Skip to comments.
SMART SINGLE WOMEN DESPAIR OF EVER FINDING TRUE LOVE (Dear Abby, reference to Maureen Dowd)
www.uexpress.com ^
| December 22, 2005
| Abigail Van Buren
Posted on 12/22/2005 8:37:43 AM PST by Sonny M
DEAR ABBY: Several of my friends and I were bemoaning our status as single women in our late 20s/early 30s, and discussing an article we had read in The New York Times about how smart women are less likely to get married. We'd all like to find Mr. Wonderful and be married. But if we have to curtail our professional success, financial wherewithal and IQ to do it, how can a person even begin to do such a thing?
I have a feeling you'll say to be ourselves and it will all work out, but thus far it has NOT worked out, and we're starting to worry. Personally, I think we'd be better off to take jobs as "administrators" in a large company somewhere and hope for the best.
Help, Abby! What's the answer for smart, fun women who have their acts together? How can we best poise ourselves to find true love while being true to ourselves? -- LOSING FAITH IN FINDING MR. RIGHT
DEAR LOSING FAITH: The truth is, there are no guarantees that ANYONE (male or female) will land a mate. It isn't easy these days because people are commitment-phobic. And this applies to individuals at all economic and educational levels, not just you at the top. Pairing off is often a matter of luck and timing -- being in the right place at the right time.
Eligible members of both sexes can be found in places of common interest -- places that are intellectually rewarding, culturally stimulating, athletically challenging or financially advantageous. As to whether you should downgrade your job level in order to appear less "threatening," I guarantee that if you don't take financial care of yourselves while you can, you will regret it later. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you could fool some of the bachelors some of the time, but you couldn't fool all of them all of the time.
There are worse things than not finding Prince Charming, and one of them is spending your life pretending to be something you're not. So my advice is to stop reading defeatist newspaper and magazine articles. They'll only make you desperate, clingy and depressed -- and none of those traits is attractive to either sex.
DEAR ABBY: My husband and I recently had a baby. We chose a mature, Christian couple to be our child's godparents. However, my brother-in-law is infuriated over the fact that he's not the godparent. He has disowned my husband and wants nothing to do with us. Behavior such as this in the past is part of the reason he wasn't chosen. However, I need to know this: Did we have an obligation to choose him as a godparent? How should we handle his immaturity and controlling behavior? -- NEEDS TO KNOW IN OHIO
DEAR NEEDS TO KNOW: A godparent can either be a relative or a close friend, and you were not obligated to choose one over the other. Your brother-in-law may be hurt that he wasn't chosen, but his subsequent behavior has been so childish that it's apparent you made the right decision. The way to handle his immature and controlling behavior is to forgive him for it, and go on with your lives.
CONFIDENTIAL TO EDWARD PHILLIPS IN MINNEAPOLIS: Happy Birthday, baby brother! I hope you're enjoying your special day.
TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: advice; catherinezetajones; column; dearabbey; dearabby; dowd; feminism; longinthetooth; maureendowd; singles; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 561-573 next last
To: HairOfTheDog
"Someone like what? I saw a letter from some women who were alone past the age they thought they would be and were worried about that. They wanted to know that there was hope."
You haven't been reading the thread? They have more hope of being struck by lightning.
"I didn't marry till I was 36. Believe me, I had many days and months and years that I was worried about the same thing."
Well, maybe you're nicer than they are.
201
posted on
12/22/2005 10:08:30 AM PST
by
dsc
(‚³‚æ‚‚µ‚ñ‚¶‚Ü‚¦)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Women like Pamela Anderson are great for a casual fling (for a single guy, of course), but her constant stupidity would drive me nuts. I just heard it described best two nights ago:
"There are two types of women; Riding phillies and breeding mares"
202
posted on
12/22/2005 10:08:58 AM PST
by
BlueMondaySkipper
(The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell)
To: Enterprise
Nah! I'm sure He'd just make sure she was as miserable as possible to dissuade her from continuing. Wait! Isn't that what's going on now?
203
posted on
12/22/2005 10:09:52 AM PST
by
Ohioan from Florida
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.- Edmund Burke)
To: dsc
You haven't been reading the thread? They have more hope of being struck by lightning.Yes, I've been reading the thread, and I've seen a lot of bitter people posting theories on what's wrong with these women. I don't assume they are correct, I think in some cases they are confusing their own baggage with that of the ladies that wrote to Dear Abby.
204
posted on
12/22/2005 10:11:31 AM PST
by
HairOfTheDog
(Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/ 1,000 knives and counting!)
To: conservative barking moonbat
Exactly. She only plays a smart woman on TV.
To: ladyjane
"You are familiar, aren't you, with the woman who first photographed the double helix? Her work was 'appropriated' by Crick and the other guy and they hid the fact. She was never mentioned in their papers. They got the prize. She didn't get a mention."
You are so right about that. Rosalind Franklin was her name. I can't remember all the details except that she was brilliant and she was treated very shabbily by her male peers.
206
posted on
12/22/2005 10:14:17 AM PST
by
Mila
To: Graymatter
Anything I said in post 72 does not apply to carpenters. I would cheerfully give up most anything for a carpenter. ;)My wife and I together share a relationship with a particular Jewish Carpenter... : )
207
posted on
12/22/2005 10:14:48 AM PST
by
Caipirabob
(Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
To: Sonny M
I would kill (figuratively) to find an available, smart, conservative gal. If she is smarter and earns more than me, even better. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find anyone worth a single date, let alone marriage, even in this relatively conservative area (San Diego). After all, it's still a hardcore blue state. Lots of lefties around, though. I'll stay single forever before I'll marry a whiny leftist/feminist, no matter how smart she may be.
208
posted on
12/22/2005 10:15:11 AM PST
by
jrp
To: dsc
"What is "smart," anyway? Anyone with a half-decent memory can tuck away enough snappy Oscar Wilde quotes to make himself look smart, and with the right tactics can appear to be winning arguments even when he's dead wrong.
But is this intelligence? Can a person really be called "intelligent" when he is consistently wrong on virtually every question of importance? "
Memory is not enough: if one had memorized enough quotes, one would still need to find an appropriare one in real time to make a repartee. And that would include serious mental processing, mere parrot could not do it. And as for being wrong: well, Aristotle was wrong on too many things to count, but that does not make him unintelligent.
209
posted on
12/22/2005 10:15:18 AM PST
by
GSlob
To: Pete
Well, she did not have enough IQ to understand that she could not curtail what IQ she has. Thus she does not have too much of it, but have an unsubstantiated pretense to "antillectual" status. Serves her right.
210
posted on
12/22/2005 10:19:13 AM PST
by
GSlob
To: GSlob
"a fellatious indicator"
The only such thing I ever heard of was a blue dress.
211
posted on
12/22/2005 10:19:52 AM PST
by
dsc
(‚³‚æ‚‚µ‚ñ‚¶‚Ü‚¦)
To: Brilliant
Exactly. She only plays a smart woman on TV.I saw her on TV last night.
No, she really doesn't.
She plays a stuck up 8itch on TV.
212
posted on
12/22/2005 10:21:32 AM PST
by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
By the way she writes, I can imagine myself having a conversation with MS Dowd, and not being able to finish that conversation because my stomach would be calling attention to itself.
213
posted on
12/22/2005 10:22:03 AM PST
by
oyez
(Appeasement is death!)
To: Sonny M
Hmmm... I did not say she was a good actress.
To: Sonny M
These women are too focused on being business successes that they have no time to be women.
Most men don't want to marry the company president who works long hours and makes big bucks. Most men want to have a wife who needs them and who loves them enough to stay home and take care of the really important things, making the house a home and bearing and raising children.
The ideal wife is there to greet you when you get home from work, she is a good mother, a good manager of the household, a good friend and a good lover. She is the reason you go to work and suffer in the rat race all day. She is the thing that gives joy and light to your life. She will rub your back when you meed it (or just because she loves you) and let you take care of her when she needs it (or just because you love her). She is your partner and equal but fills an entirely different role that you cannot fill on your own. The two of you make one whole.
These complaining women don't want husbands because they are not willing to be wives
If the woman won't stay home to raise babies then why bother getting married at all. It's far more convenient to just pick someone up and get laid (these liberal chicks are notoriously easy) and live life the way you want.
215
posted on
12/22/2005 10:23:04 AM PST
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: HairOfTheDog
"I've seen a lot of bitter people posting theories on what's wrong with these women."
Calling someone "bitter" because he criticizes the reprehensible is a cop out. Seems to me most of the strongest critics here are guys with good marriages, and therefore no reason to be "bitter."
These women deserve bitter criticism, but that doesn't mean their critics are bitter.
My wife and I passed our nineteenth anniversary this year.
216
posted on
12/22/2005 10:27:43 AM PST
by
dsc
(‚³‚æ‚‚µ‚ñ‚¶‚Ü‚¦)
To: Graymatter
In my experience, there is no telltale odor to a very high IQ. Well, sense of humor [spontaneous] is a pretty good sign of a high IQ, unless a person in question just parrots or recites somebody else's joke. And that's just for the beginning. From here it follows that both GWB and his mother Barbara are at least in "the gifted" category, MSM calumnies notwithstanding. And no, I do not have any direct experience of interacting with either of them, but I'll be willing to bet serious money on this statement about them.
217
posted on
12/22/2005 10:28:53 AM PST
by
GSlob
To: GermanBusiness
But get this: The younger European women, 18-25, who never knew Clinton, are more conservative vis-a-vis the WOT and Bush than the older women who were brainwashed by Clinton. Women in their thirties are most likely to be hopeless liberals. I have no problem dating the younger women, but no luck in the 25-40 range.
Smart men marry younger women. Smart women marry older men while young and pretty, and then pursue their careers. Here is the analysis:
ROSS IN RANGE
The Elephant in Maureen's Living Room and Do Great Minds Think Alike?, or
JR and Fred Try to Pour Water Uphill
By John Ross
Copyright 2005 by John Ross. Electronic reproduction of this article freely permitted provided it is reproduced in its entirety with attribution given
I'm spending Thanksgiving week here in Aspen. I've been coming here since I was a little kid, and there isn't anyplace I've ever been that's better for my attitude. When I'm not outside, I'm here in my studio writing, with a view of Red Mountain out the picture window. Women of varying ages stroll by a story below, their looks generally varying between good and gorgeous. Many, though by no means all, are what you'd call "high maintenance," but then, that's not my problem. Which brings me to this column, which I've been dabbling with off and on for a couple weeks, adding material and editing it for content.
And then, checking Fred Reed's website, I see he's already posted his take on the same subject: Resident New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's latest whine, her new book Are Men Necessary? You can read his views on this embarrassing tome at
http://fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml. For those of you who aren't familiar with her, Maureen Dowd writes regular columns for the Times about men's endless deficiencies, while at the same time bemoaning the fact that no man will marry her. In the parts of Are Men Necessary? most commonly quoted by reviewers, she claims that men are intimidated by successful women in positions of power, and much prefer dating (and marrying) female subordinates such as their secretaries, rather than pairing with female executives and other professionals.* She thinks the fact that she's a columnist at the New York Times is the reason she's never been married. She turns 54 in January. As other reviewers have pointed out, she talks about her own family's history of working as domestics and comes to the self-pitying conclusion that "being a maid would have enhanced my chances with men."
Maureen, Fred Reed has taken you to task for being a disagreeable shrew and failing to see that that is the reason no man will marry you, not your professional success. He may have a valid point, but I don't know you, and since every redhead I've ever met (including bottled ones like you) was at least worth knowing, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Maureen, there's an elephant in your living room, and it looks like I'm going to have to point it out to you. But before I do, a little bit about me and my credentials.
I'm Amherst Class of '79, while my sisters graduated from Smith College in 1968. Since you got your B.A. in 1973, that puts you in the middle. I think my memories of and knowledge about my sisters in college plus my own college experience makes me aware of what things were like for you during the time you became an adult.
Maureen, in those days, the feminists of the era were (correctly) telling young college women that they could accomplish professionally just about anything a man could. What these feminists failed to mention was that doing so would almost certainly require these women to squander a valuable and expiring asset: Their youth and fertility.
Here's the deal, Maureen. With one exception, men can accomplish anything that we think is important all by ourselves. Explore, build empires, create new industries, invent, discover, make money--all these things come naturally to us. We don't need your help.
But the one thing we can't do by ourselves, and it's the thing most men want more than anything else, is to have a family and play a prominent role in raising our children. For that, we need a woman. And not just any woman--we need a woman whose youth and fertility will give us the greatest chance of having healthy children, raised by a mother young enough to not be an old woman by the time the kids reach high school. We don't want our children raised by a woman that's old enough to be their grandmother.
When it comes to the thing that makes women most desirable (for marriage) to men, WOMEN HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE. MEN DON'T. That's the elephant in your living room, Maureen. You may not like to hear this, but it's true. Men constantly produce fresh sperm all their lives. Women produce a finite amount of eggs at puberty, and these eggs age until they are no longer usable. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Actress Pamela Anderson has been on the cover of Playboy magazine something like 9 or 10 times, including in the last year--far more than any other woman. She is tremendously sexy and sexual, things most men find compelling.
Yet if you asked a sampling of marriage-minded men who they would rather have fall in love with them, 38-year-old, 5'7" actress Pam Anderson or 19-year-old, 6'2" champion Russian tennis player Maria Sharapova, what answer do you think you'd get? If you think this isn't a fair comparison because Pam comes across as too slutty while Maria hasn't been in Playboy and doesn't have a film on the Internet of her having sex, how about a choice between 38-year-old Pam and 24-year-old Paris Hilton? FOR MARRIAGE, WOMEN HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE. MEN DON'T.
Male lawyers don't choose to marry their secretaries over female lawyers because those secretaries are subordinates or because the men are "intimidated by strong women," they choose the secretaries because the secretaries are younger and more fertile than the female lawyers.
Maureen, you used to date actor Michael Douglas. I don't know how much money the New York Times pays you, but I doubt it's anything like what Catherine Zeta-Jones earns as an actress. Catherine is Michael's peer, not his subordinate. I think she makes even more money than he does, now. So why did he dump you and marry her, if men are intimidated by successful women? Because when she bore Michael the first of their two children, she was 30 years old, while you were 47. Michael was 55. FOR MARRIAGE, WOMEN HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE. MEN DON'T. In 1997, 82-year-old actor Anthony Quinn married his secretary, Robin Belvin. Did he marry her because, as you claim, men are intimidated by strong women and she was his subordinate? No, he married her because she was young and fertile enough to bear him two children. If Robin had been 53 years old, as you are now, he wouldn't have married her, no matter how subordinate she was. FOR MARRIAGE, WOMEN HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE. MEN DON'T.
For all of society's expectation that men and women pair up and marry at all ages, men are coming to the inescapable realization that there are only two rational reasons for a man to marry: Because either he wants to have children and the woman in question is likely to produce intelligent, healthy offspring, or if he doesn't want (more) kids, the woman in question has considerable wealth and is happy to share it.
This isn't universally true; yes, men still marry women who aren't wealthy and are too old for kids, but it's getting more and more rare. If a man wants companionship, there's no need to invite the government into his relationship with his companion.
Maureen, the time for you to attract the kind of husband you'd like to have was over thirty years ago, when you could have given a man the family he wanted. Your career success (or lack thereof) would have been to him a non-issue. If you'd made it clear you wanted to have a family while you were still young, there would have been many suitable men 8-10 years older than you vying for your approval. You let your most valuable asset (from a potential husband's standpoint) expire. Accept the fact that you're past your expiration date, and quit complaining about it.
You seem to take pride in your career. If you regret missing out on having a family, don't whine about it, use it to benefit others. Write a column (or a book) urging parents to inform their teenage daughters of the consequences of pursuing careers while disregarding their own expiration dates.
John Ross 11/23/05
*Her source for this presumption was a survey of a hundred or so incoming freshmen at some college, most of whom said they'd prefer dating someone who was not in a position superior to them. Methinks 18-year-old boys do not speak for grown men, and grown men is the group the 53-year-old Dowd complains about.
11/30 update: Boy, I've really hit a raw nerve with this column! I posted a slightly shortened version as a review of Dowd's book on Amazon.com and after reading it, Salon columnist Rebecca Traister decided to write a column entitled "Scary screeds about Maureen Dowd, written by threatened men." Think about that--she wrote an article based on an Amazon review! This is how terrified some women are about the truth getting out. I'm "threatened" because I point out that most men don't propose to women that are too old to have children. In the first 48 hours, her article about my comments has elicited 25 pages of letters, most from outraged women getting their knickers in a twist that someone has dared say that the emperor has no clothes. Most accuse me of being a Neanderthal that wants to keep all women barefoot and pregnant in the trailer park and who thinks women are good for nothing besides being brood mares. Others said I was bitter from being a failure with women. Several made mention of "mail order brides" and blow-up dolls. Rebecca Traister, the author of the Salon article, ended with "Raise your hand if you think Ross saw a photograph of the smokin' Dowd and got all pissy because it was unlikely she'd ever sleep with him!" I am not making this up.
Ladies, you just don't get it. You are capable of many great things other than childbearing, and for that men will admire you and congratulate you and be in long-term, monogamous relationships with you. But if you're not a candidate to bear his children (and not rich), what rational reason does a man have to MARRY you? Inviting the government into his union brings all sorts of potential liabilities and NO benefits to a man, unless the woman is wealthy.
"What about love?" some women ask. A man doesn't need the government to authorize his love for his mate. A woman DOES need the government to be involved if she intends to cash out on the man who loves her. More and more men are figuring this out, and saying "No, thanks" to marriage.
Sorry, ladies.
http://john-ross.net/maureen.htm
218
posted on
12/22/2005 10:29:27 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: GSlob
"Memory is not enough: if one had memorized enough quotes, one would still need to find an appropriare one in real time to make a repartee."
Even Winston Churchill confessed to preparing such things in advance. It doesn't take that much candlepower.
219
posted on
12/22/2005 10:30:23 AM PST
by
dsc
(‚³‚æ‚‚µ‚ñ‚¶‚Ü‚¦)
To: John O
These women are too focused on being business successes that they have no time to be women. In all fairness, in their upper twenties and thirties, it's only fact that they've had to get jobs... unless they were to remain in their parent's home by the phone until they married. That they've had some promotion in their work is not in itself a bad thing. :~D None said they were necessarily devoted to careers over family, one even wondering if they should step down to admin assistant somewhere (I think that's what the article meant) until they found a mate, because they bought, for a moment, that maybe it was their corner offices that were the problem. It's not.... not for most men.
That said... There's a lot of people, men and women alike, who turn their job into their life, instead of a means to a paycheck so they can have a life. :~D
220
posted on
12/22/2005 10:32:29 AM PST
by
HairOfTheDog
(Join the Hobbit Hole Troop Support - http://freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net/ 1,000 knives and counting!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 561-573 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson