Smart Women Don't Read Maureen Dowd

Single women are quaking in their trendy boots today -- all because of yet another screed by Maureen Dowd. According to today's New York Times column, men are intimidated by smart women. To win the American male vote, Hillary Clinton should dumb herself down. Oh, and successful women won't ever find love.

Millions of women across the country just got a migraine.

Small-scale opinion surveys may hem and haw about men's preferences for subordinate women, but actions speak louder than words: According to this year's Current Population Survey research of 50,000 households, women who have graduate degrees and/or top salaries are more likely to marry than their less accomplished sisters. Among 35- to 39-year-old women, some 88% with advance degrees have married compared with 81% of women without college degrees. And once married, these smart, successful women may even be more likely to have children.

For all those smart single women out there, here's some advice:

1) Stop reading Maureen Dowd's column. Smart young women must reject the myth that men are intimidated by them. There's a high cost to this conventional wisdom -- and it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy for you if you have a bad attitude toward dating.

In a national survey I conducted for my recent book, Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women 65% of single men said they are more attracted to women who are successful in their careers. Recent research published in the American Journal of Sociology seconded that finding: Based on interpersonal relationships among 60 different communities nationwide, the study concludes that men are more sexually attracted to women in positions of power than they are to more subordinate women. Thus it appears that a woman's success and smarts can be a real aphrodisiac to today's men.

2) Be honest about your achievements and who you are. Don't tell a man you are a stewardess when you are actually finishing law school (or running for president). It's insulting to everyone. If you are lighthearted and fun, if he's attracted to you and finds you interesting, you have the beginnings of a great relationship. Getting to know someone isn't about comparing resumes.

3) Think outside the box. Your success and accomplishments enable you to broaden your horizons in your search for a life partner. The idea that you would only marry a man who has more formal education and makes more money than you do is antiquated -- and might cause you to overlook your soul mate.

If Maureen Dowd got you really worked up, check your odds of marriage using a calculator I created based on U.S. Census data: More education and income is a great asset -- not a liability -- in the marriage market.

And my apologies, as always, to all the smart stewardesses out there. MoDo is giving you a bad rap. Next time Ms. Dowd is on your airplane, perhaps you can chat with her about this.

Follow Christine Whelan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/christinewhelan

Comments

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

MoDo's column reads like the bastard child of Drudge & Page 6. I think she's trite and more than a little pretentious.

The more I read MoDo the more I miss Molly Ivins.

[SeanGardner]

I say read everyone - Maureen Dowd included.

Only when you read liberal AND conservative points of view, male AND female points of view, and everything in between, will you become an informed individual.

And I want to be surrounded at all times by informed people - even if they write and think like Maureen Dowd, who I have disagreed with on many occasions.

[Libsrule]

I get the impression from a lot of the comments that most of the people here just took the word of the writer without bothering to read Dowd's column.

I saw NOTHING in it that Whelan said she said.

Rather the reverse. She was commenting, and rather tongue in cheek I might add, about what Hillary might want to consider after these various studies were put out.

I don't like dumb women, or at least not after the first night. I prefer the company of women who are informed and are good conversatinalists, and that requires a good degree of intelligence, BUT it would be foolish to think all men are comfortable with strong powerful women.

They are not.

In fact a study done some years ago (if memory serves me correctly) showed women graduates of Havard Business School had less chance of getting married and having a family. Seems as soon as potential dates found out they were graduates of HBS, they never called again.

It was a combination of wanting a woman at home for the family and not wanting competition both workwise and moneywise.

It might be neandertal to think like this but it is just something that is in the genes and it may or may not take a very long time to change.

But nonetheless Whelan did a disservice by claiming Dowd said these things when in fact not only did she not, but rather she appeared to report on them and then give a tongue in cheek bit of advice to Hillary.

That's what I got out of it anyway, not what Whelan claimed.

[susiesorority]

Maureen puts the story within the story--always does. If you can't see the point, you probably belong with men who are intimidated by smart women.

Why are we in the US debating this in 2007?

[Pandu]

Some people have different ideas of what constitutes smart and successful. I'm an active member of Mensa, and my wife would probably qualify as well, but I don't find much value in mundane intelligence or success.

I judge my own intelligence as the inverse of my feeling of being this body. Sometimes, in times of stupidity, I act in the bodily conception, like an animal. Other times, when clarity prevails, I act as a spiritual person, with the realization that gratifying these material senses brings misery, while true happiness comes from devotional service.

In any case, I'm fortunate that my wife's intelligence tells her that raising children with me is more important than having a career. I agree, and our success is a happy family.

[Brainoverbraun]

Christine - sure men want women who are smart and successful but SMARTER and MORE SUCCESSFUL?? - that is a rare man indeed. I run my own business and am partnered with a stay at home Dad. He has a pretty healty ego, which helps alot, but even so we really have to work as a couple to deal with that. If I was at home I don't think my working husband would put any thought into what impact his success is having on my ego.

When I was young my Mom told me that it's a Man's world and I better deal with it as it is. As I mature I realize that in many respects she was right. Most of the client companies I deal with have men in the majority of management positions and the political jobs in our country are still predominantly held by men and although I do see women making progress we still have a long way to go to achieve the equality we dreamed of when I graduated from college.

[GuyRC]

I don't read Maureen Dowd. Cynthia Tucker is the one who makes sense to me regularly. I think all the women I have fallen in love with were smart. Some have PhD's now. The reason I didn't marry one of them? Not intimidation, or lack of attraction, more like lack of self-confidence and uncertainty. I think smart women should start asking out men they are interested in more. But I'm no expert.

[Wingfella]

The biggest point is just to honestly be yourself - smart or not. That's the best way to look intelligent, if that's what you're into.

If you're worrying all the time about how you're being judged, you're probably spending too much time judging others, too.

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/unbuttoned/

[bac]

I have to agree with this writer. It’s not that men do not like the ‘smartness’ in a women (how can any man not like such a good attribute?), it’s almost always some other traits in some of these women that is probably putting them off. Women just do not want to admit that, and continually stick by the myth that ‘men are intimidated by smart women’!

[MoMoDo]

Dowd likes to take her personal experiences and generalize them. The entire column is list of rationalizations of why she hasn't been successful in relationships.
http://dowdreport.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-am-i-single.html

[QueenCeleste]

The title of your piece doesn't jive with what Dowd wrote. Sadly this is becoming more and more common at the Huffington Post. She was commenting on studies for heaven's sake! And yes, there is truth in them because--hold on to your hats--the sexes ARE different and think differently, no matter how much various factions want women and men to act the same.

And how reassuring to see that some here see fit to criticize Dowd based on her hair or physical attributes. Dare I suggest these souls might feel a tad intimidated by her, ah, intelligence?

[justvisitingthisplanet]

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK!

[justvisitingthisplanet]

Maybe it should be specified that CERTAIN men (some rich and powerful, some not) don't like smart or successful women. I've met and dated such men so I know, unfortunately, that they exist. Maybe smart women should stop dating THOSE kind of men and start dating the good ones. Maybe SMART women should get upset about real issues affecting women and take to the streets (like equal pay for equal wok) and stop watching the "View", reading irrelevant columns and women's mags, and worrying about finding husbands....

[NABNYC]

I don't read Dowd's columns or books. I used to. But eventually I realized that I did so because I felt it was obligatory - since she was a woman columnist at the NYT, I support women professionals .... But then I realized that she doesn't.

Maureen Dowd supports Maureen Dowd. I suspect she is a very bright woman, and could write really important articles. But instead she is the professional "cute," or "sassy," lady writer. She always goes for cute to cover up anything of intelligence she might be thinking.

And in person it's kind of pathetic. I don't know how old she is, but I will guess she is way too old to be wearing her hair long and in front of one eye, peering from behind, like a teenager girl. Always the flirt, always cute.

And now she spends her time writing this garbage? She couldn't think of anything important going on that might deserve some energy? The war? Economy? What do they call it -- oh yeah, the election? Politics.

No, just cute and silly. What a thing to imagine being put on a tombstone.

[KPinSEA]

Wow ... one would at least hope people with reading comprehension read Maureen Dowd, because comparing the gist of this op-ed with the content in today's Times, it's hard to believe it's actually the same column Ms. Whelan was commenting on. It's not as if Dowd was talking about the data she recounted as a *positive* thing.