This is the second of a two-part article on the political and economic forces surrounding marriage trends. Part One may be found here.
Earlier this week, Stephanie Coontz, an author and professor specializing in family and marriage, wrote The M.R.S. and the Ph.D. in the New York Times. The purpose of her article was to discredit claims that educated women are less likely to marry, as Kate Bolick claimed in her article All The Single Ladies. Bolick noted the “dramatically shrinking pool of…marriageable men – those who are better educated and earn more than women do.” Coontz asserts that women are worried about scaring away potential partners, including those who earn less, and have less education. She believes that women’s primary objections to marrying men with lower social status are outdated, revolving around the need for them to do all the housework to assuage the husband’s ego, and the belief that men earning less than their wives are more likely to struggle with erectile dysfunction. In other words, she believes that women fear they will emasculate their attractive, but less accomplished husbands.
In truth, women will be loathe to marry those men, not because they worry about the male ego, but because they will resist partnering with men of lower social status than themselves. Coontz defines the problem in terms of what women want, when she should be focusing on the failure of American institutions to produce a generation of thriving males. She wants women to marry down rather than to bring men up.
Though Coontz briefly mentions female hypergamy – the desire a woman has to marry a man of higher social status than herself – she dismisses it as a cultural construct prevalent from the 40s to the mid-70s. She argues that the modern woman has no such baggage to contend with:
The most important predictor of marital happiness is not how much she looks up to her husband but how sensitive he is to her emotional cues and how willing he is to share the housework and child-care. And those traits are often easier to find in a low-key guy than a powerhouse.
Hmmmph, try telling that to Athol Kay at Married Man Sex Life. If Stephanie Coontz doesn’t correctly grasp the nature of female hypergamy, how can we expect college students to do so? Fellow blogger Bb shares the other important half of the equation:
Coontz seems to be ignoring attraction completely, and advocating straight for comfort qualities only…If a relationship is a fire, then attraction provides the spark to light it up. Comfort serves as coal to sustain. But you need both to keep the flames going.
The Wall St. Journal’s James Taranto, in Girls Gone Hyper, takes Coontz to task for her Muddled Feminist Think.
Marriage has declined much less sharply among the educated and affluent than among the so-called working class. But it has still declined, and it can be expected to decline more absent a reversal of the trend toward greater female education and accomplishment.
Taranto gets it re female sexual attraction:
For young ladies anxious about spending their lives alone, Coontz offers this advice:
Valentine’s Day is a perfect time to reject the idea that the ideal man is taller, richer, more knowledgeable, more renowned or more powerful. The most important predictor of marital happiness for a woman is not how much she looks up to her husband but how sensitive he is to her emotional cues and how willing he is to share the housework and child-care. And those traits are often easier to find in a low-key guy than a powerhouse.
I am not arguing that women ought to “settle.”
That last sentence is both funny and poignant. Coontz has just advised young ladies to marry short, poor, ignorant, obscure, ineffectual men who will help with household chores. If that’s not settling, the word has no meaning.
Taranto mentions William Bennett’s recent exhortation that “It’s time for men to man up.” He sees Bennett as making the same argument as Coontz, urging men to win women by doing what used to be considered women’s work.
Both think that more equality between the sexes will make marriage more attractive. But if female hypergamy is an immutable feature of humanity’s animal nature, it will have the opposite effect.
Taranto sees this effort as a bizarre attempt to match cat ladies with basement dwelling boys. He has a point – the “have nots” comprise females past their fertility expiration date, and males who haven’t yet reached independent adulthood.
Cat lady Dominique Browning, writing recently in the New York Times (The Times is soooo on Team Quirkyalone!) is quick to assert that women are the more independent sex:
The world divides into two groups: one (men), who think you can fall at any moment, and when you’re down, you’re out, and you need help; the other (women), who pick themselves up and move on.
…Men are hard-wired to feel danger all the time. I know there must be science around somewhere to back up this assertion, but seriously, that’s what makes a man a man. A man is on guard because that is his job…Being alone feels dangerous to a man. No one has your back. No one feeds you. No one nurses you in your sickbed. No one takes up a watch if you vanish or sends out a search party if you wander off the trail.
…To a woman, being home feels safe. We love our nests. We tend them, and in exchange we expect them to keep us snug and warm and serene and safe. Which, generally, they do. Because nests are reliable.
…A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Now I understand why a man needs marriage like a fish needs water.
It’s a mistake to assume that middle-aged women, triumphant in divorce and retreating to feminist slogans, speak for a new generation of women. Here are some findings about the women of Generation Y, born between 1985 and 2004:
- “Personal” goals of getting married, having children or owning a home trump “professional” goals of becoming a manager, earning a certain salary or starting a business. (63% vs. 23%).
- 81% of Gen Y women plan to return to work after having children.
- Research by the Families and Work Institute found that 50% of Gen Y (men and women) place higher priority on family than work, 37% place the same priority on their work and family, and only 13% place higher priority on work than their family.
- A 2010 Pew Research Center study found that 52% of Gen Y polled thought being a good parent was of the utmost importance in life.
- 68% say becoming a mom is on their priority list.
- A large number of Gen Y women are burning out on their careers by age 30. While 53% of corporate entry-level jobs are held by women, that number drops to 37% for middle-management.
- 70% of Millennials (men and women) want to marry, and 74% want children.
- A survey of Gen Y women revealed that 59% feel that “living together” is a legitimate lifestyle and a majority said it is okay to remain unmarried even if they have children.
- Demographer Kenneth Gronbach believes that Generation Y will begin to “marry with a vengeance” as they hit the average age at first marriage.
The body of research is all about predicting what Millennials will do. They actually haven’t gotten there yet. The oldest Gen Y’ers are just 27 today, still below the average marriage age. They grew up in a highly materialistic culture that prioritizes pleasure over responsibility and hookups over relationships. Companies are scrambling to figure out how to market most effectively to this entitled demographic, in some cases offering an outright argument for delaying marriage:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alxpfdcOSqc
We don’t know how many of the next generation of women will get married, or to whom. I believe that the vast majority of women will continue to want to marry, and some will be disappointed. Rather than listen to the embittered women who want them to opt out entirely, they should embrace a long-term strategy for marriage and family by seeking out good men early and taking themselves off the market once they’ve found one.
{ 357 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 »
Awww! Look at the BABY!
Also: That Honda commercial makes no sense. There’s no reason why you can’t do all that stuff while you’re married. (Although children would probably make it a bit more complicated.)
Btw, what do you think the percentages would be if these questions were asked to Gen X women?
“Rather than listen to the embittered women who want them to opt out entirely, they should embrace a long-term strategy for marriage and family by seeking out good men early and taking themselves off the market once they’ve found one.”
IDK. There’s a lot of good men who are divorced fathers and who don’t want to remarry and have more kids, but would not mind a low investment LTR. Women who make a choice, be it early marriage or no marriage and (own) kids, and stick to it have a better chance than women who would like to cover all bases.
Good article, its nice to see someone besides the manosphere putting out the stats showing exactly why there are less women in middle to high end business, politics, etc – because they still want to have families or burn out.
Now if only we can get feminism to stop telling women to wait till they’re 30+ to follow those goals. At the top end of this age range (26), I certainly make it a priority to look at women a few years younger than me to see what their priorities are rather than women my age.
My husband and I are in our late 20s and married at 26. Just a year or two too old to be considered Gen Y or Millenials. But I definitely see a return to marriage among my peers. Almost half of the people I went to high school with are married, and several have kids already.
On the education gap: I have a coworker friend who has a PhD (in a soft subject, but from a well-known prestigious university on the west coast), and she is in her mid-30s and married with 2 kids. Her husband might only have a bachelor’s or might not even have one, and does not earn as much as she does. However, she is very happy with her family life and loves her kids.
She is probably an exception, but her story does demonstrate that it’s not men who don’t want to marry higher-achieving women, but rather women themselves who often don’t want to marry lesser-achieving men. If a woman is willing, her marriage prospects open up a lot more.
“The most important predictor of marital happiness for a woman is not how much she looks up to her husband but how sensitive he is to her…”
She ignores this age-old truism:
“Nothing can bring you happiness but yourself.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson
I learned nothing new in this post. Is HUS done?
@ Emily @ 1.
Hahahaha.
My thoughts exactly.
I didn’t quite get past the baby…what’s this post about again?
Raising children has high fiscal costs. This is hardly surprising, I think to anyone here. I think this fact and the above statistics when shaken not stirred yield an interesting cocktail which may be of interest, namely: given a minimum level of desired material quality of life with children in the picture, then it behooves women to require their prospective husbands to have a minimum earning power.
The logic train looks something like this:
Desired quality of life with children (retirement investments, home ownership, kind of cars, amount of time each parent spends with the kids, target neighborhood for schools, status, etc) implies a minimum cost of living which must be balanced between both spouses. That most Gen Y-types highly value being a good parent, presumably they desire to raise their children in good neighborhoods with good schools et al which means relatively high standard of living requirements and costs. Excluding some edge cases, time spent working is time not spent with the children, so relative earnings power to meet the desired standard of living needs to reflect relative amounts of time each parent spends with the children and/or engaging in domestic labor.
That there is a high cost already means earnings power is an issue, but the real kicker is the last point: if a woman wants to spend more time at home with the children than her husband especially during the first few years (let’s face it, once they start school it is much easier to work outside the home) the he has to bear a larger share of the already high costs of achieving the desired quality of life.
In short, those with big dreams for how to make their children’s lives wonderful need to be high earners (most men?) and if not high earners themselves while single in order to save the money to subsidize said dreams marry high earners (most women?)
The question I have is how many Gen Y women want to be SAHM’s or take a major hours cut until their kids start school–or in some cases until middle school–if possible.
So do women feel good about being sold relationship advice by a cat lady?
“Being alone feels dangerous to a man. No one has your back. No one feeds you. No one nurses you in your sickbed. No one takes up a watch if you vanish or sends out a search party if you wander off the trail.”
ORLY?
I hope she knows all about women, because she knows fuck-all about men.
“…A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Now I understand why a man needs marriage like a fish needs water.”
This feels about as wrong as you can get, best she sticks to cats. Hope they don’t get hungry when she dies and they take days to discover the body…just sayin’
I just want to marry equal, not up. I’d take a guy that makes 50k a year at a stable job over one that made twice that with a flashier title. I guess thats because I dont really identify with hypergamy. Not to say I want to marry down since I’d hold a man to the same standard that Id hold myself, but that doesnt mean that he must make more than me. Lol, he needs to make enough to provide for a family.
Hypergamy is truly baffling. I dont get it. Why cant women look up to men for having a strong character and treating her well? For providing s decent life for her? Sheesh.
There’s a truckload of accomplished, marriageable men out there. Go look for men with STEM degrees. Knock one over the head (metaphorically), drag him to the altar. They might not fit the “Good Girl Reforms Bad Boy” storyline, but they are a much better marriage prospect than a girlish fantasy.
Coontz’s article makes me want to start my on blog. Coontz is very smart and very political. She pulled a classic political move in her NY Times piece, popularized by Bill Clinton, of when confronted with a difficult question, simply re-phrase it slightly and then answer your own re-phrased (different) question with the correct answer.
The question is women’s FIANCIAL STATUS vis a vis men, NOT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINEMNT vis a vis men (which is the question Coontz answered). Coontz’s rephrasing the question in this context is inappropriate.
Bottom line: women aren’t going to marry down financially. They may be more willing to marry down educationally, but that is NOT the same as marrying down financially. I have heard Coontz confronted with this question only once directly in one of her numerous radio interviews. What did she do? She ran under the table and hid. She knows the answer.
Does it matter whether or not a woman wants to be a SAHM or not regarding a mans income? Or are they not thinking that far in the future? If a woman plans on continuing to work and not SAH then her husbands income shouldnt matter too much. Though, I fear the answer to is question is that women want the option to be a SAHM or career mom so the man would need to accomodate her on both options thus having to be well off finanacially.
I think it is wrong to put so much focus on materialistic things and income when finding a partner or being a good parent. Being a gen X divorced mommy of a 2.5 yr old I’m not looking for a man to provide for me but to have a companion, someone that I can respect and love… and have fun with. Would someone younger reject a person like that because they couldn’t provide the future kids the same status things as everyone else in the neighborhood? It seems so shallow and awful parenting to me. I want to raise my kid to appreciate what he has and be grateful for family and friends ect. Not worrying that he has the same stuff as every other kid.
One time I was at Disney world and there was a family with four kids from 12 ish to 5 ish in line in front of us early in the day. All 4 were complaining and whining to their parents that they were bored and wanted to go home! For real? Disney?! you have failed as a parent if you manage to take the fun of Disney world away from you kids!
@ Charm
If you don’t get hypergamy, you’re probably not an exception, you’re just looking at the wrong things. Do you want a guy who is more confident than average? Would prefer (if not require) a tall guy? A fit one? A socially savvy (if not necessarily extroverted) guy? A guy with any talents or traits that set him above and apart from the rest? A smarter-than-average guy?
In other words, would you prefer a man who is utterly average in every way, from personality to body to career to brains, or one who has at least a few standout ones? (Not a trick question – the obvious answer is ok here)
Now, pick one favored trait and imagine two hypothetical potential suitors. Knowing only that they are equal in all other ways, but one is better in that favored trait, which one are you attracted to? (Again, the obvious answer is okay).
Next, here’s the kicker – this valued hypothetical guy, would he be enough to satisfy you completely? Do you believe you could be romantically and sexually content with him, and not want or need other guys (except for the occasional look)?
That last part is half of what separates hypergamy from just liking the best option. It’s that, like Oscar Wilde, you are satisfied with the best, however the best is defined to you (your tingle may just find, say, height to be a better status indicator than money). It’s wanting the best in one or more fields, rather than just having certain minimum standards and wanting everything above those standards (the way a guy does).
The other half is the desire to trade up, but that takes a much harsher bit of introspection than most people are willing to get into – truthfully, I wouldn’t trust any answers on that subject from anyone under sixty.
To build on that last bit, I should clarify that I don’t buy the idea of income being the focus of hypergamy, at least not directly. Income is often either a substitute for social savvy (betas), or the source of confidence leading to social savvy (some alphas). It’s useful only as an easily-measured correlating trait to what really matters.
Plenty of women over the last forty years married and then divorce-robbed men with higher incomes. I’d contend that these women were either never really attracted in the first place, or that their attraction was a temporary readjustment of their biological drive toward a new strategy as they approached 30 (“Anyone will do so long as he can pay for my (not his) baby!”. It can hardly be hypergamy if the attraction isn’t present and real – it’s just mercenary. (I realize we could be using hypergamy in the strict “pairing” sense and not the “attraction” sense, but then we’re just playing with data rather than trying to pull solutions out of it)
When it comes to solutions, I find it troublesome that the trade-up impulse is so tightly wound up int he whole concept of hypergamy. It’s not as obvious a problem as the male cheating thought-process (namely, if a woman’s good or easy enough, he’s attracted, with little or no effect on his feelings for wifey). Being obvious and universally looked down on, the male process is easier to counter – any attractive woman is a real but temporary threat. She knows it and can work to keep him, he knows it and can work to control himself. The concept of women cheating is firmly embedded in our awareness, but the real motivations are not. Even knowing them, I don’t see how to counter them. What could I do if I had a girlfriend and a man just like me, only more confident and social, expressed interest in her? Even if we both know about hypergamy, what does one do to curb the impulse? The impulse itself makes me seem more like a beta loser in comparison; the other guy’s mere existence makes her less attracted to me, even if she never actually bangs him.
Moreover, I’m hesitant to rely on any solution that requires women to control themselves, partly because attraction is not a choice, and partly because I strongly prefer solutions that are under my own control. But there’s only so much that Game and good AMOGing can do, and I still fall into the try-hard behavior patterns if I don’t pay attention. That leads us right back to the original problem – what, if anything, can be done (by men or women) to reliably counter the hypergamous impulse?
I learned nothing new in this post. Is HUS done?
Yes, precisely. You are now ready to go forth into the SMP fully armed. Good luck, good night, win awards.
Susan, I love your blog and have been reading it religiously for years now, but please, stop confusing “loath” with “loathe!” I’ve caught this mistake in several of your posts recently, and I die a little inside each time.
@JQ
Good question. Based on the surveys we’re seeing, I would think it’s pretty high. They do not want to be stressed out to the degree their own mothers were. If they do turn out to be traditional in their choices, I expect more SAHMs. The question is, are they willing to reduce their consumption to live on one income?
Haha, I knew that would be red meat for the guys, I couldn’t resist including it. Honestly, it’s just sexism and bigotry. Why does the New York Times publish that crap?
@Charm
While I think that hypergamy is real, I also believe it is on a spectrum. You sound like you’re in the left-hand tail. That’s good – it dramatically increases the potential pool of men you find attractive, and it means your odds of finding a life partner in this SMP are greater than average. The women on the other end of the spectrum are pretty much doomed. They’ll chase bad boys well into their 30s.
@Mike M.
Yes. Not to mention that STEM guys are about to be the new black. I’ll be writing more about that in a post on education next week.
@Glasses
“I learned nothing new in this post. Is HUS done?”
You have snatched the pebble from Susan’s hand – it is time for you to leave. Don’t forget to pick up the boiling caldren to get your scar tattoo on the way out.
@susan
“Yes. Not to mention that STEM guys are about to be the new black. I’ll be writing more about that in a post on education next week.”
Man – where was that back when I was an EE.
@ Odds
Nail it. When you ask women about the average man that they’d be willing to date, it’s never a real average guy, but more like the average among the 20% of men that are visible to them.
I love this from Girls Gone Hyper:
“One man who taught at a women’s college in the 1950s told me his colleagues used to joke that once they knew a woman had earned a Ph.D., they didn’t even need to ask what she had specialized in: clearly, it was in “Putting Hubby Down.”"
@Charm
I thought it was significant that 81% of women plan to keep working after they have children. For most people, that will be an economic necessity. And many women do wish to work – they just don’t want an all-consuming job that totally stresses them out. I would have welcomed a part-time gig when I was a SAHM, but there weren’t any. I did some independent consulting, but mostly my choice was SAH or 80 hour workweeks. I did have a choice, though. Many women don’t.
That ad makes me sad a better ending would had been her saying “Yes…there is a lot of fun things we can do together”. Now Honda is in my list of companies to boycott. I preferred Volvo anyway
@rach
What? There is a difference? Hang on…OMG you’re right! That is my biggest vocab error since I mixed up enervating and energizing. I’m sorry it took my ignorance to get you to de-lurk, but I’m glad you did. Thanks for setting me straight. And comment on the content sometime!
“While I think that hypergamy is real, I also believe it is on a spectrum. You sound like you’re in the left-hand tail. That’s good – it dramatically increases the potential pool of men you find attractive, and it means your odds of finding a life partner in this SMP are greater than average. The women on the other end of the spectrum are pretty much doomed. They’ll chase bad boys well into their 30s.”
When I read the Taken in Hand site I am struck by how extremely hypergamous a lot of the women there are. Waaaaay more than average.
@odds
I think I get it more now, but to be honest, I feel like a lot of hypergamy is wrapped in what is comsidered good or best on a societal level. I know women are driven by the hamster and what not but they are often fueled by the fairy tales they are sold growing up about how they should be treated how the should behave. I think thats the point I dont get. I want a mate that can provide, who is confident, and skilled in something, but its based on how I see these things. I could care less if dick tom and harry thought negatively about someone I liked. I wouldnt need the approval or opinion of other people The herd mentality of hypergamy confuses me. All women want the same outlandish shit that they arent entitled to because someone else got it.
I dont get that. Maybe this is because women no longer recognize their own value and are over selling themselves? They all think they deserve the absolute best?
Oh, and yes I’d like a tall man. But thats because Im 5’11. Though thats not written in stone. Ill date a couple of inches shorter without a problem. Its the 5’1 girl with the 6′ minimum requirement that make lol.
@susan
I hope so. I thought that confidence and self assurance were normal in most people. I guess Im projecting in that case. According to Odds it hypergamous to want confidence. I thought that was average. Mostly though I just dont write people off for what I see as trivial. I can give a guy a break. I think alot of women just NEXT without evaluating the situation.
Selfish Reason’s to Have More Kids is a great book for millennial to read. It gives practical advice for people who want to have kids, but are worried about it cramping their lifestyle.
As an Xer, I was raised with popular culture such as John Hughes movies and Reality Bites, where women went for the “edgy” slacker instead of the well-off dude (like Ben Affleck’s character in Reality) or the nerd who was going to go into STEM and make lots of money. I didn’t copy or look up to the pop-culture of my generation, but I find it describes the zeitgeist well. Perhaps it was a harbinger of current times, too. Gen-X women are more likely to be the primary breadwinner (20-25% of married households) or out-earn their husbands than ever before. Unfortunately, we didn’t get here because we did cool shit, like obtaining more high-level management positions or working in tech more often than our early Boomer mothers did. (Well, ok, I did, prior to losing my job. But as this recession shows, past successes are no guarantee of future income.) Nor did we get here because the economy did so well that there were 2 six-figure management jobs for every man, woman, child, and goat. We got here because the economy tanked and the jobs that my grandparents were able to build a middle-class lifestyle with in the 50s and 60s, despite little or no education, are never coming back.
Reality does indeed bite, Miss Ryder. Oh, how it bites.
My college and career decisions had nothing to do with gender politics, though. I was raised by grandparents who were born in the early 1910s, meaning they survived the “other” worst economy in American history. All children in the family, regardless of gender, were ordered to go to college, preferably grad school, and ultimately, take on higher-paying careers, all of which my grandparents saw as “plain common sense,” having known what it was like to go hungry and penniless. YMMV. Some people may call that feminism – then again, sometimes people ascribe to feminism anything that lays outside of the 1950s/60s well-off suburbanite model with one working parent, which was itself an anomaly in American history. I call it well-meaning advice based on what my grandparents knew – and advice with no political strings attached, at that. As they experienced life, education and a well-paying career were the only ways out of poverty. Their guidance was fortuitous, because had I not gone into tech, I wouldn’t have the unemployment payouts I’m receiving today, nor the savings account balance to draw from.
Does this model work for Generation Y? Too soon to tell, but I’m not sure it does. The economy isn’t creating jobs quickly enough to accommodate all the new high-school graduates, let alone the new college graduates, MBAs, JDs, etc. Education has never been a worse guarantee of economic stability.
My husband is less educated than I am and has always earned less than half my income while working. This has never bothered me. I also never went for big-dog breadwinner alpha guys, since they’re not the type to tolerate many of my attributes. I’m proud of who I am, warts and all, and won’t apologize for being me (nor tolerate being harassed or bullied for same), but neither will I force myself into a relationship style or lifestyle that’s clearly not a fit.
It’s also not clear how women are totally at fault for hypergamy if men are equally vocal about how turned off they are by women who are taller than/more educated than/have more money than/are as intelligent or smarter than them, but as I see it, people have their tastes and preferences, and they’ll either find what they’re looking for or they won’t. People have to figure things out as best suits them. Life isn’t a test or a math problem with only one right answer.
I think all women are hypergamous, to a certain extent, but what qualities they are hypergamous for vary. Women who value intelligence want the smartest guys. Women who value physical attractiveness want the best looking men. Women who value money want the wealthiest men. Women who value confidence want the most confident men.
For men, it’s all about finding their niche and targeting women who value that niche. If you are smart, play that up with a woman who swoons for intellect.
Also, keep in mind that a trait is only quantifiable if it can be compared to something else. Think about it. Why do many males of other animal species battle things out in their hierarchies in front of females? The females are able to assess a male’s fitness by comparing it to another male’s. The men duke things out, and the females follow the victor. One thing I realized is that human male hierarchical battles don’t take place in front of women often. It’s usually done in the sole company of other men. There is no way for a woman to tell where a man falls on the ladder easily because the pecking order rituals aren’t performed in front of us like other species. The only example that is the exception to this would be sports. It explains why a good chuck of women swoon for athletes. There is a clear winner and loser, so women have an easier time determining where any given man falls within the hierarchy.
I say we bring back old time public jousting and sword fighting in armor. Nothing will get the corsets bursting faster.
Selfish Reason’s to Have More Kids is a great book for millennial to read. It gives practical advice for people who want to have kids, but are worried about it cramping their lifestyle.
I got that book for Christmas! I had just read the prologue so far good to have another recommendation for reading it!
There are, I think, two parts to this. First is whether or not they already understand some lifestyle shift is necessary. I doubt anyone, anywhere, can truly comprehend what having a child means for a couple until it happens. The second part has to do with the extent to which a woman who reduces her hours or stays at home can generate value with domestic labor to compensate for the lost income. The two big examples I can think of are child care (as opposed to paying a daycare), cooking (as opposed even to buying pre-made, although there are capital costs and a learning curve). IIRC old-school kitchen skills (canning, baking, et al) are starting to get trendy again.
“Oh, and yes I’d like a tall man. But thats because Im 5’11. Though thats not written in stone. Ill date a couple of inches shorter without a problem. Its the 5’1 girl with the 6′ minimum requirement that make lol. “
One of my tall friend-girls said that she gets annoyed every time she sees a tall man with a short woman. “If every woman would just date a man in the same height percentile as her, then all of guys could date a guy who was taller than us. But instead, all the girls go for the tallest guys, meaning that tall girls like us have to fight tooth-and-nail just to have a guy who’s a couple inches taller. When a six foot guy dates a five foot girl, all his extra tallness goes to waste.”
@wudang
Ive read taken in hand. I dont agree with all of it, but dominant energy is attractive. Id like someone to drive my ship for a while. Though Id be there to take over when he needed a break as well. I dont get that need to be dominant all the time. Its exhausting. I have a strong personality and can weather the hell out of a storm but even the strongest person needs a break. Some of the women want their husbands to make all the decisions all the time. Thats tiresome as well as burdensome. Its like leading a dig around with a damn stick. I dont get that type of dynamic but if the couple likes it, more power to them.
Anacaona: I got that book for Christmas! I had just read the prologue so far good to have another recommendation for reading it!
Tell me what you think when you’re finished!
Tell me what you think when you’re finished!
Don’t wait up I have two books to read and one to finish before I can get that one. I will let you know for sure!
When I read the Taken in Hand site I am struck by how extremely hypergamous a lot of the women there are. Waaaaay more than average.
To the contrary, all the women seem to happy with the man they’re with. There are women who wish their husbands were more dominant, but none of the women are planning to divorce their man in order to find someone better. They all love their husbands.
@gudenuf
I think think this plays into hypergamy as well. Alot of women want men a foot taller than them which is RIDICULOUS considering 95 percent of men are taller than them. They have the pick of the litter. But give a broad options and watch her try to get the best one. Though I think its crap when people say there are zero physical complications from dating with extreme height differences. They exist. Ive seen a few forums where tall men will admit it. I dont get angry when I see a taller man with a really short woman. They cando what they want. I might be taller than 98% of women in the US but ill take the advantages that come with being tall over having a ton of men to choose from. I just want one man. I used to be uncomfortable with my height but now since Im not Ive noticed the benefits of it. Ill continue to capitalize off of it.
Also, I think it’s funny that as rebellious, socially liberal, and “X” as I am, I did make sure to get the career path and the husband search out of the way early. I was all done figuring that out by age 25, and it was a total relief. Alas, some things endure over time while others do not. My husband is better than ever, but my career? Well, let’s just say that’s “up in the air” for now. I’m so glad I didn’t make it the center of my life like some of my buddies in my field. I would regret so, so much more of my past right now than I currently do.
One guy, who’s turning 40 soon, was totally the “company man,” and he never, ever even tried dating. Women throw themselves at him too. He just doesn’t want to date because he thinks he needs to give work his all, which means 80-90 hr/weeks. It’s not so much he wants to, but that he feels a compulsion to – he’s admitted as much. He loves kids, but often says he “can’t have any” because they “interfere with work.” I often wondered if he’s truly happy, and honestly, sometimes I had my doubts. He takes care of his parents, but they’re elderly and won’t be around forever. And at the end of the day, the career and the company won’t love him back like a spouse or a child would.
When I worked with him, he’d make a habit of latching onto one or two co-workers at a time, taking them out for dinner and drinks, all totally platonic, and being their new “bestest buddy” for a little while. Then everyone would get bored with it and he’d latch onto someone else. Last I heard, he still does this. It’s his call as to what he wants to do with his life, but how he talks and acts makes me think he’s not 100% happy with his decision to marry the company.
L: “It’s also not clear how women are totally at fault for hypergamy if men are equally vocal about how turned off they are by women who are taller than/more educated than/have more money than/are as intelligent or smarter than them,”
Who is? “Indifference to” isn’t the same as “turned off by”, or, more likely, not accepting of a relationship where you’re not valued.
Equally vocal? Show me a guy a who says “wow, I can’t sleep with her… She’s too smart”
@ Susan
“Yes. Not to mention that STEM guys are about to be the new black. I’ll be writing more about that in a post on education next week.”
I hope so. Though women also need to learn to cast their hooks where the game fish are. STEM men aren’t to be found in urban bars.
I’ve heard men say one or more of those attributes were turn-offs often enough that I believe it to be so, though none of them may be to you personally. Though you say “sleep with” in your post, I was not speaking to casual flings, but rather, long-term relationships leading to marriage. I doubt people are extraordinarily picky about having all of their boxes checked or meeting the “perfect person” if they’re having lots of casual sex.
My larger point is: some people are exceedingly choosy about certain qualities in a mate, others are not, some moderately so, and everywhere in-between – and it’s up to each person to figure out how and/or if they’ll compromise their must-haves. I suppose I get pretty bored by black-or-white generalizations when used to describe behavior.
STEM guys (read: fellas with stable jobs and decent pay) will become the new black as the economy tanks.
STEM guy + STEM chick – kids = top DINKS
Susan: Not to mention that STEM guys are about to be the new black.
I was about to go on a rant about racism in the SMP, but then I realized you were using an idiom.
Speaking of hypergamy, I don’t expect a man to necessarily to be more educated or make more money…BUT I would at least like him to be around my level.
I’ve had men that didn’t go to college or had much lower ambition than I that have been interested in me. I’ve tried dating such men, but something didn’t feel right.
I think I read somewhere that married couples with similar education tend to work out better.
@ Charm
“I think I get it more now, but to be honest, I feel like a lot of hypergamy is wrapped in what is comsidered good or best on a societal level. I know women are driven by the hamster and what not but they are often fueled by the fairy tales they are sold growing up about how they should be treated how the should behave. I think thats the point I dont get.”
A lot of it is simply what society expects you to do, or says is ok. If a woman believes that she can do better than a guy she’s dating, for whatever reason, she’ll likely leave him. Doesn’t matter how long they’ve been together as long as the pros outweigh the cons. Even if that man makes her perfectly happy except for failing a couple shit tests.
@ Sassy
Bring on the corsets and I’ll totally find some friends to joust and sword fight with.
@ Lyndsay
“Though you say “sleep with” in your post, I was not speaking to casual flings, but rather, long-term relationships leading to marriage. I doubt people are extraordinarily picky about having all of their boxes checked or meeting the “perfect person” if they’re having lots of casual sex.”
I would say that this is due to men knowing that any relationships in those situations would be doomed in the long/short term. Even a standard, blue pill man knows that if he has less of an education than a girl, he had better be able to more than make up for it in personality, money, etc.
Sassy…”One thing I realized is that human male hierarchical battles don’t take place in front of women often. It’s usually done in the sole company of other men. There is no way for a woman to tell where a man falls on the ladder easily because the pecking order rituals aren’t performed in front of us like other species. The only example that is the exception to this would be sports”
Also music…not quite to the same extent since the competition isn’t as direct as in sports, but the performance that establishes the competitive position is visible.
In more typical career arenas, the competition does indeed often take place in front of some women, but in most cases the man’s prospective romantic partners will not be there among the viewers.
It’s been my experience that socioeconomic class is also important. Folks from vastly different classes have different values, perceptions of money, perceptions of career, political views, values, etc. It can be overcome sometimes, but sometimes it’s too much of a barrier. This may be one reason why wealth tends to stay concentrated among small pockets – like marries like. We like to say America is a classless society, but I don’t necessarily agree that it is.
WW, I definitely agree with you about the work ethic. Degree is optional for me, so long as the person is intellectually curious. I spend my time outside of HUS reading articles/books/journals/whitepapers about, watching documentaries/series on, and writing about a huge array of subjects, so I tend to gravitate toward those who behave similarly. Autodidacts are highly attractive to me – and doubly so because I’ve never loved learning in a classroom setting, only outside of it, either in the workplace or preferably, self-directed.
“Ive read taken in hand. I dont agree with all of it, but dominant energy is attractive. Id like someone to drive my ship for a while. Though Id be there to take over when he needed a break as well. I dont get that need to be dominant all the time. Its exhausting. I have a strong personality and can weather the hell out of a storm but even the strongest person needs a break. Some of the women want their husbands to make all the decisions all the time. Thats tiresome as well as burdensome. Its like leading a dig around with a damn stick. I dont get that type of dynamic but if the couple likes it, more power to them.”
I wholeheartedly agree. I am fine with leading and being dominant most of the time but I would very much like her to be able to step in every now and then without it being the end of the world.
Lindsay-Thanks and the desire to marry someone at a similar intellectual level isn’t meant to be snobby. In the past, I’ve found it hard when one person is goal-oriented and values education, while the other person doesn’t.
@WW – Absolutely, and I didn’t think you were being snobby at all. I was picking up what you were putting down.
A hard core player would be un-fased by a womans supremacy of job status or income over his. If she is hot enough and will put out without too much delay the sex could happen on time.. It would not even matter if she was older, up to a point, of course. If she is hot enough at the time and puts out enough there is only one thing left that would matter to him; that she not cause any trouble or try to chase after him when the time for leaving comes. Excuse the harshness.
The only kind of guys that will see things differently going into the future will be: 1. The always clueless ones, 2. The clued in ones who still feel the need to marry something, for their own reasons.
I am not bitter but I can tell you pretty accurately where the source of bitterness in the manosphere comes from. A little bit comes from the betrayal your mother committed when she lied to you almost from birth about what really works with women(whom she understands perfectdly, yes!, YES!!!!)
But way, way, worse than that is how God himself betrayed us. He, of all persons, should know the score; the real score about the male/female thing. And yet his representatives on earth lied like rugs as well and did great harm to the lives of young men most eager to DO THE RIGHT THING,; little knowing that GOD actually hates earnest, well intentioned men almost as much as HE hates fat girls.
I have not had a problem getting my (1%) dick constantly wet. All of them are married. None of them are married. So I guess I will avoid bittnerness.
I meant that my own inner critic was calling myself snobby, and others have said “Give the guy a chance.”
If men get to have a preference on how their female partner looks and what her sexual history is, I don’t see anything wrong with women placing importance on education/occupation.
I don’t necessarily want to pile up on women with hypergamous tendencies (people can try – successfully or not – to find happiness as they wish), but one additional obstacle such women may encounter seems to be a deep ambivalence between their hypergamous preferences and their egalitarian tendencies. A friend of mine is a case in point. We actually dated for a time, ten years ago, but she wasn’t my type and I unfortunately wasn’t up to snuff by her standards (although probably would be now that we are both in our thirties and she is still single).
From her comments and reactions to various things, it’s clear that she is stubbornly hypergamous. But she is also intensely competitive, stingy with her praise and admiration for others, and a real stickler for egality/fairness (more the kind to keep a day-by-day tally than simply want things to even out for everybody over time). I should add that she has many redeeming qualities. In fact, I suspect that her problems with finding a suitable mate derive less from unrealistic expectations (though there’s that too), than from the fact that she seems to deeply need someone she can both dominate and look up to at the same time. Good luck with that… *sigh*.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?hpw
Interesting article.
The thing to remember about Coontz is that she is intensely political in her motives. That is, she is a “shill” for marriage 2.0, praising it as “hedonic marriage” and saying that it epitomizes “how love conquered marriage” and so on. So she has a rooting interest.
In light of that, one can easily understand her dismay with the current SMP for everyone outside the UMC set. She is basically trying to chide women into abandoning their hypergamy in favor of having nice helpmeet male mates (basically a male wife, really), because, above all, marriage 2.0 MUST succeed, because she is deeply invested in its success, and in the idea that it is the “evolved” model of marriage. So when one reads/listens to Coontz, one needs to realize that virtually everything she says on this topic has a very specific political aim: to support marriage 2.0 and reject any criticisms of it. And if women have to be talked out of hypergamy to do so (as if this is possible for a largely non-intentional process of attraction anyway), then, why, that’s what she’ll do.
@Rum #56
yeah about “the lies”, the number of guys that I have heard make that comment just after finding game is amazing (I did the same). Then comes the “yuck, they really think like that? that’s horrible”, then finally “ok, NOW I know how they really work and I know a little game…I can do this” (and with this comes a return towards ‘women are people too’ attitudes). Game does not have to mean PUA / dark triad, just a way of treating women that they react more positively to.
Please don’t anyone try and tell me that women don’t manipulate men (mentally, make-up, clothes, whoops pregnancies etc). Game is just men getting a little payback, and hey women look good when dressed up (not all manipulation is bad).
Just in case I need to re-state it – I have always believed NAWALT.
I’m not sure that I’d say Mums do it (programme their boys with lies) deliberately, it appears to be one of the hamsterisations of “it ought to work like that, so it does work like that”. IMHO men are more reality based, except that they are misled on what reality is in some areas.
@Susan
“Haha, I knew that would be red meat for the guys, I couldn’t resist including it. Honestly, it’s just sexism and bigotry. Why does the New York Times publish that crap?”
I know and I appreciate that as I was laughing as a reacted to that delausional claptrap.
The Daily Mail does the same thing in the UK. It is why it is also known as ‘the hate-mail’, ‘the daily hate’. You can buy t-shirts with a logo something like “The Daily Mail – it’s like spending time in a mental hospital”
Have you not noticed how many quotes from UK papers are from the ‘mail’?
“STEM will be the new black”?
like it as a concept, but:
* for every STEM guy running his own company (the apex guys that you are thinking of) there are tens / hundreds of cubical workers.
* too late! mantra “I’m not bitter about this, I am not bitter about this…”
* STEMs have a bad time learning game initially “Can’t I just find a sane woman, they must be out there?”. Viewing game as self-programming to adapt their user-interface to alien hardware might mean they “get” game in the end.
* by the time women have decided that it’s time to settle down, STEMs are the ones that have probably found a way of life that makes them hard to find (should any woman really try to find them). I suspect that STEMS make the easiest MGTOW transition; determine reality -> adopt a way of dealing with it that works for you.
But hey – please make STEM the new black. It might even turn our economies around and get us geeks laid while we’re still young (pre- Red Pill).
>> “For men, it’s all about finding their niche and targeting women who value that niche.”
I think this is true for women as well.
My “niche” tends to be geek guys, which is a great niche to have since guy girls outnumber girl geeks.
Between relationships I tend to bide my time so I can get the cutest geek possible (I don’t consciously think of it in those terms at the time, but if you analyse my behaviour after the fact, that’s basically what I do). So I guess I’m hypergamous in that sense. But I think that my hypergamy is at a reasonable level since I’m able to find guys to date, and once I am in a relationship I honestly don’t feel the desire/need to trade up. IMO hypergamy itself isn’t all bad. I think hypergamy is only a problem when it’s at an unreasonable level and when girls either start to want what they can’t have (and admittedly a lot of girls have this problem), or when girls break up a stable relationship and end up hurting people in order to “trade up” (which happens less often, but some girls are like this). Everything in moderation.
“Though women also need to learn to cast their hooks where the game fish are. STEM men aren’t to be found in urban bars.”
So where ARE the game fish?
I found my STEM guy through my social circle, but I’ll be the first to admit that I got extremely lucky.
@Emily
STEM guys are more likely to be introverted, meaning they lock themselves up to a higher degree. The best place to look is indeed your social circle. There’s always a chance they’re “plugged in” somewhere. To encounter one in public might be hard, all depends on the desire to show him-/herself in public. Buying an item in a general store (I order most on the internet) is like a covert operation. I hardly browse, I know what I want, and will not allow interference a lot of times.
Other than that, you ought to look for specific interests. I tend to leave my shell for talks and public events closely related to my interests. Such opportunities might allow you to “fine-tune” a STEM guy to what you’re interested in. Do mind we come for the content, not to socialize in general. I can only speak for the rather introverted types.
Libraries, any place you find trustworthy knowledge and that isn’t too crowded.
Engineers Explained: http://tinyurl.com/8jask
From a Top 10 engineering school, CMU. Many qualities, I can dig – or have myself. How about you?
@Odds
I don’t believe the hypergamous impulse looms, threatening stable relationships. The accepted definition/view of it addresses whom women are willing to marry. If a woman marries a man she perceives is higher status than herself, the hypergamy box is checked and that’s the end of it. If a woman “settles” by marrying a man she does not look up to, that need goes unmet, and I believe she’ll be seeking higher status men until she meets it. I also believe that if a man’s status erodes significantly during a marriage, or is dwarfed by her extreme rise in status, then the match becomes unstable.
By the way, there’s a sort of male counterpart to hypergamy – men prefer to be higher status than their mates. So the instability that arises with a great differential is occurring on both sides.
I believe that the manosphere-perpetrated idea of women constantly angling to trade up is inaccurate.
@GudEnuf
I haven’t read it yet, but from what I’ve gathered, it argues that helicopter parenting is unnecessary and harmful. Having been guilty of a bit of that myself, I think that’s a useful concept that Millennials can benefit from. I hope your generation won’t make the same mistakes mine did.
@Lindsay, nice link (a lot of bordering on reality there)
Particularly grateful for;
“Male engineers reach their peak of sexual attractiveness later than normal men, becoming irresistible erotic dynamos in their mid thirties to late forties.”
“I believe that the manosphere-perpetrated idea of women constantly angling to trade up is inaccurate.”
maybe, it is hard to find balance.
But then there’s EPL divorce fantasy – they wouldn’t spend money marketing it if it didn’t work on some women. Though I’m sure that men who trade in ‘their old bag’ for a newer model exist too. Not gonna get into a statistics battle on comparing numbers, but EPL gets talked about more than trade-ins (could be just the circles I pass in)
Haha, yes I hear this all the time. It will happen whenever there is a perceived shortage. I’ve read that 15% of women on JDate are not Jewish, and it really, really pisses of the Jewish women. I’ve also seen women with large frames or bone structure get very annoyed that a thin woman goes for a muscular guy, because they want a big man to make them feel feminine. It’s just another form of female intrasexual competition.
@Lindsay
In my life I’ve left jobs, just like most people. In a couple of instances, I felt like I was indispensable – I had been treated as a superstar. Coming back to visit, even within a couple of weeks, it was clear that most people could not even be bothered to say hi. I had been totally replaced almost immediately. Nothing I had done made a real, lasting impact. Substituting work for personal relationships is bound to result in great unhappiness, YMMV.
@Mike M.
Tell me where they are, and I’ll tell women!
Yes, that’s why advertisers like Honda are promoting that lifestyle.
@ZoinksSK
Welcome, thanks for commenting.
Yeah, she sounds like she’ll be calling herself a “onelie” at some future point.
@Ysabelle
That is an interesting article, confirming that marriage is becoming a luxury for the educated UMC.
@Brendan
It seems pretty clear that Coontz has been upstaged. I wondered if James Taranto has been reading Roissy. Her views, shared by many, won’t be discredited overnight, but I see a distinct erosion happening, and the views replacing hers are driven by evo psych academics, and possibly even Game bloggers.
Of course we don’t. Nor do fathers fail to step up with the truth deliberately. We’ve all been programmed to some degree. Women have to swallow the red pill too.
That’s hilarious! Hmmm, maybe I’ll make my own version of that.
@Just1X
STEM guys aren’t going to become magically attractive by virtue of their profession. But their chosen fields are going to dominate the economy, probably forever. There will be more status to go around, and some percentage of STEM guys will benefit. They’ll be highly paid and highly employable. And the sociosexual ratio is going to favor them heavily in the next two generations. All in all, it’s going to be a massive net gain for STEM.
I go to work at the library sometimes, and even in the middle of the day I see cute guys on laptops. I honestly think girls should start running Library Game.
@Just1X
I think EPL is more common than trade-ins. In that post I wrote I figured up to half of all divorces among the educated. But I’m not sure that’s hypergamy in action – more a sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, etc. I imagine that very hypergamous women are more likely to divorce for infidelity (their own). Not sure, though – as we learned, there’s little data on this.
t-shirt
http://dailymash.shotdeadinthehead.com/product_view.aspx?pid=940
and a related one
http://dailymash.shotdeadinthehead.com/product_view.aspx?pid=3106
@Susan:
“Tell me where they are, and I’ll tell women!”
Ha! Ever heard of engineering schools and engineering companies? Though they are hard to game and will end up in harassment lawsuits
I guess it’s pretty hard to encounter flocks of nerds. Sure, we have our professional gatherings (my professional-club meets every wednesday because we are pretty sure we’re the sole patrons of our joint that day) and our class and friends gather around in weekends to taste the new brews either at our places or in a sufficiently equipped bar.
Pretty much everything in our culture, media and consumption today is powered by and created for geeks of some sort. So there are music nerds, computer nerds, art-geeks, fencers, cigar aficionados etc. A lot of DJ’s (and other folk “on the helm” of stuff) have engineering backgrounds and day-jobs. And they hang around with similar people. Think of the one place in the night-club, where you don’t have to socialize to prove yourself, to approach tons of women and where you can do your thing and enjoy watching people have good time?
But being the over-rationalizing, dull and shy creature he often is, engineers can be quite hard to game. I have never seen a woman approach a flock of guys drinking fine beers in a corner table? Guys who have to work the next day…
I’ve been thinking, that a new kind of arbiter-procedure would suit most introverted (not antisocial) people way better than the peacocking contest of hookup. Probably every engineer today knows three or four decent guys, who just don’t fit or like the hookup scene that well. Asking reliable people for recommendations also cuts off some risk involved with blind dating.
Susan…”if a man’s status erodes significantly during a marriage, or is dwarfed by her extreme rise in status, then the match becomes unstable”
In a troubled economy, a very high % of men are going to suffer the status decline that comes with unemployment or with having to accept a lower-valued job. Even in a good economy, it is very rare that anyone–at any economic level–will make it through an entire career without a major status setback at some point, from which they may or may not recover later. Heck, even Steve Jobs was once thrown out of his own company.
“But then there’s EPL divorce fantasy – they wouldn’t spend money marketing it if it didn’t work on some women. Though I’m sure that men who trade in ‘their old bag’ for a newer model exist too.”
Yes, but one is praised in the media as “authentic” and “following your heart” while the other is seen as vile and superficial. Look at how the men in First Wive’s Club were portrayed. And that was a comedy!
Could you imagine a male movie version of EPL? What would it be called? FFF?
Re STEM is the new black.
I’m not sure about this. As technology improves it enables creative people. Who cares who wrote the word-processor and runs the database behind the website? It’s the guys/gals that write the good books/articles that win (and I don’t begrudge them that).
I love my kindle, but I only have one because I’m a big reader (if I’m not spending too much time on the web). I’m glad that there’re writers out there that are enabled by it being cheap to publish content – works for me as a consumer because the high printing costs and the middlemen are reduced.
As a softie (sw eng.) I am creative, but within certain bounds. I have no drive to set up a blog as I would have little to say (stop laughing). I am an enabler, not a cash-in-er.
So a big believer in “STEM is the new black”? no not really. But a recognition of the skills of STEMs would be nice for us. Everyone here will have been touched by stuff I have done (wherever you are on the planet), but not in a big way (if I hadn’t written that stuff someone else would have done).
Not all STEMs get to globally destroy privacy on a massive scale by designing my-face / bi-oogle. Or destroy morality by creating celebutard culture.
“Look at how the men in First Wive’s Club were portrayed”
I refused to watch it, then laughed my arse off when other men who did (with their gfs) said it was poisonous chick-flick shite…
REEAALLY? You don’t say!!
Unchecked hypergamy is a vastly bigger threat to a relationship than the male form of waywardness for one simple, harsh reason. A womans sexual instincts are a form of “monogamous” because she only really wants one man at any given time. If she gets turned on by a new man she will thereafter not want her relationship-guy much at all sexually. And there is not much anyone can do about it.
“I just want to marry equal, not up. I’d take a guy that makes 50k a year at a stable job over one that made twice that with a flashier title. I guess thats because I dont really identify with hypergamy.”
You sure you don’t identify with it? 75% of the US makes less than $50K per year, individually.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Income_distribution
STEM is a really bad classification for dating. In my experience science-math people and technology-engineering people are very different. Science-math people are more similar to artists, writers, and miscellaneous non-social-justice-y humanities folk, and can best be described by this:
So we don’t really make ideal partners, except for each other, because we all fully understand that “sorry I missed Valentine’s Day, the lab was busy” is perfectly reasonable.
Engineering-technology people, however, in my experience tend to not only have rather more conventional success (since, in my experience, most of us obsessive types prioritize continuing to do what we love over money), but also to be more “normal person, perhaps with poorer social skills” as opposed to “obsessive loser with no life.”
I do not understand why women always want to date men who are taller than them. I’ve dated men shorter than me and it has had no effect on my romantic life one way or the other; the relationships with shorter dudes are no more or less happy than those with taller dudes.
I remain skeptical of the existence of hypergamy. I’m attracted to people who are smarter than average, sure, and who are more passionate/knowledgeable about their interests. (I am also attracted to people with poorer social skills than average, so I think it balances out.) I mean, I have a literal physical shiver when someone tells me about cryptography or con artistry or the history of video game plotlines. But if someone is like “I know about cryptography AND con artistry AND video game plotlines,” I am not going to be all “I am now attracted to you and unattracted to my current partners!” I’m gonna be like “hey, cool, I’m also attracted to you.”
And I would have no problem dating someone with an income under $25,000 and remain puzzled that other people would have problems with it.
@Just1X #65
I suspect that STEMS make the easiest MGTOW transition; determine reality -> adopt a way of dealing with it that works for you.
That’s true atleast from my end, it is more of a natural transition for STEM beta guy to go the MGTOW route, i am certainly on that route, however to say I just started is wrong, you will know what I am saying after you read this, if you haven’t http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2012/02/mgtow-vs-wgtow.html
@Lindsay #69
regarding your engineer explained link,
“How can I escape this situation while retaining the greatest amount of cash?”
Something women can learn from STEM beta guys, before going on a shopping spree.
@Sasan #76
Tell me where they are, and I’ll tell women!
Well in Science museums, science reading book club (check meetup.com for local listing), science fair in your city.
If you’re STEM chick, the annual conference which you attend, is flooded with guys, but I will say this it is kind of unprofessional to hit on a guy, but anyhow, discretion is yours.
College library, that’s no brainer, except not in the history section.
STEM guy + STEM chick – kids = top DINKS
that’s very true, most likely they also have a condo, and take regular vacation (travel the world). wine and good sex too.
Found mine in a video game.
Most, if not all, nerdy guys play video games these days. I have a single coworker who likes Diablo. I know people who prefer strategy games like Civilization or Starcraft. I know a couple that met playing Battlefield. I also know couples that met in WoW like us.
In the various MMORPGs I’ve played, I’ve met tons of people in IT, software, engineering, mountains of male college students, and a lot of just “normal” people. I also meet quite a lot of ex-military men who are either going back to school on the GI bill or on a military pension not doing much due to the economy.
I’ve also met plenty of females playing video games. Funny though, most of the time they’re never single.
Could you imagine a male movie version of EPL? What would it be called?
I had been toying with the idea of writing a script with gender reverse eat pray and love. The problem is the threshold for spousal desertion is harder on guys that on girls. A man only has to be boring, unambitious and unsexy and everyone will understand the woman cheating or walking out, that is Hollywood movie standards BTW this is not about YOU, whoever is taking it personally. While for the woman be left by the man she really needs to be portrayed as the evil incarnated. Hard to do I think nothing better than Akivasha the female demon in Krull the conqueror would achieve similar effect, YMMV.
I remain skeptical of the existence of hypergamy.
I remain skeptical of the existence of the existence of single people. I’m married so everyone else most be too. We should talk about cooking up smart for our spouses and not unexistant things.
Anacaona: Well, if someone was going about saying “women are single” saying “but I’m married!” is a reasonable response.
Well, if someone was going about saying “women are single” saying “but I’m married!” is a reasonable response.
No people is saying that heterosexual women are hypergamic. Are you hetero? Is hetero majority or minority? Can you accept that most men here are not interested in what non-hetero women are attracted to or not?
@lovelost #96
MGTOW is one option, but so is picking up a little game (I don’t mean to PUA level necessarily). Game gives you confidence in dealing with all kinds of people, so even if you decide to GYOW, it’s not like you’ve lost anything.
Take a look at Roissy (Chateau Heartiste is the new name for the same place; http://heartiste.wordpress.com/ including the ‘Pages’ panel on the right). Take what lessons you like from it, leave the ones that you don’t want. If you weave your own way through the ‘knowledge’ you should find some stuff to make you go hmmmm. Strangely enough, when you come out the other end of the red-pill process (which is bitter), you might find women more understandable. Much of the STEM-stress is trying to reconcile the crap you were brought up with, with what you see around you (and how you are treated when you are a nice guy). Red pills are bitter, but you can understand the world better because you see it as it actually is. You can make a better informed choice how you want to deal with it. MGTOW is an option you might consider at that point YMMV
No need to make GYOW a lifelong commitment, just don’t bother chasing women for a as long as you don’t want one. Go find something better to do. YOUR Own Way is yours to define, make it up as you go along.
I have female friends that I like as friends just fine. Marry one again? Hell NO(!) but again YMMV (but check out some divorce info because marriage is a hell of a risk for the man with no defined benefits that I can identify – making her happy is a stoopid reason to get married, maybe you can find better ones).
Hope that gave you something to think about, I’m off to watch a movie now, so good night from me.
p.s. love Cappy Cap, he never really struck me as an MGTOW until that post, I just enjoyed his other stuff (including his new toy)
“Can you accept that most men here are not interested in what non-hetero women are attracted to or not?”
Anacons is correct;
no, I’m not (it isn’t that kind of movie). I have enough problems understanding the hetero women.
@lovelost
couple of good comments in the Politics thread #539 & 540
def. signing off now
Susan: “Ysabelle
That is an interesting article, confirming that marriage is becoming a luxury for the educated UMC.”
—————————
THAT is EXACTLY what I posted before.
There’s a clear delineation between the UMC and the from middle-middle class on down.
The middle-middle class is imitating the trends of the lower classes and I think the affect on society is going to be a continuous downward spiral.
Whenever I read these boards with people thinking that something NEW has been invented or NEVER seen before events are taking place;
- women becoming the heads of households
(whether by working 2-3 jobs or getting gov’t assistance)
- children born OOW, a decline in marriage
(through cohabitation, sperm donor, single parent by choice)
- joblessness among men (in/voluntarily)
(whether high school drop out, criminal record, high unemployment rate, videogaming in parent’s basement)
- men learning game in order to become players, promiscuous women
(even when there are no fathers present, the mothers and the environment teach men to be cads)
– no religious institution, no social pressure to “do things the right way”
I think to myself – these people on these boards have had the privilege/disadvantage of not observing the ghettos up close and personal.
Continuing down that path isn’t going to improve things AT ALL. We’re on a downward spiral. period.
It doesn’t matter that individuals’ strategy is to protect themselves in this climate. Because it’s happening on a massive scale, the SMP and other areas of our society are deteriorating quickly.
It’s so sad.
The UMC = the haves
everyone else = the have nots
I’m thinking when it becomes completely unsustainable, the UMC will secede and the rest will become a underdeveloped nation. I just don’t see how it can be turned around (and I’m an optimist)
A snippet from the article ysabelle posted:
>Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.
Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.
One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education. <
I made the mistake of following the link to the NYT article…
Dominique Browning may be qualified to speak for women like her, but she shouldn’t presume to speak for all men. I almost threw up when I got the part about fish, bicycles and water.
As far as the education gap goes, the ratio of black women with college degrees to black men is already 2:1, and black women are the most unmarried group in the U.S. That should give you an idea of what to expect from the population as a whole when educated women greatly outnumber educated men.
The most desirable men will be in a position with many perceived options and less incentive to commit while women will either be competing for them, marrying down or staying single.
If guys are smart, then they’ll recognize the opportunity and hit the books, but as an educated man I selfishly welcome the trend (the male form of intrasexual competition).
I’m thinking when it becomes completely unsustainable, the UMC will secede and the rest will become a underdeveloped nation. I just don’t see how it can be turned around (and I’m an optimist)
This has been expressed before but there is historical precedent of a first world nation rapidly turning into a third world one?
“the UMC will secede and the rest will become a underdeveloped nation”
A separate UMC nation would be a nation without car mechanics, without electricians or gas-pipeline repairmen or paramedics, without truck drivers or railroad workers or farmers or food-warehouse workers or grocery store shelf-stockers.
I’m getting hungry and cold just thinking about it!
The concept of family as we know it falling apart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
This has been expressed before but there is historical precedent of a first world nation rapidly turning into a third world one?
In modern history the main example is Argentina. In the 19-teens, Argentina was in the top 10 globally in per capita GDP. Now, Argentina is around 50, right around Russia, Botswana and Lithuania (and this was also the case before the disaster with the currency ten years ago … the decline started in the 1930s). So, it can happen.
“historical precedent of a first world nation rapidly turning into a third world one?”…Greece seems to be on-track to provide an example that will be studied in history books for a long time. Their GDP per capita hit about $30K in 2005…perhaps not quite first-world (for comparison, France that year was $45K), but not terrible…it is now hard to see any good outcome from what is going on there.
In modern history the main example is Argentina. In the 19-teens, Argentina was in the top 10 globally in per capita GDP. Now, Argentina is around 50, right around Russia, Botswana and Lithuania (and this was also the case before the disaster with the currency ten years ago … the decline started in the 1930s). So, it can happen.
Interesting. Any knows the factors? Economic or social?
My understanding is that in Argentina’s case it was political instability that created economic problems due to inconsistent policies see-sawing each other. Obviously different than what is being discussed here, but I think still instructive in terms of it being quite possible, even in modern times, to fall from being one of the most well off countries to being in the middle of the pacjk (Argentina, for all of its economic troubles, isn’t a third world country, of course).
(Argentina, for all of its economic troubles, isn’t a third world country, of course).
True I will guess that even if USA falls from grace it will never be Haiti. And probably some social groups will retain a lot of the first world privileges. I do wonder who though, the college educated so far had been keeping certain level of cohesion but then who is to say that the trend will not, eventually reach them too.
Thanks for the answer.
Anacaona
“This has been expressed before but there is historical precedent of a first world nation rapidly turning into a third world one?”
I dunno,
has there ever been a period in history where people from the middle and top actively and deliberately worked their way DOWN the socioeconomic ladder?
simultaneously
where opportunities for upward social/economic mobility are limited?
How is where we’re heading sustainable?
Look at where our economy is.
@lovelost:
@Lindsay #69
regarding your engineer explained link,
“How can I escape this situation while retaining the greatest amount of cash?”
Something women can learn from STEM beta guys, before going on a shopping spree.
Or from me – I’m the queen of bargains, deals, and “just not buying it.” No seriously. I maximize efficiency in all areas of life. Not word choice on the Internet – yet – but working on that.
Interestingly, there are a lot of married women who are getting into the “simple living” movement and frown upon shopping sprees and such. I meet them all the time on my other boards, in my neighborhood, etc.. I think shopping sprees, like many other indulgences, are now a relic of a bygone era.
“Could you imagine a male movie version of EPL? What would it be called?
I had been toying with the idea of writing a script with gender reverse eat pray and love. The problem is the threshold for spousal desertion is harder on guys that on girls. A man only has to be boring, unambitious and unsexy and everyone will understand the woman cheating or walking out, that is Hollywood movie standards BTW this is not about YOU, whoever is taking it personally. While for the woman be left by the man she really needs to be portrayed as the evil incarnated. Hard to do I think nothing better than Akivasha the female demon in Krull the conqueror would achieve similar effect, YMMV.”
It would be interesting to look more in depth at how men divorcing their wives are perceived in MSM and in online commentary and compare that to how women divorcing their husbands are recieved.
“Could you imagine a male movie version of EPL? What would it be called”
Maybe something along the lines of going n a journey to rediscover his masculinity after living life as a pussywhipped AFC.
Watch Kramer vs. Kramer with Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep if you want a divorce movie from the POV of a male protagonist.
It’s a good movie. Very realistic portrayal of custody issues in the late 70s IMO.
If we make a male version of Eat Pray Love, can we make it treat non-white people as actual people as opposed to tools for the author’s enlightenment, and have at least some acknowledgement that there are people in the world who make less than a hundred thousand dollars a year? Because, seriously, that EPL lady is such a self-absorbed, self-centered, privileged twit.
Anacaona: I haven’t really seen behavior that could be reasonably described as hypergamy on the part of the straight people I know either. (And I end up listening to a LOT of people’s romantic drama.) And FWIW the man I know who gets laid the most is an overweight, constantly broke comic book nerd feminist who regards PUAs as having a completely inaccurate view of how gender works and hence probably does not have “game.” (In the interests of full disclosure, he is tall, smart and snarky.) I have a hard time fitting that in hypergamy theory.
ozy: “FWIW the man I know who gets laid the most is an overweight, constantly broke comic book nerd feminist who regards PUAs as having a completely inaccurate view of how gender works and hence probably does not have “game.” (In the interests of full disclosure, he is tall, smart and snarky.)”
Overweight but tall, smart, snarky, snarky- actually sounds like he has natural game.
@ozymandias
I haven’t observed hypergamy at work among many straight people I know either. My personal feeling is that this behavior presents very strongly in some, not at all in others, and everywhere in-between – and a variety of factors play a role in determining whether and how it presents. I don’t believe it’s a black-or-white, either-or phenomenon. The area of the Midwest where I live is quite economically depressed, and like tends to marry like here, with many examples of women being taller, more well-off than, better looking, better educated than, etc., husbands/fiancees. Perhaps owning to the perpetually depressed economy, my peers are more interested in marriage and starting a family as quickly as they can, rather than holding out for superlative traits. The Kate Bollick article that Susan was quoted in would not be understood here – it would instead be scoffed at.
It was much more common for women to “marry up” financially in the small towns where I grew up (I now live in a small/mid-sized city), but the social dynamic was such in those towns that women did not work.
If we wind up in a major East Coast city for work, which is increasingly looking likely, I’ll be interested to see if the social dynamic is different. I’ve always lived in rural/semi-rural towns or depressed flyover cities, so I only know what I’ve experienced so far.
*owing, not “owning”
Re: America’s secession and decline:
This is cited as a doomsday scenario – or even fantasy – by plenty of people, but I just don’t see it happening, at least not for a while, anyway. In all likelihood, the theoretical succession would occur along red-state/blue state lines, which would be a disaster for everyone. The majority of wealth is concentrated in cities, especially the coastal cities, and the majority of the nation’s resources is concentrated in rural areas. We all rely on those interdependencies to survive, and so does the national economy.
I see America as closer to Japan, an economic superpower, but one with a shrinking working-age population and very sluggish growth. The 2000s here were similar to Japan’s “Lost Decade,” and the 2010s may show, on average, slow growth, up to 2% on average, at best. Accordingly, we’ll start to see social phenomena increasingly mirroring Japan’s – we’re already on our way. The UMC, comprised of “salarymen/women”, will take on more and more work, and face worsening physical and mental health as a result of the burdens. As healthcare costs rise and the doctor shortage becomes more dire with Baby Boomers reaching their elder years, fewer and fewer salarymen/women will have the time or access to treatment for depression, cardiac health issues, etc.
Youth unemployment will continue to rise. Freeters (young adults under 30 who can only find PT/freelance work), hikikomori (reclusive, depressed young adults, especially males), and “parasite singles” (young adults who live with their parents after completing college) will shoot up in number. Meanwhile, the federal government’s habit of presenting reports telling the rosy story of an economy “bouncing back” will continue apace, as real unemployment – including discouraged and underemployed workers, which the gov’t doesn’t count – hovers around 20%.
What do you all think?
Lindsay: It’s possible we’re both in low-hypergamy subcultures. I tend to hang out in the poly-kinky-queer and the gamer subcommunities of nerds; it’s possible that gamers, poly-kinky-queer types, and flyover country people are all prone to less hypergamy. (Also the low-hypergamy people seem massively to outnumber the high-hypergamy people.)
Your description sounds like the economy I’m seeing. I know quite a few semi-hikikos (they still attend class and get food, but don’t leave their rooms otherwise), a shitload of freeters and the occasional parasite single (although for obvious reasons fewer of those, since I’m at college). I figure we’re going to have a long depression.
Anonymous: From what I’ve read of game, most of the snark involved seems to be snark at one’s target. He only occasionally snarks at friends, and generally in a gender-neutral, friendly, bantering way; he saves most of his snark for misogynists, Republicans, libertarians, and Rob Liefield. Also, from what he’s told me, most of his seduction techniques seem to relate to listening, complimenting people, remembering details about people’s lives, owning really nice jackets, and putting a priority on getting laid.
What do you all think?
The US collapse will be faster and more catastrophic when it happens than the two lost decades that the Japanese experienced after the Heisei bubble burst. This is because our cumulative debt level is higher – not government debt alone, in which case Japan is worse off – and our society is considerably less cohesive. Your scenario expects things to basically continue on the same trajectory as they have since 2008, (which puts you ahead of about 95 percent of the mainstream economists who keep seeing nonexistent green shoots promising spring), but that’s not going to happen due to the increasing fragility of the equity and property markets. About 40 percent of current bank assets are already nonexistent and once they’re forced to book those asset losses, the entire system will melt down.
The idea was that the banks would paper over the holes in their balance sheets with the Fed’s help until market prices started rising and they could make their losses good retroactively, but that hasn’t happened and won’t happen. Now the Nasdaq is hanging by a single stock – Apple – and with Greece rumored to default on or before March 23rd, things could get tricky much quicker than most people imagine. I didn’t bother doing my annual economic predictions this year because the range of possible events is simply too great.
@69 Lindsay: Those are quotes from Scott Adams, author of the Dilbert cartoons. More truth than poetry.
@76 Susan: Let me go into detail…
First, you find areas with major STEM employers. An example would be St. Mary’s Co, MD. Population 100,000. One fifth of whom are employed directly by the Naval Air Systems Command. That means STEM professionals with an average income around $90K/year. Those of us with military backgrounds call this a Target-Rich Environment.
Libraries are OK, but I’d be looking more into participant sports. I consider fencing the best in this regard. Martial enough to attract men, non-contact enough to allow a woman to be fully competitive, and social enough to allow people to meet. Other martial sports are OK, too. Anything from karate to shooting. Bonus points for exotic. The usual belt-mill dojo/day care is OK, but a school catering to adults is a better bet. Ignore the guys blasting away at a target five yards away with Glocks – check out the man on the other end of the firing line shooting one-handed at a target 50 yards away. Wait for him to finish, then ask for pointers.
Also consider unusual cultural activities. Celtic societies, if you can claim ever the most obscure link. Nobody will check. If you’re college age, try the Society for Creative Anachronism. STEM guys tend toward the eccentric.
I didn’t bother doing my annual economic predictions this year because the range of possible events is simply too great.
So economy is like weather now? Maybe that would be the name of our age in the future. The age of chaos.
@Jon
That’s understandable! I hope you clean up. In a perhaps perverse way, I look forward to the scramble, because it’s the only way women are going to wake up to what feminism has wrought.
@david foster
That cracked me up. However, I would like to say right now that I am more than willing to go work as a barista or Whole Foods cashier, two careers that have always appealed to me.
Re Greece:
I heard someone say yesterday that Greece manufactures nothing. Not one. Single. Thing. The entire economy depends on tourism and the export of olive oil. I don’t know if this is true. Thomas Friedman has said that Israel is the only country in the Middle East capable of manufacturing a light bulb, but they have oil. I don’t think olive oil is quite as lucrative as crude.
@Lindsay
I hope you’re right. I have become more frugal with age, which is odd, because I’ve accumulated some assets with age. I do not enjoy shopping, and do most of it online. I have very few indulgences – my hair is one, and I am a crafty sort of person, so I spend whatever I want on supplies. I do tend to indulge my kids with little surprises. But the concept of “retail therapy” is a dangerous one. I prefer “long walk therapy.”
That’s easy. The men are vilified, and the women are championed by Oprah.
@Lindsay
I love Kramer vs. Kramer. That is a great movie. I love the juxtaposition of the early scene when Ted has no idea how to make breakfast, and the later scene when he has it down.
@ Susan,
French, great. Italian, maybe. Greek, NO). They have no moral backbone, the country is completely corrupt, they don’t pay taxes, they have no clue about social economy or how the system works, each citizen is 100% selfish and unable to see the big picture. They will choose the easiest way out, always. They are the exact opposite of Germans – and keep in mind, the Germans have no particular strength in terms of natural resources, they just happen to be a very hard-working people.
Greece has quite a good shipping industry and until the financial crisis, they were doing very well. Their main problem is their culture. They’ve always been quite different to the rest of Southern Europe. (Which is why you’ll see that the majority of (sane) European women would never date a Greek man
This is unrelated to the post, but I’ve finally gotten feedback from a guy I used to date and I’d like to share it with you all.
Some time ago, I dated this guy named John. He was a 24yo guy who’d had one serious relationship that was shitty (gf cheated on him) that had ended a while before our dating. I had the same story with him that I’ve had with all guys; met on OKC, went on a furious pace of dates (pace dictated by him) in a short period of time, he finds out about my virginity, I see him once more before he vanishes completely.
When I got back from traveling abroad yesterday, I received texts from him saying that he felt bad about how we sputtered out, and if it was alright, he’d like to talk to me and explain himself. I just got back from grilling him over coffee and this is the gist of what he said:
“I acted really shitty and didn’t know how to handle the awkwardness between us, so I just fizzled out. I think you’re a really cool girl and I thought we really connected, so I was hoping we could be friends. I realized that I’m not looking for a relationship right now — I think when asked if they want a relationship, most 20-somethings would say “yes” in theory, but in practice, the answer would be “no”. My relationship with my girlfriend was really shitty and I realized while we were dating that I wasn’t ready to enter a new serious relationship. I know that when we were dating I said that your virginity was kind of a big deal, but also kind of wasn’t…I think it was a bigger deal than I said it was. It wasn’t a driving factor in deciding not to have a relationship, but it was definitely a part of it. Being in a relationship is already such a huge deal, adding virginity on top of it makes it that much more significant, and I didn’t want to set the precedent for guys you dated after me. I think if you had said you’d had one relationship before, that wouldn’t have been as bothersome. That text you sent me asking me how you could make things less awkward…that seemed needy/clingy/calculated to me, like you were asking for pointers, and it was a turn-off. Anyways, I know I acted like an asshole, but I felt really bad about it. I’d like to keep hanging out with you and be friends…whether or not that develops into a relationship later is a different story. But I think you’re really cool and I’d like it if we could be friends…though I understand if you don’t want to be.”
I said no, I didn’t want to be friends, and didn’t think we should even try. But I thanked him for his feedback. So that’s the end of that.
In other news, I shut down my OKC profile. I’m just not going to meet the right kinds of people through online dating, though I do have something good going on with one guy right now. I’ll be honest — I don’t find him entirely attractive (his beta-ness would make even the guys here cringe). But he is genuinely sweet and caring. He’s pedestalized me, but maybe I can guide him away from that, knowing what I know from here.
Anyways. It was good to finally confirm what I’ve suspected all along — and it had nothing to do with my lack of interest in the guys that I’ve been dating (John wasn’t my type, but he thought we had a connection). Also important to note that putting it all out there can be a very damaging move for both sexes (seeing as how my text was interpreted as needy).
Interesting food for thought, at any rate.
@SayWhaat, are you still in NYC? NYC + online dating = potent combination of bad.
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/why-is-it-so-hard-to-find-a-spouse-in-nyc
For what it’s worth, my husband liked my “neediness” and still likes it when I cling onto him like a little kitten. Then again, he’s from Utah.
SayWhaat-That was nice of him to apologize and but you did the right thing in ending things. I don’t know much about the dating scene in NYC, but have you tried speeddating events, meetup.com or any young professional organizations in the area?
“Thomas Friedman has said that Israel is the only country in the Middle East capable of manufacturing a light bulb”
Turkey, which most people would consider to be part of the Middle East, manufactures automobiles, locomotives, steel, ships, and textiles. I can’t find a specific reference to light bulbs, but I did see an investment by GE in a Turkish bulb-manufacturing company in 1948…I have no doubt that given the rest of their product portfolio, they have the technical and management capability to make light bulbs.
Interesting side point: writer/blogger Claire Berlinski, who has lived in Turkey for several years, says that when she visits Israel the country has much the same “feel” as does Turkey.
Also, I wouldn’t trust Friedman to tell me if it was raining or not, let alone anything actually requiring thought and research.
I see America as closer to Japan, an economic superpower, but one with a shrinking working-age population and very sluggish growth. The 2000s here were similar to Japan’s “Lost Decade,” and the 2010s may show, on average, slow growth, up to 2% on average, at best. Accordingly, we’ll start to see social phenomena increasingly mirroring Japan’s – we’re already on our way. The UMC, comprised of “salarymen/women”, will take on more and more work, and face worsening physical and mental health as a result of the burdens. As healthcare costs rise and the doctor shortage becomes more dire with Baby Boomers reaching their elder years, fewer and fewer salarymen/women will have the time or access to treatment for depression, cardiac health issues, etc.
Um, there aren’t any salarywomen. I mean, Japanese corporations really don’t allow women to climb the corporate ladder [you can become an executive...secretary]. A few ambitious Japanese women will join foreign firms that are less discriminatory, but it certainly isn’t the norm.
Speaking as a half-Japanese girl engaged to a Japanese guy, there’s this feeling of gloom and uncertainty that permeates all aspects of modern Japanese life [Since the bubble collapsed before I was born, I have no idea if Japanese society was always like that]. Lately, I’ve been noticing a similar “gloom” cultivating within American society.
Concerning Japanese delaying marriage & children: many young salarymen feel ashamed of their inability to support a family/lack of job stability [married women aren't expected to work so these things are quite important] so they don’t even bother to enter the dating scene [Host clubs are where Japanese men find "no-strings-attached" female companionship; so they're a bit like MGTOW].
SayWhaat-That was nice of him to apologize and but you did the right thing in ending things. I don’t know much about the dating scene in NYC, but have you tried speeddating events, meetup.com or any young professional organizations in the area?
NYC dating scene is dismal at best. Quite a few my friends met their significant others while on vacation [Miami, Vegas, or LA]. So, um…she should contact a travel agent?
I heard someone say yesterday that Greece manufactures nothing. Not one. Single. Thing. The entire economy depends on tourism and the export of olive oil.
Oh come on even my third world country has something else going on aside from tourism. We manufacture baseball players
For what it’s worth, my husband liked my “neediness” and still likes it when I cling onto him like a little kitten. Then again, he’s from Utah.
Mine did too. I don’t think is geographical though I think men with bad experiences with neediness will avoid it, but if their problem has be the opposite: Lack of interest then they are not scared by neediness at least till actually becomes scary.
@ WW
I regret signing up for meetup. So much spam in my inbox. -__-
No, I’m done trying to meet anyone in a designated romantic capacity. Those things just aren’t conducive to getting to actually know someone.
@ BF, ha! I’ve been told to move out and bring back an import.
@ Hope
Egh blockquote fail.
@ButterFlyFlower
Back in 2009-2010, I had met two men in NYC through specialized Indian websites. Let’s just say they did feel dismal in terms of LTR partners.
I wonder if SayWhaat would be interested in men in nearby states?
SayWhaat-You also said the guy texted you “Most guys would say yes when it comes to serious relationships even when they said no.”
How successful have women been in HUS by asking a guy if he’s serious? Or announcing to a man about what you’re looking for (marriage, kids). I haven’t found it be to a powerful strategy in my life.
Right. Not binary, but rather, on a spectrum.
I would, but having my first relationship be a LDR would be…difficult.
No, he didn’t text me that. That was in response to a question I asked him over coffee, and he didn’t say that, he said, “Most people would say yes to relationships in theory, but in practice, they would say no”.
SayWhaat-I definitely hope you get what you’re looking for. In the meantime, you’re getting great experience by dating different people. In my eyes, you’re also still very young. Hang in there!
“Most people would say yes to relationships in theory, but in practice, they would say no”.”
Ah, I get it. But, this is also why I no longer ask men what they’re looking for, because I don’t think most would admit “I’m just looking to get some ass.”
@Mike M.
Thanks, those are awesome suggestions. I’ve saved them, and will be sharing them with young women I know! Funny you should mention Celtic societies. My husband and I share a love of British trad and Celtic music. And some of our best friends met at a Ceili.
1 2 3 »
{ 1 trackback }