- Femme - Posted February 7, 2005 A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or PR women." I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers. Women in staff support are the new sirens because, as a guy I know put it, they look upon the men they work for as "the moon, the sun and the stars." It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods. In all those great Tracy/Hepburn movies more than a half-century ago, it was the snap and crackle of a romance between equals that was so exciting. Moviemakers these days seem far more interested in the soothing aura of romances between unequals. In James Brooks' "Spanglish," Adam Sandler, as a Los Angeles chef, falls for his hot Mexican maid. The maid, who cleans up after Sandler without being able to speak English, is presented as the ideal woman. The wife, played by Tea Leoni, is repellent: a jangly, yakking, overachieving, overexercised, unfaithful, shallow she-monster who has just lost her job with a commercial design firm. Picture Faye Dunaway in "Network" if she'd had to stay home, or Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" without the charm. The same attraction of unequals animated 2003's holiday hit, Richard Curtis' "Love Actually." The witty and sophisticated British prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, falls for the chubby girl who wheels the tea and scones into his office. A businessman married to the substantial Emma Thompson falls for his sultry secretary. A writer falls for his maid, who speaks only Portuguese. (I wonder if the trend in making maids who don't speak English heroines is related to the trend of guys who like to watch Kelly Ripa in the morning with the sound turned off?) Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection. As John Schwartz of The New York Times wrote recently, "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame." A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors . As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them. "The hypothesis," Brown said, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands. A second study by researchers at four British universities that was reported last week suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high IQ hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in IQ; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise . So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to. I asked the actress and writer Carrie Fisher, on the East Coast to promote her novel "The Best Awful," who confirmed that women who challenge men are in trouble. "I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said drily. "I gave up on dating powerful men because they wanted to date women in the service professions. So I decided to date guys in the service professions. But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too ." Source---For those who get hives when they dont see it. ----------- Gives a new meaning to the term "Momma's Boy" doesnt it? These people are too funny . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rudy-Diiriye Posted February 7, 2005 sista, lemme on me whats in your heart! not some stuff from hollywood dame! namean! tell me how u feel! do u feel like rapping with homie soldier or not!! u gotta decide!! okey!! been there done that! u find the answer within y0our kind!! voila! ce la vie!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alle-ubaahne Posted February 7, 2005 This article actualy relates to this topic, I guess. But anyway, I recently listened an interested program about this very same issue about the western marriage. listen to this program online, please: Audio Program _________________ Why men are attracted to subordinate women By Diane Swanbrow News Service Men are more likely to want to marry women who are their assistants at work rather than their colleagues or bosses, a study finds. The study, published in the current issue of Evolution and Human Behavior, highlights the importance of relational dominance in mate selection and discusses the evolutionary utility of male concerns about mating with dominant females. "These findings provide empirical support for the widespread belief that powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less accomplished women," says Stephanie Brown, lead author of the study and a social psychologist at the Institute for Social Research (ISR). For the study, supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, Brown and co-author Brian Lewis from the University of California, Los Angeles tested 120 male and 208 female undergraduates by asking them to rate their attraction and desire to affiliate with a man and a woman they were said to know from work. "Imagine that you have just taken a job and that Jennifer (or John) is your immediate supervisor (or your peer, or your assistant)," study participants were told as they were shown a photo of a male or a female. After seeing the photo and hearing the description of the person's role at work in relation to their own, participants were asked to use a 9-point Likert scale (1 is not at all, 9 is very much) to rate the extent to which they would enjoy going to a party with Jennifer or John, exercising with the person, dating the person and marrying the person. Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners for high-investment activities such as marriage and dating. "Our results demonstrate that male preference for subordinate women increases as the investment in the relationship increases," Brown says. "This pattern is consistent with the possibility that there were reproductive advantages for males who preferred to form long-term relationships with relatively subordinate partners. "Given that female infidelity is a severe reproductive threat to males only when investment is high, a preference for subordinate partners may provide adaptive benefits to males in the context of only long-term, investing relationships—not one-night stands." Brown, who is affiliated with the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, says the current findings are consistent with earlier research showing that expressions of vulnerability enhance female attractiveness. "Our results also provide further explanation for why males might attend to dominance-linked characteristics of women such as relative age or income, and why adult males typically prefer partners who are younger and make less money." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alle-ubaahne Posted February 7, 2005 Naagtii: Waryaa Alle-ubaahne kaalay ciyaalka haay maanta aroos ayaan ka boodboodi doonaaye Alle-ubaahne: Ma anaa i leedahay ciyaalka haay? Naagtii: Oo maxaa is mooday soo ma ogid inaan kaa cilmi badanahay oo aan jaamacad iyo Lacagba ku dheerayahay! Alle-ubaahne: Naa hadaadan edeb yeelan iska jir, aniga naag iguma kibirto sidaas ogow, awoowgeey waa ina Naago-ku-Rabeeye. Naagtii: War nacasyahow yaaku dhaha lafahaaga u cabso meeshaan America ayaa la dhahaa, kii iswaala waala xiraa oo sharciga ayaa loo dhiibaa. Alle-ubaahne: Naa aniga inteey naag u gumeysan laheyd waxaan ka xigaa dagaal iyo xabsi iyo dhimasho! Naagtii: Maad ka joogtid inaanan 911 kuu wicin? Alle-ubaahne: Naa naga daa hada, waan kula ciyaarayee, ma runbaad mooday, balaayo kugu dhici weysay, naa ha i xirin magacaa ba'ye. Naagtii: Edeb yeelo hada oo kaalay inta jikada ii gashid orod cunto iisoo kari. Alle-ubaahne: Caku iyo naag aan ninkeeda xushmeyn, awalbaan qaldanaa markaan midaan guursanayey. Quruxdeey igu sirtay! Ii kaadi bal aan mar Muqdisho la tago midaan dhibka badan, hadaanan ku bacaarin waad arki doontaa. ciiloo wey! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomen nescio Posted February 7, 2005 Ladies, this is why most farax's here would like to order a wify from the Slums of Galkacio and Garoowe rather than Minneapolis and Toronto... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valenteenah. Posted February 7, 2005 Just proves my theory that men are natural arseholes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomen nescio Posted February 7, 2005 ^^ feeling bitter and left out or what??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valenteenah. Posted February 7, 2005 ^^Not at all. Am actually feeling warm and fluffy, if you have to know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NGONGE Posted February 7, 2005 ^^ I would love to hear more about your theory if you don't mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nomen nescio Posted February 7, 2005 ^^^ would like to hear that AND whats keeping you warm and fluffy?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Valenteenah. Posted February 7, 2005 Aren't we inquisitive today? NG, I do mind. The theory isn't complete yet as I still have to finish some secondary research. Nevertheless, I can tell you that I started from the premise (hoping to prove myself wrong) that men are arseholes, only for my research to prove that supposition true.... AJ, What's keeping me warm and fluffy? Really...where are your manners, young man? I couldn't possibly answer such question. :rolleyes: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
- Femme - Posted February 7, 2005 Order? Since when did we become meat products?! VR: Darling, not all of them. Some of them are bigger than that. Some of them are Jackarses. And some are dead. Rudy: Spit out your Q man. What are you trying to say? Whateva!... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NGONGE Posted February 7, 2005 Originally posted by Velvet Revolution: Aren't we inquisitive today? Yes, Miss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-Serenity- Posted February 7, 2005 This topic reminds me of Underdog. Any1 else feel his absense? I dont know why they associate intellect with being domineering or dominating in both articles. Its so stereotypical. IQ and ambition IMHO are qualities we are born with. I would think these women would be at an advantage to pass on the good genes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baashi Posted February 7, 2005 Ngonge, If u only knew what they say about men who do Khaawisaad Khaawisaad = peeping Originally posted by -Femme Fatale-: VR: Darling, not all of them. Some of them are bigger than that. Some of them are Jackarses. And some are dead. I like that miss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
