How the Ascendancy of the Alpha Female Will Impact Marriage

February 1, 2013

It’s pretty clear that the ascendancy of  the alpha female comes at the direct expense of males. When women flooded the workforce, the number of jobs did not magically increase to accomodate us. We displaced men. Regardless of how you feel about women’s rights, they changed society’s landscape dramatically and those repercussions are strongly felt today, including in the area of mating.

Look at these graphs recently published in The Atlantic:

Why_College_Guys_Can_Date_Around_Part_I-thumb-615x432-110643

 

Why_College_Guys_Can_Date_Around_Part_II-thumb-615x408-110646

Those numbers will continue to climb. These estimates are very much in line with my own observation that one-third of today’s female college graduates will not have the opportunity to marry a man of similar education. 

(Fun fact: Portland is in green because it is thought to explain the reason that Schlubby Jacob (the author’s characterization, not mine), from a recent post on online dating, has any options at all.)

In 1983, Marcia Guttentag and Robert Secord posited the theory that in female-heavy populations, men would become more promiscuous, and that in male-heavy populations, they’d become more faithful. Much of their thinking seemed to be confirmed in an analysis of 117 countries by Scott South and Katherine Trent. The pair found that, in developed countries, having a higher ratio of men led to more marriage for women, less divorce, and fewer illegitimate children. Other studies have had similar findings across cultures and time.

In the contemporary U.S., academics have found that female college students are less likely to have a boyfriend or go on traditional dates, and are more likely to have bad feelings about the men on campus, at schools that enroll disproportionate number of women.

What we do not know is whether significant numbers of women will marry men with less formal education than themselves. 

The 2001 study Education, Hypergamy and the “Success Gap” tests this claim by Maureen Dowd:

“Women moving up still strive to marry up. Men moving up still tend to marry down. The two sexes’ going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids.”

From the study’s introduction: 

In general, hypergamy with respect to say, income or social status is a common finding across societies and over time. For instance, anthropologist Barbara Miller (1981) studied areas of rural north India and found that strong pressures for hypergamy implied a lack of suitable husbands for high caste girls. This created a disequilibrium that wasresolved through female infanticide. In another context, the Talmud (a set of ancient writings outlining Jewish laws and practices) advises men to “go down a step to take a wife,” (Yevamot 63a) , and states that “a woman from a more distinguished family than her husband may consider herself superior and act haughtily toward him” (Rashi). 

Mare (1991) and Pencavel (1998) find that there has been an increase in positive assortative mating with respect to education; i.e., spouses’ education has become increasingly similar. Schwartz and Mare (2005) study marriages among younger couples and report a decline in hypergamy over time in this age group.

If hypergamy remains constant, a greater concentration of women at the top and men at the bottom of the education distribution will lead to a decline in marriage rates for these two groups.

Using census data, the study found that hypergamy has decreased over time for women with more education:

The results for men are consistent with this prediction; however, those for women are not. In fact, the data suggest that for women, education was substantially less of an impediment for marriage in 2000 than in 1980. The marriage market accommodated the shift in part through a decline in hypergamy at the upper end of the education distribution.

 

%198019902000
Hypogamous26.325.227.4
Same36.138.841.7
Hypergamous37.635.930.9
Net Hypergamy (all)11.310.73.5
Net Hypergamy (Ed. <12)27.240.245.4
Net Hypergamy (Ed. > 12)4.5-4.1-18.6

 

However, while the marriage rate for women peaks at four years of college, it begins to decline after that point. 

Years Education

Women 40-44

Ever Married

883%
986%
1087%
1185%
1291%
1390%
1490%
1589%
1688%
1787%
1885%
1986%

 

If we do witness a sharp increase in hypogamy, or women “marrying down,” what is the likely effect on marital relationships? A very recent study, Gender identity and relative income within households produced four key findings, quoted here:

1. Within marriage markets, when a randomly chosen woman becomes more likely to earn more than a randomly chosen man, marriage rates decline. 

Across all census years and marriage markets, the likelihood that a randomly chosen woman earns more than a randomly chosen man is about 0.25 (using either measure of income). This likelihood has increased steadily over time, going from 11-14% in 1970 to about 31-32% in 2010. 

[Our] results highlight the importance of relative income considerations for marriage formation. The secular increase in the aggregate likelihood that a woman earns more than a man from 1970 to 2010 can explain up to 29 percent of the decline in the rates of marriage during that period.

2. Within couples, if the wife’s potential income (based on her demographics) is likely to exceed the husband’s, the wife is less likely to be in the labor force and earns less than her potential if she does work. 

Having the wife leave the labor force is a very costly way to restore traditional gender roles. It is less costly for the wife to simply reduce her earnings to a level that does not threaten the husband’s status as the primary breadwinner. [We found] evidence for such behavior.

3. Couples where wife earns more than the husband are less satis ed with their marriage and are more likely to divorce.

We fi nd that if the wife earns more than the husband, both spouses are 6 percentage points (12%) less likely to report that their marriage is very happy, 8 percentage points (33%) more likely to report marital troubles in the past year and 6 percentage points (46%) more likely to have discussed separating in the past year.

4. The gender gap in non-market work is larger if the wife earns more than the husband.

Our analysis of the time use data suggests that gender identity considerations may lead to women that might appear threatening to their husbands because they earn more than they do to engage in a larger share of home production activities, particularly household chores.

Across all census years and marriage markets, the likelihood that a randomly chosen woman earns more than a randomly chosen man is about 0.25 (using either measure of income). This likelihood has increased steadily over time, going from 11-14% in 1970 to about 31-32% in 2010.

The bottom line: Even if you are willing to marry a man with less education than yourself, you should choose a man who outearns you. The male instinct for dominance in provisioning is strong and has not been affected by shifting gender roles. 

If you are determined not to be in that one-third of hypogamous marriages, and wish to marry someone of similar or higher education, your best strategy is to focus on dating for marriage as soon as possible after college. If you do decide to go to graduate or professional school, you should select a program with a good sex ratio. 

If you hope to stay home with children, then you must marry a good breadwinner.

 

  • Zach

    Honestly my first reaction is “laughing all the way to the bank”. Then I shared this with my friend who went to Columbia and is marrying a Harvard-educated girl now in med school, and he reminded me that even he is technically “marrying up”. Maybe not so good….

  • Ion

    “Having the wife leave the labor force is a very costly way to restore traditional gender roles. It is less costly for the wife to simply reduce her earnings to a level that does not threaten the husband’s status as the primary breadwinner. ”

    So a really good strategy for women is to move to places where the cost of living isn’t high so that they can live on a 1 income salary, and pick up sewing skills, and especially homesteading skills, something we’ve been steered away from to make good consumers (even though we could save thousands, if not ten thousands a year with these two skill combined).

    “The bottom line: Even if you are willing to marry a man with less education than yourself, you should choose a man who outearns you. The male instinct for dominance in provisioning is strong and has not been affected by shifting gender roles. ”

    Just have to be cautious about letting men know that you’re purposely selecting for those who outearn you.

  • The reason men’s instinct to provision for a woman hasn’t diminished is because the male role, for some reason, never actually transitioned.

    While it’s impossible to say how much of this is inborn, and how much of of it is socialization, one of the key problems in this imbalance is that feminism has been very good at encouraging the male role to stay the same while women explore the boundaries of their own.

    For instance, feminism’s insistence that women are hypoagents, and victims, and need special favors and so on in order to operate on the same level as men can actually stimulate the protector instinct in men and reinforce gender roles, at least from a male perspective, for both men and women.

    Feminism also strongly discourages men from viewing themselves as anything other than “traditional” men. When men identify a real problem they’re experiencing, feminists downplay it and try and sweep it under the rug.

    The point isn’t to rag on feminism, because feminism isn’t directly the problem. Since we’re still stuck in survival mode, as a society, the problem is that everyone, regardless of their stance on social issues, still thinks of men as those tools of the past.

    It would be interesting to see how these perspectives on earnings and so on would change, if only we could change the way we view these roles.

    For instance, men might not mind being pushed out of the workforce and making less if it meant they could spend more time with their family. More importantly, if women didn’t look down on them for it. However, so long as these men are viewed negatively as “layabouts” and man-childs, and so on, that won’t happen and men will continue to miss out….And so will women for that matter.

    I honestly can’t think of any men except the most “macho” of men (that is men still stuck in a frame of mind that just isn’t relevant anymore) who wouldn’t want to be able to have more time to play with the kids and work on his car or whatever his hobbies are, and pursue things that bring him fulfillment rather than bringing the family money.

    • @Irish Farmer

      For instance, feminism’s insistence that women are hypoagents, and victims, and need special favors and so on in order to operate on the same level as men can actually stimulate the protector instinct in men and reinforce gender roles, at least from a male perspective, for both men and women.

      Whoa, I never thought of that. That’s either brilliant on the part of feminists, or more likely, a lucky break.

  • Bully

    I’ll bite and ask this very naive question.

    In an age of supposed equality, why are women so concerned with marrying someone that makes more than they do?

    Isn’t equality what they strove for?

  • What if we are an alpha female that has a man that doesn’t want or care much about out-earning us?

  • maven11

    how about those 25yrs women, instead of focusing on career, would look at +5-10 years older guy, who will surely outearn them?

    simple solution, right?

    • @maven11

      how about those 25yrs women, instead of focusing on career, would look at +5-10 years older guy, who will surely outearn them?

      simple solution, right?

      Yes, and a very good one! That guy will be happy to get a younger woman, she will be pleased to have more than just “potential” to go on.

  • tito

    @Ashley
    “What if we are an alpha female that has a man that doesn’t want or care much about out-earning us?”

    then do something to stop the rapacity of the others Ashley.

    “alpha” females as well as the others have been artificially propped up with the acquiescence of men. do these girls put civilization first??? no. they’re going to have to have their goodies taken away and begin their descent. civilization comes first.

  • Bully

    Money is not the only metric one should consider when it comes to a relationship or marriage; you have to consider the entire package. If a low earning man is able to perform tasks that a high earning woman is not able to (heavy lifting, plumbing, auto maintenance, whatever it may be) then they very well might be an excellent fit despite the income disparity.

    No one person can do everything. It’s all about what is brought to the table as a whole and looking solely at bank account numbers is short sighted.

    • @Bully

      No one person can do everything. It’s all about what is brought to the table as a whole and looking solely at bank account numbers is short sighted.

      I agree completely. But do you think men are really OK with earning less?

  • Bully

    Using myself as an example: I’m not completely rich but fairly affluent (think in the top 5-10% of personal income). Therefore, I am more or less unconcerned with how much or little a potential mate makes, so I am going to look for other qualities. As I avoid pointless, transient status-mongering and continue my path to early retirement, my desire for a potential mate’s income will decrease even further. I’m looking for someone to complement me, not compete with me.

    I think alpha females would do well to follow a similar mindset.

  • INTJ

    Notice where Austin and SF are? FML.

  • SayWhaat

    Notice where Austin and SF are? FML.

    That’s interesting to me. I had thought the men were greatly outnumbered in SF.

    Also, why is the United States listed with all these other US cities? Is that bar for the national average or something?

    • Also, why is the United States listed with all these other US cities? Is that bar for the national average or something?

      Yeah.

  • Abbot

    It seems that college degreed men have far more variety of women than ever before. There is the vast pool of college women and the always massive pool of non college women.

  • Lokland

    I feel the need to point out that education, though an excellent predictor, is by no means the only factor involved in income.

    Nor is it any real demonstration of intelligence.

    • I feel the need to point out that education, though an excellent predictor, is by no means the only factor involved in income.

      Nor is it any real demonstration of intelligence.

      Very true. I tried to leave that option open in my remarks at the end. I think the takeaway is that education matters less than resources. In the college educated crowd, there is negative net hypergamy.

  • Lokland

    WTF?!?!?!!?!?!!?!?!

    Abbot!!!!!!

    Where is the multi-penis slut shaming.

    Mind blown.

  • Abbot

    Ah, but can it be a slut marker?

  • Abbot

    “Where is the multi-penis slut shaming.”

    define “slut shaming”

  • Tilikum

    What it really comes down to is that the best guys (top 10%) are NOT going to marry Alpha chicks (i don’t think the term is even right, women really don’t seem to have the hierarchy that men do) but the attractive, feminine girl that works at Costco.

    Once again for the cheap seats:

    High Value Men don’t date masculine traits like MBA’s because they are not high value to rearing adjusted, quality, nurtured kids NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK AS A WOMAN, and

    High Value (top 10%, the guys most in demand) doesn’t “marry down” when you ladies are all turning yourselves into hyper-masculine men. The baseline shifts and now you are Low Value, get it? He is marrying up!

    For emphasis: You degree’s and ability to exist in “a mans world” (really? look around) makes you irrelevant. You just lost to the girl who says “do you want fries with that”.

    • @Tillkum

      For emphasis: You degree’s and ability to exist in “a mans world” (really? look around) makes you irrelevant. You just lost to the girl who says “do you want fries with that”.

      The big problem with this strategy is that you will have stupid sons.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    That’s interesting to me. I had thought the men were greatly outnumbered in SF.

    The men greatly outnumber them, but whatever women there are are much more likely to be educated, so the college-educated numbers still end up leaning towards the women. Also, I’ve heard anecdotes that the City is different from the rest of the Bay Area in that many of the SF men are gay so hetero-women actually outnumber hetero men. I don’t know if there’s any truth to this or it’s an overestimate of the size of the gay community, as I don’t really spend any time in SF. Also, being a hip city, it’s the kind of place where young women tend to congregate, in contrast to Silicon Valley, where young STEM guys congregate.

    Also, why is the United States listed with all these other US cities? Is that bar for the national average or something?

    I presume it’s the national average.

  • “Reality can destroy the dream; why shouldn’t the dream destroy reality ?”

    – George Moore

    There are so many tears in this arid existence; that for once … that for this moment … that for this instance … what might be labeled as a foolishness in this quote … should truly be seen as a call to faith.

    Fuck ’em all.

  • Lokland

    “Ah, but can it be a slut marker?”

    Nvm all is right with the world.
    Apocalypse aborted.

    “define “slut shaming””

    What you normally do.

  • Abbot

    “You just lost to the girl who says “do you want fries with that”

    and the dark long-haired captivating girl pushing the towel cart down the hotel corridor

    .

  • Abbot

    “define “slut shaming””

    What you normally do.”

    details please

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    All this, of course, is irrelevant in a country full of no-fault divorce. The male provider role is still expected, without any of the authority. Also, he may still be punished at will.

    Doing all the work expected to maintain a family, then not getting the family. Modern marriage in a nutshell.

  • CrisisEraDynamo
  • Abbot

    “High Value (top 10%, the guys most in demand) doesn’t “marry down” when you ladies are all turning yourselves into hyper-masculine men.”

    Thats “slut shaming!”

    Whatever that is

    .

  • jeff

    I am not too concerned. I think men will be at the front of a changing educational shift (online learning, etc.). Many young college women are heading down a path they will likely regret. Getting yourself in lots of debt and graduating with a degree with little job prospects is not appealing as a partner. Sure they may out earn you at some point in the future, but they are debt slaves until those massive loans are paid off.

  • Jedi Geek

    My first wife was 17 years my junior and had only two years of high school. Yet, to my surprise, the first time I showed up in a social gathering of my Jedi peers, I realized that she was not “Mrs. Jedi Geek”, I was “Mr. “!

    Still, she did take a college-degreed man out of the mating pool until she realized that she really *didn’t* want to give up her super-high-social-status career to be “just” a mother after all.

    “Education” is not the only new “one-way assortative hypergynous mating criteria” western societies introduced in the 20th Century to further skew their effective sex ratios. The other was “GIB”. (“good in bed”) The real problem with a woman having a high “N” is that if she runs into one of the rare men who are really fun that way, she won’t marry one who isn’t.

  • Tasmin

    @IrishFarmer
    +1

    @Ashley
    “What if we are an alpha female that has a man that doesn’t want or care much about out-earning us?”

    I think part of the point is that it isn’t just the men who care. Dissatisfaction was reported by both men and women in those marriages. But it also doesn’t get into the root of that dissatisfaction, i.e. what is the origin? Is the man less satisfied because he is not the lead economic provider and thus his instinct is impinged or is he less satisfied because he is picking up signals from her that are indicative of hypergamy remorse; that she does not respect him because of this and/or is resentful of HAVING to work or not having the optionality she wants/deserves/is entitled to.

    Going against hypergamy doesn’t just present unrest in his desire/ability to provision it also presents unrest in her desire to be provisioned for and the extent to which her career and earning power have *optionality*. Which is really the leavening that is baked into the message that “you can do anything”; “have it all”. If she doesn’t acquire and retain her access to that optionality, things tend to fall flat.

    Women who have advanced degrees and good careers/income still desire a mate who will give them the option to scale back the work or stay home for a period altogether. They may not say this, even realize this, but at some point most will *feel* something like this.

    Part of why men struggle with the provisioning and status aspect is not because they want to pound their chest and bring home the bacon, but because their role and the societal expectations have remained static while women’s have become much more dynamic. They don’t just need to provision, they need the respect.

    “The male instinct for dominance in provisioning is strong and has not been affected by shifting gender roles.”

    Which basically means that women have been granted increasing optionality in their gender role while men have not. There is much more to this than instinct. It isn’t so much that the instinct has not been affected, but rather that the “shifting” has not included anything nearly as accretive, positive, or expansive to a man’s choices as those shifts have afforded women. And further, those expansions and positives have too often come at the expense of men, further reducing an already competitive yet constrained playing field. How often do we hear that men are “falling behind” or “not manning up”? Behind what, manning up to what? Women Expectations (whose)? or one in the same?

    The idea of a stay-at-home dad may seem modern and sweet, but while there is now the Modern Woman, there is no such equivalent Modern Man. He can assume some “modern” role, but unless he has already locked in the status and income potential its a low probability arrangement. And no man can plan for that role; not even the *option* for that role without significant risk, if not outright cost, to his ability to attract and marry in the first place. Its a limiting, self-defeating path. Men go get skills, go get jobs, build status, marry, procreate, and provision. The options come after the status, even after the marrying point for most. And hypergamy doesn’t die, in fact the bar often continues to raise. His “job” is to continue to kindle his relative status. Opting out, scaling back from those expectations will always carry significant downside.

    • @Tasmin

      It isn’t so much that the instinct has not been affected, but rather that the “shifting” has not included anything nearly as accretive, positive, or expansive to a man’s choices as those shifts have afforded women. And further, those expansions and positives have too often come at the expense of men, further reducing an already competitive yet constrained playing field

      Well put. I’m glad you expanded on that point. If it’s true that men would be open to more flexible arrangements – and accepting of a wife who makes more $, then that bodes well for educated women hoping to marry.

      I’m certain that I would be happy married to a man who made less than I did if he were motivated and productive. But it sounds, at least from the study, that this is difficult for men, and that women feel compelled to make up for it somehow by adding “housewife” to whatever job they have.

      Would a male nurse be happy to marry a female doctor?

  • joemomma35

    “The bottom line: Even if you are willing to marry a man with less education than yourself, you should choose a man who outearns you. The male instinct for dominance in provisioning is strong and has not been affected by shifting gender roles.

    If you are determined not to be in that one-third of hypogamous marriages, and wish to marry someone of similar or higher education, your best strategy is to focus on dating for marriage as soon as possible after college. If you do decide to go to graduate or professional school, you should select a program with a good sex ratio.

    If you hope to stay home with children, then you must marry a good breadwinner.”

    This is legitimately good advice for women. But, again, because of feminism and its effects on our slutty culture, it’s harder and harder for women to do this. Really, for girls who are very educated, only the absolute hottest girls are going to be able to pull this off, and even a lot of them will get played if they aren’t careful.

    For your average girl (6-8 range) who takes care of herself who maybe just goes to college to get a bachelor’s degree, I’d say a big part of it is staying in shape and not coming across as a cheap slut. Don’t fuck around with too many guys like me when you’re young. We’ll ruin you for your future marriage even if you have good intentions down the road. Learn to love exercise because guys don’t care about your career, they care most about your naked ass looks bouncing up and down on their penis. Again, that’s not to say that personality doesn’t matter for girls, but what determines a girl’s core value is always going to be her looks and feminine value, not her MBA.

    Sometimes I feel a lot of empathy for your every day American girl. With so much shitty advice out there from hardcore feminists, slutty friends, single moms, etc it’s easy to see why they make such bad choices with the men they bang. But I usually lose my empathy for them later because it does little good for me unless I’m forming an emotional connection with a girl I really like.

  • Just1Z

    I think that this issue will go away when society starts assigning the correct value to degrees (according to subject).

    Seriously, just what value should be place on a “master’s” degree in women’s studies…? just south of sweet F.A.?

    You paid a six figure sum for an ‘advanced’ degree in ‘being a victim’?
    when women are 60% of the graduates, but are still, mysteriously, victims of teh patriarchy? seriously? go flip burgers / pour coffees because that is all the degree is worth…good luck paying off the debt (see Cappy Cap’s book ‘Worthless’ (Aaron Clarey))

    so then the trillion dollar student debt bubble bursts…national governmant follows state which follow cities into bankruptcy…government jobs collapse, releasing innumerable women into unemployment (because (in the UK) 2 out of 3 state employees are women)…

    Enjoy the decline…it’s gonna be a hell of a ride ladies and gents.

    As well as that issue – i.e. in addition to that

    Check out Japan where adult nappies are out selling baby ones (demographic collapse) and 40%+ of men under 35/40 are checking out from women, because working their arse off to directly support a woman’s lifestyle choices is not worth it…but then they don’t earn enough to tax to support the state either, so the state collapses that way as well…so Daddy state is gone for women.

    WE are in for one hell of a ride…enjoy the decline, it’s gonna be epic!

  • Just1Z

    And happy Friday night peeps! I know that I had one… 🙂

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    The problem with earning less, from my POV, is that it really becomes more difficult to become the “captain” in the captain/FO relationship. Like, you get to make the chances…but you don’t make the money? Yeah….I think I would be a bit uncomfortable with that, and I think most men would probably be a bit uncomfortable with that.

    Sorta like the janitor busting into the Board Room and telling the CEO “how its gonna be”

    FWIW, I dunno….I guess I better work on improving my salary, because right now it isn’t impressive. Unfortunately, I really do not have a strong idea of how to do that, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of upward progression at my current department. One of my resolutions this year is to try to figure out way to lift my career into the stratosphere.

    Or possibly low six figures by the time I am 40 :/

  • joemomma35

    ^^ Good post Tasmin (29). It’s insane what kind of standards feminism has imposed on men. Hypergamy never rests.

    One of the easier fixes, if you ask me, is to start by making the marriage laws more fair. This would be benefiting both men and women on the macro scale. Stable marriages are good for society. It’s amazing that there hasn’t been any kind of political push for this yet.

    I’m a male nurse. It’s great for meeting women, but holy hell, to function in a work environment that is 80% female (80% refers to my hospital in general. The males are mostly doctors, security guards, and janitors that come by on my unit) you have to be fully aware of feminism’s principles, parry shit tests, and just pretend to play along. If I take what they say 100% seriously and don’t establish my own boundaries, they will not find me very attractive as a man. Shit tests happen in the work place a lot, particularly when you first meet your female co-workers. I still have to show some degree of respect or else the feminocracy will eventually stab me behind my back and get me fired. Still, my career works well for me. If I never discovered the manosphere I’d have a lot more trouble.

  • M3

    @ Ion #2

    Summation. Most men need to feel ‘needed’ in order to maintain the dominance to play captain.

    Female out-earning male spouse is emasculating no matter how you spin it.

  • Just1Z

    @Ashley
    “What if we are an alpha female that has a man that doesn’t want or care much about out-earning us?”

    But women do care about this…hypergamy. That’s not a dirty word, women have been bred by evolution to look for a provider for when they are incapacitated by pregnancy (NAWALT etc blah blah). It’s deeper than the human frontal lobes, not easily overridden by feminist ‘philosophy’ (I’m being charitable). There are societies around the world where men are supported by women to pursue economically worthless lives, because the women want men even if they have to pay for them…many men in these societies enjoy life very much, the women? nah, not so much…

    You don’t get to crap on half of society without there being a bill to pay…BOGAHIC

    Best take the bill up with the feminists that sold you this bill of goods. It wasn’t the men. Men’s happiness ratings have been climbing in the decades since feminism, the women’s have been declining…please don’t make me search for the stats, I’m off to bed because it’s veery early here, but they exist and they are official…

  • M3

    Whoa, I never thought of that. That’s either brilliant on the part of feminists, or more likely, a lucky break.

    I dunno, i think that theory’s got traction. Feminists could not have gotten the gains they did without men on board, and on board they jumped.

    Sure the lure of free sex for all helped, but at it’s core was the idea that all women were being simultaneously raped, beaten, and held back by patriarchy, so all men collectively prostrated themselves to protect women.

    They turned our nobility against us. Classic asymmetric warfare, find an exploitable weakness in the enemy to use against itself.

    Men couldn’t fuck themselves over fast enough it would seem…

  • Just1Z

    http://no-maam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/zenpriest-44-box-feminism-builds-for.html

    and Abbot, thanks for “Multi-penis”! I have been jonesing for it – cheers man! 🙂

  • Just1Z

    I know that Lokland started the ‘multi-penis’ conversation, but it needs to be from Abbot for me to get a nostalgic smile of epic proportions… g’night y’all

  • Yeah_No

    “It’s pretty clear that the ascendancy of the alpha female comes at the direct expense of males. When women flooded the workforce, the number of jobs did not magically increase to accomodate us. We displaced men. Regardless of how you feel about women’s rights, they changed society’s landscape dramatically and those repercussions are strongly felt today, including in the area of mating.”

    This is the lump of labor fallacy.

    The problem isn’t that women stole men’s jobs and wages but that men stole other men’s jobs and wages. Income/wealth divergence is a male intra-sexual phenomenon that feminists and end-of-men-ers couldn’t care less about.

    As for education, the looks deceive. You can’t usually get a high-paying job without a college degree, but getting one doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll out-earn a police officer or a nurse. Women want men who have an education and a well-compensated career, but if they’re given the choice of one over the other, they’ll choose the career.

  • M3

    Tasmin.

    Bravo. Awesome summation.

    Hypergamy cannot co-exist with the current model of society.

    Hypergamy was evolved specifically because the female was biologically at a disadvantage due to physical strength, ability to procure food, resources without a man’s help. All those disadvantages have been artificially removed.. yet instead of adjusting to it and picking low status men, women now use the current state of life as the benchmark AND STILL AIM HIGHER AND SHOOT FOR MORE even when hypergamy’s needs were sated.

    This would be as if society suddenly found a way to surgically alter all men to become really hot bodied, tall and sculpted, and programmed with computer chips in the brain to spit out flawless game and perfect dominance, and calibration.. so that no woman could resist and they could get any mate they want.. and instead of being happy with that.. they start demanding of all the hot women they sleep with be ok with having 3some sex with other women living the Heff lifestyle as the starting point before committing to any relationship.

    Biologically, you’ve overcome an obstacle or natural limitation in fulfilling your imperative.. but that’s not enough.. now you want MOAAAAR!

    Seriously.

  • Abbot

    ” women now use the current state of life as the benchmark ”

    Thus the continuation and exacerbation of the man shortage

    .

  • OffTheCuff

    Multipenis is a good word, but Abbot, gotta take it to the next level. Maybe “pluripenality”?

  • tsimmons

    Wow, Boston and DC are that high?

    That just makes it that much more embarrassing that I pounded the pavement in both of those towns scrounging for a date for YEARS when I lived there.

    These statistics really bring home to you the fact that if you are a college-educated male in the US who can’t get a date, it’s not just self-pity or your imagination – you really are an incredible failure.

  • JP

    “Would a male nurse be happy to marry a female doctor?”

    No.

  • JP

    @ADBG:

    “FWIW, I dunno….I guess I better work on improving my salary, because right now it isn’t impressive. Unfortunately, I really do not have a strong idea of how to do that, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of upward progression at my current department. One of my resolutions this year is to try to figure out way to lift my career into the stratosphere.”

    You could go to PA school.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Would a male nurse be happy to marry a female doctor?”

    My brother is a male nurse.
    Personal anecdote, no.

  • Abbot

    Interesting comment from the Atlantic article –

    “Most teachers are feminist women, and they enforce a feminized teaching environment that favors women (e.g. sit still in your seat, play nice, use your words, don’t be competitive because everybody’s a winner, and especially repressing their tendency toward activity instead of sedentary learning).

    Basically boys today view academic success as “women’s work” and therefore they will not invest in it. Boys want male status, and since they can’t get it through academic success, they have to achieve that status through sports, getting the cute girl, and often times drug dealing and gang-banging (inner cities) culture.

    If you want to engage boys in school, then the first thing you need to do is give them good male role model teachers. Then let them innovate. Half the reason there are no male teachers in the first place is that they have this standardized bureaucracy that stifles their ability to actually do their jobs. No wonder the boys aren’t doing well (or kids in general vs. the rest of the world).

    We tried to industrialize, standardize, and streamline education as if kids are sheep, but what we are finding out is that boys won’t learn in an environment like this, and it is time for something new.”

    .

  • joemomma35

    “Would a male nurse be happy to marry a female doctor?”

    No.

    I’ve had a fling with a girl in med school, her being fully aware that I was a nursing student. The dynamics are very different for students, though, and it really didn’t get in the way much because I never took anything she said about school seriously. But even if the marriage laws were fixed and I was inspired to get married, I seriously doubt I’d be as happy as possible marrying and having kids with a woman who makes way more than me, and with hypergamy being what it is, I doubt she would either. Though with the institution of the kind of game that you see pushed on MMSL, things would probably play better into my favor.

    But again, I go back to the point only the absolute hottest girls who went to med school, law school, etc are likely to be the ones happy with their husband. There are just less and less choices for women the higher they climb the ladder of society.

  • JP

    Re:Doctors/nurses

    I think that a male nurse anesthetist could marry a female GP.

  • Ion

    M3

    “Female out-earning male spouse is emasculating no matter how you spin it.”

    I definitely get that. Its just that you’re hypergamous if he earns more, and more likely to be doomed to divorce if he doesn’t.

    Good news is that you can be non-profit drone (like me) who suckered themselves into “the greater good” and earn less than almost everyone, male and female, and works with 100% women. The bad news is that the girls in the profession with the highest sex ratio (say STEM) are more likely to outearn anyone outside of the workplace, and be pretty close to asexual at work. Impossible choices.

    • @Ion

      I definitely get that. Its just that you’re hypergamous if he earns more, and more likely to be doomed to divorce if he doesn’t.

      Good news is that you can be non-profit drone (like me) who suckered themselves into “the greater good” and earn less than almost everyone, male and female, and works with 100% women. The bad news is that the girls in the profession with the highest sex ratio (say STEM) are more likely to outearn anyone outside of the workplace, and be pretty close to asexual at work. Impossible choices.

      It is quite the conundrum. Furthermore, a new college graduate has no idea whether she will be successful in finding a mate – it seems a highly risky strategy to bet on social services to be more marketable to men, only to wind up eeking out a living as a single woman forever.

      It is really a bit like asking women to be fried ice.

      If it were me – if I were 22 today, I’d do the work I enjoy the most without regard to what men want. Then I’d seek a mate like it was my job. There will always be plenty of assortative mating among the educated, and I’d determinedly work to be in the 2/3 of women who do succeed. Just being aware and avoiding bad choices, which waste time – that’s half the battle.

  • Abbot

    ““Female out-earning male spouse is emasculating no matter how you spin it.”

    Outearning. Outscrewing. Outsmarting themselves. The rejection of feminism is ripe…

    .

  • Bells

    @Ion,
    “The bad news is that the girls in the profession with the highest sex ratio (say STEM) are more likely to outearn anyone outside of the workplace, and be pretty close to asexual at work. Impossible choices.”

    Ha. This is so true. The trouble with most STEM girls is that we tend to have male-orientated brains. And yes we also lean towards asexuality, lol! Fortunately, I’ve been lucky to have close relationships with female mentors that were more feminine in dress and habit so I’ve been surrounded by positive role models so far.

    Gosh, I have so much to say and think about on this subject. I feel like this post is directly related to my situation– even though I wouldn’t necessarily say that I’m an alpha female!

  • Ion

    “(e.g. sit still in your seat, play nice, use your words, don’t be competitive because everybody’s a winner, and especially repressing their tendency toward activity instead of sedentary learning).”

    I think a bigger problem is that education prepares the average C or B lackadaisical student for “liberal arts” which = WOMEN’S jobs. So women can wander into a mirage of career paths because they do/are hired in the unskilled labor “office” environment AND in traditionally male jobs. I was able to work as a secretary as a fresh graduate, and then as an entry level editor, and in special events, and many straight men wouldn’t be able to, not even in NYC. I think education is a small problem compared to the whole workforce being accommodating to unskilled women as laborers, but not unskilled men, while women can do both.

    “Boys want male status”

    Sometimes becoming a bus boy will get them laid plenty, but being a bus boy won’t get them respect from other “superior” males. FEAR/RESPECT from other males is important, sometimes that respect comes from a gun. If you have always had total access to the pool of low value women you want, so how can a need to compete for these same women be the thing that caused your need for dominance?

    Feminism supports hip hop because it’s “cool”, it offers a pat on the back and “fuck the cops” signs to violence in inner cities, it encourages guys to “man up” with swagger and muscles, while giving a pass to men in the inner city for being victims of “evil patriarchy” and oppression. To understand feminism look at its direct target:who does it blames for “female oppression”, and oppression as a whole? Heterosexually-oriented-middle-class-privileged-cisgendered-able-bodied-white-male-patriarchy-with-infinite-adjectives.

  • Ian

    Cool post, almost reads like an SAT question.

    Given the following four conditions:

    1) Women earning 60% of college degrees.
    2) 78% of Americans 25 or older making less than $50,000 annual income.
    3) Median income peaks in the 35-55 age bracket.
    4) Median male age of first marriage is 28.

    For a woman of median income and attractiveness and earnings. What is the Probability that she:

    A) Court and marry a satisfactory husband.

    B) Reduce female income to zero. What is the new probability?

    Given hypergamy, assortative monogamous mating doesn’t function without some sort of status car-boot on women. Polygamy seems the next viable option, with top earners pooling multiple times median income.

    • Given hypergamy, assortative monogamous mating doesn’t function without some sort of status car-boot on women.

      What did people think of the drastic difference in “net hypergamy” between those with less than 12 years of education and those with more than 12? (Hypergamy here referring only to the level of education of both parties in marriages.)

      It’s clear and perhaps not surprising that most college graduates marry fellow college graduates (I think around 75% of marriages.) But a pretty significant number of women with degrees already marry men with less education.

  • Ion

    Bells

    “Ha. This is so true. The trouble with most STEM girls is that we tend to have male-orientated brains.”

    I think I can relate, though I’m not STEM. Sometimes I feel like a woman on the outside and an overly analytical middle aged male on the inside. 🙂
    Though I definitely approach life and relationships with the mentality of a typical woman.

  • Mike M.

    @Just1Z (33)

    Bingo! Someone finally figured it out! There are degrees they hand out for having tuition money and enough sense to not burn the schoolhouse down…and degrees that demand hard work and sacrifice. Guess which ones pay well.

    As Susan has said, “STEM is the new black”.

    • As Susan has said, “STEM is the new black”.

      I continue to predict a sharp rise in status among STEM professionals. There are some natural impediments to that for mating purposes, as we have discussed here at length. But tech is going to dominate the economy and produce most of the innovation for the foreseeable future. At some point, STEMmies are going to figure out they deserve all the status and grab it.

  • Esau

    ADBG at 35: The problem with earning less, from my POV, is that it really becomes more difficult to become the “captain” in the captain/FO relationship.

    I think ADBG may be getting much closer to the heart of the issue here, which is not so much money as authority. If I understand the conventional ‘spheric and HUS wisdom — which, if I might mention, is contrary to how I was brought up — then women will generally (NAWALT) only feel happy and secure in a marriage where the husband is legitimately felt, by both parties, to be “the one in charge”. In order for his leadership position to be sensible and credible, he has to “outrank” his wife in some characteristic that justifies the leader role. Many such qualities could be imagined. The classic is (1) He earns more, which by the American “golden rule” give him a kind of default authority. But alternatives might include: (2) He’s smarter/savvier/more clever, (3) He has better judgement or better temperament, (4) He has more life experience or higher standing in the community (both of these might come naturally if he’s noticeably older), or (5) He’s physically braver and stronger. (The list could be extended.)

    Which qualities a particular woman finds she can look up to in a mate, and so agree that they qualify him as the natural leader of the pair, will vary with the individual of course. The key to happiness, then, will be for a woman who out-earns all her contemporaries to find some other dimension, other than money provision, in which she can honestly look up to a man and see him as legitimately above her; then, she at least has a chance of finding such a specimen.

    (As I implied above, I myself do not subscribe to this “just-so” story; but I can see that it is the logical outcome of the HUS conventional wisdom.)

    • @Esau

      The classic is (1) He earns more, which by the American “golden rule” give him a kind of default authority. But alternatives might include: (2) He’s smarter/savvier/more clever, (3) He has better judgement or better temperament, (4) He has more life experience or higher standing in the community (both of these might come naturally if he’s noticeably older), or (5) He’s physically braver and stronger. (The list could be extended.)

      I think this is essentially the formula for assortative mating among the educated. I think women do seek a man they can “look up to.” In my case, 2 and to some extent 3 apply. 3 in particular is key for many couples I think – the man is less likely to be emotional in decision making, and more easily navigates crises with equanimity.

      I know a lot of couples who met in trade school – business, medicine, law, etc. But the men generally have more gravitas – or something – that makes the pairing look almost but not quite equal.

  • Mike M.

    I’ll add something else…I think it’s possible for a oman to outearn her husband IF he has higher status in other areas. Think political power couples – I can name several where the woman is making the big money, but the man holds the high office.

    • @Mike M

      I’ll add something else…I think it’s possible for a oman to outearn her husband IF he has higher status in other areas.

      I know one couple like this – the woman is a powerful lawyer and rainmaker in DC, the man teaches at Georgetown. He does more of the childcare. But she definitely is quite masculine in her demeanor. I’m not sure how well this formula works in general. I just don’t know enough couples like this personally. Also, I think in a lot of these couples the man and woman were on the same path at one point, and for whatever reason the man stepped off into a high status but lower paying role. Public service or teaching are probably the best examples.

  • I think that fewer and fewer college-educated women are going to have the SAHM option. Anecdotal evidence here, but the male undergrads most impressed with female academic qualifications as a mate selection motivator are looking at a highly educated female as a co-breadwinner; several male students who have entrepreneurial ambitions have cited the idea of marrying professional women as part of their capitalization planning.

    Few men are outright saying, “I just want to marry a highly educated professional woman so that I can give her the option to be an SAHM.” Of course this will happen, but I think that this phenomenon is traditionally a product of people pursuing professional degrees and falling in love while in school. If the gender ratios in professional track programs like business school, law, and med simply go the way that undergrad has gone, the problems that young women are facing will simply infiltrate other areas of
    academia.

    I will speculate that many women will respond by at least trying to view marriage as one of several equally valid lifestyle options, rather than as the dominant path to a satisfying, secure life. There just won’t be enough provisioning-capable, hypergamy-acceptable men around to satisfy the demand, and economic logic suggests that those increasingly scarce men who can successfully pass these filters are going to charge an exorbitantly high price for their commitment.

    We of course have a few controversial examples of how things have gone down in various ethnic cohorts when the supply of “eligible” men has been constricted; on balance, male mating activity becomes more feral and opportunistic and females who want relationships often have to accept
    minimalist behavioral standards that they otherwise would not.

    I also believe that the feminist attack on the traditional patriarchy archetype of the male head-of-household has been by and large quite successful and left young men with the need to create their own concepts of manhood and respect. The meme that seems to be emerging depicts an independent, self-contained “sovereign individual” who enjoys a number of hobbies and interests and who sees his tribal group of close male friends as extended family members. He views his relationships with women in a more objectified, compartmentalized way than perhaps previous generations of
    men have, and he feels far more entitled to immediate gratification (notably including matters of sex).

    • @BB

      several male students who have entrepreneurial ambitions have cited the idea of marrying professional women as part of their capitalization planning.

      If I were a male, that’s what I’d do too. That’s an excellent strategy – especially if you live on one income and invest the other.

      Few men are outright saying, “I just want to marry a highly educated professional woman so that I can give her the option to be an SAHM.

      I doubt most men ever thought that way. My husband sure didn’t. I think the women in the UMC will continue to step off the career track and spend time at home, but I think we’ll also see more part-time work or home-based revenue generation. The number of female entrepreneurs working on a small scale is increasing rapidly. The goal is not VC funding or rapid expansion – these are “mom and pop” businesses without the “pop,” often online.

      I will speculate that many women will respond by at least trying to view marriage as one of several equally valid lifestyle options, rather than as the dominant path to a satisfying, secure life.

      Yes, that is already happening among 30 somethings, e.g. Kate Bolick, but the model for that will increase as more women enter that cohort of “never marrieds.” When Kate Bolick is 50 and still single, there’ll be a whole new crop now 40 and single.

      The meme that seems to be emerging depicts an independent, self-contained “sovereign individual” who enjoys a number of hobbies and interests and who sees his tribal group of close male friends as extended family members.

      Yes, for all the talk of extended male adolescence and men not thriving, there are two distinct populations of men. There are those who didn’t make it to college and live in their parents’ basement, but there are the men you describe – they’re thriving either via education or self-starting and making their dreams happen, though not necessarily the same dreams that their fathers and grandfathers had.

  • Bells

    So, this is part one of my thoughts. Sorry that it’s so long!

    My parents’ marriage is an example of an intelligent woman married to a “lower” intelligent man (I felt so awkward writing out that statement. if my dad were to read this, he would smack me so bad!). Anyways, my mom has an MBA and a PhD in a STEM field. My dad has a Bachelors and a couple of certificates relating to his field of work. Point blank: my mom outearns my dad; and my dad makes a decent amount of money.

    The way that my parents circumnavigated any issues of jealousy and instability was to hold up their side of the deal. My mom is very humble about her accomplishments. She never ever responds to my dad in a belittling higher-authority tone just because she had more degrees. And my dad never tolerated disrespect or any form of emasculation. Any important decisions were discussed together with both opinions holding equal weight. And in the end— my mom would leave the decisions to my dad to have the final say because he was the head of the household. No marriage is perfect and I’m sure plenty of mistakes were made. But, I don’t think he’d go on an ego-trip with his final say.. unless they’d be divorced by now.

    Additionally my mom met my dad when she was doing her studies and my dad was working. From what I understand he was there to be a form of emotional stability while she strived to achieve her degrees. Till this day, my mom credits my dad for a large part of her accomplishments.

    As for daily living, I guess you could say that my dad maintains a strong alpha frame around her. My mom can sometimes get easily upset or worried. In response, my dad will calm her down by lightly teasing her and just having a laidback attitude in contrast to her emotions. All this was accomplished with his 5’5 statue. That’s why I think it’s silly when I see girls writing about how they desire a tall 6’0 man in order to feel little. My dad has high respectin his manhood. And my mom naturally responded by following his directions. They are each other’s best friends and they still love each other deeply. I really appreciate the example of a good marriage that they set for me to this day.

    • @Bells

      Thank you for sharing that lovely story about your parents! What a great model you grew up with!

  • Abbot

    “who does it blames for “female oppression”, and oppression as a whole? Heterosexually-oriented-middle-class-privileged-cisgendered-able-bodied-white-male-patriarchy-with-infinite-adjectives.”

    IOW we blame because we can’t compete

    .

  • J

    and pick up sewing skills, and especially homesteading skills, something we’ve been steered away from to make good consumers (even though we could save thousands, if not ten thousands a year with these two skill combined).

    Despite actually being a knitter, sewer and canner, I’m always sort of amazed by the idea that these skills have real economic value in this day and age. Sure the family may enjoy that homemade strawberry jam, but by the time you’ve driven out to the country to pick the berries, bought the jars, bought the sugar and pectin, and used gas or electricity to cook the berries for hours and sterilize the jars, you’ve spent twice as much as you would just buying a bottle of Smuckers as the store. Same with that children’s sweater. A nice quality yarn, worth the effort of hand knitting, will cost more than a sale sweater.

    I do all these things, but they hobbies that cost, not save, money.

    • @J

      I agree with you re the expense of crafts today. Knitting in natural fibers is extremely expensive! I like to needlepoint, and it’s easy to spend a couple of hundred dollars on canvas and threads, and then to find it will cost $250 to have it made into a pillow! It’s the hobby equivalent of “artisanal.” Very expensive.

  • OffTheCuff

    Asexual? I used to work for a huge engineering department with the typical M/F ratios. There were very few single women, most married to other engineers. Even the girl with the beard. For what it’s worth, very few single men, too. The college kids would come in, either already paired off, or find someone in a few months.

    My officemate was a very attractive blonde who was nicknamed “The Dana-Go-Round”. (No, I never took a ride.)

  • Ion

    “I’m always sort of amazed by the idea that these skills have real economic value in this day and age.”

    Because this was my experience. Mom was a seamstress at one point, made all our clothes (me and my bro were the same height for many years, so she just did patterns for both of us, and we split clothes), and saved lots of money being thrifty, not spending on endless supplies of toys, clothes, new appliances and electronics, new couches and furniture over the years, etc., granted, she was creative so she didn’t have to spend money on us, but it was definitely doable to raise us on a very low salary. She did spend some money on shoes for us, because, well, we constantly grew.

    Homesteading in NYC is almost a movement at this point. People save money because everything is convenient. I still think a homesteading book is a must have, though it’s not the answer for everything. There’s a million ways to live on a low salary, if we have to (not to sound preachy). People have been doing it for thousands of years.

  • Ion

    “Homesteading in NYC is almost a movement at this point. People save money because everything is convenient.”

    Grr, sorry J. I meant to say homesteading is a movement in NYC, granted it’s successful there because everything is convenient, BUT I still think a homesteading book is a must have.

  • pvw

    @Ion and Bells, I hear you about having male-oriented thinking patterns…I feel the same way sometimes as an INTJ.

    Bells, I think your parents’ example is a good model of how couples of the future with an alpha wife can avoid the pitfalls that Susan talks about: Couples where the wife earns more than the husband are less satisfied with their marriage and are more likely to divorce.

    I don’t know whether they purse the other course she addresses, of higher earning women doing more of the housewifery chores. Returning to her discussion, that strategy makes sense. If the woman earns more but also does the traditional thing at home, she will appear to be “less threatening”.

    In addition, since more women are raised to fulfill the traditional female role, it might make sense as a matter of specialization–competence on multiple fronts: bread-winning as well as homemaking.

    Bells, I wanted to highlight some of what you said, because it ties into an argument I believe Susan has made periodically, that happiness is a choice. Yes, there might be traditional pushes towards hypergamy which might make more women unhappy, but individual women have a choice to be happy (I’m drawing upon a totally INTJ logic–feelings are grounded upon one’s thinking patterns–feelings are the result of deliberate choices).

    Highlighting Bells’s comments:

    My parents’ marriage is an example of an intelligent woman married to a “lower” intelligent man….Point blank: my mom outearns my dad; and my dad makes a decent amount of money.

    The way that my parents circumnavigated any issues of jealousy and instability was to hold up their side of the deal. My mom is very humble about her accomplishments. She never ever responds to my dad in a belittling higher-authority tone just because she had more degrees (me: and money, I would guess). And my dad never tolerated disrespect or any form of emasculation. Any important decisions were discussed together with both opinions holding equal weight. And in the end, my mom would leave the decisions to my dad to have the final say because he was the head of the household.

    Additionally my mom met my dad when she was doing her studies and my dad was working. From what I understand he was there to be a form of emotional stability while she strived to achieve her degrees. Till this day, my mom credits my dad for a large part of her accomplishments…..As for daily living, I guess you could say that my dad maintains a strong alpha frame around her….My mom can sometimes get easily upset or worried. In response, my dad will calm her down by lightly teasing her and just having a laid back attitude in contrast to her emotions….My dad has high respect in his manhood. And my mom naturally responded by following his directions. They are each other’s best friends and they still love each other deeply. I really appreciate the example of a good marriage that they set for me to this day.

    My comments: This works because your dad is competent as an “alpha” and in his role as the “head” of the household. Problems would have ensued if your mother found that she could not respect his competence as a “head,” ie., because he was less intelligent and thus did not have as good judgment as she.

    This would have been especially problematic if they did not have equal share in the decision-making, but if he presumed that merely because he is the man that he should make all the decisions, forgetting that his wife might very well have steel-trap mind and is thus more than competent at decision making (I’m presuming here, based upon her MBA and Ph.D. in an STEM field).

    Your parents’ marriage is grounded upon mutual respect, and that is important.

    It seems too that this kind of marriage might work if a man is a sigma type who has very strong self confidence and who is more independent minded as a result, ie., he isn’t dedicated to traditional hierarchical patterns as an alpha might be.

  • Tilikum

    @Susan (45)

    But at least I get to have them, and possibly even stay in the home and co-parent them.

  • Just1Z

    “who does it blames for “female oppression”, and oppression as a whole? Heterosexually-oriented-middle-class-privileged-cisgendered-able-bodied-white-male-patriarchy-with-infinite-adjectives.”

    Yeah, that’s easy for you to say…

  • Jeanie

    What makes a woman alpha is not the same thing as what makes a man alpha. An alpha male epitomizes what women look for in a man – confidence, being able to provide, being able to dominate other men, etc. An alpha female epitomizes what men look for in a woman – physical beauty, non-bitchiness, nurturing instincts, etc.

    • An alpha female epitomizes what men look for in a woman – physical beauty, non-bitchiness, nurturing instincts, etc.

      @Jeanie

      This is perhaps what you would like to see, but certainly in the literature and discussions around female advancement alpha female means high achieving and socially dominant.

      At least in this particular study of teenagers, those girls were the ones who socialized with the alpha boys. And those girls are often who the alpha males socialize with in college as well. One thing I wondered was whether this is a pairing of the promiscuous – I strongly suspect that it is.

  • Tilikum

    ^^^^^^^Jeanie should teach a class^^^^^

  • ***Handling power gracefully*** is a skill that must be learned. This is what the idea of chivalry, the code of the gentleman, etc, were all about.

    Much of the propaganda directed at young women today seems not only to omit teaching such grace, but to explicitly point in the opposite direction. For example, there’s a book titled “Nice girls don’t get the corner office.” I haven’t read it, and probably won’t, but the very title is malevolent. For one thing, it’s not true–I know some very nice women who have done very, very well in business–but more generally, it is part of the “you-go-girl-get-yours-to-hell-with-everybody-else” syndrome.

    I’m not sure it is so much better career success on the woman’s part that threatens relationships, but more the clawing attitude that has been encouraged.

    • @david foster

      For example, there’s a book titled “Nice girls don’t get the corner office.” I haven’t read it, and probably won’t, but the very title is malevolent.

      It sure is! Unfortunately, every female boss I ever had could have written that book. I didn’t have it in me, and they hated me for it. What I found, though, was that some of the most senior males were happy to mentor me. I think they wanted to give positive reinforcement to someone who wasn’t hyper aggressive.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “At some point, STEMmies are going to figure out they deserve all the status and grab it.”

    Why do you think this? I think the opposite.

    As the jobs become more commonplace, the glut means being in engineering is just a step or two over working at Walmart, status-wise. (There are some who say that when women come to dominate a field, the men leave and any status with it, like teachers.)

    A few will rise to the top, but there really never will be any sort of large-scale status upgrades, unless the specific job has some other status-generating factor that we about (risk, power, or shitloads o’ money).

    • As the jobs become more commonplace, the glut means being in engineering is just a step or two over working at Walmart, status-wise

      But there is a limited supply of talented techies. Most college students couldn’t hope to hack the engineering or CS programs. I’m not saying that all STEM people will be successful or high status. That requires more than just smarts. But I do think we’ll see a bigger and bigger piece of the status pie going to tech types.

  • Jeanie

    Your article may be better titled as “How the acendancy of the female will impact marriage”. And the answer is that it lowers the marriage rate. This harms everyone who benefits from marriage – beta males (who can get more sex in marriage), and all women (who can get more commitment in marriage). It benefits those who are least interested in marriage – alpha males (who can get more sex outside of marriage).

    • @Jeanie

      Virtually all males get more sex in marriage. The number of unattached men who have sex even once a week is miniscule by comparison. Obviously, single men do get more variety.

  • Mike M.

    @OffTheCuff:
    I’m not so sure.

    Engineering is a brutally hard field. My freshman class at Virginia Tech started with 4,000. Five years later, we graduated 1,400 engineers. I don’t see a glut – there are too few people who can handle the material.

    Other STEM fields might have issues, particularly the entry-level tech jobs.

  • Susie

    If beta and omega men increasingly in the USA rejecting are marriage, and choosing to cohabitate with beta females and have bastard (illegitimate) children with her, rather than marry an alpha female and have legitimate children with her, what does that say about the state of marriage in the USA?

    The only thing that the marriage rates are showing that there’s a huge decline in legal marriage for the USA. Legal marriage is starting to become something that only upper class liberal people do.

    Ceremonies still exist (e.g. wedding ceremonies, parties, etc.) but the only thing that is for sure is that legal marriage has become a catastrophe in the USA since it has become tailored for “egalitarian power couple” dynamics in its core, yet somehow retaining a strange appearance of “tradition”.

    Who cares if alpha men (1-10% of the population) don’t like beta women. They are not the ones who are not marrying and having unwed mothers.

    America is defaulting towards cohabitation and, to a lesser extent, single motherhood. This entire post don’t analyze general trends.

    The general trends are that American men and women are opting out of legal marriage.

    • @Susie

      America is defaulting towards cohabitation and, to a lesser extent, single motherhood. This entire post don’t analyze general trends

      That is true. My blog is specifically aimed at those in college or recently graduated. There are some who wish I would analyze general trends. In truth, there are really two vastly different populations. You can see that in the table that splits education by <12 and >12. Analyzing them as one big group masks what’s really going on, as they behave very differently and make very different choices. I focus on the >12 group almost exclusively, the exception being when the data is not available.

  • Susie

    Sorry, I meant “If beta and omega men are increasingly in the USA rejecting marriage”

  • Ion

    “IOW we blame because we can’t compete”

    We don’t blame career women because we can’t compete with their unmatched brilliance.

    Sometimes people get the blamed because the current situation in worked in their favor, regardless of their actual talents, other times we blame them because they’re the easiest target.

  • STEM is a type of degree; it is not necessarily a lifetime profession. For example, former GE CEO Jack Welch has both a BS and a PhD in chemical engineering, and actually practiced as an engineer at GE for a couple of years, but he spent the vast bulk of his career managing large organizations. (Of course, some would say that Jack is enough of a jerk to add considerable Alpha…)

    Similarly, there are a lot of venture capitalists who got their start with STEM degrees and jobs, but who now spend most of their time evaluating people and financials, rather than doing anything that could be called technical work.

    Humans are flexible creatures…or at least should be…and one of the many malign effects of credentials-worship is to cause people to lose sight of that fact.

    • Similarly, there are a lot of venture capitalists who got their start with STEM degrees and jobs, but who now spend most of their time evaluating people and financials, rather than doing anything that could be called technical work.

      In finance, firms go bananas to hire guys with advanced degrees in physics and the like. My husband has actually had challenges managing some of these folks, not all of whom transition to finance very well.

      My b-school class of 650 was fully one-third engineering majors. Almost all of the IB types and sexy startup hires came from this cohort. It’s a filter for IQ, at the very least.

  • pvw

    @Susan: Furthermore, a new college graduate has no idea whether she will be successful in finding a mate – it seems a highly risky strategy to bet on social services to be more marketable to men, only to wind up eeking out a living as a single woman forever.

    It is really a bit like asking women to be fried ice.

    Me: At the same time, if the prevailing wisdom is for the low status woman to seek alpha men, she had better make sure she has the looks to land men like that and put herself in the right kind of environment to do so. She will also have to put everything into getting men like that amongst the serious competition. All too often what seems to happen is that the low status woman is in an environment where she is primarily among low status men, good looks or not, and assortive mating follows. But the assortive mating there might not look pretty–single motherhood prevails more often than not in that cohort, as Susie was getting at.

    • @pvw

      All too often what seems to happen is that the low status woman is in an environment where she is primarily among low status men, good looks or not, and assortive mating follows. But the assortive mating there might not look pretty–single motherhood prevails more often than not in that cohort, as Susie was getting at.

      I think that happens most of the time, unfortunately. Despite the comment above that men choose their wives from girls who ask if you want fries with that, assortative mating does prevail, whether it ends in marriage or not.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Out of curiosity 12 years of education is the end of high school-beginning uni split correct?

    “Obviously, single men do get more variety.”

    And thats why God invented lingerie.

    “I think they wanted to give positive reinforcement to someone who wasn’t hyper aggressive.”

    Personal anecdote,

    Hyperagressive women tend to cause an eye roll and future avoidance. Feminine women tend to encourage that protector/teacher instinct in me.
    (This of course assumes they are talented.)

    I don’t have the same problem with male students. They can be very, very non-dominant and talented and I still want to guide them. Same with aggressive except they have to be able to accept authority and be able to channel that competitiveness into something productive.

    Conclusion: I think if you were to overlay the distributions of aggressiveness for men and women there would be an optimal range which extends from low to high. The tails on each end tend to be unacceptable (too weak or too strong) except women tend to get more of a pass for non-agressive whereas men tend to get more of a pass on aggressiveness (with talent, without its just a headache).

    The really unaggressive men (think the guy who you want to yell at in a RomCom to get his ass up and do something) and highly aggressive women tend to be annoyances.

    • @Lokland

      Out of curiosity 12 years of education is the end of high school-beginning uni split correct?

      Yes.

      The really unaggressive men (think the guy who you want to yell at in a RomCom to get his ass up and do something) and highly aggressive women tend to be annoyances.

      Agreed, because those are the two groups most closely adopting the norms of the opposite gender. We find it repellent. At least I do.

  • Ion

    “Then I’d seek a mate like it was my job.”

    Not sure if I ever shared this here, but I used to apply for around 35 jobs a day when unemployed with personalized cover letters/ resumes, it would take about 6 hours a day. When I got an interview, I studied all the most common interview questions, memorized important dates off of the company website, found all employers on linkedin or facebook looking for possible affiliations (and in non-profit its easy to see what ones “causes” are), studied what they majored in to see if there was mutual interest, found guides of tough interview questions online, wrote out my responses, and studied my responses so I wouldn’t freeze up when nervous the night before (it’d be about 6 pages of information, I’d memorize each answer). I used my old Kodak camera to answer interview questions and study my body language/responses to mimic a more extroverted person, wrote each and every person who interviewed me a 1 page long thank you letter emphasizing my skills I had in common with them, and what we discussed in the interview to show off my writing abilities, etc.,

    What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time? We approach jobs more realistically than relationships, i.e., we don’t rely on the universe to bring a job when the time is right. Wish 22 year old self knew that. grrrr.

    • @Ion

      What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time? We approach jobs more realistically than relationships, i.e., we don’t rely on the universe to bring a job when the time is right.

      That’s about the best job search strategy I’ve ever heard!

      You’re so right about relationships – this is where women actually put their hope in the “law of attraction.” At least the guys would like to know where the factory making girls is located. They’re willing to take it from there. We tend to want it delivered to our front doorstep. As Mrs. Bennet knew in the early 19th c. women need to put themselves in the path of eligible men.

  • Lokland

    @david foster

    My personal favourites are STEMs who went into research said fuck it wrt trying to get grants, went into wall street, made a couple billion and then go back into research and can do whatever they want.

  • Susan…”I think we’ll also see more part-time work or home-based revenue generation. The number of female entrepreneurs working on a small scale is increasing rapidly.”

    This makes a lot of sense…there are some obstacles, though. For one thing, excessive government regulation is far more burdensome to a very small business than to a larger one. The ill-thought-out “Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act” has been harmful and even crippling to many small businesses, including home businesses, doing such things as making children’s clothing, books for kids, science kits, etc.

    • @david foster

      I wasn’t aware of the unfavorable regulatory environment, that stinks. I do recall putting my kids in cotton pajamas, which came in packages saying, “These are not pajamas!”

  • JP

    @Ion:

    “What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time? We approach jobs more realistically than relationships, i.e., we don’t rely on the universe to bring a job when the time is right. ”

    No, this is pretty much how I get jobs and relationships.

    At this point, I’m pretty much convinced that the universe is conspiring to help me.

    The first job I got, they specifically reopened the summer associate hiring system for me.

    I thought that was nice of them.

  • JP

    @MikeM:

    “Engineering is a brutally hard field. My freshman class at Virginia Tech started with 4,000. Five years later, we graduated 1,400 engineers. I don’t see a glut – there are too few people who can handle the material.”

    Plus, you have people like me who have to major in engineering to keep their scholarships and then go and do something else because they have no actual interest in engineering.

    I have a chemical engineering degree that has precisely zero value to me or anyone else, since I never intended to use it.

  • Jeanie

    Susan, that’s what I said. Virtually all men are beta males, and get more sex in marriage, which is why a decline in marriage hurts them. The alpha males are far fewer in number, and they get more sex without marriage. My point stands that the alpha males benefit from the decline of marriage.

    • @Jeanie

      Virtually all men are beta males, and get more sex in marriage, which is why a decline in marriage hurts them. The alpha males are far fewer in number, and they get more sex without marriage. My point stands that the alpha males benefit from the decline of marriage. My point stands that the alpha males benefit from the decline of marriage.

      I think “virtually all” is an exaggeration. When the National Marriage Project at UVA researched why men were delaying or avoiding marriage, the number one reason given was that sex is more readily available before marriage than it used to be. The respondents would certainly have been mostly beta males, so they expect more sex than you’re implying.

      I do not believe that alpha males get more sex without marriage, as most alphas are STR oriented, moving from fling to fling or ONS to ONS. Even alphas must make considerable effort to secure sex partners: they must approach, face rejection (alphas often report a success rate of 10% or so), and then convince the female to have no-strings sex immediately, something most women are unwilling to do. I believe married betas have more sex than unmarried alphas, assuming those marriages are working.

      In short, alpha males cause or exacerbate the decline in marriage, whether others marry generally doesn’t concern them. Betas benefit from the alpha-induced decline, because women who want to marry are generally selecting from a beta pool of men. IOW, a less competitive marriage market for men who wish to marry.

  • Jeanie

    @susan

    Well, I suppose I can accept that we are using different definitions of what an alpha female means, as long as we’re clear we aren’t speaking the same language. However, considering the nature of genetic imperatives, your definition, as well as that of the literature you speak of, make little sense.

    Think about what the “ideal woman” is for a man, and what the “ideal man” is for a woman. Very different. Heck just look at men’s porn vs women’s romance novels or even the whole 50 shades phenomenon.

  • JP

    “My b-school class of 650 was fully one-third engineering majors. Almost all of the IB types and sexy startup hires came from this cohort. It’s a filter for IQ, at the very least.”

    The GMAT is a proxy for IQ tests.

    You can use its results to get into high-IQ societies.

    This is the exciting information that I discovered when I was trying to research low IQs for my clients.

    That also led me to the discovery of the entire HBD thingy.

  • pvw

    @Susan:

    You’re so right about relationships – this is where women actually put their hope in the “law of attraction.” At least the guys would like to know where the factory making girls is located. They’re willing to take it from there. We tend to want it delivered to our front doorstep. As Mrs. Bennet knew in the early 19th c. women need to put themselves in the path of eligible men.

    Me: And there is something else; many young women are led to believe that the job search is a more efficient use of their time, ie., because of frustrations regarding the dating and the SMP, which we have talked about so much here–combat dating, etc.

  • Susan…CPSIA has been a disaster for many small businesses. I’ve written about it several times…see the posts in this search thread.

    I haven’t researched this in a couple of years so there may have been some changes since then making things slightly less painful. A good source on CPSIA, and indeed for anyone interested in starting a small apparel business, is Kathleen Fasanella’s Fashion Incubator blog.

  • pvw

    Further thoughts, it seems to me that some of the most conservative parents ie., religious conservatives with parents fulfilling the traditional roles, are raising their daughters to become accomplished alpha girls, ie., the types of young women who will get those college degrees and so forth.

    At the same time, they use the language of “intimidation” (just like any feminist) in describing why older accomplished women are unmarried, that men just can’t handle accomplished women.

    Here is the thing, I don’t even think this is about “go girl feminism.” They really ascribe to concerns that young women have no guarantees and can’t depend upon anyone but themselves for their future economic well-being.

    They really don’t see security for young women in marriage because of divorce. Now, do they think women are to blame for divorce or the men are to blame? It is a good question. Regardless of who is to blame, they want economic protection for their daughters. Some of them would actually urge their daughters to be the high earning alpha wife with the stay-at-home husband.

    • @pvw

      They really ascribe to concerns that young women have no guarantees and can’t depend upon anyone but themselves for their future economic well-being.

      I hear a lot of young women saying this very thing, so it must be coming from their parents. They want very much to be able to support themselves, not knowing what the future may bring. Given the average age at marriage, it makes sense – a woman has to support herself after college for an average of 6 years. She might as well do something lucrative and succeed at it. If she does marry, great, there’s now a hefty double income, no downside. If not, she’ll be OK.

  • (continuing on CPSIA)

    One of the most disturbing things about the whole CPSIA saga has been the unbelievably arrogant tone of the letter sent by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in response to Kathleen Fasanella’s entirely rational and courteous letter re the damage this misbegotten legislation was doing. Thoughts and links here.

    Schakowsky is IMO a horrible person, even by the standards of politicians, but this response does suggest the level of vulnerability that exists for any small business in the current political environment.

  • INTJ

    @ Jeanie

    What makes a woman alpha is not the same thing as what makes a man alpha. An alpha male epitomizes what women look for in a man – confidence, being able to provide, being able to dominate other men, etc. An alpha female epitomizes what men look for in a woman – physical beauty, non-bitchiness, nurturing instincts, etc.

    While I agree with your distinction about what men and women want, I think “alpha” is most useful as a social term rather than a measure of desirability. Thus, “alpha” should describe the archtype of a Type A personality that is socially dominant and aggressive.

  • Ion

    No, this is pretty much how I get jobs and relationships.”

    JP, women take this to the extreme though, even the most religious of men will at least “meet god half way” by looking for a mate while waiting on gods direction. Young women seem to wait on god/fate/”timing” to drop someone in their lap, which takes them off the market. They will not expect fate to get them into a school without an application, or for God to hand them keys to an apartment without looking, or “timing” to get them a job without interviewing.

    “The first job I got, they specifically reopened the summer associate hiring system for me. ”

    First off, that’s awesome :-), I had a similar situation where college admissions was closed, but I wrote this killer essay and spoke to the advisor several times, and got in. I only applied to one school, and that’s where I went. I think in my case (and yours) some of it was fate/luck whatever you want to call it, but we also got their by qualifying ourselves, and actively seeking out the opportunity. Women need to apply a similar mindset to relationships.

  • J

    Grr, sorry J. I meant to say homesteading is a movement in NYC, granted it’s successful there because everything is convenient, BUT I still think a homesteading book is a must have.

    No need to apologize, but I must admit I’ve never heard of this. Must google.

  • Mike M.

    OK…Where IS this girl factory, anywhere?

  • J

    Dear Abbott,

    I couldn’t find you any multi-penis, but I got you the next best thing:
    http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/diphallia

    Consider this a belated Christamas or early Valentine’s present.

    NSFW

    Love,

    J

  • J

    My b-school class of 650 was fully one-third engineering majors. Almost all of the IB types and sexy startup hires came from this cohort. It’s a filter for IQ, at the very least.

    My older son is planing a business/comp sci or engineering double major.

  • J

    FWIW, I know of two 25+ year marriages where the wife is an MD and the husband is a househusband. In both cases the woman is greatful to have been given the opportunity to practice medicine AND have a family. I know some two MD families too. The househusband families have nicer kids.

  • J

    @SW

    A friend of mine and I were browsing a yarn shop last weekend. I saws this really great scarf made in merino wool/silk blend yarn priced at $17.50/skein. The scarf needed two skeins. They wanted $6.oo for the instructions. That’s $41.00. No cheaper than buying off the rack, proably more expensive

    I went to Michael’s and got a nice washable wool for 7.00 per skein, and think I can make the scarf without the instructions as I’ve been knitting since I was 12. That brings my cost down to $14.oo which is probably the sale price of a nice enough scarf though I’m sacrificing the silk blend yarn.

    This is a nice creative outlet, not a money saver.

    Same with growing your own food. DH and I once had an organic garden. We had fun, but we also put a lot of money into tools, seeds, peat moss to inprove our soil, etc. Again, not a money saver.

    http://www.knittingtree.com/shop/Patternology-Project-Kits/Linton-BobbleEdged-Shawl.htm

  • pvw

    I haven’t knitted in a while…most recently some great winter scarves, grat for felting, good quality yarn. The Michaels type yarn, not as good quality–made Afghans.

  • OffTheCuff

    Double majors are a really good idea. While its not exactly the same, I have two separate bachelors in comp sci and music. It’s a lot of added benefit for not that much extra work or money, since the requirements for one often count as electives to the other.

  • J

    @pvw

    I just took another look. It’s Caron Simpy Soft in harlequin (http://www.caron.com/color_cards/cc_sspaints.html) actually which is acrylic. I was looking for something washable in self striping yarn, and this fits the bill. I would never do an adult sweater in a synthetic though. I have done kid’s stuff in synthetics becuse they take a beating and are quickly outgrown anyway. I used to be fussier until I started knitting for kids.

  • J

    @OTC

    Yeah. He figures that this particular combo will almost guarantee him a job or a platform for starting a business. He will continue to pursue his music as well, with his dream job being the production of electronic music. If none of that works out, he’ll end up an IT project manager. He can’t lose.

  • Re double majors: the late management consultant Michael Hammer argued that the best preparation for a business career would be an undergraduate double major: one STEM subject and one rigorous humanities program. LINK

    I think Dr Hammer’s argument has much merit; however, employers have no good way to distinguish a truly rigorous humanities program from the proliferation of mush that is out there.

  • J

    @david

    I read your link and agree with this: “I think Dr Hammer’s argument has much merit; however, employers have no good way to distinguish a truly rigorous humanities program from the proliferation of mush that is out there.”

  • J

    Mom was a seamstress at one point, made all our clothes (me and my bro were the same height for many years, so she just did patterns for both of us, and we split clothes), and saved lots of money being thrifty, not spending on endless supplies of toys, clothes, new appliances and electronics, new couches and furniture over the years, etc., granted, she was creative so she didn’t have to spend money on us, but it was definitely doable to raise us on a very low salary.

    I’m impressed. Did she make her own patterns? I’ve seen patterns for kid’s clothes that cost more than clothes off the clearance rack.

  • Underdog

    @IrishFarmer

    “For instance, feminism’s insistence that women are hypoagents, and victims, and need special favors and so on in order to operate on the same level as men can actually stimulate the protector instinct in men and reinforce gender roles, at least from a male perspective, for both men and women.”

    Good observation. And the thing is, women’s innate hypergamy and solipsism lead them to their apex fallacy — meaning they only want to operate on the same level as highest status males. It worked for a while, but now we’re starting to see the lower status males going “wtf??!!!”

  • I have a couple physics degrees, an engineering degree, and a comp. sci. degree. I have to say, engineering and computer science, both pretty easy-peasy. A fair number of hours in computer science, just because coding takes time. I think my GPA in both those disciples is just a shade below 4.0. I know I have one more A- than A+ in the engineering degree, and nothing below that.

    Physics, not so capable of getting by on my native wit. I had one third year class where 40 % of the class (all physics majors) failed. Now, that professor got canned a couple years later, but still… I suppose it makes sense to filter hard in physics though, because if you can’t compete on the world stage you’re pretty much a useless tit. With engineering, there’s always value in local knowledge.

    I do know some combo physicist/musician types too. There’s something to be said for being a ‘Renaissance Man’ with a classical education. I already am double Susan’s cut-off of twelve years of education, however, and I need every year of my education to do my job. I’ve had a grand total of one elective in all of my degrees. I think I took macro-economics, which was ridiculously stupid and useless. Economists are such a pack of posers.

    In my Bachelor’s program, one of the thing the physics professors discussed was how much easier it was when they were in university, because there was so much less to learn. The internet helps with learning things faster, compared to pre-internet, but the amount of information out there keeps growing exponentially.

  • I got a ‘D’ in the 3rd year class, FYI. First and only time. I’d like to say it was humbling, but I was mostly just annoyed with the professor.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Betas benefit from the alpha-induced decline, because women who want to marry are generally selecting from a beta pool of men. IOW, a less competitive marriage market for men who wish to marry.

    Only problem is the rising percentage of ascendant alpha females, which makes the pool of women to marry smaller.

  • J

    Cute stuff. Hearn is certainly into textures, and the Berocco vintage sweaters are adorable.

  • Bells

    @PVW
    Re: Housewifely chores
    Yes it is true. Initially my mom did a large part of the housewifery duties. I’m not sure if she did this purposefully as a strategy to be “less threatening” to my dad. But I do know that she was also raised in a very traditional household where the women were expected to do all the housework and the men brought home the bread. But over time, managing work and doing the housework became too stressful. Of course I was made to chip in with the chores as a kid but I couldn’t say that I made a huge dent in the chores.

    Over time, I think she had a lot of discussions with my dad about housework. He probably initially resisted because he also grew up in a very traditional family. But eventually he complied because he realized that she was too physically tired to do her best in both areas. Now he also does a good share of the work. I even think he enjoys doing it because he’s a neat freak.

  • Joe

    @Mr. Nervous Toes

    I do know some combo physicist/musician types too. There’s something to be said for being a ‘Renaissance Man’ with a classical education.

    Yeah. Former guitarist for Queen, Brian May is a successful PhD astrophysicist.

    I’ve got two degrees in Astronomy myself, one in Comp. Sci., and was in a decent band for about 8 years. Much fun. I did alright with the ladies, considering. But I must admit that it was a little easier when I was in the band. 😉

  • Bells

    I gave the example of my parents’ marriage to show that it is possible for a very intelligent woman to be happily married to a man who she outearns. For that to happen, both sides have to be willing to meet the needs of the other’s. My dad desired respect and femininity and my mom gave it to him. My mom primarily desired stability and a compatible partner—and that is what my dad offered.

    As for me, if need be, I think I’ll be fine marrying someone who’s not equal to me in education or finance. I do have certain qualities that I desire in a man. But, I also realized that I had to seriously work on my physical appearance and my mentality in order to attract the right men… And that’s why I’m here on HUS.

  • pvw

    @J: I just took another look. It’s Caron Simpy Soft in harlequin (http://www.caron.com/color_cards/cc_sspaints.html) actually which is acrylic. I was looking for something washable in self striping yarn, and this fits the bill. I would never do an adult sweater in a synthetic though. I have done kid’s stuff in synthetics becuse they take a beating and are quickly outgrown anyway. I used to be fussier until I started knitting for kids.

    Me: I love that harlequin. Funny, it is an acrylic that looks very much like one I used a number of years ago when I was crocheting outfits for some decorative dolls I have in the living room. As for the knitting tree ones, the pink pattern reminds me of something I used for a baby blanket….

    @Susan: http://www.ravelry.com/designers/lorraine-hearnLorraine Hern’s stuff looks great–think grandbabies! As the vintage stuff, http://www.berroco.com/patterns/pattern-booklets/302-vintage-vintage-chunky, I know my mom and aunts had some patterns from the 1960s I used to drool over–hot looking crochet/knit dresses…

    J and Susan, you’re inspiring me! I just ran to get the knitting basket…

    • @pvw

      I found some vintage pattern books at the library, and there are also some vintage patterns online. Patterns going as far back as the 30s. Some of them are really great. Here’s an example of a swimsuit I love – not at all practical for someone my age, but perhaps I can convince my daughter to wear it as a coverup or sundress!

      ss

      I also love this cardigan (I have a thing for cherry motifs.)

      vk

  • pvw

    @Bells:

    Over time, I think she had a lot of discussions with my dad about housework. He probably initially resisted because he also grew up in a very traditional family. But eventually he complied because he realized that she was too physically tired to do her best in both areas. Now he also does a good share of the work. I even think he enjoys doing it because he’s a neat freak.

    Me: That is so key! That they can compromise and undertake whatever roles are necessary to keep the household running and without anyone feeling as though dignity has been compromised. That is the problem with the information Susan presented here; an inability to do what some of our elders found it easier to do?

  • Bells

    @PVW
    “Here is the thing, I don’t even think this is about “go girl feminism.” They really ascribe to concerns that young women have no guarantees and can’t depend upon anyone but themselves for their future economic well-being.
    They really don’t see security for young women in marriage because of divorce…”

    That’s exactly the same reason why my parents emphasized the importance of a career. Also, I’m an only child so the need was greatly compounded. If anything ever happened because of economic, death, or divorce issues; I should be able to adequately take care of myself.

  • HanSolo

    @Bells

    You sound outright sensible. 🙂

  • HanSolo

    That was referring to #144

  • Bells

    @J
    “Dear Abbott,

    I couldn’t find you any multi-penis, but I got you the next best thing:
    http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/diphallia

    Consider this a belated Christamas or early Valentine’s present.”

    That link was disgusting. I spent a good 4 minutes trying to figure out how the guy would be to have sex because the penises seem to be located at the same level. So DP is not even possible, lol! Poor guy is probably not getting any.

  • Bells

    @Hansolo,
    Thank you 🙂

  • Iggles

    @ Ion:

    What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time? We approach jobs more realistically than relationships, i.e., we don’t rely on the universe to bring a job when the time is right. Wish 22 year old self knew that. grrrr.

    +1000

    It’s not enough to say “someday my prince will come”. You have to show up to be in the running because positioning matters, Actively putting yourself out there increases your chances of finding someone exponentially!

    Btw, you put in excellent dedication and focus in regards to jobhunting! That no doubt has and will continue to pay off in spades 😀

  • Iggles

    @ SW:

    @Bells

    Thank you for sharing that lovely story about your parents! What a great model you grew up with!

    I second this!

    Bells, the insight you provided is invaluable. I work in STEM and make more than everyone in my social circle (barring current and former coworkers!), so seeing how your parents successfully managed having the woman be a higher earner gives me hope!

    Not sure if you’re familiar with Married Man Sex Life (Athol’s blog) but the captain/first officer model of marriage is the one that would work best for me. I don’t want to lead (been there, done that and it sucked) and the egalitarian model also doesn’t appeal (50/50 split where neither party leads!)

  • Iggles

    J – Gah! I wish I had never clicked that link… for my sanity I’m going to pretend that was the work of Photoshop 🙁

  • pvw

    @Iggles and Bells:

    Not sure if you’re familiar with Married Man Sex Life (Athol’s blog) but the captain/first officer model of marriage is the one that would work best for me. I don’t want to lead (been there, done that and it sucked) and the egalitarian model also doesn’t appeal (50/50 split where neither party leads!)

    Me: I find that with Mr. PVW and me, we have something that might be a hybrid? I think of it as the “co-chairs” model, where there is no “captain/first officer” model, but also not absolutely egalitarian with no leadership. When we got married, we just naturally divided up responsibilities based upon our strengths and abilities, but in consultation with each other to make sure we are on the same page and are working within the same vision. If there is disagreement, we have to be able to persuade the other to the point of agreement (grounded upon discussion of all the benefits and detriments). Once we decide, the other is free to take over whatever it is. The important point is that we understand and trust each other’s judgment, so there is no conflict.

  • One cost-effective route for clothes when build changes rapidly is cheap needle felt. It wears like iron and stretches-to-fit like real felt does, but because of the alignment of the fibers, it sews almost-literally like you’re sewing air, and cute appliques are therefore a complete breeze.

  • pvw

    should read: grounded upon discussion of all the benefits, detriments and each of our own preferences. If one of us has an absolute preference and an investment in that preference, the other might defer–that is the one place where emotion might have a key role, but again, that is always subject to logic and reason, ie., I might question him on something, or he might question me.

  • There are some useful tactical applications of Guttentag-Secord and sex ratio. I co-designed a jury selection model once that sought to deliberately engineer a high-sex ratio (i.e., more M than F) group and to seek the most attractive female candidates to boot. This was based on some findings that males in high sex ratio closed environments become more competitive and will “vie for status by intentionally disagreeing with other men” (exacerbated if the few women are also very attractive). The idea was clearly to create an indecisive and chaotic internal jury dynamic, one that would fail to reach a consensus.

    • @BB

      This was based on some findings that males in high sex ratio closed environments become more competitive and will “vie for status by intentionally disagreeing with other men” (exacerbated if the few women are also very attractive).

      I believe this is the same dynamic at work in polygynous societies. Ultimately, the men rise up and kill one another, and no work gets done. That is why monogamy is the bedrock of civilization.

  • INTJ

    @ pvw

    I find that with Mr. PVW and me, we have something that might be a hybrid? I think of it as the “co-chairs” model, where there is no “captain/first officer” model, but also not absolutely egalitarian with no leadership. When we got married, we just naturally divided up responsibilities based upon our strengths and abilities, but in consultation with each other to make sure we are on the same page and are working within the same vision. If there is disagreement, we have to be able to persuade the other to the point of agreement (grounded upon discussion of all the benefits and detriments). Once we decide, the other is free to take over whatever it is. The important point is that we understand and trust each other’s judgment, so there is no conflict.

    That’s the kind of egalitarian marriage I’d like to have.

  • Different dynamic around here; I’m definitely the boss. And I’m bossy as hell about making sure she gets what she actually WANTS rather than merely what she’s willing to live with.

  • Ion

    “I’m impressed. Did she make her own patterns? I’ve seen patterns for kid’s clothes that cost more than clothes off the clearance rack.”

    Really? That must’ve been Vogue Patterns! :-p

    Mom bought patterns only for more complicated stuff, but once she learned basic designs, she memorized. I.E. she could measure us and create pants or a skirt in a snap, but an easter dress required a pattern, and she’d pick a cheap one. I recently picked up sewing as a hobby, and for someone with no experience, spent more messing up fabric “practicing” than if I had gone out and bought a $75 dress. So yea, as a hobby these things can be rather expensive, you’re absolutely right.

    I think my mom saved so much because she 1. Knew really knew how to sew, and fast and also bought cheap clothes for us and fabric in addition to sewing (novices can save a ton sewing) 2. Me and my brother sometimes split clothes, so, basically, that’s only 50% less cost than if under different circumstances, I didn’t even think of that. Sometimes she’d find a particularly cheap fabric at around 70 cents a yard, and dress us like twins…we looked like dorks of course.

  • @Bells
    My parents had a similar dynamic when my mother finally graduated and ended up earning more. I think another thing that helped is that my parents were committed to their marriage and that my mother was grateful for all the support (economical, emotional) my father offered when he was the top earner.

    What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time?
    You end up married. This was my plan when I decided that it was time to find the father of my children. I seriously doubt that level of work can’t produce results in enough time. Hence why I keep telling the women that are lonely to devout their efforts to getting the man 24/7 and they will get their man. Sadly I don’t think none of them wants to stop being single that badly. *lesigh*

    As Mrs. Bennet knew in the early 19th c. women need to put themselves in the path of eligible men.

    For all the flak poor Mrs Bennet get even if she was blind to bad suitors (Wickham and no don’t add poor Mr Collins into the bad ones :p) she seriously knew how to get their daughters the best chance at marriage and ended up with four of them married after all. No a small feat.

    They really don’t see security for young women in marriage because of divorce. Now, do they think women are to blame for divorce or the men are to blame?

    I think all started with the idea that marriage 1.0 was easily dissolved by a man seeking to change his wife by a new model and/or all the cheating their mothers had to tolerate because they had no other options. That is at least the philosophy back at home where girls are taught from early age to get education so “they don’t have to put up with any crap from a man” of course in my culture the crap is real. Not sure if is so in here.

    • @Anacaona

      This was my plan when I decided that it was time to find the father of my children. I seriously doubt that level of work can’t produce results in enough time

      I agree. When my kids were growing up I would encourage them to take responsibility and be proactive by saying “Once you know what you want, go get it.” My own mother’s version was “God helps those who help themselves.”

      Taking action always feels better than hanging around waiting for Fate to take a role.

      I think all started with the idea that marriage 1.0 was easily dissolved by a man seeking to change his wife by a new model and/or all the cheating their mothers had to tolerate because they had no other options.

      I just read an interesting article about divorce, without the usual hysteria. The writer pointed out that because men are able to separate sex and emotion, they are happy to cheat and maintain their marriage at the same time. IOW, they don’t replace their wives, they just violate the marriage agreement without dissolving it. Because women cannot separate sex and emotion, they cheat once the emotional tie to the husband is already dead. Or as the guy put it, “They replace their zero with a hero.”

      This alone explains why more divorces would be initiated by women. If the husband cheats, she wants a divorce. If she wants a divorce, she gets one or cheats and then gets one. If the husband cheats, he has no wish to divorce. If his wife cheats, he wants a divorce.

      In short, adultery is a dealbreaker for women but not for men, unless it’s hers.

  • Mike C

    FWIW, I dunno….I guess I better work on improving my salary, because right now it isn’t impressive. Unfortunately, I really do not have a strong idea of how to do that, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of upward progression at my current department. One of my resolutions this year is to try to figure out way to lift my career into the stratosphere.

    Or possibly low six figures by the time I am 40 :/

    ADBG,

    Not sure how old you are, and if you have just a bachelors and how long you’ve been working.

    FWIW, I’m going to be 39 soon and I finished getting my MBA at 27, and presently I have a senior analyst level position so I’ve “underachieved” but climbing the ladder was never my thing. That said, I’ve observed those who do. Here would be my advice to you if you want to climb the corporate hierarchy and make the 6-figure salary+.

    1. If you don’t have a MBA, in my view, you still want to get it. It has lessened in value, but it is still the “union card” for any sort of upper management. The value of going full-time is down and unless you can get into a top 5 school and tap those alumni networks such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, I’d say going part-time is much better because of the opportunity cost and additional debt. You are out 2 years salary + borrowing for 2 years. I enjoyed going back and living the college lifestyle but financially it was a loser.

    2. Switch companies every 3-4 years. One thing I’ve observed quite clearly is it is much easier to get promoted externally then via internal promotion. I don’t know exactly why that is, but it just seems to work that way. You might start as analyst, work your way to senior, and then finally get a shot at manager in 10 years at the same company. If you jump ship to another company and then a manager job opens up, you could get it and maybe it only took 4 years. At my company, a number of people started at the company, left, and then came back at much higher position levels.

    3. Network, network, schmooze, play the political game. Climbing the ladder is all about managing perceptions and boosting “your brand”. You have to make friends with the important people. Since I’m a natural introvert, this part is just too much damn work in addition to the basics of just doing the job. I prefer spending a lot of time in my cubicle, and I don’t create much opportunities for “face time” with the right people, but if you want to climb you absolutely MUST do this.

  • Mike C

    Which basically means that women have been granted increasing optionality in their gender role while men have not. There is much more to this than instinct. It isn’t so much that the instinct has not been affected, but rather that the “shifting” has not included anything nearly as accretive, positive, or expansive to a man’s choices as those shifts have afforded women. And further, those expansions and positives have too often come at the expense of men, further reducing an already competitive yet constrained playing field. How often do we hear that men are “falling behind” or “not manning up”? Behind what, manning up to what? Women Expectations (whose)? or one in the same?

    Tasmin,

    I am going to somewhat disagree. Although what you say is basically true at the “societal mainstream message” level, there really isn’t anything that makes it true at the individual “enlightened” man level.

    What I mean by that is a man’s optionality is only constrained to the extent that he actually buys into that notion that his provisioning ability is still connected to his “manhood”. I would argue that one component of taking the Red Pill for a man is realizing that today probably provides more optionality for a man then any other time in human history if a man can only think “what do I want” rather then what does society tell me “I am supposed to want”.

    Sure, there is still the thorny issue potentially about female expectations particularly of the man as a mate candidate, but I would argue that if a man spends plenty of time working on the areas that are of self-interest plus are connected to attraction, then provisioning ability in isolation starts to take on much decreased importance.

    FWIW, I outearn my fiancee by about 15K annually. I really wouldn’t care in the slightest if she outearned me AS LONG AS it didn’t disturb the captain-first officer dynamic. I think it was ADBG and Esau who both pointed out the real issue with the woman outearning is the “authority” issues it creates. I think it was Bells??? who talked about her parent’s marriage works well with the woman outearning because she is still feminine and her Dad still has the right frame in the marriage.

    • @Mike C

      What I mean by that is a man’s optionality is only constrained to the extent that he actually buys into that notion that his provisioning ability is still connected to his “manhood”.

      I believe this is hardwired instinct. Even the confirmed bachelor is often invested in displaying his theoretical ability to provide. Bastiat Blogger is a good example of this – he talks of lavish gifts, including cosmetics and fashion, expensive weekends away, etc.

      And virtually all surveys of men show a high percentage of men preferring to pay on a date. In fact, more women indicate willingness to pay than men indicate willingness to accept.

      Obviously, it’s very possible for a man to override that instinct and refuse to pay – lots of men in the sphere have done just that.

      The question then becomes, what price do you pay in attracting women, given that we are still very much hardwired to identify and measure a man’s ability to provide. That is really what the attraction to social dominance is about – access to resources.

  • I agree with MikeC: to me, one of the fundamental things dividing men from boys is whether they define themselves and act according to their needs/dreams/wishes, or let “society” tell them who they should be and what they should do.

    “Society” is just a weasel-word for “peer pressure delivered by television.” It’s a master that gives you no reward for obeying it.

  • pvw

    @INTJ: That’s the kind of egalitarian marriage I’d like to have.

    Me: The interesting thing, is that can result in fulfulling the traditional roles, ie., in that we both came from traditional backgrounds, and so that is where our strengths lie. I take care of the domestic stuff where he has no strengths; he takes care of the guy stuff where he has his strengths. Yet, there is a blend. I started off doing the budget and paying the household bills because I was the one around more often during the day when the bills came in and because I had the time to take care of those types of transactions. Yet, he does the laundry, only because when we first got married, we lived in an apartment building that had a laundry room in the basement, not scary, perfectly safe, but he wanted to be the one to take care of it.

  • OffTheCuff

    Pvw, Bb said the exact same thing a few years ago, until we asked “Who breaks the ties? Who wins, where there is no consensus?”

    On reflection, she realize she was in a C/FO relationship, and while they split up duties according to ability like you, that’s mostly irrelevant – she realized that she willingly deferred to him in the major decisions, like where to live for job. C/FO isn’t captain/slave, and it’s not captain-does-100%-traditionally-male-stuff.

    • she realized that she willingly deferred to him in the major decisions, like where to live for job. C/FO isn’t captain/slave, and it’s not captain-does-100%-traditionally-male-stuff.

      From reading Athol, and comparing that to how others define C/FO, it’s pretty clear there is a wide range of options and preferences. Athol and Jennifer seem to have a very slight power differential – he behaves in a dominant way, but clearly does not dictate family decisions. You can bet she was integrally involved in approving his decision to quit nursing, for example. One does not get the sense that he tells her what to do on a day to day basis, and she is quite independent in her demeanor. IMO, she very much knows how to keep Athol on his toes. His N is one, after all. 😛

      That’s a very, very different model from the one some of the bloggers writing about female submission describe. C/FO can be very nearly egalitarian or focus much more on keeping the woman “below.” (I’ve noticed the words “below” or “under” are often used – something to do with Adam and Eve, and Eve’s being more to blame – a “fallen” woman. I’m not sure how this creationist view sidles up to evolutionary theory, though some spout both simultaneously.)

  • Definitely not. I CAN cook; she enjoys it. Guess who winds up doing more dishes? Otoh, I fold the laundry in my house, because it’s our mutually least-favorite chore, and I hate it marginally less than she does.

    I think what a lot of people miss is something my Dad (who actually did captain two warships) said: you don’t get to slack off or relax. The higher up the chain you go, the more people you work FOR.

    My marriage is built around me carefully watching out for the care and happiness of my wife – if it weren’t, why on earth would she have married me?

  • Abbot

    “How often do we hear that men are “falling behind” or “not manning up”?

    From feminists, the former is never uttered and the latter often is.

    .

  • Susan,

    Those are great. I’ve GOT to get better at messing with bobbins (I’m mostly a hand-sewer due to years of leatherworking).

    In my family, back before the dinosaurs, spinning and weaving was woman’s work, but knitting and tailoring was something the MEN did. My twin still knits up a storm, and I make vests and jackets for the most part.

  • Maggie

    @susan:

    I love that black sweater. It’s too bad I find black too hard to see to knit! I’m making this now:

    http://tahkistacycharles.cust.firepoppy.com/dyn_prod.php?p=CCSS10&k=75888&pb=CCSS10-004

    • @Maggie

      That’s beautiful! Perfect for spring. It’s also very feminine – it would make a great sweater for Easter.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    That’s a very, very different model from the one some of the bloggers writing about female submission describe. C/FO can be very nearly egalitarian or focus much more on keeping the woman “below.” (I’ve noticed the words “below” or “under” are often used – something to do with Adam and Eve, and Eve’s being more to blame – a “fallen” woman. I’m not sure how this creationist view sidles up to evolutionary theory, though some spout both simultaneously.)

    I suspect it has something to do with missionaries.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “That’s a very, very different model from the one some of the bloggers writing about female submission describe. C/FO can be very nearly egalitarian or focus much more on keeping the woman “below.”

    Oh ,for sure. That doesn’t strike me as C/FO, but much higher degree of D/S behavior.

    I think these alt-right folks get it mostly correct that the model most *likely* to work and stand the test of time is a male-led family, whether it is a C/FO type thing, or some stronger D/S dynamic. Where they start looking like they’re on the wacky tobacky to me, is when they insist all women must be submissive to a great degree. I do think a female Captain can work in some special rare cases, but most times, women will just lose all attraction for their men.

    Bells described an excellent situation where her father, despite not having the most education, but excelled in other areas enough to be entrusted as the leader. That’s great testament to inner game and having the self-assurance as a valuable person, independent of your income.

    My wife is trained K12 in music, but has only worked part time since our first baby, and due hearing loss. Now, she is going back to school for nursing, possibly med school (a childhood dream, since her aunt is a wealthy doctor). I’m thrilled to fund it, but the reality is that it makes no difference on my attraction to her. A man really can’t get away with that sort of thing in general.

    • Bells described an excellent situation where her father, despite not having the most education, but excelled in other areas enough to be entrusted as the leader. That’s great testament to inner game and having the self-assurance as a valuable person, independent of your income.

      Agreed. I also think Bastiat Blogger hit on some other ways women look up to their husbands in assortative marriages or even hypogamous ones.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “The question then becomes, what price do you pay in attracting women, given that we are still very much hardwired to identify and measure a man’s ability to provide.”

    Just a hypothetical that usually gets ignored but going overboard on the paying for a date thing (especially early on) is typically an instant tingle killer.

    Much like emotional commitment, if a man goes all in too early on with resources with girl A, girl A has every reason to suspect he will do it again with girl B. (Much like the complaint about commitment and over eagerness.)

    This probably explains why manosphere advice is coffee date first then escalate in resource provision. Keeps investment low which is actually something both parties want, man to gauge interest, women to ensure interest specifically in her.

    So ‘men must provide’ would be better said with the caveat
    ‘men must continually increase provision contingent upon a woman’s emotional escalation and acceptance of sexual escalation.’

    Not sure if this is novel but I haven’t seen it before.

    • @Lokland

      So ‘men must provide’ would be better said with the caveat
      ‘men must continually increase provision contingent upon a woman’s emotional escalation and acceptance of sexual escalation.’

      That makes sense – at least I find no objection to it, for reasons we’ve discussed at length in the recent online dating thread.

      I don’t think the man’s actually dispensing those resources increases attraction. They key thing is that he has them, and that the female is aware of this. (That’s what status tells us.)

      Then it’s the woman’s job to “earn” them. Resource commitment is like any other kind – women want to earn this, not just be another girl who gets the same lavish treatment as everyone else. In the same way that women will penalize men who are emotionally promiscuous, I think they will do the same if a man is eager to spend, provided that spending appears calculated to win her attraction. If he’s just a rich guy who throws money around, she won’t feel repelled in the same way, obvs.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    The problem with men being displaced by women, and pushed out of the labor market completely at the low end is this:

    At some level men do everything they do to get laid. It may be multiple levels deep, but that is the motivation. Parents teach their sons to study and work to make them suitable candidates for marriage.

    Women may have invented gardening and agriculture. Iroquois women tended the crops. Farming in early societies tends to be left to subordinates of both sexes. Farm work seems to be generally regarded as low status even today.

    I suspect that few men got involved with farming, and through that other work*, until it was made a criterion for marriage, and marriage a requirement for sex. This required certain restrictions on girls. Girls have never liked that. Parents became the gatekeepers for sex.

    Susan might have been attracted to a shiftless no good, but I suspect she wouldn’t have stayed with him. She was growing up when she met her husband. She is on record as condemning lazy men. Mothers do that. Girls under a certain level of maturity have other priorities.

    It is often said that a society that ignores the talents of half its population, meaning women, is at a disadvantage. That stick points both ways.

    The very lowest classes of men have never worked more than they had to. That behavior is spreading.

    We have broken the old contract.

    *Hunting is not work.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-i

    • @Dinkney

      It is often said that a society that ignores the talents of half its population, meaning women, is at a disadvantage. That stick points both ways.

      The very lowest classes of men have never worked more than they had to. That behavior is spreading.

      We have broken the old contract.

      +1

      I know it’s fashionable to say “enjoy the decline,” but I’m more optimistic than that. I really believe that women are already concluding that “this sucks,” and change has begun. What I don’t know is the timeline.

  • INTJ

    @ Iggles, J

    J – Gah! I wish I had never clicked that link… for my sanity I’m going to pretend that was the work of Photoshop

    Cosigned.

  • Abbot

    “women are already concluding that “this sucks,” and change has begun.”

    But its the feminist mouthpieces who keep spouting everything is fine and men will adjust because they have to. Its a runaway train about to run off the rails…

    .

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Interesting article I found from that, which, with small adaptations can easily explain how an 80-20-like situation can arise even through serial monogamy: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-i-why-most-americans-are-polygamous

  • INTJ
  • @Abbot#186,

    One thing you might notice is that the feminist mouthpieces are getting a LOT more pushback than they used to. I’m not a big am-radio guy, but I’ve had friends who were, and I remember when Limbaugh’s epithet “feminazis” was scandalous and resulted in froth-and-spittle from the usual suspects and “whoooooa, hardcore” from others.

    Nowadays, when even the Jezebel crowd gets pushback, from their own readership, not so much. I think The Futurist was entirely correct when he referred to PC misandry and “here are your freedom chains, wear them or be shamed”-style feminism is simply a cultural bubble that will do a hard fade along with a bunch of other boomer fads.

  • Esau

    “In the same way that women will penalize men who are emotionally promiscuous, I think they will do the same if a man is eager to spend, provided that spending appears calculated to win her attraction.

    As opposed to, if his restraint on spending is actually calculated to win her attraction?

    If he’s just a rich guy who throws money around, she won’t feel repelled in the same way, obvs.

    A favorite joke of my wife’s reads, “A fool and his money can be fun to go out with.” (The “money” part, at least, never applied to me BTW.)

    • As opposed to, if his restraint on spending is actually calculated to win her attraction?

      Good point. I strongly advise men not to disclose any calculations whatsoever. A man will do well to view commitment as his to dispense, and that includes the commitment of resources. However, as I noted before, many women will form a negative impression of a man who clings tightly to his resources without being willing into invest anything at all on a promising prospect. (I bolded that to indicate that it is the woman’s responsibility to earn that designation.)

  • Dinkney Pawson

    I know it’s fashionable to say “enjoy the decline,” but I’m more optimistic than that. I really believe that women are already concluding that “this sucks,” and change has begun. What I don’t know is the timeline.

    I anticipate quite a bit of social stratification instead. The U and UM classes will still form families. The underclass will grow. It will be easier to slip into the underclass. It will be harder to climb out. The upper classes will respond by rigging the game in less meritocratic ways.

    See the stories of Augie Busch I, II, III, IV, & V. Do any old money families last? How do they do it? Do any continue to contribute to society?

    Scary reading:

    http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-America-1960-2010-ebook/dp/B00540PAXS/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1359917365&sr=8-1

    http://www.aei.org/scholar/charles-murray/

    The real reason The Bell Curve got vilified was its assertion that the modern bureaucratic state is part of the process that rigs the game against people on the left side of the bell curve. Too many are emotionally invested in “Social Justice”.

    If you make gaming the system important you distract people from other things. The only real scarce resource is human attention, and we’re wasting it.

    I don’t think it is stable. TANSTAAFL.

    Enough automation might make everything really cheap. First world poverty may be an oxymoron now.

    The upper classes will still get all the best toys.

  • My own mother’s version was “God helps those who help themselves.”
    “A Dios rezando y con el mazo dando.” Very catholic 😉

    In short, adultery is a dealbreaker for women but not for men, unless it’s hers.

    In theory yes. But given that I had seen cheating culture for decades this is not how it works in the real life. As Helen Fisher shows. A third of people will bond strongly from a sexual encounter so a third of men will want to leave their wives or at the very least neglect them in favor of the new punani.
    Then there is the other ‘unplanned’ bond, like pregnancies and if the guy has a strong paternal instinct and the kids of the primary partner are older they will favor the new and younger offspring. Thus this only works if the man is really careful and really lucky. Hard to happen at the same time in real life.

    Just a hypothetical that usually gets ignored but going overboard on the paying for a date thing (especially early on) is typically an instant tingle killer.

    You need to consider the narcissism factor. In the past formal dates were qualifiers for both genders. In our hair conversation Just was surprised how much time and money is spent on looking feminine. That was an unspoken part of how the lady invested on the little money she had access to. To look nice and impress the man as well, then she was supposed to show a ‘good head’ by ordering items that were nice but not too taxing on the guy from the menu and not drinking enough to get drunk so as to cause a nice impression. All this effort prevented many women from going out with a man just for the LOLZ or accept more dates when she was sure the relationship was going nowhere. Both as consideration from man’s time and money as to make sure she will be available for other suitors ASAP. All this script doesn’t work if a woman is going out to fancy places just for the food or to post in facebook how much men invest on her. Hence the ‘tingle killer’, YMMV.

    shows why men – not women – chose monogamy.

    In theory again. Look up a woman might think Mel Gibson will invest equally on her but find herself treated as a sex slave with little to no chances for her offspring to make it. You should read the levels of insecurity, backstabbing and intrigue in memoirs of harems around the world, really if you think The herd is bad when men are supposedly to be won at some point imagine if you have to share a man and his resources with other women and kids for the rest of your life, it was possible the closest thing to hell, hence why women in most cultures respond to cheating strongly and do their darn best to diminish their rivals, YMMV.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Thanks for the solid advice, Mike C. Pretty much my thought process. For me that means making sure my resume is solid and how to actually network. I didn’t do much stuff at college, graduated in the middle of the recession, and took quite a while to get something decent.

    I ended up doing contract work at a big company for 18 months and finally got hired just recently. The idea of going back on the job market seems, I am going to be honest, terrifying. Something I’ll need to get over, I suppose.

    On the plus side, I am only turning 26 this month, so still quite young…but need to get moving on this wonderful “career” stuff.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    “A Dios rezando y con el mazo dando.” Very catholic

    It’s at least as old as Aesop.

  • For me that means making sure my resume is solid and how to actually network.
    I’m curious about something. How would an introvert network?

  • It’s at least as old as Aesop.
    Catholic had been “borrowing’ from other sources for thousands of years. Good advice, is good advice. 😉

  • INTJ

    @ Dinkney Pawson

    Enough automation might make everything really cheap. First world poverty may be an oxymoron now.

    It’ll make it easier to produce goods. But that won’t mean people can afford them. Automation means goods can be produced without workers, which means workers get unemployed and can’t afford to buy the goods. It’s a basic problem with capitalism – and the main reason socialism might actually be necessary (Marx et. al. predicted totally different reasons). Once production becomes capital intensive but not labor intensive, i.e. the limiting factor in production is the amount of physical infrastructure, the only way to distribute the goods that are being produced is for everybody to have a share in the profits – i.e. physical infrastructure is publicly owned, not privately owned. Hopefully, we’d still be able to keep things efficient and well managed by allowing people at the high end of the bell curve to manage things and get to afford extra luxuries as the fruits of their labor.

  • Dinkney Pawson
    For me that means making sure my resume is solid and how to actually network.

    I’m curious about something. How would an introvert network?

    From ambush has had mixed results for me.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    If it doesn’t get them laid the producers will eventually stop.

    One way or another.

    I don’t think it’s stable.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Anacaona

    I can’t quarrel with borrowing. Pot, kettle, and all that.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Ana, being introverted doesn’t necessarily mean not being able to talk to people. It just means that it is an exhausting enterprise.

    I’m a borderline extrovert, though 😛

  • pvw

    @Susan re. 1930s bathing suits…it is interesting that today we might see that as appropriate for casual street wear and as a beach cover up as you suggested, not the bathing suit itself.

    • @pvw

      re. 1930s bathing suits…it is interesting that today we might see that as appropriate for casual street wear and as a beach cover up as you suggested, not the bathing suit itself.

      Haha, yes. Can you imagine how heavy a wet knitted suit would be though? And how long that would take to dry? There has been a comeback of one-piece suits that have 40s-era glamour. I think SayWhaat posted a photo of a very cute one a while back.

  • Iggles

    @ Ana:

    Then there is the other ‘unplanned’ bond, like pregnancies and if the guy has a strong paternal instinct and the kids of the primary partner are older they will favor the new and younger offspring. Thus this only works if the man is really careful and really lucky. Hard to happen at the same time in real life.

    Yikes! That’s terrifying. Would be devastating for the wife and their children (i.e., worst fear of children of divorce is being replaced by their dad’s “new” family!).

    All the more reason not to tolerate cheating. It undermines the marriage at BEST (without trust the relationship slowly dies) and completely breaks the family apart at worst…

  • Bells


    I believe this is hardwired instinct. Even the confirmed bachelor is often invested in displaying his theoretical ability to provide.

    The question then becomes, what price do you pay in attracting women, given that we are still very much hardwired to identify and measure a man’s ability to provide. That is really what the attraction to social dominance is about – access to resources

    I’m still struggling with this aspect. To be clear, I’m still very much hypergamous. At the age of 21, I’m not certain about the future and my financial potential. Especially because I’ve recently changed my career path since I determined that its rigor would not allow me to invest as much time as I would like into my future children. The ability for the man to provide resources for my family is a very high priority.

    I’m conflicted. Basically my reasoning for now comes down to: if I am able to make a good amount of money, then I don’t care if my husband makes less. However, if I am not as financially secure— then yes the amount of resources that a man has is very important.

    There’s no way to determine this at 21, so I’ve been using ambition level as a tool of measurement.

    • @Bells

      There’s no way to determine this at 21, so I’ve been using ambition level as a tool of measurement.

      Good, that’s exactly what you should be doing! Men in their early to mid 20s are more about potential than anything, so your job is to select a man who has that in spades. As you suggest, ambition is a strong female attraction trigger, as are industriousness and intelligence. Odds are that a man with all three will be a high achiever and good provider.

  • Re: provisioning. I read a paper in the last year or so (think it was by an influence psychologist named Griskevicius, but I’m not sure) that examined how sex ratios impact financial decisions. One finding is that men intuitively apply a high discount rate when sex ratios are high; when male intrasexual competition is fierce, men will opt for smaller, more immediate gains and will make comparatively rash decisions in order to try to secure sexual/reproductive access to a woman. When sex ratios are low, men show more patience and act more systematically and slowly.

    IIRC, there was no real evidence that female time value of money calibration changed with different sex ratios.

    The same paper examined how sex ratios affect career choices. The author(s) found that high sex ratios compelled men to invest more in their careers and women to invest less in their own, while low sex ratios compelled women to invest more in their careers and men to invest less.

    What migh be more surprising is the pattern of career investment in response to mating competition: in high sex ratio environments, men with high mate value (SMV in HUSspeak) will invest in riskier, more demanding, and potentially lucrative careers, while lower SMV men will choose more secure and stable “work-life balance” careers. In contrast, women dealing with low sex ratio (high female intrasexual comp) environments revealed the opposite pattern (high SMV women chose stability; lower SMV took more risks to go afte the $$$).

    I don’t remember what happened to male risk-taking when sex ratios were low and favorable to men, but I think that the high SMV men begin to behave more like high SMV women and look for security and balance, while the lower SMV men start becomn aggressive about risk.

    There was another telling comment about “unfair” or discriminatory pricing strategies: men were more willing to tolerate discriminatory “variable pricing” approaches when sex ratios were high, but wanted to see more equitable fixed pricing being used when sex ratios were low. This does seem to be supported by anecdotal experience.

  • Bells

    woohoo, first time success at trying blockquote!

    @Iggles and PVW,

    yeah I’ve read a lot of the Married Man Sex Life. He’s definitely a much saner voice in comparison to the manosphere.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Bells

    Make that demonstrated productive ambition. Speaking as a guy, many talk a good game. As a father this bothers me.

  • Lokland

    @Susan, Ana

    “You need to consider the narcissism factor. In the past formal dates were qualifiers for both genders”

    True. Keyword being past.

    +1 to both of your comments Susan
    You got what I was trying to say.

    Also, the good prospect, very important.

  • All the more reason not to tolerate cheating. It undermines the marriage at BEST (without trust the relationship slowly dies) and completely breaks the family apart at worst…

    And this comes from someone that was taught since birth that “men cheat, women betray” same principle. But I’m not an idiot in practice just because the man just wants ‘to wet his dick’ without intentions of leaving his wife it doesn’t mean is less of a threat to the marriage. A good way to put cheating is that is like planning to rob someone a gun point without the intention to kill. Risky, risky, risky. Both genders shouldn’t even think about cheating.

    • @Anacaona

      just because the man just wants ‘to wet his dick’ without intentions of leaving his wife it doesn’t mean is less of a threat to the marriage.

      I’ve read a lot of comments about this that amount to moral equivalency, i.e. male cheating is less damaging than female cheating. The problem is, that is a thoroughly selfish perspective. How “bad” or damaging adultery is depends entirely on the experience of the victim. If a male’s cheating is devastating to the female, it’s bad in the sense that it destroys trust and kills the relationship. It doesn’t matter how the perp feels about cheating, only how the victim feels.

  • Ion

    “The very lowest classes of men have never worked more than they had to. That behavior is spreading. ”

    The feminist SMP started benefiting them, giving them no incentive to work hard. They aren’t normally competing for the highest SMV women, therefore they can totally set the tone for their environment, which is: nothing ever gets done. You cannot simultaneously be a low SMV woman AND set the tone for your environment. “What you value in a mate” is irrelevant compared to the choices you have.

    Not just lower class men aren’t working hard, the bratty playboy rich men I’ve met rarely amounted to much either, preferring part-time “gigs”, nonstop traveling, sports, eccentric hobbies, etc., instead of working hard.

    This is harder to reverse than it is to create, because people will always find a way to excuse privileges they have gained over others (whether earned or unearned). They’ll blame whomever they must; blaming the market while benefiting from the market, and having no real interest in changing anything. When it comes to sustaining civilization, you can usually expect alphas and men with an abundance of options to be non-contributing princesses.

  • Charlotte

    None of this shocks me whatsoever. I do think men often feel that the breadwinning is their main contribution to the family and without being able to provide a larger income, they may feel inadequate and like they are not masculine enough.

    I plan on working after having children but hopefully my career is at the point where I can make my own hours to a certain extent so that I do get to spend a lot of time with my kids. I’m lucky to be planning to go into a creative industry where that is possible.

    On another note, I have an update on my situation from the last post, and of course, I need advice again.

    The guy that I went out with on Wednesday did indeed text me at Friday at 6PM, inviting me on his trip to Atlantic City that night. I’m not really sure if he was serious about it, I already plans plus I wouldn’t have gone even if I didn’t. I do like him and feel a connection, but I have known him for not so long. How does he know I’m NOT crazy myself and will murder him? I just found it interesting. The next morning (Saturday AM) he texted me a photo of his cash winnings and then proceeded to invite me to come down to the school he is an alumni of where he was staying with a friend ((his friend that he visited ATlantic City with) because they have a short break (nobody is at school) as a way out of the city (and to study for his CFA) for the day and night and hang out and go around town to dinner and a karaoke bar. The school is two hours away plus I also had plans Sunday morning. I told him that and he said “if you change your mind, let me know, it would be really fun!” I find it interesting that he would want to spend that much time with me, and I would have essentially been stuck there sort of. I’m not really sure what these sudden invitations mean – does he just want to sleep with me? Or is he just trying to use every hour of his limited free time on weekends to his advantage and spend time with people to start up something? He’s a very handsome guy and I’m sure that if he wanted to sleep with a girl randomly, he could easily enough find one at a bar for the night and not spend tons of time with her on a mini trip like that. He isn’t a big drinker anymore since he finished college, he said he will have a beer but he is training for a marathon in March and also is like “college was fun, but now its time to work hard” which I find admirable. But who knows, sometimes men jump through hoops to just get sex. I don’t think I give off a vibe that I am “dtf”, I need you to make plans with me in advance as I do typically have many things to do on the weekends. I really need some insight on what he is doing as I am still very interested him because I did feel such a spark with him and would like to get to know him in a slower, more normal pace if he does indeed like me for a potential relationship.
    I texted him a few hours ago “hey how was your weekend i’m headed to some friends for a superbowl and thought of you” (he played football in college but he told me he would not be watching as he would be studying) he replied “my weekend was good, and yours?” almost immediately and I told him mine was nice and he said “yeah cool” so I stopped texting him. He may in fact be studying and just not feel like texting but of course I feel weird about the yeah cool response which didn’t invite more conversation. This was the first time I’ve ever texted him first but I felt like I should so that he knows I wasn’t totally creeped out by his invitations. I guess we’ll find out if he tries to make plans with me for the week (as he had mentioned several times on our drinks date the other night) if he is interested in more, but again, I’d like to see what you wise ladies and men think of the situation.

  • I think you’re right to be on guard; my personal instincts would be to drop this dude like a hot rock.

  • Ion

    Charlotte

    “The guy that I went out with on Wednesday did indeed text me at Friday at 6PM, inviting me on his trip to Atlantic City that night.”

    How far away from Atlantic City are you? If more than 20 miles, it just sounds odd to me. From your description he seems like a thrill seeker, and they can be kind of unsuitable for LTRs I’ve heard.

    Even if he responds, I would not go to Atlantic City and share a hotel with some strange guy, I don’t really care what he says. Be cautious about this guy, and keep looking.

  • Charlotte

    Yeah I would never go to Atlantic City unless it was as a joke with girlfriends for a bachelorette party or something. Not really a place on my destinations to visit list. And I ESPECIALLY would never go anywhere with someone I just met.
    I live in NYC, so Atlantic City is a bit of a hike. He was going because he was planning to go before Hurricane Sandy and obviously the trip got cancelled so they comped the room and his college friend was in town for the weekend who he went with I guess.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Charlotte

    Last minute invitations can be disrespectful. If you are walking together on campus and he asks you to stop for coffee, that’s one thing. Asking you to drive two hours is quite another. That was a particularly nasty bootie call; where would you have slept?

  • Ion

    Dinkney:

    “Last minute invitations can be disrespectful. If you are walking together on campus and he asks you to stop for coffee, that’s one thing. Asking you to drive two hours is quite another. That was a particularly nasty bootie call; where would you have slept?”

    Amazing! I agree.

  • @SW

    What we do not know is whether significant numbers of women will marry men with less formal education than themselves.

    True, though if past behavior predicts future behavior, we have some idea. Pew Research has been tracking this trend for awhile:

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01/19/women-men-and-the-new-economics-of-marriage/

    The income gap between wives and husbands appears to have gone up by a factor of 5x, so there’s bound to be some marital effects of that change. But even back in 1970, 20% of wives were more educated than their husbands. That hasn’t even doubled, yet… though it’ll probably get there soon.

    I can’t dispute the Atlantic article WRT the gap in degreed men in major cities. What’s interesting about that is, and I think this has come up before, single men outnumber single women in all those major cities, and every medium-sized city too, by far. And the gay male population can’t account for the discrepancy (only 3-4% of the population).

    The college-educated population still has the highest marriage rate and the lowest divorce rate… I suppose some kind of reasonable trade-off is taking place if a young woman can’t find an equally-educated mate.

    • @Megaman

      The college-educated population still has the highest marriage rate and the lowest divorce rate… I suppose some kind of reasonable trade-off is taking place if a young woman can’t find an equally-educated mate.

      For me, the most interesting data in the post is the difference between net hypergamy, high for <12 years education, and negative for >12 years. It appears that females are adapting, and have been for some time. I was surprised by the number of hypogamous marriages in the 2001 study. I’d like to see more data, but I find this quite intriguing.

  • Mike C

    I believe this is hardwired instinct. Even the confirmed bachelor is often invested in displaying his theoretical ability to provide. Bastiat Blogger is a good example of this – he talks of lavish gifts, including cosmetics and fashion, expensive weekends away, etc.

    Perhaps….to some extent…IDK. Being a guy myself 🙂 I can tell you this is NOT as powerful a hardwired instinct as some other items. I think Bastiat and I are similar ages perhaps he is 5-10 years older..but we grew up in a different time. I’d be interested to see what the typical teenage guy or even early twenty-something thinks about this since they grew up in the era of women as fully independent, autonomous economic actors. I can say I felt this much more strongly in my early to mid 20s than now which suggests it is more cultural programming and learned behavior then code sitting inside male genes.

    And virtually all surveys of men show a high percentage of men preferring to pay on a date. In fact, more women indicate willingness to pay than men indicate willingness to accept.

    Would be interesting to see this broken out by age cohorts. In any case, that doesn’t answer whether it is cultural influence or biological hardwiring.

    The question then becomes, what price do you pay in attracting women, given that we are still very much hardwired to identify and measure a man’s ability to provide. That is really what the attraction to social dominance is about – access to resources.

    I’d argue from a male POV, this is more feature than bug. I’d say you want to filter out any woman who puts too much value on the “access to resources” part of LTR attraction. I hope Tasmin isn’t offended by me mentioning this, but best I can recall his marriage fell apart partially because he lost part of his ability to be super high provisioning. In my view, that ability is not intrinsic to the man himself but extrinsic to some degree. That provisioning ability can be taken away by bad luck or cruel twists of fate. Then what? You’ve got a woman who may leave you, at the very least may be resentful or disappointed. Frankly, the guy probably pays a much lower price upfront losing the interest of a woman heavily focused on access to resources compared to the price he may pay later if he ever loses that ability.

    Ted D has mentioned previously how his current wife had an almost instantaneous visceral attraction to him. I know my fiancee has the same feeling towards me. My advice to any guy would always be to NEXT the woman who doesn’t feel something immediately powerfully visceral but who instead needs a lot of time for attraction “to grow” based on more extrinsic things like provisioning ability.

    • @Mike C

      I’d be interested to see what the typical teenage guy or even early twenty-something thinks about this since they grew up in the era of women as fully independent, autonomous economic actors.

      I agree that culture can be quite pervasive. Hence the death of the beta provider marriage…

      I’d say you want to filter out any woman who puts too much value on the “access to resources” part of LTR attraction.

      I agree – I would caution any man to be wary of women who prioritize assets or resources to the exclusion of other aspects of character. At the same time, a woman who ignores a man’s ability to provide is a fool. It is the male’s willingness to commit resources to the family that ensures survival of offspring.

      In my view, that ability is not intrinsic to the man himself but extrinsic to some degree. That provisioning ability can be taken away by bad luck or cruel twists of fate. Then what? You’ve got a woman who may leave you, at the very least may be resentful or disappointed

      This is unfortunate. That sounds patronizing, but I do not mean for it to…However, Tasmin went from being a super high flyer – 1/10 of 1% – to being a man who has chosen to pursue a career as an artist. His wife basically cheated and there were no children – and IIRC her leaving occurred before his crisis at work. The cause and effect here is not so clear, as Tasmin has suggested himself.

      But I agree with you that women feel extremely vulnerable and threatened when their mates lose their jobs. That can lead to both resentment and disappointment. More than 50% of primary breadwinners in America today are female – and that is bound to have some significant impacts on marriage and relationships.

      My advice to any guy would always be to NEXT the woman who doesn’t feel something immediately powerfully visceral but who instead needs a lot of time for attraction “to grow” based on more extrinsic things like provisioning ability.

      At the risk of repeating myself, occupational status, or economic capacity, is the most influential female attraction cue. That means that the status derived from good career achievement or prospects = attraction early on. Women generally suss this out at first meeting.

  • Mike C

    I’m curious about something. How would an introvert network?

    Same way an extrovert would. 🙂 Which means it would be tiresome, hard work.

    I’d bet my last dollar that the very upper echelon of corporate hierarchies are almost exclusively populated by extroverts, especially the CEO position. You might have some introverts as CFOs, or even chief technology officers, but I think moving up through the managerial ranks basically mandates being an extrovert.

  • Mike C

    On the plus side, I am only turning 26 this month, so still quite young…but need to get moving on this wonderful “career” stuff.

    If you want it, yes you do. FWIW, you aren’t that young.

    I’d argue that the ages of 25-40 for a man career wise are very similar to a woman’s SMP positioning for marriage prospects from 25-40. You’ve got a limited window of opportunity to really start climbing and make it.

    By 35ish, and certainly 40ish, if you haven’t already started to move up the ranks, then you most likely will not because the assumption will be “something is wrong”. If you haven’t progressed upward much, then the default assumption will be there must be some reasons why you haven’t and therefore this person won’t give you a shot either. In a way, it is kind of like preselection.

    In my department, there is one “rising star” manager who just turned 30. All the other managers are 50+. He came into the company from the outside from a top accounting firm, and quickly made friends with the CFO. Top level management identifies the “chosen ones” early. These are the people that are marked for moving up. You have to get on that list early. The key is visibility. You have to get a position where you can be visible to top management and get your chance in the spotlight. And if you get that shot, you must perform brilliantly. One right move on the center stage