The Sex Drive forum has been discussing Maureen Dowd's thought-provoking piece in The New York Times, "What's a Modern Girl to Do?" adapted from her upcoming book Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide.
The gist is that young women, disillusioned with feminism, are choosing to become sex objects in order to catch husbands who can support them while they stay home to raise children. And that women who succeed in their careers, who support themselves financially and perhaps even outrank the men they'd like to date, are desperately seeking ways to appear less independent and more, well, dumb, to appeal to men.
Dowd says it (registration required) much more eloquently than that.
Still, I can't help but suspect this is one of those trends that is going to be in the news for a while -- probably with fear-based headlines -- but that won't quite materialize the way we media types portray it.
For one thing, many couples who would like to have one partner stay home for the children quite simply can't afford it, and not because they won't give up lattes or luxury cars. For another, only so many men make the kind of money the women in the article seem to expect.
It's always hard to write about social trends while you're in the middle of them. But it's important to make the connections, and to analyze and get people thinking about the trends as they occur. Otherwise, how can we head off the evil and promote the forces of good?
So when I read Dowd's article, I did not take it completely literally. Every twenty-something who envisions working for few years after law school and then trading in her sheer black pantyhose, high heels and briefcase for yoga pants, Merrell sneakers and a jog stroller is going to live out her choices in her own way. It's not going to matter what the talk shows say about feminism, family values or workplace equality. She will exercise her constitutional right to pursue happiness.
I don't see a "return to domesticity" as a sign of inequality or dependence, either. The employer may pay the salary to one partner, but it's the household that earns the income, as far as I'm concerned. It's simply a division of labor, with two adults working for the same goal: healthy kids, a home, food, clothing, entertainment, personal fulfillment, utilities and whatever else they deem necessary to their happiness.
In the internet age, where we have much more flexibility regarding where and when we work, women are not locking themselves into roles they can't expand later. It's no longer This or That, homemaker or career woman, choose when you're 23 and you're stuck there for life.
Young women who eschew a profession in favor of stay-at-home motherhood might start their own businesses or telecommute when the kids start school. They can also build strong support networks on two levels -- local and online -- that will help them through trauma, like infidelity or divorce, should such things occur.
They might start at 35 where career-focused women started at 22, but that doesn't mean they can't start if they want to. (Conversely, a career woman might slow down or drop out altogether at 35 to have babies.)
What's interesting is the underlying assumption that women have this choice. I've heard it called "the feminine right not to work." (If by "work" we mean "have a paying job," of course, as I'd never presume that managing a household and babies isn't work).
But I never hear anyone talking about the masculine right not to work. Nor have I read about a new generation of men deciding they're going to choose domestic life over professions, even though it's becoming more acceptable to trade traditional roles. (A handful of online communities have sprung up to support these at-home dads -- see Rebel Dad and Slowlane.)
The men Dowd quotes generally support the contention that men don't want to marry berintelligent, financially successful women. Instead, these men fall for a sex kitten in a nurturing role -- the secretaries and nannies they most likely hired themselves.
Yet one Sex Drive reader has a different take. "In this day and age especially, I pretty much have to presume that every woman in my path who wants to solicit my attention is playing The Head Game," he writes.
In other words, women who embrace the slutty-yet-childlike ideal as a way to troll for a husband risk alienating a whole lot of intelligent men seeking partners rather than accessories or protgs. Despite what the movies tell you, manipulation and dishonesty are not a good foundation on which to build a relationship, whether through online dating or offline interaction.
And one female reader told me that her husband read the article and declared, "I couldn't stand being married to a dumb woman." (Which of course prompts me to add, cheekily, that maybe the reason a high IQ lessens a woman's chance of marriage is that super-smart women often see no reason to get married.)
Ms. Dowd's article does focus on New York City, which we all know is hardly representative of America as a whole, despite it being such a wonderful place. From what I can tell, New York does have a higher concentration of moneyed men than most places, and you live so closely with other people that any "trend" is going to spread a lot faster than it would in, say, Texas.
But it looks to me like women are expanding our roles in American family life, not squeezing ourselves back into the corsets of our foremothers.
We can choose high-powered careers once reserved for men. We can telecommute to a part-time job in a woman-owned corporation while the kids are at school. We can start our own businesses online or avoid jobs altogether to raise children and volunteer in our communities.
Men, meanwhile, are still supposed to go to work.
See you next Friday,
Regina Lynn
Regina Lynn is the author of The Sexual Revolution 2.0, which makes an excellent gift for anyone who wants to have a more satisfying sex life -- whether they're in a long-term relationship, just dating or joyfully solo.
