The New Sexy
I just talked with a law student, who has been together with a guy for several years. She just went through a period of questioning the long-term potential of the relationship.
So they decided to take a break, and she was going over in her mind -- shall I stay with him or break up? -- making lists of all the pros and cons. Amidst all this, she told me, "I kept thinking. We have had lots of conversations about our careers. He's a teacher, and he is fine with being a stay at home dad. So I was thinking: if I break up with him, I won't have that. How am I going to have a career? That was a big pro for me."
Heads up, guys. The new sexy. What do women want? Not the strong, silent type. They want a man who can feel, talk -- and help.
That's quite a sweeping generalization, don't you think? One person's anecdote does not represent the whole.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
November 6, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention a bit self-centered, a bit cold-blooded?
November 6, 2007 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not clear to me that it's necessarily self-centered, given a small sample of couples I know that have such relationships. My first wife is now quite happy with her third husband. She became pregnant, much to her surprise as she thought she had gone through the menopause.
Her husband is an attorney, but generally hated it. She's a highly paid computer scientist, so they agreed that he would be the at-home parent. What really confirmed things about what he really wanted to do came after their son started school, and John (the husband) got the credentials for what he had really wanted to do: teach elementary school.
Steve Wozniak, the technical co-inventor of Apple Computers, also really wanted to be involved in elementary education. Fundraising is a little different in his school; rather than door-to-door selling, someone sticks their head into his classroom, and he says something like "a new wing on the school? Sure. let me get my checkbook."
I've also known some retired military people that chose to go into education at all levels, including elementary. Career NCOs that have made the higher levels tend to be extremely good individual instructors and motivators.
Now, as for me, I'm in the group that cannot speak its name, the pedophobes. If I fell into Orwell's 1984, and they took me to Room 101, they'd fill it with toddlers. Hungry rats are easy.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 6, 2007 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How do you like children?"
W.C. Fields: "Parboiled, with a sprig of parsley."
November 6, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it's not necessarily self-centered (unless Tankard is referring to the poster's apparent declaration that all women want the same thing as either she or her law student).
Each individual is an individual (a truism, to be sure). Male or female. We each have our own needs, wants, and desires in a partner. My fiance's needs/wants may be radically different than the poster's; however, I wouldn't be so bold as to proclaim that my partner's needs are "the new sexy" or to know "what [all] women really want."
There are enough people in this world for someone to find a partner that fits. Unless, of course, one is a misanthrope.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto sermo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
November 6, 2007 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't clear (I do that a lot).
My point was that the woman in the anecdote wasn't exploring her feelings about her beau. She was calculating the effect on her career if she dumped him. That's cold.
Fitting together is one thing. Loving each other is another. Using someone you don't love is quite a separate third.
November 6, 2007 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The woman that marries without considering the "cold" part of the equation is in the minority.
In David Buss' "Evolution of Desire" women were asked to select an ideal husband, from choices that included income data. Even the high-earning executive types were more likely to select a man that earned more than they did. They also chose men that were not necessarily hunks.
When asked to choose the ideal mate for a fling, they selected physically more impressive choices and ignored the salary data.
Always worth including the caveat that this is average data, and not predictive for individuals. But it's not exactly news that women care about what kind of father and companion someone is, as well as what he brings to the partnership. Most marriages are choices of contingency, not perfect soul-mates. This applies equally to men. If people always waited for the perfect mate, we'd go extinct.
November 7, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did I give the impression that I thought that she was wrong in considering the guy's advantages? If so, pardon me once again for lacking clarity. Certainly all of us mate up based at least partially on a real or perceived gain for our selfish selves.
No, my original statement here was the product of my impression that his benefit to her career was her only -- or overwhelmingly primary -- criterion for renewing the relationship.
Interesting citation, BTW.
November 7, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not you stay with someone should depend on whether or not you love them. All the rest is peripheral and can be sorted out. After 27 years of married life with the same person, I think I can attest that this is right.
“I despise ideologues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007
November 6, 2007 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love is definitely an important aspect of a relationship, an aspect that is needed for any relationship to stay alive or healthy.
At the same time, I also have experienced first-hand (and have known others) where love just wasn't enough. As much as I admire Lennon, love is not all you need. This is why I talk about "fit"... there are needs, wants, and desires that a person has which sometimes does goes beyond the concept of love. If one partner needs security to feel safe, for example, no matter how much he or she loves their partner, if a sense of security is lacking, then the relationship may not work.
Finances, sex, children, religion, geographic location of the domicile, and a host of others may not be debatable or able to be easily compromised to an individual. Love can make a compromise easier, but it's no guarantee.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto sermo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
November 6, 2007 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the one study cited in these comments indicates, people choose mates for all kinds of strategic reasons. Traditionally, women have chosen mates who are taller and richer than they are. It's not magic that the man is taller in most couples -- it's an unspoken criterion for a lot of women that the man be taller, and an unspoken criterion for a lot of men that the women be shorter. If chossing a mate this way is "cold," then nearly everyone is "cold" --just look around you. Just because we choose not to admit what we are doing does not mean that strategic considerations do not even into mating decisions every day.
What this student did was no more "cold" than what men and women do every day. What's new is that she chose to value something different in a man -- not how much her mate could make, or whether they would make a matching pair when she wore heels, but whether he would take an active role for their children. That's news.
November 10, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and cold.
November 10, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink