Alarming News

October 30, 2005

Don’t blame feminism.

Maureen Dowd has a loooooong piece, adapted from her upcoming book “Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide,” (no, I’m not kidding) essentially wondering why she’s unmarried. She guesses she’s too powerful, she guesses she’s too smart, she thinks she’s too independent but she never seems to guess that it’s because she’s sort of crazy and erratic and people tend to run screaming from her uninformed snark.

I’ve mentioned it before but I’m going to get serious about writing a relationship-y book. If Maureen Dowd can pretend that girl-boy relationships are any different now than ever before in history, I’m sure I can write a best-seller about respecting and worshipping yourself and getting any man you want because of it.

Posted by Karol at 01:28 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Rock on.
Saw this in Roger L. Simon’s comments, though, and found it interesting.

Posted by: Allah at October 30, 2005 at 1:42 pm

I’d put money on the fact that most of the husbands in that story are not only cheating but will probably eventually leave their wives for someone who makes less money.

Posted by: Karol at October 30, 2005 at 1:55 pm

Why?

Posted by: Allah at October 30, 2005 at 1:56 pm

Because while men will joke about wanting a sugar mama, most men need to be the hero in the relationship and that means bringing home the dough. If they’re not, they will likely have a hard time respecting the woman and having self-respect. I heard a classic story about a woman becoming a high-paid lawyer, marrying her high school sweetheart who was a teacher, catching him in their bed with another teacher, and actually ending up paying him alimony (or is it palimony for a man?) and losing the house to him. Ugly.

Posted by: Karol at October 30, 2005 at 2:01 pm

So then, isn’t Dowd sort of … right?

Posted by: Allah at October 30, 2005 at 2:06 pm

No. And before I get comments from people saying things like ‘my wife makes more money than me and we have a very happy marriage’, I note that obviously there are exceptions to every rule.
Dowd’s point is that women have rejected feminism and somehow regressed. I’d say that even during the height of feminism, human nature remained the same. Women wanted a man who can take care of them, even when they were burning their bras. And while women definitely want to make a lot of money, they still want their man to either make the same or more. Less will affect the relationship. I mean, check this out, from the NY mag story: A friend of mine who works and makes money and whose husband doesn

Posted by: Karol at October 30, 2005 at 2:22 pm

most men need to be the hero in the relationship and that means bringing home the dough. If they’re not, they will likely have a hard time respecting the woman and having self-respect.

But that’s exactly what Dowd is complaining about. From the article: “[T]he aroma of male power is an aphrodisiac for women, but the perfume of female power is a turnoff for men. It took women a few decades to realize that everything they were doing to advance themselves in the boardroom could be sabotaging their chances in the bedroom, that evolution was lagging behind equality.”
I.e., “Men don’t find me attractive because I’m too heroic.”
Where you and she differ is in your insistence that it’s a two-way street and that women want men to be the hero, too. Dowd seems to think that that’s simply a posture young women take in order not to scare away eligible men. A female acquaintance has complained to me in the past about trying to date guys who make less than her — not because she finds them less attractive (or so she says) but because they can’t handle the idea of their woman making more than they do.
As for me, no surprise that I think Dowd and my acquaintance are full of shit and you’re correct.
Also, I’ll have you know that my imaginary wife makes more money than me and we have a very happy marriage.

Posted by: Allah at October 30, 2005 at 2:56 pm

And here I thought no one wants to be with Dowd because she’s a whiny bitch. Shows what I know.
And if she’s smarter than the guys she’s been hanging out with, well, she’s got very limited horizons. I imagine if she met an actual smart person, her cranium would explode.

Posted by: meep at October 30, 2005 at 3:31 pm

She said to him,

Posted by: ugarte at October 30, 2005 at 3:59 pm

“How can you have sex after that?”
With a prostitute.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at October 30, 2005 at 4:13 pm

While Dowd emphasizes men may find her status, education, etc., “intimidating” or unattractive (I grant, if a great disparity, this is true for men), her real problem is that she’s educated herself, succeeded, to a point where most men are unattractive to HER.
Ask her who these men are that she would accept as appropriate, attrative mates, and it’s a very narrow sliver of high status men.
And her added problem isn’t that she’s unattractive to those few men, but that she’s NO MORE attractive to them than the secretary, underemployed temp, cute ice cream shop girl, etc… (can anyone imagine Dowd showing up at a party introducing her boyfriend Tony, “He waits tables at the Olive Garden. Hopes to become Head Waiter in the fall.” )
In short, it’s a question of mating ‘pools.’ Dowd can only accept a very narrow sliver of high status men as mates, while those men in that sliver cast wide, looking for ‘hotness’ from anywhere. She’s just got too much competition.

Posted by: Reo Symes at October 30, 2005 at 5:40 pm

Yeah, but it’s got to be less than $100/hour, obviously. What will that get you?

Posted by: meep at October 30, 2005 at 6:43 pm

Reo is right on the money.
High-status guy dates low-status woman (e.g. a hot waitress), no problem.
High-status woman dates low-status man (e.g. a hot waiter), she gets lewd admiration and becomes the butt-end of jokes.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at October 30, 2005 at 9:08 pm

Joe and Reo — I agree completely. See also the comments by “jeff” over here.

Posted by: Allah at October 30, 2005 at 9:26 pm

I thought it was because
she has had really bad plastic surgery
she is spiteful
ill informed
really whacky in a bad way
ponderous[so ponderous]
lacks any sense of humor in any shape or form that is recognizable anyway
and in general is a complete DOLT!!!
forget the money issue christ!
who would want to hook up with her in the first place????

Posted by: tbowed at October 31, 2005 at 12:38 am

Hey, the “mating pools” is what kept the women away from my man, so I’m not going to complain about the materialism of chicks. All these women were looking for a salary requirement, and I was looking for a guy who’d take care of my home.
Unfortunately, he’s over a decade older than me, so one of these days I’m going to have to take care of stuff myself, but I hope I will be rich enough I can pay other people to do my electrical work and cook for me. It’s so rare you can find good household help that can take care of kids, clean the house, cook gourmet meals, maintain my websites and computers, replace an engine, run wires, do plumbing, and make shelves. It’s going to be really expensive to replace my husband when he goes. He’s cheaper than a stay-at-home wife — he can do all the household tasks himself and he doesn’t waste our money on shoes and clothes.

Posted by: meep at October 31, 2005 at 3:06 am

So, you think Dowd doesn’t respect or worship herself enough?

Posted by: Ivan Lenin at October 31, 2005 at 8:47 am

It’s been my experience that if two low-wage people get married, and the wife starts earning a lot of money, problems occur.
But if a woman who already has a high income marries a low income man, then the marriage has a good chance to succeed.

Posted by: Jake at October 31, 2005 at 10:42 am
Post a comment