Op-Ed NYT: Men Just Want Mommy

[Malacasta]

Op-Ed Columnist: Men Just Want Mommy

January 13, 2005
By MAUREEN DOWD

A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women."

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.

Women in staff support are the new sirens because, as a guy I know put it, they look upon the men they work for as "the moon, the sun and the stars." It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods.

In all those great Tracy/Hepburn movies more than a half-century ago, it was the snap and crackle of a romance between equals that was so exciting. Moviemakers these days seem far more interested in the soothing aura of romances between unequals.

In James Brooks's "Spanglish," Adam Sandler, as a Los Angeles chef, falls for his hot Mexican maid. The maid, who cleans up after Mr. Sandler without being able to speak English, is presented as the ideal woman. The wife, played by Téa Leoni, is repellent: a jangly, yakking, overachieving, overexercised, unfaithful, shallow she-monster who has just lost her job with a commercial design firm. Picture Faye Dunaway in "Network" if she'd had to stay home, or Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" without the charm.

The same attraction of unequals animated Richard Curtis's "Love Actually," a 2003 holiday hit. The witty and sophisticated British prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, falls for the chubby girl who wheels the tea and scones into his office. A businessman married to the substantial Emma Thompson falls for his sultry secretary. A writer falls for his maid, who speaks only Portuguese.

(I wonder if the trend in making maids who don't speak English heroines is related to the trend of guys who like to watch Kelly Ripa in the morning with the sound turned off?)

Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection.

As John Schwartz of The New York Times wrote recently, "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame."

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.

As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them.

"The hypothesis," Dr. Brown said, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands.

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. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.

So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.

I asked the actress and writer Carrie Fisher, on the East Coast to promote her novel "The Best Awful," who confirmed that women who challenge men are in trouble.

"I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said drily. "I gave up on dating powerful men because they wanted to date women in the service professions. So I decided to date guys in the service professions. But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/opinion/13dowd.html

[Aristotle]

You can always count on Maureen Dowd to spew absolute swill. Thanks for sharing this, Mala.

Originally posted by Malacasta
So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax?

Yup.

Originally posted by Malacasta
The more women achieve, the less desirable they are?
Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.

Wrong conclusion.

Caveat: Since the article was generalizing about men and women, I will too. That means what I am saying below does not apply to all men or all women.

Men want women who are nurturing. That is a vital trait in a woman, a wife, and a (god forbid) mother. Men also do not want "I am Woman Hear Me Roar", high maintenance, "thinks she's entitled to everything since as a woman she's so oppressed and (despite contrary evidence) thinks she gets paid less for the same job", types.

This is not just a matter of marrying subordinates. Look at interracial marriages.

The fact that white males are far increasingly marrying non-white females is very similar to why Japaneese females are increasingly marrying white males. Both groups no longer like what they get from the opposite sex of their own race/culture.

I'm skirting along the surface here because I don't want to start a flame war.

White American women in particular have really been scammed by the women's movement.

Wanting to be a mother is somehow a pathetic half-life. If you aren't working full time and dumping your kids off in day-care your life is worthless (according to the Feminists). Frankly, I think the fact that so many families choose to have both parents work when they absolutely do not NEED to makes a mockery of the families and single parents who are FORCED into that tough situation.

Anyway, now I'm engaging in tangents, but as usual Dowd draws the wrong conclusions.

I think this phenomenon has a lot more to do with the personalities involved than any feeling among men that they are not interested in strong women.

[Lebeau]

I would have to agree that for the most part, men want someone to take care of them, but let's be honest. Who doesn't? Women do too! On the other hand, everyone wants someone to take care of as well... or are children a wonderful accident? (sarcasm)

But that comment about intelligence is total bullshit. I can't stand stupid people. That's a pet peeve of mine. I realize some people actually lack intelligence and try, but I mean the people who don't try. The ones who fall into a pattern of laziness. That kind of stupid. So, really, I would never marry someone I can't talk to. Conversation was a vital prerequisite when I was dating!

But yeah, we do kinda get tired of women tooting their own horn. I'll have to bring up Omarosa as an example here. Although she doesn't use her success as a crutch (which makes no sense), she IS intimidating. Some men do find power sexy. But again, Dowd takes a generalization and applies it to everyone. Me? I have what I wanted. An equal. Yes, I earn all the money, but I am not opposed to her getting a job. It's just unnecessary.

[Yatar]

I can't speak for all men, but I probably do fall into the category of the guys that this article talks about. As an example, in the professional school environment I'm in, I've found very few medical student classmates that provoke my interest. However, I have been more attracted to women that aren't pursuing high-level professional careers.

Why? Well, for me, it seems like many medical student women are less laid-back, more aggressive, and more business-like than other women. When they want something, they go out and get it. They can study for hours, argue you down to a nubbin, and fit well into the "self-made woman" feminist ideal.

But unfortunately, that's a turn-off for me. I can't see myself fitting well with a mate with that kind of personality. This is going to sound cheesy, but I prefer women that are softer around the edges - the "sugar-and-spice and everything nice" kinda thing. You know, women that care less about business and more about people. And honestly, people like that tend to be nurses or hygenists or elementary school teachers. They don't tend to be CEOs, lawyers, surgeons and political activists.

If that makes me old-fashioned or terribly chauvanistic, so be it. If that means the women I pursue aren't as smart (because the higher IQ ones go for professional careers), then I guess that's how it is. But like I said, I think it's more of a personality-fitting thing than me looking for a subordinate or thinking professional women are somehow evil.

Of course, there are guys that go after less-accomplished women for selfish reasons, and you know what? That's dumb. But there are also women that gold-dig or refuse to date guys shorter or younger than them. That can be pretty dumb too. As always, it goes both ways.

[Gilgamar]

There have been studies done, and no I can't cite it but you can probably google around and find them, or ones like them, that show that (depending on the particular study) in general everybody, this means both genders, in all cultures tend to have more sex when in a poverty/less demanding job than those who are wealthy/highly demanding jobs.

In general people with higher IQ's tend to gravitate towards jobs that pay more. Common sense there right? But this also leads them to lose interest in relationships. Their time is just more focused on the job than the girlfriend/wife. Generally they also tend to be more demanding and specific in what they feel is an "ideal" mate.

The lower down the economic ladder you go the more willing people are to put up with those negative traits that they might not like.

Also, personally, I tend to be attracted to all women. But I can't deal with the attitudes that most "successful" women tend to have. In my experience they feel like they have to be better than a guy. Which makes them unapproachable.

Dating someone should not be a competition. There shouldn't be any comparisons of who is more successful. You should be a working together to achieve.

Also, and while I'm likely going to get flamed for it, I do believe that women leaving the home had a negative impact on society that noone wished to even think about due to political correctness and what have you. Please understand I am in no way saying it shouldn't have happened. Only that there were negative side-effects. Women are by nature the caregivers of society. Men are by nature the providers. There's a reason why virtually every society until now has had that general set up. As women left the home it removed the traditional caregiver. As women entered the workforce there came about a belief that the traditional caregiver role, that of the stay at home mom, was something to be scoffed at. The empowerment of women combined with this mindset gave rise to divorce rates. No, I'm not saying women should be dependant on men and that abusive marriages should continue. It did however add to those who seperated for trivial reasons.

In closing: Men like a lady. Not a bitch.

[Bagsohaks]

There have been studies done, and no I can't cite it but you can probably google around and find them, or ones like them, that show that (depending on the particular study) in general everybody, this means both genders, in all cultures tend to have more sex when in a poverty/less demanding job than those who are wealthy/highly demanding jobs.

well, less $ to do stuff, what's left to do??

In closing: Men like a lady. Not a bitch.

Some like bitches too! Everyone needs lai... loved

[Marah]

Wow, this is a refreshing and interesting thread to read. I do think the trend follows something I've been thinking about a lot over the past few weeks. My pastor brought up his belief in a sermon not long ago that women want a man who shows devotion and love, and men want a woman who shows respect. In examination of my own experience, I'd say this is true. By devotion and love, I don't mean sappiness but a listening ear and standing up for a woman in an argument. By respect, I don't mean abject worship but truly showing a man that his opinion and his thoughts matter.

I do take issue with the implication that everyone who is unemployed or in a service profession has a low I.Q. Some absolutely brilliant people choose a job that takes little to no thought so that they can concentrate on other matters while they work. Other people simply enjoy serving their fellow man, even when that means loss of prestige and/or income. This does not mean they are more or less intelligent than that power-hungry CEO, just that they have different priorities.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Marah

I do take issue with the implication that everyone who is unemployed or in a service profession has a low I.Q. Some absolutely brilliant people choose a job that takes little to no thought so that they can concentrate on other matters while they work. Other people simply enjoy serving their fellow man, even when that means loss of prestige and/or income. This does not mean they are more or less intelligent than that power-hungry CEO, just that they have different priorities.

Absolutely.

That comment was classic Dowd/Feminazi defamation. If any woman doesn't think tossing the kids in day-care so they can work overtime to buy an Audi instead of a Ford, she's clearly stupid and inferior. :roll

If a woman chooses family over career, she is clearly worthless in their eyes.

The final hilarity of this is that not only do these rabid feminists want to beat their chests and use every double standard possible to gain advantage, but when that kind of high maintenance bitchy attitude results in nobody loving them, they blame EVERYONE ELSE.

How incredibly self centered and clueless does someone have to be to finally realize "hey, nobody wants to love me" and instead of looking inward immediately figure out a way to blame everyone else.

It isn't the fault of these bitchy, selfish uber Feminists. It is the fault of men ("how dare they not be attracted to me!") and other women ("How dare she be nurturing and cause men to like her instead of me!").

Unbelieveable.

[Pyrosama]

Originally posted by Malacasta
The more women achieve, the less desirable they are?

I don't think so personally. But, I've known women who have struggled and who have sacrificed to get where they are only to become bitter and angry. I guess they feel that those who MADE them struggle are somehow at fault for all the things they neglected on the way. These women are ruthless, and I'm sorry...but if I were a guy, they'd make my thingy shrivel up into nothingness too, because yes...it's very unattractive to me. I left my last job because my boss was just like that, successful and bitter.

But I've also known women who are very successful at work because people like to deal with them BECAUSE they are non-judgemental and very caring, yet highly intelligent and willing to share their ideas. These are usually women who enjoy the challenges of their jobs and do not look at what they do as menial and ungrateful tasks. To me, that's achievement. They are the women who get invited to go out with the regular lunch crowd and get brought into the loop as team players. So, there are the bitches that climb the ladders of success blindly and there are others who use their softskills moreso. Both types achieve success, but the latter to me is not less desirable than a nurturing mother and wife who stays home to care for her family. Equally, the attributes are just as attractive.

I think coupling achievement and desirability is wrong and places an unnecessary guilt on women who have achieved alot at work and at home. It also shoves a wedge between those women with careers and those who work hard at home (I can promise you that it is much harder to stay at home and raise a family than it is to have a career and pay someone else to take care of the home front duties).

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Pyrosama
(I can promise you that it is much harder to stay at home and raise a family than it is to have a career and pay someone else to take care of the home front duties).

Word.

Dalaena and I (we alternate doing both tasks) agree that taking care of a child is a lot harder and more stressful than work.