Funny story.

My mom is in her mid 50s but looks about 37. Everyone thinks her husband is her dad and get grossed out when she says "no it's my husband". Like he robbed the cradle.

I asked him how he felt about having a wife that looks 25 years younger than him. He replied "Great! Now ask her how she feels about having a husband that looks like her dad." That made me chuckle.

I've had a couple men tell me they would never date a significally younger woman and the idea of it seems to annoy them. Also they shake their heads when their friends do it.

But! I have seen them pick very pretty women (near their age) and are almost more finicky about the women they date.

The only possibility of a save is that women in their 20s are not necessarily targeting the same men as women in their 30s...

But 30s is late to start looking, especially if you want a family. I mean, it's one thing if you've been looking but had bad luck, there are plenty of people who don't find what they are looking for right away, and that sucks, but there are always going to be some. But to -start- looking? That means if you're one of those folks who don't find what you want right away, you're then in your mid-40s...

This all goes to the problem that our society has created for itself. In terms of perceived social value, women in their 20s have very high value. They have physical attractiveness; the ones pursuing careers are in high demand due to affirmative-action laws and political correctness, and the world of media caters to them and presents mostly-positive images of them. By contrast, men in their 20s have very low social value. They are just getting started on their careers; most of them are working entry-level jobs or close to it. They haven't had time to accumulate wealth or status symbols. Media portrayals of them are mostly negative, and marketing ignores them because it's assumed that they have no money to spend.

It's no surprise, then, that a lot of women in their 20s regard men in their age cohort as beneath them. Equally, it should not be a surprise that when the generation gets into their 30s and 40s, the script starts to flip: as men start to find that women are attracted to them, they remember that their age cohort ignored them when they were younger.

This is of course a generalization, and as is always the case, there is lots of room for individual variation. However, the existence of outliers does not disprove the average.

Sandberg says we're calling girls "bossy" when we should be calling them leaders. Bossiness and leadership are not the same thing. Bossy means being over domineering and telling people what to do when you have no authority over them and when they don't want direction from you. Kids of either sex who are bossy need to be taught to respect other people's boundaries and right to make their own decisions.

The real story here is not just the deliberate and PC-driven lack of honesty. It's the consequences. There is a generation of women who have been lied to their whole lives and are now in their mid-30s with successful careers but realizing that:

1. Many men their age are looking for women in their 20s;
2. Other men have "gone Galt" on marriage/family entirely;
3. If they DO find a man, even a two-year dating/engagement/marriage/start-a-family timeframe puts them into their late-30s.
4. Having a second child puts them well into their 40s.
5. Fertility problems and birth defects are far more prevalent among older women.

If you grew up being told: "Get your career going; you can start a family in your 30s," the math doesn't work, and you're screwed.

Thanks feminists.

There are times for bossy. At a party, my friend pulled a magazine editor and my boyfriend aside. She told the editor about my boyfriend in a single sentence and said, "You need to have him do a piece for you." They met because of that and struck up a friendship, and my boyfriend will probably do something for that editor because of my friend.

I don't know what the "sweet spot" is for women to get married. We may be hottest in our early twenties, but I don't think many of us are mature enough to build a lasting marriage at that age.

We may be hottest in our early twenties, but I don't think many of us are mature enough to build a lasting marriage at that age. -- Insufficient Poison at March 14, 2014 7:21 AM

Actually I think it is more a matter how they (both men and women) were parented.

The modern kids that have had no boundaries, never learned that life is compromise and haven't had an example of loving parents really has no good base of how to do it.

Hey, AB, there are women who have "Gone Galt" on marriage/family, too. I'm one of them.

I'm in my early 50s. If you offer me the choice of a mid-20s, mid-30s, or mid-40s woman to date/mate/marry/whatever, I'll think of it this way:

mid-20s, a bit young, could use a little seasoning, but I should talk to her since maturity level does not necessarily correspond with age.

mid-30s, odds on favorite, but again I'll want to speak to her and see what's what.

mid-40s, a bit long in the tooth, but experience and cunning beat youth and exuberance every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'll need to speak to her and see if there is experience and cunning.

And who is to say: if that's the right mid-20s who's got maturity beyond her years and some experience and cunning? nice combination, and that would be my pick.

You could even make a TV show out of it: The Bachelor, Sith Edition

that a lot of women in their 20s regard men in their age cohort as beneath them

Age cohort? what does that mean? Most women, for instance, do not date men their age or younger. There are exceptions, but by and large that's true.

As was said in 16 Candles "I never dated a freshman, even when I was a freshman."

I think women in their 20s will look at a 4-7 year age difference as optimal. A man who's pushing 30 shouldn't be hosting keggers any more, if he's established, has a decent or better job, and doesn't have a boatload of debt, he's prime material.

"Age cohort? what does that mean? Most women, for instance, do not date men their age or younger. There are exceptions, but by and large that's true."

That's exactly what I meant. It's long been tradition that women marry men who are a few years older than them, but not enough so that it matters once they progress beyond young adulthood. However, with the current trends, I foresee that most women who marry in their 20s will be marrying men who are at least 10 years older. That means that most men will have no mating prospects for the first 15 years or so of their adulthood. By the time they are old enough and have enough status to be attractive to women, many of them will have soured on the whole thing.

If my last name was "Blow," I'd change it.

Well here is kind of the rub and it plays out with the staggeringly high divorce rate. A women in her early 20s has pretty much nothing to offer but looks. Which is nice but limited in the long run. Guy that only go for looks get burned in those divorces real bad when the inevitable years and mommy hood grind down her one and only asset.

The other point is how one spent those 20's. Looking fresh and fun at 22 with poor diet and booze is fairly easy but aging begins to accelerate. So you can have a fresh and firm 30 something or seriously used 30 something.

Two kids if you start in your mid 30s should have you done before the dreaded 40. So I'm not sure where the math is coming from.

"It's actually just a biologically-driven fact of life." So is the bang and bail but you feel that this one can and should be overcome. From an evolutionary stand point the best practice is to seduce and procreate with as many young naive women as possible and let society take care of it. Which as we can see from the rampant fatherless epidemic works. Those that follow this plan have way more offspring. Thus by evolutionary standards are more successful.

White knights like Blow, in thrall to their feminist masters and social conditioning, will always deny simple biological reality.

The only possibility of a save is that women in their 20s are not necessarily targeting the same men as women in their 30s...

Depends on whether they are looking for a sugar daddy or to start a family. Seems to me the requisites for a family man would be the same regardless of the womans age

Median age of marriage in the U.S. is 27 for women, 29 for men. That doesn't seem to indicate that a big age gap is typical.

Poison--"Bossiness and leadership are not the same thing."

Indeed. I know several people who are recognized (by me and by others) as outstanding leaders, and few of them have the kind of personality that would be called "bossy."

Sandberg's confusion on this point probably says a great deal about her own personality and management style.

"Women are at their hottest in their early 20s, typically. "

That's not the same thing as being a simpering, non-confrontational, passive-aggressive little ditz.

Bossy has its place, whatever your age.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/01/23/lieutenant-paves-the-way-for-female-soldiers.html

Bossy has its place, whatever your age. [link] -- Jim at March 14, 2014 3:21 PM

Yes it does. And she can do the job she has to. She can meet the standards to do the job.

But could she crack track (on an M-1 tank)? Or hump a mortar and shells up the backside of a hill? Or help drag a Green Beret teammate 15 miles over hill and dale to get to the extraction point.

I have no problem with females in combat roles. But they have to up to the standards. The standards should not be lowered to allow them in.

Yes it does. And she can do the job she has to. She can meet the standards to do the job.

But could she crack track (on an M-1 tank)? Or hump a mortar and shells up the backside of a hill? Or help drag a Green Beret teammate 15 miles over hill and dale to get to the extraction point.

I have no problem with females in combat roles. But they have to up to the standards. The standards should not be lowered to allow them in.

Posted by: Jim P. at March 14, 2014 5:04 PM

The military has been emphasizing brawn over brains for a long time now. Cracking track can be done by a high school drop out with an an I.Q of eighty five.

But who do you want supervizing your nuclear missile silo, the crack tracker or the woman graduate of MIT?

The demand continues to drop for the individual who can hump artillery shells, and continues to climb for people who can lead, and anticipate and fix technical problems.

Are you going to carry your reasoning to the logical extremes, and insist that the fifty year old commanding General of Fort Benning be able to run as fast for three miles in a full rucksack as the 17 year old private in one of his infantry platoons?

I've seen the Army get way more fit, and also considerably dumber, particularly in the leadership for the last thirty years.

Part of this has been because of afirmative action. Part has been because of needing as easy objective standard to measure people against each other for promotion purposes.

The demand continues to drop for the individual who can hump artillery shells, and continues to climb for people who can lead, and anticipate and fix technical problems. -- Isab at March 15, 2014 12:44 AM

And we have to hope that Putin doesn't go into Poland. Because as it stands now a land war in Europe is not going to be technical war. It is going to be a brute onslaught of tanks, artillery, mortars, and infantry. It will be sleeping in foxholes and humping rucksacks. So she may be an expert marksman, but if she can't haul the 250 or 500 rounds to that foxhole that means someone will have to bring it for her. Plus his own rounds.

That will cut down on the effectiveness.

And no I don't expect the fifty year old general to keep up with the 17 year infantry troop. But if the platoon commander can't, that is a different story.

So yes we do need intelligent leaders, while at the same time that is not the complete answer.

Are you going to carry your reasoning to the logical extremes, and insist that the fifty year old commanding General of Fort Benning be able to run as fast for three miles in a full rucksack as the 17 year old private in one of his infantry platoons?

If he's got a feild post he damn well better be able to pass the physical tests, no matter his age

It's long been tradition that women marry men who are a few years older than them, but not enough so that it matters once they progress beyond young adulthood. However, with the current trends, I foresee that most women who marry in their 20s will be marrying men who are at least 10 years older.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at March 14, 2014 8:54 AM
________________________________

What makes you say THAT?

A ten-year difference or more is very often - usually? - enough to turn off your average female college graduate who's under 30, methinks. Can't believe certain people - including Susan Patton - didn't notice that.

A five-year difference is another matter altogether - but if I could turn back time (to my 20s), I would have stuck with the same rule I self-imposed in my teen years: No dating anyone who was more than three years older than I was.

Also, as one man pointed out (in effect) at an MRA website, a man's being tall and financially secure doesn't necessarily mean much to any woman who's young enough to be his daughter. (Well, unless she's just looking for a fling - maybe.)

Incidentally, regarding "Gone With the Wind," what the Scarlett-haters never seem to notice is that of COURSE Scarlett took forever to fall in love with Rhett - when they first met, he was more than TWICE her age!! She was never romantically attracted to men that old - why should she be? (In the book, he even tried to make his age sound like an asset in his proposal - as well as ignoring her obvious aversion to motherhood, which was inevitable back then. Sheesh. Not to mention that he was highly educated while she had nothing but contempt for education.)

I will say, though, that if you want to get married, whether you're male or female, it's a very good idea to start looking in the 20s, simply because the candidates will disappear faster than you think - and/or come back as divorced/single parents. Not fun. Besides, people over 30 are very often stuck in their bad or annoying habits.

Poison--"Bossiness and leadership are not the same thing."

Indeed. I know several people who are recognized (by me and by others) as outstanding leaders, and few of them have the kind of personality that would be called "bossy."

Sandberg's confusion on this point probably says a great deal about her own personality and management style.

Posted by: David Foster at March 14, 2014 1:23 PM
________________________________

Or maybe Sandberg is just trying to get KIDS to understand that while rude girls, elected leaders or not, deserve to be called rude, the trouble with "bossy" is that it's an insult commonly thrown at both rude AND polite, assertive girls? There's no such thing as being too polite (as opposed to being a doormat) and if kids don't understand verbal subtleties like that right away, well, why not start teaching them good and early?

Another, different example would be students who call stern, formal teachers (men and women alike, but mostly women) "bossy" behind their backs because they don't understand that teachers shouldn't have to be sugar and spice if they don't want to be. (Something more parents should teach their kids.) Not that some teachers aren't bullies, but that's a different story. Kids who don't have what it takes to become leaders should not be allowed to put down those who do.

If he's got a feild post he damn well better be able to pass the physical tests, no matter his age

Posted by: lujlp at March 15, 2014 12:50 PM

Passing the PT test (which is age normed, and sex normed ) and keeping up with a 17 year old man are two different things.

I have noticed, that the men who bluster the most about women not being able to do combat jobs, have a blatant double standard when it comes to the leaders of those soldiers. They think that a woman who can run 2/3s as fast as the 17 year old (but faster than the commanding general) is somehow unsuited for leadership.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that the reason that little girls are more likely to be called bossy is because they're more likely to be bossy. Similar behavior in boys is regarded as bullying, not 'leadership', and it manifests differently.

For the record, I don't think that bossiness is a characteristic trait of little girls simply that it's a bit more prevalent among girls. Anyone who's spent enough time around children will recognize that girls are generally more likely to be fastidious about other people's social behavior and to want to orchestrate organized social activity. IMO bossiness in kids is the excess of these traits, which is where it's different from simply being selfish and bratty. The bossy kid not only wants to get their own way, but they want to determine what the other kids get and do as well. That's not out of malice, they just assume that they know what everyone should be getting and doing.

This is what Sheryl Sandberg acknowledges about her own behavior as a child and why both her teachers and family regarded her as bossy. It wasn't the kids who where were telling her she was bossy, it was the adults.

What she doesn't account for is that the adults in her life most likely worked to moderate this tendency, to channel it constructively. They didn't let it become a handicap that alienated her from people.

Bossiness is not a positive trait and it's not the root of leadership skills. We won't be doing girls a favor by trying to turn bossiness into a virtue.

I'll admit that trying to tell one's peers what to do all the time (without permission) is not bullying, per se, but it's still very rude. Not sure how that's different from being "bratty," unless bratty kids are more aware that they're being rude. Either way, they have to be called on it.

Especially, of course, when they start trying to order their superiors around.

"What makes you say THAT?"

Because that's what women in their '20s are going to be looking for. They'll do that because their social status at that age is very much higher than men of the same age. Women who can't get that will rather remain single than settle for a man of their own age cohort. I'm already seeing it happen.

Passing the PT test (which is age normed, and sex normed ) and keeping up with a 17 year old man are two different things. -- Isab at March 15, 2014 2:55 PM

And I have no problem with those standards.

But an MOS 11B has to keep up with his or her unit to actually lead them. In a true combat situation there are no days off; there is no no don't shoot me because I'm a woman; there is no we can stop every 15 minutes because the rucksack is too heavy.

The soldier has to be ready to fight in the most adverse conditions at a moment's notice.

And then there was the Battle of Khe Sanh. If you don't think every person that base at some point hung a mortar or slammed home an arty shell you're kidding yourself. I saw the video of how the USAF delivered the beans and bullets. The pilots would land the C-130's. The flight crews would push the crates out the back of the plane. The Army would then have about five minutes to clear the crates off the runway before the next plane landed. It was a minimum two man job for most of the crates, if not more. If half the force there didn't have the upper body strength to get enough bullets in and out of the way, do you thin the NVA would have cared?

I'm not saying that in some cases that changing the standards wouldn't make sense. But in others it could make a life and death difference.