Men Just Want Mommy

[rodeodance]

te he, this is an old line-am rather surprized she up it up as the title--by what the hey!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/opinion/13dowd.html?oref=login&hp

January 13, 2005

Men Just Want Mommy

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, 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."

I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.

Women in staff support are the new sirens because, as a guy I know put it, they look upon the men they work for as "the moon, the sun and the stars." It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods.

In all those great Tracy/Hepburn movies more than a half-century ago, it was the snap and crackle of a romance between equals that was so exciting. Moviemakers these days seem far more interested in the soothing aura of romances between unequals......

[BlueEyedSon]

1. You think the NYT told her to stop writing about politics?

She was getting pretty good....

[The Zanti Regent]

2. Sounds like someone got turned down for LOVE CONNECTION...

I wouldn't go on a date with such a bitter hateful shrew as Whoreen unless there were TWO bags over my head, preferaby plastic...

[Mend]

3. Is this about Laura-Loo, our brilliant first co-dependent?

[greenman3610]

4. like this?

[ixion]

5. and women just want their daddies...

so what's your point, Maureen?

[Demeter]

6. Male Psychology Is To Blame

"As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them."

In other words, that's just what the guy would do, so he figures the woman's motivation is the same. Proving that it's not women's consciousness that needs raising, but men's.

[necso]

7. Isn't this editorial

sexist... or one of those other non-PC thingies?

Ms Dowd has been writing some pretty good stuff recently, WTF is up with this? (The title is, after all: "Men Just Want Mommy".)

I mean, I know that men are pond scum -- but some of us actually like intelligent partners. And is it really an equitable thing for men to seek partners who are much more accomplished (in worldly terms) than they are? (To say nothing about the relative imbalance of ambition that this is evidence of.) Personally, I believe that (rough) equality is an important element of a (good) relationship, and that this inherently limits the "accomplished" to members of their own "class", at least when seeking the strongest relationships.

And I do not know whether or not "accomplished" men deliberately seek less "accomplished" (female) partners... seems like a pretty broad brush to me. But, of course, this has little enough to do with the reality of the situation. And I have little enough sympathy for the trials and tribulations of the "accomplished" -- these "accomplishments" have generally been achieved by their active pursuit... and this cannot be without its costs. Ambition has a price, just like everything else.

Boo-hoo, "accomplished" women have discovered that "accomplishment" can be shallow and hollow -- and comes with a price -- I'm all broken up.

...Of course, being poor sucks big time. Welcome to the real world.

[Skittles]

9. don't fall into the trap of thinking

that "less accomplished" people are less intelligent - lots of us very intelligent women - and men - just don't have the stomach and lack of conscience it sometimes takes to be really "accomplished" so to speak, in many arenas.

[necso]

10. And why would I do that?

"Accomplishment" has little enough to do with intelligence or other gifts. It has a great deal to do with things like ambition and materialism (and circumstances of birth -- and lack of scruples). Ours is by no means a meritorial society.

Some of the most gifted people that I have ever known (or have read of) never achieved any form of worldly success (or ended their years devoid of it), chance or their very nature effectively closing this path to them.

That said, gifted people can and do rise to great "accomplishments". And I think that Ms Dowd is intelligent and can be very witty... and if this editorial reflects some problem that she personally has encountered, then I can spare some little sympathy.

But the editorial reads like bashing. And while I am certainly not an "accomplished" person myself, I think that she goes a little too far. In my limited experience in "accomplished" circles, I have seen more than one man take as a partner someone who was simply present in those circles (in whatever role) -- and who left no doubt about being willing. Foolish perhaps, and perhaps a poor basis for a relationship -- but human nature is what it is.

And overly large egos may be the real issue, not "accomplishments" -- but the two often do seem to go hand in hand.

[Skittles]

12. thanks necso

you get it :)

I'm not a fan of Ms. Dowd, whom I still consider to be a whore from her pathetic performance pre-2000 selection and whose writing style I very much dislike.

And who is to say you aren't "accomplished"? You certainly have some insight into human nature.

[BeyondGeography]

8. Sounds like MoDo can't believe she's not married either

This is navel-gazing at its worst.

[Book Lover]

11. When I read her piece last night,

my first thought was, "How the hell did the editor let this go through?!" As if the 'problems' of her social circle can be applied society-wide... I guess those men without personal assitants (ie, the fucking majority of men in this nation) just don't marry? It was a wasted column, IMO, and if I were her editor, I'd toss it back to her and ask her for something relevant.

[redqueen]

13. Sorry, but this isn't her social circle.

She cites the study at the University of Michigan, and similar studies (I think four, in the UK) back this up.

[redqueen]

14. I'm surprised at the defensive nature of some of the posts here.

I suppose I really shouldn't be.