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/
When people run out of valid arguments, the tendency is to revert to "cheap shots". Once again, we are observing an instance of this posted by one of the lil' boys :-).
Thank you, you admitted that your statements were based on gross speculations and generalizations and therefore, buttressing the point that the statement “women who are not that good looking will strive to achieve in the business world” has no credibility.
My Man, you are COLD. comment was personal in that it was my personal opinion following reasoned observation
What is your reasoning?
You didn't answer my question that followed my opinionated statement, and that was Where is the LOVE in any of your comments about relationships and marriage?
It is odd that sometimes one has to be redundant and state what was already stated but I will repost my previous response.
Your question was based on your statement that I am COLD. Since the statement is incorrect, any subsequent questions about this statement would not render any meaningful responses.
if compromise means subordinating one's own stubborn nature to a man who deserves a woman's love and respect, by all means, do it. I will.
There are stubborn men and women and therefore, in situations that compromise is necessary to achieve common goals, men and women TOGETHER ought to compromise. Men AND women deserve love and respect.
However, you did not address the following question:
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?
I've enjoyed your respective posts -- You have both made good points...
Such articulation bears repeating...
Btw, I don't deserve this pampering...But since you insist (oooh...aaahh), I must reciprocate NOT because I have to, but because I want to. Tell ya what -- I'll surprise ya at the appropriate time ;-)
NOW who's playing psyche-doc? "Clearly" you're clueless...
But while we're at it, let's roll back the video tape from your post at #459:
"I see your feeble responses, your need to be blindly obeyed by your wife and nothing else comes to mind."
Let's see...condescension and a point I did NOT emphasize.
Well Doc -- you're off the mark totally.
Wanna take another crack?
FWIW, it is courtesy and protocol here at FR to ping the person you're talking about.
My dear (please don't sue me for slander) -- the ONLY "arguments" you have made this entire thread is thusly:
1) njwoman is a "strong, confident, successful" woman whose attributes clearly threaten men.
2) njwoman is an attractive woman ("please check out my pic for further "proof.")
3) "Conservative" njwoman is in all reality a feminist who prefers to wear the pants in her family 50.1% of the time; NOT 49.9999%.
According to my unscientific data, I'm going to assume your "pool" of eligible gentlemen who have succumbed to your "warmth" and "charm" and "class" to be limited to those men who've graduated with honors from the 'Phil Donohue Academy of the Damned'.
I said, it's not true FOR MEN. I know this intuitively and instinctively as a male in a way that you cannot. I will concede that it might possibly be true for women.
The arts are powered by the sex drive. Poetry and painting are the expression of either a thwarted one, or a requitted one, but dynamically more the thwarted one.
Last time I checked, art was a spiritual expression, not a sexual one.
We are all sexual beings, and creativity and creative thinking, expresses how we relate to the world, literally and mystically.
Only for women. For men, sexuality is a simple physical appetite, unconnected to anything else. Romance, now, that's another story perhaps. But sex and romance are not inherently linked in males.
You are a scientist, perhaps wanting everything cut and dried.
I'm also an artist (not for $$ though). A musician, to be specific. And my libido has nothing to do with my abililty to improv a solo on the Gaelic tinwhistle, or write lyrics, or anything else.
Let's just agree to disagree, my friend
Well... okay, because I doubt I will ever convince you. But I have to say, a big part of the reason I kept harping on this is becasuse an enormous amount of intergender misunderstanding is generated by (in my experience), females wrongly projecting onto men, female attitudes, motivations, and psychological traits. One of the projections that causes the most heartache is the female assumption that male sexuality works like theirs does. It just doesn't. And men universally know this.
Instead of "smart", would you settle for "wise" ?
What I'm saying is, would you pick, say, a mathematician with zero "people skills" and whose children never know a parent's love and guidance?
Or a moderately intelligent man that was able to raise his children to be good, kind, caring and responsible adults ?
I have known some very intelligent people in my lifetime that were lousy parents, and lousy human beings as well..
At the same time, I have known several people that could barely read, and never learned english very well, but worked hard to support their family, and brought their kids up to be good americans.. and went to church every sunday..
But then again, you were talking about what a "smart" woman wants, not what a "wise" woman wants...
Isn't that right??
One thing is you don't mess around with those you work with. It is nothing but trouble. Secondly, I'll take intelligence. You have to be able to communicate with your spouse. Can you imagine trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with someone like Paris Hilton. All the money in the world won't buy her brains and sooner or later the beauty runs dry. In her case I think it already has.
You're right. Regardless of the screaming of my loins, the one requisite is intelligence.
Why do you think it is a mistake to date people from work? Some of us only know relatives and workmates.
You are right, Drammach. I meant wise, not smart.
Yeah, I know, but I made a lot of mistakes that I'm sorry for. My kids suffered because of them and now some of my grandchildren are as well. Being married to an alcoholic didn't help but it wasn't all his fault.
Classic academic psych study. Sample a few hundred undergraduate boys and girls with a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, ask them to imagine a situation they probably have never encountered, then generalize to the real world behavior of adult males. Stir data lightly and draw pompous conclusions about evolutionary determinants. Blech.
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.