I heard this on Rush Limbaugh, who was clucking and gloating about "when I'm right, I'm right." I had a tough time finding the actual quote, but here's the "controversial" study.
What do you think? Do you believe there's a cause and effect to women choosing careers instead of husbands? Have women really "evolved" to become homemakers?
Excerpt from story:
Forget ambition, financial security and that first-class degree.
A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.
And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace.
The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, 'women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby'.
Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers.
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news … z1sFafoXC8
If you lack the confidence and the self esteem, the survey may mean something to you. Otherwise it's just another worthless attempt to create a controversy.
MM, YOU are a Rush enthusiast? NO WAY! He's so full of it that I can believe he said that!!!
What a disgrace, that man!!
Oh HELL No!
Absolutely, categorically NOT!
I started to clarify in my post intro that I came upon this little nuggest as I was flipping stations in my car in between NPR (my usual) and some music.
I just happened to land on this station as Rush was talking about plain women -- my little feminist ears pricked up.
By the time he got to his "When I'm right, I'm right" comments I had to pull over and puke.
~WHEW~ That scared the crap outta me. NPR 'rocks' and R&R engages this oldster. Sorry about the almost puking, but so would I have!
PS: Miss ya, MM!
Ain't you s'ppost ta do that there wershin'? Leave that there ma o' yers to her nittin', girly.
Good to see you, as well, MM and melbel, youse da bestest, eber!!!
I'm surprised. Women shouldn't be driving:
I hope, for the sake of your safety, that you were merely sitting in your husband's car, rather than driving a car!
Well, I think we have clearly established that since I HAVE a husband, I obviously cannot work.
In fact, you are correct. I have been unable to pass the DMV test and we both see that as a sign from God himself that I am not intended to drive the motor vehicle.
I do like to take the old horse and buggy for a spin around the lower 40 from time to time. Mostly while I'm a waitin' for ma wershing to dry on the line.
I dont know. Ive seen a lot of ugly chicks hauling around gaggles of children. In fact, ot seems the uglier the woman, the more she spawns.
I definitely have to disagree with this study. I work pretty hard at a children's hospital so there is great incentive to work hard and be dedicated to the work. I'm single, but I don't consider myself plain and have never been described as that. I have been described as a loner plenty of times and I freely embrace that description. I like to keep to myself...big whoop. That, above all else, contributes to my singledom way more than me working too hard.
Sidenote: Janesix's comment had me cracking up!
I'm going to use this study to justify why I am not more successful in my job. I am simply too attractive!
P.S. janesix excels at zingers.
Yes!! I may just have to use that reason too if anyone thinks I'm slacking off. Being beautiful is a heavy burden to bear. :-)
I don't know about the research...I'm not convienced. Most of the women I know are intellegent and smart. Some are attractive, some not so attractive. I don't believe it makes a difference. I believe that most women will do whatever it is for their family's best ecconomic interest.
This ranks right up there with Carolyn Merchant's claim in The Death of Nature that the damage to the environment all stems from a hatred of women. I won't bother to explain her idiotic rationale - but please don't waste your money on that book.
One problem I have with this type of research (and the reporting of it here), is that when it's done through university studies, almost all subjects are college age. Then the world applies the results to the entire population. I noticed the story referred to the study group as 'young women.'
Also - what the heck kind of question is that to ask - do you want to eat and survive, or have a family? And many young women don't think of themselves as attractive - we've heard of stunning movie stars who grew up insecure about their looks.
I think it might more be something like women with careers not feeling like they need a husband as badly as some other SOMETIMES think they need a husband. As a result, I'd guess that career women can afford to be more selective, rather than marrying "any-old-body" who is at all appealing. A lot of women who don't feel they need a husband (unless they want one particular one) would rather not be married than settle. Besides, lots of women excel at work and have husbands too.
In the misogynistic society we live in there's always plenty of people who imagine something unflattering at the root of whatever a woman/women do, rather than assume a more flattering reason for whatever it is women think or do.
Uh... hmm... this doesn't sound right...
Has it ever occurred to these researchers that maybe . . . just maybe . . . these women don't want to settle for men that will bore them to death with shallow conversations and interests?
No, doesn't sound right at all.
It could be perhaps that the research is on women in locations where there is a lower ratio of men. Maybe these women are smart enough to know that their changes of getting well paying job are better when there are fewer men stealing the best jobs.
If they were really so concern about marriage maybe they would move to a city with better pickings.
Something that just occurred to me, too: I wonder if there's a problem with some types of attractiveness involving any stereotyping that could actually hinder some women's career progression.
That's entirely possible. ALthough I've read studies that show that more attractive people make more money.
I think there's a reason this study is
b) not to be found in the mainstream media
c) being quoted by Rush Limbaugh because it supports his supposition that women's lib was founded by ugly women so they'd have something to do -- work.
Just the fact that you are single in the workplace is a drag. People think you don't have a life, so they hound you to work for them so that they can spend the holidays with their families. Beautiful, pretty, cute or plain ugly. Like you don't count at all. You're just a body to fill in after someone.
That's a sad but true point about single workers.
Sort of reverse problem with women and career track vs. mommy track. Employers (and coworkers) "assume" you're going to get married and have babies. So you're not taken as seriously as men (who also may get married but won't be taking leave to go have kids). So you get passed over for promotions. It's subtle but there.
I have an idea for you, tho.
Next time some married person tries to pawn off their work on you I suggest you hand them your pink bunny ears instead.
I've heard that about attractive people earning more too, but I wonder if stereotypes might come into it in a situation, for example, like:
You've got someone who looks like Olivia Newton John (person A) and someone else who looks like Kathy Bates (person B). Or else, person A looks like Kristie Brinkley and B looks like Suzie Ormon. I can imagine how person A might earn more if they're both, say, entry- or middle- level managers. What I wonder, though, is when there's thinking about something like who is aggressive enough or who has the leadership skills to be promoted beyond middle level, whether (maybe even subconsciously) people automatically think one of the Person B types seems more like promotion material.
I can see, though, how it may depend on the field. I can see how maybe someone in the fashion industry would tend to favor a person A; while, maybe, a software design or biochemical engineering outfit might tend to favor a person B type.
Excellent points, LHW.
So here come my stereotypes.
If I were the employer I would hire Kathy Bates over Olivia Newton-John every time. And know why? Cuz I "assume" (and you know what they say about assuming) she is like her characters Delores Claiborne, Harry (Harry's Law), the older women with the insurance in Fried Green Tomatoes, and maybe even like that crazy biotch in Misery.
Olivia Newton-John is a lovely lady, but when she goes around asking people "Have you ever been MELLOW" that to me is not a go-getter worker (unless I'm hiring her to work in my medican dispensary or yoga studio).
I agree it's hard to picture a 50+ year-old Christie Brinkley in middle management at a company that't not her own or at least fitness/beauty related.
Suzie Ormon, on the other hand, could run a Fortune 500 company (or at least looks and sounds like she coul).
("have you ever been mellow": ) The thing that I also think of is imagine someone like ONJ or KB at, say, 35 years old (and maybe looking in their 20's). Or imagine them in college among a bunch of male and female 18-22's, assessing what kind of attribute they have for either business or academics.
Think of the young women on the show, Big Bang Theory (if you've ever seen it). The most attractive young woman on there works as a server and is clueless when it comes to, say, Physics. Whether it's leadership material or "academic material", not too many people will automatically think someone like (looks only - not personalities) ONJ or KB are "move ahead material", I don't think.
Our generation was told, "If you want people to listen to you, lower your voice and raise your volume." We were essentially told what's so often so true in human nature - that people don't listen to someone with a soft, feminine, voice or with, say, soft, wavy, blond, hair. I really think there's a bigger problem than a lot of people would imagine, because I don't think it's just the ONJ/KB types who can run into being stereotyped. I think there are tons of other "types" of women that a lot of people just can't see their way clear to take seriously or see as leaders.
I think a lot of women in "serious" careers may intentionally make their otherwise attractive-enough selves look just a little less attractive in order to avoid that from happening to them. (Rachel Maddow might be an example. Maybe the fashion trend of wearing nerd glasses without needing them is another example.)
I really think college aged young woman kind of decide what image they'll aim for: The glamourous/overt/sexual power one. The "smart looking one". The "emulate masculine one". I think, though, that the vast majority of young women who don't cultivate an image and never deviate from it are the ones who are most likely not to be noticed or to be seen as having leadership potential. Yet, those may be the ones who refuse to buy into images in order to be taken seriously by people who stereotype; because not cultivating a "phony" image is, in itself, confidence and a sign that there could be some leadership potential there. (Just a theory.)
Throw in having a baby or two, and you have all the stereotypes about mothers added to the mix. It's no wonder that whenever someone talks about "women in powerful positions" the same few women's names come up when someone says, "Look at so-and-so. She did it. Why don't more women manage to do it too?"
I'm pretty driven, am single, and ya' gotta' admit, I'm damn sexy.
YOu are going to have to give up one or the other.
If you want to succeed in the workplace you can be driven but not sexy.
If you want to get married and have babies you can be sexy but not driven.
Or, you could stay here on HP and just be your wonderful self!
If they'd never let you chicks read, none of you would be crying about this crap. You'd be making pies and cranking out babies. The only thing different between today and the last several thousand years is that man invented the treadmill. According to God's will, if you read the appropriate holy text properly, we should be able to put one of those next to the kitchen and the baby-swing so you broads could keep that ass tight for us during the day while we're doing the important work that is too hard for you. Then you wouldn't need to read, because you could just make us happy like you were designed for when all this crap started at the beginning of time.
<ducking for cover>
Your basic premise is right on target here, but I feel falls a bit shy of the reality of today's exciting beauty opportunities and demands.
I believe every woman should be a mother.
I believe every mother can and should be a Yummy Mummy (if not a downright MILF).
However, it requires more than just a treadmill to keep the junk out of our trunks and our hard-working hubbies happy.
Today's standards of self-acceptance, set by the so-called left-wing (or lamestream) media, require the "whole package." It's truly a full-time job staying sexy. And as we know, it's also a full-time and infinitely fulfilling job to raise children.
How can I possibly do both perfectly?
Here's my idea. Make it both easy and fun to stay home with the kids AND be a femme fatale (monogomous, of course).
They have mobile dog grooming services, right?
Why not have mobile aestheticians who bring botox, Retin A and Brazilian waxing right to your kitchen table?
Another thing is women, as a class, spend entirely too much time shopping.
I'd like to see the delightfully convenient Tupperware Party concept expanded to cover all retail purchases.
Think how much time and babysitting money would be saved if merchants brought their wares to a neighborhood gathering where all the ladies could shop en masse, try on their outfits and get each other's envy all in one shot?
I could go on and on with ideas to keep our womenfolk homebound --where they belong.
Please feel free to chime in, people. There are no bad ideas on this forum thread.
You know, way back in the day, vendors did used to push their wares through the streets. Isn't it funny how all the best ideas got tossed out in the name of corporate mega-stores?
Box stores = progress?
Although I personally wouldn't let the Walmart greeters near my house (since I don't shop at Walmart, period), I wouldn't say no to a nice personal shopper from Nordstrom Rack bringing the merchandise to moi.
I think that would be rather nice.
Rush Limbaugh is a marginalized, about to be irrelevant, useless piece of flesh.
The drugster is partially right, though. We do go to work so we don't have to depend on a man...like him! ugh!
He knows that the advertisers are disgusted with him and all of those suckered radio stations regret paying through the nose for his mess.
An unattractive, obese man who hides behind his security goons and hates women. Not a sad state, just a well deserved situation.
Triple Insult Score!
Damn, you're on a roll!
If wishes were horses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle … story.html
But the fickle American public and the media SLUTS who cater to them don't have the attention span of a gnat.
It is hard to sustain interest based on outrage for a long period. Especially when you're fighting againts the almighty dollar machine.
As I see it, Rush is on a semi-formal probation.
I suspect the next time he crosses the line -- and he will, because he simply can't help himself, and the lack of meaningful (to him) consequences will simply embolden him will be the crowning blow.
Next time it won't have to be anything close to as disgusting as the Sandra Fluke diatribe, either.
Our collective tolerance for his misogyny is wearing very thin.
You only get so many strikes before you're out.
You people can't take him out, keep riding the imaginary horse.
He will take himself out.
Won't take any further effort on our part.
Ah, Mighty Mom! You are soooooo funny. I absolutely LOVED, LOVED, LOVED your suggestion that I give my bunny ears to my employers. No way! I paid too much for them. $1 at the local Roseville Target!
The truth is, I retired in 2008, but I remember everything about the workplace and its tactics. My last 10 years was for the California Department of Corrections, so they went by seniority more than anything else. And I talked up that I had someone waiting for me at home. But management was too dumb to pay attention to me and realize that I was living with my boyfriend, and any "duties as required" meant that I had to give up an extra two hours for the commute up and back.
But I worked in the pool for years in Downtown Sacramento and was one miserable bunny because you know how people dump on clerical workers. But I know it's bad all around for a woman in some way. Several of my younger female cousins are single, but smart and just lovely. They are managers and bosses. But it's all the same. If you don't have that ring on your finger or complain about your husband and children every so often--forget it! You are working over. Long after everyone leaves for the day, the weekend or a holiday.
Retired now, I can only look back and laugh. I did a lot of dumb things and accepted a lot of management crap just to pay for my mortgage. And when I play hostess on some holiday, I am understanding enough to accept a few empty places at the table because they had to work.
Holy moley! Did I know we're neighbors?
Some of my best friends are former DOC.
I'm decidedly in the minority working in private sector here. Surrounded by state (mostly) and county and even a couple of city employees.
Congratulations on making it through to retirement. That's an achievement!!
I have attractive eyes and scars on my mouth. I've been asked by four different men to marry them. Looks has nothing to do with choosing between work and marriage. Lifestyle and personality style does.
Some women work for money, others marry for money. Some women work to make their lives more interesting, some marry for that reason. A lot of women marry because they were programmed to. And some marry for love and some for convenience and some because their husband will give them attractive children. And some don't marry because they're afraid of abuse. And some don't because they had bad role models and don't know how to choose. Some are afraid of being abandoned, some are bucking the programming, and some prefer intimacy with women.
I don't think a poll could be big enough to cover all the unmarried, hard working women with all their different reasons for not marrying.
It's hard to find a particular story by Rush that doesn't say "When I'm right I'm right" He always thinks he's right. I don't believe a word of that garbage of what a woman looks like having anything to do with finding a husband. Not a good one, anyway. A man truly in the market for a good wife doesn't care if they are beautiful because they will cause him trouble while the looks are there and misery when they're gone. He doesn't care if she's the smartest woman in the world, age will erase much of that. He care more that she loves him. He doesn't care what's between her legs, that will dry up someday then what will there be to talk about. What's between her legs is the same as any other woman. They will all dry up. What is between his legs will fail. Is there enough love, strength of character and tenacity to go through the rest of life with him? A man truly in the market for a good wife only wants her to have character and tenacity enough to walk with them through life, the strength to stay with him through good times and bad, young and old correct him when he's wrong and expect the same from him. At least, that is what I was looking for when she found me.
A lot of people (most people) "always think they're right". If they didn't think they were right they'd change what they think until they DID think they were right.
It looks like there may be a cultural difference going on here, but the world is full of good men who aren't looking for a wife with the same views as you've expressed here. "Good men" are individuals. They don't all think alike. The world has lots of good men in it, and being a good man is enough "in general life". Sometimes it's not enough to make a man a good candidate for marriage, which is why a lot of career women can sometimes be more selective.
I am not quite sure what the first part meant. I have never said that I was always right, I say I am opinionated, and have been known to say that you could my opinion to Starbucks and they will still make you pay for your coffee.
All people are individuals, good or bad. That is why I said that was what I was looking for.
I have seen how career woman are more selective and make better selections. I read about them quite often. I think I went over that in my comment. I don't begrudge anybody their choices in life, I have enough of my own to get wrong, but I just can't pass a chance to speak up from time to time. On HP I get that opportunity and love it, as long as I don't hurt anybody in the process. I would never try to do that.
This a nice conversation, I like that. Thank you.
Hubert, sorry. You misunderstood what I was saying (and it's not a surprise because I know I didn't say it very well). I was just saying people-in-general "all think they're right" (because if they didn't think something was right they wouldn't believe what they do). (I was trying to joke a little there - but didn't manage to do it very well. )
what? Woman are allowed on Hubpages now too!?!?
no real women on hubpages - part of the sop or rules or, whatever!
darn, forgot all about real women - now that you mention it, hey!
I AM a real woman, darn it!
now forget I said that.
that is - only women are the REAL writers on HP - the rest of youse is all pond scum**!!
**excluding the Greek One who is awfully handy to have around!
I applaud any person who builds an honest career.
If it were a choice between marrying Rush or building a career, I would assume anyone with any sense would wish to build a career.
"Central to their argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers." I've heard this theory before, but I think it harkens back to prehistory when mankind lived in caves and women, being the ones who had the babies, needed to find a good mate who could protect and provide. It's kind of a survival of the species thing. But it has little to do with modern people. I don't think that less attractive women turn to careers because they can't get husbands. Women have choices today that past generations could hardly dream of. Almost everyone I know has both family and job or career. I have come across a few people in my life who by choice have not wanted the complications of a relationship or even a pet in their lives, in fact one of them works for me. She is young, attractive, and absolutely single minded in her committment to her career. I suppose that some people, male as well as female might feel that if they are successful in their careers and make enough money, they won't have to sucumb to anyone else's standards of attractiveness. But who can say? We are all individuals with our own purposes and reasons for the choices we make. Oh and Might Mom, if both Olivia Newton John and Katie Bates were equally qualified for the same job, I would hire Olivia hands down. Her looks and personality make me feel good and happy. I'm in the business of making over people's homes so they feel good and happy inside them. Katie Bates, as much as I respect her and love her work, intimidates me and does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Real women stay home.
Only ugly old maids work.
Then why can't the stay at home women's husbands leave working women alone?
That's a great question to ask our resident defenders of the 1950s lifestyle.
MM's answer: Because they are attracted to power -- it's the ultimate aphrodesiac.
Workmates are a much bigger challenge/conquest than the haufrau down the cul-de-sac.
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.