| Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners
|
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/
| Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners
|
Men were always the providers and protectors. Those are distinctly masculine traits. To take a man's 'necessity' away would not leave him much, and I think would cause some level of resentment in the relationship.
And the feminism movement tried to take that away. Men still strive to assume this role. It's hard for many to do this while being married to a peer or senior woman.
You have sort of recapped my son and his wife. She is a professor of nursing and he is going for his third degree in law.
However, she is quite attractive, as are most nurses. I don't think that shubi's rule applies to nurses. lol
What a loaded question...but I digress ;-)
Wouldn't it first depend on how seriously 'Feminist Studies I' was taken -- IF at all -- and the extent of "indoctrination"?
If that hurdle has been cleared, then there is still the question of the emotional intelligence ("Sure she's attraction, and smart, but is she a loon??")
Oh yeah...if ALL hurdles are cleared, what about those "pants"??
Put it this way -- a "whipped" man is never the sign of a very healthy relationship; And neither is an Edith Bunker situation.
Ahem...who is the "do-er" and who is the do-ee"??
L'uomo.
Bingo. Very well said.
"You gotta serve someone" (from a song) by Bob Dylan..
I prefer "Under My Thumb" by the Rolling Stones.
(Oh, Ahhhhchie!)
You're right. It takes a sometimes precarious balance to make a relationship or marriage work; It shouldn't have to be a battle of supremacy. Compromise of inherently different natures and a desire to bring out the best in one another is usually effective regardless of the social standing of either person.
Not even slightly more loaded than a previous comment that attractive women do not go to college.
Wouldn't it first depend on how seriously 'Feminist Studies I' was taken -- IF at all -- and the extent of "indoctrination"?
Where is a connection with feminism?
"Sure she's attraction, and smart, but is she a loon??")
We would not observe smart and handsome men that are loons. Oh no...
a "whipped" man is never the sign of a very healthy relationship
Who said anything about whipping?
Bingo. Very well said.
Yes, indeed.
This is an interesting study, given that the Female Domination fetish kink is a multi-billion dollar, world-wide industry.
I guess men are a little more complicated than feminist scholars would like to admit.
"Sti-fle...";-)
"It takes a sometimes precarious balance to make a relationship or marriage work; It shouldn't have to be a battle of supremacy. Compromise of inherently different natures and a desire to bring out the best in one another is usually effective regardless of the social standing of either person."
Very well said, arasina....
Now get me a beer. (cowering, ;-P)
I see it the same way you do.
Men want respect and control. When the male is the boss over the female then he has both. It's something built in to the male.
I'll be glad to. Anything else while I'm up? ;-)
" Not even slightly more loaded than a previous comment that attractive women do not go to college."
Naah, I didn't think that a "loaded" at all.
"Where is a connection with feminism?"
There isn't. I implied a hardline, lesbian-based, anti-testosterone curriculum. Just me and my sense of humor...
"Sure she's attraction, and smart, but is she a loon??")
"We would not observe smart and handsome men that are loons. Oh no..."
Hey, HEY -- Some of us have experienced 'Fatal Attraction' syndrome.
There's something a bit more insidious about a female loon ;-)
"Who said anything about whipping?"
Just one extreme of male/female relationships, isn't it?
Yeah. Ditch the housecoat, frumpy do, and sensible shoes ;-p
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.
I'm surprised that no one has commented on the import of that sentence. This is a mutual thing: women do not find subordinate men attractive. Men pursue subordinate women at least in part because it works; the women find them attractive. The "superior" women do not. You dig where the gold is.