Choosing between career and family unfair? davidk in hollywood

Maureen Dowd makes some interesting points about career women, dating, and men in today's New York Times. She points out the frustrating catch-22 that apparently snags more and more women each year: the more successful the woman is professionally, the prospects of her retaining a man and a family are diminished. That sucks, and I mean that in the most sincere way possible, because I love smart, ambitious women, and I agree with her assessment that our society could stand some female dominance. But she also mentions the statistics indicating the compromises professional women make and that "yet again, men have an unfair advantage." What follows is a (minor) rant on this specific comment... the rest of what Dowd says I basically agree with, and I am completely, enthusiastically for smart women, women who have careers, and women who have careers and babies. Life is not fair. In fact, if you want to really enumerate the ways in which you are, have been, or will be screwed by some accident of circumstance, chemistry, physics, or biology, you'll be busy for quite some time. That there should be some outrage over what really comes down to a frustration of desire in the face of limited time and short-sighted men is absurd. There are two sexes among humans. Individuals of different gender are mostly the same, but due to the presence or absence of key anatomy, glands, and hormones, they often behave in ways that are different from each other. Due to these differences, they each do some things better or differently than the opposite sex does. That's just how it works. If this news is at all surprising, maddening, or in any other way disturbing, please take it up with the eukaryotes and stop heaping all this responsibility on men alone. I have a Y chromosome and am missing the second X that Maureen Dowd has. Is it unfair that I'm unable to bear children? Or, to more closely mirror the argument, should I be displeased about the professional compromises I would have to make if I were to decide to become a full-time house husband? Or outraged that society will treat me differently (and it will, in different degrees, depending on the community in which I live) because I, as a man, choose to put on an apron and play with the kids while mom is working all day at the office? Or ticked that in order to get laid I actually have to show some personality, wit, and income, rather than simply be skinny and show a little skin? Only in a gay bar. As a rejoinder to Dowd's "yet another," I'd like to ask her what her response would be to billions of men who have no choice but to suck it up, buckle down, and grind for 20, 30, 40, 50 years and then croak many years, on average, before their mate does the same and find it unfair. The same social and biological pressures that drive men to be the economic and physical support in their relationships are the same ones that lead to their early demise. Do the "lost" child-bearing/raising years in a woman's career make up for this? There are expectations that people have about the roles men and women take in society, much of it hearkening back to those early days when the Ys started to take advantage of testosterone, and the Xes began picking the Y that would best be able to yield good offspring. For us human men, desirability is also a matter of being able to provide support and stability for the S.O. and the kids. Just what is a man supposed to do when he encounters a woman who is smarter than he is and makes more money than he does? There's 3 million years of history sitting on his shoulder telling him "you're not needed here." All that's left to give is love and affection, but there are a lot of messages -- many of them probably myth, but no less powerful because of it -- telling the man that it's a feminine impulse and role. Why wouldn't he move on to a more comfortable relationship? Dowd accurately describes the reaction as "atavistic" -- because it is deep-seated, and indeed, unfair to chalk it up merely to male chauvinism. I don't see this fundamental "unfairness" changing so long as men get the muscles and women bear the children. In the mean time, I see nothing wrong with the exchange of duties and roles among the sexes -- more men discovering the challenge of raising children, more women exploring the joys of corporate servitude. Ultimately though, I think Dowd's comment can be distilled to, "you can't do everything." That's too bad, but that's life. Personally, I'm only slightly intimidated by women more successful than I am (and there are a lot of 'em). I think it's really attractive, but I must admit there's a small component of my emotional response that says "and what have you done with your life lately." It's not a turn-off, but it is a trigger of self-reflection, which isn't always altogether pleasant. Now, if it were Maureen Dowd, I'd toss those niggling fears to the wind. She's smart, successful, and cute. That's sexy.