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.
I agree except for the high status women. They "lose" by choice. Given women typically date/marry up, these women are really high up, and absolutely refuse to date/marry anyone who is "below" them socioeconomically. That more and more women are getting degrees, outnumbering men, and now earning more than men, there are fewer men "up" for these women, and hence "there are no good guys left".
Hi betamanlet,
Oh yes there is that bit of poorly gauged self assessment from both men and women.
Women think their career gives them status. What happens if it did? Men would chase after these women. If that happened with *any* women, then men would chase lots of 45 year old women since they are likely in their prime earning years. How many social , cultural and genetic traits will be passed on to the next generation? That would be ZERO. Consider the inverse relationship between youth and career and youth and reproduction. Men chasing for career women is a doomed proposition for progeny.
Yet men make this mistake as well. Since they value attractiveness, they spend lots of time in the gym, which certainly helps, but not at the expense of status and culture.
Yes it is true that feminism is causing relationship problems between men and women, but not because women are doing anything consciously IMHO. The inputs and the outcome seems pretty obvious. Here are some assumptions:
#1 Men would attract women as providers.
#2 Women tend to be attracted to men with status, aka a bit hypergamous.
#3. Men are a bit polygamous.
#4. Direct access to the opposite sex has gone up.
I see all the signs predicted. Women see more "losers" and many men seem to have less to offer. If women can climb to a status on their own, they may not be aware it actually works on their own hardwired instinct of male attractiveness. The higher she goes, the less up their is(also at work is status means social standing to women and attractiveness to men to a much higher degree).
Combined with easy access to women, top men can easily circulate creating a polygamous shift. Hence high status men and lower status women are fat and happy. High status women and low status men are predicted to be unhappy.
The Losers
1. High status women who are an "equal" to a high status man cannot get them to commit. They cheat, are bums etc. etc.
Answer: He can find 10 more like you. No women is "equal" to a man at the top of a society. Women chase these men more than a man will ever chase them.
2. Low status men who are good providers and "nice guys" dine alone. Assumption #1 no longer ties a woman to a provider.
Answer: She can now shop around and did have a passionate evening last week with a "great guy" and is hoping he is the one. He just must be "busy" this week.
The Winners
3. High status men wonder what the fuss is all about. Feminism is great. They never would have been able to bed a 100 women so fast before. No fathers or brothers in the way, and they don't even need to provide for them. Women provide for themselves. All he needs to do is spread the seed. Life is great.
Answer: The provider bottleneck is solved by working women and socialism.
4. Low status women find lots of men. What's the problem? Well he is not perfect, but she can usually house train a decent "average" man after he is done with med school or his law degree.
Answer: There is an apparent high supply of good men. Lower status woman who settle a bit can lock in a good one while others wait around until they hit 40.
How does one spread the blame? Social forces act on individuals just trying to follow their self interest. I suppose the beta male can complain about socialism which subsides the alpha and the women who have sex with them. High status women can complain about breached marriage contracts. Just know the reality and answer the question of a thread like this.
This is a really good post. The women who think of themselves as being worthy of the creme of the crop guys are the ones tat pass over the beta providers now holding out for Mr Everything. 20 years go buy of them waiting and then in their late 30s or somewhere in their 40s they're still alone and suddenly the only guys that give them attention anymore are in their 50s & 60s, who happen to be the same 20% of sexually successful men who casually date women 10-20 years younger than them. This is why women are hoping, begging, and pleading with society to have cougars go mainstream. The problem is that no matter how much these older often bitter women want to have their cake and eat it too, most cougars are down right scary to younger men and often seen as a joke and an easy lay. I can't tell you how many times women have thrown themselves at me and it's just so blatantly desperate on their part. They end up getting some attention, but what they don't realize is the guys are laughing at them behind their backs.
The whole system needs a giant market correction. It starts with the govt getting out of the bedroom and people being "allowed" to be traditional. Modern day feminism is vehemently against that happening though.
I don't remember where I saw it, but there's a good article floating around out there someone about this topic of women pricing themselves out of the market. The more highly they thought of themselves, the less likely they were to get married and have a family. Until I can find it give this a read (http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/if-you-cant-find-man-then-look-in.html - broken link). I touches on similar themes, but is a lot harsher.
I agree except for the high status women. They "lose" by choice. Given women typically date/marry up, these women are really high up, and absolutely refuse to date/marry anyone who is "below" them socioeconomically. That more and more women are getting degrees, outnumbering men, and now earning more than men, there are fewer men "up" for these women, and hence "there are no good guys left".
As I always mention on this forum, not all women that agree with and/or strive for equal rights fall under this umbrella. ALL of my girl friends earn more than their husbands, except one, which matters little since her grandmother just passed and she came into a nice chunk of change, and all are in good marriages. The one friend I have that is divorced was/is poor, just as her ex. She did earn more than him, but they were broke and it took a toll on their marriage among other things. Maybe you all are speaking of women earning >150-200k, which is out of my league, but for those in the low-mid 6 figures or 80-90k range, none of this seems to be the case with the women I know.
A solid marriage, imo, is a parntership. The money goes into one pot.
I agree except for the high status women. They "lose" by choice. Given women typically date/marry up, these women are really high up, and absolutely refuse to date/marry anyone who is "below" them socioeconomically. That more and more women are getting degrees, outnumbering men, and now earning more than men, there are fewer men "up" for these women, and hence "there are no good guys left".
According to the above article, it's men who are insecure about women being more successful, not women refusing to date/marry "beneath" them.
Quote:
“Men now are increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have, and the reverse is true for women,” said Paul Fucito, spokesman for the Pew Center. “In recent decades, with the rise of well-paid working wives, the economic gains of marriage have been a greater benefit for men.”
Both men and women have to find a balance for the new roles in which they find themselves. It doesn't have to be a competition.
According to the above article, it's men who are insecure about women being more successful, not women refusing to date/marry "beneath" them.
Both men and women have to find a balance for the new roles in which they find themselves. It doesn't have to be a competition.
Hi fleetirbelle,
Basing it on the self reporting of a woman who broke it off? That anecdote works against you. The irony is that the blue-collar worker is the only one creating the material wealth allowing such luxuries as "fashion".
York to study fashion in 1995 and stayed. Just before Christmas, she broke up with her blue-collar boyfriend, who repaired Navy ships.
“He was extremely insecure about my career and how successful I am,” Ms. Zielinski said.
Does not look like men making these calculations to me. I know I always wanted to date a psychiatrist. They are usually the biggest nut job in the office. Here again, its the women who are making these decisions.
I’m not married, I would like to be married, and my friends are all in a similar situation,” said Dr. Rajalla Prewitt, a 38-year-old psychiatrist in New Jersey. “We’re having difficulty finding someone where there’s a meeting of the minds, where we can have the same goals and values.
Here is another crowd favorite.
Elaine Richardson, who is in her 50s, is divorced and owns a health care consulting firm in Westchester, said that men “call you high maintenance if you look like you don’t need anyone to take care of you.”
So which rich successful 50 year old man has this in his cross hairs? I recall a woman who was my age at 30 with a man like this. Do you think the one above is interested with a local guy with his union card?
The typical myth and way off the mark.
Ms. Zielinski, the fashion stylist, said her best friend, a man, told her once: “ ‘You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you?’ He laughed, but I found that pretty depressing.”
We have a best friend who is a man and a stylist. I am already turned off in two ways. She thinks she is the top of the heap. Meanwhile nearly every man wants to know one thing, "is she hot?" If she isn't, she rates herself a 9-10 while she may really be a 5.
The other irony is a man making 250k doesn't need her income that she will often splurge on herself anyway. He is more like to try and make up for not going out with the prom queen. A man who actually could use the second income will be beneath her.
As I always mention on this forum, not all women that agree with and/or strive for equal rights fall under this umbrella. ALL of my girl friends earn more than their husbands, except one, which matters little since her grandmother just passed and she came into a nice chunk of change, and all are in good marriages. The one friend I have that is divorced was/is poor, just as her ex. She did earn more than him, but they were broke and it took a toll on their marriage among other things. Maybe you all are speaking of women earning >150-200k, which is out of my league, but for those in the low-mid 6 figures or 80-90k range, none of this seems to be the case with the women I know.
A solid marriage, imo, is a parntership. The money goes into one pot.
50 years of feminism has brought us an exponentially higher cost of living, broken families, 60% divorce rate, all time high number of single mothers and a childhood obesity epidemic. Something obviously went wrong along the way.
Here's what went wrong. At the time that women started entering the workforce in larger numbers, that was the time that men should have been able to cut their hours back at work. Men would have been able to be more connected with their kids, women would have been able to have their careers, and everybody would have been happier for it. Things would have been more in balance.
BUT, the powers that be...the ruling elite...did not want that to happen. What they wanted was more slaves working more hours to make them more rich and powerful.
Well, they got it. Now, it takes two wage-earners just to get by, and some are still struggling. Marriages are failing because we've ALL been screwed, and the ruling class wants us to blame each other.
But the ruling class is the one to blame...THEY are the ones that have added the stress to our lives. THEY are the ones that have broken the family. Mom and Dad are out at work all day, and children are pawned off at daycare. Then when everybody finally gets home, there's more work to be done.
Life doesn't have to be this hard. The ruling class is destroying us financially and emotionally. They want us to be so tired from our constant struggle to get through each day so that we have no time left over to understand exactly who is kicking us down.
I've never had a problem providing the sole income. I'm only bothered when I don't. She holds the purse strings anyhow, so it's not me "lording" it over her.
Solid according to my criteria? I have no idea. I don't see why the percentages matter, to be honest. Even if it's only a few million people that are happy, so what.
Expressing one's personal experience rarely takes a lot of thought.
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.
They are usually the biggest nut job in the office. Here again, its the women who are making these decisions.