Sep17

Why Don’t Men Like Smart, Strong, Successful Women?

08:05 am on Sep 17th 2007 Evan Marc Katz

Finding the One Online is a comprehensive, life-changing program that covers everything I teach my clients about online dating. If you want to get your love life on track and aren't sure where to start, Finding the One Online is the best investment you can make.

400 Comments »Filed Under Sex & Relationship Advice, Uncategorized

400 Responses to “Why Don’t Men Like Smart, Strong, Successful Women?”

1. Shari Sep 17th 2007 at 09:38 am 1

   Hi Evan!

   I discovered what you’ve written through taking a self evaluation test. I got these lists of great traits for myself: persuasive, risk taker, competitive, pursues change, confident, socially skilled, inspiring, open & direct. Then on the next page were what you label downfalls, or what the test said was the way people who don’t think exactly like me may see me: pushy, intimidating, overbearing, restless, impatient, manipulative, abrasive, reactive & dominating. Those were some hard words to swallow. It was hard too facing the fact that though I didn’t see myself that way, some others did.

   I think it’s not that these smart, successful women are exactly those things either, but they are perceived that way by some – not all – of the men they come in contact with. The trick to that is knowing how the man you’re with is perceiving you, and being able to tone down or turn off the traits he might find as reason to dump you for someone more agreeable.

   I used to think this was dumbing myself down, or playing to the masses, being fake, or not true to myself. But what I realized is there’s a reason they call this the dating “game” and if you want to play, you have to learn the rules.

   This doesn’t mean I’m not who I am around men, it just means that I use the same skills in my personal life I learned to use in my professional. There are some meetings I can go into and run the show, and others where I have to be subordinate. So I knew if I could learn how to do that professionally and make a success of myself, that I could learn that personally too.

2. BeenThruTheWars Sep 17th 2007 at 09:53 am 2

   In Washington, where testosterone is found in the air in greater parts per billion than oxygen, the word “bitch” is an acronym. It stands for, “Boys, I’m Taking Charge Here.” And that’s what happens when women try to “take charge” in a romantic relationship in the same way that they take charge in the workplace. They can’t seem to find any worthwhile men who will stick around long enough to appreciate their many stellar qualities… because they are behaving in a man’s eyes like one of the other dudes he has to spend all day doing battle with. How tiresome. Like it or not, a different approach is called for in the romantic arena. (“Men are different than women” — repeat as necessary.)

   Ladies, it’s not a matter of giving anything up, or altering who you are in any fundamental way. It’s a matter of accepting that “He wants to be the boy” on dates, and letting him, for the sake of nurturing that spark that’s so critical to success in romantic relationships. We female go-getters work alongside men all day long — taking tons of initiative, being aggressive and competitive, putting out fires and ruling our little corner of the world with unswerving confidence and aplomb. But when the 5 o’clock whistle blows, it’s time to switch roles… if you want to be in a happy, peaceful, compatible, long-term relationship with a masculine energy man. Find your own feminine energy reserve and embrace it. Learn to compartmentalize! Try it. What do you have to lose? Remember that famous quote about “the definition of insanity… ”

   If you want to go on “being the man” regardless, hey — more power to ya. Date guys who are dreamers and have no drive, who like to nest and pick out wallpaper (or sit home and drink all day and watch sports on T.V. instead of working for a living). They will savor be taken care of while you go out and slay those dragons to put meat on the table. If you truly are a masculine energy woman, things should work out great. If not… at some point you will burn out, feel drained and start resenting your man for not slaying a few damn dragons himself once in a while. Yes, you can kill your own spiders in the bathroom at 3 a.m., you’ve done it forever, but doggone it, wouldn’t it be nice if someone ELSE took over sometimes? Unfortunately, that’s the point at which conflict starts… it’s not what either of you signed up for, so you both wind up miserable.

   I found your remarks so telling, Michelle: “When I am not interested in them, they work for the relationship day and night. When I am committed to them and act nice and devoted, they start to look elsewhere.”

   I know Evan is not a fan of “The Rules,” but… what you are describing is the classic push-pull male/female dynamic that is so aptly described in that series of books. When you make the man do most of the work to capture you, he pulls out all the stops. He feels challenged and alive. You’ve given him a job to do! And by golly, he’s gonna do it. He’s going to win over the fair maiden. When we pursue men or present ourselves on dates as their equivalents, and advertise our many accomplishments instead of looking, smelling and sounding pretty and graciously accepting what THEY have to offer US, the opposite happens. We take their jobs away from them. They don’t feel that spark, they feel like they’re out with one of the boys, so they go off in search of someone who will make them feel strong and noble and good about what they have to offer a woman.

   If you want to really understand why your successful career strategies don’t carry over into the romantic realm, study Patricia Allen’s “Getting to ‘I Do.’” I think you’ll recognize yourself (painfully so) from the very first chapter. There’s a lot of food for thought in her approach, which is all about the masculine vs. feminine energies Evan so aptly described, presented with ways to identify which you truly are, deep down, and adjust your dating strategies accordingly.

   I was in your shoes. Completely and totally. Over-the-top bright, successful, financially set, my career life an embarrassment of riches. All those things are still true of me… but it wasn’t until I completely overhauled my dating approach that I found the love of my life and true happiness in a wonderful marriage. I still have to work at it every day; I find myself trying to be the leader, telling my husband what to do and how to do it. I have to bite my tongue and let him at least have a turn sometimes. I don’t view it as being submissive or giving away pieces of myself; instead, I am giving him a wonderful gift: letting him be HIS truest self with me. (And not nagging him. That, too, is a gift!)

3. Paul Sep 17th 2007 at 10:02 am 3

   I think in this context women are reaping a little of what they have been sowing. You really hit the nail on the head when you said it is pretty difficult to be a man these days when there are a whole generation of women asking “why do we need men”. It’s a shame. This isn’t exactly the age of the man, it’s the age of the woman if anything. Excuse me if I sound a little resentful, I admittidly am. Over the last 50 years or so our roles have gotten reversed and our society is suffering for it, and so are these women. We’ve got a whole bunch of men who are afraid to be real men, and women who are afraid to be real women. It could be said that they are getting exactly what they wanted; independance, careers, etc and these are the by-products of that movement. Much of what women have acheived are what WE are supposed to be out there acheiving! We are the ones who are supposed to be out there slaying the dragons for you ladies! For every woman making $50K +,there is a man who is not, and trying to support his family. Do women really want Mr Mom? Deep down they don’t. Not really. It’s not natural. But being a strong leader type is not exactly politically correct or honored in todays culture is it? Either is being in charge, yet that is what we as men are wired for, that is why we would rather have a woman who agrees with our opinions rather than have a bunch of her own. In the end, woman want and need to be loved unconditionally, and men want and need to be respected unconditionally. If we could get back to that, we’d all be a lot happier in our relationships.

4. tom Sep 17th 2007 at 10:37 am 4

   Count me against the men who ADORE strong, independent, intellligent women. But also count me as someone who finds many of them can’t get out of their professional shells when dating. From my own experience a reasonable number of professional women have a tough time letting their hair down and when with them seem to feel as if I were attending a 24 hour Martha Stewart festival. Now, the professional women who are genuine, authentic, intelligent, DOWN TO EARTH, affectionate, caring, nurturing, supportive and fun to be with…that’s an irresistible combination in my view! Heck, ANY woman with those qualities is worth keeping!

   I’m every bit as successful as Michelle and so am very comfortable around money and success. But in the final analysis the size of the pocketbook, the position in the boardroom, the model of the car does absolutely nothing to make a woman appealing. Is she fun? Does she let her hair down? Is she open to actually getting her jeans dirty during a vigorous, picturesque hike? Does she relish it when I play with her hair, or moan it’s no longer perfect? Does she set aside some time to actually listen to me, or is she answering her email, texts and cell phone calls constantly? Is she affectionate, or is she always in professional form even when away from the office? Is she secure enough in herself to date men who may not fit her “ideal” as far as their own professional stature, weight, height, etc., is concerned, or does she limit her choices to men with very narrow external preferences? Is she open to more than the missionary position and mind blowing oral sex and great fun in bed, or mechanical and routine?
   Will she at least pretend she loves giving oral sex and moan every once in awhile, or is she real quiet and making it obvious it’s a chore?
   Can she handle it when I am being just a guy, or judgmental on every small detail? Is she incessantly reminding me about my flaws, or actually gets a kick out of them? Does she realize sex is a great way to get intimate with a man, even through we know intimacy is a great way for a man to have sex with a woman, but will indulge me nevertheless since sex is on our minds 23.99 hours of the day? Is she on a constant search for clothes and material improvement, or will she actually attend an event with me she may not like?

   I empathize with these two women. Yes, there are men who are very insecure around successful women, but there are hordes of quality guys who are very secure around successful women and I suspect Catherine and Michelle have been too narrow in their search for the right guy. Most of the “right guys” have a flaw or two or more (maybe an extra 10/15 pounds, maybe they are short, maybe they work in jeans instead of a suit and tie) and it is because of these “flaws” they are often written off, for some successful, professional women, in my experience, deceive themselves, as Ev rightfully hit the nail on, that because those attributes are traits making a man appealing, it makes them appealing as well. It doesn’t. Men want to spend time with women who still have a little girl in them, occasional mothering (we love our mothers and still need a little TLC from time to time and that’s not being insecure, it’s just being a guy), and who admire them for the men they are regardless of the professional status of either party in the relationship. And like Ev said, and maybe most importantly, we don’t want to be judged, that’s the quickest ticket for a lady to be out the door, whether we are successful ourselves or not. The ladies who are successful with men are usually those who are the least bit judgmental (I realize my own hypocrisy when making this statement for we are all making judgmental statements whenh making a comment on this excellent forum).

   Speaking from personal experience, I suggest both of these ladies should enroll with Evan. It’s helped me immensely.

5. Kitty Sep 17th 2007 at 11:52 am 5

   Evan,

   Well said and congrats on being able to use yourself as an example. I have def put myself into the “I’m such a catch, what’s wrong with all the men who are intimidated by my superior intelligence” catagory. Recently I’ve begun leaving my professional self behind and thinking about being more feminine and nurturing and not having to be such a smarty pants…and it seems to be working.

   Keep up the honest work Evan.

   Kitty

6. Jules Sep 17th 2007 at 12:02 pm 6

   Evan, I think that you offer some really good insights and really hit the nail on the head with this post. I could see a lot of myself in Michelle and have a tendency to really enjoy talking business with men. I have been told by a girl friend that this sometimes puts men off, especially when I can contribute intelligently to a conversation we are having about their job/career. After reading your post, I could see how my ‘intelligent, direct and successful’ demeanor can come across as something different to guys. I think this happened with one guy I dated last year where eventually our conversations about work became a turn off to him.

   Anyway, while keeping myself from being a shrinking violet, I have been learning to let my guy be the man or let him feel like he is in charge. I am certainly not acting submissive, but I’ve been learning how to let him take the reins and steer. I don’t always have to be the one driving. So far it’s working a lot better for me.

7. Naomi Sep 17th 2007 at 12:24 pm 7

   Evan,

   Your response to Michelle and Catherine may be empirically true to some extent — that is, that strong, successful women are not as attractive to some men because these women display traits that are turn offs to guys and lack traits that some guys are looking for. However, your proposed solution — that women should tone down undesirable traits and work on developing more desirable ones — is what I take issue with. Instead, why not propose that men should work on being okay with a woman who is his equal in terms of power, opinions, intelligence, and status, and, indeed, that we all should work towards bringing more gender equality to our personal relationships? This approach has been taken over the last several decades with success in education, employment, and other public arenas, and we continue to work on making more progress in these areas. Why should women have to change to accommodate outmoded male preferences born out of stereotypical, traditional gender roles?

   And of course I would make the same suggestion regarding your advice to “nice guys” who feel as though they have trouble dating. Instead of men like Jason working on beefing up their masculine traits, perhaps the women who reject them should work on accepting men who are conciliatory and don’t feel the need to dominate them.

   The personal is political; as long as sex-role stereotyping plays a role in personal life, it will continue to limit options in public life.

   Naomi

8. krzysztof Sep 17th 2007 at 06:16 pm 8

   Naomi,

   I agree with you that it’s unfortunate that some men are turned off by strong and successful women. But your advice, and the comparison to public life it is drawn from, are both misguided.

   You suggest that we handle the issue of men being turned off by successful women by… convincing men to be turned on by successful women. Sure, but if that were feasible we likely wouldn’t be having this discussion. And how exactly should men go about “working on� changing what they want in a partner?

   The personal in this case is not political; it is—well, personal. That is why the analogy to reforms in the public arena is off: the public arena, being public, must weigh everyone’s preferences equally. It is not surprising, moreover, that such reforms are achieved through legislation. I am not sure that the equivalent means of approaching men’s sexual preferences would be all that desirable… In other words, standards in public life are driven by considerations (fairness, equality, justice) that are absent from sexual preferences. The reason why sexual preferences remain personal (and why they should) is because they don’t affect the collectivity in the way that say, education opportunities do.

   One thing that I do think (and hope) will happen is that the very reforms you mention in education and employment (and one might add politics), will slowly drive a change in sexual norms and men’s preferences.

   Until then, women who find that their success drives men away are left with two choices: tone down those traits, as Evan suggests, or keep looking for someone who will appreciate them. The latter may be healthier. And men attracted by strong, successful women exist (I’m one of them).

   krzysztof

9. Moxie Sep 17th 2007 at 06:31 pm 9

   I’ve received similar advice letters like this and always have one standard response.

   “Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?”

   Any time I hear a female client say that she thinks that she “intimidates” men due to her education, career, demeanor or looks I can immediately pick out at least 5 other, more tangible, reasons for why she has a hard time connecting with men.

   Hear this: Men are NOT intimidated by a strong, independent, successful and/or outspoken. They are, however, completely turned off by a ball buster. Many women failt to see that line between being outgoing and aggressive, confident and arrogant, outspoken and opinionated.

   ” However, your proposed solution — that women should tone down undesirable traits and work on developing more desirable ones — is what I take issue with.”

   Stop right there. See what you’re doing? You’re debating. You’re arguing. In your first sentence you agree with what Evan said, then you turn around and pick apart his argument and turn it into “but why should I compromise who I am?” Nobody is suggesting you lower your standards. What we’re suggesting is that you should try to increase your options. Do you want to be right? Okay, then don’t complain when every guy who comes within a foot of you quickly tires of your 24/7 dominant personality. The key to any good relationship is a willingness to be vulnerable and to submit. It’s the key to flirting. Somebody has to lead or else you’ll both be stepping on each other’s toes throughout the whole song. As an alpha female myself, I can tell you that even my female to female relationships require that oen of us be willing to bend and acquiece at times. We do that because we care about each other and prefer to avoid conflict. I’ll bet you do that with your female friends, no? So then why is it compromising if you do it with a man?

   There’s a reason why two magnets, when positioned the same way directly at each other, repel and why, if you turn one of the magnets 180 degrees, they click.

   Women with a distinctive male energy often confuse men. Sure, they can visually see she’s a female, but all of her non-verbal cues (posture, facial expressions, tone of voice) are distinctly male. That confuses the male brain and can trick the brain into treating you and “seeing” you as a male. The sam ecan be said for women when dealing with a “nice guy.” They’re “seeing” his female energy – the submissive, demure, vulnerable part of him. That’s why we’re not attracted to them usually.

   At least that’s what I think.

10. Evan Marc Katz Sep 17th 2007 at 06:35 pm 10

    The primary reason, Naomi, that I advise individuals to tone down their individual traits, is because that’s a realistic solution. Change starts on a personal level, yet most people are always screaming for everyone else to change. That’s not how it works. If a man asks me for advice, I’m going to tell him what HE should do differently – not what WOMEN should do differently, and vice versa. Would the world be a better place if men and women truly embraced equality in all of its forms? Sure. But I’m not going to make that happen. Let’s work on taking care of what we can do as individuals instead of screaming for tens of millions of people to change years of societally ingrained behavior.

11. NML Sep 18th 2007 at 02:25 am 11

    Evan, I read your blog every day but I must say that this has been my favourite post so far. One of the particular reasons why I like your posts is because coming from a male perspective, you’re refreshingly honest.
    Every day I explain to women that much of the issues that we have going with men are our own projections. Yes there are men out there that do feel threatened by some of the qualities that these women mentioned, but these women are focusing on these qualities as if it’s all that encompasses them, and that their looks and these qualities make up for any perceived ‘negatives’. I always ask “What could you be doing differently?” It doesn’t remove what someone has done but it lets you have the responsibility of change because we’re the only people that we can control.
    The issue of ‘needing’ men is a fundamental, hardwired requirement that is unlikely to change. Needing or wanting a man and even leaning on him a little doesn’t make you less of a woman, or less independent. It’s called life and relationships.
    It takes the ability to look past the surface, resume type stuff and take a deeper look at ourselves to know what we’re really putting out there. I used to think I was unlucky in love with the same qualities that those women spoke about but on further reflection discovered that I was commitment-phobic, aloof, and I had sh*t taste in men!
    Men and women have ideas about what they think are the perceived qualities and characteristics for being an optimum partner but we are often wide of the mark. We need to get back to basics and be real.
    Thanks for a great read this morning!

12. Bev Sep 18th 2007 at 04:50 am 12

    I see the true problem here. Not that I’m smart at all but thru life, I have realized that women are being stronger in more masculine ways simply because men have not done their part and we have HAD to take over. We didn’t want to, honest to God. In my last relationship, the guy was at my house 90% of the time. Would he ever notice that the pool needed cleaned or even keep his bathroom clean? NO!! It caused great resentment because I had added pressure from this and the good stuff was too minut to overcome it. Result: better off without him.

13. Andrea Sep 18th 2007 at 07:39 am 13

    Moxie: Your comment “Women with a distinctive male energy often confuse men. Sure, they can visually see she’s a female, but all of her non-verbal cues (posture, facial expressions, tone of voice) are distinctly male. That confuses the male brain and can trick the brain into treating you and “seeingâ€� you as a male.” resonated with me. Something clicked. I get it.

    After the last guy I dated told me “it” wasn’t there for him I wondered if I wasn’t “girlie” enough, if the fact that I like ‘guy’ movies, sometimes drink beer, act like one of the guys and got along well with his guy friends were turn offs in a sense even though I’m very girlie in a visual/physical way. This experience framed how I interpreted your comment. This is good. Sometimes I forget to “tone down” certain characteristics even though I know that I need to.

14. Baggage Reclaim - Dating, singles, relationships, sex tips and advice blog for men and women. » Who do you think you are? Sep 18th 2007 at 08:24 am 14

    [...] at Advice from a Single Dating Expert, Evan responds to a few readers who want to know why men don’t like strong, successful women. [...]

15. mrs. vee Sep 18th 2007 at 11:21 am 15

    If I may offer up one alternative perspective from my personal experience…

    It seems people are drawing a strong correlation here between women who are strongly critical of the men they date and those “Type A’s� who turn off men with their success and masculine energy. So, before anyone goes any further conflating the two issues, let’s separate them.

    1) It’s an issue for a woman to constantly berate the man in her life and make him feel he’s a disappointment to her. This type of behavior is NOT limited to professionally successful, “masculine energy� type of women. I know plenty of girlish mothers, aunts & girlfriends of all tax brackets, who suffer from this issue. In fact, I suspect it’s more a problem with the female communication style in general than with relative degrees of gender-specific success.

    2) It’s a different (but occasionally related) issue for a woman to expect her suitors to be captivated by her Curriculum Vitae and then explain away a failed date with: “He was just intimidated by me.�

    To preface my story, I too, once fancied myself as a bit of a prize – cute and well-educated. I set high goals for myself and reached them. My professional life came surprisingly easy to me, and thus I generally walked around very impressed with myself.

    So anyway, in my late twenties, I found myself seriously involved with a man who wanted to marry me. He was charismatic and funny, intense and intelligent. There was only one small problem, though: I couldn’t stop finding things wrong with him that I wanted to change. He was tactless. A mama’s boy. He had obnoxious friends. He was poor. He was vain. He was afraid of being misunderstood, so he talked incessantly. His constant anxiety had an effeminate energy to it, and so conversely, his “bawdy� tendencies (i.e. flirting with/ogling other women) seemed incongruous and compoundingly off-putting.

    We spent the last months of our relationship in battle. I’m sure I was driving him nuts because – to his credit – he was trying to improve himself for me and consequently walking on eggshells all the time. And I was driving myself crazy because, instead of focusing on the poor guy’s positives, it was like I was forever meditating on his faults.

    When it ended, I was a complete mess. I didn’t like the nagging shrew I’d become in the relationship. I’d totally lost sight of why we were together in the first place. And because I’m the self-reflective type, I took perhaps more than my share of the blame for the demise of our relationship. I concluded I’d been too “Type A�, and needed to tone it down for the next guy. For all the reasons people are talking about here, I decided I should have spent my time “loving and supporting� him, and “not challenging� his shortcomings. I’d felt that perhaps my personal accomplishments had only amplified his insecurities and vowed to keep them tucked away next time.

    My point is that it turned out I was making the same error in thinking that I see running through this discussion thread. People are unnecessarily connecting the dots between a woman being proud of her success and being overbearing/critical. They’re conflating Issue #1 and Issue #2.

    Here’s what I learned: My conclusions were wrong. After I broke up with the man in my story, I had about two other boyfriends before meeting the one I married. Since Story Man, I found I didn’t have to conceal my (*eyeroll*) “personal power� from the men I dated. Not one of them elicited from me the desire to nag or correct them. It wasn’t my high income or forwardness that led to problems. Today, my lovely husband earns a little less than me, but he wins about every other argument. He never felt threatened by my tax bracket or the property I owned. He tears down and rebuilds the deck, mends fences, assembles bikes for me, dominates us athletically, provides valuable input for all decisions we make as a family, but he still encourages my successes (because they’re OUR successes, really). He was right for me. He was easy. And just like Evan deserves an easy girlfriend, so do we all, no matter how gender-bendingly successful we may be.

    Looking back, with Story Man, I don’t say to myself “I wish I’d toned it down and hadn’t nagged him for the sake of the relationship�. I just shouldn’t have nagged him PERIOD, and gotten out of the relationship as soon as I realized I couldn’t accept his flaws unconditionally. We could have saved months of heartache. With no disrespect to him, I’m glad I broke up with Story Man, because I believe he’s happily involved with someone else now, and it ultimately paved the way for me to meet the dreamboat love of my life.

    It’s not that I disagree with the advice given in this discussion thread. If you are a forceful, accomplished woman who attributes her relationship failures to male insecurity, then please do sit up and take notice of the valuable advice dispensed here today.

    If however, you are a successful woman, currently with a partner you often find yourself frequently fighting with and wishing were somehow different… if your relationship is characterized by a struggle to suppress your critical thinking faculties… well, yes perhaps you’re letting your Type A tendencies rule your perspective on the relationship and you could choose to try toning it down a bit. But consider also that some men are close, but quite right for you (and some genuinely do need to change ), and you could choose to simply move on. The solution isn’t always to suck it up and persevere 100% of the time. From my experience, having faith, an open mind, the courage to let go of a bird in hand, and a LOT of patience will lead you to a loving man whom you won’t want to change a thing about.

16. Susan Sep 18th 2007 at 02:37 pm 16

    Evan,

    What a great blog! And, as always, it’s interesting reading everyone’s comments. When I first read the two letters that opened this post, I definitely felt a jolt of recognition. But as I read further, and then all these comments, that feeling has faded.

    You see, that whole “men are intimidated by your intelligence” thing is something I’ve been told by well-meaning friends my whole life. But I don’t buy it. Honestly, I’m probably reasonably up there on the intelligence scale, but mostly I’m just a very curious person. I read constantly. I go to physics lectures for fun. I’m very cultured. I persue very “intellectual” pastimes because I’m interested and curious. But I’m not well-educated, particurally successful, wealthy, or aggressive in relationships.

    I don’t nag. I don’t criticize. (I’m far too insecure to be a difficult woman.) Also, I’m very, very feminine, i.e. long hair, dresses and skirts every day, loves to cook, and extremely affectionate. So, yes, some folks might think I’m a brainiac, but I still read the occasional Dean Koontz novel. I’m hardly an intimidating person. My point is, not all intelligent women are Type A individuals. We’re not all any one thing. I think Evan’s advice is good, but he still hasn’t told me that secret advice that fixes my whole life. I’d better keep reading the blog.

17. Moxie Sep 18th 2007 at 03:02 pm 17

    ” (I’m far too insecure to be a difficult woman.) ”

    And therein lies your challenge. If you can see and identify your insecurity, then you can bet that your non-verbal communication and non-verbal cues reveal that to whomever you’re talking to. Lack of eye contact, posture, soft voice, rapid rate of speech (inquisitive is great, just don’t fire off questions.)

18. MollyB Sep 19th 2007 at 04:35 am 18

    “Just someone who makes his life EASIER and more pleasant.”

    Are women allowed to want this as well? Mis-match on this front seems to be the real problem.

    Most of the men I know value strong, successful women. Complaints to the contrary sound legit, but IMNSHO mask the woman’s own fear of commitment.

19. Camilla Sep 19th 2007 at 11:08 am 19

    In my relationship, I desire nothing more badly than to be able to turn off the type-A switch at night. Running a company, being my own sole source of support, paying a mortgage, and staying up on home repairs by myself is *exhausting.* I really miss feeling protected and loved, and would adore a man that wants to lead much/most of the time. To surrender and let go a bit would really balance me out. I *crave* that.

    That said, I find that many of the men I meet aren’t as strong at leading as I need. I find that they either want me to lead (turn-off for me) or they want a woman who is weaker than they are.

    So while I agree that strong women sometimes need to turn the leadership off, that alone seems like half the solution. For me, I’m also looking for someone who is naturally strong. I can tone down my own alpha-tendencies, but not to a level that is even weaker than some of the passive men I’ve been meeting.

    I’m a strong woman that is silently begging to be led.

20. JimmyE Sep 20th 2007 at 01:58 am 20

    Camilla. the kind of men who want to lead are by definition ones who want a woman who is weaker then they are.

21. Camilla Sep 20th 2007 at 11:04 am 21

    JimmyE: Gotcha. I think I just need to find a man can be stronger than me. Then we’ll both be happy!

22. Ruth Sep 24th 2007 at 07:32 pm 22

    After reading this thread, there is more confusion than ever. The successful men you know who are partnered, do they have partners who fit the descriptions mentioned in the article and responses?

    Area they all in easy relationships? Are all, or even most, of their partners lacking in the traits listed above as undesirable? Do their partners make them feel superior, allow them to always lead and protect their egos? Not in my experience. That means there may be something else at work that is not being addressed.

    I am 50 and ,like Camilla, would cherish a fella who appreciates who I am, and who recognizes that I appreciate who he is, too.

    All successful single women are not bulldozers outside the workplace. Isn’t it interesting that is the automaic assumption, but a successful single man is not attached with any such prejudice?

    Another question, Why does leading involve a weakest link? In most personal relationships, leaders change with the circumstances, depending on what one is good at. Some are better at driving, others better navigating. Why/how is it emasculating to share leadership based on who has is the most capable in a particular area?

    I am involved in several male dominated groups, and the one consistent factor is, the ones who are married or in committed relationships are not partnered with their equals, typically ‘marrying down’. Yes, there are a few equally partnered, but the percentage is in the single digits.

    The thing they privately (meaning not in the company of the partner)complain about is also consistent, the women spend too much money, don’t understand the man, and there isn’t much they can talk about once they exhaust the kids/house/checkbook issues. When asked why they stay in what sounds like mostly unfulfilling relationships, the reaction is either astonishment at the thought, or they can’t answer and give a blank look. Some of my male friends have actually asked me why their partners can’t be more like the women in our group!!

    The flip side of that is, most professional women I know are also not partnered with their equals, also ‘marrying down’, with similar complaints as the men above. However, when asked why they stay in the relationship, the answer most often given is, there isn’t a better choice, they would love a more fullfilling relationship but it’s better than being alone.

    This is not intended to sound arrogant or self grandizing and is difficult to write with the tone intended. Certainly none of us are without faults and weak spots, but I have had relationships with men who admit that I am what they thought they wanted. They have many compliments, and no big complaints. But, in moments of honesty, they admit they need someone who needs more fixing (an actual quote).

    I don’t know if this is a generational issue, but most of the successful men I know are partnered with women who’s issues are much more intrusive than what has been described in this blog as undesirable. I have even been told, “You are great catch, I am just not ready yet.” And then they married someone whom they could complain about. I have considered that was said as just an excuse, but enough time has passed and subsequent conversations that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    Just like men, sucessfull women mostly want to the appreciated for who they are. The message running through this blog subject seems to be that is the perogative of men, but women have to adjust to the man’s perception of what a relationship looks like or be alone.

    Since there are so many more choices for a partner for men then for women, it seems the women are ones who will have choose between playing the game of changing or hiding who they really are, or being without a partner.

23. Hadley Paige Sep 25th 2007 at 08:06 am 23

    Why don’t men like smart strong successful women?

    Speaking only for me >> smart I find attractive, strong I’ve got a problem with if strong means challenging me on everything. I get plenty of “challenging” at work from my male coworkers. What I seek in a woman for an LTR is kind, nurturing, feminine, fun, thoughtful, sexy, etc. I don’t need or want strong.

    I believe that there is an inverse correlation ( to what degree is debatable) between women & their degree of “success” and the likelihood of finding the qualities I most value in a woman. Of course I am willing to take every woman as the individual they are but over time I have found the above observation to be largely true. I suppose its unfortunate for successful women if I represent the majority male view.

    There are many mutually exclusive choices that we must make in our lives. I believe that this is one of them for women who wish to be in successful LTRs. (of course there may be a significant minority of experiences to the contrary.)

    Bottom line for me is I want to be supported emotionally not “challenged”. It exhausting.

24. HS Sep 25th 2007 at 12:41 pm 24

    Just so I understand:

    Strong Man – admirable as a leader, someone to respect
    Strong Woman – a challenger who makes men uncomfortable and is less feminine, nurturing, sexy etc because she has a bunch of her own opinions and is independent

    Men – to be attractive to women can be kind, nurturing, masculine, fun, thoughtful, sexy, etc, strong and have opinions
    Women – to be attractive to men must be kind, nurturing, feminine, fun, thoughtful, sexy, etc . . . but NOT strong, independent or have opinions

    Men – Can be nurtured and emotionally supported and still be successful in their careers
    Women – Must choose between career or to be nurturing and emotionally supportive to a man – but not both – also cannot be nurtured or emotionally supported if it doesn’t fit the man’s definition of masculine support/nurture.

    Men – Get to have partners who agree with their opinions and not have “a bunch of their own”
    Women – Get to be partnered only if they agree with their partners opinions without having “a bunch of their own”

    Men -Don’t have to choose between being themselves and having a loving, commited relationship
    Women – Have to choose between being themselves and having mutually loving, commited relationship

    Guess that about sums it up!

25. Camilla Sep 26th 2007 at 09:52 am 25

    HS: You’re smart as a whip! *lmao*

26. Hadley Paige Sep 26th 2007 at 12:36 pm 26

    To HS:

    Having your own opinions is fine. Expressing repeatedly every preference that you can identify or “point you need to make” regardless of how small, stupid or inconsequential they are is not fine.

    Women don’t have to choose between a career and a man, they have to choose between being opinionated, argumentative and independent (vs appreciating the qualities that men are about & being a woman who complements these qualities rather than mirroring them) and a man.

27. Freya Sep 27th 2007 at 08:17 am 27

    In my opinion, I don’t think women should have to “hide” or “tone down” traits. I can see it would make life “easier”, but only if you are looking for a return to times when the search for fulfillment of an idealised relationship was a social expectation.These days I think we can be more honest with ourselves and not have to feel pressured to try to fit in with expectations … though that honesty is a social learning curve, as is this forum … and one consequence of living in such times being that it should not be an issue of a comparison of traits between men and women per se, so much as an honest look at what each of us really finds attractive in a partner. In other words, a comparison of traits you have, and traits you crave in another, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman.

    This may make it hard to find a perfect fit, but then if you are busy “hiding” traits you certainly won’t get off to a great start to find someone that truly suits you! The trick is to use your intuition as a guide rather than be critical of the potential partner … accept that no one is perfect anyway, but do not compromise to the degree that you are hiding traits hard won. There are many shades of grey, and I myself am an example of a woman who both embraces very feminine qualities, but also is proud of the fact that I have a great survival instinct, and have developed more “male” skills that have enabled me to get through life to date. In fact, not just get through … but thrive on my own terms!

    As a consequence, I am not looking for a man I can project those hard earned traits onto, pretending they are not mine (I don’t like to play games) but am actually attracted more to sweeter, gentler, quieter guys. After reading all the posts above, I realise I’m looking for the same traits men apparently are in a woman, yet I’m heterosexual. I actually have had a long term relationship with a guy like this, and was very happy! Pity he ended up falling for an even more aggressive female!

    My point is, this issue is not black and white, and so the solution is not one thing or the other, but simply an honest questioning of what traits, traditional or otherwise, you are looking for in a partner of either sex, and being open to finding that.

28. gsh Sep 29th 2007 at 12:52 pm 28

    I keep seeing the word “nuturing” crop up in terms of what men want out of women. If I understand the implication correctly, men are looking for a non-judgmental support system, a cheerleader, if you will.

    Here’s the thing, however: lots of women have spent their entire lives fighting expectations for and opinions on their ability to do. . .well, pretty much everything. Women have learned to succeed because they believe they can–they have formed strong, internal support systems.

    As you might imagine, this takes up an enormous amount of energy. So is it at all surprising that being expected to dole out further energy to support and nuture men might make us the tiniest bit frustrated?

    I mean, my god, if we can support and nuture ourselves, then so can men. My ideal would be to find someone who can deal with his own issues, who is able to see that he can do whatever he wants and does not need external approval and coaching. I don’t want to be a coach, a mother or a cheerleader–I want to be a peer, a partner.

29. Julie Sep 29th 2007 at 04:33 pm 29

    I’m an incredibly smart, strong, successful and attractive 27 year old woman. At first I was distraught at the lack of long term relationships, and thought there may be something wrong with me.

    However, I have come to realize that while yes, it is true that most men cannot and/or don’t want to date me, this does not mean that I actually have any desire to ever change, adapt, or be “nurturing”, “gentle”, or “let him be the man”, for any man. I never want to be the lesser sex in any relationship. This does not mean that I won’t make sacrifices or compromises for the relationship, but I can’t ever sacrifice my most treasured personality traits for anyone. I cannot have a boyfriend if it means he will shadow my brilliance.

    I accept myself completely for who I am, and will not change just so I can be in a relationship where I am not completely myself. I wish more women like me would also keep up their self respect and not become some “little girl” just so that they can find a boyfriend.

    I will gladly live alone on my own means. My multi-millionaire and hopefully before I’m 40 – billionaire – means.

30. Ryan H Sep 30th 2007 at 02:10 am 30

    What kind of man wants to date a Hillary Clinton? Not me!

    Who wants to date Donald Trumps daughter? I do

    Success is relative are you the corporate kiss ass who climbed the ladder or are you the successful business owner?

    How many 0000’s are in your bank account?

    If you want that entitlement then you will be perceived that way. SHOW THE LIGHTER SIDE OF YOU. If your not going to show that side then your obviously still too focused in a career not a relationship.

    Have you reached the peak of your career and looking for man to come into your life? All these complaints is because these men are in it for short term not the long haul which is what your probably looking for.

    BOTTOM LINE: Don’t search for it because it will be like a numbers game but just go with the flow and the right guy will come. It bothers me that women whine, complain, over analyze about why this guy is that way towards them.

    Have you noticed how many men sold their porsches for a minivan the roles have changed quite a bit

31. Ryan H Sep 30th 2007 at 02:33 am 31

    1) Men don’t like smart, direct women, and
    there are men out there that like to be told what to do.

    2) I’m centered, which sends the message that I don’t need anyone.
    stability? your sitting on thousand feet of concrete?

    if you knew what you wanted you wouldn’t worry about the ‘lack of dates’

    i don’t believe the first letter too general and conclusive. There is no objective. I beleive there are more deep issues with the one who wrote that letter.

    To the 2nd letter: It’s a dating game you have to play it to win it. People want to work for something. It’s like segments of negotiations before getting to an actual commitment. It’s full of cat and mouse games and take aways with a trap like tom and jerry it’s an art form that is mastered through experience.

    3rd letter: Nice guy is the worst positive insult I’ve ever heard in my life. It’s the total opposite of what a real woman wants except for the personality traits that she would want from you. Women thinks about a brad bit exterior with a sensitive trustworthy nice guy(which he is) too bad he’s got one of the hottest chicks on the planet!

32. verbosity Oct 1st 2007 at 03:36 pm 32

    Here is my hypothesis – the smart, strong, uber-successful woman wants a man who is smarter, stronger, and more successful than she. Remember, this woman is still raised (by family media, etc.) with the belief that a man should be there to take care of the woman’s needs (look at other posts elsewhere). These smart, highly motivated women will not be happy with a man who earns less than her, who is not assertive, and who is more traditionally feminine, for lack of a better term. These women will therefore look for men who are more ‘man’ than her.

    The sad thing is this hypothesis has a negative result for women. I say this because the vast majority of very successful men do not want women to challenge them in every little facet of their personal lives. Very successful people of both sexes often spend long days in high conflict, high pressure situations. The successful men I know and have as clients desire partners that help to temper that aspect of their lives. So, with an ever-shrinking pool of men who are willing to date these uber-motivated women, you find that women are frustrated.

    It would therefore seem that some of these women could benefit from a paradigm shift.

    As an attorney, I will not date other attorneys, doctors, or other ‘hard-charging’ occupations. Why? having dated the whole gamut, I have found that almost universally, conversations are only about work, getting ahead, and competitive. I seek warmer traits in women I date. That is my preference.

    Every time this subject comes up I am reminded of an argument I got into with an ex-girlfriend of several years, another lawyer. We were in Costco (where I didn’t like going) when she said to me, “I hate the way you push the cart.” WTF?

    One man’s opinion….

33. Jacky Oct 8th 2007 at 08:02 am 33

    to Verbosity…

    more ‘man’ than her… very interesting!

34. Megan Oct 9th 2007 at 06:58 am 34

    Oddly enough I feel like I am the opposite of what is described here. At work I am aggressive, I stand up for myself, I don’t sugarcoat my opinions and I’m very focused. However when it comes to men I am very nurturing, I give them EVERY bit of myself, my time, my heart, my affection you name it. Of course i’m not a total doormat but more often than not looking back I see opportunities in the relationship that I should have been more like my work self and stood up for my opinion or position in a situation. Then eventually the guy gets sick of me giving giving giving and its over. Who is to say whether standing up for myself along the way would have changed the outcome but my point with regard to this article is that its about balance. Don’t leave your witty, articulate, powerful and determined self at work just to please a man because ultimately he probably won’t please you and most importantly you won’t please yourself. I pride myself on being outspoken and aggressive in life (I am 4′9″, 105lbs I have to be aggressive) so when I look back on instances when I let things go that normally would have got me going it makes me dissapointed and always wondering “what if”. What if I were a better balance of standing up for myself and my opinion and a little less appeasing to his manly ways? What if I were a bit less nurturing all the time, would he have wanted/appreciated me more? etc.

35. I Love You, Let’s Meet » masculinity and its discontents Oct 9th 2007 at 08:43 am 35

    [...] first my online dating guru rival weighs in on Maureen Dowd’s question of why fabulous successful women can’t get dates [...]

36. J NYC Oct 9th 2007 at 09:39 am 36

    wouldn’t life be wonderful if men and women could get to know each other as friends? wouldn’t it be great if relationships could be about intellectual companionship as opposed to a battle of egos, agendas, and superiority? wouldn’t life be interesting if women were real people with complex personalities, instead of being predictable collections of stereotypes? what if men sought women with the qualities they seek in their male buddies and had relationships with women of comparable closeness? what if “making life easier” meant finding fulfillment in the honest exchange of ideas as opposed to unconditional approbation? wouldn’t this then be the best of all possible worlds?

37. Christine Oct 9th 2007 at 05:05 pm 37

    I totally agree with what Evan has to say. And i’ve been trying to “minimize” talking of my successes when I go on a date with someone new. But how much do I have to hide?

    I’ve had too many men focus on asking me about work, or something of the sort and it’s becoming tiresome to keep changing the subject. If they don’t want to hear it, then they need to stop asking me about it.

    So what do men ask women that are not a “catch” about? I’m curious.

38. LS Oct 10th 2007 at 01:17 am 38

    I believe where ever possible when dating we should (both men & women) try and leave work behind. It seems (well for me anyway) to generate a better connection where possible.

    My last date shook my hand and said I will let you know.
    Well that’s what the interviewer said to me at my last job interview.
    I would prefer a date where the man behind the desk stays there and real man steps forward. It’s a date not a job interview.

39. Phillygirl Oct 11th 2007 at 06:20 am 39

    I love this blog. Each comment written here makes sense to me. I have one question for the group though! How does a successful, bright, articulate attractive woman have the ability to show the men that are intimidated by these strengths that she is indeed warm, nurturing, loving, kind, jeans and the no-makeup type over weekends type of gal?
    I have that exact problem and I am not prepared to underplay my achievements. However, I have a very soft edge, very loving, caring nurturing side and will even share that in words on a first date. I am STILL a “turn off” to most men due to my energy and positive attitude when they meet me…HELPPPPPP

40. Greg Oct 11th 2007 at 06:00 pm 40

    Evan- right on man! I am glad that SOMEONE finally intelligently articulated this concept. This is the same reason why many business deals take place on the golf course, or in the strip club, or at the upscale bar….because strong, successfull, intelligent men do not want to do business with people who can never turn the sales “schtick” off. These places allow guys to connect as people, away from the business environment where everyone is trying to impress, stroke their egos, compete, and blow smoke at everyone else. We want to know the real person we are going to be doing business with, which may result in a long-term business relationship. Same thing goes for women. Who wants to date a woman who doesn’t know when to turn it off? Leave the schmoozing, manipulating, ego stroking, best-foot-foward tactics at the office and try to connect as a real person. This is a skill that many successful, strong, intelligent women have not mastered. For this reason I have dated many economically disadvataged and sometimes uneducated women, many of them immigrants. Why?.. becuase what’s important to me are the values and principles concerning relationships they bring to the table. Most people who do not know me well, when they observe this they think that it is because I prefer subservient women whom I can control and manipulate easily. Not so! I just realized they if what is most important to me in a relationship is warmth, caring, sensitivity, well defined roles, etc., that I need to look at the real person, not their financial achievments and professional skills. Here’s a thought: Could it be that many highly educated, intelligent, successful people be emotionally ignorant?

41. Hadley Paige Oct 12th 2007 at 06:25 am 41

    to Phillygirl

    You wrote “How does a successful, bright, articulate attractive woman have the ability to show the men that are intimidated by these strengths that she is indeed warm, nurturing, loving, kind, jeans and the no-makeup type over weekends type of gal”

    Sucessful women keep saying men are intimidated by sucessful women. I guess thats a way of consoling yourselves with you accomplishments. Its not that that sucessful women are intimidating, its that the traits linked to sucess are not, broadly speaking, the traits that most men want.

    As for me when you say you can be a “weekend” type of girl. I think if I was in a relationship with a person such as yourself I would be waiting for the other shoe to drop.

42. Steve Oct 12th 2007 at 12:05 pm 42

    Wow, this was an insightful article and I am impressed with the authors tact.

    I was also impressed with the first comment. I too had the thought that it is best to be yourself, even if that turns people off, since that will happen eventually anyway. Better to see it on a first date rather than after you become attached to someone.

    However, I don’t think acting differently isn’t being yourself.

    I think it comes down to treating your romantic interest as nicely as you would treat a good friend or an acquaintance.

    The article gave the example of how men might not like “direct and honest” women if that translates to blunt uninivted criticism. Yet how many people would be blunt, harsh in telling a good friend or a business associate something they need to hear? They would be themselves, they would just adjust the way they talk to fit the situation.

    It comes down to your romantic interests being deserving of the same kind of gear shifting.

43. Phillygirl Oct 12th 2007 at 07:57 pm 43

    Hadley Paige,
    Thanks for your response. It was hardly helpful. I don’t think any man has the answer to my question of how to change the male mindset that ALL successful women have the “let’s wait and see if the shoe drops” attitude. I was asking how to break that mindset but it is becoming obvious to me that it’s not possible. It is just not fair to a person like myself who detests taking success and business “to bed at night”. Why should I be stigmatized when in fact, my success is based on my passion in the health care industry to “make a difference” to those less fortunate than myself. My success is not driven by my desire to “one up” a man or to inflate my ego, nor to prove anything to anyone.
    I guess I can’t change and won’t change. There has to be one guy out there that will fall for me despite my success. It takes an emotionally “up and operating” man to recognize the traits of a woman without being threatened by her ability to make a living.
    Thanks for your input.
    Phillygirl

44. Phillygirl Oct 12th 2007 at 07:59 pm 44

    Evan,
    Very interesting post. I guess you are a good example of a guy who refuses to believe that “successful women can be emotional”. You questioned it in your last sentence. You talk about choosing women beneath you, I find that very interesting. I wonder if you have a low self esteem? Anyway, this is not meant as a hit at you at all. YOur post is just very biased and actually quite ignorant in certain respects. Yup you’re probably saying “see she’s too direct and that’s why men are scared away”. That may be, but ignorance is tough to deal with.
    Phillygirl

45. Buster Oct 12th 2007 at 08:13 pm 45

    Well after having read this, my conclusion is : that : s

    People who are obsessed by their own achievements are a) very often boring b) wrong (confusion between SUCCESS and HAPPINESS c) because of a) and b) they are not at all attractive. This observation is valid for MEN and WOMEN.

46. downtowngal Oct 13th 2007 at 03:41 am 46

    I can’t agree more with Christine et al who are often asked about work while on dates. In NY, where everything is about work, this is what a lot of people talk about. I’m asked on dates what I do – I try to keep it general an change the subject, but if the guy is in a similar field to mine (banking) – which is common in NY – he suddenly starts shifting the conversation to shop talk an the romantic buzz goes away. So I try my best to change the subject, smile and say, ‘oh, let’s not talk about WORK – so your profile had a photo of you on a kayak – where’d you go’? or something like that. This is why I find it easier to meet guys when doing stuff I enjoy – hiking, travel, etc.

    There are lots of guys who like women with opinions, they don’t want someone who will agree with them 100% or they’ll get bored. My last 2 boyfriends were like this. And there are guys who are the opposite. A successful woman wouldn’t be happy with the latter but regardless I think it’s the way a woman comes across – competitive instead of engaging in a challenging conversation.

    And I read Maureen Dowd’s excerpt in the NYT Magazine and can’t disagree more. I know many successful women who are happily married and many successfuy guys who are married to successful women. So go figure.

47. Phillygirl Oct 14th 2007 at 11:54 am 47

    Thanks for all the comments and again to Evan, I was not taking a direct hit at you although it came across that way. I think your articles and blogs are phenomenal and it’s just the “nature of the beast”. It’s a matter of women are “damned it we are and damned if we aren’t”. I have to admit though that reading ALL these posts has made me realize that perhaps my passion for the work I do (has nothing to do with how successful I am which is a result of my passion) must bleed out (sorry I’m a nurse had to use that word) during conversations on a date and from now on, I will totally underplay what I do. I guess men are also “damned if they do and damned if they don’t”. I appreciate our Venus/Mars differences and don’t believe that either sex has it easy with respect to the single and dating world. I am probably too passionate about my field/work and need to remember all of your posts above when I go on my next date. I have a “disadvantage” in that I’m an attractive petite woman too and forget that men are visual and “hungry” and when they meet women that are appealling to the eyes (guys please don’t yell at me and accuse me of being egotistical, I’m telling it just like it is without any arrogance or self righteousness), they don’t want to hear about entrepreneurship and success. SO in this longwinded message, I’ll end it off by saying that I thank you all for “helping me” to realize that I’m a victim of my own passion and behavior. Hope this all makes sense.
    Lost in Philly

48. Steve Oct 17th 2007 at 01:56 am 48

    This article is a great companion piece to Evan’s sage essay:

    Why Nice Guys Are Losers
    http://heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml

49. Steve Oct 17th 2007 at 02:07 am 49

    I grew up in a liberal household. All of the women in my family, extended family and the women among my parent’s friends were 70’s era feminists.

    To this day the idea that men and women aren’t the same ( even though they are equal ) seems, palpably, sacrilegious to me.

    If you want to live successfully in this world at some point you have to see it how it really is and deal with it accordingly instead of insisting that reality should conform to your view of it.

    In my life time of experience I have seen that men and women, while being equal, are not the same and do not want exactly the same things. If that observation makes me a sexist or a bad person, then so be it.

    As Grouch Marx said

    “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes”

    If you want something better out of your life sometimes you have to accept a truth you don’t like so you can deal with it and make progress. I think that is where Evan’s opinions fit in.

    To use another quote, this time from Dr. Phil

    “Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?”

50. Why Don’t Men Like Smart, Strong, Successful Women? - Personal Development for Smart People Forums Oct 17th 2007 at 03:23 am 50

    [...] What never occurs to some women is that: They’re being evaluated on far more than their most “impressive” traits. These traits sometimes come with a significant downside that is painful to acknowledge. Take me, for example. I’m a reasonably bright guy. I make a fair living. I can write a decent joke. These are my good traits. But right behind my good traits are a series of bad traits. Anyone reading this blog can see that: The flip side of being bright is being opinionated. The flip side of being analytical is being difficult. The flip side of being funny is being sarcastic. The flip side of having moral clarity is being arrogant. The flip side of being entrepreneurial is being a workaholic. The flip side of being charismatic is being self-centered. Again, not EVERY person who is bright is opinionated, and not EVERY person who is funny is sarcastic. But there’s enough anecdotal evidence to suggest a strong correlation. And I’m just talking about MYSELF here. And if my good qualities come with bad qualities, have you considered that yours might as well? So when I hear a woman talk about how “direct” she is, the first thing I think is: “She’s tactless.” I wrote about this in an article for Match.com entitled “Are You Honest… Or Overboard?” Self-proclaimed “direct” people often tell their dates what they think about them even if the date didn’t ask. They often try to change partners who have no desire to be changed. When the partner pulls away because he doesn’t want to be with someone so critical, the “direct” person concludes that he couldn’t appreciate her “honesty”. Read the rest at: Why Don’t Men Like Smart, Strong, Successful Women? [...]

51. Phillygirl Oct 18th 2007 at 03:20 am 51

    I have come to the conclusion that all you men that post on this blog are intimidated and afraid of women who are successful. It’s called “self inflicted emasculation”. Attitude and mindset is 3/4’s of the problem here.It takes a strong, emotionally centered male to be able to be with, enjoy, romanticize and have intimacy with a successful strong woman. You mean to tell me that you’ve never seen a couple together who are both on equal footing in every way? Perhaps you’ve all been burned by choosing the wrong women time and time again, versus it being every successful woman’s problem?
    Interestingly, I am in healthcare and find that many health care professionals are arrogant, self centered, tough and difficult. Does that mean that if a caring, loving, giving, kind healthcare professional who is not a loser comes along, will I stereotype him and turn him away.
    I’m sorry that you’ve all been “affected” by women who may bring in a higher paycheck than you do.

52. shellacked Oct 18th 2007 at 09:19 am 52

    Phillygirl-

    Why are you pissed off and reactive/judgmental about people you don’t even know? By my experience, anytime you start to paint groups of people (i.e. men; men who post on this blog) with as broad a brush as you did, you close yourself off a little more to the possibility of finding someone great.

    Besides, no one likes a know-it-all. No guy wants to be approached by a woman who smugly believes she knows him better than he knows himself.

    Seriously, please look at your posts and ask if you’re coming off as a person anyone would want to date.

    I don’t want to sound harsh, but am responding with the same level of force that you’ve been using in your last posts.

    You said it yourself: Attitude and mindset is 3/4’s of the problem here.

53. Phillygirl Oct 18th 2007 at 07:30 pm 53

    Shellacked,

    My responses are purely a reaction to the ongoing “bashings” that the males on this blog throw out at us women. It goes right back to the fact that “successful women have no emotions”. Ironically, these ongoing nasty postings have evoked strong emotions of sadness in me…NOT egotistical reactions. It really hurts Shellacked! Please read the postings of your friends, they are not “warm and fuzzy”. I’ve had at least 3 relationships whereby men have said to me “you appear to be so tough on the outsidek but I’m happy you “let me in as you’re actually a very sweet and loving woman”. I hope you understand where I’m coming from.
    There is a stigma attached to “my type” and it hurts.

54. Phillygirl Oct 18th 2007 at 07:31 pm 54

    I have to add that even my screen name is not indicative of a “ballbuster”….I don’t call myself Philly woman do I? LOL…..Gloria Steinman would hit me “upside my face” as we say in Philly…after all, am I a girl? Yes the last time I looked, I still was!

55. Jan Oct 22nd 2007 at 01:09 pm 55

    I cannot believe that I never thought of this before, but if I had treated my girl friends the way I treat my men – I WOULD BE FRIENDLESS. Okay Evan, I was almost prepared to hate you. Thank you for putting yourself out there to help protect us from ourselves.

    I could not figure out why I never stayed in a relationship. I would like to say that I think I am beautiful, but I don’t think so. I think it is the energy and fun loving spirit that I give off. It is this that attract men and I really am amazed that I still attract so many men at the age of 50. I also have a lot of other qualities that should make me a great catch. But woe to the poor man that pursues me. When I finish being the power house that I am at work, they are usually left in a heap.

    I am not saying that men are not without their problems but I will stop looking for every fault and then pointing these out to them. I don’t recall me doing the same thing to my girl friends. Anyway, I have recently started dating someone whom is usually on the verge of depression after every date with me. I will be more understanding and supportive, who knows he may look forward to seeing me.

56. TheObserver Oct 23rd 2007 at 01:41 am 56

    You are not fair.
    You generalize the entire male population.
    I admit most white american men do not like intelligent women, especially one that is a supporter of racial equal rights and a environmentalist. these two things tend to get at their nerves some how.

    But date more diversly and you will find large groups of men who only seek intelligent women.

57. sheseizereason Oct 23rd 2007 at 01:12 pm 57

    Observer -

    Awwww. You’re so right. How awful it is to generalize about all men.

    But how sweet it is of you to take a stand against over-generalization by generalizing about WHITE men. You’ve really made your case on this one.

58. hunter Dec 1st 2007 at 08:44 am 58

    to phillygirl,

    I would like to meet more women with a bigger paycheck than mine…hhhmmmhh…yes…the one or two I meet every 10 years or so, doesn’t help….

59. hunter Dec 4th 2007 at 10:02 pm 59

    …hhhhmmmhh…there is a silence….

60. verbosity Dec 20th 2007 at 03:22 pm 60

    Hmmmmm. This thread is similar to the one about women who earn more than men and the men who supposedly resent them.

    Many of the sentiments are the same. In general, I do not see men bashing (meaning ad hominem attacks) that much, if at all.

    i would like to kindly state Phillygirl, that you posit a no-win scenario for yourself and men in general. First is your assumption that men are intimidated by strong, successful women. Then, upon receiving refuting commentary to the contrary, you simply dismiss it out-of-hand and stick with your assumption that men are intimidated by women. Aside from indirectly calling men cowards, your position shows a lack of respect for the points many men posted here. You are correct in that attitude and mindset is part of the issue…

    Am I the only who sees the basic insanity of this thread’s theme? That being, men are intimidated by strong, successful women. So men, just listen to us strong, successful women and stop being intimidated. As if kowtowing to this demand will instill respect.

    IMHO, respect is lacking from the female perspective on this, in that many (not all) female posters simply refuse to acknowledge the points many men posted, thereby showing disrespect by not listening and acknowledging what they are saying.

    My buddy says most women are like radio towers….great at transmitting, not so good at receiving.

61. verbosity Jan 8th 2008 at 11:49 am 61

    A lull in the action…

62. Mo Mar 5th 2008 at 09:47 pm 62

    Why are men turned off by smart, successful women? I think the answer comes from back in high school days boys it seems like would get turned off when the girls would start to brag about how good they were and say things like I got a better grades than you and have this catty attitude that they are better than anyone else. It seems like girls back in the high school days would rub it in and I think it turned the boys off that it stayed with them even after high school and can’t stand that cattiness attitude.Even if women don’t mean to use the I’m better than you/cattiness attitude in the adult lives when getting an MBA/graduate degree I think it still comes across to men that the women that get MBA /graduate degree or are naturally “smart” just rubs men the wrong way. To some men when they hear a lady say I just finished with my MBA/Graduate degree there is just simply something in our brans that naturally turn us off and some men when they hear that they got these graduate degrees or naturally “smart” some men’s brains just turn and think ohh she was one of “those women” and those men would rather walk away cause they can’t stand that cattiness or the “I’m better than you” type attitude. I don’t think it’s necessarily that you are smart or have a grad degree or MBA or whatever but I think a lot of it is the tone of voice when women say they have their graduate degree MBA. I think the tone of voice just comes off wrong and turns a lot of men off.

    I think it’s a natural fear men have built up and have seen it starting in high school days and also in the work force like when women are even catty to other girls and not necessarily to the men it just comes off wrong to men.

63. hunter Mar 5th 2008 at 10:23 pm 63

    to Mo,

    Successful women I have met(and I haven’t met many) like to put me down, in public, and I don’t enjoy that….

64. hunter Mar 5th 2008 at 10:24 pm 64

    to Mo,

    But of course men make mistakes, we can still talk about it in private.

65. Delia Mar 5th 2008 at 10:28 pm 65

    Real Men don’t have to prove themselves. And Real Men are proud of women who are strong and accomplished. There’s room enough for all of us Male AND Female to be all that we can be. Women who use a Certain Tone of Voice when boasting about themselves would be annoying, however I DO agree with you on that!
    Some guys are very proud of successful women. And certain women are deserving of that pride.

66. Mo Mar 6th 2008 at 06:11 am 66

    To Delia,

    Yes Real men and women still do have to prove themselves especially in todays world with such a hard economy. I my self is a real man and have strong accomplishments and proud of successful women but just saying that there are just some men out there that simply turn them off. But then there are some of the smartest men and women that have gotten the best degrees enter the “real world” and fall flat on their face because they are good in the academic world but for the life of them can’t get going and struggle in the real world for a job.

67. m Mar 6th 2008 at 11:33 am 67

    “To some men when they hear a lady say I just finished with my MBA/Graduate degree”

    Jeez. If this is what constitutes bragging to men, you all are even more fragile than I thought you were.

    It’s a mere statement of fact.

    HOW is that BRAGGING?

    Does it never occur to you “women should ONLY stay in the kitchen and raise babies” types that in order to even BEGIN to afford the babies, both you and your wife are going to have to work? At good jobs with advancement potential? At actual careers? Careers frequently requiring advanced education, particularly for the woman (since men are more frequently hired with less education than the woman for the same job, and women still make only 76% of what men make)? BOTH of you??

    Or are you just in complete denial about the fact that absent meticulous financial planning from, like, your own birth, only the very upper echelon of working men — SVP- and EVP-level, senior-equity-partner-level — can begin to afford to have their wives stay home?

    When was the last time any of you tried to run a household and put children through college on a single salary?

    [We're not even going to get into the MEN who yammer on for, like, HOURS about their accomplishments and what they have and who worships them and where they've traveled -- never mind that these men are apparently completely clueless about how this behavior MAGNETIZES the "gold diggers" to them that they purport to loathe -- never mind that these men are clueless that the woman they're talking AT (not "to", because that would *gasp* require her actual participation in the conversation) is BORED TO TEARS by their little recital.]

    “I think it still comes across to men that the women that get MBA /graduate degree or are naturally “smartâ€� just rubs men the wrong way.”

    Oh, OK.

    Then please do us a favor, Mo.

    Stick a sign on your forehead so that women who are “naturally smart” will know who you are and can just stay away from you.

    Then, neither you, nor they, will have to be bothered.

    *smh*

68. Michael Ejercito Mar 6th 2008 at 11:57 am 68

    I have no problems with women bring smart, strong, or successful.

    In fact, I am willing to date someone who is four inches taller than me.

69. Hadley Paige Mar 7th 2008 at 01:46 pm 69

    M writes: “only the very upper echelon of working men — SVP- and EVP-level, senior-equity-partner-level — can begin to afford to have their wives stay home?”

    Where does this statistic come from? I doubt it is true. It is quite possible to live on most husband’s salaries. One need only to not fall into the trap of endless material desire. Just live in a more modest home in a more modest heighborhood with a more modest car, go on more modest vacations and have less crapola.

    I think M’s statement is a rationalization on M’s part to justify career women to men who would rather not have a carrer woman as a spouse.

    I for one would rather have my wife stay at home and deal full time with the home & home making & kids and would happily live with less stuff. Kids need sane, calm, loving, unstressed moms more than they need the latest $100 sneakers or $200 electronic device or $100/mo cellphones.

70. m Mar 7th 2008 at 04:29 pm 70

    “…a rationalization on M’s part to justify career women to men who would rather not have a carrer woman as a spouse.”

    Um, no.

    That’s not what I’m saying at all.

    1) First, it’s not about “forcing” someone to want someone they don’t want. (Yeah, that would be a real positive relationship.)

    It’s just about questioning yourself and determining whether your preferences are realistic. It’s one thing to live with “less stuff”, as you say — it’s another to try to live without a place to live.

    2) It’s not about buying excess cellphones and sneakers and blah blah blah. It’s about the cost of a mortgage when the subprime market is imploding, about retirement funds when 401Ks are being gutted by unscrupulous investing, about college education for your kids when Pell funds are being yanked and college loans are 5+ figures with rising interest rates due to increasing defaults.

    Even the current Administration has finally admitted that the economy is *cough* slowing down. :rolleyes: George Soros admits that we’re in a recession likely to become a full-on depression.

    Have you looked around at the economy lately, Hadley? Are you just going to try to snag some poor wide-eyed girl who doesn’t know any better and force her and your new family to try and live on what you make by yourself? What if you get laid off after you’ve just had your first baby? What’s your family supposed to live on at that point?

    Do you even have any idea what constitutes a realistic set of expectations?

    Have you even thought it through?

71. Hadley Paige Mar 10th 2008 at 07:08 am 71

    to M:

    1. 2nd request for factual backup rather than opinion. Where did you get the following “fact” that you stated in post #67 “only the very upper echelon of working men — SVP- and EVP-level, senior-equity-partner-level — can begin to afford to have their wives stay home?â€�

    I think that you want you “fact” this to be true. Why? If men believed the argument you advance (namely that no family can live on one salary) then it follows that men who believed it would be more likely to take a career woman as a spouse. Which it appears that you think is the only good arrangment for the woman. I do not share that opinion.

    2. M states: First, it’s not about “forcing� someone to want someone they don’t want.

    Where does this come from? Only you were talking about forcing. It seems you see this arrangment as inconceivable unless the woman is forced. Obviously, it doesn’t appeal to you. But can you not conceive of a relationship where this is a voluntary & welcome arrangement? Perhaps not.

    3. M states: It’s one thing to live with “less stuff�, as you say — it’s another to try to live without a place to live.

    I agree. Obviously, if one’s family is faced with living on the street two salaries are better than one. However, just because you identify an extreme case does not prove the point you advanced that “only the very upper echelon of working men — SVP- and EVP-level, senior-equity-partner-level — can begin to afford to have their wives stay home.

    4. M states: “Are you just going to try to snag some poor wide-eyed girl who doesn’t know any better and force her and your new family to try and live on what you make by yourself?”

    No, but its fine to try to find a fully informed woman who knows what she wants and wants this arrangement. “forcing”? “poor wide-eyed girl”? as you said “Yeah, that would be a real positive relationship”.

72. m Mar 10th 2008 at 07:32 pm 72

    Yammer, yammer, yammer, Hadley.

    When someone starts talking about “stats” — which any mathematician knows can be manipulated to prove any point on either side of an argument — then I know they’re reading waaaaaay too literally to have a real discussion with (second piece of evidence of that was your second comment. I did not say you LITERALLY said anything about “force”. It was implied, gleaned, a conclusion that could be drawn by any reasonable person conversant with the English language and American culture that read what you said. Look up the concept.)

    So at this point we’re not talking to each other; we’re talking past each other.

    So never mind.

    *smh*

73. vino Mar 11th 2008 at 12:32 pm 73

    I noticed in the whole Hadley-m exchange that Hadley is rather respectful. m is not.

    That speaks volumes.

74. m Mar 11th 2008 at 07:14 pm 74

    Everybody clearly defines “rather respectful” in his/her own way here, vino.

    When someone starts talking past me, refusing to even acknowledge what else is being said, and is insistent on establishing their POV and shouting me (or anyone else who appears to disagree with their premise) down, that’s not necessarily my definition of “respectful”.

    YOUR definition of “respectful” appears to be something along the lines of “women are required to defer to men on substantive issues, no matter how prima facie absurd the man’s assertion is, no matter what”.

    Any independent comments on make about the actual issue on the table?

    Or are you just content to slyly harass those who (acknowledging notwithstanding that the plural of anecdote is not data) actually observe something other than the traditionalist viewpoint espoused?

75. m Mar 11th 2008 at 07:16 pm 75

    You know what, never mind.

    I promised myself I wasn’t going to engage when I’m not even being heard.

    :rolleyes:

    Forget it.

76. m Mar 11th 2008 at 07:22 pm 76

    As or HP and his ostensibly desperate, slavering need for studies to explain, oh, EVERYTHING, Mark Morford makes the case much better than I:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/02/01/notes020108.DTL%20

    p.s. Thanks, jonquil

77. vino Mar 12th 2008 at 07:27 am 77

    I’ve come to this site as a means of trying to understand dating and its challenges after a LTR.

    I took the time to read not only this thread, but others on this site as well.

    Plenty of male posters directly answered the question of “Why Don’t Men Like Smart, Strong, Successful Women?” Plenty of female posters chimed in with their perspective as well. Many have something valuable to say on both sides of the gender aisle.

    I think the best posts on the subject are Evan’s original reply, Evan’s #10, Moxie’s #9, Been’s #2, and verbosity’s #60. It’s insane to demand that others change to suit one’s preferences.

    To m,

    I do not wish to argue with you, and won’t. I do not think it will be productive in the slightest. I do not see where Hadley shouted you down at all, just an accusation you are being shouted down. I do see where he asked very direct clarifying questions regarding your posts. I also noticed that in #67, you took part of a sentence to create facts with no basis in reality to insult Mo (“Stick a sign…”). The use of the partial quote also ignored the 4 lines of clarifying text following Mo’s quoted part.

    Also, your post of “yammer, yammer…” does nothing to answer Hadley’s clarifying questions to you. I suspect he’s asking you questions about statistics to see what is representative of the real world, not the conjured-up hypotheticals whose facts (‘forcing’ and ‘SVP,’wide-eyed girl’) change from post to post. you also characterized him as having a ‘desperate need’ for statistics.

    So MY definition of “respectfulâ€� has nothing to do with deference to men, no matter what. Sex doesn’t matter. It has everything to do with using quotes within their context, and not to insult others. It has everything to do with answering clarifying questions asked without creating more facts. It has everything to do with withholding accusations and assumptions such as “women are required to defer to men on substantive issues, no matter how prima facie absurd the man’s assertion is, no matter whatâ€�.

    I also read the sfgate article referenced. My paraphrase – beware of relying on every little societal study as they may be false, misleading, or not representative.

    However, here is the best part, the thrust, of the article:

    “This, then, is the danger: Despite the frequent inanity, despite the insulting silliness of much of the information, we’ve been led to believe that it is only through a relentless obsession with tiny, data-driven studies that we can obtain real knowledge, real understanding of what we’re about and how we should eat, sleep, screw, breathe.”

    I don’t think you obtain ‘real knowledge’ or ‘real understanding’ by these studies referenced, nor do I think they are about how to live. However, I do think they are representative of people’s experiences, and therefore may or may not apply to all readers. So, if someone says 60% of men/women cheat, this means that 40% don’t. But it also means that the person citing this study is saying that the majority of people she/she deal with cheat, or more often than not.

    It’s not about how using how we “should eat, sleep, screw, breathe.” It’s about how we DO “eat, sleep, screw, breathe” to determine how we could or should “eat, sleep, screw, breathe” going forward.

    I also noticed there’s nothing in the article refuting anything Hadley or other posters have cited re: stats & surveys. Simply questioning the use of stats doesn’t invalidate them.

78. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 12:44 pm 78

    During commute yesterday, I heard a segment about this on Tom Lykis show. While many do not like what he says or how he says it, there is something valuable in the show.

    I think there’s a podcast about it. I’ll post some brief summary when & if I find it for discussion.

79. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 01:39 pm 79

    Here’s the link

    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/HomeMortgageSavings/TooSuccessfulForAMate.aspx

    Some choice article quotes:
    “I have this crazy belief that I have the right to expect my potential partner to be at least as successful as I am, and to have as many things to offer as I do,”

    “Then there’s the issue of time. Most highly successful people work crazy hours . . . “The person I’m trying to find is just as busy as I am,” says Mohr, 29. “If we’re both that busy, when is the time when we’re going to meet?”"

    “Experts say that the divorce rate is one factor contributing to the trend. Another is a tendency among better educated, more secure women to postpone marriage.”

    Some Leykis responses:

    “What Man is intimidated by a successful woman? This has nothing to do with intimidation. I know women love, especially these women who love to think that they are intimidating men. They’re not intimidating men. I am not intimidated by a woman who has a strong career aspirations, works hard, makes a lotta money.”

    “I just wouldn’t be in a relationship with her. The reason is not because I am intimidated. The reason is because if I were stupid enough to get involved in another living together relationship of any kind, what would be the purpose of it if I got into a monogamous relationship with someone who is so intense about their career, they’re never home and when they are home they bring home their laptop and their portfolio, and they’re typing & reading and working all the time . What is the point of all of that for me?”

    No intimidation involved. All you career-oriented gals who make a million dollars a year or more I’ll tell you what – I’ll be happy to date you. Call me when you’re not busy. I’ll come over. i’ll service you. Then I’ll get the hell outta there.”

    “We’re not intimidated by successful women. WE DON’T WANT TO MARRY THEM (emphasis on audio, so caps added). We don’t want to live with them. We don’t want to have monogamous relationships with women who have no time to EFF us! How do you read that as intimidation?”

    ____________________
    More to follow…

80. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 01:41 pm 80

    More Leykis quotes:

    “These are ball-busting bitches who are excited they are moving up in the company, or their businesses are making all this money. BTW, I’m excited about the same things in life. but the last thing I’d do is if you’re that busy, let you move into my place, then have to come home at night and have to drum my fingers when I want to get laid, because you’re on the road doing business, you’re traveling, you’re working when I’m there, you have a headache, you’re stressed out, you’re tired.

    “Here’s what you do. Keep your own place . . .work your ass off. When you’ve got time, call me and tell me to come over. ”

    “The last thing I would do is commit to you, only to find out later that you don’t have time for me.”

    “Why would I need a monogamous relationship with someone who has no time for me? That’s doesn’t mean I’m intimidated. It means I’m smart.”

    “Notice when women want to postpone marriage, notice when women are ambitious, notice when women are avaricious, when they want to make money and be more & more successful, it’s “you go girl! that’s fantastic.”

    “And when guys are like that we’re selfish, we’re self-centered, all we care about is work, all we care about is ourselves? But isn’t it great when women want to become more educated, and they want to postpone marriage? That’s Fantastic. Men are little boys. They fear commitment, but when women want to postpone marriage, that’s great.”
    ____________

    Any thoughts or comments? I find it interesting.

81. Evan Marc Katz Apr 2nd 2008 at 02:04 pm 81

    You realize, Vino, that you’ve now stifled debate and scared off all the women? Good work!

82. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 02:08 pm 82

    SORRY! Not intent at all!

    Thought the quotes were funny & worthy of discussion!

83. cinnamon Apr 2nd 2008 at 02:34 pm 83

    Vino,
    You said not everybody likes the style in which Leykis forwards his points. I guess I’m one of them.
    Could you put it in your own words?

84. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 03:01 pm 84

    I guess I’d paraphrase it by saying that very successful, career-oriented women are poor choices for most guys for marriage or LTR’s because of several factors. I’d say they were time, attention (which goes with time, and other opportunities.

    Time – This article quote sums it up – “Then there’s the issue of time. Most highly successful people work crazy hours . . . “The person I’m trying to find is just as busy as I am,â€� says Mohr, 29. “If we’re both that busy, when is the time when we’re going to meet?â€�”

    I’m a busy professional also. I don’t want to play a far, far second-fiddle to her 60-90 hours per week job. Because between my 60 hour a week job and hers, it’s just not worth it. Not to mention there’s never time for anything spontaneous. I also realize my work is an impediment also, BTW.

    Attention – I’d say this would also be likened to “quality time.” If when we are together, you are reading & sending emails, yakking on the phone, traveling tons for work, stressed from all of the work in general, discussing it with me in the few minutes we are together, tired from it every night….you can’t give me any quality attention, I don’t want to be with you.

    Other Opportunities – People who travel for work, or who work in jobs that demand long hours in and out of the office for socialization are exposed to far greater opportunities for infidelity. I don’t have any statistical cite, but believe this to be true.

    If you even take the sex out of the Leykis comments, he has a point. I agree with that portion of his opinion, BTW. But for me, it comes down to this:

    If someone is so busy with work where it consumes them so much daily and it is clear that I am not going to be a priority for even an hour a day, then I deem her poor wife or girlfriend material. If I’m going to be the potential husband then I better damn well be the priority.

    I experienced this and vowed it would never happen again. I’m worth more.

85. cinnamon Apr 2nd 2008 at 03:29 pm 85

    Thanks, now I see where you’re coming from. Maybe I’m in a different cultural context, but I have not met many women whose work week comes up to 90hrs per week. I guess we must be talking about a very small fraction of women professionals.

    You can be both educated and professionally accomplished without letting your job take up 99,9% of your life. In my surroundings I can see many women who succesfully combine professional life and family. Therefore I’m very alarmed by statements like “men don’t like smart women”. If someone, a man or a woman, wants a committed relationship it could be SMART to find time and energy for it.

86. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 04:11 pm 86

    Yes, it isn’t the issue of smart. It isn’t the issue of intimidating. It’s whether our needs, which I don’t think are many, are met. I don’t want to go out with someone dumb as a box of rocks…

    Because of the reasons I stated before I won’t go out with lawyers, or doctors or anything else where 75% or more of their waking hours is work. My preference. one many seem to share.

87. cinnamon Apr 2nd 2008 at 04:39 pm 87

    I also think for a big number of women the priorities naturally change as the relationship progresses and becomes more committed. Isn’t it the essence of the word committment?

88. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 04:56 pm 88

    Maybe for some. But, the relationship is with work, not the guy…

89. Selena Apr 2nd 2008 at 05:37 pm 89

    Vino wrote:
    “If someone is so busy with work where it consumes them so much daily and it is clear that I am not going to be a priority for even an hour a day, then I deem her poor wife or girlfriend material. If I’m going to be the potential husband then I better damn well be the priority. ”

    I feel the same way. Why would I want a boyfriend/husband who had no time for me? That would seem to be a *relationship* in name only. And I wonder also, why someone who spent so much of their life involved with their work would even seek a relationship? A status thing to tell their colleagues? If you don’t have time to have a close, intimate relationship with someone you love, why bother?

90. RSL Apr 2nd 2008 at 05:45 pm 90

    This discussion strikes me as very interesting- and a little concerning. I am 28-year-old single woman and am currently working on a PhD. In all honesty, for a long time I’d hoped that this time of my life would be spent buidling a relationship and beginning a family in the next few years. But, that’s not how things worked out, so I’ve made the best of it and pursued a career that I may not have otherwise. Although I work hard, when I am finished, I will be in a position to have some flexibility in choosing a job, and plan on choosing one that won’t comsume my life because I would like to have plenty of time for a marriage and family. However, at this point, although it’s not all-comsuming, I certainly work hard and long. Vino, a comment like your concerns me- that you won’t date lawyers and doctors- because I wonder how many men are writing me off in much the same way because of my current position. How can I portray that although I work hard and love what I do, I do not plan on it always being the center of my life? Especially in online dating situations or others where I am just getting to know someone? It’s a bit discouraging…

91. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 05:57 pm 91

    RSL wrote:

    “How can I portray that although I work hard and love what I do, I do not plan on it always being the center of my life? Especially in online dating situations or others where I am just getting to know someone? It’s a bit discouraging…”

    I don’t mean this to sound without empathy. I empathize greatly. However, if your career and education is the center of your life now, perhaps it isn’t the best time to actively search a a mate or ‘the one.’ I don’t know that it’s fair for someone to wait an indeterminate period of time until you are ready to ’settle down.’ Perhaps date for fun, but without expectations for ‘a relationship’ that is ‘the one.’

    Sometimes we simply need to prioritize out activities for what we want where we are at certain points in life. So if work/school is the priority, then maybe worrying about establishing a deep, committed relationship with the work involved isn’t in your best interest right now.

92. hunter Apr 2nd 2008 at 05:58 pm 92

    to vino,

    You won’t date lawyers/doctors/professional women because they have no spare time? Please, let me know where to meet such a jewel, I can be their parttime lover any day!…

93. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 06:03 pm 93

    FYI – Among the reasons I won’t date lawyers is that everything’s an argument, and they are skilled at lying. Who wants that? I also find doctors to be too cerebral, without passion, and with mini-God complexes. There are more good exceptions regarding doctors. I’ve found pitifully few with lawyers. Those just go along with the reasons I already stated.

94. cinnamon Apr 2nd 2008 at 06:13 pm 94

    RSL,
    You put very nicely what I was also about to write. I have early in my career chosen to start on a second MA in parallel to work because on the private plan things did not go the way I wanted, and I preferred the university environment than watching soap operas. The thought behind it was that this will give me more options and flexibility with respect to work later on when I need time it for the famility. There wasn’t a single choice with respect to my career path since high school where I did not consider the needs of a future family.
    Even though I absolutely agree with Vino, I would find it disheartening to find out that a man has made any assumptions before actually taking the topic up with me…

95. Ruth Apr 2nd 2008 at 06:17 pm 95

    It’s interesting that Vino and Leykis have such a double standard. For decades, women have married men who are comsummed by their work and brought it home with them, have raised the children from those men, mostly by themselves, while the man takes equal credit. Often the “old” wife is left for a younger, better looking mate after the kids are grown.

    Now, the men think (Vino admitted he worked 60 hrs a week) that is an okay schedule for a woman to live with if she is partnering with a man, but that same schedule makes a woman an undesireable ball busting . . well you can read it above.

    There is no clearer example of duplicity.

    This whole thread has the men emphasizing over and over again about getting their needs met. Put that with the example above of the decades of men living for themselves and the wife living for the man, and the message is pretty clear. Gals:
    1-the fellow has to be your priority, but you won’t be his
    2-The man can brag about his career accomplishments and you must help him celebrate them, but if you can work, but keep mum about it
    3-The fellow can spend his time with you on the cell with his office or buddies, just stay off yours . . . and quality time with you means going to his company or career or sporting events, not yours

    I’ve read this thread a couple of times through, and the message is the same.

    The problem is, as stated in my earlier entry, the men who are successful in their careers and partnered, don’t have the kind of partners described as desirable here. The partnered men don’t have anymore nurturing, their needs met or have the selfless sacrificing partnering that is described here as what men want.
    Why, then are “smart, strong” women singled out as being non-nurturing, noncaring and more undesirable?

    Interesting . . . . and telling

    BTW- my sons are in their early 30’s, and prefer smart, independent, strong women. When they were dating, they were not interested in the kind of stepford wife described by the men in this thread. The fellows of the Generation X seem to be looking for a different kind of parnter than their fathers and grandfathers were. Cool!

96. vino Apr 2nd 2008 at 07:23 pm 96

    Ruth brings up some interesting issues…

    First, we’re talking about successful go-getters who likely make a good income. $200k+

    Ruth wrote: “For decades, women have married men who are comsummed by their work and brought it home with them, have raised the children from those men, mostly by themselves, while the man takes equal credit.”

    For those decades, those women did not work and were able to live a life of relative luxury. So, in subsidizing her ability to not work and be the primary child caregiver, assuming no nannie help, etc, he can take equal credit. Also, in divorce court wife still get 1/2 of everything, fault or no. Revisionist history can be pretty convenient.

    Ruth wrote: “Now, the men think (Vino admitted . . . but that same schedule makes a woman an undesireable ball busting . . well you can read it above.”

    Not to chide you, Ruth, but the ball busting quote was from Leykis, not my words at all. Please don’t try to imply I said that when I didn’t. Also, I don’t think the schedule makes someone ball-busting, either. Notice I didn’t say there weren’t challenges for schedules.

    The msn article mentioned how a greater % of very successful men choose to partner with women who aren’t nearly as accomplished, if at all. My theory, shared by Leykis, btw, is simple – these guys choose someone who will be there for them when they need it, even though their time is limited. In turn, these ladies get more comforts than they otherwise would have had.

    verbosity said it above – The rub for very successful women is that unlike the guys, they in general detest having someone less accomplished as their partner. I’d look above for his explanation. If I’m a woman, it makes me uncomfortable, but I have a hard time assailing the logic.

    Ruth wrote: “This whole thread has the men . . . getting their needs met.”

    What in the hell is wrong with having your needs met? They aren’t many, btw.

    Ruth wrote: “1-the fellow has to be your priority, but you won’t be his”

    - Not at all. Caveat emptor. If you get in a relationship with anyone very successful and driven, you know what they are like out of the gate, male or female. The article seems to indicate that more less accomplished women are willing to compromise to be with someone who isn’t home at 5:15 every night. your gripe is that men don’t want to be second banana. You can bet your ass the super successful one will demand to be his priority more often than not.

    “2-The man can brag about his career accomplishments and you must help him celebrate them, but if you can work, but keep mum about it”

    - Who in the hell said that? I didn’t read that.

    “3-The fellow can spend his time with you on the cell with his office or buddies, just stay off yours . . . and quality time with you means going to his company or career or sporting events, not yours”

    - Again, who in hell said this? I didn’t read that, nor do I think it’s a reasonable synthesis of everything posted. As far as staying off of phones, etc in your partner’s presence, that goes both ways. It’s simple respect for the other person & their time. The occasional call , etc I can understand, but not with frequency. I don’t do it to people I’m with and they’re gone if they do it.

    Actually, the men have said anything but what Ruth has written. I wonder sometimes if we are reading the same language.

    Ruth wrote: “The problem is . . . described here as what men want.”

    - This could be it’s own subject for Evan. Maybe the guys chose poorly, maybe the number of non-nurturing, caring women is so prevalent, who knows? Maybe some of both with other things…It’s too much to respond to here.

    Ruth wrote: “Why, then are “smart, strongâ€� women singled out as being non-nurturing, noncaring and more undesirable?”

    - That’s not what’s being said at all. You’re forgetting successful, which necessitates lots of time, effort and energy. The msn article specifically mentions lack of time. Please don’t make the point earlier and ignore this crucial aspect in this part of the post. They are less desirable specifically because they’re not around. FYI – they’re often not very emotionally available either. Same critique you leveled above.

    Main point is that a strong, successful driven person of either sex often isn’t the best choice for a deep connection as a partner. Verbosity gave the most logical explanation of why above. See #32 and #60

97. hunter Apr 3rd 2008 at 11:36 pm 97

    to vino,

    A female lawyer skilled at lying and arguing? Isn’t that in a womans nature? But women don’t call it that, when they are not testing you, they are manipulating you, to get you to do something…hhhmmh…LOL!

98. hunter Apr 3rd 2008 at 11:41 pm 98

    to vino,

    Female doctor passionless, with mini-god complexes? Try not to let this cloud your mind, find ways to romance her!…Keep asking people that know about relationships, and, study human behaviour/relationships…

99. hunter Apr 3rd 2008 at 11:43 pm 99

    to vino,

    As the great guru on mount Tibet once said, “men are out to conquer and compete.”

100. vino Apr 4th 2008 at 10:06 am 100

     hunterApr 3rd 2008 at 11:41 pm 98

     to vino,

     “Female doctor passionless, with mini-god complexes? Try not to let this cloud your mind, find ways to romance her!…Keep asking people that know about relationships, and, study human behaviour/relationships…”

     Not worth the effort. Makes more sense to spend energies on places & people with greater likelihood of success, not trying to pound square a peg into a round hole.

101. schlockdoc Aug 26th 2008 at 11:47 pm 101

     Heh. I frequently come off as an ‘alpha female’ but I’ve been having to beat the guys off with a stick since I was a teenager.

     I think men are pretty simple actually. Basically, if you’re attractive and not too b1tchy, you’re good. And if you’re really attractive, even the b1tchy thing becomes negotiable.

     Sure, there are some guys who don’t want to date/marry successful women; but there are so many others who are happy to that I wouldn’t even worry about it.

102. hunter Aug 27th 2008 at 06:59 am 102

     on post #101,

     Almost sounds as if you have the world at your feet, lucky you!…..

103. Michael Ejercito Aug 27th 2008 at 07:30 am 103

     Why is being smart so important when it comes to sexual compatibility?

104. vino Aug 28th 2008 at 05:34 am 104

     It absolutely isn’t Michael. In fact my colloquial evidence says the exact opposite.

105. Julia Sep 29th 2008 at 05:51 pm 105

     Hi, regarding your comment on professional women, well, i became single 5 years ago. i was in the same relationship for most of my 20’s and when I became single, I was very lost. trying to figure out the whole dating scene. I was nervous about getting hurt and stuff. but I was also examining my friends and asking questions, reading the net, books on advice and everything you said is all the stuff I thought at some point. I am successful and a professional and I figured I needed to change or something to please a man and guys would tell me I was strong, opiniated, etc. but I am really sweet…so finally, I discovered that eventually, without changing, with your same character, you do meet someone who does take you on and decides to either tame the horse or go up that hard to reach mountain. someone will think it is worth it to digg deeeper and to allow you to let your guards down. someone will love you long enough to learn to know you, understand you and love you. and eventually, you will have also taught him how to love and he would have grown and evolved with you. you will both compliment each other. you need to be patient and eventually, you will meet that person. both of you will find each other. every pot finds it’s cover.

106. Hot Alpha Female Oct 22nd 2008 at 09:54 pm 106

     Evan.

     I have not heard this issue so well articulated. Thank You.

     This has inspired me to do a post about it. Esp if i go by the name Hot Alpha Female.

     This usually brings up a lot of topics and lot of controversy which you just addressed here.

     I think you are absolutely spot on that women today pride themselves with strength yet in doing so emasculate the man.

     Keep you updated

     Hot Alpha Female

107. rick lynn Nov 18th 2008 at 02:50 pm 107

     Men are not afraid of successful women. They are afraid of abuse toward them by society, including women who may perceive men to be weak in some way. The nineteenth century belief Males should be strong allows aggression toward Males who appear weak in some way. Society provides love, honor, respect, support, etc. (the essentials for feelings of self-worth only on the condition of sufficient achievement, money, power, status, and image. Those Males who do not have sufficiency are not only given less love, honor, and respect, they are allowed upon them more aggression by society. This makes men very competitive for they feel they must achieve in order to have those things. Added the nineteenth century belief Males should be strong that allow much more aggression toward Males and also the denial from day one of mental, emotional, social support from day one (for fear of coddling the Male) and you have Males falling behind Females mentally, emotionally, socially, academically, and economically.
     Women, due to the nineteenth century belief woman should be protected are given love, honor, and respect simply for being women. The nineteen century belief they should be protected also allows for much mental, emotional, social support, to only “appear to mature faster than Males”. By differential treatment Females are surging ahead. In addition that very overprotection by society allows women to give verbal, silent abuse, and hollow kindness or patronization with impunity. The combination of allowed aggressions upon Males who appear weak in some way, lack of support for Males, more than adequate support for Females, and the protected freedoms of various allowed verbal and nonverbal abuse by women makes a Male who appears weak in some way quite vulnerable to more abuse from successful women and more also from society.

108. Drahma Nov 23rd 2008 at 12:31 pm 108

     This has been interesting reading. I’m 37, single, fairly successful, and haven’t been in a relationship for 6 years (4 of which was by choice and I got back in the game again 2 years ago). What I’ve found fascinating about the whole “game� is the double standard. I went on a date that outlined one of my problems. I just started working for myself and the guy I was with was still with a company. He told me I wouldn’t have time for a relationship because I was starting up a business. I told him that was presumptive – if the right guy came along, I would make time in the same way that I make time for my friends (and made time for seeing him that night). Come to find out, he was starting up a business as well on the side. I immediately asked him what he was doing on a date because, quite frankly, how does he have time for anything (especially when he judged me right off the bat)? This isn’t the only time I’ve experienced this. I refrain from talking about all of the activities I’m involved in because the guy will think that I won’t have time for him (and being in these activities is part of me – so in a way, I’m depriving the guy from getting to know me by saying nothing). The catch – I am involved in all those activities BECAUSE I don’t have someone to come home to and I refuse to stay home to sulk and complain about my status.

     Further, how I spend my time in those initial dates is MY business. I don’t question a guy and how he spends his time – until we have a commitment and are seriously involved, that’s HIS business (and even after the commitment, it is still his business). On the date that evening, we are sharing an evening and potentially could share a second, third or forth evening or even more. That’s all dating is initially – it’s testing the waters for more.

     There was a great line in the movie “Something’s Gotta Give� about how women as they get older get more interesting because they fill in their time with activities when they don’t have dates or a relationship. It’s very true. I’ve found that it’s the time that men ANTICIPATE that I won’t have that causes the problem. Now this gets even more interesting in the logic – so if I make time to have a date with a guy, that means I am making time in my life for him right now, and I would probably do so in the future if it’s something I want to do. I would think that is a turn on, however, a guy will often discount me because I’m making time for him. I don’t get that. So I guess I need to be sitting at home, by the phone, pathetically waiting for the right offer. Fascinating – because in the next breath men comment that they don’t want that either. So what’s a girl to do?

109. hunter Nov 23rd 2008 at 09:17 pm 109

     Lighten up, it was the first date, people say things they are not supposed to…

110. Drahma Nov 24th 2008 at 04:35 am 110

     So just curious and just for fun, how would you have handled it if something similar happened to you (either questioning your time or money or whatnot – just a general similar situation)? Would you have continued seeing the person? And what would your expectations have been?

     Side note – that wasn’t the first time I have experienced something like what I described. I have heard similar types of comments on the first or second date and let them go only to regret not walking away sooner.

111. Ellyn Jan 1st 2009 at 08:25 pm 111

     Interesting discussion and HNY to all. My discussion mostly revolves around two people who have an initial strong attraction to one another that quickly goes by the proverbial wayside. I think that when many people first meet they tend to prejudge each other according to their own preconceived notions regarding externalities, resumes, labels, and whatever else they have gathered up about the person. This leads to projecting onto them all of one’s preconceived notions, favorable and not so favorable, which is dangerous in and of itself. If it doesn’t work out, they can fall back on these notions or belief systems which may continue to operate as a runaway train in other relationships as well as impede the process of actually taking the time to get to know who a person is underneath it all. We live in a very disposable society and people tend to judge very quickly and if they don’t like what they see perhaps too early in the dance, they become scared and concerned and end up dancing right out the door often without any real dialogue as to what just transpired. That’s fine and I believe in free will and perhaps they do have accurate enough insight into forming an opinion that that person is a no go for a relationship with them. Most people do not like conflict or confrontation so they feel like they made an “easy escape” and are done often leaving the other person at a loss as to what transpired and the opportunity for growth of both people is diminished. I see some here imposing definitions or translations of smart strong successful women that may in fact have little relevance to the “real” person under all those layers of labels. So, like some have said the perception is what becomes the reality. I think internet dating really fuels this fire.

     I am dual-graduate degreed, feminine looking and value the arts over business but am also strong and assertive which I value as positive qualitites. However, I found that in a recent on line experience the positive became the negative pretty early on when I “spoke out” about something and it became apparent that the individual backed away. I went back in and clarified that my goal was not to hurt or shut him down and he came back out of his shell so to speak. I explained or chalked it up to individuation vs teamplay and that my expression of myself was primarily intended to further communications about who I was which unfortunately eventually became a threat to who he was and what he was looking for. Immediately though after the initial experience, he applauded my sensitivity and things heightened to the point that I was raised to this ideal woman standard of sensitivity and one of higher consciousness which I knew I could never fully live up to. While I consider myself very sensitive and evolved, I was uncomfortable with this early on set of projections without both of us really doing the work which is what it takes to get to know someone and evolve a relationship, if ever. I harped on this to deaf ears. Thereafter, I pulled back because I was starting to feel uncomfortable and he sensed that and did the same. Eventually, the “perfect” relationship was destined to doom because we had both in some way shut down. I think women and men do best regardless of labels when there can be created an environment of emotional safety and security for both that allows for vunerability in opening up without fear of judgment. I failed because I leapt up at things he was communicating and to some extent as what I perceived as an expression of myself became an attack, criticism, judgment, analysis of him which led to a done deal. I was also trying, unsuccessfully, to open up the lines of communication. However, I also believe that he could and should have, and he had every right to, speak up at the time or shortly thereafter processing the various exchanges about his own thoughts and feelings concerning our communications. I like to think of myself as sensitive, bright and tough enough to have handled anything that he sent my way and my goal was to further our intimacy not break it down. So, I consider communication key here and if you are truly interested enough in who is standing before you, then hopefully you can muster up the words and speak them to the other person. I feel that it is only “fair” at that time (after reasonable exchange) and according to what you get back to form a judgement about who the person is. Why is it that so many men empowered in their careers are so disempowered in personal relationships and literally expect (us to read their minds) an ongoing perfect flow to the relationship. Isn’t stepping on toes and conflict eventually inevitable – the key being how it is resolved – mutually, respectfully, etc. where you land up on the other end learning more about yourself and the other person and hopefully strengthening the relationship potential. I don’t think anyone should have to walk on eggshells and we are all imperfect in actualizing the qualities that are talked about herein. There is enough talk about “men who don’t talk” or who are not particularly tuned into their emotions which I think, for me, is a key to why I have a problematic relationship or not. Yes, I do need to be more aware of and act on what men may be perceiving as pushy, intimidating, overbearing, impatient, abrasive, reactant and dominant. I would love to meet a man who as some have said recognizes and truly gets my sensitive and nurturing soul and can go the distance and do his part in the relationship to break through and vice versa. If he does not, I tend to interpret it as someone who just was not interested enough in knowing me despite how strong he came on at the outset. Perhaps because I do not wear these feminine qualities enough on my sleeve or lose touch of them at times it is a deal breaker which goes back to the difficulties that many strong career women face in balancing their career and personal lives. But I think that any woman, no matter how smart or successful she is, is eventually going to say something that raises a red flag to the guy that signals danger and may or may not be correctly and accurately interpreted but which unfortunately leads to the guy feeling that his only way out is through the back door. To further the damage when this person stopped communicating, I jumped in and took over the reins and imposed my own assessments on him (right or wrong) because I felt like I was on a sinking ship. So, smart, strong, successful women, perhaps we need to allow for the man to lead at the very least himself and not feel shut down by us. I also think that we need to pay careful attention not to transfer control or power struggles into the realtionship because most of us are looking for partnerships. Because so many of us are used to being in charge and having the answers, we stifle the natural evoluton of what just might be the chance and opportunity for a great relationship.

112. hunter Jan 1st 2009 at 09:57 pm 112

     I heard this at a singles seminar, “Working women must learn to leave their balls, by the door, as they exit their work place, at the end of the day”.

113. Seductress Within Jan 1st 2009 at 10:39 pm 113

     Hunter, that is a good quote. Some women try so hard to prove how capable, independent and strong they are that they forget or resent their soft feminine side, the side men love.

     I realize men also like a woman’s strength, but it can be so overdone. When I was in corporate America, I worked with women everyday that if I were a man, I sure wouldn’t want to *blank* them.

     Seductress Within´s last blog post…Do Women Eat on Dates?

114. vino Jan 2nd 2009 at 12:33 pm 114

     To take Seductress’ #113 point a step further…

     “Some women try so hard to prove how capable, independent and strong they are that they forget or resent their soft feminine side, the side men love.”

     - The disquieting thought is that maybe they don’t have a soft feminine side, the side men love.

115. Ellyn Jan 4th 2009 at 02:08 pm 115

     Thanks Hunter; I see your point although I think that it also comes down to a matter of fit between the two people and how the woman uses her strength. Strength can be a very nurturing trait.

     Vino, I’m not sure of your purpose here, but frankly you come across as a misogynist. At least I took a look at my behavior and moved forward. The truth is that it takes two to tango or not and I was not the emotional cripple who ran away without uttering a word after he put up every red flag that there is in the book. I guess he was so enamored with my little ol’ feminine self that he became obsessive, demanding, pushy, oppressive, controlling, and ultimately commitment phobic to the point of not being able to utter one word. I did not deserve that.

     Perhaps you should stop blaming smart, strong, successful women for the failure of some relationships as it seems your only alternative is engaging in a relationship with stupid, disempowered, loser women that make you feel more secure, wanted and in control. If your only expressions of self are put downs of women, it’s no wonder that you and too many other men find themselves alone or longing for substance if you know what I mean. Ever heard of the ability to express yourself to a real woman besides can I go to bed with you, will you wash and darn my socks, and yes, I do need that done. Please don’t directly respond. I’ve made my point and I already got yours.

     I also don’t think that it really furthers the discussion to make blanket assumptions about smart women not having a soft side or any particular asset or hindrance and the generalizations support my earlier point re preconceived notions that can lead to a misinterpretation of what the root causes of the problem are in a particular situation.

     In my own scenario, I chose to examine the role that this particular dynamic played in how things progressed or not. I chose to express myself and sure, I can see some things that I might have done differently, but any healthy male who is interested in a relationship vs. possessing an object is going to have to develop some social skills that evidence emotional well being. I am not in the business of fixing, curing or rescuing anyone from their own apparent issues nor am I in the business of being “less than“ who I am or walking on eggshells.

116. Sara Reed Jan 5th 2009 at 09:18 pm 116

     Fantastic post. Great comparison to the whole ‘nice guys finish last’ complaint. So true as well, there are many “dating experts” who argue that women really don’t like men who are nice and really do want a man who mistreats them – what a load of donkey $#&*…I always say, it’s not that women don’t like or want a nice guy, it’s that nice guys often lack the element of excitement, confidence and passion that women often crave. Then I turn around and look at myself, a successful, intelligent woman who can fix things around the house, even renovate a little when I want and wonder if I’m man repellent because of it. Your article game me some clarity here.

     Sara Reed´s last blog post…Little Things

117. Sayanta Jan 6th 2009 at 08:29 am 117

     Ellyn- post #115 is awesome! You said it, sister.

118. hunter Jan 6th 2009 at 05:54 pm 118

     Nice guys are boring, so, I am told.

119. ellyn Jan 6th 2009 at 06:11 pm 119

     Thanks Sara and Sayanta!

     It takes a secure and emotionally evolved man to get it. Best wishes to the both of you:)

120. Karl R Jan 7th 2009 at 12:14 pm 120

     Ellyn and Sara, (#111, #115 & #116)

     Last year I dated an extremely bright and successful woman, so I will try to offer some insight into my thoughts.

     I met this lady at a dance studio. I was immediately attracted to her because she was intelligent, funny, attractive … and a very good dancer. I later learned that she was a MD and a professor at a medical school (so she earns double or triple what I do, is much better educated and has a more prestigious job). She had started college at the age of 16 (proving that she was more intelligent than me). She’s at least as physically fit as I am (we both exercise at least 5 days a week). And she’s better looking than me.

     I have good self esteem. This may be related to the low importance that I place on status symbols. (I’m aware that others place more importance on them, so they may judge me by my apparent lack of such symbols … but that has nothing to do with the way I view myself.)

     However, it didn’t take me long to start wondering, “What on earth does she see in me?” After thinking about it for a bit, I realized that something about me was clearly attractive to her. As long as that was true, I didn’t have to worry about what it was that attracted her. I’m guessing that most men don’t make that realization.

     Even though this lady was better paid than I was, she wasn’t happy with her job (due to an unsupportive administration). On the other hand, I love my job and work with a great team. At one point I commented that it could be argued that I had more job success than she did. She replied that, in her opinion, I did. I was somewhat surprised that she agreed with me, and I was very happy to learn that she defined “success” in a manner similar to me.

     A lot of successful women are ambitious (which is how they become successful). A lot of them want a partner who is also ambitious. I’m not ambitious, and I don’t want a partner who is pushing me to become more ambitious. Therefore, I rarely date ambitious women.

     This relationship fizzled after a couple months. Since she was unhappy with her job, she was looking for another job … and all of her prospects were in other states. It’s also possible that she wasn’t sufficiently interested in me to make time in her (very busy) schedule.

     But back to the topic, I realized that this kind of relationship requires two things:
     1) It requires that the man be comfortable with his own level of success.
     2) It requires that the woman be comfortable with the man’s level of success.

     Not only does the man need to be secure and emotionally evolved, but the woman needs to be secure and emotionally evolved as well.

     ————

     On a related note, Ellyn mentioned problems arising from: “what I perceived as an expression of myself became an attack, criticism, judgment, analysis of him.”

     I love intellectual debate, and I’m usually very outspoken about my opinions. I have learned that I have to dial this tendency down a lot in relationships (especially at the beginning). I try to qualify my statements to be perfectly clear that I’m discussing my perspective, my opinion, my experiences, etc … and that I like to hear about the lady’s perspective, opinion and experiences.

     It’s actually easier to get to know a woman who is equally outspoken and debate oriented, since then we’re accustomed to playing by the same rules.

121. Sayanta Jan 7th 2009 at 05:43 pm 121

     Karl R- A very thoughtful post- I especially agreed with the following two statements:

     “But back to the topic, I realized that this kind of relationship requires two things:
     1) It requires that the man be comfortable with his own level of success.
     2) It requires that the woman be comfortable with the man’s level of success.”

     What it comes down to is being content with yourself and with someone else.

     What I did question though, is the fact that you said you rarely date ambitious women. You’re entitled to date whomever you’re attracted to, of course. But what do you mean by ‘ambitious’? I ask because that word gets as misused as the word ‘feminist’ does.

     If a woman (or man) wants to make as much of a positive contribution to the world with her or his talents, that’s ambitious to me. But I can’t possibly fathom how that would be a bad thing. I think everyone would be much happier if that’s exactly what they did.

     I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but are you worried that an ‘ambitious’ woman wouldn’t have time to invest in the relationship? If that’s the case, there are career couples who’ve had lengthy and happy marriages. Also, I think it’s sad that it’s never the men have to choose between furthering their professional lives and marriage/family. It’s always us women who have to choose between one or the other.

122. hunter Jan 7th 2009 at 06:37 pm 122

     Some women are so busy, that, they have little time for relationships with men.

123. Sayanta Jan 8th 2009 at 07:50 am 123

     “Some women are so busy, that, they have little time for relationships with men.”

     Like I said- the same goes with men- but those men are somehow never lacking for girlfriends.

124. Karl R Jan 8th 2009 at 09:18 am 124

     Sayanta, (#121)
     I would define an ambitious person as one who strongly desires to achieve wealth, fame, power, success, or some similar goal. To me, it’s the opposite of “being content with yourself”. And it usually doesn’t lend itself to being content with your partner … especially if your partner has no interest in wealth, fame, power, etc.

     By contrast, I would say that Mother Theresa made “as much of a positive contribution to the world with her talents” as she could. She pursued her dreams. It consumed all of her time. But I would never say that she was ambitious.

     But the statement that you made which lept out at me was: “I think everyone would be much happier if that’s exactly what they did.”

     Ambitious people are happier because they’re pursuing wealth, fame, power, and/or success. And they tend to assume that everyone else would be happier if they were doing the same thing.

     If I was doing that, I would be miserable. I could set a goal of becoming wealthy, but I’d rather be content with the modest income than go through the steps it might require to become rich (pursuing a career that I wouldn’t enjoy, working with people that I dislike, working a lot more hours, etc). And I was pursuing wealth, I wouldn’t even feel that I was making a positive contribution to the world.

     Or to give a different example:
     I spend a bit of my time dancing. I’ve set some goals to learn more styles of dancing and to improve the styles I already know. I like being a good dancer, and I’m constantly trying to become a better one. A number of people have asked me if I’m interested in competing. I always tell them, “Hell no.” I like being good. I like showing off. I’d even enjoy performing in front of a crowd. But if I was trying to become recognized as “the best”, I would lose everything I enjoy about being very good.

     I really lack ambition.

     I expect a woman to pursue a job that she enjoys. I expect her to want to be good at her job. I expect her job will consume a fair amount of her time. (A typical week for me is 50 hours, a hard week exceeds 70 hours, and I understand that my date’s job may be more time-consuming than mine.) If we’re interested in each other, we’ll make the time … even on the busy weeks.

     But if a woman believes that I would be happier if I would get a degree, get a “better” job, get promoted, earn more money, etc … then we’re never going to get along.

125. Sayanta Jan 8th 2009 at 12:00 pm 125

     To Karl, Post 124:

     “I would define an ambitious person as one who strongly desires to achieve wealth, fame, power, success, or some similar goal. To me, it’s the opposite of “being content with yourselfâ€�.”

     I have to disagree here. It’s possible to strive for all of the above, but still have enough healthy detachment from the goals to enjoy life moment to moment (which is what I meant by the ‘content’ sentence). Any Hindu or Buddhist might tell you that (I’m the former).

     “By contrast, I would say that Mother Theresa made “as much of a positive contribution to the world with her talentsâ€� as she could. She pursued her dreams. It consumed all of her time. But I would never say that she was ambitious.”

     Why not? Mother Theresa was a great woman, but if you read detailed bios of her she wanted to strive for a certain success just like anyone else.

     I think the trouble is that because our society has become SO materialistic, the words ‘wealth,’ ‘power,’ and ‘fame’ and ’success’ have become red flag words among certain people. But these things are good to have, AS LONG AS you don’t become emotionally crippled from your striving to pursue them. THAT’s where most people go wrong. Is it hard to strive for all (or some) of these things and still remain sane and content? Of course. But it takes work to be a well-rounded individual.

     “Ambitious people are happier because they’re pursuing wealth, fame, power, and/or success. And they tend to assume that everyone else would be happier if they were doing the same thing.”

     I partly agree with the first sentence. Not the second one. Somebody who tries to change someone else is doing so because s/he is not happy with him/herself. Period. So these ambitious people might APPEAR to be happy to others, but if they’re going around trying to change others, they’re living in an illusion about their own happiness.

     “If I was doing that, I would be miserable. I could set a goal of becoming wealthy, but I’d rather be content with the modest income than go through the steps it might require to become rich (pursuing a career that I wouldn’t enjoy, working with people that I dislike, working a lot more hours, etc). And I was pursuing wealth, I wouldn’t even feel that I was making a positive contribution to the world.”

     Well, this all comes down to personal belief, but I’m sure the Beatles and JK Rowling love their careers. And if you make a lot of money, you can always contribute a lot of that money to worthy causes.

     “I spend a bit of my time dancing. I’ve set some goals to learn more styles of dancing and to improve the styles I already know. I like being a good dancer, and I’m constantly trying to become a better one. A number of people have asked me if I’m interested in competing. I always tell them, “Hell no.â€� I like being good. I like showing off. I’d even enjoy performing in front of a crowd. But if I was trying to become recognized as “the bestâ€�, I would lose everything I enjoy about being very good.”

     I’m curious though, you say you ‘enjoy performing in front of a crowd’ and you ‘like showing off.’ It’s not ‘fame’ exactly that you’re talking about, but it IS recognition. If you enjoy performing in front of a crowd and showing off, there’s that spark of ‘fame hunger’ in you as well.

     BTW, I’m not writing any of this to attack you, just to give my POV as well. I find that many of the things we condemn are desires that lie deep within us. Case in point, when I was in college, every time I saw a couple making out or even holding hands, I’d get disgusted. I thought- these people should be saving the world with their time instead of reveling in their sex-fests- as for me, I was in Amnesty, Save the Earth campaigns, and Women’s Alliances- I didn’t have time for all that romance crap. Then I realized that I did want that crap very much. I was DYING for romance and pissed that I hadn’t found it, so was taking it out by laughing at those couples.

     I’m not saying you’re thinking the same way I was, but I’ve noticed that when people have strong dislikes against something, there’s something in there they are actually attracted to.

     And- I’m not a dancer, but if were putting myself in your shoes (no pun intended), I would probably want to compete and see if I can top everyone else. AT THE SAME TIME, I’d maintain a sense of fun about it and not kill myself or anything if I didn’t win. I realize most people don’t do this, and that’s why I go back to my previous statement of how it’s necessary to be a balanced person, and how that takes WORK in our modern society.

     “But if a woman believes that I would be happier if I would get a degree, get a “betterâ€� job, get promoted, earn more money, etc … then we’re never going to get along.”

     I fully agree. But see my above sentence on why I don’t think a person who is both genuinely content and ambitious would act that way.

126. Joe Jan 8th 2009 at 03:16 pm 126

     Just because Karl likes to show off when he is dancing, that doesn’t make him ambitious–he’s not ambitious for personal recognition. I’m sure he wants to be the best dancer he can be, but the way he wants to do so is in a way where he’s the only one who cares about his progress, rather than comparing himself against a standard someone else has set.

127. Karl R Jan 8th 2009 at 03:32 pm 127

     Sayanta, (#125)
     Before answering your question (in #121) about what I meant by “ambitious”, I went to dictionary.com and looked up the definition of “ambitious”.

     I would agree that it may be possible to strive for wealth, fame, power and success while remaining dettached enough to be content. However, I would say that when you strongly desire these things, you lose that dettachment. If you want to describe “ambition” as a more moderate version of the way I define the word, that’s fine. But at that point we’re discussing two different words.

     Given your comments about Mother Theresa, I’m really curious about how you define the word “ambitious”. Could you clarify that for me?

     (My understanding of Hinduism is limited, but I am familiar with how Buddhists describe “contentment” and “dettachment”. Specifically Buddhists teach that in order to end suffering and achieve contentment, you have to free yourself from desire, or become dettached. My initial usage of the word “content”, however, was based more on Epicurus’ teachings than on Buddha’s teachings.)

     As you noticed, I like fame. I also like wealth. I really like to succeed. And I think power is useful. But part of contentment is understanding when you have enough of what you need. I have nothing against people having more wealth/fame/power/success than they need, but I always try to remain aware of what price I’ll have to pay in order to get more of any of them. (Usually the price is my time, which is a finite and valuable resource.)

     Like you, I also maintain balance in my life, and I’ve found a way to do so that requires a lot less work. That gives me more time and energy to pursue other goals and passions.

     If a woman has achieved balance and contentment in her life (regardless of how goal-oriented she is), I am more likely to pursue a relationship with her. That kind of woman is more likely to accept/respect/tolerate my values and lifestyle.

128. hunter Jan 9th 2009 at 12:40 am 128

     Balance and contentment? I think the kind of woman you describe is, and will stay married.

129. hunter Jan 9th 2009 at 07:30 am 129

     Some men have money to spend, that maybe why they are never lacking in girlfriends.

130. A-L Jan 10th 2009 at 02:34 pm 130

     With this whole discussion I think it’s all in the eye of the beholder. I think people view ambition as trying to achieve more than what they consider is “normal,” and therefore depends largely on where they come from.

     I earned excellent grades in college, went to a prestigious grad school, and am trying to attain what I consider to be moderate financial goals (for retirement). For many of the students I teach who come from predominantly low-income families with no post-secondary education (many with no high school education), I am very ambitious. In comparison with many of my friends and family (who are generally college educated with more lucrative professions), however, I’ve chosen a relatively low-earning profession, live in a small house, am not concerned about completing my postgraduate education, applying for various fellowships and awards, etc. They don’t consider me a slacker, but ambitious would probably be one of the last words they would use to describe me.

     And I have to agree with Karl that it’s really fame, power, and money that we’re talking about. I don’t think most people consider a social worker or teacher who works seventy hours a week to improve the lives of others as ambitious. But if they were working all those hours so they could gain positions within administration, be recruited by other organizations and earn renown, then they could be considered ambitious.

     All this to say that one shouldn’t judge someone else based on our own perceptions. There are white-collar professionals with a nice job title who may not be that ambitious (in the overly ambitious sense) and have a sense of how to maintain a well-balanced life. And just because someone else has a job title that isn’t as immediately impressive doesn’t mean they don’t have ambition. They might be a customer service rep, and then end up becoming one of the foremost dating experts. You never know until you give them a chance.

131. drahma Jan 11th 2009 at 08:41 am 131

     In the profession I work in, most people are working insane hours daily. Most of the guys on the teams I am on are married, as are many of the women. I’d say the individuals at my client sites are ambitious – in some cases very. However, they are able to make time for their loved ones – by leaving early some nights, not working the entire weekend, or taking time off in the middle of the day. I don’t see ambition as a bad thing and actually, it helps a relationship stay fresh with new interests and possibilities.

     I agree with A-L – “All this to say that one shouldn’t judge someone else based on our own perceptions.” You really do have to get to know a person to see if they aren’t able to achieve balance or make time in their life for someone new. And sometimes after starting a date a new person, your own ambition levels can increase because you want something different.

     I guess love hits and then the results just vary.

132. Sayanta Jan 11th 2009 at 09:15 am 132

     “They might be a customer service rep, and then end up becoming one of the foremost dating experts.”

     Right on!

133. Sayanta Jan 11th 2009 at 01:02 pm 133

     “I don’t see ambition as a bad thing and actually, it helps a relationship stay fresh with new interests and possibilities.”

     Yes! Thank you.

134. hunter Jan 11th 2009 at 03:56 pm 134

     Where are these ambitious women?

135. drahma Jan 11th 2009 at 05:18 pm 135

     Ambitious women are all over the place – the problem is that most of them are so focused on projects and things that they don’t pay attention to romantic interest all the time. They need some coaxing. I would recommend vacation spots (when they are unwinding), spas and such, coffee places, bookstores. At yeah, it sounds like many of the general places women go, but by having a conversation you can find out what these women are up to in their lives and what makes them tick. Ambitious people are people at the end of the day – all looking for human connection.

136. Sayanta Jan 12th 2009 at 09:24 am 136

     Sorry guys, but I just had to post this link here- an article from yahoo saying (GASP) ambitious people lead longer, healthier lives.

     http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/your-happiness-these-two-personality-traits-may-lead-to-a-longer-and-happier-life-343421/

137. A-L Jan 12th 2009 at 03:51 pm 137

     Sorry, Sayanta, but I’m not quite sure this article proves your point. It talks more about conscientiousness and discipline than about ambition the way it’s being discussed in this thread. It refers to paying your bills on time and studying for a test…studying may be more of a sign of ambition, but not necessarily so. But thanks for the link!

138. sayanta Jan 13th 2009 at 09:15 am 138

     Yeah- I actually posted it more to point out how one word can mean such different things to different people.

139. drahma Jan 13th 2009 at 09:10 pm 139

     You’re right – ambition and success can mean different things to different people based on an individual’s value system.

140. hunter Jan 14th 2009 at 06:56 pm 140

     It may have different meanings, but for most practical purposes, women that I have heard of using the termn “successful” in reference to a man, are trying to say that the man has “money”, is “financially secure”, “very well off”.

141. Ann Duckworth Feb 2nd 2009 at 09:16 pm 141

     Men are not afraid of successful women. They are afraid of abuse toward them by society, including women who may perceive men to be weak in some way. The nineteenth century belief Males should be strong allows aggression toward Males who appear weak in some way. Society provides love, honor, respect, support, etc. (the essentials for feelings of self-worth only on the condition of sufficient achievement, money, power, status, and image. Those Males who do not have sufficiency are not only given less love, honor, and respect, they are allowed upon them more aggression by society. This is displayed in the media every day. This makes men very competitive for they feel they must achieve in order to have those things that society provides women for being women. Added the nineteenth century belief Males should be strong that allow much more aggression toward Males and also the denial from day one of mental, emotional, social support from day one (for fear of coddling the Male) and you have Males falling behind Females mentally, emotionally, socially, academically, and economically.

     Women, due to the nineteenth century belief woman should be protected are given love, honor, and respect simply for being women.

     The nineteenth-century belief they should be protected also allows for much mental, emotional, social support, to only “appear to mature faster than Males”. By differential treatment Females are surging ahead. In addition that very overprotection by society allows women to give verbal, silent abuse, and hollow kindness or patronization with impunity. The combination of allowed aggressions upon Males who appear weak in some way, lack of support for Males, more than adequate support for Females, and the protected freedoms of various allowed verbal and nonverbal abuse by women makes a Male who appears weak in some way quite vulnerable to more abuse from successful women and more also from society.

142. Sayanta Feb 3rd 2009 at 10:49 am 142

     Ann Duckworth, post 141-

     Maybe I’m not smart enough, but I really don’t understand what you’re saying.

     Is it that WOMEN aren’t respectful to men? I don’t know- I’m just trying to figure out your post.

143. Karl R Feb 3rd 2009 at 02:03 pm 143

     Ann Duckworth, (#141)
     The information in your post is interesting. Could you direct me to some research or articles that support it?

     Assuming your information is correct (and it sounds plausible), how is it useful? Any indictment of society, even if it is 100% correct, is of limited usefulness. Society isn’t going to change quickly enough to affect my dating life. So how does anyone (male or female) make use of this information in their personal life?

     On a personal level, this automatically affects me (as a member of this society), but I don’t have to fall prey to it. I don’t buy into the status symbols that most people use to define their self-worth. I don’t treat people better because they have them. I don’t allow myself to be treated worse because I don’t. That means I don’t have to compete as hard to achieve, since my self-worth isn’t based upon it. And since I treat people as if they’re my equals, they frequently treat me as if I’m their equals (regardless of status symbols).

     Second, I spend most of my time in environments where I’ll receive respect, support, love, etc. just for being who I am and excelling at the things which I naturally excell at. For example, I’m a good dancer. When I go out and dance, lots of women want to dance with me. I receive constant reinforcement that I am a valuable individual. (As a bonus, I have fun, exercise and meet women at the same time.)

     It’s easy for me to maintain my self-worth when it’s so strongly reinforced three nights each week. I can’t change society, but I can sidestep the rules when I need to.

     My final question for you: how can/should a smart, successful woman sidestep this societal rule?

144. Ellyn Feb 3rd 2009 at 02:14 pm 144

     RE Post #141

     I’m with Sayanta. Perhaps, although I do not want to speak for you, you are referring to societies/cultures which equate the expression of emotion by males as a sign of weakness or potential weakness. Granted, many boys are told that they are sissies if they are “too” emotionally sensitive or effeminate traditionally speaking and will receive messages that if they express themselves emotionally or say cry, they will not grow up to be “real” men and may become proverbial doormats with women and women want strong men. For me, the key to healthy connection is all about the emotional connection and without men and women expressing themselves emotionally or being comfortable emotionally, problems will ensue. Emotions are strength. If one can really authentically be in tune with ones’ and others’ emotions, be respectful, establish healthy boundaries, and recognize that noone can do anything to us we don’t allow them to, then I think we would find our own strength and establish healthier connections. It is complex and challenging.

     A person’s worth should not be measured by their status, academic achievements or how much money they have in the bank (for example), despite the harsh realities of what society often defines as “successful”. I see it as a problem if one’s self worth is based on those things you point out as they do not really bring internal happiness in and of themselves or self esteem, but rather may be substitutes that can soothe an otherwise insecure person.

     For me, self worth is an internal process impacted by various environmental factors like family of origin and significant interpersonal relationships. We all choose who we are or want to be and noone, not even society in some way or the way that I perceive you are using it, can necessarily make or break someone’s sense of self concept or worth (although I’m sure there are arguments and examples to the contrary). Attaining and actualizing healthy self worth is an ongoing journey and one with the capacity for unlimited learning.

     As far as women and society, I think of the women’s movement and what women have had to and continue to “fight” for in the way of so-called equality. Pay is still disparate between the sexes and chauvanism is rampant. Women, until not so long ago, were considered “property” of men legally and I also think about the rule of theumb; a man could leave a mark on a woman as long as it wasn’t larger than a thumb print. Society protected men and refused to hold them accountable; battering was considered an intrafamilial matter.

     I think of traditional stereotypes of males and females and find those self limiting in some way. While I might think that it is admirable for loved ones to want to protect each other, I am unsure as to your defintion of “protection”. I want to be all that I am and can be and not be treated differently because I am a woman in certain matters, although I recognize that there are differences between men and women and different relationships treat these differently. I want people to call me on my stuff and not walk on eggshells because I am deemed too frail or too fragile because I am a woman. I certainly don’t want or think that I need overprotection from anyone; that would be stifling among other things. I also don’t think that anyone here condones abuse of any kind by either of the sexes.

     Finally, I am assuming that you are a female by your name, yet I can’t wrap my brain around you post which in some way is hostile or in some distorted toward men and against women and seems to depicts women and society as abusive towards men when every statistic bears out otherwise. Most of us women have had to work very hard for what we have and make alot of sacrifices that perhaps men did not have to make. I prefer to embrace them rather than dis them in the name of “society”. Bravo to evolved men as well!

145. Ellyn Feb 3rd 2009 at 02:33 pm 145

     Sorry, last paragraph should read

     …yet I can’t wrap my brain around your post which in some way is hostile toward women and seems to depict women and society as abusive towards men when every statistic bears out otherwise.

     As an aside, isn’t it some men who patronize women? And aren’t wars, to me the ultimate aggressive act, usually started and fought by men, the ultimate in power and control??? (Sorry, perhaps I digress.)

146. Ann Duckworth Feb 3rd 2009 at 03:20 pm 146

     I think women like men, reflect their lives upon each other, not realizing the very large differences in treatment that begin from birth onward. For Males there is a continued increased feeling to misguided help to make the Male strong by using more force, more aggression, and more cautiousness or neglect of close, mental, emotional, social, – support, knowledge, and interaction due to not wanting to sissy or coddle Males. Since Females like Males (both have this problem) do not understand how the much close and open, mental, emotional, social – support, knowledge and skills have helped them, they are unable to appreciate any differences in treatment. Women believe all are treated the same and with the same supports. This becomes a part of the growing gulf between men and women. Also the much allowed freedom of expression for women to give more subtle and even more open hollow kindness and even patronization with impunity, makes communication between men and women that much more difficult. It is not so much disrespect as it is much overprotection for many years that has naturally made the woman’s words, tones, and inflections less rich, more tinish, or hollow. When the woman tries to then cover this by sounding more strong, instead of sounding more rich and compassionate in tone and inflection their more assertive words appear to be more aggressive even abrasive for there is insufficient history of suffering from the confrontations the Male has faced from early years onward. Then the combination of boh freedom of expression by women; the lack of equal appreciation of hardships showing up in the voice; the false belief in genetic ability and effort; along with the allowance by society in general to give more aggression to Males who appear weak in some way (society’s antidote for weakness in Males) all then work together to create more hardships for Males who are conversing with women where the woman feels to have an advantage. The message cannot help but come out in various ways and accumulates in harm over time.

     Yes, differential treatment is created differences in mental/emotional growth, not genetics. Only by understanding this and reaching out from both sides to appreciate this will men and women be able to communicate more effectively.
     So, it is not a matter of disrespecting Males as it is truly believing their natural expressions along with all of the other societal beliefs regarding Males that then leads to much harshness in treatment of Males who appear weaker. The media has been a very strong model of just how society treats Males who appear weaker in some way. While such treatment is allowed and seems comical to the viewer, it is accumulating much long-term harm to Males.

147. Ann Duckworth Feb 3rd 2009 at 03:30 pm 147

     To Karl and other responders, my learning theory will go to all on request by e-mail at mayfieldga@bellsouth.net

     To many persons see themselves today in terms of treatment defined by hiring, job pay, allowances for positions, etc. I am talking about the many very subtle and some very open and continuous treatment differences that affect Male and Female children and later adults from birth onward.

     When it comes to how a person should treat another person: We all need to begin freeing ourselves from the genetic models of Males and Female and the behaviors and skills usually attached. We need to help ourselves and others begin to realize that Male ane Female are very equal in all abilites (such genetic differentiation is being used to justify a caste system placing Males in more physical areas) and treated differently over time. We should not be concerned with how society will respond but for now, our own mental/emotional health and the health of those close to us. Again, my learning theory is for all on request at mayfieldga@bellsouth.net

148. Ann Duckworth Feb 3rd 2009 at 03:57 pm 148

     to Ellyn

     yet I can’t wrap my brain around your post which in some way is hostile toward women and seems to depict women and society as abusive towards men when every statistic bears out otherwise.

     from Ann, Women, especially those more successful women truly believe in society’s belief regarding genetics and effort as to success. Society beliefs regarding treatment of Males to make them tough, not coddling Males, and using more power to Males who appear weak, of which Females have learned through much modeling to believe is the correct way to be, can only be expected to follow those guidelines.

     As an aside, isn’t it some men who patronize women?

     from Ann; Yes, aggressiveness knows no bounds whether they be Male or Female. In this discussion we are talking about gross differences in treatment over time that has led to much difference in many mental, emotional, social, and academic skills that has now transferred into the real earnings. With the current false beliefs regarding simple genetics and effort “without regard to environment”; the false but understood reflecting of treatments toward Male and Female children from birth onward as equal; and the allowance by both individuals, the media, and society in general to use more forms of aggression toward Males who appear weak in some way, makes Male who appear weaker prime targets from society and more successful women. Also since this much differential treatment has led to some very subtle and some very open differences in voice, tone, and inflection by women who speak from power “without having faced the same continued agression as Males have faced from day one. This leads very a very different social language that can be interpreted either incorrectly or correctly to be patronizing to Males. Note: from observation you can see the Male ego being developed in young Male children. This is not a normal trait but a defensive front set up by very young Male children to protect them from the aggressions they have experienced in their lives. You do not usually see this trait in Female children to due much more support and protection given them.

     And aren’t wars, to me the ultimate aggressive act, usually started and fought by men, the ultimate in power and control??? (Sorry, perhaps I digress.)

     From Ann Yes, it is sad that Males are raised to believe they must be strong or run over. You see women are given love, honor, and respect simply for being Females from a very young age onward. They do not need to prove themselves to receive that love for they are women who not supposed to be strong and therefore there is no problem with giving love, honor, and respect to Females from a young age through adulthood.

     As for men and yes, little boys, there is the belief Males should be strong. They are not given protection and support; that would be considered coddling Males. They are given more aggression to make them tough to be good little warriors. They are given love, honor, and respect only on condition of sufficient achievement, money, power, status, image, etc. This love, honor, and respect that women receive for simply being women are the essentials for a person to have “feeling of self-worth”. This not providing Males this goodness is not by accident but is designed by society to help make Males more competitive to the point of even giving their lives in war for tid bits of love, honor, and respect from society. So those little boys who play football and get in fights at school and put on that defensive front are desperately attempting to get those essentials of love, honor, and respect from society, the essentials of self-worth. Those Males who do not have sufficient will receive more aggression from society.

149. Evan Marc Katz Feb 3rd 2009 at 05:51 pm 149

     Hey, Ann, I appreciate your contributions here, but please don’t hijack the forum with three consecutive long posts.

     Most people don’t have the patience to read that much and such posts dissuade participation from others. Many thanks.

150. hunter Feb 3rd 2009 at 06:06 pm 150

     Ann, my applause for the masters “Thesis”. Bravo!..

151. drahma Feb 4th 2009 at 06:43 am 151

     Ann, just a couple of questions/comments to the thread….

     I don’t fully understand what you are referring to regarding girls being more sheltered. There is a different social response when someone sees a girl baby vs a boy baby, however, there are studies that show that girls are actually more destructive to each other over time than boys who whack each other around. Also, there are some girls who are raised without a very nurturing background at home and aren’t really protected, proven by the number of women who are in abusive homes – many do end up in that situation because they never changed certain life patterns learned in childhood – or who are abusers themselves. I think that you are making an overgeneralized statement – but that’s just me.

     For the communication style aspect of your theories, from my perspective and experience, many times there are social expectations around women’s communication. From what I have read and experienced, I don’t need to yell to make my point; being blunt works just fine and I get the same effect as a man raising his voice. Women in power positions usually don’t need to yell to make a point and if they do, they aren’t in that position for very long and are perceived to be hysterical and out of control and not worthy of power.

     Women do experience aggression from other women – to a GREAT degree – different from men, but it’s still aggression (I could give a number of examples of how women are cruel to each other and most men would punch a guy for the same behavior or comment) and it is expressed subtly. Let’s face it – women are expected to be the more emotionally together sex. But if a man punches a whole through a wall (and MANY of my alpha male friends have done that to prove a point) – it’s threatening but it’s considered to be OK behavior in general by society. I guess my view on this is that it is less about how people are raised, and more about social expectations. Another example that relates to childhood — friends of mine who have young sons have very masculine boys, but these boys are the clingiest things going, constantly looking for hugs and kisses and support in the home (actually, looking for more support than the supposed “protectedâ€� daughters who never ask for a hug or anything). They aren’t being shown “toughnessâ€� by these moms, but these same boys will go hang out with friends and punch each other in the gut to be cool, accepted, and “one of the boysâ€�. I think it really is more the social expectation on how we think people from a gender should act than how they really do act or act in private.

     I think the challenge these days is if women are reaching or surpassing men in power positions in the workplace or otherwise, then what is the role of men in society, nevermind a relationship? A successful woman throws that fact in his face DAILY if he is dating her, just by being there. What man really wants to be reminded that the fears he has about being useless (if he is an insecure man) really may be true?

152. Sayanta Feb 4th 2009 at 08:03 am 152

     Hey Evan- How come Ann got a sweeter response than I did about the consecutive post thing? ;-p

153. Michael Feb 4th 2009 at 08:38 am 153

     When it comes to dating, why should it matter if the woman is smart, strong, or successful?

     How is that relevant to how well a man gets along with her or how much fun he can have having sex with her?

154. drahma Feb 4th 2009 at 11:05 am 154

     Michael – Totally agree with you!

155. starthrower68 Feb 4th 2009 at 12:36 pm 155

     This reminds me of one of the topics in a class I just completed. We discussed gender bias as a social problem, which it is. Women walk a fine line these days. On one hand, we’re expected to go out, earn a good wage, and be able to provide just as nicely for the family as men. Then we come home and we’re expected to just shift gears immediately into the epitome of femininity. It’s difficult at best. Here I am, chief cook, bottlewasher, and breadwinner in my house; its up to me to be the protector and the provider as well as the nurturer. My situation now is not really any different thant when I was married except I make the only income and there’s no spouse. And for me, as I continue on in life without a significant other, it’s more and more difficult to be completely in touch with my feminine side. When you’re spending day after day making sure your family has what they need, femininity kind of takes a back seat.

156. vino Feb 4th 2009 at 07:47 pm 156

     Michael brings up a good point….

     How much fun. . .

     Staying on the smart, successful topic and not the master’s thesis, my anectdotal (sp?) evidence is that the vast majority of very smart successful women aren’t that fun. They’re too busy doing for their careers (BTW – guys are too, it’s just that more women accept this as the cost of being with a successful man), and are not that fun in their personal lives, as there is all too often no ‘off’ switch re: work. That isn’t a criticism so much as an observation.

     After all, shouldn’t dating be fun on some level?

157. starthrower68 Feb 5th 2009 at 05:21 am 157

     LOL! Vino, you ask a great question! But with all the rules, and each person trying to be this and trying not to be that, fun is incidental.

158. hunter Feb 5th 2009 at 04:31 pm 158

     Michael, go out with smart, strong, successful women and report back to us. Do that, if you can get them away from work, and family.

159. Starr Feb 12th 2009 at 08:45 am 159

     Yes, men are threatened by a successful well educated women, because our society has trained men to think that they have to be more educated than their significant other, since way back men have always provided for their wives and women always thought that they had to stay home and provide for thier husbands and that education was not important for a women, but now that women are starting to get higher paying jobs men are feeling threatened, To prove that women are becoming higher educated and well payed, even more than men these days, we almost had a women president and that would have made men fell very threatend by women our our socity.

160. Karl R Feb 12th 2009 at 11:14 am 160

     Starr said: (#159)
     “men are threatened by a successful well educated women”
     “we almost had a women president and that would have made men fell very threatend by women our our socity.”

     Starr, there were millions of men who voted for Hilary Clinton. Obviously, they weren’t feeling threatened by the thought of a woman being president.

     Some men do feel threatened by smart, strong, successful women. I can’t dispute that. But men are not a unified block of people who all think the same way. Some men feel threatened; some men don’t.

161. Sayanta Feb 12th 2009 at 11:28 am 161

     on that note- some WOMEN feel threatened by other successful women. The human ego is a fragile thing, regardless of gender.

162. hunter Feb 12th 2009 at 06:51 pm 162

     Smart, strong, successful women, like to humiliate/disrespect others in public, that is the only problem I have, with this type of woman.

163. Maria Feb 12th 2009 at 10:14 pm 163

     I believe most men want a strong successful mate. I am a professional woman, graduate degree, many licenses and certifications. I think it helps me to attract quality men. Having said that, it is not the only thing- or even the first thing a man will notice or comment on. Therefore, prior to leaving the house on a first date, I wear something tight. Oh yeah, and fun heels (not the boring heels I wear to the office.) I talk and laugh about what happened to me that day, whatever I found humor in. He then knows I am living in the moment and not wrapped up in my 10 years of accomplishments which are impressive, but oh so boring. Works every time!

164. Karl R Feb 13th 2009 at 11:19 am 164

     Hunter said: (#162)
     “Smart, strong, successful women, like to humiliate/disrespect others in public,”

     Hunter,
     All the women I date are smart, the majority are strong, and a couple have been financially successful. None of them humiliated or disrespected anyone in public (that I was aware of).

     How do you keep encountering women who do this to you?

165. Sayanta Feb 13th 2009 at 11:58 am 165

     Karl, #164-

     Thank you!! I was wondering the same thing. Maybe Hunter’s making comments to these women that bring on fighting words? I don’t know- I’m just saying…

166. Joe Feb 13th 2009 at 12:51 pm 166

     You know, I think Maria has it right. Guys do like “successful,” but you gotta lure them in with “fun” first!

167. hunter Feb 13th 2009 at 05:25 pm 167

     Karl…see these women(both, one at at a time) that are smart, strong, and successful, one on one, on a boyfriend/girlfriend basis, approximately, 3-6 months, be on your best behaviour(as per Sayanta) and report back.

168. Sayanta Feb 13th 2009 at 08:32 pm 168

     #167, Hunter-

     Huh?? I have no idea what you’re saying.

169. A-L Feb 14th 2009 at 07:28 am 169

     I think what Hunter’s saying in #167 is that once women get comfortable with their guy (3-6 months) that they stop being on their best behavior and that their negative qualities become more apparent. I’d say that this phenomenon occurs in both women AND men.

     (Note: I’m not agreeing with Hunter’s contention in #162 that smart/strong/successful women like to humiliate and disrespect their men in public. Just clarifying what I think he’s saying as it related to #167)

170. hunter Feb 14th 2009 at 08:50 am 170

     I was asking Karl, try not to make comments to these women, that bring on fighting words.

171. Michael Feb 14th 2009 at 10:08 am 171

     I was wondering.

     Is it easier to get together with a woman with low self-esteem than one with high self-esteem?

172. Karl R Feb 14th 2009 at 10:49 am 172

     hunter, (#167)

     Here’s the report:

     Woman #1: (pediatrician, professor & researcher)
     Always fun, outgoing and friendly. We dated for 1 1/2 months, but she couldn’t make enough time in her schedule to sustain a relationship, which eventually caused things to end. I ran across her a couple months later at a dance, and her biggest concern was that I might be upset/hurt by how things ended (I wasn’t).

     Woman #2: (veterinarian & researcher)
     Fun and affectionate. We briefly went out last year. We recently resumed going out this year. We’ve been friends (and seen each other a couple times per week) in the interim (about 8 months). I’ve watched this lady be civil (though not friendly) to a woman who poached a boyfriend from her, then bragged to her face about how good the sex was. If my friend can remain polite in public after that, I think she can manage ordinary circumstances.
     _________

     So to repeat my question, how do you keep ending up in relationships with women who like being disrespectful to you and others in public?

173. hunter Feb 14th 2009 at 02:23 pm 173

     Michael, yes, you can be a bad boy around a woman with low self esteem, and she will stay with you for years, in some instances, for life.

174. hunter Feb 14th 2009 at 02:27 pm 174

     1 and 1/2 months won’t do it. You have to get past the “perfect period”. The first 3 months, everything is hunk-dory.

     You saw the second one as “friends”. That doesn’t qualify either. You must penetrate her.

175. Michael Feb 15th 2009 at 08:44 am 175

     Michael, yes, you can be a bad boy around a woman with low self esteem, and she will stay with you for years, in some instances, for life.
     Cool.

     Of course, women with low self-esteem often try to pretend otherwise.

176. Sayanta Feb 15th 2009 at 11:46 am 176

     Hunter-

     From your posts it seems like you get a high from being a ‘bad boy’ with women. I repeat, it just seems this way from your posts.

     Perhaps you behave that way with ’successful’ women and when they won’t put up with it, they’re suddenly considered to be ‘humiliating’ you?

177. Karl R Feb 16th 2009 at 09:17 am 177

     Hunter,

     You’ve managed to indirectly answer my question. I now understand how you end up with women who humiliate you in public … and I never do.
     _________

     Michael asked: (#171)
     “Is it easier to get together with a woman with low self-esteem than one with high self-esteem?”

     Yes … if you’re into that type.

     A similar dynamic applies for women who date men with low self-esteem.

178. Sayanta Feb 16th 2009 at 11:22 am 178

     A person with high self-esteem will NEVER date someone with low self-esteem. So, Michael and Hunter- the fact that you’re even discussing this scares me. IMHO, you should probably work on self-esteem issues first before you hit the dating scene.

179. Michael Feb 16th 2009 at 05:22 pm 179

     A person with high self-esteem will NEVER date someone with low self-esteem.
     Why not?

     People with low self-esteem can be fun to hang around with. And they do have an advantage of being easier to keep, if a few posts on this blog are any indication.

180. hunter Feb 16th 2009 at 09:25 pm 180

     Karl, I stay with women longer than a month and a half.

181. Karl R Feb 17th 2009 at 01:36 pm 181

     Sayanta said: (#178)
     “A person with high self-esteem will NEVER date someone with low self-esteem.”

     That’s like saying an attractive person will never date an unattractive person, or a rich person will never date a poor person.

     It will happen sometimes. It just means that the person with low self-esteem has something else working in his/her favor.
     ____________

     Michael asked: (#179)
     “Why not? … they do have an advantage of being easier to keep”

     There may be other drawbacks. About 15 years ago, I had a fling with a married woman. (She and her husband had an open marriage, so technically it wasn’t “cheating”.) At one point she admitted to me that she had self-esteem problems, and having sex with lots of men helped her “feel loved”.

     People with low self-esteem tend to stay in lots of unhealthy relationships that they should get out of (not just romantic ones). They’ll continue to work for tyrannical bosses that underpay them. They’ll continue to help friends and relatives who leech off them.

     There is a trade-off that comes with “easier to keep”.

182. Sayanta Feb 17th 2009 at 01:40 pm 182

     “People with low self-esteem can be fun to hang around with.”

     Jesus…what is this, The Twilight Zone???

183. Sayanta Feb 17th 2009 at 02:03 pm 183

     “That’s like saying an attractive person will never date an unattractive person, or a rich person will never date a poor person.”

     I disagree with this analogy- self-esteem isn’t superficial like looks or money. Perhaps, INITIALLY, a person with high self-esteem will go out on one date, maybe even two, with someone with low self-esteem. But very soon, the characteristics of a person with low self-esteem will irritate someone who’s secure with him/herself. And the more self-aware the secure person is, the sooner he or she will be able to catch the other person’s extreme insecurity, and the less likely the whole thing will even evolve into dating…

     And Karl- you’ve pretty much said that you had a fling with a woman with low self-esteem. Perhaps your own self-esteem issues have changed for the better now, which is great- but don’t you think, at that time, maybe you had security issues yourself to go out with a woman with a history like that?

184. hunter Feb 17th 2009 at 05:33 pm 184

     Sayanta, I never saw Twilight Zone, do they have people on there with low self esteem?

185. A-L Feb 17th 2009 at 06:22 pm 185

     People who have self-esteem issues aren’t necessarily insecure about all areas of their life. Someone may be very confident about their job, intelligence, etc, but feel insecure about their appearance. Or someone might feel feel very secure about their appearance but less so about their intelligence, or their relationship skills, or their bedroom habits, or any number of things. Most people feel insecure about some area of their life. In dating someone, you just make sure you can live with their particular insecurity.

186. Sayanta Feb 17th 2009 at 07:20 pm 186

     A-L-

     That’s a good point- I should clarify: I was speaking more about insecurity to the point where someone gets into unhealthy situations in relationships.

     Hunter-

     Yes they do- and they usually get whacked on the head by talking dolls.

187. Karl R Feb 18th 2009 at 08:26 am 187

     Sayanta said: (#183)
     “Perhaps, INITIALLY, a person with high self-esteem will go out on one date, maybe even two, with someone with low self-esteem. But very soon, the characteristics of a person with low self-esteem will irritate someone who’s secure with him/herself.”

     I think you’re assuming that a relationship between equals is the desired result. (You and I prefer relationships between equals, but that’s not the goal of everyone in this world … or even this country.) If you want to be “The Boss” in the relationship, you’ll need to date someone with lower self-esteem.

     And even if the situation is more benign, there are shallow people who would tolerate low self-esteem if it would get them a relationship with someone who was more attractive or wealthier.

188. Sayanta Feb 18th 2009 at 03:27 pm 188

     “If you want to be “The Bossâ€� in the relationship, you’ll need to date someone with lower self-esteem.”

     I’ve never thought about that (for the reason you mentioned)- sadly, I know many women who get a high out of criticizing and humiliating boyfriends/husbands who adore them (and no Hunter, these aren’t necessarily ’smart, successful’ women as defined by previous posts). Now I know why these women stay with those men.

189. Wilhelm Mar 28th 2009 at 09:02 am 189

     I read most of these posts , and 99% of them miss the point. Rick Lynn laid out part of the problem that there is NO equality to begin with. Women are put on a pedestal from day one, because THEY HAVE OUR CHILDREN! Women are allowed to be, do, or say in a personal relationship whatever the hell they want with impunity! They hold ALL the social equity cards in divorce and marriage, yet they falsely pretend not to. Even in business situations they can castigate men soundly without fear of reprisal, yet men can only go so far or they may get punched in the nose, if they get too personal with another male. GET REAL PROFESSIONAL WOMEN! You are born and reared with all the politically correct advantages in pursuing a chosen career, with the one exception that denying or postponing marriage has a personal cost to it for you! YOU AS QUEEN have bought the lie that you can have it all by femanism.
     The true power brokers wanted you to have careers because it takes you away from reproduction, which is what THEY wanted. And they perceive that NO REAL threat will come from a woman getting everything she wants if they step out of line; whereas a man may threaten another man with bodily harm if his career and personal world is threatened. You are taught that you have moral superiority to men, so you act accordingly with them. There is always a cost to great achievement and women are paying it also. Will they end up in middle-age with open heart surgery like Robin Williams, Dana Carvey, Letterman, or Schwartzeneggar? or just drop dead like anchorman Russell? What will it all cost you?

190. Sayanta Mar 29th 2009 at 07:38 am 190

     Wilhelm-

     Dude, you’re bitter. The thing about bitterness and anger is they’re both forms of temporary insanity- which is probably why your post makes absolutely no sense. Breathe, my brother.

191. Michael Mar 29th 2009 at 08:22 am 191

     There is a trade-off that comes with “easier to keep�.
     The important thing, of course, is to measure up to other people, to prove yourself as good as others. That is one of the reasons to be in a relationship.

     Having a relationship with someone of low self-esteem may be a way to keep up with family, friends, and others whom you have grown up with.

192. Sayanta Mar 29th 2009 at 03:13 pm 192

     Michael-

     I’ve got to know- are you for real with your posts?

193. A-L Mar 29th 2009 at 06:38 pm 193

     Michael,

     I will have to say that many of your last posts have been a bit disturbing. Since your past posts (like from several months ago, and back) didn’t have this effect on me, you might want to think about if there’s something going on in your own life that has caused you to have a more pessimistic/pressured point of view on dating and relationships. Though I’ve never met you, the change in the tone of your posts is significant enough that I think you should have some major introspection, and possibly counseling. Just my $0.02.

194. Michael Mar 29th 2009 at 08:24 pm 194

     Of course. Why should we not measure up to others?

195. Sayanta Mar 30th 2009 at 08:20 am 195

     Not to gang up on anybody or anything- but I’m going to have to agree with A-L’s post about you, Michael.

     Unless- your posts are some kind of really bizarre joke? It’s just that I don’t understand a grown man having this obsessive mentality about needing to measure up to others- there’s something about your posts that make it seem that 1) You’re either not introspective AT ALL (which seems unusual, since you’re on this blog), or 2) You’re just pulling everyone’s leg to see their reactions to your posts

196. Karl R Mar 30th 2009 at 01:00 pm 196

     Michael said: (#191)
     “The important thing, of course, is to measure up to other people, to prove yourself as good as others.”

     If you’re having to do this, then I would say you have very low self-esteem. If you have good self-esteem, you generally don’t need to prove yourself to others (unless it will affect your income or something else tangible).

     “That is one of the reasons to be in a relationship.”

     How does that prove anything? My brother first got married when he was in his early 20s (to a 3rd generation welfare mother). He’s now on his 3rd marriage. I’m in my late 30s, and I’ve never been married.

     My brother would say he’s better at relationships than me, because he’s found three women willing to marry him. I would say that I’m better at relationships with him, because I won’t stoop to marrying the women he marries.

     Neither one of us cares what the other one thinks.

     Michael said: (#191)
     “Having a relationship with someone of low self-esteem may be a way to keep up with family, friends, and others whom you have grown up with.”

     So this would be something like the concept of a trophy wife? Except instead of getting someone who might qualify as a “trophy”, you would select someone who feels inferior to other people (possibly because she is less attractive, less intelligent or less successful than other people)?

     Doesn’t that strike you as blatantly counterproductive to your stated goal?

     Michael said: (#194)
     “Why should we not measure up to others?”

     Because it’s either trivially easy or impossibly difficult, depending how you do it.

     It can be trivially easy:
     I’m fair-skinned, so you probably have a better tan than I do. I don’t own a car, so you probably have a nicer car than I do. You’re better than me in at least two ways. Wasn’t that easy?

     It can be impossibly difficult:
     I’m a very good dancer. I have a innate sense of the beat, I learn new moves quickly, I have a smooth lead, and I have an excellent memory for moves I’ve already learned. I’ve taken dance classes for several years, and I’m out dancing 3-4 nights each week. Do you think you could measure up to me in dancing? And if you could, do you think you could also measure up to me in all the other things that I’m very good at? Almost everyone in the world has something that they’re good at, and almost all of them will be better than you in that niche.

     If you’re trying to “measure up” to others, you’re either able to do it without trying, or you’re unable to do it no matter how hard you try. Therefore, what’s the point in doing it?

197. Michael Mar 30th 2009 at 03:40 pm 197

     What about succeeding where everyone else has succeeded?

     If you fail where everyone else has succeeded , should you feel anything aside from shame?

198. drahma Mar 30th 2009 at 05:36 pm 198

     It depends on how you define success and who everyone else is. I think the whole relationship game is very subjective and it all depends on what you want and expect from life. There are some incredibly dysfunctional relationships out there that work for people yet I personally don’t see those relationships as successful. At times I’d rather fail, so to speak. It comes down to what you want and what you are looking for.

199. Sayanta Mar 31st 2009 at 07:07 am 199

     #197-

     Everyone else? You realize, of course, that there are 4 billion people in the world -feel free to correct my exact number if I’m wrong….A-L? ;-P. How do you know ALL these people have succeeded where you have failed (whatever you mean by ’success’ and ‘failure’) ?

     I’m going to repeat what A-L brought up- you really need to do some serious soul-searching here. You also seem to be ignoring the advice everyone is giving you- usually this is a sign that someone is stuck in a ‘misery rut’ so to speak. Seriously, I would at least take a vacation somewhere exotic, if you can manage it, to at least clear your mind.

200. Karl R Mar 31st 2009 at 08:43 am 200

     A-L,
     It’s closer to 6.8 billion.

     Michael said: (#197)
     “What about succeeding where everyone else has succeeded?”

     Let’s say you’re referring to your siblings and closest peers (maybe 2 dozen people, instead of everyone).

     If all of them had jobs and you didn’t, would you be a success or failure? What if all of them had jobs at McDonalds and Wallmart, while you were unemployed because you were still in law school?

     I’d rather take the extra time and get the great job. I’d rather take the extra time and get a relationship with a terrific woman. And in either case, I’m not doing it to impress my peers. I’m doing it because I want a terrific job and an amazing girlfriend.

     And in the case of my current girlfriend, that means a smart, strong, successful woman.

201. vino Mar 31st 2009 at 10:44 am 201

     Aren’t we a bit off-topic of why men supposedly don’t like smart, strong successful women?

202. A-L Mar 31st 2009 at 02:27 pm 202

     Michael
     We discussed the whole “measuring up” thing a bit in the Why You’re Still Single Thread (http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/why-youre-still-single-in-2336-words/) and I still believe that there’s a purpose in looking to see where others are who have the same goal as you. But all that does is give you one part of the picture. Are their standards different? What extenuating circumstances are there? As Drahma, Sayanta, and Karl have all noted, there are many reasons why a never-married person might be considered to be in a better position than a married one. Knowing someone’s marital status isn’t the whole picture. I really do have to recommend that you take some time to contemplate what it is you value and want, as well as how your self-esteem fits into that picture. And this may not just be related to romantic relationships here either.

     Karl and Sayanta
     I think Karl’s about right with the 6.8 billion, but I’ll have to get back to you after we find out the number of births and deaths today.

     Vino
     Actually, we aren’t off topic as we’re discussing why some men are more interested in women with low self-esteem rather than smart, strong, successful women. We’re just looking at it on a micro level rather than a macro one.

203. Michael Mar 31st 2009 at 05:49 pm 203

     And in the case of my current girlfriend, that means a smart, strong, successful woman.
     Karl,

     What do you like about smart women?

204. drahma Apr 1st 2009 at 01:23 am 204

     I think one of the challenges in selecting a mate or date is that the person selected in some ways is an extension of how you view yourself (just an observation I’ve had of late.)

205. Karl R Apr 1st 2009 at 11:47 am 205

     Michael asked: (#203)
     “Karl, What do you like about smart women?”

     They’re my equals.

206. vino Apr 2nd 2009 at 04:51 pm 206

     A-L’s 202

     “Actually, we aren’t off topic as we’re discussing why some men are more interested in women with low self-esteem rather than smart, strong, successful women. We’re just looking at it on a micro level rather than a macro one.”

     Not to argue, but it looks like it’s moving to low self esteem women from smart strong successful ones, and therefore a tangent.

     I agree with Karl R’s 205. I’d have to add that different people are going to have different measures of ’successful.’ I’d have to say that my definition of that includes someone who works 60+ hours per week, building and maintaining their career. However, this often necessitates a degree of self-centeredness vis a vie work. I love smart women. The super-successful career ones are fine to date here & there, but I’d never commit to them. Between my work schedule and theirs, it’s not worth it to commit to someone who isn’t there. I’d say that cuts both ways, btw.

     I re-read the original poster’s letter (Michelle). I’d have to say that her inability to find a decent guys is expressed in her statement “Are men really that insecure?” Aside from the broad brush treatment, perhaps she repels men because she’s so quick to try and insult and belittle. Maybe the men she meets are making good choices to stay away from her based upon that. Just a thought.

207. Sayanta Apr 3rd 2009 at 09:48 am 207

     Karl-

     Michael’s next question will probably be, “Why do you want a relationship based on equality?”

     Prepare your argument.

208. hunter Apr 3rd 2009 at 10:01 pm 208

     Vino, A-L may be quick to insult and belittle, but women don’t like to call it that, I think they call it, “Intimacy.”

209. vino Apr 5th 2009 at 06:17 am 209

     Actually hunter, I didn’t see A-L’s 202 as insulting & belittling. Now Ellyn’s 115, calling me a misogynist…. there’s a perfect example. I simply mentioned the possibility the super-successful women who don’t show their softer, more nurturing sides may not have them, and get called a misogynist. BTW, that’s a favorite tactic on these boards frequently… Oh well, you have to be prepared to get called names if you dare question certain paradigms, as they seem to be working so well… (sarcasm).

     On a more positive note, can anyone offer why strong, successful (monetarily speaking in particular) generally don’t pair up with men less successful than they (monetarily speaking)? Or why men don’t pair up with them in general? How about we try to limit the reasons to what people DO, refraining from name calling.

210. A-L Apr 5th 2009 at 07:02 am 210

     Vino
     Don’t worry, I’m not afraid of a discussion with opposing viewpoints. Past threads have shown (I think) that we can have differing opinions and not take it personally.

     That being said, I disagree that [low] self-esteem isn’t relevant to a discussion about smart, strong, successful women. As you noted yourself, one of the OPs feels that men aren’t interested in her because of their insecurities. What is insecurity but another way to say self-esteem? These women who are describing themselves as smart, strong women have high levels of self-esteem, perhaps too much, which is why Michelle felt comfortable saying, “I’m certainly not going to be less than I am just for someone else’s insecurities.” They’re asking why men aren’t interested in them, and Michael has been answering why for himself: he wants a woman with low self-esteem.

     Hunter
     Though I might later regret asking this, I would like to know where you think I’ve been insulting and belittling. Since I make an effort to be the opposite of that, I am curious to know which statements I made were interpreted to be that way.

211. Steve Apr 6th 2009 at 10:21 am 211

     I remember this thread when it first came out.

     I think Evan nailed it on the head back them with his thought that some women make the mistake in thinking that the qualities they want in men or the qualities that are rewarded in the work world are the same qualities that men look for in social situations with women.

212. A-L Apr 6th 2009 at 10:56 am 212

     Vino wrote, “Can anyone offer why strong, successful (monetarily speaking in particular) generally don’t pair up with men less successful than they (monetarily speaking)? Or why men don’t pair up with them in general?”

     I’ll answer these questions in reference to the two OPs. In regards to Michelle, she sounds like a bossy know-it-all. When she says, “I’m certainly not going to be less than I am just for someone else’s insecurities,” she’s saying that she’s not willing to be accommodating to anyone, for anything. Who wants a relationship with someone like that, be it a romantic or platonic one?

     As far as Catherine’s letter, I think she doesn’t have Evan’s mirroring technique down. When she’s not interested the guys think she’s elusive and hard-to-get, therefore more valuable. When she’s interested she’s probably intiating more contact with them and possibly smothering them, scaring them off and/or making them think that she’s too easy (am not referring to being sexually easy).

     And Vino, I’m glad you didn’t think I was insulting and belittling.

213. Drahma Apr 6th 2009 at 12:02 pm 213

     One of the challenges I have is that I often get discounted if I reveal too much about my work life and guys make a lot of assumptions about me based on that. And being shy, I’m not one for exposing vulnerabilities right away to make myself appear more feminie. I don’t have any obvious needs for a guy to fill (I don’t need a sugar daddy, I can figure most things out for myself, and often I’m looking for a friend first to get to know the guy to have a long-term relationship). I think it’s sometimes hard to figure out how to relate to a guy without getting put purely into the friend/peer category or the romantic category. When I get put into the romantic category, usually I get moved to friend/peer when we discuss my job (unless the guy is in a significantly senior job role). Now if I’m in the romantic category and we never talk about my work – well, honestly, does the guy really know what I’m like? It’s a hard balance and a hard game to play.

     This is probably why I’ve mostly given up and thrown it all to fate. It’s a full time job just to figure out how to position myself so the assumptions about me are more accurate.

214. vino Apr 6th 2009 at 01:03 pm 214

     A question for A-L –

     How on earth do you do the bold text? Afraid I am not the tech wizard.

     I think I’ve previously agreed with Evan & Steve on Steve’s 211 sentiments, but it merits mention. Perhaps the things most women value in men (dating-wise) aren’t what most men value in women (dating-wise).

     On the self-esteem tangent –

     I just see it as nonsensical. Here’s how. Depending on who you talk to, too much self-esteem could lead to OP’s type of comment, but depending on who you talk to such bravado is rooted in too little self-esteem, causing over compensation or any other innumerable behaviors. That’s why I think it is a tangent. It can be anything to anyone.

215. vino Apr 6th 2009 at 01:23 pm 215

     A-L,

     Oh, I can see when someone’s being a name calling, shoot-the-messenger sort, just because they don’t like a potentially contradictory message. You haven’t done that here to me.

     Can’t say the same for others, though…

     A-L’s 212:

     - On OP Michelle – Agreed.

     - On OP Catherine – A different take. I don’t know nothing ’bout no mirroring technique…
     However, when it comes to acting nice & devoted, maybe it is possible she is really just acting, and they pick up on it.

     Dhrama’s 213:

     Unfortunately assumptions are a built-in part of dating, borne out of what occurs more often than not. And they cut both ways. Sometimes being overly analytical about yourself (not to say you are) in dating is telegraphed to people you date, and they don’t ever know if they are really getting you, or the overly analyzed package you think you should be.

216. A-L Apr 6th 2009 at 05:36 pm 216

     Vino
     To do bold or italics you put with the letter B or I in between the two arrows in front of whatever word(s) you want to be bolded/italicized. After you finish with the part you want emphasized you do with the B or I after the slash. This is basic html stuff so you can also look it up online if my description isn’t that clear.

     I’ll try to put an example here but I don’t know if it will work or not.
     Example (Remove the periods and then “Example” would have been bolded.

     In terms of the self-esteem issue (I won’t call it a tangent) I agree with you how people could take Michelle’s statement and see it shows too much or too little self-esteem, but won’t go so far as to say Michael’s issue wasn’t related to the original topic.

     I’m not as cynical about Catherine, though it’s possible she was just acting, but I think most people are better than they’re given credit for.

     In respect to mirroring, Evan’s talked about it in a couple of different posts. Basically, the woman should just follow the guy’s lead in terms of the pacing/involvement in the relationship. He discusses it further in these two threads:

     What To Do When the Guy You’re Seeing Won’t Commit http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/what-to-do-when-the-guy-youre-seeing-will-not-commit/

     The Most Important Dating Advice You’ll Ever Hear: Don’t Do Anything http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/the-most-important-dating-advice-you%E2%80%99ll-ever-hear-%E2%80%93-don%E2%80%99t-do-anything/

     The second link isn’t the one I was looking for (I thought Evan brought up mirroring again in a recent thread but I can’t find it) but his whole “say yes” thing is sort of related to mirroring.

     Also, out of curiosity, why are you seeking a successful woman (which you’ve defined as one who works 60+ hours a week)? Could it be that women with similar backgrounds/jobs as yours feel the same way that you do?

217. hunter Apr 6th 2009 at 06:13 pm 217

     A-L, I retract my statement, you didn’t say that.

218. A-L Apr 7th 2009 at 03:47 am 218

     Vino
     The part of my post on HTML was totally incomprehensible since the website took out all the key parts when it was posted, so trying going to this site http://www.pageresource.com/html/textags.htm which shows you how to do it.

     Hunter
     Thanks for the clarification.

219. vino Apr 7th 2009 at 05:56 am 219

     Thanks for the html tutorial. I appreciate it. And thanks for the info about mirroring, though I admit the notion sounds gimmicky in that you are being other then who you are. That is a knee-jerk 1st reaction only to your summary. Nothing more. I reserve my right to change my opinion should I read something that not only disproves it, but also that you are not being ‘fake’ in doing so.

     Without going into why (or even if) I seek any woman, successful or no, I think the topic is interesting. Here’s how – There seems to be this notion by many, if not most women, that men should value them in dating (and marriage in the end, presumably) for their career and educational accomplishments, their strength (this is another word than can mean different things to different people in this context particularly). These are things my anectdotal evidence ( I suppose I could go find something more empirical) says the vast majority of women seek in men.

     Here are a few issues as I see it. Underlying assumptions. Other posts on this blog and most other sources would agree (I’m not going to research it now, at 6:40 am) that women generally assume men should not only pay for most things in dating, but also earn more than them. The reasons are varied and there are other threads on this, but the main point is a very successful woman with these basic assumptions (which I think most have), necessarily has a very small pool of men. If you make $200k/yr, you are already in the top 2% of wage earners, so doing the math, there isn’t a majority of the populace fitting your criteria, maybe 1% of it.

     Some of the other issues are fleshed out above – time, personality traits, etc.

     But I see a basic hypocrisy in the approach. That men should value these uber successful women for the traits women generally value in men (career, $, education, etc), yet still assume (and I think most do) that men should have preferably more success, strength $, etc, than they do. I can explain a bit further, but this is getting too long.

220. vino Apr 7th 2009 at 10:02 am 220

     I wrote “I reserve my right to change my opinion should I read something that not only disproves it, but also that you are not being ‘fake’ in doing so.”

     I should rewrite that to be, “I reserve my right to change my opinion should I read something that not only disproves it, but also that one isn’t being ‘fake’ in doing so.”

     Perfect example of unclear pronoun use. That sentence wasn’t to apply to anyone in particular.

221. Karl R Apr 7th 2009 at 11:57 am 221

     vino said: (#219)
     “mirroring … sounds gimmicky in that you are being other then who you are.”

     It’s not about being anybody other than who you are. It’s about tailoring your actions to the circumstances.

     Let’s say you’re chatting with a cute, funny and friendly lady at a party. Things are going rather well. Then a male friend of hers arrives. Upon seeing him she throws her arms around his neck and gives him a big kiss on the cheek.

     Is this the right moment to ask her for her phone number?

     You probably still find her just as cute, funny and friendly as before. You don’t need to pretend otherwise. But you won’t have much luck in getting a phone number while this other guy is the center of her attention (even if he’s just a platonic friend).

     Similarly:
     If a man doesn’t return a woman’s last two voicemails, it’s not a signal that she needs to call four more times. If she keeps calling him, it will be counterproductive.

222. A-L Apr 7th 2009 at 05:19 pm 222

     Vino wrote, “Women generally assume men should not only pay for most things in dating, but also earn more than them.”

     My recollection of the previous threads about who should pay was that the majority of women (though not all) felt that men should pay for the first few dates, or even the initial courtship phase, but that after the first few dates (or until exclusivity is reached) that the women split the costs with them. Basically, a nod to tradition and then converting to some of the more gender equality that is sought in the 21st century.

     As far as earning more than them, well, women were all over the map. You could find any type of woman on this one, though I’m not sure if any one type has a majority of women belonging to it.

     And no arguments that if a woman earns $200k and wants a guy to make at least as much as she does, then she’s looking at a very small dating pool.

     Vino wrote, “But I see a basic hypocrisy in the approach. That men should value these uber successful women for the traits women generally value in men (career, $, education, etc), yet still assume (and I think most do) that men should have preferably more success, strength $, etc, than they do.”

     I think that these uber successful individuals have a high degree of self-motivation, self-esteem, knowledge about how the world works, discipline, perseverance, etc. They’re seeking someone with similar amounts of those qualities that they themselves possess. Yet none of those traits are specific to one gender over the other.

     Basically, the uber successful who are seeking an uber successful mate are applying a very strict filter on their dating pool. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are (probably) looking for someone to fulfill the traditional gender roles. Essentially, the woman is seeking a man who can protect her and make her feel feminine while the man is seeking a woman who makes him feel strong and masculine. Just because each person in the relationship earns a great deal of money doesn’t mean that that they want to change the traditional relationship dynamic between a man and a woman.

223. vino Apr 8th 2009 at 11:11 am 223

     Here’s where I disagree with A-L’s POV –

     “But that doesn’t change the fact that they are (probably) looking for someone to fulfill the traditional gender roles. Essentially, the woman is seeking a man who can protect her and make her feel feminine while the man is seeking a woman who makes him feel strong and masculine. Just because each person in the relationship earns a great deal of money doesn’t mean that that they want to change the traditional relationship dynamic between a man and a woman.”

     I disagree with the characterization. Where’s the translation from a strong, successful woman to being protected and feminine? Ever notice the logic train switches tracks here from smart, strong & successful [usually objective criteria] to being ‘protected?’ By that rationale, a $200k+/yr attorney should be perfectly fine with a $45k/yr burly lumberjack. That simply doesn’t happen very often, if at all.

     Sorry, it just looks as a tortured justification for this thought – “I want someone who can/will take care of me in the manner to which I am accustomed.”

     Here’s the hypocrisy – I’m going to boil it down to this statement by expressing it this way, and think I’ve done so before – If men applied the same criteria to women as women apply to them, by dating on those who make the same or more, there wouldn’t be much dating or marrying. BTW, if you are touting smart, strong & successful as the criteria, it should be applied equally.

     “They’re seeking someone with similar amounts of those qualities that they themselves possess. Yet none of those traits are specific to one gender over the other.”

     - They aren’t but, I find it curious more of a certain gender seek those qualities in the other, yet would howl in protest if applied back to them.

     I’ve been told you know something is unjust when the person would not apply the same criteria to themselves as they demand from others…

224. Karl R Apr 8th 2009 at 02:11 pm 224

     vino said: (#219)
     “I see a basic hypocrisy in the approach. That men should value these uber successful women for the traits women generally value in men (career, $, education, etc), yet still assume (and I think most do) that men should have preferably more success, strength $, etc, than they do.”

     I don’t see this as hypocritical. These women may be making two incorrect assumptions, but I don’t see hypocrisy in either belief.

     I think we can agree that men and women are drawn to physical attractiveness. If we’re attractive, we can reasonably expect that others will be drawn to that trait. However, we’ll still want to be with someone who is attractive … preferably more attractive than we are. Is that hypocritical in any way?

     But any woman who makes the assumptions you mentioned is wrong on two accounts:

     Men don’t highly value those accomplishments:
     Women value those traits in men. But as Evan pointed out in a recent newsletter, a man primarily wants a woman who will make him feel good about himself when he’s with her. A smart, strong, successful woman can still do this, but her ability to do this is unrelated to her ability to be professionally successful.

     Seeking someone smarter, stronger and more successful is not a good strategy:
     If you’re a genius seeking someone smarter than you, your dating pool is going to be very small. As A-L (#222) pointed out, the same is true if a you earn $200K/year and seek someone who earns more.

     Shrinking your dating pool more than necessary is not a good strategy.

     But I don’t see how these counterproductive strategies are hypocritical (individually or combined).

     vino said: (#223)
     “Ever notice the logic train switches tracks here from smart, strong & successful [usually objective criteria] to being ‘protected?’ By that rationale, a $200k+/yr attorney should be perfectly fine with a $45k/yr burly lumberjack.”

     Let me rephrase it more clearly. Women want an alpha male. They want someone they can take to the company Christmas party who will be respected by her peers. A group of oil company executives or cardiologists would be unlikely to view a lumberjack as an “alpha” or an equal. But they might view a NASA engineer as one, even if he earns substantially less.

     vino said: (#223)
     “I’ve been told you know something is unjust when the person would not apply the same criteria to themselves as they demand from others…”

     Really? What’s your bra size?

225. A-L Apr 8th 2009 at 02:51 pm 225

     The smart, strong, and successful (women and men) are just fine being judged by their degree of being smart, strong, and successful because they’d come out ahead. People would be all over them. Because these are qualities that women value, the men that possess those qualities are considered a real find. Since men don’t tend to value those qualities as much, these women aren’t particularly sought out. They’re not necessarily avoided, but they will have to attract the men with something else (something the men value).

     But I’d be willing to wager that the majority of men say they want to be viewed as the protector. And when we’re talking about protection, we’re talking physical and financial. Though we always talk about the short guys have trouble getting a date, tall women (5′10″ and above) also have that problem. And on another blog the men were commenting saying that it was because they didn’t feel as masculine/strong when they were with a taller woman. And the same thing often happens when the financial dynamic is reversed (see the thread How Do You Convince a Poor Guy That You Really Do Like Him? http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/how-do-you-convince-a-poor-guy-that-you-really-do-like-him/).

     This is not to say that women will never go for the poorer (or shorter) guy or that guys will never go for the richer (or taller) girl. It’s just that it’s not the traditional way that male-female relationships have been set up, and many are not comfortable with that.

     I can guess what you’re going to say already, and that it’s a hypocritical double-standard for women, and I’ll just go on ahead and say fine. But realize that the way that (most) women feel about finances is how (most) men feel about appearance. How many below-average looking guys will only contact the best looking women on dating sites? And it’s far likelier that you will find a good-looking woman with a not-so-good-looking man than the reverse. The same way that you’re far more likely to find a wealthier man with a poorer woman than the reverse.

226. vino Apr 10th 2009 at 12:21 pm 226

     I’d say that karl is putting a different spin on my conclusion, that the smart, strong very successful (I’d throw in independent also) women choose incompatible (I’d say hypocritical – see below) strategies.

     I’d note Webster’s definition of hypocrisy – “a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not”

     “A group of oil company executives or cardiologists would be unlikely to view a lumberjack as an “alphaâ€� or an equal. But they might view a NASA engineer as one, even if he earns substantially less.”
     - They MIGHT, but it is unlikely (again, what is more likely than not). In either scenario, if he earns less, she would most likely not be with him.

     I’m going to question what is meant by Alpha male. I have no idea what specifically that means. I am not going to guess at the definitions, for I suppose 10 different people will propose 10 different definitions. Sorry to be such a stickler on language sometimes, but when certain words lack clear definitions, particularly if key to the point someone’s making. Since we’re talking about smart, strong & successful and possible hypocrisy, I do not know what karl means regarding alpha. What does ’socially dominant’ (Webster’s definition) in a group of animals mean?
     _______
     A-L brings up protection, which again, means more than simply physical protection. It includes financial. Sorry, that’s often the code for ‘protection’ I’ve found, which is why I asked clarification. I’m going to stick to the strong, smart & successful subject for the moment, keeping aside the other subjects of looks, height that both karl & A-L raised, for it’s a bit off-subject.

     A-L wrote: “But I’d be willing to wager that the majority of men say they want to be viewed as the protector.”
     - My point is whether smart, strong, successful women are being hypocritical, not whether a potential majority of men would like to be viewed as a protector.

     Here’s the crux of it then – if these women are so smart, strong and successful, seeking the protection (defined as supervising or supporting one who is smaller and weaker), kinda flies in the face of being so smart, strong & successful. See hypocrisy definition above – “feigning to be what one is not”

     Maybe women in general do want to be taken care of, whether they care to admit it or not.

     BTW, I agree with A-L regarding this as an all-or-nothing discussion. It’s not all-or-nothing. My point is that more often than not, or more likely than not, this little double standard applies. But not every time. See the other threads regarding resenting boyfriends for not pulling their weight, etc.

     I’m trying to decouple the financial discussion from the one regarding looks, but in reality they are linked. That’s perhaps best explored in another thread.

227. Drahma Apr 10th 2009 at 02:26 pm 227

     Just my 2 cents on how I view a protector as a successful woman….

     I don’t really care how much money the guy makes – in fact, I think most executive types are arrogant and annoying. I’m looking for someone who has a good heart, cares about my feelings and my welfare, and lets me be me at the end of the day. I don’t want to have to come home to prove myself like I do every day at work. I want to be able to express an emotion or two (cry, even) with someone there to hold me and console me or be happy with me. I see an alpha male as someone who can do that, but at the same time has enough “balls” to tell me when I’m wrong, not let me boss him around (I’ve broken up with guys who let me call all the shots – that’s just boring), let me console him when he’s having a rough time, and tells me the truth whether I want to hear it or not. He takes the initiative on plans in general – he doesn’t have to pay for them if that’s an issue – but he pushes forward the plan. He may also help solve my problems and take charge of them and sure, I’ll listen to his advice and do what he recommends if I agree it’s a good idea.

     A woman is still a woman at the end of the day, and although she may not need money, she still has a need for the other things a man provides. Personally, I want someone balanced – not a pushover who is too easy to manipulate and make into a pet rather than significant other.

228. hunter Apr 10th 2009 at 05:51 pm 228

     Drahma, I think, the man that you describe exists, but in a narrow pool of available men. Most men don’t like telling a woman she is wrong, ’cause their is a good chance we will get something thrown at us. If you need to hear, what you say, you need to hear, see a therapist…

229. A-L Apr 11th 2009 at 08:04 am 229

     I’m with Karl on NASA engineer issue. I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t think that a NASA engineer was darn cool and impressive. And if someone chose to make an issue over his reduced income, then I can only imagine it would be the witchiest, shallowest, person alive.
     —————————————————————————
     Let’s take the word strong out of this discussion for a second. Let’s just say smart and rich. If you are smart and rich, is it hypocritical for you to want someone who is your equal or greater in terms of smarts and riches? I’d say no, it’s not. Yeah, you can pay for your own dinner at a fancy restaurant, but it’s nice if someone else can pick up the tab too.

     If you want to apply this criteria to your dates, go for it. You can apply whatever dating criteria you want, regardless of how your dates feel about it. Short guys don’t like the fact that many women filter them out, but it’s not hypocritical of the women. Same way that you can filter women out who don’t make at least as much money as you do. How your dates feel does not make you hypocritical, whether they use the same criteria or not.
     —————————————————————————
     Going back to “strong” now. Since you’re into definitions, I’m picking the 2nd definition from the New Oxford American Dictionary (1st definition was having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks, and I think we’re all in agreement that most males are physically stronger than most females, and hence not the strong we’re talking about).

     Ok, on to the definition I’m using of strong: Able to withstand great force or pressure. We’re talking about people who aren’t going to cave at a little (or even a lot) of stress, or in other problematic situations. Just because a woman’s seeking someone who is as strong or stronger than her doesn’t reduce her own strength
     —————–
     And to the other piece, protection . Well, my dictionary gives the following definition of protection: a person or thing that prevents someone or something from suffering harm or injury.

     Nowhere does it indicate that the person being protected is smaller or weaker. If I push my boyfriend out of the path of a speeding car, I just protected him. Does that mean he is now smaller and weaker than I am? No. If I serve as a buffer between him and an intimidating family member of mine, trying to deflect some of their verbal assaults, does that mean he is smaller and weaker than I am? No. Being protected does not reduce your own size or strength.

     Therefore, a woman is not being hypocritical by saying that she is strong yet she still wants to be protected by her S.O.

     As far as the alpha issue goes, maybe someone else will respond, as this post is already too long as it is. If not, I’ll try to respond later.

230. Karl R Apr 13th 2009 at 10:28 am 230

     vino said: (#226)
     “I’m going to question what is meant by Alpha male. I have no idea what specifically that means.”

     Watch Cesar Millan the dog whisperer. He talks about social dominance and alpha males all the time. Human males establish a social hierarchy in a way that’s similar to dogs. And you’re not going to get a crystal clear definition of either term, since they’re never clearly defined in real life. A lot of social dominance is based on attitude, body language and bluffing. And unlike dogs, we generally can’t “fight” to settle the issue.

     Example:
     If you’re convinced that a woman will prefer a richer man in every (or almost ever) circumstance, then your body language will reflect that belief every time you’re around someone who earns more than you. If you’re both pursuing the same woman, you’ll be convinced that you’re already destined to lose, so you’ll appear less confident. That allows the other man to achieve social dominance over you in this situation.

     The NASA engineer, on the other hand, is probably convinced that he could have become a cardiologist or a corporate executive if either career interested him. He chose to forgo a more lucrative career in order to pursue one that he’d enjoy more. Since he believes that he’s at least the equal of the wealthier man, his body language will reflect that belief.

231. hunter Apr 13th 2009 at 04:53 pm 231

     Generally speaking, the Apha male, will be VERY persistant/charge/be all over/ARRRGH!…the woman he wants.

232. vino Apr 14th 2009 at 09:26 am 232

     3 people can’t even define it….the term is therefore useless as a frame of reference

233. Karl R Apr 14th 2009 at 10:56 am 233

     vino said: (#232)
     “3 people can’t even define it….the term is therefore useless as a frame of reference”

     You might want to avoid making sweeping statements about whether particular words are useful. At least three people disagree with your definition of “hypocrisy”. You seem to have difficulty understanding the meaning of “mirroring”. And earlier in the thread you acknowledged that we’re using many different definitions of “successful”.

     If we limited our discussion to terms that you felt we had a common definition, we wouldn’t have much of a conversation going on.

     Many of us find the term “alpha male” easily understandable and useful. Feel free to skim over any sections of the forum that discuss it.

     Evan said: (in a recent newsletter)
     “In general, women want men to be leaders. They want someone tall, masculine, intelligent, and decisive. They want him to be a passionate captain of industry – a man who can hold a room with his charisma, tell a story that makes your sides split, and can bring home the bacon as well.
     That alpha male is very attractive…”

     Does that help, Vino?

     hunter said: (#231)
     “Generally speaking, the Apha male, will be VERY persistant/charge/be all over/ARRRGH!…the woman he wants.”

     That type of behavior is unnecessary for an alpha male. As Evan said, women are attracted to an alpha male. He has options.

     He doesn’t have to be all over one woman. Instead he can split his attention among five (or ten or twenty), then wait for the woman he wants to start competing with the others for more of his attention.

234. hunter Apr 14th 2009 at 05:20 pm 234

     Karl, yes, how true, most men that can do this are good looking. I have seen my wing man operate, he is quiet, most of the time, doesn’t say much, other than show women his blue eyes, yet women find him “charming”.

235. Bob Jun 28th 2009 at 07:15 pm 235

     First- Us men are NOT INTIMIDATED by “strong, outspoken, independent, successful women”.

     What we are is TIRED of hearing about how “great” you are, how “outspoken” you can be. Honestly, I don’t care. (Actually I do, get away from me-you come across like every other arrogant person who believes their ideas are better than anyone else’s.)

     As others have pointed out, we don’t want a competitor when we come home from work where we’ve had to fight all day. We want a COMPANION, a PARTNER, and so should any “smart” woman.

     The old feminist line is “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”. What the OUTSPOKEN, overbearing woman is saying is “I don’t need you” to the man. If that’s so, then why are we there?

     If a woman is so self-reliant, then what JOB does a man have in her life?

     Bottom line: Some women who complain that men are “intimidated” by them, are just pushy and overbearing. So men walk away rather than deal with that.

236. Steve Jun 29th 2009 at 10:33 am 236

     @235

     The old feminist line is “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle�.

     I think Gloria Steinham wrote that. Years ago I remember reading a magazine article about how she married a super rich old guy.

     Bottom line: Some women who complain that men are “intimidated� by them, are just pushy and overbearing.

     That is pretty much what Evan wrote, just more diplomatically.

     I agree with you, these women come across as excessively “look at me!”

237. drahma Jun 29th 2009 at 04:27 pm 237

     Wow – those seem like pretty angry posts (at least that’s the tone I’m reading). I know when I come home I’d like to be around a guy who takes on that traditional role (as would I) and I’d personally like to be as supportive to him as he is to me. I don’t want to be supportive to someone who is angry and doesn’t appreciate any of my achievements. In the past I have come home and squashed any of my excitement from the day so I could be supportive for my man – I’m kind of done with that. I’d like to share my happiness and sadness and frustrations too. In general, I prefer being around positive people who are happy for others and their successes (male or female). I think that goes for anyone who is successful. Maybe this is an article more for people to find more positive people?

238. Steve Jun 29th 2009 at 05:54 pm 238

     @237

     Its not about not wanting to share the happiness of success with someone whose company you enjoy. Sign me up.

     Its about ending up on dates with someone whose company you don’t enjoy because they are pretentious and sometimes narcissistic. Evan’s article was about giving such a people a diplomatic clue as to why they are not doing as well with dating as they could.

239. drahma Jun 29th 2009 at 06:35 pm 239

     I see your point and agree to a point…..however, just to clarify my perspective – there are narcissists who are not successful and pretentious people who can barely get by in life. I think my point is that if you are yourself and you have some traits that may cause contention, agreed, it is harder to find someone. But at the same time, you can’t judge someone because he or she has some level of success (I just felt a lot of judgment from reading your post, and I may be wrong in my assessment of what you were writing). Not all successful women brag or throw achievements in someone’s face, but sometimes people may think that because a woman mentions a huge achievement and the other person (male or female) is feeling insecure with their own lives. Self-perception has a huge impact on how you view someone else. A good friend of mine likes to debate political issues and will really challenge you if you don’t agree with him (I personally find it refreshing). His girlfriend couldn’t handle how he discussed issues and found him to be too argumentative. Go figure. Some people have told me I’m just looking for attention because I like to dance and have a good time with close friends – mind you at large parties I tend to hide in the corner and talk to 2-3 people. Depending on who you talk to and how they view themselves and what’s acceptable or not makes a difference in the end perception. So in a way, yes, it’s about the diplomatic clue; but in another way, it’s about finding someone who is ok with your quirk.

240. Steve Jun 30th 2009 at 04:52 am 240

     @drahma, #239

     It seems like success, personality traits, dating and some of other things are getting conflated.

     If you haven’t, read Evan’s original article for this thread.

     The woman who wrote into Evan stated, more or less, that she had a great resume, a decent appearance, yet was having trouble finding someone.

     Evan’s response was mostly on two points.

     The first point he made was that while it might be a generalization and a bit dated, men in general don’t get excited about a date’s resume as a primary focus. Traditionally, it is women who have been excited about dating doctors, lawyers and business owners.

     The second point he made was that personality traits that bring rewards in the business world don’t always work well on dates. Men have been warned about this for years. Women as a group haven’t learned this yet and mistakenly write it off as men not liking strong, successful women. It isn’t success or strength that is the problem.

     The “if he doesn’t like me it must be because he can’t handle how wonderful I am” attitude is itself a bit pretentious.

     When combined with boring work talk, not being curious about the other person and having a “work place personality” on a date you get a woman who is not going to get another date.

     You also get a number of people who have been on those dates with those type of people chiming in with “amen”s. I can’t speak for the other commentators, but that is where I am coming from.

     I’m sure when you are with your girl-friends you talk in a manner that expresses your emotions but when looked at word for word you wouldn’t want to say it represents who you are.

     Guys don’t have girl-friends to dish too, so you will find a few strongly worded “amen”s from men in the anonymous comments sections on dating blogs.

     It doesn’t mean they are out in the world bent over with anger.

241. Heather Ferreira Jul 3rd 2009 at 06:59 am 241

     Evan, boy does this topic speak to me. A couple years ago I was a careerist hard-line feminist, and a bit of a racist, too: get this – a black woman who would not date black guys, owing to a sexual assault experience back in the Eighties that all black guys should not be blamed for. I have now learned this, after dating some of New York’s most truly wonderful fellows of all races. But I digress. Anyway, I treated relationships like combat and saw men as my enemies. After all, why not, I reasoned? Sure, they might look at my chest and not my face, but then ignore my of course it’s so jaw-droppingly fantastic resume, fail to be impressed by my oh so glamorous so-called career, take a peek at super career me but then move on – or force me to move them on – to softer, rounder girls whom at the time I considered weaklings, Stepford throwbacks, doormats. And then they would marry these girls!

     Why was this happening? I even poured up a heaping mugful of liquid hate for a very good author who wrote a book attempting to counsel other career girls like myself so we could keep a man interested, and maybe see one fight to snag us. In that article I said some pretty dumb things.

     But now flash forward to me a couple years later, happily dating and positively besieged by handsome, smart, funny, available and interested guys. How did this happen? Did I change overnight? Was it moving to New York City where I will admit men are a little more outspoken when interested than in other cities? Nah; more to the point it was realizing men want different things from a date than women do, and remembering I was a girl, not a boy.

     As a date conversation topic, my own career began to bore me. About a year ago, I stopped wearing black suits and pinstripes outside the studio. I started wearing frilly dresses with lace, and wearing more bright colors. I stopped hiding my chest and legs. I took my hair down out of its bun and let it fall on my back and shoulders. But more importantly I think, something within me had shifted. I began enjoying being a girl – a real change for a lifelong tomboy. This resulted in me laughing and smiling more, especially in public; talking a little softer, not using profanity as much, and just softening up inside. I started noticing I LOVED MEN! Long a feminist, I instead began observing how society is often cruel to little boys and to men, and began feeling sympathy and admiration towards them. Men became my best friends.

     I was then positively besieged by men!

     On subways. In hallways. At restaurants. Leaving a meeting. Going to one. On W. 47th. On E. 12th. In the elevators. The freight loading docks. The bus. The doctor’s office. Like the song, it began “raining men”! I’m now dating actively – not aggressively, notice, but actively; I don’t seek out men or dates, they just show up and come to me, and I’m asked out all the freaking time. Now my job is to glow gently, smile, accept, say yes, enjoy, then go home and evaluate. How did I like this date? How did he make me feel? Does he make me smile, make me happy? And men LOVE putting women in the position to ask these things. They perform, they provide, then we sit back and gently, lovingly evaluate. This is the best job ever!

     So this is a long and somewhat rambling note, Evan, to say I stopped by your website this morning to click a topic I would have clicked with a gnarly frown two years ago, looking for yet more “evidence that men do not like a successful woman”. Today, with a nice date behind me last night and another date scheduled this evening, I can read all this with a smile because I know it isn’t accurate; more accurate is that men care if you are happy with yourself while at your career, not whether you are successful at it. They want to know not whether you are a successful woman, but instead if you are successful at being a woman, and can therefore make him happy he is a man.

     I have figured this out and offer a really dumb once woman’s apology to all the men I hurt with my actions, the women and men I hurt with my comments, the innocent black dudes who never got a chance with me because I was dumb (see aforementioned really dumb onceness), and to all the readers here wondering when this post will end!

     Well, yes it will: right here!

     Thanks for a fun website, Evan… men are not the enemy. I get it now.

242. kirsten Jul 4th 2009 at 05:25 pm 242

     Both of these related articles are amazing. I don’t like the tone some of the comments have regarding typical gender roles. However, I understand completely that at times at I can be overbearing (take-charge) etc.Those are qualities I wouldn’t want to have with anyone. That doesn’t mean I can’t get things done, I just need to be aware of the people around and their feelings. This includes men, women, family, friends, children, anyone. To me it’s not about altering myself for a man, but altering how I’m perceived by everyone.
     .-= kirsten´s last blog ..Portland Girls == New York Girls =-.

243. Terry Jul 8th 2009 at 06:54 am 243

     ‘Women with a distinctive male energy often confuse men’

     No, I’m sorry – this isn’t correct. Its a common myth – along with ‘Men don’t like strong women’.

     Men like strong women, just not strong men who used to be women, but have taken on every male personality they can find.

     Smart, Strong, Successful Women are often ugly, demanding, angry and boring.

     I’m a guy, if want to spend time with a man in a skirt, there are lots of bars where I can get that – without buying all the drinks.

     The only man who wants to come home to an aggressive, competitive, demanding woman is not worth marrying.

     Feminism sold women short, it sold a lie. Like Communism, it was a great ideology that didn’t work. Successful women need to ask themselves – do they want the career and all the perks, or a marriage. The two don’t often go together.

     Don’t believe me? Go to any dating website and count the number of professional women in their 40’s desperately seeking but never finding.

244. WithLove Jul 8th 2009 at 01:42 pm 244

     Been Thru Wars….I am so glad I read your blog comment. I went and purchased Patricia Allens book Getting To I Do. I can’t thank you enough for mentioning the book! Did it open my eyes!!!!!!!!!!!! Not mention my brain like a pinata! Amazing. The big light bulb went on and then the tears came…realizing the damage I had done to a very special relationship I wish so much I could fix especially with what I know and realize now about MYSELF. I know there will be
     arguments against this and the Rules…but for me it makes sense. Again, thank you so very much….it was just what I needed to go on knowing that next time I will be much more equipped to be a great woman for myself and and fantastic woman (hopefully wife) for a great man!
     Thank you!

245. starthrower68 Jul 8th 2009 at 06:58 pm 245

     Wow. That’s all I can seem to say to the above statement is wow. There is some real anger and hostility there.

246. Steve Jul 8th 2009 at 07:52 pm 246

     Wow.

247. Terry Jul 9th 2009 at 01:06 am 247

     All I can say about the above statement is wow. There is some real projection and bad psychic mind-reading there.

     There was no anger or hostility in my post. Perhaps in the reply.

     But for 40 years, anyone who has dared to question the fundamentalist beliefs of Feminism has been attacked.

     Well, lets see what the result of this marvelous change has brought.

     I live in a city full of successful, professional women who have successful careers and will never marry or have children. Perhaps they should be the ones being angry and hostile.

248. starthrower68 Jul 10th 2009 at 07:27 am 248

     I don’t think that militant feminism has done women a whole lot of favors either, but to just make blanket statements about 40-year-old unmarried professional women is quite unfair, and I must say kinda mean. But hey, whatever gets ya through the night, man.

249. Brett Aug 20th 2009 at 10:28 am 249

     I don’t have any problem with successful women at all, I love smart successful classy women. From my experience though successful women are extremely picky and will only date white collar professional men. A lot of successful women say they’ll only a date a man that makes at least as much money as her. So I think a lot of men don’t bother with them because they think she wouldn’t be interested in him even though he’d love to spend time with her and woo her.

250. WildLilly Sep 15th 2009 at 10:44 pm 250

     Wasn’t Michelle saying that men disappear when she is sweet and nice and are only interested when she’s playing hard to get?

251. WildLilly Sep 15th 2009 at 10:45 pm 251

     I read it wrong – that was Catherine, not Michelle.

252. Ruby Sep 16th 2009 at 08:07 am 252

     Are there really guys out there who prefer dumb/uneducated, bland, unsuccessful women?

253. Hadley Paige Sep 24th 2009 at 09:42 am 253

     RE: Ruby @252    Are there really guys out there who prefer dumb/uneducated, bland, unsuccessful women?
     ———-

     YES Ruby, but not as you choose to characterize it.  The way you have asked this question suggests you have an ax to grind here.

     The fact that men may not prefer super or extremely smart women does not mean they prefer dumb ones.  With respect to education, to many men the education level of the women they are considering to be the father of their children while being a  factor is not as important as other qualities, such as sanity, the desire and ability to be a good mother, interests, goals and desires consistent with being a good wife & mother;  absence of interests, goals and desires not consistent with being a good wife and mother.

     Being, as you say, an unsuccessful woman, suggests failure, but viewed differently lack of (I assume you mean business) success paves the way for success in other areas which are inconsistent w business success.

     I want a successful woman for my LTR but not a business successful women bc her priorities are not the priorities that I want.   I seek a woman who is successful in non-business areas.  Why?–I can provide the $$, I want a women who has complementary success not similar success.

254. Ruby Sep 24th 2009 at 10:09 am 254

     #252
     I don’t have an ax to grind, but I think it is a spurious question, to some extent.
     Yes, there is more than one way to define success, and certainly being successful in business (or any career) and the ability to be a good mother are not mutually exclusive.  I know many successful (and smart and strong) women who are great moms, too, as well as some who aren’t interested in motherhood. Also, I think smart men want smart women because they want intelligent kids. My male friends aren’t threatened by these qualities in a woman.

255. Hadley Paige Sep 24th 2009 at 12:55 pm 255

     RE:  Ruby @254 — ” I know many successful (and smart and strong) women who are great moms.”
     1. Your definition of great mom is likely different from generally accepted definitions;
     2.  Your anecdotal experiences of knowing many great moms (setting aside the issue of whether or not they are in fact great moms)  doesn’t disprove the statement that being a successful business women is generally inconsistent w being a good mom; and
     3.  I don’t know how you can be a great mom (much less an adequate one) unless you are there for your small children.  Who are your children with when you are busy being a “successful business woman”?  Someone else is being the mom.  Small children need their mommies and they need their mommy’s full attention.    More loving, patient, available, present (mentally & physically >> not on the blackberry) mom is better than less.  There is no way around that.

256. Ruby Sep 24th 2009 at 05:52 pm 256

     # 255
      
     According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 53.7 million married-couple families in the United States in 1998. In over half of them, both the husband and wife were employed. These dual-worker families accounted for 53.1 percent of married-couple families. Families in which only the husband worked for pay comprised 19.2 percent of all married-couple families. In 5.3 percent of families maintained by married couples, only the wife was employed.
      
     It sounds like you are saying moms shouldn’t work at all,  no matter what their level of success. Clearly, the majority does not agree. You can work in a factory and have to put in long hours, without being able to afford extra help or a Blackberry.

257. Hadley Paige Sep 26th 2009 at 09:19 am 257

     RE: Ruby @ 255 – “dual-worker families accounted for 53.1 of married-couple families.”  “It sounds like you are saying moms shouldn’t work at all,  no matter what their level of success. Clearly, the majority does not agree”.
     ————————-

     Ruby, You suffer from an error in logic deduction.  You conclude that women don’t agree that what is best for small children is for mom to be with them by observing their actions rather than by inquiring into their beliefs.

     Most Americans are overweight or obese, does that mean that they don’t agree that being in shape is a preferable state of existence– of course not.   Likewise, the fact that most moms work, (and even that they think it is a good idea for them as women), does not make it not true that mommies working doesn’t have detrimental effects on small children.

     Lets get back on track here, this post is about why men are not interested in “successful women”.  Speaking as a man and what I want as a man, I want a women who is going to be a good wife & mother.  I think that is  beyond debate that for small children, having the mom present is preferable to having her absent.  Since I want my children to be raised with the greatest chance of success, I want (among other qualities in her) a women who WANTS to be a mother and will stay home with the children until they no longer substantially need her loving, caring presence.  If you are a “successful business woman” what you want for you is not what I want from you.  Ergo, I am not interested in you as a wife.  While “successful business women” may be fun, attractive & stimulating for dating purposes, I don’t believe they are good marriage material.

258. Ruby Sep 26th 2009 at 01:27 pm 258

     #257
     “Likewise, the fact that most moms work, (and even that they think it is a good idea for them as women), does not make it not true that mommies working doesn’t have detrimental effects on small children.”
     There is no hard evidence that this is true, HP. Of course, if you believe that it is, you are entitled to choose whatever type of wife suits YOU best.

259. Sayanta Sep 28th 2009 at 04:25 pm 259

     HP-

     You forget that most kids, starting when they’re small, spend 8 hours in school, add a couple of hours for after school activities That’s a very large part of the day when they don’t need (or maybe even want) Mommy’s sweet presence.

260. Sayanta Sep 28th 2009 at 04:26 pm 260

     oh- I forget to add- a school day coincides with the hours of an average work day. Win-win!

261. A-L Sep 28th 2009 at 07:16 pm 261

     When Hadley says, “I want (among other qualities in her) a women who WANTS to be a mother and will stay home with the children until they no longer substantially need her loving, caring presence,” I suspect he thinks that once kids are school-aged that they no longer substantially need her loving, caring presence.  My guess is that he doesn’t want his kids in daycare, but rather wants them to be taken care of by mom.
     Not saying I agree or disagree with his position, just that I think this is what his position is.

262. Sayanta Sep 29th 2009 at 05:15 am 262

     A-L-

     A-L

     ok- that’s possible. But there are ’successful businesswomen” who take of a couple of years to be at home with their kids and go back to work, businesswomen who work from home, and all other kinds of arrangements.

     My problem with HP’s post is that he’s making character judgments on an entire group of people without paying attention to specific circumstances of different women. From the general tone of his posts, it seems that he’s got issues with women’s independence, in general, based on his particular worldview. His worldview is limited- this is true for everyone of course, since we tend to generalize based on what we’ve personally experienced.

     Perhaps there will be a woman who’ll be happy to stay at home with the kids while HP supports her. That’s fine- I also don’t have a particular viewpoint on this position. But I think HP should also consider whether he’s likely to find a woman nowadays who would willingly give up her financial independence to him.

     So HP- it’s better for me to ‘talk’ to you directly instead of about you, as above. You’re a professional, can you imagine what it would be like to not have a paycheck (yes, yes, I know if housewives were paid for their work, they’d be making a lot of money, but that’s not the reality- yet), your own bank account, a way to have a means of financial self-support in case some emergency were to happen?For example, your husband decides to leave you for a younger woman (or man) and gives you hell about spousal support/chils support, and now you’re stuck with no money, job skills, etc. That’s the position women have always been in, until recently. It can be a scary situation- as someone who’s done divorce law, i can attest to that.

     I think it would do you good to just imagine what your life would be like if you were a woman in the above situation. Are you capable of that kind of empathy? I sure hope so…in your quest to search for what you want, I’m not sure you’ve thought about what women want. Maybe you have- I don’t know. But I can tell you this- women want a man who has empathy and compassion, not one who’s always walking around with a list in his head of ‘how his little wife should behave.’

263. drahma Sep 29th 2009 at 07:21 am 263

     Depending on how you define successful, some successful women have the ability to have a more flexible schedule so they can work during nap times and school times only or late at night (I believe George Sands wrote at night so she could spend time with her children during the day) and in some cases switch their work environments to the home. They can also move their schedules to accommodate a child’s activities.
     I think it depends on what you want – you can have everything you want all if you balance things and know what you want, knowing children require the lifetime commitment.
      

264. Brett Oct 6th 2009 at 07:23 pm 264

     See the thing is the women that are successful and say they can’t find a man need to look no further than at themselves.  It has nothing to do with men at all, but the type of men many of them pursue.  Read the original letter Catherine wrote to Evan.

265. Sayanta Oct 7th 2009 at 06:59 am 265

     Brett-

     So waht kind of men should these women be pursuing?

266. Michael Oct 7th 2009 at 10:07 am 266

     Men with pleasing personalities and bodies, of course.

267. Helen Oct 7th 2009 at 01:30 pm 267

     Hadley Paige #257: If you care so much about the well-being of your future children, have you considered that YOU might stay home with them? Why does it have to be your wife? Your wife could be the one working, and you could stay at home till they are “of age.” That would give you a much broader base of women among whom to choose. And since you’re the one who cares so much about your kids having a stay-at-home parent, it makes sense that you consider doing it yourself.

268. Sayanta Oct 7th 2009 at 05:04 pm 268

     Helen-

     He’s pretty much spelt it out- man go hunt, woman stay home and cook big mammoth.

269. Helen Oct 7th 2009 at 06:45 pm 269

     Sayanta: hee!  Love it!  But in all seriousness now…

     Imagine a woman saying this: “I need to choose a husband based on what’s important to me: having someone stay at home with my children while they’re in their formative years.  Therefore, I only want to marry a man who will be a good dad and stay at home with them till they go to grade school.”

     Surely this comment from a woman would make people go: “Uhhhh…” followed by: “If you want someone to stay home with your kids, do it yourself!  Don’t marry someone just so THEY can do it!”

     Yet if a man makes that same comment, about wanting to marry a woman who will stay home to take care of his children, far fewer people bat an eyelash.

     Seriously: whether you’re a man or a woman, if having someone to be a stay-at-home parent is so important to you, do it yourself.  Don’t marry someone just so you can use them for that purpose.  Women are not “mothers first, human beings second.”  It is much better to have a happy and fulfilled wife – whether that means that she loves her job or she loves staying at home.

270. Sayanta Oct 8th 2009 at 06:54 am 270

     Women are not “mothers first, human beings second.�

     That’s a great point- unfortunately, men who make these types of comments don’t, and probably never will, see women as human beings.

271. Ruby Oct 8th 2009 at 07:37 am 271

     Helen
      
     I have a feeling that HP would think that staying home with the kids would be demeaning to him, and clearly not a man’s job.

272. Hadley Paige Oct 8th 2009 at 10:55 am 272

     TO: Helen, Sayanta, Ruby  RE: posts 268> 271
     Would someone please tell me why I am a bad person; or why I am deserving of criticism from you all,  because I want to find a woman who’s priorities in life is to be a good wife & mother; and who I think has the necessary skill set & motivations to have a reasonable chance of success at that?

273. Helen Oct 8th 2009 at 11:13 am 273

     Hadley, please read over my past comments… I never ONCE wrote or even thought that you were a bad person.  I suspect you are a good one.  I do think you need to be aware and caring, however, of a woman’s desires and needs apart from her being a mother.  These include her desires to be loved as a woman, and her financial and intellectual well-being (as a job could give her, but frankly being a stay-at-home mom couldn’t – and I speak with experience of having done both).

274. Sayanta Oct 8th 2009 at 11:33 am 274

     HP-

     I agree with Helen. No one said you were ‘bad.’ (what’s ‘bad’, anyway?). Please read our posts carefully; we’re trying to relay a woman’s POV, and if you do want a successful rel’ship, you’re going to have to empathize with a woman and see things from her POV. And vice versa of course.

275. Kenley Oct 8th 2009 at 12:16 pm 275

     Helen,
     Please read what HP wrote — he said he wanted a woman who would be a good wife and mother.  I think the wife part means loving her as a woman not just as a mother.
     As a woman who has never had the desire to be married or have children, I have never assumed that because I don’t want those things, all women don’t want those things.  There are in fact some women who want to be stay at home moms and who will be quite fulfilled doing that….just because you didn’t feel fulfilled in that role doesn’t mean some other woman won’t.   Moreover, why is a job the only way for a woman to cultivate her intellect?   Not all jobs are intellectually stimulating.    Also, given the cost of daycare, I know many women who indicate that most of their pay check goes to paying for that daycare.  So, again, I’m not certain that working in and of itself guarantees a woman financial stability.    A paycheck? Yes.  Her financial well-being?  Maybe.
     While I agree that no one said HP was a bad guy, there definitely seemed to be a desire to make him feel bad for wanting stay at home wife and mother.
      
      

276. Hadley Paige Oct 8th 2009 at 12:18 pm 276

     RE: Helen @ 273 >> “please read over my past comments… I never ONCE wrote or even thought that you were a bad person”.

     Helen, please look at the following postings:

     Sayanta Oct 7th 2009 at 05:04 pm 268

     Helen- He’s pretty much spelt it out- man go hunt, woman stay home and cook big mammoth.
     ——————————–

     Helen Oct 7th 2009 at 06:45 pm 269

     Sayanta: hee!  Love it!
     ——————————–

     Sayanta  is portraying the traditional arrangement as neanderthal.  Looks like criticism to me. You express agreement. Please note that I have no problem with women not wanting the traditional arrangement.  Just don’t attack me personally (by agreeing with another critical poster) and then deny it.

277. Hadley Paige Oct 8th 2009 at 12:57 pm 277

     RE: Helen @ 274 ” we’re trying to relay a woman’s POV, and if you do want a successful rel’ship, you’re going to have to empathize with a woman and see things from her POV”
     ——————————

     This post is about why men are (generally) not interested in strong, successful women.  Your POV (I assume you are a self defined strong successful woman expressing the POV of such) I understand.  And maybe for the sake of this exercise I may even concede your points.  It doesn’t change why I am not interested in strong, successful women.

     The fact that maybe most (maybe not most) women want what you express is not what we are talking about. The post is not what women want, its why men are (generally) not interested in strong, successful women.  I am telling you>> here it is:.

     I don’t want a strong successful woman because her motivations, desires and priorities are not (in my opinion) consistent with being a good mother. I want a women who will be a good wife AND!!  mother.  The fact that many women don’t want this doesn’t change what I want.  It just makes the pool of  women I will consider for marriage smaller.
     Interesting side note: If my pool of likely women is smaller due to this requirement, I must become more flexible in other requirements  (perhaps, the women doesn’t have to be quite so attractive, for example) or else my likelihood of success is diminished.

278. Sayanta Oct 8th 2009 at 01:41 pm 278

     HP-

     How exactly do you define strong? You said you don’t want strong, successful women. Take away the word successful, just because it means so many different things to different people. Are you saying you expect a good wife and mother won’t be strong? (Trust me, you better be strong to give birth!). Or is it just that you want someone submissive?

     Maybe…is that the real issue? That it’s really submission you want? And somehow you think that ‘traditional’ women will be that way? If that’s the case, then the relationship won’t be equal. Of course, you may say that you don’t want an equal relationship. But inevitably, those kind of relationships will lead to unhappiness- it’s just that most men don’t realize it. 

279. Helen Oct 8th 2009 at 03:18 pm 279

     Hadley: Laughing at Sayanta’s funny comment was not an indictment or even indirect criticism against you. It was funny because of the imagery of the mammoth. Don’t read any more into it than that. And I was not the one who made Comment 274.

     Now here is what I see as the crux of what I found disagreeable about your assertion (which is nothing against YOU personally):

     With all due respect, there is something you value even more than the well-being of your future children.  That is your job, and everything your job connotes. If you didn’t value your job more than having a parent stay home with the kids, you’d volunteer to stay home with the kids yourself.

     I don’t blame or judge you (or anyone else) for valuing your job and all it brings: stimulation, adult conversation and friends, relative peace, financial security. But my point is: women value all these things too, and that doesn’t make us bitches (that may not even make us “smart, strong, successful women”). 

     So why should a wife have to give up all these things to raise your children (childrearing is often a hellish job, with no pay) just because she is a woman and you are a man? Women value their jobs, independence, stimulation, and adult company too. And as Ruby pointed out earlier, there is no evidence that children who attend daycare or stay with a nanny are worse-off than kids with stay-at-home parents.  Indeed, they have lower asthma rates!

     That’s my stance on the situation, having actually had to battle it in my own life with a man who didn’t understand at first, but now does. It is not against you or any other man.

280. Sayanta Oct 8th 2009 at 06:04 pm 280

     Helen-

     Great post. Couldn’t have said it better myself. But HP seems pretty set in his beliefs. All our talk of empathy and women’s rights doesn’t matter, because he won’t hear it. I guess we should end the conversation. Well, I will at least. I’m not going to dictate anyone else, obviously.

281. Joe Oct 9th 2009 at 10:34 am 281

     Helen sez:
     Imagine a woman saying this: “I need to choose a husband based on what’s important to me: having someone stay at home with my children while they’re in their formative years.  Therefore, I only want to marry a man who will be a good dad and stay at home with them till they go to grade school.�
     
     There are probably fewer men who are stay-at-home dads, but they exist.  If I had a wife who pulled in double my salary I’d be happy to stay home and take care of the kids and let her bring home the bacon.  If she pulled in less than I do, I probably wouldn’t be as agreeable.  One must be practical in such matters, after all.

282. Hadley Paige Oct 9th 2009 at 10:51 am 282

     RE: Helen @ 279   “why should a wife have to give up all these things [to raise your children?”

     Helen, you keep talking about this choice as a sacrifice.  It may be for you and others like you.   I respect your choices and priorities. Pursue what you want & I hope you get it and it makes you happy & fulfilled.  I also am not interested in you (or others like you) as a wife.

     I am looking for the type of woman who views this choice as a preference not as a sacrifice.  That is what I mean when I say I am looking for a woman with the correct set of priorities in her life.   I want someone who views it as a calling.  Therefore they are not “sacrificing” anything to do this, rather they are happy to find a man who is willing to provide the environment to allow them to do it.

     Feminists give lip service to the notion that women can be anything they want to be.   But the truth is that the feminist movement is very down on women making the choice (as an expression of desire not sacrifice)  to be a traditional wife and mother.

283. Ruby Oct 9th 2009 at 11:52 am 283

     Studies show that women suffer more financially than men when a marriage ends. There’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting to be a stay at home mom, but the feminist movement has wanted women to be aware that doing so, as well as allowing the husband to make all or most financial decisions, can prove costly in the event of divorce.

     A quarter of all divorced women in America live at or below the poverty line.
     A woman’s standard of living decreases anywhere from 27 to 45 percent in the first year after a divorce while a man’s rises by an average of 10 percent.

284. Sayanta Oct 9th 2009 at 12:15 pm 284

     HP-

     You say you respect choices of career women but yet you use the word, “Correct set of priorities” when talking about a woman who wants to be only a wife and mother. Given your choice of words, “Correct”- aren’t you essentially saying that only wife/motherhood is women’s calling?

285. Helen Oct 9th 2009 at 12:25 pm 285

     Joe #281: You rock! That’s great that stay-at-home-fatherhood is something you would consider… and your weighing of the matter based on salary is totally reasonable.

     Hadley #282: “I am looking for a woman with the correct set of priorities in her life.” – It’s rather stunning arrogance for any person to posit what the “correct set of priorities” in life for the opposite sex is. At most, one can say what the right priorities are for a spouse for himself or herself, not for an entire gender.  And I couldn’t care less whether you are interested in me for a wife.

286. Hadley Paige Oct 9th 2009 at 12:44 pm 286

     RE: Sayanta @ 284 >>”you use the word, “Correct set of prioritiesâ€� when talking about a woman who wants to be only a wife and mother.”
     _________________
     Not my intention to suggest that that is the only appropriate course for women to take.  I meant it to mean the correct set of priorities  as far as my goals are concerned.

287. Helen Oct 10th 2009 at 06:08 pm 287

     Check out this He Said / She Said article about whether it’s “OK” for the woman to be the breadwinner: http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articlemc.aspx?cp-documentid=22024557&gt1=32023 
     I’ll cut and paste what the man said. Would you men agree or disagree?

     He Said: Let me start by stating that I am about to reveal one of the dirty little secrets men have and lie about constantly. The reality is that it takes an exceptionally confident and self-assured man to be comfortable with a woman being the breadwinner in a relationship. As a gender we don’t admit this. “Of course!” we say. “I wish my wife was so that I could stay home,” we boast. “How great would it be to not have to work?” we ponder smugly, as if having a partner who lived up to this would solve all our problems. But most of us who say these things are lying through our collective grinning teeth.

     The truth is that, while most men are attracted to women with power (and money is a vehicle for power), we do not want powerful women for partners. The idea of a woman who desires, earns, and achieves more is scary. Most men simply do not want to compete with their partners for power. Our partners can earn, do, and achieve slightly more than us and we’re fine with it. It’s a fun and friendly competition, and it helps keep us honest and focused. If, however, you eclipse us to the point that we can’t out-earn or success you, we’ll lose interest faster than you can say “corner office.”

     For those of you who watched Sex and the City, remember Steve breaking up with Miranda because she wanted to buy him an expensive suit for an event at her law firm? He said, “No way. I’ll start to think of you like my mother … You need to be with someone more on your level.” Now, I realize this is horribly unfair. The reality, though, is that most men would rather reach down than up economically. It’s safer, less stressful, more comfortable, and ultimately sad.
     ———-
     I don’t think this is ”dirty little secret” makes much sense, but men are welcome to want whatever they want.  Just don’t complain about us women being irrational.   And Joe 281, you’re an “exceptionally confident and self-assured man”!

     It’s worth reading what the woman had to say too, if you click on the link.  Very sympathetic yet logical points.

288. Sayanta Oct 11th 2009 at 11:47 am 288

     Helen-

     Interesting (though depressing) article. Two things: I’m a little wary of believing articles where a man or woman speaks for all the people in his or her own gender. More often than not, articles like these tend to be a platform for the author to vent his own insecurities and say, “see, everyone else is this way, too!” Second, I personally think that loving relationships can be one of life’s greatest experiences- but when you read enough of these kind of articles (and trust me, they’re ALL over the place, from both sexes), it creates a sense of disillusionment and cynicism. And then you’re bringing those things into every encounter with a man.

     Say for example, a fifteen-year-old girl with big aspirations for her career path reads this article. It is Marie Claire, so it’s likely. This girl also happens to be a huge romantic. After reading this, she may choose to ignore it. However, what if that one adult male’s opinion has hit something in her subconscious? From then on, she might choose to ‘remain small’ for the rest of her life for fear of turning away men.

     It’s all well and good to point to these articles as sources, “wisdom” about the sexes, but does reading this stuff actually help women and make it easier between the sexes. Or does it actually continue to tell women, yes you have to choose between worldly success and a lasting relationship with a man- because you certainly can’t have both.

289. Sayanta Oct 11th 2009 at 12:08 pm 289

     oh sorry for the double post- but I forgot to add this- here’s the whole link, but here’s the response that I thought particularly interesting.

     Poster’s question:

     <i>I just don’t understand why men seem to be intimidated by smart and successful women?  Even the intelligent, successful men seem to be intimidated by the intelligent, successful women.    I just got my MBA from a top business school and all I can say is that the MBA seems to have had a negative impact on my dating life.  Many other single MBA women have had the same complaints…. and, I would like to add these woman are attractive.

     I would love to hear from the guys what the deal is? </i>

     One of the answers:

     I just don’t understand why men MY FRIENDS AND I MEET seem to be intimidated by SEEMINGLY smart and successful women?  Even the intelligent, successful men MY FRIENDS AND I MEET seem to be intimidated by the SEEMINGLY intelligent, successful women.    I just got my MBA from a top business school and all I can say is that the MBA seems to have had a negative impact on my dating life.  SOME other single MBA women have had the same complaints…. and, I would like to add these woman are attractive TO ME.

     Answer:  I have no idea what guys you and your MBA friends are meeting, but whoever they are, they don’t represent Men as a whole.  My fiance and my two girlfriends before her had far higher education than I.  Same is true for my closest guy friends.  See… real men don’t let petty shit intimidate them… only petty men do.  So my answer to you comes in the form of a question.  Where are you meeting all these petty men?

290. Helen Oct 11th 2009 at 06:09 pm 290

     Sayanta – Hee hee!  Love that man’s response.  He goes down in my book as a real Mensch.

     My partner is like that, too… he brags about my accomplishments to his ultra-conservative family.  That doesn’t make them more impressed with me (they think I should be a SAHM), but I love that he does that anyway.

     And Sayanta, that is a good point that no one man’s viewpoint should be taken to represent the entire sex’s viewpoints.  It’s just a matter of finding the right person for you, and sometimes that means that you have to look in places that you otherwise would not have considered.  Have those female MBAs considered looking for men in, say, the arts, or vocational-technical professions, or academia?  They need to look outside their immediate spheres.

291. A-L Oct 12th 2009 at 06:06 am 291

     Hadley,
      
     Just out of curiosity, at what age do you think children can be before they no longer need a stay-at-home parent?  And are you looking for someone who would be a SAHM for the children the two of you had together, or for children who existed from a previous relationship?

292. Hadley Paige Oct 12th 2009 at 11:20 am 292

     RE   A-L @291 Hadley . . . at what age do you think children can be before they no longer need a stay-at-home parent?  ”
     ————–
     Firstly I do not pretend to be an expert on this question. Secondly, I am answering this question SOLELY from the perspective of what I think is best for the mental and emotional health of children; and NOT what is the best balance for women with respect to work and family.

     I do not distinguish btwn children of previous marriages and current marriage. If the children are little, then ideally mom should be around.

     Certainly until children are going to school full time, they should have their mom around full time.  Once they start to go to school, and get a bit older (how about seven?) a few hours spent in the afternoon after school at a close neighbor’s house who is a full time mom and has a child who is a friend of your child, I don’t think would be too bad, as long a mom in question is home in time to cook dinner and have a settled meal at a reasonable hour.
      
      

293. Hadley Paige Oct 12th 2009 at 11:27 am 293

     RE: Helen @ 287    ” we do not want powerful women for partners. ” “I don’t think this is “dirty little secret” makes much sense, but men are welcome to want whatever they want.  Just don’t complain about us women being irrational.
     ——————

     It’s a good thing for women that men want women who are shorter, stupider and poorer than them. Why?— because women  want their men to be taller, smarter and richer than them.

294. Joe Oct 13th 2009 at 10:22 am 294

     Sayanta, I bet your MBA is a boat anchor on your dating life because men (rightly or not) expect a woman with an MBA to be very into the business life, and therefore less into the personal life.  Less personal life equals less time for them.

295. Sayanta Oct 13th 2009 at 10:48 am 295

     Joe-

     I’m not an MBA- I pasted a link from someone who is.

296. Ruby Oct 13th 2009 at 11:53 am 296

     HP #293
      
     “It’s a good thing for women that men want women who are shorter, stupider and poorer than them. Why?— because women  want their men to be taller, smarter and richer than them.”
      
     Whatever happened to equality in your world, HP? Oh, that’s right, if a woman were a true equal, she wouldn’t be content to  be your unpaid, stay-at-home servant. I’m just thankful that the men I know don’t feel as you do, (and neither do the women) – they understand that a woman who is an equal partner has more to contribute, not just to them and to the relationship, but to any children they might have.

297. Hadley Paige Oct 13th 2009 at 12:35 pm 297

     RE: Ruby @  296 “Whatever happened to equality in your world, HP?”
     —–
     Ruby, My world is the real world, not the fantasy world of what I think (or you think) it should be.   And being a realist,  I am a little confused by your response to my posted quote.
     Is it that you don’t think that women generally would like their men to be taller, smarter & richer than they are? (or just that you wish it wasn’t true).  Or perhaps you think that its not true that men seek out women who are shorter, stupider  and poorer than they are bc their experience tells them that in that population they are most likely to find a suitable LTR.  Let’s separate what is true or not from what you’d like to be true or not.

298. Hadley Paige Oct 13th 2009 at 12:53 pm 298

     RE: Ruby @ 296   “if a woman were a true equal, she wouldn’t be content to  be your unpaid, stay-at-home servant.”
     ——–

     Ruby, equality doesn’t mean everybody does the exact same thing.   I assume that from your response above you don’t have any interest in being a stay at home wife & mother — fine.   But it seems you are suggesting that any women who stays at home  to be a full time wife (running the homefront) & mother is being exploited by her husband as a unpaid servant.  Can you not conceive of this state of affairs being a preference for many women?   There are many women who would love to be supported like this in order to allow them to be a stay at home wife & mom.

     Guys could equally say that they object to being treated a wallet objects, slugging it out in the employment trenches each day just to allow mom to stay home & not work.

     I think the truth is that if you feel that the role is an exploitation of you then don’t do it.  If you feel that the role is your calling, then do it, enjoy it & be thankful that you have found in your mate a person who is willing to do the complement to what you do.

299. Helen Oct 13th 2009 at 01:35 pm 299

     #298 “Guys could equally say that they object to being treated a wallet object… just to allow mom to stay home & not work.”

     “Not work”??? HP, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you’re simply making that statement from utter ignorance. Being a stay-at-home wife with no kids would indeed be peachy.

     Being a stay-at-home mom to babies and small kids is sheer hell. 

     Take it from someone who’s been there, done that, would rather clean bathrooms than be stuck at home alone again with an inconsolable baby or toddlers whose demands are insatiable.

     Why don’t you hear about how awful it is for SAHMs more often? Because in the US, there’s such a social stigma against admitting it. We fear it’s tantamount to saying we don’t love our kids (which isn’t true); we fear social censure. For European mothers, it is not this way; they openly admit how awful staying at home with kids is. Read Judith Warner’s “Perfect Madness” to learn the French viewpoint. This is why Sweden (and soon Canada) has enacted a policy by which fathers as well as mothers are REQUIRED to take paternity leave.

     But we in the US put all sorts of false layers on motherhood. That’s why you can make the statements you do, HP, without any intent to condemn and yet condemning SAHMs badly. And that is why Ruby #296 is SPOT-ON when she refers to this role as “unpaid, stay-at-home servant.” 

     This all ties back to Evan’s original question: “Why don’t men like smart, strong, successful women?”  Not all men are this way; I’m fortunate to be with one who is happy to have a smart, strong, successful partner. But the reason some men don’t like such successful women is because these men are self-centered (wanting to adhere to a belief that women serve them, and knowing that a successful woman wouldn’t put up with this).  Or ignorant (I mean this in a benefit-of-the-doubt way).  Or both.

300. A-L Oct 13th 2009 at 06:31 pm 300

     RE: Helen’s #299
     But the reason some men don’t like such successful women is because these men are self-centered (wanting to adhere to a belief that women serve them, and knowing that a successful woman wouldn’t put up with this).  Or ignorant (I mean this in a benefit-of-the-doubt way).  Or both.
     
      
     Ouch.  Many of Helen’s comments have been pretty even-handed through this thread.  This one though smacks of the discontented/”I hate men” ideology that some women have (though I don’t think Helen is one of those people).  But to say that the only reason that a guy doesn’t want a smart, strong, successful women is because he’s either too self-centered or doesn’t know better is rather…patronizing?  Critical?  I don’t know the word I want to use, but it’s quite off-putting.  And this is coming from a woman who considers herself smart, strong, and semi-successful (depends on POV).
      
     I feel the same way about men who say that women don’t like poor or financially unstable guys because they’re golddiggers.  Or the men who say that any woman who is willing to be a SAHM is going to take a man for everything he’s  worth, because the majority of women initiate divorces and get everything even in no-fault situations.   Or the guys who say that women only accept a date with a so-so guy because they’re trying to boost their self-esteem or get a free dinner.  Might it be true of some of these women?  Yes.  Is it true of all?  Certainly not.  Just as we women don’t want to be painted with the same brush, I don’t think we should do that with men.
      
     RE: Hadley’s #292
     Is this woman you’re describing the one you looked for before you were ever married?  Or is this the woman you’re looking for now?  Or are you making your points just for the sake of debate?  If I remember correctly from previous threads you have school-aged children and weren’t interesting in having any more, so I’m just curious.

301. Ruby Oct 13th 2009 at 07:50 pm 301

     “Is it that you don’t think that women generally would like their men to be taller, smarter & richer than they are? (or just that you wish it wasn’t true).  Or perhaps you think that its not true that men seek out women who are shorter, stupider  and poorer than they are bc their experience tells them that in that population they are most likely to find a suitable LTR. ”
      
     Correct on both counts.
      
     “But it seems you are suggesting that any women who stays at home  to be a full time wife (running the homefront) & mother is being exploited by her husband as a unpaid servant.”
      
     I don’t think that, but I get the feeling that YOU do, to the extent that you see such work as lesser and unequal to what you do outside of the home. Not ALL men, or women, feel that it is lesser work, or that women who are stay-at-home moms are stupider. That you do reveals volumes…about you.
      
      

302. Ruby Oct 13th 2009 at 07:53 pm 302

     HP, ad nauseum…
      
     “shorter, stupider and poorer”
      
     And therefore easier for you to control.

303. Helen Oct 14th 2009 at 04:35 am 303

     A-L #300: That’s why I said SOME men; not all, or even most, men.  You are right that I do love men. I have only met a handful who have ever been of the ilk described above – both self-centered and ignorant, and with a strong desire to control women.

     Ruby #301, 302: Wow.  Just – wow.  Thanks for making your points so coolly. I’m like you: don’t need my man to be taller, smarter, or richer than me.

     And once again, that brings us back to Evan’s original question “Why Don’t Mean Like Smart, Strong, Successful Women”:  Is the question moot, because it only applies to SOME men, not the majority of men? I’ve rarely met men who disliked smart, strong, successful women. Is the question then only meant to apply to those few men who feel that way?  Those ones are not worth having anyway.

304. Leslie Oct 14th 2009 at 08:40 am 304

     I am actually dumbfounded by these posts. Of course men don’t strong, agressive, ball-busting, look at everything I’ve accomplished women. Men are looking for wives, for emotional and sexual partners, for future mothers of their children, not for women who act like they are trying to beat the men for a promotion or have a point to prove.
      
     Its like – women aren’t attracted to super feminine, emasculate men. We want someone who makes us feel like a woman, not the man in the relationship, or at least I assume most of us women want that. So then, why would you get upset with guys who are looking for feminine, not masculine qualities? Men want a woman, not another man. I don’t see how this is confusing at all.. its kind of just plain common sense.

305. Helen Oct 14th 2009 at 09:50 am 305

     Leslie: it’s because the original question was: “Why don’t men like smart, strong, successful women?” Being smart, strong, and successful does not mean that a woman isn’t feminine; nor does it mean that she is “aggressive” and “ball-busting.” Indeed, we have no problem with men wanting feminine women. What we do have a problem with is when men automatically assume we would not make good partners, MERELY because we are strong, smart, and successful. 

     That is one woman’s perspective on it, anyway. Other women who have posted here may have other thoughts.

306. Kenley Oct 14th 2009 at 10:50 am 306

     Leslie,
      
     I’m with you.  I really couldn’t understand the posts either….especially the ones that made it appear as if only men who want to dominate women want a stay at home wife and mother.  There are plenty of women who actually want to be stay at home moms.  And, the ones I know often complain that it’s the working mothers — not their husbands — who make them feel that they aren’t contributing anything worthwhile to society.
      
     Also, I find it very interesting that someone mentioned she couldn’t stand being home all day long with her baby .    Yet it’s ok for some other woman (and I say woman because the overwhelming majority of paid childcare providers are women) to have to stay at home all day long with her crying baby.   I guess these women aren’t really that smart and so they don’t need any intellectual stimulation.  Doesn’t it stand to reason that if there are women who can tolerate staying home with another woman’s children, there certainly are women who can tolerate staying at home with their OWN children?

307. Hadley Paige Oct 14th 2009 at 11:09 am 307

     RE: Helen @ 305 “What we do have a problem with is when men automatically assume we would not make good partners, MERELY because we are strong, smart, and successful. ” ” Being smart, strong, and successful does not mean that a woman isn’t feminine”
     ——————-                                       

     Hey Helen, >> Newsflash item 1:  life is unfair.      Newsflash item 2: Women filter men by generalizations as well.

     Helen, the point is that the traditional feminine qualities that most men prefer their women have are inconsistent (mutually exclusive) with the goals, motivations and personal qualities that “strong, successful women” generally have.   Of course each person is an individual and may deviate from the generalities of the group, but as the saying goes “the battle doesn’t always go the mighty, nor the race to the swift . . . but that’s the way you bet.”
     Men have limited time & money resources available for the process of finding a suitable life partner.  They seek to maximize their efforts.  Better to place their bets with the swift or the mighty.
     I empathize with your frustration and indignation with being painted with a broad brush.  I experience it myself as a lawyer with women who assume I am an egomaniacal jerk, and write me off.

308. Ruby Oct 14th 2009 at 01:01 pm 308

     HP #307
      
     “I experience it myself as a lawyer with women who assume I am an egomaniacal jerk, and write me off.”
      
     Hmmm, can’t imagine why….
      
     Helen #305
      
     Helen, I agree. Look, some men want docile wives, some don’t. But not all of them. Barack and Michelle Obama are a great case in point. Clearly, when Barack met Michelle he realized what a great partner she’d be. She’s as strong, smart, and successful as can be, AND a great mother. And tall too!
      
     There’s nothing inherently wrong about wanting to be a stay at home mom, although there can be risks in the event of divorce. The problem is when the job and the woman doing it are devalued. And that is most certainly what someone is doing when he says he’s looking for a wife who is ’shorter, stupider and poorer”; he’s looking for someone who is physically, mentally, and financially inferior. I don’t believe that an ideal to aspire to.

309. Ruby Oct 14th 2009 at 01:03 pm 309

     “Physically, mentally, and financially inferior” doesn’t equal “feminine”, nor should it.

310. Hadley Paige Oct 14th 2009 at 02:08 pm 310

     RE: Ruby @ 308  “he’s looking for someone who is physically, mentally, and financially inferior. I don’t believe that an ideal to aspire to.”
     ———–

     Look, its axiomatic that both spouses can’t be taller, richer, smarter than each other.  You seize upon the corollary to the fact that women generally prefer taller, smarter & richer (than themselves) men. That realized preference cannot be without the related fact that by necessity the women would be shorter, stupider and poorer.  Yes, I admit it its not a nice way to say it, but it doesn’t make it less true.
     I am trying to explain why men generally don’t think  “strong, successful women” are good spouse material.  What I get back (not from all, just the most persistent writers) is a gender studies 101 rant about why this is wrong and how the world would be better if there were no gender roles. >> that’s a different subject.
     While you think that the general preference of men may be wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that its true.  We don’t want as spouses men with female equipment. We want women with complementary traits not similar ones. This has been said before in this exchange but does not seem to penetrate through to those posters with an agenda for changed sexual roles.

311. Ruby Oct 14th 2009 at 04:11 pm 311

     HP #310
     “Look, its axiomatic that both spouses can’t be taller, richer, smarter than each other. ”
      
     But you assume that the man “should” always have all the dominant traits, and that is what all men (and women as well, by your logic) want and should aspire to.  I’m simply saying that many men and women would disagree with you, and do not buy into what you think is “true”. It simply isn’t the truth for many couples.
      
     “This has been said before in this exchange but does not seem to penetrate through to those posters with an agenda for changed sexual roles.”
      
     Sexual roles are not static, they are in flux, like it or not. Gender roles change from generation to generation and they will continue to do so. That is why courses in Gender Studies are taught in the first place.

312. Helen Oct 15th 2009 at 07:11 am 312

     Ruby #311: I won’t say much more on this post, since I’ve made my points clearly by now.  But I do want to say that I appreciate all your logical and well-thought-out comments; and for joining in the fight with Sayanta, me, other women on this post, and other women anywhere who are fighting to change gender roles to improve equal opportunities for women.

     I do think that, with these efforts, there will come a time in the future that men are perfectly happy with “smart, strong, successful women”; just as men are now perfectly happy with women’s feet not being bound and women not wearing corsets.  But we do need to let our voices be heard, or the status quo will prevail. 

313. Jennifer Oct 15th 2009 at 08:40 am 313

     Evan writes the headlines of the blogs to be attention-grabbing and often controversial. It makes you want to read the letter and answer which is great. In this particular case though, it seems as though a lot of people read the headline and stopped.

     Nowhere in the letters or Evan’s answer is it stated that men don’t like ’smart, strong, successful women’. He talks about a more ‘agressive’ energy that a lot of men are put off by, much like a lot of women are put off by a ‘passive’ energy put off by some men that confuse ‘passive’ for ‘nice guy’.  He talks about the ‘dark’ side of being a super direct woman and super nice guy and how offputting that can be to potential partners.  Can anyone here really disagree with that?
     I don’t know why people would be uncomfortable with Hadley’s viewpoint, just as I don’t know why people would be uncomfortable with Ruby’s. Unless Hadley and Ruby try to date each other, they will each find (or perhaps have already found) what they are looking for; trying to argue the other down is , in my opinion, just unnecessary. And not even truly related to the point Evan was making.

314. Sayanta Oct 15th 2009 at 08:46 am 314

     Helen, #312-

     Very insightful post- and I loved the bound feet line. Yes, the women here have made some incredible points. But like I said before, if someone doesn’t want to hear it- s/he doesn’t want to hear it. Not much, sadly, we can do about that. But there will be a time, I hope, when ALL women will realize and cherish their true power, and then, comments like HPs won’t matter anymore- people will think about them in amusement, the same way now we laugh at people who used to think that the Earth rested on the back of a giant turtle.

315. Evan Marc Katz Oct 15th 2009 at 09:04 am 315

     Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you.

316. Leslie Oct 15th 2009 at 10:25 am 316

     Helen, in reference to your response to my comment (#305) , perhaps I lack real world experience (I’m only 26) but I have yet to find a man who is not looking for a smart and educated woman. I dated quiet a bit I met my boyfriend and every one of the guys was very impressed with my intelligence. They weren’t put off by it, they were turned on by it! In fact, around sometimes I feel like I’m looked down upon because I don’t even have a graduate degree yet.
     Of course, I suppose that where you live helps alot.. in a big city the response to smart women might be different then in a small town in the middle of nowhere.
     And I know that anecdotal evidence does not equal data, but from everything I’ve seen, if a man is put off by a woman’s intelligence, either she a) picked an idiot of a man or b) is trying to act like his business partner not his girlfriend.
     Being attractive, smart, educated, successful are all initial qualities that get you noticed. But no one enters a relationship with someone b/c they are smart or successful (unless you are looking for a very superficial relationship).  One enters a relationship b/c they enjoy spending time with their partner, they feel good around their partner and they have fun. So if you have all the smarts and degrees in the world, but can’t losen up and laugh at yourself or can’t let your date’s mistakes go, then men aren’t going to like you, but its not nothing to do with intelligence.

317. Helen Oct 15th 2009 at 10:30 am 317

     Jennifer #313 and Evan #315: Surely the point of having a comments section is to allow us to debate and discuss these items, which is FUN and gives us food for thought. I know I’ve gained a lot by reading what others have written here. There is no rule that we need only respond to what Evan wrote.

     I’m sure everyone has read the whole article, not just the title, because it is an interesting topic. Evan DID write in there that women were supposed to “tone down” the aspects that made us smart, strong, and successful in business. He acknowledged that this was a double standard. So there you have it: the basis of our discussion.

     And if there is supposed to be a problem with titles that don’t reflect the actual content, then isn’t the onus on Evan to change that? I don’t see any problem with it, but you did bring it up.

318. Evan Marc Katz Oct 15th 2009 at 10:42 am 318

     Helen, you’re entitled to your opinion. But as you know, my column is never a matter of right/wrong. It’s effective vs. ineffective. Many smart, strong, successful women are ineffective in connecting with men. I’m trying to help them understand what men really want.

     You’re trying to change what men really want. However, you CAN’T change what men really want. So to continually rail at perfectly reasonable men like Hadley is a waste of energy. He’s not changing his mind. All you can do is either adjust – or not adjust – accordingly.

     Long, long, long story short: accepting men as they are is a far more effective stance than continually being surprised that smart, strong, successful men are often turned off by women who exhibit the exact same traits that they do. My upcoming eBook, Why He Disappeared, explores this extensively.

     Thanks for your commentary.

319. Helen Oct 15th 2009 at 11:48 am 319

     Evan #318: “you CAN’T change what men really want.”

     I respectfully disagree. You’re right that I, personally, cannot change what men want. (By the way, I did not rail at Hadley, nor did I try to change his mind.) But there is a plethora of historical evidence that men do change their expectations of what they want, based on women fighting for equality – in the US and worldwide, in recent and far history.

     I recognize that you and I are working on different time scales. You coach your clients to get immediate results. I set my sights on a longer-term goal of reducing potentially harmful inequalities (including the fear that they won’t be liked for having what are essentially survival characteristics), so my daughters can enjoy an even better life than I have.

320. Sayanta Oct 15th 2009 at 02:39 pm 320

     I do see where Leslie and Evan are coming from. But I’m going to have to go with Helen on this one, mostly because both of us are thinking about more long-term consequences than the immediate results (not that there’s anything wrong with the latter).  That is…yes, we’re beyond changing HP’s mind. But if we- and other women- don’t put out our POVs and arguments out there, nothing is really going to change- you see, because nothing’s going to get discussed and debated. Discussion and debate bring change. 

     For example,  what if Indians had just accepted (and since I’m Indian, I bring this up) that ok, the British are meant to rule us- let it remain at that. What if they’d never debated and discussed the terrors of colonialization within themselves? The Independence movement would never have happened. I understand some might think I’m being dramatic with that example, but I think the underlying currents are the same. No discussion, no rebellion, no change.

     See, some are saying that we’re not going to change men. I disagree; again I’m going to nod to Helen’s wonderful prior example. At a certain point in history, men would have preferred foot-bound, corseted wives. But now at this era, any stable, rational man would be horrified at the idea of such a physical disfigurement imposed on his wife, whether she’s a stay-at-home mom or not. Similarly, if we women use our power, and raise enough hell, the idea of a strong, successful woman as ‘bad’ will be just as archaic at some point as the above.

     Just to be clear, I do agree with the idea of complementary traits (fem energy, masc energy, etc.). I take issue with the idea that a lot of men think that a successful women can’t also be feminine, receptive, and nurturing. For example, I’ve seen male litigators who are lions in the workplace, but lambs with their g-friends. If men do it, I KNOW women are certainly capable of it.

     Als0- one thing I’ve noticed on this blog. As much as I love reading it, I’ve noticed that when women say anything that pretty much accepts men’s stereotyping as normal and rational, those post-ers are thanked as having seen the point. But the ‘fighters’  (lol) are somehow seen as just beating their heads against a brick wall. Not criticizing here- just making an observation. Feel free to disagree.

321. Helen Oct 15th 2009 at 05:03 pm 321

     Sayanta, you and I think on exactly the same wavelength.  Thank you for defending my points about men’s views on women.  Your own terrific example of colonialism is perfectly legitimate and NOT dramatic, because similarly bad things have happened to women in the past and ARE happening to women in different parts of the world today. Where women have the power to speak up and share our POV, to effect change that benefits all women (and men as well in the long term), we should.

     And I love, and completely agree with, your last paragraph.

322. Evan Marc Katz Oct 15th 2009 at 05:45 pm 322

     I debated whether to reply to you, Sayanta. You’re thoughtful and articulate and I don’t, for a second, disagree that the world can use some changing. Really, I don’t.

     What I will simply point out is how easily my words get co-opted. Naturally, I thank people who see my point, just as Helen thanked you for seeing her point. And naturally, I think that the fighters are beating their heads against a brick wall. Are men, as a gender of 3 billion, any different now than when this blog started in 2007. No? They are not.

     But I’m really writing this because I feel that when you reduce this dialogue into an argument – a he said/she said/I’m right/you’re wrong conversation, you lose the nuance of the original post.

     I’ve never defended men who lie or cheat or act without integrity.
     I’ve never said that you’re wrong for wanting a man to act with consistency, to make a commitment, to always call after sex.

     I’ve merely pointed out what any observer of the world would also notice: often men lie, cheat, flirt, play around and act in their own self-interests. This isn’t news. People are selfish and will get away with as much as you let them get away with.

     You, as a woman, have two choices: keep investing your time in the same type of disappointing men, or change the type of men you’re choosing. If you want a smart, successful, charismatic man, don’t be too surprised if he is also occasionally arrogant, flirtatious, a workaholic, selfish, emotionally unavailable or a player.

     How much evidence do you need to see that this is the case? When do you think this will stop being the case? When you and Helen post on every blog for women that men should stop being this way? I’m not defending these men – I’m pointing out that they exist.

     But that’s not even the point. The real point is that if amazing men can have these negative qualities, so can amazing women.

     And if amazing women also have these negative qualities, how surprising is it that men will not respond to them?

     Thus, “Why Men Don’t Like Smart, Strong, Successful Women”. It’s not because you’re smart, strong and successful. It’s because you have a whole bunch of qualities that we have ourselves that we don’t like.

     So if my not-so-revelatory observation was “Lots of men don’t like to date female versions of themselves”, how did this turn into me saying that the world would be better if women were in corsets and relegated to full-time motherhood?

     We can agree to disagree on the solution to this problem, Sayanta and Helen. I advocate accepting the world as it is and making different choices in men. You may prefer to attempt to change men. That’s your prerogative.

     But until you actually prove that my assertion about what men want is wrong, I’m going to keep encouraging you to stop banging your head against the wall.

     Because, from my perspective as a dating coach for smart, strong, successful women, the only person who’s getting hurt is you.

     I thank you deeply and sincerely for your passionate voices on here and I hope that you continue to voice your opinion – even when you disagree. Especially when you disagree!

     Evan

323. Maggie Oct 15th 2009 at 07:27 pm 323

     he real point is that if amazing men can have these negative qualities, so can amazing women.   And if amazing women also have these negative qualities, how surprising is it that men will not respond to them?  Thus, “Why Men Don’t Like Smart, Strong, Successful Women�. It’s not because you’re smart, strong and successful. It’s because you have a whole bunch of qualities that we have ourselves that we don’t like.  . . . . . I advocate accepting the world as it is and making different choices in men.

     Evan,

     Ah, if only it were that simple!  Where are all these “other choices”?  From reading this thread, it appears that most of the contributors are mid-thirties and below. 

     I am early 50’s.  I am strong, nuturing, successful, respectful, a leader, and gentle, the  list goes on.  Also maintain a healthy weight for age build and age, not heavy but not skinny,  The above statement is not arrogant, but are what is often said by others.  

     The difference is, that in my age group, if the statistics from the internet are valid, there are about 12 single women for every single man.  Add to the mix that most men want women significantly younger than themselves, and the number is truly daunting.

     The theme that occurs over and over in this entire thread is that men are acceptable with their halo’s and warts, but women are not acceptable with any warts. 

     The statement/question “And if amazing women also have these negative qualities, how surprising is it that men will not respond to them?”  says it all.    Men won’t respond to, let alone accept, respect and love, women who are not their ideal, but women have to accept, respect and love men for who they are, without question.

     You are right, we cannot change the double standard that is so obvious.  What can change is perception.  As an example, until the late sixties, when Twiggy made super skinny the new ideal, men wanted women with real bosoms, with curves and a healthy weight.  Now, the media has told men that isn’t what they want, and men buy it in droves. 

     Which goes back to the original point of this comment, men can demand some sort of ideal that changes as their tastes change.  Women have to measure up to an unrealistic ideal, and must settle for what ever it is that men want to be, or be without a companion.  How many threads are there about men struggling with an equivalent issue?  None, there are no equivalent issues for men.  They have choices.

     Any way you slice it, there is something really rotten about that. 

324. Helen Oct 15th 2009 at 07:53 pm 324

     Evan, I do appreciate your thoughtful comment. A few responses:

     Some parts sounded defensive: “how did this turn into me saying that the world would be better…” “I’ve never defended men…” “until you actually prove that my assertion… is wrong…” Evan, I was almost never responding to your original post in my previous comments, so please don’t take it personally! You original post was brilliant; personally the point I found most useful was: “Men want to feel masculine. We want to feel needed.”

     I was (and I think Ruby and Sayanta were) responding to other commenters. Surely that is acceptable on this blog. If it is not, please let me know and I’ll limit future comments only to what you wrote, not what others wrote.

     I do have to refute your point though about “the only person who’s getting hurt is you.” Evan, there are a lot of happily married people who read your blog because single friends directed us here, though we’re embarrassed to admit it (not because anything is wrong with your blog, but we feel we don’t “belong”). I am one of them. My single friend directed me and other married galpals to THIS entry, asking: “did you dumb yourself down to get married?”  So I can’t get hurt by being smart, strong, and successful. Frankly I’ve been these things (a smart-ass) ever since my husband first met me and through a decade of awesome marriage.

     And that relates to your point: “until you actually prove that my assertion about what men want is wrong…” Like Leslie, I can only offer anecdotes that suggest that men LOVE intelligent, successful women, and when they meet one, they want to contribute even more to her success and happiness.  Honestly, that’s why I love men.  But that’s anecdotes: wouldn’t it be simple enough to prove by administering a survey, even over the web? How about it?

325. Ruby Oct 15th 2009 at 07:56 pm 325

     I debated whether to add more fuel to this fire, but…my problem with the arguments that men don’t like strong, smart, successful women is the certainty from EMK and HP have that ALL (or even most)  men feel this way. All I keep saying is that not ALL men feel that way – again, anecdotal, but the men I know definitely don’t.
      
     One of the original letters said “When I am not interested in them, they work for the relationship day and night. When I am committed to them and act nice and devoted, they start to look elsewhere.” Couldn’t any of us say that, whether rich, poor, smart, not-so-bright, etc.? She could be  unemployed, uneducated, with no self-confidence, and make that statement. Can anyone actually think it would be easier to date while facing those obstacles while than to be wealthy, successful and confident and dating?
      
     Studies have shown that both women and men who are college-educated are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce than people with lower levels of education. A Swedish study was just released revealing that men were more likely to live longer if their spouse was well-educated. The woman’s  education was more important for a man’s chances of a long life than his own educational attainment. The authors of the study suggest that education predicts occupation, which predicts class and social status as well as income.
      
     Who would have thought that marrying a smart, successful, strong woman could actually be good for you!

326. Sayanta Oct 16th 2009 at 08:24 am 326

     Hmmm….wow. Where to even begin. Well, first of all, Evan- thank you for responding so thoughtfully to my post. I also want to add to what Helen said- nothing I said was directed against you and your original post- it was all in response to HP. So, I genuinely hope my words didn’t sting in any way: that certainly wasn’t my intention. I love the fact that this blog exists as a forum for all of us to discuss such heated, interesting issues.

     Helen, Ruby- I’m pretty much with you guys here (as usual ). But I’m going to add a bit of my own opinion again…hehe. I believe I also mentioned, as Ruby did,  in a prior post that my issue with this whole topic is the word “all” or even “most.” Not that I’ve never done it myself, but think about what those words do. They make a generalization, right? What does a generalization do? It leads to a stereotype. What do stereotypes do? They dehumanize people. We just see the stereotype when we meet a person, and in the deluge of preformed idea that we have about this person, we lose compassion for them, because all the negative ideas we have are swirling in our heads like some bad acid trip.

     When you hear the words “criminal defense lawyer” what goes through everyone’s mind? Nothing good, right? I’m ashamed to say that I thought the same way. Then I met a man in the past month- not anyone I’m dating (so there’s no rose-colored glasses here, lol). The level of compassion, gentleness, and patience that this man has completely astounds me. I can only hope  to be at that level at some point in my life. He didn’t tell me he was a criminal defense lawyer when we first met. But if that’s the first thing he’d stated at our first meeting, all these negative ideas that I have about crim defense lawyers- and yes, I admit that I’ve made stereotypes as well- would have colored our conversation. I wouldn’t have seen the amazing qualities this man has, and we wouldn’t have become friends. But because I got to talk to him and connect with him as a human being first, all the other stuff didn’t matter. It even changed my mind about crim defense lawyers.

     I understand why people stereotype/generalize. Really, I do, because I’ve been a big-time offender. It’s a way to explain our pain, to make order out of this chaotic world. They become our rules, our commandments. But we miss out on so much. We don’t talk to people and think about their hearts, their feelings, what gives them pain, how we can help relieve that pain for them. Because all that’s going through our head is he/she is successful- so, he/she is also arrogant, and on and on and on. And all this does is create more misery in the world, particularly between the sexes.

     Some of you might think the next bit I’m going to say is New-Agey, but I can only shrug my shoulders at that. In my experience, you see/get what you expect to see/get. A very mundane personal example. Last year, I went out on the worst date of my life. The guy was a complete ass to me while we were out. I left as soon as I could, and decided I was never going to date again. Not just that, I was so jaded by men and dating in general that after that date, I saw arrogance and condescension in every social encounter I had with a  twenty/thirtysometing male (my age range). A few months later, I went out on the best date of my life. I was on cloud nine- and whenever I interacted with men in my age range after that date, I got nothing but friendliness. What changed? That good date put me in a good mood- I met a guy who was wonderful, and so that colored my other interactions with men. So really, in either case I never really saw people <i>as they were </i>- I saw only the best in them, or only the worst in them. But everyone’s both light and dark.

     What if a man like HP was stuck on a train next to a woman? What if, just for talking’s sake, they didn’t discuss how the other makes their living in the first couple of hours (the train’s broken, and it’s gonna be that way for a while). They connect through other small talk, the small talk goes to deeper levels, they connect, they bond. The woman is lovely, sweet, funny. She has children, loves them, seems like a wonderful mother. Train’s fixed, and when they all get off, woman hands the HP man her card. She’s a criminal defense lawyer. What will HP do (I’m not talking about HP himself necessarily, just a man with those kind of ideas about women)? Well, I’m thinking, since he’s got, hopefully, some level of depth and feeling, his ideas about what ‘his woman’ should be like may change. Maybe not fully, but he just might start thinking. Because of that one encounter. That’s really all it takes. One encounter. And I think that might be an answer to your question, Evan. You wanted some kind of assertion/proof that successful men aren’t…x,y,z. I met that one amazing compassionate, successful crim defense lawyer. That’s all the proof I need. If there’s one, there’s more- because there are 2 billion men out there. It was a long lesson to learn, though.

327. amy Oct 16th 2009 at 07:40 pm 327

     Wow.  You know, I came to this site feeling all sorry for myself, sad and lonely — I’m a 41-year-old single mother, and while I’m in good shape, I look like what I am: a short, harassed middle-aged Jewish lady who exercises and doesn’t get enough sleep and is distracted most of the time.  After…oh, God.  25 years of dating and marriage, I know what I want and what I don’t want, among them more socks to pick up.  (That’s under ‘don’t want.’  I don’t have some kinky sock fetish.)  So thank you, Evan, for showing me, someone old enough to be your mother by the looks of it, that I should stop complaining and be thankful.  
     Why?  Because all this stuff about “you don’t have to dumb yourself down, act passive,” etc. is a lot of baloney.  You’re right — even if they don’t want kids, men want an easy, pleasant ride.  Who doesn’t?  Well, I’m not that ride.  I’m a hell of a good friend, there’s always good conversation and good art, and you’ll get a lot of laughs, but easy and pleasant, not so much.  Sex all the time, no.  At this point a man comes third in my life behind my daughter and me.  In other words, I’m a real woman, a real mother, and just not interested in tiptoeing for a man.  And the beauty of it?  I don’t have to! That’s not so bad.  Especially when I stop and think about what my married friends put up with, and how they contort themselves for the marriage, to smooth things with their husbands and avoid stepping on the men’s toes — without even thinking about it, they’ve done it so long.
     I still believe, Evan, that there are men out there who are more interested in “interesting and loving” than “easy and comforting”.  Real men who know themselves and take care of themselves, are bright, and are looking most of all for a good friend, a good woman.  Right now, yes, I get the 50somethings looking to escape their wives, who know too much about them.  And any sensible person now would stand back, seeing that I’m busy, and really don’t have time for him.  But someday, when my daughter’s grown, I think I will find such a man, and we’ll live somewhere in an apartment and hope for shows that have something new, count ourselves lucky to have found each other, and not worry too much if things don’t match up exactly.
     Best wishes,
     Amy

328. Evan Marc Katz Oct 16th 2009 at 11:42 pm 328

     Thanks for sharing, Amy. Like I’ve said, over and over, it’s not an either/or. Being easy doesn’t mean tiptoeing. You can be interesting AND pleasant. Every time someone suggests that these are mutually exclusive, I want to cringe, since I’ve never said that. All I’m saying is that men like to feel masculine, supported, and loved, as opposed to second-guessed, criticized and bossed around. Believe it or not, there are some women who can pull this off without “contorting” themselves. It took a lot of effort, but I married one myself.

     By the way, you are exactly 4 years older than I am, which would make us a very odd mother/son combination.

329. amy Oct 17th 2009 at 07:28 pm 329

     Ha!  Yes, that’d make for some interesting parent/child moments.  Well, you look very well-preserved up there.
     If a man wants to feel masculine, however he defines that, I think that’s wonderful, but it’s up to him. I’m well aware of my womanhood without a man here telling me about it.  Would I support a man, sure — unless I think he’s a lousy guy, and presumably I wouldn’t be with him then.  But this is not the same thing as being uncritical.  And with a name like Evan Katz, surely you know that loving and bossing are not mutually exclusive. (!)  
     Am I pleasant?  Sometimes. And sometimes not. I’m a person, Evan, and I have good and bad days like anyone else. I don’t go around pleasanting things up to suit other people. I do see long-married women who do this, and I’ll tell you, therapists make a pretty penny off of them.  These women have learned to keep things pleasant, to make a nice home, to keep their husbands happy…and by and large, what they do winds up taken for granted and abused.  And then they don’t know what to do.  They’re trying as hard as they can, they feel horrible, but they’ve been sucking it up for so long that they hardly know how to say, “Jesus H. Christ, if the job makes you that miserable, why don’t you quit and get another one?  You’ve been bitching to me about it for five years, I’m done being your free therapist. Don’t talk to me about this jerk or that jerk again.  Plus, you were a real asshole to me in the car, and the next time you do that you can walk home and find someplace else to sleep.”  Or other such things.  Yes, you can be pleasant if other people are consistently pleasant to you.  But you know, it’s remarkable, in marriages, how often people are unpleasant.  No, I cannot say I’d advise a consistent policy of “be interesting and pleasant, or at least be his idea of interesting and pleasant”.  ”Be who you are, and be worthy of your own respect,” strikes me as a better idea.
     What it comes down to is that I find most men want considerable coddling, and feel entitled to it.  If a woman is around, they will readily offload much of the general maintenance of their lives — hygiene, health, family relationships, social lives, career scutwork, decisionmaking, entertainment, checklist-maintaining, even financial planning — and act as if hurt if the woman does not pick up.  This is part of “support”, maybe in part because they’re looking at what other men get from their women, and don’t want to feel they’re coming up short.  I have no energy or patience for it. I know what adults are capable of; I know what I do every day, raising and supporting my child.
     I think that women my age, particularly mothers, tend to be extremely supportive of their friends, and love them, too.  We create very strong support and care networks.  But if you look at how we behave with each other, you’ll also see that we leap to do for each other, and tend to be very careful about not asking others to do our work for us.  Mothers in real need will refrain from asking their friends for help because they see that their friends are already burdened, and don’t want to add to the burden.  On the other hand — I needed to go on an overnight trip, and my wonderful friend with four little kids, money trouble, and an ill father didn’t think twice about offering to take my daughter overnight. I hadn’t even asked.  Another friend is trying to sort out options for her frail parents — I offered to do some research on services to help her mother pack up the house.  My friend hadn’t asked, but it just seemed obvious, and easy, too.  She was so grateful — and had her husband thought to do this for her?  No; he was complaining that she was leaving him with the kids while she went to check out the situation with her parents.  And this is a good, responsible guy, who brings home the bacon, doesn’t drink or run around, and is very much into the kids. 
     We do for each other in myriad ways all the time, women do. And in 25 years of experience with men, I’ve seen very few pick up like that, on that level.  Do we second-guess, criticize, and boss each other?  Ah…you know, not so much. Constructively, sometimes. But I’m thinking of women I’ve known and lived with for years, and…yeah, there’s some tough love sometimes.  Sometimes.  It’s almost always meant and taken well, and usually a favor.  I tend to think that if the men are feeling henpecked, it has something to do with their own behavior.  Again, something they can fix for themselves, not look to the woman to fix.
     I don’t know how much of this comes from expectations of sex. Sure, I’ve had times in my life when I’ve been more than happy to oblige.  And others when I’m just not interested. But I think there is still, in the dating and marriage, an expectation of sex where the slider is pushed far towards the male side on expectation.  And again, I don’t see this to be my problem.  God gave you a hand; if I’m not interested, go use it and enjoy.  Again, I seem to be fully capable of taking care of myself that way, and I don’t see why a man shouldn’t be able to do the same.
     I guess what it comes down to is that if a man’s going to make more work for me, and won’t be happy unless I’m not how I already am, the man seems to me not worth the effort. You know?  I’m busy, I’m a serious person with work to do, a child to raise, a house to keep, friends to help and enjoy. If a grownup man comes along for a grownup romance, for love, wonderful. I think it’d be marvelous. But no, he should not rely on me to look after him or his sense of masculinity.  He’s bound to be disappointed there. 

330. Sayanta Oct 18th 2009 at 07:50 am 330

     I’m kinda depressed now.

331. amy Oct 18th 2009 at 12:11 pm 331

     Wait, I know, it’s because I sucked all the air out of the room.

332. A-L Oct 18th 2009 at 07:09 pm 332

     Why are you now feeling depressed, Sayanta?

333. Sayanta Oct 19th 2009 at 06:55 am 333

     oh- I was just kidding. Kind of- the whole ‘there aren’t many mature men out there’ kinda gave me the blues for a sec.

334. Helen Oct 19th 2009 at 07:22 am 334

     Sayanta, if you feel depressed because of Amy’s comments, I’d like to offer an alternative viewpoint (don’t I always?) from nearly a decade of marriage.

     Amy is right: marriage IS about constant compromise. But I honestly think that this makes us better people, smoothes down the rough edges, and makes it easier for everyone else to tolerate us, not just our spouses. Each one of us, single, is a piece of work in ways that we can’t easily detect (we often don’t know our own flaws, even if we do see them easily in others). When we get married, any sharp edges will have to get smoothed down if the marriage is to last. Example from our own marriage: my husband’s rough edge was that he wanted to debate every single topic, and could do so forcefully, without regard for how the other person was feeling. My rough edge was that I was one of the biggest cheapskates ever: laughably so. Both of us have toned down these aspects of ourselves considerably. And I’m not sorry for having my own peculiarities whittled down.

     There are people who want to cling on to their peculiarities, and that’s okay if they are traits that don’t bother or hurt anyone else – but if they do, what’s wrong with toning them down? It doesn’t make you any less appreciated as an individual. It just makes you easier to get along with.

     A response to Amy: I think a man DOES need a woman to make him feel masculine, and that a woman can do this without much effort: simply by making him feel appreciated.

335. Sayanta Oct 19th 2009 at 07:45 am 335

     Helen-

     I just love your posts. Thanks for that viewpoint. Really though- I was making an offhand comment which, I guess, had some subconscious stuff loaded behind it. lol- looks like I need to start taking my own advice about the generalizing thing.

     I’ve never been married (I’m only 31 though), or in anything really long-term, so I can’t exactly speak intelligently on the subject- but what you’re definitely giving me sound advice for the future.

336. A-L Oct 19th 2009 at 08:26 am 336

     A couple of things.
      
     1) I think Amy’s examples help illustrate the importance of compatibility within a couple.  If you’re dating a guy and he’s always complaining about his job, that’s probably not going to get away if you get married.  And if hearing about it bothers you, (and you’ve discussed it with him and he doesn’t want to curb it), then it could be a dealbreaker.   One of the points  of dating someone (if you’re looking for marriage) is to find someone where nothing could change and you’d still be happy to come home to them in 10, 20, or 50 years.
      
     2) Related to #1, figure out for yourself what is really important in a long-term mate.  Some people require a 10 on the passion scale while others are willing to do with less.  Some need someone who earns a certain income while others  are willing to be the sole breadwinner.   Some people love the excitement of debating over every single thing and to others it sounds like a nightmare.   Everyone has their own set of needs.  But the key is finding someone who fulfills those relationship needs, and not finding something else that’s really exciting that doesn’t.  My mom for instance had a passionate relationship with tons of intellectualism and excitement.  After they married she realized she needed someone who was easygoing, and knew that her husband wasn’t it.  But just because my dad wasn’t an easygoing fellow doesn’t mean that none exist.  Two of my aunts found them (same age bracket).  It’s just a matter of looking.
      
     3) I actually think the younger women here have it better than some of the older women.  I think because of the experience that some of the more veteran women hear have talked about, they’ve raised their sons to be more self-reliant, helpful, etc.  So there are fewer younger guys who expect to be totally coddled by their wives, whereas there’s a greater expectation of that in older men.  But not all hope is lost for older women as I suspect that many older men may have eased up in their old requirements as they’ve been divorced and/or had this issue arise before.
      
     Just my $0.02.
      

337. Sayanta Oct 19th 2009 at 10:59 am 337

     A-L-

     Very good points too (you’ve thought a lot about this! ) I guess it’s like anything else in life worth doing- patience, perseverance, and sense of humor needed.

338. amy Oct 19th 2009 at 07:13 pm 338

     Sayanta, I’m not sure what you mean by “mature”. I do think there are many men out there who’ve got advanced degrees from the school of life. But I also think that the default, regardless, is to believe that that the woman will care for and do for, and not really to be to cognizant of…well, of all sorts of things. Of how much he’s asking for. Of what the woman’s time is worth, or that indeed it has value. Of how much silent, invisible maintenance work women do.  
     We still get TV shows where the overbearing husband gets stuck taking care of the kids for the day, and is completely undone.  He and the house are a total wreck nine hours later.  And then he’s appreciative (and hopes he never, ever has to do it ever again, anxious to push the whole thing back to his wife).  But where are the shows with the guy taking the role of the 50something woman, making phone calls to take care of the elderly aunt, pushing the husband to go to the doctor, making the lists for the upcoming trip, worrying silently about where money for xyz will come from, checking online about medication interactions, finding couples-night activities and researching restaurant reviews, calling the handyman to complain about something not done, etc., etc., etc.?
     I haven’t seen it. I don’t expect to. And besides, what’s the use? In the end, you’d get some bewildered guy saying, “I’d be lost without her,” but we already know this, and so does she.  So what?  She’s still doing all the work, and probably she’s got a job, too. If she’s got time for that and doesn’t mind doing it, fine. But I do think men expect it, in the sense that they don’t expect the absence of that attention.  
     My solution?  Have the guy live somewhere else. Don’t become the maid and concierge and nurse and social director and nutritionist unless that’s really what you want to do.  He’s got a map and a phone, and so do you; you’ll find each other.  Or go spend time at his place, sleep over, stay a day or two, and when you’ve had enough, go home.  If you’re getting on each other’s nerves, go home. There’ll be a whole world of personal-maintenance of his you’ll never even know about, let alone take care of. You’ll have no idea what shirts of his are clean or whether or not his water bill’s been paid.  Meanwhile, he doesn’t have to put up with your rotten mood, either, or feel henpecked, or eat something that’s good for him, and so on.  There you go, love insurance, $700/mo.
     ——-
     A-L, it’s true, you don’t want to marry someone with really jarring habits you can see while you’re dating. During a marriage, though, people change. Things happen. Children happen.  Expectations are fulfilled and disappointed. Some people handle these things well, some not so well, and these are things you can’t always see from the perspective of dating or engaged.  That’s why if your 99% response to stress and strife is “stay pleasant, make things pleasant”, you’re headed for trouble. I think too many women get taught this as a sole mode of dealing with family problems, esp. when it comes to the men.  I don’t know how many fear that if they’re not that way, the men will leave.
     ———
     Helen, I agree with you about “bad habit” traits, and if that’s all we’re talking about, I have no problem with it. I think it’s a more serious problem when one partner defines some aspect of another’s personality as a “bad habit” and demands change, or when the conflict isn’t about annoying habits, but about division of labor in the family or something else of similar importance.  I can’t tell you how many women I talk to who’ve worked hard to get where they are in a career they love; they found wonderful men who assured them that they took the women’s careers just as seriously as the women did and supported them in it 100%; they got married and had children….
     and all of a sudden, the important career in the household is the fella’s.  It’s never said out loud until she forces him to say it, and then the definition, or excuse, turns out to be, “I make more money (and telling me not to make money for my family, and rise in my career, emasculates me, and that’s what’s really important).”  Slowly, or not so slowly, she finds she’s doing most of the housework, too. And after a while, she decides she doesn’t want to be a shrew anymore, gives in, and accepts that her career is diminished and she’s half-housewife.  Fifteen years later, she goes to therapy because she’s unhappy, and is told she needs to “do something for herself”.
     One reason I have no intention of living with another man while I’m raising my daughter is that I don’t want those negotiations again. I don’t see a reason to put myself in a position where it’s necessary to negotiate for my own work.  No thank you. I’ve been through it three times personally, and outside of my romantic life have met precious few men who, when push comes to shove, will willingly and on a longterm basis take hits to their own careers — the kind that women do when children come along — in order to “play fair” with their wives.  The pride of breadwinning wins.  This shocked me the first few times I ran into it, but it doesn’t shock me any more.  There are other issues that run that deep for other people– household finance, extended family matters, attitudes towards education and religion.  
     Anyway. If marriage is what you’re after, I think it’s a good idea to live with the other person for a good year or so before you start talking rings and invitations.  And to have an excellent prenup, as well as some reasonable idea of how divorce and custody actually work.
     ——
     If men need women to feel masculine…and I don’t really believe they do…then I am sincerely sorry.  To me, that seems a sad circumstance.
     ——

339. Ruby Oct 20th 2009 at 08:28 am 339

     Amy #338
      
     “But where are the shows with the guy taking the role of the 50something woman, making phone calls to take care of the elderly aunt, pushing the husband to go to the doctor, making the lists for the upcoming trip, worrying silently about where money for xyz will come from, checking online about medication interactions, finding couples-night activities and researching restaurant reviews, calling the handyman to complain about something not done, etc., etc., etc.?
     I haven’t seen it. I don’t expect to.”
      
     Actually, I already do, and have done, all that stuff as a single person. It would be nice to have someone to share the load. And what ever happened to love, sex and intimacy? Are the married guys out there so friggin’ lazy that they can’t lift a finger to help out with a few chores? No wonder Sayanta felt depressed!

340. Helen Oct 20th 2009 at 09:08 am 340

     Amy, are you by any chance that brilliant woman who wrote a comment to Maureen Dowd’s NYTimes article, beginning with “What on earth would MEN have to get unhappy about”?  Your points and hers are identical. On the whole, I’d agree with you.

     HOWEVER (and this is meant as a note of hope to Sayanta, Ruby, and even you, Amy): MEN ARE TRAINABLE. Even after you marry them, they’re trainable. We as women need to be bolder, ask for what we want, and not be afraid to say no if we’re presented with an unreasonable request. Seriously, women, practice with me: No. No. No. My job is important to me. This project is important to me. This hobby is important to me. No. Will you please take out the trash, dear? Will you pick up the kids tonight? Will you make dinner tonight? I’m so tired.  Thank you so much, dear!

     You don’t have to say No all the time. Nor need you nag constantly. But be pleasantly relentless in asking for what you need. And thank them! Then they’ll be eager to help you again, and again, and again. Men are awesome that way… just try it. Ask with a smile.

     That’s my secret. It’s worked for me. It’s worked for my girlfriends whose hubbies do most of the housework AND the kids are named after the wife’s surname. Wasn’t it Bridget Jones, of all people, who advised us gals to always be busy and important? I don’t agree with everything she says and does, but I DO agree with THAT.

341. Ruby Oct 20th 2009 at 10:10 am 341

     It saddens me that women are still faced with the same damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t conundrum: too demanding and strong and you’re a pushy ballbuster, too weak and passive and you’re a doormat (and a resentful one at that).
      
     Thanks, Helen, for the words of hope!

342. Sayanta Oct 20th 2009 at 12:17 pm 342

     Helen-

     I think you should write a book for us want-to-be-hopeful single gals.

343. amy Oct 20th 2009 at 06:06 pm 343

     Helen -
     Far be it from me to rain on parades (seriously!).  But you know how, when you get a new dog, you take it to the trainer?  And how you pay the trainer?  A lot?
     That’s because training is work.  It’s a job. And, frankly, it’s not easy, even before you get to the fact that some percentage of dogs will say “no”, or be a little slow on the uptake, or be wellmeaning but rambunctious, etc.
     If doing that training work is OK by you, then all is well. Me, I don’t want to train and manage a man. (Management: there’s another job you get paid for, ordinarily.)  And, frankly, I don’t want to be trained and managed, either. We are grownups, yes? 
     I have a little child, and I train and manage her. I expect to do that. Sometimes she says no (or NO!).  But she’s a nice, smart girl, and she really does her best most of the time.  She’s also my responsibility, so of course I’ll do this work. She’ll need it when she goes out into the world.  
     But an adult? No, he’s not my responsibility. Apart from which, I don’t want to set up the dynamic where the man does as told in the expectation of getting some. If he gets some, it’s because I want to have sex with him, not because he vacuumed his hair off the bathroom floor after I only asked once.
     I don’t see what’s so hard about pitching in on the everyday jobs, not just the hero “I fixed the broken doorbell (kind of)” way. If the guy can’t do that, then I don’t think he should give up his own place, or get in the habit of treating my place like a hotel.  (Actually I find that even real slobs will pull up socks and clean up after themselves if they’re visiting a woman rather than living with her.)
     Oh, and no, I’m not that NYT lady!  Thanks, though!  I went & read her comment, and I like her style.  So did 300 other people, apparently!
      

344. Sayanta Oct 21st 2009 at 09:45 am 344

     Amy-

     I’m going to risk taking a serious beating here, but reading the tone of your posts, I was wondering- are you genuinely not interested in finding anyone right now, or have you just given up on men out of embitterment? I just thought it was surprising that someone who’s made the decision that men just aren’t worth it would be posting on a dating blog- I mean, you’ve already made the decision that there aren’t good ones and that they’re not worth it, right? So that being the case, why are you expending mental energy toward thinking and writing about them here in such detail? Is there maybe a part of you that hopes that you’re wrong about your opinions about them? Not trying to mind-read, just sorting things out from your post. 

     you’re free to do whatever, as we all are. I’m just very curious.

345. Selena Oct 21st 2009 at 10:40 am 345

     I chuckled at the idea of  “men being trainable”.  Well maybe if you get them very young – like puppies. I don’t know of any young women who envision married life as having a fulltime job and spending their time off doing a second shift of most,  if not all the housework and child rearing and taking on the added responsibilities of managing their partner’s life as well. In many cases I imagine it happens insiduously.  When you get serious with someone you want to prove you are a “good girlfriend”.  Instead of having every date involve going out, you start shopping and preparing some great meals at home for him.  And you’re not going to expect  him to do the dishes afterward – after all, he’s your guest.  You’re not overly bothered by picking up his socks from underneath the coffee table, or putting the beer cans he left on top of it in the recycle bin. If he leaves some clothes at your place, why shouldn’t you throw them in with your laundry? You’re doing a load anyway right? And when you stay over at his place…well it’s not a big deal if you tidy up a little while you’re there. He probably appreciates it since he’s so, um, busy.

     When you move in together, you’re happy the two of you reached that level. You also probably believe you will be equals, sharing the household tasks. The reality turns out more to be that whoever wants it done most does it.  He’s supposed to clean with you on Saturday and maybe sometimes he does. But then there are all those Saturdays where he promises his brother or buddies he will help them fix something, or go somewhere with them. You end up doing all the cleaning  just because you want it done.  You realize if you try to split the cooking with him, you will end up having nothing but grilled meat. Or perhaps a side of boxed mac and cheese made with water because he didn’t think to get any milk.  You’re watching your weight…and your pennies …and it just makes more sense for you to do the shopping and the cooking because you’re better at it.  We each bring our strengths to the relationship right?  And after all, he does “fix” things around the house. That is when he finally gets around to it. Which could be months.

     Year after year you find yourself taking on more and more little tasks that he would put off. Paying bills, renewing insurance, tags, remembering birthdays and buying gifts.  All these countless, countless tasks that you come to do automatically and the don’t really seem to count, because as Amy pointed out, they are invisible.  The person you partly do these things for has become so accustomed to you doing them, he may not even know what they are. Is he deliberately selfish?  Taking you for granted? Probably not on purpose. It’s more that he’s been “trained”. Trained by you into a form of learned helplessness. Or perhaps You are the one who has been trained. No matter the equalitarian soul you once where, you have managed to train yourself into taking on all these responsibilities – sometimes whining, nagging, and complaining, but you do them nonetheless. Multiply this by 10 for each child you have.

     Fortunately not all males are lazy, thoughtless, slobs. And if you don’t want one as a partner pay attention while you are dating. Not just to his lifestyle and behavior, but your own as well. Resist the urge to “take over, or take on” (because you do it better/ want it done the most) or realize that’s what you’re doing and correct it unless you don’t really mind ending up like Amy’s friends.

     Men like relationships that are easy? They aren’t the only ones.

346. Helen Oct 21st 2009 at 12:31 pm 346

     Oh Amy and Selena. It is not as bad as you portray. Even if you did experience this in the past, please don’t believe that you will never be able to be happy in a LTR with a man. (Selena, who is the “You” in your entry? It’s not I; my husband does more chores in our household than I do.)

     I used the term “train” lightheartedly: not at all condescendingly or meant to conjure a grueling task – because it isn’t. Whenever you live with a person, you BOTH are in some ways training each other and yourselves. The great thing about living with someone who loves you, and whom you love, is that you feel more comfortable asking each other directly for the things you want and need.

     In retrospect, what was underlying my earlier comment “Men are trainable” is the idea that you don’t have to find the “perfect” man. There is no perfect man, just as there is no perfect woman. Every person is a work in progress. But if there is one thing I do think men have in common, it is that they feel happy when they know they can make a woman happy.  You don’t have to feel helpless that you can’t change anything about a person – you CAN, just as you can change yourself, to make your common life more pleasant. It’s not always easy, and you may decide that rather than the trials (and joys) of living with a husband or boyfriend, you would rather live by yourself. That’s fine. But I think that changing one’s attitude toward what a man can offer is probably the best move toward happiness on BOTH sides.

347. amy Oct 21st 2009 at 01:01 pm 347

     It’s true, Selena.  Which is why I’m not interested in engaging in this kind of futility anymore. If a guy won’t be bothered to learn to cook nutritious meals, for instance, you’re faced with a few choices:
     1. Eat junk (and then be upset because you don’t feel well, are gaining weight, etc).
     2. Cook for the family  (and fume, unless you like this and have time for it.).
     3. Cook for everyone but him (and deal with the fallout).
     4. Mobilize an arsenal of manipulative schemes to make him want to learn how to cook nutritious food (somewhere in here sex will be involved, and you’ll wonder how you turned into this bizarro pre-Friedan creature).  
     I find most women pick up the work themselves because it’s less work than arguing, wheedling, scheming, etc., and in the end they don’t want to live in a pigsty and have kids who’ve never seen a doctor and never go on playdates, because nobody’s bothered to arrange the visits.  Not because they’re unaware of what’s going on.  It ends with lying to yourself and finding excuses for the guy, telling yourself that he does XYZ and so you should count your blessings, because really, he’s wonderful. Once the kids are grown, you may safely permit the scales to drop from your eyes, unless you’re scared of being alone in old age.
     Sayanta, no, I haven’t given up — I’m totally open to the possibility. I don’t want to get married, no. And I don’t want a man living here, and I’m not looking for a stepfather for my daughter. But a companion, for me?  A bright, loving, funny fella, a grownup with his own life, his own work, his own house, able to take care of himself?   (And one who’s not married?  Boy, do I draw the married 50somethings.  They’re terrific for flirting with, though. That’s fun.) Sure, I’d love it. 
     This time, though…I know who I’m looking for, and I recognize the odds of finding him, especially where I am geographically. (I’m not moving anytime soon; my daughter’s father and grandparents live here, and though I could legally pick up and move her away from them, I wouldn’t.) And I’m not chasing a guy. I find it’s a great way to pick up the nebbishes and the terminally indecisive. If a man’s interested in me, he can make it known, act, do something about it.  So if it happens, terrific; if not, I can’t quite call it a tragedy. The rest of my life is exhausting, but pretty good.
     It’s ironic, in a way — since I became a single mom, I’ve had thoughtful friends out hunting men for me, and they’re generally professionals — doctors, law professors, scientists.  Catches, right?  But I don’t want the wife job, and these men get confused when they meet a woman who’s interested in them, but not in marriage.  Maybe it’s a consequence of too much SAT prep, I don’t know.  They’ve got it all mapped out, anyway. In general they’re nice guys; they just haven’t thought too much about what they’re really asking a woman to do, and for what in return.
     I’m not bitter, either. Somehow women who talk about the raw deal plainly  wind up getting called “bitter”, which I think says something deep about our society.  (If I had no choice but to be married, though, then you bet I’d be bitter.)  But I’m very much surprised that women are supposed to want this deal, or to put up with it, or be “gracious” and “pleasant” about it. It seems obviously rotten to me.  I had a good 20 years’ worth of being a single woman, treated as an honorary man, before I got married and had a child, and WOW.  Talk about night and day in terms of respect and compensation for your work.  There’s no question in my mind as to which estate is better.  The child is wonderful, but I wouldn’t take the rest of the package again.  

348. amy Oct 21st 2009 at 01:03 pm 348

     (incidentally, how do you make the paragraph breaks?  Sorry about the megaparagraphs up there — I hit return, and I see the break in the text box, but it doesn’t come through in the post.)

349. Sayanta Oct 21st 2009 at 01:40 pm 349

     Helen-

     I like that line, “changing your mind as to what a man can offer…” but what do you mean by that? Are there certain things you believe that they just can’t offer, so there’s no point in looking for it? For example, I read a book by a female psychotherapist who was begging women to not look for meaningful, long conversations with men as a form of bonding, ’cause it ain’t happening.

     But I don’t want to misunderstand your sentence, so that’s why I thought I’d ask.

350. Ruby Oct 21st 2009 at 04:05 pm 350

     Amy #

     Do you think that if you live with a man then taking care of him is a given? What if you’re married and don’t have kids? What if you find a house-husband? Rare, but they do exist?

351. Ruby Oct 21st 2009 at 04:06 pm 351

     Amy #347

     My message got messed up!

     Do you think that if you live with a man taking care of him is a given? Does it make a difference if you don’t have kids? What if you find a man who would be a house-husband? Rare, but they do exist…I’m just curious…You mentioned being treated as an “honorary man” – what do you mean? Some of my never-married woman friends feel that they’re stigmatized for having never been married, you know, the “spinster” stigma.

352. amy Oct 21st 2009 at 04:12 pm 352

     I’m wondering too, Helen. I haven’t met these trainable men, and neither have any of my friends. I did for a long time live with a man who assiduously took care of his own friendships, cleaning, cooking and grocery shopping, which was wonderful, but…well, that was it. Anything that required negotiation with the world, or fixing things, or long-term planning…it was all me.  And then when I got sick, I realized that he’d never extend the kind of care I’d have given if he’d been sick. The best he could do was to pretend I was fine.  That was really the end of it.  We had a great time together — still do, I just saw him today — and the love was and is genuine, but again, it came down to me carrying most of the load of a marriage. So, no.  We’d been engaged; I broke it off.
     Incidentally — and if the setup makes you both happy, that’s great, but — why does your husband do more household chores than you do? Don’t you feel compelled to chip in more so that there’s some sort of rough equity, seeing as how you both live there? (And if not, why not?)

353. Selena Oct 21st 2009 at 05:35 pm 353

     Actually Helen I’ve had only one relationship with  a household lazy slob guy. Loved him anyway, though sometimes I was resentful. Since him, I’ve known and loved other men who weren’t  like that so no I’m not bitter. The You was meant generally, not personally to me, you, or anyone else.  And though my life has not turned out like some of Amy’s unhappy married friends, I’ve read/heard a plethora of stories from women in the same situations she describes.

     I understood you wrote “trainable” light-heartedly, it wasn’t until I started writing about how women might find themselves in “the second shift” type relationships that it occured to me perhaps women are the ones ‘training’ their men, themselves by unwittingly setting up that pattern early on without ever meaning to do so.  It didn’t happen to me, but perhaps it could have. The examples I gave were from my own life with one boyfriend and they were the mildest ones!

     I think the problem may be that people aren’t always clear on what their expectations are regarding sharing a household. And communicate those expectations to their partner BEFORE moving in together/marrying.  If your idea of partnership does not include serving as someone’s personal assistant, maid, cook and housekeeper are you making that known? Light-heartedly, but firmly ofcourse.  Or do you not say anything out of fear your man would choose not to live with/marry you if he knew he had to take turns scrubbing the tub and the toliet? Vaccuming  his hair off the bathroom floor with no guarantee of sex for the effort?

     Sure Helen, people who love each other want to make each other happy. But patterns can be very hard to change. If you establish the pattern of doing  all or most of the household/ family maintenance early on – in the spirit of being a “good girlfriend”  – should you really be surprised  4,7, 15 yrs down the line your partner doesn’t want to change the play? By then he knows that if he stalls long enough, you will scrub the tub, the toliet, pick up his crusty socks, etc., etc. ad nauseum because it matters more to you than it ever will to him. If a woman doesn’t like the way “the second shift” lifestyle looks, she’s better off being cognizant of the patterns she may be setting up by “doing for” her boyfriend. It’s not about finding a perfect man, it’s about finding a man you will be compatible living with.  Just an observation.

     Sayanta – the men I loved the most, was closest to, and with the longest were the ones I bonded with through long, meaningful conversations. Countless long, meaningful conversations. Sometimes still having such conversations long after we decided to part as lovers.  I can’t imagine falling in love otherwise. I tend to find uncommunicative men dull.

     What does this published psychotherapist suggest IS the way to bond with men? Sex? Cooking? lol

     Amy -  you double space between paragraphs by hitting the enter key twice.  Love your writing style btw.

354. amy Oct 21st 2009 at 07:21 pm 354

     Thanks, Selena, and thanks for the formatting tip!
      
     I do think there’s a real difference between “married, no kids” and “married with kids” when it comes to division of labor, money, issues of religion, etc. There’s less of everything to go around, including time, and the stakes are higher. A formerly carefree couple finds that something’s gotta give, and since caregiving has to be part of the equation, whoever’s doing the caregiving is obviously not going to want to exclude part of the family from care.  Even if the other parent isn’t playing nice, it’s very stress-inducing to say, “I’ll take care of the children, but I won’t do anything nice for you.”  Even if it’s what you feel like doing, you can’t, because it’d hurt the children.  These are very hard things to think about. I have a writer friend now on the verge of marriage, and she’s walking straight into trouble. She makes no money; she lives off the guy already; he makes decent money, but not good enough for nannies and household help, and they want a kid.  And he’s in a regionally-successful band; he’s made it clear he won’t give that up.
      
     So when they have that kid, when is she going to have time to write? Sure, he supports her in her career. But someone’s going to have to be with the baby, and someone’s going to have to make money, and someone’s going to have to clean the house, cook, shop, research daycares, buy clothes, build a support network, go on playdates, go to the doctor, learn all about child development, research schools, volunteer in the classroom, drive to the dance and trombone lessons, etc., etc.  Whose career will get the shove?  Will they move to a tiny place so he can go part-time?  Or….
      
     The biggest source of frustration I hear from well-educated, married women is that they were clear — very clear — in plain English about what they wanted and needed, during the courtship, and the man said yes yes yes.  And then the baby comes, or the man’s offered a highly-paid job in another state, and it’s like these conversations never took place. One of my friends here finally divorced her husband when he came home from grad school and announced that he’d won an eight-month fellowship in Africa.  Had they discussed this?  Had he taken into consideration the fact that they have two children?  Nope.  Off he went, and she’s now struggling like mad to keep her head above water.
      
     I went through it, too.  Even when I was pregnant, I pointed out to my husband that he was going to have a fight on his hands when it came to quitting time, because he was somehow going to have to explain to his boss that he was leaving at five. And do it. Because I didn’t get to go do my work till he got home, and I hadn’t signed up to be no 24/7 mommytron.  Again, he said yes yes yes, and then when the moment came…wow.  To his credit, he really did push, but of course the boss pushed back.  And he had real trouble seeing that he was taking it from a bad systemic setup just as much as I was, but that he was also going to have to work out a solution, just as any mother does. It really frustrated him that my work was not available to sacrifice, and I’m sure that contributed to the divorce. 
      
     Come to think of it, I had a boyfriend in my 20s who behaved similarly, though no child was involved. Got real frustrated when it turned out I’d meant what I’d said.
      
     Ruby, there’ve been times when I’ve thought, “Gee, I need a wife,” but I really don’t want that.  I just want a man with his own work, something substantial and serious that he loves and can talk to me about, and who also takes care of his own self-maintenance and his share of the relationship/home/etc. work.  Without hounding, training, cajoling, eyelash-batting, etc. I do all that and raise and support a kid, so I don’t figure it’s an unreasonable thing to look for in someone I’d invite into my heart, my life, and my bed.

355. amy Oct 21st 2009 at 07:39 pm 355

     Oh, sorry, Ruby — hard to believe I’ve still left something out, but  you asked about the honorary-man thing.  I think this is likely class-related — if you’re in a profession, and you went to college and learned there to play with the boys, you get treated more or less as one of the boys.  Depending on your field, you may have to earn the respect first, but once you’re in, you’re in.
      
     Until you become a wife — that’s the first crack — and then, fatally, Mom. You’ll notice that most professional women don’t decorate the office with pix of the kids, or bring their kids around much. There’s a good reason for that. Mom’s many rungs down on the social-status ladder.  Mom is there to serve, and she left her brain in a taxi some years ago, though she’s real cute.  Mom’s ignorable when she’s upset. She probably needs help with something. Mom does not in fact quite exist as a person outside her role as a mother, and of course she does all she does because she — well, she loves to, doesn’t she?  She wouldn’t do all that stuff if she didn’t want to.
      
     I was totally flabbergasted by the whole thing when I went through it. I’ve pretty much recovered now, but it’s been in direct relation to the number of hours my kid spends away from me.  At this point I’m fairly aggressive about mentioning child-related obligations to colleagues, but this definitely works better with older colleagues than with younger, who tend to resent the existence & intrusion of other people’s children into their work lives.  It really is easier to relegate the whole phenomenon of children, and the people who must fuss with them, to some World of Mom apart from work.

356. Ruby Oct 22nd 2009 at 09:01 am 356

     Amy #354, 355
      
     Thanks, Amy!  As a middle-aged, never married person, I’m not going to have children (am ok with that), but I haven’t given up on the possibility of marriage. Or at least a boyfriend. Sometimes I wonder if I’m looking at things with rose-colored glasses, so I find your perspective very interesting.
      
     “…a man with his own work, something substantial and serious that he loves and can talk to me about, and who also takes care of his own self-maintenance and his share of the relationship/home/etc. work.”
      
     Sounds good to me.
      

357. Helen Oct 22nd 2009 at 09:30 am 357

     Amy #355, you are SO RIGHT about the invisible-mother phenomenon. And you asked me earlier why I don’t chip in more with household chores? It is exactly because of that: my husband wanted kids, I didn’t; I made the sacrifice for him to have kids and (as alluded to in one of my earlier posts) am finding it hellish. He knows that I’m having a hard time being a mother. So, though we never talked explicitly about it, he does most of the childcare and I do most of the other things: cooking (which I love), laundry, etc. If you were to add it up on both sides by time and effort, he does more. Both of us are fine with that.

     But the point is that this all worked because I was VERY explicit about what I wanted and didn’t want, right from the start. Many women have problems with this: being afraid to just lay down our bottom line. I admitted outright to my husband that I couldn’t care less whether we had kids. And even admitted to him afterwards that I hated motherhood. Even the most liberal and liberated women have trouble admitting these things in our society. But someone has got to say it, or – as you point out – people will just keep assuming we do mom things because we love it. No: we love our kids; we don’t necessarily love being mothers.

     So, Sayanta, I think what works with men is to be lovingly honest. Be true to yourself and also be kind in how you express that to your man. Don’t shout at him; he isn’t to blame for your wants. What I meant by what a man can offer is to talk with him with the expectation that he will try to meet your needs if he loves you! Assume the best, and he will often give it.

358. Sayanta Oct 22nd 2009 at 10:33 am 358

     Helen and Ruby-

     thought I’d share this to boost our argument.

     http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahradio/jchatzky/jchatzky_20061206

359. Sayanta Oct 22nd 2009 at 10:34 am 359

     http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahradio/jchatzky/jchatzky_20061206

     wait…i think the link’s not coming up properly

360. Helen Oct 22nd 2009 at 12:19 pm