What Kind of Women Do Men Love?

Scripture and the Big Screen may offer some answers. 

Recently, I was mulling over the not-inaccurate stereotype of powerful men carrying on with subordinate women. Some popular forms of this trope include:

• the corporate executive who takes his secretary as a mistress
• the college professor who is sleeping with his coed grad-student assistant
• the manor lord slipping behind the curtains with the scullery maid

Then today, I saw an accurate tweet from Andrew Stratelates:

Men don’t really care if the female lead is that attractive. As long as she’s a badass. https://t.co/J0Q06pbC7N pic.twitter.com/KZlkFYU7ni

— Andrew Stratelates—Trad Anglican ⚓️ (@AStratelates) October 17, 2022

If the tweet is not visible (or deleted) Andrew responds to a post asserting that chuds only love strong female characters when they are conventionally attractive and conform to the male gaze by posting posters of Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2 and Sigourney Weaver in Aliens. In the pictures, neither woman is conventionally attractive, nor does she conform to the male gaze.

I thought, these ideas are adjacent, and told Andrew so. To which Andrew said, “Oh?”

And so it all came out that there was a lot more going on in between those two notions. The best way to explain is to go through it the same way it came to me, starting with the aforementioned, not-inaccurate stereotype. Because it is accurate, it is less a stereotype than a recognizable effect. I argue there is more than propinquity and power-dynamics at play, though. 

Take as a not-quite counterexample the Florence Nightingale Effect. There is propinquity, yes, but the power-dynamic is apparently reversed. It is the woman, the nurse, who has the upper hand in this situation, while the man convalesces. One might reflexively suggest that a different dynamic is at play. Men in the former situation are feeling their power and turning that toward sexual conquest, whereas men in the latter situation are confusing feminine care for feminine affection and thus develop a "crush."

But I say they are the very same phenomenon.

Now, a sudden change of subject for dramatic effect. Let's return to the Garden of Eden. 

Then God said: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 

Feminists hate Genesis 2:18 because it casts woman in the role of helper. (Grr! *stampy feet*) Some Bible scholars try to steer the translation away from the idea of helping, and it's not entirely misbegotten. The Hebrew word “ezer,” which is translated “helper,” carries connotations of an ally. So they lean into that. It's not bad, but what does an ally do? She helps. (grimace emoji) 

Let us pretend for a moment that God does not real and think about a lonely goatherd (lay ee odl lay ee) making up some ancient religion. He decides to start with a picture of the divine ideal (Eden). He could have gone one of two ways:

1. Make up an ideal that suits him, as a man, with women waiting on men hand and foot, etc., etc.
2. Look at the world around him, note what works and what doesn't, and imagine a world of only things that work.

To be sure, I believe that God does real, but even if I didn't, I still wouldn't be a feminist, so I think the clever goatherd would go with option 2. And I don't believe an unclever religion would enjoy the staying power of Abrahamic religion. 

If that is the case, what might an observant goatherd living in the days before corporations, universities, and manors see that appears to work reliably in regards to relations between men and women? He might possible have observed the proto-Nightingale Effect, but just as if not more likely, he would have noticed that men tend to become infatuated and fall in love with women who help them.

(Somewhere, a cantankerous, entitled, pink-haired, man-hating, feminist princess who expects to be doted upon by a 6-foot tall man drawing six-figures just put her foot through the floor.)

A helpful woman is not one who expects to be waited upon. Which is not to say that a woman should not enjoy appropriate doting from her man, as a man properly enjoys doting on his partner. A helpful woman is capable, assured, reliable, intelligent, yes, even at turns, disagreeable. For that matter, it also stands to reason that a helpful woman is neither a limp waif nor a gelatinous blob, but that's almost beside the point.

Unless you're interested in crafting believable cinematic fiction.

Which is where I make the connection. I think it is fair to say that Linda Hamilton and Sigourney Weaver are (or were) considered objects of desire in spite of their non-conformance to the male gaze, and that owes entirely to their portrayals of strong, capable women who, yes, help men.

Here, Andrew adds, “Hence why the trope is the business man and his secretary, not the business man and the playboy model.”

One might also apply this to answering the age old question, why was Captain Marvel not better received? Because, her help of others was abstracted into helping an entire alien race. To the extent that she helps specific men (Fury/Coulson) it is purely incidental. Moreover, she can help, but she is not a helper. The pager she gives to Fury at the end illustrates and underlines this. She is available when her help is needed, but she will not be around to help.

That's where I'll leave it for now. I expect to return to this line of thought again. In the meantime, you can prod me along if you leave your thoughts in the replies on Twitter or in the comments below (I'll see them sooner on Twitter).