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/
Remember the 5 yr. Five gallon bucket study in '95 or '96? Conclusion: to prevent toddler drownings in 5 gallon buckets require that bucket manufacturers make leakey buckets. cost millions of dollars to get there too...
I've noticed in your posts that you only use the word 'wife' to preface 'weakling' or 'submissive'. That's odd, but instructive.
I hope she sees you as her partner too, I hope she sees you as the man she can turn to without fear of being mocked, criticized
Hmmmm, will she see me as her 'partner', or as her 'man' she can turn to?
Even you unconsciously see the distinctions.
I notice you've not used the word 'husband' at all, nor have you said anything about children. Again, odd, but instructive. If all the things you mentioned were the most important things in a marriage, why wouldn't I marry a man?
If you change the 'she' to 'he' in your post, every single thing you mention could be fulfilled by another man. You've made a good argument for marrying another man as an equal partner in the home and to bring home the bacon.
Now remind me again why I should marry a woman instead.
Spouses and Partners! No husbands and wives in your world, hmmm? Two men or two women can be 'partners' in a marriage in some states....
Do you not believe in husband and wife? Or only partner and partner?
I suggest you leave your attempts to pseudo-psychoanalysis to the professionals and you concentrate on your own issues. My replies were strictly to what I think the person in my life should be, hence the choices I make when it comes to men. I mentioned the world family and that also includes children but less alone, you swim in too much ambivalence. And you can marry a man or a woman or even a goat, that won't change the fact that, like anything in life, everything that happens to us is directly related to the choices we make in life. May the force be with you in choosing a man, a woman or the animal of your choice.
That certainly is the basis of a partnership of a lifetime!
Now if you add that pesky 'obey' part for the wife, it would be the basis for an actual marriage.
Why are women so afraid of that now? Our Great+ Grandmothers were strong and confident enough to accept the 'obey' part.... They were so strong, confident and accomplished that didn't want a partner, they actually wanted a Man!
Y'know, like when people used to stay married and we had mommies AND daddies?
Meh, I'm done--thanks for helping me put a final touch to my point. You did well....
Very well stated.
If you're going to be a wife, why do you need a maid?
That "turkey blaster" crack was killer...
I know someone who would need one of those to reproduce herself.
Oh please, you two...
Just admit it -- you don't want in ANY sense, shape or form to be deferential in the least to a MAN. That's what this is all about.
And anyway, isn't that even how nature has planned it? Not to mention God -- if you want to take it in that direction.
You can still be strong -- be an intellectual Amazon if you need to; But not at the expense of "compassion." Or arrogance. I'd tell you both to stuff your respective IQs and pretty little heads.
So go ahead -- tell us you can be Mother Teresa and Leona Helmsley and Ann Coulter wrapped in one neat package. Sure, it's possible...That's quite a tightrope, girls (may I call you "girls"??)
I suppose even Malkin and Coulter would tell you that in order for them to respect a "man," he needs some kind swagger and air of confidence. If in cultivating a relationship it's more important IOW, for you both to compete with a man and get GREEDY about it, you're looking for something else.
So remember -- You MAY have your prey by more than a few IQ points, but there IS such a thing as blowing it by displaying a low emotional IQ.
Takes a bit of emotion out of the experience...I THINK....Probably the entire point to the exercise.
Good point.
Can't you just hear her doing a cover for Jimi Hendrix?
So.....Are you experienced?
LOL
Btw, in the spirit of relativity, Miss Thomas is considered an "attractive," "strong" smart business woman type, right?
Right ;-)
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.