Jefferson Cicero wrote: If, for instance, a newly arrived oreintal woman will consider dating a white man -and many newly arrived ones wont, I know this for a fact- then the first thing she may want to know is how well you can provide for her if you happen to get married, meaning how much you make, how consistent you are at working, etc. If you dont seem to meet these standards, you are s*** out of luck. This is a wise course many white girls are too ignorant to even think about, and it doean't smack of submissiveness.
That they’d want to make sure they’ll have enough money (which for most people means as much money as possible) is only human. However, I think you mistake simple materialism for assertiveness. After all, even a household slave would prefer a rich master to a poor one (not that I’m trying to imply that’s what they are).
Women who could not imagine working will make income a higher priority in choosing a husband. It’s not a simple matter of wanting to be a housewife; it’s also about not considering getting a job as a last resort. Is this assertiveness? While it’s true that not all housewives are under the strict control of their husbands (and that is no doubt true regardless of race) their only defence is their husband’s goodwill or his comparative weakness.
Surely then, this greater emphasis on income is in fact a facet of submissiveness.
Jefferson Cicero wrote:I dont equate high intelligence with superiority. It is only one aspect of a person's whole makeup, and highly intelligent people can be awfull dumb at times, or even crazy. We have the stereotype of the professor who rides a bike because he cant drive a car, and still manages to wreck all the time, or the tale of Einstein punching pregnant women in the gut (is this really true? I never could find out).
It is a strange fallacy that so many people believe. They expect to find all good traits with the same person. That’s why charming people are usually able to convince most people that they are honest, competent, intelligent, and just about anything else they want them to think.
I think the mistake is made thusly:
1) Person A is intelligent (for example)
2) intelligence is good
3) therefore Person A is good
4) honesty (for example) is also good
5) therefore Person A is honest
Points 2 and 4 are human constructs that are mistaken for true facts, which lead to the fallacy of point 5.