"Sorry, But Your Genes Haven't Been Reading Ms. Or Feminist Blogs"
That was my tweet in response to this tweet from XX Factor from Slate:
@DoubleXMag Young men still expected to be providers http://slate.me/dHKn9L
A follow-up tweet from me:
Likewise, men's genes have remained deaf to feminism's demand that they lust after woman because she looks type to buy a homeless man a sandwich.
Yes, reality bites, all around. Having the attitude that it "shouldn't" won't change that. So, if you're a man, probably a good idea to earn a living, and if you're a woman who wants a man, probably a good idea to go easy on the Doritos and to gussy yourself up before you leave the house.
Amy is so right about this. No, I don't expect a man to support me but I want him to make enough money to be able to even though he wont have to.
On a side note. Amy do you know if Taubes has done any research on low carbing and anti-psychotics. I take Seroquel, which is known to make people balloon up to crazy weights. I think it must change the way my body reacts to sugar because if I completely remove all sugar in my diet I loose weight as quickly as I gained it. When I first low-carbed I lost 14lbs in less than 3 weeks which I think is an amazing amount in such a short period. I loose an average 5lbs per week if I do less than 30gs of effective carbs.
Ppen at April 18, 2011 11:15 PM
Is the woman buying the homeless man a sandwich with her money or her husbands money? I think there will be a lot of men in line to marry the woman if she is ready to spend money on the guy and buy him the house and the car and not buy the homeless man the sandwich with his money. The point is ...it all boils down to the expectation of money and looks. A good looking guy is still expected to provide while the ugly woman still expects to be provided for. A good looking unemployed guy will happily marry an ugly woman provided she provides and does not expect to be provided for. Similarly a good looking unemployed woman will marry and ugly rich guy because he provides as we have seen in so many cases. Cheating on partners(provider) in such a setting etc is variable and ymmv and will happen on both sides and is for later consideration, but the marriage/partnership etc is purely based on the considerations of how much people think they should provide/be provided for based on their looks and when there is an unreasonable expectation the way it normally happens with women, the expectation does not materialize
Redrajesh at April 18, 2011 11:18 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/19/sorry_but_your.html#comment-2055825">comment from PpenAmy do you know if Taubes has done any research on low carbing and anti-psychotics. I take Seroquel, which is known to make people balloon up to crazy weights.
I don't think he has. And even if you don't need a man to support you, women evolved to value men who are providers, so your statement -- "I want him to make enough money to be able to even though he wont have to" -- isn't surprising.
I'm with you. I don't need to get married, in large part, because I never needed or wanted a man to support me (after Dad, during my childhood years, and college).
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2011 11:25 PM
"A good looking unemployed guy will happily marry an ugly woman provided she provides and does not expect to be provided for."
No, he won't. Not happily, in fact, not at all.
Spartee at April 19, 2011 6:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/19/sorry_but_your.html#comment-2056517">comment from SparteeSpartee is right. And if he does marry a woman for her money, chances are he'll cheat on her left, right, and center.
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2011 6:51 AM
This was a big part of the problem for me and my ex. I found it unreasonable that I had to look good for him AND have three jobs while he sat on his ass playing video games and complaining about the job market while he was turning down perfectly good jobs because they were "chick" jobs.
I decided that if I got married again, it would be to someone who could pay his own rent. I don't need him to pay my bills, but I won't be paying his. Temporary layoffs and disability are something else, but I didn't appreciate being married to someone who made it a lifestyle choice.
MonicaP at April 19, 2011 7:10 AM
One revelation I have noticed over the past several years of this economy is how petty many wives are. I have three married male friends who were prior making six figure incomes, but now make about 1/3 what they were making. One went into bankruptcy. In these three cases, though the men are struggling and working harder than before, the wives really refuse to adapt to their newer lower standard of living, and openly communicate their disappointment in their husband's inability to earn more money.
Eric at April 19, 2011 8:05 AM
Yeah, the economic situation has clarified the nature of a lot of marriages. I have friends who are in the same boat as Eric's. Their wives just can't wrap their heads around the reality of their situation, and are taking it out on their husbands.
One thing that I credit my mom for is that despite the advantages that she had when she came to this country with my father, she never bought into the American Princess mindset, and she didn't raise my sisters that way. Their friends, on the other hand, were brought up to believe that they 'deserve' to have men take care of them. You can see the consequences in their marriages.
I generally like American women, but they do tend to have an exaggerated sense of entitlement.
George P. at April 19, 2011 9:21 AM
One thing that I credit my mom for is that despite the advantages that she had when she came to this country with my father, she never bought into the American Princess mindset, and she didn't raise my sisters that way. Their friends, on the other hand, were brought up to believe that they 'deserve' to have men take care of them. You can see the consequences in their marriages.
Then there's the old-school approach of my parents and grandparents. My mother and grandmother expected that their husbands would be earning most or all of the income and would have been seriously displeased with any other arrangement. On the other hand, they were working just as hard or harder, but not for money, so their expectations don't seem out of line.
MonicaP at April 19, 2011 9:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/19/sorry_but_your.html#comment-2057366">comment from MonicaPMy parents are very much a team. They now work together, too.
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2011 9:47 AM
Change takes a long time.
nuzltr2 at April 19, 2011 9:57 AM
ah, those two little words: "deserve" and "expectation"
There are a lot of things that we deserve that we hope never to get, because it's not always positive... but the TV commercials don't mention that, do they? Somehow the expectation that things will never change, the the princess will never have to descend from on high, and get out and push. That if the foolish sod can't provide, she should just find another.
These seem to be an outflow of having too many choices. When the groovy society of the 60's threw off the shackles and the revolution came, what they didn't realize was that all the rules they were throwing away had a purpose originally. Rules need to be replaced sometimes, not just thrown away. So you get super-empowered femmes that think they can have it all, and yet? Aren't happy with it. Seems like it's too many choices...
SwissArmyD at April 19, 2011 10:16 AM
"One revelation I have noticed over the past several years of this economy is how petty many wives are. I have three married male friends who were prior making six figure incomes, but now make about 1/3 what they were making. One went into bankruptcy. In these three cases, though the men are struggling and working harder than before, the wives really refuse to adapt to their newer lower standard of living, and openly communicate their disappointment in their husband's inability to earn more money."
On a personal level I haven't run into that before, but I come from a different (lower) financial bracket then your friends do. My married friends treat each other like partners through job loss etc, so it makes me wonder if this issue is more pronounced depending on class.
Back in my 20's I helped people write personal ads (as a job) and over the years I spoke to thousands of people. I noticed that as the wealth of a man increased the higher his standards for physical beauty in a "mate" were. My theory was that the men considered themselves to be excellent providers and felt that they were entitled to hot women (that included the 5'1", 500lb millionaire I spoke to once, he was almost more specific in looks then anyone). The women they usually ended up with were the ones who spent tons of time and money on their appearances (pretty much a necessity, these guys were PICKY).
My theory about the women was that they spent a ton of time working out and a ton of money on grooming and felt that due to their looks they were entitled to an excellent provider. Which seems only fair given the circumstance. Once again, that isn't how I've lived my life, that isn't how my friends have been in their lives but I saw that over and over again once people reached a certain financial level.
I wonder if what happens after a job loss or a change of fortune is that after so much time of being the excellent provider the men still have the same expectations of their wives and their wives feel that their husbands still needed to be able to provide for the grooming that had been expected of them for so long? Like I said, maintaining that level of attractiveness costs money...
binewskio at April 19, 2011 10:26 AM
In keeping with the "keeping up the looks" statement, but totally off topic (forgive me, Amy), here's a look at a life-size Barbie, and a slide-show of Barbie through the years (lower down on the page at the link):
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42595605
Flynne at April 19, 2011 10:35 AM
Yep, the more "equal" women get, the unhappier they will certainly be. The soon-to-be-exterminated pedestal that women have occupied (while complaining about it) will be remembered by them with wistful, bitter sadness when it is toppled -- and they can feel it cracking already. "Misogyny?" Ha! Just wait until men generally treat women the way they treat other men. You won't need to wait much longer.
The inevitable elimination of chivalry in the service of reaching true sexual equality will leave the vast majority of women in degraded circumstances, indeed -- enslaved in order to provide tax revenue to gubmint, and profits to corporations.
We won't be hearing so much from women about how wonderful feminism is after it finally accomplishes its corrosive mission to completely alienate the sexes from one another while most men and women are turned into drones to be exploited for the benefit of the elite.
When you think about it, the loss of the value of women's collective talent and labor for their own families and communities, and the corresponding profits to gubmint and big business, is one of the most staggering transfers of wealth in recent times. Yet, women are told that they have been "empowered." "Exploited" is more like it.
If they have any integrity whatsoever, women must be ready to accept that in a truly equal, post-feminist "dog-eat-bitch-eat-dog" competition for economic survival and control of resources, most women are more than likely to come out the clear losers. You can't be equal until you stand an equal chance of falling on your face or getting your butt kicked.
It is easy for one to feel tall when being carried on someone else's shoulders, as women have been carried by men. Are women willing to give up the "pussy pass" in order to EARN genuine respect from men? Are women willing to rely solely on their own earnings? Are women willing to accept the permanent consequences of defeat and failure in the interest of "equality"?
I, for one, am not holding my breath. The things is, ladies, willing or not, a storm's a comin', and the "oppressive" pedestal you occupy has been weakened beyond repair by the feminists who are looking out so well for your interests.
In the end, a few women will be able to claw, scratch, and/or f**k their way to the top, so it will all have been worthwhile, right?
Jay R at April 19, 2011 11:22 AM
I wonder if what happens after a job loss or a change of fortune is that after so much time of being the excellent provider the men still have the same expectations of their wives and their wives feel that their husbands still needed to be able to provide for the grooming that had been expected of them for so long?
You raise an interesting point here. When a guy loses his job, his wife doesn't (usually) gain 300 pounds overnight and stop showering. Suddenly, the reasons they chose each other as mates are thrown out of whack. On one hand, men seem to think it's OK to dump a woman who stops taking care of her looks, citing evolutionary psych, but if a woman dumps a guy who stops being a provider, she's a shallow gold-digger. (In many cases she is; just pointing out the differences in expectations.)
You get what you pay for. If your main concern is in marrying a hot chick, realize that you may be getting nothing more than a fantastic set of boobs. If your main concern is marrying rich, realize you won't have a lot to sustain you if he's not so rich anymore.
MonicaP at April 19, 2011 11:40 AM
Thanks Flynne. I loved that Barbie slideshow.
Barbie seems to influence girls of all ages and races. I've seen several black gay men refer themselves as barbie, as well as black female singers like Nicki Minaj and Little Kim.
Ppen at April 19, 2011 11:42 AM
Jay R, I think you need some therapy.
binewskio at April 19, 2011 11:57 AM
Monica, exactly. And of course our perceptions of the opposite sex are going to be greatly influenced by which course we take on the choosing a mate path. For example I suspect that Jay R has possibly gone the "arrogant rich guy marries the money grubbing hot women" route, since his view of men and women is definitely different than the views you would find within groups of people where both spouses NEED to work. Many of my friends have chosen to not marry at all, perfectly happy to live on their own (yep, usually meager) earnings and the friends I have who have married have gone into marriage as a partnership, assuming that both spouses would work and that both partners would share in the upkeep of home and raising of children. I certainly haven't lived my life depending on or even wanting a "pussy pass" or by riding on the shoulders of anyone male or female.
binewskio at April 19, 2011 12:11 PM
Change takes a long time.
It's probably never going to. This arrangement has arisen so that women can provide their children with the care and nurturing that they require. The idea that a modern woman should put their child in a kennel at 6 months and pursue a full time professional career is one that is intended to abuse both women and children. It's a vestige of worn out Feminist and Marxist doctrine. It's also peculiar to Anglo countries, where Feminism is stuck in 1970-forever.
Once you accept that women are bound by their commitment to their children, the necessity of finding a provider follows.
George P. at April 19, 2011 1:06 PM
"Jay R, I think you need some therapy. "
I think Jay wandered over from Roissy...
carol at April 19, 2011 1:26 PM
George,
You're completely right that the provider/homemaker relationship makes perfect sense with children. Six months? Most maternity leave policies have women kenneling their babies at six weeks! You wouldn't dream of selling a litter of kittens away from their mother before eight weeks, yet human babies only get six.
I've heard so many women say that, in this day and age, both parents need to work to make ends meet. They then drive away, feeling very empowered, in one of their two brand new cars.
Children may be the most affected victims of the feminist movement.
whistleDick at April 19, 2011 2:55 PM
Ross Douthat said it best in a recent column (to which, unfortunately, I do not have a link). From memory:
Hey Skipper at April 19, 2011 3:42 PM
the NEED for both spouses to work outside the house, is a curious one...
WHY is it needed? A lot, LOT of people look at that stat like it's a given, but it really is quite complicated.
Many people no longer do much more than a vague handwave about what they want in life. Do you want a family? Or Not? Are you willing to make the kinds of sacrifices necessary to have one? Or not? Do you want to have a career instead? Or not?
I wnet in to marriage with a woman who was, and wanted to be, my equal partner. In our discussions we agreed that we would both work, even after kids, and generally do that suburbanite thing. And then one day?
She changed her mind about having to work. Suddenly it was all MY problem, to make that suburban thing happen. Interestingly I didn't have the option of changing my mind, or deciding to no longer work for money. That was never on the table.
In hindsight I was a fool to accept that for so long, but I'd wager most guys who are now in their mid 40's figured it was the right thing to do. Even though it blew the doors on most of my plans, because hey, the budget was for 2 TWO t-w-o breadwinners.
I moved into a more lucrative field, and worked it... and made things happen on one salary.
What I got for that was one nasty piece of entitled work who was never happy with it, and berated me constantly for never working enough, never spending enough time with her, and never being there for the kids.
Interestingly, she would never accept the potential option of going back to work, now that the kids were in school, so that there would be more money to do the things she wanted.
Do you really NEED 2 incomes? Some do, some don't. The question is, have you sized your life correctly?
The idea of providers is problematic for one reason. It presents an us vs. them approach. Aren't you supposed to be some kind of team or unit? You will both likely work in some way, regardless if it's outide for money, or inside making lasagne.
What plans and expectations do you have for the unit? Can the unit withstand a job loss? Can the unit withstand illness? Can the unit withstand increasing in size?
When one person always expects a standard of living that they have "become accustomed to..." the idea of the unit is gone, and is replaced with 2 people with opposed agendas. No longer complementary, no longer an engine driving forward.
Who makes that decision? Why do they think it's the better one?
oh, and? what makes anyone think JayR needs therapy, or isn't someone who posts here all the time? He's gets to have an opinion just like eveyone else... you don't have to agree with it, but dismissing it out of hand weakens your own argument.
SwissArmyD at April 19, 2011 4:56 PM
SwissArmy, I think you have a lot of great points, it is about the unit and what works for the two of them together. If a woman wants to be a homemaker and it's financially viable for the family, that's wonderful, or vice versa for that matter. If both people want to work, great. The issue is when the only option for a woman is to be the mother/homemaker. I never wanted kids of my own (and hear from person after person how selfish and awful I am that I'm not doing my part as a woman in society). Later on it turned out that I couldn't have kids of my own, if I didn't have the option to work and go to school available to me and if in our society my only value was to have a child and clean house I might as well have not been born. Think about that in reverse, imagine yourself in that situation for a moment.
The reason that I made my comment about Jay R needing therapy isn't because he has an opinion about women and our roles in society, it's the way he expressed it and the misogynistic undertones. I read what he said and it gave me the chills. The idea that as a woman the only way I could win against a man is by "clawing, scratching and fucking" my way to the top, the fact that he mentioned things about women wanting and using a "pussy pass", his commentary about women being carried on men's shoulders...that was disturbing as hell. Notice I didn't make similar comments about people who are also in favor of women having more traditional roles in society, that's because while I might not agree with their ideals I don't find their mindset creepy as hell.
binewskio at April 19, 2011 5:38 PM
I always said I never expected a man to support me, but he damn well better be able to support himself. Now, hubby supports me and has since the first Ob appt after the wedding. Would not have had kids with a man who couldn't.
DH just got a fantastic new job this year, that means even when I finish up degree #2 and work, I'll make less than him whereas before I would have matched him. I'm cool with that. Totally cool with it.
He does joke that I'm his retirement plan, though, when I finally start working :)
momof4 at April 19, 2011 6:07 PM
"You raise an interesting point here. When a guy loses his job, his wife doesn't (usually) gain 300 pounds overnight and stop showering. Suddenly, the reasons they chose each other as mates are thrown out of whack. On one hand, men seem to think it's OK to dump a woman who stops taking care of her looks, citing evolutionary psych, but if a woman dumps a guy who stops being a provider, she's a shallow gold-digger. (In many cases she is; just pointing out the differences in expectations.)"
Monica, I see your point, but I don't think the analogy you presented is a good one. Job loss isn't usually voluntary (I'm getting first-hand experience with that right now). Someone who loses their job due to an economic downturn or some kind of business disaster can't be compared to someone who just decides to lay on the couch and eat ice cream all day. Now, if the guy has just decided he doesn't feel like working anymore (or never really did), your point is valid. (Or to turn the analogy around: the guy who dumps his wife because she lost a breast to cancer.)
But considering the situation right now, I don't that accounts for very many of the men who are seeing their income go down. I guess you've seen the stats about how this recession is disproportionately impacting men.
Cousin Dave at April 19, 2011 6:46 PM
"Spartee is right. And if he does marry a woman for her money, chances are he'll cheat on her left, right, and center" - you mean to say that women who marry the guy for his money do not cheat on him left, right and center? Like some 25 year old stripper who marries some 78 year old oil tycoon? And I already mentioned that this cheating will happen in both cases(poor guy-rich woman and rich guy-poor woman)
I pretty much did go after a woman at work who looked like she would give a homeless man a sandwich...her looks were average to say the least(and extremely homely). My expectation in going after her was that she would not touch my money on any given day and that she would be self reliant and do what she wants by herself without expecting any unreasonable effort and no money form me on any given day. Plus she was very diligent and attentive and self reliant in her work and technically good...qualities which I think she would have displayed in the house as well. I never saw her flaunting any luxury items(unlike some fat pigs who I have seen at work) or dressing in a fashionable manner or using makeup on any given day so I guess she was not bothered by all these things which was another plus point in my opinion. And she never tried to bypass any processes at work or demand special treatment for herself at any point of time at work(hopefully the same would have carried over at home).
I gave up after I got to know that she was already married.
And as far as my looks go, they are pretty much above average(6'1'', 190 lbs, good biceps and triceps due to regular workouts at the gym for more than 3 years. I do bicep curls of 45 lbs even today), so the woman(5'2'' and skinny, probably less than 110 lbs and almost flat chested - I like healthy/muscular women) was definitely nowhere near good looking compared to me. But if I had married the above woman and she had turned out to be as I had expected in character(not expecting me to provide for her as a matter of right,self reliant, diligent, no nagging etc), there is no way I would have cheated on her.
Most cheating by men(average men at least - not superstars like Tiger Woods) is not because of a physical vacuum in their relationship, but it is because of an emotional vacuum where the guy is in the situation where he has to listen to the woman but she never listens to him despite his providing for her. The cheating happens not with someone who is necessarily good looking, but is someone who actually listens to him and empathizes with him(or acts like she is empathizing with him and of course he does not realize that she is acting)...at least that is how it starts off before it matures into something else.
@MonicaP - "This was a big part of the problem for me and my ex. I found it unreasonable that I had to look good for him AND have three jobs while he sat on his ass playing video games and complaining about the job market while he was turning down perfectly good jobs because they were "chick" jobs" - actually, this is a problem for most american men. Most men look better than their wives and work multiple jobs while she just sits on her ass watching "Oprah" and "Bold and the beautiful" while whining and turning down jobs because the jobs actually involve work or have no career growth or is a bit far away or some other excuse.
Welcome to the male world where you at least get to see a semblance of the problems that men face due to lopsided laws and the lack of choice in the life of men.
Redrajesh at April 19, 2011 10:51 PM
"A lack of choice in the life of men"? Oh good lord. Can't we just acknowledge that life is hard for everyone and that we all, men and women, rich people and poor people all have different struggles that come with our specific sets of circumstances? I'm not sure where some of you guys get your assumptions about the cushy little lives of us horrible, lazy women but those assumptions you are all making about an entire sex are as bad as the assumptions you complain about women making about you.
binewskio at April 19, 2011 11:33 PM
actually, this is a problem for most american men. ...
I must be a statistical abnormality, because I don't see this happening to MOST American men I know. Plenty of my male friends married women who respect them, and they have crafted balanced lives for themselves. Some men are miserable. Some women are miserable, too. Bad choices will make you miserable, as I learned myself.
And the SAHMs in my age group don't watch Oprah or soaps. They're all either working or taking care of their kids.
MonicaP at April 20, 2011 7:39 AM
You might be interested to know that at my Federal facility, where every government regulation applies and Diversity Is Queen, women are not only given a pass when not performing, they are also allowed to define sexual harassment.
What does that mean? It means that if you appear at their cubicle once, with paper in hand, to demonstrate that they did not fill out your service order correctly, that's harassment.
Fortunately, I keep all records. The idiot in question, after having caused our division lasting harm, was shifted to the job she really wanted, at no change in pay.
Radwaste at April 20, 2011 5:41 PM
Raddy, I had to sit through a freakin' diversity lecture at our Q&A session for "notified" employees a few weeks ago! And I couldn't help but notice that the bulk of the soon-to-be-laid-off people in the room were middle aged white guys like me.
Cousin Dave at April 20, 2011 8:33 PM
Leave a comment