Oh, well that explains it...

Mach sent me this article from The New York Times, "Keeping the Romance Alive in the Age of Female Empowerment" about the perils of female empowerment and how romance is dying as a result.

Essentially, men feel emasculated and some couples feel the need to engage in "behavioral contortions" to keep traditional gender roles alive. So high earning women pay the mortgage, but their partners will whip out the credit card to pay for the morning lattes. The women in this article come off sound slightly patronizing: they "let" their partners pay for the coffee because it makes them feel better.

(Some criticism about the title/article: It presupposes that romance and female empowerment as it is now are mutually exclusive and women need to adhere to traditional gender norms for romance to remain. In addition, by referencing to "the age of female empowerment," it implies that female empowerment/gender equality/equity is a trend that will inevitably end. Bad news bears on both points.)

The article quotes Ms. Domscheit-Berg who active in the European Women’s Management Development International Network. She has some helpful advice for the empowered female: "Leave the snazzy company car at home on the first date; find your life partner in your 20s, rather than your 30s, before you’ve become too successful. And go after men who draw their confidence from sources other than money, like academics and artists."

This article reminds me of another infuriating article, "The Truth About Beauty," from Psychology Today, which stated that men aren't really attracted to the Mother Theresa type and that women can save the world, but should wear lipgloss first (and be pretty and wear dresses and try to stop aging.)

I understand that a lot of the statistics cited in articles like these are about what men would prefer: they would prefer a younger spouse, they would prefer to earn more, etc. But yeah, I would prefer to marry a millionaire, I would prefer to marry someone who looks like looks like Brad Pitt and thinks like Noam Chomsky. That's not going to happen.

Both articles may be aimed at uncovering some sort of "truth" about the way society operates as a whole, but it degrades the effort that high-powered women put into their careers and in achieving their social and financial independence. These articles imply that women should put career ideals on the back burner and instead act to please their partners. In addition, the New York Times article emphasizes that money is the great force operating behind relationships.

I'd like to disagree, despite any empirical evidence to the contrary. Intellect, emotional maturity, humor and confidence are all things I look for in a partner and not a just a paycheck. And if a man feels "emasculated" because I may make more money than him in the future, then he certainly doesn't have the aforementioned characteristics. Sorry 'bout it.

I am a feminist. But I also like wearing lipgloss and dressing up and being courted and all the jazz. And in being empowered, I am not looking to be a sugar mama for some boy toy, who will carry my laptop bag for me. I want someone who is my equal, and that doesn't pertain just to earning power.

So instead of "shopping" for someone who fits these impossible ideals, I'm just going to chill. (My friends can testify to my concerns about dying alone, lol.) Falling in love with someone shouldn't require examining their tax records first. Part of relationships is learning to move past superficial gestures, like whose name to book a hotel under. And in that, I will continue to pursue and be proud of my academic and professional accomplishments. I'm not going to rush to find someone while I'm in my 20s and settle with someone, just because statistics say that I will become "too successful" to find someone I'm compatible with. I have to admit I can't really reject the last bit of advice from the NY Times article: I nearly always go the nerdy academics and emo-intellectual artists anyway. (I'm sure some will say this is a subconscious defense mechanism to counteract my aforementioned success, but whatevs.)

Articles like these refuse to ask why these gender norms should still exist and they don't address couples who may not conform to hetero-normative ideals, but are still extremely happy. It gives a biased view that makes women ashamed of the progress they've made.

So I will have my cake and eat it too. Watch me.

(I hope those aren't famous last words, lol.)