The Hot Career Woman (Revisited)

I am always surprised when people actually respond to my blog.  For some reason, I have this sense that, each time I publish a post, I am effectually throwing it out into cyberspace, where it is monumentally unlikely ever to be found again.  So, thank you, to those of you who not only read, but think about and reply to my ramblings.

That being said, I received one particularly staunch objection to the opinion voiced in my previous post "Illuminating Blind Spots" regarding the general rejection of the Hot Career Woman by the male population at large.  In that post, I had recalled Mr. Workfriend's explanation of why men ultimately choose gentler, more nurturing, less ambitious or accomplished women than Miss Hot Career Woman, despite insisting that they all want someone strong, independent, and intelligent.  It went something like this:

"You know, he says, I think men like the idea of a business woman, but in practice they plan too much, push things along, and have the impulse to direct the relationship -- 'Where is this going?' 'What does that mean?' -- and do a constant cost-benefit analysis.  Simpler girls tend to just let things be and are more easy-going."

Within a few hours of posting that entry, JK was on the phone to me from Cleveland -- "Mr. Workfriend is WRONG!"  I know plenty of the "less ambitious" women, she says, and they are the worst about nagging men regarding the status of the relationship and the meaning of every little thing they do.  Career women, she explains, don't have the time to indulge in the luxury of that sort of obsession.

Always open to different points of view, I bite -- "Ok, JK, what's your theory, then?"

Here is what she said:  Whether they like it or not, men need to be needed.  Logically, the Hot Career Woman makes sense.  Number one, she's hot.  Number two, she is self-reliant and doesn't need to leech money off of a man.  And, number three, she is too busy to take up all of a man's time.  Sounds great to most men.  But, in practice, men's evolutionary needs don't necessarily align with modern logic.  Historically the providers and protectors in a society, men have an innate need to be needed by their mate.  To varying degrees depending on the man, they want to be in a position to provide for and protect a woman in way she cannot for herself.  The Hot Career Woman, strong, independent, and self-reliant as she is, often defies provision and protection.  In fact, JK and I both come from failed relationships where we were the primary breadwinners.  Little Miss Hairdresser, Miss Second Grade Teacher, and Miss Perpetual Student, however, could use some providing and protecting.

When it comes down to it, JK says, men aren't happy in relationships where they don't feel like they are needed.  In other words, I say, you think all men are, to some degree, co-dependent (dependent on the dependency of another).  Not to over-generalize or anything.

I totally get where she is coming from and can see how it makes sense.  But, ever the instigator, I wonder what Mr. Workfriend has to say about this assault on his opinions...

"Well, that's a little self-serving, don't you think??"  Haha, yes, Mr. Workfriend, I suppose it is.  Not to mention, a negative reflection on your gender in general.  Mr. Workfriend went on to clarify that, most men find independence (read: doing your own thing a lot of the time) appealing if not downright sexy.  And, rather than "directive" he saw the Hot Career Woman as overly intense when it came to relationships.  Whatever she did, she did it with focus and determination.  Both are attributes that, clearly, serve her well in the working world.  But, apparently, both also send ordinary men running for the hills.  I have a feeling that Mr. Workfriend has run into a few Hot Career Women who, outside of work, focus a little too intently on their mates, which ends up coming off as neediness.  In the end, 24/7 intensity can be exhausting for both parties, so I can see Mr. Workfriend's point as well.  I am sure JK will have a response.

But, while this discussion could probably volley back and forth between the two for a while, I am going to cut it short with the simple suggestion that both are simultaneously wrong and right.  Our judgments about groups of people collectively are usually based on our personal experience with only a relatively small sample of each population.  Therefore, while our assessments may be right based on the evidence we each possess, they may be wrong as generalizations.  Not that any generalization could be right.

As much as I would love to be able to blame not getting what I want on some condition or compulsion of the male population relative to Hot Career Women, it is simply impossible (both to categorize Hot Career Women and believe that all men can be any one thing).  If there is one thing I have learned from being in New York City and observing its eclectic collection of people, it's that everyone has more than one side to them and each is more than what they seem.  We, as the population of Manhattan and as individuals, defy classification.  There are needy women with hot careers and needy women with no careers.  There are co-dependent men and independent men.  Some of us are easy-going and some of us aren't.  And, in some sense, we are all probably a little bit of all of those things.

I learn a lot from writing these blog entries, but I learn more from people's responses to them.  And, what JK and Mr. Workfriend have taught me this go-around is that there are no absolutes when it comes to people.  The best we can do is to take each person as they come and try our best not to prematurely place anyone in a box in which they do not belong.  Although, being human, we will probably never be able to let go of our tendency to generalize entirely.  It's part of how the standard brain operates.  I think that might be okay, though.  After all, one of the greatest joys in relating is the pleasant surprise of discovering a person who breaks the mold.