DISCOVER HOW SMART, STRONG & SUCCESSFUL WOMEN (THAT'S YOU!) CAN FINALLY Find Your Man
DISCOVER HOW
SMART WOMEN LIKE YOU CAN
FINALLY Find Your Man
Take this short quiz
to discover what you need to do now.
Take this short quiz now
I’m 41, happy with my rounded self, smart, direct, and articulate.
I’ve been told that my lack of dates is due to:
1) Men don’t like smart, direct women, and
2) I’m centered, which sends the message that I don’t need anyone.
Are men really that insecure? I’m certainly not going to be less than I am just for someone else’s insecurities.
Tell me honestly, Evan – are there any good men out there who appreciate a woman who knows herself?
Michelle
Hi, Evan:
I don’t know what is going on and why I’m lacking luck in finding Mr. Right. I am educated, refined, and a self-made millionaire by age 34. I am good-looking. Many men, women, elderly, and children of all ages have told me so. People also told me that I am one of the nicest and sweetest people they have ever met. Even though I am 36, most of the people I meet would think that I am only 26. Unfortunately, I have been through all kinds of online dates in the last two and a half years. CEOs, doctors, lawyers, hedge fund managers, business owners, professional athletes, actors, etc… 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. Anyway, in short, I need some serious help and hope to hear back from you soon. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Catherine
Great letters. Important question. But first I want to start off with a hypothetical email from a man.
Dear Evan,
I’m what you’d call a “nice guy.” I make a good living, I’m pretty attractive, and I treat women well. In fact, all of my female friends comment on what a great catch I am. But then I see those same women dating jerks. Yet they would never consider going out with me! So what do you think? Am I cursed to be alone just because I know how to be kind to women? Isn’t being nice a good quality? What’s wrong with women these days? Please let me know.
Jason
It’s not BECAUSE a guy is “nice” that he’s not attracting women.
Men reading this might empathize with Jason. Women reading this may feel bad for him, yet also want him to know that it’s not BECAUSE he’s nice that he’s not attracting women. It’s because he’s doesn’t have masculine energy. It’s because he constantly seeks the approval of others. It’s because he’s not sexually aggressive. It’s because he sacrifices his personal power to be conciliatory. These are common attributes of nice guys, yet nice guys think that many women don’t like nice guys BECAUSE they’re nice.
Not true. Women want nice guys — nice guys with opinions who stand up for themselves and know how to take control.
Smart, strong women are very much like nice guys.
“I’m intelligent, I’m direct, I’m successful, yet I can’t seem to find a quality guy who appreciates me.”
Men like smart women. I do. My male coaching clients do as well. So how is it that all these successful and intelligent men are not connecting with all these successful and intelligent women?…
Because there’s much more going on than merely a meeting of the minds.
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:
…Despite her impressive credentials — attractive, successful, intelligent — she might not be giving men what THEY WANT.
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.”
If this makes you feel personally indicted, welcome to the club. I’m a “direct” person as well. I write things that are, to say the least, provocative…and yet I always get surprised when I receive angry emails from readers. Hey, I’m just being honest over here! What are you getting so upset about? 😉
See, there’s a price to pay for “being ourselves.” And if you’re going to express your opinion, you can’t be surprised if other people disagree with you. And if you’re trying to win each argument, you can’t be too shocked if he wants a woman who can be a little more acquiescent.
I don’t know Catherine and Michelle. But I do know that they are not alone. Maureen Dowd, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Times, wrote an entire book about this, called “Are Men Necessary?”. One of her main observations is that if an amazing woman like her could be single, there must be something wrong with men. What she doesn’t acknowledge is that despite her impressive credentials — attractive, successful, intelligent — she might not be giving men what THEY WANT.
When a man goes out with a woman, he’s not as concerned with whether she’s articulate and on track to make partner at the law firm. That’s what women want in men and they assume it’s of equal importance to them. It’s generally not. Men DO value intelligence, but they also want from their girlfriend what they CAN’T get from their business associates. Warmth, affection, nurturing, thoughtfulness. If he finds himself constantly hearing all the things he needs to change, he may just determine that he wants a bright woman who is less challenging. Not a Stepford Wife. Not a bimbo. Not a maid. Just someone who makes his life EASIER and more pleasant.
Listen, I’ve spent my life chasing after women I’ve intellectually admired. Invariably, all of them had major issues with me. They’re not wrong for seeing things I could change. But a huge reason I’m with my wife is because she spends her time loving and supporting me, not challenging me on everything from movie tickets, to travel plans, to wake up times. She’s easy, in the best sense of the word.
Men want from their girlfriend what they CAN’T get from their business associates: warmth, affection, nurturing…
This is a real dilemma. You’re undoubtedly a great catch. You can teach us a thing or two. You are a go-getter and worthy of everyone’s respect. But if that go-getter side ends up emasculating your man, or makes him feel insignificant, or second-guessed, he’s not really getting what he wants out of a partner. Men want to feel masculine. We want to feel needed. And with a generation of women who pose questions like “Are Men Necessary?” it’s pretty difficult for us to enjoy our role as men. This doesn’t mean you should play dumb, or be weak and needy, no more than the nice guy should start acting like a jackass. It might mean, however, turning off some of the things that make you “successful” at work. This is a bitter pill to swallow, perhaps even a double standard. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that “hard-driving, opinionated, and meticulous” are not on most men’s lists of ideal feminine traits.
As someone who considers himself smart and direct, take it from me — there’s nothing wrong with these qualities. But if it also coincides with being difficult, dating might be a long, tough road for you.
It certainly was for me.
P.S. Want better results in your love life? For a deeper understanding of what qualities you should be looking for in a man, I invite you to check out “Why He Disappeared — the Smart, Strong, Successful Woman’s Guide to Understanding Men and Keeping the Right One Hooked Forever”.
Shari says
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.
Michelle says
You have managed to put this in a clear easy to understand manner. It’s not playing dumb. It is being tactful. If l can practise this at work, l sure can practise it with my man. May be difficult at first but with nurturing it should become a habit.
Nick says
You know what is truly disgusting from all these “successful, strong women” commenting? How absolutely sexiest they are toward woman who aren’t as “successful, ambitious, or strong.” So your degree and career make you women more deserving of love than lowly women? Men don’t want to date you because you are ugly on the inside. A teacher or secretary with a sunny disposition beats these career women any day. Check you arrogance. It makes you very off-putting and repulsive. Way to throw women with less ambition, less career success, less forwardness under the bus! But you’d rather be single than compromise … your dream came true! Because the hair dressers, teachers, secretaries, waitresses I know are happily married with loving families. But hey, you career and strong women have your toys and careers! Yay! You must be so happy!!
Victoria says
Obviously, you just missed the point. You solidified the bias that men want ditsy, mousey, weak women who play nice at being told what to do. Yes, strong, hardworking, confident women see this as a weakness and feel it suppresses the equality of the sexes. It’s not because we think we are etter. I promise you that. Its because we don’t like to see men as attracted to this passive behavior. As the writer points out, men want to feel needed, and in charge. To us strong women, you are the ones who appear weak for being able to stand next to a successful women.
JennLee says
I don’t think most men have a problem with successful women, it’s that many successful women forgot how to be soft, and men want soft. Like the Stevie Nicks song says, “Give to me your leather, take from me my lace.” Also, men do want to be a leader for their woman. Is it really that hard to let him? It doesn’t mean you have to act dumb, or incapable. Just let him lead.
giulia says
Thamk you for writing this. It Is so true and I’ve been needing to hear it from someone for a lomg time. Thanl you for making me feel normal.
JennLee says
Victoria, I read Nick’s post again, and then your post again. I totally disagree with you. In no way did his post solidify ” the bias that men want ditsy, mousey, weak women who play nice at being told what to do.”
Also, men and women are NOT equal. This does not mean one is inferior, or one superior. The truth so many want to deny these days is that we are meant to be a compliment to each other, not a mirror image of each other. We are meant to be two halves of a whole, with each bringing different qualities to the table that feed each others inherent needs.
I’m sick to death of the message that we have to try to force a square peg through a round whole, and that is exactly what the present message to women is, and it comes from many different directions. Those who reject that message are happier in my experience.
Once again, men have no problem with successful women. They have a problem with the personality that many successful women bring to the table. It is the masculine side of your personality that they detest. And it serves no purpose to try to shame them for that, because they aren’t going to be shamed into masculine acting. Can you be shamed into being highly attracted to very effeminate men? I doubt it. What you seem to have a problem with is the natural state of men because it is inconvenient to you. I happen to love men…manly men, and I do not see them as less manly because they are not attracted to masculine qualities in women. Frankly, I see that as nothing more than simply being normal.
JennLee says
Forgot to finish the edit of a sentence. The sentence in question should have read, “And it serves no purpose to try to shame them for that, because they aren’t going to be shamed into being attracted to masculine acting women.”
Bell says
“You solidified the bias that men want ditsy, mousey, weak women who play nice at being told what to do. Yes, strong, hardworking, confident women see this as a weakness and feel it suppresses the equality of the sexes.”
So you just validated Nick’s entire point, while simultaneously thinking you disagreed. Nice job, that.
Here’s the real kicker, and I’ll fix what I think was a typo, and not just a Freudian slip. “It’s not because we think we are better. I promise you that.”
But wait,.. it’s gets better. Contradictions abound! “To us strong women, you are the ones who appear weak for not being able to stand next to a successful women. “
Way to throw all women who don’t enjoy your preferred life under the bus. Tell me; is there actually room at the top for all women to be successful, or are did you really think that everyone wins in a game with a first place prize?
The really damning part, though, is the really fun bit. “Its because we don’t like to see men as attracted to this passive behavior. As the writer points out, men want to feel needed, and in charge.”
Ah… “…we don’t like to see…” So, really, it’s narcissism. It’s not all about you, therefore everyone else is ditsy, mousey, and weak. And to clarify one bit, the author stated that he thinks men want to feel needed; not in charge. You made that assertion. That’s called psychological projection; you should look it up.
And.. the author is correct. Men do want to be needed. Women will talk about their emotional needs. Men have them too, but often a little different. For us, being needed IS a normal emotional necessity. Dismiss it all you want, but you can’t dismiss the consequences. Treat a man like he isn’t necessary, and he leaves. Deal with it; it isn’t yours to decide.
XT5 says
Euality of the sexes? Sexes are NOT equal. And that’s what’s beautiful and attracts them! That’s what completes them. Sooner or later you’ll realize. For the moment, you can debate your head off with the rest of the sterile crowd following this cult of yours. The reality is that the world of the future will be inherited only by those who get it.
David says
It’s like you just proved his points for him. Lol.
GirlNextDoor says
I think JennLee hit it spot on… however, for me, its hard at the end of a day to sometimes transition from work to home…. but I know that I also like when a man wants to protect, take care of, and be respected for his abilities…..
I think single women with children may experience the same, being in charge, all the responsibilities are on them, and then we have to shift gears for men to feed into their ego.
I just had a great guy tell me that he wants to be alone now. It was tough to be the sweet, submissive, and soft woman he wanted when each and everyday is more like a battle ground where I have to hold my own.
I am giving him as much space as he needs not, and if by chance he wants to come back I will need to examine how to be more feminine in how I deal with things.
Russell says
GirlNextDoor,
I like your post, but you need to make one adjustment to your thinking. You mention having to feed the guy’s ego. Why does it have to be such a negative? Is it just feeding your ego when a man says and does things to make you feel needed, important, sexy, beautiful, etc? Isn’t the whole point of being in a relationship, to give your partner what they need, and get from them what you need? Isn’t it supposed to be a symbiotic relationship? Men NEED to feel respected by their woman. The world today makes that much harder to come by naturally. Technology, etc., have made having a partner in life, not necessary. Society, pop culture, the media, etc., all seem to send very bad messages to us. A man isn’t worthy of respect unless he is either rich, famous, amazingly talented, or a combination of two or more of these.
Maybe you could step outside yourself, then take a long hard look at yourself, and him, then maybe see where he is actually better at something, anything, and then focus on that, and find a way to genuinely respect him as a result.
It’s literally come to the point in this world where I think the best thing that could happen for the relationships between men and women is for us to he knocked back into the stone age so that men and women would once again, actually need each other.
Evan Marc Katz says
Good comment and role reversal, Rusty. “Feeding the ego” is negative. “Being nice and supportive” is more like it.
Sharkathotep says
“Also, men do want to be a leader for their woman. Is it really that hard to let him?”
Err, yes? Because not every woman is submissive by nature? What about women who don’t want to dominate their partners but don’t want to be “lead”, either? When people leave their parents, they usually don’t look for another father or mother.
Different people, different preferences. Why should anybody jump through hoops?
Annie says
It’s obvious how insecure and emotionally stunted you are to make such an ignorant statement and why you are happy with dumb and ambitionless women who are most likely after your money and whatever superficial junk you have to offer. Ugliness from the inside does not discriminate. Anyone can be selfish, manipulative, anti-social/socially awkward, caddy, etc….. Whether they are a business owner or a maid. You can be a lazy, two-faced yenta hairdresser or a respectable, driven, no-no-nonsense one. Sounds like you prefer weak minded women bc it’s what elevates you as a man. But that does not create happiness. How are you to grow as a man when the woman you are with is still a child? Grow up.
twinkle says
Um, he never said he wanted dumb and ambitionless women. He especially never mentioned ‘dumb’. And u think women in less highly-paid jobs like secretaries, nurses and teachers are all ambitionless?? I think your comment kinda illustrates what he was talking about.
Karmic Equation says
Annie, I agree with twinkle’s post. You’re putting words in Nick’s mouth.
It’s obvious you’re angry at both men and those “less-ambitioned” women. Get some therapy and figure out why.
My guess is that you envy those “dumb, ambitionless” women because they DO have happy family and relationships unlike yourself.
And you want to denigrate both the men and women because you take pride in your intelligence and ambition. You’re not wrong to take pride in those qualities. But you’re wrong to denigrate others. Shows you’re not a nice person, which is probably why you’re single. Not because you’ve lost out to “dumb, ambitionless” women.
You just have to understand that men don’t “value” intelligence and ambition for relationships. Men want women who make them feel good. Men DON’T want women who are constantly finding fault with them. Men DON’T want angry women. Men are attracted to HAPPY and NICE women. Men would rather have a dumb, nice, happy woman, than a smart, bitchy, angry one.
Learn to appreciate those women who work in jobs you would never consider doing. They work just as hard as us, just in a different way. They’re worthy of your respect, not disparagement.
raja says
you must know men do not care at all how successful or unsuccessful or organised or unorganized you are.
1. We have a successful female friend in our group of boys and i like her a lot because she behaves like a sweet little girl and is never an arrogant.PLUS she has a boyfriend who is a nicest man I know.
2. I am in a relationship with a girl for 4 years and i have had always been motivating her to do good in her academic though she was always a confident and hard working , I did every thing that i could have done to make her life easy and now she is earning more than me and i feel so proud of her.
By these 2 example i just want to prove to you that men do not avoid successful women instead they want one. But at last they want a Women who is soft absorbs your stress and frustration make u feel easy and NOT a man with female body.
hmmmm says
Karmic equation said: “Men don’t value intelligence”
You can have those men.
I’ll stick with the 99% I’ve met in my life who value good conversation and make no secret they enjoy the company of smart and interesting women.
Karmic Equation says
hmmm wrote:
“You can have those men.
I’ll stick with the 99% I’ve met in my life who value good conversation and make no secret they enjoy the company of smart and interesting women.”
And exactly how many of those men have asked you to marry them?
In the context of relationships, men don’t “require” women to be intelligent. Of course they like and appreciate her intelligence provided that the woman is ALSO attractive, kind, secure, and low drama. You could be the most intelligent obese woman on the planet and men won’t be clamoring to date you, never mind marry you.
Intelligence is a bonus to men looking for relationships. It’s not a pre-requisite.
I’m surprised that as the intelligent woman you imply you are, that you don’t understand that.
hmmmm says
@Karmic Equation:
“And exactly how many of those men have asked you to marry them?”
Three. Two exes: an urban planner and an entrepreneur, and my husband, an environmental engineer.
Fact is, none of the high quality men I and my female friends have been in serious relationships with and married would have anything less than a smart, capable woman. Key words there are high quality.
And, please, allow me to absolve you of your disillusion. Attractive and intelligent women are in high supply…but low quality men need not apply.
Lastly. When I want advice about what men want, I ask men. Not women.
Karmic Equation says
“Absolve you from your disillusion”? — You mean “disabuse you from your delusion”, darling.
Using big words … incorrectly … doesn’t demonstrate intelligence. It demonstrates intelligent-wanna-be.
So, let me disabuse you from YOUR delusion. Attractive women (with or without intelligence apparently) are in high demand. And both high quality AND low quality men want them.
However, the more attractive she is, the more negative qualities a man (high quality or not) will tolerate in her.
You must be drop-dead gorgeous.
oh snap says
lmoa!!!!!! Hive five!
dianne says
Well said. Agree with you 100%
Sheesh says
Duane, who are you agreeing with?
“You just have to understand that men don’t “value” intelligence. ”
karmic equation, that statement says far more about you than it does about men, as do your immature insults on this thread. You can take the boys intimidated by women, I’ll stick with men.
Before you try to claim I’m just jealous at their marital status, yes married. Um…But you’re not…right?
Annie says
Actually “Twinkle”, he did… “Way to throw women with less ambition, less career success, less forwardness under the bus! “. And I actually come from a family of teachers and nurses who are quite intelligent, driven, and wear their hearts on their sleeves. So I appreciate your reply but it’s way off from what has been discussed this far.
Karmic Equation says
The important part of Nick’s post wasn’t the “less…” parts but the “throwing under the bus part”. He was defending the women, while you were putting them down.
Either you have reading comprehension issues or you’re failing to recognize your own biases, despite having grown up in a family of teachers and nurses.
twinkle says
Annie, to add to K.E.’s points, Nick was speaking of women with “less ambition” and less job success than the successful career women, not “ambitionless” women; there’s a difference. Many of these women are not dumb or vacuous or “ambitionless”, they simply have different priorities and goals than climbing up the career ladder.
hmmmm says
Nice insults karmic equation. That feminine softness is just pouring out of you.
Annie says
Nick made several implications that were biased and nasty towards any career driven woman. No matter what profession you are in, a woman must still be a “woman” and show compassion to others. Period. And I have no problem meeting or retaining men bc I am aware of this and it shows. The only woman I don’t respect is the one who doesn’t have anything to show for herself as a human being….puts no true effort into the lives of those who surround her. But that goes for men too.
Karmic Equation says
So what, Annie?
He’s not trying to attract other men (I presume) — you are.
Just because a guy’s language riles you, doesn’t mean that you should stop being a nice person. You can still dress him down without dropping to his level of perceived nastiness. Yes, I agree his tone wasn’t nice.
But you and I won’t be dating him, so he’s his own worse enemy.
Being nice is not about being nice to other people when they are nice to you. Being nice means nothing if your niceness goes out the door when you get riled. It means that you not a nice person. Why? Because bfs and husbands will inevitably rile us. And when they do, and your stop using nice words to convey your anger and instead resort to name calling or denigration, they tune you out. Do you want to be heard? Or do you want to be right?
I’m not saying don’t ever be angry. I’m saying if you choose your words carefully to convey your anger, he’s more likely to listen…and continue to like and respect you after the fight. And if you’re the kind to have a nasty side when angered. Walk away from the fight and have it when you’ve composed yourself. A man will respect the woman with this kind of self-control more than the virago who rages at him.
GirlNextDoor says
WOW! That is pretty harsh! I have met a lot of women, and when my son was in school with some of the most powerful women out there today’s kids, I met them and worked on project with them.
What I discovered was that many of the women who were powerful had only a HS diploma! They were talented, gifted in their fields… one even opened the first flavored Vodka line of Vodkas!
I learned more by being in this group of women, than I ever learned in business! The sad part was that being a single parent did not afford me the opportunity to really learn how to approach or talk to men…. and all of these women, regardless of education, and we had it all…. HS to double doctorates… at the end of the day it was about being a woman….
Its a tough road, especially when you have to be the breadwinner… you are the one making investments, buying cars, opening businesses, and coping with raising a family alone… there is nothing soft, sweet or feminine necessarily in all of that….
Its just not easy being a woman…. and men are basically simple creatures who do not process things like we do.
Annie says
Yes, KE, I agree completely. And there are men and women who refuse to open themselves up to rational thinking no matter the tone of the individual presenting new ideas.
Karmic Equation says
Agreed, Annie.
We should dump those people if we are dating them. Avoid debating them if they’re our friends. The friendship would be strained otherwise.
Megan says
I’m confused. I didn’t get the sense that “strong, successful” woman look down upon those not so successful. To me, the question was a simple one: “Why are men intimidated by ambitious and successful women?” It has nothing to do with comparing one woman to another. It’s a matter of self-analysis and evaluation. I’m an incredibly successful attorney and I have had many, many men, before they even had a conversation with me, straight up tell me they didn’t want to date a lawyer. I’ve had guys tell me before even meeting me they don’t want to date me because I’m “rich.” Hmmmm… ok. It’s not about my success b/c these guys don’t know me. It’s about societal perceptions surrounding lawyers, and women lawyers to boot. Both men and women alike assume all lawyers make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, not so, not even close. I have come to know all too well over the past 7 years, that dating with a “high status” job title is not so simple. Guys brush me off before they even meet me b/c they are so freaked out. I had been dating a guy once for about a month… He came over to my house to pick me up for our next date. He immediately told me he thought I was out of his league b/c I have Carrera marble flooring in my house. Really? Whatever dude. I have no doubt some of the qualities that have helped my bank account grow are not so attractive when it comes to the dating world. I get that. But it’s not like I sit around thinking I’m better than my secretaries. I will tell you though, they don’t have to go through the bullshit of being dumped because they’re “so wealthy” and men certainly aren’t intimidated by their job title alone. THAT was the point of these women’s questions… why are we being discriminated against for our achievements?!?!?! And no one is more or less deserving of love based on money or success. The real question is… if my secretary is happily married, why can’t I be?
Just my 2 cents.
Robert says
It’s not about any of that stuff… I am not attracted to men-like, women. I am not gay. I want a feminine woman… Not a man. You either accept this or not… And when you don’t, stop complaining.
Chrysanthi says
Exactly. Only true non – insecure men unfortunately can handle strong, self confident and successful women , carreer driven.
Hard to find but sure there are. Ye ye and they want the so called more “soft” , “feminine” women only to cheat on them down the road as well. Tlking from experience. So many married men in relationships with “soft” wives and girlfriends, have been flirting me throughout the years.
So puh..leaaaseeee
I take an equal relationship any day with a man that respects me , understands my needs and satisfy me and i am more than willing to offer the same or more.
No criticism, simply if the man is not a good match to you he simply is not a good match.
Its all a matter of chemistry. Im in no circumstances desperate or needy looking and i dont think that any woman should look like that in order to attract their other half. These things are not scheduled or programmed. If you have chemistry and that click with someone, then it will show and a relationship can be pursued
Karmic Equation says
Megan,
I’m not sure if you can pull this off, but you might want to give this a try…Can you be “just a woman” ? — No man outside of work knows what I do for a living. To them I could just as easily be a waitress as I could be a CEO (although they would more likely believe I was a waitress than a CEO, lol) — I’m a mid-level manager in web operations…so a “brainiac” as a guy friend termed it once I told him what I did. I just creeped into 6 figures at my last merit review. And only my bf knows how much I make. No other friend knows. Not even my family.
To me, it’s not “role playing” to be “just a woman” — outside of work I only want to be “just a woman” and I want my date to be “just a guy”. Dates are much more fun and less pressure-filled that way, imo.
Karmic Equation says
Typo…
“…that way.” Not “that will”
———-
Chrysanthi,
I think it’s a stretch to call a man “insecure” because he can’t/won’t date a “strong, self confident successful” woman. This is a male “preference” because “strong, self-confident, successful” women are often opinionated, bitchy, and self-controlling. (I’m not saying you are this, btw) — So why even start a relationship they know will end up full of friction? This is just dating “effectively” for men.
Certainly many men ARE insecure, but their insecurity is exhibited by “trying too hard”, “bragging too much”, “talking too much about themselves”, etc. But not wanting to date an SSS woman is often not a sign of insecurity. We can label it that to make us feel better, but that is not reality, unfortunately.
Jane says
‘Robert’ says: “It’s not about any of that stuff… I am not attracted to men-like, women. I am not gay. I want a feminine woman… Not a man. You either accept this or not… And when you don’t, stop complaining.” That about sums it up. He wants women to be passive, drooling, and barefoot, or he doesn’t feel like a man. “Men-like women?” Guy needs an anatomy lesson.
‘Megan’ – Women must detach themselves from having to have a man, any man, at any cost to themselves. This must be the most difficult thing in the world to accomplish. You know, I’m sure, that when a woman, any woman, comes into her own, regardless of whether she works at all, or whatever her job, men can “smell” this. (It’s worse now with the internet). Suddenly, they appear like flies. A woman who has not been having dates must guard herself against leaping into the arms of any of these guys. They’re the ones who will suck the energy right out of a woman. No matter how nice their behavior – no matter what tokens of their esteem – they are choosing those women for their strength, and make no mistake about it. Women, too, are at “fault,” because women will accept this.
You have been lucky that the men you are best without announce it so clearly. Lucky. There is no longer a driving need to populate the planet. But there is enormous prejudice against both men and women who are not “with” someone – anyone, and even as I write this, I know I’m as guilty as the next person for having this perception because it is constantly reinforced.
Women are still uncomfortable, by and large, dining alone. It’s the 21st century, but things remain more like the 1950s and it is only getting worse. Men dining alone are, perhaps, pitied. Women dining alone are the object of scorn.
I don’t see anything getting better for men or women, and only the constant reinforcement that they must want each other or there is something wrong with them. Yet, when are most men happy? When they are in the company of other men. When are most women happy? When they give up too much of themselves to be tied to men who are happiest in the company of other men, or, who are subservient.
Men and women need to give each other a break and leave each other alone until this mess sorts itself out. What about the need for physical affection? Well, at what cost.
GirlNextDoor says
It might be perception…. the older men I know grew up learning mothers are in kitchens, dad’s at work.. and men rule! I think the younger generations are more open to women being skilled, but I get caught in between. Men want to be needed…. and appreciated for their skills, and I guess here we come and their egos get bruised.
Men, and people in general think Lawyers/Attorneys make a lot of money… some do, most of get by on just a nice living, but nothing to brag about. If you ask most attorneys today, many are making career switches to something else…. Doctors maybe the same. Maybe men feel they can not financially keep up…. or it dimishishes their role in our lives.
I wish I had answers…. and maybe we need to learn to switch hats better.
Jo says
Hunter … It’s pretty hard for women who have been raising kids to earn what their ex husband makes. Most are trying to do something about it … But lack of job experience and parental responsibilities make it very tough.
Russell says
There are a while lot if men who would be happy to have the kids 50% of the time, but women can’t give up all that child support. Oh no, too many women must have custody because of control issues, and money.
If you gave up a part of the child support, and had the dad take 50% of the time with the kids, that frees up a lot of time for self improvement, college classes, dating, etc…
Few things irk me more than how women fight for custody, then whine about the burden of single parenting.
hunter says
Jo,
I was told, women happen to be very smart, intelligent and know the solution, they just like to talk about the drama in their lives….
Rob says
Megan, I doubt it was the Carrera marble floors, your job title, or the size of your bank account that caused you to be dumped. You are absolutely correct that the qualities that make a highly successful attorney, especially a trial lawyer, are not so attractive in the dating world. If I am going to court I want to hire the most arrogant and argumentative attorney I can find, someone who thinks they are always right, they can’t possibly wrong to represent me. These are not qualities I want in a girlfriend or a wife though.
After dating you for a month or so I suspect the dude determined that you would be absolutely impossible to live with and decided to let you down gently by telling you that you were “out of his league” rather than saying what he was probably thinking “You are a BITCH and I can’t stand you!”
Almudena says
It’s Carrara marble, guys, not Carrera.
I agree with the person who says that initial dating should be between a man and a woman. Being ostentatious about financial success and career accomplishments has the potential to turn off certain people. This is not necessarily due to insecurities or even to gender constructions. It may have to do with personal values, with not wanting someone too materialistic or power-driven.
I would be even more concerned about attracting those who want to be with me because of my financial success. Gold diggers come in both sexes.
Who are you without your status and riches? That’s the question. Dating can be an opportunity to explore that.
hunter says
almudena, please forgive us for not using “spellcheck”….
Scooby Doo says
We aren’t intimidated by you.
We’re just not attracted by you.
A career woman has about the same standing as a careerless man in terms of attraction.
A hairdresser, waitress, shop attendant, child carer etc will always be more attractive for long term partnership, because they’re more feminine, better partners, nicer to be around and willing to fulfil the feminine portion of the relationship.
I’m a career guy myself with a PHD, I don’t NEED a career woman, I need a homemaker and a safe port to call home. A woman who appreciates me and makes up for what I lack.
You will never have that as a career woman, as a ‘strong empowered’ woman. So you’ll just be used as a pump and dump while you’re attractive, and then either be lonely or have to settle for a man way below your standards when you get older.
Joanne says
Toys and careers just like boys….and these career/strong women aren’t dependent on some guy for their financial survival! Lots of sunny, sweet ladies who are really struggling financially – in a lot of cases stuck with raising his kids after he runs off with his secretary. They are broke and miserable, far more miserable than any career woman. I know many women in this situation and they are in real financial peril.
hunter says
“they are broke and miserable”….yes they are…and won’t do a thing about it……..
Cora Pearl says
You have a point there. It’s true, some highly successful career women do have an arrogant attitude. That’s the ting with feminism. It’s a double edged sword. But I don’t think it’s just women, it’s men, too. Plenty of high powered men that have an air of self-entitlement.
But there are others who have it all and still struggle. Your hand doesn’t have the same fingers, so don’t be so quick to judge.
hunter says
cora pearl, the few highly successful career women that I know, are not lacking in the intimacy department, so I hear…despite their possible, arrogance…
Jenna says
You sir, are my hero! LoL
Fatima says
You’re the perfect example of what not to look for in any relationship, your bitterness is so obvious. Reality check independent women didn’t get that without struggling for their achievements we didn’t get it handed to us, so what is so wrong with being able to successfully run your life without compromising yourself.
Fact indepentdent women are attracted to alpha males, this include confident level headed men that know themselves who are not emasculated by a woman’s hard work, they are the men who know how to listen and teach without needed permission to take the lead in intelligent decisions. Independent women are in any position who have struggled for her achievements, having resentment is a definite turn off in any relationship.
Your mother says
That’s not true don’t be jealous. I feel like In life why would you want less for yourself?
Hazel says
The point is this: Be who you are. If that’s bright, successful, and confident, yes, there are some insecure men who aren’t going to like that much, because they want someone they can look down on. You can pretend to be “subordinate”, but do you intend to keep up that act all the rest of your life, in order to keep this man in it? The mask will slip sooner or later, and then what? I don’t tone down, turn down, tune down, or dumb down myself for anyone, nor should I have to. I am who I am, and if anyone doesn’t like that, there’s billions more people where they came from. Next person, please?
Don’t expect to be everyone’s cup of tea.
hunter says
hazel, Bravo…!…Bravo…!!
BeenThruTheWars says
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!)
WithLove says
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!
Jess says
what about if your man turned out to be useless and careless in whatever he does? what about when he brings the shopping half full with what you asked him to bring for dinner? what if your man is very clumsy and doesn’t pay attention to what he does around the house? what if your man is very forgetful and can’t remember appointments and schedules as you already agreed?
do you still let him take the lead and make a complete mess of your relationship and marriage?
Luis says
Those who are as you described may not realize what they are doing, or it’s possible that they may not care at all who they effect. It’s up to you to find out. Are they simply a struggling person, or just have no regard because they are self absorbed? If you say nothing then the person will assume you are okay with it (or perhaps not assume anything at all). Bring your concerns to that person’s attention (a reality check) and if you don’t see a change then you need to figure out what it is you value and also how you value yourself, then find the person you want. Some people put up with adult children and some don’t. At the same time don’t assume that you are being mistreated because no one may have expected any better from them. Some people are more “with it” than others. Bottom line is that if you desire a person who has a clue then that is who you need to seek.
Rachael says
In other words, you either stay with them or leave them single for a woman who is prepared to put up with less and there are plenty of women like that. They’re called wives.
Christy says
I agree with Luis. There were a lot of interesting points in the article, however, to sum it up I heard…you should play down yourselves to make a man feel like a man. Simply be seen and not heard so as to not step on an already fragile ego. Women have egos as well and quite frankly….if my opinions emasulates a man…then he wasn’t much of a man in my opinion anyway…at least not a mature one. If it’s true that what a man wants is a yes sir type of woman…which is true for some but not alll men…how stifling of an existence it must be for a woman.
The truth of the matter is this: some men and women do not take constructive criticism very well no matter how tactful you are about what you say. if I am with someone who I claim to really care about I cannot sit by idly and watch them make poor decisions and make mistakes without at least lending my thoughts about the situation. I’d rather not see them fail if I can help it. it is not about being right all the time or winning an argument all the time.
Frankly, if you have any real perception about the person you are with you should know if their intentions towards you are good and 8f they are…then you shouldn’t take it in a negative way when someone’s trying to help you who cares about you. As someone who views relationships as a team effort I feel that it is my duty to address those things and if at the end of the day he decides that he will still want to something different that’s completely up to him but there’s no reason why he should feel like me giving him some constructive criticism somehow hinders him as a man and emasculates him. None of us have it all figured out no one is perfect man nor woman. Personal growth is so important throughout life you don’t stop that once you turn 21. in my eyes men are not children I would not treat my husband the way I treat my son or my daughter these days and I feel like some men want a mother and not a wife and not a companion. You can still be a warm and compassionate and an opinionated woman towards your significant other and not bend to any of that but you have to be dealing with a mature man to do so.
With that being said no one man or woman wants to be constantly criticized about anything so you do have to be mindful of that. there is a big difference in someone constantly criticizing you and you just not being able to take constructive criticism well maybe Especially coming from a woman.
Karmic Equation says
Christy,
Constructive criticism is feedback that is SOUGHT.
If you provide UNSOLICITED feedback, however well-intentioned, it is NOT constructive criticism, it’s just plain old criticism.
If your man doesn’t ask for feedback, don’t give it.
Sharkathotep says
“If your man doesn’t ask for feedback, don’t give it.”
And if his decision affects her as well? Is she then allowed to give feedback? Even if he doesn’t ask her to?
Karmic Equation says
You should dump this man. Because you don’t appreciate the effort he IS making. He may not do it right, but he’s trying. And a man who tries is worth more than a man who doesn’t.
If he really displeases you that much, you need to dump him. He deserves to be with someone who finds his absentminded-ness cute and his clutziness adorable.
Noemi says
You either accept him and let him be who he is, or you move on with the knowledge that he will meet someone who accepts him. Being forgetful and clumsy does not mean he is making “a complete mess of your relationship and marriage.” If it bothers you so much, it’s best to move on.
Matt says
“Useless”. Wow. It’s possible that he turned out to be “useless” because of the depression that resulted from the realization that he was stuck in a relationship with an entitled, cold-hearted harpy.
mike says
Jess,
You sound sick and very controlling. Get some help. To answer your question: Don’t give someone a bulleted todo list of exactly what they need to do every second of the day, that is very toxic. Ask them to cook dinner. Thank them afterwards for the meal they cooked. (whether or not it was any good). Allow the other person in your life to have a life. What you describe is a relationship where you control everything and he spends his time in his own escapes away from you. This is not good for either of you.
Karl R says
Jess,
I have two questions:
1. Why on earth would you date or stay with someone like that?
2. Won’t someone that useless and careless make a complete mess of your relationship/marriage even if you’re in charge?
Robert says
I’m not so sure I can believe anything said on here… She could be projecting, lying…. or not… Who knows.. We have yet to here his side. I think I’ll be waiting awhile.
Amanda says
Honestly, I rather be alone that living a fake life.
fer says
Honestly, You would. Is not being fake, is being equals like every women think they need to be. The problem isn’t women being equal… the problem is now a lot of girls thinks no men matches her needs cuz she thinks she is the top smart best girl of everyone. Love isn’t about who is the best catch, is who will stay with you forever. So yeah, if you think that way you’ll be alone forever
Sandra says
I wonder if that guy is also asked to switch off traits I don’t like when he gets home so I feel “like a woman”.
JennLee says
@Sandra, yes men do have to self-moderate their own words and actions. Men get plenty of feedback about things they do or say, that we don’t like.
Also, it’s not about being fake, it’s about learning to change who you are. Imagine this. suppose you are happy and just being your authentic self, but then all of your friends and family don’t want anything to do with you. So you ask one of them to tell you why, and she says that they don’t like the way you act, that they don’t feel good being around you. So would you change or would you insist that they must learn to accept the authentic you?
The idea here is not to fake change, but to actually change. Imagine a man who comes home and does nothing but scowl and gruffly complain. If he had trouble finding a woman, would you suggest that he change, or would you tell him to just stay the same, and expect women to accept him as he is? The problem is that you want men to change who they are, but at the same time, accept you as you are.
John says
The only woman posting here that actually ‘gets it’ is JennLee. Women have changed – good for them. No one ever asked men if they wanted women to change or if they wanted to change themselves. Women undertook to unilaterally change their ‘roles’ in society and never asked men what they thought about it. Don’t expect men to change just because you changed and now you’re unhappy that men won’t change to meet your expectations. One thing that never changed about women – their self-centeredness. Try working on that then get back to us.
Alexis says
Wow! You just took the words out of my mouth! What I gathered from this article was this–Woman, it is not your job to use your brain and have opinions or thoughts of your own. No one cares if you followed your dreams and did what you wanted. Please leave the thinking and decision making to the man and learn how to smile and always say yes. Do men even realize hep that makes us feel? It’s still so sad that men still require women to be shy, docile, and agreeable women with no opportunity to be here own self without being called tactless. Men have to understand that if I start to change who I am just to get you to like me then you won’t be marrying the real me! therefore I agree, I’d rather be alone than live a fake life to please someone else. I’m a person too!!
Garret says
You seem to be very distressed over this. I would say that you have it wrong. You did not read the article correctly. Everyone has opinions. I’ve noticed something about that however. Watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH_gWgDPz7E
Joe Rogan, from Fear Factor is on the left and another guy is on the right. Now here’s th thing, the guy on the right is opinionated also. he has opinions on stuff. He never acknowledges any point that Joe makes. I’ve met a lot of people like that. All ages, all genders, all education levels, etc… They simply don’t know how to digest what you are saying, realize that your point is valid, acknowledge that, and then move forward.
I think most people don’t realize what they are like when they discuss things. But I will say this. I don’t think the majority of men have a problem with a woman being smart, or having opinions, or being independent to a point. but think about this, it is OK for a man to be kind and nurturing, but do you like it if he acts weak? Maybe acts effeminate, is that OK? Well, men really don’t like “strong,” because we don’t want to talk with you like we talk with other men. Maybe you will never understand. Maybe you need to be a man to understand it.
hunter says
alexis,
…”I’d rather be alone than live a fake life to please someone else.”…..does that make you a manhater?…
Ferret says
It is OK to be picky. If a guy is so average that he can’t get outside his own social conditioning. Is it even worth dating him? These things go both ways, sometimes the girl (or guy) is tactless and could learn some social skills, sometimes what is being asked for is unreasonable. Just use your brain and decide for yourself what you are comfortable with.
smithy says
And yet if you ask for a mans help with something, you are “bothering” him. Men just want mothers they can have sex with at the end of the day.
They don’t like strong and independent women yet they don’t want needy and clingy either. THIS is the reason why many relationships don’t work! Make your minds up boys because us girls can’t win either way?!?!?!
Evan Marc Katz says
Yes, and men can’t win either. He’s either a selfish narcissist or a nice guy with no balls. I’m pretty sick of this black/white readings of entire genders, on both sides. The world is grey. Stop complaining otherwise.
Sandra says
I agree 100% with you Alexis.
“Shut up and do tricks for me” it reminded me of how you’d treat a dog.
Sandra says
It’s a leap between wanting to be authentic and to be a “manhater”.
Sandra says
I agree with smithy above. Warm food and constant sex. Unfortunately men are socialized not to understand their own dimensions as humans, so how can we expect for them to seek others in a complete way and not only to fulfill their primitive needs?
Karmic Equation says
If that’s what you believe most men are, then why would you want a relationship with any of these neanderthals, Sandra?
They must bring something to table for you to want relationships with them. What are those somethings?
Maybe instead of focusing on what’s wrong with men, focus on what’s good about them and start looking for those qualities in the men you would like to date.
Sandra says
I think the same way Amanda.
Joanna says
Interesting article and pretty much the conclusion I have come to myself, I have accepted that to be happy I would need to become ok with being alone or settle for a beta male that will never challenge my authority. Men normally friendzone me as I have a masculine personality and that sucks for dating but is good for business…can’t have your cake and eat it I guess?
Just me says
I’m with you Sandra and Joanna
ClassicalLiberal says
Pretty clear that in today’s day and age.. with all the ‘progress’ that’s been made, men and women should simply live apart from one another. We’re not short on population. Women dont need men. Men don’t need women. What’s left? We all go our own way.
Buck25 says
Joanna,
Actually you do have another alternative. JennLee and a couple of other wiser women have given it to you, if you can take the hint.
Speaking as a dominant, driven and rather successful man, I do NOT envy you your career. I don’t begrudge you your multiple degrees. I don’t even care how masculine you feel you need to act in the workplace; I can and have worked quite well with women like you in that setting: I’m sure as hell aggressive in business, and I wouldn’t expect you to do otherwise-at the office. I might enjoy sparring with you over a business deal, or having an intellectual debate with you- and unless and until you can learn to leave that “I can act as masculine as any man!” attitude at work when you leave work, that is exactly where my interest in you or any woman like you ends. No successful, intelligent dominant man wants or needs someone who’s effectively a man with female plumbing in his personal life, most especially in his love life. To be quite blunt, I can have a pissing contest, or a pecker measuring contest, with any driven, masculine business competitor who acts like a man (whether their anatomical plumbing is male or female is completely beside the point) any day of the week. Therefore while it’s fun there, I neither need or want that at home: when the day is done, I want to come home to a soft, comforting female presence-in short, to a real, feminine woman who doesn’t try to act like a man (at least, not outside of work). If you don’t like that or simply can’t turn off that “bitch mode” away from the office, you can either (1) find a completely emasculated beta wuss, a/k/a “Sensitive New Age Man”, who actually likes being dominated by a woman, or (2) marry another female, or (3) enjoy life with all the money you’ve made… and your twenty cats.
I know that’s not what you want to hear, I know it clashes with recent feminist ideology, I know it’s not politically correct or popular with women like you…but it’s the truth, and if you (or the rest of the alpha females here) don’t like it, well, as Rhett Butler said to a similarly hard-headed woman, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!”
John Lord says
Well, at least you’ve prepared yourself for the inevitable.
vera says
@been through wars, thank you so much.
You are an eye opener..thank you.. Being g my “opinionated self”, please write a book! You are good.. Very good with words.. And you use it well..
Mr.CommonSense says
Oh my….. a woman that gets it!!! Hold on..Are you a guy posing as a woman?? lol Everything you mentioned is spot on! Only if other women thought like you and would drop that “strong-independent” title, the dating world would be much easier… Youre husband is a lucky man… if you are really a woman 😉
guitarguy32 says
So here’s the thing, it is indeed true about feminine and male energies. The difference is, the males with the feminine energy are truly the ones who lose out, often in life in general and especially with love. Why? Because most of what you say is true, except that masculine energy females still ultimately end up leaving their male partners by and large and become dissatisfied. The data suggests this strongly. In fact, women initiate 70-90% of divorces despite cheating being shown to be 50/50, and domestic violence done by women more then men on the whole (I have the data for that).
I know this personally, I put it to test. In fact recent data suggest even women with feminist leanings eventually leave their mates due to this innate female dissatisfaction with their mates. So not only are most of the jobs that men excelled at being destroyed and automated, but women now on the whole when apples to apples comparisons are made actually make more than men. In fact, it is projected by 2023 that females while graduate college 2:1 to their male counterparts. They get better grades, and have an entire culture telling them work, careerism, and ambition leads to personal happiness and satisfaction (we know through interviewing people near death that isn’t the case).
Not only do we still expect men to do the pursuing, with women being the gatekeepers and choosers, but those “feminine” energy men are much less likely to do that in general. They are shy, less secure, often low income, despite being wonderful human beings. Hypergamy is a tough mistress, so is our biology. The truth is Alpha females, def. want alpha males, and it turns out, the other females kind of want those guys to if the data is any indication.
Men make up the majority of the chronically homeless and the suicides. This too plays a role in male odds for happiness. Women get lighter sentencing in divorce court, and the legal system in general for equivalent crimes. We simply view men as the more disposable sex. Men are easily pleased and many,m if able are willing to support a low income female. As long as she is sweet, nurturing, supportive, caring, and attractive. The opposite is rarely true. Women simply will not support men, long term in this way, it’s just not in their DNA, even the “masculine” energy females. The data bares it out.
A lesbian feminist actually lived as a man for 18 months, and concluded it was women who were the privileged sex, and felt that in life’s arguably most consequential arena: relationships, women had all the power, and now even more so. She felt deep sympathy for men and the male experience, and most women who come to experience or appreciate the male side of things feel blessed they weren’t born as men. She wrote a book about it, and did a tv segment on it in 2006. Her name is Norah Vincent. Men are at a distinct disadvantage, even more so as automation destroys the jobs that are left, in an environment where only 8% of the working population makes 6 figures, these are people who live in a bubble. 51% of the working population makes less than 30k.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7kP_dd6LU&t=3s
it's_about_mutual_respect says
It sounds like you’re feeling a little insecure about women starting to push against gender inequities. (Also, for your comment about women being the more common perpetrators of domestic violence, I HIGHLY doubt that those numbers are accounting for unreported events, which are more common among women.) Personally, I’d be happy to support a man who makes less money than me if we were both happy and satisfied with our jobs. Income is not a measure of intelligence, and everyone has different skills. The real question though is, would a man be okay with this? Personally, I think the strongest man is one whose ego is not damaged by someone else’s successes, and that relationships can be a partnership with neither person “taking control”. We all deserve someone who appreciates, loves, but most of all respects us for who we are.
Buck25 says
“Unreported events” or not, women who engage in CDV are far more likely to use a deadly weapon in the assault. See the FBI statistics if you doubt this. In addition, those assaults are more likely to end in homicide. I would also dispute your allegations that women are less likely to report. It’s abused MEN who are far more likely to remain silent! Why.? Because if they do report it, they are(a) usually disbelieved by law enforcement (or anyone else),(b) have their allegations totally dismissed by most advocates for women (after all, they KNOW that only men commit CDV, right?) (c) if they do get to court, whether in a divorce or a criminal proceeding, well, you know how women who are survivors of rape and testify at trial against the perpetrator are shamed, blamed, degraded, humiliated, and otherwise made to feel that they, not the assailant, are the one on trial? “Didn’t you provoke it?”, “Aren’t you lying?” Didn’t you invite it? “Wasn’t it really YOUR fault?” says the defense lawyer. You know how much you like that, or how “fair and just” you think that is? I have quite a bit of empathy for those women, because I have some idea what that feels like. That is EXACTLY what happens in court to a male survivor of CDV perpetrated by a woman! I know, because I have been there, done that, and got the t-shirt, courtesy of a wife who tried to quite literally murder me on several occasions. Here’s a sample of what I got: “She can’t really hurt you, she’s just a little woman, and besides, I didn’t see her with the knife, and you have no stab wounds.” said the cop. (Of course, if I had tried to defend myself, he’d have taken me straight to jail, no questions asked!) “What kind of a man are you, afraid of this little woman?”, screamed her defense lawyer, right in my face, spit flying, like a drill sergeant chewing out a recruit . “If you were a real man, you could have defended yourself!” (Sure, and gone to jail, see above). “Tell us the truth, you provoked her, didn’t you?” ( How, by simply existing ?). “Do you seriously expect this court to believe, that you needed to be afraid of her?” (Hell yes, I’m afraid of anyone who picks up a deadly weapon and says “I’m going to kill you, [email protected]@@@!!”, especially when that person has repeatedly threatened to do just that. Of course, he KNEW all that from the psychiatric report on his homicidal client, but whatever). “Just doing my job, nothing personal” he said later, outside the courtroom. Sure. At least I got a divorce. She should have gone to prison for multiple counts of attempted murder; she did meet the legal standard for being sane enough to stand trial ( a man guilty of the same exact conduct in the same mental state sure would have). However, her defense lawyer convinced the prosecutor she was “incompetent”. How convenient. True, I’d have been dragged over the coals all over again by her lawyer in a criminal trial, but you can insult, shame, blame, degrade, dismiss and humiliate a man only so far, before he simply doesn’t care anymore. All I learned from the whole experience is: the cops don’t give a damn, the courts don’t give a damn, the lawyers don’t give a damn, and if a man is abused, and a woman is the abuser, most women don’t give a damn. Are you surprised, that knowing all that, many, if not most, men who are survivors of this kind of CDV don’t report it? Why don’t they? Pretty much the same reason many women who are raped don’t report that! Who wants to be blamed, shamed, disbelieved, dismissed, accused of lying, degraded, and humiliated to get justice for an act of violence you didn’t cause, didn’t provoke, couldn’t avoid, couldn’t stop, and wasn’t your fault?
Believe me when I tell you that I have all the sympathy in the world for abused women. I have not been silent; I have continued to push for more much needed reforms on their behalf. That said, no one deserves to be abused, regardless of their gender, OR THAT OF THE ABUSER! America is doing better with justice for abused woman. We’re not doing as well for abused men, and until they too are accorded the same respect, compassion, understanding and justice we expect for women who are survivors of CDV, I’m not going to shut up. I’m going to continue speaking out on this because I am a survivor, I refuse to be a victim, and I will be heard!
Mutual respect? If you want it, try giving it!
Paul says
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.
Brianna says
Do we want weak men? No. But do we want to be weak ourselves? NO!!! When I was a little girl, I certainly fantasized about slaying my fair share of dragons.
What we want is for men like you to acknowledge the fact that women are also human beings with goals and aspirations. We want careers, and we deserve careers just as much as you do. I like strong, successful men, as do most other women I know. The problem therefore lies with people like you, who for some reason can’t accept that women have brains just as complex as yours. You may not like the fact that we also have opinions, but not liking it doesn’t make it any less true.
Frederick says
Hi Brianna
You need to look at what you are saying. You want to be smart and driven and have a career, which is fine. You want a man who is smart and driven and has a career. This is fine too.
The problem is you want both of these things. Putting two smart successful driven people together is like putting two alpha dogs in a cage. They are not going to get along.
If one of the people in a relationship is a rock, the other has to be softer, or the relationship wont work.
Women always write off men who are gentle and nurturing. Always. I don’t want to be the kind of man you want. I am smart (I am a chemical engineer), but I don’t want to be an aggressive guy. I find being aggressive draining.
I like smart, driven aggressive women, but I have no intention of being that way myself. I prefer reading in the park to climbing the corporate ladder.
Good luck finding someone to fight against for the rest of your life.
Alexis says
Also, you said good luck finding someone to fight with. Are you so naive that you think a non opinionated woman won’t have something to argue about? That’s the problem with so many men, they think because a woman seems agreeable that she won’t ever stand up for herself but she will. Some of the most quiet women I know turned out to be the biggest headaches for the men they were dating. When I say I’m opinionated I mean that I have opinions on a variety of topics. Having the ability to think deeply about subject matters does not equate to arguments. Most successful women are also very confident which mean
Ferret says
Yeah personality matches are important. Agreed.If both people want to be in charge it is just kind of draining. I honestly prefer it when whoever I am dating has their own projects and leaves me alone to mine. It also seems to be generational. I’m between Millenials and X and honestly get on better with Millenials. Gen X guys are too interested in being in charge which is tedious. I like guys who are mellow. I don’t need a manager.
Sandra says
Can’t both partners be respected AND loved?
Robert says
Alexis, he was referring to the push/ pull dynamic in relationships…
I have noticed something though. Women’s definition of intelligence is not the true definition. Her definition is something along the lines of a social buff — hosting major parties…
Well guess what? That’s not the definition of intelligence. You want a social butterfly, not an engineer. You want a yes man (Beta male) instead of a deep, philosophical character… I’m the latter… and it’s really frustrating when women redefine words to meet their own agenda.
ClassicalLiberal says
I acknowledge that fact. Completely. And women like you should acknowledge that men, in general, are not attracted to women like you. Doesn’t mean we don’t support you or respect you. It’s just that we don’t want a relationship with you.
hmmmm says
Thank you. Was beginning to think i walked into a time warp.
Alexis says
Much of what men fear in string women is derived from their overactive imaginations and assumptions. Yes I am opinionated but I gave never ridiculed or tried to control any man..EVER. And yes, I am career oriented but I’d gladly allow my career to take a back seat so that I can be nurturing and caring to my family. Most women are very nurturing and supportive, even the career driven ones. I feel like most men are acting on assumptions. Do they even give us smart and successful women a chance to show our feminine side? Trust me, it’s there. You guys can’t keep making all the brash assumptions before you truly get to know who we are on the inside. Most of us hard working women are very sweet and caring on the inside just waiting for the right man to see that in us. Don’t be so quick to judge every book by its cover. Jivamukt
TooSmart says
Alexis, you are right. It’s not because we have a career that we are not loving and caring. In any case, what are we supposed to do when single? Live from welfare and wait until we find a man who wants to “save” us? We could wait a long time…
A very sexist message is given here to women: you can have education and a career but you will pay for it in the domain of love.
I was happy that a woman won the prestigious Fields Medal for mathematics but even happier to read in an interview that she is married, and not just to some houseman but to a guy who is a professor himself. Apparently he is not intimidated by her brain.
In modern relationships both people can develop different aspects of their personality: their professional ambitions and their need for affection and intimacy. Both men and women want to accomplish this.
To the men complaining that women are not loving and caring my message is: you don’t see that side of us because you are not bringing it out in us. I never compete with men but I often notice that they start doing it the moment I tell them what I do for a living (I am not bragging about it but I happen to have a high profile job so by simply mentioning it they already know that I am successful careerwise). Am I supposed to lie about what job I am doing? You ask me what I am doing and I am giving you an honest answer and after that I want to talk about other things.
About us ignoring nice men. Why would we do that? The problem is that most men who think they are nice men are not nice. They are often very frustrated because they see themselves as less successful as the more alpha males. So they expect a woman to build up their fragile ego which pushes a woman more in the role of a mother than the one of a partner.
Nothing wrong with being nice but it has to be genuine and there has to be inner strenght that goes together with it.
No woman who is confident can resist a nice confident man.
ClassicalLiberal says
When will women actually listen for a change? Why do women not understand that men simply find career driven women boring, uninteresting and more than anything… unattractive?? Intimidated by? Hardly.
I’d ask these women to try and get over themselves but why bother? It would be more constructive to just ask them to forget about us men and marry yourselves.
hmmmm says
“In any case, what are we supposed to do when single? Live from welfare and wait until we find a man who wants to “save” us?”
right???
hunter says
too smart, I think men get frustrated from lack of intimacy…
hunter says
cora pearl, men do make that mistake of reminding their partner, that he is the ambitious one…
ClassicalLiberal says
Men fear you? Talk about arrogance. Why can’t women understand that the traits that make you successful career-wise make men go limp, else-wise? It’s pretty simple really.
I support strong career driven women and wish them all the best in their pursuits. But date/marry? No thanks. Why women get all bent out of shape and bitter about this, I don’t understand.
Cora Pearl says
Right. And I’ve seen men such as yourself that go on to marry women with little earning potential, be it waitress, hair dresser, masseuse….and then go on to become domineering in the relationship. High-powered men that don’t fully respect their non-career oriented spouse and place themselves above her. Okay, we get that she’s a hair dresser and you’re a lawyer, but no need to remind her that you’re the ambitious one. I bet you wouldn’t say the same to the career woman, right?
hunter says
ClassicalLiberal, if she is sexy and shows it very few men go limp…
Beth says
Personally, the biggest turn off for me is a man whose ego is too fragile to comprehend a woman being good at what she does and competent on her own. I find it incredibly attractive when a man realizes how special it is when a woman is capable of doing things on her own, but would rather do it TOGETHER.
guitarguy32 says
Men have, as they often do, done a cost benefit analysis of the situation and are checking out. The data doesn’t support your assertion i’m afraid. Women initiate 70-90% of divorces, and often do the majority of break ups despite cheating and domestic violence being fairly 50/50 (with women edging mend out in DV).
They have more options, more power, are the pursued, etc, and now they make the money too, while still being in a culture that somehow has the stones to say they are the oppressed sex :). Sociological data shows women, of all stripes, not just traditional types, but feminist leaning house husband positive go getter females eventually become dissatisfied and leave their mates. Women want their cake and eat it too. They still believe “they can have it all” you can’t. There are only so many hours in the day, and the economics of the world continue to get harsher.
The evidence strongly points to what men know instinctively, career driven females make for terrible mates on aggregate (there are always exceptions). Sorry but being obsessed with your job, and constant careerism and endless goal seeking doesn’t lead to fulfillment, contentment, and certainly doesn’t make for a happy balanced relationship which takes time, work and energy.
GoWiththeFlow says
gg32,
“Sociological data shows women, of all stripes, not just traditional types, but feminist leaning house husband positive go getter females eventually become dissatisfied and leave their mates.”
Please cite the studies that show this. Until then this is just your opinion.
Evan Marc Katz says
It’s true. I’ve written about this recently. Men’s employment status directly correlates to higher divorce rate.
Rachael says
So you buy all the drinks and meals on dates, do you?
Miss Sunshine says
Are women supposed to go on dates and pay for the bills? Honestly I can never do that, not because I don’t have the money but I feel like a man when I begin to do certain things. I am most likely going to buy my man thoughtful gifts but not pay the bills on dates or bring out my cash when he’s around and I know he’s more than happy to provide for me. I can literally feel the masculine energy gushing out of him whenever he’s doing these things for me. It doesn’t mean that I am not independent cos I do a lot of things on my own… I never ask for assistance.
Well speaking as a woman who used to be so career driven, independent and strong, in fact my bf still says that about me , I have been able to find a balance and let the man do what he’s supposed to do. I think women of our time don’t give men the chance to pamper us like they ought to so they just give up. I think a man that loves you is willing to do just anything for u as long as you let him. I won’t lie my life is a lot more fun and I am much more relaxed having learnt to be soft and sweet. I’ll advice every woman to learn that cos we all need someone.
S. says
I don’t know Miss Sunshine. Men will say that that’s fair if both people’s income is comparable. But I’ve tried it and it’s weird. The men I dated–not alpha males any of them–would practically tear that check out of my hand. They may have been uncertain about a lot of things but paying, this is one thing men I meet insist on doing. And if I do manage to pay later, this usually is still a surprise and usually means a man isn’t sexually interested in me.
I don’t make the rules. I actually liked paying sometimes because it meant we got to do what I wanted to do. It meant I had the choice of activity. But it was terrible for chemistry-making in the first three dates. Terrible! Some men who comment here say otherwise, but I would see that gleam and little thrill a man gets from paying and for me smiling and saying thank you. And my gratitude was genuine because it is a nice, caring gesture. This person you don’t even know is being really kind to you because he likes you and thinks you’re attractive. It gives me a warm feeling of gratitude and makes me feel appreciated. I don’t need to let him pay but it made them feel so masterful and proud and happy. I actually asked my mom about it and she said, “S, let a man have his pride.” So I do.
I probably still could use more lessons in being soft and sweet. I think I know what that means but I honestly just want to be direct and less sweet sometimes so men don’t think I’m something I’m not. Now I could actually become more sweet in relationships . . . but men I date usually appreciate a bit more feistiness. Or maybe I like being feisty. LOL!
Christy says
It’s about a lot more than just money and independence I think that we are in a time where men and women should elevate them selves to a point where we can work together to achieve things. Back in the day …when women were not really the ones who were holding big jobs and men were the true financial keepers of the home…it made sense that women wete solely in charge of homely duties and cooking and cleaning but we’re not in that time anymore.
…and bc we are not in this time anymore yet we habe mem who still think this way __ what this says to me is the man is being irrational and selfish.
Who would want to see their wife or significant other suffering, struggling to get through with some house chores or cooking or cleaning and you just sit there relaxing when you both just came home from 8 to 10 hour job??
This is not the good ole days…some men simply need to elevate their thinking pass selfishness and start to learn what it is to be a team player and a leader in a relationship.
Being a REAL leader means being able to get down in the trenches with everyone else to achieve goals ..not simply being a dictator. I know..it’s so much easier to do the latter.
Evan says
Lol and what this says to me is that the above is typical female thinking nowadays; blaming men for everything while yourself accepting none of that blame. That seems quite selfish to me, Christy.
Marc says
Suffering???? Please we are in the age of the internet. Clean and watch Netflix ……..how terrible
guitarguy32 says
Sorry but, most of those hard working men had to hand over those checks to the wife, who really ran the show and had the purse strings, she just expected her work mule to go out there and earn, and he felt that was what he could do best. The women have always had, and continue to have immense informal power, but now they have most of the formal economic and cultural power too, so it’s leading to men simply giving up.
Anna says
I understand what you are saying Paul. Please realize not every woman wanted the women’s movement, I’m sure there are a lot out there who are dismayed by it, like me. It was forced on this generation of women. I think life is worse today for women than it was when roles were more traditional, but I say that with some hesitation because honestly I did not live in those times. However I did have a very abusive father that well, destroyed my mother, and a grandmother that put up with a lot of abuse from my grandfather as well. Here I am, I chose the path of wife and mother and no career. I’m just not that tough of a person to make it in the business or career worlds I do not think. It is not so bad for me, my husband is a fairly successful nice man, but I am under his thumb and sometimes it really upsets me when I run into how powerless I really am. Life is such a crap shoot. I have a friend who never married, has no kids but is extremely well off and lives in a skyscraper in Manhattan with river view. She has a lap dog. Sometimes I envy her because no one really controls her, yet I see she sometimes lacks real intimacy in her life. Who is to say which life is really better? I don’t really know.
hunter says
..your friend does not date?….hhmmhh..
guitarguy32 says
I actually read about one of the members of the very rich Rockefeller family saying essentially, “do you know why we supported the women’s lib movement?” His answer? Because now they could tax the other half of the population, and get the kids into the system and indoctrinated sooner. A single job can’t support a family now, that’s the big cosmic joke, but it is sold as freedom, because now we are ALL working ourselves to death. In fact, America works more hours than nearly any other major industrialized country in the world.
We give women the illusion of freedom by keeping them slave to a job, that still, often isn’t enough to support a family, that requires two incomes typically, the women here who make 6 figures live in rarefied territory and don’t represent most people who actually struggle there whole lives (neither do the men who do). 51% of the working population makes less than 30k. Despite all this women still are attracted to and want the man who is a go getter and can provide, not because she *needs* his money, she just wants to know he can. Yet this is becoming an increasingly impossible expectation on the male half of the species, on top of a gigantic list of endlessly expanding unrealistic expectations that women have.
Kanga says
When your husband finally cheats on you because let’s face it, men with a ‘little weak woman’ at home have absolutely no respect for them for what they do – like raising children, make sure everybodies lives are running smoothly, running endless errands, cleaning etc and they have almost outward disdain for such pathetic creatures after a while it’s almost guaranteed they will cheat – then you will be glad of the womens movement who will protect you from homelessness and poverty (to a degree). He will still be better off with a liveable wage while you scramble to catch up after spending a lifetime giving your life so someone else could forward theirs while still having a family and a well run home. You might wake up one day and see that you have one chance on this earth and that living in a tent is infinitely better than giving all your power to somebody who has no respect for you. You couldn’t pay me to go back to that environment – my self respect is back and I’m keeping it. Good luck but I urge you to weigh up whether you think working everyday is worth the soul destruction you are living. I can tell which life is better – I’ve lived both and a powerless marriage is not the better one. Go to school get a career , it is never too late. You must be unhappy to be married and reading here. Hmmmm??
tmitc868 says
Is that what you think was happening before the last 50 years? Men were loving women unconditionally? Because the necessity for continuous religious revelation, societal reforms, and common knowledge in general shows that when men were preferred for almost all authority they GROSSLY abused it AT LARGE. There would be no desire for women’s liberation if not for wide spread female oppression. You don’t want to be under the rule of an assertive woman because it’s like being under a man … and that feels uncomfortable, demeaning, and oppressive to you. Well guess what, that’s what it feels like to us!!!! NO adult desires to submit to another adult … another flawed adult. Even as you guys present your case against “high powered non-dependent” women, you fail to make anything of the meaker woman’s plight attractive; only implying that “at least that they have a man.” The fact that so many men don’t even want to entertain the idea of balanced equality is enough to dishearten any woman. We aren’t asking to be superior, but you don’t even want to entertain women being equal as adults. You simply just desire power. You enjoy putting all women in one box as if gender percentage isn’t flexible — meaning, there are women who have more masculinity and men who have more femininity than others. There are men who like to cook and women who have abundant knowledge. But none of you are encouraging these women. Ask yourselves if the advice you give to women on this forum is what you’d tell your young daughter just starting school, or your mother with an empty nest and a lost sense of self as she sees her children go about their lives and her husband’s flourishing pride for his self accomplishment out in the world. Too many men equate females with 100% feminine energy, and that’s just not the case. I think more women are ok with balanced men; men who have feminine and masculine traits. The ideal is balanced with both. And that’s who then these women are trying to be themselves, balanced. Because the world today requires it and always has. Men can not be trusted to not abuse power, an no day is promised to any one. So a woman had better have the sense to navigate this world alone as well as with a partner. But the partner should adjust. Men have not learned why their power has been usurped, so it continues.
Kanga says
This used to bug me too, as if women are somehow better at being spoken down to or not having ambitions or always being in a support role for someones elses career. I have pride too. I have desires too. I also want to make my mark on the world. My pride and self respect are knocked when treated like an acessory rather than fully paid up human with thoughts and feelings and desires. It used to hurt when all I had to say when someone said what do you do? I said I”m a mum….. My husband NEVER EVER said “I’m a dad and a husband”… Those words would have stuck in his throat. AS soon as I got a job I felt better, now I’m on my third degree and have lost the husband because he couldn’t stand me being anything other than his unpaid slave, I finally feel like ME. I’m doing something in my own right, achieving and I’m doing it without a wife at home to take care of all my kids and clean my place, pay my bills, iron my clothes – men can’t do all of that. they go to work and that’s it. Women have to end up being the husband and wife and I’d rather have it this way then go back to being someones sidekick. I have my own life to live and I”d love someone able to live and be my companion but I won’t do that by giving up my own life for them. I want to achieve in my own right – we all do. Women aren’t better at being submissive – they’ve had to swallow their pride and self respect to be there and now we don’t.
tom says
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.
will says
Dude, if sex is on your mind “23.99” hours of the day, you are much less effective than you should be.
Marc says
Will = white knight
TooSmart says
Once again my question to you is: do you make a woman feel like letting her hair down? Having a career definitely does not mean that a woman is less spontaneous or enjoys intimacy less or has impossible standards for a man because these things have nothing to do with the kind of career you have.
John says
YOU are responsible for how you feel. It’s not up to someone else to make you feel like letting your hair down or anything else.
Karmic Equation says
I’ll say it a different way than John… If the man you’re dating doesn’t INSPIRE you to let your hair down on your own, then you’re with the wrong man. Dump him.
Don’t expect a man to actively make you feel anything. It should be a passive thing. Him being him makes you want to be you. Because he will always be him, but when courtship ends, he may not put in the same effort to win you. And if him NOT making the effort leaves you cold, you’re going to be cold 2-3 years later when the honeymoon phase is over.
Be with a guy you like when he does what he likes to do for himself, not for what he does to make you like him.
Case in point. I’m starting to date a new guy. He likes to hold hands. It’s been a long time since I’ve been with someone who likes holding hands. So I would have been perfectly ok with us not holding hands ever. But I LOVE it when we hold hands. He doesn’t hold my hand to please me, he does it to please himself. And it makes both of us happy.
JennLee says
I like this post. Well said Karmic. Sounds like you have found a great guy!
John says
So, I know you wouldn’t want to be perceived as sexist in your brave new world where women can do anything a man can do and your smart, strong, independent, yada yada…what, exactly, are YOU going to do to win over a man and then keep him interested?
Karmic Equation says
Are you addressing me, John? I have an answer 🙂 But if you were addressing TooSmart, I won’t. lol
Karmic Equation says
Thanks, Jenn.
He’s pretty awesome so far 🙂
hmmmm says
great comment tom!
tmtic868 says
Crazy thing is .. you realize your hypocrisy and then just move along like it’s acceptable. Furthermore, you made a long list of what this woman needs to be for you (or to be what any man would want) regardless if its her natural state, but repeatedly talk about what YOU don’t want to change or alter. you don’t want to be judged for your inadequacies while you point out hers. Her bank account doesn’t sway you byt she shouldn’t care what you do/make? So who handling the REAL life issues of money? She should “indulge” your sexual needs and how you want things, even though you CLEARLY know women require a different approach. yuo can be 10/15 pounds over weight, short, underacheiver that needs a mom, doesn’t clean and doesn’t want to grow (ie., doesn’t want to know your flaws or how they need to be corrected) … what do you have to even offer? What’s so great about YOU that this accomplished woman needs to lower her standards because you don’t want to raise yours? You pointed out ALL her flaws as you say you don’t want to be told of yours. It’s absolutely hilarious!
Kitty says
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
Jules says
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.
Jess says
Well, I often let my man to be in charge or at least taking the bins out, they were left there for nearly a week. How do you explain this?
And the other one I left in charge of booking tickets and hotel away for the weekend, he let the time pass and the prices went up and we ended up ging anywhere?
And the most recent disaster was when I left my ex in charge of deciding on the wedding cards, he forgot to order them and started panicking our wedding was approaching and no one was still not invited. So, guess what he did, he cancelled the wedding. Yes he did without agreeing with me. And that was the 3rd time he cancelled our wedding for very stupid reasons just because I left him in charge and take the lead.
I am proud to be a successful business woman, but I hate it when I have to end up doing most of the things at home. So I don’t see how letting a man in charge could work. Thanks
tayokarate says
Seriously Jess, do you actually think he forgot the wedding cards? Men have short memories when they don’t want to do something like marrying someone.Yea they forget not once but thrice.He probably has cold feet about having his life controlled
tayokarate says
Bins? C’mon sounds like a guy who’s out of job and ur paying all the bills.Of course men have short memories when they have a controlling partner, and when they don’t actually want to do something like marrying a controlling woman.They don’t forget the cards once they forget (oh yeah) three times..
Naomi says
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
Anne says
Naomi,
You ask, “Why should women have to change to accommodate outmoded male preferences?”. I can respond with, “Why should men have to change to accommodate modern women’s behavior?”. It’s easier to change your behavior than it is to change someone else’s preferences, so women are more likely to get results with changing their behavior than they are to persuade men to be attracted to someone they’re not attracted to.
That said, I would NOT advocating changing who you are, unless who you are is not a person you are happy with. I myself am a strong, successful, independent women who does not need a man, and I have had trouble dating in the past. I just celebrated my one year dating anniversary with a fine man, but that year has not been an easy ride. I have had to make changes to how I express myself for the sake of my relationship with him.
I would still describe myself as a strong, successful, independent woman who does not strictly need a man, and he likes my strength, my success, and my independence- to a point. What my man needs from me, and what I think every man needs from an independent woman, is to be needed, and to feel like a man. I love that I don’t have to ‘be a man’ around him. I can check most of my masculine energy at the door, and let him be the stronger of us. I don’t feel that this is sacrificing any of who I am, just exploring new sides of my personality. It was uncomfortable at first, but I am a happier woman for it, and I don’t think I could have had a successful relationship with my man without it.
Rachael says
Well said, Naomi.
Marc says
Every other creature on this planet has gender roles and fills then as required, without question. Why are human females above all other creatures and nature?
Sharkathotep says
Because some “human females” are not feminine waifus by nature. Some “human males” are not manly men by nature. Prenatal testosterone, you know. Why should anybody pretend to fit into some stereotype if they just don’t fit?
tmtic868 says
Every other creature does not create its society, have free will, and opposable thumbs. We are very different from “every other creature”. But the best answer to your question is simple …. gender roles don’t work. It’s uneven and unfair. Giving absolute power to one flawed gender to “handle” the other. It’s the same reason why we think slavery is wrong dear!
krzysztof says
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
Moxie says
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.
guitarguy32 says
Of course, as men are expected to do the pursuing still, and we know from all the recent data that women across the spectrum eventually get turned off by “feminine” men. It’s truly the feminine energy men who lose out. They have far less “options”.
Evan Marc Katz says
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.
Amanda says
Another realistic solution is to remain faithful to yourself and stop diving against the current, enjoy a happy and plenty life by your own instead of trying to fit in obsolete social patterns that tell us what roles should we adopt. If being alone (as if this was somehow negative) is the only solution, I think is still worth it.
Kyle says
Being happy alone is one thing, but being happy while lonely is altogether another. Human beings are highly social creatures, and it is definitely unrealistic to suggest that people (as a society and as a species) should just “enjoy and happy and plenty life by [sic] your own” when the pressure to build satisfying relationships is literally in our DNA.
terry says
Personally, I am perfectly content with simply having friends and family, travelling, and learning (I’m studying Spanish, programming, chemistry, and physics). I don’t want to date or have sex so I do, well, whatever I want. When a woman or man approaches me, and I find out that either is looking for more than friendship I politely turn them down and let them know I would still like to be friends. Then again I’m only twenty so who knows if that will even last.
Pablo says
Men are NOT attracted to strong and independent women.This is not a social pattern. You are free to adopt whatever stance that suits you. Men will simply avoid you. No one cares what you do really.
Nat says
Evan, honest question here. What if you simply just do not trust men to take the lead? What if you are more capable? In my own personal experience, my entire life I’ve never been able to trust a man to lead a situation. Now this isn’t me trying to control everything, or be competitive. I’m completely self made without the help (honestly, mostly hindering from )males. I find they seem to need to compete with me. I’ve learned how to put forth a feminine energy but i find when i do, men are disrespectful know-it-alls who talk down to you. This is frustrating to me because i do not want to date a man who needs to be right all the time or talk down to me about subjects I’m already educated about. I understand men need to feel needed but what if you really don’t need them because you really can do it without them? I learned from a very young age to not depend on men. This is a trait i use for self survival and protection. The idea of giving up control to a man is terrifying to me. Because every example ive ever had, had either malicious intent or, was just inept. I want an equal, not somebody who needs me to feign being lame so they feel attracted. Why are men so threatened by this and why do men only reserve “strength” as a male characteristic? I mean, obviously I’m doing something wrong as I am the single one trolling the internet for advice. But i just can’t pretend to be somebody I’m not to make men feel secure. I don’t show up acting like a dude. I’m actually introverted and don’t call a lot of attention to myself. But somehow men become competitive with me at every social gathering or date. Maybe a bit of advice to men could be if they want a partner, treat her like a potential mate, instead of a potential threat to their intellect. Or worse yet, like a child. Obviously there are tons of good, A+ men out there. I’m just not sure i want to give up my inner strength to appease one.
Evan Marc Katz says
I don’t take questions in the comments section – but I’m making an exception here.
You’ve (sort of) answered your own question and still can’t seem to see into your blind spot – probably because it’s too painful.
“What if you simply just do not trust men to take the lead? What if you are more capable? In my own personal experience, my entire life I’ve never been able to trust a man to lead a situation.”
There you go, Nat. You may say you’re not controlling, but you just admitted that you do not trust men to do anything. That would indicate that yes, despite your very best intentions, you ARE controlling. You don’t trust anyone to do what you think you can do better. That’s your prerogative. It’s also your weakness.
“I understand men need to feel needed but what if you really don’t need them because you really can do it without them?”
You get to lead the life you’re already leading. One in which you are 100% self-reliant because all the men you’ve ever met are incompetent to lead or make decisions. That’s a self-fulfilling prophesy if there ever was one. I’m not judging you in the least. I’ll just point out on behalf of the millions of competent men you’ve never seem to encountered, none of us would want to be in a relationship with a woman who deemed us incompetent. And none of us would want to be in a relationship with someone who is so independent that she has largely no use – and no belief – in us.
“I want an equal, not somebody who needs me to feign being lame so they feel attracted… But i just can’t pretend to be somebody I’m not to make men feel secure”
Nobody told you to be with someone less than you. No one told you to feign being lame. No one told you to pretend to be somebody you’re not. Those are your interpretations based on your (very common) misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what I wrote.
Men want to be appreciated, accepted and admired. It doesn’t sound to me like you appreciate, accept or admire anyone – rather, that you look down on an entire gender as if they were one monolithic disappointment. As long as this is your attitude/belief/experience with men, you will continue down this path. Once you acknowledge that your self-reliance and independence is a defense mechanism that keeps men from connecting with you, and let your guard down, you will discover that men are kind, generous, chivalrous, loyal, and doting. It’s just hard to be that way with a woman who doesn’t allow it.
Nat says
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer. I do appreciate it very much. I have to say you’re right in your assessment of my statement. And i agree with you. I do find it hard to acquiesce to men. (In dating terms) more so because I’m afraid. Letting a man lead my life in prior cases lead me into an abusive relationship (marriage) from which i taught myself very unhealthy coping to survive. One of which was to not believe a man has my best interest at heart (shield, wall etc etc). Then men I’ve dated after my ex husband walked all over me and used me and treated me like i was stupid. I’m confused with dating because when i am soft, the men I’ve dated take that as weakness. So, in the end i go back to being the Iron maiden because then at least I’m standing up for myself. I do not expect any man to put up with baggage but it’s hard to leave baggage at the door. I do actually adore men and appreciate their efforts. I try and show it that i like them, but i probably don’t realize i can’t hide that i don’t trust them lol. I probably scream ballbuster to them. This is obviously all my own personal issue. But sometimes it feels like you can’t win. Nice gets you walked on and bitch gets you alone, but no drama. My goal is to handle my problems so i can meet a great man. I know they exist. I know the men I’ve encountered are less than one percent of the men out there. I know married men and long time male friends that are great guys. I just have no idea how to find one for me lol. Once again thank you for responding, i appreciate it. You hit the nail on the head.
Evan Marc Katz says
Thanks for owning it. Says a lot about you. Make sure you’re on my mailing list (see Free Advice at top of the page). Some good stuff coming up in the next few weeks…
tmitc868 says
I’d like to put many of your statements back to you. Women (clearly) are looking to be appreciated, accepted, and admired as well. I think moreover, it seems women want the same things a man wants. It’s what PEOPLE want. As you said, “none of us would want to be in a relationship with someone who is so independent that she has largely no use — and no belief — in us.” Women want to be trusted to take the lead sometimes as well, be respected for their minds and skills, and be encouraged to excellence. How can a woman relax and trust a man that is waiting for her to give HIM the lead role in HER life? How does he even deserve that? Men used to be so much more abusive to women and their rights, but women pushed for change, and look ,, a new world of choices for women. Certainly it’s not ridiculous or a lost cause to promote a new idea to men. “Women are partners. You are MORE of a man when you accept her strength then reject it for fear or being not needed. It’s your support of her strength that she is in need of.”
NML says
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!
Bev says
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.
Jess says
Yes well said here. I have at least 3 light bulbs that need replacing in my flat together with some frames to put up. Did my man do that? NO. did I ask him for his help? YES, million times. what were his answers? I forgot, I don’t have time, you didn’t remind me, I can dot hem tomorrow, …. and the list is long.
I felt, I’ve been supervising my employees at work all the time and making sure they’re doing what they’re supposed to be doing.
Bee says
Jess,
If my boyfriend belittled me like you do with yours, he would quickly become my ex-boyfriend. If he is so worthless, why are you choosing to stay with him?
Kanga says
jess, I ended up doing everything myself – I stopped asking, I stopped caring what he did. I cleaned the pool, I mowed, I painted, I took the car to be serviced, I fixed the toilet. He looked up one day and I was gone. If he wasn’t going to contribute to a well run household so we BOTH got down time and there was equity in all the drudge that living in a home actually takes. what did I even need him for? He was useless to talk to – he told me to tell my problems to someone else, so I did. He once stopped me mid story about something I had found fascinating in chemistry and wanted to share my wonder and told me to stop talking because he couldn’t understand me. However, I was expected to listen to him drone on for hours about his job and the ‘drama’ with his workmates. So when he is offering nothing in the form of emotional, physical or mental input why would we keep them around? Don’t do this with this man for decades like I did or you will be worn into the ground and resentful. Passive aggressive lazy men should be left quickly and finally. They don’t change. They are lazy and that’s the way they like it. I doubt he’s even giving good conversation or companionship. What do you need him for exactly? What is he contributing vs what he is taking? for granted I might add – does he thank you at all for cleaning his room?
tmtic868 says
How did she belittle him? She merely stated things that she needed help with and how the man she trusted to handle them carelessly left her hanging over and over. That’s just facts.
John says
Jess, why don’t you replace your own damn light bulbs and put up your own damn frames? The reason your ‘man’ didn’t do those things for you is because that you make it so clear that all he is to your is your maintenance man. In every hetero-sexual relationship, women eventually come to see their ‘men’ as the maintenance man, the garbage man, the totally utilitarian robot. We get abuse without having to enter into a relationship with a shrew.
guitarguy32 says
Men typically are mostly valued for their utility. Women often only want equality when it’s the deficit is on their end. Why can’t she do it indeed. Women get to have choice and be human beings, men are simply viewed as human doings. We measure happiness relative to the female, not the male or the couple.
tmtic868 says
So wait … this post is about women being more feminine and making the man feel needed. Now here, these women leaned on these men and ya’ll say “why can’t she do it herself?” So which is it? Do women do everything ourselves because we don’t need ya’ll or do you need to be needed?
Ann says
Jess, Men don’t actually want to do the heavy housework and maintenance like the things you mentioned. They don’t actually want to protect the woman. They just want to make the decisions. You see, women get all the garbage work around the house, and then some, and men get the privileges of “leading” i.e making all of the decisions. If you tell a man to do something, he will refuse a woman out of pride to his precious ego and will label the woman as controlling or accuse her of abanding her “feminine energy.” So you end up saying it a second and third time because the issue is not resolved. They then call that “nagging”.
However, because men are the “leaders” they tell a woman to do something only once, and she better damn well do it otherwise she disrespected him. If she does not listen to him the first time, she is accused of not trusting him. It’s a nasty double standard. The Gotham Institue found that most divorces are filled by women and are caused because the husband refuses to submit to his wife even though they found that women submit to their husbands. So inequality and men refusing to share power in their marriage is the biggest cause of divorce.
There is a problem when men claim all of the desirable universal human traits as “masculine” and give the women the leftover subservient shit called “feminity.” If female subservience to male “leadership” in a marriage is so natural, then why did men used to have to break our legs, threaten us with poverty, and beat us in order to force us to comply?
These Alpha males also complain about how easy peasy and boring their sweet feminine wives are, and they cheat on their wives for years on end with the Alpha females they meet at work or in their social networks.
This goes way back to Roman times when men kept a submissive and domesticated wife at home but kept an educated mistress on the side. They even had training schools for these mistresses. They were taught politics, philosophy, and different trades in order to make them more entertaining to the men, while at the same time making it illegal for wives to have the same training. Historically, men used to seek emotional connection, mental stimulation and rewarding sex from Alpha females, whilst keeping their “soft” and economically dependent wives at home to do all of the housework and childrearing.
Joanne says
Bev – That was My ex husband exactly – he’d ask questions like “Do I need to mow the back yard too?” Uh, no. Let it grow 12″ tall – or how about 18″? Why is he even asking me? So I am the controlling one because he does a half ass or no job at all? Everything was like that….
Counselor once said “what would you do if he wasn’t there?” Well, you do it yourself whether it’s a man’s task or not. 🙂 Otherwise you wait around for them to contribute something – same goes financially.
Take care of yourself first whether it bugs him or not. It has nothing to do with being feminine or not – if your career rocks and his doesn’t it isn’t your problem to fix. I have met more men whose careers have tanked and they really hate it you are doing well. I totally avoid even discussing my job with dates.
Andrea says
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 “seeing” 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.
mrs. vee says
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.
Watergirl says
“My man provides valuable input for all decisions we make as a family, but he still encourages my successes (because theyre OUR successes, really).”
What your man is doing is fulfilling the “Wife” role in your relationship. He provides you with input, but it is you that ultimately makes the decision, finalizes the plan, has the last word.
If his decision matches the one you want to make, you say that he is leading, and that is how you delude yourself into thinking you are both leading. If his decision isn’t what you want to do, that is when it is your “turn” to lead. Either way, the result is the same. You are in charge. You are filling the role of “Head of the Household” and he is your adviser. Even if you occasionally hold your nose and do what he wants, you are still making the decision of when you will hold your nose. He never gets to decide, he just holds his nose as he has to.
The “Wife” of the family also puts their total effort into encouraging and supporting the “Head of the Household’s” endeavors (or as you put it “successes”, though you are supposed to support *before* success is achieved). Your man is performing the “Wife” role as your supporter and help meet. Funny how some women can’t see that being in the support role to a husband raises themselves because his success is also her success. Yet, a woman can instantly see that when she is Head of the Household, then her success is also his.
In marriage, there are two roles: Head of the Household and Help Meet (ie Wife). Just like in business there is: Boss and Employee. There can be only one boss. In your marriage, you are the boss. Some men like this arrangement. That kind of man is generally referred to as a “beta male”.
So, what you have done is taken the advice stated many times on this thread already. “If you are a woman who simply refuses to submit to a man, then find yourself a beta man who will submit to you.” The problem other women on this thread have had with this is that in general, a woman who refuses to submit finds those that do to be unappealing. I mean think about it, a woman whom equates submitting to the most horrible thing that they could ever do. Is it any wonder that when they see someone else submitting to them that they find that person distasteful? They end up resenting their beta men and destroying their marriage with a divorce.
In a marriage, one person must submit to the other. Just like in a career an employee must submit to the boss and the boss must submit to the government. Everyone submits to somebody: parents, teachers, school administrators, housing boards, bosses, managers, customers, their government in all its forms and levels. There is nothing wrong with submission, it is not a dirty word.
The problem women have is the nature of what they are. Women are attracted to men whom do not submit, as submission is a feminine trait and they want a masculine alpha man. Also, men are attracted to submissive women who want to support them with every fiber of their being, as those are feminine traits and they want a feminine woman. When a woman refuses to submit to a man, they go against their nature and are stuck trying to change the nature of men (impossible) or settling for a man with a feminine personality (unappealing).
The true answer to this dilemma is to do what Evan stated in the article. Do the best you can to change yourself into being a feminine woman. Submit to your man instead of dominating him. Or, just do what God (who created man and woman and marriage) said to do: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” Ephesians 5:22.
MJ says
You seem to forget to write what follows that. It says “husbandsubmit to your wife “. And then it says “cherish her, love her.”
Russell says
MJ, I think it is far more likely that a man would cherish and love a woman who is following his lead as much as possible, and also providing him with the other things he needs, such as respect, nurturing, love, patience, loyalty, affection..
Watergirl, pointed out something many of us have seen for a awhile now. I have stated that usually when I hear a woman say that they have equality in their relationship, when I watch, what I almost always see is exactly what Watergirl described. The majority of the time, the woman is getting her way either because most decisions are either her getting her way, or they were in agreement. Only on rare occasions does he get his way and she doesn’t. He has to choose his battles. So here is the reality of the situation…most of those times she thinks they are in agreement, they are not. The man is just saving up his trump cards for things that he is really passionate about. He does this because every time he gets his way, there is a price to pay. Usually the woman finally gives in, but then punishes him with passive aggressive behavior.
I’ve seen many relationships where the man was giving in to her more often than not, and yet when they hit divorced, she is running around claiming it is independence day for her. The truth is it is really independence day for him. He now has far far more control over his life than he had while married.
But men get married more quickly as a rule. Why? A variety of reasons, but I think two are the main causes. 1st, he usually doesn’t have the kids which makes it easier to find a mate. I think that if more men getting equal time with their kids would change this somewhat. Just not as easy to date when you have kids in the house.
The 2nd thing is that it has been proven that men believe in romantic love far more than women do. So he is more likely to get remarried for love without balancing the spreadsheet.
guitarguy32 says
I am not remotely religious, and I am a beta male in many respects, yet what watergirl says is spot on. I am able to admit as much. In fact, the data shows that beta males suffer the most because they can’t attract the really feminine traditional types that I find very attractive despite being beta, and they also eventually get left by the more masculine types, feminists etc. IE: feminine men, beta males et al, are the true losers in the game of love, not the ladies. Because it is true, we come from a tournament mating system, where 20% of the males got 80% of the females. It’s a horrid experience to be a beta male. I should know.
Kanga says
Watergirl, you are going to be screwed royally by investing in making sure your husband gets ahead when he cheats on you and leaves. Or he won’t leave and you’ll put up with cheating because you have done nothing with your life and have become nobody. If I had a dollar for every woman like you whose husband was cheating because he KNEW she couldn’t/wouldn’t leave even if he got caught – I wouldn’t have to work for the rest of my life and could get a chariot powered by naked men to carry me around till the day I died, lol. Watch your back, girl although you probably don’t even care if she cheats right? You’ll stand by your man….. ugh gross times, gross times.
Russell says
Mrs. Vee, I understand what you are saying, but a woman’s masculine energy, that which makes her a business shark, is the same thing that will make.her find flaws in the man, and be critical. We only need to see why this is bad by looking at some magazines articles for men 3 to 5 decades ago. Even the movie the Great Zantini, was about this issue. In short, men tried to act at home like they acted at work. Where as at work, he was successful because he saw flaws and corrected them, punished then, etc… This did not work at home. At home it caused hate, crushed morale, etc…
In other words, you say to separate the two, but the truth is, they usually go hand in hand. That which makes her great at business makes her awful in relationship. For the man with a degree, the unaccomplished woman is a better bet for his long term security because she is more likely to respect him over the long term. She does not see as many flaws, and those she does see are overshadowed in her mind by all Orangeville qualities she sees. This is far safer for him than a women who sees those same flaws, and can’t get past them.
Susan says
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.
Traveller says
Susan:
I like you. Thanks for being so fair. It’s refreshing among all the vitriol.
Moxie says
” (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.)
MollyB says
“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.
Joy says
I would love a man that made my life more pleasant and easier. After spending years doing that for a man, unless I get it in return, I’m no longer interested. I’ve never met a man who was a giver in the relationship when it came to anything else other than money. Well, I don’t want their money – I can get my own. I want respect, help, fun and emotional support. My girlfriends are far better at that than any man I’ve ever met. So what CAN a man give that I can’t get elsewhere without becoming a drudge and simpering idiot to his macho self? Someone who is so easy going he takes me for granted? I am quite old and in my WHOLE life behind closed doors and away from facebook and the narratives women tell people, I’ve only ever met ONE who was honestly, truely happy and in love with her husband after 10 years. He is an exceptional man and has allowed himself to be influenced by his wife and she has done a fair and magnificent job at building their family. I’ve never met a woman who wasn’t making unfair compromises, killing parts of herself, turning herself into a pretzel and putting up with BS after a long enough period of time with the same man or vice versa. There seems to be a use by date on happiness in every relationship I know the absolute truth about. And usually when one side says they are happy it’s in direct proportion to how unhappy and compromising the other side is. I know after 20 years my husband told me I had made him a better man – I could not say the same about him after all the compromises I had to make to keep the peace inside that household so my children were not affected.
Camilla says
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.
Nat says
Me too. I agree with your entire statement. I wish i could come home to somebody who treated me like a soft woman. Not a man who feels like they need to put me in my place or compete with me or treat me like I’m their mother. Obviously I’m single for a reason and its because i can’t turn the daytime me off lol. But i wish i could.
Jane says
“I’m a strong woman that is silently begging to be led.” And your comment bites the dust. Woman or man, or just people in general, need to be flexible in their stereotypical, or hormonally-driven – whatever – roles, so that there is a balance.
JimmyE says
Camilla. the kind of men who want to lead are by definition ones who want a woman who is weaker then they are.
Camilla says
JimmyE: Gotcha. I think I just need to find a man can be stronger than me. Then we’ll both be happy!
Watergirl says
Sadly, with your credentials, the kind of man who would be stronger then you is probably dating young women who look like models and are unemployed (and therefore have more time for him).
Have you considered simply giving up some of your power in order to lower yourself back into the realm of the men in your dating pool? Try this, sign over your company to a man you like and have him lead it. Now he is more powerful than you (and therefore good enough for you) plus you have less on your plate and so are less exhausted. Sound like a terrifying idea? That’s because you care more about the power than about the man. You don’t want to give up your superiority over everyone.
Also, you really aren’t better then all the men you are meeting, you just think status and power are the only important things in life. For all your money and accomplishments you still aren’t happy. Maybe it is time to give them up so you can fall in love with a mortal man?
tmitc868 says
So then, are men not actually interested in relationships with women but power as well? Because by your reasoning it’s a problem on both sides. Is she has to give up power, it’s because someone else is vying for it. Why should he have everything she’s worked so hard for?
Ruth says
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.
Gemma says
Your response is very interesting. A very good guy friend once told me that he likes women who need fixing, or who need his help. He found just such a girl. During the dating phase, she did all the things guys seem to gravitate toward – she admired him, worked on maintaining a good physical appearance, listened intently, made him feel strong and important, and was sensual.
I saw them soon after their honeymoon, and my guy friend actually said to me, “Finally, someone I can talk to! I’ve been totally lacking good conversation.” And launched into a description of a sci-fi book he’d read recently. His new wife reacted in exactly the way expected of women – she pouted.
These days, he still feels “needed” by her, because she’s still unable to function on her own. But their life appears to consist primarily of the following: they both get up early, work all day, come home, make supper, eat while watching a movie, and then the woman goes to bed early and my guy friend stays up till midnight playing computer games. As far as I can tell, they don’t have any conversational topics in common other than the day-to-day drudgery of taxes, bills, etc.
So the “feminine” may be what guys are mostly attracted to, but is it as satisfying in the long run as they hoped it would be? I definitely don’t think that guys like the friend described above would change and decide they’d rather a girl with interests similar to their own. I don’t know why, but most people of either gender seem to be attracted to people with whom they’d never be friends if those friends were of the same gender.
Most guys I know marry women who could be described as “feminine” or “needy,” but I don’t know of a single relationship in which the same knight-in-shining-armour and damsel-in-distress scenario continued after the marriage took place. Men and women are both multifaceted people, and they all have flaws. The type of woman who tends toward being affirming and nurturing seems to me to be the type more likely to eventually express dissatisfaction with the man because he doesn’t live up to the strong, supportive, masculine expectations she has as a “feminine” woman. There’s no way he could live up to them, because he’s not perfect.
The blog entry above suggests that the problem with strong women is that they are not actually strong, they are domineering, just as “nice guys” are not actually nice, they’re weak. I don’t think this is necessarily the case. I think the majority of both genders have idealized expectations of the opposite gender, but no one is capable of living up to an ideal. There are plenty of “feminine” women and “masculine” men who haven’t found a permanent partner. It probably isn’t the result of one trait that they could change and suddenly be inundated with offers of marriage. It’s more likely a combination of factors: appearance, the proportion of people who would complement certain rarer personality types, social circles, standards, etc.
And not everyone wants a partner who is “easy” (ie. unchallenging, acquiescent, consistently confirming). Though I’m most likely in the minority, I actually like debating issues – I don’t find it exhausting or threatening. People who are uninterested in discussing ideas are boring to me. I think the problem is that most people of either gender find “challenging” people to be exhausting or arrogant, and those qualities in a female are considered especially contrary to societal expectations.
I think eventually people with rarer personality types have to decide between altering who they are to better fit the majority’s expectations, or being who they are and accepting that it won’t appeal to many. Most people seem to naturally hide who they are during the dating phase, but after the marriage, it all comes out.
Jeff says
Want to know what I got out of your post .. don’t get married! I am man in his late 20s who is totally confident and happy to life my life childfree so marriage is out of the question. No need to go through that drudgery. Marriage turns people into new creatures I have no desire to become.
Joy says
My husband complained to me that I didn’t ‘need’ him. And no I didn’t – he made sure he would never be there when needed so I naturally took care of everything myself. After I while I just stop even asking for his help or input – I just got yelled at anyway, so I went my own way. I was also puzzled because I asked ‘Doesn’t that make this better ,that means I am with you because I want to be, not because I need you?”. He wanted me to need him because when I didn’t he didn’t have any power over me and therefore he couldn’t disregard me – he had to step up because I was not trapped with him. Men are far more secure when you have no back up plans. The minute they think they have power, they use it. My mother did the same thing to me but has learned over the years that she should try to engage with me on an equal footing and not as someone who needs to wield power and our relationship is now the best it’s ever been. My ex husband could not cope with me not being trapped – he acted out terribly to try and get responses. I left. I would have stayed had he treated me the way I deserved but he just didn’t want to treat a woman as an equal.
Alexis says
You hit the nail on the head. My ex-fiancé didn’t like that I had opinions of my own. We would be discussing simple topics like politics or movies. I would say how I felt about a movie or political topic and if I didn’t agree with him then I was being argumentative. It was stressful because I never raised my voice or anything I only said what I thought about the movie or topic. Eventually I stopped talking. I felt like he misinterpreted anything that was opposite of his thoughts. When I agreed with him, he was happy. Eventually I stopped wanting to sharing anything with him because I felt like he didn’t like me for me. I called off the engagement because I felt like the relationship needed to revolve around him and his needs and opinions in order for it to last. I felt like I was meant to be invisible and never speak back like a child. I was there to sleep with him and agree with him. Once we broke up he got into another serious relationship with a woman who was my complete opposite. I had a masters degree and she only had a high school diploma. I worked at a big law firm while she was a sales associate at a mall. He told me years later that he liked her but it was boring because he could never talk to her about anything. He said that all she did was agree with him and after awhile it drove him crazy. He said he wished that she was as smart and ambitious as I was because she didn’t understand his career and lifestyle and wanted him to be home all of the time. He ended up marrying that girl and to this day, he still complains about her and is filing for a divorce. I will never understand the rationale of men like this. Their egos are so delicate and fragile that they don’t even realize that spending the rest of your life with someone you think is safe will also be boring and dull in the long run.
Tiffany says
That’s so funny you mentioned this because I recently spoke with my ex regarding the very same thing. He’s now with someone who is the complete opposite of me. She’s needy, dependent, not well-spoken, passive. He said he was starved for an intelligent conversation, and that what attracted him to me initially was the fact that I was intelligent and feisty. “Isn’t it ironic you two never fight, when you and I used to fight all the time?” I told him. “There’s nothing for us to fight about,” he said. “Her expectations are very low. Yours were much higher.”
And there you have it in a nutshell.
Watergirl says
There is nothing confusing about this. The goal is to find someone who has the same beliefs as you, not to find someone with no beliefs at all.
The man you wrote about never found a woman with his beliefs and had to settle for one with no beliefs. However, being with somebody who’s beliefs in things are the opposite of your own is horrible, and so it was right that you both went your separate ways.
You too need to find someone that shares your same beliefs about films and such. Nobody should get married if they don’t hold the same beliefs. Two people who hold extremely passionate identical beliefs in things have great conversations, filled with support and validation. Two people that hold opposing beliefs will drive each other into the grave.
Hadley Paige says
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.
TooSmart says
Breaking news: in a relationship women also want to be supported emotionally and not challenged. We also want to wind down when we come home from a busy day at work.
Seems to me the key to a happy relationship is one where there is mutual emotional support and nurturing.
I think that the problem is that men still expect to be pampered by a mother figure at home. But a partner is not your mother because let’s be serious: you won’t feel any sexual attraction to your mother.
The solution: men need to accept that if they want an interesting sexy life with an independent, dynamic woman they will not be pampered as often as the little boy inside them would like to be. That does not mean that they won’t have a women who is kind, caring and affectionate. She will only also have needs of her own and expect him to give her what she needs on a regular basis.
I don’t see why that could not work out.
hunter says
TooSmart,
..”she will also have needs of her own”….most men can’t read minds, have you tried making men aware of your needs..??..”all” women are different….
TooSmart says
Your reply does not really have anything to do with what I wrote. How men know what women need is food for another topic. I am talking about the general principle: in a relationship both partners have needs, not just the man. If both partners work, they both will feel the need to relax when they come home. The need of the man to unwind is not more important than the the need of the woman to unwind. Men are stressed out from working in a competitive environment but women might be even more stressed out because they are confronted at work with some men who are envious of their professional success.
When I come home from work I want to relax and that is not possible if I find a man there who wants to take out his work stress on me. And I can perfectly understand that he does not want me to take out my work stress on him. Not that there is a big risk: the moment I close the door of my office I have forgotten about work.
I wonder if men mean by a “supportive woman” a woman who accepts that she gets snapped at because Mister had a bad day at work. I have encountered that situation and it killed the relationship. If my partner gets nasty with me, I show him the door. I’m noone’s therapist.
RustyLH says
TooSmart,
First, why play the victim card? “Men are stressed out from working in a competitive environment but women might be even more stressed out because they are confronted at work with some men who are envious of their professional success.” Why do some women think they have it worse than men? Your perception is off. It’s not a good ole boys network where it’s the men vs the women. It’s dog eat dog. Men AND women are jealous of a man’s success also. And women can be just as jealous of your success. In a competitive work environment, it is dog eat dog. Jordan Peterson noted this, and simply said that men aren’t going to stop playing by those rules just because you are a woman.
If a man is successful, the ambitious men want to unseat him from his throne. If a woman is successful, the ambitious men want to unseat her from her throne.
It’s the same rules, but for some reason women feel the need to think of themselves as being the victim, just because the other competitors in the rat race, aren’t just giving up and bowing down to her majesty.
Christy says
I agree with you entirely and yes…it should work out perfectly if you are dealing with a mature male except you are talking about selfish, immature individuals who feel it’s all about them and what they want. Your wants and needs matter little to none…especially if it’s a anything like a mutual exchange. It’s a simple case of selfishness dressed as masculinity.
John says
Christy,
Every woman’s post here has started (predictably) with, “I am a smart, strong, independent woman.” If that is all you have to say to men, we’ve heard it before. Men know that truly smart, strong, independent adults don’t have to go on and on about how “smart, strong and independent” they are.
When you meet a man in a social setting, are the first words out of his mouth, “I’m a smart, strong, independent man?” If they were, what would you think of that person? Guys would think, “What is wrong with this flake?”
All the women posting here have posted about is what is wrong with men and how they want men to change. None of the men have posted about what is wrong with women and how they want them to change. I’m thinking you ladies finger’s are pointing back at you.
Men get buried every minute of every day with what women want. Frankly, we don’t give a damn – you’re certainly not concerned with what we want.
If only women could grow up long enough to take a long hard look at their selfishness.
Watergirl says
Well, if both of you need comfort when you get home then neither can provide it. Sounds like a sad marriage to me. Have you considered resigning from work? This will remove your need for that kind of comfort and therefore free you up to provide comfort for your husband. If he resigns, you will end up resenting him as a deadbeat and divorcing him so it is best if you are the one to resign.
In a partnership, everyone needs to do a part. Sounds like both of you are doing the masculine “breadwinner” part and nobody is doing the feminine support role. By your comment it seems to be causing you a lot of rage.
Sharkathotep says
Please don’t impose your own kinks down to everyone’s throat.
RustyLH says
Sharkathotep,
She’s right, but that don’t let that stop you from attacking her. Relationships are not easy. But many people make them even harder with their expectations of wanting it both ways. Think of it like this…a ship doesn’t need two captains. In fact, two captains doesn’t make for a better ship, it makes for a ship that crashes into the rocks when they disagree on going right or left.
I remember my professor, an older woman, asking us which form of government was the most efficient, and worked best..and best for the people. After many wrong answers, she said, “A benevolent Monarchy. But the problem is that a benevolent Monarch is often replaced by a not so benevolent monarch. So while it is the best, most people fear monarchies as a long term political structure.”
Well, when I watch couples in action, I have noticed that those who are the happiest, and successful, are the ones where one or the other, is the recognized leader, and this person is a benevolent leader of that family. I’ve seen it both where the man is the leader, and the woman.
The funny side to my observing is that every time I have heard a woman say that they have an equal relationship, I notice that she is actually the leader, and you can see that the guy simply goes along to get along in most instances. These are men living by the motto, “Happy wife, Happy life.” In cases where the woman is not benevolent, the man is clearly not happy, but feels trapped. Maybe he has kids, and doesn’t want to be a part time dad.
This was the case with my B-I-L. We talked about this. To hear my sister tell it, they were equals. Yet, when he and I were watching football one day, when she came in the door, she got upset. She hates football. She said, “I thought we agreed no football.” He liked football, but loved his family more. He only agreed because that was what she wanted. She thought she was just maintaining her position as an equal in the relationship. I as an unbiased observer, noted that no, she was in fact somewhat of a bully in the relationship.
I had a talk with her about this, and made her see the truth of this.
On the other hand, my younger sister had exactly what you noted. Her boyfriend, and then husband, lived with us for a while, and he came in every day with a scowl on his face. Always grumpy and in a bad mood. I saw how my sister would go way out of her way to try to make him happy…to turn around his mood. Very loving, kind, and nurturing. Doing things for him, etc…
Now me. I got out of a dysfunctional relationship because I did not like who I was becoming. I had started acting the same way he did, and did not like it. The problem was that I had noticed I was doing this because I had learned that the only time I got nurturing was when I was clearly mad, upset, unhappy, etc… We humans learn, and do what gets us what we want. Dr Phil calls this the sick payoff…when your bad behavior is a strategy…a tactic…to get what you want.
What I really wanted was for somebody to be that kind, loving and nurturing without my having to act in a particular manner to get it. While I was getting a short term payoff, I wasn’t happy because that just wasn’t me. I’m actually, normally very laid back and easy going. I would rather cuddle on the couch than argue about anything. Wouldn’t we all?
Calico says
Meaning you can never have different opinions on a movie or debate politics or an actors ability to carry off a role,or a recipe or mathematics or the decisions of the local school board on spending? You are making the assumption everything as opposed to some of the things you say might be challenged. You want a doormat. Have you thought of getting a dog?
HS says
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!
Jeff says
TO HS in #23,
Not to be a smart ass, but thats exactly correct. I am constantly challenged by other men in every area of life (work, clubs, sports). The last thing i want is to be challenged by the woman i am seeing (and perhaps marry). If you want to be an alpha woman then you need to date beta men… thats what some women dont get, they want to be an alpha dating an alpha, men want to be an alpha dating a beta. Its how its met to be (or atleast its how 99% of men are conditioned and will continue to be conditioned until the end of time). You cant have your cake and eat it too
hunter says
jeff,
……”if you want to be an alpha woman, then you need to date beta men,”….a she can keep both if she wants to…alpha and beta…whatever she does with her life is no ones business….
Fran says
But interestingly highly successful men very often marry women who are successful and accomplished in their own right.
I live in DC, a city of workaholic career types. Generally men from old money families marry women from old money families, doctors marry other doctors and professionals and not their secretaries, college educated men marry college educated women. Perhaps it’s different elsewhere but this is what I see.
I’d be interested to hear from the more traditional leaning men what part of the country they live in, assuming they are American.
hunter says
..movie stars marry other movie stars, they do stay in their own little circles….
tmtic868 says
Clearly, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO … you just have to be a man to do it. The fact that you would even admit that gross double standard outn your mouth IS the ACTUAL PROBLEM with men!
Christy says
Lol…basically based on this article and narrow minded selfish men or desperate women.
I know bc Ive been there all those definitions in order to try and “accommodate” things all in one single relationship …i mean dictatorship and the lessons I learned was this:
1. A man who truly loves you and deserves you would not want you to be any less than who you actually are.
2. A man who is confident in who he is as a man does not feel threatened by another person’s opinions or ideas the a woman or a man.
3. A man who truly respects you will value your opinions and your ideas even if he doesn’t agree with them.
4. A mature man will grow with you and will not see himself as the end all be all.
5. Value who you are at all costs because when everything is said and done what you will have lost if you don’t will be much greater then what you think you’ve lost in in the guy who’s not even close to being worth it.
Watergirl says
Not sure if you are intentionally missing the point.
Choose to marry a man who has the same beliefs as you. Or as you put it “opinions”. Find a man who shares your opinions on everything and marry him. That is how you are supposed to do it. Why do you think it is the woman that choose from many suitors? It isn’t the man that is making the choice between many women. It is the woman that gets to choose. So what you do is you choose the man who has your same beliefs (ie “opinions”). Then you submit to him.
Since he already has the same beliefs as you, submitting to him is simple. Following his lead puts you right where you want to go. You can fully support his efforts with every fiber of your being because he is doing what you would do.
Or is your problem that you are simply contrary for the sake of being contrary? If a man has an idea you must do the opposite? Ask yourself if you truly have beliefs (ie opinions) set in your heart or if you are just being argumentative. If you have these opinions, write them down so that you can ask your suitors if they have the same ones and when you find the one that does, marry him and submit to him!
tmitc868 says
Why is she submitting again? If they already agree on everything, what is the need for a lead?
hmmmm says
thumbs up
Camilla says
HS: You’re smart as a whip! *lmao*
Hadley Paige says
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.
Freya says
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.
gsh says
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.
Kyle says
Here’s the thing, however: lots of men have spent every moment of every day competing with each other over…well, pretty much everything. Men have learned to succeed because we are taught immediately and constantly by patriarchy that we are utterly worthless unless we are both competitive and successful.
As you might imagine, this also takes up an enormous amount of energy. So is it at all surprising that being expected to compete with our romantic partners might make us the tiniest bit frustrated too?
Is it unreasonable to expect a partner to be supportive? I mean, my god, if women can be there for their friends and family, then why not for their partners? My ideal would be to find someone who can handle themself and does not need external approval, but who also wants to be a part of a team. I don’t need a coach, a mother, or a cheerleader–I want a peer, a partner.
RustyLH says
Kyle, you hit it on the head. I would say that this is a clue as to why so many men are avoiding marriage. He can leave, if a woman stops being supportive, kind, patient, understanding, soft, sweet, etc…etc…etc…
Only thing I would disagree is that most like a woman to be a cheerleader.
I also think this keys into the major fight between men and women and the misunderstanding by women when he says he wants “traditional.”
Do most men want to be the leader? Yes. Why? They saw this work for their parents and grandparents. But what about it worked? Why do they seem to have such a different opinion than women on this?
First, my father and grandfathers were not tyrants. It was not their way or the highway. They did not even reserve the position of calling the shots in every situation.
A good example. I was dating a girl who was more than willing to allow me to lead in most situations. I like to go to garage sales, but rarely do it. However, she was a pro at it. So when she said she wanted to do it, we made plans and early that morning, I cooked breakfast while she made a list of places to go and mapped it out on google maps. When we walked out to my truck, i handed her the keys and said, “Lead the way.” It was early in the relationship and so I am sure she was not totally sure what to expect from me, so she was a bit surprised, and i could see that that one little thing made her happy. It’s called respect. She felt respected and appreciated for what she brought to the table. Do you think a man won’t react the same way? Nobody says you have to stay with a tyrant, and in fact, me, Evan and every sane man on this site would tell you to get away from a tyrant. I won’t live with a woman who is.
But Kyle shed some light on a major problem men experience in their relationships. They want one part of their life where they don’t have to compete. Men are sick and tired of relationships being power struggles. Every woman I was in a relationship with who said they wanted it to be an equal partnership, it always felt like a power struggle. In every case, it was her way or the highway. If she ever relented and allowed me to have my way, I was made to pay dearly for it. And it was also held over my head constantly. No thank you. Do not want.
It simply works better when one person is the default leader,but is also kind and loving in doing so, and is also wise enough to understand when it is better to temporarily relinquish that position.
My experience is that some women simply don’t respect men, or they had one or two men who were tyrants in their lives so they never give men a chance to be a good leader. They might pay lip service to it but if you asked the man, he would likely tell you a completely different story. he would likely tell a tale of power struggles, passive aggressive behavior when she didn’t get what she wanted, etc..
The point is, just because you give up that responsibility and put it on the man, and he turns out to be abusive in that role, you do not have to stay with him. If men were consistently being given that opportunity, they would rise to the challenge. When they fail and a woman leaves them for it, he will learn and modify his behavior….or be alone for the rest of his life.
Watergirl says
I think this is something a lot of women on this thread are missing, that submitting to somebody (ie giving up your power) is an act of strength, not an act of weakness.
It takes strength to give up your power to another. It also requires absolute trust in the person you submit to. The real problem of most of the women posting here is that they simply do not and cannot bring themselves to trust a man. They do not respect men at all. These “strong” woman are in reality weak.
Not Jerry says
Great post, Watergirl.
From another blog.
A man creates a relationship, if he doesn’t, there’s not going to be a relationship.
A MAN LEADS A RELATIONSHIPIs it even possible for a woman to lead a relationship? Sure there are weak men, but a woman can’t create it on her own and she can’t make a man love her and do the right thing for them both.
Sure she can encourage, support and be his cheerleader… but in the final outcome… it is a man who creates a relationship for the good or not.
As a man leads and a woman follows- that’s the basic nature and natural order and when we go against it it just doesn’t work out as well. Women control a relationship and where it goes- men lead.
Women don’t have to follow.
RustyLH says
When I think of a woman being a cheerleader, I think of her simply being a supportive. I also believe a good man who has a woman doing this for him, would by default return the favor. Can men and women nurture themselves Of course. Does that mean you don’t want your partner to also do that for you? Of course not. Why does it have to be one or the other? It doesn’t.
I think Kyle was more on target when he said men are tired of having to compete all day and then go home and compete. Who wants that? Nobody.
But you did say something that was right. If you are wore out, will it make you frustrated to have to nurture? Sure. Welcome to a man’s world. He goes to wrok all day comes home stressed and then has to play Psychiatrist, just sitting their listening while his wife unloads all of her daily frustrations on him, and even when he, using his more logical abilities, can clearly see what she should do to end one of her frustrations, he is to allowed to say so. No…see this isn’t about problem solving, this is about nurturing. How much frustration do you think the man feels when he comes home and hers the same frustration day in and day out, but he’s not allowed to fix the problem?
You know, we men are people too. We have feelings, frustrations, emotions, desires, wants, etc… It’s not all about us to be sure, but neither is it all about you.
Watergirl says
I think this post highlights why men are more suited to career than women. A man has superior logical abilities and so can solve many of the problems at work that cause stress.
A woman by contrast, isn’t even interested in solving the problems, only in relishing in the chance to constantly talk about drama. Men, however, do not like to talk about drama as a woman does, yet she chooses to talk about it with her husband instead of a girlfriend of hers. This stresses out the man as he is already stressed from work.
His woman is not supporting and comforting him but is using him as an outlet to enjoy talking about drama. She is using him, plain and simple, with absolutely no respect for his feelings or needs, and she does so totally without shame. The man quickly becomes the “non listening type” this kind of woman hates (as who would put up with being used?), which leads directly into her justification for destroying her family with divorce.
A solution to all this would have been if the woman did not work and simply used her energy to comfort her husband when he came home from work. If she wants to talk drama, she goes next door during the day to talk to the neighbor’s wife.
tmitc868 says
I’m convinced you’re just not a woman. This must be a man typing behind the front of a woman because no woman would promote this type of thinking against other women. Submit! Do not make your own money! Cater to him; he doesn’t cater to you! Men had their time to rule and they abused it. Why dot hey deserve this still?
Joy says
Women can’t think logically? lol. Of course not – that 60% leading university admissions must be all about emotions and drama 101. Watergirl – you are either the dumbest woman I’ve ever ‘seen’ or you are indeed a man as tmitc purports. The amount of drama I’ve had to listen to out of mens mouths is insane. They gossip just as much as women but they don’t call it gossip – they call it talking but in essence it’s the same shit and usually nastier.
Julie says
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.
Linda says
AMEN
jkh says
I’m an incredibly smart arrogant, strong insecure, successful failure in love and attractive repulsive 27 year old woman. At first I was distraught at the lack of long term relationships, and thought knew there may be something wrong with me.
However, I have come to realize resent 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 improve, adapt compromise, or be “nurturing” (I thought “nurturing” is meant to be a good quality in a human), “gentle” (I thought “gentle” is also meant to be a good quality in a human), or “let him be the man”, for any man. I never want to be the lesser sex woman 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 repulsive personality traits for anyone. I cannot have a boyfriend if it means he will shadow my brilliance arrogance.
I accept delude myself completely for who I am, and will not change improve 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 ego and not become some “little girl” “grown woman” just so that they can find a boyfriend loving relationship and family. I will gladly live alone on my own means. My multi-millionaire and hopefully before I’m 40 — billionaire — means.
It’s nice to see she found the answer to the meaning of life… Don’t be “nurturing” or “gentle” and die alone in a big house with a tight grip on your money, because you can’t can take it with you!!!
hunter says
Ms. Jkh,
Enjoy your monastery…..
ac says
Right on JKH
Jessica says
Wow. It never dawned on me how insecure men really are until now. All hear from this is “Hey woman, I’m an insecure man who can’t hold my own around most of the men I know and I’ll be damned if I let a woman show me out so let me ridicule you and belittle you for being confident and for setting goals and reaching them. Because I need to date a woman who reminds me of a 16 year old child with no thoughts and no goals in order to feel relevant and important.”
Robert says
….I’m gonna have to call bs on your post here… There was absolutely no reason to post your “salary”. …Are you thinking that’s going to get you some sausage? PLEASE lady…spare us the brunt of the bs. That was a turnoff… “im a billionaire…” And you knew there was no way for any of us to find out…so the hell with honesty… By the way, you have no tact…I suggest you work on it.
tmtic868 says
She never said she was a billionaire. she said she hoped to be by 40. You’ve just embarrassed yourself.
Bell says
No. You won’t. You’ll live lonely on your means. Unless you are a hermit, of course.
Holy crap.. You actually think it’s about being a “… lesser sex in any relationship.”
The world is changing. Money isn’t enough anymore. Men have learned this. Why haven’t you, Ms. Incredibly Smart, Strong, Successful and Attractive?
Monumental self-image issues.
tmtic868 says
The world is changing? Yet men are doing nothing but trying to keep it in the dark ages with their, “women better change because we never will. It’s our nature” talk. And the writer clearly satted she will live alone and successful happily, like many men have in the past. If that is no longer a threat to women, then what will you men have to hold over our heads to submit? I say women, let’s get comfortable supporting each other and being alone. The world is over populated. Stop having these men’s children. They use it against us. If we don’t want families, then we really don’t need them. Then what? We just enjoy our lives.
Noemi says
“…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.”
Are you equating being nurturing and gentle as being the lesser sex? On the contrary, there is so much strength in being nurturing and gentle. I encourage you to try it. Men love a kind, sweet woman. It melts them like butter. Oh, how my man’s eyes light up when I give him a long hug at the end of the day, and when i tell him he’s my #1.
tmitc868 says
So question? If being nurturing and gentle is so great and strength, why aren’t men desiring this role? Surely, if it’s so attractive they shouldn’t be complaining of taking on the role while women happily keep some charge over their lives as individuals in a relationship.
Watergirl says
You only want to be the boss in a marriage because you think it is a better job than being the supporter. You think being the supporter and submitting to someone is “lesser”.
The truth is, being the supporter is the best role ever. You get to concentrate on love while your husband handles the mundane affairs of life.
I think the real problem for you is that you are unable to love, and so depend on mundane things like money for self worth and fulfillment. I’m rich too, and so I know the secret that haunts you: money can’t love you. That’s why you are here on this site, and that’s why you are so bitter. You can’t love and your wealth can’t help you.
You really want to be happy? Learn how to love. That is, assuming you don’t have one of those disorders that prevents the ability to love. How do you learn it? Just do the exact opposite of what you are doing now.
Ryan H says
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
Mimi says
The old fashioned definition of a relationship requires that two rather naive people come together and stay that way.
Jane says
Excellent.
Ryan H says
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!
verbosity says
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….
Jacky says
to Verbosity…
more ‘man’ than her… very interesting!
Megan says
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.
J NYC says
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?
Christine says
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.
LS says
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.
Phillygirl says
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
Greg says
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?
Hadley Paige says
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.
Steve says
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.
ac says
nice summary steve
Phillygirl says
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
Phillygirl says
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
Buster says
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.
downtowngal says
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.
Phillygirl says
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
Steve says
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
Steve says
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?”
Phillygirl says
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.
shellacked says
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.
Phillygirl says
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.
Phillygirl says
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!
Jan says
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.
TheObserver says
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.
sheseizereason says
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.
hunter says
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….
hunter says
…hhhhmmmhh…there is a silence….
verbosity says
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.
verbosity says
A lull in the action…
Mo says
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.
hunter says
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….
hunter says
to Mo,
But of course men make mistakes, we can still talk about it in private.
Delia says
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.
Mo says
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.
m says
“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 “smart” 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*
Michael Ejercito says
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.
Hadley Paige says
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.
m says
“…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?
Hadley Paige says
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?”
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”.
m says
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*
vino says
I noticed in the whole Hadley-m exchange that Hadley is rather respectful. m is not.
That speaks volumes.
m says
As or HP and his ostensibly desperate, slavering need for studies to explain, oh, EVERYTHING, Mark Morford makes the case much better than I:
p.s. Thanks, jonquil 😉
m says
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?
m says
You know what, never mind.
I promised myself I wasn’t going to engage when I’m not even being heard.
:rolleyes:
Forget it.
vino says
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 “respectful” 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 what”.
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.
vino says
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.
vino says
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…
vino says
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.
Evan Marc Katz says
You realize, Vino, that you’ve now stifled debate and scared off all the women? Good work!
vino says
SORRY! Not intent at all!
Thought the quotes were funny & worthy of discussion!
cinnamon says
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?
vino says
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,” says Mohr, 29. “If we’re both that busy, when is the time when we’re going to meet?””
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.
cinnamon says
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.
vino says
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.
cinnamon says
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?
vino says
Maybe for some. But, the relationship is with work, not the guy…
Selena says
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?
RSL says
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…
vino says
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.
hunter says
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!…
vino says
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.
cinnamon says
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…
Ruth says
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!
OSRHardHat says
You are completely free to remove any man who works 60 hours a week from your pool of potential partners. There is no double standard here, I’m quite certain Vino, were hey gay, wouldn’t want a workaholic man for a partner either.
vino says
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, strong” 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
hunter says
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!
hunter says
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…
hunter says
to vino,
As the great guru on mount Tibet once said, “men are out to conquer and compete.”
vino says
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.
schlockdoc says
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.
Michael Ejercito says
Why is being smart so important when it comes to sexual compatibility?
hunter says
on post #101,
Almost sounds as if you have the world at your feet, lucky you!…..
vino says
It absolutely isn’t Michael. In fact my colloquial evidence says the exact opposite.
Julia says
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. 🙂
Hot Alpha Female says
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
rick lynn says
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.
Drahma says
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?
hunter says
Lighten up, it was the first date, people say things they are not supposed to…
Drahma says
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.
Ellyn says
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.
hunter says
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”.
Seductress Within says
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.
vino says
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.
Ellyn says
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.
Sara Reed says
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
Sayanta says
Ellyn- post #115 is awesome! You said it, sister.
hunter says
Nice guys are boring, so, I am told.
ellyn says
Thanks Sara and Sayanta!
It takes a secure and emotionally evolved man to get it. Best wishes to the both of you:)
Karl R says
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.
Sayanta says
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.
hunter says
Some women are so busy, that, they have little time for relationships with men.
Sayanta says
“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.
Watergirl says
The girlfriends that those successful men have are either unemployed or performing a job that means nothing to them. As has been said many times, a beautiful successful high powered “alpha” woman can easily have her pick of boyfriends that are unemployed or performing a menial job. Lots of men would jump at the chance to be a “kept man” in this economy.
The problem is that women simply despise the very idea of being with a man who is beneath them in economics or status (the further the gulf between them, the quicker the despising comes out). This is the nature of woman: to be attracted only to men that are her superior (though the prideful woman falsely calls him her “equal”). An “alpha” woman would never put up with allowing an unemployed man to live in her home and eat her food, whereas men think nothing of allowing a beautiful unemployed woman to do the same in his home (some even dream of it). Men that eat a woman’s food, sleep in her home, and use her internet are called “deadbeats” while women that do this in a man’s home are called “girlfriends”.
Also, men require consistent physical intimacy to be happy in a relationship, whereas women just need someone to listen to them. Listening can be done over the phone, so a busy man that makes phone time for his woman usually works out. However, a woman needs to have lots of free time to be able to provide the needed physical intimacy. An “alpha” female that chats over the phone but is never home will build resentment in her man, because she is getting her needs met but his are not.
The way relationship dynamics work between men and women mean that women have to choose between a career or a marriage. Even the process of having and raising children point to this fact (the women are the ones that get pregnant, that nurse, that ween, that absolutely love babies). What is so great about work anyway? Either your man and his home is the center of your world, or your boss and his office is.
Some women really need to control everything. They go so far as to be the CEO and then don’t dare give up the feeling of security being the one in charge gives. What they need to do is let their man be in charge and discover the feeling of security that this brings. Also, women like to think they are “changing the world” and “making a difference” whenever they do anything (no matter how meaningless), whereas men either do things because they find them fun or because they are trying to get money to get themselves a wife and children and home.
hunter says
…aaaahh…if the man is good looking/underemployed…she will allow him to stay around her…….maybe…shortly…but….he does stay…..
Karl R says
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.
Sayanta says
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 yourself”.”
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 talents” 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.” 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’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 “better” 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.
Joe says
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.
Karl R says
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.
hunter says
Balance and contentment? I think the kind of woman you describe is, and will stay married.
hunter says
Some men have money to spend, that maybe why they are never lacking in girlfriends.
A-L says
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.
drahma says
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.
Sayanta says
“They might be a customer service rep, and then end up becoming one of the foremost dating experts.”
😀 Right on!
Sayanta says
“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.
hunter says
Where are these ambitious women?
drahma says
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.
Sayanta says
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/
A-L says
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!
sayanta says
Yeah- I actually posted it more to point out how one word can mean such different things to different people.
drahma says
You’re right – ambition and success can mean different things to different people based on an individual’s value system.
hunter says
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”.
Ann Duckworth says
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.
Sayanta says
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.
Karl R says
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?
Ellyn says
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!
Ellyn says
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.)
Ann Duckworth says
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.
Ann Duckworth says
To Karl and other responders, my learning theory will go to all on request by e-mail at [email protected]
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 [email protected]
Ann Duckworth says
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.
Evan Marc Katz says
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.
hunter says
Ann, my applause for the masters “Thesis”. Bravo!..
drahma says
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 “protected” daughters who never ask for a hug or anything). They aren’t being shown “toughness” 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 boys”. 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?
Sayanta says
Hey Evan- How come Ann got a sweeter response than I did about the consecutive post thing? ;-p
Michael says
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?
drahma says
Michael – Totally agree with you!
starthrower68 says
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.
vino says
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?
starthrower68 says
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.
hunter says
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.
Starr says
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.
Karl R says
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.
Sayanta says
on that note- some WOMEN feel threatened by other successful women. The human ego is a fragile thing, regardless of gender.
hunter says
Smart, strong, successful women, like to humiliate/disrespect others in public, that is the only problem I have, with this type of woman.
Maria says
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!
Karl R says
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?
Sayanta says
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…
Joe says
You know, I think Maria has it right. Guys do like “successful,” but you gotta lure them in with “fun” first!
hunter says
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.
Sayanta says
#167, Hunter-
Huh?? I have no idea what you’re saying.
A-L says
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)
hunter says
I was asking Karl, try not to make comments to these women, that bring on fighting words.
Michael says
I was wondering.
Is it easier to get together with a woman with low self-esteem than one with high self-esteem?
Karl R says
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?
hunter says
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.
hunter says
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.
Michael says
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.
Sayanta says
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?
Karl R says
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.
Sayanta says
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.
Michael says
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.
hunter says
Karl, I stay with women longer than a month and a half.
Karl R says
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”.
Sayanta says
“People with low self-esteem can be fun to hang around with.”
Jesus…what is this, The Twilight Zone???
Sayanta says
“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?
hunter says
Sayanta, I never saw Twilight Zone, do they have people on there with low self esteem?
A-L says
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.
Sayanta says
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.
Karl R says
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.
Sayanta says
“If you want to be “The Boss” 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.
Wilhelm says
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?
Sayanta says
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.
Michael says
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.
Sayanta says
Michael-
I’ve got to know- are you for real with your posts?
A-L says
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.
Michael says
Of course. Why should we not measure up to others?
Sayanta says
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
Karl R says
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?
Michael says
What about succeeding where everyone else has succeeded?
If you fail where everyone else has succeeded , should you feel anything aside from shame?
drahma says
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.
Sayanta says
#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.
Karl R says
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.
vino says
Aren’t we a bit off-topic of why men supposedly don’t like smart, strong successful women?
A-L says
Michael
We discussed the whole “measuring up” thing a bit in the Why You’re Still Single Thread (https://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.
Michael says
And in the case of my current girlfriend, that means a smart, strong, successful woman.
Karl,
What do you like about smart women?
drahma says
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.)
Karl R says
Michael asked: (#203)
“Karl, What do you like about smart women?”
They’re my equals.
vino says
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.
Sayanta says
Karl-
Michael’s next question will probably be, “Why do you want a relationship based on equality?”
Prepare your argument.
hunter says
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.”
vino says
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.
A-L says
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.
Steve says
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.
A-L says
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.
Drahma says
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.
vino says
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.
vino says
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.
A-L says
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 https://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
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?
hunter says
A-L, I retract my statement, you didn’t say that.
A-L says
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.
vino says
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.
vino says
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.
Karl R says
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.
A-L says
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.
vino says
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…
A-L says
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? https://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/communication/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.
Karl R says
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?
vino says
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 “alpha” 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.
Drahma says
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.
hunter says
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…
A-L says
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.
Karl R says
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.
OSRHardHat says
Sorry, but the lumberjack could have become a cardiologist as well.
hunter says
Generally speaking, the Apha male, will be VERY persistant/charge/be all over/ARRRGH!…the woman he wants.
vino says
3 people can’t even define it….the term is therefore useless as a frame of reference
Karl R says
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.
hunter says
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”.
Bob says
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.
Steve says
@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!”
drahma says
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?
Steve says
@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.
drahma says
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.
Steve says
@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.
Heather Ferreira says
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.
kirsten says
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 =-.
Terry says
‘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.
starthrower68 says
Wow. That’s all I can seem to say to the above statement is wow. There is some real anger and hostility there.
Steve says
Wow.
Terry says
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.
starthrower68 says
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.
Brett says
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.
WildLilly says
Wasn’t Michelle saying that men disappear when she is sweet and nice and are only interested when she’s playing hard to get?
WildLilly says
I read it wrong – that was Catherine, not Michelle.
Ruby says
Are there really guys out there who prefer dumb/uneducated, bland, unsuccessful women?
Hadley Paige says
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.
Ruby says
#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.
Hadley Paige says
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.
Ruby says
# 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.
Hadley Paige says
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.
Ruby says
#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.
Sayanta says
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.
Sayanta says
oh- I forget to add- a school day coincides with the hours of an average work day. Win-win!
A-L says
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.
Sayanta says
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.’
drahma says
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.
Brett says
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.
Sayanta says
Brett-
So waht kind of men should these women be pursuing?
Michael says
Men with pleasing personalities and bodies, of course.
Helen says
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.
Sayanta says
Helen-
He’s pretty much spelt it out- man go hunt, woman stay home and cook big mammoth.
Helen says
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.
Sayanta says
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.
Ruby says
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.
Hadley Paige says
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?
Helen says
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).
Sayanta says
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.
Kenley says
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.
Hadley Paige says
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.
Hadley Paige says
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.
Sayanta says
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.
Helen says
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.
Sayanta says
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.
Joe says
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.
Hadley Paige says
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.
Ruby says
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.
Sayanta says
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?
Helen says
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.
Hadley Paige says
RE: Sayanta @ 284 >>”you use the word, “Correct set of priorities” 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.
Helen says
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>1=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.
Sayanta says
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.
Sayanta says
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?
Helen says
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.
A-L says
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?
Hadley Paige says
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.
Hadley Paige says
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.
Joe says
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.
Sayanta says
Joe-
I’m not an MBA- I pasted a link from someone who is.
Ruby says
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.
Hadley Paige says
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.
Hadley Paige says
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.
Helen says
#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.
A-L says
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.
Ruby says
“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.
Ruby says
HP, ad nauseum…
“shorter, stupider and poorer”
And therefore easier for you to control.
Helen says
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. 🙂
Leslie says
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.
Helen says
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.
Kenley says
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?
Hadley Paige says
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.
Ruby says
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.
Ruby says
“Physically, mentally, and financially inferior” doesn’t equal “feminine”, nor should it.
Hadley Paige says
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.
Ruby says
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.
Helen says
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.
Jennifer says
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.
Sayanta says
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.
Evan Marc Katz says
Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you.
Leslie says
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,