Man magnets: tip trays and dust rags
To be stupid and selfish and to have good health are the three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, the others are useless.
-- Gustave Flaubert
*
NEW York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is in town next week to discuss her new book, “Are Men Necessary?,” and, ostensibly, to expound on the obvious punch lines the title seems to set up.
Her tome is based on anecdotal experience and cites a couple of studies that arrived at the revelation that men prefer subservient, less-intelligent women as romantic partners. The notion is: Given their druthers, successful men would rather have relationships with secretaries, waitresses and maids.
I wonder how much grant money those academics got. Let us hypothesize that subservient and not-too-bright women are easier to control than someone who knows enough (and has the financial independence) not to put up with a man’s garbage.
And why does a man need to control a woman? So that she will not reject and abandon and thus humiliate him. Interestingly enough, the researchers also say that men believe that smart women are more likely to cheat on them. Call it the smart-sneaky connection. There could be something to this, as smart-sneaky men have been cheating on women for eons.
(A confession: I do understand why men fall in love with their maids. I absolutely adore mine -- after all, she scrubs my kitchen floor, which seems the height of kindness and generosity. Sometimes she makes me egg rolls too -- what could be more lovable?)
Researchers have apparently found that men prefer long-term relationships with subordinates rather than co-workers or supervisors. Women, however, showed no significant preference for socially dominant men, or for socially inferior men. They appear to hanker for their peers -- while, sadly, their peers are at Applebee’s hitting on the women who bring them their burgers and pies.
I always assumed that alpha men wanted alpha women, that kings wanted queens. Not so. I guess that holds true only for wolves.
In addition, British researchers have recently “discovered” that the higher a woman’s IQ, the fewer prospects she has for marriage. (Jane Austen could have told them that.) To be a droll, dry, wry, sarcastic or clever woman is deadly, apparently. (Yes, you may point out the example of Mr. Darcy, who loved Elizabeth Bennet’s witty repartee, but I still say he’s secretly gay.)
In other words, you can be tall, blond, thin and a former runway model, but that all counts for naught if you are smart and successful and, thus, annoying. I guess everything my mother told me about the male ego is true. This, apparently, is why American men travel to Shanghai, Kiev and Bangkok in search of dates.
I have therefore decided to modify my romantic resume:
Education: San Diego State
Major: public relations
Minor: stripping
Employment: wait person, Cheesecake Factory (Why? Because I totally love cheesecake!)
Employment goal: Las Vegas showgirl. And a mommy.
Honors and awards: Baby-sitter of the year, Manitowoc, Wis.
Hobbies: I am trying to learn to knit so I can make those big fluffy scarves, but I get so upset when I make knots!
I also have decided to limit my vocabulary to 10 monosyllabic words (not counting contractions and articles):
You
Big
Strong
Yes
Chips
Game
Beer
Man
Want
Great
For example: “Big strong man want beer?” “You want chips?” “You great!”
I will avoid these words like New Orleans:
Me
I
Why
What
Can
Will
No
Never
Stop
Yuck
As in: “Why do you insist on my wearing these sheer red stockings?” “Can I have one of your beers?” “Will you let me know if you are married?”
But for the most part, I plan to not speak. I will alternate between giggling and tittering. I will be vacuous as I vacuum.
The payoff will be a man who loves and wants me. Whoever “me” is. I’m sure he can fill me in on that. Hee hee.
Men, the problem with this dating strategy is that even the most dedicated of doormats will eventually wake up, grow up -- or get smart.
