Articles

GENTLEMEN PREFER BRAINS?
AM NEW YORK - "THE DATING LIFE"
OCTOBER 23, 2006
BY JULIA ALLISON

"Being a maid would have enhanced my chances with men. Guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to."
-- Maureen Dowd, 'Are Men Necessary?' (2005)

"The rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child."
--­ Sylvia Ann Hewlett, 'Creating a Life' (2002)

"Whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career."
-- Michael Noer, Forbes magazine (2006)

Maureen? Sylvia? You're wrong. Michael? You're an idiot.

So says Christine Whelan, PhD, author of the new book 'Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women,' which takes to task the myth surrounding high-achieving women and marriage: namely, that being personally and professionally satisfied is, ­ statistically speaking, ­ mutually exclusive.

It's not, claims Whelan. She wants all of the career-oriented women out there--whom she's dubbed 'SWANS' (Strong Women Achievers, No Spouse)--to know two things:

1) You WILL get married. Just later.
2) Men do NOT want to marry the maid.

With degrees from Princeton and Oxford and a wedding in the works, Whelan knows whereof she speaks. And with U.S. census data and a nationally representative Harris study specially commissioned for the book, she has the data to back it up.

Forget Newsweek's infamous claim­ that single women over 40 are "more likely to get killed by a terrorist" than hitched. Printed in 1986 and repeated ad nausea for the last 20 years, the magazine retracted it in June of this year.

Like Whelan, they found that the statistics were flawed. The study had incorrectly predicted the matrimonial patterns of future generations based upon the past behaviors of previous generations. In other words, what was true for our mothers is no longer true for us.

"In 1970, only 6 percent of American women between the ages of 30 and 34 had never married," writes Whelan, citing U.S. Census data. "Now it's 24 percent."

Why? Two influences dramatically shifted the culture and timing of modern marriage: the exponential rise in women's educational achievement, and the proliferation of working mothers.

Thirty-five years ago, only 68 women had a college degree for every 100 men.

In 2005, that number had skyrocketed, to 133 women for every 100 men. The number of females obtaining graduate degrees had risen dramatically, as well. The result?

While women focus on their schooling, they tend to put off finding a husband. Thus, the average age of first marriage for women with a graduate degree is almost 5 years later than the national norm (25 years).

The second influence on today's marriages is the proliferation of working mothers in the last three decades. According to Whelan's study, 72% of high-achieving men grew up with a mom who worked outside of the house.

Because of this, guys who were raised in the '70s and '80s "have no idea of femininity that excludes a high-achieving woman."

So stop worrying that you won't get married just because you haven't tied the knot by 27. "High achieving women marry at the same rates as all other women," explains Whelan, "They're just a bit older."

And DEFINITELY stop insisting that men are 'intimidated' by your brains and earning power. They aren't.

According to Whelan's study, 92% of high-achieving men say they are more attracted to women who are successful in their careers, while almost 90% reported that they wanted to marry a woman who was "as intelligent as they are, or more." Take that, Maureen!

"Men who perceive themselves as smart and successful are attracted to women they perceive to be smart and successful," writes Whelan. And yet, more than half the women surveyed still insidiously ­ and falsely ­ believed that men wanted to marry down.

Like the 'Sex & the City' episode where Miranda pretends to be a flight attendant to disguise her true, ostensibly more emasculating profession (an attorney, of course!) ­ women think they must lie or understate their achievements to ensure a happy relationship.

Completely untrue, insists Whelan. "When these able women buy into gender-based stereotypes of what a man is looking for in a woman, they not only insult the men they are trying to attract, but also give off negative vibes about their own self-confidence."

Those vibes--stemming from needless panic and a false sense of I'll-Never-Get-Married-Doom--may translate as desperation, anger, cynicism and bitterness, which we all know men just love.

Of course, 'he can't handle my smarts' is a hell of a lot nicer than 'he thinks I'm an ugly, demanding bore.'

Men actually do want intelligence, self-confidence, and ambition. "Success is sexy," says Whelan. In fact, "more income and education may increase a woman's chances of marriage."

So whip out your black Amex, drop the H-Bomb with aplomb (uh, that would be Hahvard, dahling), and casually mention your enormous graduate student loans. You'll be married by next June.

And Ms. Dowd? You still have time left.

Posted by JA at 09:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

MATCHMAKING MOMS: CUTE OR PATHETIC?
AM NEW YORK - "THE DATING LIFE"
OCTOBER 9, 2006
BY JULIA ALLISON

My mom is not the 'matchmaker type.'

The first ­ and last ­ time I asked her to set me up, she looked at me like I had just suggested she foot the bill for a Trump Tower apartment. Preferably a penthouse.

Snapping out of her shock, she swiftly concluded that I should date the only man she could think of other than my dad--the general contractor working on my parents' house in Chicago, who she happened to be on the phone with at that very moment.

"Want to go out with my daughter?" she yelled enthusiastically into the cordless. "She's a sexy sex columnist!!"

It was readily apparent that this was a horrible idea.

Luckily for Dawn Miller, not all mothers are as sweetly inept at finding their children mates.

Miller, 32, is founder of MatchmakingMoms.com ­ a new online dating site in which moms create the profiles and search for matches on their sons' or daughters' behalves.

"I'm very close to my mom and we often talked about how difficult it was to meet somebody," says Miller. When she initially felt awkward about online dating, her mother sat down with her and together, they went through the men's profiles until they found the man who would later become Miller's boyfriend.

"I felt more comfortable with my mom validating who I was looking at and whether they were compatible," she explains. "Nobody knows you better than your mom."

My first thought was 'aww, that¹s so adorable,' but others had a different view. Was it cute or creepy?

"Creepy," says Lizzie, 25, an editor who only wanted to be identified by her first name. "I do not want my mom involved. I barely even tell her who I'm dating, let alone let her pick them."

But wouldn't dating online be better if moms filled out the profiles? They might think he's smarter or better looking than he really is, but not many mothers would lie about their sons being married, for example.

"Maybe," admitted Lizzie, "but doesn't it make them sort of pathetic that Mom's doing all the work?"

Well, maybe it makes them LESS pathetic because they're not sitting in front of their computer uploading glamour shots and laundry-listing their accomplishments. Mom is! And moms are allowed to do stuff like that.

"It saves face," says Miller, "if somebody sees your picture, you can just say 'yeah, my mom put me up there.'"

Lizzie wasn¹t having it. "God forbid you meet a 35-year-old guy who actually needed his mom to fill out his dating profile," she says.  "It's like 'Oh. So THAT'S why you're not married. Now I see.'"

Posted by JA at 09:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

WAKING UP TO THE WIDE WORLD OF SPORTS
AM NEW YORK - "THE DATING LIFE"
OCTOBER 2, 2006
BY JULIA ALLISON

To say I'm not a sports fan is a bit of an understatement. Besides consistently (and predictably) being picked last in gym class, I managed to live in Chicago during the Bulls 'peat-a-thon and never attend a game, and I didn't know who Terrell Owens was until last week. (Does that mean it's football season?)

In other words, dating a sports fanatic is my worst nightmare.

So far, I've been lucky – geeks and nerds are my forte, and they tend to eschew physical activity of any sort (except, you know, that kind). But such a streak may be difficult to continue forever, and according to a recent survey done by the online dating site True.com, 57% of men prefer that women share their passion for sports.

Crap.

To be honest, I used to think my complete ignorance on the subject was adorable -- charming even.  I was, apparently, wrong.

"Not knowing used to be cute in the '70s," said Michael Wilbon, longtime Washington Post sports columnist and host of ESPN's Pardon the Interruption, "but it's not cute anymore. It's a total turnoff. It's so antisocial for a woman not to know about sports in this day and age. After war, the biggest stories in the world are about sports."

They are?  Oops.  Obviously I need to put down "He's Just Not That Into You" and turn on "SportsCenter."

Assuming the athletic-knowledge-challenged individual is female, which is a safe -- if admittedly sexist – assumption, what's a gal to do if she has a sports-lover boyfriend and she can't tell the Cowboys from the Capitals?

"If she's a 'good girlfriend' she'll make an effort to get into it," said Jon, 28, a lawyer, "But the girl who is actually willing to sit down and spend three hours watching a football game is very rare."

He'd settle for "somebody who follows the major headlines, who can tell me who won the last Super Bowl, who has a basic knowledge of how the game works."

(Hmm … Googling "2006 Super Bowl Winner" right now.)

Whatever you do, said Wilbon, do not walk into the room and scream, "Who's playing?" But other than that, men are more understanding than you think.

"We don't need them to be fanatics," he explained. "We don't want them to be. You can check in at the beginning of the game, then go shopping, get a pedicure, have lunch with the girls. We want you to know what's going on, but we don't want you there all day."

Whew. That's a relief.

Still, says Wilbon, "There's no girl who gets the attention of guys like one who understand sports. Except maybe a cute girl who understands sports. And Maria Sharapova."

I give up now.

Posted by JA at 09:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

MEN'S HEALTH
BY JULIA ALLISON

Some first date disasters are unique; they can’t be categorized into a Don’t.  Spilling wine on her by mistake, running over her foot in the parking lot, unintentionally taking her to the restaurant where her last boyfriend dumped her.  These follies can’t be avoided because they’re inherently unavoidable.
But there are a handful of other no-nos that pop up regularly in women’s accounts of Really Bad First Dates.  It is these mistakes that have no excuse.  Why?  Because they can be easily prevented with minor effort and a bit of forethought.

If you don’t think it matters so much, think again – it will make the difference between planning a second date and her being busy … for the next decade or so.

Even the best daters need a little reminder once in a while.  Here, the top five first date faux pas:

#1) NOT PAYING
WHY IT’S A TURN OFF:  Unfair as you may think this is, it makes you look cheap and rude.  She’s thinking, “wow, if he doesn’t offer to pay on the first date, when he’s ostensibly trying to impress me, it’s a safe bet that he’ll be incredibly stingy in the rest of the relationship!”  Not to mention that if you’ve asked her out, picked the restaurant and expect the goodnight kiss, it’s generally polite to take care of the evening’s costs (and don’t even think about showing her the bill to “ask if you tipped enough,” so she can see how much you paid for the meal – that’s just tacky).  If she offers to chip in, don’t accept; chances are, she’s only trying to be polite, and either way, it’s better to err on the side of caution.  If you’re still feeling badly about the inequity of it all, think of this: her “first date” outfit probably cost triple the meal – and that’s if you splurged!  In the end, being chivalrous on your first date won’t hurt, and can only help. After all, you have an entire relationship to argue about money – why start now?

# 2) UNDERESTIMATING YOUR ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION
WHY IT’S A TURN OFF:
No one likes a first date drunk.  Drunks do and say stupid things, they have a tendency to get touchy feely inappropriately soon, and worst of all, the possibility for vomit and/or falling down is greatly amplified. That said, we’ve all done it.  There’s nothing like first date nerves to obscure your usual tendency towards temperance.  But the further you are from your frat days, the less acceptable it is to get wildly inebriated.  Your jitters can be eased with a cocktail or two, but keep it at that.  Too many potential matches have been ruined by “just another round of double tequila shots!”

#3) BRAGGING
WHY IT’S A TURN OFF:
This always rubs women the wrong way.  If you need to boast about your financial solvency, your perk-filled job, or your celebrity connections, we’re going to think either you’re full of s—t or you’re trying to compensate for something else … if you know what we mean.  And no, “casually” mentioning your tax bracket, cost per square foot of your last real estate purchase, or your friend “who knows J. Lo,” is just annoying.  If you really have all this going on, she’ll notice without a news bulletin from you.  We promise.

#4) BEING RUDE - TO ANYONE
WHY IT’S A TURN OFF:
First dates are like job interviews.  You arrive early (even if you’re always late), you look presentable (even if you’re always in your sweats), and obviously, you’re unfailingly polite.  Can you imagine being rude to the receptionist at your brand new company?  No.  Then don’t be rude to the waitress, the doorman, or the valet.  If you’re rude now – when you’re actually trying to make a good impression – it’s safe for her to assume you’ll be a total asshole down the road.

#5) TALKING ABOUT SEX / YOUR EXES / BODILY FUNCTIONS
WHY IT’S A TURN OFF:
We’re not ready to hear about your sexual fantasies, we can’t quite stomach the details – any details! – of your last relationship, and listening to exactly why garlic “doesn’t agree with you” will upset our stomachs as well.  We have plenty of time to figure these things out. And please, please, please don't say anything negative about your exes.  You think that you’re reassuring us that they’re not competition, but all we see is a future with you criticizing us to the next woman in line.  Not a good plan.

Posted by Julia Allison at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)