I just read an article in which the writer spoke to his “feminist scholar friend.” The author and his “friend” were discussing a new study that says Washington D.C is the best city in America for women. Immediately the writer (who was male and living in D.C) says “I knew it! I knew it! For years, you have been calling me a lecher merely because I have noted, on occasion, that I find myself distracted by a cornucopia of seriously hot women in Washington, women of various ages and ethnicities and body types who seem disproportionately alluring to me. You’ve accused me of sexism, when, as it turns out, I was merely making an objective observation for which, finally, there is actual statistical proof.”
Now what I thought after reading that, and what his feminist scholar friend pointed out, was that the study merely looked for median income, housing rates, education, and job availability before, you know, something as important as “hotness.”
The study says that this is the best place for women because it’s a good place for women to excel in all areas—it does not mention “dating” or “beauty parlors,” or even “best-looking women in America.” But it struck me that this very successful man, who is clearly exposed to successful women on a daily basis, still regulates them to “hot girls.”
The study itself was very interesting—it stated that women in Washington D.C. earn the most money (median personal earnings: $37,700), and have the highest levels of education. This was better than even residents of Connecticut, the state with the highest overall levels of well-being.
On the west coast, women in San Francisco have the highest life expectancy at 84.5 years. However, women in Riverside-San Bernardino have a lower score—one in five adult women never completed high school, and the typical female worker earns about $22,300 a year.
Wonder if all those ladies are just as hot, too.