As the number of highly educated women has increased in recent decades, the chances of "marrying up" have increased significantly for men and decreased for women, according to a new study led by a University of Kansas sociologist.
"The pattern of marriage and its economic consequences have changed over time," said lead author ChangHwan Kim, associate professor of sociology. "Now women are more likely to get married to a less-educated man. What is the consequence of this?"
Kim's co-authored the study with Arthur Sakamoto of Texas A&M University, and the journal Demography recently published their findings. They examined gender-specific changes in the total financial return to education among people of prime working ages, 35 to 44 years old, using U.S. Census data from 1990 and 2000 and the 2009-2011 American Community Survey.
Your dreams of finding a Sugar Momma may finally come true.
ChangHwan Kim, Arthur Sakamoto. Women's Progress for Men's Gain? Gender-Specific Changes in the Return to Education as Measured by Family Standard of Living, 1990 to 2009–2011. Demography, 2017; DOI: 10.1007/s13524-017-0601-3
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:29PM
I foresee the comments on this article being fair and balanced.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:30PM (26 children)
A new porn category?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:06PM
You could tweak the classic "landscaper" and "pizza delivery guy" scripts just a hair and start shooting.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Nuke on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:30PM
It's not new.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:41PM (15 children)
But for who? Is it for women that want their fantasy big dick Ph.D. so they can marry an educated man that is not only smart but well equipped in other ways to. Or is it for the emasculated men that are forced to marry up? Where he can "man up" again. Instead of suffering under the matriarchy? Which I guess would be another porn category since there are probably those that are into that to. Damn so many new categories.
That said it's an interesting phenomenon that there have been quite a few papers written about. Men don't care they marry anything, for love and pussy or whatever. While women have normally always preferred to marry up in status and resources, or at least on the same level but rarely if ever marry down in status and resources, even for "love". With more and more women in higher education and less and less men it would bound to have to happen eventually, after all they can't all become lesbians (that category already exists so no need to add to the ever growing list).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:56PM (14 children)
Women don't have to become lesbians; they can just stay single. That's what I'm seeing in the big east-coast cities anyway. Women who are 35-45 and never married are extremely common now on the dating sites. And I suspect many, many of them will remain single for the rest of their lives. Many of them really don't have that much going for them: they don't look that great, and they have decent jobs but not exactly huge salaries (so they're comfortable and can afford a nice little condo and some travel), and they usually don't have much in the way of interests. If they're attractive, they'll probably snag a guy, but if they're not so attractive (which isn't hard, many of these women seem to drink a lot and of course alcohol is fattening), they have to lower their standards if they want a serious boyfriend, and many of them just aren't going to do that. Add to that the fact that many of them seem to have a strong social circle of similar perpetually-single women, and I think many of them are just going to be single forever.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:06PM (13 children)
You can't "become" a lesbian either. It's not a choice. I didn't wake up one morning and go "you know I think I'm gonna follow a strict vagitarian diet."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:16PM
Everyone knows you make the decision at night and then get a good nights sleep to let your subconscious mull it over. Maybe having orange juice instead of coffee is what triggered your decision?
/s cause this site is fool of shittastic trolls who might seriously say shit like that
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:20PM (3 children)
Well yeah, that too. But bisexuality among women isn't *that* rare, if they're honest with themselves. In an alternate universe, where women were encouraged to "become" lesbians (perhaps because of a giant shortage of males combined with a lack of homophobia in society like we have today), we'd surely see more of it because more women who are latently bisexual would choose female partners instead of male ones.
There's probably a lot more bisexual men than we realize too, but it's even more repressed. The Kinsey Scale exists for a reason.
My whole point before was just in observing trends among 35-45 women, that I'm seeing a lot of women simply refusing to "settle" and staying single. I'm sure there's plenty of men doing the same.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:52PM (2 children)
Yeah, I bet most people are closer to Kinsey 1 than Kinsey 0 if they're being honest with themselves. They're what I'd heard referred to as "spaghetti-sexual" (firmly straight until you get them hot and wet...). Seems more common with women than men though. ...of course, I'm a hard Kinsey 6 so there's one data point that stands in opposition to that hypothesis *shrug*
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:25PM (1 child)
Seems more common with women than men though
It's debatable. Is it because men really are biologically "straighter", or is it because today's society is more tolerant of female bisexuality so men are more likely to suppress these desires (both consciously and subconsciously)?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:49PM
Plenty of guys would swing that way if they weren't concerned about getting caught. Hell I had a (now ex) friend sexually harassing me on a daily basis (dafuq? And the guy was usually getting pussy more regularly than me too...)
Personally I have always been more of the 'center of a throng of girls' type, but the opportunities for that dwindled after middle school, when all of a sudden women have to either be straight or lesbians, depending on their social circle, and swaying into bisexuality or poly arrangements are more or less verboten.
It is too bad I didn't sorts out all of this shit from the 'truths' being spouted by religious zealots, teachers, etc earlier in life, because I could have resolved some complaints about my philandering ways and since they were all friends anyway....
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:24PM (3 children)
That's your experience. Is it every lesbian's experience?
If it isn't a choice, can it be cured or suppressed by a drug? Can intervention be done before birth? Will we abort or design babies so that less lesbians are born? Can you make a lesbian by surgically altering their brain or damaging it like Phineas Gage?
Better to call it a predilection combined with a choice.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:50PM (2 children)
Well, breaking it down, yes, the predilection is to only fall in love with women. The choice is to be sexually active. Celibate lesbians are no less gay than ones who have a sex life.
I would think drugs likely couldn't change the underlying predilection, though if you get someone drunk enough they will probably have sex. Similarly, I don't think a single brain region is responsible for this; we're probably looking at mostly intrauterine hormone levels, maybe some genetic or epigenetic factors, and possibly some brain structure differences as a result of the previous. I swear I read some study about putting gay people in MRIs and seeing parts of the brain that handle sexuality and pheremones looking like the ones belonging to straight people of the opposite sex. Wouldn't be surprised if I had stronger front-to-back grey matter connections than most straight women too.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:08AM (1 child)
I get the idea cognitive sexuality ( as opposed to physical sexuality ) is a matter very akin to whether people will either like or dislike brocolli. I happen to love the stuff.
For the longest time, I have had a fit determining which group I fell into, as I seemed to fall into none of the established classifications. It wasn't until a couple of years ago which thanks to the internet and Google, I finally found what my little subgroup was called: Sthenolagnia. I have been that way as long as I can remember.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:40PM
Sthenos (strength) + lagnia (worship/sexual arousal), so...er, you're bi but prefer muscley or otherwise strong partners?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Informative) by KiloByte on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:05PM (1 child)
According to genital blood flow (ie, arousal) studies, there's, within the error margin, no such thing as "heterosexual woman". There's a small but non-negligible group of strictly-lesbian women (who also have certain other mental characteristics typical of men), but the vast majority are aroused by images of attractive members of both genders, usually with a slightly stronger reaction to women.
This is the true rather than self-reported preference; most women choose to have sex exclusively with men due to religious and social pressure, and the desire to have children. But since arousal is there, this is a choice.
This goes in stark contrast to men, most of whom are strictly heterosexual.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:37PM
Hah, yeah, that second group is me. I can appreciate a well-built man, but in the same way as a well-build skyscraper or statue. Really wondering what my brain looks like now, LOL.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @03:22PM (1 child)
yeah,
you might want to look up the term LUG (lesbian untill graduation)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 04 2017, @10:40PM
Good grief, you really think I didn't run into those people? One of them broke my heart badly in sophomore year of college. These are the annoying, flighty, indecisive bisexual girls who give everyone a bad name and in general just pee all over in the dating pool. I swore on my shiny gold star, after that, no more bi girls; lesbians only. And it's been a wise choice.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:41PM
That's already a thing. It's called "BLACKED"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:30PM (6 children)
They seem to be assuming that someone who did not go to college is inherently less educated than someone who did, and they're doing so in an age where people have more access to information than ever before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:47PM
It is a stereotype, same as with all others. There is always a grain of truth to them, but its never a good idea to operate as if they are the Truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:43AM (4 children)
Yup. Before I earned my degree, my now wife who had one was still about one tenth of my intelligence. She would read 100+ books a year, but they were all fiction. She could not tell you how many people there were in the US. And knew next to nothing about anything. "Education" in this context is a myth.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:10AM (1 child)
There is a big difference between knowledge and wisdom.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Fnord666 on Thursday August 31 2017, @02:59AM
Sure, knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:21PM (1 child)
With your attitude of superiority you'd better put that big brain to work on self-therapy (or realize you need help, but I don't think you're THAT smart :P) before your wife figures out she can find a nicer person to spend her life with.
As another comment mentioned there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. This site is full of intelligent people with lots of knowledge, but such abysmal wisdom that they say the stupidest shit. Things that seem obvious to themselves are also obviously ridiculous to others who have a broader viewpoint. Some things that seem logically obvious turn out to be flawed as more detailed information becomes available. Even some ideas that remain true are actually worse options but the person is lacking the education/knowledge to realize there are better alternatives. Lacking wisdom human beings easily fall prey to propaganda and they don't even realize their beliefs are actually unproven or faulty assumptions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @08:06PM
You don't have to get so mad, you can just google the answer. No need to be mad you don't know something. Also, what is "not nice" about the comment? It is true that the stupid degree, which did open a lot of door for her, didn't really mean she was smarter than someone without a degree, such as myself. And she was the smartest girl I knew, hence why I married her. In the end she defers to me on almost every decision, so I doubt she will go and find someone else unless I approve of him. And also a shocker, she doesn't like "nice boys", because if she wants nice company she has her female friends, and nice boys are useless for almost everything outside of listening to her problems. She may not always like that I tell her to cut out the cake and hit the gym, but she knows I'm right.
PS: Sorry to hurt your feelings. Keep being nice to girls, maybe one day it will work out for you!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:39PM (12 children)
We discussed this topic yesterday [soylentnews.org].
When she can't find a man who earns more money than she does, she fucks her dog instead.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:09PM (9 children)
I'm not sure which is more repelling, women fucking dogs or basement dwelling goblins fucking anime pillows.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:18PM (4 children)
Doggy dick is natural. Nothing wrong with it. Anime pillows are unnatural affronts to God.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:30PM (3 children)
This explains the south so much better! Inbreeding didn't quite seem to cover it, but throw in some canine DNA and you've got aggressive loyalty to the church mixed with an innate desire to hunt down things that are different.
Thanks, never quite thought of it like that.
Apologies to the non-insane southerners
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:40PM (2 children)
Statistical fail fails!
"80% of white American women (generally liberal city-dwelling ones)"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:49PM
Oh yes, I forgot about your superior data source: some random person's opinion in a comment thread.
#fakenews #sad #tinytrump
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:50PM
I'm the one who wrote that, in an entirely unrelated conversation in a different article's discussion.
I wasn't making a comparison with rural and/or conservative women, I was making an observation about the liberal city-dwelling women I generally see when *I* look at dating sites (because I don't look at the conservative rural-dwelling women), and complaining that it seemed that very many of them had big dogs, even though big dogs are a giant PITA to have and care for in a city. (Personally, I think it should be illegal to have big dogs in small apartments; it's cruel.) I never said anything about conservative or rural-dwelling white women. In my limited observations there, I'd say just as many of them, and likely more, also have big dogs. But at least they more frequently have the land for them and having a large dog isn't such a PITA when you have a big yard you can let them run around and shit in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:37PM (1 child)
While I'm not sure what's so great about fucking pillows, at least anime characters aren't horribly ugly like all real people are. Filthy normies are basically having sex with piles of garbage, as far as I'm concerned.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:49PM
Better watch out or I'll report you to MIB HQ
I'm normal! [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:17AM (1 child)
What if the anime body pillows have characters with animal ears and tails? I'm uhhhh.... asking for a friend....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:08AM
It's good and pure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:09PM (1 child)
Not condoning the apparent misogyny here, but I've had the Internet for awhile and cruised it.
There does indeed seem to be a lot more women fucking dogs, and a couple of the porn trackers that I use have bestiality sections now. No pun intended, but it's like a fucking zoo in there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:25PM
Would have been better if you didn't excuse the pun, any punicists are merely arrogant twats. Time and a place for every kind of joke, even yo mamas can be entertaining if you can get over the societal bias.
I don't think internet porn is a good basis for real life statistics, by that logic I would say there more women in the world and very few men that have any sexual desires. The human population also has about 50% mythical beast DNA, my sequencer reports it as "troll".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:52PM (41 children)
Women have grown used to having an abundance of men chasing their tails, from which they grow accustomed to being as snobby and demanding as they please.
But men are starting to understand that marriage, or even a long term exclusive relationship with a woman, does not on balance serve male reproductive goals or desires.
When the supply of suckers decreases, those who remain can bargain for top-shelf partners. Basic economics.
To quote a line from a movie "I guess the table's turned on the other foot now hasn't it?"
Enjoy your karma, bitches!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:08PM (37 children)
It's just you and your hand tonight, misogynist.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:19PM (15 children)
I don't think it's misogynist; men and women just tend to be biologically wired differently. Yes, there are exceptions, but let's focus on the typical cases first. Women often want families and a man who will help take care of that family. But, a good many men don't want to be domestic "beasts of burden", they just want sex with a lady they find attractive. There are more options now to get such satisfaction without domestic commitments, meaning that women who want the old-fashioned domestic partner have fewer choices, and thus are more likely to sacrifice having a husband with a well-paying job in order to get the domestic side. Plus, women are just earning more these days, meaning a mismatch in earning power is more likely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:27PM
Oh he is a misogynist, doesn't mean the actual point he was making is invalid.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:42PM (13 children)
I think it's a little more complex than that.
First, there's a bunch of women now who actually don't want kids. You'll find a lot of urban women like this. But they seem to usually want a man who makes more money than them, mainly so they can afford to go on expensive international vacations every couple months it seems.
But ignoring them for now, I think a lot of men are figuring out that marriage really isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's no financial benefit to it if your partner makes anywhere near the same salary you do, and in fact there's an outright "marriage penalty" if your incomes are roughly close. Thanks, IRS and Republicans. And given the high divorce rate, your chances of long-term success are not very good if you enter into one. Divorce is well-known to be messy and very expensive, usually more for the man, despite women making a lot of money these days. And with modern contraceptives, women don't have the pressure to avoid sex before marriage that they had 50+ years ago since the risk is mostly gone, so unlike in 1940, a man doesn't need to commit to a marriage to have sex. Finally, with people living so long now, people tend to grow apart over time, plus the social pressure to stay married even when you're miserable is much less. Now throw in all those people not even having kids, and what's the point to marriage?
AFAICT, the only good reason to get married is because one partner doesn't work (i.e., tax benefit) or has a much lower-paying job, and the two are going to have kids together and want to provide that veneer of stability. (The other reason, but not a good one, is because of religion and associated social pressure, but this only applies to people in those social circles.)
In the far past, marriage was a way to mostly guarantee social stability. It paired people up so they'd have kids (necessary for society's survival and economic growth), and force them to stay together through social pressure so that men wouldn't impregnate other women and have out-of-wedlock kids being raised in poverty. The price was happiness and freedom. Many people got stuck with partners they didn't get along with or didn't like and couldn't get away from, women were routinely abused, kids grew up in abusive households, etc. Even without the abuse part, women were consigned to being second-class citizens and couldn't hold most jobs, and didn't have much economic freedom. The gender roles were clear: men were to provide economically for the family, women were to be baby factories and unpaid domestic labor to make the family function. It was basically collectivism vs. individuality, with collectivism winning out (ironic, coming from a society that eschewed socialism and communism): the needs of society were deemed to be more important than the individual happiness of its citizens, and marriage with kids was seen as the proper way to ensure society's healthy functioning. (Not so different from authoritarian socialism when you think about it, huh? The main difference was that the enforcement mostly came from peers and churches rather than a central government, though the government did play a part through the tax code, marriage laws, and the functioning of the court systems.) Now, things are different: churches don't have much power any more, lots of society is irreligious, contraception is commonplace and reliable, sex before marriage isn't scandalous, and people aren't having kids like they used to, so the institution of marriage is falling apart as a consequence. And good riddance.
So now, women who want kids are finding there aren't so many men who honestly want them, so they have to find low-income guys who are willing to make the trade-off: get married "up" to a higher-earning woman, be a sperm donor, and be unpaid domestic labor, in exchange for a nice "set up" and better economic security, just like the bargain women had to make 50+ years ago. High-income men don't have to bother with this, and don't as much, so there's a shortage of them and more women are turning to the low-income men.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:45PM (11 children)
50+ years? Don't you mean since the dawn of Man. Has it ever been anything but that deal. Now is probably the first time in history we are about to see the reverse on a large scale. At least in the western world.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:59PM (10 children)
No, I don't mean that at all. Monogamy is a relatively recent social trend, which likely only started with the adoption of agriculture. Modern humans (meaning homo sapiens sapiens) have been around for about 2 million years, while agricultural societies only about 10-12k. Hunter-gatherer tribes were not monogamous and had no such bargain; they really functioned more like free-love communes.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:05PM (5 children)
(This site should let me edit comments within a few minutes of posting...)
Now, if you mean "since the early days of civilization", I'd say that's mostly correct. I wrote "50+" for a reason, because western civilization has been like that until only very recently, and the way humans lived shortly after the "dawn of Man" is really irrelevant to how people have been living for the past couple thousand of years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:29PM (4 children)
Wait 15 minutes after the story is posted. Put a reasonable comment. Have the prepared troll comment ready. Switch it at 4 minutes and 45 seconds to account for lag. Watch some people reply or up mod your reasonable comment which is now gone.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:37PM
Just have the old Green Site "are you sure you want to comment; doing this will undo moderation?" check, but for editing your comments. If you've already been modded, editing wipes mods.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:37PM (2 children)
1) Sites like Reddit allow editing, and don't seem to have that much trouble with this.
2) You could make it so the original comment cannot be removed or edited, and instead you can only append to it (which is all I wanted to do in my comment above).
3) You could also have a "flag" option to flag people doing this, and then the moderators can look into the edit history and ban anyone who does this.
Personally I think #2 would be the simplest answer. On other sites like Reddit, people already do just this even though they could do much more; they put "EDIT: blah blah blah" at the end of the comment to show the comment has been changed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:39AM (1 child)
4) You could take your time, preview your comment, and add supporting information once you see it lacking some upon preview.
(And then end up on the second page of comments with no views, mods, or replies.)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @04:16AM
Sure, I'll do that just as soon as everyone removes the Backspace key from their keyboards, and changes all their software so that there's no "undo" function anywhere.
You're right about the timing issue too, but honestly I think the idea of not being able to edit things runs counter to one of the major reasons we switched from using typewriters and such to using computers in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:48PM (3 children)
"Free Love" for the women at least. I read somewhere that genetic evidence suggests that most men never produced viable offspring.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:49AM (2 children)
I hardly believe that nonsense, I would say if that was the case the evolutionary pressure on men would be extreme and we would all be super athletic 7 feet tall muscle hunks with a jaw-line chiseled in stone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @07:54AM (1 child)
Only if DNA had a male half and a female half. It doesn't. Apart from the very small (compared to the rest) Y chromosome, everything is shared among men and women. Your claim would likely also result in women being "super athletic 7 feet tall muscle hunks with a jaw-line chiseled in stone", and the selection pressure is more likely to be AGAINST that.
Which, btw, may also be why the whole "homosexuality must be a choice, if it wasn't, natural selection would have gotten rid of it" falls on its face. If we assume that gay men are simply men with genes for "extra feminine" (and vice versa for lesbians), we have selection pressure FOR extra feminine women, and those women will have a 50% chance of passing that gene onto their sons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:16PM
Yes, but same genes express differently in men and women (the horrors!). For example if I look at (most) men I do not know if they carry the genes for supple or saggy tits.
So in the end the reasoning would rather be that reproducing success was more of a factor of luck for the men, which I could buy due to nature of ancient warfare. This would mean that roughly random distribution of genes would be passed on, rather than specific genes for handsomeness and muscle tone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @03:37PM
And yet it is an was mostly women that controlled the spending in families.
The women staying home, and men working is nothing more then simple division of labour, it wasn't oppression, that's purely a fictional reframing by the feminist movement.
What changed is mostly the invention and widespread availability of devices like the washing machine and vacuum cleaner that changed keeping a house in order from a fulltime job to something that only takes a couple of hours a week. order was a fulltime job.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:20PM (16 children)
While he is an angry misogynist he does make an interesting point. With more men foregoing the typical marriage route it just might bring some balance back.
Feminism caught on, a high % of men under 40 hopped on board, but it has definitely shifted into the realm of misandry. Some may call it karma, men got to be assholes to women for a VERY long time. Doesn't make it OK, and it has driven all these neckbeards into a more misogynistic frame of mind.
Men's rights is a thing and there are real and valid complaints. This should not be confused with misogyny, however the Venn diagram would definitely have the two overlapping. There are men who suffer domestic abuse and they are laughed at. Many men, especially the nerdy types with less than stellar social skills, are treated like creeps just for trying to open a conversation.
I would love to see feminist groups reach out* and help these abused men, demonstrate that women can and will help out men. Perhaps it would be the olive branch that starts the end of the gender war.
* feminists should reach out because they have more experience dealing with abuse, men's rights groups are a relatively new thing I think.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:58PM (5 children)
You have not been paying attention. Or maybe you have, and you're spew shit because, well, you're an asshole.
Feminists are very much on the side of men who suffer domestic abuse - because the facts that (i) women not being taken seriously when they report domestic assault so the perpetrators rarely face jail time and (ii) men are laughed at for reporting domestic assault at all, are both artefacts of the same root problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:52PM (1 child)
That would depend on the feminist, since that group is not a hivemind. Some of them say that domestic violence against men shouldn't happen but that it isn't a very important issue because domestic violence against women is typically more severe and we live in a patriarchy. Others encourage violence against males or just laugh at it. Most consider domestic violence against men to be a serious issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04 2017, @03:43PM
There's at least 3 completely different and incompatible groups that claim the titel 'feminism'
there's the old school 'we want equal rights' (job mostly done in the west, and the areas that are still unequal are mostly, reproductive rights, divorce proceedings, and army duty are in the womens favor)
there's the idiotic 'we want equal outcomes' that actively supports things like affirmative action which are the very antithesis of equal rights
and then theres' the very vocal, but comparatively small group of 'radical feminists' that want's to get rid of men altogether, or at least heavily suppress them
a lot of the confusion disagreement is in arguments where person A has the first definition of feminist, and person B the 2nd or 3th definition
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:58PM
I never said they weren't on their side, I was just trying to promote such action and try to bridge the gap with some of the more misogynistic elements on here. You have too much anger built up, but hey so does most every other person here.
In my highly subjective opinion it does seem like misandry has increased dramatically, and while true feminists undoubtedly would have sympathy for abused men I haven't seen them working together. If the they had more cooperation they could create a more unified front that would prevent people from reacting so badly simply because they feel their gender is under attack.
Your reaction is a good example, you accuse me of being ignorant and/or an asshole not because I did anything to you but because I apparently don't know all the details about how the two general groups already work together. That is pretty fucked up, especially since I was trying to bring people together instead of split them up and cause anger :P
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:06AM
Feminists in Name Only.
I've had a few sit and verbally abuse me (much like trying to have an intellectual debate with an average republican. I used to have better luck with Dems, but since Trump they are are stupid and frothing as the Rs now.)
Personally I have had a half dozen casual female aquaintances in college, around double or triple that during grade school, and nothing since moving into the professional world. Even work related female friends turned out to be superficially schmoozers when I ran into them after changing jobs. Quite frankly the internet (*NOT* social network/dating sites) has worked out slightly better for longer term friendships, a few relationships/fwbs from either internet gaming or online dating sites, but the rest has been crap.
I would think it was just me, but I am hearing similiar things from most of my intelligent friends. The ones that are doing well on getting women are either the complete asshole neanderthal schmoozers, or the flashy wealthy guys who buy their ways into a woman's pants. And neither of them are trying to get stuck in a relationship. The guys who DO want a relationship end up with women who don't want kids when they want kids, or who do want kids when they're rationally not ready for kids (IE neither of us could afford kids, lets wait a few years, get raises/new jobs, and put the mortgage down on a house so they will be in a good place when they're born.
In contrast most of the women fall into three categories: Career driven & never want kids, poor and stupid want kids & a free ride, career driven but want kids NOW and will do whatever it takes to get them even if it sets them and you back 10 years. There is also a mythical 4th category of normal women, but it seems like those disappear before college, likely because smart guys realized they were a good thing and snatched them up, but occasionally because they made a mistake and it takes them a few years to get back on the market, by which point they are one of the other three.)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:20PM
So, basically, feminists like guys who are victims? And, guys who are not victims can't be bothered with. Sounds like some of us should find a nice abusive partner, then get rid of her, then lots of women will like us. Procreation problem solved? Maybe so, but damn, what about self respect? Oh, wait - self respect is an evil trait if you're a hetero white male. Forget I've said anything . . .
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:08AM (9 children)
Such as?
To the extent this is really happening, yes, this needs to stop.
Drop the persecution complex. It is not a flattering pose on you. In my experience, those guys that get treated like creeps get treated that way for very specific reasons. It isn't usually just "for trying to open a conversation".
(Score: 2) by Scrutinizer on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:45AM (4 children)
Ask Tom Ball [freekeene.com]. (He didn't seem to get as much publicity [boston.com] as that one foreign monk [wikipedia.org].)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @04:51PM (3 children)
Seriously? Did you even bother to read that link? The guy smacked his daughter so hard that she got a busted lip, and that is by his own admission. That. Is. Not. Normal. Parental. Discipline. Full stop. Much of the rest of his problems appear to be largely caused by him having a bug up his butt about Family Services telling, no, you can't physically abuse your kids. And I picked that up from what little I read of his maundering, self-congratulatory "last statement".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:55PM (2 children)
Like it or not, physical punishment (including spanking, pinching, and yes, slapping) is widely used in the USA. As such, it is - by definition - normal. The abnormality is government agents butting in at gunpoint, rather than the normal societal remedies for physical punishments that others judge to go too far.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @12:04AM (1 child)
Hard enough to leave a little girl bruised and bleeding? I don't think so.
He was referred to Family Services for counseling, which he refused to go to. (He seemed to feel that the case worker "had it in for him".) Call me weird but I don't think referral for counseling is "going too far".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @12:31AM
You think wrong, then. It's not something people like to see, but as one example, I sat on a grand jury regarding the prosecution of a parent who deeply bruised a little girl's legs and/or rump. None of us liked the circumstances, but all told, the harm done by an apparent one-off physical punishment by a parent would be grossly overshadowed by a criminal prosecution.
We no-billed the parent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:06PM (1 child)
You are an ignorant asshat. If you even ask these questions, it shows how clueless you are on the entire system. The whole marriage is a trap that can easily be compared to a woman who decides she regrets having sex with a guy a month after and reports him for rape. That is basically how divorce works, and I wish I was exaggerating.
Best thing we can do for men, outside of MIGTOW, is to actually teach them psychology so they can easily identify the warning signs before getting in bed with crazy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @04:56PM
Oh, yes, please do enlighten us benighted souls in the peanut gallery.
Yes, indeed. That may be your problem, right there. Best to steer well clear of crazy; especially, don't get into bed with it. Any more clues I can help you with?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:49PM (1 child)
I can only presume you are a woman and therefore have no idea what you're talking about. It is similar to the cultural change we've developed we don't let children outside because there is danger everywhere!!!1!!1 There is always a presumption of guilt that follows men around, and *shockingly* it is highly correlated with attractiveness / charisma. Gone are the days of simple rejection, FUD now operates in nearly every daily aspect of our lives and not just dating.
Before you start presuming too much about myself I would like to say I'm relatively lucky on the handsome scale and haven't experienced much of the discrimination I'm talking about. Regardless if someone is creepy or not good manners should still apply. No need to be nasty unless the person won't take no for an answer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @10:51PM
You presume wrong; I'm a guy.
The part you seem to have not glommed onto yet is that manners should be a two-way street. Yes, rejection sucks. I know. I've experienced it myself. It can hurt. A lot. But how you handle rejection will tell her an awful lot about how "creepy" you are. Frankly, those who act like creeps ruin the party for every one else, no matter which side of the gender divide they are on.
And you still need to drop your persecution complex. Just sayin'.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:36PM
My hand left me. It's HGTOW now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:43PM
At least the hand won't complain and take half his shit when they break up. Plus it's making love to someone you love ...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:17PM (1 child)
Actually, no need to wait for tonight, I already did it! :)
You see, that's exactly my point. Women no longer have control of my sexuality, and therefore, I no longer have to care what they think of me.
It's not hate so much as benign neglect. You go your way, I'll go mine. You just don't matter as much as you thought you did.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:27PM
You see, that's exactly my point. Women no longer have control of my sexuality, and therefore, I no longer have to care what they think of me.
Women prevent you from masturbating? What kind of porn are you watching, anyway??
I vote we all give him a break. If they did that to me I'd probably assume the worst of all of them too!
I's OK, JC, women aren't all unique humans like the rest of us. They're all exactly the same and you're the real victim here.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:44PM (2 children)
Marriage is plagued with magical thinking in our culture, with plenty of people believing that it's synonymous with a stable relationship (it isn't) or that it will instantly improve one's relationship (it doesn't). Some people are even dumb enough to believe that society would collapse without marriage, even though it's really just a social ritual. I'd like to see any legal options that are currently available to married couples be available to unmarried people in relationships as well, and then get the government out of the marriage business.
(Score: 2) by Scrutinizer on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:52AM (1 child)
I strongly agree with your latter point about the critical importance of ejecting government out of the business of marriage. Your former point could use some clarification, however: just what legal options do you suggest should exist between two people who have no formal relationship beyond the legal options that already exist between two random strangers?
Perhaps some of the "legal options" you want between two people can be optionally met without further changes to law. One example is a "power of attorney".
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @04:36AM
Your former point could use some clarification, however: just what legal options do you suggest should exist between two people who have no formal relationship beyond the legal options that already exist between two random strangers?
IANAL, so I can't go into a lot of detail here, and would love to hear from an attorney who actually knows about this kind of thing, but my idea is that marriage should simply be eliminated from law, and replaced with a new addendum to contract law. So basically, you'd have "civil unions", which can take many different forms, and are up to the people entering into the union. It wouldn't be limited to two people either, but it would be limited to legal adults of sound mind, just like contracts are today. No, minors can't participate, so stupid backwards states that let children get married will have to stop that; no one really needs to have a marriage-type union at 16 years old. Anyway, people could obtain a civil union of their choosing, and would probably need to run it by a qualified lawyer, or just choose one of a bunch of pre-vetted ones. These would include a lot of the stuff that today's "marriages" include: an agreement to share living expenses, a power of attorney in case one is incapacitated, etc., plus clear terms for how to handle things when the union is dissolved (this is a feature sorely missing from today's marriages, which we try to bolt-on with a "prenuptial agreement").
Ideally, there'd be some pre-vetted ones as I mentioned, or perhaps even one where you can pick and choose the terms and clauses, so you don't need to see a lawyer at all as long as you're not doing anything way out of the ordinary. These unions can even include more than 2 people. And it should be extremely easy to get one of these in place so you can have it done just as soon as you move in together, and it should be easy to dissolve too, for when things go south (this, as I said, would be built-in to the contract so it's not so messy). And if you want to "upgrade" to something with different (e.g. more committed) terms, that should be easy to do too.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:04PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:10PM (1 child)
This may be offtopic, but it's interesting as hell.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:49PM
If you read the story, it's on the topic. Kind of on the topic. I read the Cliff's Notes. Trust funds are terrific. You have a kid, you set up the trust fund. You get married, you get the prenuptial agreement. She makes more than you? Fantastic, still get the prenuptial. Always, always. Because you never know what will happen. 🇺🇸
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:36PM (8 children)
gender specific changes? which one? today there is about 200
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:35PM (2 children)
The pair of cis scum ones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:56AM (1 child)
Why all the hate? I was born this way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:42PM
Cis-privileged!
(Score: 1) by ants_in_pants on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:04PM (4 children)
Actually there are zero genders.
-Love, ants_in_pants
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @10:00PM
Let me guess, you're designing the successor to USB-C?
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:58AM (1 child)
I was reading the abstract of one paper based on brain imaging that brain gender could exist in two dimensions instead of a 1-d spectrum. Of course, big problem with all of those brain imaging studies about gender is that their sample size is always like 10 to 15. After all, putting just a tad more effort into quantifying brain gender (or entirely disproving the theory that there is a brain gender, not sure if that's what you're suggesting) would only help 0.01% (0.0001) of the population, so why bother, amirite?
Oh, and getting a better handle on whether that number is accurate (because it's wildly inaccurate), well, that would only help 0.01% of the population, so why bother!
Perhaps I also interpret your comment to mean that the caste system has been abolished.
Just as an observation, it never ceases to amaze me how willfully blind people are to the things that those in the female caste have good. I think it has to do with the underpinning chauvinism of most cultures that the male gender is the authentic gender. What always gets me, though, is that there are a lot of people—assigned female gender at birth—who seem to be very clearly covetous of being a man, yet they absolutely abhor the idea of gender transition to live as the man they wished they were.
(They envy short hair but are unable to get a haircut; they envy the effects of testosterone on the body such as increased strength and a voicebox with more resonance, but absolutely reject beginning testosterone HRT; they desire wearing men's fashions; etc etc.)
Strange that, isn't it? They usually claim to be feminists.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:08AM
I should clarify. I realize it may have seemed liked I was talking about trans men there. That's the thing, though. A trans man has the balls, in a psychic sense, to transition. Perhaps if somebody wants to suggest that feminists are closeted trans men… who are joining the flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers in rejecting science… who feel the need to spew hate speech at trans folks… who don't feel the need to undergo themselves this psychotectic treatment that they claim exists… I dunno… at least it doesn't strike me as being the case.
(Score: 2) by rigrig on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:34AM
Is this thread going to end up like that QI question about our number of moons?
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:49PM (14 children)
Women in the US are getting very fat. Fatness is generally a major deterrent for attraction from men. I would hypothesize that 'lower quality' males may now be able to find women who are generally considered unacceptable, but have other redeeming features. In a way it's probably the same as it was for women in previous times. They were attracted not to the guy who's just piling down the bacon, but the one who's also bringing in the bacon [before piling it down].
In other words I'm curious on the average weight of the women in these relationships compared to the weight of women in relationships where the male is at least as educated. I would hypothesize it's meaningfully higher. A similar hypothesis would be that if one measured simply traditionally attractive females, their would be zero (if not a negative) change in their rate of marrying down.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:41PM (3 children)
I think there's probably a lot of truth to this. The women who are attractive don't have to bother "marrying down", they get first pick; the women who aren't have to choose from the leftovers, which now means "marring down", with the alternative being staying single.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:58PM (2 children)
Another option is to get into a relationship with someone without getting married. Why are people not considering that option and acting as if being in a relationship means getting married?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:32AM
Why? The sexual revolution failed.
Personally, I think it was a good idea, but I guess not enough people were comfortable with it. Jeebus, women in the USA still seriously fret about whether or not every woman should have state-funded access to very, very cheap pill!
I predict in 500 years women will be right back where they started. I also predict that just about everybody in this miserable species will be happy with that. Such a damned waste of those brains 51% of their population has. Then again, I'm also predicting that this species doesn't have the brains to get through its filter event without reverting to bronze-age technology. Over, and over, and over again.
Really hoping I get to witness the filter event while I seem to be doing time here. Probability still looks strong for a 2025 date.
Maybe by the year 9595 they might have evolved enough, but it might take a couple more million years and a couple more speciation events.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @05:12AM
Because in today's monogamous society, being "in a relationship" really is almost like being married, just without the legal weight. Back in the "old days" 60+ years ago, people didn't date one person exclusively until they were very close to getting married, as in engaged. Now, it seems you're expected to be exclusive after a few dates or so. Of course, back then people didn't start having sex right away (or at least didn't admit to it), whereas now it's pretty common to start sleeping together after a few dates, if not sooner.
Anyway, we're talking here about women "marrying down", but it isn't just about marriage, it's about getting into a dating-type relationship. Women who don't look that good aren't going to get relationships with better guys by not insisting on marriage; those men aren't interested in dating them, marriage or no. But also, probably a lot of these women *want* marriage because they want kids, so if they're making good money themselves, it probably makes sense for them to hook up with guys lower on the socioeconomic ladder to do that with, and then have them be the house-husbands. These guys are probably interested in the arrangement because otherwise they'll be much worse off financially. It's just like how traditionally women married richer men, but the tables are turned now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:55PM (5 children)
Under-rated post. I wish I could mod this up. So many women need to get off dating sites and into the gym.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:25AM
Or, at least, stay off the bon-bons.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:43PM (1 child)
I tried to lead by example, exercising daily and attempting to get my girlfriend to go. Or exercise alone if she thought I'd see the fat jiggle--or someone else might.
Instead, she cries she is fat and eats fatty foods because the healthy stuff isn't filling and doesn't taste good.
I even won fitness awards for contests I was unwillingly pressed into because the people at the gym thought I'd do well, and I was only there to maintain my health... anyway I can tell you this: It is incredibly awkward to get hit on by athletic (and thus by my standards, usually quite attractive) women and say no because I am not single and don't want to even try to manage even a short term side relationship.
And yet I can't get my girlfriend to do more than complain. I wish that burned calories. Some day, I may give in to temptation... and none of these conversations I've had involved a dating site. It's all been in the gym.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @04:56AM
Sounds like you need to dump your girlfriend and hook up with one of these other women who you'll have a more similar lifestyle with. I don't mean to be glib, but a long-term relationship partner really needs to be someone who's also a major activity partner with you, not just a roommate and sex partner. If you're heavily into physical fitness and she's not, that's not likely to work out that well. If you're not married yet and don't have kids together, then you don't really need to stay with her.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @08:08PM (1 child)
Oh, and men don't need to?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @05:08AM
Oh, and men don't need to?
Most Americans need to, but the situation isn't quite as bad for men as it is for women. Remember, women naturally have more body fat than men anyway; a man in excellent physical shape can have a body fat percentage of well under 10%, but that's pretty close to deadly for a woman. A very thin woman in excellent shape will still be in the mid-teens or so, which for a man is nothing special. Women seem to have an easier time gaining weight (visibly), and a harder time losing it. And women are also usually shorter and smaller, so when they do gain weight, it's more noticeable. 20 extra pounds on a 5'10" guy isn't that noticeable, but on a 5'4" woman it is.
On top of that, women are more valued for their looks than men, by far. Not many attractive men are interested in dating unattractive women. But ultra-hot women are frequently happy to marry ugly older men with plenty of extra weight in the middle, as long as they're rich. Proof: treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin. See here [thesun.co.uk]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by KiloByte on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:20PM (1 child)
Also makeup, piercings and tattoos. If you get past photoshopped "supermodel" weirdness the glossy press tries to push, it turns out that most women in child-bearable age are actually attractive, after you exclude those with self-inflicted ugliness.
Yes, abnormal weight (both body-positive and body-negative) is self-inflicted. So is slobbiness, makeup, etc.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:40PM
Makeup, piercings, and tattoos can be forgiven if they are attractive enough. Fat not so much. And if someone is fat once, they are likely to stay that way or relapse.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday August 31 2017, @02:13AM (1 child)
The funny thing is, I even like - visually - a little more chunk than average on women, and I would never consider marrying one. What? I want my baby being fed Cheetos and Twix through the womb? They aren't getting big on spinach and rice.
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:37AM
Here's a thought: You don't have to marry one to knock her up... and you don't have to knock up the one you marry...
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews