Posted on 11/16/2006 7:07:33 AM PST by qam1
Those who say that men don't like women with brains and careers are misleading women, says New York columnist Christine B. Whelan, author of "Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women," published this year.
Ms. Whelan, 29, says she wrote the book, in part, to respond to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's claim in her 2005 book "Are Men Necessary?" that success decreases a woman's chance for marriage.
"This isn't good news," Ms. Whelan said about reading the book when she was single and had just finished her doctoral degree in economic and social history. "The social scientist in me knew better than to accept this conventional wisdom without doing research of my own."
Ms. Whelan researched U.S. Census Bureau data, commissioned a national opinion survey and conducted interviews with more than 100 high-achieving men and women in nine cities to gather material for her book. What she found was that high-achieving women -- women with graduate degrees and/or an income in the top 10 percent of women in their age group -- married at the same rate as all other women did, but later in life, and that outdated information and misinterpreted statistics had women believing otherwise.
She calls these women SWANS, or Strong Women Achievers, No Spouse
The statistics Ms. Whelan provides in her book show that American women marry by an average age of 30 if they have a graduate degree, the median age for all women to marry is 25, and 90 percent of women marry by 44.
"Ms. Dowd is painting the wrong picture for our generation," Ms. Whelan said, adding that Ms. Dowd was right in saying that prior to the 1980s, it was more difficult for smart, successful women to get married and have children............
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
men don't marry a female dog.
men don't marry a smart female dog.
men don't marry a stupid female dog.
for those in rio linda female dog = bitch = feminist = nag.
The woman who is pushing "swans" has not a single clue about what men want.
I'll tell you this much:
It takes confidence to be submissive to your spouse. Being submissive is an act of trust. Being submissive to each other is its own benefit, in that one of you doesn't have to be 'strong' all the time - something I have found to be practically impossible.
Being submissive to each other, to me, is the ultimate sign of strength in a marriage.
On top of all that, its hot.
Smart MAY be sexy. A casual confidence is DEFINITELY sexy.
women like Dowd think that ford "divorced dad" commercial will induce men to want to buy that car for themselves or their wives.
Okay, here is the truth about Mr. Netanyahu now that you mention his "voice". Netanyahu is actually Gene Simmons without his wig! I'm not kidding, ever seen them in the same place at the same time? Thats what I thought? hhmmmmmmmmmmmm?
I have NOT in fact ever seen Gene Simmons and Bibi in the same place.
That is a ponderous and astute observation!
Let's start the rumor here . . . Netanyahu is Gene Simmons' secret identity!
It's totally true! CHECK THE TOUNGUE! ha ha
I have a degree in Computer Science and a minor in Chemistry. For 3 years in college, I was actually studying to be a Chemical Engineer.
I was also 5' 7", blond haired, blue-eyed, and about 110 lbs. I did not dress like a frump, either, and was known for lying around my apartment pool in my bikini.
Anyway, when I would go out with my girlfriends dancing sometimes I would lie about my major. My girlfriends would enjoy my escapades because I would tell these young men that I was an elementary education major. They always believed me, and they always ended up dancing with me most of the night.
Whenever I was truthful about my real major, lots of young men would not dance long.
I even had a good friend of mine tell me that I was too cute to be in engineering.
I met my husband at work, so there was no hiding my intelligence. I'm just glad that he liked a smart woman. In fact, I know he sometimes wishes that I had more things to talk about than the kids. My kids are older, and I need to go back to work.
I have to say something here. I grew up in Texas, but moved to California when I got out of college. I have another engineering friend of mine that did the same.
Both of us had a lot more difficulty keeping boyfriends in Texas, and both of us married Christian men in California.
In California, both of us had lots of dates and lots to choose from. In Texas, it just seemed like the men shied away from us when they heard that we were engineers.
Well, it's legal Latin, which may not be much like real Latin - simpliciter is a short-hand way of saying "in and of itself" or "without more" and ceterus paribus is a short-hand way of saying "all other things being equal" - I wrote this at work and just dropped into jargon without thinking about it.
So who is this Ceterus Paribus dood? Is he related to that Russian spy, Regus Patoff?
As a current student of engineering, I can say, without a doubt, that you are most definitely the exception to the rule and not the norm. For the most part, girls in engineering are either really dumb and getting by on thier looks (and they don't last long) or, unfortunately, are uglier than a bag of smashed a$$holes...
"Now stop being such a smartass and enjoy the rest of the thread."
You can say that again. Oh wait... nevermind.
The problem here is that what you are saying is correct, but incomplete and misleading.
When most men and women talk about qualities they look for in a companion, being 'smart' often comes up as one of the top 5 or 10 qualities.
The thing is, a lot of folks (particularly smart ones) thinks this means that intelligence, in itself, is sexy. It isn't. When people say they like a 'smart' companion, what they really mean is 'smart enough,' or 'not stupid.' It's a low threshold as almost everybody meets that criteria.
That's not to say so much that intelligence, in itself, is sexually appealing. It is to say a pronounced lack of intelligence is unappealing in a long term romantic companion.
Actually, a very intelligent person who is abrasive, rude, or otherwise a poor companion will likely be rejected in time, in favor of a more appealing companion, even if they are less intelligent. So long as they aren't dumb, they will satisfy the very misunderstood 'intelligence' criteria.
When it comes to men, if all they knew about a woman they could meet was that she was very smart, it would be neither a plus nor a minus. He wouldn't be particularly excited to meet her, or particularly disinterested either.
When it comes to women, if all they knew about a man they could meet was that he was very smart, it would be a slight plus, and in most cases not a minus. She might be slightly more interested in meeting him, now would she be particularly disinterested either.
One issue may be the qualities that propel women toward the top in the workplace are often the same qualities men find unattractive.
A bitter pill that even intelligent people have to sometimes swallow is that people tend to be romantically rejected for substantive, rather than shallow reasons. This is true for men or women. There is no shortage of good men or women - there are many. They just reject unappealing potential mates, that's all.
That's to their credit, by the way.
The bottom line is modesty. A smart woman with high morals is wise enough to understand the greatness of G-d and be Divinely grateful for her talents.
First, Happy Birthday.
Second, I hear this a lot from men of a variety of ages. What attitude in women troubles you? Where are you meeting women? I honestly find that there is no shortage at all of good, quality attractive women at all.
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.