I am a very high-quality woman. I know that sounds arrogant, but let’s consider the facts:
* I’m slim (whereas 62% of American women age 20 to 74 are overweight)
* I’m attractive (my new picture has been rated more attractive than 86% of the women on Hot or Not -- and the women who upload their pictures are a self-selected sample that is probably already biased towards being more attractive than the general female population)
* I’m relatively young (whereas 82% of American adult women are over 30 years old)
* I’m intelligent (IQ tested at 145 when I was a child, which is 3 standard deviations above the mean -- higher than 99.85% of the population. Even if I’ve gotten dumber as I’ve aged I’m probably still at least a 130, which is higher than 97.5% of the population.)
* I’m educated (whereas 77% of American women do not have bachelor’s degrees)
I suppose this may make me unpopular, but you know something? I don't care. I don't mind that she's being very particular. I don't even mind that she's so status-obsessed, although I admit that my first gut reaction to that list was to think that someone this "high quality" is bound to have some secret failing of the real deal-breaker sort, like maybe she robs graves or something. But I am a cynic and I own my cynicism. She's probably quite normal, in a high-quality sort of way.
What I don't get is why some feminists enjoy pointing out that she's still single at her advanced age of somewhere south of 30:
It’s so sad, because she’s had such terrible luck finding a good guy. And if someone like her can’t do it after countless personal ads and her very own blog devoted to the subject of her and her awesomeness, what chance do the rest of us plebes have?
First, she's probably still single because she still wants to be. She's still looking and is, by her own admission, very particular. Second, she's probably still single because when you narrow the dating pool down first, to men who meet her standards, and next, to men who aren't intimidated by her explicit statement of her standards--wait, actually she explained what happens when she does that right here:
Some people scoffed at the long list of requirements in my personal ad last year. Yet in less than two weeks I found five men who met my listed requirements and wanted a relationship with me. If I were to put more time and effort into looking I could probably find hundreds of high-quality men who both met my standards and were interested in dating me too. I can be picky.
I love it that a woman is saying "I can be picky" and not adding 3 paragraphs of qualification, nullification, and apology after it. If you can be picky, Jacqueline, and you want to be picky, by all means: BE PICKY. Heaven knows dating is a rough game regardless, and you're no less likely to get your heart broken playing it than those who are less picky. You may as well weed out men you aren't interested in up front and save a little time that way. Heartache does not discriminate, I promise you that.
But what is this with the "Ha ha, look, she's still single" business? I see people do this to Dawn Eden all the time, often in the guise of pity, but seriously: If marriage and family are not a priori the consummate goal of every heterosexual woman's life, then who cares who's still single and who isn't? I hate this "can't get a man" type of smirking coming from feminists. If it really doesn't matter whether a woman can "get" a man or not, this should never come up. No, not even with Eden. Come on, you can't say she doesn't provide plenty of other material to go after.
I'll tell you what does anger me about Jacqueline's list: Knowing that some trademarked Nice Guy is going to blame feminism for it. Doesn't matter that she said she's a libertarian, doesn't matter that Ayn Rand wasn't a feminist--nope. Your diehard Nice Guy will overlook all that, because he will understand what Jacqueline's list is really saying: It is saying that this woman is no object to be bought, nor an object to which he is entitled by virtue of his overwhelming niceness (although aren't those the same thing? Whether a guy feels entitled to a wife because he's wealthy and a "good provider," or whether he feels entitled to a wife because he's super-dooper-nice, he's still viewing women as objects to which he is entitled). It says that she is the buyer, he is the object, and he better measure up or she's going to return his ass before the 30 days are up.
That is progress, of a sort. Any time a woman makes it clear that she has the power to declare what she wants, however vaguely or, in Jacqueline's case, explicitly, and to stand a chance of getting it, I have to cheer it a little.
Just not wholeheartedly. It isn't the sort of progress or power I think feminism is after, because Jacqueline's severely economic model of dating is simply dehumanizing. I think it would be fair to say she's objectifying both herself and men. Plus, it's short-sighted: What happens if Mr. Ideal Libertarian has some investments go sour and is forced into bankruptcy? What if he develops leukemia and can't lead an active lifestyle anymore? What if the confirmed atheist finds Jesus or develops an interest in zen meditation? People grow and change and even if they don't do much of that, nonetheless shit happens. Jacqueline's list is more appropriate for selecting a high-definition television than a human being.
Further, her remark that "there are lots of fat single mothers out there who can’t find dates either," intended as consolation (oh, yes) for all the weeping men who don't meet her standards, is disgusting. If I were a dude, even a perfect-atheist-libertarian-independently-wealthy dude of the sort Jacqueline covets, I think I would date 100 fat single mothers before spending one evening proving my worth and eligibility to almighty Jacqueline. That fat single mother is much more likely to be there when my stocks plummet or leukemia strikes--not because she's a desperate, fat, single mother who can't do any better; no, because she's far more likely to know how life can whip the unexpected on a person, and far more likely to know how to roll with it, gracefully.
Look, all I ask is that the next time some Nice Guy blames feminism for the dateless, lonely hell he finds himself in, someone remembers Jacqueline and sics him on her. Because there, Nice Guys, is part of your problem--women who interpret "equality" to mean "I can be just as much an objectifying asshole as any man." Go bother Jacqueline! The feminists are tired of hearing from you.
ADDENDUM 1: Because someone is bound to ask this: "Wouldn't you think it was just horrible if a man made a list like this?" Yes, for all the reasons I think Jacqueline's list is a bit horrible; but also no, because at least that's one guy I can cross of my list of potential suitors. Which list is long, of course, because I am very high quality.
ADDENDUM 2: I reference the Nice Guy thing because I very foolishly spent about a month last summer listening to one of them bitch and moan at me about this shallow, materialistic woman who'd done broke his Nice Guy heart with her vanity, her arrogance, and all the "must be rich 2 date me" qualifications she set forth. Here's the thing: The woman was a conservative and explicitly anti-feminist. So what'd this fellow do to retaliate? You guessed it: Trolled feminist blogs. Because it only makes sense, right? When he wasn't trolling them himself, he was emailing links to posts on those blogs to his conservative Nice Guy pals. If I could, I would introduce him to Jacqueline--even though he doesn't meet her standards, because come on, people like this deserve each other. You can't tell me they don't.