knl4myplzr
Posts: 13
Joined: 1/9/2006
Status: offline
|
I originally posted this in reply to Fergus in the "Low Income Doms" thread...but it seemed a complex enough subject to warrant its own subject...
Are women really "hardwired" to prefer men who can be "providers"? Do men prefer to be the financially/professionally more established partner?
quote:
ORIGINAL: fergus
Being poor is not a crime. I believe far more satisfaction is derived from a good relationship (regardless of how that is defined).
That being said ....
There are some universal truths not about Doms vs. subs but more about men vs. women. We are each hard wired (in BROAD generalities) different;y and attracted to different things.
Women (again, gross generalies) are attracted to one who can provide. Either a physically strong, and or financially secure mate speaks to that primordial desire.
fergus
Hi all, just wanted to add, from the FemDomme perspective (well Mine anyway)
Though I think you have a very valid point Fergus (that some if not many women may prefer a guy with financial success...or, lol, excess)...so I'm not disagreeing that there are many cases that this is true...however, here's a little alternative way to look at it for women who have a more skewed perpective, like Mine...from an almost frighteningly practical article by...
"Linda R. Hirshman retired as the Allen/Berenson Distinguished Visiting Professor at Brandeis University. She is at work on a book about marriage after feminism. With almost no effort, she landed spot No. 77 on Bernard Goldberg’s “100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.”
...suggesting that women do what men have always done, that is to...
"...either find a spouse with less social power than you or find one with an ideological commitment to gender equality. Taking the easier path first, marry down. Don’t think of this as brutally strategic. If you are devoted to your career goals and would like a man who will support that, you’re just doing what men throughout the ages have done: placing a safe bet.
In her 1995 book, Kidding Ourselves: Babies, Breadwinning and Bargaining Power, Rhona Mahoney recommended finding a sharing spouse by marrying younger or poorer, or someone in a dependent status, like a starving artist. Because money is such a marker of status and power, it’s hard to persuade women to marry poorer. So here’s an easier rule: Marry young or marry much older. Younger men are potential high-status companions. Much older men are sufficiently established so that they don’t have to work so hard, and they often have enough money to provide unlimited household help. By contrast, slightly older men with bigger incomes are the most dangerous, but even a pure counterpart is risky. If you both are going through the elite-job hazing rituals simultaneously while having children, someone is going to have to give."
...(this is a tiny portion, and not even the main focus of the whole article, see the original article here: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.wwsection=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10646)
Now we all know its very possible to lie with statistics and that certainly not everything in the media is true (BUT it is very interesting to consider the following idea - IS there any truth to the concept that men LIKE to be the partner with the most money? IS it programmed into their DNA the way that some women seeking a more powerful mate might be? This following is a snippet from an article by a NY Times columnist (original link below):
Power Dynamics
At a party for the Broadway opening of "Sweet Smell of Success," a top New York producer gave me a lecture on the price of female success that was anything but sweet. He 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. 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. Will she be critical of absolutely everything, even his manhood?
He had hit on a primal fear of single successful women: that the aroma of male power is an aphrodisiac for women, but the perfume of female power is a turnoff for men. It took women a few decades to realize that everything they were doing to advance themselves in the boardroom could be sabotaging their chances in the bedroom, that evolution was lagging behind equality.
A few years ago at a White House correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful and successful actress. Within minutes, 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 young women whose job it was was to care for them and nurture them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.
John Schwartz of The New York Times made the trend official in 2004 when he reported: "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame." A study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggested that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors. Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them. There it is, right in the DNA: women get penalized by insecure men for being too independent.
"The hypothesis," Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, theorized, "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 between their attraction to men who might work above them and their attraction to men who might work below them.
So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? Do women get less desirable as they get more successful?
After I first wrote on this subject, a Times reader named Ray Lewis e-mailed me. While we had assumed that making ourselves more professionally accomplished would make us more fascinating, it turned out, as Lewis put it, that smart women were "draining at times."
Women moving up still strive to marry up. Men moving up still tend to marry down. The two sexes' going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids.
Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the author of "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children," a book published in 2002, conducted a survey and found that 55 percent of 35-year-old career women were childless. And among corporate executives who earn $100,000 or more, she said, 49 percent of the women did not have children, compared with only 19 percent of the men.
Hewlett quantified, yet again, that men have an unfair advantage. "Nowadays," she said, "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."
A 2005 report by researchers at four British universities indicated that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to marry, 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.
Original article is here: http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/103105WA.shtml
So, what do you think?
|
GENERALITY: Are women biologically attracted to $/powe... - 
Profile
RE: GENERALITY: Are women biologically attracted to $/... - 
To me, this way of thinking just naturally fits. Dom's are ultimate protectors for the most part, and it's hard not to respect and adore them. 
I think I've stroked many an ego with this. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread