Saturday, May 17, 2008
Andrew Hacker talks about his new book "Mismatch" and why women are so fed up with the opposite sex.
Mar 12, 2003 | Andrew Hacker has tackled some of America's toughest issues. He analyzed the unbalanced distribution of wealth in "Money: Who Has It and Why" and explored the massive schism between blacks and whites in "Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, and Unequal." In his new book, "Mismatch: The Growing Gulf Between Women and Men," Hacker takes on yet another thorny topic: the gender wars.
Men, take cover. "Mismatch" is loaded with numbers, most of which back up Hacker's rather disconcerting analysis of the gap between women's expectations of men and what men actually have to offer them. According to Hacker's research, women seem to have left men far behind: They are better educated, more successful at work, and far more interested in building an equal romantic partnership.
Hacker, a professor of political science at Queens College in New York, spoke with Salon about the politics of golf, why women are more likely to file for divorce, and why men won't watch "Masterpiece Theatre."
Why did you write a book about men, women and relationships?
Well, I had already dealt with race, which is central to American life, and then I looked at wealth and the distinction between the haves and the have-nots. Now I'm tackling the other big division in American life, which is between women and men. Women are now moving ahead in ways that were never anticipated in terms of position, power, income. And this is a challenge in our society because men are not ready for it. I thought this was a topic worth investigating.
What were the similarities and what were the differences in the schism between blacks and whites, verses the schism between men and women?
My book on race was called "Two Nations." I argued that blacks and whites essentially live apart from each other. Men and women do not live apart from each other -- they share the same homes, the same beds. They are -- and I'm sure this phrase has been used elsewhere -- "intimate enemies." In the past, marriage was based on the fact that the husband was No. 1 and the wife was No. 2, and her job was to support him psychologically and emotionally. She was supposed to cheer his accomplishments, commiserate when he had setbacks, console him when he had failures. Today, women are not willing to do that.
Are you married?
I was married for 43 blissful years. My wife passed away five years ago. And my daughter has been married for 13 years, which I think is a good sign. But we were watching friends and acquaintances getting divorced over the years. They were my "data" in many ways. How it happened, who initiated it, what the consequences were, all of it.
Women are less likely to remarry after divorce, but do you think that this makes them unhappy?
Well, I would only say this: There's a double standard. A man who is 50 has more options than a woman of the same age. When there is a split, he can choose someone in her 20s, 30s, 40s. And women just don't have that choice. In the book I call it "differential depreciation" -- the double standard which posits that women will depreciate at a faster rate than men. Women who are older are perceived as being of less worth. How to change this? I wish I knew.
How old are you?
Oh, let's just say I'm over 65. But I still bike to work at Queens College every day!
It has been suggested that marriage is an antiquated institution, based on an economic relationship that is no longer relevant. Is it possible that society is outgrowing marriage?
That's a fair question. Certainly women are no longer willing to give up what they used to have to give up in order to be married. In the age of our grandparents, even some of our parents, women were willing to settle for being No. 2. Today, women are not willing to settle for that. And men don't seem to have caught up to women's new expectations.
But let's say definitions of manhood are changing. Let's say I think of a man as someone who is dependable and solid, a partner, someone who listens. Aren't these things that men are perfectly capable of giving, even if the economic balance is shifting?
If I may say so, you are feminizing a man by wanting him to listen or participate in intimate conversation. Honestly, you're more likely to get what you're looking for from your girlfriends than from a man. You might even get it from a gay guy who is very adept at listening to women. But most men don't listen to women, even in the 2003.
I did a little experiment once. I got a group of men -- young guys with girlfriends -- and a group of girls who had boyfriends, and paid them 20 dollars to sit in a room for an hour or two. I had the guys write down everything they knew about their girlfriends, and the girls write down everything they knew about their boyfriends. The girls sat there for two hours, filling up whole exam books. The guys? After 20 minutes they had nothing more to say. They could barely fill up a page.
Get Salon in your mailbox!
