It's alternately tough and fabulous to be a woman these days.
On the one hand, there's the persistent pressure to be sexy, cute, attractive, or at least sweet (i.e. adoring of any male who glances in your direction). No matter how many degrees or achievements you may be able to boast, it seems woman are still considered successful if and when they manage to be deemed attractive by a successful man. Ugh.
On the other hand, it can be really fun and empowering to be, well, sexy. For almost the first time in history, it's relatively OK for us gals to strut our stuff, get dressed up, go out unchaperoned by men, and flirt, drink, and dance the night away.
I'm not going to go off on a rant about the Virgin-Whore Complex or the inevitable double standards between men and women or even about the struggle for modern women to enjoy aspects of their femininity without being restricted by it.
Instead I just want to highlight a few encouraging anecdotes on the topic that I ran into this past weekend.
In my previous post I outlined the three new connections that I made over the course of the weekend.
The three men were very different from a demographic standpoint, but there was one common theme: all three interactions began in a plainly social way, and all three escalated to varying levels of flirting immediately after I divulged my interest in investing and finance.
Despite the deluge of media examples to the contrary, men today do think smart is sexy. Of course, they think sexy is sexy too, but at least body parts aren't the only things turning them on. Of course smart has always been sexy to some degree, but I think there are several reasons for the apparent trend of men eschewing vapid trophy wives for more intellectual partners:
- Men of all ages are afraid of the stereotypical spend-thrift wife/girlfriend who they fear will coerce at least half of every paycheck out of them (even subsequent to a divorce). A woman who demonstrates values like frugality or financial ambition is a huge relief/turn-on for these men.
- Young men have grown up accustomed to having woman as peers and team members from the classroom to the boardroom. Consequently many of them view and evaluate women just as they do their male counterparts - based on her achievements and contributions in the business world. They may still objectify women, but they respect their smart female counterparts.
- Many men (especially younger men) have warmed to the idea of having a dual income (or a wife/girlfriend with family money), especially as they get used to dating women who work - and/or spend - as much as they do. It's a huge stressful burden to be the sole provider of a family in this day and age no matter how much you make.
13 comments:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
I would take it one step farther. Recent college grads actually need women as peers and teammates in order to feel most comfortable. When I started my career in engineering, I found it very odd that there were so few women on my team.
The 20 something generation understands the benefits of diverse opinions, not just those of the "good ol' boys".
Most intelligent men find Smart to be the sexiest of all.
Tom - nice! I'm glad I'm not just making this up to make me feel better. :)
It should be pointed out that being attracted to intelligence is at least as shallow as being attracted to looks. Both are largely out of the person's control, having more to do with genetics (or at least early environment) than any choices the person has made. Neither are completely independent of choices, of course. Both beauty and intelligence can be worked on and are not entirely fixed.
I meet very smart people all the time who I have no particular respect for. You know the type: cynical and lazy, misusing their intellect by rationalizing the poor choices they make. (No fair claiming these people aren't actually smart, then. That is changing the definition of intelligence to a much more nebulous and ill-defined "do I approve of the person?" and if so, they're smart and, if not, they're not. Using that definition, obviously intelligence is virtually the only thing that matters, but it violates any common sense definition of intelligence.)
Now, values and goals is another matter entirely. Those indeed get to the core of a person and aren't shallow criteria at all. In my opinion, they're by far the most important criteria people should use in selecting their partners. If you don't share the same values and goals, then you're not likely to work out, no matter how smart and/or attractive you both are.
By the by, it's not actually that burdensome being a family's sole provider nowadays (speaking as someone who is his family's sole provider). It's actually far easier than it was in the days when all men routinely did it. But back in those days, budgeting wasn't something 15% of the people did. Everybody did it, by necessity, and it was usually the woman, probably one of the other reasons budgeting has declined in popularity is because both spouses now generally work. This makes it both less necessary to budget and less easy to do a good job of it, due to time constraints.
Andrew - great points! I agree with you that a person's values and goals are the most important thing. In this case I used the word "smart" but really I think I came across as "valuing financial independence" and "having career ambitions" which actually refers more to my values/goals than to my intellect; though I suppose you can surmise that it is "smart" to aspire to those things.
I also agree with you that it shouldn't be an incredible burden to be a family's sole provider. However that doesn't change the fact that a) many men view and/or fear it as a burden b) it is a burden for many families at all income levels, arguably due to a lack of one or both partners being "smart."
I like to distinguish between intelligence (nous) and practical wisdom (phronesis) as Aristotle did. It is quite possible to be very intelligent, but not very wise, or vice versa. I meet both all the time.
I don't deny that being the sole provider is a burden, but it's not nearly the burden it used to be when all men were expected to do it all the time. I'm not sure most people view it as a burden so much as greed leads us all to want as much money as possible, whether for more toys or early retirement or what have you. (Not that there's anything wrong with these things, necessarily.)
By the way, I loved your comment about how sweet equals "adoring of any male who glances in your direction." Of course, the opposite is also true. I've had plenty of women, particularly good-looking ones, consider me "arrogant" because I didn't show any interest in them. (To be fair, this has more or less gone away now that I'm married. Fortunately, almost all women are fairly respectful of a wedding ring so long as the man isn't actively disrespecting it himself. As my wife can attest, this is not true of a great many men.)
For almost the first time in history, it's relatively OK for us gals to strut our stuff, get dressed up, go out unchaperoned by men, and flirt, drink, and dance the night away.
There is archaeological/historical/scientific evidence that such things have been happening all the time: from ancient Greece to Indus Valley, or from Roman times to ancient Egypt, also in the medeival period. Only the means have changed, because of changes in technology. Otherwise we are the same species that we were thousands of years ago, and have not evolved into anything different.
Sorry for digressing from the topic ......
TP - you aren't digressing at all. I don't know a lot about ancient cultures, but I do know that there were a few that were matriarchal. However, to my knowledge, women were regarded as little more than property in the vast majority of cultures until very recently.
I'm sure that these things have been going on since the dawn of time (women being carefree, non-monogamous, dressing and acting in a sensational manner, acting without the permission or under the authority of the nearest man), but I'm not sure it was ever "ok."
It may have been accepted in certain ancient cultures, but ancient culture is another matter entirely. In some ancient cultures women were so disregarded as human beings that only men were said to be able to share sexual pleasures-sex with women was a duty, for procreation. In Sparta, homosexual relationships were built into the structure of the training all young Spartan boys received (and the relationships were with their much older teachers, who passed down knowledge through their semen).
Now I'm digressing. :)
great post :)
Great post Meg. This subject is one that I have conflicting feelings about. On a first impression basis, physical attractiveness is the standard that we all use. After that each of us has our own criteria for determining what is sexy. Somehow, I have come to the conclusion that a good work ethic is my #1 requirement. It doesn’t necessarily sit in a visible position at the top of my “list”, but it is definitely a deal breaker. That’s not to say that physical appearance has nothing to do with it. After all, I put a lot of effort into my own, and expect others to do the same.
There are actually no known matriarchal cultures, to the best of my knowledge. There were a number of matrilineal cultures (like Egypt) where inheritance passed through women, but control of the property was the husband's.
As for sexual mores, TP is mostly correct. While sexual mores have been loosening in the West since Queen Victoria (although arguably tightening since the '70s), they were far looser (and, occasionally, as loose as they are now) at many points in history. Sexual mores, contrary to popular perception, do not have a history of continual trend, but rather are a sine wave, tightening and loosening and then tightening again over time, rarely settling on a happy medium. There are periods in the Roman Empire when sexual mores were at least as loose as now. (You can say that there were still people then who disapproved and this is true, but you can say the same thing today. There will always be people who want to tighten mores just as there will always be people who want to loosen them still further, no matter how loose they get.)
As for Sparta, you've got a mixture of fact and legend there. It is true that women were rather disregarded and, while a man was in the army, he only had sex with his wife for procreation. However, Spartan women were the best educated women in Greece. The Spartans believed that educated women produced more intelligent children. A strong emphasis was also placed on the physical fitness of women. Women not only controlled their own property in Sparta, but also the property of any male relatives who were away at war. Women in Sparta wore what they liked and went where they pleased (unlike Athens, which was quite the reverse). I don't think there's much question that Spartan women had the best deal in all of Greece.
It is entirely unclear how homosexual the Spartans were. Sparta was a secretive culture. Aristotle argued that Sparta, unlike other Greek city-states, was one of the few based on heterosexuality. No contemporary writer confirms accounts of homosexuality in the Spartans. The best source on Sparta, Xenophon, explicitly denies it. However, Xenophon was clearly reacting to rumors at the time, indicating that some contemporary sources did believe it. It isn't entirely clear what the actual situation was. Unlike in the rest of Greece, long bachelorhood for young men was frowned on and men with children were better regarded than men without. This tends to indicate that Sparta was considerably less homosexual than the rest of Greece, but we'll probably never know.
Oh, and as for the argument that Spartans didn't believe women could have sexual pleasure, here is Plutarch on Sparta.
"Girls were required to run and exercise so that their babies would grow in strong and healthy mothers. To make them brave, Lycurgus ordered that occasionally the girls had to dance and sing naked in front of all the young men. Therefore the girls were ashamed to be fat or weak, and they were happy to display their beauty to such an appreciative audience. In their songs, the girls praised the men who were brave and strong, and they made fun of those who were weak and cowardly, so they sharpened the men's love of glory and fear of shame. Thus the women of Sparta got a taste of higher feelings, being in this way admitted to the field of action.
"The Spartan women were good judges of manhood. A foreign lady once remarked to the wife of a Spartan commander that the women of Sparta were the only women in the world who could rule men. 'We are the only women who raise men,' the Spartan lady replied.
"The public performances of the young ladies naturally had their effect on the young men, but the meetings of the lovers had to be in secret. They lived in constant fear of being detected and made the butt of jokes.
"Even their marriages took place in secret. The bride and her family had a simple private ceremony, then her hair was cut off and she was dressed in male clothes. After dinner, the bridegroom stealthily came and lay with her, then hurried back to sleep with his companions, in great fear that anyone might find out. The husband and wife had to scheme to find opportunities to meet without being discovered. Sometimes the men of Sparta even had children by their wives before ever seeing them in daylight.
"When the young man reached the age of thirty, the couple was allowed to live together openly and to set up a household. With seeing each other so difficult and rare, they always came together with a healthy appetite for love. And when they parted, it was always early enough that there was no disgust from being together too long. There was always some desire left unsatisfied.
"Jealousy was forbidden. If two men liked the same woman, it was a reason for them to be friends, not enemies. With certain limitations against irresponsible passion, Lycurgus made it honorable for a man to lend his wife to another man so as to get good seed from him. He wanted the children of Sparta to be produced by the best men, so that their good qualities might be passed on. In Lycurgus' opinion, children were not the property of their parents but members of the society. The laws of other nations about children seemed absurd and inconsistent to him. Why should a man be so careful about the breeding of his dogs and his horses, and even pay stud fees to get good offspring, but insist on his wife having children only by himself? Obviously, the bad qualities of this father would be passed on to his children and he would be their first victim, whereas children of good men would be a blessing rather than a curse to the man who gave them a home."
Not all scholars believe Plutarch was entirely right here, of course.
I'm not really disagreeing with you though. If you changed Sparta to Athens, you wouldn't be far wrong. Athens was an incredibly patriarchal culture and pederasty was very much the norm.
From my professional experience in the banking industry, in general men do not evaluate women as their male counterparts. We may come across that way to you but that’s simply not true in general. There still exists the stereotype that women are weaker, more emotional, and thus their peak rational decision making ability is hamstrung compared to men. It doesn’t help your case when certain women choose to “strut their stuff” and in turn draw speculation that their promotion and advancement wasn’t merit based.
When looking for a life partner, I wanted to find someone who’d complement my strengths and this eliminated many people. I wasn’t looking for a trophy wife but my choice would fuel your argument that successful men choose less successful women. My wife is very successful when success is defined by things other then high wage earner and/or wealthy. I don’t need someone to compete with when I have plenty of competition at work.
Very good point, Jim. I think it's true that while men might (and I stress the word might) respect and view their female counterparts as equals/competitors, those men are probably less likely to pursue those women as wives or partners (at least beyond the occasional Christmas party indiscretion).
Post a Comment