Benjamin vs. Benjamins: is it really either-or?

So last week, NYT ran an article called:  "Keeping Romance Alive in the Age of Female Empowerment".  That was the high point.


The article goes on to describe how economically successful women seem unable to "catch" men who find their financial independence sexy, describes several such relationships in which men talk about the indignities of being the lesser earner of the pair (when he checks in to the sweet hotel room that his girlfriend booked for the two of them, he's insulted that they call him by her last name).  It then goes on to give WOMEN some advice about how to get past their $$$ and find ways to avoid making men feel threatened by their success.  It has gems like "success isn't sexy" and this one:
“Men don’t want successful women, men want to be admired,” she said. “It’s important to them that the woman is full of energy at night and not playing with her BlackBerry in bed.” 

I have two chief complaints with this article.  1.) it paints this as something that is a problem for women (i.e. bank account envy is their challenge to overcome) instead of an awesome opportunity to reach a new paradigm of "romance" and good relationship, rather than requiring: "an assortment of behavioral contortions aimed at keeping the appearance of traditional gender roles intact."  Dear NYT editor, you could have spun this around and said, Guys--think about this--it's a GOOD thing if your girlfriend has a "snazzy" car, can afford to whisk you off for a fun weekend out of town, and take you out for a swank dinner.  That means you get to do more fun things!!  I fail to see the downside and am really irritated that the article chose instead to highlight whiny, insecure guys with women they don't deserve as a defense for outdated (and sexist) expectations.

 Also I think guys deserve more credit.  They are capable of defining themselves in non-monetary terms.  And in being impressed by women.  There are certainly the ones that are intimidated by money, or just raw ambition, intelligence, or toughness for that matter, but there are also the ones that like a partner that can challenge them, negotiate squarely, and approach them on equal terms.  There's a quote from Atlas Shrugged that I like a lot about this sentiment:
"A man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself... The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless sl*t."

Time magazine reports that there is increasingly an expectation that both partners should be "providers", complemented by the increasing trend of married women working outside the household (or in additional to inside the household, which is still often the case).   In 40% of households, women are in fact the primary breadwinner!

NYT, please encourage women to be heroines and men (and women) to love them for it. 


Feministing's take on the article worth a read too (nice use of SomeECards as well).  They bring up the fact that there's not really any evidence that this is a trend; it's just convenience sample that makes it sound like a phenomena.  Slate's had some good articles on this recently too.  And, TIME magazine has a nice piece about the modern woman, comparing that to what the term meant in the early 1970s.