Katryn Benhold opens her New York Times article with a scene from “Sex and the City.” Link here.
The scene resonates because it has happened so often in reality… last month, last year, and two decades ago.
Why settle for fiction when we have reality. So, here’s a real incident, as reported to me. A successful woman in her mid-thirties has ascended the corporate hierarchy to the point where her business card sports an impressive title-- senior vice president, managing director, or the like.
Single and unattached, she is ready to find a mate and to settle down. With that in mind she is chatting with an appealing man she has just met at a cocktail party.
Their banter seems effortless. They are clicking on several levels. She is thrilled to have found someone who is so thoroughly in sync with her. They have known each other for half an hour and are practically completing each other’s sentences. Their happy conversation continues until they exchange business cards.
As he glances at her card and sees the exalted title, his face drops, as though the life has been drained out of it, as though it has become terminally flaccid.
She knows that she will never hear from him.
She has worked long and heard to earn the title. She has sacrificed her romantic life for her career, only to discover that her very success, something that is integral to who she is, has become a detriment. She might as well have dabbed on a few drops of that new fragrance: essence of man-repellent.
How, Benhold asks, can you keep romance alive? To the woman I have described the problem seemed more to be: How can you raise it from the dead? Where’s Lazarus when you need him?
It isn’t fair or just. After all, she looks great. She is in shape; she has been tweezed to within an inch of her life; she is decked out in designer finery; she is the whole package, everything that any man could want. She is not needy or dependent; she can fend for herself. All that is missing from her life is love; and they more it feels absent the more it seems to be receding into the distance.
After exchanging cards he turns away, purportedly ready to leave the party, when he stops in his tracks to gaze at a younger, less attractive, assistant, who is barely out of college and who is barely made up.
The indignity is unspeakable. Why didn't anyone tell her that titles are a libido suppressant?
Is the man afraid? Is he threatened by powerful women? Or is he just not that into her?
Has he been conditioned to reject such women in order to maintain the patriarchy, is he too insecure to respond to the superwoman that she has become, or is he just reacting like a normal man?
Should he repair to the nearest therapist for a dose of the right ideas? But if he doesn’t need treatment, what options are left to her?
To her credit, Benhold does not suggest that these men are neurotic or sexist. After all, they react so quickly in what feels like an involuntary reflex that you have to think that they did not reflect before they let their faces drop.
You can say that the male of the species is chronically incapable of responding to strong women, but that is not very much of a consolation to a strong woman.
Where else is she supposed to go to find a suitable mate?
Women today have more and more power to make themselves into exactly who they want to be. If someone once convinced them that making themselves into superwomen would lead to true romance with supermen, then perhaps they should be angry with whomever misled them.
Most women, like most men, know that life is filled with compromises. Thanks to modernity we have many more options than our ancestors had, but that does not mean that we can have it all, any more than they could.
Every time any one of us chooses one path we have simultaneously closed off another. And all paths do not lead to the same destination.
Women who want to have careers but who grant priority to romance and family gravitate toward women’s fields, to fields that are not as competitive as those where men strive for money and power.
Or else, they marry young, to build lives together instead of trying to merge two lives that have been formed independently.
Even so, reality has thrown more and more couples into situations where she is the breadwinner and he is the stay-at-home parent.
True enough, as Benhold reports, some men do not care. Some men might even like being taken care of.
Others insist on retaining a portion of their male pride. Their wives might be making most if not all of the family income, but they still want to pay for dinner with their own credit cards. They are afraid to look like gigolos in the waiter's eyes.
They adopt, as Benhold puts it: “… an assortment of behavioral contortions aimed at keeping the appearance of traditional gender roles intact.”
Unfortunately, no many how many yoga classes you have taken, there is only so much time that you can hold a contortion.
No one should ever underestimate male pride. If denied, it will tend to assert itself.
If a male feels humiliated to the point where he must assert his manhood in front of the waiter, how will he feel when he goes to her company picnic and is shunned by her alpha male colleagues? And how will he feel when his children are called on to tell the class what their fathers do for a living?
Uh, he does the laundry.
Of course, there is more to life than money. In some situations the woman might make more money but the man will be sufficiently accomplished in his own field, in a field that commands respect, that he will maintain his pride and feel that he is contributing to the family prestige and reputation.
A judge might make less than a law partner; a diplomat might make less than an investment banker. Yet these careers also offer high levels of prestige.
When Benhold’s article appeared a few days ago, certain feminists, who shall not be named, went into denial mode. The feminist world view involves engineering men and women to the point where they become perfect equals, that is, where they become the same.
When reality offers a negative verdict on these fictions, feminists deny.
One feminist garnered plaudits for indulging in an orgy of anecdotalism. She went out and interviewed a few male graduate students and happily heard them swear that they are not threatened by successful powerful women. Link here.
If a 35 year old female managing director were looking to marry a graduate student or a bartender, this would be relevant.
Under the circumstances it serves merely to deny reality.
For my part I was especially impressed by the words of a French psychoanalyst who offered this explanation of why men have difficulty staying married to women breadwinners: “Socially, they go against millennia of beliefs and stereotypes that see them as the breadwinner. And the success of their partner also often gives them a feeling of personal failure,”
Millennia? How many millennia are necessary before we can accept that when something has always been one way, it has been that way for a reason. Or better, because it is natural.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Most of us who are male know that no matter what we do we are not only doing for ourselves. We understand that much of our life and earnings will eventually be shared with a wife, et al.
Much of feminism has been and still is all about the woman's desires and wishes. It has, whether true or not, a sense of selfishness and a failure to prepare to give to a spouse, et al.
The mistake here is that believing that attaining a position of power in business makes one strong. The question is why should any man want to take the chance on a woman who has demonstrated that only her wishes and desires are important. Now she wishes something else and now some man is supposed to make her wishes come true. It is still all about her and what she wants.
I would do the same thing if I was single because she has never really demonstrated a willingness to compromise which is extremely important in a two way relationship.
Men are not the entertainment directors on the cruise ship of life who are supposed to make women happy when they want to be happy.
TO: All
RE: The 'STRONG' Woman
Interesting article, that.
The distaff agrees with it—for the most part—based on what she has said over the last 18 years.
She's smarter than I am. She's a better shot—with a pistol—than I. She made more money than I.
Oddly enough, that didn't 'bother' me. [Note: Maybe that's because I've frequently referred to myself as a 'lower life form', like so much 'slime-mold'.]
Her comments indicated that most men shied away from her after a while. Her thoughts were that she was too 'strong' for them. She's pretty darned 'smart'. Smarter, in many respects, than I am. On the other hand, I'm pretty well 'educated' and 'smart', albeit in other venues. I'm also more 'forceful'. [Note: As one superior officer once put it, "All I need to do with him is give him some basic guidance, orient him at the objective and turn him loose.] Together, we make quite a team.
But, back to the topic at hand, I suspect a lot of so-called 'men' have issues with women that they can't 'control'. And therein lies their 'personal problem': 'control'. Billy Joel had a song from way-back-when titled, "It's a Matter of Trust". One of the verses went....
Some love is just a matter of soul.
A constant battle for;
The ultimate state of control.
Who, in their right mind, wants to get into THAT? As Joel continues.....
When you've heard lie upon lie;
It's hardly a question of 'why'.
The lady you mention in the article who saw what she thought was a 'good thing' walk away is likely better off without him. After all, even though they 'connected on so many levels', at the end, if they can't 'trust' each other, they're better off going their own ways.
This brings up how does a woman in her situation FIND a mate at this late 'state of the game'.
Well....Susan found me in her 40s. She was referred to me by her confidant when she bewailed her, similar, circumstance of being too smart for her own good. [Note: By the way, we first met through Mensa. She and our future matron of honor, attended a function I was hosting. Later, I grabbed her as she walked past at a holiday function held at the Denver Museum of Natural History. She in something pink and harem-esque. I in my dress blues and the man who was our Best Man, in a t-shirt with a cigar saying "I was rolled in Jamaica. The event photog caught the moment. We used the threesome photo to advertise, "We're getting married.]
What's my point?
[1] Hang in there.
[2] Hang out with people on a par with you.
[3] Look deeper than mere conversation. There's more to life than the superficial. MUCH MORE.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I need to point my two daughters at this thread. Particularly the younger. She's smarter than you, me and Susan....put together. I suspect she's already having these sorts of issues.
P.S You CAN "have it all"....
....but it may not be the 'all' you were thinking of.
What's the point?
God is in 'control'.
And indeed. The proverbial phrase, "My cup runneth over" IS true.....you just need to trust Someone who IS 'trustworthy', to make it all happen.
TO: All
RE: Dennis & the Feminists
He has a point. After going through two such wives, it's a good idea to avoid for any smart man to any woman who manifests such tendencies. Hence why many men avoid women who they suspect are smarter than they are.
What's a guy to do?
I recommend looking for a good Christian woman. And THEN the challenge becomes HOW does one identify such?
The lady in the article strikes me as being a 'good start', BUT where is her 'faith'? In herself? Or in some Higher Power?
I think I've mentioned that point before, in another thread on this blog. Something to do with Proverbs 31:10+. [Note: Sorry I can't grab the link from my present situation....on the back deck by the fire pit, smoking a cigar, enjoying a cigar and typing on my iPad. The 'tech' isn't quite up to accessing the internet OR my server from this device. Maybe the 'next generation' will allow for that. In the meantime, suggest people search the web on "bible", "proverbs 31".]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Who can find a good woman. Her worth is greater than rubies.....]
So, Chuck is saying that his wife was smart enough to marry an officer... not necessarily the highest paid profession but one with great prestige attached, as I was trying to say.
And let's not mix up smart with managing director. The problem some women have is the title, the status associated with it, not so much the fact that they are smart.
A woman in a profession that is more associated with women, and who is very smart and successful, would not be having the same problems.
It is not about being smarter than someone else. The Peter Principle denotes the rise of many an individual to their level of incompetence. A position DOES NOT imply intellect, smarts or almost any other definition of greatness.
I have never understood why men are supposed to be afraid of women if they find certain ones of then objectionable for what ever reason. That seems to me to smack of a great deal of bigotry and misandry.
A good relationship is comprised of the "smarts" of both individuals. There are areas that my wife is much stronger/smarter than I and there are areas where I am stronger/smarter than she. It is called synergy. Of course after a significant number of years we kind of have figured those things out.
The woman in question seems to me has made her bed and now wants to change the sheets to meet her current desires and wishes. The bed is still hers. There seems to be no "ours." The level of apparent selfishness may be what turns most men away.
Respect is a two way street as is all the other "niceties" of human interactions. You have to give in order to receive.
TO: Dr. Schneiderman
RE: 'Prestige', Anyone?
....not necessarily the highest paid profession but one with great prestige attached.... -- Stuart Schneiderman
It depends on who your talking to. I seem to recall another thread down the hall from here, wherein I described a number of encounters with people who didn't think it was such a 'prestigious' profession. Things along the lines of being called 'baby killer', spat upon, told that I would not be served in their establishment.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Prestige is in the eye of the beholder.]
Mr. Pelto, I think you said it in the end. Prestige is in the eye of the beholder. You value your job and what you contribute. Your value is not dependent on what some think of your given profession. If I were Dr. Schneiderman, instead of prestige, I would have used some thing more along the lines of self-worth. I don't see the man's, "feeling," coming from the prestige granted by the job, but what he's feels he in contributing, to society, family, or to himself. I think reputation doesn't even cover it. It may go back to a modified version of, "bringing home th bacon." It's so much as a money issue these days, but what does a man feel he can bring?
This brings to mind a classroom father show-n- tell (do they still do those?). The kids see a Marine Gunnery Sergeant, a Policeman, a Fireman, and the laundry folder. In the kids’ eyes, whose dad seems the coolest? Whose kid is going to feel the most proud of their dad up there? Do you guys remember in grade school, maybe you were too civil, the old, "My dad can beat up your dad." When I was 6ish years old, my companions were already jockeying for status via our dads. Now, the above is a probably rather barbaric. It did give some kids a feeling of pride if their dad wasn't a super star. At least he was tough. In modern times, this may not be an important a distinction. I do feel it maybe have relevance in how the male mind is wired.
Back to the main point, I think Dennis may have a point, if true. The lady in question may be seen by men, “through a male lens," and not necessarily through a feminine. What qualities has she demonstrated that makes her as a valuable female mate? What subtle evolutionary markers is he picking up? He saw her title, did a series of subconscious data points click in the back of his mind? What is the typical male looking for in a mate? Did this woman display these things? One small item that comes to mind is fertility. Which female would give the subconscious queues for being a viable fertile mate in the male brain? Maybe I'm reaching, but that's one consideration I hope.
Further more, would this woman be seen as a competitor, if they are in the same business world? This guy she just met may be turned off more because he subconsciously sees her as a threat in his business world. It may have any thing to do with who she is. Couple the notion with Dennis' thoughts, she maybe a bad liability.
From my own perspective, I'd say a woman whom made more money isn't a problem. It's more along the idea of what did the man bring to the relationship and what do I contribute, again, to family, society, and myself. It's not necessarily prestige, or reputation. When I read the part about attending a party with the alpha business males, my first thought was, "I wonder how they'd stack up in a physical confrontation?" I could care less if they are presidents of companies or not. Not to mention a jackass is still a jackass no matter the clothing. It reminds me of Gates or Soros. I might be a bit jealous of their money, but they are just philanthropists. Instead of doing work to help starting new businesses or actively working to get people out of a rut, they just dump money and say to raise taxes. These men are not very good role models in my opinion. To me, their worth is nothing more than they amount of their money.
One other random consideration before I shut up. I think part of the equation, only hinted at and not necessarily in a good light, is what can you do for her. Are you nothing more than a boy-toy that folds laundry? Not an envious position to me. Assuming she's not selfish and is willing to compromise and give reciprocity, can the male in question meet these ideas? I would guess reciprocity would be a hard one to give to some one that is so successful. Why does she need you beyond a little romance?
Mr. Pelto, I think you said it in the end. Prestige is in the eye of the beholder. You value your job and what you contribute. Your value is not dependent on what some think of your given profession. If I were Dr. Schneiderman, instead of prestige, I would have used some thing more along the lines of self-worth. I don't see the man's, "feeling," coming from the prestige granted by the job, but what he's feels he in contributing, to society, family, or to himself. I think reputation doesn't even cover it. It may go back to a modified version of, "bringing home th bacon." It's so much as a money issue these days, but what does a man feel he can bring?
This brings to mind a classroom father show-n- tell (do they still do those?). The kids see a Marine Gunnery Sergeant, a Policeman, a Fireman, and the laundry folder. In the kids’ eyes, whose dad seems the coolest? Whose kid is going to feel the most proud of their dad up there? Do you guys remember in grade school, maybe you were too civil, the old, "My dad can beat up your dad." When I was 6ish years old, my companions were already jockeying for status via our dads. Now, the above is a probably rather barbaric. It did give some kids a feeling of pride if their dad wasn't a super star. At least he was tough. In modern times, this may not be an important a distinction. I do feel it maybe have relevance in how the male mind is wired.
Back to the main point, I think Dennis may have a point, if true. The lady in question may be seen by men, “through a male lens," and not necessarily through a feminine. What qualities has she demonstrated that makes her as a valuable female mate? What subtle evolutionary markers is he picking up? He saw her title, did a series of subconscious data points click in the back of his mind? What is the typical male looking for in a mate? Did this woman display these things? One small item that comes to mind is fertility. Which female would give the subconscious queues for being a viable fertile mate in the male brain? Maybe I'm reaching, but that's one consideration I hope.
Further more, would this woman be seen as a competitor, if they are in the same business world? This guy she just met may be turned off more because he subconsciously sees her as a threat in his business world. It may have any thing to do with who she is. Couple the notion with Dennis' thoughts, she maybe a bad liability.
From my own perspective, I'd say a woman whom made more money isn't a problem. It's more along the idea of what did the man bring to the relationship and what do I contribute, again, to family, society, and myself. It's not necessarily prestige, or reputation. When I read the part about attending a party with the alpha business males, my first thought was, "I wonder how they'd stack up in a physical confrontation?" I could care less if they are presidents of companies or not. Not to mention a jackass is still a jackass no matter the clothing. It reminds me of Gates or Soros. I might be a bit jealous of their money, but they are just philanthropists. Instead of doing work to help starting new businesses or actively working to get people out of a rut, they just dump money and say to raise taxes. These men are not very good role models in my opinion. To me, their worth is nothing more than they amount of their money.
One other random consideration before I shut up. I think part of the equation, only hinted at and not necessarily in a good light, is what can you do for her. Are you nothing more than a boy-toy that folds laundry? Not an envious position to me. Assuming she's not selfish and is willing to compromise and give reciprocity, can the male in question meet these ideas? I would guess reciprocity would be a hard one to give to some one that is so successful. Why does she need you beyond a little romance?
Woofty,
Your last paragraph sums it up rather well. Same point I was making with the "bed and sheet" metaphor or the "entertainment director on the cruise ship of life" metaphor. Just maybe we males are not as shallow and callow as some would like to think.
TO: woofty & Denis, et al.
RE: Not 'Reciprocity'....
Assuming she's not selfish and is willing to compromise and give reciprocity, can the male in question meet these ideas? -- woofty
....Per Se. Unless you look at it from a particularly 'peculiar', i.e., christian, perspective.
That perspective is that each things the other is more important than themselves. I've been through two marriage-divorce situations.
The first was one in which I thought I was the more important factor. That one failed when she got her CPA and started sleeping with a senior partner of the successful firm she worked at.
The second was one in which I thought we were equals. However, she didn't care much for paying her share of the expenses.
This third effort, each of us thinks the other is more important that our naturally-selfish selves. And this relationship has lasted longer the other two put together.
So, in a manner of speaking, 'reciprocity' DOES work. However, it's a very unique form. One not so much of self-deprecation, but rather of having more love for the other than for oneself.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Who can find a virtuous woman? Then again, how can a man be 'virtuous' with such a woman?]
TO: All
RE: Back to My 'Point'
The point is that you CAN 'have it all'. It's just that you can't have it all YOUR WAY.
It's a paradox. Of the proverbial first order. How is it you can have it all, but NOT 'your way'.
You tell me....
....what YOU think of that.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For the power of paradox;
Opens your eyes;
And blinds those;
Who say they can see. -- Michael Card, God's Own Fool]
This article never said what was on the man's business card, or the woman executive's reaction to it!
Telling omission! Why is only the man's reaction of interest?
What if we turned the tables and saw that, printed on the man's card was the title "janitor? " Would the woman exec. have been immediately and irrevocably turned off? You betcha!
The Dennis Prager radio show last Wednesday (Dec. 1) discussed "what men want from women", and first on the list was to be admired by a woman.
Consider a male party guest with a good education but not much job prestige, an engineer for example, meeting the successful woman described in the article.
I can imagine the man seeing the prestigious senior management title on the woman's business card and freezing up, knowing he ultimately has little chance with the woman.
Honestly, how many successful women like our managing director would admire, for very long, a guy with less status and money than herself?
It could happen, but I'd bet against it.
I feel for the managing director and wish her well, but the man probably has a better chance with the younger woman who may not yet be so jaded.
TO: Susan
RE: Heh
What if we turned the tables and saw that, printed on the man's card was the title "janitor? " Would the woman exec. have been immediately and irrevocably turned off? You betcha! -- Susan
Would that be a matter of overweened 'pride' on her part? They're hitting it off marvelously. At a party they were both invited too, i.e., they are considered 'peers' by the host[ess].
How very 'odd' that a woman would walk away from a soul-mate based on the 'job description'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. You seem to have an 'issue' here....what is it?
To Chuck (le):
Thanks for your reply!
My point is that men aren't the only ones potentially turned off by the revelation of the opposite sex's profession. Women can be just as prejudiced as men, in this regard. It is of course all very sad, when, as you say, the two were hitting it off splendidly without knowing the other's profession.
On the other hand, two people who hit it off at a party are not necessarily going to hit it off long term anyway--the other person's social standing is just one area of possible contention--albeit an important one-- out of hundreds. Many a good relationship in fact, has a very rocky start. In fact, I wonder if there exist stats on such a phenomenon.
Best Regards
Susan
TO: Susan
RE: Preaching....
On the other hand, two people who hit it off at a party are not necessarily going to hit it off long term anyway.... -- Susan
....to the 'Choir'. Please refer to ex #2 as described in an earlier post in this thread.
....the other person's social standing is just one area of possible contention--albeit an important one-- out of hundreds. -- Susan
And therein is MY point. Some people have 'issues' with THAT aspect that overwhelm the chance at 'having it all'. In the Army we refer to it as a 'self-inflicted wound'.
Something to do with 'pride', as I commented before.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Life is a bowl of merde and 'relationships' is the spoon.]
TO: Dr. Schneiderman
RE: A Potential Topic for Future 'Study'....
....what goes into a 'long-term' relationship?
Additional topical thread ideas:
[1] How does one get over short-term 'issues': Yours and Theirs?
[2] How does one get over long-term 'issues': Yours and Theirs?
[3] What are 'key indicators' of 'success' and/or 'failure' in long and short term relationships?
Just some thoughts.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Enquiring minds want to know....]
Excellent points Susan. It does work both ways.
I have to point out, as an exec assistant (successful, does well financially, good education but an exec assistant) in NYC, I get the brush off for not being a "professional" or going to the right school. In my experience the last 20 years, people, men and women, marry their equals. It's rare these days for some big shot executive to marry his assistant. Besides the legal office issues (no frat rules, if they break up, she may sue, his career is ruined), most people don't see the job as good enough. Almost all the young assistants have to let you know that they are an assistant, "and a writer/interior decorator/whatever."
Anyway, to Susan's point, it's all a negotiation. If I were the woman in the story, I wouldn't take it so personally. Why do you want to be with someone who doesn't want to be with you. That was always the story line in SATC. Big is a jerk. Why do you want this jerk who doesn't want you? Waste of time
Post a Comment