I can tell you, from my experience, that I am in no way threatened by an intelligent, driven, and successful woman. In fact, I can't even be bothered with a woman who isn't all three.

I need someone who can keep up with me, who can offer good advice and a better debate, has at least some ambition and wants to better herself, and has shown that she can make the most of her God-given talents.

I've just always been under the opinion that I deserve the best and shouldn't have to settle. And the "best" in my opinion is a woman who can compliment or even exceed me.

I think that a good relationship helps you become a better person and I just don't see myself improving as a listener or lover if I can't respect the intelligence or motivations of the woman I'm with.

That's just my two cents.

It's been my experience that women today are VERY interested in a great looking man who is upwardly mobile,so looks are as important to them as it is to men. I can never figure out how men are always seen as the shallow gender in that respect.

I count myself lucky that I've found a fellow who is absolutely fine with me being smart and even slightly bossy sometimes (I continue to work on this). I have several strong women friends (all of us are in our 30's) who have not found this yet. Two are in Boston, one in NJ and one in NC.

I think it is not just being smart, though? It has to do with confidence too, perhaps? I haven't completely thought this through, but that on some level many men still want us to need them, so we women who don't seem to need men as much (because we are smart, independent and confident) are tough for them to figure out?

I think Maureen Dowd has been rejected by men and she THINKS its because she's too smart. The entire column is really a list of excuses of why she is still single.

Why don't you ask whether women are threatened by men who seek out attractive women? Oh, excuse me -- I know why.

I am so relieved to learn that women don't stereotype in selecting a mate -- except, of course, if the guy isn't smart and doesn't have "ambition."

But, as we all know, those are "good" stereotypes (like "good" cholesterol), and their application in the mating process serves to properly weed out the less intelligent, less ambitious men who, between you and me, don't deserve to mate anyway. As I had hoped, Dowd's piece makes clear that it's only the misogynist, unevolved males with "fragile" egos who stereotype in a politically unacceptable way (according to the radical feminsts who "never" stereotype or prejudge, the male ego is "fragile"). You see, us stupid men are stuck on this ridiculous biological urge to find an attractive mate. (Oh, excuse me, women's studies teaches that biology is verboten -- everything is "cultural." And I don't care what the real scientists say!)

To borrow the radical feminists' favorite, enlightened response to any study that shows men and women are different, "Ugh!" (All those women's studies courses and that's the best they can come up with.)

I've personally never been threatened by an intelligent or ambitious woman (though I like to think I'm intelligent myself. . . ambitious, less so, but I do pretty well in my career and financially anyway). I actually love to find a women who could carry on an intelligent conversation with me, otherwise I tire quickly. As far as ambition, I've dated a few lawyer-types and had no problem with it, even with their busy schedules and nonsensical blabber (well, it's not my field or interest), I'm happy if they have insight on various topics (they usually do) and make some cash so I don't always have to pay. Geez, the more ambitious the better, I'm all about the stay-at-home daddy business.

That being said, any major difference between either side of the equation when it comes to intelligence or ambition will likely cause a problem unless both are unusually laid back and connect extremely well on other levels. It would be the exception, not the rule, like relationships between those of great age difference.