“Let the man be the man,” says Patti Stanger from an adjoining room, as I rinse dishes and load them into the washer. It’s just one of many catch phrases she uses on the Bravo series, “Millionaire Matchmaker.”
I admit I’m no stranger to Bravo in the background, which might explain my otherwise mystifying middle-of-the-night dream encounters with hapless housewives.
But Patti Stanger has me confused.
I find common sense in selected suggestions, occasional wisdom in her abbreviated assessments of emotional blockage, and equally – calamitous contradictions in her statements and actions.
Let’s face it – she’s ballsy, mouthy, and often obnoxious – (who hasn’t she offended?) – but it all makes for good (reality) television. Yet in her own propensity for labeling “masculine energy” and “feminine energy,” is she all about “do as I say, not do as I do?”
Fantasy by Falsity and Formula?
Theoretically, the Millionaire Matchmaker helps wealthy men and women land loving mates. If necessary, clients receive style and wardrobe makeovers, quick-fix counseling, and very specific behavioral tips on how to get (and keep) the girl – or guy.
For example, part and parcel of the Patti Premise:
- The (woman’s) body needs to be in shape, the face pretty, the hair straight, the teeth whitened.
- The penis does the picking, therefore women should bring the sexy (not the slutty).
- The man is the hunter, the woman – to be courted.
- To the women she says “Make him want you” (in other words, make him wait for sex), perhaps best summed up by her rule No sex without monogamy.
- As for women with strong personalities, or themselves financially self-sufficient: Let the man be the man.
Is this nothing more than a 1950s Get-the-Guy Strategy, with a boost from Botox and bigger boobs? Clearly, the single matchmaker believes that every girl should be married – if she follows her rules – and likewise, every man – as long as he has bank.
She’s been heard to say to some “just be yourself” and to others, as in last evening’s episode with a problematic pole-dancing millionairess:
“to get this kind of guy, this is what you have to be…”
In other words – don’t be yourself, as she attempts not only to change the woman’s outward appearance, but everything else about her – all in one episode, of course.
Men, Sex, Common Sense
As for that “no sex without a monogamous, committed relationship” rule, it’s the sort of thing that most of us learn when we accumulate a few miles under our Gucci belts. Establishing some degree of emotional intimacy ups the odds a guy will stick around – if we want him to, that is.
As for letting the man be the man, I’m all for it – though I doubt we’ll agree on what that entails.
Still, I’m stymied by Stanger.
She’s a successful and forceful woman, and it grates on me that she reduces other women to the one dimensional doll: face + body + hair + formulaic tricks. I realize she also goes deeper to find a fit for personality, lifestyle, values – yet her dismissive attitude about a woman’s substance – (lead with the looks, stow the smarts) – seems woefully anachronistic, and simultaneously realistic.
What Makes a Good Relationship?
I know what I believe to comprise a good relationship, and for me, it has nothing to do with job title or bank accounts, hair style or eye color, and everything to do with values, character, smarts, humor, and yes – sexual chemistry.
I also keep in mind what it takes to make the other person happy. In other words, what a man wants from a woman – in marriage or a committed relationship. Some of this is self-evident, and exactly what a woman wants: support for our beliefs and our actions, empathy for our feelings, and affection – all too often a need that is ignored.
And when the basics evaporate? The cues that break-up or divorce is imminent? Don’t we know what to look for there, too?
Some insist that deference to the man’s role as provider is a significant factor in a successful relationship. To watch Patti Stanger et al, I’d give that a yes, but then she’s catering to a crowd of millionaire men and typically lesser-earning women.
I may prefer what I consider a “manly man” and one who can provide (at least for himself), but I certainly know well-matched (and long-term) couples in which the wife is the primary breadwinner (or “wears the pants”) in terms of career and/or decision-making. And of course there are the millions of women for whom the role of provider is not only economic necessity, but a fundamental part of identity and self-worth.
That said, men are visual. Check. But so are women. (Last I checked.) This reinforces the Matchmaker’s stance that appearances are important.
Opportunist? Realist?
Frankly, I can’t decide if Patti is feminism’s worst nightmare, woman’s worst nightmare, or nothing more than a realist in an opportunistic world. Perhaps she represents a hybrid that nonetheless serves a purpose – offering us the oddities of peculiar personalities to amuse us, and occasionally, advice that is spot-on.
For example, men oozing with masculine energy do like women with feminine energy. Sex too soon in a relationship generally yields no relationship. Establishing deal breakers upfront is good sense. And appearances matter, certainly when it comes to first impressions, self-respect, and establishing initial attraction.
As for the contradictions? I’m hardly one to judge – I have plenty of my own which may seem compatible to me and bewildering to others.
But hey, I’m not on television, presenting a strange (and sometimes sad) depiction of men and women and what we supposedly desire – theoretically in the name of Love.
You May Also Enjoy
FYI, with all her advice how many have actually worked that she has set up. Also, I believe she has never been married herself. I am always curious with all the advice she spews why has she not found Mr. Right according to her own standards. Maybe because she has it all wrong.
I’m chuckling at your response, Madge. Apparently, she was in a committed relationship for a number of years, was actually engaged to the man a year or so ago, and they couldn’t agree over the children issue (that’s what I read). They split up.
All that said, one has to wonder how much is show for the show… but I do worry about the frequently clashing messages she sends, suggesting that women are all about finding a good provider ($$$), and their primary role is to look good and cater to a man. I’m in full agreement that men and women who love each other should cater to each other.
I do believe there is more to her “shtick” than that, and she does get into some behavioral issues in the dating world that are interesting. I don’t generally mind mixed messages, but I remain confused when it comes to what she thinks men and women are about. (As if we can “generalize” by gender in so global a way.)
Looked at “cues that divorce may be imminent” link and was pleasantly surprised to note that we have none of them, even though we’re going through a difficult moment with Fran’s adult son who is living with us. His personality presents a serious challenge to our relationship (and probably explains why he is back with us and not on his own or with someone else). This, too, will pass (and he will be on his own again, as it should be). What you have to do is discuss and take action with the partner, whether relationship is relatively new or well established. Then, whether things work or don’t work, at least you have done your best and gotten the best possible outcome under the circumstances. Don’t fake or pretend to be what the partner wants — that will be misery later. Find the person who likes you, not some TV make over of you.
As readers may know, we don’t watch TV (we don’t own a TV), so can’t comment on the program itself. Personally, I’m through with “advice” programs or books of this sort. Jogged with my buddy today and he heard my grumble. Friends always have ideas, but you need multiple sources (definitely — sources can be quite biased) and it’s interesting that I often disagree with the advice I receive but it helps me know my own mind better.
I have seen a few episodes of this show. I think it is definitely on air for the entertainment value. For the record, there are women millionaires matched also- most often with men who make little.
I think a lot of the pull for the audience might be the childish ways some millionaire men act on the show. Many of us like to think, ‘aha! I thought so! millionaire babies.’
I am sure that a lot of the show is staged or at least they pick and choose the ‘cases with the most drama’ for ratings.
She certainly does not seem to be taking her own advice, however, I applaud her for not heading to the all mighty plastic surgery knife.
I think we may all have our own ideas of what it means for a man to be ‘A man’ and a woman to be a ‘woman’.
I’ve never watched the program, but it sounds to me as if we’re stuffing people into gender-specific roles and making what’s on the surface the most important thing. Why can’t clean and neat be more important than the plastic face? Why can’t being a good person be more important than boobs? Why can’t a man and a woman be just what they are with no regard to society’s vision of what that should be? Why can’t doing the best we can with what we’ve got and what we are be sufficient?
I bought a National Geographic yesterday. $6.50.
The guy at the stand said, “They charge more for intelligent magazines.”
I said, “National Geographic is one of those?”
“Oh, yeah.” he said. “See, they figure smart people have money.”
I’m not sure what this has to do with T.V., except I suppose I’d rather pay for a good movie.
(Or Netflix, Wolf?)
Hoping Nick is doing better today…
@Paul – Glad you checked out that “signs Divorce may be imminent” resource. (It’s spot-on, in my opinion.) And equally glad to hear you and Fran are good-to-go, when it comes to the marital balance sheet.
I can only imagine how disruptive it is to have an adult child back in the nest to deal with, particularly when you’re used to doing your own thing, and you have differing views of how to handle the situation. (Shades of raising children long before they fly the coop.)
@NAS – I’m also pleased to see that she hasn’t (herself) succumbed to the knife, especially given the spotlight on her, and the city where she resides.
@Carol – I’m with you, in general. I think stuffing people into any sort of roles, short of marketing purposes, often leads to faulty assumptions, dismissive attitudes, and missing out on many of life’s finer moments (and personal pleasures).
The one-sidedness you’re talking about seems a bit depressing. Remember that show, Who wants to marry a millionaire? And the millionaire turned out to be an abuser with a history of restraining orders?
Interesting point, Nicoleandmaggie… I have a vague recollection of that. Ugh, all so creepy!