All of the couples I know that have lasted are of generally equal intelligence. I can't imagine wanting to be involved with someone I couldn't talk to or someone who did not want to talk to me. Doesn't work in the long run.

Well, you asked for a guy's opinion.

Personally, I can’t date a girl unless she’s intelligent. In fact, my last 2 girlfriends, and my current one, are all smarter than me (in my opinion). So Jess, I agree with you on that part that Dowd’s idea that guys want a "ditzy cheerleader type" is wrong (at least for me).

But I disagree with you about your ascertain that these studies are not valid. I’m not saying they are valid or non valid. But… from the tone of your rejection of the studies in question (and others the site has mentioned in the past), it seems as though you are disagreeing with them simply because of their conclusions rather than their scientific merit. As someone in science, I have to find scientific merit in any study if its samples are valid, statistics add up and follows correct scientific thought – even if I don’t “like” the conclusion. I am not sure of the polling method used in these actual studies, but a scientific poll (different from a “poll”) showing that, for example, women with high IQs are less likely to marry seems easy enough to be scientifically valid, even if you or I may not “like” the results. I guess it's just the scientist in me...

James, it's not so much that I don't "like" the results...it's more that I don't agree with the conclusions that are come to from the results. For example, let's say that statistically it is true that women with higher IQs are less likely to marry. Now is that really because men don't want to marry smart women? Why isn't the conclusion that smart women just don't want to get married? I just think that the way the conlcusions are made is sketchy and based in stereotypes.

My favorite quote:

"Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists..."

Of course, Dowd doesn't label the guys who want a Stepford fembot for a partner as "selfish narcissists".

I agree with your general assessment that folk of comparable intellect (you may want to include, generally, race, creed, age, beauty, education, social status, pay scale, etc. etc. et. al....) become couples.

(Most of the below is mere supposition.)

In Ms. Dowd's case it seems as if she's envious of those women coupled with rich, powerful men that she deems less worthy than herself somehow.

I suspect rich & powerful men don't have time to play games when it come to the time they have to devote to romance. (You can always tell what is most important to a person by the amount of time that they invest in it each day.)

As a columnist, I suspect that Ms. Dowd takes pride in her opinions. It makes sense to me that someone rich & powerful would be no less opinionated. Does she feel personally rejected if the person of her affections doesn't share, or even rejects, her views? I don't know.

I do know that people get together with (& stay with) people because they like how they feel about themselves when they are with those people.

An examination of what she needs & wants from a partner is in order; what she can & cannot stand; & how her presence in people's lives enriches or detracts from them.
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
Adieu, Adéesse, & Blest be,
The Kentucky Pagan Forum Moderator
Lucien D'Cœur
a.k.a. Jerry M. Chaney II

"There is no greater Power than Knowledge;
There is no greater Knowledge than Love;
& no greater Love than the Empowerment of another."

P.S. I very much enjoy your Blog. :)

I have a conflict of interest here, because if most men don't want to be with intelligent, thinking women, then that increases my dating opportunities...

Jess, I agree in a way. Having had to read a few billion medical articles, and having worked on a few of my own, I am skeptical on a lot of "statistics" findings. Not that they are necessarily invalid, just that many times I feel that the conclusion can very well be created from the desired results.

But it still seems like you have a bias towards studies that have conclusions you support versus those you do not. In a very respectful way of saying it, I agree that many wage-gap studies you cite may very well be accurate. But I highly doubt you would approve of a scientific study showing a lack of a wage-gap (or a scientific explanation explaining the wage-gap not being what those studies show it to be). And, it's ok to admit that.

And btw, having bias isn't a bad thing. I admit I will give more credibility to a study showing doctors are wrongfully sued rather than one showing gross incompitance of doctors. Does that mean I have bias? Sure. Everyone does. Look at Al Frankin: he objects to Fox News because he says they have a slogan that says "Fair and Balanced." He admits he isn't fair and balanced, but he doesn't pretend to be. He openly says he will always believe a left issue over a right, even before hearing the facts. Admitting a bias is something nearly every editorial journalist eventually does.

Positive assortment. It's a concept worthy of study. This is a minor problem overall, most people meet, and marry people who are much like themselves. What Dowd and others are commenting on is by an large an 'outlier' issue. It's not uncommon, but it's certainly not the norm. This is in fact well known in biological circles. Less than 1/3 of the population have Bachelor degrees. The further you advance in education the smaller the pool of likely cohorts will be, IF you want an 'exact match'. Still, some of the smartest people you'll ever meet may not have any fancy degrees. This is where the stats may break down.

And yes, most males well know that feminism is not a fuckin' dating service. Never was, & probably never meant to be.

As a man I thought the article was scary, but only because it made me think about how I have felt in the past about dating someone who holds a job that carries more clout or earns a larger salary than me. Honestly, five years ago it would have really bothered me. Now, it really dosen't threaten my sense of self-importance - which it shouldn't - and I don't spend any time worrying about it.

But I do think Dowd made some good points. For example she wrote something to the effect of: men feeling like women would cheat on them or leave them if they were in a relatively less powerful position. I can see where she is coming from there. I think a lot of men would feel that way - right or wrong.

I also feel like the tone of her argument was more critical of men rather than critical of feminism.

"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 think this quote is simply saying it is ridiculous that, generally, men don't want to speak to intelligent women. Dowd is absolutely right. She then explains that there are scientific studies that support a biological reason for men's tendency to be driven away from women who are well educated, successful and independent. Whether you buy into the study or not, Dowd is just citing it as food for thought. That really is all that editorials are supposed to do.

I certainly don't think a woman of her stature in the media would ever take back the great strides feminism has made for American women in the past decades. She is at the top of her field, which is something that would have been impossible in the 1970's.

We might not like some of the realities she wrote about. But she is right to ask those questions because it is an issue that men and women are going to have to become more comfortable with because this is the way it is going to be. It seems that men have the majority of the adjustments to make, but that won't make it any easier or make it happen faster.

Even if you don't like her conclusions (although it is sometimes hard to tell what they are because she is so sarcastic), at least she inspires thinking. This piece made me think a lot.

I thought the op-ed was a fucking crock. Why anyone takes this woman seriously is beyond me. The things I always thought feminism best represnted are rarely showcased by these kinds of self-important media whores. My wife is strong, thoughtful, smart, and a professional. This has (as far as I can tell) in no way impacted our relationship, except that she's someone I can point to and be proud of. As proof positive of the inanity of the article, I need to quote just one sentence:

"(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?)"

Kelly. Ripa. Gargh.

Jeez.

James, correlation does not imply causation. There may be dozens of hypotheses explaining the supposed negative correlation of female IQ and female rate of marriage in the sample population, but the study as presented in the popular press did not do further studies to differentiate between teh dozens of hypotheses. (I can't speak to the validity of the design, sample, statistical instrument used, etc, since I haven't seen the study itself). Don't make the study do more than it was designed to do, is a good rule of thumb. Yes, a certain amount of bloviating is expected in the "discussion" section, and as long as the bloviating isn't total asshatery, reviewers tolerate the handwaving. But it is dumped in a paragraph at the end of the paper, not in the Results section!

Nancy - I totally agree, and thats a point I was going towards. Without seeing the (boring, mundane, snorefest) "Results" and "Methods" section of the study (which I am sure you are familiar with), it is pure speculation as to whether or not it's a legit paper.

I was still just pointing out (without judging, just pointing out based on observation) that it's interesting that the editors of this site place scientific merit to studies that furthers their ideology (morning after pills doesn't lead to increased sexual activity), whereas they would dismiss a study that goes against it (these studies) for no better reasons than the reasons they feel the studies they support are in fact legitimate. It's just interesting to see.

I've said this before, but I think first marriages of college-educated people are often of equals -- more so than pre-feminism. But once people get up into their 40s and 50s, I have to say I think the men disproportionately want younger women. Not necessarily "service" women, in fact sometimes quite accomplished and ambitious women -- but younger, which gives the man a permanent advantage. It doesn't work the other way around very often. Not too many 60 year old women with 40 year old men, not too many female professors leaving their husbands for their grad students etc.

James,

There's a difference between the two studies you use as examples of "interesting" ideological bias. The fact that a study shows that there is no *correlation* between morning after pills and increased sexual activity means that, by definition, there can be no *causation*.

However, a correlation between intelligence and single status may be factual (as folks here have been saying), but any assertion of causation needs more than evidence of correlation to make it true.

In the intelligence study, the data can be explained in ways that support either ideological position (though one might argue that a theory that takes power relations into account is more complete than one that doesn't), but the morning after pill study soundly refutes claims that availability of the pills makes irresponsible sexual activity more likely... until there's a whole other study with different results, or a problem is found with methodology.

It's not just a matter of opinion or ideology.

all i have to say, without engaging in the details of this debate, is that i'm supre grateful for someone to call dowd out on her bullshit view of feminism. i hate her reactionary adrian rich's "exceptional woman" mishegos. 'nuff said.

If you really want to get worked up, read David Brooks's barefoot & pregnant raveup in today's NY Times.

In response to Katha Pollit's comment, "but younger, which gives the man a permanent advantage": is age the most important consideration in terms of advantage? There's also money, sexual attractiveness, energy, etc. If she controls his access to sex--ie, her--she may well have a different advantage, although probably not permanent, as she may well be replaced by a younger model 10 or 20 years down the line. If they stay together, he will be frail when she's vigorous--definitely a different power differential. Whatever the details, I'm not convinced that older age, per se, is a permanent advantage.

By the way, Katha, thanks for your years of wonderful and important work.

Katha, I wonder if that will change as "Generation X" ages.

Wendy, "controlling access to sex" is not something a younger woman can do, absent locking her older lover in a cage. He can always go find a second younger woman.

I wrote pretty extensively about this on my blog. What really irks me is that she's presenting a patriarchal goal as an evolutionary directive. The only thing that makes female fidelity an issue is patrilineal inheritance. There is no biological advantage, just a political one.

What I don't understand is why people bother at all about who wants to marry whom?

If some or even most men want submissive women, where is the problem? There is nothing forcing women to marry these men.

I heard about Maureen Dowd's article not from this blog, but from my mother. She is a 59 year old widow who has been spending the last couple of years figuring out who, why, what she is without my father. The article resonated deeply with her, as she always played that stereotypical service role for him but never saw her plight put into words. Granted, times are changing, everyone is different, and the rules that defined their marraige should not be applied universally. Yet such relationships (dominant male/submissive female)do in fact exist and can continue for years (thirty, in the case of my parents). I for one, am not planning on playing that role and none of my friends fit the mold at all, either. My exposure to what took place between my parents, and many of their friends and relatives is what propels me. This article may be what propels my mother to rethink her submissive tendencies and perhaps stop watching crappy movies like Love Actually.

peter, the issue isn't about two people in a vacuum choosing to marry. It's the larger issue of whether men are threatened by the idea of a woman as an equal, and see female adoration (one-way) as their right.

In the Chicago Tribune, the article I read concerning this study said that during the study, most of the researchers walked away from it due to disagreements with the lead researcher about how the findings were made. This makes me a bit suspicious about not only the study's conclusions, but also the reason behind why the study was undertaken. Also, I'd be interested in knowing who funded the study.

So, intelligent women are less likely to marry. Perhaps it is the intelligent women who do not want the men - rather than the men not wanting the intelligent women. Of course, this would never occur to David Brooks.

In response to Wendy Writer's point that age is not the only power differential in a marriage (and thank you for the kind words re my writing!): Yes, true. In many ways the younger woman has a lot of power. The older man may be for example very grateful to her for giving him this fresh start at love, sex, maybe fatherhood. What I meant was that his being older -- having more knowledge, experience--was one thing that worked in his favor. Even if he is not the most successful 50 year old man in the world, he is probably more advanced than a 35 year old woman (at least one that would want to marry him). A lot of woman have a Daddy thing going for older men, so they WANT that feeling of being with someone who is older and wiser.
As for the decrepitude of age, that works entirely in men's favor. They have a young strong woman to take care of them, unlike a man married to a woman the same age. And the chance is much less that he, the older man, will have to take care of a younger wife.
The younger wife, on the other hand, spends her early middle age taking care of the aged man, and then he dies and she is rather old to find herself a new mate--the men her own age want younger women, the older men are too old (or dead). So she ends up alone with no spouse to take care of her when she is old.
There is really no downside in younger women from the man's perspective. There are many downsides to older men from a younger woman's perspective, but they unfold over time.

Wanting to be with somebody older and wiser isn't necessarily a Daddy thing (though it is for some, I agree). We live in a culture that encourages men to be irresponsible well into their 20s or even 30s--from a younger woman's perspective, an older man may seem like a much more reliable, mature choice than a man her own age.

I think Dowd is saying that feminism's promises of "equality" and "having it all" has run smack into the wall of men's ego -- *not* that feminism itself is bad.

Based on what I'm hearing (been having a lot of conversations about this with men lately), she's (unfortunately) not far off the mark.

The thinking goes like this: men define themselves based on their ability to provide and protect. If a woman can provide and/or protect herself, why would she need him? What can he do for her? Why would she want him? In exchange for providing and protecting, she's supposed to care and nurture him and the family. How can she do that if she's working 12 hour days as a VP?

In other words, a successful woman is a direct threat to his sense of "manhood" and family. (Yeah, we need new expectations/definitions of manhood, but I digress.)

This is a trend that has been going on in the black community for decades now, and we're starting to see the same trends in American culture at large.

It's a sad, but *very ugly truth* about American gender roles that feminism hasn't fully addressed, IMO.

Hasn't fully addressed? Didn't Susan Faludi write a whole darn book about the topic?

The complaints about feminism ruining your romantic life are not new. Fifteen years ago, Mona Charen was whining that going to Yale Law School ruined her romantic life, and she wasn't the first one to make such complaints.

I have to say, I don't get it. Is being picky such an awful thing? If I said "Insisting on a man who doesn't beat me cuts down on the number of potential dates," people would think I was nuts. Why *wouldn't* you want to reject those guys? Similarly, I guess I don't see the problem with cutting out guys who can't deal with strong, capable women.

Well, based on the marriages I've seen accomplished women in my community make, I'm inclined to question simplistic either/or categories when it comes to the way we weigh a choice as important as marriage. Age and income are only two among a multitude of factors any of us consider when making a decision that important.

I know an attorney who married a fellow who owns a bookstore. He makes a fraction of what she earns, but has control over his schedule that lends itself very well to parenting. Maybe Mo Dowd's ideas about who is an appropriate/equal partner for a successful woman are themselves relics of pre-feminist times.

If anything, it looks to me like financial independence gives women the freedom to grant their emotional preferences greater weight in choosing a husband and be less concerned with a man's income and professional status. I see women everywhere using that freedom to choose marriages that may seem unconventional to some people, but seem to make those women happy.

Actually, the more I think about it, what seems odd would be to have the material basis for independence and still feel constrained to make choices that others consider appropriate. One of the first things we get from financial independence is the freedom to arrange our lives to please ourselves and freedom from the need to explain or justify our choices.

I see women everywhere who seem to have figured that out and be taking full advantage of it. If Mo Dowd hasn't figured that out yet, she has my sympathies, but to me this looks like a situation where the troops are way ahead of the generals.

Dowd actually has an amazing talent: When she got all snotty about Dr. Dean's wife, I actually felt bad for Dr. Dean, whom I never liked before and still don't. :/ Dowd is just so mindbogglingly pompous and clueless that I avoid her like the plague --or like I ignore *Cathy*, the comic strip. Take your pick.

I fondly recall a column a few years back where she somehow confused the high ratings for *Sex and the City* with the notion that far too many young feminists sincerely believed that the life depicted in the show was something to aspire to, not just to escape into for fun once a week.

Gevalt. [shakes head] Dowd shoulda' gotten out of the Beltway once in awhile and talked to some bona-fide women younger than herself. Her condescending little profile sure didn't match up with any woman I know. Still doesn't. Blecch.

It's just more "what's true for me is true for everyone" journalism. Dowd runs into a lot of pompous, younger-women-chasing men who want to be fawned on, therefore all men are so.

Dowd should get out some. She lives a lifestyle where all women with children have ("colored") nannies whether or not the women work, and where everyone summers in the Hamptons or flies to Paris for a romantic weekend. Nice condo on the Upper East Side, Manhattan. Job where, just like Barbara Bush, you don't have to see the unpleasant side of life. Sure, there are folks pulling the trash at the newspaper or at her agent's, but she doesn't have any responsibility towards them.

In my world, in unfashionable fly-over country, there are all sorts of intelligent young women who are using their intelligence to make the world more livable, as teachers, doctors, clergy, social workers, public interest lawyers and lawyers who do significant pro bono work, etc. I bet a lot of them would be worth an interview. And a fair percentage are married to equally intelligent men.

Oh yeah, and Le Bobo (David Brooks) - love it when the gay guys start berating the women for not breeding.

In dating, I try to find smart, aggressive women to date. However, they're tougher to approach. The asking out on dates, the first kiss etc. seems to always fall to me, and it's easier to make a move on someone that's passive and deferential to my desires.

Poor poor Mike W...chooses passive women because he's not strong enough to attract the kind he 'thinks' he wants. You should wear your penis in shame...tuck it in boy.

Ah, how sweet. Personal attacks...

I never said I didn't get them, I just said it's harder. Part of my point is that being more assertive and aggressive makes you less approachable. More aggressive/assertive men tend to take the initiative and get more social opportunities, but it still seems like few women are asking men out. I realize I'll get an assault of offended folks on this call based on their personal experiences and anecdotes of women that ask men out, but men are still doing the vast majority of asking...

For what it's worth, I sincerely doubt that "aggressive" women are hard to approach. "Aggressive" women tend to be those with interests other than waiting around to be chosen and as such, they are the ones that get out, make friends, have lovers and in general tend to be well-known. Much as we'd like it not to be true, feminists get as many, if not more dates than other women.

i think o'dowd is simply questioning the idea that men can be (and are) okay with women being on the same level as them (and thus want to be with them, too). i don't think that she was saying that women in service industries are dumber than others; it's just that higher education, one of our society's measuring sticks for intelligence, is one of the biggest tickets to those other industries.

it would have been great if she had gotten some non-hollywood sources that see the intelligent woman/man disconnect as a problem. and perhaps she shouldn't have drawn a line between less-wanted women with higher IQs and more-wanted women in secretarial, assistant positions. but i think she makes a valid point by highlighting that many instances in reality and pop culture lately point to the trend of men going towards those whose jobs are to take care of them, rather than those in jobs that help themselves or others.

@mythago: susan faludi wrote a book, but the culture isn't exactly transforming (especially in the south). that's where i think feminism, as practiced, still has room to grow.

again -- and much of what i say is anecdotal -- but i've heard more than a few men express a preference for a woman who takes a traditional role (caretaker, domestic goddess, deferential to her husband) INSIDE the home **regardless** of her social-standing outside of it.

Re Katha Pollit's point: why are these discussions always premised on the idea that men are the demand curve & women the supply?

To the extent to which middle-aged are more likely to end up with younger women... shouldn't we inquire as to why younger women have this sort of icky inclination? As an old-school feminist, my point of view is that as their income potential begins to approach men (and obviously far more progress is needed, so this comment is limited to "successful" women), women ought to be seen as the full author of their own desire. Seeking a Daddy isn't the fault of society, under that view -- its a decision that should be seen as no worse or better than when guys seek women who could be their daughters.

In other words, as integration of the sexes increases, our ability to blame women for their preferences ought to approach the same as it is for men. Goose/gander.

[not saying intra-generational necessarily bad -- just don't see why folks blame all the ickiness on the men, as if adult women cannot choose their mates on their own]