The hunter and the hunted

Reading Susan Cheever's Louisa May Alcott: A Personal Biography, I came upon this quote:

"If marriage is a woman's goal, her primary job is to make herself attractive to men. A look at clothes and advice we give young girls makes it clear that attracting a man who will be a provider is still one of the major jobs a young woman has in our culture. We give them Barbie dolls and makeup. We tell them to be calm and quiet and to remember that men are predatory hunters so that successful women must pretend to be tantalizing, elusive prey."

This is all quite true, unfortunately. My question, however, is how much of this, the seemingly unidirectional aim of young women toward marriage (or just a relationship) is a natural inclination? Is it a lingering survival instinct? And is there anything wrong with a young woman wanting simply to get married and have babies?

I'm not talking about myself, but I've heard a few girls say that her goal was to set up her life for a husband and children. My gut reaction is Oh my goodness, what's wrong with her? Although I do look forward to that part of my life, I also really want to achieve things like getting a book published and getting articles accepted at national women's magazines. Some of the girls I've known who have said such things about their life goals seem to have very few other passions.



Another thought: What of young boys?

Almost from the time we shoot out of the womb, girls are taught that love is most important (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, etc) and that we must be what men want. While it seems, based on previous posts and conversations with men, that the modern man is being held against a higher standard -- but it seems to me this is only done in the dating world when, presumably, men are no longer as malleable.

Isn't it only fair that as young women are taught to be docile and to dress sexy, that boys are taught to be caring and considerate and all the other things that would make them good partners and husbands?

The reason, it seems to me, that society puts such an emphasis on molding young girls into the perfect woman is for the purpose of the survival of the race. This may be considered admirable by some, but, considering Cheever's words on the subject, it's like women must be cunning enough to catch themselves a man, but men are given the credit of being the hunter. Yet, when a man and woman fail to get together, society generally assigns the blame to the woman.

Now, I don't mean to blame today's man. It seems that at least some men today are generally confused by the slight power shift between the sexes (where women now make known what they want and won't settle for less) and don't know how to be what women want -- which brings me around to this: While young women are taught to be "tantalizing, elusive prey," women aren't just settling for the first hound dog that sniffs them out. In fact, we're over dogs. We expect better. If we're supposed to do this and that to captivate men, they have to do a little more than they've done.

So perhaps we're in the process of shifting the entire system so that power will eventually rest entirely with women.

And yet! I've known plenty of young women who have wished for guys to take control and be the hunter they've been told to expect. When I was younger, I asked out many a boy and was turned down by almost all of them. Finally, I got tired of making the moves and prayed for a guy who would take the initiative. Very few have.

Honestly, I don't know what the dating-mating world is headed for. I can only guess and remark on the current system as I've experienced it.