The 52-year-old spoke candidly about her hopes and dreamsRight there is the essence of hypergamous thinking. A woman goes out with a MORE SUCCESSFUL man because she is attracted to him. And, having attracted him, she therefore concludes that she is now "at an equal level". But at no point has Miss Crow ever been as successful as Lance Armstrong or Owen Wilson, to say nothing of Eric Clapton, who has been world-famous for decades.
for the future. 'Hey, I would love to get married - I'm still old-fashioned. But I don't think marriage is the be-all-and-end-all,' she admits. 'It's better to have three broken engagements than three divorces.'
While she thankfully hasn't had that many broken engagements, the country star was set to marry now-disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong in September 2005, before calling time on their relationship in February 2006. She also famously dated actor Owen Wilson in 1999 and singer Eric Clapton prior to that, in 1996.
Speaking of her penchant for dating equally famous and successful men, she says she always ended up feeling that they made her feel small in the end, citing their need to be the bigger star in the relationship.
'I have always gone out with guys who were highly successful, which would seem like it would put me at an equal level,' she explains. 'But what ends up happening is that one of you becomes smaller - and it was always me... I do think that sometimes in order for one person's light to shine, everyone else has to dim theirs.'
They didn't need to be the bigger star in the relationship, they WERE the bigger star in the relationship. The problem isn't that she felt small, the problem is that she was trying to make herself feel bigger through them.
The fame issue doesn't matter to non-celebrities, but the exact same behavior is seen with regards to physical attractiveness. The female 6 who goes out with a male 8 subsequently assumes that she is an 8 and begins to behave accordingly. And therefore, it bothers her when he, and others, still regard her as being the less attractive half of the couple, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS STILL THE CASE.
Hypergamy alone is not a problem. It's necessary and desirable for successful relationships in a sexually dimorphic species. But hypergamy combined with a subsequent delusion of equality renders a woman literally unfit, in both the relationship and the Darwinian sense.
33 comments:
My dad said he met Robin Williams and Lance Armstrong's girlfriend at the Tour de France some years ago. He didn't know it was Sheryl Crow until I pointed her out in a music video and said that's Armstrong's girlfriend.
He looked at her airbrushed, highly made up countenance and almost didn't believe me. Said she looked nothing like that in person.
Beyonce isn't as good looking either in person. My wife is better looking than she is.
Crow forgot that Clapton was God.
Well, that's bound to make you feel small, no?
Incidentally, analysis above is EXACTLY correct.
Yep. She was attracted to them because they were bigger stars than her. Feeling small next to them was normal, and should have been good for the relationship, because it should have helped her feel safe and protected next to them.
But a woman like her has had her ego pumped up for years by people telling her she's the most special snowflake ever, and that probably still continues from all sides on a daily basis; so as soon as that submission starts to kick in, her pride lashes out and destroys it.
>The problem isn't that she felt small, the problem is that she was trying to make herself feel bigger through them.
I think that you mean there's nothing wrong with her making herself feel bigger through them as long as she's aware that's what she's doing. I think you would agree there's no problem with a woman getting a feeling of self worth by attaching herself to a successful man. The problem is when she does that and is then delusional about it.
A marriage similar to this: he was a successful Crossfit gym owner/trainer, very attractive and obviously fit, successful Olympic weight lifter, an excellent motivator - in his early 40's and his SMV was still rising. His wife was very small, wore no makeup, had very short hair that she colored bright and unusual colors, had no figure and could easily be confused for a 13 year old boy. On several occasions I heard other patrons say "He married her? And she treats him like that?" She was very contentious and belittled him at every opportunity. Had she been a kind to her husband I can imagine outsiders saying: "Ah, I see why he married her, she treats him so great." No matter what, though, she will never be more (or even equally as) physically attractive than he is nor more successful in the profession. He'd never be able to "dim his light" enough to make her shine. What she could have done, however, is make them both shine bright by being a good wife. Instead we (spectators) - were left confused, "Why does he put up with that?" And, hot young women at the gym certainly entertained the thought of letting him know he'd be treated better with them.
Do you think she's saying she'd like the man she's with to dim his light so she can shine? Or is she saying she had to dim her light to make those men shine?
I think you would agree there's no problem with a woman getting a feeling of self worth by attaching herself to a successful man.
Not at all; that's how it's supposed to work. A woman bonds to a man she sees as superior, and takes pride in his accomplishments and her contributions to them. It's the whole "behind every great man is a great woman" thing, but that requires that she be okay with standing a step behind him in support while he catches most of the limelight, knowing that only he and those close to them (and God) will know her true value. It can't work if she comes into the relationship determined to be his "equal" in every sense, especially in social dominance.
I love watching evolution in action.
Sheryl Crow also famously said she didn't use toilet paper and took 2 minute showers to save the environment. That's probably a bigger reason why none of those men would marry her.
This reminds me of the many pastor's wives I've known. The best pastors I've known had great wives who were behind the scenes, caring, and usually quieter.
"The problem isn't that she felt small, the problem is that she was trying to make herself feel bigger through them."
That's actually really well said. So this is probably a rhetorical question, but why do so many women perceive themselves as smaller and then presume that that is a bad thing? That's a very male-defined ideal, that may well apply in the world of men, but women have never gotten their validation or sense of self worth that way, at least not until recently. There are women I know with actual color coded chore lists for the men in their lives, women who must constantly measure the balance of power in their homes, and if he is up, she assumes she is down.
Least no forget she also banged Kid Rock, too. She also seems to be impossible to make happy; or she's a total dead lay and these dudes with options disposed of her. Or it could be the boring pillow talk about using one sheet of toilet paper and "me".
Women see these characteristics and assume male oppressors and female victims. They fail to see the role of their own preferences in the situation.
They prefer dating and marrying up on the social and economic scale. Then they complain about inequality.
Working women are wives and mothers who continually demand their husbands make more money, at the same moment they want to scale back their hours to improve or balance their life. Then they complain when male coworkers make more, not factoring in that they too have wives who are demanding more of them.
They prefer men with a higher N than them, then assume men average more sex partners. The overall average is the same, it's a mathematical impossibility for it to be otherwise. It's just that men with a lower N are invisible.
This isn't good or bad, it just is. But as long as a woman doesn't realize her own role in her situation she'll continue to regard herself as the victim even though she has most of the power.
Probably one of the fairest questions you have asked, GG. In my marriage, I used to make. $8,000 more than my wife. Now, 2 kids later I make $82,000 more than her. Are we contributing to "he's up, she's down" statistics miscited by people for political per personal gain? Yes. But is my wife better off because of my increased economic power? Absolutely she is. When one really looks at which men make more and which women make less, you usually see that when men make more there is usually a woman benefitting.
She could still date Lance Armstrong and be higher status as his stock has declined, but she doesn't do such things.
Equality should not be the goal of relationships. It is quite hard to attain, but I can think of a few examples.
Brad and Angelina is more equal than Brad and Jennifer.
Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony is more equal than her and Ben Affleck. Neither worked out.
Women who insist on being "equal" to their men are always going to be miserable, because either...
A. they fail and resent their men for being more successful,
or
B. they succeed and are then no longer attracted to their men, so they go look for new men.
"Equality" is the tingle-killer. Women can have "equality", or they can have husbands and boyfriends that they are sexually attracted to, but they cannot have both.
@Retrenched
True. Women are notorious for kicking the chair out from under themselves.
They want men above them economically, while working to reduce that pool of men.
They want confident men, but tear their husbands down... which will always leave them dissatisfied with the results.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
'I have always gone out with guys who were highly successful, which would seem like it would put me at an equal level,'
From this wording, I get the sense not that she thought that going out with them made her equal, but that she (wrongly) thought she was their equal going in.
Sheryl may have had a few hits in the 90s, but at 52 and virtually no musical career since then, it's remarkable to read her very post-Wall cognitive dissonance. Live by hypergamy, die by hypergamy.
I actually kind of pity her. A feminized doctrine of equalism creates a prideful lack of self-analysis or introspection and even when her SMV has decayed to the point of making her obscure she still clings to the idea that she can actually have some 'undimmed' marriage with an equal man.
"They prefer men with a higher N than them, then assume men average more sex partners. The overall average is the same, it's a mathematical impossibility for it to be otherwise. It's just that men with a lower N are invisible."
Overall average is the same, but the distribution is more steep for men. More men than women have truly exorbitant N, but at the same time more men have near zero N.
Calls to mind this from Gay Talese's absolutely brilliant Silent Season of a Hero about the brief marriage of Joe DiMaggio and Marilyn Monroe:
During their honeymoon in Tokyo an American general had introduced himself and asked if, as a patriotic gesture, she would visit the troops in Korea. She looked at Joe. "It's your honeymoon," he said, shrugging, "go ahead if you want to."
She appeared on 10 occasions before 100,000 servicemen, and when she returned, she said, "It was so wonderful, Joe. You never heard such cheering."
"Yes, I have," he said.
Slightly related, but Dr. Laura's show today is this:
" If aliens from another planet were to study women on Earth, they'd be quite perplexed. For example, why do we take so long to get ready, get up to use the restroom together, and wear four-inch heels even though they kill our feet? But the greatest question of all – why do so many of us fall for guys who treat us badly? I'll talk about why women choose Mr. Wrong, today, beginning at 11AM Pacific/1PM Central/2PM Eastern on SiriusXM Stars Channel 109 (NEW channel!)."
I wish I could hear it. Dr. Laura tends to call out women accurately, but I have a feeling she'll get this wrong.
"I actually kind of pity her. A feminized doctrine of equalism creates a prideful lack of self-analysis or introspection..."
That's a refreshing amount of empathy, because as much as men suffer under this system, women are driving themselves absolutely insane. Sheryl Crow is needlessly making herself miserable as is Robin Korth. It's a bit like taking the entire nature of the world personally, and the only way you can find peace is to completely dismantle and redefine society.
From this wording, I get the sense not that she thought that going out with them made her equal, but that she (wrongly) thought she was their equal going in.
Hamsters are great at historical revision like that.
That's actually really well said. So this is probably a rhetorical question, but why do so many women perceive themselves as smaller and then presume that that is a bad thing? That's a very male-defined ideal, that may well apply in the world of men, but women have never gotten their validation or sense of self worth that way, at least not until recently.
Men and women look for different things in each other. Makes sense - a left shoe and a right shoe are very similar, but they have important differences that make them a pair. We used to teach girls and boys about this, but now we teach them that they're all just the same.
So boys, who know they want a nice girl, get confused when girls don't go for "nice guys." The most hapless never realize this, and just keep doubling down on being nicer, sapping themselves of all hint of masculinity and driving girls away in droves. And girls, who know they want a strong, independent man, get confused when men don't give a rip about how strong and independent she is. The most hapless again never figure this out, and keep doubling down on trying to be "bigger" or "louder" or whatever - essentially the woman is trying to mimic the traits she wants in a man, thinking those traits will make her attractive. The less they work, the harder she tries. It's a vicious spiral.
I think what this story ultimately demonsttates is yet another example of how the polarization of the sexes has led to competition between men and women, to the point that lasting relationships between the two have become all but impossible to create and sustain. While this is especially true among celebraties like Crow and among the economic and political upper classes, it now permeates all strata of society. A man and a woman CANNOT form a bond if each harbors envy, resentment, or suspicion of the other's motives.
The sad truth? If a woman humbles herself, and serves her man, family? She does become a very bright star. Among the brightest. There is no other way. While that does give her an equal shine, it is a different shine. Further, any who try to claim their brilliance have to lose it. A woman, as a man, can only shine through a form of selflessness. Did Einstein really consider himself genius? Or did he simply go for the gold? If he spent time considering himself he wouldn't have been able to work. He wasn't part of the equation, just some schmuck who noticed it. I am sure he had his moments, but from some things he suggested, every time he strayed he... got shot down. In the end he even realized he was wrong, though I think he knew that from the start. But explorers explore, so he did as he could. She can't have children. Her salt has no flavor left to it. Her light has faded. I hope she enjoyed the man-made lights. Puns and intimations intended.
More men than women have truly exorbitant N
Just a reminder that this is true only if you don't count acts of prostitution. If you do, more women have truly exorbitant N.
I think what this story ultimately demonstrates is yet another example of how the polarization of the sexes has led to competition between men and women, to the point that lasting relationships between the two have become all but impossible to create and sustain.
Don't you mean the depolarization of the sexes? A strong relationship bond requires a masculine partner and a feminine partner. It's the equalization of the partners that destroys the sexual chemistry.
Don't you mean the depolarization of the sexes? A strong relationship bond requires a masculine partner and a feminine partner. It's the equalization of the partners that destroys the sexual chemistry.
Ah, good point, Johnny. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks!
The trick of finding a good relationship is to give up on finding Mr or Miss perfect. Which you are not going to get unless you happen to have about 6 million dollars. Instead, look for someone whose particular imperfections you either can live with, don't care about, or actually happen to like. It also helps if they have good traits that can act as an inspiration for you in areas that you are deficient in and want to improve, and the same is true of you regarding them.
As for the holy male genetic imperative to go after pretty women... Unless you have 6 million dollars, you aren't likely to be able to get a supermodel with a perfect personality and in 30 years the pretty woman who lies to you and steals from your wallet is not going to be so pretty, but is still going to be lying to you and stealing from your wallet. And again, unless you have 6 million dollars, nor are you going to be able to another pretty 20 year old when you are 60. Anyone who conveniently happens to have the 6 million dollars they need for this, who tells you that you, too can get a woman who is a '10' in looks, personality, and submission, is setting you up for a very great disappointment.
liberanter wrote: **A strong relationship bond requires a masculine partner and a feminine partner.**
I'd say that's mostly true. Though if you look at chemistry, two chemicals that are too strongly opposite tend to react in a bad way (they explode). You can get a good relationship with either a fairly masculine man and a fairly feminine woman, or a man and a woman who both have a combination of masculine and feminine traits. But a man who is overly masculine (and this is an extreme case, far more masculine than, say, Clint Eastwood) is a violent monster, and a woman who is overly feminine is not good at protecting her children.
Slow-hand has apparently received a downgrade.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.