Why no one wants to date Dowdy women
[Update: Turns out the data Maureen Dowd cites, below, saying women with high IQs are less likely her eventual marriage was collected eighty five years ago -- 1921!!!! Far more, um, *recent* studies suggest 36-40 year old high achievers are *more* likely to be married and have children than other female workers! Oh yeah, and women 28-35 who work full time and earn more than $55,000/year or have an advanced degree are just as likely to be married as other female workers. (This is popping up all over the place but the original source appears to be an article in Women's eNews. --fl]
The author of 30-year-old Virgin points out a recent, and notorious, article by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Dowd claims that feminism and its "you can have it all" ethos has made it harder for her personally to find a partner because, she seems to think, men just prefer women who are dumber, less educated, and less competent than they are. Here are some of the excerpts Virgin picked:
'"Men", he explained, "prefer women who seem malleable and awed". He predicted that I would never find a mate because if there's one thing men fear, it's a woman who uses her critical faculties'.
'The aroma of male power is an aphrodisiac for women, but the perfume of female power is a turnoff for men'.
'The rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child. For men, the reverse is true'.
'Researchers at four British universities indicated that a high IQ hampers a woman's chance to marry, while it is a plus for men'.
'In this retro world, a woman must play hard to get but stay soft as a kitten. And avoid sarcasm. Altogether'.
and here's Virgin's take on this
[Blogger The Hot Librarian] entirely disagreed with [Dowd's] article. She says that in spite of the obvious fact that she is smart, strong and sarcastic, men continue to hit on her all the time. Her post makes for a great read; however, in my opinion, she missed the point of the article.
I don't believe Dowd was attempting to communicate that because she is an intellectual, influencial, indominatable woman, men do not find her attractive. It was that because she is all of those things she has had a hard time finding a mate.
And I get that. Like THL, I get hit on a fair amount. But that's the thing: I get hit on. That's not the same as saying that I get asked out all the time or that lots of men are interested in me. I am competent, confident and capable, and men respond to that. Some men like that sort of thing; they're just not looking for wives.
And here's what I think: I wonder if this isn't one of those "Seen any elephants? Then tearing up strips of paper must really keep them away." effects.
Is it really the case that dumb or unsuccessful women get asked out more and "hit up on" less, or is it that smart women are sharper at discerning the more subtle ways of being hit on?
I'm certainly prepared to believe men aren't interested in women who are more cynical, sarcastic, and irritable than they. (Truth be told not many women are interested in sharp-tongued critical men, as prematurely jaded, smart-mouthed youths going back at least as far as Holden Caulfield are helplessly well aware.) But several decades of experience in training and adult education suggests sarcasm and irritability are not the same as intelligence or success but is evenly distributed amongst the population.
Maureen Dowd is a very smart and very successful in her field. In her public persona, at least, she seems brittle-tongued, self-centered, and often surprisingly shallow considering her intelligence and background. Were I single I'd still rather not go out with her either, but her intelligence wouldn't be the deciding factor at all, at all.
So, does education, intelligence, and feminism really making women less attractive to men or is it just making them less gullible?
For the record I've yet to meet a man who wanted a long-term relationship with a dumb or unsuccessful woman. I'm not saying there aren't such men, but chances are that any women dumber than they are likely to have marks on their foreheads from trying to use a fork.
(Note: To be fair to the other side I should probably write a follow-up post questioning why women expect men to be smooth and debonaire when, in a society of equals, odds are roughly half the men who clumsily approach them are simply tongue tied not because they're stupid but because you mean so much to them they get nervous, say something stupid, and spend the next week kicking themselves -- as we usually do -- for blowing it with someone important to them.)
That's strange, in an article in Boston's version of the Metro today, a struggling freelancer wrote that he was looking for a woman CEO type because, "It's no secret that financially successful women have a hard time finding husbands. When they look to their equals, they see guys who want to marry their secretaries, [or] their assistants ..."
This bothered me a lot this morning, as dude, NO ONE has ever hit on me at work (save creepy older filer) in the two years I've been a secretary. The other thing that bothers me is, hey man, this kind of implies to me that secretaries aren't that bright. I've met a lot of secretaries that are basically the only reason their attorneys aren't neck deep in paperwork or that they get any work done. Granted, this is my job and hopefully not my career (not knocking it, it's just not my bag), but still. Give us pink-collar workers a little credit, buddy.
[Um, yeah, like, secretaries are dumb? Depends, I suppose, on why you hired them and how much you make them hate your guts how "dumb" they are. :-) I really like Yglesias's remark that oh yeah, after all of 1.5 generations of modern feminism all the kinks aren't worked out so we should go back? Uh, no. The guy who wants to marry a CEO's gonna get just as rotten a deal as any female counterpart would in the past. Simply reversing the roles is as stupid as putting them back the old way. Good luck, dude. And thanks, Tgic. --fl]
Hey now, Fig... I have to take issue with the 'Note'. I LIKE the fumblers, the 'umm-ers', the ones who are so nervous they show it. What a great opening! You're nervous, I'm not, here... let me put you at ease, it'll go away, why YES! I'd love to! As long as what it's attached to is attractive to me... And that could be anything from the curve of the nose to how clean their hair looks, to what their scent is... Or not is, as the case may be. But I really don't want 'debonair'. Usually, it's faked and they fake it badly. When it's not faked, I tend to be the one to stammer, blush and be abashed. Here's where you tell the truly debonair... They put you at ease. The fakers? They roll their eyes.
[Pardon my overgeneralizing. I was climbing down off the equally overstated assertion that men prefer fumbly insecure women and I went too far. I suspect there are enough exceptions that it doesn't even prove the rule, but still... people like Dowd gotta be waiting for *something* other than the kind of men I was referring to or they wouldn't be so unhappy. In their case it's same coin, different side. You and I are both suggesting that maybe it's "wrong coin." Thanks. --fl]
Well, the bit about smart women being sharper at discerning the more subtle ways of being hit on does not hold true for me. Subtlety is lost on me. When I get hit on, it's usually a case of a random friend/friend of a friend/co-worker/boss/stranger following up random chat about the office/weather/decor by saying something along the lines of 'so, are we going to have sex or what?'
I don't believe men aren't attracted to intelligent women, merely that very few want to initiate a woman who's got a powerful force of a personality. I relate to men the way men relate to each other. I don't know how not to. It's who I am. I don't look like a man, but in many respects, I think like one.
But I'm rambling... I do that sometimes.
[Hey, I ramble too. I'm prepared to believe a lot of men might not feel confident initiating contact with a woman with a powerful personality, but I've done it on a number of occasions and generally had pretty good luck, winding up with a number of mid- to long-term relationships that typically ended when one or the other's academic or work required relocation. --fl]
Oh.
I never really thought about this.
My first boyfriend actually used to compliment me all the time on how smart I was (am!) and how proud he was of "his little genius" (maybe he was just hoping some of my brains would rub off so he could get a decent score on his GCSE's).
Since then, I've mostly dated in my academic community, I've never found men repulsed because I was too witty or sarcastic or smart (or whatever) - so either I am none of the things (oh my poor ego!) or these things are desirable within the circles I seek mates.
Or(!) maybe I have enough of the "soft" female characteristics to make up for my sharpness - unless I am diluded and only think I am sharp... I think at this point I may have just talked myself into a circle. Does that happen to be at all sexy?
[Depends on whether you're being sarcastic or guilefull I guess. :-) Seriously, though, maybe ten years ago there was a lot of chatter about social changes that were amplifying social inequality and one of them was the increasing tendency for people to marry within their income and education classes with the result that the combined income of two well educated professionals might be $60k + $60k = $120,000/year while to service workers (coffee shop barristas in the example I read) would earn only $20k +$20k = $40,000/year. The (unsupported) allegation was that this was in contrast to previous eras where two teachers might marry to earn $80k a year and an $80k executive and a $20k/year pink-collar worker would marry and that family too would earn $80k/year (assuming the pink-collar worker stayed home.) Blah, blah, too many numbers, but anyway the *point* is that research strong enough to provoke concern among policy makers contradicted Dowd's contention. (Hey, I can ramble too.) --fl]
I don't consider myself dumb, I don't consider myself to be exceptionally brilliant either, and I get hit on often enough. And even if it were encouraged to dumb down, I for one would not jump on that bandwagon.
[Thanks, Bella. I don't think anyone should ever dumb down (except maybe for Colombo but he was a TV character.) You're wonderful the way you are. --fl]