A car can represent a lot of things. It is not that a Ferrari can go around a corner faster than a Yugo or that it has a small trunk that impresses the ladies. A Ferrari is an expensive ostentatious symbol. Yes, the person driving it could be up to his eyeballs in debt but at least he or she is resourceful enough to come up with $100K or $250K.

In spite of all the denials to the contrary, money never hurts a man's chances to find a suitable mate. He might not always get his first choice but he won't be stuck with the last choice either (Hey, men have no right to chose!). Men learn this lesson very young and it stays with them a lifetime. On the other hand men that have no prospects have to find what can.

This is not complicated.

you miss the point entirely.

Ostentatiousness itself is HOT. Granted a few ultra beautiful women at the top and a few ultra rich men at the top matchup. But it all follows down from there.

Show me where in society it is hot to date men who are 'green'. Other than in SOME AREAS of Berkeley, everywhere else, it is just not the case.

Expending more energy means the guy has more money to expend on energy means he has a better shot at providing for his potential offspring.

DONE DEAL. This will never change until women COLLECTIVELY decide to change their preferences in men.

Kind of like asking all men in all cultures to collectively stop warring at each other. Easy, huh?

It is all about asset acquisition and power-- this is what women gravitate towards in men, despite your vehement protestations. That is what 4.3 billion years of genetic preferences have borne.

Rage against your natural genetic preference and decide to collectively (all 3 billion of you women) begin to choose only 'green' guys and watch guys turn on a dime. Easy, huh?

One problem is partly that environmentally aware women and beautiful women are almost exclusively two disparate groups.

These unscientific "just so" stories reveal more about the teller than they do about the truth. Sir David could just as easily have chosen to say that men bought Ferraris to increase their advantage over other men; making their mark higher on the tree, so to speak. This version would still be about sex, but is not driven by the female of the species (pun intended).

Or, he could have told the young woman any of a variety of other things:

• Turn off lights when you're not in a room.
• Recycle.
• Walk or bicycle where possible.
• Given her a resource that would have provided these and many other tips to help reduce her personal footprint on the planet.

The fact that he chose to make a gender-blaming response to a young female tells more about his view of young females than about how she can personally help reduce carbon emissions.

how squirmy and antsy women become when asked to take on some responsibility in life beyond spreading their legs and popping out a baby.

Y'all CLAIM to want to be equal players in the world.

Little to no evidence bears any of this desire out as anything more than wishful thinking by immature girlies who want sugar daddy to hand them the keys to the car they will crash down the road anyway, then walk away from the scene (and blame sugar daddy for being stupid enough to have given them the damn keys in the first place).

True feminism would say-- YES, we women are strong players on this planet. YES, we women have facilities at our disposal to control and persuade our men. YES, we women will unite to enact significant changes to improve the planet.

Feminism now is NOTHING like this. Too much weaseling involved by you women to stockpile your assets, but pretend none of them exist.

Whi9ch is why I am rather fond of the term "wormen"

and "misogyny" are two made up insults to hurl at anyone that dares to challenge the feminist driven PC hegemony.

Meanwhile, women freely engage in both "sexism" and "misandry" at men, rendering their own arguments completely null.

Is it possible we're having one of those "just because we speak the same language doesn't mean we understand each other" moments?

It is -very- possible that Sir David King was making a very dry joke. It's not the sort of joke I particularly care for, but as a responsible and successful businessman, he's got to have more sense than to see his cars only as chick-magnets.

Besides, if he weren't noticed, I daresay he'd be broken hearted, in a stiff-upper-lip sort of way.

Show me where in society it is hot to date men who are 'green'. Other than in SOME AREAS of Berkeley, everywhere else, it is just not the case.

Not true (looks like you do live in Houston, huh? You have no idea.)

Expending more energy means the guy has more money to expend on energy means he has a better shot at providing for his potential offspring.

Not true. Wasting money on ostentatious bullshit means he has a worse shot at providing for his offspring.

DONE DEAL. This will never change until women COLLECTIVELY decide to change their preferences in men.

Not true, and even if it were, those of us here that you're arguing against are the ones who do not have these preferences in men.

Kind of like asking all men in all cultures to collectively stop warring at each other. Easy, huh?

It is all about asset acquisition and power-- this is what women gravitate towards in men, despite your vehement protestations. That is what 4.3 billion years of genetic preferences have borne.

Bullshit, discredited social darwinism.

One problem is partly that environmentally aware women and beautiful women are almost exclusively two disparate groups.

Give me a freakin break. Bullshit on the face of it. And if you really believe that women should start preferring "green" men, you would not insult the ones who do.