Posted on 12/21/2004 3:59:39 PM PST by beavus
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Men are more likely to want to marry women who are their assistants at work rather than their colleagues or bosses, a University of Michigan study finds.
The study, published in the current issue of Evolution and Human Behavior, highlights the importance of relational dominance in mate selection and discusses the evolutionary utility of male concerns about mating with dominant females.
"These findings provide empirical support for the widespread belief that powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less accomplished women," said Stephanie Brown, lead author of the study and a social psychologist at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR).
For the study, supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, Brown and co-author Brian Lewis from UCLA tested 120 male and 208 female undergraduates by asking them to rate their attraction and desire to affiliate with a man and a woman they were said to know from work.
"Imagine that you have just taken a job and that Jennifer (or John) is your immediate supervisor (or your peer, or your assistant)," study participants were told as they were shown a photo of a male or a female.
After seeing the photo and hearing the description of the person's role at work in relation to their own, participants were asked to use a 9-point Likert scale (1 is not at all, 9 is very much) to rate the extent to which they would enjoy going to a party with Jennifer or John, exercising with the person, dating the person and marrying the person.
Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners for high-investment activities such as marriage and dating.
"Our results demonstrate that male preference for subordinate women increases as the investment in the relationship increases," Brown said. "This pattern is consistent with the possibility that there were reproductive advantages for males who preferred to form long-term relationships with relatively subordinate partners.
"Given that female infidelity is a severe reproductive threat to males only when investment is high, a preference for subordinate partners may provide adaptive benefits to males in the context of only long-term, investing relationships---not one-night stands."
According to Brown, who is affiliated with the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, the current findings are consistent with earlier research showing that expressions of vulnerability enhance female attractiveness. "Our results also provide further explanation for why males might attend to dominance-linked characteristics of women such as relative age or income, and why adult males typically prefer partners who are younger and make less money."
For more information on the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, visit: http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/ehap/
Laz, I never know when you're kidding and when you're not, but I hope that you're serious here.
My man and I had the same problem (for almost 10 years). I never realized the damage I was doing to him and to our relationship by always being the higher earner and "taking care" of him. I thought that I was being nice, but it turns out that I was just chopping off his 'nads, slowly but surely.
So now, we're trying it the other way 'round. I still earn more money (for now), but he's the boss of our family. I defer to his judgement about any decision that affects our future.
We're both happier people, and our house is much quieter these days. I just focus on the things I need to do to make our family successful - I don't have to worry about being in charge of us any more. Suits me better, too.
I'd have been distracted....
I'm so disappointed in you.You ASKED her when you're getting married and who is invited?You should have TOLD her and don't take no for an answer.We have some work to do.:D
I had doubts it would work... :-)
Thank you.
I am. And I'm delighted that your situation has improved, all by returning to traditional roles.
LOL!
Nah. She's sweet and pretty enough, but we are quite ill-suited to one another.
There are a million sweet and pretty gals out there. :o)
I couldn't disagree more. In my experience, the reason why high-achieving women don't end up with lower status/lower income men is simply because the *women* don't want them. The lower-status/income guys are often *very* interested in the women, but this interest is very seldom reciprocated.
The reason is simple: Women -- but NOT men -- have an innate "status" filter that causes them to automatically rule out men who are perceived (truthfully or not) as being "below" them. To put it another way, women want to marry "up", whereas men just don't care.
It's true that guys may start shying away from high-power, successful women after having been shot down many times, because they've learned not to waste their time trying and perhaps because some of the snubs were quite rude (even from supposedly "Christian" women). But even this avoidance is ultimately a consequence of the *womens'* own preferences.
So, if it's a big mutual 'it takes a village' kinda thing, how come the women in the study weren't attracted to the submissive men? Hmmmmm?
In fact, I would say there are a lot of weak women out there unwilling to go against the modern feminist stereotypes and act like wives and mothers again--y'know, like when people used to have kids and society progressed?
I think it is self-preservation. I many cultures, a man with wealth could feed his family when other families were starving. Even now, I see older women (and men) marrying more for companionship and a higher standard of living than for actual love.
Granted, it has gotten way outta hand when chicks won't date a guy who doesn't drive a car that costs more than her yearly salary. THAT is shallow. And weird (to me). Maybe because a best friend in college got pregnant by "Yellow Corvette" and I have yet to know what the guy's real name was.
Anyhow, wanting to marry someone who doesn't freak out at the prices on an Applebee's menu, drives a 4 wheel gasoline powered vehicle and lives independently in something without wheels isn't asking too much.
I'm SURE it's instinctive. Even today it still has some survival value.
Granted, it has gotten way outta hand when chicks won't date a guy who doesn't drive a car that costs more than her yearly salary.
True. That's rather out of hand. The normal impulse to want a provider may be natural and morally acceptable yet the exaggeration ("gold-digging") can become sin. It's akin the difference between between wanting a reasonably fit mate versus insisting on supermodel perfection. Besides, this behavior is self defeating, as there aren't enough rich men, or perfect bodies of either sex, to go around; those with unrealistic standards often never marry, in my observation.
Also, I have to say, if a man asks a woman out, and she's not interested -- if the man was polite in his approach she is morally obligated to turn him down politely. Yet some women -- even alleged "Christians" -- seem to think that if a man is beneath them (lower income, "nerdy", or whatever), they have the right to humiliate him just for daring to find them attractive.
From what I understand, same sex marriages in Massachusetts are already hitting the divorce courts. BTW, my honey is making good progress in getting her papers together. Truly an east/west relationship, and I definitely selected her out of a crowd.
According your argument, if weak women are not willing to go against the feminist stereotypes, are you suggesting that strong, confident, and successful women are feminists?
Only by popular media definition and, more importantly, the purposes of this study.
You made the following statement, not the media and not the author of the article:
In fact, I would say there are a lot of weak women out there unwilling to go against the modern feminist stereotypes and act like wives and mothers again
So is it according to YOUR definition that strong, confident, and successful women = feminists?
You just won't be satisfied today, until you are offended, will you? ;^)
Logically, this is flawed. If the set of weak women is called W, and the set of strong women is called S, and the set of feminists is called F, just because all W are not F does not imply that all S are F.
"Does this mean that the gene pool of "powerful women" will one day be depleted due to a lack of compliant men?"
It's already happening at an astonishing rate. powerful women may produce only half as many children and do so at a later age. You see this also reflected in the Blue/Red state birth statistics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.