Intelligent and independent

I've been thinking about nudity all week. You know, because that's what I'm supposed to be writing about... How do I feel about nudity? How do I feel about being naked? How do I feel about other people being naked? Am I ashamed to be naked?

It turns out, I'm not sure how I feel. So I've spent some time this week trying to wrap my head around it all.

Only then this article came along and completely derailed my train of thought.

The article, by Maureen Dowd, is an interesting one. She has done an excellent job of both researching and writing it.

For those disinclined to read the mother-long article in its entirety, I've plucked out some interesting quotes.

'"Men", he explained, "prefer women who seem malleable and awed". He predicted that I would never find a mate because if there's one thing men fear, it's a woman who uses her critical faculties'.

'The aroma of male power is an aphrodisiac for women, but the perfume of female power is a turnoff for men'.

'The rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child. For men, the reverse is true'.

'Researchers at four British universities indicated that a high IQ hampers a woman's chance to marry, while it is a plus for men'.

'In this retro world, a woman must play hard to get but stay soft as a kitten. And avoid sarcasm. Altogether'.

Her point is not that equality is not a thing to be grasped. Women can be confident, strong, intelligent, witty, powerful, successful, independent, and wealthy. Rather her point is that such women have a more difficult time finding a mate than do their softer, more stereotypically feminine counter-parts.

Thus far, I've encountered two different schools of thought rebutting the article.

First, women in my church have been discussing the article. Their argument likely won't surprise any of you who are (or ever have been) part of the Christian community. It will probably come as something of a shock (and perhaps even an offence) to those of you without much experience with Christians. The gist of it is that as Christians we're meant to be free of such crap.

Hypothetically speaking, I agree. The behaviours described in the article are a result of mankind's fallen nature, something we should not be bound to. The idea is that only in Christ are we free to be the people we were meant to be.

We — all of us — are unique and we were created to be so. As Christians we should celebrate and embrace that.

We should, but in practice it just doesn't always look that way. In fact, the conduct described in the article is far more prevalent within the Church than without.

It shouldn't be, but it is.

The second rebuttal I found was one written by the brilliantly funny and just plain brilliant Hot Librarian. She entirely disagreed with the article. She says that in spite of the obvious fact that she is smart, strong and sarcastic, men continue to hit on her all the time. Her post makes for a great read; however, in my opinion, she missed the point of the article.

I don't believe Dowd was attempting to communicate that because she is an intellectual, influencial, indominatable woman, men do not find her attractive. It was that because she is all of those things she has had a hard time finding a mate.

And I get that. Like THL, I get hit on a fair amount. But that's the thing: I get hit on. That's not the same as saying that I get asked out all the time or that lots of men are interested in me. I am competent, confident and capable, and men respond to that. Some men like that sort of thing; they're just not looking for wives.

The type of man who shows an interest in me generally makes it abundantly clear that he's not looking for a relationship, just sex. And maybe that's the thing about being an intelligent and independent woman; men assume we just don't need or want a mate. [Silly boys, if only they knew...]

My conclusion? Be who you are. But be prepared for the consequences.

Comments

[j]

the church definitely toute's the idea of 'freedom from the crap' yet they continue to be shocked when people do not toe the invisible lines. happen to swear? oh my gosh! happen to drink? dear lord! talk about sex and the fact you want it as a singleton? holy hell you bought yourself the burning pit.
well, it may not be quite that extreme but it more than has it's moments.

if you are not "needy" as a woman it seems to put a lot of the boys off. for some reason it can be threatening.

little do they know.

[piupiu]

maybe theres something about confidence that suggests to a man the woman in question is not going to rely on them for basic instinctive protection. i'm intelligent etc etc (at leats i hope!) but i also happen to be kind of small, and kind of 'cute' looking...and i get hit on by guys who WANT a relationship. they want all the boring stuff like making dinner together, watching crappy films. i don't generally get hit on so often by those kind of guys who make it clear theyre just after sex...

[FTN]

I can't imagine having a very good relationship with someone who is completely "malleable and awed." Although I suppose it would be a confidence booster for any guy to have an "awed" girlfriend... I might just ask my wife for a bit of awe now and then.

I believe most guys do want a confident woman. But, on the other hand, it is true that extremely powerful, confident, "liberated" women often give off the idea that they don't need a man. Just like you mentioned in the last paragraph. Men definitely enjoy feeling needed.

[KtP]

Wow. Though the link didn't work for me, I'm just floored. I need to think this through.

[virgin]

J: 'Toe the invisible lines'... Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Piupiu: Funny how that goes, eh?

FTN: I think maybe the man in question was over-stating things to make a point. I doubt men want women who walk around in a continual state of awe, but nor do most men want a jaded woman.

And as to the confidence, well there's confidence and then there's confidence, you know? Confidence in certain areas is sexy, but, yep, most men want to feel needed.

KtP: I fixed the links now. And, ya, takes a while to process all the various implications. I don't think the article represents the whole truth. It would be impossible to fully represent the nature of male-female relationships in writing, never mind in 10 or so pages. But it definitely does contain truth. Much as I dislike those truths, I'm not dumb enough to deny them.

[Bliss]

Nahnah, I disagree with that completely. My problem has always been being attracted to the strong-willed sort. :) I am exceptionally anti-wilting flower.

Of course, this may be a by-product of how I was raised - my mother was a drill sergeant in the U.S. Army (no punchline - completely true), and she would eat any "Little Miss Precious" alive were any of us brothers to bring one home. PhD Brother is married to a fireball of a woman who is finishing her PhD quicker than him, so she can put on their mail "Dr. and Mr. ____" :) And, well, we all know about Military Brother and the dominatrix... ;)

Is there a segment of the male population that thinks like that described in the article? Sure - they're the ones they make the "And the Twiiiiiins!" commercials for. But we're not all like that. ;) Not all of us buy into the cultural pigeonholing that men are supposed to fit into .... ;)

[Christy]

This sort of thing bothers me because I'm a strong woman in a committed relationship with a man I wouldn't describe as weak. He's my partner. Sometimes he gets his way, sometimes I get my way, but it all evens out.

We've been together five years and it's been good. If you value success in terms of money, it alternates which one of us makes more and we don't hold it against one another. Hey, money is money and we're both willing to spend it.

I know I got lucky finding someone like him and I honestly never thought it'd happen because I'd been pumped full of this attitude, that intelligent women who know their own mind won't find a boyfriend/husband/lover. But for me, it was less about my perceived strengths and more about the give and take. Yes, I can be sarcastic and bitchy and successful, but I can also be supportive and compromise at the appropriate time. If I was all sarcasm all the time, I wouldn't be any fun to be around.

It also helped that prior to meeting J, I'd spent 23 years alone and knew I could do that indefinitely so I didn't feel the need to settle on someone for the sake of a warm body. Neither of us put any expectations on the relationship. We just had fun and everything else worked itself out.

I'm not able to generalize this because I only know my own experience. But I can tell you if I listened to everybody else, I probably never would've been able to trust any male's intentions. I would've believed the BS that I didn't deserve to be happy because I don't wear makeup and I'm outspoken. Well that's just not true. And any writer who tries to generalize an entire population into neat little categories is using fear to sell her story.

My final thought is that I believe that in order to be in a successful relationship, you have to be comfortable and confident with yourself. No one else can give that to you, but I think that this inner strength makes you much more attractive than all the eyeshadow and nylons in the world.

[Bliss]

Exactly! :) Camus:

"Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend."

[figleaf]

I wonder if this isn't one of those "Seen any elephants? Then tearing up strips of paper must really keep them away." effects.

Is it really the case that dumb or unsuccessful women get asked out more and "hit up on" less, or is it that smart women are sharper at discerning the more subtle ways of being hit on?

For the record I've yet to meet a man who wanted a long-term relationship with a dumb or unsuccessful woman. I'm not saying there aren't such men, but chances are that any women dumber than they are likely to have marks on their foreheads from trying to use a fork.

I'm prepared to believe men aren't interested in women who are more cynical, sarcastic, and irritable than they, but several decades of experience in training and adult education suggests sarcasm and irritability are not the same as intelligence or success but is evenly distributed amongst the population.

Maureen Dowd is a very smart and very successful in her field. In her public persona, at least, she seems brittle-tongued, self-centered, and often surprisingly shallow considering her intelligence and background. Were I single I'd still rather not go out with her either, but her intelligence wouldn't be the deciding factor at all, at all.

Seen any elephants?

figleaf

[virgin]

Okay, listen up everybody! It's not black and white. Stop trying to see rules. There are no rules. Nobody's trying to say all career women don't get married. Nobody's implying that all or even most men marry stupid, star-struck women. It's about trends, statistics and averages. It's all very grey. Got it?

Sorry, the Sarcastrix slipped out for a second.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled soul-baring.

[Michael]

As Virgin just said, there are no hard fast rules, only trends and stereotypes. Personally speaking I have always preferred the company of intelligent women, they’re just more interesting. I think that’s probably true of more men than you might imagine. The men who don’t want a relationship with a woman who is as smart or smarter than they are may just be watching out for their own fragile but inflated egos.
The male version of this stereotype is of course “WHY DO WOMEN ALWAYS PREFER BAD BOYS TO NICE GUYS?” This is another stereotypical trend that we know can’t be applied to everyone, but frustrates the hell out of us nice guys on a regular basis.

[VJ]

I'm with Figleaf on this one. Survey's the world over come to one inescapable conclusion when the question is mate selection. When given half a a choice, people want, desire and appreciate Smarter over dumber mates, even at the expense of 'compliance' in wives. It saves so much time, expense and trouble, and it frequently saves lives. No one can instruct your mate on everything they need to know as 'Eliza Doolittle'. You have to come with some good common sense, some decent amount of native intelligence. Without these resources, humans would not have survived. Moms could not adequately raise, protect and teach their children. Think about it. The entire premise of 'Are men necessary' is just a manufactured crock for the Upper West side (NYC) Ladies clubs to titter over.

I think Gene Lyons (see below) has MoDo's number, and from long experience knows what she's like and that this is just another 'poor me' ruse to have her laughing all the way to the bank. She's probably got a few bankers on leashes chained up in her apartment, just inside the exquisitely appointed 1000 sq ft. dungeon. Count on it. Cheers, 'VJ'
========================================
Kool Mo D, celebrity pundit

Gene Lyons

Posted on Wednesday, November 9, 2005

URL: [http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg&storyid=135852]

Everywhere you look, there’s the Shyest Woman in Washington, demurely avoiding the spotlight. That would be Maureen Dowd, the acerbic New York Times
columnist, promoting her new book, “Are Men Necessary?” An excerpt in the Sunday Magazine was illustrated by a photo of the author perched elegantly on a
barstool, wearing basic black, red stiletto pumps and fishnet stockings. She gazes coolly into the camera as if to say, “Forget it, big boy. You can’t afford me.”
Elsewhere, Dowd appeared on “Imus in the Morning,” got profiled in The Washington Post, and in New York magazine by Ariel Levy, who called her “the most
dangerous columnist in America.” In return, Dowd plugged Levy’s book, “Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture,” in an online chat with
readers. It’s called networking, but it’s ordinarily done more subtly. Nobody begrudges Dowd the attention. It’s just funny to hear her friends carry on about the pundit’s
bashfulness when she’s on TV all the time.

“When she appeared on ‘Letterman’ to promote her first book, ‘Bushworld,’ in 2004,” Levy writes, “she wore a little black dress with spaghetti straps, and with her red
hair fluffed in an Old Hollywood wave.... ‘You look tremendous, and I guess you must be going somewhere after this because nobody gets this nicely dressed for me,’
Letterman told her. ‘I did,’ she breathed. ‘I’ve been in love with you forever.’”

OK, so Letterman’s a big on-screen flirt, too. Kool Mo D, as I’ve called Dowd since she emerged as queen of the Washington “Heathers” during the Clinton years,
was just playing along. But what would she write about a public figure who made her career lampooning the personal foibles of politicians, but insisted that her own
intimate life was nobody’s business, then invited magazine writers into her home to explore it?

She’d say that person was confused.

What’s significant about Dowd’s confusion is how it illuminates the paradoxical rise of the celebrity pundit, journalists who achieve sublunary stardom by treating politics
as “infotainment,” appearing on TV and copping an attitude. Her witty eviscerations of President Bush would be more persuasive, however, had she not also mocked Al
Gore as “the teacher’s pet from hell,” Bill Clinton as “the Animal House president,” etc. Back then, Dowd treated Bush as a down-to-earth alternative to the humorless
Gore.

John Kerry was a dork, too. Dowd and her cohorts treat presidential politics like a TV dating game. Heaven help the first woman presidential candidate. No outfit, no
hairstyle, no speech mannerisms exist which cannot be mocked.

“[W ] hile it was great entertainment to read her verbal shanking of [fellow New York Times reporter ] Judy Miller,” comments blogger DCMediaGirl at dcmediagirl.
com, “let me say that I found her bitchy, veiled, disapproving reference to Miller’s ‘relationships’ with powerful men to be a bit rich.” The reference is to Dowd’s
romances with people like actor Michael Douglas and “West Wing” impresario Aaron Sorkin.

Me, I have an ethnic bone to pick. I basically grew up in a Maureen Dowd column, albeit with a lot less wit and more profanity. She even bears a strong resemblance (and I’ve checked with my cousin Sally about this ) to our maiden Aunt Peg, the fiercest dinner table combatant in a large Irish-Catholic family filled with them. Aunt
Peg gave no quarter to man, woman or child, and expected none.

Back in the Old Country, the alliance of fiercely opinionated women like her with puritanical, sex-obsessed Irish priests was what made pubs so popular. Even so, I
wouldn’t dream of describing Dowd as a shrew, harpy, fishwife, termagant, nag or any of their ruder synonyms. I love satire. Yet like DCMediaGirl, I find it pretty rich
that the message of “Are Men Necessary?” is that men fear strong women.

Dowd writes of a “top New York producer” who once “confessed that he had wanted to ask me out on a date when he was between marriages but nixed the idea because my job as a Times columnist made me too intimidating.... He predicted that I would never find a mate because if there’s one thing men fear, it’s a woman who
uses her critical faculties. Will she be critical of absolutely everything, even his manhood?” Actually, it’s almost touching to see the 53-year-old, never-married columnist
expose herself to easy ridicule. So let’s put it this way: It’s true that most men (and women ) see domesticity as a refuge from the ceaseless quest for status that Dowd and Heathers of both genders envision life to be. (Only “top” producers need apply. ) The faculty of wit, however, is as morally neutral as the ability to solve quadratic
equations. If it’s love you seek, certain things are best left unsaid. Clever phrasing enhances their sting, but makes them neither true nor wise.

[VJ]

OK one more try to make it a bit cleaner to read. Cheers, 'VJ'
====================================
Kool Mo D, celebrity pundit

Gene Lyons

Posted on Wednesday, November 9, 2005

URL: http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg&storyid=135852

Everywhere you look, there’s the Shyest Woman in Washington, demurely avoiding the spotlight. That would be Maureen Dowd, the acerbic New York Times columnist, promoting her new book, “Are Men Necessary?” An excerpt in the Sunday Magazine was illustrated by a photo of the author perched elegantly on a barstool, wearing basic black, red stiletto pumps and fishnet stockings. She gazes coolly into the camera as if to say, “Forget it, big boy. You can’t afford me.” Elsewhere, Dowd appeared on “Imus in the Morning,” got profiled in The Washington Post, and in New York magazine by Ariel Levy, who called her “the most dangerous columnist in America.” In return, Dowd plugged Levy’s book, “Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture,” in an online chat with readers. It’s called networking, but it’s ordinarily done more subtly. Nobody begrudges Dowd the attention. It’s just funny to hear her friends carry on about the pundit’s bashfulness when she’s on TV all the time.

“When she appeared on ‘Letterman’ to promote her first book, ‘Bushworld,’ in 2004,” Levy writes, “she wore a little black dress with spaghetti straps, and with her red hair fluffed in an Old Hollywood wave.... ‘You look tremendous, and I guess you must be going somewhere after this because nobody gets this nicely dressed for me,’ Letterman told her. ‘I did,’ she breathed. ‘I’ve been in love with you forever.’”

OK, so Letterman’s a big on-screen flirt, too. Kool Mo D, as I’ve called Dowd since she emerged as queen of the Washington “Heathers” during the Clinton years, was just playing along. But what would she write about a public figure who made her career lampooning the personal foibles of politicians, but insisted that her own intimate life was nobody’s business, then invited magazine writers into her home to explore it?

She’d say that person was confused.

What’s significant about Dowd’s confusion is how it illuminates the paradoxical rise of the celebrity pundit, journalists who achieve sublunary stardom by treating politics as “infotainment,” appearing on TV and copping an attitude. Her witty eviscerations of President Bush would be more persuasive, however, had she not also mocked Al Gore as “the teacher’s pet from hell,” Bill Clinton as “the Animal House president,” etc. Back then, Dowd treated Bush as a down-to-earth alternative to the humorless Gore.

John Kerry was a dork, too. Dowd and her cohorts treat presidential politics like a TV dating game. Heaven help the first woman presidential candidate. No outfit, no hairstyle, no speech mannerisms exist which cannot be mocked.

“[W ] hile it was great entertainment to read her verbal shanking of [fellow New York Times reporter ] Judy Miller,” comments blogger DCMediaGirl at dcmediagirl. com, “let me say that I found her bitchy, veiled, disapproving reference to Miller’s ‘relationships’ with powerful men to be a bit rich.” The reference is to Dowd’s romances with people like actor Michael Douglas and “West Wing” impresario Aaron Sorkin.

Me, I have an ethnic bone to pick. I basically grew up in a Maureen Dowd column, albeit with a lot less wit and more profanity. She even bears a strong resemblance
(and I’ve checked with my cousin Sally about this ) to our maiden Aunt Peg, the fiercest dinner table combatant in a large Irish-Catholic family filled with them. Aunt Peg gave no quarter to man, woman or child, and expected none.

Back in the Old Country, the alliance of fiercely opinionated women like her with puritanical, sex-obsessed Irish priests was what made pubs so popular. Even so, I wouldn’t dream of describing Dowd as a shrew, harpy, fishwife, termagant, nag or any of their ruder synonyms. I love satire. Yet like DCMediaGirl, I find it pretty rich that the message of “Are Men Necessary?” is that men fear strong women.

Dowd writes of a “top New York producer” who once “confessed that he had wanted to ask me out on a date when he was between marriages but nixed the idea because my job as a Times columnist made me too intimidating.... He predicted that I would never find a mate because if there’s one thing men fear, it’s a woman who uses her critical faculties. Will she be critical of absolutely everything, even his manhood?” Actually, it’s almost touching to see the 53-year-old, never-married columnist expose herself to easy ridicule. So let’s put it this way: It’s true that most men (and women ) see domesticity as a refuge from the ceaseless quest for status that Dowd and Heathers of both genders envision life to be. (Only “top” producers need apply. ) The faculty of wit, however, is as morally neutral as the ability to solve quadratic equations. If it’s love you seek, certain things are best left unsaid. Clever phrasing enhances their sting, but makes them neither true nor wise.

[hfvjaf]

rapist,rapist,rapist,rapist,rapist

[Kate]

Attitude people, its about attitude not aptitude. I think any man would prefer a warm, friendly and open-minded PhD woman over a sarcastic, man-hating moron (yes they do exist) and likewise, a stupid girl with a great personality is going to win over a sarcastic bitchy braniac. Men want to be respected, and I don't believe it matters whether that respect comes from a 150 or a 100 iq mind. However, logic dictates that the more successful the woman, the more likely it is that she will be a bitch- not because smart women are bitches, but because it takes a touch of "tiger woman" to get ahead. So yes, insofar as a woman is successful owing to brains AND a killer 'tude, there will be a general trend for men to avoid her as a serious partner. I graduated summa cum in philosophy, and guys always like me because I'm friendly. Btw, there's nothing wrong with being nice and cutting down on the materialism. Men and women would both benefit from a kinder, happier society!

[Virginette]

In my experience, it's not the woman's intelligence that's the issue, but how that intelligence is expressed. In some societies it is still unfortunately quite common for women to act underhandedly and slyly, in order to avoid 'showing up' or seeming to openly compete with men they wish to be attractive to. (See My Big Fat Greek Wedding: "We must make him think it was HIS idea!"). Also, sometimes it takes more refined intelligence to keep certain knowledge to oneself.