Don’t be Carrie
The Millennials, or Generation Y, are currently aged 10-28. The oldest are just reaching the average age at marriage, and though 70% of them plan to marry and 74% want children, there are indications that many women are frustrated with their dating lives. (H/T: Stuart Schneiderman) What’s the problem? Their careers.
In Why Are So Many Professional Millennial Women Unable To Find Dateable Men?, Larissa Faw of Forbes writes:
My Millennial-aged girl friends and I never doubted that we would accomplish all of our life goals. Everything, thus far, has pretty much gone according to our plans. We were accepted into the right college, landed the dream job, and developed a network of amazing friends. Our apartments are beautifully decorated and we have closets full of stylish clothing. Romance hasn’t been entirely sidelined, but we don’t waste our time trying to cultivate a relationship unless someone is really amazing.
But now, a growing number of Millennial women are beginning to fret over the unanticipated consequences of prioritizing our careers before love. And I only need to look at my group of friends to see this reality. Again and again, year after year, my successful, gorgeous, and amazing friends remain kiss-less on New Year’s Eve. And on Valentine’s Day. And on the 4th of July. The only dateable men we encounter are either attached, gay, or otherwise involved in “it’s complicated” situations. We are coming to the realization that we were unwittingly playing a game of musical chairs — while everyone was pairing up, those focused on our careers are left standing alone.
I’ve been using the musical chairs metaphor since I began blogging – it’s been clear for two decades that women were outperforming men in education, and the current college ratio of 57% female, 43% male makes it undeniable that we have a serious problem with marriage prospects.
One third of today’s female college graduates will not marry a college educated male.
There are two reasons why Millennial women at the upper end of the age range are single and lonely:
1. They want high achieving men, and there aren’t enough of them to go around.
2. They are ambitious in their careers but lazy about their love lives.
For one, it’s not as if we are holding out for Jake Gyllenhaal, but we do have certain non-negotiable expectations for potential mates that include college degrees and white-collar jobs. Life has always gone according to our plans, so why wouldn’t we land a man with these (reasonable) requirements?
This unwillingness to settle for less than we think we deserve is joined by a lax attitude towards searching for potential mates. We’re busy dominating the world. We don’t have time to hang out at bars. While some of us explore online dating or take a more proactive approach, the majority of Millennial women have long assumed we would meet Prince Charming via friends, or through their own social circles.
There’s nothing women can do about the sex ratio in college, but they can certainly be strategic in their search for a mate. Indeed, it is not a random game of musical chairs. By making the right choices, you can get a tipoff on when the music is about to stop.
How Millennial Women Really Feel About Their Careers
Faw observes that many young women are burning out at work by age 30:
Today, 53% of corporate entry-level jobs are held by women, a percentage that drops to 37% for mid-management roles and 26% for vice presidents and senior managers, according to McKinsey research.
She notes that “Many also didn’t think of their lives beyond landing the initial first job…Even those who did plot out their lives past the initial first career have unrealistic expectations about full-time employment. It’s not as if these women expected their jobs to be parties and good times, but many underestimated the actual day-to-day drudgery.”
More importantly:
While earlier generations may have opted out of the workforce through marriage or motherhood, these paths aren’t viable for these self-sufficient women, who either are still single or unwilling to be fully supported by men.
Meghan Casserley, in Is ‘Opting Out’ The New American Dream For Working Women? confirms that most working women (not just Millennials) want to step off the career track:
At a moment in history when the American conversation seems to be obsessed with bringing attention to women in the workplace (check out “The End of Men,” or Google “gender paygap” for a primer), it seems a remarkable chasm between what we’d like to see (more women in the corporate ranks) and what we’d like for ourselves (getting out of Dodge). But it’s true: according to our survey, 84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.
“I think what we’re seeing here is a backlash over the pressure we’ve seen for women to perform, perform, perform both at work and at home,” says Leslie Morgan-Steiner, the author of Mommy Wars: Stay-at-Home and Career Moms Face Off on Their Choices, Their Lives, Their Families. “Over the past three to five years we’ve seen highly educated women—who we’d imagine would be the most ambitious—who are going through med school, getting PhDs with the end-goal in mind of being at home with their kids by age 30.”
Arguably the most famous working mom in corporate America today, Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, wants women to stop dropping out. In her widely viewed TED Talk, Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders, Sandberg tells women the most important thing is to “Keep your foot on the gas pedal!” and not take any more time off for kids than is absolutely necessary. She holds herself up as a model of a loving and involved mother who also happens to have a big job. However, close viewing of the Talk reveals the following inconsistency:
“My daughter, who’s three…” (early in the talk)
“I have a 5 year old son and a two year old daughter.” (end of the talk)
This is a woman who does not know the age of her own child.
Kay Hymowitz, in The Plight of the Alpha Female acknowledges that Sandberg’s exhortations are futile.
Feminists have come up with some theories to explain the dearth of women in the C-suite: those in the running would necessarily be aggressive, a trait that men in power don’t like to see in women; executives and boards don’t believe that women are capable of the highest-octane work; women lack men’s sense of entitlement in the pursuit of fame and fortune. But “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” a recent, widely discussed Atlantic cover story, should help redirect the conversation to the obvious: it’s the kids.
…Women are less inclined than men to think that power and status are worth the sacrifice of a close relationship with their children…Nothing in the array of work/family policy prescriptions—family leave, child care, antidiscrimination lawsuits, flextime, and getting men to cut their work hours—will lead women to infiltrate the occupational 1 percent. They simply don’t want to.
Hymowitz argues that this strong female preference to be at home with children is what makes the “end of men” argument silly. Still, I don’t think society is in good shape when we expect men to play second string, getting in the game only after women have opted out by choice. And what does that mean for men who want to marry? How can they advance in their careers when women who plan to step off in less than ten years are front and center until then, scooping up promotions?
Your Best Strategy For Finding a Mate
Prioritize relationships.
Don’t waste time halfwaying it or “just having fun” if you want to marry and have a family.
Date for the long-term.
If you don’t meet your future spouse in college (few people do), immediately upon graduating think of every potential relationship as serious and lasting. No dating Mr. Right Now.
Filter, filter, filter.
Dads not cads. Filter in for character, and drop the checklist of superficial stuff.
Put the word out.
Don’t pretend to be fabulously single unless you want to stay that way. Let your friends, family and coworkers know you’re in it to win it. Accept as many invitations, blind dates, and introductions as you possibly can. Dial down the bar scene as your go-to weekend plan. Your chances of meeting your husband in a bar are not nil, but they’re slim.
Your Best Strategy For Staying Home With Your Kids
Penelope Trunk wrote a post with some excellent advice: How to plan a career in your 20s to stay home with kids in your 30s.
Key points:
Understand that your job performance is ephemeral.
For those of you who will fall into the 84% [who want to stay home], understand that the life you have as a high performer at work is going to end when you have kids. Priorities will change, and it will not matter that you are a high performer because you will not choose to sustain that when you have kids. Work is a place where you get external rewards for being smart and productive and a good team member. You do not get that at home.
Accept that you will fall behind.
Women are performing at a higher level at work than men are right now. So, statistically speaking, when you decide to stay home with kids, the people you were better than will start moving ahead of you. It will kill you. Prepare for this. It works best to think of your career as a time in your life. You were a high performer when you did it, but now it’s over.
Live below your means.
You know at age 23 if it’s likely that you’ll want to stay home with kids. Which means the minute you get married you should adjust your spending for one income. This will always keep the door open for you to stay home with kids.
Pick your spouse carefully.
If you want to stay home with kids, don’t marry a guy who can’t earn a living. If you want to stay home with kids, make it clear that even though you earn more than the guy, the guy will be the breadwinner. If you want to stay home with kids then you put all your financial hopes in the guy’s career. Whatever his earning ability is, then that is your earning ability, because you are a team, and he is the breadwinner.
Don’t be the woman who turns 30 and says, “Whaaaaa?” Plan ahead. Be smart. When the music stops, you want to get a chair, and with any luck it won’t be a barstool.
{ 1314 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 9 »
The escalating War on the Male Brain is reaching into the mainstream. Even so-called “qualified” men are going to take pause about what is out there waiting for them when they see garbage like this:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/12/study-sluttiness-is-a-state-of-mind.html
.
That magazine cover was fake … it was a JOKE. Plus, SJP is now married (and so is Carrie, but of course that’s fiction and IRL you shouldn’t marry Mr. Big).
I dunno — I actually think it’s more destructive to for young women to approach their dating lives with the mindset that reaching their 30th birthday without a wedding ring on their finger would be some kind of disaster. Recipe for ending up with the wrong guy.
Meh as to Faw, Casserley and Hymowitz. Same old, same old. Kate Bolick Part Deux.
I suggest if a woman wants to marry, the earlier the better.
Wow, I find nothing to complain about in this post
Realization of asset depreciation often lags the actual decrease in value.
@escoffier
“Wow, I find nothing to complain about in this post”
Well, then, let me step up to the plate for you. I don’t want to go all hard core manospherian here, but I find it interesting that Susan can write this post, and then wholly deny the existence of a feminine imperative in our current culture. I don’t mean so much what she’s written herself, so much as the tone of the sources and the prism through which they view things.
I don’t understand this comment. I don’t believe any of the above gave advice, they reported facts. You may find it “meh” but I’m not talking to you, remember?
@Escoffier
Haha, I thought you’d be pleased.
” I actually think it’s more destructive to for young women to approach their dating lives with the mindset that reaching their 30th birthday without a wedding ring on their finger would be some kind of disaster. Recipe for ending up with the wrong guy.”
===
Agreed! The focus shouldn’t be on locking down a guy ASAP, it should be finding the *right* guy. One with whom they are ready to devote a lifetime.
(Maybe it’s because my parents were both over 30 when they married that this makes sense to me. I wouldn’t be here otherwise!
It was a conscious choice to find what they were looking for; not borne out of fear they needed to “lock something down.”)
Also, Susan will always mention that you should be absolutely, positively head-over-heels when you walk down the aisle. That happens when it happens– you should definitely be looking for it! But it’s not something that can be put on a deadline.
Also that NY Mag pic of SJP — I don’t know if they Photo-shopped it or what– is plain mean. It makes NY Mag look small and petty.
I don’t like her character, don’t like SATC and only appreciate her unique fashion sense… but making fun of someone’s appearance is a low blow.
Agreed, I’m not a fan of really any of the characters on SATC — and I might have found Carrie the most annoying — but I don’t see how any of them are an example of a “cautionary tale.”
@Passer By
This is a fair question. I fully acknowledge the role of feminism in society and its ill effects. This post is a clear example of the way in which I address these issues. The prism of the sources is, as you say, generally feminist. What I find surprising and therefore especially useful is that even these women are acknowledging what we know to be true. Most women don’t want high powered careers in lieu of children or time with their children.
I also find the “cautionary tale” aspect useful as a way of providing advice to women in their 20s.
I do not equate the terms feminism and female imperative, and neither does Rollo. He focuses much more on carousel riding, cuckolding, going feral during ovulation, etc. He’s also convinced that women are scheming to make men unaware of their own SMV as they age (Rollo says a man’s SMV is highest in his late 30s and early 40s – that may appeal to you.
) I imagine that it is difficult for men to want 23 year old women throughout their lives, and to become invisible to them after a certain point.
There may not be a ‘feminine imperative”, but there has been a gentle subsidizing of female ‘amazingness’ by the US government, businesses, and the media. Any male who achieves an equal level of amazingness will have had to fight extremely hard against a not-overwhelming-but-very-steady current.
And he will have no trouble marrying the shopgirl if she cleans up nicely and can hold her own with the flat-rear brigade in the UMC.
Poor kids of mine, so unamazing, educated in second tier public universities and fighting for the leftovers. Someone should warn Ms Faw of the shitstorm brewing out here in the Panem provinces. Of course, she’s writing for [u]Forbes[/u], not [u]Mother Jones[/u]…
PB, I don’t understand your point.
You can’t conflate Susan and the sources she quotes. They don’t have the same agenda. Susan uses those sources to make her own points which are broadly not feminist, even if they are also not exactly pre-feminist.
As I said in the other thread, Susan is seeking “synthesis” between the pre-SR “thesis” and the SR/feminist “antithesis.” She seems most concerned about preserving female gains in education but this post shows a great willingness to reconsider the long-term value of female gains in the workforce.
So, it may not go as far as you or I want and her solution may not be practicable soceity-wide. But it is a hell of a lot better than what we have now and it is certainly practicable for as many individual women get the message and implement it in their lives.
I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I do believe that women benefit from having an awareness and a mindset of future time orientation from the time they graduate from college.
Yes, but …
Let’s not treat the search for the “right guy” like the quest for the Holy Grail. We know where that leads. Realistically, it’s not going to take five years for most women unless she is extremely lazy, unlucky or picky.
@susan
“The prism of the sources is, as you say, generally feminist. ”
It’s not that they are feminist (though they may be), it’s that they are totally fem centric, which sometimes is the same and sometimes is not. Every issue in society is viewed through the prism of how it impacts women, not how it impacts everyone.
There aren’t enough successful men to marry? Oh my God, those poor fabulous, beautiful single women. No stopping to wonder what sort of society we have created where so many men can’t succeed to point of being marriageable. It’s only bemoaning the fact that we haven’t structured things so that men can best serve these women’s life plans.
Finding their careers not fulfulling and burned out? Oh, my God, we got it wrong, we need to restructure things so that they can modify the career track to correct that. No thought of “Wow, how much must it have sucked to be a guy who had no choice but to go through that grind for 45 years no matter how he felt about it.” Also, no stopping to ponder whether society should be spending $200,000 to educate these women with medical degrees and PhDs only to have them want off the career track at 30-35. It doesn’t matter whether that’s a good idea, so long as their lives are more fulfilling.
And all the articles bemoaning the end of men only get attention or generate concern when it is pointed out that this will impact women in a negative way. It’s never bad just because it’s bad for men – they don’t really count except to the extent that it impacts women (and, I suppose, children).
That’s the feminine imperative. Even those who are not feminists in any true sense (and I would probably include Hymowitz in that) view it all through this prism. You might not because you have a son recently graduated, so it might impact him. Even churches and religious figures who don’t purport to advocate feminism at all view all these issues first through the prism of how they impact the well being of women. And it’s not just women that do it, men do it too (read anything from Bill Bennet).
As to your point about the 23 year old women, etc., I think that’s a side issue, and these guys are mistaken to attribute the age gap shaming (to the extent it exists) to the feminine imperative. Older men poaching younger women benefits younger women as a whole (raises their market value) but hurts younger men as a whole as well as women the same age as the older men. It’s a wash in terms of benefit to the sexes. It’s just that 30-40 year old women control the media narrative much more than 23 year old women.
I’m ok being invisible to 23 year old women – it happened about a year or two ago (for the most part). Less temptation to hurt people I care about and fuck up my life, if nothing else.
I didn’t even realize that was a joke! I took it at face value. It does drive home the point, though.
@LJ
Simple. If you want to be them, emulate them. If you do not want to end up like them, be cautious – here is what they did wrong.
Are the men between ages 20 and 35 ready for this?
@escoffier
“You can’t conflate Susan and the sources she quotes. They don’t have the same agenda. Susan uses those sources to make her own points which are broadly not feminist, even if they are also not exactly pre-feminist.”
I’m not conflating them at all. I’m simply saying that by constantly reading and quoting these sources, you’d think it might eventually jump out at her how much the narrative in the mainstream culture, including more mainstream media, is through the female perspective.
This site SHOULD be somewhat fem centric in that it purports first to be a sight to give advice to young women (though other stuff gets discussed a lot). I don’t have a problem with that. I’m more commenting on how Susan can read all these various dominant media sources and then staunchly deny that they tend to view issues first through the lens of how they impact women, without much regard to how they impact men as a group.
The perspective that I see is everything is framed as what women want and what men are expected to give up with this quote as an example “Still, I don’t think society is in good shape when we expect men to play second string, getting in the game only after women have opted out by choice.”
Women are crowding out men in employment and in the upper management ranks when men are most youthful and productive. Right when women are ready to drop out at the edge of their fertility, men are behind and they have difficulty catching up.
Sheryl Sandberg is a woman that has everything. She is the worst example for women because what she’s doing is clearly the exception to the rule. It isn’t the rule.
Responsible men who can support their families is still the rule; however, it has slowly eroded. I’m sure it won’t be the rule anymore in general. In many communities, it isn’t the rule anymore. There has to be some pushback or else we can continue to see more aging spinster females whithering away.
@Passer By
I agree with everything you say about misandry in society. I attempt to highlight that in the post after the Hymowitz excerpt. I have also frequently accused feminism as being about female supremacy. In this way I am in agreement with the manosphere.
My issue is with the idea as proposed by Rollo, which goes much deeper into a view of female sexuality as selfish, scheming, and feral, all at the expense of men.
It’s not women who have aborted polygyny throughout history – it is men. If monogamy produces civilization and polygyny erodes it, Rollo sees Team Woman as the culprit. I don’t buy it.
@Passer_By
“Well, then, let me step up to the plate for you. I don’t want to go all hard core manospherian here, but I find it interesting that Susan can write this post, and then wholly deny the existence of a feminine imperative in our current culture. I don’t mean so much what she’s written herself, so much as the tone of the sources and the prism through which they view things.”
I find this interesting too, but I don’t care to bring it up most of the time because I’m not sure Susan really understands how far reaching it is- when you own the terms and even the morality of gender dialog, there is very little chance of an objective discussion. I have known that something was up since grade school, although I couldn’t put a name to it. And I suspect many guys of my generation have sensed what was going on in our formative years. I don’t really read the “sphere” but they are right about a lot of what can be called the “female imperative”. The interesting part is that while the “imperative” is about female needs at the expense of all others, in practice it is dragging women in conflicting directions, which brings us to Susan’s blog post…
I hate to be cruel. Millennial women have too many demands, but are getting fatter. Sorry, but workaholism does not lend itself to proper nutrition and staying in shape. Yes, there are a few freaks who will stay in shape despite long hours, but most of them are already taken! All the high fashion in the world cannot shroud adipose tissue. It remains unclear to me why a man should give his resources to someone who is in the early stages of letting themselves go.
Uh, Susan -
It just dawned on me that a lot of your advice seems to center on making the girls who pay attention to it smart enough to deprive a less-aware girl of similar value of a suitable partner.
Pretty Machiavellian advice. I’m glad I never had to compete against one of your companies in the marketplace. It makes me wonder how much of this “grow the pie” rhetoric we hear at election time is precisely that – rhetoric.
Oof. We are in 100% agreement. This is not the way Rollo has defined femcentric. No one is disputing the agenda of female supremacy and the tendency of the media and politicians to play into it. I consider it a serious problem.
Let’s not use that word. Once again, I regret its introduction into the conversation by Mike C, who really can’t resist bringing Rollo here, like a cat with a dead mouse.
If people want to explore “femcentrism” per Rollo, I’ve linked to the discussion. If people want to talk here about the greater impact of feminism on society and relationships, I’m all for it.
I have learned this the hard way. I prefer to avoid contentious debate between the genders here, as it is exhausting to moderate and generally leads nowhere good.
@Susan and Passer_By
And before Susan jumps on me for suggesting women are inherently selfish- I think the female imperative as described by Rollo et al is actually the manifestation of female instincts given too much power by the law and social norms. As we know, absolute power corrupts, so the worst of those instincts will be magnified, which doesn’t really speak to the morality of said instincts very much at all. The times I’ve read Rollo on this topic, it has the tone of a warning to me, not a cause to “take up arms”, because he’s not telling me anything I don’t know or haven’t seen.
@Mule
Guilty as charged. Survival of the fittest. Actually, if we know that there are going to be involuntarily single women, wouldn’t you prefer that your daughter not be one of them? And wouldn’t you want her to increase her odds of success by being prepared and thoughtful?
The Forbes article has this strange quote “The only dateable men we encounter are either attached, gay, or otherwise involved in “it’s complicated” situations.”
By definition, the men aren’t datable. Alternatively, the professional women are not datable.
Women who focus on their careers and stylist clothing are unattractive.
I can’t believe there is going to be an arguement about the feminine imperative and ignore that fact that things are changing for the better! It’s like some of you are mad because the change didn’t happen the way you thought it might with a western culture apocolypse.
@susan
“My issue is with the idea as proposed by Rollo, which goes much deeper into a view of female sexuality as selfish, scheming, and feral, all at the expense of men.”
Maybe I don’t read Rollo as much as you do, but I don’t take the term “feminine imperative” to mean that. Those things you describe there are just selfish traits if left unchecked. We can find plenty for men too. I’m not saying he doesn’t say those things about women, just that I don’t think that that’s what is meant by the “feminine imperative.”
The feminine imperative seems to be to be a societal phenomenon. You call it “misandry”, but I’m not sure that really fits, since it’s not really borne of a dislike or contempt for men, so much as just not really giving a shit about their personal well being or happiness to same extent we do for women. Consequently, every issue is viewed first from the angle of how women are impacted, rather than how men might be impacted (except insofar as the impact on men affects women).
Sorry thats apocalypse.
@susan
“Let’s not use that word. Once again, I regret its introduction into the conversation by Mike C, who really can’t resist bringing Rollo here, like a cat with a dead mouse.”
Okeedoke. I just didn’t want you be disappointed that nobody was criticizing anything in your post.
Reminds me of the famous anti-NYT joke. Times headline the day after Armageddon: “World Ends; Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”
“it’s not going to take five years for most women unless she is extremely lazy, unlucky or picky”
But the mind-control self-serving rants and diatribes generated by desperate feminists and women’s studies indoctrination locks them into not making attempts. Marcotte even stated that women want hook up culture, that is, get your penis-need fulfilled and move on.
“we haven’t structured things so that men can best serve these women’s life plans”
Feminists do make that complaint but they don’t want that structure
Like Soviet communism, feminism was an interesting experiment. Human nature eventually voted back in Capitalism. Female nature will eventually vote out feminism.
“It remains unclear to me why a man should give his resources to someone who is in the early stages of letting themselves go.”
Throw in occasional bursts of feral sexual behavior and you got some real winners there….yes sir eeee.
I accept that my understanding of the term “feminine imp_____” was perhaps not what the Evil One had in mind when he made it up. I like my definition better. I say we coopt it and make it mean that just to piss him off. Who is with me?!!!!
“ignore that fact that things are changing for the better”
Yes, actually it is. But that “better” is just not going to include adoring men.
@mule
I don’t understand how this is particularly Machiavellian. How is it the fault of the self aware women that others are not similarly planning or paying attention? If this reality is that there are only a certain amount of men around that many of these people would qualify as “acceptable” then the reality is that (most likely) whoever puts the most effort in will come out with the “prize”.
Great post Suzan
“whoever puts the most effort in will come out with the “prize”
Of course. If a woman makes it a priority she can beat the competition
@Susan
The cat’s mouse signals an attempt to provide and care for its human. Just sayin’ . 
“Mike C, who really can’t resist bringing Rollo here, like a cat with a dead mouse.”
===
You know, this is a sign of devotion and “true love” on the part of the cat.
Susan: “Actually, if we know that there are going to be involuntarily single women, wouldn’t you prefer that your daughter not be one of them? And wouldn’t you want her to increase her odds of success by being prepared and thoughtful?
So, I should keep my little girl out of out college, then? I kid.
Susan: “Oof. We are in 100% agreement. This is not the way Rollo has defined femcentric. No one is disputing the agenda of female supremacy and the tendency of the media and politicians to play into it. I consider it a serious problem.”
Like Passer_By says, that *was* my understanding of the term. Why don’t you come up with a term for what we agree on, that we can use, then?
Jackie: “You know, this is a sign of devotion and “true love” on the part of the cat.”
That reminds me: http://imagebin.org/238454
As much as I hate to interrupt with a stupid question, what does UMC stand for? I still can’t figure out what it means.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
“Also, no stopping to ponder whether society should be spending $200,000 to educate these women with medical degrees and PhDs only to have them want off the career track at 30-35. It doesn’t matter whether that’s a good idea, so long as their lives are more fulfilling.”
There’s no reason to produce as many J.D.s as we have at $200,000 a pop.
Well, except for the employment of law professors.
The only place where there isn’t an overproduction is in medicine because it’s a tightly controlled guild.
I guess I was thinking all along in terms of increasing the number of acceptable men without depriving women of the gains of the last fifty years. Growing the pie rather than accepting a zero-sum marketplace.
For example, I have been telling my two older kids that there will probably be fewer and fewer career-path jobs available to them than to the boomers or to the Gen-X crowd, and they need to concentrate on creating multiple streams of revenue, which is not impossible to do on the Internet.
The “jobby” type jobs are going to go to the SWPL kids, and there is going to be a knife-fight melee for them. Better to euchre your $700 a month textile import site on Etsy, together with your part time concert promoting gig, the compost pile, the Shih-Tzu breeding, the video game tournaments where you routinely win a couple of hundred dollars a month, and the crossing guard thing you do for the benefits. Part of this entails teaching my daughter not to despise boys who are doing this as slackers and layabouts, but as the mini-entrepreneurs they actually are.
Kind of like Rollo spinning his girl friends’ plates.
Not much prestige and it’s hard to convince a bank to extend you credit, but it’s better than long-term unemployment, might be better than heading into the knife-fight.
Remember what Darwin said about the “fittest” organism not being the swiftest or the strongest, but the quickest to adapt to changing circumstances.
@Mule
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Here’s what I’ve always found a bit inconsistent as a guy – if it was really all about the career, wouldn’t the career-focussed woman *want* to lock a guy down into a relationship early?
I mean – guys needs are not horribly complicated. While many guys nowadays do want kids, they’re far less likely to be in the “we need to have kids now now now” camp of pressuring someone to have kids quickly.
It’s always perplexed me a little bit…I would think the “career woman who wants kids someday” advice would actually to start dating someone quickly, and stick with them. Seems like it would be the best way to have the free time and energy to concentrate on school, career, etc…
I’m an INTJ female Millennial. I felt a little bad about myself while reading this because I’m not terribly excited about staying home with kids in my 30s. One of the first lines in the article you linked stuck out:
“If you are an INTJ or INTP you are most likely to not want kids. ”
More than likely the truth.
Question is, what do you recommend for us broken INTJ/INTP women? I’m actually too feminine to be gung-ho about my career (which is what most people would tell me to default to), but I don’t want to use my body to breed more life-forms (for a variety of moral and personal reasons).
Are there men who also don’t want kids, but who want a marriage-type relationship just as much as they would if they wanted kids? Or am I more likely to be doomed to a life of dating narcissistic PUAs and immature men with Peter Pan syndrome? Because a lot of the men who don’t want kids seem to fall into one or both camps..
Some minor editing helps every great writer.
@Kris
I have to ask. In all seriousness, who sold you his bill of goods?
To answer your question (again, in all seriousness), my advice is for you to change your outlook.
Are they?
I am specifically curious about those fields that are results oriented and have objective measures for those results. (i.e. STEM, Finance, etc.)
@ Kris: There are definitely guys who don’t want kids. I know a few married couples where they have decided they are definitely not having kids. It’s true that MOST guys who are looking to get married are also looking to have kids, but sites like Match or OkCupid you can state upfront that you’re not interested in children, and see out guys who feel the same way.
And no, I don’t think that will limit you to PUAs/players … those types are really only 5-10% of the male population anyway.
And have a small, inexpensive wedding. This will help you save for the future.
Doomwolf:
‘Upper Middle Class’ – The older Upper, Middle and Working classes didn’t have high enough granularity for today’s society.
Kris:
What do you put in a ‘marriage-type relationship’? If you say you don’t want kids, and aren’t too interested in devoting yourself for your career either, it may seem like you just want to be a stay-at-home wife…
For a man to accept that you would probably have to be a solid 10. It sounds rather implausible, especially considering that you will age eventually. Then again, just staying home without small kids got really boring, and was part of the reason feminism seemed important for a lot of women in the 60′s, so I have a feeling this isn’t what you’d want either?
What exactly do you plan to spend your time and energy on if you get a stay-at-home marriage without kids?
There are exceptions to the rule…I’m an INTJ woman and I would love to have children some day. I also think it’d be nice to be able to stay home with them too. I think perhaps some INTJ women struggle with incorporating more feminine behaviors into their personality if they dont exist naturally because it isn’t always consistent with their other interests, as the other article suggests.
+1
“they reach for the power of stupid lines like: “what, you scurrred of a strong, in-duh-pedent grrrl???”
Say yes, and they shut. right. up.
One more example of where concrete definitions of these thrown-about terms/phrases can really move things along. Which basically means even more homework for Susan.
You should see if you can get Bastiat on some sort of e-retainer. I bet he would be great at coming up with proper, and more nuanced, definitions to these terms and you could somehow throw him some page views.
@Susan
This whole post tiptoes dangerously close to “marry a rich guy” (or even a very well-off guy). The median personal income (according to the latest census) for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher is ~50k. For just a bachelor’s degree it’s ~44k. Now I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many places in this country where it’s possible to support a family of four with an income of 44k. To get to $100k or more (for the whole population), you’re looking at a hair over 6% of the population. Even 100k, in most large metro areas and their suburbs, isn’t anything to write home about while supporting two kids (or even one for that matter). Let’s be generous and say that $85k is ok for 1 kid. That still limits it to about 9.5% of the population. Let’s say that 2/3rds of that 85k+ population is made up of men, and men are 50% of the population. You’re then looking at only ~13% of the men in the country as “eligible marriage prospects” if the woman wants to stay at home.
This smells to me of a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation. Sure, you can have your fun in a career and compete with men for the first 10 years, but then when you’re ready to have kids those same men can foot the bill for you.
This is not survival of the fittest. This is more, “let’s give lead weights to the slowest swimmers and speed boats to the fastest swimmers”.
Which is pretty inline with what has been happening in society since the 1960s, like, “diversity for thee, but not for me”.
@Kris:
“Are there men who also don’t want kids, but who want a marriage-type relationship just as much as they would if they wanted kids?”
The marriage has to be *about* something other than the marriage itself. It has to serve some larger purpose.
In most cases, this is children.
Now, if you don’t want children, you will still need some joint purpose for the marraige, some joint life project.
UMC = Upper Middle Class
LMC = Lower Middle Class
SMV = Sexual Market Value
MMV = Mating (marriage) Market Value
There are a ton more.
Kris: “Are there men who also don’t want kids, but who want a marriage-type relationship just as much as they would if they wanted kids?”
Generally, no. Men who already have kids, and don’t want anymore, perhaps.
Kris: “Or am I more likely to be doomed to a life of dating narcissistic PUAs and immature men with Peter Pan syndrome? Because a lot of the men who don’t want kids seem to fall into one or both camps.”
Gee, I wonder why. A man who doesn’t want marriage has “Peter Pan syndrome”, but it’s perfectly OK for you not to want to “breed new lifeforms”. What is *your* syndrome called?
@JP: There are tons of “joint purposes” to marriage apart from children — buying and making a home, taking care of each other in sickness and in health (and being able to have rights to do so i.e. POA), sharing assets during life and after death, etc…
Most gay/lesbian couples don’t have or adopt children but many of them have fought hard for the right to marry.
@Joe:
“I have to ask. In all seriousness, who sold you his bill of goods?
To answer your question (again, in all seriousness), my advice is for you to change your outlook.”
What particular bill of goods are you talking about here?
I’m just looking for you to flesh it out, that is, looking for clarifaction, not argument.
Life isn’t supposed to be darwinian.
It’s supposed to be cooperative.
@OfftheCuff
There’s a fairly sizable minority of married people who never have had kids. It’s not a particularly unusual phenomenon.
‘Upper Middle Class’ – The older Upper, Middle and Working classes didn’t have high enough granularity for today’s society.
I heard an interesting piece on NPR a few years back about the supposed differences between being Middle Class and Working Class.
When the Americans surveyed asked if they were middle class, something like 46% (I dont remember the numbers, it could have been as high as 55%) considered themselves to be “Middle Class”. However, when asked if they were Working Class, something 80% of those surveyed called themselves Working Class, including many who were making much more money than what might be considered “Working Class”.
The most common response they got from those wealthy Working Class Joe’s was, “I am routinely working 75 hour weeks and I am always on the road without many options for reducing the amount of work I have to put it. You can call me whatever you want, but you better believe that I consider myself to be Working Class”.
@Zach:
“This smells to me of a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation. Sure, you can have your fun in a career and compete with men for the first 10 years, but then when you’re ready to have kids those same men can foot the bill for you”
Part of the problem is that the men’s careers aren’t developed because they were sidelined in favor of the women.
This happened in the law firm I was at to an extent, because women partners had a tendency to leave because it was an unpleasant life. Corporations want their legal teams to be diverse.
I would love to be LUC or higher so that I could avoid working and could dedicate myself to more interesting pursuits.
Work is quite overrated.
I think my little sister is the only one in our family who can consistently remember everyone’s age. It’s not a big deal, particularly if the daughter isn’t at school yet.
Hell, I even misstated my own age one time.
Add ENTPs onto that list too.
@ Kris
I also don’t want kids, so we seem to be in the same boat. I’ve decided that the best ways of finding a mate that is compatible with us, in this regard, would be the following:
1. finding a man who doesn’t want to have children.
2. finding a man who perhaps already has a child or two, but who does not want anymore children.
I’ve been keeping the faith that things will work out for me, with regards to the issue of children. Know that you are not alone.
Adding local color:
1. I witnessed my first bout of direct alpha girl-on-girl screaming-match-type aggression in my class this week. It was on the verge of turning physically violent (a bitch-slap was cocked at one point of the “discussion”).
2. I was brought in to do some “career counseling” and can note that 2 undergrad females out of 10 said that they wanted to find their future husbands while in college because they hear from their older peers that all hell is breaking loose in the post-college mating scene. They wanted to jump the gun on all of that.
It perhaps no coincidence that these were the two most physically attractive and popular students in the mix, so they may have particular incentives to try to lock something good down now and then coordinate life plans from there.
@BB:
“2. I was brought in to do some “career counseling” and can note that 2 undergrad females out of 10 said that they wanted to find their future husbands while in college because they hear from their older peers that all hell is breaking loose in the post-college mating scene. They wanted to jump the gun on all of that.”
Well, share what exactly you mean by “all hell is breaking loose”.
That sounds like fun gossip to read here at HUS.
Why bother with education at all if you want to be a stay-at-home mom? It’s four five years and $80000 down the drain. If you drop out when you have your first kid, that gives you five to seven years to make that investment pay off.
From a man’s perspective, why would I want to marry a woman saddled with student debt when she’s not going to have a job? And who likely has little domestic skills anyway? If you want a 1950′s marriage countryside women are a better deal.
I am missing something in the post.
One of the most important things in this discussion:
“While looking for a mate, don’t forget that you have to bring something to the table. ‘Fabulousness’ (whatever that is), career/success and a tasteful apartment are NOT what the man you’re interested in is looking for in a wife, so they don’t count.”
But, luckily, while this is missing in this post it is not missing from this site, so hopefully no harm done.
Very interesting nonetheless.
Re INTJ: in my – possibly irrelevant – experience, INTJs should be able to find mates in the STEM fields. We really appreciate women that are capable, and used to, rational thought.
As anecdotal evidence: among my circles there are an overproportionate count of couples of (male) computer scientists and (female) psychologists.
My theory is that a good computer scientist is used to communicating outside his field of expertise and psychologists are used to honest and efficient self reflection.
Thus he is able to act according to “I don’t understand you but I am used to bridging those gaps.” while she can live the part “I know that in a partnership not everything is the other’s fault, I have my part in it and I am willing to work with you to to work it out.”
That makes, in my book, a very good combination.
Susan – On the surface I have no complaints on this post. (Surprising right?) I’ll probably jump into the conversation with some later, but I just wanted to say:
“My name is Ted D and I approve the message!”
Now, about that new term to describe this phenomenon, I have to agree with others here, it should have a name, because it is at the heart of so much more than why woman can’t find “good” men.
The point of college isn’t necessarily to get a job. It also enables you to have a wider view of the world.
JP, Kris used a lot of imagery when she wrote “I don’t want to use my body to breed more life-forms…” I don’t know if it’s an intended slur, but calling people with children “breeders” certainly was a slur in some circles. Breeding is what you do with animals. When used self-reverentially, it means oppression. Unless Kris is posting from certain mid-eastern countries, she’s not that oppressed.
Next, there was the strong implication that childlessness was a moral stance. We had that debate earlier this week. I took the position that it is not, but this really isn’t the place to debate the moral implications of over-population vs. under-population (again). I just reacted reflexively to the assumption that childlessness == moral.
These things, her state of oppression and the morality of not having children, are things she learned from someone, somewhere.
Lastly came the plaintive cry, “[am I] doomed to a life of dating narcissistic PUAs and immature men with Peter Pan syndrome?” I hope all the men with whom she interacts aren’t PUAs and Peter Pans, but somebody told her that this is her world. It’s what she sees because she was taught to see that.
I insist that none of it is true.
JP: “The point of college isn’t necessarily to get a job. It also enables you to have a wider view of the world.”
Pretty sure nobody reads Chaucer without an exam to study for.
I would not have married an uneducated woman, nor do I want to send my daughter out in the world without an education. However, niether am I going to say “Professional school and a prestige career or you are an embarassment to me, young lady!!”
“Pretty sure nobody reads Chaucer without an exam to study for.”
That’s because it’s written in an English that’s annoying to read.
“2. finding a man who perhaps already has a child or two, but who does not want anymore children.”
That’s not solving the problem. It is no different than getting a cat.
You still have to take care of children and it is worse since they are not yours. You might grow attached to them, which is bad for you. Or you might not care, which is bad for them.
It is hard to get married and not be caught up with everyone who wants to know why you’re not married. There is another solution. Marry a man whose kids are 18 and old. Marry a very old guy, 50 years and older. Or you can marry after you’re 40 years old.
I couldn’t find the text of the question which was asked on the survey. Do you know if it’s posted anywhere?
I also wonder if the desire for a stay-at-home wife is distributed evenly across the income distribution? I have a feeling (but no non-anecdotal data at hand to back it up) that many highly-educated men are competing for the “16%”. It might be an irony that the men who could best support a stay-at-home wife aren’t particularly interested in having one.
I can’t believe there is going to be an arguement about the feminine imperative and ignore that fact that things are changing for the better! It’s like some of you are mad because the change didn’t happen the way you thought it might with a western culture apocolypse.
They’re not. They are absolutely not. Read the new Z1 report out today. It is very bad. Summary: if total credit market debt outstanding had continued to grow at its 1947-2007 average of 2.36% per quarter, it would now be $77.8 trillion. It’s $55.3 trillion… and that is with the federal government more than doubling its debt in only four years by borrowing an additional $5.8 trillion. That is one hell of a demand gap. Households and state/local governments have turned negative again.
If you didn’t understand that, here is the translation: the Federal Reserve tried to paper over the collapse in credit in the hopes they could prop the economy up until it revived on its own… and it didn’t work.
A degree doesn’t make you smarter. It just proves that you are smart. But I’ve known very smart, educated but undegreed women. They would make great wives as long as you’re Catholic.
@Susan
The male responses here from OTC, Passer_By, Zach, etc. should tell you something. Context is important, and these guys, like many others, understand the context they are living in – call it the “female imperative” or whatever else you want, but you have to see how easy it is for men to be considered a means to an end. Not to pick on Kris, but there are hints of it in what she said too- not interested in a high flying career, and she hasn’t mentioned what other pursuits she occupies herself with but wants a “marriage-type relationship”. Now I don’t think she means any harm in the least- but as a general suggestion, don’t let your blog just become about getting your “chair” before the music stops. Men (people) are not chairs, and I am not sure exactly what you can do to prevent men from being viewed primarily as status objects, but it seems to me you should caution your readership against even the faintest hint of that attitude, because aside from it not being very respectable, more and more men can see it pretty readily. Just don’t let your blog encourage subtle ruthlessness in that way is all.
@ Jonny
1. I like cats.
2. Most men with children, or I assume most that do, have joint custody of them with the mothers. That means that the children will not be with us all the time. I’m okay with that.
3. If I happen to become attached to a man’s child, I don’t really consider that a bad thing. I can invest the sliver of my nurturing instinct into the child/children. That could only be a good thing. Hopefully, the children aren’t demon spawn. If the children are difficult, I most likely wouldn’t want to date the father. Hopefully the children are well behaved.
4. Preferably, I would like to pair up with a man who doesn’t already have children and doesn’t want any. That would be the ideal. Things don’t always turn out that way, however, so I wanted to offer Kris some other viable ideas.
Oh, and excellent post, Susan. Well done.
“…and though 70% of them plan to marry and 74% want children.”
+
“1. They want high achieving men, and there aren’t enough of them to go around.”
+
“One third of today’s female college graduates will not marry a college educated male.” {–> “not marry”}
=
I’m investing in turkey basters.
Can’t find the plug-n-play man? Who needs a man when all you can buy 250 million swimmers; an entire nation of tall, smart, educated swimmers all working for you! Bam!
@Wants to know
Can you say a bit more about how you think things are changing for the better? Women in their 20s seem pretty miserable both in their work and personal lives.
@VD:
“They’re not. They are absolutely not.”
Can you clarify what you are saying here? I don’t want to respond until I understand your position.
“Women in their 20s seem pretty miserable both in their work and personal lives.”
Isn’t this normal for people in general?
I’ve been miserable for at least 15 years.
Dracula used to drink Virgin girls blood.
In 2012, he died of hunger.
Heh, what’s really funny is that you think that Susan hasn’t already done this twice before.
““Women in their 20s seem pretty miserable both in their work and personal lives.”
Isn’t this just adulthood?
Childhood = no responsibility = fun = joy
Adulthood = responsibility = drudgery = boredom = pain
The one thing that struck me about this post is that there was no mention of dating or marrying down. Instead, it was all about how to nab your spot in the musical chair circle before someone else gets there first. Talk about female intrasexual competition.
I maintain that a sizable group of women will need to consider guys lower down on the marriage totem pole if they want to get married. SAHMdom is a nice dream, but it likely won’t be a reality for the women in this position, sadly enough.
@Passer By
I think the fact that the media and political leaders view all of these societal developments and changes through the lens of the Women’s Movement is unsurprising. It was a radical shift, to say the least, and its effects are reverberating strongly. Many of those consequences were unintended. That doesn’t make them less pernicious, but it seems reasonable to me that we might look at Millennials and ask why things are shaking out the way they are. All of the sources I used lay this at the feet of feminism. The whole “end of men” discussion also revolved around feminism, with feminists celebrating the decline of male well-being, and others expressing concern.
Feminism has been a high speed train in the U.S. for 50 years. There’s some loud braking going on, and perhaps the movement is beginning to slow. IMO, the best way I can help make that happen is to make young women aware of these consequences and how they might be affected in the area most of them say they care about the most.
It is in women’s best interests for men to thrive. That is what I need to sell.
I would like to add “irreverent sense of humor” to the official list of female attraction triggers.
You forgot to add, “I bet he hurts small animals too.”
Ha, he’s already predicted I will do just that. Apparently, I managed to take the sting out of “solipsism” and “hypergamy.” So funny that Rollo should give me a roadmap to getting his tidy whities in a twist.
@rollo
“Heh, what’s really funny is that you think that Susan hasn’t already done this twice before.”
I disagree with Susan’s use of the term “hypergamy” as applied to the modern mating market, and I think I have made that clear. It seems designed (intentionally or not) to gloss over the real issue. I think Devlin’s original usage (as I understand it) is more instructive.
I don’t really care about “solipsism”, and I’m not really sure how her use differs from others.
Your cat bringing the dead mouse into your bed must be outright supplication! Is it a beta cat?
I must admit, I don’t envy stay-at-home mothers. I was going crazy being home all day. I also know too many stories of SAHMs having affairs or not being happy.
My husband didn’t want a SAHM, so I went back to work with everyone’s blessings. We’re on the older side of Millenials.
“My husband didn’t want a SAHM, so I went back to work with everyone’s blessings. We’re on the older side of Millenials.”
I assumed that SAHM was the metaphysical ideal, so I don’t have any problem with my wife being a SAHM.
Lots of SAHMs here, even double-physician couples.
I generally use feminism or female supremacy, but there’s a difference. I am happy to demonize a movement, even individual women within it. Rollo demonizes all women by subscribing to and peddling the feral female meme.
Like I said, I googled the term and got a whole lot of Rollo and Dalrock. If none of the legitimate men’s rights groups don’t use the term, I don’t see why I should, even though I am concerned about the welfare of men.
“It was a radical shift, to say the least, and its effects are reverberating strongly. Many of those consequences were unintended.”
The consequences arose mainly because of the gross miscalculation or non-consideration of the long term male response. The sour results are manifest in the rash of whiney angry diatribes spewing from the halls of feminism over the past two years. Those expressions further alienate men and feminists are on a vicious cycle downward.
Thanks to everyone who replied to my comment. I know none of you know me and it can be tempting to read into what little I’ve said, so I feel like I should clear a few things up.
1. I’m not a misandrist and I don’t really consider myself a feminist like how most people use the term. I’m not looking for a man as a status symbol. If I cared about status symbols, I’d force myself to have kids. I’m a romantic person and I enjoy being with people that I love and trust.
2. When I said I’m not gung-ho about my career, I didn’t mean that I just wanted to spend my time sitting around at home while a man foots the bill. I’m a curious person, and I want to see the world, change careers around, maybe start a farm. I’m in STEM now, but I’m not crazy about it. I could see myself taking other weird/interesting jobs. I don’t have an exact idea of what I want to spend my energy on, but I just want to be happy. I don’t think the typical American Dream is going to accomplish that.
3. I understand that some may take offense at my use of the term “breed”, but to me, personally, that is what I’d be doing. As for my moral reasons, I wasn’t saying that reproducing is defacto immoral because of resources, overpopulation, etc (although those are very good reasons). I have other, more philosophical and personal reasons that are probably boring and rant-y. The point is, I don’t see myself as some higher being. I’m just trying to be me. Maybe one day I’ll adopt. Maybe.
4. I never said I wanted marriage, but more of a “marriage-type relationship” (as in, a committed LTR that’s not of the serial monogamy type). I understand that the primary reason for marriage is children, thus I don’t see the legal paper as all that necessary. I basically just want a live-in life partner.
5. I realize that I’m asking for a very particular type of man that is rarer than a diamond in the rough. If it matters, I’ve been polled as an objective 7.5/8. I’m pretty healthy, good genes, and I work out and stuff so I anticipate that I’ll degrade to a 6 in my 40s/50s until it won’t matter anymore.
@Mule
Well, this is my long-term goal, or hope. I’m open about stating I support gender equity, so I’m not looking to suggest that women forego education or careers if they want them. I think we need to take note that women are voicing pretty clearly that they don’t want to have high powered careers and children. Most choose children.
Increasing the number of acceptable men is going to require celebrating maleness again, or at the very least not demonizing it. This has to start from the moment of birth, literally. One of my pet peeves is the way we shame boys for being restless or “having ants in their pants.” This is why I call feminism today a female supremacy movement – the academic interests of girls have been prioritized at the expense of males, and that has led to norms around learning and behavior that are typically female.
I do think awareness of this is increasing, but it will take time to sort it out. It will not happen for the Millennials. Perhaps Gen Z, the next group, will have a more equitable society. In the meantime, female intrasexual competition is going to get very intense, and I believe that women can’t afford to ignore opportunities for relationships in their 20s and expect the right guy to show up when they feel like they’ve had about enough career development.
Can you clarify what you are saying here? I don’t want to respond until I understand your position.
There has been no genuine wealth creation in the USA since 1983. The Western world is in the early stages of a catastrophic financial meltdown due to debt-deflation. Most of what many consider to be “improvements” in society are either illusionary or short-term and unstable.
When the full scale of the meltdown becomes apparent to everyone, this will have a significant consequences on the SMP and many of the intersexual issues discussed here.
@Paul Rivers
It sounded like the women had not even made time for dating in their 20s! They worked a ton of hours per week, and figured they could date once they’d achieved a certain level professional, I guess. I do know kids a year or two out of college who work six or seven 10-12 hour days every week. And some have to travel as well. I can imagine it’s hard to meet people and have time for a social life at all with those jobs.
@ Kris #4 – This will probably sound condescending, but I think you will change your mind about marriage when you encounter all of the things that are much harder to legally do as an unmarried couple.
#5 – I don’t really think the type of guy you’re looking for is that rare. But even if he were, does it matter? You only need one!
Anyway, good luck. Don’t let the haters get to you. Love and long-term partnership are not limited to only those who want to reproduce.
@Ramble
That statement was from Penelope Trunk, and she linked to this article:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
“I call feminism today a female supremacy movement”
The feminist fantasy is not having to romantically reckon with the same group of men who they are competing with
@Zach
That’s a fair criticism. In the Forbes survey a pretty big chunk of the 84% who aspired to stay home full time expressed resentment that they could not currently do it. I think everyone realizes it is a luxury.
Clearly, the articles at Forbes are focusing on women with pretty high level professional jobs, even at entry. They described B-school, law school and med school grads. IOW, the focus here is on “career women” who step off when they have kids.
I was one of those women, and as I described recently to Mr. Wavevector, my husband and I decided I would stay home because our son was miserable. I did work part-time and freelance some over the years, but my husband was essentially the only breadwinner. Of the women in my community, I’d say about half work in some capacity and half are SAHMs. I can only think of one or two that have truly high powered jobs, and their relationships with their kids are not close.
I agree with you about the futility of competing with men and then quitting – and I don’t know what the answer is. Most people, including Sheryl Sandberg, want a lot more family-friendly perks at work, including flex time, part-time, family leave, etc. Obviously, someone would need to foot the bill for that.
@ LJ:
Kris – I’m also a late Millenial. From my vantage point, there seems to be a lot of guys in their 30s and 40s who have no interest in children and are ambivalent about marriage.
I think LJ is right also in pointing out that you only need one. It may take time to find him, but finding the right match is difficult for nearly everyone (at times I’m envious of folks who found their spouses in HS or college).
FWIW, those in the opposite camp – prospective breeders
– have a hard time finding a guy their ago who’s ready to commit and start a family at the same time they are! The SMP is tough for us all.
@Ramble
No one is duping or handicapping those career focused women in any way. We see a whole lot of women saying, “Oops! Why haven’t I met someone?” I’m not responsible for them, nor is anyone else. Nor am I handpicking who gets to be smart about it. Any woman reading this advice has a leg up, and that’s her due because she got on the internet and did her research.
Meant to say:
have a hard time finding a guy their age*
Typos! Ugh.
Also, I implied it, but I want to specifically point out that it’s best for you to date older guys (at least 4+ years) instead of guys in their late 20s. The reason being that the older a guy is, the settled he’ll in his decision not to have kids. A guys who is 27 might change his opinion in a few years when most of his friends are married and have started having babies with their wives.
Kris: That’s a weird lifestyle expectation. #4 (long-term live in) will pretty much take care of the rest, but it is likely to leave you with serial monogamy anyways.
Susan, there is a reason why I asked this specific question:
In her article, I think I got my confirmation:
and
This is simply the result of the Female-Centric Educational Industrial Complex that helps girls get their diplomas and then gives them jobs at the cost of men. But, when dealing with objectively measured positions, like STEM and Finance, they are not doing better, they are STILL doing worse.
It is genuinely fucked.
Susan, I am not blaming you. That would be killing the messenger.
What I am saying is that this newer information will be best used by those that can afford to. Your message will not become mainstream for a good long while, and, so, in the meantime, it will only serve those in the (intellectual) elite and the mouthbreathers, as it has been for 50 years now, will be left behind. They will continue to draw their education from the mainstream narrative, which is actively hurting them.
“What I am saying is that this newer information will be best used by those that can afford to. Your message will not become mainstream for a good long while, and, so, in the meantime, it will only serve those in the (intellectual) elite and the mouthbreathers, as it has been for 50 years now, will be left behind. They will continue to draw their education from the mainstream narrative, which is actively hurting them.”
What does this have to do with anything?
Information is always used by the people who can afford to use information.
@Bastiat Blogger
That field report is very interesting. I’d be really curious to know what “all hell breaking loose” means!
Agreed. I’m going to punt and see if Bastiat Blogger has a suggestion. He really is the best on concepts around here.
@sonofagunforbeer
I didn’t link to the survey, but I did link to the Larissa Faw article that discusses it. I’m pretty sure she links to it there.
Susan, the near-fight between alpha females was really quite exciting (!). A group project went terribly awry on the eve of the final presentation to the class, leading to two one angry alpha girl publicly throwing another under the bus Imagine demure sorority types using language straight out of gangsta rap…
I bring a tablet and Jambox to class and often play baroque music during the breaks, but in retrospect I wish I had had the presence of mind to spool up an appropriately high-energy track—perhaps “Lil Devil” by The Cult.
Re: “all hell breaking loose”. I’m afraid that I did not get much detail beyond the interpretation that the desirable post-college men are becoming promiscuous flakes, including the former college nice guys who don the black hat, and that women are really stabbing each other in the back over them. A story was related about a female boss in Atlanta who successfully and shamelessly seduced the boyfriend of one of her employees.
One of the girls wants to work in finance; I told her that not all guys in the field were players and she pointed at me and then laughed. I have been recommending your site; you’ll have better traction than I will, as I apparently am some kind of cartoon character now.
@Bro Hamlet
That is valid and constructive criticism, thank you.
I do want to clarify one thing. My post is not meant to suggest that women should stay at home full time. I am more interested in the following:
1. Women should not focus on their careers to the exclusion of dating in their 20s, especially if they want children.
2. Women should know that high-powered careers and kids are very difficult to combine. Rather than aim super high and then burn out by 30, women might be better off having more modest career goals, understanding that in the near future, they will ideally have a family.
In retrospect, I wish I had done that. It was just about impossible for me to find part-time work as an MBA type. My resume said, “Will work 80 hours without complaint!” I think it may be a bit easier in law and medicine. Business is tough for moms.
The article implies that all the author’s friends are gorgeous (sounds like she has some strict/shallow criteria for her friends) and dominating the world. I know a lot of high IQ types who went to top schools and got advanced degrees and I am struggling to think of any who could be said to be dominating anything. This woman’s experience seems too unusual to help us normals to draw any conclusions.
@Susan
“Like I said, I googled the term and got a whole lot of Rollo and Dalrock. If none of the legitimate men’s rights groups don’t use the term, I don’t see why I should, even though I am concerned about the welfare of men.”
Give it time. (And some sledge hammer nudging from the guys who understand the concept.)
And what do you consider to be legitimate men’s rights groups?
er, sorry about the typos in that… should have read “…leading to one angry alpha girl publicly throwing another under the bus. Imagine demure sorority types using language straight out of gangsta rap…”
Good post.
I think both girls and boys need to get a better understanding of what they ultimately want out of life, and understand that every choice involves tradeoffs and sacrifices.
@Tasmin
Good call. It will be interesting to see how much that increases. It’s quite expensive, but I imagine some of the high powered women will go for it. My son had a friend at college who was paid the big bucks for donating sperm – because he has red hair! I don’t know where the ginger shaming originated, but apparently it is a very popular choice at sperm banks.
“I think both girls and boys need to get a better understanding of what they ultimately want out of life, and understand that every choice involves tradeoffs and sacrifices.”
They don’t teach that in college.
Law normally makes people want to gnaw off their own arms.
I should have gone into finance.
Now we’re past peak finance, so that’s going to decay.
@Olive
The women in the article make it very clear they are not looking to marry down. One says outright that she would rather stay single. I don’t think you’ll see hypogamy happen, except in borderline cases where some other sort of status fills in. Women have been marrying men of equal status for some time, and I just don’t see them making that compromise. No value judgment – to each his own. I could be wrong.
@Passer By
Oh man, didn’t you see my post on the new and improved hypergamy? Even Escoffier was silenced!
All this talk of “marrying down” – is this broadly defined as marrying:
a) someone who straight up makes less money then you;
b) someone who has less education than you (eg, high school or college certificate instead of a full BA), regardless of their income;
c) someone who has less social standing then you (eg, someone who, say, works in the tar sands and so has a technical education and makes six figures but whom at the end of the day does some sort of job that involves a lot of manual labour and is therefore not considered ‘prestigious’ in modern society), or;
d) some combination of above?
@susan
“The women in the article make it very clear they are not looking to marry down. One says outright that she would rather stay single.”
I know this is something you’ll disagree on, but I think as it becomes more socially acceptable, women who close and really like each other maybe very well bundle themselves together as a package deal to the few males who fit the bill. This will allow them to become “sister wives” with women they actually like and to get a much higher status male than they otherwise would. I just have to make sure my sons are in that category rather than the alternative. Their weight training and Game indoctrination has already begun. Now I just have to get them to cut back on the carbs in favor of actual vegetables and stuff. They’ll thank me later.
P.S. So far they’ve refused to learn to play the guitar so they can be in a band, but I’m still working on it. Fit, game aware guys working in finance or running a tech startup while all the while rockin’ in a band should clean up, I figure. Added bonus will be that I’ll have a band to front as lead singer when they’re in college and I’m a creepy old guy.
“Oh man, didn’t you see my post on the new and improved hypergamy? Even Escoffier was silenced!”
I don’t recall it. Either way, you regularly lapse into saying something like “hypergamy is just the woman trying to get the highest value male she can for the genes and provisioning”, which doesn’t really cut it since men are also trying to get the hottest women they can.
@BB
LOL at the alpha female confrontation. I pity anyone who has to work with them after graduation. Tough broads.
That’s depressing. The rise of the Pretend Asshole! But I’m not surprised by the female competition.
Thank you that is very kind! One of the weirder things to happen in the last year was that my son’s Sociology professor recommended HUS to the class. Of course, he went up front afterwards and told her he was Young Squire HUS. Small world.
For some reason, as I was driving around today doing seasonal errands, I thought of you and wondered why you don’t just do the George Clooney thing. Serial monogamy of about 2 years duration. You can pull it off – it could be perfect unless you want kids.
@susan
Wait, do you mean this post: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/11/14/whatguyswant/the-hypergamy-acceptance-movement/
I voiced my objections to the usage in that comment thread.
@doomwolf
I think it’s a combination of all three but I’d say the key one is education. Money and social standing are malleable and with education comes the potential for those things.
Yup, women are hypergamous re status and men are hypergamous re beauty. They are analogous.
@Passer By
I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking. If not, what is the timetable for this burgeoning of the sister wives phenom?
@susan
“I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking. ”
Well, pretty much, yeah. But don’t rule it out!
“If not, what is the timetable for this burgeoning of the sister wives phenom?”
Hopefully, in about 13-15 years when my boys are ready to take on the world with greek god bodies, guitar skills, tight game and high-powered careers.
@Susan:
“I think it’s a combination of all three but I’d say the key one is education. Money and social standing are malleable and with education comes the potential for those things.”
Education is just a piece of paper, though.
All told, college and law school were the worst eight years of my life. Law school being slightly less horrible than college.
What did I get out of them other than social and emotional dysfunction?
Answer: Pieces of paper that showed I was employable. That’s it.
@Susan:
“I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking. If not, what is the timetable for this burgeoning of the sister wives phenom?”
Our LMC IT guy does this. Has a wife and a GF.
He says it’s great and that it’s the wave of the future. One girl works, one girl provides child care.
1 2 3 … 9 »
{ 2 trackbacks }