But you're missing the real reason Dowd talked to Carrie Fisher. Dowd gives a lot of credit to the idea that there is an evolutionary explanation for male behavior. Now look at what Fisher actually says:
"I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said drily.
So while scientists can only speculate about evolutionary changes, Fisher speaks from personal experience.
I share Ogged's reaction. Within my world -- academia, but I think this is true among professional people more broadly -- it raises serious questions about a man's character if he is involved with a less accomplished or (god forbid) a submissive woman.
Having a less accomplished girlfriend or wife is literally courting mediocrity. It's unprofessional.
Having a submissive girlfriend or wife is a sign of moral if not mental illness. One of my best friends in grad school hooked up with a submissive woman for a few months, and it completely screwed up the friendship. I didn't know how to act around such a creature, and I couldn't imagine how he would know. (He later confessed that he'd been extremely depressed in the period leading up to this relationship, so the illness was mental too.)
That looks pretty damning to me, B-W. I thought the "first thing" was Dowd exegesis, but maybe not. What men prefer is a peanut gallery that accepts contradictions, I suppose.
Yeah, I'm busted. I might should take the post down, and think this over some more.
b, I'm not willing to give up on the class thing yet. What you say about confidence is true, but men of a certain class/education seem to me far less likely to prefer their women submissive.
It can't be wholly class differences, unless 'academic' is a class by itself. It seems a bit more likely, at least in vaguely red-state areas, for the woman in the couple to be the school teacher and the man to be the doctor.
I've been at parties where someone asks me what I do, and explaining that I'm a graduate student at WellKnownSchool has been met on more than one occasion with 'Oh, you're out of my league'. No loss there, but I kind of suspect that the same academic credentials on a guy would make him perceived to be more attractive.
But while I think it's a leap to go from those observations to 'men prefer submissive women', I don't think education and 'class' has much to do with it, ogged, at least not directly. There's a lot of well-educated accomplished men who feel threatened by more intelligent, more accomplished women, and I suspect, like profb, that's it's more to do with confidence in their own abilities rather than any other factor .
The woman in the office next to mine always refers to Harvard as "my school", since she thinks that having gone there is detrimental to her social life, to my flabbergastion--why wouldn't you want to associate with smart folks?--but apparently it's been borne out by her experience.
For years I've heard the comment "How come when a man is strong he is a good leader but when a woman is strong she is a bitch," and I refute it every time I can.
As Ogged aludes to the male equivalent to a 'bitch' is an 'asshole.'
Maybe people tolerate assholes more than bitches, I don't know. But many people seem to confuse 'abrasive' with 'strong,' and the last time I saw Carrie Fisher (on that celebrity Texas Holdem show) she was abrasive almost to the point of being a bitch.
Yes, collective reluctance to date Carrie Fisher, self-confessed substance abuser and psychological basket case, surely indicates the pathological state of the American male. In a weak Dowd piece, the turn to Fisher went way beyond weak: it was almost charmingly stupid.
Okay, now I'm jumping on Carrie Fisher with both feet, but a certain attitude has been bugging me, and I saw that attitude in Carrie Fisher.
The attitude is an aggressive "either you like me or you're a jerk" hostility. I can understand part of this as an effort to build up one's self esteem, to convince oneself that one is worthy of being liked, but it misses the mark.
It is a false way to build up false self esteem. Real self esteem comes from how one feels about oneself, not from putting down others.
One must first understand that one is worthy of being liked, and then one must actually, you know, be likable.
Harvard and Yale graduates always do that, regardless of gender. "I went to school in Boston"; "When I was studying in New Haven" etc. Some Stanford and Princeton people do it too. (But not so much Dartmouth, Penn, or Cornell)
Just jumping in to nod and agree with bphd. I have met men -- powerful types who have important jobs and make the big bucks -- and had lovely conversations social and when they finally find out just what I do I they suddenly become less interested. I get one reaction and type of interest when I say I teach (and they always assume I mean elementary,not sure why -- I'd totally suck at that) versus when I say I'm a professor (and immediately get the "and you have a PhD? Oh, don't correct my grammar, you must think everyone else is dumb" crap.
Most of the men in my field seem to be married to happy-housewife types or former students whose careers are now of the helping-the-hubby-on-consulting variety (yes, clear power relationship there).
Maybe she meant our preznit. He seems to be afraid of having anyone intelligent near him. Frist probably told him intelligence could be passed by tears, so he got all worried and shit.
Hmmm. I suppose guys like that make it better for the rest of us guys. I probably shouldn't talk, because to an outsider I might look like I married a happy housewife type, but I met her when she was directing a show I was in and I was attracted to her power.
I make more money then her but she gets to boss more people around.
In my comment above I should have noted that it's also a generational thing. You thirty-something academics and other PhDs out there, reflect on your grad-school cohort. In my case, at least, the attached hetero males (myself included) are all attached to equally or more accomplished women. And any other result would strike me as odd.
Of course this wouldn't have been true in previous generations -- including Maureen Dowd's.
Tripp, when a female academic pulls out that stuff she's sending a clear signal. If she's really is that into you, she would never ever correct you. (Heck, I live in terror of someone correcting me! I've not taken an actual writing class since high school. My senior year at rural high we were still getting drilled on "not using no double negatives.")
If she's really is that into you, she would never ever correct you.
First of all, haha. Second, I can think of two exes who would correct you (or, uh, me) no matter how into you they were.
And, in response to some of the comments above, yeah, I'm not really happy with calling it "class," but there is some grouping of education, class, culture and, as Ted points out, age, that captures something relevant.
1. Since we're all just supplying anecdotal evidence here, let me point out that I, for one, have known in my life a number of working-class and lower-middle-class men whose wives and girlfriends were better educated, including women who had PhDs and other highly professionalized credentials. I'm gonna hold firm that it is not a class thing (in fact, I have a vague sense that working-class men are often married to better-educated women, and that strong women are highly valued in working-class families, but I have no real hard evidence to back that up).
2. It's interesting that the thread has turned to jumping on Carrie Fisher's alleged bitchiness. Are we so sure that responding to women who make unflattering (and, for the record, I think untrue) stereotypical statements about men by calling them "bitch" refutes her point?
3. Also I don't quite get what Tripp's saying about the affect/effect thing. Here, in the company of people who are educated (and who seem largely to operate by giving each other a hard time), I figured that I could bitchily (and jokingly) exercise one of my pet peeves without upsetting anyone. I absolutely *never* correct people's grammar or spelling unless I think we've established a footing where it's understood as a joke. Guess I was mistaken in this case, but my having done that isn't good evidence that hypereducated women will correct the grammar of everyone they meet (and even if they did, so what? I thought the thesis here was, "we're not threatened by hypereducated women").
"there is some grouping of education, class, culture"
I think what you're referring to used to be known as "the Establishment." Right schools, right connections, right attitudes, etc. When you throw age in there, you're probably talking about two Establishments - the group to whom you are referring and the conservatives. The fact that there are two might explain why you get men who look and talk just like your group, and yet have the attitudes that BPhD talks about. You might be less aware of them than women, b/c when you hang out with them you're in larger groups where your sect is in the majority, and they shut up. Women from your group might end up in intimate, more open, situations with them more often.
Ted--My mom has told me that back in her day many universities had anti-nepotism rules that meant that a faculty member's spouse couldn't be on the faculty. This had the effect of keeping a lot of women out of the academy. This isn't quite Dowd's generation but I wonder when those went away (and how widespread they were and whether I've got the story wrong).
Also, I'm with bphd (oh no, not you too, says Ogged; in your dreams says b): Unfogged is a free-fire zone for nitpicking. I think the Posting Rules say you have to respond by linking this, though it might not be so effective against b.
(And the ladies loooove guys who make up Posting Rules for other people's sites. Trust me.)
1. " I have a vague sense that working-class men are often married to better-educated women...."
Wouldn't the standard explanation be that this is the effect of the better-educated women being less valued as marriage material for better-educated men? And thus, the women strike the best deal they can? I' certainly don't endorse any part of that story, but isn't that the explanation others would offer?
2. I'm with Tripp, et. al., on this one. There are women who are strong, and there are women who are bitches, and its pretty easy to tell them apart. As someone said, women seem to be under the misimpression that we like assholes who are men. We don't - we hate them, but we accept them b/c usually they have something we want. Now it might be employment possibilities. In high school and college, it was probably access to attractive women who would grow up to complain about how accepting men were of other men who were assholes.
3. Generally speaking, I think men and women want to follow the Albert Brooks rule of marriage - punch your own weight. It wouldn't be shocking to me to find out that men don't undervalue accomplished women, but overvalue them.
My girlfriend is smart. Incredibly smart. And a hardworker too. I consider her extremely intelligent, and much smarter than I. She, however, thinks that I am incredibly smart at what I do, but that I am incredibly lazy much of the time. When we first started going out, we corrected each others grammar all the time. We still do, but now, it's only met with muttered grrs and the like.
My sister is incredibly smart. She married someone else incredibly smart. He pursued her. They are happy.
Based on the above two cases, I think it is pretty evident that all smart people should date smart people, and dumb people should date dumb people. All kidding aside, I think it is more a direct effect of what people are looking for. Are there smart people who don't want to feel insecure about how smart they are? Yes. So they marry dumb people. Are there dumb people who don't want to be insecure about how dumb they are? Yes. So they marry dumb people. Are there people who date and marry for love? Yes. And are there people who couldn't stand to date people who couldn't challenge them, who couldn't have an intelligent conversation, who couldn't correct them? Yes. But why the fuck does it matter?
1. No discussion of men wanting to marry down is complete without a discussion of woman wanting to marry up. It's a real phenomenon, is all I'm saying.
2. That said, it's a true fact that many more guys than you would think (if you are a guy who's cool with accomplished women, that is) are spooked by the high end ladies. My wife's classmates at her impossibly prestigious medical school confirm this.
3. So this would seem to be a big opportunity for you guys out there who want to marry a neurobioradiomoney-ologiss. Unless the chain of causality works in both directions and those high achievement woman really aren't (in general) interested in low achievement guys. Indeed, is it not transparently obvious that the dynamic works both ways? Men are less willing to marry up than women, and women are less willing to marry down. Result: high end woman and low end men have a tougher time.
4. Last point: I hope we can all agree that Maureen Dowd's unmarried status is overdetermined.
Actually I think the working class men/college-educated women thing is more about income. In some (fewer and fewer) situations, a guy without a college degree (or even a high school diploma) can make decent money; less true for women. Also, there may be something about women doing better in school, especially as they grow older: less likely to get in trouble and/or drop out. Maybe. I don't really know for sure.
Also it's possible that both men and women from poor backgrounds are likelier to be raised by a single mom: in my experience, men who were raised by single mothers usually have a lot of respect for women.
profgrrrrl - If she's really is that into you, she would never ever correct you. Sadly, this does not seem to hold true after marriage.
bitchphd - The affect/effect example wasn't really a very good one, for all the reasons you gave, but it popped up at just the right time, so I used it.
We've been talking about men's preferences, what about women's preferences. Do they exist? How do they feel about short men?
Tripp, I should have qualified my statement a bit more. I mean, I'll snarkily correct someone who I think is an asshole, for the sake of. If I'm on a date and interested and don't know someone well, never -- not unless they asked if something was correct. If I'm in a relationship with someone and know they would want to know, then I'd tell them nicely.
As for women's preferences ... sure, they exist but I wouldn't generalize about them. Am I into short men? No, just doesn't feel right to me. But also I'm short and I'm used to feeling like all of the men around me are bigger than me. I wonder if I would feel differently if I were a tall woman, used to being taller than the people around me.
Of course, I could generalize about what I like in a man and then I know full well that I could go meet someone and fall head-over-heels in love and have them not at all be what I thought I would like in an abstract sense. Heck, I even managed to date a republican once, for about 2 months! And I liked the guy.
Ted Cohen is of the opinion that no matter how much you know in a general sense about a person, you will not be able to predict whether or not you'll like him or her without actually meeting.
Women as a group don't, I think, have preferences; bitchy bitch says "that's a silly question, as silly as Carrie Fisher generalizing about all men." Individual women have individual preferences. I, for one, don't give a rat's ass about height but I can't abide passive-aggressiveness. Wit is important; bigotry I can do without. I don't care what someone does for a living, but I do care if they're hung up on stupid shit like job title and income.
Oh, and I can't stand men who wear athletic shoes everywhere.
I can't go along with the bowling shoes thing, I don't think. But yeah, thanks for pointing out the horror of the black sneakers trying to pass for real shoes thing. Shudder.
"Women as a group don't, I think, have preferences"
This is perplexing. Do you mean: there are no preferences universally held by all women? If so, fine. But if you mean "there are no preferences that are held by a majority of women" it clearly false, right?
What I meant is that women aren't a monolithic group, the individual members of whom all think the same thing.
But I don't see why it's "obvious" that "there are no preferences held by a majority of women," especially when it comes to something as complicated as attraction. It's not as though there's only one variable operating.
no, I don't dig bigotry either. I just got lazy while typing. And I haven't met many folks who passed through the other levels of requirements and were bigots so it didn't seem an issue worth mentioning. P/A behavior and sneaker-wearing, on the other hand, I run into all the time amongst my pool of potential suitors.
As for bowling-style shoes -- note that I don't just flat out like them. It takes a very particular sort of guy to be able to actually pull it off.
A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women."
1. First of all, this is patently false. Many succssful women are married.
2. Blirting this out to a group of strangers certainly belies a personality trait, and one that might have something to do with her single status.
3. And,I do think it's odd that she would make this rational generalization. I knew a girl like this...she hadn't had a real relationship in over three years...never once thought she might be doing anything wrong, it was all about how stupid men were. She was a psych major, I believe. The real reason was obvious; she was major-league annoying, and a real fool.
Are we so sure that responding to women who make unflattering (and, for the record, I think untrue) stereotypical statements about men by calling them "bitch" refutes her point?
Insofar as she is basing those statements on personal experience, which she is, absolutely.
This is somewhat interesting:
A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.
There are other possibile contributing factors, however. For one thing, the study stopped at age 40. Perhaps because women have a harder time achieving job security and financial independence than men, the woman who puts her career first marries later.
And I think these numbers might be more clarifying:
They found 88% of 40-year-old men in the top socioeconomic class were married, compared with 80% in the lowest class. Among women aged 40 the trend is reversed. The researchers found that 82% of the top class were wed, compared with 86% in the lowest class.
So what the study says is that 6% of men in the highest class married lower class women (I know, I'm taking the data way out of context, and very badly). So it's gotta be that Carrie Fisher is a heinous bitch.
someone said something about Dowd's marriage status...have you seen her on TV? Her gifts with makeup rival those of Kaye Grogan.
bitch, were you seeking to contradict? Because I see it as case-in-point; you didn't have a secure job at the time of your marriage, I'm sure. If that had been your #1 priority, you would have waited, n'est-ce pas?
No. I married because I was about to move across the continent for graduate school (leaving Mr. B. behind) and I wanted to have both the career and the relationship. I made Mr. B. promise not to get in the way of the career before I married him. In fact, I quit a secure job (shitty, but secure) to go to grad school.
Funny thing. Mr. B's boss's wife asked me, a couple weeks before I moved, if Mr. B. was "serious about his career." My answer was, "yes, he is. And so am I."
Your career has in not been hampered by your marriage and your kid? Even so you must realize your situation is likely rare. If for no other reason than social conditioning, I doubt many men are willing to give up their careers for their wife to pursue hers. And you're still not tenured, or where you want to be, right?
I realize that few people are as career-oriented as the types I'm alluding to, but, then, it's not a large disparity which we're trying to explain.
No, my career hasn't been hampered by my family. I'm quitting because I decided I want to do something else after all.
I think it is probably largely true that career-oriented women marry later. In part this is because collectively we expect women, once married, to put family first--and women internalize and/or fear this. That's one major reason why I made a point of being extremely clear, before I got married, about what my goals were, including saying that I did not want to have a child while Mr. B. was still doing the job he was doing then, because he had to travel too much, and it was unacceptable to me to have kids and then raise them alone half the year. Had he not left his career, we would not have had children. Having a child was a priority for him, so he left.
I think I am unusual, but neither in goals nor in capacity. Just in being very clear-headed about this stuff, and trying very hard not to kid myself.
"Harvard and Yale graduates always do that, regardless of gender. "I went to school in Boston"[...]"
I think this is as much avoidance of class resentment as anything else. I usually say I went to William and Mary, which was my undergrad school, and very cheap as these things go. I was a GSAS student at Harvard, studying on first NSF money and then teaching assistantships, and I didn't actually have to pay for it. But Harvard still has rich-snob associations in the general culture.
On the Internet, the name "Harvard" is also a crackpot magnet, sort of the university counterpart of "Einstein". I initially got a commercial e-mail account for posting to science groups on Usenet, because using my school address got me into fights.
I have to say "I went to school in Boston" is much more effective as a way of distancing oneself from the Ivy League than "I went to school in New Haven", since there are so many other schools in Boston.
But sometimes it's fun to play around with the "I went to school in Connecticut" answer since then you can start asking about Quinnipiac College or Central Connecticut State, or whatever.
Tying this all together, it seems important to bring women's preferences into the picture. When I was...um...studying in Boston and managed to wander out of the Square conversations would, at times, occur with young women who pretty obviously had a higher degree of interested in becoming acquainted with a student at the institution in question than with students at other institutions in the area ("dropping the H-bomb," is the technical term). At the same time, while it seemed rare to me that a male person would ever specifically object to dating/fucking/whatever a female Harvard student, it was equally rare for men to regard it as a particular asset.
'Tis a many sided coin. Me, I'm not threatened by smart, ambitious, or successful women. I'm terribly threatened, however, by tall women. Or, at least, women who are taller than me. It freaks me out. Fortunately, I'm 6'1" so it doesn't come up all that often, but I lived for a year next door to three giant varsity women's volleyball players, resulting in many a panicky elevator ride.
Matthew, I was totally going to nominate you for least likely to use the "studied in Boston" euphemism. Maybe it's just your web-persona - elitist and proud.
I have to say, when I use the "went to school in..." construction, I usually find people drill in pretty quickly.
I think baa's another Harvard guy. Ok, so gold/degree-digging really is more salient for you. I'm imagining the young women as townies, which fits my notion that Dowd is really talking about a class difference (ie, female townies think of marrying up, male townies heap derision on the women they can't have/are threatened by). But I'll wait for confirmation on that.
For years, I've justified not dating anyone taller than me by claiming that because I'm 6 feet tall, women taller than me are just too tall. But that's a lie, of course--I'm freaked out when women are taller than me. I don't feel panicked, exactly (they have no intention of squishing you, Matt), but, I believe the word is emasculated.
Actually, "I went to school in Boston" is a remarkably poor way of distancing yourself from the Ivy League, since no one who went to BU or BC or MIT or any number of other places would bother to use it. It's even more ostentatious than saying "I went to Harvard" because you can do that in a manner that makes it clear you don't think it's a big deal, while by definition anyone who says "I went to school in Boston" does think it's a big deal, else why the euphemism?
Regarding height - that is very interesting. I started out six feet, but have probably shrunk a half inch by now, age 48. I've always been slightly attracted to tall women. I think partly it is because I figure I have less competition, assuming they will reject a shorter man.
That is a terrible assumption, I know.
There is something about a tall smart woman that is nearly irresistable. Add in some power and there you go.
But, I'm left handed and weird in other ways, so I am probably not representative of most men.
I think bdub nailed it. It's like ogged wringing his hands over emailing the swedish chick, like she'll swoon at his first words. (ok, weak analogy, but I had to work it in)
Thanks ogged. It's always nice to have you cambridge boys explain a joke to those of us who went to school in Sommerville.
Yeah, it's true there can be a secret handshake aspect to the "school in Boston" deal. It's not uncommon for the next question to be "what house."
That said, it is really hard to overestimate how annoying it is to have someone immediately react to you based on your college. Frequently, answering "Boston" punts the issue until you have been able to establish some human connection. Who wants to be "the Harvard guy" (implication: dick) to people you just met in a sportsbar. Not me.
And cw, here's a wonderful moment of Somervilliana observed recently. My sister is in the Sligo in Davis square, and a preppie-looking kid comes in and orders a beer. The bartender barks back: "Hey Harvard, go to the Burren!"
I went to a small school in New Jersey. Why do I say that? Because I don't care that people know that I went to Princeton. If they really care, or if there is a reason to be specific, I will.
[Obligatory Princeto Dig at Haaaaahhhvaahhhhd]
But there's a reason no one respects Harvard students anymore. Up til last year, 90% of the students (or so my brother, a ugrad there tells me) got Honors. He said they really cut back and now it's only 60%.
UNC is one of the truly great state institutions in the country, and rightful deserves its place at any snobs' table. Cripes, if that jumped-up safety school down the road from you is considered elite.... I feel, ala Bill Simmons, very strongly about this.
Hmm...do people say "I went to school in Chapel Hill"?
Anyway, while a lot of people who are/know Ivy Leaguers or the Northeast more generally know what "I went to school in Boston" means, I suspect that a lot of other people who could make the connection don't - at least not immediately. So it probably does work for Harvard people some of the time.
I don't know from experience, though, as I went to school on the West Coast. Is that vague enough?
Ogged, at this point, do you even remember what you wanted to talk with Grad Student about?
And for the record, I didn't go to Tufts. But my sister did work at Johnny D's in Davis. But I have no idea what the burren is. Or Sligo's. Sorry, I lived in JP during my Boston years, so I've got more to say about Doyle's.
No love for the blue devils? Come on, Tim, is this resentment of the arrivistes?
'I'm in school in Boston' (or the Yale/other Ivy equivalent) works pretty well for people you might meet while at random gatherings when visiting/meeting/drinking with friends of parents/other friends/acquaintances (especially out of the NE), for all those situations when asking 'So what do you do? is out of politeness rather than indicative of real interest.
Dropping the H-bomb can kind of kill the conversation and it can feel awkward.
Going back a ways, I'm really surprised that Bitch Ph.D of all people is buying the major legitimate piece of evidence that Dowd turns to, a study which uses pretty much the standard (flawed) methodology that a good deal of evolutionary psychology uses. Just saying.
As for Fisher, it's got nothing to do with whether she's a "bitch" or not. This is a person who has been, to her credit, unusually frank in describing a wide variety of psychological problems and issues that she's experienced over the years. I'm suggesting that at least in this one case, it's not at all unreasonable to suspect that if Carrie Fisher has a hard time sustaining relationships with the kind of men she would like to have relationships with, it might not be the result of some kind of male hangup. It might just be that she's a difficult person to spend time with, judging *strictly* from her autobiographical writings and materials. This is Ocaam's Razor as it applies to pop psychologizing. When you're presented with someone who is a self-confessed psychological basket-case and substance abuser who laments her lack of success in relationships, why not first suppose that it is her self-confessed issues that are the primary reason for that lack of success?
I went to school "in Baton Rouge." I say this, not so that people won't think I'm a dick, but to spare them the shame of knowing how little they are when compared to me.
Yes, but that's because there is a UNC-Greensboro, UNC-Charlotte, UNC-Pembroke, UNC-Wilmington, and UNC-Asheville, as well as eleven other non-"UNCx" schools in the UNC system.
maybe she just needs to hang out at the science/equivalent library or some grad school lounge for a while before venturing into the great untamed world
But you're missing the real reason Dowd talked to Carrie Fisher. Dowd gives a lot of credit to the idea that there is an evolutionary explanation for male behavior. Now look at what Fisher actually says:
"I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said drily.
So while scientists can only speculate about evolutionary changes, Fisher speaks from personal experience.
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 2:37 AM
I agree with Ogged - his past girlfriends were indeeed alot smarter and accomplished.
Posted by D | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 6:45 AM
Not to mention his co-bloggers.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 6:52 AM
I share Ogged's reaction. Within my world -- academia, but I think this is true among professional people more broadly -- it raises serious questions about a man's character if he is involved with a less accomplished or (god forbid) a submissive woman.
Having a less accomplished girlfriend or wife is literally courting mediocrity. It's unprofessional.
Having a submissive girlfriend or wife is a sign of moral if not mental illness. One of my best friends in grad school hooked up with a submissive woman for a few months, and it completely screwed up the friendship. I didn't know how to act around such a creature, and I couldn't imagine how he would know. (He later confessed that he'd been extremely depressed in the period leading up to this relationship, so the illness was mental too.)
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 7:42 AM
But this "men prefer" yadda yadda drives me nuts,
First thing: what men prefer is...
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 8:16 AM
There really are men who don't like smart, aggressive, confident women. Trust me. Even men who are very well-educated.
And there are also men who do, even men who are not well-educated. I don't think it's a class thing. I think it's a question of confidence.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 8:30 AM
That looks pretty damning to me, B-W. I thought the "first thing" was Dowd exegesis, but maybe not. What men prefer is a peanut gallery that accepts contradictions, I suppose.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 8:48 AM
Yeah, I'm busted. I might should take the post down, and think this over some more.
b, I'm not willing to give up on the class thing yet. What you say about confidence is true, but men of a certain class/education seem to me far less likely to prefer their women submissive.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 8:54 AM
It can't be wholly class differences, unless 'academic' is a class by itself. It seems a bit more likely, at least in vaguely red-state areas, for the woman in the couple to be the school teacher and the man to be the doctor.
I've been at parties where someone asks me what I do, and explaining that I'm a graduate student at WellKnownSchool has been met on more than one occasion with 'Oh, you're out of my league'. No loss there, but I kind of suspect that the same academic credentials on a guy would make him perceived to be more attractive.
But while I think it's a leap to go from those observations to 'men prefer submissive women', I don't think education and 'class' has much to do with it, ogged, at least not directly. There's a lot of well-educated accomplished men who feel threatened by more intelligent, more accomplished women, and I suspect, like profb, that's it's more to do with confidence in their own abilities rather than any other factor .
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 9:24 AM
The woman in the office next to mine always refers to Harvard as "my school", since she thinks that having gone there is detrimental to her social life, to my flabbergastion--why wouldn't you want to associate with smart folks?--but apparently it's been borne out by her experience.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 9:33 AM
For years I've heard the comment "How come when a man is strong he is a good leader but when a woman is strong she is a bitch," and I refute it every time I can.
As Ogged aludes to the male equivalent to a 'bitch' is an 'asshole.'
Maybe people tolerate assholes more than bitches, I don't know. But many people seem to confuse 'abrasive' with 'strong,' and the last time I saw Carrie Fisher (on that celebrity Texas Holdem show) she was abrasive almost to the point of being a bitch.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 9:33 AM
Yes, collective reluctance to date Carrie Fisher, self-confessed substance abuser and psychological basket case, surely indicates the pathological state of the American male. In a weak Dowd piece, the turn to Fisher went way beyond weak: it was almost charmingly stupid.
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 9:36 AM
Okay, now I'm jumping on Carrie Fisher with both feet, but a certain attitude has been bugging me, and I saw that attitude in Carrie Fisher.
The attitude is an aggressive "either you like me or you're a jerk" hostility. I can understand part of this as an effort to build up one's self esteem, to convince oneself that one is worthy of being liked, but it misses the mark.
It is a false way to build up false self esteem. Real self esteem comes from how one feels about oneself, not from putting down others.
One must first understand that one is worthy of being liked, and then one must actually, you know, be likable.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 9:46 AM
Ben Wolfson,
Harvard and Yale graduates always do that, regardless of gender. "I went to school in Boston"; "When I was studying in New Haven" etc. Some Stanford and Princeton people do it too. (But not so much Dartmouth, Penn, or Cornell)
Posted by Amardeep | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 9:50 AM
Just jumping in to nod and agree with bphd. I have met men -- powerful types who have important jobs and make the big bucks -- and had lovely conversations social and when they finally find out just what I do I they suddenly become less interested. I get one reaction and type of interest when I say I teach (and they always assume I mean elementary,not sure why -- I'd totally suck at that) versus when I say I'm a professor (and immediately get the "and you have a PhD? Oh, don't correct my grammar, you must think everyone else is dumb" crap.
Most of the men in my field seem to be married to happy-housewife types or former students whose careers are now of the helping-the-hubby-on-consulting variety (yes, clear power relationship there).
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 9:57 AM
Maybe she meant our preznit. He seems to be afraid of having anyone intelligent near him. Frist probably told him intelligence could be passed by tears, so he got all worried and shit.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 10:03 AM
profgrrrrl,
Hmmm. I suppose guys like that make it better for the rest of us guys. I probably shouldn't talk, because to an outsider I might look like I married a happy housewife type, but I met her when she was directing a show I was in and I was attracted to her power.
I make more money then her but she gets to boss more people around.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 10:07 AM
In my comment above I should have noted that it's also a generational thing. You thirty-something academics and other PhDs out there, reflect on your grad-school cohort. In my case, at least, the attached hetero males (myself included) are all attached to equally or more accomplished women. And any other result would strike me as odd.
Of course this wouldn't have been true in previous generations -- including Maureen Dowd's.
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 10:15 AM
profgrrrrl,
"and you have a PhD? Oh, don't correct my grammar, you must think everyone else is dumb" crap.
Well, yeah, but check out the 'affect/effect' action on the AIM thread. Maybe some of the fears are justified.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 10:15 AM
Tripp, when a female academic pulls out that stuff she's sending a clear signal. If she's really is that into you, she would never ever correct you. (Heck, I live in terror of someone correcting me! I've not taken an actual writing class since high school. My senior year at rural high we were still getting drilled on "not using no double negatives.")
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 10:19 AM
If she's really is that into you, she would never ever correct you.
First of all, haha. Second, I can think of two exes who would correct you (or, uh, me) no matter how into you they were.
And, in response to some of the comments above, yeah, I'm not really happy with calling it "class," but there is some grouping of education, class, culture and, as Ted points out, age, that captures something relevant.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 10:28 AM
Interesting. Two things.
1. Since we're all just supplying anecdotal evidence here, let me point out that I, for one, have known in my life a number of working-class and lower-middle-class men whose wives and girlfriends were better educated, including women who had PhDs and other highly professionalized credentials. I'm gonna hold firm that it is not a class thing (in fact, I have a vague sense that working-class men are often married to better-educated women, and that strong women are highly valued in working-class families, but I have no real hard evidence to back that up).
2. It's interesting that the thread has turned to jumping on Carrie Fisher's alleged bitchiness. Are we so sure that responding to women who make unflattering (and, for the record, I think untrue) stereotypical statements about men by calling them "bitch" refutes her point?
3. Also I don't quite get what Tripp's saying about the affect/effect thing. Here, in the company of people who are educated (and who seem largely to operate by giving each other a hard time), I figured that I could bitchily (and jokingly) exercise one of my pet peeves without upsetting anyone. I absolutely *never* correct people's grammar or spelling unless I think we've established a footing where it's understood as a joke. Guess I was mistaken in this case, but my having done that isn't good evidence that hypereducated women will correct the grammar of everyone they meet (and even if they did, so what? I thought the thesis here was, "we're not threatened by hypereducated women").
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 10:38 AM
"there is some grouping of education, class, culture"
I think what you're referring to used to be known as "the Establishment." Right schools, right connections, right attitudes, etc. When you throw age in there, you're probably talking about two Establishments - the group to whom you are referring and the conservatives. The fact that there are two might explain why you get men who look and talk just like your group, and yet have the attitudes that BPhD talks about. You might be less aware of them than women, b/c when you hang out with them you're in larger groups where your sect is in the majority, and they shut up. Women from your group might end up in intimate, more open, situations with them more often.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 10:52 AM
Ted--My mom has told me that back in her day many universities had anti-nepotism rules that meant that a faculty member's spouse couldn't be on the faculty. This had the effect of keeping a lot of women out of the academy. This isn't quite Dowd's generation but I wonder when those went away (and how widespread they were and whether I've got the story wrong).
Also, I'm with bphd (oh no, not you too, says Ogged; in your dreams says b): Unfogged is a free-fire zone for nitpicking. I think the Posting Rules say you have to respond by linking this, though it might not be so effective against b.
(And the ladies loooove guys who make up Posting Rules for other people's sites. Trust me.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 10:54 AM
1. " I have a vague sense that working-class men are often married to better-educated women...."
Wouldn't the standard explanation be that this is the effect of the better-educated women being less valued as marriage material for better-educated men? And thus, the women strike the best deal they can? I' certainly don't endorse any part of that story, but isn't that the explanation others would offer?
2. I'm with Tripp, et. al., on this one. There are women who are strong, and there are women who are bitches, and its pretty easy to tell them apart. As someone said, women seem to be under the misimpression that we like assholes who are men. We don't - we hate them, but we accept them b/c usually they have something we want. Now it might be employment possibilities. In high school and college, it was probably access to attractive women who would grow up to complain about how accepting men were of other men who were assholes.
3. Generally speaking, I think men and women want to follow the Albert Brooks rule of marriage - punch your own weight. It wouldn't be shocking to me to find out that men don't undervalue accomplished women, but overvalue them.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 11:02 AM
My girlfriend is smart. Incredibly smart. And a hardworker too. I consider her extremely intelligent, and much smarter than I. She, however, thinks that I am incredibly smart at what I do, but that I am incredibly lazy much of the time. When we first started going out, we corrected each others grammar all the time. We still do, but now, it's only met with muttered grrs and the like.
My sister is incredibly smart. She married someone else incredibly smart. He pursued her. They are happy.
Based on the above two cases, I think it is pretty evident that all smart people should date smart people, and dumb people should date dumb people. All kidding aside, I think it is more a direct effect of what people are looking for. Are there smart people who don't want to feel insecure about how smart they are? Yes. So they marry dumb people. Are there dumb people who don't want to be insecure about how dumb they are? Yes. So they marry dumb people. Are there people who date and marry for love? Yes. And are there people who couldn't stand to date people who couldn't challenge them, who couldn't have an intelligent conversation, who couldn't correct them? Yes. But why the fuck does it matter?
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 11:38 AM
1. No discussion of men wanting to marry down is complete without a discussion of woman wanting to marry up. It's a real phenomenon, is all I'm saying.
2. That said, it's a true fact that many more guys than you would think (if you are a guy who's cool with accomplished women, that is) are spooked by the high end ladies. My wife's classmates at her impossibly prestigious medical school confirm this.
3. So this would seem to be a big opportunity for you guys out there who want to marry a neurobioradiomoney-ologiss. Unless the chain of causality works in both directions and those high achievement woman really aren't (in general) interested in low achievement guys. Indeed, is it not transparently obvious that the dynamic works both ways? Men are less willing to marry up than women, and women are less willing to marry down. Result: high end woman and low end men have a tougher time.
4. Last point: I hope we can all agree that Maureen Dowd's unmarried status is overdetermined.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 11:55 AM
Actually I think the working class men/college-educated women thing is more about income. In some (fewer and fewer) situations, a guy without a college degree (or even a high school diploma) can make decent money; less true for women. Also, there may be something about women doing better in school, especially as they grow older: less likely to get in trouble and/or drop out. Maybe. I don't really know for sure.
Also it's possible that both men and women from poor backgrounds are likelier to be raised by a single mom: in my experience, men who were raised by single mothers usually have a lot of respect for women.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 11:59 AM
Whew, so many good comments to respond to.
profgrrrrl - If she's really is that into you, she would never ever correct you. Sadly, this does not seem to hold true after marriage.
bitchphd - The affect/effect example wasn't really a very good one, for all the reasons you gave, but it popped up at just the right time, so I used it.
We've been talking about men's preferences, what about women's preferences. Do they exist? How do they feel about short men?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 12:34 PM
Tripp, I should have qualified my statement a bit more. I mean, I'll snarkily correct someone who I think is an asshole, for the sake of. If I'm on a date and interested and don't know someone well, never -- not unless they asked if something was correct. If I'm in a relationship with someone and know they would want to know, then I'd tell them nicely.
As for women's preferences ... sure, they exist but I wouldn't generalize about them. Am I into short men? No, just doesn't feel right to me. But also I'm short and I'm used to feeling like all of the men around me are bigger than me. I wonder if I would feel differently if I were a tall woman, used to being taller than the people around me.
Of course, I could generalize about what I like in a man and then I know full well that I could go meet someone and fall head-over-heels in love and have them not at all be what I thought I would like in an abstract sense. Heck, I even managed to date a republican once, for about 2 months! And I liked the guy.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 12:43 PM
Ted Cohen is of the opinion that no matter how much you know in a general sense about a person, you will not be able to predict whether or not you'll like him or her without actually meeting.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 12:46 PM
Ted Cohen is wrong. At least, in my experience.
Women as a group don't, I think, have preferences; bitchy bitch says "that's a silly question, as silly as Carrie Fisher generalizing about all men." Individual women have individual preferences. I, for one, don't give a rat's ass about height but I can't abide passive-aggressiveness. Wit is important; bigotry I can do without. I don't care what someone does for a living, but I do care if they're hung up on stupid shit like job title and income.
Oh, and I can't stand men who wear athletic shoes everywhere.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 1:08 PM
Ditto on the wit, passive-aggressivenes and the athletic shoes. Black sneakers are still sneakers, BTW.
And I have a weakness for a guy who can pull off wearing bowling shoes. Go figure.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 1:16 PM
Profgrrrrl, is bigotry ok???
I can't go along with the bowling shoes thing, I don't think. But yeah, thanks for pointing out the horror of the black sneakers trying to pass for real shoes thing. Shudder.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 1:46 PM
"Women as a group don't, I think, have preferences"
This is perplexing. Do you mean: there are no preferences universally held by all women? If so, fine. But if you mean "there are no preferences that are held by a majority of women" it clearly false, right?
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 1:55 PM
What I meant is that women aren't a monolithic group, the individual members of whom all think the same thing.
But I don't see why it's "obvious" that "there are no preferences held by a majority of women," especially when it comes to something as complicated as attraction. It's not as though there's only one variable operating.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 2:04 PM
"of which." Shit.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 2:04 PM
no, I don't dig bigotry either. I just got lazy while typing. And I haven't met many folks who passed through the other levels of requirements and were bigots so it didn't seem an issue worth mentioning. P/A behavior and sneaker-wearing, on the other hand, I run into all the time amongst my pool of potential suitors.
As for bowling-style shoes -- note that I don't just flat out like them. It takes a very particular sort of guy to be able to actually pull it off.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 2:07 PM
baa,
Ask her when I can move in, would ya?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 2:42 PM
ei yi yi, look how Dowd's column starts out.
A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women."
1. First of all, this is patently false. Many succssful women are married.
2. Blirting this out to a group of strangers certainly belies a personality trait, and one that might have something to do with her single status.
3. And,I do think it's odd that she would make this rational generalization. I knew a girl like this...she hadn't had a real relationship in over three years...never once thought she might be doing anything wrong, it was all about how stupid men were. She was a psych major, I believe. The real reason was obvious; she was major-league annoying, and a real fool.
Are we so sure that responding to women who make unflattering (and, for the record, I think untrue) stereotypical statements about men by calling them "bitch" refutes her point?
Insofar as she is basing those statements on personal experience, which she is, absolutely.
This is somewhat interesting:
A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.
There are other possibile contributing factors, however. For one thing, the study stopped at age 40. Perhaps because women have a harder time achieving job security and financial independence than men, the woman who puts her career first marries later.
And I think these numbers might be more clarifying:
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 3:06 PM
these numbers:
They found 88% of 40-year-old men in the top socioeconomic class were married, compared with 80% in the lowest class. Among women aged 40 the trend is reversed. The researchers found that 82% of the top class were wed, compared with 86% in the lowest class.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 3:08 PM
So what the study says is that 6% of men in the highest class married lower class women (I know, I'm taking the data way out of context, and very badly). So it's gotta be that Carrie Fisher is a heinous bitch.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 3:12 PM
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Ice-T because until "New Jack City" I had never heard someone call a man "bitch."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 4:13 PM
I, however, married at 24.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 5:37 PM
someone said something about Dowd's marriage status...have you seen her on TV? Her gifts with makeup rival those of Kaye Grogan.
bitch, were you seeking to contradict? Because I see it as case-in-point; you didn't have a secure job at the time of your marriage, I'm sure. If that had been your #1 priority, you would have waited, n'est-ce pas?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 5:52 PM
No. I married because I was about to move across the continent for graduate school (leaving Mr. B. behind) and I wanted to have both the career and the relationship. I made Mr. B. promise not to get in the way of the career before I married him. In fact, I quit a secure job (shitty, but secure) to go to grad school.
Funny thing. Mr. B's boss's wife asked me, a couple weeks before I moved, if Mr. B. was "serious about his career." My answer was, "yes, he is. And so am I."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 6:15 PM
Your career has in not been hampered by your marriage and your kid? Even so you must realize your situation is likely rare. If for no other reason than social conditioning, I doubt many men are willing to give up their careers for their wife to pursue hers. And you're still not tenured, or where you want to be, right?
I realize that few people are as career-oriented as the types I'm alluding to, but, then, it's not a large disparity which we're trying to explain.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 6:22 PM
No, my career hasn't been hampered by my family. I'm quitting because I decided I want to do something else after all.
I think it is probably largely true that career-oriented women marry later. In part this is because collectively we expect women, once married, to put family first--and women internalize and/or fear this. That's one major reason why I made a point of being extremely clear, before I got married, about what my goals were, including saying that I did not want to have a child while Mr. B. was still doing the job he was doing then, because he had to travel too much, and it was unacceptable to me to have kids and then raise them alone half the year. Had he not left his career, we would not have had children. Having a child was a priority for him, so he left.
I think I am unusual, but neither in goals nor in capacity. Just in being very clear-headed about this stuff, and trying very hard not to kid myself.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 6:40 PM
"Harvard and Yale graduates always do that, regardless of gender. "I went to school in Boston"[...]"
I think this is as much avoidance of class resentment as anything else. I usually say I went to William and Mary, which was my undergrad school, and very cheap as these things go. I was a GSAS student at Harvard, studying on first NSF money and then teaching assistantships, and I didn't actually have to pay for it. But Harvard still has rich-snob associations in the general culture.
On the Internet, the name "Harvard" is also a crackpot magnet, sort of the university counterpart of "Einstein". I initially got a commercial e-mail account for posting to science groups on Usenet, because using my school address got me into fights.
Posted by Matthew McIrvin | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 6:53 PM
I have to say "I went to school in Boston" is much more effective as a way of distancing oneself from the Ivy League than "I went to school in New Haven", since there are so many other schools in Boston.
But sometimes it's fun to play around with the "I went to school in Connecticut" answer since then you can start asking about Quinnipiac College or Central Connecticut State, or whatever.
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 01-13-05 7:16 PM
Tying this all together, it seems important to bring women's preferences into the picture. When I was...um...studying in Boston and managed to wander out of the Square conversations would, at times, occur with young women who pretty obviously had a higher degree of interested in becoming acquainted with a student at the institution in question than with students at other institutions in the area ("dropping the H-bomb," is the technical term). At the same time, while it seemed rare to me that a male person would ever specifically object to dating/fucking/whatever a female Harvard student, it was equally rare for men to regard it as a particular asset.
'Tis a many sided coin. Me, I'm not threatened by smart, ambitious, or successful women. I'm terribly threatened, however, by tall women. Or, at least, women who are taller than me. It freaks me out. Fortunately, I'm 6'1" so it doesn't come up all that often, but I lived for a year next door to three giant varsity women's volleyball players, resulting in many a panicky elevator ride.
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 12:34 AM
Matthew, I was totally going to nominate you for least likely to use the "studied in Boston" euphemism. Maybe it's just your web-persona - elitist and proud.
I have to say, when I use the "went to school in..." construction, I usually find people drill in pretty quickly.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 7:37 AM
I think baa's another Harvard guy. Ok, so gold/degree-digging really is more salient for you. I'm imagining the young women as townies, which fits my notion that Dowd is really talking about a class difference (ie, female townies think of marrying up, male townies heap derision on the women they can't have/are threatened by). But I'll wait for confirmation on that.
For years, I've justified not dating anyone taller than me by claiming that because I'm 6 feet tall, women taller than me are just too tall. But that's a lie, of course--I'm freaked out when women are taller than me. I don't feel panicked, exactly (they have no intention of squishing you, Matt), but, I believe the word is emasculated.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 7:45 AM
I think it was a joke, cw. You probably would have gotten it if you hadn't gone to Tufts.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 7:47 AM
Actually, "I went to school in Boston" is a remarkably poor way of distancing yourself from the Ivy League, since no one who went to BU or BC or MIT or any number of other places would bother to use it. It's even more ostentatious than saying "I went to Harvard" because you can do that in a manner that makes it clear you don't think it's a big deal, while by definition anyone who says "I went to school in Boston" does think it's a big deal, else why the euphemism?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 8:08 AM
Regarding height - that is very interesting. I started out six feet, but have probably shrunk a half inch by now, age 48. I've always been slightly attracted to tall women. I think partly it is because I figure I have less competition, assuming they will reject a shorter man.
That is a terrible assumption, I know.
There is something about a tall smart woman that is nearly irresistable. Add in some power and there you go.
But, I'm left handed and weird in other ways, so I am probably not representative of most men.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 8:10 AM
I think bdub nailed it. It's like ogged wringing his hands over emailing the swedish chick, like she'll swoon at his first words. (ok, weak analogy, but I had to work it in)
Thanks ogged. It's always nice to have you cambridge boys explain a joke to those of us who went to school in Sommerville.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 8:29 AM
Yeah, it's true there can be a secret handshake aspect to the "school in Boston" deal. It's not uncommon for the next question to be "what house."
That said, it is really hard to overestimate how annoying it is to have someone immediately react to you based on your college. Frequently, answering "Boston" punts the issue until you have been able to establish some human connection. Who wants to be "the Harvard guy" (implication: dick) to people you just met in a sportsbar. Not me.
And cw, here's a wonderful moment of Somervilliana observed recently. My sister is in the Sligo in Davis square, and a preppie-looking kid comes in and orders a beer. The bartender barks back: "Hey Harvard, go to the Burren!"
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 8:47 AM
Just to be clear, I'm not a Harvard guy, but I couldn't resist the dig, cw.
Who wants to be "the Harvard guy" (implication: dick) to people you just met in a sportsbar.
Yup, that's the reason that noble people use that locution. There are, of course, ignoble uses.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 8:49 AM
Oh, and I'm sure that Grad Student is going to write back any day now.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 8:50 AM
Who wants to be "the Harvard guy" (implication: dick) to people you just met in a sportsbar.
I'm not sure that's right. I thought you were a dick well before we found out you wen to Harvard.
I kid because I love, baa.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 8:55 AM
I went to a small school in New Jersey. Why do I say that? Because I don't care that people know that I went to Princeton. If they really care, or if there is a reason to be specific, I will.
[Obligatory Princeto Dig at Haaaaahhhvaahhhhd]
But there's a reason no one respects Harvard students anymore. Up til last year, 90% of the students (or so my brother, a ugrad there tells me) got Honors. He said they really cut back and now it's only 60%.
[/Obligatory Princeto Dig at Haaaaahhhvaahhhhd]
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 9:18 AM
True enough Tim, but the guys in the sports bar won't find that out for at least three sets of downs.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 9:18 AM
arg. Princeton Dig.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 9:18 AM
But here's another question... when does this usually come up (the "Where'd you go to school" question)?
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 9:20 AM
I feel like I'm the proletariat vanguard up in here. We'll kick all y'all's asses on the court.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 9:47 AM
You can't even dunk, bacon grease.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 9:49 AM
I've dunked things in bacon grease. Mmmm...
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 9:53 AM
See, it's not about the school.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 9:55 AM
Apostropher:
UNC is one of the truly great state institutions in the country, and rightful deserves its place at any snobs' table. Cripes, if that jumped-up safety school down the road from you is considered elite.... I feel, ala Bill Simmons, very strongly about this.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 9:56 AM
Hmm...do people say "I went to school in Chapel Hill"?
Anyway, while a lot of people who are/know Ivy Leaguers or the Northeast more generally know what "I went to school in Boston" means, I suspect that a lot of other people who could make the connection don't - at least not immediately. So it probably does work for Harvard people some of the time.
I don't know from experience, though, as I went to school on the West Coast. Is that vague enough?
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 10:27 AM
Ogged, at this point, do you even remember what you wanted to talk with Grad Student about?
And for the record, I didn't go to Tufts. But my sister did work at Johnny D's in Davis. But I have no idea what the burren is. Or Sligo's. Sorry, I lived in JP during my Boston years, so I've got more to say about Doyle's.
No love for the blue devils? Come on, Tim, is this resentment of the arrivistes?
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 10:50 AM
I do remember! I even found and read a paper on the topic she's studying (sadly, I thought it was crap, but nevermind). Like I say, any day now.
I do love Doyle's corned-beef hash. I loved Sorella's too, back in the day, but hear it's no longer good.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 10:56 AM
'I'm in school in Boston' (or the Yale/other Ivy equivalent) works pretty well for people you might meet while at random gatherings when visiting/meeting/drinking with friends of parents/other friends/acquaintances (especially out of the NE), for all those situations when asking 'So what do you do? is out of politeness rather than indicative of real interest.
Dropping the H-bomb can kind of kill the conversation and it can feel awkward.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 12:32 PM
Going back a ways, I'm really surprised that Bitch Ph.D of all people is buying the major legitimate piece of evidence that Dowd turns to, a study which uses pretty much the standard (flawed) methodology that a good deal of evolutionary psychology uses. Just saying.
As for Fisher, it's got nothing to do with whether she's a "bitch" or not. This is a person who has been, to her credit, unusually frank in describing a wide variety of psychological problems and issues that she's experienced over the years. I'm suggesting that at least in this one case, it's not at all unreasonable to suspect that if Carrie Fisher has a hard time sustaining relationships with the kind of men she would like to have relationships with, it might not be the result of some kind of male hangup. It might just be that she's a difficult person to spend time with, judging *strictly* from her autobiographical writings and materials. This is Ocaam's Razor as it applies to pop psychologizing. When you're presented with someone who is a self-confessed psychological basket-case and substance abuser who laments her lack of success in relationships, why not first suppose that it is her self-confessed issues that are the primary reason for that lack of success?
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 1:33 PM
I went to school "in Baton Rouge." I say this, not so that people won't think I'm a dick, but to spare them the shame of knowing how little they are when compared to me.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 2:09 PM
do people say "I went to school in Chapel Hill"?
Yes, but that's because there is a UNC-Greensboro, UNC-Charlotte, UNC-Pembroke, UNC-Wilmington, and UNC-Asheville, as well as eleven other non-"UNCx" schools in the UNC system.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-14-05 7:34 PM
maybe she just needs to hang out at the science/equivalent library or some grad school lounge for a while before venturing into the great untamed world
Posted by Lorenzo | Link to this comment | 01-17-05 11:03 PM