Marrying for love or money?

New York Times columnist John Tierney thinks chicks better lower their standards or they'll end up alone.

Published January 3, 2006 11:35PM (EST)

Broadsheet was going to do a line-by-line rebuttal of John Tierney's column today -- if you missed it, the gist was that educated women are going to end up alone and unmarried if the numbers of men in higher education don't increase -- but it was just too tiresome. Especially on the heels of David Brooks' Sunday doozy about how women should find meaning in the kitchen, not in the workplace. (For more on that, see Rebecca Traister's article.)

But like Echidne, we were struck by the assumption put forth in the piece by David Buss of the University of Texas. Buss says that studies show that women are more interested in men's financial resources than men are in women's, but concedes that "of course, some women marry for love and find a man's resources irrelevant." Just some women? Since Tierney likes to use his friends as "proof" of his theories about the sexes, we'll use ours, too. We don't know anyone who has married just for money. Do you?

By Lori Leibovich

Lori Leibovich is a contributing editor at Salon and the former editor of the Life section.

MORE FROM Lori Leibovich

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Broadsheet Love And Sex The New York Times