Wed 2 Nov 2005
Many thanks to Drew for pointing out this provocative article by the The New York Times’s Maureen Dowd, which ties in to several vivid conversations we have had at Salon Des Geeks gatherings. It also cites a British study about gender, IQ and marriage that we discussed at the most recent State College Salon.
I found Dowd’s article fascinating mainly in how little it comports with my own experience. Her assertions that “women today have gone back to hunting their quarry…with elaborate schemes” or that “men, apparently, learn early to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women,” are dizzyingly broad overgeneralizations that are unfair to both sexes. Conducting my own little study, I discovered that I know zero women who think that game-playing, acting coy, or buying self-help books with titles like “How to Catch and Keep a Man” are good ways of finding a mate. When asked if they play down their intelligence, education, or professional standing to make a man more comfortable on a date, the women I know start to get Really Irritated. Their consensus seems to be that if a smart woman makes him feel scaredy, why, that’s why they coined the phrase, “So nice to have met you, and goodbye.”
Similarly, in spite of Dowd’s assertion that men like to feel that they are hunting quarry while dating and enjoy the thrill of the chase, the men I know seem to experience no such confusion between romance and outdoor sports. Undoubtedly this is in part due to the crowd I hang out with (gentlemen, I salute you), but the men I know appreciate a witty, independent, and intelligent woman. They would be bored by a woman out of the pages of “How To Get Your Man and Keep Him,” and in fact, I would go so far as to say that they find that girl Frankly Terrifying. Deep down, these guys kind of resent having to pay the check Every Single Damn Time, although they are undoubtedly too polite to say so. They do not, like the man Dowd quotes, feel that paying the check is “one of the few remaining ways we can assert our manhood.” (Poor little muffin. I think he has already lost that game if he is clinging to a restaurant bill for his sexual identity).
Here is my radical suspicion: Everyone, irrespective of gender, loves to be respected and appreciated. If we would begin from that admittedly wacky assumption, we might iron out our gender role issues much more easily.
But enough out of me. Ever since I finished the article I have been pining for your input. Don’t keep me waiting!
10 Responses to “Maureen Dowd on Gender Roles”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 4th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
I recently received the same article from a friend. I don’t have a good enough sense of society-at-large to know whether Maureen’s comments are valid or not, but in my experience it’s pretty irrelevant. I think this is a selection issue, as you suggest; there probably are men who want “the thrill of the chase” or to prove their manhood by paying the bill, but I’d guess these traits correlate with many others that result in me just not encountering them, or, if I do, not being attracted to them. I support your claim that everyone appreciates appreciation!
The friend who forwarded me the article specifically wanted my opinion on whether I thought women with Ph.D.’s incur an “intimidation factor” with regard to potential mates. Again, in my experience this isn’t the case, but I’m certain that this is self-selection. I think all of the women on this site can attest that there are some men out there who find smarts to be a positive, rather than a negative, factor. :)
There are many other related issues that are worth discussing. For example, the claim that an increase in education or IQ results in a decrease in marriage rates doesn’t necessarily mean that the women have become less desirable — sometimes I bet it just means that they’ve adopted priorities other than husband/family. I think it’s more a result of our finite available time and energy. When you’ve built a rewarding career out of a job that you love, your time and energy is already largely committed. If this never happened, or you’re stuck in a job you hate, or your education level bars you from such, then a different way to invest the same time/energy would be to get married and start a family. Women have repeatedly remarked on the virtual impossibility of really balancing a full-time career and a full-time family; some women may just feel that the only realistic goal is to pick one of the two. (No offense to men who have careers and are also fathers! But there’s a certain unavoidable time/energy commitment that a mother must invest, at least initially, which is much higher.)
Other thoughts?
November 4th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
I was at a Richard Thompson concert this week, and would like to note that this famous folk/rocker counts himself among those who have “The Hots For the Smarts.” Hear, hear to everything that Kiri said, except to play devil’s advocate (damn lawyers) by noting that having a boring job or insufficient education are not the only reasons women invest their energy in marriage and parenthood. I agree that more women who are highly educated delay having families, but there are many who stay home part- or full-time by choice, and not because it’s the runner-up. I mention this because I recall reading Marilyn Vos Savant getting Quite Defensive about this point recently.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:47 am
Oh, I totally agree. I just think that it’s easy to be seduced away from husband/family if your mental energies are all tied up in some other bright shiny thing.
November 5th, 2005 at 2:49 am
Btw, I LOVE the lyrics you linked to. “I want a girl with a brain / the size of Siberia”?! I love it! *laugh*
November 5th, 2005 at 3:00 am
Reading back over my first comment, I see that it comes across as far more negative than I’d intended it. I was trying to offer a view in *contrast* to the prevailing assumption that careers are “better” than housewivery, by suggesting that it’s just a matter of different targets for energy investment. I didn’t mean to sound so biased/judgmental in terms of those choices. Having a family is certainly *not* a runner-up role; it’s more the case that I’m remarking ruefully on how my job (by my own choice, as I must admit) sucks up all of my energy, leaving little room for more personal pursuits.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:34 am
Re-reading this, I can’t help but wonder if the difference between the men Wendy knows, and the men Maureen Dowd knows is due to generational change.
I notice this with how my older coworkers treat women…. They seem to have a very different (nonexistant?) threshold for sexual harassment. I believe that this is because their world view, and training is different from my own.
Personally, I have to say that I believe that intelligence is a prerequisite for anyone I spend time with. I really suppose that I am more intimidated by beauty than intelligence.
January 2nd, 2006 at 1:59 am
This made me think of an article I read recently in The Ecoonomist. it was part of a series of articles on Human Evolution, and it was specifically addressing intelligence.
Humans have very large brains, when compared to body mass. Humans also use those brains to do many things which are not obviously helpful in an evolutionary sense (art, comedy).
One question is how Evolutionary Theory accounts for the evolution of the brain. Another is why we use it the way we do.
They referred to a professor at the University of New Mexico… Geoffrey Miller, who … thinks of the human mind akin to the peacock’s tail. It displays the genetic fitness of its owner. He feels that the amount to which females in species show off to the males has been undervalued.
He [apparently, I have not yet read any of his work] believes that many mental traits(painting, carving, dancing, singing, language) can be explained as proofs of sexual fitness. And, that as with songbirds, because the male is generally involved with child-rearing, the female also has these traits in abundance.
First off, I am not so keen on social Darwinism, and I don’t want to get carried away and locked up :)
In regard to Maureen Dowd, this is almost directly across purposes. He is making an argument that intelligence is a valued sexual trait.
Now, of course he is talking about some abstract, large, pressure. Maureen is talking about the jerks she keeps running into.
Anyway, I can’t help but feel I am not doing the subject justice. Out of context it seems kind of odd.
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 am
OK, time for some paranoid self-defense.
Just because I am intimidated by beauty does not disqualify everyone I know from being beautiful. Fortunately for me, if the Beauty is also intelligent, then we have something to talk about while I overcome my awe.
[cough, glare]
For the record, I am intimidated by Ms. Dowd, LawGoddess, and Kiri.
January 4th, 2006 at 2:06 am
There was an interesting related Op-Ed in yesterday’s(January 3rd) New York Times.
The editorial was by John Tierney, titled “Male Pride and Female Prejudice.” It begins with the following statement:
“When there are three women for every two men graduating from college, whom will the third woman marry?”
It goes on to discuss the demographic change which has occurred. Women are now more highly educated then men.
He goes on to discuss survey’s which seem to indicate that the social pressure, and the resulting desire for women is to marry ‘up’. But among those surveyed, ‘Male Pride,’ refusing to marry someone better, does not seem a large factor. He implies that this is creating an impossible to fulfill demand.
I am not sure I like the ending ‘conclusion’ which states that the focus should not be on why women are not promoted in Math and Science, but why Men are so uneducated.
It struck me that perhaps this was more of an affirmation of Ms. Dowd, and as Men fall futher back, more women will find the (relative) lack of quality appalling.
-Iain
P.S. I know for a fact that no woman of the salon has a chance of marrying your better. You all have the highest character, matchless erudition, and are completely charming. My sex cannot possibly surpass any of you. You are my favorite people in the whole world.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:12 am
I was reminded of this thread when reading a BBC news article about the UK’s EOC is advocating stronger action to remedy the lack of women in senior positions, politics, etc.:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4582878.stm
The quotes ascribing the lack of women to lifestyle choices (ah, reductionism) made me think of Kiri’s comment about work sucking up all of her energy and the difficulties of balancing work and family life. This resonates for me, as well. E.g., I’ve occassionally thought about when I’ll be able to make time/headspace for raising kids, and what kind of shifts in priorities I would need to make to accomodate that.
Rambling further afield, Clinton’s welfare reform is widely hailed as a success, yet even its advocates will, when pressed, usually admit that it has had a disproportionate impact on single parents (especially mothers).
I think the parallel here, that both sets of parents are being forced to work and parent in a social framework that is ill-equipped to make that feasible, is important. I tend to expect that the kinds of programs that address this most successfully will have benefit in quality of life across the spectrum from executives to welfare recipients.