This post is dedicated to Ted D.
Jason DeParle’s recent column in the New York Times highlighting the growing class divide between married and unmarried parents in America provides a representative narrative well worth studying. In it he describes two women, close friends and coworkers, whose family lives could not be more diametrically opposed.
Jessica Shairer is a single mother who works in a day care center. Her boss Chris Faulkner is a happily married mother. Both are white. Let’s compare them side by side.
| Jessica Shairer | Chris Faulkner | |
| Marital status |
Never married; cohabitated with two men |
Married to Kevin |
| # children | 3, incl. one with Asperger’s | 2 |
| # involved parents | 1 | 2 |
| SES background | LMC | LMC |
| Religious background | Raised in church, still active | Raised in church |
| Mother’s Education | College dropout | College graduate |
| Father’s Education | College dropout? | College graduate |
| Home | Rent > 50% of income | Owns 3 BR home |
| Salary |
$12.35/hour $24,500 plus food stamps |
Household income of $95,000 |
| Benefits | None; could not afford to take time off after surgery for cervical cancer | Full, from Kevin’s job as a computer programmer |
| Child Support |
None No contact |
Kevin works sunrise shift twice per week to allow his attendance at children’s activities |
| Children’s Extracurricular Activities | One sport per year max |
Swimming, karate, baseball, Boy Scouts, $3,500/year Kevin is a Boy Scout Leader |
What in the personal histories of these two women separates them so tragically and increasingly typically? We know there are several risk factors that correlate to poverty and limited opportunities for children. Lack of education, less than two parents actively engaged in raising them, and teen pregnancy are just a few. But what is the root cause, the thing that we find when we strip away all the demographic factors?
Female Choice.
Shairer and Faulkner came from very similar backgrounds, and both were given the opportunity to attend college. Once there, they made very, very different choices.
1. Shairer got pregnant her freshmen year. Faulkner did not get pregnant.
2. Shairer considered terminating the pregnancy, but her boyfriend said “we should start a family.”
They agreed that marriage should wait until they could afford a big reception and a long gown.
3. Shairer dropped out of college. Faulkner graduated.
4. Shairer had two more children by the same man, remaining in a “troubled relationship that collapsed six years ago.” Her children’s father is completely off the scene, including financially.
Ms. Schairer has trouble explaining, even to herself, why she stayed so long with a man who she said earned little, berated her often and did no parenting. They lived with family (his and hers) and worked off and on while she hoped things would change. “I wanted him to love me,” she said. She was 25 when the breakup made it official: she was raising three children on her own.
Faulkner refused to marry a man without a bright future.
At the same time, scholars have found that marriage itself can have a motivating effect, pushing men to earn more than unmarried peers. Marriage, that is, can help make men marriageable.
As Mr. Faulkner tells it, something like that happened to him — he returned to college after an aimless hiatus because he wanted to marry Ms. Faulkner. “I knew I had to get serious about my life,” he said.
5. Shairer got a new boyfriend to move in, hoping he would help with the children and bills.
No Legos got built during his six-month stay, and it took a call to the police to get him to go. The children asked about him a few days later but have not mentioned him since.
The Faulkners divide and conquer, sharing parenting responsibilities every day.
Two parents also bring two parenting perspectives. Ms. Faulkner does bedtime talks. Mr. Faulkner does math. When Ms. Faulkner’s coaxing failed to persuade Jeremy to try hamburgers, Mr. Faulkner offered to jump in a pool fully clothed if he took a bite — an offer Jeremy found too tempting to refuse.
6. The Faulkners built a home in a community known for its good schools. Shairer is facing a move to a part of Ann Arbor with lagging schools but more affordable rent.
Jessica Shairer is not a bad person. She is by all accounts a loving and concerned parent, and a responsible one. She takes full responsibility for her choices:
Ms. Schairer barely lifts her children out of poverty, but she is not one to complain. “I’m in this position because of decisions I made,” she said.
That’s admirable, but I wonder if Ms. Schairer would acknowledge the real problem.
She has sex with bad men.
Education is indeed strongly correlated to female mating choices:
I. BIRTHS OUTSIDE MARRIAGE
1982: 17%
2012: 41%
High school education or less: 60%
College education: <10%
II. CHILDREN BY MULTIPLE MEN BY MID-LATE 20S
High school diploma: 33%
Some college: 12%
College degree: 0%
But education does not tell the whole story. Some women, like Jessica Shairer, will fail despite having been given the opportunity to attend college. The tragedy, of course, is the reduced opportunities for her children.
It’s estimated that 40% of income inequality is attributable to this state of affairs. Risks for children of single mothers include:
- Childhood poverty
- Behavioral problems
- Teen parenthood
- Dropping out of school
In contrast, married parents:
- Have children later
- Divorce less
- Provide a committed, involved father
Of course, feminists disagree that Ms. Shairer is responsible for her circumstances. Katha Pollit, writing in The Nation, says:
Well, if only we could clone Kevin—or maybe put great big Good Guy and Bad Guy signs on young men so that naïve college girls could tell which slacker boys are exploitive louts and which ones just need a nudge to become prime husband material.
…I don’t mean to be discouraging here, but maybe there was never going to be a Kevin for Jessica. Maybe there aren’t enough Kevins to go around, because of a whole range of developments over several decades, from the decline of good union jobs to our penchant for putting staggering numbers of men in prison.
…Jessica rejected abortion, she stuck by her man, she tried too hard to make a family. If we really want women like Jessica to avoid early childbearing and single motherhood, we have to stop promoting outmoded ideas about sex and gender: abstinence-only sex ed, shame that leads to inconsistent use of birth control, stigmatizing abortion, woman’s worth depending on keeping a man, “fixing” the relationship as woman’s responsibility, motherhood as women’s primary purpose in life.
…Why does it seem like a reasonable policy suggestion to tell Jessica she needs a husband, and pie in the sky to say she needs a union? Or a national day care system like the one in France, where teachers are well-paid, with benefits?
Jessica Schairer is doing the best she can. In fact, she is pretty heroic. It’s the rest of us that are falling short.
We can’t let feminists derail the conversation by focusing on financial band-aids for single mothers, or canonizing women who have behaved irresponsibly and are now struggling. Jessica Shairer made one bad decision after another, but it all started with who she chose to have sex with.
There are enough Kevins to go around. Choosing a worthy man of good character and potential as a sexual partner is the single most important decision any woman can make. The costs of choosing poorly amount to much more than losing a job, interrupting a career, or failing to earn a seat in the boardroom. They amount to raising children who don’t have a bright or promising future, children who are primed to repeat your mistakes. Children who are destined to participate in the decay of American family life.
{ 2474 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 17 »
Shairer’s first, ostensibly accidental, pregnancy is understandable. What the hell happened with the next two?
“Well, we’re clearly not getting married. I’d better fart out more halfblood bastards until he loves me…”
Fascinating.
While there may be a couple of valid points in Pollit’s text, I do agree that most of them are bandaids or dealing with other symptoms.
Teaching teens how to make better choices is not easy – about friends/school/career/lovers – or anything for that matter.
I hope that my daughter will choose good quality men – barring that (hey, we all make mistakes now and then) I hope she won’t make a second mistake of not making sure safe sex is part of the equation.
Great post
I hate to be cynical, but in this day and age are there REALLY enough Kevin’s to go around?
Gender ratios at universities are what? 60/40 now? Based on that, even if you count the Kevins AND the Mr. Faulkners, there aren’t enough to go around.
(Yikes! Major typo/grammar fail. *hopes nobody notices*)
Great post
Suan – Awwww I got a dedication! I feel very special.
I’m at a client site this week, which is why I haven’t been posting much. I am very interested in the coming conversation on this thread, so I will be checking in. I’ve got lots to say as well, but it will have to wait…
“If we really want women like Jessica to avoid early childbearing and single motherhood, we have to stop promoting outmoded ideas about sex and gender”
This feminist immediately focused on what she regarded as “outmoded” when it should be regarded as correct advice.
1. “abstinence-only sex ed”. How about abstinence as primary and contraception as secondary? You can’t become a single mother if the woman waits until marriage. This is true for the Chris Faulkners of the world.
2. “shame that leads to inconsistent use of birth control” Birth control didn’t help Jessica. Jessica wasn’t promiscuous. She wasn’t married. People who are married have higher standards. She was careless with a steady guy.
3. stigmatizing abortion” I suppose if she aborted, she would not be in this situation, but she ended up with 3 kids. Abortion will not solve this woman’s problem.
4. “woman’s worth depending on keeping a man, “fixing” the relationship as woman’s responsibility, motherhood as women’s primary purpose in life” I guess this is outmoded, but she chose her man. She was with him for 6 years. That’s a lot of experience that didn’t last.
I’m tired of feminists who don’t acknowledge that they contributed to the problem. Women can advance if they will stop fighting with reality. Their new reality of single parenting will continue as the new normal. Nothing will change, but more of the same.
>>I hate to be cynical, but in this day and age are there REALLY enough Kevin’s to go around?
Or enough Chris’…..
Good post Susan. I think you’re spot on but good luck against the Fembot army…
Coupla problems here. First, Pollit et al strongly hint that they don’t have any intention at all of suggesting women not screw around. It would set back the fems by two generations at least.
Two, it is culturally judgmental, racially bigoted, and fundy-blue nose to suggest guys like the ones she screwed not continue screwing around with women any way they wish.
Third. All of the prudential factors involved in not taking Jessica’s road are kind of hard to get across to an adolescent airhead. Hell, we don’t let even National Honor Society kids vote. Try explaining to some horny nineteen year old that daddy issues, “he loves me”, “it will be alright this time”, don’t actually mean anything. Try explaining the poverty issue, the distraction and pressure that will lead to further bad decisions. Forget it. Society has gotten along much better when it said flatly, “It’s a sin.” or “It’s wrong.” Or “It will shame the family”, or “It’s immoral,” or “Any guy who wants into your pants at this point is an asshole and I’ll kill him.”
Now, if you like the results, you’ll like the way we do things. If you don’t like the results, then possibly doing things another way could be discussed. Hell, who am I kidding?
@Emily
It depends on how you define “Kevins”. This Kevin may be responsible AND be attractive. Or not, who knows. But a lot of moderately (at best) attractive Kevins are keeping company with their right hands and a porn site while women like the single mom sleep with unpredictable exciting guys are making no effort to become father material. This single mom is now very unattractive physically. It’s not clear what she was back then.
Also, this feminist tripe about sex education is bull. Do you mean to tell me this girl didn’t know where babies come from? Did she really not have access to any birth control? Please. Also, the idea that abstinance only is preached to college kids is a bunch of bunk. The best explanation of the rise of single motherhood is feminism and various things associated with it. And their answer for it appears to be more feminist cliches.
PS. TED D HAS HIT THE BIG TIME, BABY!! It must be his new bad-ass alpha picture that made Susan stand up and take notice.
My guess is that by the time this is all over you will have changed your mind about people like her being responsible parents.
@Emily – there would be enough good men around if the hottest of your sisterhood rewarded the right kind of men with sex (and perhaps put off rewarding them without that until they showed some commitment). Note: The men haven’t changed vis a vis their “quality”, women have. If female mating hypergamy is fixed, men don’t have to get “worse”, just women have to get “better” to make men unacceptable.
I’m not a fembot, and I do believe that most of the guys out there are good. But I still think that the skewed gender ratio on college campuses is going to have a HUGE influence on the MMP in the near future. It’s still too early to know exactly how it will play out, but I don’t see how it can’t make an impact.
>>I’m not a fembot, and I do believe that most of the guys out there are good. But I still think that the skewed gender ratio on college campuses is going to have a HUGE influence on the MMP in the near future.
But most collage degrees are lightweight and meaningless – go for slightly older guys and hard working decent blue collar /self employed.
This is the reality of Fembot laws in the UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2175571/Julia-LLewellyn-Smith-risks-wrath-feminists-If-women-taking-maternity-leave-boss-want-employ-us.html
@Emily
I agree with that – but, again, you can thank feminism for that – directly and indirectly.
Directly: Constant programs and funding to promote girls education but not boys.
Indirectly: Liberating women to reward the worst of men with their sexual favor (discouraging other men from pursuing education because of its seeming limited rewards). Also, making college a hostile environment for most men, outside of STEM classes (which apparently, are now in the cross hairs).
I disagree with Brian. The men have changed vis a vis their quality to a large extent, because many women reward poor quality men with sex. Incentives drive behavior.
Hey Susan,
I, too, linked this in a comment to Ted D. Heartbreaking article– especially the story about the single mom arranging a b-day party in the park for her son, to which nobody came.
I just wish you had said something to men as well. How can we develop more Kevins? It’s just about the most cowardly thing in the world to abandon your children. And how do you know the guy is a “Kevin”?
For example, here’s a single mom with a toddler and a 1st grader, whose husband left her after 10 years of marriage for a 22 year old:
http://www.businessinsider.com/elle-zober-speaks-out-on-cheating-ex-for-sale-sign-controversy-2012-7
Was that guy a “Kevin” at some point in time? He married her, had children within marriage, and supported the family so she could raise them as a SAHM. When did he morph into a single-mom-maker who deserts the family?
I wish people would ask, “Am I ready to have a child with this person?” before having sex. And yes, women are the gatekeepers. But what about respecting men enough to hold them accountable for their actions?
I do think sex education is important, and having broad access to birth control and abortion do matter to a degree. However, when someone is 19, stuck in an unhealthy relationship and walking around believing “he LOVES me!”, all the condoms and birth control and abortions in the world can’t stop that. Sex ed is wonderful and important, but even the best class in the world can’t change the values of someone desperate for male companionship. That the single mom came from a middle-class background shows you that it’s not necessarily a money thing but something to do with the quality of family she had growing up.
Also, what hurts is that wages for lower-class men have plummeted relative to their better-off male peers. Even if dude were worth hanging around, it might not help but so much. As a result, unless a relationship is sterling, there is a marginal interest in just rolling out.
The big thing is that we live in a world where women are free, but aren’t thinking fully of the impact of their choices. Barring a world where men get custody half the time, they’re going to end up feeling the burden of their choices more heavily. All of the support for single mothers in the world can’t mitigate someone who has some poor values because of the people and experiences in her life.
Passer_By (15),
I agree completely. Unfortunately, there’s nothing that can be done to change the behaviour of “women” as a whole. …at least not any time soon. In the meantime, people can only really control their own actions.
So if you’re fortunate enough to get a Kevin, then you should realize how lucky you are and hang on to him!
Also: Something stood out like a red flag in that article:
“Ms. Schairer has trouble explaining, even to herself, why she stayed so long with a man who she said earned little, berated her often and did no parenting. They lived with family (his and hers) and worked off and on while she hoped things would change. “I wanted him to love me,” she said.”
and
“Shairer got a new boyfriend to move in, hoping he would help with the children and bills.
No Legos got built during his six-month stay, and it took a call to the police to get him to go.”
Lastly: She didn’t stop after the first child, they had TWO more. Three kids without changing the status quo.
There is something really really really wrong when you will tolerate this behavior. Something is off. And the fact that she couldn’t articulate why she stayed with him says a lot to me.
I would be willing to bet that even if she won the lottery and found a guy, the pattern would repeat, and she would eventually end up in the same place.
Even if a “Kevin” wanted to date her, she would find a way to sabotage the relationship, I’d bet. There is a lot of instability and dysfunction beneath the surface, and I wonder how much of it is learned behavior from her single parent home.
I’m not disagreeing with your thesis, Susan. On the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly!! I just think the problems are so much deeper than that, because for her not to have sex with bad men would basically mean rewiring her brain (I.e. tons of CBT). It’s part of our culture, unfortunately.
(There are a lot of other Jessicas out there, from a higher socioeconomic class. The only difference is they get abortions.)
Susan, you should read, if you haven’t already, the Katie Roiphe screed in Slate about the De Parle piece. Her Park Slope Ph.D. UMC ass is way upset that DeParle dissed single mothers like her. And why not? She kicked out her husband and so far it’s working out just fine for her!
@jackie
From the article. “He’s doing more than his part financially that way,” she said.
They aren’t together, but he’s taking care of his children. I’m not saying what he did was ok, but this is just a marriage that didn’t last, and the kids will be well cared for. Whatever his faults, he’s not abandoning his kids and he is clearly concerned about the well being of his ex (contrast that with women who dump their husbands – they tend to be very hostile and vitriolic towards them).
Also, Welmer at the Spearhead had a good article recently about why it’s not useful to just blame and punish the men here – namely, one bum can impregnate a lot of women who are prone to sleeping with bums, and shaming men for this will simply result in the less responsible men (who don’t care anyway) having more kids at the expense of responsible men. Shaming women for this worked for millenia. Shaming a handful of felons and bums is an exercise in futility.
Slut Shaming.
No, it would not affect each and every last girl, but it would go a long way.
If the respected wives of “the community” started publicly shaming whores and make sure that they don’t get invited to the right parties, and that they don’t get accepted to the right schools, then it would start to make a real difference.
With all this talk of women wanting a “Kevin”, I’ve never felt so desirable in my life. In TV programs, etc., the name “Kevin” is usually used for some guy who is kind of geeky or weird. He’s very rarely the object of desire.
@jackie
“. Something is off. And the fact that she couldn’t articulate why she stayed with him says a lot to me. ”
This is how women tend to talk when asked to explain why they stayed with guys like that. She doesn’t want to say (and might not even fully grasp) that she stayed with him because his behavior gave her the tingle.
“a whole range of developments over several decades, from the decline of good union jobs to our penchant for putting staggering numbers of men in prison.”
Aaaand just about what I’d expect from Katha Pollit. I doubt if Kevin’s job as a computer programmer is unionized, and I’m pretty sure that Chris’s job running the day-care center is not.
If you look at what “progressives” of the type exemplified by Pollit were writing back in the heyday of mass-production manufacturing and “good union jobs,” they were busily denouncing large-scale manufacturing for ostensibly being dehumanizing, creating social anomie, etc etc.
When working men COMPETE with the BUMS for ATTENTION/SEX and their work ETHIC is a non factor, well gals you deserve the men you find. You do not ever place those that do work and are responsible in the same category as those who don’t and expect the productive to still be so ESPECIALLY if the bums get the sex.
Women are largely responsible for the single motherhood epidemic. Men do not give birth to children, nor do they have the myriad of reproductive choices in the form of birth control, plan B, abortion and adoption. If women did not sign up for single motherhood, the rate would be extremely low. The only exception I can think of where the woman is not responsible would be in cases where the woman had the child within marriage, and the husband files for divorce.
Signing up for single motherhood also largely comes down to ignorance. Many women believe that having a child with a man will cement her connection to him, a mistake that is an extension of the wrong-headed idea that having sex with a man will make him want to be in a relationship with her. The truth is that this is a horrible strategy with very low success rates. Cohabitation has a high rate of failure as well, far higher than rate of divorce.
Overall, there needs to be a lot more accurate information given to young women. Single parenthood also needs to be re-stigmatized culturally, politically and monetarily for any real change to happen.
Passer_By,
I don’t know if you’ve seen this yet:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081166/Potential-partners-likely-click-unattractive-names-dating-websites.html
I actually didn’t realize that Kevin was considered a “geeky” name until I read that article. I would have considered it a pretty neutral name.
No. I never saw that. Comports with what I’ve noticed – although the “trouble making” part is surprising. Television and movies have poisoned the name.
I’m gonna fuckin’ sue someone, dammit!!! I demand that Obama take action.
“”Overall, there needs to be a lot more accurate information given to young women. Single parenthood also needs to be re-stigmatized culturally, politically and monetarily for any real change to happen.”"
Hope. First sentence. Disagree. These women are chin deep in accurate information. About the only way to improve things is to get those gizmos the farmers in CA can no longer use on geese to make foie gras and use those to “give” accurate info to young women. Even that might not work.
Second sentence. Agree, but lots of luck getting it to happen.
Young women are brainwashed by pop culture and fed a lot of lies by the mainstream media. Look at all those romantic comedies where the girl sleeps with the guy, and suddenly the guy wants her and only her. Those are awful and contain tons of misinformation.
Also the lie that “it’s what’s inside that counts” and “big is beautiful,” and let’s not forget the wedding industry that talks about how “every woman is beautiful on her wedding day.” The single mother in this article clearly bought into it, and didn’t get married because of saving up for a wedding.
Gavage for the garbage.
Ramble
I was speaking of accurate information, not the current slough. Thing is, the accurate stuff doesn’t taste very good. The current stuff tastes like bottom-shelf cream sherry. Goes down eeeeasy.
I am probably one of the most conservative (personally) on this board, in regards to sex on this board, but I don’t feel right about slut-shaming or stigmatizing these women.
If shaming works as a strategy, then why are so many people still overweight? I would liken the single-motherhood to this social issue.
It involves long-term thinking and TON of delayed gratification and/or restriction. How do we orient people towards that kind of thinking?
As women go, so goes society.
Might I respond directly to Hope and Emily.
Hope, you are 100% right, in my humble opinion.
Emily, in answer to your question ‘Are there enough Kevins to go around’, might I suggest that in fact Kevin and Jessica’s first boyfriend are one and the same man.
Whilst Kevin met with high standards, the other man did not. So he took what he was given and split.
So whoever asked, in answer to your above question, ‘Are there enough Chrises’ was saying what I am saying now.
Women routinely turn ‘Kevins’ into ‘Jessica’s boyfriend’ without intending to. Jessica could have met Kevin himself in college. There is a high chance she would have ended up where she did anyway.
Women really do shape society. It is not fair, but it is the key to understanding our current debacle.
And I think it is the point Susan is making with this post.
Yay, Ann Arbor. Actually, even Ann Arbors lagging schools are much better than the surrounding area (Detroit, Ypsilanti). It’s inhabited by Univ of Michigan one of the wealthiest public schools in the country and their special dual income children. So, all is not yet lost.
Also as a single parented low income offspring from a mom with children by two different men and no marriages, I went to these high achieving institutions and got my degrees- finishing the masters now. There were a lot of girls who got pregnant and got stds in college regardless of the potential of their young men. A huge difference I saw, was that low income women are usually very much against abortion- their wealthier classmates know there is more to lose in this situation and much more aware around abortions, protection, etc.
People from situations like mine have no sense of what they are giving up, because it’s what they grew up with. The choices don’t seem as important, until many years later when you observe exactly what your kids are deprived enough. I don’t know of a remedy. My life was much harder because of my mother’s choices, and she does regret them, but the fact that these choices create a class that’s almost impossible to escape is evidence of America’s very static class system (more static than other developed nations). Bad choices when your a teenager shouldn’t relegate your children to a lifetime of hardship, there should be a way to overcome them, but it’s very limited in this country.
How many people do I know at my level from situations like mine? None. I’ve heard of one or two. It’s more than unfair; it’s wrong.
@emily
Looking closer at the article, it’s probably worse in Britain, given that Kevin is really an Irish name, so it’s probably deemed low class there. Oddly, I’m not even Irish (part British, but mostly Scandinavian), so why my mom liked that name is beyond me.
Contrary to the article, I never noticed teachers treating me worse, or anything like that. I don’t think the name conjurs up a sexy image to most women, though – I probably would have done better as a “Sean” or “Don” something like that. But I make up for it with my dazzling good looks and magnificent steely johnson.
By the way, Emily is a very nice name – seems like more of a girlfriend name than a hot sexy name. Come to think, there aren’t many bad girls names (other than those that overly racial), but I’m always surprised when people want to use some of the oldies like “Dorothy (Dot)” or “Beatrice (Betty)”, “Mabel”, “Edith” or something like that. Same for “Agnes” or “Blanche”. A woman would have to be pretty hot to overcome some of those names
Ann Arbor: all of Berkeley’s worst vices, but flat as a pancake, no bay, no view, lots of steaming heat in summer and snow in winter, and the nearest big city–instead of San Francisco–is Detroit.
Yeah, you can have it.
I deliberately gave my daughter an archaic name. Why any father in his right mind would name a girl “Serena” or some alluring name is beyond me.
@Escoffier
I don’t mind all of the old names. Some are quite lovely. I just hope it wasn’t “Edith” or “Agnes”. I could probably warm up to a Mable or a Betty, or even a Dorothy.
As much as I’m concerned for American society as a whole by this, I’m concerned all the way to the bank. The 60/40 college split, detachment of lower-income men, etc, etc, just increases my SMV and MMV on a daily basis.
@Escoffier
When I was in school, we had to share mailboxes (due to a long story). My mailbox-mate, who I never met, was named Destiny Love (Lastname).
I was always hoping to meet her, but I never did. 
Dess would be a pretty cool nickname, though.
P.S.
If I ever met a “Heather”, I would probably run the other way, but for very different reasons.
Passer_By aka Kevin
You must be feeling pretty awesome right now, indeed!
Also: I have a friend who named her daughter Ruby. That’s an old-fashioned name, but rather a nice one, in my opinion!
JT, that’s an interesting point. I believe there is something to the idea that women can help shape men with their own standards.
My husband was one of those guys in his mid-20s living in his dad’s basement, playing video games, didn’t have a high income or a girlfriend, and not really doing much. When he met me, he became extremely motivated to move out into an apartment and become husband material. When we got married, he was still finishing up a degree and didn’t have a job. Two years later he graduated and is working in a STEM field.
When women ask “where are the good men?” they don’t look around and see the potential in the guys all around them. They tend to want the ready-made, finished, high quality product, sitting all nicely displayed on the shelf. Or they go for the “cool and trendy” product like the ethnic guy with swagger and game. The men who merely have “potential” don’t register on young women’s radar.
However, I would disagree that a “Kevin” can be turned into “Jessica’s boyfriend,” or vice versa. The “Kevin” type is usually not the guy who gets a lot of success with young women. My husband didn’t date a lot of women, and he wasn’t “cool.” No college-age girl was lining up to have sex with him or be his girlfriend. He was always a kind, nice and fundamentally good man. He wouldn’t have been a “Jessica’s boyfriend” who abandoned his own kids. So this is a matter of different fundamentals.
@Zach
” The 60/40 college split, detachment of lower-income men, etc, etc, just increases my SMV and MMV on a daily basis.”
It may be true, but some girls may see your self-serving rationality as a subtraction. Any luck finding a girlfriend since the last time you wrote, by the way?
Heathers were quite common in the ’80s (born around 1970 I guess?) hence the movie. I don’t hear about a lot of Heathers in our school these days.
One of my grandmother’s names was Gladys, which I think is about the worst female name there is. So did she. Apparently, to pick on her kids called her “happy fanny” (glad-ass, get it? it was a more innocent time).
I work with a twin who got the name of one grandmother and her sister got the other. Elizabeth and … Phyllis. Now, there is a disused name. At least within living memory we have Phyllis George as an example of a hot Phyllis.
>> “By the way, Emily is a very nice name – seems like more of a girlfriend name than a hot sexy name”
Aww! That compliment made me happy and I don’t know why since Emily isn’t actually my real name.
I’m pretty happy with my real name. It’s a Biblical name, but not one of the weird ones. It’s maybe a bit old-fashioned, but thankfully not in “Edna” territory.
@Escoffier
“Ann Arbor: all of Berkeley’s worst vices, but flat as a pancake…”
Gotta agree with you. The only things I liked were September weather (glorious for one month, and only one month) and lots of pretty girls (though the latter might have just have been me being an undergrad at STEM Central near Boston, so any non-STEM school might have fit the bill too).
Yeah, I was going to say Phyllis as a bad one too. To me, Gladys is better than the others mentioned here. I mean, it’s not like Aswipe (IT’S PRONOUNCED “AZWEEPAY”!!) (SNL reference there). Elizabeth is very nice.
@jackie
Most of the old fashioned names are pretty cool, it’s just a few that I don’t get.
The problem with “seeing potential” in a guy is that a girl could easily use that excuse as hamster-rationalization for staying with somebody awful. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jessica did that with her previous boyfriends.
IMO it’s a very dangerous game to assume that people are going to change. What you see is typically what you get.
@Hope, JT
My mentor, Sister S describes it as “the women lead the men.” Not for headship or leadership, but for standards.
If a girl starts using pretty awful language and trashy subject matter, the conversation will be shaped by her decision. If she decides to eschew profanity and sticks to higher-minded stuff (current events, concepts, books etc) the conversation will follow suit as well.
I’ve never been able to get a guy to move out of his parents’ basement, but I have been able to have people stop swearing and IRL without ever explicitly requesting it.
I really think men want to rise to the occasion and it probably bums them out when they see women hanging out in the gutter, if only metaphorically. But that’s just my 0.02.
@Jackie
Haha, I never say that to a girl I’m dating.
As far as finding a gf, I’m going on a 6th date with a girl I met 5 weeks ago on Tuesday. She’s very, very smart (also applying for MBA), beautiful, easy-going, and fun. A little bit more old-fashioned than some of my past girls (conservative, pearl-wearing WASP), but kind of a nice change. And I don’t mean conservative as in doesn’t drink or party (most of those types of WASPs are closet alcoholics), I mean as in more dainty and lady-like. We’ll see how this goes. Oh, and we haven’t had sex yet. However, she’s been very, very good at keeping the physical escalation going so that I can see light at the end of that tunnel as we get to know each other better.
@ Brian:
“there would be enough good men around if the hottest of your sisterhood rewarded the right kind of men with sex (and perhaps put off rewarding them without that until they showed some commitment).”
I could be wrong, but there would be enough good men around if the sisterhood in general rewarded the right kind of men with sex/physical intimacy/love. Often times average looking girls (who overestimate their value) go for the really good looking guys (who never commit) and this is what the other average looking males see and deeply dislike.
@Passer_By, Master K
My grandmother’s name was so heinous (in her opinion) that she went by a feminized version of her lastname instead. She also had about 50 million nicknames bestowed upon her that she used.
My dad’s name was nearly “Aloysius” as a family name. *shudders*
Zach,
She sounds like exactly what you were looking for. I hope it works out!
My mother says that she was very close to naming me Marcus Aurelius. I don’t think I believe her.
Zach:
Close that deal NOW before you get friendzoned, man! Throw her on the bed and ravish her!
Because they are big and beautiful. We are all beautiful. I mean, come on, it ain’t the size of the ocean, it’s the motion of the ocean.
@escoffier
Better than “Commodus”, I suppose.
Emily, sure, there are different degrees of potential. Some guys have zero motivation for marriage and kids. Some guys are “a little lazy” but can be highly motivated by love. You can assess these by adding up tons of little clues, like:
- Does he have a good relationship with his family? (In my husband’s case, yes)
- Does he say he wants to get married and have children? (Yes)
- Does his mother want grandchildren? (Yes)
- Are his friends mature or immature? What life stage are they in? (He didn’t have many friends, so this was difficult to judge)
- Has he finished college? What kind of degree? (My husband had a BS in math)
- Does he have future life plans? (Yes)
- Has he put in real, tangible effort toward your relationship? (Yes, including spending his savings to have me move in with him)
- Do his actions seem congruent with his words? (Yes)
- Is he able to keep a regular routine and be responsible? (Yes, he was working at a non-profit, which was low in pay but had a lot of responsibilities.)
- Is he truly in love with you and wants to be with you? (If not, none of it matters!)
Basically, you can get to know his background and make an educated guess on the odds that the potential will come out favorably in the future. I’m fairly sure that after about a month, Jessica’s boyfriend would have revealed himself to be a bad bet.
That was uncalled for.
@Passer By
Trust me, no danger of getting friendzoned. The only reason we didn’t have sex last time was because it was a certain time of the month. She was ripping my clothes off. I have no difficulty in getting to that point. The number of times I’ve heard “I never do this, but….”
Ultimately, the women who chooses bad men is the counter-part to the white knight. In both cases they’re only willing to see the (often non-existent) good in people they’re attracted to even though there are often abundant signs that the people they’re with are not good people.
Being that their partners generally broadcast exactly who they are, and the eventual outcome is one that should have been expected, the only person that is responsible for single motherhood is the single mothers themselves.
@ Hope:
I want to agree with you, but due to my experience in my early 20s I can’t. Betting on “potential” is risky. You have to be able to truly identify if a guy is going to make it or not. Not an easy task for a young girl, especially one with low relationship experience. The risk here, is wasting precious years on a dead end relationship at best, and ending up a single/divorced parent at worst.
To me, the most important indicator to factor in is “does he have ambition?” My Ex had a lot of potential, but he was lazy and had a victim mentality that led to a lot of complaining but very little of trying to improve his lot in life. Living at home when you’re fresh out of college is not a dealbreaker in my opinion (I know people in their mid to late 20s who do. They work and are building their careers. Not living off the ‘rents and playing video games). Not doing whatever you have to in order to support yourself and achieve your goals in life is what makes someone a loser in my eyes.
Of course I knew none of this when I was 21.
@ Emily:
+1
For every case it works out, there may be countless others where it doesn’t. Filtering is vitally important, but it’s something that has be learned.
@Passer_by
Your comment reminds me of a short interaction I had with my mother some time ago. Two of my sisters were present and we were discussing dating. My mother is getting old you see, and despite six children with the oldest aged 34, none have (had) a long term relationship.
As always, she comes off very negative to dating, saying what a hassle it would be for me as a man to endure dating. Do not take this the wrong way, it was not a sympathy call, it was a subtle call to “man-up”. In my view, I’ve done more than the average man, holding a diploma in a prestigious STEM area, with strategic choices that will place me on the front of emerging technologies. Such efforts however, have proven futile and unimportant to a woman whose wisdom comes from Martha Stewart, Oprah, some “Miss Smarty Pants” and other parties offering a “happy musical” like experience when presented with the right amount of cold hard cash. Aside from that I keep myself in shape easily, though good genes may have played a role. Attractiveness has not appeared below average based on past experiences.
Being the usual smart-ass nerd, I replied with: “Mom, children learn from their parents and associate negative and positive connotations to concepts depending on the opinion given by their parents. You leave me no other option but to conclude that dating is a sub-optimal choice, better avoided than given thought.”
While writing this, I am reminded of countless instances where parents praise their sons, despite a bad attitude and loose sexual behavior. Not only are the Kevin’s of this world ignored, they are actively told not to participate in the dating scene. The reason many accept this, is because the corporate rule has offered us more rewarding possibilities: travel, high payment, benefits, an escape from interacting with “less awkward” people that are fed cheap entertainment. When utilized for ethical purposes, double the effect. In addition, porn keeps the “biological urges” in check. Keep in mind that emotional gratification is less relevant to a person with high serotonin levels (builders) than one with higher levels of testosterone (bad boy). The lack of fulfillment that would come from emotional bonding, is rerouted by mental challenges and proven effective. The continued process can lead to many outcomes, bitterness a notorious example. But all lead to a form of emotional scarring, rendering a person less adapt to emotional bonding.
“Because they are big and beautiful. We are all beautiful. I mean, come on, it ain’t the size of the ocean, it’s the motion of the ocean.”
I never got this. If everyone is beautiful, then nobody is. And why is obesity an “unfair” measure of beauty, but other things are?
Obesity is a big part of this problem. Women’s demands in mates have gone up as their own value has gone down as men and women prioritize different things in mates. And, no, the female preferences aren’t more fair or more sensible. All are emotional intuitions and feelings. Open-mindedness isn’t the air traffic controller of the genitals.
Good post
Susan,
Female choice only accounts for part of the difference between life outcomes of the women in question. I think native intelligence played a larger role. It wasn’t Jessica’s lack of education that disadvantaged her (she did have and associates degree after all), but her lack of sound judgment. Let’s face it: some people, through no fault of their own, are just not that bright. Intelligent people used to take it upon themselves to guide less intelligent people by developing simple rules to live by. These rules worked for the most part in the past. Shame worked. Why can’t we admit that? Oh, I forgot. We are all the same. If someone like Jessica gets pregnant and doesn’t want to abort her child, tough luck for her. She should have raised her IQ like other lower class achievers have. Everyone knows that intelligence can be raised or lowered at will, so if you are not smart, it is your own fault.
There is also a racial aspect to this story. The father of Jessica’s children is black. One could say this fact is incidental, being that the white illegitimacy rate is over 30% currently, but what percentage of the white OOW birth rate is attributable to black men? Maybe it is time to reassess the entire Feminist/Civil Rights/Gay Rights thing?
@emily
I think when people tell young women to look for potential, they mean potential to rise in status or value over time in light of his existing qualities, not potential to improve his character or as a person.
Iggles wrote:
You have to be able to truly identify if a guy is going to make it or not. Not an easy task for a young girl, especially one with low relationship experience.
Exactly! Women used to have readily available rules of thumb passed down from generations of women by which to assess a man’s potential. They also could use their family members as relationship screens. These tools have, for the most part, been jesttisoned for “You Go Girl” grrl power, which mostly consists of single women giving really bad relationship advice to each other, then complaining when the magic doesn’t happen.
Zach says:
have no difficulty in getting to that point. The number of times I’ve heard “I never do this, but….”
LOL! I wonder if the girls who “never do this” are part of the 20% or the 80%.
More seriously, Zach, I’m genuinely curious as I recall you are a very high N guy. Of all the girls you’ve had sex with fairly rapidly with no established relationship commitment, what percentage do you think are type where the line above is total bullshit versus the percentage where there is some truth. You probably missed the debate on the other thread, but my contention is that high N high SMV guys like yourself draw at least some decent number of your sex partners from girls who are more in say the 4 to 10 range. I know it isn’t exactly a question you ask prior to having sex with them, but I’m sure you have a handle on it.
Well, this right here should have told Jessica that the guy had no potential:
If the guy isn’t head over heels in love with you, he’s not going to do jack squat.
I can see why Jessica kept dating her BF though a dead beat. Once you’ve already made the mistake to have an early pregnancy but were able to make it, there is really no obstacle. Plus to her credit she did stick with one guy. I’m sure there would have been another type of comments here if the article had said Jess had left her bf for someone else and had another kid with him. Now instead of being “dumb”, she would have been dumb and slutty. Anyway people are never happy. Sometimes, you stick with what you know.
I know it is easy to just fall like a hammer on Jessica; one thing I remember is that at 19 that would have never happened to me because, no offense, I didn’t think men were really smart, plus feminists imperative and fame background said that as a woman, I was better off alone. So it was important for me to improve/educate myself, not in the optic of a future marriage but just as a human being.
Obviously, Jessica didn’t think the same; however how are kids, 19 is very young, supposed to know how to recognize what makes a great husband when they don’t even know themselves? Even if she had dated and become pregnant from a guy with potential, there is no way at 19 we could have established that.
I think the only fault I can find that woman is that she didn’t focus enough on HERSELF and did too much on her supposed couple. My parents always say “Your degree is your first husband” and I’m happily married.
Anyway, I find most of the male comments so “interesting”. Isn’t this a woman who chose to mate early (instead of prioritizing getting a bunch of degrees or wait an “hit the wall”) and stick with one man ( instead of “riding the carousel”) even when his finances were limited ( instead of just staying as long as he could provide)? She sounds like one of those women that are praised all day by commenters here, yet, gets stoned for following the authorized script?!
Hope wrote:
When women ask “where are the good men?” they don’t look around and see the potential in the guys all around them. They tend to want the ready-made, finished, high quality product, sitting all nicely displayed on the shelf.
Yes, but why shouldn’t they, especially if they consider themselves to be a finished, high quality product? Most women just aren’t very realistic and wildly over-estimate their SMV as a result of all the grrl power talk. Additionally, they don’t really get useful advice from other women for the most part. They have a tendency to cheer lead for each other more than anything else. What they need is brass tacks analysis, and they need the analysis early, at age 20 not 30.
“I think when people tell young women to look for potential, they mean potential to rise in status or value over time in light of his existing qualities, not potential to improve his character or as a person.”
Second this sentiment. The potential is for the a rise in status…character should already be present.
Shairer’s baby-daddys are black, Kevin is white.
Cue racist ranters on how I’m terribly ‘raciss’ in pointing this out, but to flatly deny the cultural factors of black daddies popping and running is futile.
Facts are facts… check the single-mother rates of black females, or women with black fathers (absent, of course).
You may now pile on and agree with the facts or spin your white liberal guilt.
@Mireille
I think you have to really torture the words written here to conclude that the “script” advocated is to get pregnant out of wedlock as a college freshman (sorry, “freshperson”) by an unemployed unstable guy, and to compound that by doing it two more times.
@Hope,
“My husband was one of those guys in his mid-20s living in his dad’s basement, playing video games, didn’t have a high income or a girlfriend, and not really doing much.”
Hope, if you don’t mind me asking, was your husband already in Utah during this time period? Just curious…from what I had gathered, the SMP in Utah would seem to be more favorable to “beta” guys looking for long-term, but you’re description of his situation seems closer to the typical “urban” SMP, where STEM guys aren’t particularly in high demand as mates (and yes, wind up involved with lots of video games
)
“I think when people tell young women to look for potential, they mean potential to rise in status or value over time in light of his existing qualities, not potential to improve his character or as a person.”
I agree with this. The “potential” that I would be looking for would be in somebody who has some sort of goals/ambition and is actively working towards them. So the broke student is okay. The intelligent layabout, not so much. JMO.
Mireille wrote:
I know it is easy to just fall like a hammer on Jessica; one thing I remember is that at 19 that would have never happened to me because, no offense, I didn’t think men were really smart
At 19, most women don’t have to view men as smart, just sexy. Of course, one could argue that intelligence in itself is sexy. Some young women do have this view, but most don’t. Not at 19 at any rate. Perhaps you were just smarter than the average girl?
“Your degree is your first husband”
I’m not fond of this metaphor. I get its import, but it makes education sound like something that can be acquired and then potentially gotten rid of. What would be your second husband, a baby?
Romance is to education as marriage/sex is to……a degree?
I’ve had an awesome career and been a totally responsible since my early 20s, exactly like it sounds like Kevin here. I had my own place, brand new cars, etc. Had a girl taken I ‘chance’ on me then I would probably be married now. How did I do with the ladies? They wanted nothing to do with me of course.
In my 30′s I got buff and learned a bit of game lo and behold I’ve seriously lost count on how many women I’ve been with. Being a steady responsible guy like Kevin is a sure route to celibacy if that’s all you have to offer and he got lucky, Chris is obviously a smart woman.
“They agreed that marriage should wait until they could afford a big reception and a long gown.”
This right here is pretty much enough to get me to absolve Shairer’s boyfriend of any responsibility for her eventual situation.
No man is going to give that as the reason for not wife-ing up his baby momma.
She either knew from the gitgo that he wasn’t committed to the relationship or had already decided she wasn’t happy with him.
@Ramble
Well, obviously she was incredibly irresponsible for years. I’m simply pointing out that she is doing her best by her kids with the hand that she herself dealt. She’s not smoking crack, she works very hard to feed them, dress them, love them, etc. But it’s one step forward, two steps back. She’s dug herself into a hole that even the most responsible parent would have difficulty climbing out of.
I didn’t mean to suggest she is a good role model.
Rob wrote:
Shairer’s baby-daddys are black, Kevin is white.
Correction: Shairer’s baby-daddy is black. Her children only have one father. Even given this, the white out of wedlock (OOW) birth rate is over 30%. No doubt some of the white OOW births are attributed to black men, but unless you can provide figures (I haven’t been able to find them), I think it is safe to say that most of the white women who have children OOW are impregnated by white men. Cue Charles Murray….
@RR,
Don’t read too much into it! If you think that women just get rid of their husband that is your POV, not mine nor even the ones who enunciated that maxim. It simply means before you even think of coupling, you should be educated and able support yourself because a degree and education will give you a career and status, instead of looking for those attributes in a male. Simple as that, in fact, one of the few feminist ideas I espouse. You’ll be taken care of, with or without a man.
@Jackie
It can be difficult to filter, but not so difficult that you quit college and have three kids with a deadbeat layabout.
I hear you re chastising men for bad behavior, but to be totally irreverent, “the douchebags will always be with us.”
Ultimately, women are the gatekeepers to sex. Choosing an unworthy man one time for sex can derail an entire life, which is bad enough, but it can also set you on a path to struggling to raise doomed kids.
I wish they would too. Failing that, I wish they would resolve not to have sex with men who are irresponsible, unmotivated and selfish. I thought it was interesting she receives no child support. I wonder what percentage of bio dads actually pay child support. I suspect it is very low.
@derhahn
““They agreed that marriage should wait until they could afford a big reception and a long gown.”
This right here is pretty much enough to get me to absolve Shairer’s boyfriend of any responsibility for her eventual situation. No man is going to give that as the reason for not wife-ing up his baby momma.”
Excellent point. Sounds like she wanted to wait. Most guys would rather elope than deal with all that crap.
@Mike C
Most of the time I assume it’s BS, a method of self-denial/protection of their ego. There have been one or two times (including last weekend) where I’ve heard independent verifications that they DO never do that, and I was actually an exception. Also, there are very, very few attractive women in NYC who at age 25 have an N under 4.
As for “very high N”, I’m currently at 24, which I wouldn’t consider all that high. Maybe that’s because I try to retain some standards in who I’ll sleep with, and it could be a lot higher if I were more indiscriminate. I have a friend who became single at around the same time I have. He’s good looking and has solid game, but has little to no standards when it comes to who he’ll sleep with. In the 2 months since we both became single, he’s slept with 6-7 girls vs. my 3, but if you added up all of their “scores” (ie 1-10 on the hotness scale), I’m pretty sure I’d come out ahead.
@Jackie
I agree. I think there is something very wrong and almost feral in female sexual behavior. Some of these women are in a race to the bottom, and they have zero self awareness or insight.
Yes, I had the same thought. That would have to be the case for 0% of college educated women having multiple baby daddies.
I’ll bet that if we got rid of modern “wedding culture”, it would filter out a lot of the bad wives from the MMP.
And by the way, your “second” husband is your actual husband!!!
And who gets rid of their education? Doesn’t make any sense!
I’m one of those that think smart is sexy but I also believe in being ready (I’m a worrier and get anxious if things don’t line up).
@Escoff
OK, I’ll check it out. I have zero respect for Katie Roiphe at this point. She stood up to feminist power, she got trashed, and now she’s spewing the party line.
ExNewYorker, “was your husband already in Utah during this time period? Just curious…from what I had gathered, the SMP in Utah would seem to be more favorable to “beta” guys looking for long-term, but you’re description of his situation seems closer to the typical “urban” SMP, where STEM guys aren’t particularly in high demand as mates (and yes, wind up involved with lots of video games
)”
Yes, he was in Utah when we met. I think he would have not been single if he was Mormon, but he was raised in a non-religious family. Non-religious STEM and nerdy guys have a lot harder time here.
As a side example, I know a guy who is quite a nerd, played Magic and other video games. He got married very young (around 20) to a Mormon woman who did not attend college and wanted to be a stay-at-home mother. He had a divorce (it was very difficult to obtain; he had to claim to be gay and become ex-Mormon to do it). He later re-married when he was in his late 30s and had a kid.
So basically, STEM men have fewer issues in Utah if they are Mormon, but if not, they face a lot of issues as well.
@Jim
+1
“We are all beautiful..”
Yes, but fairly or not, female attractiveness is based on your build. The single mom pictured had a large, repulsive belly,likely from limited exercise and a diet heavy in cookies,pies, candy, chips, and bread.
Besides being very bad for your health – diabetes,joint pain, and heart disease are real risks – this pretty much excludes her from middle to upper middle class men.
I live in a college town with a few factory towns nearby, and in between are large pockets of rural poverty.
It breaks my heart to see a slump shouldered, grossly overweight woman, several kids in tow, struggle towards the store, huffing and puffing in clothes that are usually far too hot or (even more sadly) far too light for our icy winters.
I don’t mean to sound cruel. But a heavy woman has little chance of a long term relationship with a high value man. Heavy women are probably at a worse disadvantage than a very short or very ugly man.
Instead they tend to get impregnated repeatedly by loutish, thuggish men with limited resources, criminal records, and less personal responsibility than a non-neutered Labrador.
Obesity is a huge class marker, and a terrible health risk, and it unquestionably affects your job prospects, but it also can destroy your love life or prevent one from even having a healthy relationship.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Low Carb,low sugar and low starch diets of vegetables and lean meats, along with weight training and light cardio, can take dozens of mushy, gross, disfiguring pounds away.
And it will (particularly for women) help in marrying a higher quality man.
@Richard Aubrey
Bravo, that cracked me up.
Personally, I believe that the best way of addressing the problem is “cautionary tales.” This article by Jason DeParle is awesome! He is also the guy who wrote about OOW births topping 50% for the under 30 crowd.
I know from my focus groups that they get freaked out by individual stories. In fact, I saw them get totally freaked out by Kate Bolick. I am convinced that the Jacob Marley approach is the way to go.
Richard I like the way you think.
@JT
Great comment, good to see you!
@susan
“I wonder what percentage of bio dads actually pay child support. I suspect it is very low.”
If so, it’s because so many women who have children out of wedlock do so by granting their sexual favor to the worst of men. I honestly don’t know where women find these men. I just can’t think of any I know or have know, professionally or personally, who would act that way. Of course, paying 20% of pre-tax income (often 35% of “take home pay”) per kid is another story.
@mireille
You don’t have to explain why you would want a degree and ability to support yourself. Feminism has made that fairly necessary today.
@SuZQ
Your comment gave my goosebumps – welcome and thanks for leaving it.
There are always a few extraordinary people who find their way through the morass and shine. You are clearly one of those people.
What do you think we should do differently to give more kids a chance? What led to your success?
Susan, I completely understood what you meant. And I stand by what I said. By the time this is all over, I am betting that you will simply think to yourself, “What a stupid slut. And now these kids have an idiot for a mother and a sperm donor for a father.
Although, I am guessing you will word it differently.
Mireille,
Yes, I am aware that one doesn’t get rid of her education. That is the point. A first husband can be gotten rid of, but hopefully and education can’t. That is why I’m not fond of the metaphor. Also, it makes it seem as though an education is a substitute for a husband. Or that men are accessories at best.
You wrote:
Simple as that, in fact, one of the few feminist ideas I espouse. You’ll be taken care of, with or without a man.
Sounds like good practical advice, although the implicit message seems to be men are not to be trusted. Which is cool. I trust men about as far a I could throw them, but I’m a misanthrope. This particular feminist tenet sounds as if it was designed to undermine marriage rather than buttress it.
For a lot of these deadbeat dads, taking 10% of their monthly salary leaves the mother with $0.00.
I am slightly exaggerating, but, you get the idea.
@Passer_By
Nope, some aspects of Feminism rectified some defects of marriage, like being stuck in unions with abusive partners or the lack of freedom (need permission from hubby to open a bank account, hello?!) what about relieving the pressure to provide from the man? I saw the issues and problems created by having one sole provider (it being the male) in my family, and I have NO intention of continuing that “glorious” tradition.
It’s fascinating what you learn about genuinely traditional wedding culture. I would almost bet that the majority of cultures have the bride-to-be put in serious work before the actual wedding. That is, in the days and weeks leading up to the wedding (I am generalizing across many different cultures), she will need to cook this, sew that, etc. And this things are not merely trifles, they can be quite difficult.
Agreed. On our third date, uh sexcapade, my husband shared that he hoped to have a daughter with a particular name. It was very old-fashioned, I didn’t know anyone under 80 with that name. Of course, we named our daughter that and there were never fewer than 3 girls with her name in any class…
Right.
But what about the other half of the Bell Curve?
They usually need more stick with there carrot.
andronicus wrote:
But a heavy woman has little chance of a long term relationship with a high value man. Heavy women are probably at a worse disadvantage than a very short or very ugly man. Instead they tend to get impregnated repeatedly by loutish, thuggish men with limited resources, criminal records, and less personal responsibility than a non-neutered Labrador.
I think you are overstating the case. To begin with, you don’t know what kind of shape Jessica was in before she conceived her first child. Also, did you take a look at Chris Faulkner? She looks to be even heavier than Jessica, yet she is in a stable marriage. How do you account for that?
@Zach
Oh yeah, you’re sitting pretty. You’re bringing the tingles and the bucks. Take your pick.
I can top that. My grandmother was named Hedwig.
@Zach
Your current prospect is hooking up smart.
“Nope, some aspects of Feminism rectified some defects of marriage, like being stuck in unions with abusive partners or the lack of freedom ”
You didn’t need no-fault divorce to get out of abusive relationships. And, contrary to the feminist mantra, truly abusive relationships were not the norm at all.
Look, I don’t have a problem with feminists wanting women to have the ability to go to school, to enter the workplace in all capacities and not be abused, etc. (in the true sense), but the side effects of much of what they do has created a situation where most women will not be able to find a provider type husband even if they want one – to the point where the ability of a woman to stay home with the kids is now an upper class status symbol in many places. It also has resulted in the rise in single motherhood (by lobbying for more and more sexual choice and more and more money for single mothers).
“(need permission from hubby to open a bank account, hello?!) ”
Well, men essentially need their wives’ permission to segregate funds, if that’s what you mean. If you simply mean women had no individual agency (like minors), you’d have to go back pretty far for that. I assume you would be equally bothered by the fact that if I, tomorrow, went to the local urologist to get a vasectomy, he would likely hand me a consent form to be signed by my wife. This happened to me a few years ago, so I’m not making it up.
“what about relieving the pressure to provide from the man?”
That never goes away for men who give a crap. It’s just become harder to do.
“I saw the issues and problems created by having one sole provider (it being the male) in my family, and I have NO intention of continuing that “glorious” tradition.”
Ok. But I had a great stay at home mom and a dad who treated her like a queen, and so did almost all of my friends. That’s out of reach for many people now.
Mireille wrote:
I saw the issues and problems created by having one sole provider (it being the male) in my family, and I have NO intention of continuing that “glorious” tradition.
But their are also problems inherent in the two income family structure. There is no free lunch. BTW, if you don’t mind my asking, what were the problems you observed in families with the man as the sole provider, aside from the obvious one of losing the sole source of income?
@RR
I’m not really understanding this. There’s IQ, and then there’s sound judgment, which may be related but are two different things. Jessica clearly has a personality profile that seeks risky relationships, prioritizes short-term gratification, and conveniently rationalizes away real concerns.
Judgment, it seems to me, is about smarts and personality. We can’t do much about the former, but we can definitely attempt to alter personality, or at least drive home a realistic cost/benefit tradeoff.
OOW births are much more closely aligned with lack of education than race in this country.
@Passer_by,
You had to get permission from your wife for a vasectomy??!!! Talk about adding insult to injury! Get your Rosary off my Vas Deferens! Men need a movement, totally!!
If you don’t mind my asking, why would you consider getting a vascetomy, aside from the obvious reason?Does the pill sicken your wife?
I found this rationalization painful. Her Bridezilla instincts were very convenient for him as a means of avoiding marriage. Women need to just STOP fussing about the wedding. If you love a man, none of that means anything. A nice wedding is fine, but it seems that things have gotten really out of control.
@rr
We didn’t want to have any more kids, and I felt that the long term health risks and inconvenience of the pill (and IUDs, etc.) were undoubtedly worse than a vasectomy. Having said that, the permission slip pissed me off so much that I put it off, and then other events overtook the need for me to do it – she ended up needing a hysterectomy (or so her doctor said – I’m still not so sure).
@Passer_by
This is why I said “some aspects of feminism” and “some defects of marriage”. Mind the nuance. Also you have no way of knowing what the norm was because plenty of women endured and kept quiet; domestic abuse is usually considered an underreported phenomenon, no wishful thinking. Even when divorce was allowed in the 60s and 70s, it didn’t translate in women just dumping their husband, believe it or not, some of them wanted to make it work even when they should have given up ( like that Jessica actually).
Moreover, you’re using the vasectomy example the wrong way. Marriage has for goal (traditionally) the production of children, getting a vasectomy without consulting your spouse is akin to removing one of the expected fruits/reasons for the union. Ergo, you have to consult him/her. I’m pretty sure she cannot on her hand get a hysterectomy on her own.
@susan
“OOW births are much more closely aligned with lack of education than race in this country.”
Yeah, but lack of education is closely associated with lower IQ, so it’s not so clear to me that more education would solve the issue.
@Passer By
Agreed, that’s the point of the post.
WRT the tale that has a point: Nope. Easiest thing in the world is to say, “This is different,” If challenged, simply point out the century. The twenty-first. Must mean something.
Best way so far, if results are the issue, is “It’s a sin.” No “It’s different”. No, “but he loves me”. No “this way I’ll have my own case and get an apartment and food stamps and be independently wealthy”.
I get that the best way society has yet discovered isn’t coming back. But all those who oppose it ought to either come up with something more effective–in the real world, I mean–or acknowledge that they’re too highly-evolved to regard actual effectiveness as a deciding factor.
The reflex is to point out that the old way wasn’t perfect. As if anybody said it was. To say that something is effective is not contradicted by discovering a way in which it is not completely perfect.
@RR
Imagine being a SAHM married to a control freak. Every pennies must be accounted for and only strict minimum is given. Because you don’t “work”, you must be available all the time and can’t complain because you have it made. No way of getting your own car, leisure activities/trips, expenses, all have to be approved, allowed; it becomes a “gift”, not a natural thing. Add to it the threats of divorce, emotional blackmail and constant reminders that “HE” is the one that makes the family. But you stay because your kids are fed and go to the best schools.
I’m happy I’m not a stripper and have 2 degrees since “daddy loved me” but he wasn’t a great husband either. I learned to be a strong woman, on his model, and will certainly use these experience in the choice of a husband.
@mireille
“I’m pretty sure she cannot on her hand get a hysterectomy on her own.”
Surely you jest. Me have control of HER body? Could you imagine the 1,000,000 woman march the feminists would organize if women had to consult their husbands on such things. She wouldn’t even need my consent (or to tell me) if she wanted to abort our child.
Also, just to pick a nit, the equivalent would be having her tubes tied, not a hysterectomy, but I get your drift.
@ Mirielle
“Anyway, I find most of the male comments so “interesting”. Isn’t this a woman who chose to mate early (instead of prioritizing getting a bunch of degrees or wait an “hit the wall”) and stick with one man ( instead of “riding the carousel”) even when his finances were limited ( instead of just staying as long as he could provide)? She sounds like one of those women that are praised all day by commenters here, yet, gets stoned for following the authorized script?!”
Uh. No. The men on HUS don’t condone Jessica’s behaviour at all. When they talk about women prioritizing children and relationships, they are talking about the 23/24/25/26 year olds wasting their time getting drunk, hooking up/having sex with the Alphas (Alphas defined here are men who have easy access to sex by factors such as good looks, money, status, preselection, and game but generally bad relationship prospects), as opposed to the Betas ( Betas defined here are men who are quite educated – read Hope’s husband – but may not have the ultimate winning combination of looks, status, preselection, game etc.). The men here are hoping that educated women will not jump on the carousel during university and even after it, but will instead invest time in good relationship prospects. Jessica’s decisions run counter to the general HUS male commenter’s “authorized script”.
Susan,
Intelligence informs judgment. Intelligent people have a tendency to exercise better judgment as compared to less intelligent people. Even if judgment were due wholly to personality, one’s personality is as hard to change as one’s level of intelligence. Jessica may have been impulsive (which is negatively correlated with IQ, BTW), but could she really have changed her personality through sheer dint of will? Cost/benefit analysis? She no doubt did do a cost benefit analysis, just not a very thorough analysis. And her analysis wasn’t very thorough because she isn’t very bright.
We shouldn’t judge here. Lack of intelligence is not a character defect. What she needed was sound guidance, but she didn’t get it. Many of us don’t get the guidance we need because it is assumed we are all the same. Thus it makes it easy to negatively judge people who aren’t very smart.
OOW births are very closely aligned with intelligence, of which education often serves as a proxy.
@Hope,
“I think he would have not been single if he was Mormon, but he was raised in a non-religious family. “
Ah, that answers the question. Yeah, I can see that not being Mormon would be a disqualifier for a lot of women who might have been interested.
“So basically, STEM men have fewer issues in Utah if they are Mormon, but if not, they face a lot of issues as well.”
Sounds like what I imagined, but it’s always good to hear confirmation from someone closer to the situation, so to speak.
I remember visiting Salt Lake City over a decade ago, and I was doing a little of bit sightseeing near the Temple by myself, and lo and behold, a pretty young woman walked up to me to give me a tour. For a short time during the tour, the temptation to convert to Mormonism flashed through my eyes
Though in the end, I realized I’d make a bad Mormon (it’s been easier to be a bad Catholic, though… 
)
@Suzy,
You didn’t get my comment. The script I’m talking about is the one approved as preferable by the HUS men, yet she got stoned. Of course, she didn’t have a questionable behavior. Men here have several scripts about women, positive or negative.
@suzy
Actually, many betas have looks, but lack game or status (however defined).
@Mirielle
Your father was a control freak. I’m sorry to hear that. Do you think most men who are sole providers for their families are control freaks? I gather your mother was in a bad marriage, yet you nonetheless took the plunge. It seems to me that the problem is not with males as sole breadwinners, but rather particular types of males as sole breadwinners. Certainly a woman can be miserable in a two income marriage. A woman can even be miserable if she herself is the sole provider. Sole provider marriages don’t kill people. People kill people:)
@ Passer_By
I know that – but you’re right I should have I included that Betas may have a combination of those “Alpha” traits but may ultimately lack (or have the perception of lacking) the winning combination that would make them sought after by the multitudes of women who want Alphas.
@Mirielle
Yes, the men here do have a script that they wish women would follow – get married early, have children (preferably early, but this is left up to the couple) with their husband, and remain happily married to their husband till they die. But I fail to see how Jessica fulfills any of those criteria except for having children early. That being said, I’m open to explanation.
I’ll pass on one piece of advice for women looking for decent men. Look outside the local area. STEM professionals, in particular, are found in clumps – and frequently in remote areas.
@RR
Power corrupts, men and women. Checks and balance and such! You know the drill. I believe in marriage but on terms that are acceptable for both people. However I don’t have overly romantic view of it like some men and women have.
@Mirielle
If power corrupts a marriage, why do successful sole breadwinner marriages exist? Heck, how do any successful marriages exist? Within any marriage, there will be power imbalances in certain areas. The division of labor within a marriage is not itself inherently corrupting. The real problem has to do with how the people in the marriage are ranked with respect to each other. I would agree that net power imbalances undermine marriages, but there is nothing inherently corrupting about a sole bread winner marriage.
I never got this. If everyone is beautiful, then nobody is. And why is obesity an “unfair” measure of beauty, but other things are?
Beauty isn’t necessarily a comparative thing. It is quite possible for every unit in a set to be pleasant to look at, without necessitating that everything in the set look alike. Of course some units in the set may be more beautiful than others, but they can all possess a degree of beauty.
That said, there are ugly people in the world, and some people hide their ugliness on the inside.
Power attracts the corruptible. That said, power is not in itself bad. You either have it or somebody else has it, or the random acts of the world have it.
@Susan
I’d change that to “Women decide if there are enough Kevins to go around. Choosing a worthy man of good character and potential as a sexual partner is the single most important decision any woman can make. ”
The key insight of the ‘sphere is women, as a whole, in Western culture no longer choose men for sex partners primarily on character and potential. Tingle means more to enough women that men more and more are deciding that the “bad boy” (real or faux) is the way to go. Why? Well, for one it’s easier. Second, it’s more effective. If you can get high test gas that gives you better mileage cheaper than regular why would you ever buy regular.
If they can get pussy by not holding themselves to high standards and working to improve themselves at a better rate than those two hard activities will get them, men on the whole will not hold themselves to high standards or work hard.
Seriously, did we somehow have magic Kevin dust in the air in 1952 as 2012? No, unless women being taught that sex was too valuable to give up for tingles was magic Kevin dust.
That’s where the feminists will continue to fail. They don’t understand that not only is fucking like men not satisfying for most women but it also fails to signal men to become the guys they still expect us to be.
Think back to the abortion debate here a few threads back. We allow women abortion AND child support because the burdens of unplanned pregnancy fall on them. I don’t disagree with that being the historical reason.
But it would be fucking nice if women actually acted like that when they choose sexual partners.
I’m sure Mireille will not like this, but in my observation, power tends to corrupt women in a marriage more often then men. Men are more wired to be protective of mates over whom they have power, whereas a woman is more likely become contemptuous toward a man over whom she has power. Exceptions exist on both sides, of course.
@Passer_By
Yeah. What you said. Woe be the man without hand!
ExNewYorker, the funny thing is, according to my husband, I’d make a good Mormon. I don’t drink, smoke, drink coffee or even cuss.
When we were playing WoW, we were good friends with a couple in a different state who were Mormons. The husband works in IT, and his name is also Kevin! They got married right out of college and have two kids. The wife majored in mathematics and is also a nerd-lover. As an aside, they’re both also in shape.
Basically there’s another Kevin for the count.
@Passer_By
Agree 100%. When the woman wears the pants, everyone in the family is miserable – including the woman. I speak from personal experience.
From reading Style’s book it seems that turning oneself into a man who triggers the tingle takes more effort than getting a degree and setting oneself up in a career. Becoming the “lovable” Beta provider can be done, and done more easily for non-naturals, but why bother if there isn’t a payoff.
Sex is a powerful motivator, being offered great sex for being a great husband and father would provide a definite motivation. But likewise, if you can get sex without that by being a veritable thug, or even worse you can only get sex by being a thug, well that’s a definite motivation away from being a respectable man.
Which is pretty much what you’ve been saying all along Susan. Women underestimate their power to change things for the better, but they won’t do it with the silly girl power fantasies of feminism.
@jason
Must like girls used to have to take home economics in high school, boys should have to take a class in “Thuggery for Dummies” or “Home Thugonomics” or some such thing.
@Passer_By Kevin (21)
” I’m not saying what he did was ok, but this is just a marriage that didn’t last, and the kids will be well cared for. Whatever his faults, he’s not abandoning his kids and he is clearly concerned about the well being of his ex”
Hey Kevin,
Interesting viewpoint.
I perceive it differently: The guy in question, by cheating on his wife of 10_ years, is NOT concerned about the well-being of his ex. He may be providing lip-service, but somebody who is ready to cheat, wreck a marriage, and destroy his children’s childhood is only concerned about himself.
The article I read said that he was OK with her putting up the sign, that his ex-wife did the divorce paperwork (instead of a lawyer) to save him thousands of dollars, that she prepared to go immediately back to work, and that she is even paying for the storage of his stuff, as he and the woman he is cheating with have *no fixed address* at present.
The guy is a selfish tool. And don’t tell me this isn’t going to affect the kids, because it is, big time. If he cared for his children he would have sought counselling or a divorce INSTEAD of blindsiding his family by cheating.
UGH.
@Passer-By
” Something is off. And the fact that she couldn’t articulate why she stayed with him says a lot to me. ”
This is how women tend to talk when asked to explain why they stayed with guys like that. She doesn’t want to say (and might not even fully grasp) that she stayed with him because his behavior gave her the tingle.”
I remember when I was affected by some guy who was trying to play me. I was really attracted to him but he was only flirting with me. Cruel boy!
====
Ahh, the rationalization hamster.
Anyway, I wanted to justify it to myself a million different ways. But instead, I told it to my “college dad” (my landlord– imagine an incarnation of Ron Swanson
).
Hearing myself tell it to him, and hearing his perspective basically did it for me and temporarily anaesthetized the little critter. I still was attracted to the guy, but at least it didn’t go further than a hug and I am able to laugh about it now.
@Jackie jackie
I’m simply saying it’s a matter of degree. This woman is not in the situation that the woman in the first article is in. Nor will she be, apparently. And, for the record, I’ve seen women treat their husbands much worse when they are through with them.
@Ramble
“If shaming works as a strategy, then why are so many people still overweight?
Because they are big and beautiful. We are all beautiful. I mean, come on, it ain’t the size of the ocean, it’s the motion of the ocean.”
Ramble, do you really think people are deluding themselves? Come on. I don’t think *anyone* believes that.
I am cool with “size acceptance” because, really, it’s none of my business. Maybe they have a medical condition like one of my mentors (Prednisone), maybe they are severely depressed. maybe they have been abused. Making fun of heavy people is just a cheap shot, since they are already the walking wounded.
I think my point still stands: Society is not very nice to heavy people. They get a TON of shaming and humiliation, the butt of every joke. Shame is definitely not working. They need encouragement and support.
I would rather see initiatives to help them get healthy, just like I would prefer the SMP to get less promiscuous. Both problems are “simple but not easy.”
@PB (147)
Oh I see what you’re saying. Thanks for the clarification.
Man, this is a hard thread to read– people being so terrible to those they promised to love and cherish. The only victories here are Pyhrric.
Time for cat videos or CuteOverload, STAT!
1 2 3 … 17 »
{ 1 trackback }