Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Men are willing and able to engage in the trades which pay nearly as well without the debt overhead and 4-6 year hiatus. Don't see many women as electricians, plumbers, carpenters, roofers etc. I never saw them when I was an auto jobber repairing cars. Never saw them ridding around in tool trucks. The no college option for women like hair dresser and receptionist make college much more attractive.
That's a good point, but it doesn't solve the status perception problem.
How do you reconcile the above conflicting statements? Do they want to be married or not?
This is very easy to answer. Women want the wedding but not really prepared for what a marriage really is (work). They just want to be the center of attention for a day (wedding)
That's a good point, but it doesn't solve the status perception problem.
Its only a psychological problem for men. Women seek the higher status yes, but we were programmed in the eons of small hunter gatherer clans. Being dominant in the inner circle is actually more important. These impressions are not merely career and socioeconomic in the megalithic society.So my point of view is girls are more like groupies seeking the best in their niche. Not every girl dreams about metro sexual CEOs. As long as you show a handicap principle. For example I would suggest a fireman read Plato and Aristotle while the corporate metro sexual go rock climbing. It implies he is where he chooses to be not inevitably placed based upon his limitations. Bottom line is the plumber who shines above his 4 friends while have more success than the worst of the 5 in high society.
Look at movies from Road House to Brave Heart. The protagonists were a bouncer with a philosophy major and a clan leader who spoke Latin respectively. There is a reason for this, and its all over our fiction.
Undoubtedly that's a big part of the problem today.
But there's another dimension to this that is not snobbery, but is simply a normal part of being human. Women naturally want men who are capable of leading them (despite their feminist training). They want to marry men whom they consider, in some sense, to be their betters as long as their equality as persons is respected. That doesn't mean that educational achievement has the last word in every case, but it makes a difference in the aggregate.
Also, the disparity between healthy femininity that naturally wants to "look up" to a man, and the radical feminist upbringing most young women have received, causes internal conflict in women and must damage lots of relationships.
Actually, it's about doing the smart thing, not the right thing. Nothing selfish about doing the smart thing.
I disagree, the smart thing, is NOT always the right thing. The marine who threw himself on a grenade, and died, but saved the rest of his men, did the right thing, but there are MANY who would say it wasn't the smart thing.
When I ran through a smoke filled room, and down smoke filled stairs to get to a dozen people sleeping in a building on fire, it was the right thing, maybe not the smart thing. The SMART thing, may have cost lives, the right thing got us all out of the building alive.
No, I prefer to do the right thing. It may not be the smart thing, but the right thing is always the best.
I should have added "won't be producing enough offspring" to compete with that of other nations with higher rates of marriage.
Granted, it's a concern - but the last I took an interest in the topic (I'm too lazy at the moment to look up the figures), I think I discovered that the American birth-rate is still higher than most developed countries. But the sustainability of the American population vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world isn't really the OP's point.
Quote:
However, it is possible that we have reached somewhat of a perfect storm. We have a changing attitude toward marriage, the rise of women, less people choosing the religion/marriage path, the other factors already mentioned in the OP and in the thread, all in conjunction with the disruption of economic factors. These confluences are more likely to affect the "lower-middle" you so aptly described. Marriage has a difficult, but perhaps not insurmountable, road ahead of itself.
I'd agree with all this, but again, not really what the OP is worried about, if I understand him correctly.
That's the problem, they need to see marriage as a partnership. Sometimes they may be the breadwinner sometimes the woman might be. It could change at times, since employment is so volatile right now. It shouldn't matter and does not matter to secure males. You are talking about the insecure who would not make good partners anyway.
You can keep repeating yourself but I know too many great men with successful marriages who don't pout about needing to be a King of the castle all the time. They appreciate their wives' successes and are happy to have the financial security in such bad economic times.
I'm sorry some guys are so controllling that they don't want their wives to be partners. Most men will decide at some point they want marriage anyway, when they become mature enough to deal with having an equal.
It seems to me that we may be dealing with two separate (though possibly related) problems. On the one hand, the problem of young men who are too feckless (or controlling, or whatever) to undertake the responsibilities of family.
But on the other, the problem of young (or not so young) men who are reasonably responsible, but who having taken a good look at marriage, have determined that it's simply no longer in their best interests.
The solutions to the two problems are bound to be different: what might be done to make feckless young men less feckless will not answer the problem of marriage being a bad deal for responsible would-be dads, and vice-versa.
Undoubtedly that's a big part of the problem today.
But there's another dimension to this that is not snobbery, but is simply a normal part of being human. Women naturally want men who are capable of leading them (despite their feminist training). They want to marry men whom they consider, in some sense, to be their betters as long as their equality as persons is respected. That doesn't mean that educational achievement has the last word in every case, but it makes a difference in the aggregate.
Also, the disparity between healthy femininity that naturally wants to "look up" to a man, and the radical feminist upbringing most young women have received, causes internal conflict in women and must damage lots of relationships.
"Equality" is one of those abstractions that have nothing to do with reality. A first year philosophy student could prove a pink elephant in the room with ease with what we say about it. Surely those girls who went to a Beatles concert were so smitten by them because of feelings of equality.
Its only a psychological problem for men. Women seek the higher status yes, but we were programmed in the eons of small hunter gatherer clans. Being dominant in the inner circle is actually more important. These impressions are not merely career and socioeconomic in the megalithic society.So my point of view is girls are more like groupies seeking the best in their niche. Not every girl dreams about metro sexual CEOs. As long as you show a handicap principle. For example I would suggest a fireman read Plato and Aristotle while the corporate metro sexual go rock climbing. It implies he is where he chooses to be not inevitably placed based upon his limitations. Bottom line is the plumber who shines above his 4 friends while have more success than the worst of the 5 in high society.
Look at movies from Road House to Brave Heart. The protagonists were a bouncer with a philosophy major and a clan leader who spoke Latin respectively. There is a reason for this, and its all over our fiction.
Interesting perspective, gwynedd1. I'd say you're on to something when it comes to the intrinsic nature of women.
But we're dealing with two things here: 1) The intrinsic natures of men and women as such, and; 2) the distortion of masculinity and femininity under contemporary influences. Today's men and women are faced with #2. Hence, we see the exaggerated hypergamy of women co-existing with radical egalitarian feminism ... and mental illness resulting from the contradiction. On the male side we see hyper-masculinity emerging in sports, entertainment, criminality and politics while co-existing with male emasculation in the home, workplace, and academy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
