Replies

>>I don't think men are "turned off" by successful women if they meet the other qualifications in the femininity and attractiveness departments - much as women might cut slack to a guy who comes up short financially if he exceeds basic looks and "protector" requirements.<<

My point was this-the Maureen Dowds of the world are bitter and angry that their "success" does not have the same attractant power that men's success has to women.

For this, they blame men (of course)-"afraid of strong women", "wants a doormat", "abuser, neglecter, and infecter", etc, etc ad nauseum.

Of course, what is going on herre is the projection by "succesful" women of their own requirements in a mate onto men.

It isn't that a successful woman is unattractive-some are, some aren't. It's just that success is not in the top ten things men are interested in.

The result of this is that successful women are competing over very few men, while successful men have many, many women to choose from-including, but not limited to, "successful" women.

"The result of this is that successful women are competing over very few men, "

I agree. The "Power Couple" seems to be the exception, but all to often, I see women who are "successful" professionally rush to marry whatever will have them as they kareen headlong into their childbearing years.

It isn't that a successful woman is unattractive...no, but some businesswomen overcompensate for their own insecurities in a rather unattractive way, and then blame the antipathy that draws on simply being a woman with power.

The feminist movement pushes the illusion that men who are autocratic, domineering bosses are "respected", and that therefor if an autocratic, domineering woman boss is not respected, it must be due to discrimination against womenhood.

The flaw in that theory is that autocratic, domineering men are not greatly respected as bosses, they are reviled...as thousands of country songs will attest to.