DADvocate

Maureen Dowd wrote a column in the New York Times a couple of days ago which created quite a stir. In the column, titled "What's a Modern Girl to Do?", Dowd laments about the difficulty of finding/having a suitable male partner in her life.

In the process Dowd covers nearly every cliche known to the relationship game. She covers the games women play to determine if a man is acceptable material for a relationship, such as who will pay for the meal the two just ate.

"They make like they are heading into their bag after a meal, but it is a dodge," Marc Santora, a 30-year-old Metro reporter for The Times, says. "They know you will stop them before a credit card can be drawn. If you don't, they hold it against you."

...a TV producer in New York, told me much the same thing: "If you offer, and they accept, then it's over."

When I asked a young man at my gym how he and his lawyer girlfriend were going to divide the costs on a California vacation, he looked askance. "She never offers," he replied. "And I like paying for her." It is, as one guy said, "one of the few remaining ways we can demonstrate our manhood."

The last example struck me as particular pathetic. No wonder this guy is in a gym. He is trying desperately to develop some "manhood."

More:

A few years ago at a White House correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful and successful actress. Within minutes, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women."

First, it's a wonder anyone marries a famous, successful actor or actress when you look at the marriage/divorce rate of Hollywood. These people marry and divorce more often than high school kids go steady and break up. No normal person wants to disrupt their life in this way.

A study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggested that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors. Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them. There it is, right in the DNA: women get penalized by insecure men for being too independent.

Most people, female and male, probably want a partner who they feel is supportive to them. A "subordinate" person would probably be more willing to be supportive of more successful person because it includes a increase in status and standard of living. However, this is less likely to be the case with males because independence is a strongly held male value. Having a spouse who out earns you is a threat to this value. Over the last 40 years, valuing independence has increased in females also which only makes the problem of getting together with someone even more difficult.

Continuing on and on and on, Dowd relates feminism to the relationship problems about which I am sure she is partially correct. She also describes how there is a boomerang reaction to feminist values currently. Mostly she demonstrates how one can write a long, seemingly in-depth article and still be very shallow. All her anecdotes revolve around the successful types of New York, Hollywood, etc. In the typical conceit of these people she assumes they lead society and that the masses follow their lead.

This is the conceit that prompts celebrities to threaten to leave the country if son and so is elected. This is the conceit that makes celebrities believe everyday people care about their political opinions. This is the conceit that leads celebrities to disparage the huddled masses as stupid, uninformed, mislead, whatever because they didn't vote the way the celebrity thought they should.

This conceit is primarily what prevents many of the successful from enjoying the benefits of relationships that ordinary people enjoy. For many of the successful it's about self-aggrandizement, status, and the such. For ordinary people it's about building a life, meeting day to day challenges and mutually helping someone else for the benefit of both.