Ladies, you’re not entitled to anything.
You’re not entitled to commitment. You don’t have a right to anything from any man. You don’t have any right to a man’s time, money, attention or sexual fidelity. You’re not entitled to get pregnant, and you don’t have a right to have children. You’re not entitled to “have it all”.
You’re not entitled to protection from any nearby man simply because you want it or think you need it or feel afraid of someone or something. You don’t have a right to a man’s “protection” because of your excessive consumption of legal or illegal substances. You have a right to make poor decisions. But you definitely do NOT have a right to demand that nearby men relieve you of the consequences of your poor decisions. Men are not your personal bodyguards, janitors, mediators, or moral enforcers.
You’re not entitled to any nearby man’s help with anything simply because you want or need his physical strength, height, intellect, or expertise. You’re not entitled to a man’s help because you are not strong enough to move it, aren’t tall enough to reach it, can’t figure it out, or don’t have the stomach for it. You’re not entitled to attention from a man just because you’re a woman and he’s a man. You’re not entitled to help with your work.
You’re not entitled to favors of any kind. You’re not entitled to free transportation on demand. You’re not entitled to help moving furniture into or around your home. And you don’t have a right to a shoulder to cry on after you discovered your boyfriend “cheating” on you with your coworker or your best friend.
You’re not entitled to a drink from that guy. You’re not entitled to anything from that hawt guy just because you went home with him from the bar that night. You’re not entitled to commitment from him. You’re not entitled to a relationship, breakfast in the morning, a return text, or even an acknowledgment that he knew you. Why should he value you more than you value yourself?
You’re not entitled. To anything.
Men, it’s not fair.
In the sexual market, you’re not entitled to fairness or justice. You’re not entitled to be heard or even to plead your case. And you don’t have a right to leave the market, either. You don’t have a right to be free from rejection. You’re not entitled to excuses or justifications. You will be evaluated and assessed on your sociosexual status. There is no escape from any of this.
Each and every one of you are players in this game, whether or not you know it and whether or not you wish to be. The only question is by what rules you will play it.
You will be rejected for reasons that have everything to do with you, nothing to do with you, and every point in between. Most of the time you will never know the truth of why you were rejected. You will be rejected many, many times, and you will need to develop a thick skin for it.
In your mission, you will be entitled only to what you earn — nothing more, nothing less. If you or others receive more than what was earned, it is because someone gave it freely or it was otherwise received unfairly. No, it wasn’t fair. No, they weren’t entitled to it. Yes, you will need to get over that. And you cannot change that. Sometimes, you will be deprived even of what you earned. And if that happens, it will be up to you to change it, challenge it, or remove from your life the persons who so deprived you.
And none of that is fair.
Ahh, the key to happiness! Good post, Deti.
Thanks. -d
Combat dating writ large, ey? Will this have any negative impact on the culture as a whole?
Just finished up Anna Karenina. The decieved husband, Aleksey, is kind of a git. Karenina is no saint and we are not to forgive her, but her husband’s arrogrance and lack of emtion make her departure more understandable.
Thing is, Aleksey has a small dose of religion in the middle of the novel, when Karenina is on her death bed. He forgives her. Entirely. And dives into caring for her bastard daughter.
But it doesn’t stick. It can’t stick. The Russian social elite thinks Aleksey is a weak man and has no respect for him. Compassion and magnamity is easier from a position of strength and stability than one of abject, continual humilation.
Redemption isn’t possible for Aleksey, not in corrupt Petersburg, and he nearly kills himself, and then he drifts off in the bosom of a Christian fundamentalist nutjob.
I don’t want to live in that kind of society.
So last week, Father and I took a look at a foreclosed home in the Chicago northwest suburbs. Not too shabby shape: no obvious electricial problems, all copper plumbing. Windows were original and need updated, all major appliances missing, Heater 20 or so years old and will need to be replaced soon. 1200 square feet of flooring that needs replaced (previous tenants beat the shit out of them).
Asking price is $309k, the realtor and our comp analysis settled at a figure closer to 260-270, with $40,000 or so in repairs and upgrades needed within the first year.
About half a mile up the road, there’s fully rennovated homes for the same price. The catch? Half your fellow students will be coming from various “non-traditional” families.
Hmmmm….
I flew to Florida recently, with a high school district superintendent sitting next to me. She assured me that these sorts of non-traditional upbringings are great strengths, and went on and on about half her students don’t even speak English at home.
When we met up with our friends in Florida, they lamented the fate of their unmarried sisters. My wife and her friend agreed that they were lucky to find nice, Midwestern boys. Left unstated, that these two Midwestern boys have long time-horizons, and grew up in 2 parent households, that speak English at home.
Something tells me, Deti, that your message is very, very right, but that your message is needed at all, makes all my current decision-making futile. America wants to drag me into Petersburg, whether by my will or not.
Thinknig of that… I asked my Wife and her friend about my sister-in-law, who laments New York men for being callous. I asked, what does it say about someone, who knows all New York people are jerks, yet continues to live there, and will not move anywhere else?
What does it say about her priorities?
What does it say about her character, that she would rather feel cool, than build an actual, enduring relationship?
What does it say about us, that we would rather live in Tolstoy’s Petersburg, than, say, Austen’s countryside?
And this is why women vote en masse for whomever is the most “progressive” candidate. Because “fair” is whatever the state will take for them by force.
“What does it say about us, that we would rather live in Tolstoy’s Petersburg, than, say, Austen’s countryside?”
When you look at it that way, it says we would rather believe and live the lies than try to find the truth.
One of the things I was trying to illustrate with this post is the artificiality that surrounds us. I was also trying to show that what we’re often told is the truth, in fact is not. For example, I for one am way past tired of hearing of the phantom nonentity known as “male sexual entitlement”. There is no such thing. If anything, this society is completely in thrall to “female emotional entitlement”.
There is a cult of female entitlement mentality. Entitlement to a living wage, to help doing the hard work, to male assistance and chivalry, to any and all forms of male “commitment” whenever it is desired. I think this is a vestige of a time when women really were entitled, and women also didn’t abuse that entitlement but rather viewed it as a privilege and with gratitude. There’s also a lingering belief on men’s part that none of this is fair and it needs to be corrected so it is made “fair”. Fairness and justice are male constructs and pertain to dealings between men, not dealings between men and women.
I don’t think it’s so much that anyone would rather live in Petersburg, or in the harsh, cold reality of the world now. I think it’s that Petersburg is all we now know.
I thought Aleksey showed amazing outcome independence at the end of Anna Karenina and was the only character who experienced peace because of that. Who cares what Russian society thinks of him, certainly not Aleksey.
Chivalry. Note that in French, horse is “cheval” and one level of honorific is “chevalier”. Spanish; “caballo” and “caballero”, respectively. And, whatever the Brit-Germanic analog is, you’ll note their insistence on riding on or behind horses in matters ceremonial.
Chivalry came from the knightly class. As the Roman Empire fell, gradually, various power centers–which may have been large estates–had to hire their own security on the periphery. And barb chiefs setting up for themselves in the area the same. More hired security meant more expenses and somebody else’s land looked pretty good, if you had more hired security than he did.
This led to a world of constant fighting in which the man on a horse had an advantage–plus the expense of a horse. So, eventually, he had power and money, and a horse. Became a class.
But these guys were always in the field. A recent book on the First Crusade pondered how Pope Urban got so many of these guys to BELIEVE, to up sticks and go on a horrifying trip. According to the author, they lived in terror of dying in sin, but they knew their survival depended on fighting, stealing, extortion, domination. The old story of the knight at the bridge, challenging all comers….. He was going to steal travelers’ stuff. Point isn’t their salvation or redemption, but of the reality of their lives. A documentary on a tenth-century Brit cemetery noted the interees were upper class–they were bigger than average–and that forensics would tell if they were monks or local nobles. The latter would have evidence of combat wounds on their remains.
Point is, these were scary guys. I submit that part of chivalry was a deliberate attempt to moderate their affect in certain situations. If you stand when a woman enters a room, it shows respect for convention if not for her. If you were an actual threat, there’d be no respect and no standing up. So, among other things, it was a signal from a guy who, in his professional life, was the equivalent of a mafia sub don trying to maintain or expand his piece by any means necessary.
As with anything subject to competition, if some is good, more is better, until there were manuals on how to hand a lady a…glove or something and business correspondence was ended with “Your humble and obedient servant”, or casually abbreviated to “Yr hbl & obdt svt”, which wasn’t as nice but covered the bases.
Chivalry required reciprocal behavior from women, usually respect and courtesy.
I saw a frame for chivalry or something like once. A guy who went to school at Michigan Tech (up in the ear of the rabbit) was coming home for Thanksgiving. He and two other guys were in a small pickup but at the last moment, a woman got into the group. Nothing amiss there, afaik. The truck was too small for four in the cab so–Lord, I hope the thing had a topper–the guys took turns in a sleeping bag on an air mattress in the bed of the truck. This is uncomfortable and hideously dangerous in an accident. The woman did not ask to take a turn, nor did she offer. That’s as far as I know.
From the outside, this must look like some left-over chivalry. If the woman responded with graceful and sincere thanks noting the guys accepted risk and discomfort for her sake, and made clear it was because she was a woman and they were men being particularly kind, she would be doing part of her part. If, sometime later, one of them was in the area and needed to crash, she would owe him and her part would involve taking care of whatever it was. Not talking about BJs around and it’s all over.
Chivalry will survive when men think of certain things as obligations irrespective of other factors. I submit, though, that it would last longer if certain conventions were obeyed in terms of reciprocation.
Funny thing: I’ve scored a couple of nice notes, a plate of homemade cookies, a seasonal bouquet and a handmade wrought iron lawn ornament, and a hug all for helping out with motoring embarrasments. Of the times I’ve bailed women out of actual physical trouble, I’ve scored one hug and two ignores thereafter. I figure they were too traumatized by the whole thing to want to even make eye contact with me, thus triggering (new word) flashbacks or something. Under chivalry, they’d be obliged to suck it up and do make at least a formalized response of thanks.
Just for grins, see Noonan’s post 9-11 column “Welcome back, Duke” Works better if you remember the comma. She gets to the return of the masculine man, the connect between manliness and gentlemanliness. But it has to go two ways.
“Ladies, you’re not entitled to anything.” I’m seeing a poster, with mock-curly script, hanging in thousands of male undergraduate rooms across the English-speaking world. If only….
“You’re not entitled to help with your work.” There’s this thin line between helping a co-worker, and having them freeload off me because they’re too lazy to RTFM. As long as they’ve tried to figure it out, I don’t mind. But there’s always a few who take on tasks that are too complicated for them and then expect everyone else to haul the load. Men and women do it, but the women expect to be helped and the men are at least apologetic.
Deti,
I agree. Cult of female emotional entitlement. Runs rampant, everywhere. But that’s what you get when you put women on a pedestal and treat their character tendencies as unequivocal good things.
For instance, our old stomping grounds just GASP! Horror! Why I never! at the idea of restraining female mate choice at all through social norms, or slut shaming, IE, imposing consequences. This is the culture they imagine is perfect: female mate choice and tendencies can NEVER be wrong, only a force for unalloyed good.
Like a totally unregulated banking market, no. All tendencies produce disaster if you let them run wild, even among the best people.
Speaking of this is a thought-crime, even among enlightened circles that should know better.
I get what you’re saying, but, damn, we’re so far gone.
Jenny,
Hmmmm. You don’t think any other characters find peace? I’d have to say, pretty much everyone ends up in a shitty position, but that’s because Russian culture is a shitty culture at that point. Even the most morally pure characters, Kitty and Levin, are temporarily corrupted by the Russian towns. Out in the country, tied to the land and family, though, they are loving paragons.
Do you think Levin is still wrestling too much?
ADBG, about female mate choice.
No major society ever gave young women complete freedom of their mate choice. Most gave little or none. The freedom our FMC civilization gives will be a short lived anomily because it is a major factor in ending our civilization.
“Why I never! at the idea of restraining female mate choice at all through social norms, or slut shaming, IE, imposing consequences.”
It never seems to occur to entitled women that men might have something to say about their relationships. The notion that men have their own wants, needs, hopes and desires never seems to enter into the equation for some women.
A very smart guy told me once that most women don’t really understand or know about men’s hardships or problems in the SMP; and they don’t really care about men’s problems either. This gives the lie to the notion that an endless capacity for empathy, caring and nurturing is a universal characteristic of the typical woman.
Deti – “This gives the lie to the notion that an endless capacity for empathy, caring and nurturing is a universal characteristic of the typical woman.”
I believe that women do indeed have a greater capacity for empathy in general over men. However, that empathy, like most feminine behaviors, can only be seen in the right environment. When women aren’t “ball busting” or trying to “behave like a man” they often show many quality traits. Today the problem is our social environment doesn’t support women in nurturing those feminine traits. And instead we teach them (as well as boys) to be selfish and self-cenetered. That leads to: entitlement.
This post gets right down to the brass tacks. Love it.
Here’s the problem, Deti. The value of any commodity on the market is whatever the market will bear. If the market for a given woman (which will largely depend on her looks) is such that men compete over her, she will feel entitled to whatever a man will do to keep company with her. So, in that sense, certain women ARE entitled to mens’ attention, money, effort, etc – since those things are given freely (and frankly, men compete to give them).
Here’s the other problem: from a legal perspective, women ARE entitled to a man’s money once that man has signed a marriage contract or has impregnated her. In that case, she can decide to work or not work. She can have more kids or not. She can stay married to him or not. But whatever she decides, HE will have to pay. Because once he signs that contract, she is most definitely entitled to his money in perpetuity, and he is not free to withdraw his consent (as she is to sex). In fact, the more a man gives his wife, the more she is entitled to under the law (as the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed).
We can advocate changing the law (and I sincerely hope it happens soon). But until the law is changed, women are entitled under the law.
When you look at it that way, it says we would rather believe and live the lies than try to find the truth.
Not really. It’s simply that women like to complain, whine and vent for its own sake. They don’t actually want to do anything about any issue. They prefer dumbass men to “grow a pair”, throw themselves on swords and get shit done – which, of course, women will end up complaining about as well.
Again, what did ADBG say?
I asked my Wife and her friend about my sister-in-law, who laments New York men for being callous. I asked, what does it say about someone, who knows all New York people are jerks, yet continues to live there, and will not move anywhere else?
Is she actually willing to get off her ass and move to some other place where men are less “callous”? Would she support the return of a culture which deliberately incentivizes boys to not grow into “callous” men?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
All in all, the situation is simple. Men will man up when women man down, and women will man down when men man up.
Maybe it’ll illustrate my point if I propose an experiment.
Walk into the most expensive and prestigious café in the capital of the world’s most advanced and richest country. What will you find there? A bunch of women sitting around chatting about mind-numbingly dull and pointless stuff, complaining about men and shitting on them, generally whining, doing nothing useful. Now walk into the most poverty-stricken, desolate village of the world’s most backward, poorest nation. You’ll find exactly the same thing. That’s the reality of innate female passivity.
Bingo. She came from a Midwestern culture that actively created these men, which is why several of her cousins are married (and her younger sister). She has refuted this culture, in its entirety.
She would rather have men treat her like shit and live alone forever, than champion a culture that she thinks is lame, uncool, restrictive to women, etc. And this is MY culture! Hell, my brother-in-law is a stay at home Dad, many of the women make more than men, we are so liberal Illinois is one of the few states Obama would’ve won if only white men vote, and STILL it’s not enough for her.
She made her choice, and she continues to make her choice every single day. She is free to take another course whenever she wishes.
But that’s not how the women-folk think. No, they think she just snags a good boy who just moved to New York before he becomes corrupted. Good god…
Deti, thank you for writing this essay.
I may have a quibble with the following.
you don’t have a right to leave the market, either.
I ‘m not sure if I understand what you are saying. How is it that a man does not have a right to leave the market? Isn’t that what MGTHOW is all about?
I must add that it isn’t fair, that women don’t make SAMMICHES for men anymore either.
Therefore, I say: no sammiches, no market participation.
I’m not sure why I put a comma after the word fair in my previous comment.
There is nothing more damaging to the vast majority of men than the patriarchy and white knight/chivalrous men. These men are extremely naive, ignorant and self-serving. Men in power will gladly throw the majority of men under the bus to gain favor with the gynocracy, to keep their jobs (get re-elected) and to maintain the status quo (see ‘1 in 5′ and ‘yes means yes’).
Alimony, child support and default maternal custody are constructs of men and constructs of a time when women could not support themselves financially. This is American patriarchy. Men made these rules, which have, through divorce, destroyed countless millions of men’s lives. Though feminists did milk it for all it was worth, the patriarchy made men the disposable gender, not feminists.
It was mandated by society that men be providers and protectors of their families, just like women were mandated by society to be homemakers and caregivers. It was mandated that men go to war and sacrifice their lives for women and children. Those men that refused were branded cowards and ostracized socially and financially. Men and women that didn’t play ball were demonized by both patriarchs and matriarchs. In the past, for a man to get a top-level job, he had to be married with kids. This social rule still exists today – enforced by both the patriarchy and the matriarchy.
The patriarchal structure was designed to benefit women and those men at the top – and to make the majority of men disposable. This is how we arrived at male-only selective service and the male only draft. Feminists distort the real truth when they paint all men as evil oppressors. Why do they still do it? Because it’s served them well for many, many decades. Now, as things are backfiring, you can smell the desperation. The patriarchy and gynocracy are seeing the err in their ways. Naive white knights and misandric feminists are getting their just due. Better late than never.
The single most misandric institution is marriage. Men give all of their power over to their wives when they marry, which is why men should never marry. It is the patriarchy that gave women this power over men though marriage, not feminists. If you look deeply into the agendas of major women’s groups, you’ll find them fighting to hold onto this anti-male power.
What men really need to understand is that both the patriarchy and feminism are working against the vast majority of men; hence the debunked rape, wage and domestic violence statistics. That feminists and many male world leaders continue to run with the deeply flawed statistics tells you everything you need to know about their agenda. Why do they keep using the debunked wage, rape and DV stats? Men are now and have always been the disposable gender. This fact has never been more clear than today. The powerful, cowardly, white knights of the patriarchy will continue to throw men under the bus to appease the gynocracy. I guarantee.
Our future is Sweden’s present. High out of wedlock births, low marriage rate, low indigenous birth rate, mass immigration, feminist movie censors, males made to pee sitting down, the redefinition of speech against feminism as hate speech, sky high taxes and misandric government leaders. Our future leaders will be split between feminists and their cowardly white knight lap dogs.
Expect to see more and more policies and laws that shift men’s assets over to women in the relatively near future. Of course, these policies won’t be called “Bachelor Taxes” outright. Instead, men’s wealth will be shifted under the guise of equality and fairness, with a clear bias against the evil men and in favor of the poor, poor women. If you look carefully, many such laws and policies are now/have been in place for decades.
@Mike, agree 100%.
Feminists like to complain about patriarchy as an oppressive force keeping women down, but that isn’t what it is. Patriarchy is, exactly as the word implies, men treating women like their daughters, and favoring them. It is the application of favorable double standards benefiting women at the expense of men.
And the irony is that this is exactly what feminism of this day and age continues to do, while railing against patriarchy which is essentially doing the same thing.
Women believe that feminism is what gives them choice, but that is a half truth. Feminism gave women the choice to enter the workforce, but it was never feminism that gave women the choice NOT to enter the workforce. That choice was given to them by the reality of sexual market value. Men’s perception of female SMV is independent of their income, and thus men will still be attracted to women who opt out of the labor force and stay at home. It is the money of these husbands that provide women the choice to stay at home, NOT feminism. It is the reality that men will continue giving women their money, in spite of receiving little in return, due to men’s inherent attraction to women, regardless of their education, income, or earnings.
And the mistake that women make is assuming that men have the same choices, but we don’t. Women’s perception of male SMV is HIGHLY dependent on income. Thus, feminism may purport to give men the choice to be stay-at-home dads, but women will generally lose attraction to such men – hence higher divorce stats in marriages where women are the breadwinners. It is like saying that feminism gives women the choice to be fat, yet women who make that choice can’t seem to secure a quality mate. Some choice.
Yet complaining about the fact makes things even worse, and makes men less attractive. Again, feminism tells men that it’s ok to cry and complain (like women), yet women lose attraction to men who do so.
So back to Deti’s article – women feel entitled to whatever they want, because men GIVE them whatever they want regardless of their behavior. Men are never entitled to what they want – they must earn it, and even once earned they must never take anything as a given. This is highly unfair, but it is the current reality of relationship economics.
@ JDG
Perhaps you can’t leave but you can intentionally offer a shitty product refuse all buyers and spend time and effort to poison the rest of market. Cheat, lie and steal as those are the only options for the unwilling captives of the market. There are no rules but to win, and if you can’t win make a Phyrric victory for the other side.
Badpainter says:
March 11, 2015 at 12:01 pm
Okay, I think I get it now. Your in the market by virtue of being alive, but you don’t have to buy anything.
Mike says:
March 11, 2015 at 2:34 am
Partriarchy (and I mean as practiced in a real patriarchal society) may be a bad deal for men, but it is better than anything else that has been tried. But then I am looking at life from a biblical point of view.
@JDG
You’re looking at it from a macro point of view where patriarchy is the best outcome for the most people, and for civilization generally. The hedonic PUA suffers from that arrangement in that his options are limited both by social restrictions and by incentives that reduce the size if his target market.
The current system is the absolute best situation for the man who only wants to chase tail, or wants to exercise unrestricted power over everyone and everything else while simultaneously placing restrictions on any competitors. As well the hedonists get to force, at the theat of violence, the general population to subsidize and therefore incentivize more women to seek their type as a first priority.
I have a question for you all. On one hand, I hear many say that because of feminism, women are taught to act like men, focus on their careers and reject traditional values like staying at home to raise a family. And it seems most feel that has not been positive for our society. Then on the other hand, I hear you complaining that men are trapped once they get married and the more financially dependent a woman is to her husband the worse it is for the man. That sounds like a contradiction to me. Doesn’t a wife who works and pursues her career present less of a liability? Is that somehow correlated to a higher rate of divorce or something (which would still suggest that the split assets wouldn’t hurt as much if she’s significantly contributing to them than if she’s not)? I am curious.
Badpainter says:
March 11, 2015 at 8:59 pm
Yes. Well said.
Em says:
March 11, 2015 at 9:11 pm
I think your hearing views from men who have different ideas on what is good and what is bad.
IMO we live in a society that is for all practical purposes standing on it’s head while trying to make everyone believe that the up side down view is the correct one.
So yes, in an upside down society (female autonomy + government mandated female privileges) someone trying to live right side up (male bread winner + female helpmate) is likely to get penalized when the woman’s hypergamy overcomes her integrity and meets zero resistance from external pressures.
On the other hand if the fella decides to go with the flow and live life upside down (wife employed full time) the financial damages may be less, but the odds on divorce are actually greater (not to mention there are a boat load of other problems often associated with having a financially independent wife).
So I see no contradiction, just differing priorities and views from different people.
@JDG Interesting, thank you. What are the other problems associated do you see assocated with having a financially independent wife? Again I’m just curious about your comment.
What are the other problems associated do you see assocated with having a financially independent wife?
Hypergamy! She is likely to be associated with high status men on a regular basis, some of which may be in authority over her at work.
Women like to marry up. She may view come to have less respect for you, and see you as less desirable if she earns as much or more than you.
If you have children, who will rock the cradle?
Women with careers tend to want to pass much of the housework to their husbands. This makes for added confusion for children involved.
There’s more but I have to go now.
@JDG I know it’s popular but I don’t necessarily buy the hypergamy theory. Yes women generally marry men who match or exceed their education and more often than not exceed their income (and one of the reasons for that is that men aren’t any more thrilled with situation when they earn less). But the theory that once married they “trade up” for a wealthier man just doesn’t match with reality, and honestly it contradicts the other theories I see on these sites:
-“Women lose SMV as they age” Doesn’t that make it immensely harder for her to trade up after several years of marriage?
-“Single women with children have low SMV” Again making it harder to trade up.
-“Wealthier men prefer (and can actually get) younger women.” See where I am going with this?
Personally just about all the women I know around my age who divorced (who almost universally were the ones to initiate it) are 1) with someone about the same income and education level as them or their ex, 2) with someone younger with significantly lower income and education (read: freeloader waiting for the windfall), 3) single.
I could be an outlier but somehow I doubt it.
To your second point about passing on childcare and housework to husbands (I’ll leave alone my thoughts on these being the exclusive territory of wives and not husbands). Again perhaps I’m outlier given my education, income and where I live but the more money a woman/couple makes the more likely they are to outsource much of the household duties (daycare, nannies, house cleaners, gardeners, etc).
Lastly higher income and education have been correlated with lower divorce rates (I know correlation doesn’t not imply causation but see point about being able to afford to outsource duties which significantly lowers stress at home).
So it just doesn’t add up.
Em, excellent (and important) questions. I’ll do my best to answer.
I, for one, would have no qualms with a philosophy that encourages true equal rights for men and women. But that isn’t what we have. We have a system where women have obtained all the advantages of traditional manhood while retaining the advantages of traditional womanhood. A woman can choose to have kids and work full time, part time, or not at all. Her choice will be financed either by her husband or by her surrogate husband (the government and judiciary system). A man has no such choice because most wives will not finance them, nor will the government/legal system.
I have no problem with working women or with stay at home moms. I do have a problem with working women who lose attraction to their stay at home dad husbands because they aren’t powerful enough. I do have a problem with stay at home moms that focus all their attention on their kids and ignore their husbands, or want their husbands to do 50% of housework while doing 100% of paid work. I have no problem with a couple sharing assets while married, but have a huge problem with the sense that assets should be divided 50/50 regardless of who contributed what (and don’t get me started on alimony).
Regarding hypergamy, this is a poorly understood concept. It isn’t that women are always looking for a richer man. It’s that their priorities and desires change predictably over their lifetimes. The type of man and lifestyle they want will differ at age 18 vs 30 vs 40 vs 50. Whereas what men want tends to remain stable throughout their lives.
And that is pretty bad news for marriage since, as your friends have shown you, women will be perfectly willing to destroy their families, take their kids, take their husbands money in perpetuity in exchange for nothing, because their husbands are no longer the type of man they want anymore. What they now want is a different mix of alpha and beta. Not necessarily richer, but different.
Traditional society, for better or worse, restrained women’s choices for the betterment of families (ie kids). In an era of unrestrained choice, we see women destroying marriage and forcing men to pay for it. Many of us aren’t cool with that.
You want freedom to choose, sure. But pay for it yourself. Be an adult, responsible for your own choices. Not the myth of perpetual victimhood that modern feminism purports.
Sorry to post again, but one further thought, it is true that university educated women who delay marriage tend to have a lower divorce rate. But only when they marry university educated, bread winning husbands.
Breadwinner wives have a substantially higher divorce rate. Women don’t want to support husbands. They don’t mind BEING supported by husbands, and they don’t mind contributing to household income. But once the woman’s income passes 50% of total household income, the chances of divorce increase.
I’ve written this before, but I’ll say it again. Men want women. Women want power/freedom of unrestricted choice. A woman who HAS to work to support a family has no choice. She must work. A woman with a breadwinners husband has unlimited choice. She can work part time or not at all. She can have kids or not. She can stay married or not. Regardless, he will pay.
@ Em:
“I know it’s popular but I don’t necessarily buy the hypergamy theory. Yes women generally marry men who match or exceed their education and more often than not exceed their income (and one of the reasons for that is that men aren’t any more thrilled with situation when they earn less). But the theory that once married they “trade up” for a wealthier man just doesn’t match with reality”
Hypergamy is hardwired into every woman. Every woman wants the “best” man she can get. It’s not that once married a woman trades up to a “wealthier” man. It’s that she wants to trade up to a BETTER man. When a woman has her own money and her own sources of income, “better” doesn’t necessarily mean “wealthier”. Usually it means “hotter”, “more exciting”, “better looking”.
We’re seeing more and more that many women’s ideal “wish list” is alpha fux to age 29, beta bux until the kids are in school, then alpha fux again around age 45 to 50 (the “cougar” phenomenon). Does that mean most women are actually doing this? No. A lot of women WANT to do this, though, and an increasing number are, I think. Or at least that’s how it appears to me. And women are better able to do this — they have their own jobs. They have sources of income from ex husbands or deceased husbands or family members. Once that’s taken care of, they’re freed up to do whatever they wish.
“-“Women lose SMV as they age” Doesn’t that make it immensely harder for her to trade up after several years of marriage?”
Not if she’s just going for a second round of alpha fux. If she’s taken care of herself, she can offer up her body, and that’s all a younger guy really wants. A good looking 45 year old woman can still command some attention — not as much as she did at 25, and not from the same caliber of man, but she can still get some. And there are legions on regiments on divisions of thirsty men out there who will take any woman they can get, as long as sex is on the table.
-“Single women with children have low SMV” Again making it harder to trade up.”
Not necessarily. Single women with kids have low MMV (Marriage market value). She might still be hot enough to chase attractive men. These women are no-gos for marriage for sure. (Even in my bluest of blue-pill days I understood that.) But they are good for casual sex and for dating — just read the PUA sites. Single women with kids are prime pump and dump material for these guys. The guys love it, and the single moms like the attention.
Captain Capitalism had a great article on the issue of what women should do, want, be, etc. in their lives vis a vis their relationships with men.
I’ll paraphrase it. Cap’n said there’s no right answer. What should women do or be? The answer is: Whatever they want. But they should also accept all the consequences, good and bad, that flow naturally from doing and being whatever they want. So if women want independence, they should have it. Real, true independence. No safety nets, no special treatment, no help with work. Sink or swim, succeed or fail, all on your own merit. You don’t get a choice on whether to support yourself or not — you MUST work, you MUST support yourself, because no one else will do it for you.
If a woman wants a husband and children, fine. Every woman I’ve ever known who wanted those things, really wanted them, was able to have them. Every. Single. One. But a relationship with a husband is work, and he requires caring and nurturing and help. You will not be able to do that well AND work a full time job. Children are lots and lots and LOTS of work. You will not be able to raise them well AND work a full time job. You just won’t.
Do and be whatever you want. But don’t demand that men pay and pay and pay for you to do it. YOU pay for it. And don’t demand that men bow to your every whim. If you want it, YOU go get it and YOU foot the bill for it. If you want a man in your life, then you need to accept the good and bad that comes with it. If you do not want a man in your life, then you need to accept the good and bad that comes with that. If you make a commitment, then you accept all the burdens as well as all the benefits. If you don’t like this, don’t make the commitment.
You accept all the consequences that flow from your good decisions. You will have to accept the bad consequences that flow from your poor decisions too.
“Hypergamy,” in practical terms, means women do not acknowledge men “below them” as worthy of their romantic interest, and a woman is always seeking to optimize her mix of AF/BB. Which includes leaving her current man if a superior man comes along.
As Deti mentioned, this does necessarily mean that women only seek men wealthier than themselves. This is the complete opposite, actually. As women gain their own economic resources, they shift their focus into more hedonistic traits.
So what does a woman with her own money do? Depends on the woman, lol. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer here. Some are going to sit at home and knit all day, some are going to Vegas to party with strippers, some aren’t having kids, some are having more kids.
Women aren’t homogenous, and they aren’t substitute goods. Each one has a unique endowment and unique upbringing, which leads to a unique person.
Not all women are equally hypergamous. Not all women have equal time horizons. Not all men have the same taste in men, the same preference for AF/BB, the same social pressures, etc.
So you need to introduce a lot more nuance if you are going to examine the entire culture as a whole. Especially if your particular social circle all has their own personal maids and you have no experience with other social circles.
“Doesn’t a wife who works and pursues her career present less of a liability?”
Depends on what you mean by “less of a liability”. If we’re talking about less alimony and ongoing financial obligation from ex H to ex W in the event of divorce, then yes, usually, a working W is a lower liability.
But if we’re talking about a working wife being less likely to divorce, then no. First, she has her own income source, which leads to increased financial independence. She doesn’t need a husband to support her. So if the marriage goes south for whatever reason, it’s easier for her to leave. And I’ve known many who have done exactly that, for exactly the reasons I just stated — she’s no longer attracted to H, marriage cramps her style, just doesn’t want to be married to him anymore. She has her own job. She doesn’t need him. Why stay? She leaves him.
Second, a working W is more likely to get attracted to coworkers because she’s around other men all day, some of whom she works for and reports to. She’s likely to be around more attractive men, more “alpha” men, more dominant and confident men, than her husband. She is likely to become attracted to at least some of them. that’s not a value judgment against her, and it’s not casting aspersions on her. It’s what happens when you put women around attractive, assertive, confident, dominant, men who are good at their jobs — she’s likely to tingle around some of them. That’s a huge, huge risk to a marriage, especially one in which she has her own money and is outearning him, or if he is flagging in his alpha/attraction characteristics. It’s not possible for a man to be all alpha all the time even if he wants and tries to be. And it’s especially impossible for a husband to be so vis a vis a wife, who knows him well, faults and all.
” Is that somehow correlated to a higher rate of divorce or something (which would still suggest that the split assets wouldn’t hurt as much if she’s significantly contributing to them than if she’s not)?”
I don’t know that a wife working is correlated to higher divorce. It could be. What I do know is that a wife working presents risks to a marriage, risks which need to be understood and managed and guarded against.
@Jeremy I agree with just about everything you said in the first two paragraphs.
But this: “The type of man and lifestyle they want will differ at age 18 vs 30 vs 40 vs 50. Whereas what men want tends to remain stable throughout their lives.” Is it that – that what men want doesn’t change? Or is that it’s just riskier for men who want to exit a marriage so they suck it up? But I’m a woman so I defer to the men about what they want.
I also have a slight issue with the idea that women are wrecking marriages — it assumes that the person who initiates divorce (usually the women) are more or all at fault. Of my friends who I referenced earlier who are divorcing or divorced, yes all except one were the initiators. OK some were admittedly bored or wanted to recapture the newness with someone else. BUT some were married to cheaters, substance abusers and/or emotional abusers, and in one case physical abuser.
I know this is the part where people say you work through it for the children. I call bullshit. I was raised by parents who married too young, were horribly mismatched and resentful towards each other but did the stay together for the kids sake thing. My childhood was miserable. It felt like living in the middle of the cold (and sometimes hot) war. I’d have preferred they just divorce.
So yes I agree the legal system favors women and that makes them more likely to initiate divorce. What I don’t agree with is the thousands (maybe millions) of men thinking they had no blame in the demise of their marriages, even if they weren’t the ones to walk first.
Em, for what it’s worth, I have many immediate examples that come to mind of “successful” (at least superficially successful, who knows what goes on at home) marriages that fit with one of two general types:
1. Lean In, career/ambition woman who loves her job. Typically matched with a similar male. Generally children are de-prioritized or non-existent. The couple makes enough to outsource many household tasks. Probably materialistic, but in a fun way. The wife completely understands the stress that the husband’s job involves because she’s in the trenches next to him. One frequent casualty apparently is sex because of exhaustion, especially when kids are added to the mix, but I think this may be better for people who just don’t make parenting the priority. The other thing is that the guy needs to be heavy alpha or he may get run over.
This type is also (once again, my opinion) the preferred mating choice of the modern breed of player/swordsmen, because these are typically higher-T women with athletics/tombstone-trained self-esteem, high independence, high “prey drive”, high competitiveness with other women, and high comfort with casual sex. In fact, the problem that these women may run into is that, if they do have a taste for alpha and hypergamous instincts, their most natural mating selections are almost perfectly incentivized to be players.
2. Traditional SAHM. Typically matched with a male breadwinner who can support work/life balance (unlike the guy in #1, who is allowed to be obsessive). Woman subordinates herself to some extent to the man and takes pride in the support she offers. They probably have the best sex lives of all—male and female roles are pretty clear and well-established. The guys I know who are in this situation often do seem to take advantage of their wives and to fail to properly appreciate the sacrifices that the women are making (boredom, tedium, loneliness, pressure to be trophy-pretty) in order to create this vision of domestic bliss. Some of the smarter women clearly play dumb sometimes, etc. and I worry for their intellectual stimulation. I guess it probably helps if both parties are religious and/or they start this process while they are still pretty young and innocent.
The unsuccessful situations—and I mean they are clearly miserable, clinically sexless marriages—that I am most familiar with have also tended to follow a pattern:
1. Lean In who wants to Lean Out. She took the careerist message to heart, but now hates her job. The problem is that she can’t leave it because her husband does not make enough to avoid a serious quality-of-life compromise. As unfair/insane as this is, she resents him for not anticipating that she would end up hating her job and providing her with pre-emptive optionality to go part-time or engage in hobbyjob/vanity projects. He’s the punching bag for her disillusionment with Lean In.
These are the situations where I have seen the husbands go from happy-go-lucky, just-bought-my-new-ski-boat to Pearl Harbor divorce notice with little warning (little warning because the simmering resentment was somewhat concealed for a long time, probably because it just sounds so selfish that the woman has to wait to construct a list of rationalizations). The reality is that the wife changed her mind about the labor market and leaves the guy to end up with someone with more money. It just plays out this same way again and again. The husbands sometimes never recover because things can turn awful so quickly and they have trouble seeing what they did “wrong”. The wife knows she is in the wrong on some level but deals with this via fundamental attribution error encouragement of the most transparent sort. These are the worst divorces I have seen from the male POV and if you have seen even 1 of them up close it is terrifying to behold.
2. The Stay at Home Fem. These marriages look really, really bad from the outside because the wife is caught in a kind of double-bind schizophrenia scenario in which she is economically dependent on her husband but simultaneously wants to earn her feminist stripes. Where the Traditional SAHM wants to be pretty, cook, etc., the SAHFem wants society to know that these things are beneath her. So the energy goes into a series of vanity projects that can be held up to the Lean In gang as some kind of quasi-career, but which (usually) bring in little money and basically offer no tangible gain to the husband.
The apparent solution to all of this is a very misandrist view of the man as a donkey or robot whose self-interest is suppressed and who now exists solely to provide her with some kind of subsidized platform for her political agitation or pop-philanthropy BS or whatever. After years of this, the husbands just look like they have lost all zest for life. They just sort of hide out in golf on Saturday or whatever temporary refuge they can. The only good news here is that the divorces that happen really don’t seem to damage the husbands all that much; they were already in a kind of hell. Even other women think these guys are just horribly mistreated. The guys do seem to bounce back post-divorce pretty quickly and usually find someone nice the second time around.
I think the problem with both of these cases and why they frighten men is that they both involve behaviors rooted in violent lane changes. It seems (to me) like the most successful situations involve women who have clearly chosen Option A or Option B, selected a man based on this choice/been selected by a man, and then more or less stuck with that original plan through thick and thin.
The problematic situations that have resulted in great male confusion involve our general difficulty in predicting that someone will be content with a given plan after, say, 5-10 years. The lane-changing optionality comes at great personal risk and cost to us, potentially, and so some guys just want to sort of keep all of that stuff at arm’s-length for the same reason that lifeguards are trained to keep some reactive buffer between themselves and active drowning victims because the flailing victims can hurt you when they panic.
Just my $.02! You pose a very interesting question…
@deti.
“Every woman wants the “best” man she can get. It’s not that once married a woman trades up to a “wealthier” man. It’s that she wants to trade up to a BETTER man. When a woman has her own money and her own sources of income, “better” doesn’t necessarily mean “wealthier”. Usually it means “hotter”, “more exciting”, “better looking”
Ok that makes sense.
“If a woman wants a husband and children, fine. Every woman I’ve ever known who wanted those things, really wanted them, was able to have them. Every. Single. One.”
Not my experience but ok.
“But a relationship with a husband is work, and he requires caring and nurturing and help. You will not be able to do that well AND work a full time job. Children are lots and lots and LOTS of work. You will not be able to raise them well AND work a full time job. You just won’t”
Can you share some scientific evidence of this? (Not that relationships and child raising are work — that kids of working moms do worse.)
I’m not taking the repeated YOU in your comment personally, as I’m sure you aren’t directing it at me but the collective YOU that is the women you’ve dealt with. Cause they do sound pretty entitled and manipulative to me.
“Is it that – that what men want doesn’t change? Or is that it’s just riskier for men who want to exit a marriage so they suck it up?”
A bit of both, really. I’ve been with Mrs. deti nearly 21 years, almost 19 of them married. I want now what I wanted then, and it hasn’t changed – I want a wife who is nice to me, is a companion for me, and sexes me on a reasonably frequent basis. Same then as now, constant throughout. Also, divorce would be very expensive and would rip apart my life and my children’s lives.
“So yes I agree the legal system favors women and that makes them more likely to initiate divorce. What I don’t agree with is the thousands (maybe millions) of men thinking they had no blame in the demise of their marriages, even if they weren’t the ones to walk first.”
What do you mean by men who were “emotional abusers”? What is “emotional abuse”? What do you mean by “substance abusers”? I ask this because “emotional abuse” is overused and meaningless to me. here’s what many women call “emotional abuse”:
–requiring W to be on a spending budget
–asking W for sex
–asking W to please not yell at him
–telling W not to use a credit card because it’s maxed out
–telling W they are going to visit his parents for a change
–putting W on a house decorating budget
–refusing to do chores
–insisting on being an active parent
–not wanting children, disagreeing on whether to have more children
–yelling at W during an argument (in which W is yelling as well)
These claims of “emotional abuse” are patently ridiculous.
And here’s what I see a lot of women calling “substance abuse”:
–drinking a bit too much once in a while
–drinks every weekend
–smokes cigars
–smokes cigarettes
these claims of “substance abuse” are ridiculous. Now, there are claims of “substance abuse” that involve illegal drugs, and I have no problem with this, particularly where it threatens one’s livelihood or liberty. But these claims of overdrinking and tobacco use are no grounds for blowing up a marriage.
As to the rest of it — what are these men doing to ruin their marriages and cause a wife to want out? From my experience, most of these men are just staying as they are, just going to work, just trying to make a living, and they get hit one day with divorce papers. It seems a lot of women expect their men to bring alpha all day long, every day, and if he doesn’t, then she’s unhappy and has a “right” to end the marriage. That’s patently unreasonable.
@Em
According to the divorce stats that I’ve seen, abuse (at least physical abuse) is only a small minority of the justifications given by women initiating divorce. The most common reasons are emotional abuse/neglect. In other words, she just wasn’t happy.
I would never suggest that a woman (or man) remain in a marriage where actual abuse is taking place, or where substance abuse is going untreated. Not for the kids’ sake or anyone’s. But all marriages have their ups and downs. How quick we are to exit them depends on the cost/benefit ratio we perceive, doesn’t it?
I’ll put it to you this way: my perception of what most women want in marriage is
1) Kids – women want to have children in the context of marriage, both for societal sanctioning as well as the physical and financial support of the father.
2) Security – the physical security of a man to “protect” her, the financial security of a man to provide for her, and the emotional security of a confidant to validate her.
3) Social status. Many women who marry early aren’t aware of their desire for this, but boy oh boy, the ones who marry late feel ostracized by other women for their singlehood.
4) Physical touch – this may include sex, when in the mood, or may just be limited to hugs, hand-holding, etc. based on mood.
5) Companionship (though this is more of an issue later in life, once the kids are grown)
What men generally want out of marriage:
1) Sex. Regular, passionate sex, without the effort of having to court and date anymore (otherwise they could remain single).
2) Children – though a man’s desire for kids is unlike a woman’s unrelenting drive, and many men would choose to remain childless if they knew that having kids would ruin their sex lives.
3) Companionship (again, more important later in life)
Please note that once a woman gets married, and more importantly once she has had her children, she has received EVERYTHING she originally wanted out of marriage, and is guaranteed to continue receiving those things even in the event of divorce. She keeps the kids, keeps the security, keeps the status (mom status trumps wife status), gets all the touch she needs from her kids and won’t have trouble finding hookups, and often uses her female friends/family for companionship. Once she has all those things, why would she ever want to stay married or marry anyone else? If she did, it would only be for companionship.
When a man gets divorced he loses everything he originally married for, and has to continue financing his ex-wife. So, yeah, he may have more motivation to try to either ignore marital problems or solve them rather than just leaving.
Your question, Em, “is it that what men want doesn’t change, or is it just riskier for men to exit their marriages?” The answer – it’s both. The most common complaint by women about their husbands is that the men “never changed from the men they married.” The most common complaint by men about their wives is that their wives DID change.
People change – it is to be expected. People grow apart. But divorce should not be a gain for one partner and a loss for the other – particularly when the one benefitting the most is the one who initiated it. I am not advocating restriction of choice, I am advocating fairness under the law. Equality of rights. Something that the current iteration of feminism is not advocating.
@ A Definite Beta Guy
That’s why I’m here, to learn.
@ deti again
“working W is more likely to get attracted to coworkers because she’s around other men all day, some of whom she works for and reports to.”
Sorry but you are really painting women as childish, stupid nymphos that can’t control their urges while painting men as loyal and innocent victims. After all, don’t men come across attractive women at work and/or outside the house everyday? Are you telling me it doesn’t bother men and it’s not a risk to the marriage?
And do you really believe housewives aren’t out there screwing around while hubby’s at the office 5 days a week? I got a nice bridge I’d like to sell you…
@Bastait Blogger. WOW Great analysis.
“Can you share some scientific evidence of this? (Not that relationships and child raising are work — that kids of working moms do worse.)”
No, I can’t, but the lack of “scientific evidence” doesn’t invalidate my observations and experience. There’s no “scientific evidence” for the proposition that women find jocks, douchebags and frat boys sexier than engineers, math teachers and computer science majors; but the lack of said evidence doesn’t make the observations less true. We don’t require scientific peer reviewed double blind random controlled studies for every single assertion made here.
deti: “working W is more likely to get attracted to coworkers because she’s around other men all day, some of whom she works for and reports to.”
Em: “Sorry but you are really painting women as childish, stupid nymphos that can’t control their urges while painting men as loyal and innocent victims. After all, don’t men come across attractive women at work and/or outside the house everyday? Are you telling me it doesn’t bother men and it’s not a risk to the marriage?”
_______
Em, I’m doing no such thing. I said there’s attraction. I didn’t say all women act on it. There’s no question that it is a risk, and that SOME women DO act on it. It is a risk to a marriage for a wife to work with more attractive men than she is married to.
And yes, men come across attractive women at work and outside the house. Happens all the time to me. The difference is that it is much much easier for women to cheat than it is for men to cheat. It is much, much easier for women to get sex than it is for men to get sex. The consequences for wife cheating are considerably less than for husband cheating. And wife cheating is almost always fatal to a marriage; while husband cheating is less fatal. These are just facts of life and relationships.
I also said this:
“that’s not a value judgment against her, and it’s not casting aspersions on her. It’s what happens when you put women around attractive, assertive, confident, dominant, men who are good at their jobs — she’s likely to tingle around some of them.”
Read more carefully next time.
“And do you really believe housewives aren’t out there screwing around while hubby’s at the office 5 days a week? I got a nice bridge I’d like to sell you…”
Sure, some housewives cheat on their husbands. I never said otherwise. It’s not as easy, though, for a housewife to cheat if she is home with kids. And she doesn’t come in contact with a great deal of men to whom she reports and who are superior to her, at least in the workplace, if she is a housewife.
@deti I have no doubt that people exaggerate claims but let me tell you what I mean:
Emotional abuse – when he attempts to control her with head games, turning her family members and friends against her, deliberately embarrassing her in front of co-workers, clients, etc. to the point it threatens her job, that’s not harmless.
Substance abuse – when he drinks to passing out 3-4 nights a week and drives drunk, or when he’s depleted savings and maxed out credit cards to support his habit, that’s not harmless.
I suspect I will get back that “women do that and worse.” And I know. These are the specific circumstances I’ve seen that I am describing.
So much of this IMO opinion goes back to communication and understanding. It’s easier to assume what your SO means than it is to have a conversation that might become uncomfortable. It’s easier to believe “if he loved me he’d know what I want” than it is to accept your insistence he be a mind reader is crazy. It’s hard to just cut you SO some slack when you’d rather pick up the nearest object and hurl it at them. All of this sh-t builds up and just tanks the relationship.
What I am saying is that while I think women share a big part of the blame due unrealistic expectations of happily ever after they’ve been raised with, I just cannot get on board with this “all women are bad and all men are victims of women” mentality.
“What I am saying is that while I think women share a big part of the blame due unrealistic expectations of happily ever after they’ve been raised with, I just cannot get on board with this “all women are bad and all men are victims of women” mentality.”
The “all women are bad and all men are victims of women” claim is not one I’m making. Not all women are bad, and not all men are victims.
Some men blow up their marriages without due cause. Some men cheat on and abuse their wives. Some women are victims of bad men. Some women are loving and caring and nurturing, and made a poor choice of husband.
With due respect and sympathy to those women, I am not here to talk about them. They have the entire mainstream media and culture and church and government apparati to champion their cause. Nor am I here to lambaste or pillory the bad man. He will most certainly have the full force of government, church, and culture rain down every possible sanction and discipline and punishment that can be brought to bear.
I’m here to talk about what no one else really talks about — the man who only wanted a quiet home life with a wife and children, and who has this yanked from him, and he doesn’t know why.
The young man in college who continually fails at relationships and cannot figure out why.
The good Christian man who can’t get a date and who is hopelessly unattractive yet has every blue haired grandma and doddering old coot and fat middle aged mother in Mom jeans and a sweatshirt telling him how “special” and a “good catch” he is; when the truth is he’s a dork with no Game and no social skills, and who needs a good kick in the ass.
The 30 year old guy with a good job but who continually fails at dating because he, too, is a dork with no Game.
@ Jeremy
I’d add #6 (and probably move it up to #1) Fairy tale wedding. I knew girls in high school who were buying bridal magazines. For women like that, by the time they actually get married years later, they’re picking a groom to star in their magical production. The actual marriage takes a back seat. They just worry about the rest later – after all I can always change him!
“Once she has all those things, why would she ever want to stay married or marry anyone else? If she did, it would only be for companionship.” True but this flies in the face of the idea that hypergamous women will ALWAYS leave for better (which really means nothing more than new) men.
jeremy: “Once she has all those things, why would she ever want to stay married or marry anyone else? If she did, it would only be for companionship.”
Em: “True but this flies in the face of the idea that hypergamous women will ALWAYS leave for better (which really means nothing more than new) men.”
No. That’s not the idea.
Hypergamy is a constantly running subroutine in every woman. If a woman is with what she believes is the best man she can get, given currently existing conditions and circumstances, then she is satisfied and her hypergamous nature is kept in check.
If something happens to make her believe that her man is NOT currently the best that she can get, and she reasonably believes she can do better, then the hypergamy alarms start sounding, and she will seek a replacement. Examples of this are:
(1) her husband is depressed or his career is failing or is sick or disabled; and another man is showing sexual interest in her.
(2) her husband is the same as he ever was, but a very attractive/arousing man shows overt sexual interest in her. (for this to be valid, the contrast between husband and interloper has to be very wide — hubby is a beta schlub, interloper is a Brad Pitt/George Clooney clone and is making a very, very hard play for her).
(3) her husband lost his job, he is lethargic and drinking heavily, they are living on her income.
(4) There is a serious SMV disparity between him and her. He has let himself go and his career is stalling. She has kept her figure and still looks quite good. Men flirt with her and show social interest in her. She is a social butterfly; he is a homebody.
In all of these situations, her hypergamy “alarms” are going to sound. She sees that other men are interested in her — some of those men are objectively better than her husband. In those situations, there will be some temptation. Doesn’t mean she’ll act on it. But she will be tempted and the opportunities will be there for her to cheat. A lot of men have no compunction at all about sleeping with married women.
So, no, hypergamy is not that all women always leave for better men. It is a low hum when satisfied, which can sound as a loud alarm when not satisfied.
@Em, though I agree with Deti, I’d add another perspective.
There is a huge difference between reasons why a woman would marry vs why she would enter a casual relationship. A person might look at my list of reasons to marry and ask “what about LOVE? Isn’t love the greatest reason to marry?” And the answer is a resounding NO. Love is a reason to enter a relationship, not to codify that relationship in law so as to continue regardless of the continued presence or absence of that love. The reasons I listed are the reasons to MARRY, not to enter relationships. If a woman no longer has a reason to stay married because she has obtained everything she wanted out of marriage, even in the event of divorce, then she is free to pursue reasons to enter relationships that are independent of her reasons to want to be married.
Men around here would call it going after alpha after getting all the beta. I simply call it a re-shuffling of the desired mix of alpha and beta. Some women will want more alpha (especially if they were married to betas), and some will want more beta (if they were married to alphas). But what they want will CHANGE, whereas for men it generally won’t. Men may lose interest in their wives, usually because their wives changed (don’t look the same, don’t act the same, don’t prioritize him the way they used to, stopped having sex). Women may lose interest in their husbands, not because the husbands changed, but because what they themselves want has changed, and other men would better provide it. THAT is hypergamy.
BTW, Bastiat Blogger post #38 was awesome! Great analysis, and agree 100%. Biggest problems come from lane changes.
@deti
Fair enough.
@ Jeremy. Good points. I think maybe you and I are basically saying the same thing. From the female perspective, I’m not sure how many women even give serious thought to the things on that list and know that is what they want before they get married. This is far more pertinent among women who get married in their 20s. Watch bridezillas and count how many are over 30, there may be a few immature ones in their early 30s but certainly none over 35. Your list rings true for a woman who’s older AND mature enough who has actually thought about what will happen after the princess party is over. So much of this is just immaturity. And also supply and demand, I suppose.
@Em
The young ones may not know it when they marry (and I totally agree with you about the fairy princess wedding concept where the groom is an appendage), but they know it when they divorce. When they perceive trouble in their marriage, they ask themselves what’s in it for them, and they come to the conclusion that there isn’t much. Not because there actually isn’t much, but rather because whatever there was has been guaranteed to them already. Take away that guarantee and watch the percentage of female-initiated divorces fall – not because women would stay in abusive relationships, but because women could no longer ABUSE their relationships on anyone else’s dollar but their own.
@Jeremy. Makes sense. But it all leads to a depressing conclusion, which is this, is getting married really worth it anymore?
@ Em
Tell us:
1. what do expect to receive from a husband?
2. what a husband could expect from you as a wife?
@badpainter I’m actually married so I hope this will be easy.
In no particular order:
“1. what do expect to receive from a husband?”
communication
loyalty
commitment
responsible with money, ability to provide
companionship
active sex life
respect and don’t treat me like the ball and chain
don’t get lazy about affection
support, be a team
ok and feed my ego a little
“2. what a husband could expect from you as a wife?”
loyalty
commitment
support, try to always have his back
active sex life
appreciation
respect
companionship
ability to provide
take care of the home and kids (we share this but I do more because it’s how I show my family I love them by taking care of them)
feed his ego a little
Had you asked me 10 years ago before I got married this list would have been different. This is a result of lots of ups and downs over the years, mistakes big and small, learning how to be a wife (because society doesn’t really give you good role models especially if you come from a broken home) and dismantling the years of programming about what men, women and marriage should be. I wish I could say we’re both all of these things all of the time but we’re trying.
Em – “Had you asked me 10 years ago before I got married this list would have been different.”
And therein lies the source of the problem. I suspect that is the norm.
Thanks for the answers.
@badpainter I agree 100%. Don’t sleep on this point though: many of us had to learn how to be wives after we got married because if you didn’t learn it at home your role model is what you see in the media, which is just f-ed. And many frankly never thought it was their responsibility to learn (it goes both ways of course). Again thinking back a decade ago if someone said before my wedding, are you ready to learn how to be a good wife? I probably would have rolled my eyes and dismissed them as a sexist idiot. I think we as a society are raising our children especially our daughters to relate to the world the way we ideally want it to be rather than the way it is.
.
Walk into the most expensive and prestigious café in the capital of the world’s most advanced and richest country. What will you find there? A bunch of women sitting around chatting about mind-numbingly dull and pointless stuff, complaining about men and shitting on them, generally whining, doing nothing useful. Now walk into the most poverty-stricken, desolate village of the world’s most backward, poorest nation. You’ll find exactly the same thing. That’s the reality of innate female passivity.
Actually, in every slitwick (SLTWC = “Shitty Little Third World Country”) I’ve visited –and I’ve visited several, on three continents– the women are too busy scrabbling to earn their daily bread for their families to spend time sitting on their arses bitching, moaning, and whining about non-existant entitlements. Sure, no doubt there’s complaining about their lot in life (much of it probably justified), but by necessity it takes a distant back seat to doing what needs to be done to survive.
The scenario you describe is definitely a “First World Problem[TM].” In no other parts of the world would there exist spoiled, self-centered, obese bitches with the luxury to be able to sit around all day on their fat, indulged asses complaining about imaginary “problems.” This is why part of me thinks that a reversion to a state of dire poverty just might not be an altogether bad thing.
@Em
I think that marriage, when both partners are committed, is beautiful and good for society. I have no problem with marriage, per se, I have a problem with the unequal cost/benefit ratio of divorce for males and females. I have been happily married for 9 years, and hope to remain so. My wife is a wonderful wife and mother, and we have a complimentary marriage (as bastiat blogger described) where I take care of the finances and she takes care of the kids and works part time. That arrangement works best for most people, I think. But my wife’s commitment to me doesn’t change the fact that she has the power to blow up our marriage and walk away with cash and prizes whenever she wants. The fact that she has that power is like a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads in my view. – I have no such power over her.
I believe that most women are good people, but that power corrupts. That’s what, I think, you are seeing with your friends – the women who initiated 100% of their divorces and destroyed their families (and likely took their kids and benefitted financially) because they didn’t feel like being married anymore.
Haven’t followed this thread as closely I may have liked, so probably missed a few items.
Can we elaborate on one point?
Em, if you don’t mind a probing question, what was the list like 10 years ago? What incidents spurred your change? How has your husband’s view changed over time?
Whether by my will or not, the motto “make it work” keeps humming in the recesses of my head. Life provides daily reminders of the intense struggles that couples and families either address or they do not, and rarely do the solutions mirror idealized, television-life. My father-in-law spent his entire life travelling and left his wife at home to raise 5 children, not unlike my sister-in-laws father (trucker). I am sure my parents never envisioned having to move in with my grandmother to care for her for 2 decades, nor did they expect for mental illness to strike my brother, and having to help him and his son/wife.
At my work, most of the people are never married/divorced. My mind says these people who did not want to fight through the bad times and expected something more ideal.
“Whether by my will or not, the motto “make it work” keeps humming in the recesses of my head. Life provides daily reminders of the intense struggles that couples and families either address or they do not, and rarely do the solutions mirror idealized, television-life.”
Yeah, that’s the motto I used to have too — “make it work”. And still do to a great extent. But post red pill, I’m not willing to do absolutely anything to “make it work”. And if “make it work” means I do all the work, I do everything, I dance like a monkey, and submit it all to her for “approval”, then I’m no longer willing to do that.
“Make it work” has to be bilateral. And it is no longer all encompassing.
Yeah, Em, I’d like to hear how this list has changed too.
@Jeremy
That’s great because that works for you. What we do works for us.
I admit family courts skew in favor or women but to suggest that men have no power at all and can never screw a woman over in divorce is just not true. I think we can genuinely admit that while it’s unbalanced, it’s not as black and white as that.
As far as my friends who divorced destroying their families, I am going to assume that you DON’T mean the ones married to men we all knew were alcoholics, drug users and abusers. I assume you are talking about the others. But here is the thing: no one knows what goes on inside a marriage besides the two people in it. Does anyone really have the right to judge?
In this country it is legal to end your marriage if you so wish, whether you’re a man or a woman. I am not a person who buys into the fallacy that every marriage needs to last and kids are always better off when the parents stay together. I am living proof of that it is absolutely untrue.
If you don’t mind me asking, were your parents divorced, together but unhappy, blissful?
@A Definite Beta Guy – Sorry this is long.
“what was the list like 10 years ago? What incidents spurred your change? How has your husband’s view changed over time?”
Before I met my husband my list probably would have been something like: attractive, good in bed, educated and career oriented, stable, put me near or at the top of list (until kids come along) sense of humor, similar interests, spontaneous and fun. Those are mostly traits. My married at 10 years list is mostly actions contingent on both of us making the effort.
The exception, which would have been at the top of my list back then, would have been love and adore me forever. That’s not on my 10 year list and that is the most significant aspect where I have changed and matured. Love at 29 when I got married was about butterflies in the stomach, I can’t be without you for 5 minutes, can’t keep my hands off you type of feelings. Love now is I’ll take down anyone, friends and family included, who disrespects him. Love now is I’d take a bullet for him. Love now is he’s my life partner and us is bigger than me. I still love him, probably more now, but the definition has changed. Love is making an effort to do those things on the list every day because neither of us is a list of traits making up the perfect person.
No one wants to believe that falling in love feeling will fade but it almost always does. It’s jarring when it happens and I believe this is the biggest reason for dissatisfaction. I could say women are particularly vulnerable to this because we’ve been taught to daydream about happily ever after since we were little girls. But men can fall victim to it to. When I was in my mid 20s I dated a guy in his mid 30s who had already been divorced 2 times. He believed that if those fuzzy feelings fade then it because that’s not the person you should be with because those feelings should last forever if you love him/her. Last I heard he was working on wife number 4.
Which brings me to this point. I have no doubt many men here have had horrible experiences at the hands of horrible women and I empathize. But some of what I think I am seeing is just general disillusion with marriage more so than with women, and the reality check that marriage is not the self actualizing state of being that we make it out to be. But I still can’t judge people who’s marriages end as just people who were too lazy to make it work. That may be the case for a good number but not all.
BTW I asked my husband this question. He’s not into lists
but said what would be top for him now that he probably underestimated before was ability to compromise.
@deti I agree. Especially when make it work is just stay together with no effort to change anything, or worse, as you say, expect the other person to do all the changing.
Deti…
“But a relationship with a husband is work, and he requires caring and nurturing and help. You will not be able to do that well AND work a full time job. Children are lots and lots and LOTS of work. You will not be able to raise them well AND work a full time job. You just won’t.”
This is true… especially after having more than one child – its super stressful even trying to work fulltime with just one while also being a good wife and managing the house and cooking etc. Most of the women that do try to “have it all” are failing at one of those things, if not multiple (the house being messy all the time to where they’re having to live in a crazy-making environment, not having enough energy to take care of her husband or make sex a priority, etc.).
And you are very right about women and coworkers – I would bet that’s where most affairs start from (for men too, when they’re wives are treating them like crap and not having sex with them… a tempting, kind and beautiful coworker is extremely hard to resist for him under those awful circumstances).
@girlwiththedragonflytattoo
Interesting perspective? Are you married? Do you have children? And do you work?
Hi Em,
Yes, I’ve been married for a little over 7 1/2 years now
We have 2 sons, ages 4 1/2 and 3 months old. I’ve worked outside the home before when my oldest was 2 yrs old, and it was very hard… leaving him in daycare itself was heart-wrenching, I had a hard time finding the “right” daycare, and even when we found a good one, it was so sad missing so many things that he was doing and learning. My husband was in a very difficult training thing for his work that lasted 7 1/2 months during that time… it was very hard, he was always exhausted, I was always exhausted (from working all day too), and the evenings were the only time we got to spend time with our son. I actually did well at the whole house managing, cooking thing (I really love to cook), and even in keeping our sex life great – but my job was “suffering” – I didn’t want to work overtime because obviously, I wanted to go home at a normal time. I worked in a field where overtime is expected, my (male) boss basically told me that if I couldn’t work excessive hours (and I was already working on weekends coming in on my own to prep for the week’s projects), but if I couldn’t do more (like the single women and divorced women that worked with us), then I was probably not “right” for his team.
The women that were successful in my field would put in 50-80 hours (no kidding, the most successful woman was regularly pulling 80 hr weeks), and most didn’t have young children – but the ones that did – their home lives were a mess.
And yes, I witnessed an affair starting to bud from a guy that his wife treated him like crap ALL THE TIME, it was disgusting. She even ridiculed his work that he was doing! A young beautiful single girl started really flirting with him, they then started flirting sexually… it was difficult to watch – his wife had just had a baby… but she felt entitled to treat her husband (who was working his ass off for her and their baby) like crap.
Em,
No shame in the lessons being long. What’s the point in life if a person doesn’t learn, and what’s 10 years of learning if you can sum it up in one paragraph?
I do agree with you WRT “butterflies.” Expecting that kind of feeling to last a decade, two, three, borders on the infantile. I figured most adults come to expect that to fade…but we still have this high divorce rate. What gives?
Not that it’s impossible to sustain that feeling. Neurologists can apparently see it in the brain. But that takes effort, and is not a necessary (nor a sufficient) condition to maintain a lifelong marriage.
I am certainly with Deti, too. Unilateral effort isn’t worth it. Divorce is legal. However, so is dropping out of high school: I think the 30%+ dropout rate in some states is something that should raise alarms, not dismissed as legal=moral=no worries. I feel the same on the divorce rate, or the growing never-married rates. This does not seem a strong foundation for social stability.
On a side note, my grocery bill was $300 today. Without alcohol. How the fuck did that happen? *Grumble grumble*
@A Definite Beta Guy
I’m not saying it’s a good thing that people divorce, I just don’t think it’s my right to tell them they shouldn’t. It would be better if people who can’t or won’t do the work just don’t get married but I can’t control what people do. I’d like to believe that if there were less pressure to get married or this belief that there is something wrong with you if you don’t fewer people who aren’t fit for it would do it but that’s not realistic. Just like with having kids, people will always do it and talk themselves into believing they are committed when they really aren’t.
I was at the grocery store with my son earlier in the 10 items or less line and the bill was still over $50. Well at least gas is cheap for now.
@girlwithadragonflytattoo
Yes it is very difficult to balance it all. And I think women put enormous pressure on ourselves to be perfect and have it all.
What you are talking about WRT to the expectation of being available to your employer at their disposal. I think it’s why single childless women 30+ and married men are seen as the best gamble to some (maybe most) employers. Single women especially older ones don’t have the pressure of families to run home to and married men have the pressure of families to keep them working hard. Married women (more likely to want work life-balance or drop out of the workforce altogether) and single men (no responsibilities driving them to succeed) are seen as a bad gamble.
I know many people here believe the answer is to go back to traditional ways and if that’s what you want I think that’s great. I think the answer is to allow families more flexible options so they can do what’s best for them. A lot of working parents would go part time to have more time with their families if they could but PT and job share type positions are rare, let alone just being able to work 40 hours without being expected to give more on demand for no additional pay.
@Em,
Never did I imply that divorce should not be allowed, especially in cases of abuse or where people are genuinely miserable. In such cases it is the best case scenario.
What I did say was that if a divorce happens, one partner should not benefit from it. One partner shouldn’t walk away with more than they had before. One partner shouldn’t be assumed the default parent. One partner shouldn’t be paid by the other in perpetuity. And each partner should leave the marriage with the percentage of assets that they contributed (accounting for the value of childcare and housework).
If we can agree on that, we see that it is almost always men who are shafted in divorce (97% of alimony recipients are female, primary custody awarded to father in tiny minority of cases, etc). Not to say that women never get shafted, but they are the exception. Rather, women claim to get shafted because they live on less income than when they were married, while continuing to live on more income than they earn.
With regards to your suggestion that both partners in a marriage work part time – lovely in theory, but not practical. With that suggestion, men would fall into the quagmire that women currently find themselves in, trying to have it all. Can’t be done. You can do one job full time, and do it well. Try to do 2 jobs and you can’t be better than mediocre. More jobs than that, even worse. Traditionally men worked paid jobs and women took care of the home. It doesn’t have to be that way, and certainly many women prefer paid jobs to housework. But, IMHO, you are asking for trouble if you want a marriage where both partners have the same paid and home duties. In such cases, the slightest inequalities can cause flare ups – case in point, women complaining that men don’t do enough housework, while men do more paid work.
I happen to agree with bastiat bloggers description of the types of marriage that tend to work, and with those that don’t. Stats show that most women with kids don’t want to work full time. That means they need a man who does, and that means they will do most of the housework.
Just my opinion, YMMV.
@Jeremy
“It is almost always men who are shafted in divorce.”
Yes, I understood you the first few times.
“With regards to your suggestion that both partners in a marriage work part time – lovely in theory, but not practical.”
Actually I was suggesting that one partner might want to work part time and be there for the kids while the other works full time and the family can have benefits. Or if both want to work part time and can make it work, fine. I didn’t say working 2 part time jobs (what would be the point of that?)
The point is employers can offer more flexibility in ways that it doesn’t hurt their bottom line (I’m not suggesting employer subsidized day care or anything) and they will be rewarded with more productive employees. Some do but more should follow suit.
“But, IMHO, you are asking for trouble if you want a marriage where both partners have the same paid and home duties.”
I don’t know what part of the country you live in where no wives work, but it is BY FAR the norm where I live. Come spend a week in my household and you will see what such a family looks like and that it does indeed work. And neither my husband nor my child feel neglected.
You guys fall for trolls like “em”.
EVER.SINGLE.TIME.
Em – ” I think the answer is to allow families more flexible options so they can do what’s best for them.”
No.
The employee needs to choose between being primarily a wage earner or a care giver. The employer’s job is to provide goods and services at prices that ensure continued demand for those goods and services lest the business entity die and the struggling employee be left with no job at all.
@badpainter I think I clearly said it can be done WITHOUT affecting the bottom line and might actually enhance it. With all due respect, why do you believe you have the right to tell someone what choices they should make?
@ Em
I don’t presume to make others choices but I won’t allow another’s choices to dictate the way business is done. An employee not happy with the pay/flexibility/benefits offered is free to choose to work somewhere else.
Neither you nor I are entitled to a job.
@badpainter When did I say anyone is entitled to a job??? That’s quite a leap from anything I wrote.
If you’re so inclined you can look into Fortune 100 companies that have experimented with flexible work arrangements, sabbaticals, telecommuting, etc. (Google comes to mind) because they know that they are competing for the top talent at that level. And they are still profitable.
@ Em
Only top end jobs allow that. The bulk of the economy requires labor to be flexible in its scheduling. Those occupations that can allow that are not typical.
Also this is why there is an aggregate gender wage gap. Women choose flexibility over pay. Men choose overtime. One of the reasons jobs get off-shored is the inability of employers to find reliable labor that won’t constantly demand more pay/flexibility/benefits in return for same or less productivity.
And those Fortune 100 companies don’t really employ Americans any more most of there labor needs are out sourced, usually overseas. Apple for example make less than fuck all of it’s product in the US. It’s factories in China are not paragons of virtue and sensitivity when it comes to bring labor friendly.
Business that are domestically based, small business with 50 or fewer employees are not in position to meet the “have it all” demands of the domestic work force.
I am not singling out women here, too many men are guilty of thinking they deserve to be well compensated for not much. For myself, if I had to staff a service sector business I’d prefer 1st generation immigrants from Mexico, or men from the rural South, or who grew up on farms and ranches elsewhere.
Re: telecommuting
Any that that can before from home can be done cheaper from India.
@badpainter
“One of the reasons jobs get off-shored is the inability of employers to find reliable labor that won’t constantly demand more pay/flexibility/benefits in return for same or less productivity.”
Yeah. Screw America for not letting them operate sweatshops.
If a job can be done only in an office it can’t be outsourced? Are you sure about that?
What line of work are you in if I may ask?
Em – “If a job can be done only in an office it can’t be outsourced? Are you sure about that?
What line of work are you in if I may ask?”
Let’s say I am in construction by day and the visual arts by night.
Yes office work can and is off-shored. If this depression has taught me anything it’s that any job that doesn’t require a physical presence is an endangered species.
Fortunately for those of us who work in the infrastructure building and maintenance fields you can’t do plumbing, HVAC, and heavy construction in Georgia from Dubai.
@Em,
Where I live, there are women who work full time, part time, and at home. And almost all men work full time. I see families making it work whichever way they choose, but I see a great deal more unhappiness among women than men.
I don’t know about your experience, Em, but mine is that most women who work full time (and have kids) wish they didn’t have to work so much. They would prefer to work part time, but perhaps can’t afford to do so. And they often resent their husbands for not earning enough to let them do so. The men don’t resent the women for not earning enough, though. They aren’t looking for a work life balance. They know their job is to be a breadwinner and the sacrifice they’ll have to make is time with family. They can’t do both, and don’t expect to.
I have a lot of sympathy for the women who drive themselves crazy trying to have it all, be it all. They demand that others help them do so – that employers institute more family friendly policies (as if they could do so without affecting the bottom line). They demand that the government institute more family friendly laws (that others will have to pay for). They don’t seem to realize that no one can have it all, and that each choice has pros and cons. Some eventually come to realize it through exhaustion. Some don’t realize it until too late, and resent their husbands for not earning more. It’s about having realistic expectations – both walking into a marriage and the workforce. The woman who wants to simultaneously be a full time neurosurgeon and very involved mom is in for a disappointment.
@Jeremy and badpainter
2 questions
As a man and breadwinner who should not demand anything from their employer, are you personally willing to work 18 hours a day 7 days a week with no vacations and sick time because thats what employers in your field decide they want for their bottom line?
As man and breadwinner you believe men should pursue this role and women should not try to have it all and pursue their role as homemaker and child reader. But then you think it’s unfair the courts favor women who don’t have income and work experience to support themselves and their children when a marriage ends?
Sounds like I’m not the only with delusions of having it both ways.
Let me add a third question.
As man and breadwinner do you have a back up plan for your family if you lose you job?
“As a man and breadwinner who should not demand anything from their employer, are you personally willing to work 18 hours a day 7 days a week with no vacations and sick time because thats what employers in your field decide they want for their bottom line?”
Em, in my experience the typical career woman has a big emotional investment in both her career, and the stuff it provides (Prada purses, new cars, furniture, open displays of wealth…true even of people who are strapped for cash, in their case it’s all on credit).
It’s impossible for most regular people to have the same lifestyle on one income as two. That shouldn’t even be a goal. The goal should be quality of life for the family. And, with few exceptions, that doesn’t require two full time careers. I have a largish family and we live on one income (a generous one these days, but I’ve lived on far far less very happily). I’ll put it this way….last Saturday I went to the store and got a shopping cart full for 160 dollars (organic fruit), and I live in a very expensive area. How did I do it? I only buy on sales and freeze the food if I have to, and make extensive use of coupons.
Back in the late 90s I had a friend with student debts they needed to pay off, and a new baby. She alloted herself only 50 dollars per week for the grocery bill and they were able to do it…it has been about 15 years and prices are higher now, but they haven’t more than doubled.
I did the fulltime working mom thing. Back then I was so exhausted, I could barely function. The kids suffered and started to have disciplinary issues. I’m sure if I’d kept up that schedule we’d all be in family therapy now. I did buy myself a lot more to compensate (felt I deserved it, afterall). Instead of buying on sale, I bought mostly individual frozen meals because they were easier and the kids could warm them up on their own. So the grocery bill was significantly higher. I never got a housekeeper as most of my friends did, but we did get someone to do the lawn, another expense. After all the expenses were taken out, along with taxes, I took home about 35 percent of my “official” paycheck.
I concede that you do have a point about job loss. We were in a similar situation. My husband didn’t lose his job, but he elected to quit and retrain for something else (training was in a different state). We made that decision as a family, and it worked really well longterm though it really really sucked being a sole provider and “single” mom. We do still look back at that time and wish we could have done something different because our sons were sort of like the ‘lost boys’ for about a year. Ultimately, the whole decision was better for the whole family because the career track he was on with the old job would have forced us to move about five times in the last four years which would have been hell on our children. You can’t have it all, when faced with those types of decisions we try to er on the side of quality of life for the kids.
Bottom line though….we lived incredibly frugally when I was the sole income person, and I know beyond all doubt it can be done.
Lol! Just reread and didnt’ intend to imply I bought an entire shopping cart full of organic fruit for 160 dollars.
The fruit (and veggies) in it were organic (apples, carrots, potatoes), most of it was other stuff.
“em’s” female centric questions never stop.
“Why can’t I have it all? WHY? WHY? Those nasty patriachical businesses should cater to ME. I’m a speshul snowflake and I deserve it! My feminist studies professor said I can have it all! Damn reality, damn the torpoedoes and full steam ahead”!
I know a troll when I see one.
@liz fair enough but it’s less likely we will be in the same boat going from 2 incomes to 0.
We will not worry about how to send our son to college, because whether you want to believe it or not pretty soon making a living wage without a college degree will be IMPOSSIBLE.
We will retire and live independently and not burden our son with caring for us during the prime of his own family and career life.
Please do not insinuate that my choices are about wanting Prada bags and expensive shoes. You don’t know me and nothing I have said suggests I want material things above the welfare of my family.
BTW I was a SAHM for the first year of my sons life. He’s 8 now, goes to school all day and participates in activities after school. I’m not going to sit on my ass in an empty house watching the view 8 hours a day pretending that I am doing something noble. The noble thing is to support my family and give my child a secure future.
Lol MM is right. You are a troll.
I think that the best of all worlds is to have one spouse work full time and the other part time, as I’ve said before. The part time spouse maintains job skills and has the ability to work more in the event of job loss. He or she has the ability to work full time once the kids are older. But when kids are young, his or her job is secondary to childcare and home care.
If a woman wants to give up work completely, she is taking a gamble that her marriage will last and that her husband won’t lose his job. Yet most women who become SAHMs choose it for themselves – they aren’t pushed into it by chauvinistic husbands. In fact, many women (I’ve observed on mommy blogs) state that their husbands were not happy when they (the women) decided to leave the workplace, but the women felt that it was their choice. In such cases, I believe the couple should arrange a prenup (or post-Nup) agreeing to responsibilities of asset division and alimony in case of divorce. It should not be assumed that her choice obligates him in perpetuity by default. If the couple agrees to a settlement, that settlement is fair and she is protected.
Is she protected from him losing his job? No. But that’s their choice to make. As I said, better that she keep a part time job if she wants to mostly be at home.
And if she wants to work full time? Fine. But she shouldn’t complain that she has less time with family than she wants – she should expect that.
Oh, and to answer your question about 18 hour workdays, Em, when a person chooses his or her profession, they should do so knowing the expected hours and income of that job. If you want to be a corporate lawyer, don’t complain about your hours. You knew those hours walking in. If you want a job with fewer hours, pick another job. If you want summers off, be a teacher, but don’t complain about the salary – you knew it walking in. Don’t become a nurse and complain about needing to work night shifts. Etc,etc,etc. everything has trade offs. We just need to keep our eyes open from the getgo.
Yeah I’m a troll because I actually have a handle on my own life. So be it then!
You’re a troll because you’re a troll. It’s in the way you communicate and react to disagreement. If you have a handle on your own life, that is very good Em. I don’t know you, so I woulnd’t know…but that’s not the way you’re coming across here.
You’re coming across like a person who feels a need to justify her life choices, via insulting others who have made different choices.
“women (I’ve observed on mommy blogs) state that their husbands were not happy when they (the women) decided to leave the workplace”
Hmmm…..
“As I said, better that she keep a part time job if she wants to mostly be at home.”
But as you wrote before PT jobs are few and far between.
And you are aware then men also benefit from these flexible arrangements right? They are not just reserved for women.
“Oh, and to answer your question about 18 hour workdays, Em, when a person chooses his or her profession, they should do so knowing the expected hours and income of that job.”
That was not what I asked. If the trend shifted to 18 hr days 7 day a week and you can take it or leave it because a guy in India will do it for less, what would you do? Your earlier comments were to the effect of people should just suck it up because the employer has the right to do whatever they want. Which they do.
You could be so kind as to answer my questions after I answered yours.
And you come across as person bent on proving wrong those who made different choices in life than you because you want to feel better about YOUR choices.
So let’s just agree to disagree.
Speaking as an employee of a giant Fortune 50, with many friends in other major companies, workplace flexibility is non-existent. The kind of flexible work arrangements are specific to high-skill workers (who generally are putting in way more than 40 hours a week anyways).
Now, when you get out of the Fortune 50, Fortune 100, some companies start offering more flexibility. But that’s because they are competing with the top companies for the same talent and they can’t offer the same pay packages or benefits. I had a couple buddies who worked for Catamaran, a big PBM, before it got real large. They would pay half your car payment if you bought a 35+ mpg, let you work from home 3+ days a week. They also had pretty cool incentive programs, like a party on the John Hancock building if the department met certain stretch performance goals.
Now, in my major Fortune 50, you are there to do a goddam job, and you do it. Do you have an idea to save money? Keep it yourself; that’s not part of your goddam job. You want to go home early to see your daughter’s recital? Better make it up tomorrow, because you have a goddam job to do. You want to work from home? How will I bother you on demand about your goddam job?
We have one manager that went around counting paper clips on people’s desks…in another department, they have designate lunch and designated break and they are prominently displayed on the cubicle walls so the Boss knows exactly when you are gone from your desk and can reprimand you if you are gone at the wrong time. Water coolers were removed, because they encourage idleness. For several years there was no allowance for even the tiniest Christmas party, right now we have a budget of $50 for a department of 20 people.
As for India. I am going to generalize. India is incompetent. And lazy. And corrupt. I could go on all day about my India team. Instead I’ll relay a story from my friend, the architect. India had the responsibility to design some rooms for a major hospital project. They were required to put a certain number of items in a certain room, but the room dimensions were not the right size. Correct answer is to go back to the other department and correct the room size.
The India answer was to place two tables on top of each other in the design sketch. No one finds out, until the construction guys build the room, dry wall it, and someone tries to put two tables in there.
That’s what you’re buying.
Now, here’s the thing. We talk very nostalgically about America and Americans. I work with Americans of an older generation. A lot of the workers are absolute crap. Not all of them. But a lot of the employed baby boomers and Gen X people in my department, who are now making more than 6 figures after factoring in benefits, are as incompetent and lazy as the pot-smoking Millennials. Are they better than the average Indian worker? Hell yes. But they are DRAMATICALLY more expensive.
This is not a problem I see with workers under the age of, say, 35. Hiring Managers seemed to really focus on finding quality people. Perfect? By no means. But much harder-working and much more intelligent and much more resourceful and much more aggressive in solving problems.
Your real problem is leveraging them, because you don’t want to waste THEIR time on simple shit that a trained monkey could do. But in these big companies, that always happens, because departments don’t work well together. And managers have their own priorities. For instance, a couple years ago, our team identified an issue causing us to lose several million dollars a year. Code-fix would solve it. Our upper manager tried once to get it resolved, got rebuffed once, and never tried again….
So I finally got my hands on this. Finally. Because I was told “we are working on this,” when nothing had been done since 2012. THE FUCK?! I give it a different department in January, problem solved March 4th.
India will never, ever, ever give you that kind of value. If there is a problem they don’t understand, they will leave it. Think of it as a minor plumbing leak that could be patched. They won’t do it. They won’t even mention it, until the foundation starts caving in.
But….neither will your inefficient Baby Boomers and late Gen-Xrs. And about half your legacy workforce is inefficient.
“And you come across as person bent on proving wrong those who made different choices in life than you because you want to feel better about YOUR choices.”
Just offering my observations, having done it both ways (sometimes by necessity, sometimes electively).
“So let’s just agree to disagree.”
Agree to disagree. Honestly, in the last bit you revealed enough about yourself that I would never suggest you do it my route anyway. If you’re only going to stay home to “sit on your ass in an empty house watching the view 8 hours a day pretending that you are doing something noble…”- It’s obviously better that you spend that time getting a paycheck.
I never had the option of an 8 hour day anyway, when I was working. That sounds very nice.
Jeremy–“Oh, and to answer your question about 18 hour workdays, Em, when a person chooses his or her profession, they should do so knowing the expected hours and income of that job. If you want to be a corporate lawyer, don’t complain about your hours. You knew those hours walking in. If you want a job with fewer hours, pick another job.”
They should know these things, but they often don’t. College-age people often pick careers with only the vaguest notion of what the job really entails. College and high-school counselors are not usually very clueful about the real world of work; teachers and professors, however well-intentioned, will often steer students toward their own fields. TV programs and movies are misleading to say the least. Various books on the subject of career choice are usually badly-written rehashes of data from the BLS, which is itself sometimes questionable. I think there is a real gap here.
Interesting because from my observation it’s millennials that want the most flexibility, whether or not they have families. Now they do stay connected after hours to email and are able to use technology to do a lot from remote locations that boomers don’t seem to be comfortable with.
I could posit another explanation. The draconian management style in your Fortune 100 company has driven the most talented boomers and GenXers elsewhere where they can make the same money (or more) and still get those perks. But that’s just a shot in the dark.
@Liz I was not suggesting you personally sit on your ass 8 hours a day. I don’t know you and while we don’t agree on much, you seem dedicated to do what is best for your family.
But I’ve seen men here and other places express bitterness their SAHW are enjoying a life of leisure while they work themselves (literally) to death. I know a few of them in my neighborhood, who espouse those same platitudes about raising their kids the right way, yet whenever I have day off, I see them hanging out and Starbucks and shopping all day ((some having left their kids with their moms or babysitters) while telling me a I am a bad mother. The hard working SAHMs I chat with at kids activities are rarely this way.
Thanks for that post, Em. That is fair enough, and I’ve seen SAHMs with those habits (known quite a few, unfortunately).
I rescind my troll comment.
And actually, that was a good reminder that I must get busy. Because in reality, though I don’t spend time at Starbucks nor have I ever watched the View… I am actually kind of a lazy ass.
@Liz ” I am actually kind of a lazy ass.”
Somehow I seriously doubt that
Em – “…are you personally willing to work 18 hours a day 7 days a week with no vacations and sick time because thats what employers”
In 2008 I had 55 days the entire year which included three weeks between jobs where I was “layed off.”
In 2011 I did 6 week straight of 100 hours. The $4000 a week take home was nice.
Why do you think we’re living in 1885?
What pisses me off is the idea that:
1. Children are a choice
2. Making that choice won’t/can’t/shouldn’t negatively impact career goals
3 . Taking huge amounts if time off to facilitate personal a biological goal shouldn’t be relevant to pay and promotion. Oh, and the employer should guarantee a job to return to.
4. Though not yet law, PAID family leave, which is compensation for doing no actual fucking work of any kind.
Em, you ask whether men wouldn’t benefit from flexible/part time work, as women do. But IMHO the question demonstrates a lack of appreciation in the difference of marriage market value (MMV) between men and women.
Women who work flexible jobs and part time hours are either poor or supported by a spouse who works full time (the divorce stats for spouses who both work part-time are abysmal). Those men are usually willing to work full time to support their wives, because their attraction to their wives in no way depends on the wife’s income, education, or status. Feminism freed women to work if they want, but the fundamentals of SMV/MMV are what free women not to work.
The reverse is not true. The MMV of a man in the eyes of women is highly dependent on income, education, and status. Feminism offered men the opportunity to do more childcare (sort of), but not to abandon their breadwinner status. The realities of SMV/MMV demand it. Statistics show that when the man’s income drops below 50% of family income, divorce becomes more likely.
This is why, when polled, the majority of mothers prefer to NOT work full time (because they can do so), while the majority of dads did prefer full time work. So, no, I don’t think men would ultimately benefit from part time jobs. They would benefit from greater income. Which is why they prioritize that (and hence the wage gap).
We are all free to make choices, but the contexts in which men and women make those choices are not the same.
If you read the book “a history of marriage” by Stephanie Coontz, she describes the evolution of the roles of spouses throughout history. The idea of working wives is far from new. In past times, husbands and wives each worked in their niches to make things work for their families. But they did so because they had to – because that was the only way to survive. Today, women have the option to work less, if they prefer (again, men don’t really have that option). Thus, women have the power to choose as they see fit. I have no problem with that, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of their choice: SAHMs risk ruin if divorced or husband loses job. Part time workers will likely be put on the mommy track. Full time workers will have less time with their kids (as most men do). each woman should choose according to her priorities, and should not take for granted the sacrifices others must make to facilitate those choices.
@badpainter
Did you mean children AREN’T a choice?
Not saying it shouldn’t have an impact on your career goals.
Not saying taking time off shouldn’t have an impact your pay and promotion nor did I say a job should be guaranteed.
Not aware that paid maternity leave is even an option (unless your company pays for you, it’s not law).
Question: Would paid leave be fair if it was deducted from what you paid into, like social security? Just curious.
@Jeremy
Your answers are thought provoking but at the end of the day, you either want a traditional marriage and all of the pitfalls that comes with, including the possibility that you may have to support her and your kids in the event of divorce, or you want a progressive marriage where there is less financial risk but more day to day sacrifice, including abandoning the notion that you have to automatically be the higher earner. Because ultimately it’s not about this pop culture gender war, it’s about what’s best for the children you decided to bring into the world. Why in the world would you want the woman raising your children (and thus your children) to be destitute should the marriage end???
Question: Would paid leave be fair if it was deducted from what you paid into, like social security? Just curious.
Only, and ONLY if that decision is made freely by the business entity in question. IF on the other hand you want another inefficient, bloated, poorly administered, and corrupt government program (see VA, SSI, ACA, SS, Medicare) then all you are proposing is a protection racket for big business at the expense of small business, and labor.
Em – “Why in the world would you want the woman raising your children (and thus your children) to be destitute should the marriage end???”
Why do you assume the children would be destitute? Oh right, because dads don’t get or deserve full custody.
If it was about the children, courts would place them with the parent that has the financial stability to raise them, not based on what’s between their legs.
To add: why is it assumed that in divorce, mom gets the kids and dad should pay, when dad might be able to afford childcare on his own?
I can hear it now “but isn’t daycare eeeeeevil?”
Mostly yes it is. However there’s no shortage of support for daycare when mom wants/needs to work full time too. (Or is a single parent)
If daycare is good enough for those cases above, why isn’t it good enough for single dads? Why are they forced to pay their ex-wife to be their childcare? If the guy thought she did the job well, he probably would have tried to stay married…
I’ll do my best to answer your questions, Em, because they are important IMHO.
There is a huge difference between a SAHM who decided on her own to be one, versus a COUPLE that sat down together and decided together that it would be the best thing for everyone. In such a case, one spouse voluntarily takes upon him/herself the responsibilities of financial provision, while the other takes upon him/herself the responsibilities of childcare and home care. In such a case, as I mentioned before, the couple should arrange a prenup/post-nup in which they outline the responsibilities of each, both within the marriage and should it end. They should account for the expectations of each spouse when the children are young, and what each spouse must do when the kids are older (ie. she should try to find a job, or it’s ok if she doesn’t). They should agree on child custody and division of assets and alimony from the getgo.
For example, if the couple agrees that the wife is to recieve 5 years (or 10, or 20) of alimony, that arrangement is fair because they both AGREED. What is unfair is the default assumption that the man should pay, and the decision is the woman’s. By today’s laws, if a woman decides to be a SAHM, the man has 2 choices – support her and stay married, or support her while divorced.
It isn’t about traditional vs non-traditional. It’s about the right to force another person into something against their will. In today’s day and age, it is nonsense to think that a divorced mom will be destitute on the street. More women than men today have university degrees, and women are just as able as men to get work.
And as for your comment about why the woman who is raising your children should live in poverty, I agree with Ted. If she is living in poverty, custody should go to the dad until she is back on her feet. It will be easier for her to get a job/training if she doesn’t have to look after the kids for a while.
I guess my bottom line is that the choice between traditional vs. non-traditional marriages/parenting is something that a couple needs to agree on, and they BOTH need to accept the consequences of the choice that they BOTH made together.
Sorry for the 2nd post, but one other thing. Em, you wrote that in a non-traditional marriage where both spouses work, we can abandon the notion that the man must, automatically, be the higher earner.
Again, no you can’t. The realities of MMV are what they are, traditional marriage or not. In marriages where both spouses work, statistics show that once the woman earns more than 50% of household income, divorce is more likely – and the greater the disparity, the higher the chances. This is both because the man feels emasculated, and because the woman feels “masculated”. In such marriages, the women often end up doing most of the housework, in spite of doing more paid work. They do so in order to feel more feminine themselves, and to prevent themselves from feeling too much like the “man” in the relationship.
There is a world of difference between what we THINK we should want versus what we actually do want – and I find this is more so for women than men. Many women are taught that they SHOULD be fine being the higher earner….and then find out that they aren’t so fine with it after all. And if divorce is more likely in such scenarios, are we really doing what’s best for the kids? Every couple will answer that one for themselves, I guess.