Saturday
Dirty Harry
-
Dirty Harry is no more. In late 1980s, real men are replaced with girly actors. Hollywood is creating a generation of wimps.
TV shows also show how weak modern boys really are.
Men in movies today: Wimps whiners and weenies
Where have America's strong male icons gone?
Run your eyes over this list and tell me what these men have in common: Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Liam Neeson, Pierce Brosnan, Paul Hogan, Jet Li, Chow Yun-Fat, Sean Connery.
That's right, they're all foreigners. They're today's top Hollywood tough guys, heart throbs, and macho men.
Why must the land of the free and the home of the brave import most of its on-screen testosterone?
The problem goes even deeper than that.
Period films-those set in earlier, pre-PC times, like Gladiator or The Patriot-continue to feature bold, decisive, heroic male characters.
Among movies set in our present day, however, a viewer can't help wondering where all the real men are.
Masculine traits are now mostly reduced to one of two extremes: The whiny wimp (in realistic dramas) or the battering thug.
Bold, principled, noble men of the sort who thickly peopled the films of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s have nearly disappeared.
Comments: Ladies want a real man to make their day. James Bond is in demand.
--
Dirty Harry is no more. In late 1980s, real men are replaced with girly actors. Hollywood is creating a generation of wimps.
TV shows also show how weak modern boys really are.
Men in movies today: Wimps whiners and weenies
Where have America's strong male icons gone?
Run your eyes over this list and tell me what these men have in common: Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Liam Neeson, Pierce Brosnan, Paul Hogan, Jet Li, Chow Yun-Fat, Sean Connery.
That's right, they're all foreigners. They're today's top Hollywood tough guys, heart throbs, and macho men.
Why must the land of the free and the home of the brave import most of its on-screen testosterone?
The problem goes even deeper than that.
Period films-those set in earlier, pre-PC times, like Gladiator or The Patriot-continue to feature bold, decisive, heroic male characters.
Among movies set in our present day, however, a viewer can't help wondering where all the real men are.
Masculine traits are now mostly reduced to one of two extremes: The whiny wimp (in realistic dramas) or the battering thug.
Bold, principled, noble men of the sort who thickly peopled the films of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s have nearly disappeared.
Comments: Ladies want a real man to make their day. James Bond is in demand.
--
Girly Men
-
Manthropology: The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male.
Live Science 2009
New Research shows that modern men are wimps
A new book claims even modern men cannot run as fast, jump as high, or have been nearly as strong as our predecessors. Even a Neanderthal woman would have beaten Arnold Schwarzenegger in an arm wrestle.
Anthropologist Peter McAllister, describes many examples of the inadequacy of the modern male, calling them as a class, "the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet."
Comment: Its not the couch. Its the heel. Men who let women step on them turn into mash potatoes. Those who dont, they rule the hearts of ladies.
Ladies do not like wimps, whiners, weenies...
Wimps are not better than chimps. Women hate whimps, pimps and chimps.
-
Manthropology: The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male.
Live Science 2009
New Research shows that modern men are wimps
A new book claims even modern men cannot run as fast, jump as high, or have been nearly as strong as our predecessors. Even a Neanderthal woman would have beaten Arnold Schwarzenegger in an arm wrestle.
Anthropologist Peter McAllister, describes many examples of the inadequacy of the modern male, calling them as a class, "the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet."
Comment: Its not the couch. Its the heel. Men who let women step on them turn into mash potatoes. Those who dont, they rule the hearts of ladies.
Ladies do not like wimps, whiners, weenies...
Wimps are not better than chimps. Women hate whimps, pimps and chimps.
-
Rough Men
-
Girls like to be treated with firmness.
Boys who are rough are sought by girls.
Interesting confession of a modern woman:
Do we prefer bad men?
2010
I like good things. I presume that we all do. I have never met anyone who prefers to eat bad eggs for breakfast, or drive a bad car, or endure bad-hair days. When I visit the shops, I carefully select all the good stuff and leave out the bad ones. Sometimes, shop attendants lure me into buying damaged goods, i.e. the rejects, for very low prices, but I refuse. I’d rather not have anything bad in my possession. Having said this, I wonder if it is true then that women prefer ‘bad’ men. Do we really?
Bad men! What does this mean? Some say “bad” in this context is subjective. Is it really? I define bad men as men who are irresponsible, violent, without the fear of God, dishonest, disrespectful, uncaring, unreliable, fraudsters, womanisers, liars... if this is so, how can we love them?
Time and again, single women have been accused of being constantly attracted to these bad men. They say that we have remained single because we prefer men who do not have good intentions for us, and who end up breaking our hearts. Could this have an element of truth to it?
Is it true that we prefer bad men? Is this innate? Even a four-year-old seemed to like them bad! Have I dated bad boys/men in the past? Did I find them particularly attractive because they were bad? Did I prefer them to the wimps, the nerds, the wusses, and the so-called ‘religious brothers’?
I wouldn’t admit to anything here. However, I think we shouldn’t go with bad men. Every woman wants her man to treat her right and make her feel like a queen. If this is true, then we must resolve to date/marry only the good men; decent men... even the wimps, the nerds, the wusses, and our ‘religious brothers’ will do in this instance provided they are good. If we want goodness, we must love good men who know how to give it.
I admit, it could be attractive to have a man who is a little rough around the edges, fearless, super-adventurous, impulsive, unpredictable... but then, he must also be a good-natured man. He must love what is right and what is true. He must not be like that four-year-old (although his own ‘badness’ was cute).
Single women, we must open our eyes and be true to ourselves. The moment we spot bad traits in men, without thinking: ‘it doesn’t matter’, ‘everyone else does it’, ‘he will change, ‘things will be better’, we must take to our heels! You and I should have the best. We all deserve good men.
As for me, I think ‘bad’ in this context is not subjective; we’re all smart enough to decipher the difference between good men and the bad ones. By Miss Ejire.
Comment: Single women are naive. They go for gentlemen. Experienced women are sharp. They go for rough boys. These ladies like to be man-handled. They do not like soft males. Sissies cannot handle anything but prams. Even these they keep crashing.
-
Girls like to be treated with firmness.
Boys who are rough are sought by girls.
Interesting confession of a modern woman:
Do we prefer bad men?
2010
I like good things. I presume that we all do. I have never met anyone who prefers to eat bad eggs for breakfast, or drive a bad car, or endure bad-hair days. When I visit the shops, I carefully select all the good stuff and leave out the bad ones. Sometimes, shop attendants lure me into buying damaged goods, i.e. the rejects, for very low prices, but I refuse. I’d rather not have anything bad in my possession. Having said this, I wonder if it is true then that women prefer ‘bad’ men. Do we really?
Bad men! What does this mean? Some say “bad” in this context is subjective. Is it really? I define bad men as men who are irresponsible, violent, without the fear of God, dishonest, disrespectful, uncaring, unreliable, fraudsters, womanisers, liars... if this is so, how can we love them?
Time and again, single women have been accused of being constantly attracted to these bad men. They say that we have remained single because we prefer men who do not have good intentions for us, and who end up breaking our hearts. Could this have an element of truth to it?
Is it true that we prefer bad men? Is this innate? Even a four-year-old seemed to like them bad! Have I dated bad boys/men in the past? Did I find them particularly attractive because they were bad? Did I prefer them to the wimps, the nerds, the wusses, and the so-called ‘religious brothers’?
I wouldn’t admit to anything here. However, I think we shouldn’t go with bad men. Every woman wants her man to treat her right and make her feel like a queen. If this is true, then we must resolve to date/marry only the good men; decent men... even the wimps, the nerds, the wusses, and our ‘religious brothers’ will do in this instance provided they are good. If we want goodness, we must love good men who know how to give it.
I admit, it could be attractive to have a man who is a little rough around the edges, fearless, super-adventurous, impulsive, unpredictable... but then, he must also be a good-natured man. He must love what is right and what is true. He must not be like that four-year-old (although his own ‘badness’ was cute).
Single women, we must open our eyes and be true to ourselves. The moment we spot bad traits in men, without thinking: ‘it doesn’t matter’, ‘everyone else does it’, ‘he will change, ‘things will be better’, we must take to our heels! You and I should have the best. We all deserve good men.
As for me, I think ‘bad’ in this context is not subjective; we’re all smart enough to decipher the difference between good men and the bad ones. By Miss Ejire.
Comment: Single women are naive. They go for gentlemen. Experienced women are sharp. They go for rough boys. These ladies like to be man-handled. They do not like soft males. Sissies cannot handle anything but prams. Even these they keep crashing.
-
Feminists under fire
-
Office Chicks Lay Bad Eggs
Forbes is now telling men of the 21st century that career girls are bad news, they destroy marriages: Women who climb the ladder of success are bad mothers and bad wives. The city chicks are incapable of rational thinking. Career minded ladies have no love for their children; how can they ever love their husbands. Working women put money first and home second. Office girls who are busy in furthering their careers are not interested in settling down with a family. For working girls money and position is the prime objective far above a stable family life with a husband and his children. If feminists could actually think then they would love their kids more than money and office. Men are sure to suffer if they married a working woman who is chasing a career. Boys will now be in turmoil over finding best partner for life.
see below...
--
Office Chicks Lay Bad Eggs
Forbes is now telling men of the 21st century that career girls are bad news, they destroy marriages: Women who climb the ladder of success are bad mothers and bad wives. The city chicks are incapable of rational thinking. Career minded ladies have no love for their children; how can they ever love their husbands. Working women put money first and home second. Office girls who are busy in furthering their careers are not interested in settling down with a family. For working girls money and position is the prime objective far above a stable family life with a husband and his children. If feminists could actually think then they would love their kids more than money and office. Men are sure to suffer if they married a working woman who is chasing a career. Boys will now be in turmoil over finding best partner for life.
see below...
--
Ladies Love Lions
-
Villains are attractive?
Peter Jonason, the scientist who led the study, said that many of these typical traits were embodied by James Bond, Ian Fleming's fictional spy.
"He's clearly disagreeable, very extroverted and likes trying new things – killing people, new women," he said.
Men who are narcissistic, thrill-seeking liars tend to have the greatest success at finding sexual partners, according to a new study.
"Bad boy" characters make more sexual conquests because of their predatory, scatter gun approach to meeting women, research highlighted in New Scientist magazine has claimed.
-
TiggyPetsworth posted: Because women want a 'real man', of course. We are all looking for our Fathers and Daddy certaintly wasn't a nappy changing, dinner cooking, Guardian reading wimp. The perfect example, the recent BBC4 series 'Mad Men' set in the 1960s world of advertising. The men were all unreconstructed Alpha Males: hard drinking, chain smoking womanisers, but God were they sexy. Or, even better, Tony Soprano. Fantastic. Of course, deep down we think we are going to be the one special woman to 'tame' him. Never happens, but it's fun trying!
Comment: Women, whether they acknowledge it or not, are looking for REAL men; that is they seek men that "control" them. In a nutshell, girls dont like pram-pushers, nappy-changers, and, to put it bluntly, similar other "arse-kissers". They like men who tell them: "Tonight we will watch this movie". Women dont like men who "ask" them where they would like to go for a night out. Lady likes a tough man.
-
Villains are attractive?
Peter Jonason, the scientist who led the study, said that many of these typical traits were embodied by James Bond, Ian Fleming's fictional spy.
"He's clearly disagreeable, very extroverted and likes trying new things – killing people, new women," he said.
Men who are narcissistic, thrill-seeking liars tend to have the greatest success at finding sexual partners, according to a new study.
"Bad boy" characters make more sexual conquests because of their predatory, scatter gun approach to meeting women, research highlighted in New Scientist magazine has claimed.
-
TiggyPetsworth posted: Because women want a 'real man', of course. We are all looking for our Fathers and Daddy certaintly wasn't a nappy changing, dinner cooking, Guardian reading wimp. The perfect example, the recent BBC4 series 'Mad Men' set in the 1960s world of advertising. The men were all unreconstructed Alpha Males: hard drinking, chain smoking womanisers, but God were they sexy. Or, even better, Tony Soprano. Fantastic. Of course, deep down we think we are going to be the one special woman to 'tame' him. Never happens, but it's fun trying!
Comment: Women, whether they acknowledge it or not, are looking for REAL men; that is they seek men that "control" them. In a nutshell, girls dont like pram-pushers, nappy-changers, and, to put it bluntly, similar other "arse-kissers". They like men who tell them: "Tonight we will watch this movie". Women dont like men who "ask" them where they would like to go for a night out. Lady likes a tough man.
-
Top Magazine Rips Women
-
Forbe reveals why working girl makes a bad wife, and a bad mother.
Article in the Forbes Magazine:
By Michael Noer, the Managing Editor of Forbes.com
"Don't Marry Career Women"
Guys, a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.
Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women, even those with a "feminist" outlook, are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.
Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure, at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?
Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse's parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married, it's just that they are less likely to be so than non working women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub.
To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than 30,000 dollars a year.
If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).
Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases, if, for example, both spouses have careers, the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.
In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect. "I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed," Johnson says. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of "low marital quality."
The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners," researcher Adrian J. Blow reported in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, "and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals."
There's more: According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than 30,000 dollars a year are more likely to cheat.
And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating. According to one recent study on "Marriage and Divorce's Impact on Wealth," published in The Journal of Sociology, divorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77 percent.
So why not just stay single? Because, academically speaking, a solid marriage has a host of benefits beyond just individual "happiness." There are broader social and health implications as well. According to a 2004 paper entitled "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?" marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances," higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.
A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn't mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.
Forbes then makes the point in photographs:
In Pictures: Nine Reasons To Steer Clear Of Career Women
--
The Sunday Times
Guy talk hits career women where it hurts
THEY are picky about who they will marry, tend to have flings, put off having children to the point of infertility, keep dirty homes and are miserable to boot. So why marry a career woman? The argument that working women make lousy wives was given a new lease of life last week by Forbes, a top American business magazine, prompting a slew of furious protests from women readers. One typical response was that the article was “blood-boilingly misogynistic”.
Written by Michael Noer, a senior editor with Forbes.com, it began: “Guys, a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.”
He went on: “While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it.”
Noer’s article was a particularly brutal and highly selective way of summarising recent research, which has revived the long-tarnished concept of the “happy housewife”.
To many readers it was infuriating that a respected magazine that features female leaders of industry and finance on its covers could publish such “retro-nonsense”. Michelle Peluso, chief executive of Travelocity, America’s fifth largest travel agency, said: “This article feels like one that would have been behind the times were it published in 1950, never mind 2006.”
Gloria Steinem, the pioneering feminist who famously worked as a bunny girl to expose sexism in the 1960s, rallied anew to the cause in Salon.com, where she praised Forbes sarcastically for “saving many women the trouble of dealing with men who can’t tolerate equal partnerships, take care of their own health, clean up after themselves or have the sexual confidence to survive”.
The glamorous Steinem, however, did not marry until she was 66 and does not have children. Struggles over issues such as childlessness and fertility, the “mommy wars” between stay-at-home mothers and working women and the alleged misery of wives who try to juggle home and career have become publishing staples, squarely aimed at the women’s market.
In the tabloids the topic is equally hotly debated. If celebrity magazines are to be believed, the marriage of Hollywood stars Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt foundered partly over Aniston’s desire to pursue a film career before babies. Meanwhile, Britney Spears’s marriage to the dancer Kevin Federline is under scrutiny because she wears the trousers.
So had Noer provoked a tidal wave of anger by telling a few home truths? And was his chief crime the fact that a man was saying it? It did not help his cause that Noer had previously earned his credentials as a male chauvinist pig with an article on the “economics of prostitution” in which he posed the question, “Wife or Whore? The choice is that simple”.
Under pressure from staff and readers, Forbes showed a distinct lack of confidence in Noer’s latest thesis, which was entitled Don’t Marry a Career Woman, by removing the juiciest bits from its website.
A section headlined: In Pictures, Nine Reasons to Steer Clear, which included the warning “She is more likely to cheat on you” accompanied by a photograph of a scantily clad woman lying across a man’s lap, was speedily replaced with a riposte by Elizabeth Corcoran, a Forbes executive, wife and mother of two. It was headlined: Don’t Marry a Lazy Man.
Gone too was a photo and caption for the claim that “she’ll be unhappy if she makes more than you”, taken from a report by two sociology professors, What’s Love Got to Do with It, published this year in the journal Social Forces. Noer failed to mention that other research suggested “increases in married women’s income may indirectly lower the risk of divorce by increasing women’s marital happiness”.
The much-pilloried Noer has been forbidden by Forbes to give interviews. Yet some of his most controversial assertions, including “You are much less likely to have kids”, had already been made by women. Noer cites research by Sylvia Hewlett in her much-discussed book Baby Hunger, which claims that only 51 percent of high-achieving women earning more than 100,000 dollars a year have had children by the age of 40.
He might equally have referred to the bestselling book "The Bitch in The House", edited by Cathi Hanauer, a collection of essays by career women who write of their rage at dealing with the kids, cleaning up after working husbands and coping with do-nothing men.
There is also To Hell With All That: Loving and Loathing Your Inner Housewife by Caitlin Flanagan, a writer for the New Yorker magazine, which Virago is bringing out in Britain next month.
In her book Flanagan compares the so called epidemic of sexless marriages today with the “repressed and much pitied 1950s wives” who were “apparently getting a lot more action”.
“Nowadays, American parents of a certain social class seem squeaky clean, high achieving, flush with cash, relatively exhausted, obsessed with their children, and somehow, how to pinpoint this?, undersexed,” she writes.
Inevitably much of the debate comes down to personal experience. Molly Jong Fast, a 27 year old writer, surprised her friends by getting married in white three years ago and giving birth to a son. “My experience with stay-at-home moms is that they are more depressed, more lonely, more obsessed with their kids, more unhealthy, more likely to be left by their husbands and more likely to be divorced,” she said. “They are dependent on their husbands for money, and that power balance is the kiss of death. I have my own life and it makes me more desirable to my husband.”
As Noer has found, when men join in the conversation they sound horribly sexist. Yet with women now making up 48 percent of the American workforce, men are going to have to live with career women, like it or not.
The website Salon.com suggested last week that the article might just as well have been called, If You Are Really Self Loathing and Weak, Try to Find Someone Who Doesn’t Work and Will Consent to Live With You Out of Financial Desperation For the Rest of Her Life.
THE RESEARCH
SHE’LL CHEAT ON YOU
A woman is more likely to have an affair if she is better educated than her husband. Work provides chances to meet new lovers
– Adrian J Blow, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2005
SHE’LL DESERT YOU
Marriage to a career women is more likely to end in tears. Women who work longer hours are more prone to divorce, while men’s working hours have no effect
– Dr John H Johnson of Nera Economic Consulting, 2004
SHE WON’T BEAR YOU CHILDREN
A high-flying woman is less likely to have children. Only half of women earning more than 52,000 Pounds a year have had childen by the age of 40, compared with 81 percent of comparable men
– Sylvia Hewlett, author and economist, 2002
KIDS WOULD MAKE HER UNHAPPY
Wealthier couples with children suffer a drop in marital satisfaction three times as great as their less affluent peers. Researchers believe this is because wealthier women are used to “a professional life, a fun, active, entertaining life”
Twenge, Campbell and Foster, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003
YOUR HOUSE WILL BE DIRTY
A wife earning more than 16,000 Pounds a year does 1.9 hours less housework per week. This can be remedied if the husband picks up the vacuum cleaner
– Achen and Stafford, University of Michigan, 2005
Comment: Forbes is now telling men of the 21st century that career girls are bad news, they destroy marriages: Women who climb the ladder of success are bad mothers and bad wives. The city chicks are incapable of rational thinking. Career minded ladies have no love for their children; how can they ever love their husbands. Working women put money first and home second. Office girls who are busy in furthering their careers are not interested in settling down with a family. For working girls money and position is the prime objective far above a stable family life with a husband and his children. If feminists could actually think then they would love their kids more than money and office. Men are sure to suffer if they married a working woman who is chasing a career. Boys will now be in turmoil over finding best partner for life.
--
Forbe reveals why working girl makes a bad wife, and a bad mother.
Article in the Forbes Magazine:
By Michael Noer, the Managing Editor of Forbes.com
"Don't Marry Career Women"
Guys, a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.
Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women, even those with a "feminist" outlook, are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.
Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? Sure, at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?
Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse's parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married, it's just that they are less likely to be so than non working women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub.
To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than 30,000 dollars a year.
If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).
Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases, if, for example, both spouses have careers, the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.
In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect. "I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed," Johnson says. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of "low marital quality."
The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners," researcher Adrian J. Blow reported in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, "and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals."
There's more: According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than 30,000 dollars a year are more likely to cheat.
And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating. According to one recent study on "Marriage and Divorce's Impact on Wealth," published in The Journal of Sociology, divorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77 percent.
So why not just stay single? Because, academically speaking, a solid marriage has a host of benefits beyond just individual "happiness." There are broader social and health implications as well. According to a 2004 paper entitled "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?" marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances," higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.
A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn't mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.
Forbes then makes the point in photographs:
In Pictures: Nine Reasons To Steer Clear Of Career Women
--
The Sunday Times
Guy talk hits career women where it hurts
THEY are picky about who they will marry, tend to have flings, put off having children to the point of infertility, keep dirty homes and are miserable to boot. So why marry a career woman? The argument that working women make lousy wives was given a new lease of life last week by Forbes, a top American business magazine, prompting a slew of furious protests from women readers. One typical response was that the article was “blood-boilingly misogynistic”.
Written by Michael Noer, a senior editor with Forbes.com, it began: “Guys, a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.”
He went on: “While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it.”
Noer’s article was a particularly brutal and highly selective way of summarising recent research, which has revived the long-tarnished concept of the “happy housewife”.
To many readers it was infuriating that a respected magazine that features female leaders of industry and finance on its covers could publish such “retro-nonsense”. Michelle Peluso, chief executive of Travelocity, America’s fifth largest travel agency, said: “This article feels like one that would have been behind the times were it published in 1950, never mind 2006.”
Gloria Steinem, the pioneering feminist who famously worked as a bunny girl to expose sexism in the 1960s, rallied anew to the cause in Salon.com, where she praised Forbes sarcastically for “saving many women the trouble of dealing with men who can’t tolerate equal partnerships, take care of their own health, clean up after themselves or have the sexual confidence to survive”.
The glamorous Steinem, however, did not marry until she was 66 and does not have children. Struggles over issues such as childlessness and fertility, the “mommy wars” between stay-at-home mothers and working women and the alleged misery of wives who try to juggle home and career have become publishing staples, squarely aimed at the women’s market.
In the tabloids the topic is equally hotly debated. If celebrity magazines are to be believed, the marriage of Hollywood stars Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt foundered partly over Aniston’s desire to pursue a film career before babies. Meanwhile, Britney Spears’s marriage to the dancer Kevin Federline is under scrutiny because she wears the trousers.
So had Noer provoked a tidal wave of anger by telling a few home truths? And was his chief crime the fact that a man was saying it? It did not help his cause that Noer had previously earned his credentials as a male chauvinist pig with an article on the “economics of prostitution” in which he posed the question, “Wife or Whore? The choice is that simple”.
Under pressure from staff and readers, Forbes showed a distinct lack of confidence in Noer’s latest thesis, which was entitled Don’t Marry a Career Woman, by removing the juiciest bits from its website.
A section headlined: In Pictures, Nine Reasons to Steer Clear, which included the warning “She is more likely to cheat on you” accompanied by a photograph of a scantily clad woman lying across a man’s lap, was speedily replaced with a riposte by Elizabeth Corcoran, a Forbes executive, wife and mother of two. It was headlined: Don’t Marry a Lazy Man.
Gone too was a photo and caption for the claim that “she’ll be unhappy if she makes more than you”, taken from a report by two sociology professors, What’s Love Got to Do with It, published this year in the journal Social Forces. Noer failed to mention that other research suggested “increases in married women’s income may indirectly lower the risk of divorce by increasing women’s marital happiness”.
The much-pilloried Noer has been forbidden by Forbes to give interviews. Yet some of his most controversial assertions, including “You are much less likely to have kids”, had already been made by women. Noer cites research by Sylvia Hewlett in her much-discussed book Baby Hunger, which claims that only 51 percent of high-achieving women earning more than 100,000 dollars a year have had children by the age of 40.
He might equally have referred to the bestselling book "The Bitch in The House", edited by Cathi Hanauer, a collection of essays by career women who write of their rage at dealing with the kids, cleaning up after working husbands and coping with do-nothing men.
There is also To Hell With All That: Loving and Loathing Your Inner Housewife by Caitlin Flanagan, a writer for the New Yorker magazine, which Virago is bringing out in Britain next month.
In her book Flanagan compares the so called epidemic of sexless marriages today with the “repressed and much pitied 1950s wives” who were “apparently getting a lot more action”.
“Nowadays, American parents of a certain social class seem squeaky clean, high achieving, flush with cash, relatively exhausted, obsessed with their children, and somehow, how to pinpoint this?, undersexed,” she writes.
Inevitably much of the debate comes down to personal experience. Molly Jong Fast, a 27 year old writer, surprised her friends by getting married in white three years ago and giving birth to a son. “My experience with stay-at-home moms is that they are more depressed, more lonely, more obsessed with their kids, more unhealthy, more likely to be left by their husbands and more likely to be divorced,” she said. “They are dependent on their husbands for money, and that power balance is the kiss of death. I have my own life and it makes me more desirable to my husband.”
As Noer has found, when men join in the conversation they sound horribly sexist. Yet with women now making up 48 percent of the American workforce, men are going to have to live with career women, like it or not.
The website Salon.com suggested last week that the article might just as well have been called, If You Are Really Self Loathing and Weak, Try to Find Someone Who Doesn’t Work and Will Consent to Live With You Out of Financial Desperation For the Rest of Her Life.
THE RESEARCH
SHE’LL CHEAT ON YOU
A woman is more likely to have an affair if she is better educated than her husband. Work provides chances to meet new lovers
– Adrian J Blow, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2005
SHE’LL DESERT YOU
Marriage to a career women is more likely to end in tears. Women who work longer hours are more prone to divorce, while men’s working hours have no effect
– Dr John H Johnson of Nera Economic Consulting, 2004
SHE WON’T BEAR YOU CHILDREN
A high-flying woman is less likely to have children. Only half of women earning more than 52,000 Pounds a year have had childen by the age of 40, compared with 81 percent of comparable men
– Sylvia Hewlett, author and economist, 2002
KIDS WOULD MAKE HER UNHAPPY
Wealthier couples with children suffer a drop in marital satisfaction three times as great as their less affluent peers. Researchers believe this is because wealthier women are used to “a professional life, a fun, active, entertaining life”
Twenge, Campbell and Foster, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003
YOUR HOUSE WILL BE DIRTY
A wife earning more than 16,000 Pounds a year does 1.9 hours less housework per week. This can be remedied if the husband picks up the vacuum cleaner
– Achen and Stafford, University of Michigan, 2005
Comment: Forbes is now telling men of the 21st century that career girls are bad news, they destroy marriages: Women who climb the ladder of success are bad mothers and bad wives. The city chicks are incapable of rational thinking. Career minded ladies have no love for their children; how can they ever love their husbands. Working women put money first and home second. Office girls who are busy in furthering their careers are not interested in settling down with a family. For working girls money and position is the prime objective far above a stable family life with a husband and his children. If feminists could actually think then they would love their kids more than money and office. Men are sure to suffer if they married a working woman who is chasing a career. Boys will now be in turmoil over finding best partner for life.
--
Wife or Whore
-
Forbes Editor rips women who have a career.
Article by the executive news editor for Forbes Magazine.
"The Economics Of Prostitution"
Michael Noer - American business writer and editor.
Wife or whore?
The choice is that simple. At least according to economists Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn, it is.
The two well respected economists created a minor stir in academic circles a few years back when they published "A Theory of Prostitution" in the Journal of Political Economy. The paper was remarkable not only for being accepted by a major journal but also because it considered wives and whores as economic "goods" that can be substituted for each other. Men buy, women sell.
Economists have been equating money and marriage ever since Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker published his seminal paper "A Theory of Marriage" in two parts in 1973 and 1974, also, not coincidentally, in the Journal of Political Economy.
Becker used market analysis to tackle the questions of whom, when and why we marry. His conclusions? Mate selection is a market, and marriages occur only if they are profitable for both parties involved.
Becker allowed nonmonetary elements, like romantic love and companionship, to be entered into courtship's profit and loss statement. And children, in particular, were important. "Sexual gratification, cleaning, feeding and other services can be purchased, but not children: Both the man and the woman are required to produce their own children and perhaps to raise them," he wrote.
But back to whores: Edlund and Korn admit that spouses and streetwalkers aren't exactly alike. Wives, in truth, are superior to whores in the economist's sense of being a good whose consumption increases as income rises, like fine wine. This may explain why prostitution is less common in wealthier countries. But the implication remains that wives and whores are, if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi, something akin to champagne and beer. The same sort of thing.
As with Becker, a key differentiator in Edlund and Korn's model is reproductive sex. Wives can offer it, whores can not.
To be fair, Edlund and Korn were merely building an admittedly grossly simplified model of human behavior in an attempt to answer a nagging question: Why do hookers make so much money? Prostitution is, seemingly, a low skill but high pay profession with few upfront costs, micro miniskirts and stiletto heels aside.
Yet according to data assembled from a wide variety of times and places, ranging from mid 15th century France to Malaysia of the late 1990s, prostitutes make more money, in some cases, a lot more money, than do working girls who, well, work for a living. This held true even for places where prostitution is legal and relatively safe. In short, streetwalkers aren't necessarily being paid more for their increased risk of going to jail or the hospital.
Notwithstanding Jerry Hall's quip when she was married to Mick Jagger, about being "a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom," one normally cannot be both a wife and a whore. "Combine this with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone, marriage market earnings," Edlund and Korn conclude.
Ouch.
Another zinger: "This begs the question of why married men go to prostitutes (rather than buying from their wives, who presumably will be low cost providers, considering that they can sell nonreproductive sex without compromising their marriage)." Guys, nothing says "Happy Valentine's Day" more than "low cost provider."
Of course, it's easy to pour cold water on some of the assumptions made in Edlund and Korn's mathematical model. But these so called "stylized facts" are supposed to predict human behavior; they don't necessarily pretend to mirror it.
In particular, the assumption that there is no "third way" between wife and whore is problematic, if not outright offensive: "The third alternative, working in a regular job but not marrying, can be ruled out, since we assume that the only downside of marriage for a woman is the forgone opportunity for prostitution."
Be sure to let all your married friends know what they're missing.
Also, the emphasis on the utility of children is puzzling. In most Western democracies, fertility rates have plummeted as wealth has increased. Empirically, men not only buy fewer whores as they get richer, but they have fewer children.
Still, the economic analysis of marriage explains one age old phenomenon: gold digging.
"In particular, does our analysis justify the popular belief that more beautiful, charming and talented women tend to marry wealthier and more successful men?" wrote Becker. His answer: "A positive sorting of nonmarket traits with nonhuman wealth always, and with earnings power, usually, maximizes commodity output over all marriages."
In other words, yes, supermodels do prefer aging billionaires. And Gary Becker proved it mathematically decades before The Donald married Melania.
--
Response to Forbes Magazine article advising men against marrying working ladies.
The Sunday Times
Guys, a word of advice
There’s a huge hoo-ha in America about an article published on the business website Forbes.com. It starts off like this: “Guys, a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.”
The writer, Michael Noer, cites at length a piece in Social Forces, a US research journal, that has apparently found marrying a working woman dramatically ups the risk of having a difficult marriage and that “professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. Even those with a ‘feminist’ outlook are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner”.
So that’s nice, especially the incredulous quote marks around the “feminist”. And working your butt off as a cashier at the supermarket doesn’t count, by the way: to qualify as a career woman you apparently need to have been to university, work more than 35 weeks a year outside the home and earn a minimum salary of 30,000 dollars(just under 16,000 pounds, a weirdly low figure, surely?).
Marrying these women is, according to the research Noer quotes, “asking for trouble”. If they abandon their job to raise children “they will be unhappy”. If they make more money than you “they will be unhappy” and “you will be unhappy” too. Husbands of career women are also more likely to fall ill, it appears, and to have dirty houses (again strange, as one of the joys of a double income is that you can afford to hire any number of cleaners).
You can imagine the outcry the article has caused. Women readers aren’t happy and the website has now posted a spirited riposte by one of its female correspondents alongside Noer’s original feature.
What is interesting about all of this is that I suspect Noer’s central point, that working women are trouble and that you’re better off with a docile little breeder or, indeed, a trophy wife, is more widely held by men than you or I might imagine. It’s not a viewpoint they like to trumpet in mixed company, obviously, but I’ve heard it expressed more times than I care to remember in private.
It stems in part from a sweet but inane desire for alpha malehood, me man, me provide, me gain big eyed gratitude for ace wage earning skills, and from chronic sexual insecurity. If your nice little wife is safely at home all day, instead of running around the boardroom with men who might, the horror, be somewhat more alpha than you, she’s more likely to admire your manly skills and talents when you come home at night, and not realise what she’s missing.
That’s the theory, anyway. The practice, I have observed over the years, is somewhat different. Men love nothing more than coming home to an ordered house, sleeping children, dinner in the oven and a cocktail waiting on the table, but they don’t necessarily go a whole hog on the conversation that goes with it: “Such a funny thing happened at playgroup”; “The queues in Sainsbury’s were awful today”; “I’ve found that if I purée the broccoli, they don’t really notice they’re eating it”. And so on. Then women are all surprised when men seem not to listen, or to be distracted, or suddenly find themselves “working late”.
Besides, as we all know, the domestic fantasy outlined above is usually only achievable with a vast amount of paid help, which means a double income. Without it the children are still running amok, the dinner’s burnt, the missus has dark circles under her eyes and she’s downed the cocktail in one herself to try to calm her nerves.
She doesn’t want to talk about broccoli either but her brain seems to atrophy more and more with the birth of each child. She wants to watch Newsnight but she’s too tired. How can she be tired, the husband wonders, when she’s at home all day? What does she do? She’s not the one who had to get up at 4am to catch a flight to Zurich. And now he’s feeling frisky but she’s already snoring. Despite what Noer and his “research” might claim, it’s hard to see this scenario as the best advert for marital bliss.
I don’t want to get drawn into the unproductive name calling that passes for debate on the question of working versus stay-at-home women. I’ve been both and I liked both. I prefer working because I can’t imagine not having my own money and because I like being able to pay other people to do the stuff that bores me.
The point, surely, is that women should have the freedom to do exactly what they wish to do with their lives, and that very freedom is only real if it originates from women themselves. If a woman doesn’t want a career at any point, fine. The problem arises when that option is put to her by a man; less an option, actually, than an instruction: “There’s no need for you to work, I can support us both. And isn’t it about time you got pregnant?”.
So I would say this: Girls, a word of advice. Marry handsome men or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blonds or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a man with a complex. Marry a man who is happy for you to be you, happy whether you do or don’t work. Marry a man who loves you as you are and who doesn’t think taking the rubbish out is beneath him. Marry a man who can put the children to bed when you’re running late and make dinner too without feeling he is the victim of an emasculating conspiracy. Never marry a man who is stupid enough to use feminist as a term of abuse. Don’t marry Michael Noer.
Nice to see Victoria Beckham cracking a smile for a change, even if she was allegedly tiddly after a night out. One of the mysteries of our age is why Posh, in her wisdom, thinks the “sultry” pout she usually adopts at all times is somehow cool or aesthetically pleasing rather than reminiscent of a teenage goth experimenting with surly facial expressions in the privacy of her bedroom.
Another Posh related mystery surfaced last week. In the advertisement for the Beckhams’ his and hers fragrances, Intimately Beckham, Victoria sports an enormous derriere. Well, enormous in the context of her emaciated frame, at any rate. The new bottom is rather like Barbie’s bosom: you have the feeling that if its owner were actually to try walking with it they’d fall over, helplessly beached until someone came and pulled them up.
What I want to know is: does the J.Lo style bottom owe its existence to the wonders of digital manipulation or does Posh really own a pair of prosthetic buttocks? There is no way the huge bottom is hers: even implants wouldn’t give the desired silhouette. As far as I am aware, the only places that sell fake bottoms are shops catering to pre-operative transsexuals. I knew Posh liked shopping, but this is ridiculous.
Comment: If you want a good wife and a good mother for your children, then stay away from working girls. They are bad news. Working women lay rotten eggs.
--
Forbes Editor rips women who have a career.
Article by the executive news editor for Forbes Magazine.
"The Economics Of Prostitution"
Michael Noer - American business writer and editor.
Wife or whore?
The choice is that simple. At least according to economists Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn, it is.
The two well respected economists created a minor stir in academic circles a few years back when they published "A Theory of Prostitution" in the Journal of Political Economy. The paper was remarkable not only for being accepted by a major journal but also because it considered wives and whores as economic "goods" that can be substituted for each other. Men buy, women sell.
Economists have been equating money and marriage ever since Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker published his seminal paper "A Theory of Marriage" in two parts in 1973 and 1974, also, not coincidentally, in the Journal of Political Economy.
Becker used market analysis to tackle the questions of whom, when and why we marry. His conclusions? Mate selection is a market, and marriages occur only if they are profitable for both parties involved.
Becker allowed nonmonetary elements, like romantic love and companionship, to be entered into courtship's profit and loss statement. And children, in particular, were important. "Sexual gratification, cleaning, feeding and other services can be purchased, but not children: Both the man and the woman are required to produce their own children and perhaps to raise them," he wrote.
But back to whores: Edlund and Korn admit that spouses and streetwalkers aren't exactly alike. Wives, in truth, are superior to whores in the economist's sense of being a good whose consumption increases as income rises, like fine wine. This may explain why prostitution is less common in wealthier countries. But the implication remains that wives and whores are, if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi, something akin to champagne and beer. The same sort of thing.
As with Becker, a key differentiator in Edlund and Korn's model is reproductive sex. Wives can offer it, whores can not.
To be fair, Edlund and Korn were merely building an admittedly grossly simplified model of human behavior in an attempt to answer a nagging question: Why do hookers make so much money? Prostitution is, seemingly, a low skill but high pay profession with few upfront costs, micro miniskirts and stiletto heels aside.
Yet according to data assembled from a wide variety of times and places, ranging from mid 15th century France to Malaysia of the late 1990s, prostitutes make more money, in some cases, a lot more money, than do working girls who, well, work for a living. This held true even for places where prostitution is legal and relatively safe. In short, streetwalkers aren't necessarily being paid more for their increased risk of going to jail or the hospital.
Notwithstanding Jerry Hall's quip when she was married to Mick Jagger, about being "a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom," one normally cannot be both a wife and a whore. "Combine this with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone, marriage market earnings," Edlund and Korn conclude.
Ouch.
Another zinger: "This begs the question of why married men go to prostitutes (rather than buying from their wives, who presumably will be low cost providers, considering that they can sell nonreproductive sex without compromising their marriage)." Guys, nothing says "Happy Valentine's Day" more than "low cost provider."
Of course, it's easy to pour cold water on some of the assumptions made in Edlund and Korn's mathematical model. But these so called "stylized facts" are supposed to predict human behavior; they don't necessarily pretend to mirror it.
In particular, the assumption that there is no "third way" between wife and whore is problematic, if not outright offensive: "The third alternative, working in a regular job but not marrying, can be ruled out, since we assume that the only downside of marriage for a woman is the forgone opportunity for prostitution."
Be sure to let all your married friends know what they're missing.
Also, the emphasis on the utility of children is puzzling. In most Western democracies, fertility rates have plummeted as wealth has increased. Empirically, men not only buy fewer whores as they get richer, but they have fewer children.
Still, the economic analysis of marriage explains one age old phenomenon: gold digging.
"In particular, does our analysis justify the popular belief that more beautiful, charming and talented women tend to marry wealthier and more successful men?" wrote Becker. His answer: "A positive sorting of nonmarket traits with nonhuman wealth always, and with earnings power, usually, maximizes commodity output over all marriages."
In other words, yes, supermodels do prefer aging billionaires. And Gary Becker proved it mathematically decades before The Donald married Melania.
--
Response to Forbes Magazine article advising men against marrying working ladies.
The Sunday Times
Guys, a word of advice
There’s a huge hoo-ha in America about an article published on the business website Forbes.com. It starts off like this: “Guys, a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.”
The writer, Michael Noer, cites at length a piece in Social Forces, a US research journal, that has apparently found marrying a working woman dramatically ups the risk of having a difficult marriage and that “professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. Even those with a ‘feminist’ outlook are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner”.
So that’s nice, especially the incredulous quote marks around the “feminist”. And working your butt off as a cashier at the supermarket doesn’t count, by the way: to qualify as a career woman you apparently need to have been to university, work more than 35 weeks a year outside the home and earn a minimum salary of 30,000 dollars(just under 16,000 pounds, a weirdly low figure, surely?).
Marrying these women is, according to the research Noer quotes, “asking for trouble”. If they abandon their job to raise children “they will be unhappy”. If they make more money than you “they will be unhappy” and “you will be unhappy” too. Husbands of career women are also more likely to fall ill, it appears, and to have dirty houses (again strange, as one of the joys of a double income is that you can afford to hire any number of cleaners).
You can imagine the outcry the article has caused. Women readers aren’t happy and the website has now posted a spirited riposte by one of its female correspondents alongside Noer’s original feature.
What is interesting about all of this is that I suspect Noer’s central point, that working women are trouble and that you’re better off with a docile little breeder or, indeed, a trophy wife, is more widely held by men than you or I might imagine. It’s not a viewpoint they like to trumpet in mixed company, obviously, but I’ve heard it expressed more times than I care to remember in private.
It stems in part from a sweet but inane desire for alpha malehood, me man, me provide, me gain big eyed gratitude for ace wage earning skills, and from chronic sexual insecurity. If your nice little wife is safely at home all day, instead of running around the boardroom with men who might, the horror, be somewhat more alpha than you, she’s more likely to admire your manly skills and talents when you come home at night, and not realise what she’s missing.
That’s the theory, anyway. The practice, I have observed over the years, is somewhat different. Men love nothing more than coming home to an ordered house, sleeping children, dinner in the oven and a cocktail waiting on the table, but they don’t necessarily go a whole hog on the conversation that goes with it: “Such a funny thing happened at playgroup”; “The queues in Sainsbury’s were awful today”; “I’ve found that if I purée the broccoli, they don’t really notice they’re eating it”. And so on. Then women are all surprised when men seem not to listen, or to be distracted, or suddenly find themselves “working late”.
Besides, as we all know, the domestic fantasy outlined above is usually only achievable with a vast amount of paid help, which means a double income. Without it the children are still running amok, the dinner’s burnt, the missus has dark circles under her eyes and she’s downed the cocktail in one herself to try to calm her nerves.
She doesn’t want to talk about broccoli either but her brain seems to atrophy more and more with the birth of each child. She wants to watch Newsnight but she’s too tired. How can she be tired, the husband wonders, when she’s at home all day? What does she do? She’s not the one who had to get up at 4am to catch a flight to Zurich. And now he’s feeling frisky but she’s already snoring. Despite what Noer and his “research” might claim, it’s hard to see this scenario as the best advert for marital bliss.
I don’t want to get drawn into the unproductive name calling that passes for debate on the question of working versus stay-at-home women. I’ve been both and I liked both. I prefer working because I can’t imagine not having my own money and because I like being able to pay other people to do the stuff that bores me.
The point, surely, is that women should have the freedom to do exactly what they wish to do with their lives, and that very freedom is only real if it originates from women themselves. If a woman doesn’t want a career at any point, fine. The problem arises when that option is put to her by a man; less an option, actually, than an instruction: “There’s no need for you to work, I can support us both. And isn’t it about time you got pregnant?”.
So I would say this: Girls, a word of advice. Marry handsome men or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blonds or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a man with a complex. Marry a man who is happy for you to be you, happy whether you do or don’t work. Marry a man who loves you as you are and who doesn’t think taking the rubbish out is beneath him. Marry a man who can put the children to bed when you’re running late and make dinner too without feeling he is the victim of an emasculating conspiracy. Never marry a man who is stupid enough to use feminist as a term of abuse. Don’t marry Michael Noer.
Nice to see Victoria Beckham cracking a smile for a change, even if she was allegedly tiddly after a night out. One of the mysteries of our age is why Posh, in her wisdom, thinks the “sultry” pout she usually adopts at all times is somehow cool or aesthetically pleasing rather than reminiscent of a teenage goth experimenting with surly facial expressions in the privacy of her bedroom.
Another Posh related mystery surfaced last week. In the advertisement for the Beckhams’ his and hers fragrances, Intimately Beckham, Victoria sports an enormous derriere. Well, enormous in the context of her emaciated frame, at any rate. The new bottom is rather like Barbie’s bosom: you have the feeling that if its owner were actually to try walking with it they’d fall over, helplessly beached until someone came and pulled them up.
What I want to know is: does the J.Lo style bottom owe its existence to the wonders of digital manipulation or does Posh really own a pair of prosthetic buttocks? There is no way the huge bottom is hers: even implants wouldn’t give the desired silhouette. As far as I am aware, the only places that sell fake bottoms are shops catering to pre-operative transsexuals. I knew Posh liked shopping, but this is ridiculous.
Comment: If you want a good wife and a good mother for your children, then stay away from working girls. They are bad news. Working women lay rotten eggs.
--
Men are incharge of women
--
Men still in charge of women, says top scientist from Northumbria University.
Dr. Neave claims that women will always be under the control of men.
Daily Mail, UK:
Women are Dependent on Men
We live in an age in which women have earned complete independence. So do they need men at all? According to Dr Nick Neave, an evolutionary psychologist from Northumbria University, not only do they need men, they are fundamentally programmed to depend on them.
Here, Dr Neave, 41, explains his provocative thesis:
You're a successful woman with a job to die for, a fabulous home and a supportive husband, but do you ever get the urge to check his mobile phone for love messages?
Or his bank statements for intimate meals a deux that you didn't share? And do you lie awake at night worrying how you'll cope if the worst happens, your fears are proved and your husband walks out?
Don't worry. Your suspicion is only natural. At the risk of sounding extraordinarily sexist, I'm convinced that women, even in the happiest of relationships, are programmed to worry their men are going to abandon them.
And they're terrified - in a way that most men find it frankly impossible to imagine. What's more, if their forebodings come true, women are more inclined to forgive an affair than a man if the shoe is on the other foot. That's not because they're nicer, more easygoing individuals. It's simply because their primeval urge to hang onto a male provider is so strong.
Women in the 21st century may boast that they are truly independent for the first time in our social history. They may tell themselves and each other that they don't need a man. They can even start a family on their own thanks to IVF techniques.
But, while feminists may argue this proves women have finally kicked off the shackles of dependence on men, I'm afraid they're wrong.
In evolutionary terms the huge cultural changes over the past generation amount simply to the merest blink of an eye. It could take another 10,000 years for women to change their thinking.
Quite simply, women are preprogrammed to feel dependent on men. Even today women may be richer and enjoy all the trappings of success but, deep down in their psyche, they fear they can't survive alone.
These women may be shooting up the career ladder and earning more than the men in their lives, but when it comes to relationships men still hold the trump card.
As an evolutionary psychologist, I study patterns of behaviour dating back to the first human societies, and constantly analyse evidence that demonstrates the key differences which have developed between the sexes since men were hunter-gatherers and women were child bearers.
Females are smaller and weaker than males so, in prehistoric times, women and their offspring were prone to being the victims of predators, and violence.
They needed the support and protection of men who didn't just have brute force but also had social status in the group, either through their sheer physicality or the strength of their personality.
That's why women still look for a mate of higher social standing.
If a woman had a relationship with a socially dominant male, she would immediately get greater access to resources because her social standing would be elevated, too.
As we shall see, modern surveys consistently show that women today ape those inherent characteristics by looking for partners who are socially dominant and have the respect of their peers, paying close attention to how men interact with, and are treated by, other men.
Men have a different reason for choosing a mate. The caveman needed to be sure he was raising a child who was genetically his. The best way of doing this was to secure a mate and guard her so she didn't get the chance to stray.
A man's natural instinct may be to have sex with a different woman every day, but to safeguard his relationship (and secure his progeny), he has been forced into a pattern of monogamy. don't even realise what's happening. When couples meet at speed-dating evenings, typically a man will judge a woman on her looks and youth. His priorities are whether she's healthy, interested in sex and can give him children one day. He doesn't care how much she earns or her social status.
Typically, however, a woman's first question will be: 'What job do you do?' It sounds a friendly overture, but what she really wants to know is his social position and earning capacity. Is he an industrious, hard worker, capable of providing for her and their children?
Because of his power, even the ugliest politician on the planet has women lining up to go to bed with him. Were he the local rat catcher, his love life would be a good deal quieter. As American statesman Henry Kissinger put it: 'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.'
One might argue that it's only natural for today's women in their 30s or 40s to feel dependent on a man. After all, the vast majority were raised by mothers who by and large didn't have careers and were forced to rely financially on their husbands.
Yet study after study proves that today's women in their 20s are just as insecure. In a recent study, two American researchers, John Marshall Townsend from Syracuse University and Gary Levy from the University of Toledo, presented women with photographs of men.
The first group, described as doctors, wore designer ties, smart shirts and sported Rolex watches. The second wore plain shirts and Swatch watches and were described as teachers. The third group wore Burger King uniforms.
Women repeatedly picked doctors as potential boyfriends - even though many of the men in the third category were actually more handsome. Quite simply, to women a man's looks are less important than earning power and social standing.
In another study, male and female medical students were asked to pick their ideal mate from a selection of careers. The majority of men chose nurses. Women, however, picked hospital consultants. This demonstrates that, although every bit as financially successful as their male colleagues, these young women still feel they need men to confer power and social standing to a superior male.
It's no surprise to me that another study this year by sociologists at Virginia University found that couples are happiest in traditional marriages run on old-fashioned gender lines, where the man is the main breadwinner. The report showed conclusively that women who worked were more dissatisfied with their husbands than those who stayed at home.
One of the experts, W Radford Wilcox, said: 'Regardless of what married women say they believe about gender, they tend to have happier marriages when their husband is a good provider.'
Happiest of all were women whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the household income, regardless of how much they helped with domestic chores.
In short I suspect women will never feel truly comfortable earning more than their men. The need to rely on a man is driven by such a deep-seated biological urge, I cannot see it ever being eradicated completely.
Only last week, a survey by the Skipton Building Society concluded that many women who are the main breadwinner hold it against their partner for contributing less to the household budget than they do.
While those women might like the material rewards of their high salaries, they also dislike the financial responsibility - perhaps reflectingthe inbuilt genetic imperative to rely on someone else.
It is that instinctive need to rely on a man which makes women so afraid of abandonment. Perhaps that is why women are more attuned to their partner's moods and curious about tiny aspects of his life. And they are much better than men at spotting liars.
Evolutionary psychologists are convinced that these are in part throwbacks to a woman's need to maintain her relationship at all costs.
It's completely irrational for women, who can earn as much as men, to have a terror of being abandoned. Even if she can't work, the welfare state means she's not going to starve. Yet it's a real fear for many women. We have anecdotal evidence of women lying awake at night worrying how they'd cope.
Women are terrified of abandonment. They fear a drop in status or social standing that might come with divorce in a way men - who are driven by very different priorities - simply don't understand.
Even extremely wealthy, successful women have these vestigial anxieties which bear absolutely no relation to the reality of their lives, but are throwbacks to caveman society.
Ironically, although men actually fare less well after divorce and are often less happy, women typically are more frightened of living alone.
Men find it extremely hard to forgive an affair. This dates back to early man's horror of unwittingly raising another man's child. However, women are predisposed to be more tolerant of affairs. It comes down to brutal economics. The thought of your husband having sex with another woman may be devastating. But even worse is the prospect of him pouring all his financial resources her way.
Quite simply, women are so programmed to feel dependent that their subliminal urge to safeguard the home often outweighs the fury of being sexually betrayed.
Terror of being abandoned even drives the beauty industry. Eating clinics report a four-fold rise in the number of middle-aged women seeking help for anorexia and bulimia because they're desperate to look slim and youthful. These problems were once the province of teenage girls.
And while women may claim they are having cosmetic surgery and Botox treatments purely to feel better about themselves, I believe the reason is much more complex. Women are driven by a primeval urge to keep their men by looking youthful and fertile. Sexist? Maybe. True? I fear so.
comment: Women are still under the care of men. Ladies love a real man to look after them. Girls do not like a whimp to be with them. They want a strong but kind personality to take care of their feminine needs. This desire is programmed into their DNA. No matter how much the media tried to deny it, women know what they really want.
--
Men still in charge of women, says top scientist from Northumbria University.
Dr. Neave claims that women will always be under the control of men.
Daily Mail, UK:
Women are Dependent on Men
We live in an age in which women have earned complete independence. So do they need men at all? According to Dr Nick Neave, an evolutionary psychologist from Northumbria University, not only do they need men, they are fundamentally programmed to depend on them.
Here, Dr Neave, 41, explains his provocative thesis:
You're a successful woman with a job to die for, a fabulous home and a supportive husband, but do you ever get the urge to check his mobile phone for love messages?
Or his bank statements for intimate meals a deux that you didn't share? And do you lie awake at night worrying how you'll cope if the worst happens, your fears are proved and your husband walks out?
Don't worry. Your suspicion is only natural. At the risk of sounding extraordinarily sexist, I'm convinced that women, even in the happiest of relationships, are programmed to worry their men are going to abandon them.
And they're terrified - in a way that most men find it frankly impossible to imagine. What's more, if their forebodings come true, women are more inclined to forgive an affair than a man if the shoe is on the other foot. That's not because they're nicer, more easygoing individuals. It's simply because their primeval urge to hang onto a male provider is so strong.
Women in the 21st century may boast that they are truly independent for the first time in our social history. They may tell themselves and each other that they don't need a man. They can even start a family on their own thanks to IVF techniques.
But, while feminists may argue this proves women have finally kicked off the shackles of dependence on men, I'm afraid they're wrong.
In evolutionary terms the huge cultural changes over the past generation amount simply to the merest blink of an eye. It could take another 10,000 years for women to change their thinking.
Quite simply, women are preprogrammed to feel dependent on men. Even today women may be richer and enjoy all the trappings of success but, deep down in their psyche, they fear they can't survive alone.
These women may be shooting up the career ladder and earning more than the men in their lives, but when it comes to relationships men still hold the trump card.
As an evolutionary psychologist, I study patterns of behaviour dating back to the first human societies, and constantly analyse evidence that demonstrates the key differences which have developed between the sexes since men were hunter-gatherers and women were child bearers.
Females are smaller and weaker than males so, in prehistoric times, women and their offspring were prone to being the victims of predators, and violence.
They needed the support and protection of men who didn't just have brute force but also had social status in the group, either through their sheer physicality or the strength of their personality.
That's why women still look for a mate of higher social standing.
If a woman had a relationship with a socially dominant male, she would immediately get greater access to resources because her social standing would be elevated, too.
As we shall see, modern surveys consistently show that women today ape those inherent characteristics by looking for partners who are socially dominant and have the respect of their peers, paying close attention to how men interact with, and are treated by, other men.
Men have a different reason for choosing a mate. The caveman needed to be sure he was raising a child who was genetically his. The best way of doing this was to secure a mate and guard her so she didn't get the chance to stray.
A man's natural instinct may be to have sex with a different woman every day, but to safeguard his relationship (and secure his progeny), he has been forced into a pattern of monogamy. don't even realise what's happening. When couples meet at speed-dating evenings, typically a man will judge a woman on her looks and youth. His priorities are whether she's healthy, interested in sex and can give him children one day. He doesn't care how much she earns or her social status.
Typically, however, a woman's first question will be: 'What job do you do?' It sounds a friendly overture, but what she really wants to know is his social position and earning capacity. Is he an industrious, hard worker, capable of providing for her and their children?
Because of his power, even the ugliest politician on the planet has women lining up to go to bed with him. Were he the local rat catcher, his love life would be a good deal quieter. As American statesman Henry Kissinger put it: 'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.'
One might argue that it's only natural for today's women in their 30s or 40s to feel dependent on a man. After all, the vast majority were raised by mothers who by and large didn't have careers and were forced to rely financially on their husbands.
Yet study after study proves that today's women in their 20s are just as insecure. In a recent study, two American researchers, John Marshall Townsend from Syracuse University and Gary Levy from the University of Toledo, presented women with photographs of men.
The first group, described as doctors, wore designer ties, smart shirts and sported Rolex watches. The second wore plain shirts and Swatch watches and were described as teachers. The third group wore Burger King uniforms.
Women repeatedly picked doctors as potential boyfriends - even though many of the men in the third category were actually more handsome. Quite simply, to women a man's looks are less important than earning power and social standing.
In another study, male and female medical students were asked to pick their ideal mate from a selection of careers. The majority of men chose nurses. Women, however, picked hospital consultants. This demonstrates that, although every bit as financially successful as their male colleagues, these young women still feel they need men to confer power and social standing to a superior male.
It's no surprise to me that another study this year by sociologists at Virginia University found that couples are happiest in traditional marriages run on old-fashioned gender lines, where the man is the main breadwinner. The report showed conclusively that women who worked were more dissatisfied with their husbands than those who stayed at home.
One of the experts, W Radford Wilcox, said: 'Regardless of what married women say they believe about gender, they tend to have happier marriages when their husband is a good provider.'
Happiest of all were women whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the household income, regardless of how much they helped with domestic chores.
In short I suspect women will never feel truly comfortable earning more than their men. The need to rely on a man is driven by such a deep-seated biological urge, I cannot see it ever being eradicated completely.
Only last week, a survey by the Skipton Building Society concluded that many women who are the main breadwinner hold it against their partner for contributing less to the household budget than they do.
While those women might like the material rewards of their high salaries, they also dislike the financial responsibility - perhaps reflectingthe inbuilt genetic imperative to rely on someone else.
It is that instinctive need to rely on a man which makes women so afraid of abandonment. Perhaps that is why women are more attuned to their partner's moods and curious about tiny aspects of his life. And they are much better than men at spotting liars.
Evolutionary psychologists are convinced that these are in part throwbacks to a woman's need to maintain her relationship at all costs.
It's completely irrational for women, who can earn as much as men, to have a terror of being abandoned. Even if she can't work, the welfare state means she's not going to starve. Yet it's a real fear for many women. We have anecdotal evidence of women lying awake at night worrying how they'd cope.
Women are terrified of abandonment. They fear a drop in status or social standing that might come with divorce in a way men - who are driven by very different priorities - simply don't understand.
Even extremely wealthy, successful women have these vestigial anxieties which bear absolutely no relation to the reality of their lives, but are throwbacks to caveman society.
Ironically, although men actually fare less well after divorce and are often less happy, women typically are more frightened of living alone.
Men find it extremely hard to forgive an affair. This dates back to early man's horror of unwittingly raising another man's child. However, women are predisposed to be more tolerant of affairs. It comes down to brutal economics. The thought of your husband having sex with another woman may be devastating. But even worse is the prospect of him pouring all his financial resources her way.
Quite simply, women are so programmed to feel dependent that their subliminal urge to safeguard the home often outweighs the fury of being sexually betrayed.
Terror of being abandoned even drives the beauty industry. Eating clinics report a four-fold rise in the number of middle-aged women seeking help for anorexia and bulimia because they're desperate to look slim and youthful. These problems were once the province of teenage girls.
And while women may claim they are having cosmetic surgery and Botox treatments purely to feel better about themselves, I believe the reason is much more complex. Women are driven by a primeval urge to keep their men by looking youthful and fertile. Sexist? Maybe. True? I fear so.
comment: Women are still under the care of men. Ladies love a real man to look after them. Girls do not like a whimp to be with them. They want a strong but kind personality to take care of their feminine needs. This desire is programmed into their DNA. No matter how much the media tried to deny it, women know what they really want.
--
Modern man disliked by women
-
Do women really prefer Macho Men. Survey shows women like a rough fella. Ladies do not prefer a man who is into makeup and fashion.
Australian newspaper The Age:
'New' men are out and macho men are in
Metrosexual man is out as women reclaim their territory in the beauty parlour.
The age of the "new" man could finally be over - women want the growl back in grown men.
Mr Right, a survey shows, is dependable rather than fashionable, spends more time working on the house than on himself, and is more likely to buy his cosmetics at a corner shop than a salon.
Ninety per cent of the women questioned said that their ideal man was low-maintenance and easy-going. Almost three-quarters said they preferred a man who spent his spare time doing jobs around the house. Nearly half (47 per cent) said that the ideal man spent his money on electrical gadgets rather than cosmetics, and almost as many (41 per cent) said that their Mr Right was a sports fan. Only 9 per cent believed that their man spent his money on designer clothes. The poll's findings will make uncomfortable reading for actors such as Jude Law, Orlando Bloom and Hugh Grant, all at the vanguard of "metrosexuality". Their emphasis on high fashion and personal grooming is now considered a turn-off. Rather than sarong-wearing stars such as David Beckham, it seems that women prefer the charms of a new breed of rough-and-ready heart-throbs epitomised by the likes of Clive Owen, Daniel Craig and Colin Farrell.
The Harris interactive survey of 1128 American women, carried out for Dodge trucks, has been welcomed this side of the Atlantic.
Margi Conklin, the editor of New Woman magazine, said that the film Closer, starring Law and Owen, had effectively separated the men from the boys. "There was no contest between the two men in that film. Jude is very pretty but I think women prefer Clive because he is raw and sexy."
Conklin insisted that a man who is obsessed with his looks is going to be obsessed with those of his lady - a turn-off.
Kathy Lette, the novelist, also welcomes the findings. She said that metrosexual man had been a media myth with about as much basis in fact as the non-existent new man.
"I think a lot of men called themselves metrosexual because they thought it would get them a more intelligent bonk," she said.
So is it goodbye to grooming and hello hairy? British broadcaster Esther Rantzen doesn't think so. For her, bathing and beauty really go hand in hand.
"Perfection lies in compromise. You don't want a man who spends longer than you in the beauty parlour - but on the other hand, he must take regular baths and smell good."
Ian Denson, the managing director of London salon Nicky Clarke, agrees. Having worked with both Law and Owen on the set of Closer he is convinced that men are working on their looks regardless of whether they are trying to achieve a metro or macho appearance.
"There's a huge amount of men's grooming products out there," he said.
"We have a lot of men who come into the salon who do want to be groomed. Some are metro, some macho, but they all are using grooming to achieve their look.
"Even today's macho men have an element of grooming behind them. Macho no longer means men who aren't washing."
Isla Blair, a doyenne of the British stage and the wife of Julian Glover - who is starring in the West End production The Dresser - believes that there is more to macho than a bit of designer stubble.
"No matter how macho and tough you look on the outside, on the inside you need someone who is kind and funny," she says. "A man is only macho if he is gentle, too. Insensitive and boorish - that's not macho at all."
comment: So, its true. Women love a real man. They do not like men who are girls on the inside. Modern man is dislikes because he tries to impress with fashion and wears makeup which is arean of women. Men are not suppose to have lipsstick on their lips.
-
Do women really prefer Macho Men. Survey shows women like a rough fella. Ladies do not prefer a man who is into makeup and fashion.
Australian newspaper The Age:
'New' men are out and macho men are in
Metrosexual man is out as women reclaim their territory in the beauty parlour.
The age of the "new" man could finally be over - women want the growl back in grown men.
Mr Right, a survey shows, is dependable rather than fashionable, spends more time working on the house than on himself, and is more likely to buy his cosmetics at a corner shop than a salon.
Ninety per cent of the women questioned said that their ideal man was low-maintenance and easy-going. Almost three-quarters said they preferred a man who spent his spare time doing jobs around the house. Nearly half (47 per cent) said that the ideal man spent his money on electrical gadgets rather than cosmetics, and almost as many (41 per cent) said that their Mr Right was a sports fan. Only 9 per cent believed that their man spent his money on designer clothes. The poll's findings will make uncomfortable reading for actors such as Jude Law, Orlando Bloom and Hugh Grant, all at the vanguard of "metrosexuality". Their emphasis on high fashion and personal grooming is now considered a turn-off. Rather than sarong-wearing stars such as David Beckham, it seems that women prefer the charms of a new breed of rough-and-ready heart-throbs epitomised by the likes of Clive Owen, Daniel Craig and Colin Farrell.
The Harris interactive survey of 1128 American women, carried out for Dodge trucks, has been welcomed this side of the Atlantic.
Margi Conklin, the editor of New Woman magazine, said that the film Closer, starring Law and Owen, had effectively separated the men from the boys. "There was no contest between the two men in that film. Jude is very pretty but I think women prefer Clive because he is raw and sexy."
Conklin insisted that a man who is obsessed with his looks is going to be obsessed with those of his lady - a turn-off.
Kathy Lette, the novelist, also welcomes the findings. She said that metrosexual man had been a media myth with about as much basis in fact as the non-existent new man.
"I think a lot of men called themselves metrosexual because they thought it would get them a more intelligent bonk," she said.
So is it goodbye to grooming and hello hairy? British broadcaster Esther Rantzen doesn't think so. For her, bathing and beauty really go hand in hand.
"Perfection lies in compromise. You don't want a man who spends longer than you in the beauty parlour - but on the other hand, he must take regular baths and smell good."
Ian Denson, the managing director of London salon Nicky Clarke, agrees. Having worked with both Law and Owen on the set of Closer he is convinced that men are working on their looks regardless of whether they are trying to achieve a metro or macho appearance.
"There's a huge amount of men's grooming products out there," he said.
"We have a lot of men who come into the salon who do want to be groomed. Some are metro, some macho, but they all are using grooming to achieve their look.
"Even today's macho men have an element of grooming behind them. Macho no longer means men who aren't washing."
Isla Blair, a doyenne of the British stage and the wife of Julian Glover - who is starring in the West End production The Dresser - believes that there is more to macho than a bit of designer stubble.
"No matter how macho and tough you look on the outside, on the inside you need someone who is kind and funny," she says. "A man is only macho if he is gentle, too. Insensitive and boorish - that's not macho at all."
comment: So, its true. Women love a real man. They do not like men who are girls on the inside. Modern man is dislikes because he tries to impress with fashion and wears makeup which is arean of women. Men are not suppose to have lipsstick on their lips.
-
Women need a strong man
-
Real men are women's inner need that they cannot avoid.
Modern life tries to distract women them, but they still know
that they seek a real man to take take them into his arms.
British Newspaper - Daily Mail
" Women are dependent on men "
We live in an age in which women have earned complete independence. So do they need men at all? According an evolutionary psychologist from Northumbria University, not only do they need men, they are fundamentally programmed to depend on them. Here he explains his provocative thesis:
You're a successful woman with a job to die for, a fabulous home and a supportive husband, but do you ever get the urge to check his mobile phone for love messages? Or his bank statements for intimate meals a deux that you didn't share? And do you lie awake at night worrying how you'll cope if the worst happens, your fears are proved and your husband walks out?
Don't worry. Your suspicion is only natural. At the risk of sounding extraordinarily sexist, I'm convinced that women, even in the happiest of relationships, are programmed to worry their men are going to abandon them.
And they're terrified - in a way that most men find it frankly impossible to imagine. What's more, if their forebodings come true, women are more inclined to forgive an affair than a man if the shoe is on the other foot. That's not because they're nicer, more easygoing individuals. It's simply because their primeval urge to hang onto a male provider is so strong.
Women in the 21st century may boast that they are truly independent for the first time in our social history. They may tell themselves and each other that they don't need a man. They can even start a family on their own thanks to IVF techniques.
But, while feminists may argue this proves women have finally kicked off the shackles of dependence on men, I'm afraid they're wrong.
In evolutionary terms the huge cultural changes over the past generation amount simply to the merest blink of an eye. It could take another 10,000 years for women to change their thinking.
Quite simply, women are preprogrammed to feel dependent on men. Even today women may be richer and enjoy all the trappings of success but, deep down in their psyche, they fear they can't survive alone.
These women may be shooting up the career ladder and earning more than the men in their lives, but when it comes to relationships men still hold the trump card.
As an evolutionary psychologist, I study patterns of behaviour dating back to the first human societies, and constantly analyse evidence that demonstrates the key differences which have developed between the sexes since men were hunter-gatherers and women were child bearers.
Females are smaller and weaker than males so, in prehistoric times, women and their offspring were prone to being the victims of predators, and violence.
They needed the support and protection of men who didn't just have brute force but also had social status in the group, either through their sheer physicality or the strength of their personality.
That's why women still look for a mate of higher social standing.
If a woman had a relationship with a socially dominant male, she would immediately get greater access to resources because her social standing would be elevated, too.
As we shall see, modern surveys consistently show that women today ape those inherent characteristics by looking for partners who are socially dominant and have the respect of their peers, paying close attention to how men interact with, and are treated by, other men.
Men have a different reason for choosing a mate. The caveman needed to be sure he was raising a child who was genetically his. The best way of doing this was to secure a mate and guard her so she didn't get the chance to stray.
A man's natural instinct may be to have sex with a different woman every day, but to safeguard his relationship (and secure his progeny), he has been forced into a pattern of monogamy. don't even realise what's happening. When couples meet at speed-dating evenings, typically a man will judge a woman on her looks and youth. His priorities are whether she's healthy, interested in sex and can give him children one day. He doesn't care how much she earns or her social status.
Typically, however, a woman's first question will be: 'What job do you do?' It sounds a friendly overture, but what she really wants to know is his social position and earning capacity. Is he an industrious, hard worker, capable of providing for her and their children?
Because of his power, even the ugliest politician on the planet has women lining up to go to bed with him. Were he the local rat catcher, his love life would be a good deal quieter. As American statesman Henry Kissinger put it: 'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.'
One might argue that it's only natural for today's women in their 30s or 40s to feel dependent on a man. After all, the vast majority were raised by mothers who by and large didn't have careers and were forced to rely financially on their husbands.
Yet study after study proves that today's women in their 20s are just as insecure. In a recent study, two American researchers, John Marshall Townsend from Syracuse University and Gary Levy from the University of Toledo, presented women with photographs of men.
The first group, described as doctors, wore designer ties, smart shirts and sported Rolex watches. The second wore plain shirts and Swatch watches and were described as teachers. The third group wore Burger King uniforms.
Women repeatedly picked doctors as potential boyfriends - even though many of the men in the third category were actually more handsome. Quite simply, to women a man's looks are less important than earning power and social standing.
In another study, male and female medical students were asked to pick their ideal mate from a selection of careers. The majority of men chose nurses. Women, however, picked hospital consultants. This demonstrates that, although every bit as financially successful as their male colleagues, these young women still feel they need men to confer power and social standing to a superior male.
It's no surprise to me that another study this year by sociologists at Virginia University found that couples are happiest in traditional marriages run on old-fashioned gender lines, where the man is the main breadwinner. The report showed conclusively that women who worked were more dissatisfied with their husbands than those who stayed at home.
One of the experts, W Radford Wilcox, said: 'Regardless of what married women say they believe about gender, they tend to have happier marriages when their husband is a good provider.'
Happiest of all were women whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the household income, regardless of how much they helped with domestic chores.
In short I suspect women will never feel truly comfortable earning more than their men. The need to rely on a man is driven by such a deep-seated biological urge, I cannot see it ever being eradicated completely.
Only last week, a survey by the Skipton Building Society concluded that many women who are the main breadwinner hold it against their partner for contributing less to the household budget than they do.
While those women might like the material rewards of their high salaries, they also dislike the financial responsibility - perhaps reflectingthe inbuilt genetic imperative to rely on someone else.
It is that instinctive need to rely on a man which makes women so afraid of abandonment. Perhaps that is why women are more attuned to their partner's moods and curious about tiny aspects of his life. And they are much better than men at spotting liars.
Evolutionary psychologists are convinced that these are in part throwbacks to a woman's need to maintain her relationship at all costs.
It's completely irrational for women, who can earn as much as men, to have a terror of being abandoned. Even if she can't work, the welfare state means she's not going to starve. Yet it's a real fear for many women. We have anecdotal evidence of women lying awake at night worrying how they'd cope.
Women are terrified of abandonment. They fear a drop in status or social standing that might come with divorce in a way men - who are driven by very different priorities - simply don't understand.
Even extremely wealthy, successful women have these vestigial anxieties which bear absolutely no relation to the reality of their lives, but are throwbacks to caveman society.
Ironically, although men actually fare less well after divorce and are often less happy, women typically are more frightened of living alone.
Men find it extremely hard to forgive an affair. This dates back to early man's horror of unwittingly raising another man's child. However, women are predisposed to be more tolerant of affairs. It comes down to brutal economics. The thought of your husband having sex with another woman may be devastating. But even worse is the prospect of him pouring all his financial resources her way.
Quite simply, women are so programmed to feel dependent that their subliminal urge to safeguard the home often outweighs the fury of being sexually betrayed.
Terror of being abandoned even drives the beauty industry. Eating clinics report a four-fold rise in the number of middle-aged women seeking help for anorexia and bulimia because they're desperate to look slim and youthful. These problems were once the province of teenage girls.
And while women may claim they are having cosmetic surgery and Botox treatments purely to feel better about themselves, I believe the reason is much more complex.
Women are driven by a primeval urge to keep their men by looking youthful and fertile.
Sexist? Maybe. True? I fear so.
Comment: Women want to be "taken" in by a REAL MAN. They dont want to depend on sissy boys, who often need looking after themselves. Only real men can manage to take care of both themselves and their ladies.
-
Real men are women's inner need that they cannot avoid.
Modern life tries to distract women them, but they still know
that they seek a real man to take take them into his arms.
British Newspaper - Daily Mail
" Women are dependent on men "
We live in an age in which women have earned complete independence. So do they need men at all? According an evolutionary psychologist from Northumbria University, not only do they need men, they are fundamentally programmed to depend on them. Here he explains his provocative thesis:
You're a successful woman with a job to die for, a fabulous home and a supportive husband, but do you ever get the urge to check his mobile phone for love messages? Or his bank statements for intimate meals a deux that you didn't share? And do you lie awake at night worrying how you'll cope if the worst happens, your fears are proved and your husband walks out?
Don't worry. Your suspicion is only natural. At the risk of sounding extraordinarily sexist, I'm convinced that women, even in the happiest of relationships, are programmed to worry their men are going to abandon them.
And they're terrified - in a way that most men find it frankly impossible to imagine. What's more, if their forebodings come true, women are more inclined to forgive an affair than a man if the shoe is on the other foot. That's not because they're nicer, more easygoing individuals. It's simply because their primeval urge to hang onto a male provider is so strong.
Women in the 21st century may boast that they are truly independent for the first time in our social history. They may tell themselves and each other that they don't need a man. They can even start a family on their own thanks to IVF techniques.
But, while feminists may argue this proves women have finally kicked off the shackles of dependence on men, I'm afraid they're wrong.
In evolutionary terms the huge cultural changes over the past generation amount simply to the merest blink of an eye. It could take another 10,000 years for women to change their thinking.
Quite simply, women are preprogrammed to feel dependent on men. Even today women may be richer and enjoy all the trappings of success but, deep down in their psyche, they fear they can't survive alone.
These women may be shooting up the career ladder and earning more than the men in their lives, but when it comes to relationships men still hold the trump card.
As an evolutionary psychologist, I study patterns of behaviour dating back to the first human societies, and constantly analyse evidence that demonstrates the key differences which have developed between the sexes since men were hunter-gatherers and women were child bearers.
Females are smaller and weaker than males so, in prehistoric times, women and their offspring were prone to being the victims of predators, and violence.
They needed the support and protection of men who didn't just have brute force but also had social status in the group, either through their sheer physicality or the strength of their personality.
That's why women still look for a mate of higher social standing.
If a woman had a relationship with a socially dominant male, she would immediately get greater access to resources because her social standing would be elevated, too.
As we shall see, modern surveys consistently show that women today ape those inherent characteristics by looking for partners who are socially dominant and have the respect of their peers, paying close attention to how men interact with, and are treated by, other men.
Men have a different reason for choosing a mate. The caveman needed to be sure he was raising a child who was genetically his. The best way of doing this was to secure a mate and guard her so she didn't get the chance to stray.
A man's natural instinct may be to have sex with a different woman every day, but to safeguard his relationship (and secure his progeny), he has been forced into a pattern of monogamy. don't even realise what's happening. When couples meet at speed-dating evenings, typically a man will judge a woman on her looks and youth. His priorities are whether she's healthy, interested in sex and can give him children one day. He doesn't care how much she earns or her social status.
Typically, however, a woman's first question will be: 'What job do you do?' It sounds a friendly overture, but what she really wants to know is his social position and earning capacity. Is he an industrious, hard worker, capable of providing for her and their children?
Because of his power, even the ugliest politician on the planet has women lining up to go to bed with him. Were he the local rat catcher, his love life would be a good deal quieter. As American statesman Henry Kissinger put it: 'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.'
One might argue that it's only natural for today's women in their 30s or 40s to feel dependent on a man. After all, the vast majority were raised by mothers who by and large didn't have careers and were forced to rely financially on their husbands.
Yet study after study proves that today's women in their 20s are just as insecure. In a recent study, two American researchers, John Marshall Townsend from Syracuse University and Gary Levy from the University of Toledo, presented women with photographs of men.
The first group, described as doctors, wore designer ties, smart shirts and sported Rolex watches. The second wore plain shirts and Swatch watches and were described as teachers. The third group wore Burger King uniforms.
Women repeatedly picked doctors as potential boyfriends - even though many of the men in the third category were actually more handsome. Quite simply, to women a man's looks are less important than earning power and social standing.
In another study, male and female medical students were asked to pick their ideal mate from a selection of careers. The majority of men chose nurses. Women, however, picked hospital consultants. This demonstrates that, although every bit as financially successful as their male colleagues, these young women still feel they need men to confer power and social standing to a superior male.
It's no surprise to me that another study this year by sociologists at Virginia University found that couples are happiest in traditional marriages run on old-fashioned gender lines, where the man is the main breadwinner. The report showed conclusively that women who worked were more dissatisfied with their husbands than those who stayed at home.
One of the experts, W Radford Wilcox, said: 'Regardless of what married women say they believe about gender, they tend to have happier marriages when their husband is a good provider.'
Happiest of all were women whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the household income, regardless of how much they helped with domestic chores.
In short I suspect women will never feel truly comfortable earning more than their men. The need to rely on a man is driven by such a deep-seated biological urge, I cannot see it ever being eradicated completely.
Only last week, a survey by the Skipton Building Society concluded that many women who are the main breadwinner hold it against their partner for contributing less to the household budget than they do.
While those women might like the material rewards of their high salaries, they also dislike the financial responsibility - perhaps reflectingthe inbuilt genetic imperative to rely on someone else.
It is that instinctive need to rely on a man which makes women so afraid of abandonment. Perhaps that is why women are more attuned to their partner's moods and curious about tiny aspects of his life. And they are much better than men at spotting liars.
Evolutionary psychologists are convinced that these are in part throwbacks to a woman's need to maintain her relationship at all costs.
It's completely irrational for women, who can earn as much as men, to have a terror of being abandoned. Even if she can't work, the welfare state means she's not going to starve. Yet it's a real fear for many women. We have anecdotal evidence of women lying awake at night worrying how they'd cope.
Women are terrified of abandonment. They fear a drop in status or social standing that might come with divorce in a way men - who are driven by very different priorities - simply don't understand.
Even extremely wealthy, successful women have these vestigial anxieties which bear absolutely no relation to the reality of their lives, but are throwbacks to caveman society.
Ironically, although men actually fare less well after divorce and are often less happy, women typically are more frightened of living alone.
Men find it extremely hard to forgive an affair. This dates back to early man's horror of unwittingly raising another man's child. However, women are predisposed to be more tolerant of affairs. It comes down to brutal economics. The thought of your husband having sex with another woman may be devastating. But even worse is the prospect of him pouring all his financial resources her way.
Quite simply, women are so programmed to feel dependent that their subliminal urge to safeguard the home often outweighs the fury of being sexually betrayed.
Terror of being abandoned even drives the beauty industry. Eating clinics report a four-fold rise in the number of middle-aged women seeking help for anorexia and bulimia because they're desperate to look slim and youthful. These problems were once the province of teenage girls.
And while women may claim they are having cosmetic surgery and Botox treatments purely to feel better about themselves, I believe the reason is much more complex.
Women are driven by a primeval urge to keep their men by looking youthful and fertile.
Sexist? Maybe. True? I fear so.
Comment: Women want to be "taken" in by a REAL MAN. They dont want to depend on sissy boys, who often need looking after themselves. Only real men can manage to take care of both themselves and their ladies.
-
Real man bas better DNA
-
Scientists say real men have better genes them sissy men. Women are programmed to want a real man who cannot be put under their thumb.
BBC:
" Dominant men smell attractive "
Women subconsciously prefer the aroma of dominant men when they are at the most fertile stage of the menstrual cycle, research suggests.
Women rated the "dominant" men as sexiest, but seek out the most virile sexual partner when conception is likely. But the rest of the time they probably prefer potential social partners.
Women rated the odour of men for their intensity, sexiness and masculinity.
The researchers found women who were ovulating were more likely to rate the odour of dominant men as sexy. This was particularly the case among women who were in a relationship.
Dr Craig Roberts said "There seems to be some sort of physiological mechanism that directs women to indicators of good genes. The offspring of such a coupling would therefore be likely to have better genes."
Previous research has shown that emotional state may influence perception of body odour quality. Human scents, or pheromones, played a complex role in how people interacted with each other. Women were more likely to rate male pheromones as coming from a dominant or assertive individual.
Comment: Women want to be with a man who can handle their fire. Women know girly men can't handle anything. Children from a real man are better than offsprings from a weak minded fool. Women's instincts direct them towards a lion.
2009
-
Scientists say real men have better genes them sissy men. Women are programmed to want a real man who cannot be put under their thumb.
BBC:
" Dominant men smell attractive "
Women subconsciously prefer the aroma of dominant men when they are at the most fertile stage of the menstrual cycle, research suggests.
Women rated the "dominant" men as sexiest, but seek out the most virile sexual partner when conception is likely. But the rest of the time they probably prefer potential social partners.
Women rated the odour of men for their intensity, sexiness and masculinity.
The researchers found women who were ovulating were more likely to rate the odour of dominant men as sexy. This was particularly the case among women who were in a relationship.
Dr Craig Roberts said "There seems to be some sort of physiological mechanism that directs women to indicators of good genes. The offspring of such a coupling would therefore be likely to have better genes."
Previous research has shown that emotional state may influence perception of body odour quality. Human scents, or pheromones, played a complex role in how people interacted with each other. Women were more likely to rate male pheromones as coming from a dominant or assertive individual.
Comment: Women want to be with a man who can handle their fire. Women know girly men can't handle anything. Children from a real man are better than offsprings from a weak minded fool. Women's instincts direct them towards a lion.
2009
-
Weak men hated
--
A passionate woman's cry from the heart. She needs a hero.
Women do not like Weak Men (Period, end of story!)
PARLOUR MAGAZINE
Fellas, if you have used this argument: “I’m a good dude; problem is chicks don’t want a good man.” Chances are you have convinced yourself that GOOD is a nice way of saying what you really are-WEAK.
Now, not all good men are weak but a majority of them are and they think that is the reason why they get -ished on. While it is true that most women like a guy with a little bit of asshole in him (it shows that he can’t be pushed around and will cause a ruckus if need be) we don’t really want the bad guy. We settle for the bad guy ’cause he has stronger legs to stand on than the nice (translation: weak guy). With the bad guy you know what he is about.
If you are a weak man chances are you are: Passive and Indecisive.
Passiveness isn’t that big a deal if every now and then you call someone out (to their face) and speak your mind when a limit is reached. Who wants a punk ass man?
The real killer is indecisiveness.
If you are indecisive (”I don’t know what I want for dinner, honey what do you want for dinner?”) your woman will lose all respect for you.
Once you have lost her respect, you have lost her!
If you look at the traditional way of things men were the hunters and women the nurturers. Women still want to take care of a man who can take care of them, a man who can make decisions. As women, we don’t have to agree but it’s nice to know that your man has a vision, a goal, a road he is set on, a plan of attack.
In the great cheestastic sci-fi flick, Species, the lead character is this alien-human woman who is on the search for a man to impregnate her. She breaks free from her government lab and hits the streets, giving her ass to any man she finds.
But, there is a catch. With her super aliens senses she can tell if her prospective mate is weak. If he is weak, she kills them.
Like her, I too wish that sometimes I could off a weak ass dude, tie cement blocks to his feet and send him to the bottom of the ocean. Trust, that would be much easier than telling him to his face “You are a punk and you need to grow some balls.”
Ladies, let’s not fool these men anymore. When you dumb a dude don’t say: “I think you are great guy but I am not ready for a relationship.”
TELL THE TRUTH!
“You are too bitch-like for me. Get some bass in your voice, make clear decisions and stick to them without my input. Oh and while you at it, treat me like a lady you want, not a woman you need.”
There, I won’t even charge you for that. Take it, say it and hopefully you can save a man’s life.
Comment: Real women crave for cave men.
--
A passionate woman's cry from the heart. She needs a hero.
Women do not like Weak Men (Period, end of story!)
PARLOUR MAGAZINE
Fellas, if you have used this argument: “I’m a good dude; problem is chicks don’t want a good man.” Chances are you have convinced yourself that GOOD is a nice way of saying what you really are-WEAK.
Now, not all good men are weak but a majority of them are and they think that is the reason why they get -ished on. While it is true that most women like a guy with a little bit of asshole in him (it shows that he can’t be pushed around and will cause a ruckus if need be) we don’t really want the bad guy. We settle for the bad guy ’cause he has stronger legs to stand on than the nice (translation: weak guy). With the bad guy you know what he is about.
If you are a weak man chances are you are: Passive and Indecisive.
Passiveness isn’t that big a deal if every now and then you call someone out (to their face) and speak your mind when a limit is reached. Who wants a punk ass man?
The real killer is indecisiveness.
If you are indecisive (”I don’t know what I want for dinner, honey what do you want for dinner?”) your woman will lose all respect for you.
Once you have lost her respect, you have lost her!
If you look at the traditional way of things men were the hunters and women the nurturers. Women still want to take care of a man who can take care of them, a man who can make decisions. As women, we don’t have to agree but it’s nice to know that your man has a vision, a goal, a road he is set on, a plan of attack.
In the great cheestastic sci-fi flick, Species, the lead character is this alien-human woman who is on the search for a man to impregnate her. She breaks free from her government lab and hits the streets, giving her ass to any man she finds.
But, there is a catch. With her super aliens senses she can tell if her prospective mate is weak. If he is weak, she kills them.
Like her, I too wish that sometimes I could off a weak ass dude, tie cement blocks to his feet and send him to the bottom of the ocean. Trust, that would be much easier than telling him to his face “You are a punk and you need to grow some balls.”
Ladies, let’s not fool these men anymore. When you dumb a dude don’t say: “I think you are great guy but I am not ready for a relationship.”
TELL THE TRUTH!
“You are too bitch-like for me. Get some bass in your voice, make clear decisions and stick to them without my input. Oh and while you at it, treat me like a lady you want, not a woman you need.”
There, I won’t even charge you for that. Take it, say it and hopefully you can save a man’s life.
Comment: Real women crave for cave men.
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
