i can't wait to hear what airhead will have to say about this one...

what about women who go through all three categories within their life-time?

also, I think your categorization is specific to women living in a certain place geographically.

it's 2 am, should I click 'add'? eh, what the hell...

You sound like you're getting increasingly bitter about women as of late, Zeit.  How's the relationship?

All of the male categories are based on individual interested and activities, (no matter how lame), and all of the female categories are based solely on interactions with men. Sigh.

Also can't wait to hear airhead's response on this one. The pressure's on!

Kitty--took the words right out of my mouth.

Z--you may find that there are more truly independent-minded women out there than you think if you weren't so eager to think of all of us as either materialistic bimbos who live for chasing rich playboys in expensive shoes, or basketcases who mope around waiting to find a boring, so-so guy to settle for. The problem with categorizing people is that it causes you to start fitting people into your own narratives, which usually says a lot more about you than it does about them. But I suppose it's easier to say that you can't snag a beautiful, charismatic woman because you're not a rich "Mr. Big" douchebag, or that you can't snag an "atypical irregular" because they hardly exist than it is to actually be self-reflective.

As for me, I am fairly confident and satisfied with my ability to attract men that I like and who like me, but I have experienced heartbreaks, insecurity and not getting what I want at times, like everybody else. However, I have no problem going for what I truly want, and I don't settle or ever plan to. I don't give a shit about fashion, shoes, or rich guys. And, since I've pretty much sentenced myself to marginal income by choosing to do what I love to do, and since I tend to like men who share those interests, it's a pretty fair bet that I will never have any of those things. This is perfectly fine by me.  I have been told I am beautiful. I have also had men pass me right by. In my experience, which one happens more has more to do with confidence than anything else. I don't even know what beauty means anymore.

So I guess that excludes me from Category I. And Category II. But I won't even be so arrogant as to call myself a Category III. Because, the thing is, I don't think that women like me--well-adjusted, confident women who know what they want, yet have still occasionally been chastened by life's hurts--are really so rare at all.

One of the reasons I can't stand "Sex and the City" is because I know virtually no women who are anything like that. Please do not believe everything you see on TV.

By the way, I date a "sensitive" artist who likes Kate Bush AND meat, is a vinyl enthusiast, a former band geek, a baseball lover and calls people "dude". I wonder which category he is?

Z--maybe he is an ACTUAL empathist. Not all men with artistic or "sensitive" tendencies are disingenuous phonies althogh I've noticed that some guys like to believe this. Maybe you'll tell me that there is no such thing as an actual sensitive man, just men who are able to play that role convincingly enough to trick women into sleeping with them because we're all chumps. That's the usual explanation for that kind of thinking.

Not all people with geeky interests are socially inept either.  I could go on but there's no point. I will concede, however, that baseball is not nearly as meathead-y a sport as others. However, after living in Boston for a while, it's easy to forget this. If you're a New Yorker, I'm sure you'll understand.

Just to make something clear, I realized that when I said "I don't settle" it sounded as if I meant I don't want to settle down, when I actually meant I don't settle for somebody I don't really want. Minor detail but big difference.

Zeitgeisty...okay so it's intentional. It's still dull, dated, banal old misogyny.

Zeit, were you serious when writing this?

Zeit...ha ha Zesty! You made me laugh out loud. And this is why I read your posts, even when they piss me off.

I hate to dumb things down but the thing is, most people DO (for the most part) fit a category. We like our categories. Inside our category box it is warm and cozy and familiar.

However, as someone mentioned earlier, its very easy to make other people fit into the categories we predetermine. We also do this to ourselves, as much as I chastise the man-folk for being pack animals, I think it's really just a human trait to want to belong. Hence the warm cozy familiar box with all our other categor-ians. But as the saying goes, I am unique, just like everyone else. So you never TRULY fit into a catagory, like everyone has been pointing out so far. There are always exceptions.

NOW onto Zeit's judge-y, whine-y, sef-reflect-y criticisms/categorizations of women [I'm a crankypants today, don't take it to heart]. As I've said, even if we fit ourselves and others in a box, its not necessarily a 'perfect fit'. If someone you come across isn't a comfortable companion inside your category box, you tend to think of them as an outsider and push theme further toward the periphery of what is a sliding scale. I can, to a point, agree that most people [women AND men], fit into those first 2 categories.. that being confident/unconfident or aware/unaware of what you have to offer. Of course there are polar extremes, exemplars of 'the category box', but usually its the sliding scale. And to me.. thats.. uhm...just kind of how this whole humanity/society business works. It's like political leanings, you can be one or the other or hop around somewhere in between.

And this third category? It's not a category at all. This friend of a friend of a friend has just found someone who fits in their category box quite nicely, complimenting one another. No relationships are perfect, but in that situation you do get the whole shebang, wine music rain and great company. Myths and fairy tales are usually based on some [however small] element of truth, I believe. Nobody is perfect, but by some freak of nature, everyone is usually a perfect fit/compliment to someone else.

Or you can settle, still be somewhat comfortable and save the effort/difficulty/trial and error. And that debate doesn't have a definitive answer. However, I do think, if you're more on the 'sex and the city' side of the scale, you'd be more comfortable rummaging through the 'bargain bin' for the perfect accessory-style partner. There's something to be said about being self fulfilled.

Now I think about it, 'settling' with someone who wants to 'settle' with you, might just be the perfect compliment. Neither party needs the other to fulfill them, or make them feel justified in their category.

I think three categories is too MANY.  There's really only TWO....  The Bitches and The Hos...

I think we all know who be da bitches and who be da hos.. in dish here blog rye-chear..

btw... every blogger here sucks like da hoovah, 'cept you.. specially amboabe, growr and the supahho..

word.

haha!

We love you Howard!!

I got it that loobetchka is working to create a "personality." I'm just not sure what it's supposed to be. I never understand reading a blog regularly if you hate it and think the writers are all incompetent dolts. So assumedly he/she has some sort of angle like, "I am only here to help you crummy writers improve, plus to agree with Z's columns when they are jokingly frat-boy-esque." Just out of curiosity, what am I missing here in the whole persona thang?

What persona?  

I'm not allowed to say that all the bloggers here are fucking lame?  

That Amboabe's writing is just cringeworthingly goddawful and cutesy?  

That the dominatrix is totally lazy and lame... coming up with nothing at all to say except jejune, psuedointellectual trite nonsense on sexual mores the few times she actually posted?

That Growr is a non-presence?

and Airheadgenius takes all her ideas from Zeit?

I love magazine quizzes where you figure out your signature color based on personality traits (I'M PURPLE!), so I really tried to find my category here.  I'm too rural for "Sex and the City", but possess a bucket of charisma.  I trade on a fine rack and flowing black 60s starlet hair, but work around a slightly homely face.  I'd love to imagine I'm in the magical third group, but just that assumption renders me exempt.  Still, I have been able to get an ex-boyfriend with a beautiful new love to come to my house at 2am and kill a huge roach fully aware there would be no sexual trade for his service.  We shared a laugh and a beer on the porch.  That's a certain category, no?

Maybe s/he is here to make Z look less extreme by comparison... ?