Economics and Feminism

[TeePee4Prez]

This topic has perplexed me over the past year and there may actually be conservatives who agree with me on this.  Why is it that many women in 20-something the dating pool want the benefits of the feminist movement and at the same time want a guy that makes more than them?  What I mean by "benefits of the feminist movement" are equal pay, don't want to cook or want men to do more of the domestic work, etc.  It's not that I have a problem with cooking, hell I'd likely do most of it, but it seems most of these younger women fail to realize the 50/50 concept of relationships plus the costs of the feminist movement.  The reason most of these women can't find someone that makes more than them is simple- WE'RE COMPETING WITH THEM!  I know real family incomes have increased since 1970, but not real salaries given one particular job.  My relatively conservative dad says it's largely due to feminism and I hate to say it, he's right.  I don't think women should be forced back into the home to be barefoot and in the kitchen, but it really seems most women can't make up their minds as to what they want.  Am I wrong for thinking this?   

[dazzleman]

No, I think you're basically right in a lot of ways.

Men and women have been genetically programmed to think and act a certain way for thousands of years.  Men were programmed to look for attractive but faithful women to bear them children and to be good at raising those children.  Women were programmed to look for men who could be good providers to them and their children.  Faithfulness was never as important for men as for women because unlike a woman, who can always be sure a child is hers, a man must depend on his wife's faithfulness to not get saddled with raising and supporting other men's children.

Much of this thinking is politically incorrect today, but the underlying behaviors persist, whether we want to admit it or not.  Even highly successful women want men who make more money than they do.  And men in general do not find highly successful women attractive, for a variety of reasons.  Many feminist women complain bitterly about the second item I mentioned, but ignore the first.

At the same time, the feminist philosophy has instilled in many women a sense of entitlement -- an attitude of "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine."  There is an underlying contempt for men in the basic feminist philosophy that many many women, and even some men (nclib and earle) have absorbed, in some cases without even recognizing it.

The problem for these feminist women is that the balance of power in male-female relationships, in general, inexorably shifts against women and in favor of men as they age.  Aging men often have more of the things that would attract women, while aging women have fewer of the qualities that would attract men.  In addition, men peak sexually at an earlier age, so their mad desperation for sex is waning somewhat just as women are reaching their peak in that area.  Many women don't wake up to these basic immutable realities until it's too late, and then become bitter man-haters when they realize that they have forever lost the upper hand in dealing with men that feminists always told them was their birthright.

As far as the effect of feminism on economics, I hold feminism to be one of the key contributors to the cost of housing having risen much faster than the average single person's income.  How could it not, when most families switched from a singler wage earner to two wage earners, and the housing market is largely driven by what the people in an area can afford, in the aggregate, especially in areas with supply limitations.  The implications to those without two wage earners, or a superior single income, are obvious.

[Everett]

These women clearly desire to stand upon the zenith of humanity... until, of course, the time comes when they need to pay their bills. Then they suddenly want someone else to handle the problem. This may be possible for the Queen of England, but it's not possible for the average woman, and I am not sure why these women are under the impression that they can behave as though they are the Queen(s) of England and get away with it. A shoddy way of thinking, I daresay.

Of course, you have to remember that women generally can't make up their minds. It's an unfortunate fact. I might get assassinated for saying this, but some women just don't like admitting that they can never make up their minds.

[Rin-chan]

These women clearly desire to stand upon the zenith of humanity... until, of course, the time comes when they need to pay their bills. Then they suddenly want someone else to handle the problem. This may be possible for the Queen of England, but it's not possible for the average woman, and I am not sure why these women are under the impression that they can behave as though they are the Queen(s) of England and get away with it. A shoddy way of thinking, I daresay.

Of course, you have to remember that women generally can't make up their minds. It's an unfortunate fact. I might get assassinated for saying this, but some women just don't like admitting that they can never make up their minds.

I totally agree with what you guys are saying.

I also agree with Everett with the 'can't make up their minds' bit.  Even though I can come to decisions, it often takes a long time and it's so much easier to have someone else do the work for you.

Personally, I know I might be hated for this, I think men should be superior.  I have no problem with it.  If I was plopped into the middle of the early 1800's, I'd be much more loud and annoying than most other women then but I would be just as content. 

In school right now, I'm reading Reviving Ophelia by Mary Pipher.  The author is practically breeding girls to be feminists through her work in therapy.  They are taught to disregard everything their parents and society has taught them to be independent.  Unfortunately, as the three of you have said, they are not always capable of accepting the responsibility of a man.

It is a scientifically proven fact that men tend operate under stress better than women.  It's also a proven fact that women tend to be less physically strong.  This is not society, it's genetics.

Without the ability to keep up with the arduous stresses of the working world, the economy will suffer.  Not only the economy, but also the American family structure.  If both parents are working, who's there to enfore rules and show children what a family should be like?  No one.

All of society is affected.

Wow... I rambled on... Sorry if that makes NO sense.  I just finished reading 2 chapters of Reviving Ophelia and I got irritated by the feminism and the ignorance of it's consequences on society.

Rin-chan

[A18]

'Superior' and 'inferior' are completely subjective, so arguing over which sex is 'better' is pretty dumb.

And I was going to make a quip about Everett's rapid avatar changes, but you just ruined it.

[Rin-chan]

And I was going to make a quip about Everett's rapid avatar changes, but you just ruined it.

You can still make one, strangling.

Rin-chan

[A18]

Hey, it looked good.

And I was going to make a quip about Everett's rapid avatar changes, but you just ruined it.

You can still make one, strangling.

Rin-chan

Uh, strangling?

Anyway, that men are stronger is not exactly news. The operating under stress studies are more interesting, but I'm sure you could list plenty of things women are better at too.

[MaC]

I wouldn't much mind who makes more so long as it's fairly equal pay, and fairly equal distribution of chores around the house and work hours.

Considering the job I want (social work) doesn't pay well, I'd likely need a second source of income if I were to start a family.

[TeePee4Prez]

No, I think you're basically right in a lot of ways.

Men and women have been genetically programmed to think and act a certain way for thousands of years.  Men were programmed to look for attractive but faithful women to bear them children and to be good at raising those children.  Women were programmed to look for men who could be good providers to them and their children.  Faithfulness was never as important for men as for women because unlike a woman, who can always be sure a child is hers, a man must depend on his wife's faithfulness to not get saddled with raising and supporting other men's children.

Much of this thinking is politically incorrect today, but the underlying behaviors persist, whether we want to admit it or not.  Even highly successful women want men who make more money than they do.  And men in general do not find highly successful women attractive, for a variety of reasons.  Many feminist women complain bitterly about the second item I mentioned, but ignore the first.

At the same time, the feminist philosophy has instilled in many women a sense of entitlement -- an attitude of "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine."  There is an underlying contempt for men in the basic feminist philosophy that many many women, and even some men (nclib and earle) have absorbed, in some cases without even recognizing it.

The problem for these feminist women is that the balance of power in male-female relationships, in general, inexorably shifts against women and in favor of men as they age.  Aging men often have more of the things that would attract women, while aging women have fewer of the qualities that would attract men.  In addition, men peak sexually at an earlier age, so their mad desperation for sex is waning somewhat just as women are reaching their peak in that area.  Many women don't wake up to these basic immutable realities until it's too late, and then become bitter man-haters when they realize that they have forever lost the upper hand in dealing with men that feminists always told them was their birthright.

As far as the effect of feminism on economics, I hold feminism to be one of the key contributors to the cost of housing having risen much faster than the average single person's income.  How could it not, when most families switched from a singler wage earner to two wage earners, and the housing market is largely driven by what the people in an area can afford, in the aggregate, especially in areas with supply limitations.  The implications to those without two wage earners, or a superior single income, are obvious.

For some reason I Knew you would agree with me.  Of course like MaC said, I would not mind a woman that makes more than I, but for most of us men that's not gonna happen.  I have never said a woman's place is in the home, but women should realize that modern feminism has its costs and like I was going to say, but you said it, the housing market requires two incomes or a highly superior income to enter it especially in the Northeast Corridor and West Coast. 

As for women and the dating scene, I have been told by men in their late 20s to around your age, to give it time.  Most of these younger women will be more eager to find a man because their biological clock will be ticking, and not put them through the BS many of the younger ones do.  The married couples I tend to admre the most got married late, established themselves qute well in their respective professional fields, and always have a good time and go on cruises and do whatever they want.  My goal in the short term is to find someone I can have a good time with, have a few drinks, maybe get exposed to the theater or something I've never been exposed to before, and potentially a marriage partner.  I'm beginning to think this pressure to find that "one and only" is overhyped and I find myself pulling my hair out because of it. 

for dazzleman-  How long do you think my politics wll end up to the right of Joe Lieberman if at all?  Remember Georges Clemenceau's quote.

[TeePee4Prez]

I posted this same thread on DU's "Women's Issues" too see what reaction I'd get.  I want to see what kind of hornet's nest I hit on here and am dying for the reaction.

[opebo]

Flyers, you know you're on shakey ground when you're agreeing with the misogynist dazzleman.

The exeedingly low pay prevailing for american workers today is caused by the owners, not by the female workers, Flyers.

This is precisely analogous to accusations made in the past against African or Irish americans, who supposedly undercut the wages of the white man.

[A18]

Flyers, you know you're on shakey ground when you're agreeing with the misogynist dazzleman.

Misogynist? That quote is absolutely hilarious coming from you.

[TeePee4Prez]

Flyers, you know you're on shakey ground when you're agreeing with the misogynist dazzleman.

The exeedingly low pay prevailing for american workers today is caused by the owners, not by the female workers, Flyers.

This is precisely analogous to accusations made in the past against African or Irish americans, who supposedly undercut the wages of the white man.

opebo, yes you are right in part being that CEOs are making 500X what their average worker is which is much highed than the 20X in 1970, but you completely missed my point.  I have no problem with female workers making what men are, but it seems very ironic that at the same time they want their potential mate to make more than them.  This is not being anti-feminist, it's just saying I'm thinking a lot of these "equal rights" women fought for have its costs and being a working class male, I would know this and I will have to agree with dazzleman on this- sorry.  Since 1970, millions more people used BOTH incomes to buy a house and this in turn drastically increased prices of homes ergo requiring BOTH spouses to work. 

[minionofmidas]

Why is it that many women in 20-something the dating pool want the benefits of the feminist movement and at the same time want a guy that makes more than them? 

Because only those wrong social attitudes that are actively challenged change. Those that are not don't, creating imbalances. I could go on a rant about how many of the efforts to make women's situation in India better have had the opposite result. Should I?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's an obvious consequence of having less time or want men to do more of the domestic work, etc.[/quote]That's an obvious consequence of having less time, ie of working more, not of feminism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a way. You got it backwards though. The prize we paid for higher real family incomes since 1970 is longer family working hours. Which have come in the form of higher female work participation rates. Without these, there would not be higher real family incomes than in 1970, and no tv in every room, and only one family car.

And as to, a woman that makes more than I. I got that right now. My dad had that throughout my early childhood. Of course this is to do with the fact that it would be/have been hard to make less.

[opebo]

Flyers, you know you're on shakey ground when you're agreeing with the misogynist dazzleman.

The exeedingly low pay prevailing for american workers today is caused by the owners, not by the female workers, Flyers.

This is precisely analogous to accusations made in the past against African or Irish americans, who supposedly undercut the wages of the white man.

opebo, yes you are right in part being that CEOs are making 500X what their average worker is which is much highed than the 20X in 1970, but you completely missed my point.  I have no problem with female workers making what men are, but it seems very ironic that at the same time they want their potential mate to make more than them.  This is not being anti-feminist, it's just saying I'm thinking a lot of these "equal rights" women fought for have its costs and being a working class male, I would know this and I will have to agree with dazzleman on this- sorry.  Since 1970, millions more people used BOTH incomes to buy a house and this in turn drastically increased prices of homes ergo requiring BOTH spouses to work. 

You have a great point there Flyers, but women since the dawn of time have primarily wanted men for money - status, support, power, etc.  I don't know if that is a genetic role, or if was simply imposed upon them due to their slave-status in society, but it is very awkward in this transitional period.  Presumably, if women make enough money they will have no use for men at all!  

If I were you I wouldn't waste another minute with American women - get out of the Bad Place!  I recommend Asia or Latin America.

[TeePee4Prez]

Flyers, you know you're on shakey ground when you're agreeing with the misogynist dazzleman.

The exeedingly low pay prevailing for american workers today is caused by the owners, not by the female workers, Flyers.

This is precisely analogous to accusations made in the past against African or Irish americans, who supposedly undercut the wages of the white man.

opebo, yes you are right in part being that CEOs are making 500X what their average worker is which is much highed than the 20X in 1970, but you completely missed my point.  I have no problem with female workers making what men are, but it seems very ironic that at the same time they want their potential mate to make more than them.  This is not being anti-feminist, it's just saying I'm thinking a lot of these "equal rights" women fought for have its costs and being a working class male, I would know this and I will have to agree with dazzleman on this- sorry.  Since 1970, millions more people used BOTH incomes to buy a house and this in turn drastically increased prices of homes ergo requiring BOTH spouses to work. 

You have a great point there Flyers, but women since the dawn of time have primarily wanted men for money - status, support, power, etc.  I don't know if that is a genetic role, or if was simply imposed upon them due to their slave-status in society, but it is very awkward in this transitional period.  Presumably, if women make enough money they will have no use for men at all!  

If I were you I wouldn't waste another minute with American women - get out of the Bad Place!  I recommend Asia or Latin America.

Women still have a biological clock you know.  The thing is it doesn't tick as fast with them as it does for men.  I still have to read Maureen Dowd's book "Why Are Men Necessary?" to get a better perspective of this.  Women in their 20s I think are brainwashed by their yuppie parents to find a man with money, but for some reason their mother is there preaching sometimes militant feminism in their brains saying to their daughters that they should get educated and make money themselves, but demand even more from their men.  Example, I heard a nursing student told to look for a doctor and settle for nothing less.  You think I'm kidding?  A lot of this recent "prudism" you speak of is nothing more than a woman holding out for a well to do guy like T.O. and the Eagles.   They have it preprogrammed that their vagina is worth something and sadly so many men put it on such a pesdestal (40 Year Old Virgin) and it kills us.     

[Keystone Phil]

 They have it preprogrammed that their vagina is worth something

This is where you just want to use women for your own desires and it's sick. To you, women are worth nothing. They're just for sex. So disgusting...I kind of feel bad for you.

[opebo]

 They have it preprogrammed that their vagina is worth something

This is where you just want to use women for your own desires and it's sick.

Why the hell else would anyone want to use anyone?  What do you think women want to do with you, Keystone Phil? - the answer is if they want anything to do with you it is to use you for something (99% will want money, maybe 1% will want sex).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is that 'worth nothing'?  Given that sex is the most important thing in a normal man's life, to want women 'just for sex' is to value them quite highly. 

I personally value them not just for sex, but also by how good looking they are and what type of sex is performed, as well as what country we're in at the time...  say around $100/hour in the US, and $15/hour in Southeast Asia.

By the way Flyers, the popular way of putting it among expats here is 'American women think their p***y is made of gold.'

[Keystone Phil]

Why the hell else would anyone want to use anyone?  What do you think women want to do with you, Keystone Phil? - the answer is if they want anything to do with you it is to use you for something (99% will want money, maybe 1% will want sex).

Unfortunately, many people want either sex or money but to put it in the terms that you did is very sad and untrue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ouch. I guess I'm not "normal" in opebo's eyes. 

[TeePee4Prez]

 They have it preprogrammed that their vagina is worth something

This is where you just want to use women for your own desires and it's sick. To you, women are worth nothing. They're just for sex. So disgusting...I kind of feel bad for you.

opebo is right, many use it as a weapon for monetary gain whether directly through prostitution or indirectly through buying them jewelry, having a nice pad, or able to take them on Mediterranean cruises, etc.  It's great you found your high school sweetheart who deosn't worry about those things and you're lucky.  No seriously, I mean that.  Get in your 20s and single, the stakes are MUCH different.     

[TeePee4Prez]

Let me add something.  If a woman truly wants to withhold sex until marriage NOT for monetary gain I respect that, but more times than none it means women want a man with the mean green and will give it up then.  You are too young to realize that and I can't entirely fault you, but I can fault you for trying to pass judgement on me and opebo for our opinions.

I need NSA sex and I need it now!  Problem is I'm not 6'3", in phenomenal shape, and hung like and elephant so getting that is quite difficult.  I've looked on CL and AFF for that and that seems to be the going rate.

[The Dowager Mod]

What a lovely thread.

[Keystone Phil]

but I can fault you for trying to pass judgement on me and opebo for our opinions.

And you haven't passed judgement on me? Yeah, ok. Anyway, I can judge you because you use people just for sexual pleasure. You believe that a woman is worth nothing more than just sex and it's sad.

[TeePee4Prez]

but I can fault you for trying to pass judgement on me and opebo for our opinions.

And you haven't passed judgement on me? Yeah, ok. Anyway, I can judge you because you use people just for sexual pleasure. You believe that a woman is worth nothing more than just sex and it's sad.

I have not said it or implied it.  My beef is that sex is withheld for fiscal security and/or gain.  I do not use women for sexual pleasure.  Get your facts straight before you start spewing your uber-conservative mouth.

[Keystone Phil]

but I can fault you for trying to pass judgement on me and opebo for our opinions.

And you haven't passed judgement on me? Yeah, ok. Anyway, I can judge you because you use people just for sexual pleasure. You believe that a woman is worth nothing more than just sex and it's sad.

I have not said it or implied it.  My beef is that sex is withheld for fiscal security and/or gain.  I do not use women for sexual pleasure.  Get your facts straight before you start spewing your uber-conservative mouth.

Yes, you have implied it especially in the past and I know that you don't regret what you said. Look at your recent comment about how you'll be doing some of the "prudish" kids' "female friends." You're garbage. I feel so bad for you and whoever has to live with you.