All over the greater diaspora, Aunties bemoan that desi children are picky. How will they ever be satisfied? How will they ever settle down and start popping out the requisite grandkids?
Aunties can sleep better at night now that SCIENCE is on the job. Examining peoples’ behavior in online dating settings (which is equivalent to looking at biodata), they’ve noticed a few clear patterns:
Men are easy – they are generally interested in hotness above all. 
Women are choosier, but it turns out their preferences are fungible. This is good news for aunties because it gives them a metric with which to translate different suitor’s attributes to a common scale, allowing them to rank apples and oranges. They can tell, for example, whether an average woman (in this study) is likely to prefer the not quite as handsome, shorter i-banker or the more gorgeous, slightly taller, high school English teacher.
What is this common scale? Money. According to these researchers, women will forgive men’s flaws if (gasp) they earn more.
Consider looks. A guy can compensate for ordinary looks with more moola, which tells us what he has to reveal in his biodata if he wants to be a playa:
Suppose you’re an ordinary-looking guy whose online picture is ranked around the median in attractiveness… And suppose you’d like to be as successful with women as a guy whose picture is ranked in the top tenth. Then you’d need to make $143,000 more than him. If your picture is ranked in the bottom tenth, you’d need to make $186,000 more than him. [Link]
Cash also acts like elevator shoes for our shorter brothers:
… a 5-foot-0 guy would need to make $325,000 more than a 6-foot-0 man to be as successful in the online dating market. [Link]
Race matters too. Generally speaking, men were more willing to date somebody of a different race than women, with the exception of Asian women who preferred White men over others. (3/4ths of Asian-white marriages have Asian women and white men [Link] )
For equal success with an Asian woman, an African-American needs no additional income; a white man needs $24,000 less than average; a Hispanic man needs $28,000 more than average. [Link]
It’s not clear whether brown women act like their other Asian counterparts – any thoughts?
Lastly, if you want to get around these sorts of hurdles, skip the biodata and move straight to cha:
… people who are terribly picky in choosing partners online will relax their standards if they spend just three or minutes talking to someone at a speed dating session. [Link]
There you go. Now that science has helped Aunties, maybe it will come up for a way for the rest of us to be able to evade them. Oh yeah, it’s called caller ID 
In case you’re interested, here is the academic paper in question
.
Related posts: Speed kills (part 1), Speed kills (part 2)
AND. that criteria is no more “deplorable” or “nonsensical” or..
dun dun dun
superficial… as the male criteria?
since everyones in agreement that men like beauty and women like wealth and power, can someone explain to me why men of great wealth and power don’t really have unusually beautiful wives?
Look at the men in the white house, take a look at the forbes lists. outside of celebs, i don’t see a union between the two.
Manju
Dude, given her political leanings, you need to earn about $325,000 less before she terminates her pacte civil and brings her derriere over to your apartment.
On the other hand, I find aunties who arrive at such exact figures — $186000, $325000, etc.; irresisitble. Such sexy quantiliciousness makes my heart pound and disbalances the distribution of blood in my body.
superficial… as the male criteria?
Goes without saying, but we’re woman, so our “superficial” is necessarily better than your “superficial”. So there! 😉
Simple, most wealthy men play the field, then marry a non-gold-digger. They prefer their kids smart, rather than hot.
That may be, but I’m still attempting to undergo treatment for de-cootie-fication from my last two adventures. But you’ve completely proven my point. Women will never admit completely and thoroughly that they are just as “superficial”
Isn’t that interesting? I have a close friend (male) who has a theory that some alpha males prefer “alpha females” because that’s what they’re surrounded by and feel like that’s what challenges and entertains them, whereas other alpha males prefer “beta” females – maybe not the best looking, but definitely the most nurturing and kind etc.
I am entirely on board with accusations of equal superficiality.
JoAT – so if you’re setting up one of your girlfriends with a guy, do you weigh how much he’s making in your consideration of whether they’re a good match?
HMF:
I was only being facetious. Didn’t you notice the cute little font-y face I appended to my comment?
Anyway, I concede the point. Women are just as superficial as men. Maybe sometimes even more so.
ding ding ding.. only 6pm EST and it’s over 100 sriram ;).. see ennis.. we CAN do it.
Yep, this is definitely one topic EVERYONE wants to share their opinion about 😀
I can’t believe we’ve got the girls to admit that they’re superficial in under 115 posts. That means we’ve won.
Great tactics by me and Ennis eh? Outplayed them, got them admitting they’re just as superficial as us, if not MORE so. Made them think I was scared of them Amazon women so they respond to that vulnerability and admit they’re superficial and gold digger to our hunter-gatherer caveman instincts, what a great tactics.
hahaha guys win again
“Anyway,I concede the point. Women are just as superficial as men. Maybe sometimes even more so.”
WHA-HAAAT??! Hema – I’m starting to think your being a woman is a guise 😉 For the sake of logic, all else being equal, lets say women are attracted to the benjamins and men are attracted to perceived hotness, MEN ARE STILL more superficial. It can be (and clearly is by me) argued that the pursuit of a provider is a base need, evolutionary survival. While for men, hotness is simply luxury….
Shush HMF don’t let the side down now.
It can be (and clearly is by me) argued that the pursuit of a provider is a base need, evolutionary survival. While for men, hotness is simply luxury….
Well, hotness is also an evolutionary base need. Men being attracted to women is a prerequisite for the perpetuation of the species. Not only that, but the size/shape of the female body parts that get the most male attention are apparently correlated with fertility. So men seeking hotness is merely expression of an atavistic/genetic/evolutionary principle.
Oh hema. I’m going to need your pledge pin back.
Hey now. You have to make some allowances for the tomboys among us. Or the women who only have male siblings, cousins and friends.
Hema: By those standards, African American women should be considered THE hottest. But aaah, the male species has e(read de)volved to where the “fertile proportions” are distorted. I’ll agree to men placing higher stock on body over face, but the bodies they drool over no longer reflect the women who are most able to reproduce. Frankly, I’m not even sure its still body over face – look at the bollywood actresses that don’t display the goods, but still have a huge fan following.
Not surprising then that NBA players have the dating market cornered in terms of both height and money…
But aaah, the male species has e(read de)volved to where the “fertile proportions” are distorted.
Yeah, but isn’t the same true for women? That they’ve e(read de)volved to a point where the need for a provider is manifested mostly as a need to have a successful man on their arm?
At base, all these comments are huge generalizations, but there’s at least a kernel of truth to the view that women are as superficial as men. Women only pursuing wealthy/smart/successful men is not that different from men only pursuing hot women, is it?
Yeah, but isn’t the same true for women? That they’ve e(read de)volved to a point where the need for a provider is manifested mostly as a need to have a successful man on their arm?
At base, all these comments are huge generalizations, but there’s at least a kernel of truth to the view that women are as superficial as men. Women only pursuing wealthy/smart/successful men is not that different from men only pursuing hot women, is it?
Girlfriend – “they’ve”??! i think you mean we’ve. women don’t only pursue successful men, there are plenty of women dating men that leave the rest of us thinking “what does she see in him?” the majority of women that want successful men are those who are successful themselves. can you say the same for some of our fugly brothers that won’t take anything less than an aishwarya doppleganger?
I use “they” generically (as in “not me”)…without reference to group identification.
there are plenty of women dating men that leave the rest of us thinking “what does she see in him?”
Doesn’t that go to HMF’s earlier point about women making equally poor judgments when it comes to men as men do with regard to women? You’re also saying that when women date men who are not successful, it invites incredulity from other women, implying that women pursuing successful men IS in fact the norm.
can you say the same for some of our fugly brothers that won’t take anything less than an aishwarya doppleganger?
Men aren’t really as stupid as we like to think they are (note the use of “we”). The fugly ones know they have no shot at the Aishwarya look alikes. It’s just an aspirational goal. I can’t fault them for that any more than I fault the women who only date men with a certain bank balance (and you know they’re out there).
Manju (#58): Agreed.
Depends on the average height of the girls in that market, which would depend on the region I guess.
It’s not neccessary for a man to be super rich, but I have no respect for husbands who make their wives pay more than 50 percent of the expenses as well as cook and do housework. I’ve seen quite a few types of men like this – they don’t work to earn money, they are doing some sort of “creative project” or are too intellectual to deal with the real world, so they make their wives work and pay for EVERYTHING while also expecting her to cook and clean.
It’s very important for a man to be working and earning and paying his own way.
And would a woman rather have a super romantic and loving man, who is there for her 24/7 emotionally, or a wealthy man?
I know several women who settle down with non-wealthy men because those men treat them really, really, really good. The couples struggle financially (which can sometimes negatively effect marriages), but they seem to be really, really, really in love.
Similarly – would a man rather have a super-model-hot looking female who all his friends covet or an average looking woman who treats him with all the love in the world he can imagine and who he doesn’t really have to worry so much about other guys oogling and tempting away all the time?
Although I feel it’s of great importance that a man work to support himself (and his wife and kids if she ever bears children), it’s just vanity that would make a woman want to “show off” a super financially successful husband – or sacrifice love and sincerity for just dollars.
Money is important and i would not suggest a woman hook up with a poor guy who does not want to work if she plans on settling down and starting a family. But as long as the man is working and always willing to work, pay his own way, and her’s if need be (pregnancy, kids, etc), then no need for holding out for a super rich man if the honest, sincere, working guy really loves you and you him.
simply put, each searches out something that they can’t be. man, beauty and woman, power.. ergo, beautiful men and handsome women are gay.. the other category, powerless people, they aren’t even considered..
What? Women can’t be powerful? Men can’t be beautiful? And if they are, they are gay? Does not make sense.
And lots of money does not equal power.
And power does not equal strong character.
Better for both to search for the lasting and endearing qualities of truth, compassion, sincerety.
@PG
Men can’t be beautiful? And if they are, they are gay? Does not make sense. Apparently they cannot
I weigh in what might be important to both parties really not just how much money he makes. Honestly when people were trying to set me up and asked me how much I wanted a guy to make I always said at least as much as me or my range. That’s a minimum.
I thought I was the only one, though I have, until now, kept this thought to myself
I still support Sarko
It’s almost 9PM and …
Since so few people are heading for offensive territory and it’s 9:15pm already (129 comments! I vote this Most Surprisingly Fire-free Thread Ever), I’m going to quote a friend of mine and his totally-wrong-but-still-somehow-right generalization:
Women are more compromising on physical attractiveness of men.
Men are more compromising on pretty much everything else.
There, that oughta get that going 😀
Ladies and gentlemen. IN this corner…
hypocrasy.
In that corner…
Truth.
Hema: sorry, I didn’t catch onto your facetiousness earlier, I am not well versed in AIM speak.
Rupa:
Dudette, She has some idea about the infield fly rule, and knows what the DH is. She should have every pledge pin taken back for that reason alone.
It’s dubious whether the habits and tactics exhibited in the ‘online dating world’ are relevant to what actually makes people settle down with a partner. Love has a thunderboltish way of defying all of our ‘conditions’.
Perhaps, but it bears a far closer resemblance to the way in which arranged marriages are made, via perusal of biodatum.
That’s OK, I have the solution. If we simple change the author of this thread from myself to ANNA, I’m sure that will change in a heartbeat.
Hema (110):
What’s superficial? Everyone’s superficial, because physical attraction plays a role in everyone’s choice of who to date (and also who to eat dinner with, who to go to a bar with, who to play tennis with, who to watch football with, and especially who to have sex with). Physical attraction plays a role in almost all facets of life, albeit generally at a subconscious level.
But Americans and browns are two groups that are really neurotic to the point of histrionics about this stuff. Americans tend to value appearance more than almost anything else lately, and damn if we don’t outdo them in this area. That’s not gender-specific, that’s for pretty much everyone.
We crave beauty like there’s a famine and we could eat it.
You know, I spent my entire 20s subscribing to this idea, only to realize in my 30s that it was bogus, at least for me. I think the ones that do subscribe to it without question are living on the lower rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy and see those levels as the pinnacle.
biodatum?!
Sad, but true.
I am cursing my own naivete all these years after reading these articles over the past few days and thinking about them.
I should have realized long long ago that this whole ‘love’ thing wouldn’t happen for a height-and-looks-challenged desi dude like myself, esp in the US. Money is what I should have focused on starting years ago.
If only I were a bit more pragmatic…well, I guess I gotta start now.
That seems like a horribly biased study–if you use online dating sites as your data pools, you’re already restricting your study sample to desperate people (no offense to the desperate people…)
The unfair part is that men at least have a chance of compensating for lack of hotness by something which is actually attainable, namely wealth. But if the study is to be believed unhot women are screwed (or not to be precise). Well I guess it explains the billion dollar cosmetic enhancement industry.
begtodiffer, you are clearly not in SoCal. Here, no look is unattainable. Cosmetic surgery and liposuction rule here.
Whoever said desi women should not talk about patriarchy as a reason not to date desi men – what a wonderfully ironic example of said patriarchy – we should shut up and put up with it and not exercise an exit option, or if we do, we shouldn’t give men any feedback as to why? I think it’s a very real problem for many desi women I know, and it’s the reason why about a third of my cousins have got divorced, and it won’t change till people speak out about it. It’s changing, slowly, mainly because women are speaking out, and I find desi men raised in the US can be quite evolved. Embrace the change, don’t fear it.
I don’t see how the study quoted above does more than repeat tired ideas about men being after looks and women being after money. We all know those are generalisations, and there are many established studies that show that men and women basically seek out their own “level” in attractiveness (though yes, women probably weigh the visual part somewhat less than men) and people seek out those with similar levels of education and class backgrounds because they’ll have something in common with them, whether interests or social norms and expectations about how they want to live their lives. If it really were all about looks vs money, the top investment bankers would be marrying beautiful but poor strippers or the equivalent, and they’re not.
I was reading the article and I thought, “what about me?” What if you’re a witty, intelligent, 5’9″ black guy making much less than $50K? Does that mean I have to learn how to sing or am I out of luck?
on the semi-arranged-marriage market, there is a definite preference for higher earners. I believe that market bears more than a superficial resemblance to the realm of speed-dating.
wow, such high praise! I feel exalted, to be so recognized as not being a member of that knuckle-dragging, oppressive group who probably perspirates patriarchy, let alone perpetuate it.
bottom line is, as long as you see yourself living in a particular house, driving a particular house and murmuring sweet, money-grubbing exhortations to a particular person to get out and provide, you’ll probably find yourself gravitating towards the higher end of the economic spectrum.
I don’t think they go over too well with the bankers’ mothers.