"guys want to be... with women they don't have to talk to." M.Dowd

I'm a fairly smart and successful professional male and I'm not ashamed to say my wife-to-be is smarter than I am.

I would expect the men around here would not be part of that group.

It is a weird trend though - if film and TV scripts are portraying men as wanting to marry their maids/personal assistants, etc. It seems like it speaks to a direction the country is going.

It also seems very "Republican". Bush* and his non-challenging wife - very different from Kerry and Teresa. John & Elizabeth Edwards - both lawyers....

focus as First Lady is on education and things like that. She's not a favorite person of mine, and she doesn't seem to have (or at least show) deep views on issues, but I wouldn't put her in the "wife who is so dumb you don't have to talk to her" category. She and Georgie Porgie clearly have conversations on issues, and he seeks her counsel at times.

Teresa has just a more outgoing and sharp personality, and is more inclined to speak her personal views.

"is so dumb you don't have to talk to her (0r him)" and regret if that was suggested.

I don't think Laura Bush is stupid or anything. But I think there is a definite difference in public perception over her seeming to be less "opinionated" than THK or Hilary, for example - esp. as being interested in affecting policy or whatever. It seemed with Hilary as 1st lady that there was a lot of resentment on the part of some people in regards to the role they feared that Hilary played in voicing her opinion. It was certainly criticized a lot. There was - in fact - practically a whole movement against her.

being what conservatives and rednecks would call "pushy broads." Laura, by contrast, while smart and educated and classy, at least "knows her place." I would agree with you that those perceptions are there. I thought you meant that men like stupid wives they don't have to talk to.

There is the Strict -Father model

The Strict Father Model. A traditional nuclear family with the father having primary responsibility for the well-being of the household. The mother has day-to-day responsibility for the care of the house and details of raising the children. But the father has primary responsibility for setting overall family policy, and the mother's job is to be supportive of the father and to help carry out the father's views on what should be done. Ideally, she respects his views and supports them.

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html


The (stereo)typical conservative relationship that pretty much demands the woman be the nuturing/subordinate type. Which is partly why I suggested this was NOT probably your typical DUer/liberal. George/Laura - seemed to model this and I thought that it was perhaps - intentional - the way their relationship was presented.

It also seems like a more "Republican" kind of thing for men who get successful to dump their wives for a younger (more submissive...) model. "First Wives Club" and all that. The trophy wife, etc.

Both of these examples could fall into what M. Dowd is talking about when she says "unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to." (Which I see as an extreme exaggeration - I do think it is likely the men don't want to be challenged, however).


I don't see smart, liberal men being as likely to do that. Lakoff talks about the liberal model as being mutually nurturing, etc. Equal isn't always easy - but I think it's a similar attitude to wanting equal rights for anybody - it's a mindset - a value system....

:D

.
Waitaminutehere . . . just a darned minute!! Stop and think this through.

If, we, men, who are brighter than the average man, marry women of low intelligence then what happens next? No, I am damn serious.

1.) Are you then saying that my genes, alone, contribute to bright children? Are you saying, too, that my choice is to have less than bright children since it takes more than one set of "bright" genes to have bright children? Who the hell wants dumb kids to carry your family name and heritage?

2.) Are you also saying that bright men like to "converse" with less than bright women? After all, longevity of marriage interactions is sustained w/ not sex alone! Oh, you and that stupid *study* never heard of this?

In short, intelligent men -- and there are many -- desire bright, sharp, and sexy intelligent women. I married one. She is my peer and my equal in both my professional life and my home life. We, together, have sustained many years of fulfillment including several children, all now adults living their own lives of independence. And, yes, all of whom are bright, as well as a continuum of seeking equals in committed personal and lasting relationships.

---

edited to add:

---

Maybe you thought that I thought something else.


I don't think any truly smart man wants to marry women who they do not wish to or "have to" talk to.

My brother, who is very bright and accomplished--MD plus JD, married a compliant, less intelligento woman. My brother rules the roost, she bites her tongue. He's not abusive by any means, just in charge. They, of course, are right wing.

In contrast, I married a man who likes an intellectual equal. We have great conversations, are the best of friends and enjoy each others company immensely. We, of course, are left wing.

Both of these marriages are intact and will last.

and as a reasonably high achieving woman, I've found a lot of them. I've also found a lot of chumps who were turned off by women who didn't know their places as silent, decorative subordinates, but I don't generally date GOP men, anyway.

I suppose if you're a business oriented woman who is surrounded by the guys who went to b-school and vote GOP because they believe all that supply side hogwash they got taught by conservative think tank endowed economics professors, you'll see a huge decline in bachelor males who are interested in a woman who is more interesting than a blow up doll combined with a robotic servant.

In any other field, the guys are more human.

This is one person's opinion, based on one person's life experience, so if you're a business oriented male who wants a date who can TALK, don't bother flaming.

My husband says the first thing that attracted him to me was my intelligence. Really! And we've been married 23 years now.

...like something's going on behind her eyes.

The word relationship wouldn't fit on the line...

"unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to."

Of course you are welcome to read the article and join in the discussion. :silly:
:freak:

she's in MENSA :)

you are the exception, I think. We may find in this particular group (DU) that many of us are in the exceptions group. But I think Mo is mostly right. A lot of guys also make a lot of noise about how they think women are their equal, blah blah blah, until you're neck deep in the relationship. Then something happens.

Some younger men (20-30) seem to be more open to the idea of women as equals... maybe all those "Free To Be You And Me" records back in the 70s had some kind of good effect.

Not in the least.

Just know there are a few of us out there that actually don't want to be bored to tears intellectually by their spouses.

I just think there is something in the male reptilian brain, that transmits "me man, me must be leader of woman". Some allow this instinct to run them, and some actually listen and ask themselves what the hell THAT'S all about.

There also is the type of man who thinks he wants an intellectual equal, but then the snake brain speaks up and wants to know why this brilliant woman doesn't always agree with him. "We could be so brilliant together -- if only she would agree with me and flatter my brilliance with her co-brilliance." (Does this make sense?)

But you could also make a similar commentary about women who think they want nice guys.

"all women want bad boys" bit!

"I'm a bootlegger, baby!" - George Costanza

conduct a short survey of your female friends and ask them how many assholes they've dated.

Then ask yourselves if you REALLY thought they were likely to be "nice guys" in the first place.

I rest my case.

based on a short survey that hasn't even been conducted? I find that people who have this view of women generally have it because they think women are too goddamn stupid to know what's good for them. (As exemplified by your quote, "Then ask yourselves if you REALLY thought they were likely to be 'nice guys' in the first place.") No woman starts dating a guy who she thinks will mistreat her. Sometimes you just don't know what a person is like until you get into a relationship with them -- the same thing happens with men who date women who are dumb or who treat them badly. Everybody makes mistakes with relationships, but when women do it, we're suddenly masochistic or don't know what's best for us. :eyes:

I don't hear from men continually "I'd just like to date a nice man", only to see them date the complete opposite.

Yet I do CONSTANTLY see that from women. There's the problem.

Someone sounds a wee bit defensive...

and denigrated and stereotyped by people such as yourself, you'd be a little defensive, too. You don't know me, so please refrain from making a negative judgment of me just because I happen to have a clitoris.

And you know what? I don't care what you say you've seen. In my life, I've seen the opposite. Nice guys dating pretty but bitchy girls, and then the guys whine that girls are mean to them. Who should I believe, somebody I don't even know on the Internet, or myself? (Of course, I know you'll say you, because being a woman, I couldn't possibly be capable of rationally observing the world.)

Stupidity works both ways. It exists in all genders. Stereotyping women isn't going to change that.

Hmm?

I didn't start this thread. I didn't do the study. And I'm not the dumbass (like Dowd) who misinterpreted the study's results to mean that men are "biologically" inclined to be shallow morons. They're not. And I never said that.

Why would any rational human being suspect that you don't agree with this post from your comments?

My comments were firing back at the stereotyping of males. So when you disagree, why would I have any other choice but to believe that you support the original comments? Unless you state otherwise specifically, that is how you come off.

I apologize if there's a miscommunication there, but I think you didn't read enough of the rest of this thread, and as such, took some comments out of context. That lead to your own comments being taken out of context as well.

not to the original post. And if you'd read this thread carefully, you would have read an earlier post I made, #30, where I clearly stated that I disagree with Dowd. Furthermore, while you decried the stereotyping of males (and rightfully so) you also stereotyped females, and said in post #31 that women are the ones who "CONSTANTLY" say they want to date nice people but don't, while you don't hear that from men. What it boils down to is that I'm pissed that you're stereotyping women, and you're pissed that this study is stereotyping men, yet at the same time you stereotype women. It sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

"But you could also make a similar commentary about women who think they want nice guys"

Sounds to me like I'm playing devil's advocate more than advancing a stereotype, no?

At that point, I thought you were indeed pointing out a valid double standard. It was your reply to another poster that I took issue with:

Oh please...
conduct a short survey of your female friends and ask them how many assholes they've dated.

Then ask yourselves if you REALLY thought they were likely to be "nice guys" in the first place.

I rest my case.

Your second sentence was particularly offensive, because you seemed to imply that women date men who they know will be assholes -- the old adage that women want to be treated like shit. That's fucking offensive and disgusting.

Not only do you not understand that just because you responded to ONE of my many posts that it has everything to do with those other posts.

Secondly, you misread the statement to begin with. I didn't say THEY knew, I said "YOU". You usually know when your friend is dating a jerk, even if they do not.

Not that it matters at all because I WAS PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE!! Learn to friggin read, because it's been either implied to directly stated for 3 times now!!!

No, the equivalent in males is "I'd like to find a nice girl and settle down," while all they date are good time gals who they think will put out on the first date if they pour enough liquor into them.

Get real, man. There are shallow people on both sides and in equivalent numbers. Your complete misunderstanding about how assholes operate (they're assholes, so they lie and ooze charm until they get close) makes me wonder if you've ever talked to any woman at all without trying to tell her how she feels.

lots of woman date men that they know will mistreat them. If you don't believe me, go to your local victim witness unit at the county prosecutors office.

Besides the Domestic violence cases, most woman will date men who are "bad boys" at some point, just as most men will date or sleep with the occasional bimbo. It's not so much who you date but who you mate, or marry.

I've known SO many women who go for the unavailable jerk because he's "exciting," and the nice guy is so "Boring."

in that he can't talk about anything but work and sports and refuses to get out of his comfort zone.

If all I want is not to be beaten up or cheated on, I don't have to be in a relationship to have that. :-)

By the way, I have never, ever gone for "bad boys," not even as a young teenager.

Pity, you sound like an interesting person.

but unfortunately, they were grabbed up early by women with better social skills than I possessed at that young age, and being nice guys, they tend to stay married, as long as their wives appreciate them.

Unfortunately, there is no "Nice and Interesting Single Man Central Supply House," so it all seems like a matter of chance--or intervention by perceptive matchmaking friends.

Frankly, I know many more nice and interesting single women than nice and interesting single men.

I was single for a long time, and frankly, dating sucked.

The perfect woman shows up in Steve dallas' life (he was a regular character.) She says, "I'm clever and witty, but not quite as clever and witty as you are."

over time they regressed...

In the world I live in, guys tend to be drawn to women who are not only attractive, but smart.

Smart guys who marry women less intelligent than themselves are the ones who end up at the bar, bitching about how they can't talk to their wives and that their wives don't understand them.

I think the article hits mostly on the "faith based" world.

...that those guys have wives who are emotionally unavailable to them. When a guy says his wife doesn't understand him, he's not saying she doesn't get calculus -- he's saying she doesn't understand or accept his IDENTITY.

This is an emotional element -- not an intellectual one.

She'd get who he is.

I think if you were to measure my IQ with my wife's there's a good chance I'd come out a few points ahead. So what?

She's still my equal and for two reasons: first because we both understand what marriage is and that the two of us each has leadership responsibilities within our family. To not respect each other as equals -- regardless of some stupid measure like IQ -- damages the entire unit.

Second, even though I might score higher she's no dummy and she'd never stand for being disrespected. Beleive me -- there'd be consequences!

Now when I say I'd come out ahead, I'd probably come out ahead say by 10 points. So what? 10 points means nothing. What I want is someone who sees it as "you and me against the world" rather than "me against the world and you against me and the world against us."

This article is getting you to believe that the 10 point difference in the IQ's of two people actually means they aren't equal. There's another kind of equal that doesn't amount to virtual equality: it's the respect of equal rights to self determination that most successful couples have.

If you read through this thread and read through that article all you get is a buttload of prejudices. There's not one bit of data referenced in that article for perspective, yet everyone jumps on the bandwagon as if they know exactly what's going on!

There's any number of ways that article could be interpreted. I think it would be wise to consider why this is the dominant theme.

one way or the other or that spouses had to be exact equals.

It sounded to me like it was about men who wanted to not have their authority and or superiority threatened. And that they want a "caregiver" (which is the mommy part).

"I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers." M.Dowd

A few do still exist; namely my brother, who believes his marriage should revolve his wants, needs and desires. (I love the guy, but he is what he is.)

It is common to understand EXACTLY what the man is thinking, saying and doing, and not approve of it. To find that his attitudes and actions destroy the pair bond that she seeks to form, so that a stable family for raising children results. To find out in fact that he lied, reneged, and otherwise broke vows.

I speak from the experience of being a man and one who's been around a while in lots of different kinds of relationships. I'm not sure if you're a man or a woman so I won't imply what perspective you're speaking from. Suffice it to say that I'm simply offering a viewpoint that isn't being offered here: that it's not because there's always something wrong with -- or emotionally inferior --about men in general. Interesting the veracity of responses that tack inspires.

Could part of Carrie's issues be related to her emotional problems and substance abuse rather than that there's been some sort of problem with all the men?

Another problem I have is this idea that if he married "a girl like mum" that she's somehow not his equal. I'd say that's Dowd's baggage more than his. Now if a man is highly intelligent and spends his days in highly competetive work, why wouldn't he want someone to be with who's emotionally available and comforting?

Personally, I don't think women who challenge men are in trouble. However I have learned from experience that people who challenge constantly and competetively are really not much fun to be around.

I noticed that as well.

It may very well be that (some) guys are marrying "a girl like mum" and she happens to be very intelligent. (Maybe the less conventional are more likely to be/raise liberals).

Of course then you have all the smart women who decide not to marry or at least raise children - so they aren't having sons who are marrying "a girl like mum".

.... is that if men aren't marrying highly intelligent women in as high numbers, they're marrying stupid women.

I think if you looked at the study, you'd probably see that women with IQ's between 115 and 140 are probably highly likely to be seen as great marriage prospects by men.

I'll see if I can take a look, but I won't be surprised if it's nearly impossible to find the original data.

was more inspired by recent movies, etc. than by the studies - although she did use studies to back up her ideas.

It seems like in the past - sometimes the moviemakers almost pushed along - got ahead of the curve - in portraying women as equals/blacks in authority. It's like if that image is out there - people might change or something. (To some extent it could be that people are changing faster on the west coast than in Indiana also :) ).

So there is the reverse fear - you get these movies showing smart (perhaps "middle aged") women in a negative light and you have to wonder if it does anything to affect perceptions... like it's all part of the propaganda or something.

It's like she assumes nobody has a smart mother. :eyes:

Unfortunately, however, there have been other studies that back up the theory of men not liking women who challenge them. Men often respect those women and recognize their intelligence, but they don't like them. There was a study cited in the book "The Mismeasure of Woman" that showed that men were more likely to be influenced by women who stated their opinions in unsure ways (By saying, "like" or "I think") and who solicited agreement. (For instance, by saying, "Drinking and driving is wrong, isn't it?") While those conversational tactics annoyed women, men in the study generally liked the unsure women better and found them more trustworthy. Of course, a woman can still state her opinion in an unsure way and be intelligent, but I think it kind of gets down to the issue of why men don't like to be challenged by women.

And for what it's worth, I really disagree with Dowd's statement that men not liking smart women is some type of biological, evolutionary trait. Bullshit. That's like saying men are naturally shallow assholes. Luckily for me, I've known enough decent guys to know that this isn't true.

recreational quibbling (insisting on picky little points that I was trying not to argue about--like telling me that my choice of a vegan Indian meal on one occasion was "unhealthy"), so I know what you mean. He was smart but insecure, and couldn't stand to have anyone disagree with him on the tiniest points.

far, far away . . ."

:evilgrin:

and grow up!!
All people are equal in terms of deserving respect.

to see any of the first 3 movies when they started out, SW4 will always be "Star Wars" - period)

joke from what she actually said about herself, and you're attacking me? (I think).

I never said that she was ugly, annoying, or whatever. I just found an amusing reference which coincides with the opening credit crawl, and I thought it was funny.

If I offended you, then tough.

maybe more intelligent women are less likely to need to get married, or want to bc they have a fulfilling career, or have pondered the idea of marriage and their higher iQ led them to conclude that marriage is not that important??

"A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors."

and

"A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals."

I know you'd like to slay her for her femi-nazi male-bashing, but she's not simply spouting her opinions, she's referencing reality.

and just whom have you been listening to?

If the male stereotype in this editorial was replaced by a female stereotype -- regardless of the results of some "studies" -- just how would you react to it?

And here I was going to drop my reply, since male-bashing aside (a minor irritant that I have long ago largely learned to live with), I realized that there was little point in being critical of someone more or less "in the progressive camp".

Now, however, I will post my reply in the original thread.

Thanks... I needed a little motivation.

And I actually read the editorial. Generally, I always read Ms Dowd.

Sounds like you're taking a page from Bush's playbook - if the study results don't meet your expectations, dismiss them as opinions and stereotypes.

The fact is these are the results of actual studies in which men themselves responded to different scenarios. I am amazed at how quickly these threads in the "Womens Rights and Issues" forum are hijacked into reiterations of the gender wars rather than actually discussing the reality women face and coming up with the ways and means to address them.

What we should be discussing here is what are the actual percentages of the attitudes found in the study? Are these attitudes on the rise? If so, why? What ramifications do these results have on women and men? Did the women's movement anticipate such a reaction? Does it matter? How do we change these attitudes and is it either realistic or even necessary to try?

In a country where we are actually teaching our young men and women that girls who "offer too much advice" to their "prince charmings" will be rejected for the "village maiden" (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html), why wouldn't we expect these kinds of results in surveys and studies of young men's attitudes? To deny and dismiss it only encourages it to continue.

If you read the articles again, they are not in fact the study results. The study REPORTS a correlation between IQ and mearriage in men and women. It DOESN'T say why this correlation occurs.

Most people here are just using it to spout off on prejudices they already have by interpreting what the numbers mean. No one in that study actually took the next step to ask why.

Even Ms Dowd says the study "suggests" and follows it up with her usual sexist dogma.

Ms Dowd entitles the editorial "Men Just Want Mommy". She starts off (or nearly so) with the statement: "Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women" and ends it with "But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too." Frankly, this sort of thing is offensive to men who have consistently sought true partners, not some kind of servant. (And this is apparently Ms Dowd's intention -- if not yours -- to be offensive.)

What? This is not broad brush stereotyping? If this editorial was by a man and said things like: "Women Just Want Sugar-Daddies", what would be your reaction? Is it ok when men are the targets, but not when women are?

And the bulk of the remaining material (setting aside those studies) is strictly anecdotal, speaking to her personal observations and other such "scientific" data as movies.

Besides, there are (at least) two other obvious interpretations of Ms Dowd's "evidence", that might well be better explanations. First, and supported by even Ms Dowd's own anecdotal evidence, is that "accomplished" men are taking as partners women who are found in close proximity to them. (I personally know of several cases of this -- it was more or less SOP in the grad school -- and often faculty -- of the college that I attended.) Personal assistants, P.R. women, secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers are all people (women) that "accomplished" men would be exposed to in the course of their normal lives (and who are not in potentially adversarial roles). What is unnatural about being attracted to people in one's vicinity? And aren't "accomplished" men frequently very busy and don't they find themselves short of time to seek other "partners"? And are men supposed to be attracted to people that they might find themselves battling with in the office the next day (where such relationships are even permitted)?

Second, maybe the issue isn't "accomplishment", but ego. Men with large egos may well deliberately avoid in their private lives dealing with the same sort of large egos (as these men imagine anyway -- and these egos being other than their own) that they have to deal with in their professional environments. And yes, it would be natural that people with large egos seek to have their egos massaged and bolstered, and to be treated like "the moon, the sun and the stars" or "like kings". All this I have no trouble believing, but then, again, the issue is ego not "accomplishments". And if the two are tied closely together, then this says a lot about our society -- and the point should be directly and clearly made.

And if women find that men of large ego (and, perhaps, "accomplishments"), who battle other large egos in their daily professional lives, surround themselves with sycophants and seek such as their partners, then this is more telling about our business culture (in the broad sense of anything that pays) than about anything unusual in the behavior of these men (of large ego). And perhaps concerned women should work (along with concerned men) to reform our business culture so that advancement is based primarily on merit and true qualities of character, rather than ambition, the drive for self gratification and the other elements of selfish, narrow-minded, unbridled, overblown egotism and materialism (or sex). -- But I will go so far as to say that, if for one reason or the other, significant numbers of women who do not match this typical behavior (historically male in the business arena at least), find themselves in positions of "accomplishment", then there are unfortunate aspects to this situation. But this is all the more reason to reform the system, and such women will just have to make do -- just like all those other unfortunates who have difficulty finding equal partners. At least these women have their "accomplishments" to fall back on -- which is more than most Americans have -- or can hope to.

Moreover, there is material in this article that is offensive to women too. "Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection." I know of plenty of marriages (some even of "accomplished" persons) where there is a good (rough) equality between partners and these involve strong, independent women who would be offended if they bothered to read this. Indeed, the only truly unequal marriages that I know of are to found among my fundie acquaintances.

And what of this: "So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax?" -- Far from it, women have made certain progress, and I see very few of the unequal marriages (around me in my modest circumstances) that surrounded me as a youth. Is there more progress yet to made? -- Of course. But statements like hers don't help.

And I say again, replace the references to men in this article with references to women and see how you like it. -- I don't like it either way. And what, Ms Dowd is allowed to throw in all sorts of statements because she sites two studies (both questionably used as far as I am concerned -- if not questionably analyzed originally) and her statements are in the same ballpark? The right wing does this sort of thing all the time, and it is without value. If you have a problem with people not dealing with the actual study data, then maybe you should start off with Ms Dowd (it is only a small part of her editorial). -- Moreover, I think that Ms Dowd is obscuring an important point about our business culture with this editorial -- and that this does us all a disservice.

But you are free to think whatever you like. It is clear to me what you wish to make of this -- I have no more time for it -- and perhaps you should ponder your own preconceptions. If there is a gender war here, then making broad brush statements and questionable insinuations are the weapons of this war -- not of reasonable discussion.

First, this quote:

"So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are?"

Since when was the goal of the feminist movement to make women more desirable? Maybe that's not what she meant, but that's what I hear when I read it.

Secondly, this reminds me of all the articles, beautifully pointed out and debunked in "Backlash" by Faludi, among other places, that told women there was a "man shortage" in the 80's, when there wasn't. That they had no chance of getting married, so, by implication, they had to grab the first dude they saw. That women over 30 could not under any circumstances conceive (again, by implication, so they'd better run out and have that kid -- forget the career). That the stress of having jobs and careers was killing them. All of those things were fabrications and lies. I'm not suggesting that it was deliberately orchestrated, but it sure had the effect of trying to push women back into the homes.

So, that's what this sounds like. Ladies, don't be too smart, now. You'll never bag a man! Ooo! Be afraid! Act dumb! Don't put your ideas out there and achieve anything! Don't be competent in public! Or else you'll be alone forever!!!! It's BS as far as I'm concerned.

My entire professional life has been connected with the Japanese language, first as an instructor and then as a translator. About 1/4 of the time I tell a man my occupation (and I try not to bring it up unless someone asks), I'll get a nasty putdown in reply. "Oh, you'll never find anyone to marry but another Japanese translator" or "No wonder an attractive woman like you is still single. You're too intimidating" or "Wouldn't you have rather gotten married?" or "I can't stand intellectual women."

This has happened with men who are no slouches in the intellectual department themselves, including academics and professionals. And they don't know a damned thing about my "emotional quotient" because they've just met me.

Note that this happens only with straight men. Women and gay men find the information either interesting or a matter of indifference. I'd probably be considered a great catch as a lesbian, but unfortunately, I'm not wired that way.

Can you imagine a situation in which a man said, "I'm a Japanese-English translator" and got responses from women such as "Oh, you'll never find anyone to marry but another Japanese translator" or "No wonder an attractive man like you is still single. You'lre too intimidating" or "Wouldn't you have rather gotten married?" or "I can't stand intellectual men"?

or that the media doesn't matter that much.


It seemed like a pretty big leap, for instance when Mary Tyler Moore went from playing the wife/mother in the Dick Van Dyke show to playing the career woman in the Mary Tyler Moore show. The leap being that the country had changed enough to make that possible.

I wonder if we are headed backward as reflected in the movies mentioned - like Spanglish ( I haven't seen it) and that the backward motion will have a snowballing effect.

I just recently saw the movie Mona Lisa Smiles - an interesting movie in light of this discussion - being about what life/expectations were like for women in the 50's and women who were breaking out...

better not buy into that one, bloom!

take a look at post-WW II media, busy persuading women who'd had important, high-paying, wartime jobs that it was time to go home now and, more important, that going home was all they really wanted to do.
oh, the relief! to stop being independent and get back to stepford!
(sarcasm off now)

of course women were happy the war was over and the men were coming home but plenty of them didn't see that as a good reason they were suddenly devalued.

I mean I'd much rather have a value as a husband and father and member of my family than some monetary value as a wage slave.

Maybe it's different for men than it is women since there's that glass gate that seeks to keep women at home with their families and men away from home and their families.

It's much better to have a human value than a dollar value.

the media doesn't matter. I probably could have started that out better.


Actually - the study I would like to see (maybe there is one) is the one which tries to quantify the way women are portrayed in say the most popular movies/TV shows. And if the trend is trending toward the more conservative model (the Strict Father family model) - with women being the wife the husband doesn't want to listen to for whatever reason - or more positive images.

Because I do think that that type of media can be just as damaging to the feminist/liberal philosophy as the news, etc.

I believe that the Media CONSCIOUSLY portrays women and men characters in ways that will affect real women and men....for example...Where are the strong women in sitcoms today? Gone are Roseanne, Murphy Brown, Maude, The Golden Girls, Designing Women. I believe that when the conservatives got all of this power, the message went out: 'No more strong women on TV. Make the young women of today feel insecure and while we're at let's make them think they are empowered by stripping.'

And what do we have in place....shows with chubby, ugly men as leads with great looking wives. The only strong woman I can think of is Raymond's mother...but she is very traditional in that she loves to cook and clean.

I have stopped watching TV...except for Law and Order and CSI Miami.

Ever heard of the Business Roundtable? The most powerful men of business and industry get together every quarter and they set the rules. Look what has happened to the News Media....the same thing has happened to Entertainment Media...Don't you wonder why all of the women on CSI and to an extent on Law & Order wear such inappropriate business attire? Or are women in the professional world really showing that much cleavage and wearing such tight skirts and slacks?

And men's clothes just keep getting baggier and looser....ho hum. Remember men in Speedos?

but WTF? People date me because I'm smart. They think it's cool. and I've dated people of all education levels.

If smart women don't get married it's probably because they're getting pickier or because they just don't want to (how many times can you read statistics about how unhappy women are in marriage before you catch on?)

I resent these articles that feed more on general relationship anxiety than anything else.

I'm married to a great catch, but frankly if I ever found myself single again I don't know if I'd remarry.

It's hard work being married. Lots of compromise, lots of doing things you're not that crazy about to please your partner (and it goes both ways.) Putting up with habits that irritate the hell out of you. (That goes both ways, too.)

My hubby and I are great friends, but if you aren't compatible -- Lord, marriage would be hell on earth.

I believe him. If I died or we got divorced or something, I can't imagine him putting up with some stupid girl for more than a fun afternoon. He's very smart and gets bored easily and tends to not be attracted to people who aren't a challenge for him. Any woman who couldn't keep up with him intellectually would probably not make it past the first date.

I want to know who all these men are that they surveyed. Most of the men I know may sleep with the dumb ones, but want to date and marry the smart ones.

That some/most/all men say they want an equal partnership, but given a choise they will choose someone who is "not a threat"?

Are we caught in the neolithic reptile-brain-behavioral patterns still? Have we evolved so little?

I certainly hope the women they sleep with know those men have no intension of starting a relationship. Brains or no brains, using another human being or playing with their emotions is wrong. I'm sure you didn't even realize this and I don't mean it as an attack, but in a forum entitled "Women's Rights & Issues", it seemed like something worth pointing out anyway being that all women should be treated as more than just vessels for pleasure. I have nothing against pleasure and if people are upfront, not a problem. It just hit me the wrong way I suppose.

But not me, I love intelligence and married an intelligent, political, activist, feminist, socialist woman.

Not at all. Hell, I'd love it if a woman made more than me. I do not need a mom replacement either. I do not need a submissive, blindly conservative "trophy wife" either. Granted, I'm a typical guy and I like to look at women, but I'm not analyzing their body fat either.

but my experience has been among executives in the business world. I can absolutely verify that the huge majority of talented, ambitious, intelligent men that I have known are attracted to looks and youth, not brains or ability. This is equally true for married and un-married men. Of course there are exceptions (like me). But I would estimate 80%+ of males are not attracted to, or particularly interested in (romantically), highly intelligent women. Everyone knows this, even if they don't speak about it. There are evoloutionary reasons for this phenomenon.

(It should also be mentioned that UN-intelligent men are ALSO attracted to looks and youth, not intelligence.)

T

like me, like an intelligent woman who sets them straight but is gentle about it, not rude, arrogant, or condescending about it. Its all in the approach. But also like the pleasure of teaching them things. It makes us feel meaningful.

I think career/accomplished women can be intimidating because we think deep down that they will find they don't want to be with us and throw us away. With the societal emphasis on a man being strong, tough and honorable, feeling dispensable and worthless hurts alot.

Men also fear the woman 'wearing the pants' for the same reason, IMO -- We feel, in most cases, she wont find a conquered man attractive for long, and will start looking at more challenging guys who make her heart beat faster. Its all a fear of abandonment.

Just my views.

That does make sense.

Of course, part of the deal is women not wanting to be abandoned and vulnerable - one reason to become career women to begin with.

I have many straight male friends, all of whom want intelligent women, but none who want women who are smarter than themselves.

I wouldn't mind if a woman was mroe intelligent than me. Hell, I had a crush on someone that was applying to become an economics professor! I also like opinionated women rather than docile doormats.

Ok, I think Ms. Dowd is indeed full of shit here. I know I am a new and infrequent poster, but these conversations always irk me by leaving out a potentially critical factor which I know I will be flamed for. Yes, there certainly are some shallow men among the elite and even the not-so elite who want a dumb trophy wife. Now, turn the tables. Think of a a fairly young attractive, smart, whatever woman who is doing reasonably well for herself. Say she makes 50K. Two men she knows are interested in her. One makes 30-40k, and is happy with that(in itself, if it weren't a problem with the ladies as we shall see). Another makes 70k. They both have other good qualities that this woman really and truly get her attention. It turns out that the guy who makes 70k is little biut of a jerk, though, while the guy who makes 30-40k is "nice". Come on, people, who will she respond tom more? The jerk who rakes in the cash, that's who, as opposed to the other guy who is doing okay for their age and will treat her with real respect.
This could easily be explained in terms of Evo. Psych, of course. Childbearing being optional these days is not something the primitive parts of the brain register in her responses to these guys.
The study showing it is harder for smarter/more accomplished women to marry cooouuullllddddd poooosssiiibbbly be due to those women simply not looking broadly enough(in the long run, maybe this could bring a population decline-a good thing). I know hardly any men of any political persuasion who really have a problem with women who may be a little more accomplished than himself-he is simply rejected by those women, even if able to give intellectual companionship(not all smart people makes tons of money-I know a couple who are positively impoversished-the corporate world wants robots) and adequate fallback support. Either consider or flame away.

But I had trouble dating in high school. I was a straight A student and a very good runner, better than the bottom 1/4 to 1/2 of high school male track athletes and much faster than the average male. I also was in a number of clubs and the leading scorer on the quiz bowl team. I had male friends on separate occaisions tell me that my level of accomplishment was why I had trouble getting dates. "We want a girl to look up to us, not a girl for us to look up to." At my high school, that might make sense. Of the girls in the top 10% of the class, the ones who dated usually dated boys in the top 10%, usually a grade or two ahead. All state female athletes who dated, were dating male all state athletes. It wasn't that these girls didn't like less accomplished guys. The guy just didn't want to be less accomplished and I think that peer pressure amongst the guys also was a factor. These were boys, not men of course. They also were mostly from lower middle class backgrounds.
As for the money issues, I also think that it is a cultural expectation that goes both ways. Many men are still uncomfortable making less than their wives. Many women were also taught that this is incorrect. As for me, I saw what happened when my mother married a jerk, her second husband, who made significantly more than her, and I did not make that same mistake and neither did my sister.

I remember being at a party and it was a student who was from the Middle East - could have been Iraqi - telling me I seemed like an "academic" (which I took to mean - studious-minded, serious, etc. - and that he pointed it out because maybe I did not seem like most of the women).

It was interesting to me - because often strangers don't just tell you how they perceive you - and it seemed funny to me that most college women would NOT seem "academic". But I don't always follow the social "rules".

Seems like nowadays even more young women seem to take on the "perky" persona as opposed to the "academic" one. (Or maybe I just need to get out of the Midwest.)

It's been more of a problem for him than it is for me. If I'm dating someone who seems to be in roughly the same income bracket as me I try not to let him know how much I make. Because if it's as little as 5K a year more, he gets snippy about it. A guy I went on a few dates with recently is a commercial pilot and I assumed he made more than I do so I mentioned my salary. Oops...my mistake. I make considerably more than him. He pouted, and guess what? I haven't heard from him since. My ex works for the same company and when he found out I made SLIGHTLY more than him he actually didn't speak to me the rest of the day!

Based on my experience, I don't think it's just women who have a problem with men making less money. Men value themselves by their incomes too. When they stop doing that AND stop regarding women through a very narrow and shallow lens ("Think of a a fairly young attractive, smart, whatever woman" - I mean what other type is even worth dating? :eyes:), then maybe those nice 30K guys will get a chance.

how's that :shrug:


I don't know if you're basing your suppositions on TV or real people. I would not choose a jerk with a higher salary over a caring person who made less. Neither would friends of mine. So I don't know where you get that idea.


As far as "I know hardly any men of any political persuasion who really have a problem with women who may be a little more accomplished than himself" - well I know someone who nearly had a nervous breakdown when his wife went back to college. (He is a Republican if you are interested in political persuasions).


I agree that money/salary is not the measure of intelligence.

....is why it seems so hard for so many people to consider that both sorts of trends are most probably at work in our Western world.

I mean, yes, there are lots of men who feel uncomfortable with a woman making more money, or smarter or more accomplished. By the same token there are lots of women who are looking for men who are more accomplished or smarter than they are.

As usual, it seems threads like these are more about bashing one sex or the other and making sweeping generalizations. We're a society in transition and many vestiges of older ways exist and people are free to choose them. Many times this seems to work out, especially if one actually likes and wants to live that way. In fact, the above described way of life seems to work quite well for women who want to have a family and define much of their young life by taking care of their children as well as it does for many men who find satisfaction in providing for others. Hell, I'm a Dad and I'd give my left nut for some better balance and more time with my daughter.

I just don't quite understand why this can't be talked about in a way that's respectful and appreciative of both genders. Though frankly, that's an issue I have with much of Dowd's writing.

On a final note, in case you haven't noticed we live in a highly divided country. In my opinion, that's probably because most political power is obtained and changed by dividing people rather than uniting them -- kind of like the wishbone on Thanksgiving. They yank and tug and whoever ends up with 51% of the turkey bone gets his wish. Imagine the political power to be gained by dividing men and women -- husbands and wives. As long as we play into it, we'll likely be part of the 49%.

I think balance is a good thing. From what I can tell - France and probably Germany and I don't know who else - have a system of people being able to have balance in their work/family lives. Shorter work weeks - more subsidized day care - more time off with infants and such.

It does seem like something a society can choose to promote. (People can figure out what works best for them - but the society structure/pay scales and various things make a difference, also).

I think our society promotes - through the media - (and I think this is what Dowd is referring to - what she sees the media promoting) an increasing objectification of women as well as more patriarchal, sexist, anti-feminist man on top value system. I also think it was esp. noticeable in the previous election.

I don't think her "wrath" is directed toward the many fine liberal co-nurturing men. So men such as that should not take offense.

No, seriously. That is, if "nice" doesn't mean "doormat" and "passive-aggressive" but "personally compatible with the woman in question."

I'm old enough to know what really counts in a relationship: personal compatibility, not wealth and status.

In my experience, men have more trouble dating a woman who earns more or is taller than women have dating a man who earns less or is shorter.

I think thats an oversimplification. I would say instead that we just prefer women who won't be horrible people to us. I think Maureen dowd is hysterical and a good writer, but i would never date her (even if she was my age). No man wants a wife who will remember everything he does wrong and throw it in his face any time they have a disagreement or who will be generally constantly in a fight with them.

Laura Bush (reading down a bit) is a nice women, she had a degree and a career she just gave it up for her kids and such. it was her choice (as i understand it anyway) She and Theresa (Who I both loved and hated at the same time) made Different choices, however they had the right to make them.

the men in my life praise my intelligence, my creativity, my independence. it is WHY they are attracted to me.

who told me that my intelligence was 'intimidating', I'd be rich by now. I've met a few men who value intelligence in women, but they are far and few between. Of course, for the past 28 years I've been living in Texas, and then Florida. Might have something to do with it.

I think that younger men are more likely to have egalitarian views, but that baby boomer men are more likely to half in and half out of the old paradigm. They know that they should say that they want intelligent women, and maybe they even have themselves convinced that they do, but deep down, they want the kind of relationship that their parents had, where Mom stayed home and ran the house and never "bothered her purdy little head" about "important matters."

Who is it who's fueling the Asian picture bride and Russian picture bride industries? Middle-aged men, mostly, and the reason they typically give is that "American women have forgotten how to be feminine," as if they have a right to define what "feminine" is. I suspect that "feminine" here really means "deferential."

since my husband is one of the "middle aged men" of which you speak, I felt I should speak up for him and the many others like him who like strong, intelligent women.

My own personal experience is, in fact, reversed: just as I see more and more young women dismissing "feminism", younger men (speaking generally here) seem to be the ones I run into who think women have forgotten "how to be feminine" (as if "show us your tits!" would be the demonstrated height of what is "feminine"), although I also know a great deal of young men who think and behave otherwise. I guess it just goes to suggest that the solutions are with individuals and trying to group men into "types" is as demeaning to them as it is when they do it to us.

OK, from here on, please bear with me, this has turned into "thinking out loud" and is in some ways contradictory. It's just a mass of the thoughts and feelings I have been fighting with lately based partly on this topic and partly on the other thread of what to do about sexism on DU - it's all tied together in my mind. (Of course I tried that disclaimer on another thread last week and still managed to offend the poster... Sorry, LL, really - it's not my intent to "pick on you". :))

I'm not suggesting there isn't a problem, believe me, I know there is. But I think we should stick to fighting the guys (and women) who are actually partaking in these actions rather than trying to lay the behavior on a whole group. We lose control of the discussion on how to fix the problem if we end up just having to try and prove it exists because we've said "these guys do this" and someone chimes in to say "I'm one of those guys and no I don't" - just like I did with my husband in this post.

Whether it's young guys or older men who are intimidated by intelligent women, while that can be helpful in "diagnosing" the cause, the real issue is what can be done to help change the situation? What makes men prefer less intelligent women, if they do? Is it insecurity, lack of self-esteem, "old-fashioned" "values", lack of respect, upbringing, history, biology? A combination of all of these things? (This I believe.) We can argue about that until the cows come home. I want to know how we fix it.

Here's another question - does it have to be "fixed"? If two adults decide to get together and/or marry, what impact does it have on women if he chooses her because she's dumb and she chooses him because he's rich? (The oft cited reverse complaint offered by the "other side".)

The problem that needs to be "fixed" as I see it is that somehow we're creating a reward system for not being smart - if a young woman believes men will only like her if she's dumb (or skinny or pretty or...), then she will either not educate herself or pretend to be dumb to appease a man instead of developing herself based on her own abilities. Why would a young woman believe this? Where does she get the idea that being dumb is the best way to get a guy? And where does she get the idea that "getting a guy" (any guy) is necessary in the first place? (This seems to me a reverse of the questions I raised about men earlier.) Where do we learn these messages? More importantly, how do we stop teaching them?

For me, I think the key lies in not necessarily trying to change men but to change ourselves and our own participation in a culture that teaches young women it's better to be stupid and "get" a man than to be smart and be your own person. I'm now trying to focus my own efforts on trying to encourage both young men and women in my life to think for themselves, find out what's important to them and then live their own life accordingly. It's been my experience that if you are true to yourself, you will find friends and lovers who are drawn to that. I don't think we will ever "win" a mass culture shift in vision. We will win this one young person at a time - I hope.

Honestly, I really don't know what these younger women want. Do they want careers or do they want to be taken care of by a man? One thing I frequently get nailed for, and sadly I'm only 25, is I'm still living at home, but that is largely to save money to buy a house. Hopefully I'll have enough saved in about 1-2 years to put a down payment AND this overinflated RE market goes down. Personally, I don't feel like renting or going in with roommates like so many younger women do. I feel guys are a bigger pain in the ass to live with personally. Most young women don't see this.

I place intellect as one of the top traits I go for in a woman and am not intimidated by someone who is smarter than me or makes more. All I ask is they don't rub that in my face or hold it against me (i.e. call me a loser). I feel this conservative-trending society is killing men like me who really isn't out to kill myself to be rich or care if a woman has a career. I see it myself when I go to bars/clubs in Manayunk or Olde City in Philly. These women act all independent and professional, yet want a man to take care of them solely. These women fail to realize there is a thing called a two-way street and the economic data suggests that when women started to enter the workforce, real salaries/wages for individual jobs decreased since the 1960s. Overall standards of living increased for some reason though.

On a side note I know there are a lot of women on here and I guess you could help me out on this. I am really looking for someone sweet and intelligent. HELP THERE ARE FEW OUT THERE! I know I'm not Brad Piit, but I have a job, car, career goals, hmm... ok, I'm not going into personals site stuff here, but I could sure use some advice here.

Things are really mucked up these days and I can only say I'm happy to be the age I am now and not going through what you have to at this point in time. I can't quite tell you what younger women want - both because I'm not younger any more and don't understand half of them myself and also because they're people - individuals with different wants, needs and desires. (It's important to remember that and not let one person turn you off a whole gender.)

As for "do they want careers or do they want to be taken care of by a man", why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe they want both, or neither. Maybe they don't know yet.

Living at home is a good financial decision, but you do have to realize that it changes the social landscape of any relationship you pursue. (How do mom and dad fit into the picture? Will your "alone" time be in the room right next to them? Will movie night be just the two of you or all four? Just visiting you becomes a meet and greet the 'rents situation which is usually reserved for more serious relationships.) I'm not saying you're doing the wrong thing, and I'm certainly not calling you a loser (in fact, I lived at home myself after college) but you do have to be aware of some of the social ramifications of doing such and not write off every young woman who has concerns about it as deeming you a loser or judging you unfairly.

The only solid bit of advice I have is this: don't bother trying to meet the girl of your dreams in a bar. What I have learned (listen to me, the old sage here HA!) is that compatibility, shared interests, shared values and what people do, not what they say, are what makes a relationship work. So think about it, is your interest in life what happens in bars? If so, and hers is too, then you might stand a chance of finding someone who shares your interests and values. But more likely it's just a place where you're both going to try and hook up. There's no assurance of common ground other than you both like to get drunk and party on Friday nights. (What happens when the party's over?) "Party girls" don't sound like what you'd really like to find.

Also, think about the kind of girls you're attracted to. While you talk about wanting someone sweet, you also talk about these "professional, independent" types you're meeting in bars. The sweet, intelligent girls aren't likely to be in (or at least be noticed) in bars, you know. They're more likely helping the local Humane Society or building houses on Saturdays with Habitat for Humanity. You could fulfill two agendas if you got involved - you'd be contributing to positive change in our world and you just might meet the girl of your dreams. :)

So you're not Brad Pitt (someday to someone you will be) but are you looking for Jennifer Anniston? Or would you even notice a sweet, intelligent girl who might already have a crush on you but she looks more like Ally Sheedy in The Breakfast Club? It's easy for both sides to complain about the other while doing many of things we're complaining about ourselves.

Finally, have patience. Nice guys can finish best but they seldom finish first. It's like the nerds in high school - they (we) took a lot of abuse back then, but we're doing pretty well in life right now. The jocks and popular girls I knew in high school had their lives laid out for them by 25 and are struggling every day to keep up appearances. The geeks are changing the world.

I am in the Young Democrats and have met some eligible women there so to speak. Problem is other guys see that as well! I know I'm not looking for Jennifer Anniston either.

> Honestly, I really don't know what these younger women want.

First, you've got to start taking women as individual people. It isn't useful to lump all or most women together. Women are as highly individualistic as men.

> Do they want careers or do they want to be taken care of by a man?

Again, "they". Until you're talking about a specific "she", there can be no answer to your question. Also, there's the "or": these things are not mutually exclusive. A man can want to have a career and also be taken care of by a woman; this is the cultural norm.

That gets into what "taking care of" someone really means. Think of the typical "career man" and his expectations of his wife. He expects someone to make him soup when he's sick, to listen to him when he needs to talk, to remember that he likes the smell of a certain brand of soap, to understand what it means for him when he says "no, nothing's wrong". "Taking care of" a person doesn't mean necessarily mean spending money on them. "Taking care of" means caring and nurturing, and that's your challenge. "Taking care of" can also mean making decisions, which may be another part of your challenge. The man in the cultural norm doesn't want to make all the decisions - he's been making decisions at work all day, and his mind is tired from it. A woman with a demanding career may have a tired mind, too, and may just want you as her partner to make decisions you may not usually make. Typically, a woman in a straight relationship will end up being Julie the Cruise Director for the couple, and will have to make most of the decisions about social activities. Try taking care of her in that way - she may appreciate it.

> One thing I frequently get nailed for, and sadly I'm only 25, is I'm still living at home, but that is largely to save money to buy > a house.

It probably isn't the financial aspect that turns them off. Saving up to buy a house is a good thing. However, so is getting out there in the world and proving that you can establish and maintain a household of your own. Even maintaining a little studio apartment is something; it shows that you are capable of running a home yourself.

> I place intellect as one of the top traits I go for in a woman and am not intimidated by someone who is smarter than me or makes
> more. All I ask is they don't rub that in my face or hold it against me (i.e. call me a loser).

What would constitute rubbing it in your face? Mentioning incomes is, in my old book, crass. It shouldn't come up. However, if she talks about her job (as people tend to do), how much talking about her career would constitute rubbing it in your face? How would she rub her intelligence in your face? Where does self-confidence end, and bragging begin?

> These women fail to realize there is a thing called a two-way street

Show her that two way street. Show her what you have to offer that isn't income. You mention that you have a job, a car, a career... what do you have that doesn't have a price on it? What do you, as a man, as a person, have to offer a woman who doesn't need your job or your car or your career? What about you as a human being makes you a desirable partner?

I want a househusband, as I have a very demanding work/school life. Seems to be that the real finding was that busy people want someone to do all the work around the house while they are out and about being busy at work. Hardly a novel finding.

"He wants you to be smart enough to understand HIM"...and that's where it ends..More than a little truth in that, I fear.

I'm afraid this is an all too true comment for some men. I remain hopeful that the sentiment is changing.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

My buddies and I rather enjoy having an interesting life partner.

Oh God. I am so not surprised that a British Poll determined it. British Men Don't talk because they have nothing to say (huge generalization, I know). They want their wives to be dumb, but they love to have great chats with their mistresses.