San Francisco vs. Los Angeles women

ROK writer, Seneca Stone, has posted an interesting examination of the reason San Francisco’s women are worse than Toronto’s.

In the article, he also contrasts SF women with New York women, and once again, finds the East Coast female to be superior in many respects.

As I read his list of 10 reasons SF women suck more, I was struck by the fact that all the reasons he cited also apply to Los Angeles women. At one point in his piece, another comparison of aesthetic urban similarities is made between NY and SF, but he says the similarities end with women.

Living in Los Angeles all my life, and spending a lot of time in San Francisco, I can say comfortably that Stone is spot on in his assessment. However, I would add that he has summed up Los Angeles women quite well.

Perhaps it’s a California coast phenomena, this flock of self-absorbed, robotic women. San Francisco’s stark homogeneity presents a great laboratory social experiment examining the modern urban creature, while Los Angeles’ stark heterogeneity requires that we peer a little closer and, if done, we can too note that cultural clusters of women in L.A. mimic, in perfect unison, those of the SF amorphous female blob.

Hollywood/entertainment women? Oh yeah, dead ringers for SF girls.

  • Mark J. Goluskin

    I don’t think you find these gals in Omaha aka Bugaha, Sioux Falls or anywhere else in the Midwest.

    • Wiless

      Exactly, Mark; it’s very big cities that tend to attract more of such women, not merely moderate, middle-sized cities, even if regional capitals.
      Though I still imagine one would meet more of such women in Omaha than in any really small town in Nebraska.

  • Mark J. Goluskin

    My question is a simple one.
    What would a straight gal be doing in San Francisco?!

    • Wiless

      LOL! :)

  • Wiless

    Interesting, but it would have been pertinent (given his title) for him to explain how Toronto women are all that different from SF ones. Self-absorbed, robotic women are everywhere, today. Toronto, L.A., S.F., New York, I doubt it matters much which North American metropolis one considers.

    • Excellent points. I suspect the real divide is that of coastal urbanites vs everyone else. If anything, maybe these types of women congregate more in some cities and that these cities, owing to their cost of living and industry, tend to contain a higher proportion of such women.

      They can be found everywhere.

      • Wiless

        Inclined to agree.

        Interestingly, I read a ditzy column today by a typical stupid modern Canadian prog / fembot complaining that Vancouver was more dull than Toronto, because while it was a nice place and all, you didn’t run into colourful characters downtown that you do in Toronto; guys with pet lizards, homo ‘booze cans’, and whatnot:

        I do think that prog snobs’ prejudices play a role in where they want to live, based probably far more on stupid anecdotal perceptions than reality (Vancouver surely has weirdo eccentrics, too). For example, as you alluded to, coastal U.S. megalopoli probably appeal more than, say, Chicago, which, despite being prog to the hilt, as corrupt and Democrat as any U.S. coastal big city, may still have a reputation for being Midwestern and therefore ‘bland’. Toronto gets branded as ‘boring’ by some, purely because it’s too WASP/Scotch-Irish, unlike Montreal with its French-Canadian population, who are said to make it a more ‘vibrant’ city.