The Badger Herald: Opinion: Study shows disadvantage for powerful women, but why?

Opinion

Study shows disadvantage for powerful women, but why?

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Rachel Alkon:

Monday, October 31, 2005 12:00 a.m.

6 Vote 0 Votes

Girls, drop your newspapers, books, and classes! There's an anti-feminist trend emerging. "Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide," a new book by the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, discusses why smarter women are less attractive candidates for long-term relationships.

To support her claim about men's desire for brainless ladies, Dowd cites a 2004 study led by Dr. Stephanie Brown, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. The research, conducted on 320 undergraduates, revealed that "powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less accomplished women."

If this is the case, then all of us striving for a leadership role — in college and at work — are ineligible candidates as girlfriends and wives. But does a woman's academic prowess really impede upon her to maintain a relationship? Are men really that intimidated by intelligent, free-thinking women?

On a campus with a liberal reputation, in era of increasingly flexible gender roles, one would assume that independent women are in high demand. Who wants to date a beauty-queen moron? I'd hope the supposed "open-minded" boys in Madison would hate to see their girlfriends in a subordinate role. What happened to equality in relationships? What's so attractive about "less accomplished" women? Maybe she'll be more prone to wash underwear or reorganize a boyfriend's room?

It's true — smart girls are somewhat threatening, and often perceived, or misconceived, as demanding, critical, and too intelligent. But why does this laundry list of qualities scare men and place women at a disadvantage in the meat market?

I'm hesitant to agree that a box of rocks is more attractive than a bold, sharp and motivated woman. Try pursuing a serious relationship with a brainless chick — at first she may make you melt, but beyond that her appeal will quickly dwindle. Try discussing politics with an idiot and you will be left arguing with a blank wall. And while that outspoken girl from lecture may tangle a boyfriend into a few steamy debates, criticize his wardrobe, and ultimately fail to fit the mother-role he craves, she'll turn out to be an admirable role model, capable of offering solid, realistic advice and insightful, stimulating discussion.

Men, by retaining the intellectual upper hand, possess total sovereignty over their significant others. Dowd interviewed a New York producer, who explained that men "prefer women who seem malleable and awed." Okay, let's analyze this statement: "malleable" — synonymous with pliable and flexible, terms associated with a subservience and eagerness to bend toward man's desires; and "awed" — meaning frightened or intimidated. Does this mean men want to marry Barbie dolls they can twist and turn on a whim?

Is retaining control worth sacrificing a partner's intelligence? While selfless mates may be nurturing and caring, independent women make for better partners. Dumb gals can be lusty eye-candy, but after spending a few days or years with this person a man will become vexed and inundated with nothingness. In the short-term, a dim-witted woman can satisfy a man's needs, but in the long-term idiotic females become burdensome and reliant on their partners' advice for every trivial decision.

If Dowd and Brown have drawn accurate conclusions, men need to reevaluate their preferences for "malleable" girls. The University of Michigan study shows that guys may have unrealistic perceptions about the opposite sex. But when it comes to relationships, men cannot "have their cake and eat it too." Opposites attract, but do they endure?

And women can also learn a valuable lesson from Dowd: Even though a psychological study reveals a shift away from feminism, women should stick to their ambitious goals. Without their own share of power and money, women will remain dependent, and "be mere domestic robots, lasering their legs and waxing their floors — or vice versa — and desperately seeking a new Betty Friedan."

Rachel Alkon (rfalkon@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in English/creative writing.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | October 31, 2005 8:06 AM | Reply
IP hash: 56d7862f

Rachel, it’s not just men who have unrealistic perceptions about the opposite sex. For starters, it’s not independent women who make men feel uneasy, it’s man-haters they despise. Many women who acquire authority over others, whether through a management position or through winning a mayoral election or better, tend to go on automatic once they’re seated in that higher position. They immediately anticipate resistance from their male subordinates. THAT is where the problem begins! Could a woman possibly be more unrealistic(read naive) to believe that every male on the face of the Earth will throw up his arms and proclaim the end of manhood as we know it just because is new boss is female?

Seriously, I’d prefer to be in a relationship with a woman who is educated, who has professional aspirations well beyond sitting at home, cleaning house, watching soap operas and Oprah all day and munching down on Russell Stover until she’s-I’m gonna say it-twice the woman I originally proposed to. True love grows, but that’s not the idea I had in mind, okay? So keep up the paper chase, get a jobe and live happily ever after, but give the decent men who support women’s causes due respect while you’re at it. God only knows these guys have put up with enough already.

Cheers!

Anonymous | October 31, 2005 9:56 AM | Reply
IP hash: ec7eaeea

But what about educated chicks who are laid back and not worried about gender roles and feminism? It’s not fair to say that every woman who’s a stay-at-home mother is “ignorant.”

Anonymous | October 31, 2005 12:18 PM | Reply
IP hash: 97454428

The problem is Dowd equates her bitchy leftism as “intelligence” and thus concludes that intelligent women can’t find a husband.

Anonymous | October 31, 2005 1:54 PM | Reply
IP hash: 42cad11c

This phenomenon explains so much. I always wondered why there were so many lonely supermodels in graduate programs.

Anonymous | October 31, 2005 4:48 PM | Reply
IP hash: 56d7862f

Rachel, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason women at the top didn’t last long is because everyone finally got tired of listening to them whine and complain and take cheap shots at men who aren’t even opposing them? ’90s feminism is dead already! Women themselves killed it with overkill. Gone. History, er, I mean, Herstory.

Anonymous | October 31, 2005 7:08 PM | Reply
IP hash: 8222fee6

I think this research is right on the money, based on my personal experience with males who tend to be intimidated by my accomplishments. It’s hard to find a guy who is cool, ambitious and not threatened by a strong woman who also happens to be in a leadership position. I am sure these men exist but they are not as visible or even available, because a smart man is probably not single. It’s a numbers game, there are just too many smart women and the number of guys who like that is smaller than the number of us! Good luck, ladies!