Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
She still doesn't get it. Men aren't threatened by a woman's status.
This is the biggest lie ever to be floated out by the 'Today's Woman' crowd. Typically, men could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it - it's simply not a factor in attraction for us - we don't take a woman's status or wealth into consideration, all she has to be is hot. That is a guy's one condition for intimacy; physical attraction / sexual availability. She's gotta be hot - whether she makes six figures or is in the pit of poverty is irrelevant in attraction. Oprah and Star Jones' husbands still have to get aroused, and all the money in the world wont be any better an aphrodisiac.
The idea that a man should respect and be attracted to a woman based on her professional status is a fallacy brought to us by the same faction that sold women the 'you can have it all' lie. The main contradiction being that men want sex and determine acceptability of the opposite sex based on the physical, not status, not money, not professionalism. We reserve our estimations of other men based on these traits, so unsuprisingly it becomes counterproductive for women to expect sexual acceptability based on characteristics for which we're accustomed to evaluating our own sex with. It should also be understood that these are the same traits women use to determine their own conditions for intimacy - men are naturally attracted to feminine characteristics and women attracted to the masculine. Again, it's another attempt to force the rules of the game into a different set of conditions rather than attempting to better win the existing game by playing it better.
Status, wealth and the other rewards that result from 'professional' life are conditions women have for men in attraction. That's not to discount the importance of men being physically attractive or other attributes, but women have far more conditions for their intimacy than men, and these conditions are predicated upon characteristics that prove a man as a good provider for her and any future offspring's security. These male characteristics (or sometimes just the prospects of a man attaining them) are defined by women as having value and are therefore attractive. Attractive enough to make a man with these qualities one to be competed over with other women. Women define what is masculine, they define what male traits have value for their investment of intimacy. Men define what is feminine, they define what female traits have value for their investment of their provision of security and meeting the condition criteria women place on them for their intimacy.
Women in the professional realm would like the conditions for attraction to be predicated upon their professional status (wealth), individual merit and/or aspects, their personal integrity, and a whole list of esoteric qualities, but they still fight against men's basic impulses - she's-go-to-be-hot! If a woman is attractive, a man is more than happy to have her foot the bill regardless of comparative incomes, it's just icing on the cake for us, but this is analagous to a woman who marries a rich guy who also happens to be good looking.
The 'Today's Woman' crowd love to use this manufactured fear that men are expected to have in response to why guy's ought to be ashamed of themselves for basing their attraction of the physical by blaming it on 'men's fragile egoes' or how they 'feel threatened by professional women'. It comes down to an expectation and entitlement from their 'professionalism' that men should redefine their own criteria for attraction based on what women find attractive in the masculine. Essentially, they're expecting their status, professionalism, earning capacity and all the rewards afforded them from playing in the professional realm to become attractors for like-status males.
This ideology then grinds it's teeth at the men 'qualified' to date professional women for having a tendency to hit on women far younger, less 'powerful' and (surprise) generally in much better physical shape than the 'professional' they should be dating. For this they're called 'infantile', 'immature', or the behavior is regarded as a character flaw, or a desire to relive his youth with a 'trophy wife' - interesting that this term should come from the same faction to complain about the evils of objectifying women. All the man is doing is following his primary impulse, she has to be hot!
As most women bemoan, men have a tendency to see women as sex objects in attraction. Women have a tendency to see men as success objects. The problem with this 'professional woman' mythology is that professional women want to be success objects as well, but nature keeps confounding their efforts. Thus we get articles like this - and predictably it's women who are once again cast in the role of victim - victims of a raw deal they couldn't be expected to be able to know better about.
Now, all of that said, if a woman's choice is to enter the public realm and pursue a career in the same fashion that men have for years, more power to her. Great, you go girl, so long as they understand the responsibilities and liabilities of doing so. They should also thoughroughly understand that men will define what is attractive for them, not women, professional or otherwise.
