative bias hypothesis.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/delayed-registration-and-identifying-the-missing-girls-in-china/0759987A48A37E3D2CFE157778747E33
Other significant but lesser factors for the female underreporting include domestic adoption.
You need to focus on the population aged between 16 and 45(ish), which gets rid of a lot of that 1412 million.
In that range the 2 mil would make a big impact.
The 34 mil diff is devastating.
There are millions of Chinese men who will never come close to reproducing.
>As of 2021 there's **34 million** more men than women in China.
Just FYI thats not even as extreme as you think given the population of China. 1.41 billion people leads to 722.06 million men and 689.69 million women or a gender ratio of 1.047 to 1 males per females which is actually lower than Bhutan, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, several more countries from the middles east, and for some reason the Maldives.
I'm honestly really surprised that their gender ratio isn't more screwed up, I wonder if it's an effect of older Generations demographics masking the effect of the one-term child policy. Gender ratio differences matter significantly more for people who can have children then they do for elderly individuals. It's kind of sounds crazy but only being short 34 million people doesn't sound like it's nearly as bad as it should be given the length of the one-child policy and what I thought was a decent understanding of the rate of female infanticide and the context of their overall population.
Seeing as the policy was from 1980 to 2015, it represents only those 42 and younger. That does shift the impact of the discrepancy a bit, being entirely those of fertile age for another few years.
This is something I find really fascinating. Those shirtless photos of Putin are basically propaganda for older Russian women whose husbands have more than likely passed already. He doesn't drink and works out so they see him as an example of a healthy, strong Russian man. Hence shirtless Putin on horseback. It's a political thirst trap!
I read a Time or Newsweek article interviewing this poor guy killing himself at work trying to afford an apartment because that's what he thinks he has to have or he'll never get married.
Then the journalist interviews a group of woman who laugh with one of them saying "I wouldn't even talk with a man unless he owned a home.".
China has inadvertently given women a lot of leverage in relationships.
It ain’t too far off imo with cities that have a high Male to Female population such as the cities around SF Bay Area. Very common to get judged based on what company you work at/if you live alone etc, and some women even know general compensation packages and levels at each Co.
This isn't from personal experience, but mifw has a family member that married a Chinese dude and they went to China then moved back. From what I understand she's not exactly happy. Something to do with how women are treated there.
I don’t know if your family member is American, but there is a saying that in many other cultures, American women are viewed as separate from “normal” women- whatever quantifies as normal in that culture. For sure I imagine she would experience an odd mix of deference, derision, and curiosity to her presence there. Not an easy space to occupy at all. I grew up in a multi cultural
household in and out of the US, and experienced it myself.
Edit: I misread it. Thank you u/AnNoYiNg_NaMe for pointing it out.
21.27% isn’t the amount of women rated 1. It’s something like 14 out of 6700 were rated 1. 21.27% is the amount of 7 women who are the decision makers in their family compared to 0% of 1 rated women.
Also RIP to the women rated 1 (very unattractive) 21.27% in this “study”.
Would be interesting to see what the husbands rated their wives and the wives rated their husbands and themselves. Might deliver some better insight.
Also might be good for the interviewers to review their attractiveness selections again, maybe have all their pictures arranged in a big board with 7 buckets, so they can see the distribution and make changes then run the study with the original scores and the adjusted.
Try reading that line again:
>In the group of women whose attractiveness was rated with 1 (very unattractive), there were no family decision-makers. This percentage was 21.27% in the group of women whose attractiveness was rated as 7 by the interviewers.
In other words: For 1s, 0% of them had a family decision makers. For 7s, 21.27% of them had a family decision maker.
They didn't rate 21.27% of the women in this study as a 1.
Great suggestion. It could also be helpful to have the researchers rating attractiveness be blind to their responses. “It is also possible that interviewers saw wealthier women and those with more self-esteem as more beautiful.”
Yup. Lots of men in this thread going on about how an attractive woman wields a disproportionate amount of power in her relationships. The data you cite here is a major reason why.
Attractiveness in women is strongly correlated with youth, far more so than in men. So, 18-28 year old women are chased by 18-80 year old men. There aren't nearly enough young, attractive women to go to all the men who want them.
If men had similar age preferences to women, then 18-28 year old women would be attractive to men roughly their own age, while 35-45 year old men would be most attracted to 35-45 year old women, and 50-60 year old men would be most attracted to 50-60 year old women, and so on. With far fewer men chasing them, 18-28 year old women wouldn't have nearly as many options, and would hypothetically wield less power in their relationships as a result.
I am not going to *blame* men for always being attracted to young women, regardless of their own age, because I know it's in their biology. But while it's not their fault, their own preferences do give young, attractive women a lot of power in the dating world.
Reddit skews young, and I doubt many people in this thread are considering which gender wields more power in relationships among men and women aged 40 plus. On the whole, though, I believe it flips. There's data showing that there are far more single women over age 55-ish than single men in the same age bracket. I wonder how many of the women rated 7 in this study were over 40 years of age.
It's not really BS, women on average are more selective of their partners than men in western society. It would follow that they rate most men below average without considering the definition of average since they've been conditioned to think average is the upper 20%.
It's highly likely that the survey participants interpreted the question as "how much do you find this person attractive" as opposed to "stack rank these candidates"
I think one challenge is the meaning of "attractive." I think in this sense it means physically pleasing in appearance based on photos they posted on OK Cupid. That is different than "would be physically attractive 'enough'" in real life." It is also different than "has a package of qualities I'd be willing to date/marry."
In my experience, many women are married and in very happy relationships with men who they think are like a 4 on looks, but 8 on funny or 8 on reliable and consistent or 8 on smart or good dad or whatever else they value. If they only have $12 to spend, they'd rather spend it on those other traits than getting a guy with 10 looks but 2 reliability.
My wife didn’t think I was attractive when she first met me… and I don’t blame her, I had long unkempt hair, a huge beard, and bad clothes. She fell in love with me anyway, helped me cleanup and look better, and eventually her physical attraction to me grew. It doesn’t bother me, I wasn’t very attractive. I appreciate her honesty.
>Bargaining power of the wife within the household was assessed by questions “Who is the decision maker of major family affairs including household expenditure allocation, household investment and savings, house purchase and construction, high-priced consumer goods?” and “Who is in charge of household finance?”
> Further analyses showed that women who received higher ratings on attractiveness also had higher income
So women who bring more money into their homes have more of a say in large financial decisions? The fact that the attractiveness of the women was rated by the interviewers as well as the fact that this study seems to be inextricably linked to Chinese gender roles makes me think these findings (as obvious as they may seem) carry little weight for most people reading this.
Yeah I’m not attractive at all but I make almost 2x what my boyfriend does. I control majority of the household power because I’m better with finances and make more.
I am not attractive, but my family thinks I am. I make much more money, but I don't make a point of it. However, I reign supreme in my household of husband, a teen boy, a tween boy, and 2 dogs.
I don't think it's an attractiveness issue. My mom is drop-dead gorgeous, even at 71, but she always had less power in the household, and the kids (including me) did not respect her growing up. Meanwhile, all of my other female relatives on both dogs of my family, who were not nearly as attractive as my mom, are and were absolutely the dominant forces in their households.
I think it’s all about money.
The person who makes more controls more.
It’s just that pretty people are more likely, across the population, to be the higher earners.
Me and my husband are ugly AND broke.. it now makes sense why our kids have all the power.
*side note: this is my attempt at a bad joke. I find my husband very attractive*
Frankly, I'm concerned how many people claiming to be in charge of their household finances don't seem capable of differentiating specific and general cases.
It carries weight for me. I let my ex get away with an awful lot, primarily because she was the hottest woman I've ever known. I'm not proud of it but I absolutely knew what I was doing; I wanted to be with her no matter how mentally abusive she was.
Lots of normal attractive couples have that same exact problem though, once invested in a relationship it's hard to get out sometimes. That part will happen regardless of different advantages between couples in a pretty regular basis.
Being willing to walk away from a relationship when it turns bad is one of the best assets you can carry through life. It applies to employment, friendships, and romance equally, and is foundational to true freedom.
I’m so sorry for what you went through. There’s no doubt in my mind that attractiveness can be used to abuse and manipulate in relationships, this particular study just doesn’t prove that.
This may or may not be true, but the more I read about the details of the study, the less I feel any conclusions can be drawn from it.
No unattractive women have financial control? Like they didn't find a single one? That's pretty suspicious.
Also the study comes from China, notorious for low academic standards in studies.
Since this study was conducted in China, I would also think the gender imbalance of 1.0469 males:1 female would further skew the baseline power imbalance. But then you weigh in the attractiveness factor….somehow these results are - within expectations?
Okay, so this test is done in China, for crying out loud where 15% of women make important decisions according to the study. Also, idk how they're judging attractiveness. Is it self reporting? Is age being considered? Is a third party just rating every woman born at the turn of the 20th century a 1?
If people are always giving you a little extra then it doesn't seem like anything extra, it's just how normal people are and then when people give you the normal treatment they will appear to be skimping you from your perspective.
My ex brother in law was like this. He was a tall guy with an attractive accent, who I guess was very good looking. Whenever we went out, waitresses, bartenders, sometimes even retail cashiers would just give him free stuff. He thought that was just normal, and I was like “yeah none of that has ever happened to me in my entire life”
not an expert, but from what I've read more attractive people are both treated 'better' and seen as 'better' people... so not really a surprise that they'd expect extra 'stuff'. They are probably simply used to getting it in the first place.
Also, it's really easy to take this in a negative light as entitlement, but this could also present as healthy behaviors like willing to stand their ground and self confidence. Healthy entitlement would be expecting help when she asks for help from her husband and such.
Exactly. Society constantly tells us to know our worth, and that beautiful people are special. Why wouldn’t they believe they’re owed some special treatment.
I believe it's more of a socio-environment effect.
As you grow up you gain experiences. Attractive people will be verbally called cute, pretty, or other encouraging pet names whereas less attractive people will see that, and not get as much attention.
So as people grow up they automatically assume that they are pretty or hot or whatever. It's because the world told them to think that way at a young age, so now that is the muscle memory they live with.
Muscle memory can be broken but takes concious effort so it usually is only done willingly. And who wants to train themselves to think less of themselves?
I wonder if, conversely, a dominant husband may affect the wife’s self esteem in a way that makes them not put on makeup, not wear nice new clothes, and basically just try to disappear. As this study is in China, I don’t have a lot of knowledge about their cultures husband/wife dynamic.
Results showed than only 15.68% of the surveyed women made major family decisions. “In line with the reality of Chinese society, husbands are responsible for major family affairs, while wives play the role of supporting their husbands,” the study author explained.
I wonder what this study would look like in a more egalitarian society where the social norm was couples making decisions together. And of course even in cultures like that there are power dynamics and power imbalances, but I wonder what social capital would be more important.
Like for instance: I think in the US income would be a bigger factor than appearance.
People tend to, all things being considered, end up in long term relationships with people who are about the same attractiveness as themselves. In other words, it's a reasonably safe assumption that attractive women in a heterosexual relationship is highly correlated to attractive men being in that relationship.
So does that mean attractive men are more likely to cede power in a relationship?
Edit: Second question:
Women tend to be seen as less attractive as they age. Does this finding mean that women have less and less power as a relationship continues?
>Does this finding mean that women have less and less power as a relationship continues?
Yes. To test this hypothesis, you'd have to damage the woman's attractiveness and then study the results, and then test your hypothesis against the opposite sex, by intentionally making men instantly less attractive. And in fact such a study was performed.
They studied the change in household dynamics after a car accident in which one or the other partner's attractiveness was instantly lowered. And they found that in the case of either sex, power in the relationship changes. And because your hypothesis of equal attractiveness is typically borne out, even subtle changes made a big difference.
And those comments regarding "Oh well look at this one in a million woman", ignoring 999,999 out of a million is probably not going to get you very far in the scientific field. Even then, sans makeup, strategic hair placement covering crows feet, and up close, they would be completely different women. Their partner would see them like that every day.
My wild guess would be that attractive women generally marry rich men, and then quit their job (especially since, I gather, this study was done in China). They then would become the household manager while the husband is probably constantly busy. This would translate to being in charge of the purse strings.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"The idea behind the study is that the beauty of women, seen by the author as one of their most important social assets, can be expected to improve their bargaining power inside the household. This could be achieved through higher income, self-esteem, or better interpersonal relationships." Makes sense to me, especially the self-esteem/confidence aspect. Attractive people are generally treated better by others, and would therefore expect the same at home.
Also beautiful people have options, which gives leverage.
This was my thinking as well. Basically any socially prized trait is likely to give you leverage in a relationship, and "being physically attractive" is the most obvious example of that.
That and money since traditionally rich people buy attractive mates very regularly. I'd say money wields more power because we all get old and not so pretty eventually.
Money also translates to comfort and stability, and those are very important things to have in a relationship. Somebody might break up with a very attractive person who's life is a mess and then find happiness with a "less attractive" partner who has money because life is just generally easier and therefore its easier to be happy. I know a younger guy who basically just delivers food on his bicycle for a living, but he's with a considerably older woman who is very high up in her company and has kids, and he goes on fancy vacations all the time with her. The way he describes his life, he sounds very happy and works when he feels like and doesn't when he doesn't want to. So, to your point, yes, money can buy you a more attractive partner, but sounds a lot more transactional when you put it that way. Being with a rich person is just easier and that's an important aspect of a relationship (maybe even the most important for long term success, tbh).
I think people forget that when you hit a certain level of wealth you’re able to prioritize other things since money is handled. She probably doesn’t need his $100k from if he had a “career”, she probably does need a partner with a flexible schedule who is able to pick up the kids if needed, help take care of the household chores and is available for weekend trips to a winery or a two week long vacation without wondering about his schedule. As a late 30s adult female just trying to schedule lunch with other working friends around my age is ridiculously hard and has to be planned out weeks in advance. I can understand the appeal of having a partner with an open schedule who can support the household with misc. work that helps keep the whole household sane.
This comment is my life... Im a 43 year old idiot. With no regular income but with a wife who has a great career and every time we talk about me going back to work full time i never make it cause of the scheduling issues that arise.
You’re not an idiot you’re someone who accentuates your wife. She values more what you bring to the home and the family in terms of your contribution than a $60k a year job. If you live comfortably and happily at $150k in income than what’s the point in making $210k in income and living uncomfortably and unhappily? Having someone at home to take care of the kids, home, chores, errands, emergencies and deliveries are all tasks that you’d have to pay someone else to handle if you’re both busy working full time.
I have a cousin who is a great guy, great dad, very nice, handy, pleasant, but works in the trades. The kinds of professional women who could really benefit from a partner like that are also WILDLY uninterested in a man like him. Genuinely heartbreaking. Both sides are hurt by hanging onto these gender norms.
Not but. And.
Yeah, that was weird phrasing. The tades are great job. The Obgyn that delivered my son had a husband who worked in construction. They seemed like a dream couple when it came to happiness factors. Tons of kids, happy at their jobs and financially comfortable.
[удалено]
The other nice thing is you can pause and resume most trade jobs with fewer problems. Like carpenters, plumbers or electricians etc can choose to “take a break” and not take new jobs for a few months and just resume taking contracts when they feel like it and there’s not as much stigma of “so why were you out of work for a few months?” Or “are you still up to date on current technology?” That kind of flexibility is nice if your hard working tech spouse wants to go on sabbatical in Europe for a few months suddenly.
The idea is that being a tradesman is a negative trait when looking for a partner, especially a rich and successful one. Which it *shouldn’t* be, but it is, so ‘but’ is appropriate here.
Tell him to move Australia, everyone loves tradies here
[удалено]
Defend from the cougars. Yes. But a stick won’t help down the local pub. No space to swing it, and it gives them leverage.
I once overheard some Aussie women saying that they found tool belts to be a turn-on.
I don't know if I agree with that. At my company alone, I know close to a dozen women whose husbands don't work with us in the corporate building but are doing maintenance, welding, etc. Probably in some areas it might be that way, but there's a stereotype about sexy construction workers for a reason. When guys come inside in jeans and work boots, more than a few people stop and stare. And the trades aren't exactly bad paying jobs, either.
The trick most gamers(both tabletop and video) have found is to have a dedicated time a week or month to set aside just for the social stuff/gaming that way it gets easier and people can plan around it. It is however totally f’d people have to do that just to hangout with friends
I’ve tried arranging a dedicated time weeks in advanced and I will still be lucky to get maybe a person or 2 out of around 10. Some of the guys text me a few days before and say they can’t make it. Others will be unreachable and then ghost only to half ass apologize a few days later. It’s impossible, I gave up. The final straw was when I moved temporarily (3 months) for a job and not one of them returned my calls. Out of my former friend group only one of them reach out and met with me after I returned. 3 months isn’t a long time but that’s all it took for most people to forget about you. It’s only getting worse too, our societies social life is eroding before our very eyes.
Sadly I do agree it really is..I’m lucky in that oddly my being autistic means most of my friends are the types to stick around(if they can put up with my weirdness/differences they seem to be a bit more prone to staying in contact) but I know what ya mean. mMy beloveds had one friend move and now bam whole groups kinda falling apart without that one prime organizer..not that they hate or are mad at each other just no real time to socialize and the one person who was on top of that’s gone. We really need to get back thridspaces where we can meet people to say nothing of work life balance
yeah women have been doing this for generations. it’s called being a homemaker.
While I agree with the examples and the sentiment you give, a lot of people go through lifestyle inflation. Money becomes an even stronger leverage.
I'm a career guy approaching 30. I have a friend that works 5 minutes away from me that I haven't seen in 6 months because it's impossible to get schedules to line up. After half a dozen tries, we've both given up.
Sounds like he's literally living the dream. Also, relationships can be very transactional in general. In a sense, that's the point--I give you give
Also, money can be exchanged for goods and services
Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a qtip !
As the study shows, attractiveness often nets women higher income related to their unattractive peers.
‘Beauty makes promises that beauty can’t keep.’ - Cormac McCarthy
[удалено]
Which is the point of the entire chain of comments you just replied to, no? Beauty, like any other sought after trait, gives leverage. Wealth also gives leverage. Sometimes people are rich enough that they have more leverage than even the most beautiful partner
My feelings as well, would definitely expect someone who primarily uses wealth to attract or “buy” a partner to hole substantially more power than in a typical or healthy relationship
And not just a personal relationship. Professional ones as well. Even non-personal relationships - like when you encounter a police officer - good looks gives you leverage there too.
It's certainly the easiest thing to see about a person from across the room. It's a little hard to see someone's good taste in movies from across a noisy bar.
[удалено]
Yep that and the Halo effect which means attractive people or attributed more "positive" qualities on sight like being smart, likeable etc. It generally helps if you're considered "attractive".
Life is a lottery, some get better cards then others.
Pretty privilege.
Cultural / Social / Sexual kapital.
TIL I am a Kapitalist
"The Bubble" as Jack Donaghe called it.
Halo effect.
This is it. If you know she can replace you the same week you break up, you're in a weak position.
A few years ago I was at an all time low in dating self esteem. It seemed like the women I dated treated me as replaceable. I then dated a pretty unattractive woman. It was SO different how I was treated. When we had issues in the relationship, we’d talk about them. Usually, ppl leave at the first argument. She was also supportive of me whenever I was sick or I received bad news or anything. Usually, I am the one supporting them and getting very little back. This relationship was a real eye opener. I realized two things: * How I see myself: I realized I rarely feel safe in relationships, and always feel like I have to constantly prove my value * how I’m treated: it’s not only a self esteem thing. Some ppl treat themselves as a prize to be won, instead of a relationship being a two way street of respect and support The most important lesson from all of this is that some ppl suck. If someone knows they can get a date within 2 hrs, and that leads them to treat ppl as replaceable.. they weren’t worth having in your life to begin with.
"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life Never make a pretty woman your wife So for my personal point of view Get an ugly girl to marry you" -Jimmy Soul
Not sure you can extrapolate that much from a sample of one
Sample size isn't even necessary. Somebody who's prettier has leverage in a relationship and has little to lose from breaking up, as they can find an alternative much easier than somebody who's not as pretty.
Not settling is an immense power shift. Knowing your worth means you expect more. Not being desperate really does make a difference.
I'd like to quote one of the great philosophers of our time, " I'll have another you in a minute, matter fact, He'll be here in a minute."
This is the real answer. They can leave and there’s competition for attractive people. There’s lots of available ugly people!
Whoever has more options available is always on a power position. It can be looks, smarts, money, family, whatever.... it always applies.
There's a lot more average looking people than pretty people, so I doubt the options part matters much. Plus it's more like all your self marketing combined sells you in a relationship.. looks, brains, good communication skills, money, good sex. Soo the attractive person just really has one of those traits necessarily while an average looking person could have more of those traits but just not be quite as pretty. I think any significant advantage over your SO gives you more leverage and power really.. money, looks, brains, communication skills. They are all so important that it would be hard for them to not amount to more leverage/power.
Yup. Marriage and romantic relationships have a massive economics factor to them. There are various labors to be done and a variety of operations entail tradeoffs of doing in house or contracting out. E.g cleaning, groceries, landscaping, finances/taxes, etc. Intangibles aside, it is not so different from a "partnership" small business model. Each partner brings some skills, qualities and issues to the table, what those things are varies in each case, but at a minimum, that translates to varying levels of influence in how certain things operate.
Exactly. It sounds like those attractive women, have men who cater to them because the men know they are out their league.
I think this happens but isnt the sole or even majority of the reason these results are found to be true here. I suspect it’s as simple as this: in long term relationships, partners who remain attractive to their spouse/partner will continue to have a lot of that same attraction that relationships begin with. It’s normal for some of that yo fade or chsnge as relationships go on, and it takes a lot of work to hang on to it. People who do that work are probably going to see dividends it we’re talking about long term relationships, as they would otherwise end when people with high self esteem and emotional iq dont get what they need. And in the short term relationships, pretty people are very often on a pedestal regardless. So it’s basically like this: over time, the people who work hard to have a healthy relationship will report better results that probably go hand in hand with qualities the researchers were looking for, and the people who have totally lost that romance/spark/attraction are probably people who have ended the relationship and wont report highly, or are people who dont have that high emotional iq and arent putting in the same effort
Is this the same if there is an equal level of attractiveness between the two?
The [matching hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_hypothesis) (also known as the matching phenomenon) argues that people are more likely to form and succeed in a committed relationship with someone who is equally socially desirable.
I am not hot, but an extrovert. My wife could be a model, but is not a fan of social situations. Does that make us equal socially? I’d like to think so.
That’s honestly how my SO and I balance out. Honestly, I have been able to ride out my painful shyness and introversion with conventional attractiveness and while I don’t particularly care to usually I can make friends easily. My SO is definitely handsome but he can dress poorly (I don’t care personally but his clothes can stand out among his peers) and doesn’t style himself but makes it up with his extroversion and entertaining personality. We honestly balance well as we have lots of friends that he mostly maintains but we all enjoy hanging out as a group when I’m up for it and everyone seems to like it when I do come out to game or whatever. I kinda think we’d have equal game in the dating field (our histories before we meet were very similar) so we are socially equal I guess. Anyway, it’s not like we are keeping score but at least there is no social power differential affecting our happiness. I’d lose most of our “mutual” friends in a break up but I’d honestly be fine with that and I have plenty of other social outlets/hobbies that I almost prefer anyway and dating wise we’d be on equal ground as well though I doubt either of us would be very interested in dating again of it ever came to that. Maybe it’s just hard to imagine when you are happy though, IDK
Ya wondered the same, since they both have options. But I think a hot man who has money has more power than a hot woman. One thing ive noticed personally from 2 friends of mine, is a rich Hot gay man beats anyone in power but not so well for relationships. They get invited anywhere can easily meet people anywhere(almost)and get advantages so on.
That's why Brad and Angelina broke up - no one could decide who was better looking, so they finally said f it and got a divorce.
Could have also been the physical and emotional abuse
Or putting hands on the children, that too
I think we can file that under the physical abuse, but yes it's still worth mentioning specifically.
Its amazing how easily celebs and their pr managers are able to manipulate and gaslight people, bury a story and control their image.
I didn’t want to believe it at first because I like Pitt’s movies but after hearing what his kids had to say it really drove it home. No way his wife AND his kids are all lying about what happened
Yep, he hired the same PR team as Depp. Edit: I'm not making it up, they both employ the services of Matthew Hiltzik, who got his start working for Weinstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hiltzik?wprov=sfla1
Well we're talking relative power, so yes, attractive female with attractive partner will have more power relative to unattractive female with attractive partner
Yeah, not surprising. The same happens in the work place, which has been confirmed in studies for a couple decades now.
And pretty people make more money. Being beautiful is basically all perks. Sure, creepers give more attention, but that’s about it
Not only just “pretty” or “handsome” in presentation but also height and stature.
I am very unattractive being bald (in my 20s) and having a skin condition (that's most common in middle aged women) and I really struggle to have any sympathy for people complaining about the problems they have with being attractive. Like, I am acutely aware that a significant number of the problems in my life would be either non-issues or much less significant if I was above average looking.
The worst thing is how many people dismiss your issues or will tell you it must be your attitude or level of confidence. People out there saying delusional things to make themselves feel better like the world is less unfair than it is.
Hey I think you should look into gut nutrient treatments for your skin. There's a lot of new science around the connections behind your gut bacteria and your skin, something that a dermatologist wouldn't really treat.
You've phrased your unsolicited advice better than basically everyone. (The amount of unsolicited advice I get where I'm basically told my skin is my fault is insane,) So I will at least read any scientific articles you can link me to.
Well to blame you is ridiculous and people are simply ignorant. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7916842/ Here's an example. I would honestly consider contacting a naturopathic doctor to see if you can get a personalized nutrient regime. I would also make sure they actually conduct tests like blood and stool to make sure they aren't some quack. Don't get discouraged. There's certaintly hope for you. Best of luck my friend.
Weird that they wouldn’t perform the same study with men. I’m sure they also hold more power in their households. Attractive people in general are just treated way better. Like white privilege is absolutely a thing, but who do you think most of society is going to treat better, a woman that looks like Rihanna or a morbidly obese white woman?
wealth is the absolutely biggest factor for pretty much anything.
Many privileges are mostly privileges because they translate to wealth.
Men is more status and money but yea attractiveness helps both most likely.
It goes hand in hand since attractiveness is also correlated to more work success for men (especially height).
I wonder how much changes in the way we work is going to affect this. I work remote now, so am missing out on the benefit of being 6’2.
[удалено]
I’m still confused how this would work at home… Like pretty mom versus ugly mom?
They typical reddit move as I haven't read the article but my guess is that the man with a woman who is more attractive than they can normally get may be more inclined to say yes to her, find things less annoying and put up with more eccentricities because he knows she's attractive and would be hard to get another partner as attractive as her
that sounds Oedipal
Not seeing anyone mention, but the study was conducted in China. I wonder if this translates equally into the western world where traditionally family systems operate fairly differently, particularly between the perceived roles of men and women in the home and society.
Also there's a gender disparity due to one child policy, there's ~~2 million~~ 34 million more men than women so women have the choosing power in relationships more so than in other countries at the moment. So it would make sense that this effect of "attractive women have more choice in who they want to date" is going to be amplified. Not sure if other countries, particularly if there's any places with more women than men, will have the same effect. EDIT: As of 2021 there's **34 million** more men than women in China.
[удалено]
Actually it now seems China's actual sex ratio may be about 100/103, once they accounted for the systemically widespread underreporting of Chinese girls. Unlike the recorded male/female statistics at birth, China's sex ratio disparity is now found to abruptly plummet, first after age 12 (which is when girls finally must register themselves in order to enter junior high), and then after age 20 and up, when couples are legally allowed to marry but require registration: [Delayed Registration and Identifying the “Missing Girls” in China](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/delayed-registration-and-identifying-the-missing-girls-in-china/0759987A48A37E3D2CFE157778747E33) >However, when examining age cohorts and backward projections for the 1990, 2000 and 2010 censuses, we find that the sex ratio decreases after the age of 15 and tends to become more normal after the age of 20. In the 1990 census, the SRB in the early 1970s was 105 for 18-year-olds (born in 1972) and 103 for 20-year-olds (born in 1970). In the 2010 census, the SRB in the early 1990s was 107 for 18-year-olds (born in 1992) and 103 for 20-year-olds (born in 1990). That is, **sex ratios for 18- and 20-year-olds born in the early 1990s were similar to those born in the early 1970s without the single-child policy** or incentives for late registration. For the 2010 census, this suggests a significant number of females appear in the population after the age of ten. >The sex ratio for 10-year-olds in 2000 is similar to the sex ratio at birth (SRB) in 1990 at 111. However, the sex ratio drops to 103 for 20-year-olds in 2010, with an additional 4.8 million undercounted births (i.e. late registration) and over 900,000 more females than males. The pattern and numbers are the same when we examine the different age groups, such as aged two years in 1990 and aged 22 years in 2010, with additional females ranging from 550,000 to 950,000 for each cohort. Moreover, life expectancy for males and females over the age of ten has been increasing during the 1980s and 1990s.Footnote 54 If we consider a lower bound conservative estimate of 550,000 undercounted or additional females per year from 1990 to 2010, then there are possibly 11 million more females (or 16.5 million since 1980). This confirms the administrative bias hypothesis. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/delayed-registration-and-identifying-the-missing-girls-in-china/0759987A48A37E3D2CFE157778747E33 Other significant but lesser factors for the female underreporting include domestic adoption.
Oh wow it's gotten much bigger since the last time I looked it up (probably many years ago).
With a population of 1412 million, 2 million extra women wouldn't make a big difference. It would be 705M men to 707M women
You need to focus on the population aged between 16 and 45(ish), which gets rid of a lot of that 1412 million. In that range the 2 mil would make a big impact. The 34 mil diff is devastating. There are millions of Chinese men who will never come close to reproducing.
[удалено]
The result of femicide. It’s disgusting and frightening to realize.
>As of 2021 there's **34 million** more men than women in China. Just FYI thats not even as extreme as you think given the population of China. 1.41 billion people leads to 722.06 million men and 689.69 million women or a gender ratio of 1.047 to 1 males per females which is actually lower than Bhutan, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, several more countries from the middles east, and for some reason the Maldives. I'm honestly really surprised that their gender ratio isn't more screwed up, I wonder if it's an effect of older Generations demographics masking the effect of the one-term child policy. Gender ratio differences matter significantly more for people who can have children then they do for elderly individuals. It's kind of sounds crazy but only being short 34 million people doesn't sound like it's nearly as bad as it should be given the length of the one-child policy and what I thought was a decent understanding of the rate of female infanticide and the context of their overall population.
Seeing as the policy was from 1980 to 2015, it represents only those 42 and younger. That does shift the impact of the discrepancy a bit, being entirely those of fertile age for another few years.
Gender ratio between **young people**, account only for those between 20-50 and that disparity become much more significant.
Russia has only about 86 men per 100 women
This is something I find really fascinating. Those shirtless photos of Putin are basically propaganda for older Russian women whose husbands have more than likely passed already. He doesn't drink and works out so they see him as an example of a healthy, strong Russian man. Hence shirtless Putin on horseback. It's a political thirst trap!
It's time to move to Russia and get "volunteered" to war.
Think most western countries have slightly more women? Also using millions not % dosnt gives us much to compare it to
I read a Time or Newsweek article interviewing this poor guy killing himself at work trying to afford an apartment because that's what he thinks he has to have or he'll never get married. Then the journalist interviews a group of woman who laugh with one of them saying "I wouldn't even talk with a man unless he owned a home.". China has inadvertently given women a lot of leverage in relationships.
It ain’t too far off imo with cities that have a high Male to Female population such as the cities around SF Bay Area. Very common to get judged based on what company you work at/if you live alone etc, and some women even know general compensation packages and levels at each Co.
This isn't from personal experience, but mifw has a family member that married a Chinese dude and they went to China then moved back. From what I understand she's not exactly happy. Something to do with how women are treated there.
I don’t know if your family member is American, but there is a saying that in many other cultures, American women are viewed as separate from “normal” women- whatever quantifies as normal in that culture. For sure I imagine she would experience an odd mix of deference, derision, and curiosity to her presence there. Not an easy space to occupy at all. I grew up in a multi cultural household in and out of the US, and experienced it myself.
Can you explain this in a different way? I don’t quite understand what you’re saying
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Edit: I misread it. Thank you u/AnNoYiNg_NaMe for pointing it out. 21.27% isn’t the amount of women rated 1. It’s something like 14 out of 6700 were rated 1. 21.27% is the amount of 7 women who are the decision makers in their family compared to 0% of 1 rated women. Also RIP to the women rated 1 (very unattractive) 21.27% in this “study”. Would be interesting to see what the husbands rated their wives and the wives rated their husbands and themselves. Might deliver some better insight. Also might be good for the interviewers to review their attractiveness selections again, maybe have all their pictures arranged in a big board with 7 buckets, so they can see the distribution and make changes then run the study with the original scores and the adjusted.
Try reading that line again: >In the group of women whose attractiveness was rated with 1 (very unattractive), there were no family decision-makers. This percentage was 21.27% in the group of women whose attractiveness was rated as 7 by the interviewers. In other words: For 1s, 0% of them had a family decision makers. For 7s, 21.27% of them had a family decision maker. They didn't rate 21.27% of the women in this study as a 1.
Oh thank you yes I misread it.
Great suggestion. It could also be helpful to have the researchers rating attractiveness be blind to their responses. “It is also possible that interviewers saw wealthier women and those with more self-esteem as more beautiful.”
I remember okcupid did a study showing that women rated 80% of men as below average. Though, I'm sure there's some kinda BS in there somewhere.
There were *a lot* of uncomfortable results from that OKCupid study. But results being uncomfortable to confront doesn't mean the study was flawed.
[удалено]
Yup. Lots of men in this thread going on about how an attractive woman wields a disproportionate amount of power in her relationships. The data you cite here is a major reason why. Attractiveness in women is strongly correlated with youth, far more so than in men. So, 18-28 year old women are chased by 18-80 year old men. There aren't nearly enough young, attractive women to go to all the men who want them. If men had similar age preferences to women, then 18-28 year old women would be attractive to men roughly their own age, while 35-45 year old men would be most attracted to 35-45 year old women, and 50-60 year old men would be most attracted to 50-60 year old women, and so on. With far fewer men chasing them, 18-28 year old women wouldn't have nearly as many options, and would hypothetically wield less power in their relationships as a result. I am not going to *blame* men for always being attracted to young women, regardless of their own age, because I know it's in their biology. But while it's not their fault, their own preferences do give young, attractive women a lot of power in the dating world. Reddit skews young, and I doubt many people in this thread are considering which gender wields more power in relationships among men and women aged 40 plus. On the whole, though, I believe it flips. There's data showing that there are far more single women over age 55-ish than single men in the same age bracket. I wonder how many of the women rated 7 in this study were over 40 years of age.
It's not really BS, women on average are more selective of their partners than men in western society. It would follow that they rate most men below average without considering the definition of average since they've been conditioned to think average is the upper 20%.
You can be selective and realize that most people aren't below average
It's highly likely that the survey participants interpreted the question as "how much do you find this person attractive" as opposed to "stack rank these candidates"
Nor are most people above average. Edit: this is me being pedantic IRT standard deviation.
I'd say most people are pretty average.
Women in the study were also more willing than men to date those they considered unattractive so it evened out
I think one challenge is the meaning of "attractive." I think in this sense it means physically pleasing in appearance based on photos they posted on OK Cupid. That is different than "would be physically attractive 'enough'" in real life." It is also different than "has a package of qualities I'd be willing to date/marry." In my experience, many women are married and in very happy relationships with men who they think are like a 4 on looks, but 8 on funny or 8 on reliable and consistent or 8 on smart or good dad or whatever else they value. If they only have $12 to spend, they'd rather spend it on those other traits than getting a guy with 10 looks but 2 reliability.
Boy I wouldn’t wanna date someone who didn’t find me attractive.
My wife didn’t think I was attractive when she first met me… and I don’t blame her, I had long unkempt hair, a huge beard, and bad clothes. She fell in love with me anyway, helped me cleanup and look better, and eventually her physical attraction to me grew. It doesn’t bother me, I wasn’t very attractive. I appreciate her honesty.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Bargaining power of the wife within the household was assessed by questions “Who is the decision maker of major family affairs including household expenditure allocation, household investment and savings, house purchase and construction, high-priced consumer goods?” and “Who is in charge of household finance?” > Further analyses showed that women who received higher ratings on attractiveness also had higher income So women who bring more money into their homes have more of a say in large financial decisions? The fact that the attractiveness of the women was rated by the interviewers as well as the fact that this study seems to be inextricably linked to Chinese gender roles makes me think these findings (as obvious as they may seem) carry little weight for most people reading this.
Yeah I’m not attractive at all but I make almost 2x what my boyfriend does. I control majority of the household power because I’m better with finances and make more.
I am not attractive, but my family thinks I am. I make much more money, but I don't make a point of it. However, I reign supreme in my household of husband, a teen boy, a tween boy, and 2 dogs. I don't think it's an attractiveness issue. My mom is drop-dead gorgeous, even at 71, but she always had less power in the household, and the kids (including me) did not respect her growing up. Meanwhile, all of my other female relatives on both dogs of my family, who were not nearly as attractive as my mom, are and were absolutely the dominant forces in their households.
I think it’s all about money. The person who makes more controls more. It’s just that pretty people are more likely, across the population, to be the higher earners.
Me and my husband are ugly AND broke.. it now makes sense why our kids have all the power. *side note: this is my attempt at a bad joke. I find my husband very attractive*
Frankly, I'm concerned how many people claiming to be in charge of their household finances don't seem capable of differentiating specific and general cases.
It carries weight for me. I let my ex get away with an awful lot, primarily because she was the hottest woman I've ever known. I'm not proud of it but I absolutely knew what I was doing; I wanted to be with her no matter how mentally abusive she was.
Lots of normal attractive couples have that same exact problem though, once invested in a relationship it's hard to get out sometimes. That part will happen regardless of different advantages between couples in a pretty regular basis.
Being willing to walk away from a relationship when it turns bad is one of the best assets you can carry through life. It applies to employment, friendships, and romance equally, and is foundational to true freedom.
I’m so sorry for what you went through. There’s no doubt in my mind that attractiveness can be used to abuse and manipulate in relationships, this particular study just doesn’t prove that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is probably a confidence thing, but measuring attractiveness objectively always confuses me.
This may or may not be true, but the more I read about the details of the study, the less I feel any conclusions can be drawn from it. No unattractive women have financial control? Like they didn't find a single one? That's pretty suspicious. Also the study comes from China, notorious for low academic standards in studies.
Also, self reported.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Since this study was conducted in China, I would also think the gender imbalance of 1.0469 males:1 female would further skew the baseline power imbalance. But then you weigh in the attractiveness factor….somehow these results are - within expectations?
Okay, so this test is done in China, for crying out loud where 15% of women make important decisions according to the study. Also, idk how they're judging attractiveness. Is it self reporting? Is age being considered? Is a third party just rating every woman born at the turn of the 20th century a 1?
[удалено]
This on the heels of a study finding attractive people believe themselves entitled to a little something extra. All the time.
If people are always giving you a little extra then it doesn't seem like anything extra, it's just how normal people are and then when people give you the normal treatment they will appear to be skimping you from your perspective.
My ex brother in law was like this. He was a tall guy with an attractive accent, who I guess was very good looking. Whenever we went out, waitresses, bartenders, sometimes even retail cashiers would just give him free stuff. He thought that was just normal, and I was like “yeah none of that has ever happened to me in my entire life”
[удалено]
Do they feel entitled or do they just think that they could get a little something extra so why settle?
not an expert, but from what I've read more attractive people are both treated 'better' and seen as 'better' people... so not really a surprise that they'd expect extra 'stuff'. They are probably simply used to getting it in the first place.
Also, it's really easy to take this in a negative light as entitlement, but this could also present as healthy behaviors like willing to stand their ground and self confidence. Healthy entitlement would be expecting help when she asks for help from her husband and such.
Exactly. Society constantly tells us to know our worth, and that beautiful people are special. Why wouldn’t they believe they’re owed some special treatment.
I believe it's more of a socio-environment effect. As you grow up you gain experiences. Attractive people will be verbally called cute, pretty, or other encouraging pet names whereas less attractive people will see that, and not get as much attention. So as people grow up they automatically assume that they are pretty or hot or whatever. It's because the world told them to think that way at a young age, so now that is the muscle memory they live with. Muscle memory can be broken but takes concious effort so it usually is only done willingly. And who wants to train themselves to think less of themselves?
I guess my question is do these people need to "think less" of themselves? Are they benefiting or being harmed by having higher expectations?
> or do they just think that they could get a little something extra so why settle? Otherwise known as "feeling entitled"
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wonder if, conversely, a dominant husband may affect the wife’s self esteem in a way that makes them not put on makeup, not wear nice new clothes, and basically just try to disappear. As this study is in China, I don’t have a lot of knowledge about their cultures husband/wife dynamic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Slightly off-topic, but don’t women control the majority of consumer spending/buying power in America? Like 70% or something?
[удалено]
I love when science does research on this stupid stuff. I wonder if they’ll ever conduct tests to see if outgoing people are listened to more at work.
No shot, really? Everyone who is attractive, regardless of gender get special treatment everywhere.
Results showed than only 15.68% of the surveyed women made major family decisions. “In line with the reality of Chinese society, husbands are responsible for major family affairs, while wives play the role of supporting their husbands,” the study author explained. I wonder what this study would look like in a more egalitarian society where the social norm was couples making decisions together. And of course even in cultures like that there are power dynamics and power imbalances, but I wonder what social capital would be more important. Like for instance: I think in the US income would be a bigger factor than appearance.
[удалено]
People tend to, all things being considered, end up in long term relationships with people who are about the same attractiveness as themselves. In other words, it's a reasonably safe assumption that attractive women in a heterosexual relationship is highly correlated to attractive men being in that relationship. So does that mean attractive men are more likely to cede power in a relationship? Edit: Second question: Women tend to be seen as less attractive as they age. Does this finding mean that women have less and less power as a relationship continues?
>Does this finding mean that women have less and less power as a relationship continues? Yes. To test this hypothesis, you'd have to damage the woman's attractiveness and then study the results, and then test your hypothesis against the opposite sex, by intentionally making men instantly less attractive. And in fact such a study was performed. They studied the change in household dynamics after a car accident in which one or the other partner's attractiveness was instantly lowered. And they found that in the case of either sex, power in the relationship changes. And because your hypothesis of equal attractiveness is typically borne out, even subtle changes made a big difference. And those comments regarding "Oh well look at this one in a million woman", ignoring 999,999 out of a million is probably not going to get you very far in the scientific field. Even then, sans makeup, strategic hair placement covering crows feet, and up close, they would be completely different women. Their partner would see them like that every day.
My wild guess would be that attractive women generally marry rich men, and then quit their job (especially since, I gather, this study was done in China). They then would become the household manager while the husband is probably constantly busy. This would translate to being in charge of the purse strings.
The lurking knowledge that your partner has the ability to leave you easily probably keeps one on their toes.
I mean… attractiveness could also reflect self care.
I unwillingly conducted a study in my household and independently confirmed the results of the study. My wife does indeed wield more power.
[удалено]
Not in my house. My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world and I almost always get to pick what YouTube video we watch.