by CKR
That seems to be the assumption behind Maureen Dowd's article in the Sunday Times magazine.
All that feminism stuff that happened in the sixties and seventies--wrong!
MoDo gives a rundown of how women are to get a man: the old story of letting him think he's the hunter. Oh dear.
It seems that female success in business turns men off, while paying for their date's dinner turns them on.
It's the tiredest stuff I heard when I reached puberty.
Women have changed their lives from home-oriented to business. They've called men for dates and waited at the telephone or for the IM envelope on the screen. They've alternated tactics. They've worn lace and jeans, high heels and Birkies, no makeup and the full-face press.
But men haven't had to change. They still work in the office and still want to be in charge. So women will have to adapt to that.
The biological explanations are adduced. Men just can't perform sexually unless they're in charge, all those millennia of evolution, you know, have produced those "eggshell egos."
I guess I had that funny idea that being human, having the powers of thought and expression, allowed us to work together to move ourselves in the behavioral directions we chose. Seems like women have managed that in the last several decades. And some men have come along, caring for the children and doing housework.
It's not in MoDo's article explicitly, but it's all through it: women can move in those behavioral directions, men are dominated by evolution.
Please.