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/
That is out of the question. So we are back to the first option. :-)
There are two things that will make a man more attractive to females: drug use and prison time.
Absolutely. The definition of success is subjective rather than objective which supports my previous points. Thank you for reinforcement!
Of course I did! You think I'm crazy or something?
If he has any male genes in him anyways.
Exactly.
And at that point, 'who he is' is a big ol' P*$$y
Partner? Partner!? I don't want to marry another man, pard'ner....
If I simply look at her as 'partner', what does she see me as?
When I was a kid, I never wanted to grow up and be a 'partner'. Did you? Did anyone?
I don't even want to know what kind of Orwellian, 2+2=5, mental gymnastics it takes to destroy the image of 'wife' and replace it in my mind with 'partner'....
How much re-education and Marxist self criticism did it take you to come to this point?
But we say 'partner' when we mean 'wife'?
Youi've just made infidel29's point.
Sorry, but you walked straight ahead, dead-on into that one.
Don't let the lil' boys take you down
Those attempts failed miserably. You will probably have the lil' boys posting messages to you :-)
If a man prefers to get a subservient wife, he's better off to get a dog, it's a lot cheaper and he doesn't need to put the toilet seat back down. :),
LOL!
If a man prefers to get a subservient wife, as it was suggested earlier on this thread, a man could also get a maid as an alternative. How about the dog AND the maid? :-)
They would certainly be better for a family than a 'partner' or career wife.
The kids would like the dog more anyhow, and the maid will read to your kids while you are at work.
The maid will probably see your kid's first steps.
Won't that be great?
Believe me.I was once married to a battleax that thought she could verbally abuse me and wear the pants in the family which is non Biblical. I told her where to go. I am now single and have fully joint possession of my two angel boys.
"Deliver us from evil"...and that is what He did.
That is your preference. Obviously, it is quite difficult for some people to view their spouses as partners.
Dog's still cheaper :) Just the yearly shots, food, toys and a spiked collar.
Ha ha ha!
The dog will also not ask for the pay increase. :-)
More tax dollars wasted on a bogus experiment designed to arrive at a bull sh*t conclusion. A real man wants a woman at least as strong as himself, for the sake of the children. Who wants submissive, loser genes passed on to one's children?
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.