"Men Just Want Mommy" -- Maureen Dowd opinion piece - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#1 01-15-2005, 10:01 PM

What say you?

Quote:

Men Just Want Mommy
By MAUREEN DOWD
January 13, 2005

A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women."

I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.

Women in staff support are the new sirens because, as a guy I know put it, they look upon the men they work for as "the moon, the sun and the stars." It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods.

In all those great Tracy/Hepburn movies more than a half-century ago, it was the snap and crackle of a romance between equals that was so exciting. Moviemakers these days seem far more interested in the soothing aura of romances between unequals.

In James Brooks's "Spanglish," Adam Sandler, as a Los Angeles chef, falls for his hot Mexican maid. The maid, who cleans up after Mr. Sandler without being able to speak English, is presented as the ideal woman. The wife, played by Téa Leoni, is repellent: a jangly, yakking, overachieving, overexercised, unfaithful, shallow she-monster who has just lost her job with a commercial design firm. Picture Faye Dunaway in "Network" if she'd had to stay home, or Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" without the charm.

The same attraction of unequals animated Richard Curtis's "Love Actually," a 2003 holiday hit. The witty and sophisticated British prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, falls for the chubby girl who wheels the tea and scones into his office. A businessman married to the substantial Emma Thompson falls for his sultry secretary. A writer falls for his maid, who speaks only Portuguese.

(I wonder if the trend in making maids who don't speak English heroines is related to the trend of guys who like to watch Kelly Ripa in the morning with the sound turned off?)

Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection.

As John Schwartz of The New York Times wrote recently, "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame."

A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors.

As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them.

"The hypothesis," Dr. Brown said, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands.

A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.

So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.

I asked the actress and writer Carrie Fisher, on the East Coast to promote her novel "The Best Awful," who confirmed that women who challenge men are in trouble.

"I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said drily. "I gave up on dating powerful men because they wanted to date women in the service professions. So I decided to date guys in the service professions. But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too."

Hey, I know I'd rather say "I'm just too successful and brilliant for them!" than "I'm not so good at the dating..."

More seriously, though, I've never liked seeing hackneyed social biology applied wholesale to entire swaths of the population, and see little difference between what Maureen Dowd is saying here, and what is so often said about women: "They're just looking for daddy."

LaughingGravy · #2 01-15-2005, 10:37 PM

I feel there's definitely biology involved. Yes, men would like somebody to take care of them ala mom. Why not? The traditional family unit was developed over eons for good reason. I'm not saying that it's the only good way,of course. Society has evolved to be supportive of many relationships, family, and otherwise.
I don't agree with the idea of the fear of a woman cheating due to a successful career or high IQ.
My wife is a college grad with what I believe is a high IQ. Definitely my equal if not more in that regard.
Her Mom was a stay at home as well. We made a choice together that she would be the stay at home, if kids ever came and I was the bigger bread winner in the foreseeable future. Yes, financial sacrifice. My dinner is made for me virtually every night, though I could do it myself. I work full time, including limited travel and the occasional week long trade show as well as pilot lessons thrown in. She, on the other hand has a great social life compared to me. Kids are not full time in school and have never been at day care or after care.

The point of having a partner who is less complex does have some merit in that my wife doesn't have a big career that she has to really worry about.
It also means that we can talk about my day occasionally and vent a little.
She, of course, talks about her day. I happily listen and offer support as they are a handful. And they're good kids too!

Unfortunately, I've definitely seen instances of women I know not being promoted because they may have children in the future. That just outright sucks, especially as most employees are treated as disposable anyway.
Anyone can be replaced in their job, unless it's the owner of the company.

GermanStar · #3 01-15-2005, 11:11 PM

I can only speak for myself. When I was married, I did my own laundry and more than half of the cooking, and my ex didn't work. Definitely not looking for mommy. OTOH, it could be that I'm so self-reliant that I'm not suitable material for a true partnership.

suginami · #4 01-15-2005, 11:58 PM

I tend to agree with the studies.

Men want to marry women who will take care of them. They are also afraid of women who either are or who they preceive to be smarter than them. It intimidates most men.

Why? Men desperately want to make their wives happy, and if their wife is smarter than them, it is intimitading, and smarter women are harder to please.

aklim · #5 01-16-2005, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaughingGravy

Unfortunately, I've definitely seen instances of women I know not being promoted because they may have children in the future. That just outright sucks, especially as most employees are treated as disposable anyway.

Well, think about this for a while. Lets not get into the 5 letter words of right and wrong. When a couple has a child or children. Who do you think takes more time off before, during and after? Who is less likely to go back to work after the child? Who is more likely to take time off after that? Add all of that together and what do you have? IMO, you have an employee that has less longevity than a male. Put sex aside for a minute, if you have 2 employees, lets say they are both male for the sake of arguement. One of them has indicated to you that he might move out of state and the other you know has a very good chance of staying put. Who do you think you will promote?

MS Fowler · #6 01-16-2005, 07:21 AM

Irony alert!
Isn't it the liberals ( like M.D.) who lecture the rest of us about not judging by the group? Yet, they are the very ones who practice "group judging" in thier daily activites.
You could call it hypocracy.

#7 01-16-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

When a couple has a child or children. Who do you think takes more time off before, during and after? Who is less likely to go back to work after the child? Who is more likely to take time off after that? Add all of that together and what do you have? IMO, you have an employee that has less longevity than a male.

I'm not so fond of judging (or being judged) by the group I belong to. An employer doesn't know what his prospective employees' childbearing plans are, and I think it's none of their business. I think there is a right and wrong here.

aklim · #8 01-16-2005, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webwench

I'm not so fond of judging (or being judged) by the group I belong to. An employer doesn't know what his prospective employees' childbearing plans are, and I think it's none of their business. I think there is a right and wrong here.

No, but playing the devil's advocate here, which is the better investment when you see a woman of childbearing age and a man?

dolebludger · #9 01-16-2005, 04:12 PM

webwench:

The last time I was single I was 40. Sure, I dated a few 23 year olds and a few nitwits of various ages, and out of disgust for these types developed a couple of policies. First was the policy against my dating "20 somethings." I called it my "no trainee" policy.

Second was my "no incompetents" policy. Women who did not have some sort of career going for them and who did not live in a presentable place and drive presentable cars were out! She didn't have to be a CEO or live in a mansion or drive a Ferrari or anything like that, but just presentable. IMO, guys who do what your initial post says they are doing are getting into a real "high maintanence" situation, and I don't think they will like it in the long run.

Thanks,
Richard

#10 01-16-2005, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

No, but playing the devil's advocate here, which is the better investment when you see a woman of childbearing age and a man?

Depends on the woman and the man.

Here's a case in point: I was on 24/7 call for my job for a couple of years. Not a big deal, I get the occasional phone call about something that is broken, and I have a laptop and high-speed connectivity to log in and deal with it. At the time this started my son was a toddler, and I was a divorced mother. I suppose you would look at the situation and say, I'm not likely to be a good employee in that situation.

Not long into that time period, we hire a guy whose role includes being on call sometimes on a rotating basis with me. We hire him, and shortly aftrewards he marries his fiancee and they start spawning. What do you know? He 'couldn't be on call' because it would interfere with his family life. He was often out because his (nonworking) wife was ill, or one of the kids was ill. He was always coming in late or leaving early for doctors' appointments, or contractors coming out to the house. You almost have to wonder what the stay-at-home wife's 'job' was.

Who was the better hire? Who was more reliable? Who was available off hours?

A couple years later, he was laid off, and I'm still there, so I guess that's my reward. If my boss had put me on some 'mommy track' because I'm female, already a parent, and could marry and start spawning again any day now, well, I'd have been on to a better job opportunity quickly, and I and my new employer would have been glad for it. *shrug*

Yes, it's one instance, and not a sociological study. All I'm saying is, you cannot judge a book by the cover, at least not if you want to have the best people work for you. You take people as individuals, and judge them based on their own behavior and qualities, otherwise you're just running a good old boys' network and hiring people who are just like you, because that's what you're comfortable with.

Allow me a small rant: It's funny; we laud dedicated fathers who make time for their families. We slap a guy on the back because he leaves work early a day or two a week to coach the kids' soccer team. We make a big deal out of single dads, how hard it must be for them 'doing it all on their own'. I listened to male middle-managers pat themselves on the back strangely often for working flex time to accomodate their families in speeches to their groups and divisions. But we have this thing in the workplace against mothers who do the same thing, or who we think might attempt to do the same thing, and I know I wouldn't dream of taking some of the liberties or advertising my parental status the way some of my male coworkers have in the past. The same actions from me would be perceived differently, and I expend a fair amount of energy avoiding any hint that my parental status or marital status may affect my job performance. It's a double standard, and I get tired of it on a personal level.

azimuth · #11 01-16-2005, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webwench

What say you?

Hey, I know I'd rather say "I'm just too successful and brilliant for them!" than "I'm not so good at the dating..."

More seriously, though, I've never liked seeing hackneyed social biology applied wholesale to entire swaths of the population, and see little difference between what Maureen Dowd is saying here, and what is so often said about women: "They're just looking for daddy."

i cannot speak for all, or even many, men. I will say that in my case, I did not marry my wife because she was smart and successful, even though she was. I did not marry her because i admired her accomplishments, i.e. a black belt in tae kwon do, even though i do (she can beat me up...

). i did not marry her because she is beautiful or sexy, even though she is. I married her because she was all these things, yet humble enough to know that the world did not revolve around her alone and for this i fell hopelessly, helplessly in love with her.

i'm still not sure why she married me. I know that i married "up". I vowed that from the day we were married to the day we part, at the end of days, I would work hard to deserve her. I can only hope that is enough.....

el presidente · #12 01-16-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

i cannot speak for all, or even many, men. I will say that in my case, I did not marry my wife because she was smart and successful, even though she was. I did not marry her because i admired her accomplishments, i.e. a black belt in tae kwon do, even though i do (she can beat me up...

). i did not marry her because she is beautiful or sexy, even though she is. I married her because she was all these things, yet humble enough to know that the world did not revolve around her alone and for this i fell hopelessly, helplessly in love with her.

i'm still not sure why she married me. I know that i married "up". I vowed that from the day we were married to the day we part, at the end of days, I would work hard to deserve her. I can only hope that is enough.....

True love, my friend

el presidente · #13 01-16-2005, 09:27 AM

The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.

FWIW, I am definitely marrying "up"....I'm hoping for a Mr. Mom scenario

mikemover · #14 01-17-2005, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

i cannot speak for all, or even many, men. I will say that in my case, I did not marry my wife because she was smart and successful, even though she was. I did not marry her because i admired her accomplishments, i.e. a black belt in tae kwon do, even though i do (she can beat me up...

). i did not marry her because she is beautiful or sexy, even though she is. I married her because she was all these things, yet humble enough to know that the world did not revolve around her alone and for this i fell hopelessly, helplessly in love with her.

i'm still not sure why she married me. I know that i married "up". I vowed that from the day we were married to the day we part, at the end of days, I would work hard to deserve her. I can only hope that is enough.....

Damn, you are seriously "whipped"!

That post sounds like a Hallmark card! hahaha....

Seriously, it sounds like you're very happy. More power to ya'.

Mike