More about Asian and white women

Christina is outraged by my comments from my previous post about Asian women looking for different attributes in men than white women. She wrote:

WTF! Really, let me state that again. WTF! The only women that don't want men who are educated, introverted, and have stable careers are women that are a) uneducated, b) wildly unpredictable and c) poor.

While obviously my points a, b and c are generalizations, your comment about white women was the most ignorant I've seen in ages.

Well first of all, I agree that being educated is generally always a plus. But how much of a plus? For Asian women, it may be a plus three, but for white women only a plus one.

Being introverted isn’t considered a good quality in the United States. One presumes that like most psychological characteristics, introversion/extroversion is distributed along a bell curve. The ideal place to be in the United States would be perhaps a half to a whole standard deviation from the median on the extroverted side.

If you read a lot of personal ads at online dating sites, you’ll see that people say they are “outgoing” quite a bit, because it’s a desired characteristic.

The average Asian is more introverted than the average Caucasian. So Asian women are more used to being around introverted people because their families are more introverted, and they are more introverted themselves so they would be more comfortable with someone similarly introverted.

And finally we get to the issue of a “stable career.” I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it’s a phrase that I see used a lot and I mimicked it. Stable seems to mean safe but boring. IT is a safe career, but considered very boring. I suspect that a lot of white women see a job in IT as a minus.

I think that one or two generations ago, American women desired men who would be good providers and fathers, but today physical attractiveness and an exciting personality have become ascendant. Of course, physical attractiveness is what men always wanted in women, so I guess women have become more like men.

Comments

[Anonymouse111]

Dude. You are a fucking idiot. You were a lot more interesting when you were the dimwitted bride-for-sale Libertariangirl.

[Anti-Anonymous]

You are on to something here. A few statistics would help to nail down the generalizations. iSteve has pointers to sources on intermarriage rates.

[Anti-Anonymous]

Some of the Internet dating sites reveal racial prefrences. A random sample could be taken and a statistical breakdown by race associated to stated racial prefrence could be generated.

[Anti-Anonymous]

On Internet dating sites, Asian women are less likely to mention adjectives like "outgoing" (and its synonyms) than Caucasian women are in their profiles. And Asian women in Asian countries are less likely to use those terms than Asian women in America.

[Wendy]

I don't know...I'm in a relationship a half black, half Dominican broke actor who is 10 years older than me and who has never finished his college degree. He's extroverted, charismatic, and very sexual. I've hardly ever seen him be meek or take an interest in IT. Needless to say, my parents don't approve. And sometimes, his behavior does leave me somewhat bewildered.

Does this mean I've broken some of your general assumptions? I'm probably not the only one in this generation to do so. Love is supposed to transcend all racial and financial boundaries.

Maybe if we broke up, I would try a Chinese IT geek.

[Anti-Anonymous]

I gather you are Asian.

In this case, your relationship is no exception to the rule. The original post was (1) about Asian/Caucasian pairing patterns, and (2) a generalization (recollect, exceptions prove a rule). You are no exception.

The overall pattern is that males, as a group, prefer feminine females while females, as a group, prefer masculine males. Blacks, as a race, are more masculine (higher testosterone levels, greater body-muscle percentage, higher levels of extroversion, etc). Asians, as a race, are more feminine. Caucasians are in between. In a multiracial population where interracial pairing patterns are not taboo (or illegal) Black women and Asian males have the odds against them. And when we look at interracial marriage patterns, this is what we see.

Your relationship is in keeping with the pattern. And even if it weren't, it still wouldn't disprove the generalization.

There are also anatomical reasons for the skew of desirable interacial pairings. Some pairings are more ... enjoyable. Black males and Asian females are favored for this reason.

[Anti-Anonymous]

You should listen to your parents.

[Wendy]

That is the oddest argument. Although I don't disagree that it's...enjoyable. I live in LA too, where interracial couplings aren't such a big deal.

I just tend to think that if you want to make an assumption to get a blog audience, you should be careful, because assumptions are broken more and more every day, until the rule becomes the exception. By the time you make an assumption, it might already be on its way to being out of date!

My parents should listen to me. The world would be a better place if parents listened to what their kids wanted more often.

;) take care for now

[Anti-Anonymous]

By the time you make an assumption, it might already be on its way to being out of date!

Tell you what...

I will bet you 5,000 renminbi that males, as a group, will not start preferring masculine girls and females, as a group, will not start preferring effeminate guys at any time in either your lifetime or mine.

Since you are an Asian female who has paired off with a Black male, you are doing nothing to increase your odds of winning.

[Wendy]

I'm not disagreeing with your point of view about masculine males and feminine females.

I'm disturbed by the sweeping generalizations that seem to be rampant in this weblog though. As an Asian (and specifically Chinese) female, I feel like it is my duty to explain some things about generalizations about people who are the token few, since few=a small voice generally. Cuz in the end, black men and asian females are minority, right?

I quote the soc writer Kanter:
"The characteristics of a token tend to be distorted to fit the generalization. Tokens are more easily stereotyped than people found in greater proportion. If there were enough people of the token's type to let discrepant examples occur, it is eventually possible that the generalization would change to accomodate the accumulated cases. But in skewed groups, it is easier to retain the generalization and distort the perception of the token...So tokens are, ironically, both highly visible as people who are different and yet not permitted the individuality of their own unique, non-stereotypical characteristics."

[Anti-Anonymous]

I'm not disagreeing with your point of view about masculine males and feminine females.

Then there is no need to raise the red herring of an impending reversal between the rule and the exception.

[Anti-Anonymous]

What is a "soc writer"?

[Anti-Anonymous]

I assume it has nothing to do with footware.

[Wendy]

*sigh* I meant you took my comment about assumptions too generally. I was responding to you, but it was a comment about stereotypes in general. The features that we're attracted to in the opposite sex, and what defines very masculine and very feminine is biological anyways, and not an assumption. The comment that blacks are more masculine and asian females are more feminine can be construed as an assumption, but that could be backed up by statistical data. To be told by the dominant male population what an Asian female most likely likes, wants and feels is definately an assumption, and not appreciated. It's uncalled for, especially since my life personally don't follow all those assumptions, and that might be saying that I don't fit the scope of what is 'Asian'. I'm proud of being Asian, but reserve the right to construe my own experience of being an Asian female by myself, and not through being assaulted by other people's stereotypes.

[Wendy]

soc=sociology

[Anti-Anonymous]

It's uncalled for, especially since my life personally don't follow all those assumptions, and that might be saying that I don't fit the scope of what is 'Asian'. I'm proud of being Asian, but reserve the right to construe my own experience of being an Asian female by myself, and not through being assaulted by other people's stereotypes.

This is what I mean by "obscurantist nominalism". Someone says, "women are more verbal than men" and points to SAT scores. Someone else says, "But I'm a woman and I'm less verbal than my boyfriend. I do not appreciate being assaulted with stereotypes." The exception does not disprove the rule. Saying that every person is ultimately unique is as true as, and and false as saying that every person is basically the same.

People in contemporary American culture often seem to want frank and open discussion about race, gender, and sexual orientation but regularly retreat into moralizing about the adverse effects of "stereotypes", which is at odds with engendering a genuinely frank and open discussion about necessarily collective topics such as race and gender.

The world is big and the human brain is small. No human will ever grok each of the 6 billion human inhabitants of this world in their uniqueness. Stereotypes are inevitable. As generalizations, they will be either more or less accurate. Moralizing adds little to the fact finding when it doesn't preempt the process entirely.

[Libertarian Man of Mystery]

I agree with everything Anti-Anonymous said! Maybe he should be writing this blog instead of me.

And he's a Heinlein fan too. Heinlein is a topic I've been meaning to write about since my sex change. Hot blonde girls don't read science fiction, so I couldn't mention Heinlein when I was Libertarian Girl.

[Anti-Anonymous]

Maybe he should be writing this blog instead of me.

You have more patience and a better sense of humor than I have.

[Karen]

Stereotypes are inevitable. As generalizations, they will be either more or less accurate.
...
The exception does not disprove the rule.

Then simply take it that any exceptions raised are there to support the generalization being less accurate, not more.

Any generalizations made are less controversial if there's a study (any study) of some sort to back it up. It's just that most people don't have a lexicon of academic papers to reference in casual debate.

[Anti-Anonymous]

Then simply take it that any exceptions raised are there to support the generalization being less accurate, not more.

Fair enough.

This approach is more constructive than the hystrionic moralizing favored by people as wise and caring and correct as Wendy.

Yet no exceptions to the generalizations have been offered to this point. That you and Wendy are evidently not in the habit of dating short, geeky, introverted (yet stedfast and reliable) Northeast Asian males is consistent with the predictions that arise from the generalizations.

Finding several examples of Black females who prefer relationships with Northeast Asian males would support the contra-positive. Finding an overall pattern of would disprove the generalizations.

Yahoo Personals yeilds few counter examples.

[momentofclarity]

You wrote:
"I will bet you 5,000 renminbi that males, as a group, will not start preferring masculine girls and females, as a group, will not start preferring effeminate guys at any time in either your lifetime or mine. "

Actually, male screen heartthrobs in japan tend to look very much like WOMEN. Dyed hair, red lips, smooth faces, "pretty". And where I live (NYC) MOST of the asian women that I see with white guys are with SHORT, typically WIMPY white guys. White heartthrobs in Asia?: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, etc. "Pretty" guys, and not very masculine.

Asian women tend to prefer guys who aren't threatening at all. And there's a racist "white wannabee" tinge to it. White guys know this, so they tend to volunteer things on the web like "I don't consider asian women anything other than white." They realize that part of the asian female preference for white guys lies in their wanting to be white. Not judging, just stating an obvious fact.

Otherwise, this asian female longing for "greater masculinity" would mean that they lean toward latin guys, black guys, white guys, whatever, instead of white 99.9 percent of the time.

To each, their own, but let's not flatter ourselves by saying that a short, balding, paunchy computer wimp is desirable because he's more "masculine" than all asian guys.

[T'K Chong]

Mr. Mystery Libertarian Man made an incomplete assumption about women. He assumed that Asian (or White) women look for just one particular mold of men. He assumed that the type of men women want to play with is also the type of men women want to marry. That assumption is only half correct, and it can not completely explain the behaviorial pattern of women in American society.

Nowadays, women are not always looking for men they want to marry. Sometimes, a lot of times, women often just want to have fun. When women (Asian or White) just want to have fun, they look for men who are hot, exciting, sexual, and bad. For marriage, women (both Asian and White women) look for a very set of qualities standards in men. Those men of "marriage materials" would have to be (in Libertarian's words) "educated, introverted, and have stable careers."

So, women can operate in two very different phases or modes. White women--especially young White women in their early 20s--are more likely to operate in the "having fun" phase. When women are in the "fun" phase, they do not go for men who are "educated, introverted, and have stable careers," which equals boring. Of course, once women are past their early 20s and in their late 20s and beyond, they switch to a different mode. Then they settle with boring men (or start complaining that they can't find any "good men".)

On the other hand, Asian cultures condition women to operate mostly in the second phase, to seek out a marriage partner. Traditionally raised Asian women do not go through the "fun" phase at all. In effect, those Asian women just want one type of men in their lives, the "educated, introverted, stable" type.

Of course, there are exceptions. There are the extremely rare exceptions of White women who do not care to play around before they are settle down with the right men, and then there are Asian American women who just want to have fun while they are young. For example, Wendy here, an Asian girl, who debated Asian women want educated, introverted, stable men because she was with "a half black, half Dominican broke actor who is 10 years older than me and who has never finished his college degree. He's extroverted, charismatic, and very sexual." Does any of you think she will end up marrying that guy? When she is ready to get married, she will go for a White guy or, well, a Chinese IT geek.

An exception is just that, an exception. Ultimately, exceptions make the rule, not break it.

[peeps]

Its easy people.
Go with someone that can support,love,and be a close friend to you.
Love along is unpredictable.
It can come and go in days.
Dont just rely on love.
If the guy or girl looks good but are a bum.
Leave the bum for other bums. They make a great couple.
Listen to your parents and friends with one ear.
They already been through with the experience. Why go out and go through with it alone.

You know, many of the mistakes that we made are because we refuse to listen to other people who went through the experience. We just have to go out and go through the expereince ourselves and get really hurt.

[Ana]

Here's a wild idea: support yourself. Why do you assume someone else is going to take care of you? What if they leave you? Divorce you with kids to raise? Get injured? Die?
I know this is secondary to the topic. I don't think that any race is more or less likely to seek it, but perhaps some cultures are more forward about it's importance. If you value mini-breaks in the Islands and Summers in Maine, get a career in which you can do that instead of seeking a spouse that'll do it for you. I know I have somewhat expensive tastes. That's why I'm working my butt off in graduate school. I date well in all aspects. I will be able to afford the lifestyle I want without being married to a bank account. Even if I end up with a loving social worker or teacher, I can still buy $400 shoes. I'm not underestimating the value of a partner. They are important, but choose one because you can't live without them not because you can't afford to live without them.

[Dan]

From the Jerry Seinfeld show:

ELAINE
Donna Chang?

JERRY
[is re-dialing] Should 'ave talked to her; I love Chinese women.

ELAINE
Isn't that a little racist?

JERRY
If I like their race, how can that be racist?...

KRAMER
I'm goin' through this stuff like water.. [to JERRY] Who you talkin' to?

ELAINE
He's on with a Chinese woman.

KRAMER
Oooo, ooooo. You know, I dig Asian women.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This fictional episode highlights a phenomenon. That is the West's fascination with the Far East. Specifically, white man's fascination with Asian women. While I can't quantify it, the observable fact in the US is of all interacial combinations, the most common by far is a white man and an Asian woman.

Also highlighted in that episode is that white women view a white man's preference for Asian women with disgust or at least are puzzled. However, I think that reaction is generally true for all races and sexes viewing one of their own race with someone of another race. Yet, I believe white/Asian relationships are more accepted (in the US) than black/white relationships.

By the way, I have nothing against white women, however, all things being equal, I prefer an Asian woman. Being white, does that make me a racist against my own race? I'll have to ask Jerry.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention, I don't buy into the stereotype that Asian women are submissive, etc. I find them usually very intelligent, independent and extremely attractive. I like their voices, too, with or without an accent.