An Economist Tackles Matchmaking
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 11/12/2007 at 11:24 AM
An interesting article on Slate looks at the mysteries of attraction and dating...from an economist's perspective. Economists Ray Fisman and Emir Kamenica, along with psychologists, Sheena Iyengar and Itamar Simonson, conducted a speed-dating experiment near Columbia University's campus.
First, Fisman establishes his core assumption: dating is rational-minded people searching for the most desirable partner who will have them. Fisman asks:
What, exactly, makes someone desirable? There are, of course, the answers that get regular reinforcement: Men value looks; women value brains, money, and success. But do these old-fashioned stereotypes continue to hold today (if they were true to begin with)?
Observed dating and marriage choices are at least as much a result of whom we meet as what we prefer. Doctors marry doctors, lawyers marry lawyers, and economists marry economists, probably not because they actually prefer to do so, but because those are the people they meet in daily life. The same may be true of the tendency to marry someone of one's own race or religion.
After two years of collecting data on thousands of decisions made by some 400 daters from Columbia University's graduate and professional schools, Fisman and his team discovered that some stereotypes held true:
In a survey we did before the speed dating began, participants rated their own intelligence levels, and it turns out that men avoided women whom they perceived to be smarter than themselves. The same held true for measures of career ambition — a woman could be ambitious, just not more ambitious than the man considering her for a date.
When women were the ones choosing, the more intelligence and ambition the men had, the better. Women care more about how men think and perform, and they don't mind being outdone on those scores.
One slightly surprising finding, according to Fisman, was that women showed a strong preference for men of their own race, while men didn't seem to discriminate. "A woman's race had no effect on the men's choices," he writes.
Something to consider is that all of this data is based on first impressions. In other words, it only shows what makes someone "desirable" upon first impression. Speed dating isn't exactly the best catalyst for meaningful relationships. My interpretation of first-impression desirability: A woman is looking for someone who makes her feel secure — brains and ambition (and even someone of similar race and religion) exhibit this potential. A man is looking for an attractive woman he believes could respect him — low key intelligence and ambition exhibit this potential. I still don't think a speed-dating experiment can tell us much about the ingredients that contribute to lasting love and ideal matches.
1. Alex C. said the following at 11:50 AM on Nov 12:
Honestly, I can't really understand how you can put such a positive spin on the intelligence/ambition thing with men. Even if a desire for someone who can "respect" them IS the major motivation for avoiding women who are percieved as more intelligent/ambitious than them, I'd still say that its a rather deficient understanding of what "respect" really is. It seems to imply that a person can only properly respect someone who is smarter/more ambituous than them.
2. obewan said the following at 12:07 PM on Nov 12:
I find the "speed dating" concept disgusting. People who do that reduce dating to a job interview like scenario, or worse yet something akin to using pick-up lines in a singles bar. (Hey baby, what's your sign?) I much prefer to meet women in a singles small group Bible study. That way you can get to know them on a spiritual basis as a first and top priority.
3. Stephanie said the following at 12:32 PM on Nov 12:
I have to admit that to single girls who are not especially attractive but have much more to offer in the intelligence/ creativity/ ambition department this is rather troubling. Will smart-but-not-gorgeous women really have this tough of a time attracting a man? Sounds pretty discouraging if you ask me. We can't help what we look like; we can help what we do with the intellectual and creative gifts we have, however.
4. Suzanne said the following at 12:33 PM on Nov 12:
Alex C., I think it's important not to look at the facts and immediately perceive them in a derogatory way. Both sexes have room to grow. Women tend to gravitate toward the very confident and successful males, possibly overlooking really great guys who aren't that at first appearance. Guys may get caught up in looks and feel threatened by women who they perceive as more intelligent than themselves. We're both to blame and both suffering from "deficient understanding," as you point out. I suggest this may be corrected by moving past the inferior relationship building environment that is speed dating and keeping godly objectives in mind when searching for a mate. Keep in mind that I also chose to put a positive spin on women's racial preferences. Someone else might have chosen to criticize them.
5. Jo said the following at 12:40 PM on Nov 12:
As a woman who considers herself pretty intelligent (*cough*), I find this slightly depressing. It's true, I wouldn't really go for a guy whose intelligence was less than my own anyway... but this whole men-needing-to-feel-needed thing gets me down sometimes. I worry that maybe I seem too strong and independent, and that guys who might be interested in me would be put off by that and instead go after 'weaker' seeming women who they feel they can protect and look after. When actually, I long to be protected and looked after as much as the next girl. Just 'cause I can get by on my own doesn't mean I want to. Anyone else feel like that..?
(Now I've gone and depressed myself! Sigh...)
6. Patricia2ndPoster said the following at 12:56 PM on Nov 12:
Eh, I used to consider this depressing but care less today. I've been told I'm attractive, but am also a Phd student. I figure it probably does turn some men off when I tell them I want to be a professor and then even more when I inform them I study issues of gender in part of my research. Maybe it's the realization I only have to find one man who is compatible with me and also I increasingly realize the men worth marrying will be happy I am intelligent and competent. If a man decides not to date me because they are put off by intelligence, it's good for me, too, since I'd rather not have to spend my life dumbing down what I say so that a man can feel needed.
7. Stephanie said the following at 1:00 PM on Nov 12:
Yes, Jo, I understand exactly how you feel.
I should also say that I don't agree with the idea that girls want a man who makes them feel secure; at least I'm not like that. I want a man who I can have adventures with. I would never consider marrying a man who does not share my faith, but as far as race goes I find myself very attracted to men of other races. So the stereotypes aren't always acurate.
8. Tami said the following at 1:05 PM on Nov 12:
I'm tired of stuff that attempts to force women to despair that they might be too smart for a guy. So I actually like the way that Suzanne phrased it: "low key intelligence."
I think respect and humility are the keys that turn intelligence into an appealing trait rather than a turnoff. (See: Abigail's treatment of David.)
I can think of plenty of brilliant people who are gentle, kind, and humble. They're unintimidating and a joy to be around, because they share their knowledge generously. On the other hand, I can think of many people who wield whatever knowledge they have like a club, and it's those I want to avoid. Male or female.
I can understand a man wanting to avoid a woman who constantly "acts smarter" than him (I think that's where the disrespect comes into play -- who wants to be badgered all the time?). However, I have a hard time fathoming that a sincere-hearted man would seriously avoid a woman simply because she's "too intelligent." (Imagine a guy meeting an available, beautiful, kind woman who adores him and saying -- "nah, I can't date her, she's too smart." Kind of cutting your nose off to spite your face!) There must be something else at play in a situation like that, like an assumption that she's going to use her intelligence to belittle him.
9. Carrie said the following at 1:19 PM on Nov 12:
Jo, I can understand your confusion, but let me comfort you with my experience -- even when you let a guy know you respect him and that you can see he is of benefit to you, he doesn't always feel compelled to pursue you further.
I can't win either and I have the opposite problem.
We live in a very fallen world and it just hurts sometimes.
10. JJ said the following at 1:38 PM on Nov 12:
I think speed-dating is a great way to meet a lot people who are interested in dating. However, I agree with Suzanne's statement: "I still don't think a speed-dating experiment can tell us much about the ingredients that contribute to lasting love and ideal matches." Yet in speed dating you do actually meet people and I need to meet someone before I can ever marry him. Which reminds me of the Sam Cooke lyrics: "If I could find'em I could get'em but as yet I have'nt met'em That's why I'm in the shape I'm in ohhhhAnother Saturday night and I ain't got nobody"
But, I digress. Anyhoo - it seems to me that the findings of this experiment reinforce my suspicions that even though they are shallow, first impressions are what captures the interest of the opposite sex. If interest is not captured, how do couples date and investigate if they are an ideal match?
Considering the average state of my personal intelligence and average appearance, I'm still banking on my sparkling personality to woo any would be suitors! ;-)
11. kate locksley said the following at 2:21 PM on Nov 12:
Jo wrote I worry that maybe I seem too strong and independent, and that guys who might be interested in me would be put off by that and instead go after 'weaker' seeming women who they feel they can protect and look after. When actually, I long to be protected and looked after as much as the next girl.
There's a difference between being independant and strong, and putting on the attitude that you don't need anyone. It can, for women, be a thin line to walk, but you can be both self-reliant and utilize the strengths of others to their own potential. Being a woman in society is sometimes a lot like being a human resources manager, we have to know the strengths and weaknesses of those around them, and rely on their strengths, sometimes even in areas we're not especially weak.
My husband knows I am strong and capable of defending myself -- he also knows it's his duty to protect me and that I actively encourage him to take that role. He knows that I have a strong will and like to be in charge -- he also knows I've given him control and will follow him to the ends of the earth. He knows I'm an intellectual and like to teach others -- he also knows I will listen when he's trying to teach me something. We can encourage the traits in men that we want to see in them, even if they're traits that are manifest in ourselves. My husband brings me breakfast even though he knows I can cook myself (and I bring him dinner, even though I know he can cook).
It doesn't make a woman weak to tell others (especially men, who seem to need a lot more encouragement than women do) it is their time and moment to shine and be strong and the leader.
12. Suzanne said the following at 2:41 PM on Nov 12:
Tami,
You captured very articulately what I was trying to communicate:
"I can think of plenty of brilliant people who are gentle, kind, and humble. They're unintimidating and a joy to be around, because they share their knowledge generously. On the other hand, I can think of many people who wield whatever knowledge they have like a club, and it's those I want to avoid. Male or female."
I suspect that in a speed dating format, a woman who is flaunting her intelligence might be less desirable than the woman who is focused on honoring her partner's intelligence. This goes both ways. I appreciate a man who is intelligent but also humble.
13. BDB said the following at 2:46 PM on Nov 12:
I'm going to agree with kate locksley.
It's not about hiding your intelligence. It's about using your intelligence to decide when to lead.
It's difficult to provide leadership to people who are smarter than you are. Most men in their 20's haven't learned how to do it yet. It wasn't until I was in my 30's that I learned how to divide up the world and give people control over their slice of it - keeping myself available if they got stuck. But I certainly can't micro-manage someone smarter than me. It wouldn't work.
I do know a woman who is almost as smart as I am. However, she's so used to being smarter than everyone around her that she refuses to accept leadership from anyone. About all I can do in a situation like that is let her fail. After her failure humbles her, then she might be willing to listen. But I'm smart enough to see the mistakes she is making in dealing with people - in part because I made those same mistakes 10 years ago.
My grandfather uses his vast verbal skills to great advantage when dealing with people. He takes time to read up on the things that interest others. He'll even read a book he disagrees with so that he can have an intelligent discussion with someone who likes the book.
Women who are smart have the bandwidth to do the same thing. They can take a portion of their skill and learn about someone else's interests. If you're smart enough to learn a man's work or passion and ask relevant questions it will go a long ways towards attracting his attention. Most people don't do this - they might gush superficial compliments but don't really take the time to understand something.
But when women pour 100% of their intellectual resources into fulfilling their own desires - and refuse to invest any time understanding the interests of others - yes, that would put men off.
14. Tami said the following at 3:16 PM on Nov 12:
Thanks, Suzanne. :)
Couple more things I thought of:
* Think of some of the positive adjectives we use to describe intelligent people -- "bright," "brilliant." Meaning, they bring light. Maybe even they "light up a room." This is a good thing for a believing woman to embody! All of us are called to put the true Light of the World on display. And He's a wise man Himself. Much wiser than any of us. As His unique creations, we reflect His light in different ways. Intelligence is one way of reflecting His character to the world.
* In the book of Proverbs, wisdom is personified as a woman. Intelligence + discernment is beautiful.
Ladies, please don't let the Enemy discourage you. God has not forgotten you. By giving you intelligence He hasn't somehow doomed you to a boring, husband-less life. Use your intelligence for His glory, and you will bless many mightily.
15. Dale said the following at 3:54 PM on Nov 12:
Gasp..
Forbid a man actually meets a woman who matches him in intelligence, faith and ambition.
Doesn't the shulamite and the beloved leap from mountain top to mountain top in the Song of Solomon? Anything else assumes a parental role in the relationship. Yuck. Thats not a marraige.
Ever haul anything up or down a mountain? I have. It's not fun.It's to pick up injured people or deliver supplies to people who can't.
I want an equal partner thankyou.
16. Adam T. said the following at 7:23 PM on Nov 12:
"Observed dating and marriage choices are at least as much a result of whom we meet as what we prefer."
Boy, is that ever true.
Anyway, I don't have time to contribute as much as I'd like, but I do want to offer one thing:
"When actually, I long to be protected and looked after as much as the next girl. Just 'cause I can get by on my own doesn't mean I want to."
If you really do feel that way, then I'd suggest it would be helpful if you could find a way to make it *clear* to men that you feel that way. Otherwise, they will never, ever realize it.
(How you might go about doing this is a question I'm not sure I have the answer to...).
17. Adam T. said the following at 7:36 PM on Nov 12:
One more thing, after reading the article:
"We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own."
'Threatened' - I read this over and over again and it has got to stop. It's got nothing to do with being 'threatened' and everything to do with what men just... find attractive. And... not.
(Do women find tall men attractive? *Why*? You don't know? They just *do*? Same sort of thing.
I'd like to see an article that mentions how women are 'threatened' by short men or poor men.)
18. brx said the following at 7:46 PM on Nov 12:
Speaking as a guy, I'd like to offer that I think first impressions (when I meet women) don't matter that much in the over-all scope of a friendship->significant other->marriage relationship. If you hit close to the 'average' mark, you're just fine. :) I say this because those whom initially were very attractive during the first few minutes of meeting, became much less attractive after the first hour. On the flip-side, the few that I've been so attracted to that I pursued them and even desired to speak with their fathers about dating, I would have said they were simply 'average' women if you'd asked after we had first met. In fact, one who's father I did speak to, I had thought she was a big flake when we first met. However, after a year and a half of serving in ministry with her, God revealed tramendous beauty and competence in her.
Ironically, I think NOT having an overwhelming initial attraction allows friendship to grow more genuinely and naturally out of compatibility because it's less encumbered by selfish desires to have and control.
Seems like that ties into what good relationships are about: _being_ a friend rather than snagging a mate.
How good it is when brothers & sisters live together in unity! (PS133)
19. brx said the following at 7:55 PM on Nov 12:
BTW, speaking of first impressions and intelligent women and intelligence that builds up... loosely related; has anyone seen the BBC production Shakespeare Retold, The Taming of the Shrew? It's a reworked and modernized version and got some harsh language in a few places but the character of Kate is plain brilliant with her wisdom in how she treats her husband to quickly soften his heart in several instances.
Grace, peace, and adventure!
20. Kit said the following at 8:02 AM on Nov 13:
I agree with Jo. It's a rather unfortunate thing that "smart" girls scare off the men. I have a master's degree and would like to pursue a doctorate. Not to appear "smart," just to get a job as a professor, because I love teaching! And the fact is, if you want a decent job at the college level, you have to have a doctorate. That's all.
The last relationship I was in, he was not a college graduate, which didn't bother me because I respected how much "real world wisdom" he had. However, one time early in to our dating he was asking what I wanted to do in the future. I told him honestly I was thinking about pursuing a doctorate so that I would be eligible for college jobs and it scared him off. He later wrote to me and said that he didn't see his life "going in that direction." That was the end. Why does this freak men out? Being a prof is not anything different than being a regular teacher, it just means that you want to teach more in-depth things. It frustrates me becuase when I date boys, when they find this out, they always run the other way.
And I agree, Jo, that just because you are pursuing these things doesn't mean you don't want to be married! I fail to see how it's any different than a woman working full-time in any other field, which many people today have to do simply to float their cars, kids and houses.
Maybe guys on this post will have some insights.
21. Sara said the following at 8:49 AM on Nov 13:
I find that, away from professors, say, at home with my family, I tend to speak a lot more confidently about school subjects than I would if the professor was right there!
I worry that men who prefer women less intelligent than themselves want to have this same arguably false sense of being smarter at home than they are with peers. I think the right thing to do in my or anyone's case is to be humble (about the gaps in reasoning or knowledge or whatever) wherever a person is, and not need the build-up that comes from being around less intelligent people.
If I'm 'attracted' to less intelligent people, I don't see how that's anything but a character flaw of insecurity, unless I have a heart and gift for teaching. And I hope a marriage wouldn't be modelled on a student-teacher relationship!
It's too bad the term 'life partner' connotes being gay; it's a good concept, of peers going through life together.
22. Jo said the following at 9:12 AM on Nov 13:
Adam T wrote: If you really do feel that way, then I'd suggest it would be helpful if you could find a way to make it *clear* to men that you feel that way. Otherwise, they will never, ever realize it."
Mm, I've been wondering how to do this myself. To be honest, the guys I'm close to (as friends) DO know this. I don't hide it, I'm not stand-offish or anything. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid.
23. Kellie said the following at 10:24 AM on Nov 13:
BDB wrote: "But when women pour 100% of their intellectual resources into fulfilling their own desires - and refuse to invest any time understanding the interests of others - yes, that would put men off."
I think it goes the same way for both sexes. Most people are going to be put off by people with big egos.
24. BDB said the following at 10:33 AM on Nov 13:
Kit wrote:
>>I fail to see how it's any different than a woman working full-time in any other field, which many people today have to do simply to float their cars, kids and houses.<<
It's not different - the financial demands you outline require two professional incomes. However, two people working 60 hours a week don't have time to raise a family - they need to outsource their children to a nanny or something.
By the same token, I know women who really just want to be moms, and get discouraged when asked their career plans. The way you see your life going - how you spend your time and money - definitely will impact your spouse.
25. Patricia2ndposter said the following at 11:46 AM on Nov 13:
I would argue that leadership and intelligence are often different. The most intelligent people often make poor leaders because they leave issues open ended, discuss ideas in abstract terms, and often cannot motivate people. So, just because a women is more intelligent in some areas doesn't mean she is a leader. If a man equates leadership with intelligence, it seems he needs to examine his own identity, gifts and celebrate them rather than worry about other people. Also, the more I study, the more I recognize my own limitations. I find the amount of knowledge available is overwhelming today. So, I may be an expert in my academic area, but often find people who know more about other topics. Finally, we should all be humble about our gifts regardless of whether we are men or women. In my experience, men are more ilkely to be prideful, not because they are more sinful but because our culture celebrate and affirms the male ego. J
26. Patricia2ndposter said the following at 11:48 AM on Nov 13:
One more thing-what I find particularly unattractive in both men and women, is why an individual wastes their gifts and passions. I can appreciate someone who is an excellent electrian, teacher, banker, mother, etc but not someone who does the minimal amount of effort and has no passion in life.
27. brx said the following at 12:35 PM on Nov 13:
There can be a practical problem of appearing over-qualified when trying to get a particular job position.
This practicality is somewhat related to the issue of smart women unintentionally intimidating insecure or weak egoed guys whom they would like to be in a significant-other relationship with. When you're over-qualified for a job you really want, the potential employer may not hire you because they may fear you won't be satisfied in the long-haul and you'll end up leaving too soon. If you really _do_ want the job, a tactic to deal with the employer's fear is to dumb-down your resumé and gently reveal your additional capabilities only _after_ you've made it clear that you have no desire to change employment. It's practical and kind of like Suzanne mentioned - being low-key with your intelligence.
Some match-making sage also once suggested to a smart young woman: "catch him by playing dumb, but keep him by being smart."
I hope that helps.
28. Jonathan said the following at 12:41 PM on Nov 13:
Re: intelligence levels.
In terms of initial attraction, for me it's probably some combination of appearance, body language, mannerisms and speech patterns. However, past that initial stage, intelligence does matter, but I actually find it unattractive if someone does not have a similar intelligence level. There may still be attraction based on other things, but having dissimilar intelligence levels is a definite "deal breaker" for me. How can she be a good companion in life if I cannot talk with her about the things running through my mind (and vice versa)?
29. aj said the following at 1:16 PM on Nov 13:
I've found this conversation really interesting. On intelligence level: I am more "book-smart" than my husband and I did nothing to hide or "dumb-down" my intelligence when we met. However, pretty soon I found out that he has far more common sense, wisdom, and financial know-how than I will ever possess! Needless to say, we make a great couple! Ladies, let your intelligence show! Don't hold back, if a guy is really into your personality, he's not going to mind if you're book-smarter than he is. He'll want to see all the gifts God has blessed you with.
30. BDB said the following at 1:18 PM on Nov 13:
Kellie wrote:
>>I think it goes the same way for both sexes. Most people are going to be put off by people with big egos. <<
True, men who pour 100% of their energy into work have a high divorce rate. If they ever get married.
Patricia2ndposter wrote:
>>If a man equates leadership with intelligence, it seems he needs to examine his own identity, gifts and celebrate them rather than worry about other people.<<
It's more about accepting leadership. Many people - men and women - refuse to accept leadership from individuals who aren't as smart as they are. I had a meeting with one of my employees yesterday who was upset that his new boss isn't as capable as he is. He's right, but he needs to submit to authority from a career perspective. It's really hard to do what your boss tells you to do when it's clearly the wrong choice.
An experienced, effective boss will recognize when someone thinks a decision is wrong, and ask, "How would you handle this situation?" Then let them do it their way.
An inexperienced boss is likely to say, "Do it my way or it's insubordination!"
Not too much different from, "Do it my way because wives are commanded to submit!"
Neither approach is effective for long-term leadership.
31. Jo said the following at 2:11 PM on Nov 13:
brx said: "When you're over-qualified for a job you really want, the potential employer may not hire you because they may fear you won't be satisfied in the long-haul and you'll end up leaving too soon."
I definitely think you've hit on something there. I wanted to say that but couldn't think of a good way to phrase it. I struggle with the idea of 'dumbing down' to attract a guy though. I certainly don't make a big deal of my 'book-smarts' or whatever, but the thought of intentionally keeping stuff back just seems wrong somehow.
32. Kit said the following at 2:32 PM on Nov 13:
BDB wrote, "It's not different - the financial demands you outline require two professional incomes. However, two people working 60 hours a week don't have time to raise a family - they need to outsource their children to a nanny or something. "
And I wholeheartedly agree--if both spouses are truly working 60 hours. I am not advocating a 60 hour work week for either spouse in my post. Secondly, I did not state an exorbident number of 'financial demands.' Single or married, you need a car and house. Married, probably two cars. And obviously if you are married you have to support your children. The fact is that many people, especially those working 'hourly wage' jobs, have to have two jobs in order to raise a family. That's part of the economic issue in this country--the cost of living keeps rising, but salaries do not. I wrote my post on this assumption: that, married or not, I will have to work full time for at least a season of whatever marriage I eventually land in. Most people do.
Third, I am not addressing the full-time job issue in the post but the issue of pursuing a doctorate. If I just tell boys I would like to be a teacher that never poses any intimidation on their end. A college job is actually one of the easiest ways to work around family if both spouses must work--summers totally free, long breaks at holidays, and a 'school day' schedule, often being finished with teaching responsibilities around 3 or 4. It's just as flexible as public school, and certainly nothing like the corporate world. If your children are in school themselves, you could be home before they are.
33. Tami said the following at 2:52 PM on Nov 13:
I agree... "playing dumb" sounds so impalatable to me. It suggests manipulation (as in, "I have to pretend I'm someone I'm not to get your attention"), and it suggests not being yourself.
I do, however, wholeheartedly subscribe to the idea of asking a lot of insightful questions about whatever it is the guy is interested in. Not only do you draw the guy out and show your interest (that is, if you move from questions about the thing to questions about the guy's interest in the thing), you get to learn something new!
I've met a lot of non-book-smart guys who seem quite taken by bookish gals. Those guys are generally confident in whatever it is they do well, and dig that the girl is excited about and confident in who she is.
In my personal experience I've found that it's the guys who are the least secure in their own intelligence who tend to beat the "submit to me because you're a woman!" drum.
34. brx said the following at 4:43 PM on Nov 13:
Jo wrote: ...the thought of intentionally keeping stuff back just seems wrong somehow.
Tami wrote: "playing dumb" sounds so impalatable to me. It suggests manipulation (as in, "I have to pretend I'm someone I'm not to get your attention"), and it suggests not being yourself.
I wanted to avoid writing a long post, but I can see I should try clarify my point. Maybe not all 'manipulation' is bad. "Intentionally keeping stuff back" is not always bad nor is it necessarily "not being yourself". Depending on your motivation, not immediately showing all your cards could be a facet of humility. Keeping something back that is needed is not helpful, but putting a card on display that isn't currently needed could be prideful.
BTW, God effectively 'manipulates' us and our circumstances all the time. Whether by miraculous physical intervention, or by His still small voice, or by His Spirit stiring in our hearts, He works all things for the good of those who love Him. I decided that I really don't mind being manipulated by God - in fact, when I do notice He has used me, it kinda makes me say, awe wow! You got me again, God! You are _good_!
Hope that helps.
35. Jo said the following at 10:48 PM on Nov 13:
brx, you're right actually. I intentionally keep things back all the time in the sense that you describe. I don't drop things into conversation that aren't relevant (as some people do), to make myself look intelligent or whatever. I'd argue though that what you're saying should be applicable to all new relationships - whether there's a potential for dating, or whether just friendship or a working relationship. I wouldn't want to consciously 'hold back' with a guy I was interested in, any more than I would normally.
BUT we do all subtly change how we act depending on the company we're in, especially when we want to impress someone - we emphasise what we see as our good points. So it's definitely worth remembering that intelligence and ambition may not be the things to emphasise when first meeting a guy.
36. Patricia2ndPoster said the following at 6:09 AM on Nov 14:
BDB-I don't disagree with you. I think I good leader is someone who doesn't always have to do everyting their way and can admit mistakes and when they are wrong. Also, I think people often get too caught up in roles. in my experience, in a good marriage, people don't focus too much on gender roles but everyone is willing to pitch in and do their part. And if one the female partner is better, say, at managing money, they should do it. It's not an issue of hierarchy but simple common sense.
37. Jeff said the following at 3:16 AM on Nov 15:
I dated a girl a few years ago who was a perfect example of humble strength. She was highly intelligent, valedictorian of her graduating class, and very ambitious. She was a brilliant artist and had plans to revolutionize the fashion industry with her business acumen. To top it all off, she was a third-degree black belt and probably could have kicked my butt.
However, with all these wonderful and potentially intimidating traits, she always came to me for advice and support, was very comfortable in a feminine role, and gave me an opportunity to lead in most areas of the relationship. Never once did I feel she was "dumbing herself down" for the sake of my ego. Her respect for me, regardless of her own abilities, was incredibly attractive.
I want to encourage the ladies who feel that men are turned off by female ambition: most men aren't afraid of an accomplished woman - he is only afraid of someone who will treat him in such a way as to diminish his own accomplishments.
38. BDB said the following at 11:35 PM on Nov 16:
Patricia2ndPoster
>>And if one the female partner is better, say, at managing money, they should do it. It's not an issue of hierarchy but simple common sense.<<
Hmmm...interesting that you bring up money. I know quite a few women who are extremely good at accounting and managing money. I've hired some of them.
Frankly, I think of it more like two fighter pilots. One is the lead pilot, the other the wing pilot. The lead pilot is ultimately responsible for the success of the mission. But both are extremely capable.