BETSY HART:

Ahh, I am uniquely well placed to answer this.  I am currently dating a man who is neither tall nor wealthy (and have in fact rejected both of the previous sort, to the chagrin of certain friends, sometimes even when it came in the same package!).

So, what does my current beau have which I find so attractive?  It’s the heart which matters most.  A man who desires to care for and protect a woman and children, who opens his heart to her while at the same time is strong for her emotionally, is all but irresistible.

Okay, my current beau’s body — which I have not seen in total (and FYI, a man who has values is, well, valued by this woman) — does seem to be sculpted out of marble.   I fully confess that’s a nice touch.   (For that matter, so is the badge and the Glock 19, not to mention the occasional bit of poetry.)

In any event, I have three pieces of advice to the currently penniless fellow:

Tell her how you feel about her, and do brush up on your Shakespeare.
Be wonderful to her children, or talk about the children you will have together.
Get to the gym.

(And if you need to?  Let her know you are sending out a lot of resumes.)

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN:

Betsy is on to something here. Wealth alone is not the attraction for a woman (although I can’t resist repeating an old Yiddish saying: “He’s tall when he stands on his money.”). It’s what the money represents: power and success, the true female aphrodisiacs.

The penniless young man might fare better here in Washington, where money and power rarely go hand in hand. I suspect the low-paid, single male staffers working in the West Wing are probably not hurting for dates.

But in the absence of either, a man should wear the air of them as he would a cologne. After you shower every morning, spritz yourself with invisible eau de PowerSuccess. Dress well, if casually, or (good tip, Betsy!) as if you’re about to head out for the gym. Check your posture: squeeze those shoulder blades together! No matter how worried you are, don’t confide it. Treat your current situation as a temporary setback–discuss it as if it may even be a good thing for you (it inspires creative change and offers a chance to focus on what’s really important to you, yadda yadda). As Betsy said, emotional strength in a man, especially during a difficult time, is catnip to women. I would also add that so is confidence and self-possession. Despite a generation of being told to look out for ourselves, I believe women still want a man who is fundamentally emotionally and physically strong, and able to protect them (even if they don’t strictly need it). Also, one who shows old-fashioned, courtly consideration: Opening doors for her, pulling out her chair at a table, standing when she arrives, offering your sweater or jacket if she looks cold. These small gestures are absolutely free, but they reap disproportionate rewards because, sadly, they are so rarely performed anymore.

So what happens when it comes time to pick up the tab? Yes, that’s a problem. But as noted, setbacks can inspire creative change. Don’t ask a woman out to do anything you can’t afford. But that doesn’t mean you have to be a cheap date (although you can pray she will be). Women are absolute suckers for romance–and especially for men who take charge of romantic planning. Find out the kinds of activities she likes to do: Plan a bike ride, or a hike, or a walk, and pack along a small picnic of wine and cheese (Cost to you: $25. Romantic cost: Priceless). Offer to cook her dinner (so long as you’re up to it): She’ll swoon. Bonus point: You’ll have solved in advance the problem of how to get her up to your apartment. Offer her inexpensive but spontaneous, fresh tokens of affection: Bring her a gift of fresh raspberries and cream from a farmer’s market, a pot of daffodils or hyacinths; put together a playlist; give her one of your favorite books (careful wonkish readers:  nothing with “Economic Indicators” in the title).

And if she is the sort of woman for whom this all isn’t good enough–drop her as you would a bad penny.

MELINDA SIDAK:

Danielle and Betsy’s advice sounds great. I am sure any woman would appreciate a man who follows their suggestions. However, I am not sure how much help getting dates a recently unemployed Wall Street investment banker or laid-off Washington lawyer, even a 5′2″ one, needs. As Miranda Hobbes once observed in Sex and the City, “[a] 34-year-old guy with no money and no place to live, because he’s single, he’s a catch. But a 34-year-old woman with a job and a great home, because she’s single, is considered tragic.” Although an aging, relatively unattractive multimillionaire has dating access to 20-something supermodels otherwise beyond his reach, that is far from the norm. Even a relatively impecunious man, not too troll-like in appearance, still has plenty of opportunities, and they only increase the older he gets. The reason is something known as the “demographic flip.” When women are young and attractive, they have access to all the boys their age, and even to much older men, including the rich, old, bald ones. As she ages, the demographic advantage shifts. It is the 40-year-old man who has access to all the women near his own age, as well as twenty years below, while the 40-year-old woman finds her options increasingly constrained.

Recession notwithstanding, a young man of modest means in his twenties still has plenty of options, particularly if he is willing to commit. The young man has all the time in the world to have adventures, date lots of women, and still end up with the wife, the two kids, and the white picket fence. For the girl, however — even with all her allure to men of her own age and older — time is her enemy. She needs to get that big white princess wedding crossed off the list and get to work on the two kids before her bioclock hits the zero-hour. Otherwise, as Miranda suggests, she ends up feeling tragic, possibly with cats and aromatherapy candles.

So cheer up, newly unemployed, impoverished young men. Try not to eat with your mouth open, belch loudly, or leave the seat up (a deal-breaker if there ever was one). They’ll be tearing down your door — if not now, when you’re 40.

MONA CHAREN:

I don’t disagree with anything you gals have said. If I have anything to add, it would be to challenge Melinda’s point a little. While I agree up to a point that men benefit from the “demographic flip,” I think things had gotten very tough for men out there even before the Great Recession. With all of the rules changed about dating and relationships, men are never sure what’s expected of them. Should they do all the chasing, check-grabbing, and traditional male roles? If they do, what do they get in return? Young women are so bulldozed these days to be INDEPENDENT and self-sufficient. And many are. Or at least they look that way to guys however much they may be secretly wishing for Prince Charming (and however much their priorities, not to mention standards, may change as they pass 35ish).

If I were a guy without money looking to impress a young woman, I would romance her. My idea of romancing is not flowers or chocolates or champagne. It’s letting her know the unique things about her that attract you. It’s good to say she’s beautiful. But that can sound like a line. It’s better to focus on the smaller details (a la “When Harry Met Sally”), the way she crinkles her nose when she’s deciding, the fact that she stops to pick up a ball that the neighbor’s kid lost, the way she gets excited about the latest book she’s read. That shows that the man is paying close attention, and that he is really smitten, and that is (dare I say it?) better than a trust fund.

About the Contributors:

Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist and political analyst living in the Washington, D.C. area.

Danielle Crittenden is a Washington-based author and journalist.

Betsy Hart is a nationally syndicated columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service. Betsy’s show, “It Takes a Parent,” is featured on Chicago’s WYLL/AM1160 radio and also heard on NationalReview.com.

Melinda Sidak is Vice-President of Criterion Economics LLC in Washington, DC.

Perhaps the obvious answer is that women don’t gravitate towards talk radio, period. It’s the sports talk of political junkies.  Successful women’s programming tends to be based on the Oprah model:  the sharing of personal stories, ideally inspirational, and a more “inclusive” approach to dialogue.

That being said, I’m a woman who used to enjoy talk radio and has always been bored senseless by Oprah.  For a long time I listened to Rush: I enjoyed his intelligent criticism of liberal policies; his bracing energy; his sense of humor. If I was in the car long enough, Rush would bleed into Hannity and others, and I’d listen to them too. However, over the past few years, I found myself joining the female majority and changing stations when these shows came on.  At first I thought I was doing so because, as a mother of three, I didn’t need another person in the car yelling at me.  Then, when I’d force myself to listen, I felt like I was trapped in an elevator with someone whose ego squished me up against the doors: when they weren’t boasting about their moral courage or superior worldviews, they seemed to take everything that was happening politically as a personal slight–or achievement, depending on what it was (Electoral victory? All thanks to my listeners! Electoral defeat?  The people were denied my message by the liberal media!). That is, when they weren’t trying to sell me a Sleep Number Bed. I’m sure many male listeners have tuned out for the same reasons.

But maybe this type of personality is just innately more off-putting to women. As women, we know this type of man.  We may have dated this type of man.  Lord knows, we may have married and divorced this type of man.  But however we may have come across him we know this much: We want to get to our floor and leave the elevator as quickly as possible.

MARGARET HOOVER:

I disagree with Danielle.  I love talk radio and think it’s place in our free speech touting republic is indispensable.  Perhaps I’m a black sheep among women and one of those political junkies Danielle refers to– talk radio is my form of sports talk.  But God, what would we have done without Rush during the Clinton years?  What would I have done without Rush during my years at a liberal women’s college?  Rush kept me sane through his entertaining and humorous articulations of conservative principles.  I will always feel indebted to Rush for his contribution to radio, and to giving voice to my thoughts as my political conscience formed.  During the days where our presidency and capital city bathed in mud bath–oh the Clinton years– Rush was the voice of reason and sanity for millions of Americans.

MONA CHAREN:

I’m an avid talk radio listener but it is pretty heavy on national policy, and polls show that women don’t know much about national issues. They can tell you who’s on the school board and why their mayor is a fool, but not why Nancy Pelosi’s pork bill is a disaster. Also, talk radio is characterized by bombast, teasing, and other locker room manners that don’t sit so well with women. The put-down is not a woman’s preferred weapon. She’ll do the quiet shiv every time.

BETSY HART:

Well, I agree with Danielle that many of the fairer gender (though this one and her friends excluded) prefer to focus on feelings rather than facts.  And so they are more comfortable in ‘Oprah’s’ audience than that of the more bare-knuckled but thought-provoking talk radio world.  However, when it comes to the private world, women are willing to make strong value judgments (don’t we all love to do that?). Especially conservative womenÑthus the popularity of Dr. Laura.

Like her, I make value judgments all the time on my parenting show:  it’s a little more practical and old school, more Irma Bombeck than Dr. Phil, and a lot of women seem to respond to that, regardless of their politics.

MARTY YORK:

I’m so horrified by Obama’s policies that I don’t feel that this recent conflict with Rush is doing anyone any good. I think most women dislike political talk radio because they are conflict-averse and, as Mona says, not very interested in the details of politics. You don’t see many women at National Review or The New Republic and they’re way under-represented at political blogs for those reasons. Who is the female Chuck Todd?

MEGHAN GURDON:

Hey, but I like talk radio, and ain’t I a woman?  Actually, I have a theory about why women might not naturally tune to Rush or Hannity or even the brilliant Laura Ingraham.  Contra Mona, Marty and Danielle, it’s not the hosts’ forceful delivery or the fact that they may talk about abstract ideas or are conservative but because—RIGHT NOW FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY!  BLAH BLAH BLAH!  LIFELOCK!  BLAH BLAH BLAH!  ORDER NOW AND DON’T FORGET TO TELL THEM YOU HEARD ABOUT IT HERE!  BLAH BLAH BLAH!  Radio ads are great for generating revenue, but they’re maddening for a listener who’s working in the kitchen: There you are, pondering Obama’s ghastly budget, when suddenly someone is yelling at you to buy a dozen-fresh-roses-right-now-just-key-in-my-name-at-the-top-go-to-www.etc. and you can’t turn the dial because you’re either chopping or stirring or up to your wrists in raw chicken.  This is why many sensible conservative women listen to NPR or C-Span; whatever the occasional provocations, at least there’s a nice simmering hubbub of conversation with no salesman screaming at you.

MELINDA SIDAK:

I used to listen to Rush & talk radio almost all the time.  Now, except for Laura Ingraham, whose inspired riffs on the culture I enjoy, I make other choices. Those choices include The Teaching Company lectures (now learning about opera, China, and World War II, depending on what has been recently returned to the library), free LearnItalianPod.com lessons, or maybe partying with Jimmy Buffet on Radio Margaritaville on Sirius satellite radio. Or maybe I have plugged in my Ipod and am rocking out to the choral parts of Handel’s Messiah, the greatest piece of music ever composed (but ONLY with a boys’ choir; girls RUIN it).

This reflects a couple of things. First, since the talk radio heyday of the 90’s, there has been a huge technological revolution dramatically expanding both audio choice as well as opportunities to escape the horrors of reality.  Second, talk radio is a subversive conservative alternative to much of the dominant political culture, and conservatism is now in a dormant phase. The Fourth Generation will once again rise forcefully to answer the excesses and misjudgments of the current Messiah (and, to quote John Cleese in Life of Brian, “He is the Messiah! I oughta know, I’ve followed a few”).  But for now, the Third Generation is spent.  We go gently into that long good night. Consider learning more about opera.

About the Contributors:

Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist and political analyst living in the Washington, D.C. area.

Danielle Crittenden is a Washington-based author and journalist.

Meghan Cox Gurdon is a columnist for The Washington Examiner and a regular contributor to the books pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Betsy Hart is a nationally syndicated columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service. Betsy’s show, “It Takes a Parent,” is featured on Chicago’s WYLL/AM1160 radio and also heard on NationalReview.com.

Margaret Hoover has served as a congressional staffer, at the Department of Homeland Security, in the White House, and in two national presidential campaigns. She is a Fox News contributor and a member of the Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution.

Melinda Sidak is Vice-President of Criterion Economics LLC in Washington, DC.

Marty York is a television editor living in Washington.