The old myth that educated women are less marriageable? False!
By 1996, intelligence and education had moved up to No. 5 on men’s ranking of desirable qualities in a mate. The desire for a good cook and housekeeper had dropped to 14th place, near the bottom of the 18-point scale. The sociologist Christine B. Whelan reports that by 2008, men’s interest in a woman’s education and intelligence had risen to No. 4, just after mutual attraction, dependable character and emotional stability.
The result has been a historic reversal of what the economist Elaina Rose calls the “success” penalty for educated women. By 2008, the percentage of college-educated white women ages 55 to 59 who had never been married was down to 9 percent, just 3 points higher than their counterparts without college degrees. And among women 35 to 39, there was no longer any difference in the percentage who were married.
African-American women are less likely to marry than white women overall, but educated black women are considerably more likely to marry than their less-educated counterparts. As of 2008, 70 percent of African-American female college graduates had married, compared with 60 percent of high school graduates and just 53 percent of high school dropouts.
One reason educated heterosexual women may worry about their marriage prospects today is that overall marriage rates have been slipping since 1980. But they have slipped less for educated women than for anyone else. Furthermore, college-educated women, once they do marry, are much less likely to divorce. As a result, by age 30, and especially at ages 35 and 40, college-educated women are significantly more likely to be married than any other group. And according to calculations by the economist Betsey Stevenson, an educated woman still single at age 40 is much more likely to marry in the next decade than her less educated counterparts.
It’s good news that men now rank characteristics like “intelligence” more highly than they rank characteristics that basically boil down to “willing to serve my every need.” It’s also good news, in my opinion, that people are marrying later — not just because later marriages are more stable, but because I’m a fan of the “taking a lot of time to figure yourself out” life plan. Which of course doesn’t necessarily exclude a partner, and plenty of women marry young and have great marriages that allow them deeper self-exploration. But I suspect that’s the exception rather than the rule.
Coontz also points out that engrained sexism impacts women, too, and a lot of us want men who are more traditionally successful than we are:
Yet when the journalist Liza Mundy interviewed young women for her forthcoming book on female breadwinners, she found that most wanted a mate they could “look up to” or “admire” — and didn’t think they could admire a man who was less educated than they were. During a talk I recently gave to a women’s group in San Francisco, an audience member said, “I want him to respect what I know, but I also want him to know just a little more than me.” One of my students once told me, “it’s exciting to be a bit in awe of a guy.”
In reading that, though, I recognize myself to a point. Of course I want a partner who I look up to and admire. Of course I want someone who I am in awe of. Of course I want someone who knows more than I do about certain things. The difference is that I don’t necessarily attach that to education, and finding a man who is more educated than I am is not a priority. And ideally, I want a man who I think is smarter than me — and a man who thinks I’m smarter than him.
I’m getting close to finishing a PhD, and my husband has a Bachelor’s and a teaching credential. Obviously, he must be planning to divorce me as soon as I defend.
Well, in reality, he thinks thinks it’s cool that I’ve gone so far with my education. Meanwhile, there are plenty of areas where he knows a lot more than I do. And I admire for his plethora of great qualities, not least of which is being genuinely progressive. I think that similar values are more necessary for a happy marriage than anything else.
Oh, and if he had ranked housekeeping skills anywhere on his list, we wouldn’t be married. We’re both total slobs, but we’re equally lazy about housework, so neither of us is bitter about doing the lion’s share of household chores.
I would hope to admire my partner, not as smarter or more educated or more successful than me, but as person possessing admirable characteristics.
Further, it is important to me that I can learn from my partner, that I be challenged by him/her, that I grow and expand as a person through knowing them.
I hope that my partner benefits in the same ways from knowing me.
This means that I want a partner who is equally smart as me, but perhaps educated and experienced and passionate in different ways.
That rather than being the same or off-balance, that we be complementary and balanced forces together.
Austensplaining:
“Lizzy, I know that you could be neither happy nor respectable unless you truly esteemed your husband – unless you looked up to him as a superiour. Your lively talents would place you in the greatest danger in an unequal marriage. You could scarcely escape discredit and misery. My child, let me not have the grief of seeing you unable to respect your partner in life.”
It sounds as if Mr Bennet and Ms Jill aren’t actually all that far apart once one reconciles his first two sentences. I can see both halves of his Avoid My Mistake advice being taken as the whole.
I would really look forward to the day when there would be significant comparable data about same-sex married couples, but I suspect that soon we’ll have to get all such data from Europe.
“Of course I want a partner who I look up to and admire. Of course I want someone who I am in awe of. Of course I want someone who knows more than I do about certain things. The difference is that I don’t necessarily attach that to education, and finding a man who is more educated than I am is not a priority.”
Yup. “Education” does not equal “smart”. Sure, sometimes it does, but not always. Some of the most brilliant people I know have never graduated from college, and some of the dullest, stupidest people I know have multiple post-graduate degrees.
Really, I think that just saying something like “Only marry someone who you love, like, and admire” pretty much covers it.
Read the comments on the article. They are more illuminating than the stupid article itself. Especially the woman who asks, “so when are you going to write an article on what life is really like for women with PhDs?”. In physics, 20% of PhDs now go to women, but the number of professorships has plataeued in recent years at 5%. That’s right, plenty of qualified women. No jobs. That old boys’ club is scared shitless that we might one day pass that critical mass, where they actually have to acknowledge our existence. So this article is effing bullshit. What the men really mean is that they don’t want some total airhead in the kitchen. But if you really want to talk PhDs … go ask some women for the real facts. I can assure you, men would still prefer that we did not exist.
Two points:
1) The type of man who prefers ‘his woman’ uneducated and dependent is probably the same type of person it would generally be a good idea not to go out with in the first place (because, seriously, gross). That said, as commenters have noted above, the variability in what people find important in a romantic partner is huge, and that’s ok. Personally, I really don’t care about a college education, but I know from experience that I absolute need to be with someone who can hold their own in an argument, because otherwise I lose interest.
2) Let’s not pretend there aren’t serious class factors in the ability to obtain an education in and of itself.
“Look up to” sounds so hierarchical. Why not have a mutual admiration society?
Intelligence and achievement aren’t zero sum games. It’s not like one partner’s brilliance takes away from the other’s.
Obviously unintentional (and perhaps unwelcome), but this dovetails quite nicely with what Charles Murray is asserting at the moment.
If you read the comments, beware of MRAs, Nice Guys™, and “Famblee Valy00z” morons.
Oh, this. Mr. Shoshie and I are both smart in different areas. In some, I’m smarter than him and in others, he’s smarter than me. It more-or-less evens out. We’re both over-educated smarty-pants nerds, but I don’t feel challenged by his achievement in computer science and he doesn’t feel challenged by my achievement in chemistry. And because we’re both over-educated smarty-pants nerds, we enjoy learning from each other about our respective fields.
I agree on the “he should be smarter regarding certain topics” thing, it’s exactly like that with my man – he is a “typical” computer and tech nerd, whereas I am deeply interested in the humanities. (He studies computer science -I think that’s what it’s called in English-, I study English philology -As a German- and comparitive literature.) We both have a basic interest in the topics of the other person – enough to enjoy summaries and explanations, but not enough to take the field up oneself. I’m very lucky.
Cluisanna, you are not lucky, just deluded. CompSci (in which I have worked) is one of the most sexist fields on earth.
Um, wtf? So I am deluded (ableist, btw) because I am happy about my boyfriend, which I shouldn’t be, since all IT men are sexist? What? I thought there were no men-hating feminists, but this comes awfully close.
[...] day or two ago I was reading a post over at Feministe that sought to dispel the myth that well educated women were less desirable to men and [...]
I found this post so interesting. This idea that some women would still prefer their male partners to be more intelligent and somehow ‘better’ than themselves, despite some of the progress we have made towards equality.
It inspired me to write my own post on the subject, so thank you. Perhaps I could leave a link so that women who would like to explore this topic further can do so?
I have written about it here: http://www.gappytales.com/2012/02/trading-up-relationships-and-intelligence.html Feel free to comment if you have something to add to the conversation. I love hearing other peoples points of view.
Once I sift out the MRAs, not-so nices, devotees of sociopathic sexism, and RWNJs, I find myself totally in awe of men who can tear a car down and rebuild it. Specialized knowledge is always interesting.
Imma get a little nitpicky, but why is being ‘marriageable’ equated with being okay?
That wording plays into the idea that our worth as women is tied into our ability to settle down and get married.
“But that requires ditching the Lois Lane syndrome, where we ignore the attractions and attention of Clark Kent because we’re so eager for the occasional fly-by from Superman. ”
Louis Lane eventually fell in love and married Clark Kent. For him being Clark Kent, not Superman. Perhaps we aren’t doing so bad.
“Louis Lane eventually fell in love and married Clark Kent. ”
Best typo of the week. Happy Valentine’s Day, Louis & Clark.
Kea, don’t be an ass. A field having a reputation for sexism does not mean that every single person in that field is sexist. You having a bad experience with sexism in a field does not mean that every single person in that field is sexist. You don’t get to judge other people’s relationships, especially based on a stranger’s internet post. Also, there’s nothing wrong with couples having different or complementary interests–there is a problem when other people try to dictacte what those interests should be.
Ah, yes, clearly this other poster you have never met is suffering from a mental illness (bonus points for abelist fucktardery, by the way) because she enjoys the company of someone who works in a field you dislike. And every single person who studies computers, ever, is evil.
This is probably a nit-picky and stupid point for me to be making, and possibly also offensive, but I feel the need to make it anyway. I don’t like Kea’s dismissive condesension, but how is using the word “deluded” ableist? In my opinion, we all suffer from delusions of one kind or another. But we’re not all disabled. Being delusional is the norm, not the exception. I know psychiatry has traditionally associated delusion with only certain people, but when I look at how they actually define it, I can’t see it being limited just to people suffering from certain conditions. Delusion is basically defined as any rigid belief held with certainty that is actually false or at least highly unlikely. But the vast majority of us have a great many rigid, certain beliefs that are probably also false. Most of us are just too deluded to realize the extent of our delusion (including mental health professionals). So to me, having delusions is not a disability but rather the human norm, like the capacity to breathe or shit.
Kea is clearly in the wrong for many reasons, but using ‘fucktardery’ isn’t exactly a stellar example of non-ableism.
I would very much like to buy the comic book featuring Louis Lane and Clark Kent getting married.
LotusBen,
I imagine the use of ‘deluded’ as a slur could be considered ableist against the non-neurotypical whose conditions manifest themselves in delusional thinking, eg paranoid schizophrenics.
There’s a fair difference between a chemical imbalance causing delusions and someone just being willfully ignorant.
I don’t think Kea’s use of deluded fits here either way since even though the computer sciences do have rampant sexism, this doesn’t mean EVERYONE involved with them (including Cluisanna’s partner) is absolutely definitely sexist.
@Cluisanna, I have found similar awesome equality within my marriage. We’re both about equally educated, and we’re both really good at what we do, but the things we do are very different skillset. I can admire him for his mad skillz, he can admire me for mine, and we can enjoy doing things together that we’re both good at. Or, sometimes, bad at but enjoy anyway (see: cooking, playing softball, dancing). Admiration and awe of our partners don’t need to be set up in such a way that one partner is a smarty-pants breadwinner, and the other drools over hir awesomeness in a lobsided way. Two can drool, I say!
Also: wtf Kea?
[...] http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/02/13/some-women-actually-doing-ok/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
OK Andie, that makes sense. Thanks for the response.
[Imma get a little nitpicky, but why is being ‘marriageable’ equated with being okay?
That wording plays into the idea that our worth as women is tied into our ability to settle down and get married.]
And, of course, to men.
I don’t particularly want to live to be as old as my grandfather, who can complete his century this spring, but if I do, I’ll be very curious to see whether it turns out that the main predictor of happiness among married F/F couples is housework.
@ Douglas- I wouldn’t be totally surprised if it were, or at least if it were in the top five. I *know* the top predictors of happiness in roommate situations is housework being shared in a mutually agreeable manner, and since it’s such a big factor in marriages, I think it’s highly important in *all* situations where two or more people share a living space. The only difference I could see with married F/F couples would be a nice absence of cultural baggage mucking the whole thing up (like what we see in M/F couples).
For discussion’s sake, I say this as a woman living in a roomie situation with four men (shared single family home, separate bedrooms). I’m the messiest of the lot, and boy did they let me know when they were P.O.d about the dishes piling up…
@Kea
Am I a bad human being for reading your comment as comp sci being one of the SEXIEST fields on earth? Oh yeah, C++ me in your USB port! XD
[...] This article has support that this statement is definitely a myth. One of the evidence says “By 1996, intelligence and education had moved up to No. 5 on men’s ranking of desirable qualities in a mate. The desire for a good cook and housekeeper had dropped to 14th place, near the bottom of the 18-point scale.” If you compare it to back in the day, men did not want their wife outside the house away from household chores (unfortunately in other countries this is still true,) but now men are attracted to women who are setting forth on getting a degree. Even some parents promote to their children of finding and marrying a mate who has graduated from college with a title. However, education shouldn’t always associate with intelligence because there are some people who are smart and successful without finishing school. [...]
Um. There’s a difference between being turned on and enthralled by how awesome a new partner is (or by how exciting it is to rediscover the depths of knowledge and competencies in a current one) and thinking your partner is actually smarter than you. The former contributes to healthy relationship energy, the latter is really screwed up for a multitude of reasons. I sincerely hope the latter expression is simply a vagueness in semantics.