Woman in power is powerless when it comes to meeting men

http://www.mcall.com/ ^ | September 17, 2005 | Amy Alkon

[teldon30]

Dear Amy: I'd like to be in a relationship again, but I never even get asked out (unless you count frisky 85-year-olds and drunks at the corner bar). I'm a 32-year-old woman who's happy, sociable, and attractive. (I paid for college by modeling and continue to take care of myself.) I'm second-in-command at a big company, financially secure, and own a beautiful home. How can I meet men in general, and more specifically, men I'd actually want to date?

Deluxe Chopped Liver

Dear Deluxe: To scare away vampires, it takes garlic and crosses, which make ugly bulges in sleek, satin evening bags. Luckily, all you have to do to scare away men is pull out a business card that says ''senior vice president.''

''Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac,'' said Henry Kissinger. Sure it is — unless you're a woman. Research by Stephanie L. Brown and Brian P. Lewis, published in Evolution and Human Behavior (Nov. '04), seems to confirm what many lonely women at the top already know: When guys go for the woman in the boardroom, it isn't the woman running the meeting but the secretary who wheeled in the coffee and croissants before it started.

Sure, plenty of men will scamper up the corporate ladder for a one-night stand. But, according to Brown and Lewis' study, men looking for dates or relationships tend to prefer their subordinates to their colleagues or bosses. The researchers hypothesize that men evolved to want women they can control as a means of guarding against ''parental uncertainty'' — unwittingly raising kids fathered by the Neanderthal next door as their own. Brown and Lewis think this may also explain why men are suckers for ''behavioral expressions of vulnerability'' — women who act like they might not be able to make it across the street

[fqued]

But a good woman will see the potential....

Now, that is a great compliment--thank you very much!

actually, I fell in love with her at first sight (truly), but she, at first, thought I was obnoxious [she may have been right]. Within a couple months I proposed and she said yes.

[Publius6961]

On second thought--I don't think women should be seen in T-shirts.

Why?
Some guy might come by and say "Excuse me Mac?"

[Publius6961]

What can be said about an adult woman who is a Star Wars freak? That is a serious question, and the answer would be very useful to me.

[arthurus]

Does not change it one whit. Just as there are women who do not fit the strip'em mentality, there are men who are rotters.That does not change the equation. A man in America is a fool to marry an American woman.And the courts do not "lean" toward the woman. There is no further room in that direction to lean. Yes, indeed, many men are rotters and because of the system , that is more and more rational. Government is Father in that government has taken on the responsibility for women and children. Most young folks I know that do contemplate marriage wait until at least after the birth of their first child because Government pays for that child's birth expenses if the mother is not married. After the happy event often the husband sees that there are further advantages to official singularity. Fatherhood can be less expensive because the government will continue to pick up some medical tabs. By not getting around to getting married that particular emotional tie is not made and a split is easier (most times) on the man and is much easier to contemplate because, after all, one is not actually married. One has not actually made that much of a commitment. "Messing around" comes easier and has the excuse that "after all, we're not married," and it is easier to react to it by leaving.

If the couple does not marry, assets are more likely to be in the man's name only and marginally easire to protect from the woman's grasp when she goes to strip him.

I am not against marriage. Without it this culture and civilization is pretty much doomed to eventually follow the European path to extinction.

[papertyger]

Neither one is shallow - they are Human Biology 101. Our subconscious minds make decisions about potential mates based on these factors and there is exactly zero point in criticizing either men or women for doing so.

Whether or not "they are Human Biology 101," does not address the question of shallowness. It's an incidental objection.

It also presumes a deterministic quality for this "unconscious" drive toward your predetermined conclusion without ever addressing the numerous issues that tend to weaken your main contention (i.e. distaste for male facial hair, preference for petite women, poolboy syndrome, et al)

Claiming it makes zero point to criticize is nothing but dismissing the role of society and culture in pairing, arguably a more weighty factor than some vestigial programming.

Attraction based on these factors is not a choice, and not something we can change by pretending they aren't important.

Attraction may not be a choice, but that was never my point. My point was choosing a mate, and presumably, there is a choice to be made.

Personally, I think it's a bit "magic wand-ish" to conflate the atavistic attracting power of certain physical characteristics with the purely cognitive process of sizing up a guys bank account. "The ability to provide" is a concept only superficially similar to "picking the strongest breeder" in the same way a motorcycle and a bicycle are only superficially related.

[papertyger]

That's a new one on me. Would you please explain?

It refers to the book of Matthew, chapter 23, verse 24.

The "damsel in distress" you're riding to the rescue of has had only two arrows in her rhetorical quiver: gainsaying and name-calling.

By my lights, you objecting to my jibe at her amounts to "choking on a gnat, an swallowing a camel."

[papertyger]

This all gets complex, and so I'll leave futher discussion for another day.

Agreed. Please see my post 1185.

Furthermore, please bear in mind possibility is not proof.

[apackof2]

In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found
Pro.10:13a

[Rca2000]

Since you both were speakng about cars before, allow me to change the current subject a little, to the car arena.

Now, I know that both of you seem to be enthusiasts for old(as in pre-1980) cars, and I do NOT really like to DRIVE old cars. I like to look at them and ride in them, but I do not wish to OWN one, as a daily(or otherwise) driver. I am into hi-tech, and like cars with touch screens, computer control, Fuel injection, Distributorless ignitions, digital instruments, electronic(as in LCD) mirrors, etc. I owned an olds Trofeo previously, and two Rivieras, all of which had the computer screen. I loved all 3, the Olds in particular, was a great car. Quite fast, reliable, and a LOT of fun to drive.

That being said, it just seems to me, that ALL cars nowdays are becoming considerably more powerful,(from the factory) and some of them are ferociously fast!! take for example the Corvette Z06. Here we have an engine with over 500 HP STOCK, and the tranny, chassis and tires, to handle that power. 0-60 in 3.5 sec, 11 sec. quarters, STOCK!! I have kept up on the vette, over the years, and the ONLY thing that MIGHT had touched the current one was the ZL-1 aluminum vette,or maybe the L-88 BB, but the tires, chassis and tranny limited the available performance from that machine,(the ZL-1) and only 2 were built(officially, anyway), due to the extra-high cost of the engine. Not to be outdone, Ford now has the Gt, that has similar performance, at WAY higher cost, and a much-upgraded"retro look" Mustang. Cadillac now has optional engines with over 450 Hp, in supercharged form(as if the 275-320 hp. from the Northstar was not enough).Even lesser cars, such as the Impala, now have an available V-8, of over 300hp. Chrysler has revived the Charger, and it can have a 400hp+ Hemi engine.And modern v-6 cars are not "just plebeian transportation' nowdays. Nissan now has more than 250 HP, from its 6 in its cars, such as the Altima and Maxima. Lexus has a 300+ v-6 HP IS model.

Even 4 cylinder cars are no longer a laughing matter. I recall about 20 years or so ago, that a 4 banger was laughable, slow, and noisy. NOT today. Many of the 4 cylinder cars have respectable HP AND torque figures, allowing for good takeoff AND high-speed acceleration.

SO the bottom line is-- it appears that nearly ALL cars are getting a LOT more powerful nowdays, right off of the showroom floor. And around here, at least, drivers are taking advantage of this. I typically drive around 70 or so, on the Highways. EVERY time I get on the road, at this speed, a BUNCH of cars pass me at 80,90 and higher speeds. And these are NOT just Vettes,Porsches, 'stangs, and the like, but Minivans, SUV's, "family" cars, compact cars,and these are driven by Men and Women alike, young and old. About the ONLY exception to this, is the "older set" who still drives at 60 or less, in the "slow lane.

Have you noticed this trend, also?

[TChad]

OK, so I want to hear from the guys on this one--do you men REALLY take a look at a woman expecting to be divorced from her someday? Do you look and say "if/when we get divorced on what level would I get screwed?"

I saw what happened to many of my male friends, none of whom were idiots, all of whom genuinely tried to make their marriages work, and most of whom were seriously damaged emotionally and financially by the divorces that their wives initiated. After that I concluded that it would be insane for a man NOT to plan for a divorce if he decided to marry. (You are right, this is very sad, glad you noticed.)

OTOH I do know one local guy who was divorced by his wife for what I thought were good reasons -- he is charming, but an alcoholic -- who explained to me that while his wife had every opportunity to destroy him in the divorce, she had not abused her power, but was reasonable and even kind. I was shocked. In my experience real women simply did not behave that way during and after a divorce. She was so exceptional that I now think of her as something of a saint.

[fqued]

a very nicely worded post.

I especially appreciate the artistry of the line: "Personally, I think it's a bit "magic wand-ish" to conflate the atavistic attracting power of certain physical characteristics with the purely cognitive process of sizing up a guys bank account."

However, in my mundane prose, I must state that you have overstated the issue in your post. I think that a woman, in choosing a mate, should (maybe "ought to") consider whether this man will be able to provide a stable and safe environment for the raising of children, i.e., for her and for her children. This demands a consideration of his "pocketbook potential."

Does that mean that a millionaire should win out over a tow truck driver? NO! But a stable tow truck driver should win out over a dude who can't keep a job for more than two months.

admittedly, there are some woman who marry for money, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether the man's income or income-potential is a legitimate consideration in choosing a mate, and I agree with those who say "yes."

[marajade]

For what? You don't have any hobbies?

[fqued]

You are correct. As technology advances, automobile efficience also advances.

That said, wouldn't you really prefer to drive a 427 Cobra than any modern car?

[SauronOfMordor]

I typically drive around 70 or so, on the Highways. EVERY time I get on the road, at this speed, a BUNCH of cars pass me at 80,90 and higher speeds. And these are NOT just Vettes,Porsches, 'stangs, and the like, but Minivans, SUV's, "family" cars, compact cars,and these are driven by Men and Women alike, young and old. About the ONLY exception to this, is the "older set" who still drives at 60 or less, in the "slow lane.

I've noticed that the "flow of traffic" on highways by me is 80, which is what I tend to do

[fqued]

Your Star Wars interest is a hobby, good.

We all have hobbies, but don't our hobbies say something about us? I think the question was really what your Star Wars interest says about you.

I remember when the original movie was released, there were people who went to see the movie dozens of times. That said something about them, but you could only really know what that was by asking them.

I am also interested in your reply-what does this hobby mean to you, what does it say about you, etc.?

[Nowhere Man]

Now, I know that both of you seem to be enthusiasts for old(as in pre-1980) cars, and I do NOT really like to DRIVE old cars. I like to look at them and ride in them, but I do not wish to OWN one, as a daily(or otherwise) driver. I am into hi-tech, and like cars with touch screens, computer control, Fuel injection, Distributorless ignitions, digital instruments, electronic(as in LCD) mirrors, etc. I owned an olds Trofeo previously, and two Rivieras, all of which had the computer screen. I loved all 3, the Olds in particular, was a great car. Quite fast, reliable, and a LOT of fun to drive.

I have a 1977 Mercury Cougar that I'd like to get back on the road sometime, that is if I keep going in my process of getting my "ducks in a row." We bought it new in 1977, well my mother did. I have a thing for old, lumbering "land yachts," I could probably launch F-4 Phantoms from my Cougar's hood. B-) It has a 302 engine, I could probably get 250 to 300 HP out of it if I disconnect the thermactor pump and put a 4 barrel carb onto it.

My dream cars, well, a 1965 Ford Galaxie would be cool:



Or a 1968 Buick Wildcat:



And for "craps and giggles," an AMC Gremlin, a 1977 Model shown here:



Oh, yes, a prototype 4x4 (1977) van based on the Gremlin but never made, cannot leave the SUV crowd in the dust. B-) Being 1977, I would choose something from "Star Wars" as the van art. B-)



I'm car happy, I could go on, but I've posted enough B-)

[A CA Guy]

Woman in power is powerless when it comes to meeting men

You mean I can snap my fingers and they'll drop the clothing & proceed to do the dishes? (Must watch back, must watch back)

[marajade]

I'm a geeky girl... like computers, home theater stuff, electronics, and sci fi.

[fqued]

I have noticed that almost everybody thinks he or she got screwed in the divorce. I can't remember anyone ever saying to me that he or she came out ahead in the divorce.

Frankly, noone I know got married looking to divorce. And I have never seen a divorce that didn't in the end rip up both parties.

[Nowhere Man]

BTW, I had an interesting thought on cars and hi-tech. I always thought it would be cool to take a 1960's era car and custom make a digital dashboard with Nixie tube digits, sort of a "retro-future" look as a "what-if." For added bonus points, the radio will use Nixie tubes as a frequency display as well as the automatic climate control. I'd probably need to have 3 alternators and 3 car batteries tied in parallel though. B-) Seriously, looking back then, even back in the 1950's, cars did have things like seats that remember where they are to be seat for each driver, automatic climate control systems, pushbutton automatic transmissions, and even a mechanical based trip computer.