smart men, smarter women

i read feministing's lambasting of maureen o'dowd for a column on studies that point to men's preference for subordinate mates (studies here and here). i feel her indignation, but i beg to differ on her interpretation of maureen o'dowd's comments.

feministing says that o'dowd blames feminism for men's supposed preferences:

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.

Firstly, Dowd’s assumption that young women or women in the service industry are somehow NOT smart and are more likely to “service” men in their personal life is just disgusting.

And I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, feminism wasn’t a fucking dating service! If some asshole doesn’t want to date you because you’re smart and successful, is it the fault of feminism or the asshole?

she then goes to criticize o'dowd's quoting of hollywood sources as her proof and asserts that men's should be given more credit than o'dowd and the studies are giving them.

now, on her base beliefs, i definitely agree. men should be given more credit. not all men are pigs that want to lord over their women. feminism isn't a dating service. some women in the service industry are smart(just as some women in other industries are not). but i don't think maureen is saying the opposite of any of these things in her column. she simply questions the idea that men can be (and are) okay with women being on the same level as them (and thus want to be with them, too).

i think it's a fair question.

some men (and, sadly, some women) aren't ok with the greater possiblities women have (for greater education, higher positions of power, etc.). that can be seen in the studies by the university of michigan and the four british universities. i don't know what feministing's experiences with this issue are, but i know, at least, that this is an issue for some in the black community. many black men have a problem with their woman making more money than them because that means that they aren't the primary bread winner, and in some sense, are being "taken care of" by their women. in other words, for some men (black and otherwise), a successful woman emasculates them since they are no longer "taking care of their woman," as a man should(black feminism talks about this specific issue for black folk).

o'dowd sees this, has talked to women who have witnessed this, and now has studies that say this, so she writes a column about it. just because she writes about it doesn't mean that she believes it herself. and tho she does refer to those in service positions as "below" those in "higher" positions, i don't think (perhaps naively) that she was insinuating that these people are dumber than others; it's just that higher education, one of our society's measuring sticks for intelligence, is one of the biggest tickets to those other industries..

it would have been great if she had gotten some non-hollywood sources that see this as a problem. and perhaps she shouldn't have drawn a line between less-wanted women with higher IQs and more-wanted women in secretarial, assistant positions. but i think she makes a valid point by highlighting that many instances in reality and film lately point to the trend of men going towards those whose jobs are to take care of them, rather than those in jobs that help themselves or others.

o'dowd isn't making an anti-feminist point, she's reiterating a point that has been made by many feminists (betty friedan's the feminine mystique immediately comes to mind) -- that there's something wrong a society that says it's ok for men to (a) actively seek women who seem to solely exist to take care of them and (b) to avoid women who demonstrate their own independence.