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/
It is UCLA, after all. I wonder if they did a separate study for the non-heterosexuals and if it compares in any way to this one.
I think there is a pretty widespread misunderstanding in our country these days, sadly, about true 'leadership' and 'submission' to authority.
The New Testament addresses these important things very clearly, though.
Jesus told His disciples that the kings of the earth 'lord it over' others, but that it was not to be so among them: They were called to servant leadership...'the greatest among you will be the servants of all'.
So, the way I apply this to the marriage relationship is thus: The man is clearly called to be the leader, and the woman is called to submit, or mold herself to, her husband.
Does this then mean that the man is now 'the Boss'? Hardly. It means he is now called to serve and love her the way Christ loved the Church; even to the extent of dying for her if necessary. A pretty high and daunting call, eh?
This leaves the woman free to be what God made her to be: the loving helpmate to her husband, providing daily the one thing he craves and needs above all other things: respect.
Of course, this observation will have to stand as self-evident truth, since my own lovelife hardly proves the case: I'm divorced. ;-)
IMO, people believe that 'submission' is about loss of 'control' when it is really about order. God is an orderly and just God. He gave us the rules for our own good and protection.
("Rock, can you and Wally Cox lower your braying noises down there? I'm trying to sleep up here in this inexplicably cold and lonely, bed.")
We discussed something or other this weekend, I've been on so many threads I can't recall...
The "phallusy" here (har!) is twofold:
1) sometimes the woman is the pursuer, and wants a boy-toy
2) sometimes people meet, court, and marry someone outside of their own work environment.
I could add personal observations about my mileage, but then I'd be sleeping in the garage ;-)
Cheers!
You got it.
A lot of women aspire to succeed in business, or any other area, not because they want to replace a desire for a rich mate but because they find it a challenge to do so and succeeding at something that is challenging provides personal fulfillment. Do you propose that you are aware of what successful women want since you stated that they "lie to themselves about what they truly want?". Since you are stipulating that successful women lie to themselves, what is it that they lie about?
In regards to "women who are not that good looking will strive to achieve in the business world", I hope you did not include me in this set. My photo is on the profile.
Had you read that Mistuh Cox was Marlon Brando's 'Good-Time' guy?? Or maybe it was the other way around...WHO KNOWS?
Btw, I apologize to all those now reading this who now are gagging and barfing up the Christmas leftovers...
Let me answer that:
Generally speaking of course, women "lie" about the definition of "success," or perhaps the perception of "success."
And is the bottomline equally measured in emotional fullfillment, intellectual fullfillment, and physically fullfillment?
I notice you didn't answer my earlier question wherein I also stated that you are COLD. You can be as gorgeous as all getout, njwoman, as well as successful and brilliant, and I still don't get the feeling of envy that you seem to want to incite.
I'm not a 'hot babe' like you, but I'm confident of my appearance and my accomplishments in the 'business world'. I'm secure in 'who I am' even though I know I need to work on some emotional issues. I'll take a warm flesh-and-blood man next to me over material and societal success any day. No wimpy 'nice guys' need 'apply', however.
I congratulate you on finding the relationship that suits you...However there are some disturbing notes in your response - homosexual males refer to "straight" (normal) couples as "breeders". Odd parallel, isn't it?
Those of us that prefer to be the leaders in our relationship aren't trying force our partners to be "squaws" but we aren't looking for Mommy either. I believe that a normal, secure, and mature man doesn't endanger the identity or accomplishments of his wife, but serves as that reliable foundation of the relationship between the two. Somebody always has to lead in a relationship - and sometimes each have their own areas within the relationship where they are the leaders - however, when it's a serious situation, the normal position is that the male leads.
Other people may be thoroughly suited for a "Maggie and Jiggs" sort of relationship; fine, enjoy - I just know for sure I'm not.
Did you get permission before you sent your response?
Generally speaking of course, women "lie" about the definition of "success," or perhaps the perception of "success."
How do women specifically "lie" about the definition or perception of success? You still have not responded to my question. In order to address this statement, one would need to know what the definition of success is. Moreover, the same definition of success would need to apply to all women. In this instance, if women describe a success as something other than the “correct” definition of success, you would be able to state that they are lying. Since the definition of success is subjective rather then objective and there is no "correct" definition of success, the statement that women “lie” about the definition or perception of success has no credibility whatsoever.
And is the bottomline equally measured in emotional fullfillment, intellectual fullfillment, and physically fullfillment?
Whether or not the bottom line is equally measured in emotional, intellectual, and physical fulfillment, or instead, the proportions have unequal weights, is, once again, a subjective interpretation that defies generalizations.
Whoa! Easy on the ego, sistah. ;^)
Yeah: He's trying to keep her hand off his wallet and she's holding on to keep him from busting her in the chops...
(btw--from previous: nice taste in pipe tunes...)
This thread is so funny. Just who *are* these women who go around looking for a rich guy to marry? I suppose if you come from a welfare environment or a 3rd world country then "marrying money" is the only option. Thank heavens most of us have other options.
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.