Wander Woman

I really would love to agree but i am afraid this piece is simply over optimistic. Women are trained to say a mans earning power means nothing just like we men are trained to say looks aren't important. As a financially successful man I have watched dear friends be shot down time and time again. These are hard working men who are loving and supportive be kicked to the curb for a guy driving a nicer car. I was lucky to find a financial equal who sees money the same way as me. Modern culture tells us we must be pc with our desires, but we are still shaped by instinct even if we aren't ruled by it. Women still want a strong provider even if it does not logically make sense considering her income. This is not an accusation against women just a reality of biology. Just ask short guys how many dates they get...some biological factors are strong and kicking no matter what we say.
This is not to say many women cannot or do not love men who make less than them. But courting women is still the single biggest drain on a mans finance and to an extent self selective. Your used to the ritz and on your first holiday together he wants to stay at the motel 6, it will change your view of him.

I had always thought I was different as I cherished my autonomy more than anything. I hadn't been brought up thinking that a financially secure man was my ticket to security - rather, I had been encouraged to cultivate my own passions. I travelled the world and obtained an doctorate degree - and then bam. I was in my early 30's and met my match, and we both knew that we were in trouble. He was medical doctor early in his career and married to a sweet woman who never questioned his superiority. I was the cheeky know-it-all young medical researcher who took great pleasure in stomping on his inflated ego. We studiously avoided each other for the first couple of years - sometimes colliding with intended accidents. There is something real about relationships that develop out of the realm of fulfilling basic needs but are more about mutual wants and compatibility. During this time he later told me that his home life had been falling apart. He and his wife had gone to marriage counselling to try to restimulate a spark that wasn't ever really there. There had only been need - his need for the alpha male family life - and her need to fulfill that niche for him. A year after their divorce is the first time we stopped running away from each other. The rest has been history. It's been 10 years since we have been living as partners - equal but different on many levels. One thing we've never been is bored with the eccentricities of the other.

A truly insightful article, thank you very much! What a relief to find I am not a weird exception to genetically pre-determined role rules! I'm happy to have a husband that wants nothing else from me than to be my own self while I feel like I have it all: career, motherhood and family. If women are not deprived of their own pecuniary resources like they have been for centuries, they do not care about obtaining them from a man, it is other relationship qualities that they value.

I agree to a large extent with this article. I am currently in a post-divorce relationship with someone I feel is my equal and it's heaven! There's love, respect, emotional bonding and a deep sense of reciprocity between us that I was not always able to find in other men. Then again, my "needs" have changed now that I am 40, divorced, have my own children and have become financially stable as a corporate shareholder.

In the early days, when I was looking for a husband and a father for my children, I prided myself on loving a man for his qualities, not what kind of car he drove. But I cannot lie when I say I was probably also looking for security. I didn't have a very good paying job and I wanted to be able to stay home and raise my children. My needs were completely different than they are now, which, I believe is what the article lacks. If there's a financial need, or a need to reproduce, we are driven more by our biology. But when there is no need to make babies or be taken care of, we have the pleasure of looking for someone who meets are emotional needs. Even though we are still animals and respond deeply to our biology, we are also logical and can move beyond meeting our animal-needs.

But it's still true she will more than likely get the kids, house, alimony and child support if there is a divorce.

You want a truly egalitarian marriage? Lobby hard to make Family Law gender-neutral. Without that change, women are just pretending they want equality.

I note that sex is not mentioned at all in the article. This is a rather important aspect of relationships to be so ignored. Perhaps in the author's age group, companionship is more important and it seems that is the goal of the article--to describe a relationship that is perfect for "companionship" goals. I suggest the sex in such a relationship is infrequent and tepid after a few years and this model is unworkable for the younger age groups.

...research concludes again and again that the more successful a woman is the more successful she wishes her mate to be. If she surpasses him in earnings and status, she will become dissatisfied emotionally, grow distant, and move on. Or accept the commitment from the beta male and cuckold him (cheating with a more dominant male and then tricking the beta male into raising that child).

So are men threatened by successful women? Yes--and for good reason. Our ancestors who were not threatened by successful women did not do as well at passing on their genes.

But the human brain adapts--and in an environment where high-status males are very scarce, like the current economy, it seems plausible that women would lower expectations and begin to select mates from different criteria (emotional compatibility, etc.). Though, as has been pointed out in these comments, this does not lessen the INHERENT value placed on money, success, status, and social dominance by women. Just the luxury of doing so.

What makes the author's premise tough to swallow for many women, I think, is that if a woman is marriage-minded, the pool of high income men is shrinking by the month. "High income male" is the same as "candidate for offshoring" in today's economy.

But think outside of the box for a moment: what if one doesn't have to be legally joined at the hip to have a partner? In other words, just bypass the marriage question?

Then, choices for both genders become much more natural and much more pleasant. Is this person someone I enjoy being with right now? Is he/she basically a good person? Sans marriage, those are the questions to ask.

Happily, I think that's the way our society is heading. With luck we'll become more like the Scandinavian countries, where marriage is rare, and both men and women are happier than in the U.S. I'm sure that once we've moved to a post-marital society and look around, we'll wonder why it took us so long.

Hmm... So the male species is still threatened by successful women and a husband being in sync emotionally with his wife somehow makes him a beta male? A lot of these posts look like self fullfilling prophecy to me.

The gender tier is a pyramid gentleman and there isn't much room at the top for Alpha males. If you believe in these out-dated relationship restrictions it can only be because these restrictions are infact part of your own personal reality. Guess what that makes you? At best a beta male if you're lucky. Men like you are incredibly easy to spot by Alpha males. You have your chests sticking out, you walk side by side with other betas in groups like pack animals, and you try to make up for your lack of substance by giving in to the "Macho Paradox."

I am an Alpha male and I say that with utmost certainty. My wife makes more money than I and I am not in the least bit threatened. Height, good looks, an "alpha cock", will go a long way but even more important are ethics, honor, respect, compassion, and other core traits that women look for in a man. If you find a women that is more interested in your financial status than any of these qualities then you found yourself, once again, at best a beta female.

Marcia, this is a wonderful article and it's wonderful to see others who see the picture and simply just get it. Relationships were never meant to have shackles, limits, and labels. This is where we are headed. Accept it or get out of the way because the generations after you are already there.

Women don't need to be rescued, but i bet they still appreciate someone standing beside them during the good and the bad. I was raised to see that as what a marriage is, and even though I am a gay man, I still think partnerships should work that way. You can take turns being the "strong one" and nurture each other. It's more satisfying that way.

Of course...that's the ideal, the desires of a professional women...we all long for this type of relationships & compatibility...but truth also is that...men (still) feels threatened by successful women. Well, that could be cultural or simple biology-whatever it is...Men, NOT all women are longing for financial interests/status more than other core traits. Real/Healthy relationships are NOT about Who is stronger? or better? is about understanding each others needs, being able to fulfill them by complementing each other rightly without comparing each other's strengths & weaknesses. C'mon! it's not a contest, it's a mutual support thing....etc. etc.

Early in our marriage, my spouse felt a strong desire to start having kids and be the primary caretaker - so I become the "king", and primary breadwinner, though I was very involved in raising the children as well. No problem.

Later, she became very career-oriented, rising fast in her new office. With a more flexible schedule I made career sacrifices and took on the bulk of the child-care. So, I guess I was the "knight" then. Again, no problem.

Either way I was proud to be able to support her, or give our family what we needed. Both were stressful. Oh well.

The problem was that this happened virtually overnight. No, actually the two actually overlapped - she was eager to grow our family at the very same time she was driven to be career-centered. I remember wondering: what happened? It was chaotic and stressful for everyone.

A king or a knight? I can live with either. What I don't want to be is pawn.

You brilliantly articulated what I know is out there and just have not found.... yet! I see by some of the above posts, society is still raging against what works for many and what is "normal". I applaud you for being courageous in stepping outside societies comfort zone and into your own, then sharing it. May many women and men be encouraged by this. Thank you Marcia.

The point raised about alimony and child support are good ones. If women are so interested in being bread winners why are so many men financially ruined by marriage. Divorce law needs to be completely overhauled if there is to be true equality of the sexes.

Further we were fine with taking care if women financially for 10k years... I'll take care of the house put out whenever you like and you will save a ton of money on jewelery.

I read the article and I agree with the premise, times are changing and there are SOME women like that. However, lets not deluded ourselves.

I have been on both sides, a emotionally available and supportive man ( read that as poor) and my dating prospects were okay, because I crossed the mythical six foot barrier and I am not completely unfortunately looking. Fast forward, to being a successful business owner, my dating prospects EXPLODED!!

The offers for sex increased ten fold, so anyone saying that women are going to go for an emotional available, loving , supportive, man versus an arrogant, financially solid, sexually aggressive male is in for a rude , cold awakening.

We are not going to get away from women looking for a man to provide, lead and protect any time soon, sure there are many women capable of loving a man based on his core valuables and outlook on life, they are not the majority of women. Even the women that are this evolved still struggle with the concept!

As it has posted more than once, if women were truly interested in gender equality they would be lining up to see the divorce laws changed with the same vigor and veracity they did in the women's movement, which is not even close to happening.

The real problem here is women have the choice to be "equal" or not to be equal, this is inherently *unequal* for men it is a one way street and until that changes nothing changes. Great article, I do hope this catches on it would be better for all around.

Continuing with the archetypes... A man who is a King is typically older than a man who is the Knight. If the woman identifies with the Queen instead of the Damsel in distress, then the relationship you're talking about here is between an older woman and younger man, no?

I'm 46 and men my age are acting like Kings (or wannabes). Somebody I was interested in at first showed later he couldn't be vulnerable with me. Emotional connection won't happen if both parties cannot be vulnerable. But younger men can and will acknowledge their emotional vulnerability if given the opportunity.

So, here's to younger men!

Unfortunately, all the men I've ever been seriously involved with were beta male types (including 2 failed marriages) and I'm making a specific point to avoid men like that in the future!

I think betas are drawn to me mainly because they want to "be" me at some level--they feel the relationship would raise their own stature. My exes both started out being "beta knights" but they then morphed into being jealous and resentful and undermining towards me. Both guys ended up acting self-destructively and irrationally while at the same time being hypercritical towards every thing I did. They totally melted down--it was like their ego couldn't take it. For example, my ex complained in our divorce papers that my putting our kids into daycare proved I was a bad mom, while at the same time he ranted about how I was lazy and should spend more time working if I expected to succeed in my job and about how I was just about to be fired etc. He was trying to convince the judge that he knew something about my job, that he had some kind of authority in my career area, which he obviously didn't, so he just made himself look like a fool. Also it was so bizarre because I was actually very successful in my career. And why would the judge care about that in a divorce case anyway? I didn't even have to defend myself in court--he just sounded like a lunatic and I was embarrassed for him, and the judge went "OK, then!" and they just continued the proceedings. He still sometimes calls up my department chair (I'm a professor) to try to spread dirt about me but they just hang up on him and laugh about it. I still don't understand it but my first marriage ended up similarly--with my ex viciously and ungroundedly criticizing my career in an over the top manner to everyone we knew.

And no, I'm not a rhymes with witch--I'm actually quiet and not very assertive, a good homemaker and mother too, and I was a very good wife to both guys (cooked, took care of the extended family too etc, and I was faithful while they were not--I left them both because they had affairs). I also happen to be smart and successful at my high powered career--which apparently was just too much for them.

So no, I think I need an alpha guy, at least in the sense that he's secure in himself and he has his own accomplishments in life. I think a beta guy still usually wants to dominate the relationship and if he can't, he's gonna get nasty sooner or later.