How to become woman of the year.

Marry the man other women wish they could marry.

But rather than focus on Amal’s successful career as a human rights lawyer, the TV host said she had been given the top spot because she snapped up Clooney as her husband.

‘You could say hers was the wedding of the year, but let’s put it into perspective, it was really one of the greatest achievements in human history,” Walters said.

Edit:  The feminists at vox.com are experiencing predictable twisting in their undergarments.  Kelsey McKinney writes in Amal Clooney married down. She’s way more fascinating than George:

 Barbara Walters is wrong. Amal Clooney isn’t fascinating because she joined “the ranks of Jackie Onassis, Princess Diana and Kate Middleton” by marrying a rich and noteworthy man. Amal Clooney is fascinating because she is, in her own right, a badass.

This is the same Kelsey McKinney who complained last year in the Atlantic about how frustrating it is that novels aimed at women are always about finding a man:

Literary girls don’t take road-trips to find themselves; they take trips to find men.

See Also:  Intrasexual Competition and the Strong Independent Woman.

This entry was posted in Daily Mail, Denial, Feminists, Status of marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

454 Responses to How to become woman of the year.

  1. In other words, be a whore.

  2. Dalrock says:

    @swiftfoxmark2

    In other words, be a whore.

    Not at all. Plenty of women tried that approach with Clooney, and none of them were named most fascinating woman of the year for doing so.

  3. thedeti says:

    Swift:

    Amal Clooney is the Most Fascinating Woman (according to Barbara Walters) because she managed to extract commitment from one of the most attractive men on the planet.
    _________

    Already the condemnations were coming in. I was listening to talkradio driving in from work, and this story was being discussed. The female talk show host commented wryly (and head-scratchingly) that she thought Walters was “dated” and “past her prime” and somesuch other derisions. The thinking goes: how could it be that a woman is fascinating just because she got married to a man famous for declaring, and enjoying, his bachelorhood?

    It’s clear that most people in today’s society don’t really understand what most women really want and really do put a premium on: Getting high status men to commit to them; followed very, very closely by getting high status men to have sex with them for a longshot at extracting commitment.

  4. thedeti says:

    Amal Clooney is the Most Fascinating Woman of the Year because she managed to do what most other women want to do but cannot. She managed to Tame the Alpha. Get the Alpha to commit. And, in the process, attach her status and standing to his; gain access to his status and resources; and utilize them for her benefit. This isn’t intended to cast aspersions. This is simply what most women who are seeking long term relationships with men do — get the highest status man they can and marry him so as to elevate her own standing and use his resources.

  5. ‘You could say hers was the wedding of the year, but let’s put it into perspective, it was really one of the greatest achievements in human history,” Walters said.

    Hold on Barbara, les make this a true statement….

    ‘You could say hers was the wedding of the year, but let’s put it into perspective, it was really one of the greatest achievements in women’s history,” Walters said.

    FIFY

  6. Dave says:

    Interesting.
    So, according to feminism, the best way to show that a woman is strong and independent and not in need of a man, is to succeed in getting a man to commit to her.
    My, why did I miss all those logic classes! I sure would have been able to put my mind around this logical idea.

    On another note, and if the feminists would learn a thing or two, Amal is from a deeply patriarchal country (Lebanon), and would obviously have brough something more to the table than her Western sisters.
    I once dated a South African woman, a lawyer. Despite her law degrees (and she had more than one), she believed in a patriarchal family system, and was ready to give up her flourishing law practice to become a wife and mother. We didn’t marry due to other reasons.

  7. honeycomb says:

    She “tamed the Alpha” .. huh must’ve been her cooking skills .. lol

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11293112/Men-who-like-spicier-food-are-alpha-males-with-higher-levels-of-testosterone-French-report-claims.html

    I seriously doubt it though (re: her cooking skills).

    Funny how other women project success .. through a (successful) husband. Because she wasn’t interesting to other women based on her own skills / success / talent / etc.

    Which proves our point. Marriage is the definition of success to a woman. And that a womans status of success is all the value a man is to them. Which is a short distance to why women spend so much money on their appearence. Not impress men .. but rather to impress other women. How shallow.

  8. Dave says:

    This is simply what most women who are seeking long term relationships with men do — get the highest status man they can and marry him so as to elevate her own standing and use his resources.

    And, really, I think that is how it should be, provided she brings something worthwhile to the table. There is no reason to duplicate wealth and status by the woman, particularly when the man has plenty of that. What the modern Western woman wants to do is to get everything she can from the man, while bringing a used up body, a stinky attitude, and lack of fidelity to the table, and then try to shame the man who refuses to engage in such unbalanced transaction.

  9. Weenis says:

    and the hindbrain comes forth.

    This sort of comment disturbs the mound. Next, she will be made to walk it back (by her fellow fems) by clarifying that it was a joke, and that while it is an acheivement in relationship terms, we mustn’t forget that chicks still care mostly about actual stuff that matters.

    but we know better.

    For all their posturing, they still can’t hide their deficiencies. Probably beause they can’t see them.

  10. Chris says:

    “Despite her law degrees (and she had more than one), she believed in a patriarchal family system, and was ready to give up her flourishing law practice to become a wife and mother.”

    Good luck finding a diamond like that in the rough of Western pop culture.

    Anyone who’s more than a distant Facebook friend would tell you that I love America with all my heart. I wish I could say that I was as proud of our women as I am most other aspects of America, but I can’t.

  11. Dave says:

    Marriage is the definition of success to a woman.
    You can shout that from the housetop. Marriage, to a woman, is far more than what “everyone” is doing. It is the most important aspect of her life. Feminism tries to poison that natural view though.

    And that a woman’s status of success is all the value a man is to them.
    Maybe if you are referring to those women who are thoroughly feministic and have lost the ability to bond. Some women have genuine love for their men, and would do anything for them. I work in hospitals, and I have sometimes seen the extent to which some women go to keep vigil beside their terminally sick husbands. I cannot help but marvel at such devotion. Now, to be fair, I have seen similar behaviors exhibited by men towards their wives as well. Just this past weekend, I attended to a woman who later died. Her husband was there all the way. He could recite all of the values of her falling blood pressure measurements, and he was visibly distraught when she finally passed, though everyone expected that from her.

    Which is a short distance to why women spend so much money on their appearance. Not impress men .. but rather to impress other women. How shallow.
    I disagree with this. Women are far more vulnerable to the views and ideas of men than they let on, especially if it is the men whose attention they crave. Many times, the judgements of men carry far more weight than those of a woman’s friends. Why do you think many women are swearing up and down that they no longer want to be identified as feminists? It is because men don’t want them to. If men consistently begin to demonstrate today that slutty dressing is unacceptable I bet you women will begin to dress modestly, irrespective of what the feminazi sisters think or say.
    Men’s attention is like drug to women, and they will do anything to get it. I believe that her insatiable desire for male approval is part of the curse on the woman: her desire will be towards her husband (or whoever she opens her heart to), and through that he will rule over her (Genesis 3:16).

  12. Opus says:

    Have you noticed that it is only women who have careers or are said to be successful in them. The facts for all to check is that Mrs Clooney was, prior to her marriage, a Junior in the Doughty Street Chambers – Doughty Street is not one of the premiers chambers in London for to begin with it is physically outside any of the Inns of Court and is hardly consulted by The City. She had a job, met a movie star and married him (doubtless to the considerable annoyance of at least one other thirty-something female and single Barrister – of my acquaintance – in those chambers) – her new role will surely preclude either the need for or the opportunity of either taking silk or being invited to join the Judiciary.

    I am, of course, jealous and embittered for I was never courted by a Movie Star, but she is frankly far too old (as is her husband – surely it’s a lavender wedding) and advising the Greek government on stealing back the Elgin Marbles is to my in an act of treachery to the country that allowed her parents to become immigrants. Happily, we will with any luck now be rid of her – you can keep her.

  13. Elspeth says:

    @ Honey comb, re: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11293112/Men-who-like-spicier-food-are-alpha-males-with-higher-levels-of-testosterone-French-report-claims.html

    I laughed out loud. My husband encourages me to spend what I think is a crazy amount of money for the spiciest hot sauces and chiles that I can buy. There’s really no such thing as too spicy according to his tastes. And all these years I have been dismissing out of hand the very idea that my husband is some sort of “alpha”.

    As for new Mrs. Clooney (and I’ll even admit that I watched the last hour of the Walters special last night), she accomplished something significant on a personal level, but hardly the greatest achievement in human -or women’s- history. I am fairly well convinced that Clooney is about to embark on a political career, and a wife with all the right liberal credibility is a big boost to such am endeavor.

    So he has something he wants to accomplish, she possesses something he needs to help him accomplish it, she gets the brass ring as she helps him reach for his.

    Call me cynical, but I don’t necessarily believe that this was a taming of any sort. This was a man who made a very conscious choice an she happened to be a beneficiary. Men who are solid and content with who they are aren’t “tamed” by a woman. They choose to tame themselves.

  14. Weenis,

    This sort of comment disturbs the mound. Next, she will be made to walk it back (by her fellow fems) by clarifying that it was a joke, and that while it is an acheivement in relationship terms, we mustn’t forget that chicks still care mostly about actual stuff that matters.

    but we know better.

    The frightening thing here is Barbara Walters is very smart, was telling the truth, was entirely RIGHT in her assessment (of what women want and regard as an achievement), and everyone knows it. I think initially, women (even feminist women) will agree with Barbara. Amal was able to “catch” the uncatchable man. Then the feminist imperative will kick in and women will be annoyed with Barbara (not instantly, but later.) Those women should have stuck with their first instincts on this one. Of course if they stuck with their first instincts in the first place, they wouldn’t be feminist.

  15. zodak says:

    what an achievement, he got tired of dodging gold-diggers & settled for a post-wall girl.

  16. Merry Christmas Elspeth!

    I am fairly well convinced that Clooney is about to embark on a political career, and a wife with all the right liberal credibility is a big boost to such am endeavor.

    So he has something he wants to accomplish, she possesses something he needs to help him accomplish it, she gets the brass ring as she helps him reach for his.

    Normally I would agree with this sentiment, that in order for a man to achieve something in politics in the United States, he needs to be married. That generally makes sense. We almost never elect bachelors (just one POTUS was a bachelor to my memory.) But in this one particular case with George Clooney, because he is the notorious George Clooney his bachelorhood is what made him so unique, so special, so politically viable in my humble opinion. Now that is not to say that Amal detracts from his political asperations. I just disagree that she adds to it. I say that because although he may gain politically in some demographics due to marriage, he will lose equally in others.

  17. ‘You could say hers was the wedding of the year, but let’s put it into perspective, it was really one of the greatest achievements in human history,”

    Oh yeah, it’s right up there with, oh I dunno, landing a probe on a friggin’ comet.

  18. So men, work hard and make yourselves comparable to Clooney then you too can wed a woman who receives high accolade simply for being your spouse. You’ll probably not achieve enough to have her dubbed anything similar to ‘woman of the year’ but at least she’ll be envied by her girl friends, while she sets her sights on a better man, higher up the social/financial ladder who she’ll marry after she ends her ‘starter marriage’ with you.

  19. Dalrock says:

    I’m sure Walters was joking when she said the comment about the greatest achievements in human history. But I also think it was funny to her audience because of the basic truth the hyperbole is based around. Clooney was famously unwilling to (re)marry, and is highly desired.

  20. Opus says:

    How do you fancy a First Lady with a British Passport?

  21. myrealitie says:

    I think it is worth discussing that Amal is a 36 year old career lawyer, simply because this seems to fly in the face of what many here believe will attract and elicit the commitment from a desirable man.

  22. gunner451 says:

    Do not know why he married her, she’s not that hot and (given her middle-east genetics) will hit the wall very hard in a few years given how old she is. That plus she’s a lawyer which if you believe Chateau Heartiste means she’s a much more masculine female. All in all I can’t see why an alpha would marry her. I expect that she’ll take George to the cleaners in a few years and most likely end up being like Gloria Allred but we shall see.

  23. PokeSalad says:

    Look, a squirrel!

    Another attempt at misdirection.

  24. Jeremy says:

    Bwahahahaha… Barbara Walters displays full hypergamy. This is f-ing hysterical.

  25. Pingback: Heh | Honor Dads

  26. Opus,

    How do you fancy a First Lady with a British Passport?

    If I understand correctly, we already had that with Dwight D Eisenhower.

  27. Dorry Opus I was mistaken. Mammie Eisenhower was born in Iowa not England.

  28. honeycomb says:

    Bar’bra’Waa’Waa shows her true intent.

    It’s true Mr Clue’less could have just wanted to get married. It’s possible.

    BUT .. what is on display is that once again training men that you are not a success unless you are married.

    Fem’myn’nist projection. Men know better but by this time in the west you can’t have even one successful bachelor undoing th wimminz hard work (i.e. training men that they must be married to be a success).

    And when the beast is drawed up in the net he must be paraded around by its new owner for all others to see and admire. Though for different reasons for men and wimminz alike.

    Case closed.

  29. She’s a lot more interesting than Taylor freakin Swift.

    “Women are far more vulnerable to the views and ideas of men than they let on, especially if it is the men whose attention they crave”

    Well, yeah. I’ve never met a woman who cared what my views were.

  30. DDL says:

    Which proves our point. Marriage is the definition of success to a woman. And that a womans status of success is all the value a man is to them. Which is a short distance to why women spend so much money on their appearence. Not impress men .. but rather to impress other women. How shallow.

    The highest achievement for a woman (in a sense that is purely female, nothing masculine about it) is to be chosen as the mother of his children by a high-status man who has his pick of many quality females.

    I think of “woman” as a job description. A woman’s job is to secure the support of a man while birthing and rearing his babies. Some suck at this job (single moms). Some do it well (several Christian homeschooling Moms I know).

    Of course status is the most important thing to females. It determines everything about her life, and more importantly, the lives of her children (the next generation of her family). Our ancestors knew this, which is why fathers used to forbid their daughters to even associate with, much less marry men who were lower in status than the daughters.

    Imagine a society with no government safety nets. No welfare. No medicare. Your family’s wealth and social connections are the only means of support for you in childhood. The success of your children is your main source of support in old age. There’s no birth control, either. Sex=Babies. This was life in a pre-modern, pre-big government culture. High-minded women who couldn’t be bothered with something so shallow as status . . . didn’t do well. (Unless they were lucky enough to be a Catholic or Orthodox Christian,. Then they could go to a convent to pursue a life of spirituality).

    Status mattered. Higher status meant access to better food, shelter, protection, medical care. It could make the difference between life and death, especially for pregnant women, small children, the elderly, anyone who was fragile.

    We may have lost sight of this in modern times because we have so many comforts. Not many people here in First World countries starve. Few women die in childbirth. Few children die from malnutrition or from living in filth. Then there’s all the big-daddy government handouts taking the place of the husband for the single mom and the extended family for the elderly. I guess we could afford to be somewhat less shallow.

    As for women being superficial about their appearance–God I wish more of them were! I can’t go out in public without my eyes being assaulted by fatties wrapped up in slobby clothes topped with short hair and grotesque makeup.

  31. Opus says:

    Why is Mrs Clooney a badass? –

    because she is a self-employed – as all barristers-at-law are – female? or

    because unlike Mrs Kennedy, Lady Diana Spencer (being a kindergarten assistant hardly counts as a successful career especially when you are nineteen though why not) and Miss Middleton she has a job? or

    perhaps it has something to do with representing the kind of people Doughty Street usually represent – scroungers, victims, that sort of thing – or

    is it simply that she snagged Clooney?

  32. honeycomb,

    Fem’myn’nist projection. Men know better but by this time in the west you can’t have even one successful bachelor undoing th wimminz hard work (i.e. training men that they must be married to be a success).

    Bill Maher? Al Yankovick? Jack Nicholson? Hugh Grant?

    I think all that happens is the men become notorously bachelor. That becomes their selling point (the way it was with Clooney.) Men know that they don’t have to be married to be a success.

  33. Dalrock says:

    @myrealitie

    I think it is worth discussing that Amal is a 36 year old career lawyer, simply because this seems to fly in the face of what many here believe will attract and elicit the commitment from a desirable man.

    As someone mentioned upthread there may be some politics involved in Clooney’s choice. Even so, with Clooney being 53, marrying a 36 year old woman fits fairly closely with what the sphere would predict. I believe the formula is half the man’s age plus 7 years, which would be 34. It also fits fairly closely with Rollo’s chart.

  34. Opus says:

    @Daniel Gibson

    It is getting very tiresome. The news may not have reached America but Joan Collins is going to receive a gong (as we call them) in Her Majesty’s New Years Honours List – inexplicably they have missed me again – and you will be able to refer to Joan Collins as Dame Joan Collins. That is why the Mail interviewed her and as she does not have a book or mercifully record to promote she is joining in the false-Rape hysteria. Unlike the other recipients she could not even wait until 01.01.15 to bask in her triumph – afraid of being overlooked by someone more interesting perhaps? She was hot in Cosh Boy (1953).

    Actors and Actresses are so pretentious.

  35. thedeti says:

    myrealitie;

    Who knows? Maybe other commenters here are correct that George is planning to go into politics and he married his power and charisma with her savvy and contacts. That’s not the first time this has happened: See Billary Clinton.

    Maybe he likes her company, but after the marriage his life really won’t change all that much, if you know what I mean. Maybe he really is attracted to her.

    One thing I do know is that once you get to the level of fame, fortune and notoriety that people like Clooney inhabit, it’s a whole different world and the normal rules that govern the Lumpenproles don’t really apply. Another example of this is extremely beautiful women, HB 9s and 10s — the laws of physics are suspended for them, it seems. Famous, powerful men and extremely beautiful women, both at the extreme right end of the curve, have advantages, liabilities and encumbrances that simply don’t apply to everyone else.

  36. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    Why is Mrs Clooney a badass?

    For the same reason TLP explains* that Katniss is a badass in Hunger Games:

    There’s a banquet and the contestants have to show off their skills, but the overlords are eating a roast pig and bored with Katniss (because she misses a target) so Katniss turns her arrow towards them and shoots an apple. Katniss says, “you better recognize, mothafuckas!”, flashes a gang sign, and the audience swoons. That’s when she’s a badass. Yes, she was wonderful in the Games, I’m sure, but what got your adrenaline going, what made her a badass, is showing off her abilities– to men.

    Women become bad-ass (to other women) by getting the attention of men.

    *Same quote I included in the “See Also” post linked from the bottom of the OP.

  37. Not at all. Plenty of women tried that approach with Clooney, and none of them were named most fascinating woman of the year for doing so.

    So she’s a high-class whore. Still a whore.

    Honestly, I don’t care either way. Feminists have been doing this for decades (Ann Coulter documented the various achievements of feminists once; it boiled down to marrying the right guy).

  38. Dalrock,

    Edit: The feminists at vox.com are experiencing predictable twisting in their undergarments. Kelsey McKinney writes in Amal Clooney married down. She’s way more fascinating than George:

    Yeah.

    Here’s the thing, when a high powered single women with a lot of social status in Hollywood gets married to a man with lesser social status than her (or perhaps, no status), no one cares. There isn’t a big production about it, and maybe there is a paragraph or two in People magazine. That is because it is so obvious that she is marrying down. It is not worth repeating.

    It is ONLY when women marry up so dramatically when the feminist imperative kicks in and we all have to bullshit ourselves into thinking that OF COURSE she could have done better and is marrying down. One of the core foundations of feminism… is pride.

  39. Krul says:

    Out of curiosity I dug up this article which lists Ms Walters’ nine other most “fascinating” people of 2014: Scarlett Johansson, Neil Patrick Harris, David Koch, Oprah Winfrey, Chelsea Handler, Michael Strahan, Elon Musk, George R. R. Martin, and Taylor Swift.

    So that’s what Ms Walters finds “fascinating”, eh? I’d give her points for Musk and Koch, maybe for Martin, but I’m pretter sure that by “fascinating” she means “possessing a famous and recognizable name for whatever reason”.

    There’s a Spock joke in here somewhere…

  40. Novaseeker says:

    I think it is worth discussing that Amal is a 36 year old career lawyer, simply because this seems to fly in the face of what many here believe will attract and elicit the commitment from a desirable man.

    Not really. The ages match up pretty well with the sphere’s predictions, as Dalrock points out in his response to you above — an attractive man in his mid 50s marrying an attractive woman in her mid 30s and not one of his peer-age women (or, unlike Hugh Jackman, a woman more than ten years older than him). Men in Clooney’s strata (there aren’t many of them) don’t tend to marry women who are SAHMs as well, so that fits the picture as well. In all, I would say that celebrity marriages and divorces aren’t that indicative of much, because they move in very different circles, play by different rules, and have a much bigger cash cushion than anyone else does. I’m guessing, as Elspeth points out, that Clooney may be looking towards a political jump-off at some stage, and wants to burnish his profile for that: (i) marriage in general — very hard to elect a dedicated bachelor/playboy type and (ii) feminist bona fides by marrying someone with her profile. It makes sense from that perspective.

  41. Sean says:

    @TFH.

    Huma Abedin is simple. Lesbian/bisexual, non-white, allegedly has political power, beard marriage to white guy who also allegedly has political power.

  42. earl says:

    If Clooney is alpha because he is famous, rich, and had a lot of broads…ok I’ll agree with you.

    But given that’s the type of woman he committed to…it doesn’t seem being that type of alpha attracts the most feminine of the bunch. Her hypergamy is on such overdrive…I would even have my doubts that he could subdue her.

  43. Jeremy says:

    @thedeti

    One thing I do know is that once you get to the level of fame, fortune and notoriety that people like Clooney inhabit, it’s a whole different world and the normal rules that govern the Lumpenproles don’t really apply…

    In the grand scheme of things, Clooney isn’t really that rich. In fact, it’s more accurate to say that Clooney is an entertainer used to provide social proof by invitation to the parties that the truly rich put on. In other words, the hollywood elite are little different (in behavior) than the political elite. The only difference in the political elite generally have men with guns to back up their “rules”. Above all of them are large institutions and grotesquely wealthy families that live above even international law.

    Basically, if you’re a woman and Clooney is your hypergamous ideal, then you’re easy.

  44. Novaseeker says:

    Huma Abedin is simple. Lesbian/bisexual, non-white, allegedly has political power, beard marriage to white guy who also allegedly has political power.

    Yep, but to a Jewish guy who also wanted marriage for political cover (obviously he’s a cad type as we have seen). Huma’s proclivities were long suspected here in DC going back to the nomination campaign for the 2008 elections. Likely she’s a lez-leaning bisexual (there are remarkably few exclusive lesbians), and she and Weiner were good cover for each other. Kind of blew up with the selfies thing, but there you go.

  45. lgrobins says:

    Maybe this was linked already:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-houghton/the-new-trophy-wife_b_6207364.html

    There goes any chance for women who think that if they are just feminine or submissive enough they will snag an alpha male. She now has to be all around in the same league as him.

  46. Gunner Q says:

    Do I have this straight? George Clooney had the pick of nearly all Western women… and chose an experienced feminist lawyer with ties to the Mideast? Suddenly, I’m worried for Mr. Clooney. I doubt he entered that marriage voluntarily. No evidence, though.

  47. Say what you want to about his politics, but until Amal locks horns with a guy like Steve Wynn, George wins the ‘bad ass’ prize.

    http://www.people.com/article/george-clooney-statement-steve-wynn-obama-argument

    Also, anyone pick up on Amal taking Clooney’s surname instead of following the fem-powerment script and keeping or hyphenating hers? Subtleties count for a lot in the fempire. Amal wants to belong to Clooney.

  48. Newdist says:

    Dalrok, according to the OK Cupid attraction study, the formula is approximately 18+(man’s age/10)

  49. Joe says:

    Anybody calling her less than smoking hot is being dishonest. She’s very hot, and is probably a good deal smarter than Clooney. What does he see in her? Did I mention she’s very hot? Also, if you’ve ever dated a hot French / Lebanese girl, you probably got to see something like a hot Texas girl, a very feminine, good looking woman who rolls large. They also tend to have big nutty families that can be a lot of fun, if they aren’t too busy being an excruciating pain in the ass. I’m a little surprised that Clooney settled down at all but that he went in this direction doesn’t surprise me too much, I understand the attraction.

  50. Do I have this straight? George Clooney had the pick of nearly all Western women… and chose an experienced feminist lawyer with ties to the Mideast? Suddenly, I’m worried for Mr. Clooney. I doubt he entered that marriage voluntarily. No evidence, though.

    Of course.

    He was NOT going to marry a virgin (probably wanted nothing to do with them) and was not going to marry a Christian. He wanted a beautiful, educated, worldly, independant, all-grown-up woman, who shared his politics and could challenge him intellectually. He would never settle for anything less than that. His selection is someone you would NEVER select.

    You don’t have to understand or even agree. You are not George Clooney. And don’t worry about him. I’m sure he protected himself financially from her ruin with legal and notarized documentation. And it will be enforced in a court of law if it comes to that.

  51. Elspeth says:

    There goes any chance for women who think that if they are just feminine or submissive enough they will snag an alpha male. She now has to be all around in the same league as him.

    This has been the case for quite some time with men who are liberal and UMC. It has trickled down into the middle classes because there are very few men anymore with strong religious convictions and/or very conservative family values.

    Ideally you (as a single woman) want to be both smart and accomplished and submissive and feminine. I would posit that this is the best way to “snag an alpha male,:/ . Any man like that, such as there are, would probably still not want to deal with a ball busting shrew, no matter how accomplished and financially secure.

  52. Escoffier says:

    Elspeth, have you tried Scotch Bonnets?

  53. Krul says:

    Gunner Q – George Clooney had the pick of nearly all Western women… and chose an experienced feminist lawyer with ties to the Mideast?

    Clooney still has the pick of nearly all women. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that he has no intention of remaining faithful.

  54. thedeti says:

    Jeremy:

    Clooney isn’t superwealthy by Hollywood standards. But from an absolute standard, he is extraordinarily wealthy. He has enough money to live opulently and do the work he wants, when he wants.

    But his appeal isn’t his money. It’s everything else. Clooney personifies the modern sovereign man. He has confidence and easy charm. He seems comfortable wherever he is and whatever he does. He is dominant — he commands attention wherever he goes. He has status — he is an A-list celebrity. Some think he’s lightweight, but he’s a pretty good actor. He’s honed his craft for a couple of decades now and taken some good roles that showcased him (he’ll be forgiven for Batman). He is good looking and in good shape. He’s frequently compared to Cary Grant and the younger James Garner, all having classic “tall, dark and handsome” good looks.

    Clooney is not “hot” like Channing Tatum or Andrew Garfield or Matthew McConnaughey or the late 1980s Rob Lowe. His appeal is largely a result of classic rugged (not “pretty boy”) good looks combined with a carefully crafted public image based on an easy-going and unflappable personality. That’s why he is usually held up as the current male gold standard.

  55. Elspeth says:

    Elspeth, have you tried Scotch Bonnets?

    Yes. My FIL hails from Jamaica. They’re a big part of many dishes there.

  56. Opus says:

    Do women boast of (and seek) careers because that is what they would seek in a man? Mrs Clooney has done well, but most female lawyers are far more modestly paired and although she doubtless has had offers she was close to sinking into middle-aged spinsterhood and surely with all the usual tales of not needing or even wanting a man. Indeed, it is a strange thing about the English Bar; the atmosphere (at least in The Temple, Grays and Lincoln where the majority are settled) is somewhere between collegiate and monastical. Few of the men have children even if they are married.

    I was talking on the weekend with a guy who works aboard an ocean-going yacht which its billionaire owner rents out to the super-rich at $370,000 a week. I could not help but notice that the takers are men who are all married even if not not to their first wife and that these wives some of whom have impressive careers are dwarfed by their husbands fame and wealth. Hypergamy lives! and wealth is relative Amal might have done better.

    With all respect to Dalrock is not McKinney making it up as he goes along? Mrs Clooney was no one of note before she met her husband. Is Kelsey not rather implying that Mrs Clooney seduced George with her looks and her body or perhaps gained his attention by being a bad girl (but how? he doesn’t say).

  57. lgrobins says:

    “Ideally you (as a single woman) want to be both smart and accomplished and submissive and feminine. I would posit that this is the best way to “snag an alpha male,:/ ”

    Is that the reason you want your daughters to go to college?

  58. thedeti,

    He is dominant — he commands attention wherever he goes. He has status — he is an A-list celebrity. Some think he’s lightweight, but he’s a pretty good actor. He’s honed his craft for a couple of decades now and taken some good roles that showcased him

    His role in “Up in the Air” was written specifically for him. No other person could have played that role to near perfection.

  59. lgrobins says:

    If women have to be so accomplished, have the looks, be feminine, and basically “have it all”, then maybe women are seeking it all because that is what men want. How much of woman’s drive to have it all is due to feminism and how much of it is her just carefully crafting herself to get a top tier man? Just thinking out loud…

  60. Elspeth says:

    Our daughters are in college because they have an evil liberal father who thinks they should have the tools to support themselves should they somehow miss one of the hundreds of men at our church secretly pursuing them. Or be able to help contribute in any way their future husband may require.

    And then there is the very real issue of black women without degrees being three times more likely to never marry than women of other ethnicities.

    We’re parents. We have to live in the real world.

  61. thedeti says:

    A woman doesn’t need to be accomplished to attract an alpha male. Being accomplished only puts such women in close proximity to accomplished men.

    Most of the time, accomplished women can’t decide whether they want to date accomplished men or compete with them. Men certainly aren’t attracted to a woman because of her accomplishments. That’s actually pretty basic manosphere 101 stuff.

    Smart is different. But a woman’s “smarts” don’t have to be analytical genius or fact retention. She doesn’t need to be Marie Curie. She just needs to have a good head on her shoulders and be able to think and solve everyday problems. She needs to avoid being flighty, daft or whimsical. Levelheaded, serious and practical wins the day.

  62. If women have to be so accomplished, have the looks, be feminine, and basically “have it all”, then maybe women are seeking it all because that is what men want.

    Of course that is what men want. Yes (to get married) they generally want it all. And because most men can’t get it all, more and more men are opting out of marrying. They don’t settle anymore. This marital “opting out” will only increase, accelerate in speed. It is becoming the mainstream of our culture.

    How much of woman’s drive to have it all is due to feminism and how much of it is her just carefully crafting herself to get a top tier man? Just thinking out loud…

    Feminism steps in for women who do NOT (nor could they EVER) have it “all.” They are lacking in enough areas such that men have no use for them. But women need financial provisioning or they need a leg up in the working world to provision for themselves, or both. So, they turn to feminism to be made “whole” at the expense of men who would not have them. Feminism is empowered by government to extract resources from men against their free will.

    Clooney (of his own free will) decided to take on all the debts, responsibilities, and obligations that come with “renting” Amal for the next 30 or 40 years (until his death.) Feminism did not make this happen. It was everything else that Amal had to offer Clooney that encouraged him to “opt back in” to marriage 2.0.

  63. Looking Glass says:

    The piece of paper you get from a college is the barrier to survival if things go badly, in the current society. If you gained the Skills that used to be behind it.

    There’s nothing wrong with sending a capable Daughter through college. There’s a few things rather wrong shipping them off several thousand miles to slut & party it up for 4 years. There’s a big difference between the two.

  64. Elspeth,

    Our daughters are in college because they have an evil liberal father who thinks they should have the tools to support themselves should they somehow miss one of the hundreds of men at our church secretly pursuing them. Or be able to help contribute in any way their future husband may require.

    And then there is the very real issue of black women without degrees being three times more likely to never marry than women of other ethnicities.

    We’re parents. We have to live in the real world.

    You and your husband are doing right. Don’t let ANY of these guys tell you differently.

  65. Elspeth says:

    Yes, Looking Glass. There are distinctions to be made.

    All of our girls live at home while attending college.

  66. lgrobins says:

    “And because most men can’t get it all, more and more men are opting out of marrying.”

    Silly, but I am glad for it, I think. Seriously, how many young women and men have it all together at marrying age anyway? “She isn’t perfectly put together, so I’ll just give up on marriage.” Women can say the same thing and probably are, “he doesn’t have it all, so I don’t need to get married, I’ll just be independent and have a sperm donor baby”.

  67. Gunner Q says:

    innocentbystanderboston @ 3:39 pm:
    “His selection is someone you would NEVER select.”

    It isn’t that he picked differently from me. It’s that he picked. Clooney had no moral or religious reason to get married and she’s too old for kids so he didn’t do it for personal reasons. Either he is using her, maybe for politics as proposed above, or she got some powerful leverage over him, which her background makes plausible. I’m leaning towards the latter because she benefits from the marriage and he doesn’t. So far as I can see.

    But this is all gossip. I have no evidence, only a nervous tic every time I see a hard-left Mideasterner enjoy a high-profile success in the Western world. Maybe life in California is making me paranoid but our Elites just can’t leave the Middle East alone, can they?

  68. thedeti says:

    “And because most men can’t get it all, more and more men are opting out of marrying. They don’t settle anymore.”

    Uh, no.

    The men aren’t really opting out; they’re just having to wait until the women they can marry work their SIW-ness out of their systems. And it’s not that they can’t get it all; it’s that they can’t get anything. Most men are getting nothing.

  69. lgrobins says:

    @ Elspeth, I meant that seriously and was not trying to be sassy.
    I get the value in education for daughters, I just find it sad that it has all come to this cause a college degree still doesn’t guarantee anything. Market is flooded. I guess it just gives a bit better odds. And if a woman’s family can’t pay for the schooling, it makes her worse off in the dating market because some man will have to assume that debt.

  70. lg,

    Silly, but I am glad for it, I think. Seriously, how many young women and men have it all together at marrying age anyway?

    Depends on what you believe marrying age to be, I guess.

    “She isn’t perfectly put together, so I’ll just give up on marriage.” Women can say the same thing and probably are, “he doesn’t have it all, so I don’t need to get married, I’ll just be independent and have a sperm donor baby”.

    Women don’t generally reject marriage proposals. If it is a serious proposal from someone she has at least been seeing for a short while, she’s going to say yes. Why shouldn’t she, all the laws in our system are built to empower her in marriage. Women actually want to be married. Feminist women LOVE marriage 2.0.

    The problem with the majority of men who DO want to partake in marriage 2.0 is getting to the stage of actually seeing a woman (at all.) Too many men have entirely too many detracting qualities such that they never even get to that point. Sure they can get a woman they have no interest in (and she will marry him) but why would he do that? There are only spiritual/religious reasons for men to marry women that they many not love or aren’t attracted to and ours is almost entirely a secular culture.

  71. Gunner,

    It isn’t that he picked differently from me. It’s that he picked. Clooney had no moral or religious reason to get married…

    Yeah I’m with you on this one. I don’t see any reason why he had to get married. Really marriage for a secular-Darwinist man like him with the laws written the way they are are offers only minuses to Clooney, no pluses. Maybe it is like what Elspeth said he is thinking about finishing his career in politics (maybe congress or a senator in California) and he feels he needed a wife to legitimize himself in someway. I can’t see any other reason.

  72. lgrobins says:

    “Too many men have entirely too many detracting qualities such that they never even get to that point. ”
    And I hope you recognize this isn’t woman’s fault. Although a point could made in the larger scheme that feminism, women raising feminized boys had a big part in the weak qualities many men have, but regardless…here we all are, stuck with what we got and its upon both sexes to improve upon what they do have.

  73. Elspeth says:

    You’re right about debt. My husband paid mine off. Thus far we’ve avoided debt completely with our girls, for that very reason.

    It hasn’t been easy, but we want our girls to be assets not liabilities.

  74. lgrobins says:

    You’ve always seemed to be in a financial situation better than most, so it makes sense. If it can be afforded, go college! But like with every other good, nothing is worth going in debt for…even if to get a man.
    I’ve always like the idea of taking what is spent on college and using it as a huge down payment on a house/condo/townhouse instead. The biggest expense people have is a roof and if that can be paid off or mostly paid off from the beginning, its a huge weight lifted. If you don’t have a housing expense, you can get by on very little. Plus, a possible husband might find that more attractive as they have a place to live already without adding the extra pressure on him to be super bread winner (as some men delay marriage cause they just can’t afford the keeping of a family). I guess it works as an incentive or dowry of sorts. Much better than a useless piece of paper (assuming the paper is in the liberal arts and not something STEMish).

  75. Novaseeker says:

    Marriage is becoming increasingly something for people who are at the top of their game, and not really something for everyone else. The power couple marriage is something I am very familiar with — it’s the norm among the people I have worked with for the past three decades. Of the dozens and dozens of professional couples I have known (docs, lawyers, business execs VP/SVP/EVP types) only 1-2 were not very assortatively matched in terms of education, accomplishment, drive. These people now seek each other out for the most part, and form power couples. The specific arrangements these couples end up having varies a bit — some of them opt for SAHM for a while, or for longer, others have strictly equalist relationships with someone on the morning shift and the other on the evening shift (re: kids), with some combinations in-between. But the marriages are very assortative on the basis of education, achievement and drive.

    Looks, too, and not all of these people are “beautiful people”. But they are assortatively matched on looks as well. I would say that 20% of them or so are “BPs”, and the rest are decidedly average looking, although very few are seriously overweight (as uncommon among this set as smoking cigarettes is).

    So, yes, if a woman wants to marry a doc/lawyer/exec, she should be one herself. Even if she doesn’t think she will be that for the rest of her life, it’s a necessary box to check to marry a man like that in the UMC — it’s been that way for a couple of decades at least now.

    For Christians who aspire to the UMC (and, yes, there are plenty of them) this basically means that unless you keep your kids at home when they are being educated and/or thereafter, you can kiss chastity goodbye in most cases. It isn’t on the table. And as between chastity, keeping the kids home, and opting for the best education they can afford/achieve, almost all parents opt for door number three today — it’s just *that* important in order to preserve UMC status in the next generation on down. Of course, most of these people aren’t going to endorse non-chastity — of course not. But almost all of them turn a blind eye to it, or just choose not to think about it, or force themselves to assume that their kids who have been living away from home since 18 and have had BFs and so on are chaste. It just is the value that gets thrown under the bus, because in terms of the choices, that’s the one that most parents will throw under the bus in order to emphasize advancement of their kids. It just is so. The parents who take measures in other directions are extreme outliers, even among very conservative Christians. Just is so.

  76. earl says:

    “And because most men can’t get it all, more and more men are opting out of marrying. They don’t settle anymore.”

    That’s because men have tried settling for some combination of the carrerist BPD overweight cock carousel riding single mothers who are in debt and have mutilated their bodies considering they are pretty much the majority now. All that happens is divorce and headaches.

  77. Yoda says:

    Women actually want to be married.

    Act that way they do not always do.

  78. Yoda says:

    “And because most men can’t get it all, more and more men are opting out of marrying.”

    Big heap of Bantha dung this is.
    Corrected version below it is,

    “And because most men can’t get anything reasonably OK, more and more men are opting out of marrying.”

  79. Gunner Q says:

    “Of course that is what men want. Yes (to get married) they generally want it all. And because most men can’t get it all, more and more men are opting out of marrying. They don’t settle anymore.”

    Settle? Most men just want a decent-looking wife who prioritizes making him happy. That’s all, and modern women are desperate to do anything BUT that. It’s women who don’t settle until biology forces the issue.

    The only accomplishments a wife needs are sexual fidelity and low self-esteem. The moment she internalizes the fact that he is her Master and she is his life-servant is the moment they start having a Biblical marriage. When you women say you want a Godly man, this is what you’re asking for.

    Do you women really want a Godly man? A Biblical marriage? The divorce rate says “no”.

  80. earl says:

    Having it all for most men would be healthy body weight, pleasant demeanor, and can cook. Reasonably ok is one of those three.

    If women can’t even meet those…why marry them? They do need to bring something.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    lgrobins
    If it can be afforded, go college!

    Only if the person in question will benefit from it. I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but not everyone is college material, and spending a couple of years drifting in search of the easy major is not helpful in the long run or the short run. Please realize that there is self-selection in terms of blogging, reading blogs, commenting on blogs, etc. and that many, many people simply are not up to college even now. Relatives of mine who teach at various places – none famous, all State U’s – tell me of students who are 20 years old and in need of remedial work in English rhetoric and pre-algebra. Not pointing fingers at anyone, I’m just reporting. There are people in 4-year college who are very likely to fail, who would succeed at a humbler goal such as trade / tech / community. One of my friends has a daughter who wants to do cosmotology – better that than taking “communications studies” for 2.5 years and flunking out.

    Better to aim a bit lower and succeed than aim “for the stars” and totally flame out, in the modern world. In my opinion.

  82. Yoda says:

    If women can’t even meet those…why marry them? They do need to bring something.

    Youth and beauty bank on these they do.
    Fleeting they are.
    Blame men for this they will.

  83. Yoda says:

    Better to aim a bit lower and succeed than aim “for the stars” and totally flame out, in the modern world.

    Women encouraged to do this not.
    Perhaps a good idea for them it is.
    Exploit a non-level playing field they can.

  84. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker, interesting comments as always, bearing in mind the extreme skew of the DC area (and Manhattan, and San Francisco). We seem to be developing a kind of mandarinate society, in that “anyone” can qualify for certain jobs but only if they went to the right schools, which don’t accept just “anyone”.

    If the trend towards antibiotic-resistant STD’s such as we are seeing with gonnorhea continues, it will be interesting to see how long the UMC persists in ignoring sexual activity among the young.

    It is also interesting to contemplate just how much cognitive dissonance a man or woman would have to sustain to send an 18 year old woman off to any major university now on her own. Co-ed dorms and “not a virgin by Christmas break” has been the norm since the late 80’s I’m sure. Probably this is just a version of “Well, I sowed my wild oats and I turned out all right” rearview-mirror, solipsistic thinking.

    Frankly even the UMC may have to start thinking twice about where they send their sons, with YesMeansYesUntilDoesn’t being institutionalized.

  85. Novaseeker says:

    Anonymous Reader —

    Yes, I very much do live in a bubble. The DC suburban areas are very outlierish in particular, having an incredible concentration of the kinds of people I describe. The Mandarinate is definitely happening, although, again, only in certain places.

    On college, I think that many do think that it isn’t doing as much harm, in practical terms [for the upper middle class, at least], and also that they weren’t perfect when they were young, so … as long as they are well set up in terms of education and career it should be okay. After all, it IS working for the upper middle class, for the most part. That’s the thing. They are able to pull this off due to their overall skillsets, although it must also be said that their indulgence in various “scenes”, including the carousel, is moderate compared to other SES, again due to the same skillsets (FTO being a big one).

    I think the issue on sons is just coming into view, and, yes, it’s going to be interesting. I am coming into this window myself.

  86. lgrobins says:

    AR,
    Yes, agreed mostly. Same thing goes for marriage–everyone thinks they are marriage material but many are not. In a rush to follow society’s script people tend to jump on the college and marriage bandwagon cause that is just what you are suppose to do.

  87. Novaseeker says:

    Yes, agreed mostly. Same thing goes for marriage–everyone thinks they are marriage material but many are not. In a rush to follow society’s script people tend to jump on the college and marriage bandwagon cause that is just what you are suppose to do.

    It’s true, but the reason is that society has “no use” for people who don’t have college (tradesmen types notwithstanding), and the church generally has no use for people who are not married. If you’re not in the “default success setting”, people just kind of furrow their brows and move away.

  88. Bluepillprofessor says:

    I bet Clooney is limited to 3 plates in their agreement. Discretely, of course.

    There is no reason to do this. If it is politics, he could have made babies with a younger, fertile version. They love babies in Presidential politics. The media would treat a newbie from Clooney like prince fracking George.

  89. Elspeth says:

    I would include the Faithful among those for whom marriage is still a viable choice, regardless of credentials or wealth.

    But I mean remnant, not just your average pew warmer.

  90. Dalrock says:

    Good conversation Novaseeker and Anon Reader. I don’t have time to engage in the discussion now, but should have a post up in the next few days (or week) which touches on this topic. Right now the elites are doubling down on the UMC marriage formula, some with the “let them eat cake”/NY Times perspective I’ve referenced in previous posts, others with a much more compassionate attitude. But even the latter entertain wildly unrealistic expectations about the degree to which society can be reworked so that the UMC can continue to enjoy the institution they broke for the common folk without the costs of the family dysfunction already rapidly spreading throughout the middle class and below.

  91. Farm Boy says:

    It is also interesting to contemplate just how much cognitive dissonance a man or woman would have to sustain to send an 18 year old woman off to any major university now on her own.

    One in five are raped they say.
    Cruel the parents must be.

  92. MarcusD says:

    What to do if my mum is being emotionaly abused by my dad?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=928930

    Wife won’t let husband be spritual leader of house?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=928751

  93. MarcusD says:

    Rolling Stone Reporter Apologizes To UVA Students, Promises To ‘re-report’ Rape Story
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/14/Friends-say-they-pushed-UVA-Jackie-to-call-cops

  94. MarcusD says:

    Turning the Tables on Wedding Cake Fascists

    A Christian group went to thirteen gay-owned bakeries and requested each of them to bake a cake promoting traditional marriage; and of course, recognizing that they were obligated to serve any customer regardless of ideological differences, they happily obliged.

    Nope, just kidding. All thirteen not only refused, but some were very nasty about it.

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2014/12/13/turning-the-tables-on-wedding-cake-fascists/

  95. RichardP says:

    Farm Boy – you are joking abou the 1 in 5 being raped, right?

    If you are not joking, I invite you to consider the U.S. Department of Justice study released on 12-11-14. Their figures show about 6 out of 1,000 are victims of rape. The authors of the 1 out of 5 study themselves admit that the study was flawed – in that they only sampled 1 or 2 colleges, and the authors themselves determined which answers indicated that the respondent had been “raped”. The questionnaire never asked the participants directly if they had ever been raped.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/11/college-girls-are-less-likely-to-be-raped-than-non-students.html
    Link to the Report itself as it is not linked in the article:
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

  96. RichardP says:

    From the Report linked to above: “Rape and sexual assault are defined by the NCVS to include completed and attempted rape, completed and attempted sexual assault, and threats of rape or sexual assault.”

    If we exclude the categories “attemped rape, completed and attempted sexual assault, and threat of rape or sexual assault” from the total – it is clear that the number of actual rapes per 1,000 is less than 6.

  97. Tom C says:

    Clooney is a divorcee. To paraphrase PJ O’Rourke, a bachelor is a man who has never married and never intends to. Now Al Pacino, he is show biz’s ultimate bachelor. He’s been dating many of the hottest women in Hollywood for decades. Sure, now that he’s in his seventies he’s been reduced to dating thirty-year-olds but he has had a helluva run and he’s not slowing down yet.

    And Clooney is worth like 180 million so he makes a decent living.

  98. MarcusD says:

    @RichardP

    I’ve come to the same conclusions myself. It is common in social science research for terms in questionnaires/surveys to not be defined, thus allowing the researcher to read their biases into the results. This is also why research done by SJWs/feminists/progressives cannot (and should not) be trusted until it is thoroughly investigated (they all do it quite frequently – ambiguity is often used in their favor).

  99. Bango Tango says:

    Anyone who knows anything about Hollywood and the Jewish cartel that runs it can figure out that Clooney’s future paydays depended on him getting married. If he did not play ball you can bet he would “never work in this town again”. Mel Gibson knows this first hand, if you ever upset the HJ’s you will get kicked down the ladder and never get funding or major distribution for a movie ever again. His company Icon Productions went from 65 employees to 4 after his famous drunken rant. Charlie Sheen found out what happens when you get uppity as well.

    They couldn’t have Clooney continuing to be a high profile example of Alpha bachelorhood because men being enslaved through State sanctioned marriage is fundamental to keeping the proles in line. I guarantee you this is why he did it. Even if she walks away with half of his future earnings that would still be quite a bit more for him then not following the orders of Weinstein, etc.

  100. Opus says:

    I too found Nova’s discussion with Anon Reader most interesting (though regrettably I have no idea what BP, SES or FTO stand for). So I would like to add a little bit of history:

    Sometime in the 1960s (in England) it was decided and possibly for good reasons that it was unfair that only 25% of children could have a Grammar School education; that is to say a traditional classical education with Latin, Greek, The Arts and The Sciences – and by reason of the baby-boom that figure had fallen to about 20%. The remaining 80% had to endure what was known as a Secondary Modern where they learned useful skills like carpentry, plumbing and brick-laying. The Grammar Schools were then largely abolished, the syllabus changed and everyone went to the newly invented Comprehensives (frequently the merely re-named Secondary Moderns). The result was that everyone was dragged down to a level lower than that previously obtained at the Grammar Schools. The only exception to this was that there were still fee paying schools for the select few whose parents could afford them; Socialist politicians were notable in sending their children to such schools thus demonstrating that they did not believe their own rhetoric or rather demonstrating that it was one rule for them and another for everyone else. The egalitarian intentions thus had the completely opposite effect to that which had been intended and such that largely the only schools of any calibre are the privately funded schools, and the decent Universities, that is to say Oxford, Cambridge as well as perhaps U.C.L. and the L.S.E. are inhabited largely by those who attended fee-paying schools. Thus the Government’s Front Bench are almost entirely alumni of both Eton and Oxford. Meanwhile house prices in the areas which still have Grammar Schools rise as there is a great competition amongst parents who cannot afford fee-paying schools to get into the right catchment area – what is known as the post-code lottery.

    I see the same dynamic playing out here in the Home Counties as Nova sees in the Beltway. To have asked the former Miss Amal what it was that first attracted her to the multi-millionaire movie-star George Clooney would perhaps be to miss the point.

  101. earl says:

    From CAF:

    ‘I would laugh if my husband declared he was the leader (spiritual or otherwise) in our household.

    We’re a partnership. Our marriage is a partnership. I will not submit, defer, or otherwise follow someone who is to be my equal.’

    We all know who runs that household.

  102. earl says:

    ‘If the husband doesn’t provide….or not adequately, I think, on some level, it can be more difficult for the woman to respect him, much less obey him as a leader. If she also has to provide, it puts her in the more traditionally masculine role, automatically.’

    The hamster has spoken.

  103. greyghost says:

    She is on a roll, like butter. In fact she was driving that train all along.
    http://news.yahoo.com/amal-clooney-married-down-shes-164002593.html

  104. Opus says:

    Whereas Bango Tango is to my mind indulging somewhat in Paranoia it is noticeable that in his latest and apparently not commercially successful movie, Clooney leads a gang of WW2 soldiers intent on recovering stolen loot in this years lets-bash-the-Nazis movie – no prize for who guessing the loot might be returned to – Amal, not to be outdone is advising the Greeks on how to recover the stolen Loot removed by Lord Elgin and his bunch of cultural protection enthusiasts. Coincidence? I think not.

    What we need is a sequel where U.S.Navy Seals descend on Bloomsbury and fight their way into The British Museum, remove the Marbles and make their getaway via Doughty Street, where our hero is assisted in this daring raid by a cute-thirty something Lebanese resistance lawyer. Following a high speed chase down The Rover Thames, pursued by M.I.6. our heroes escape to the open sea where they hide on board a ship pretending to be a pirate radio station having first stashed their loot in The Millenium Dome.

  105. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    Clooney leads a gang of WW2 soldiers intent on recovering stolen loot in this years lets-bash-the-Nazis movie…

    WW2 is the only war Hollywood will allow Americans to feel patriotic about, since we were allied with the soviets. So if the Americans are to be portrayed as the good guys, WW2 it must be. Since the soviets didn’t join the alliance against Japan until the day before we dropped the second nuke, we are also pretty much limited to patriotic movies about fighting the Nazis. I don’t see an end to this limitation in my lifetime.

  106. Exfernal says:

    SES – socioeconomic status
    BP – borderline personality
    FTO – figure the odds (most likely)

  107. thedeti says:

    exfernal, opus:

    I think in the context of Nova’s convo with AR, it’s

    SES: socioeconomic status
    BP: “beautiful people”
    FTO: Future time orientation

  108. Novaseeker says:

    I too found Nova’s discussion with Anon Reader most interesting (though regrettably I have no idea what BP, SES or FTO stand for).

    Sorry about the acronyms! BP = “beautiful people”, SES = “socio-economic status”, FTO = “future time orientation”.

    I’d be surprised if the situation in the home counties were very different from that in the larger coastal American metropolitan areas.

  109. Novaseeker says:

    WW2 is the only war Hollywood will allow Americans to feel patriotic about, since we were allied with the soviets. So if the Americans are to be portrayed as the good guys, WW2 it must be. Since the soviets didn’t join the alliance against Japan until the day before we dropped the second nuke, we are also pretty much limited to patriotic movies about fighting the Nazis. I don’t see an end to this limitation in my lifetime.

    Yes, it is also popular because (1) it has whites as enemies (many, many, many more movies about killing white Germans than about killing Asian Japanese) and (2) it allows us to fixate on white racism continually. It’s full of win for the leftists who make movies, really.

  110. Opus says:

    @Dalrock

    That is one interesting explanation and not perhaps without merit, (I will refrain from suggesting you always turn up late) yet I can recall for wars in the Twentieth Century, American movies about the war with Mexico (They Came to Cordura) WW1 (The Blue Max), and for WW2 in the Pacific (Tora Tora Tora and Midway), Korea (Inchon) though Vietnam, The Green Berets aside, is of course more problematic but have there not been movies about Iraq?

    Most British War Movies have also been about the war in Europe in WW2 rather than any of our other foreign escapades. For the far east Too Late the Hero and Camp on Blood Island (that Barbara Shelley was hot) and Bridge on The River Quai come to mind, and for WW1 there is of course Lawrence of Arabia. As we no longer have any serviceable Lancasters, Mosquitos or Spitfires films like Mosquito Squadron or The Dam Busters are not really viable, any more than we can mount something like Battle of the River Plate so we stick to movies of the mind such as The Imitation Game or Enigma. Alan Turing is now a one man movie franchise.

  111. Chris says:

    “And Clooney is worth like 180 million so he makes a decent living.”

    For now, anyway. As someone said, it’s a matter of time before she gets bored or unha-a-a-a-py.

  112. Jeremy says:

    @Elspeth

    Ideally you (as a single woman) want to be both smart and accomplished and submissive and feminine.

    That, to my mind, is incorrectly stated to the point that a different meaning is conveyed. If you’re trying to snag any (alpha or not) male, your accomplishments are almost meaningless. Accomplishments are how men measure men, we would never apply that standard to women because women have a different lifecycle entirely. Your ability to make smart decisions on your own (like not get into debt), and know when to speak up intelligently (Gracefully demonstrating intelligence, do not challenge), are what you’re looking for. A woman who simply opens her mouth for the explicit purpose to demonstrate intelligence is not attractive (its not preferred between guys either). A woman who must conquer and speak of her accomplishments is a bore and simply signals to the men around her that she does not understand her value as a woman since she attempts to value herself like a man would.

    By all means, go become smart, and go accomplish things outside of your child-bearing/rearing years. But don’t pretend for one instant that men will primarily judge you by such things, because we don’t, and we won’t.

  113. thedeti says:

    “WW2 is the only war Hollywood will allow Americans to feel patriotic about, since we were allied with the soviets. So if the Americans are to be portrayed as the good guys, WW2 it must be.”

    The official story is that we can feel patriotic about WW2 because the primary enemy was white, European, anti-Semitic, and racist. Most people don’t even really understand what the Soviet Union was; don’t understand Marxism or socialism; and don’t understand the nature of the past Cold War or why it was “fought”. All that is, in large part, because most people’s understanding of the USSR is either (1) peace loving people who “chose” different ruling philosophies because of risk aversion; or (2) evil “Russkies”.

  114. Opus says:

    At mid-day I received a call and was asked to join a UMC assortatively married couple of my acquaintance for coffee. I joined them. They really do fit Novaseeker’s paradigm: both educated – at first she was the bigger earner but that has turned round and he now earns more than his wife. After ten years or so of marriage he put his foot down and told her to reproduce: she now, of course, says it was the best thing she ever did. He showed me the receipt for school fees for their eldest for the present term – a five figure sum – a boast, of course, under the guise of complaint. Christians too of the literal Genesis type, her father having been a Pastor. Solid Marriage, I would say and there is no question as to who is the head of the family.

    In many ways this is far better than many marriages of fifty years ago where the wives were often bored at home and frankly uninteresting and uninterested, and the husbands felt like pack mules in their paper-pushing pre-IT occupations yet inevitably increased education for women frequently leads to the sort of problems we in the Manosphere are concerned about.

  115. Exfernal says:

    I have mixed it with another comment by earl where he used it as ‘borderline personality’.

  116. thedeti says:

    Thus, WW2 was a “good” war because it ostensibly wasn’t fought over money or land (the usual reasons for armed conflict). WW2 was and is portrayed as fought to stamp out racism and anti Semitism; to bring “healing and unity”, and to promote freedom, democracy, self-governance, and lasting peace.

    By contrast, Korea and Vietnam were “bad wars” because they were instances of American imperialism and aggression in a sphere of influence outside the Monroe Doctrine; unwanted and unwarranted interference in another country’s sovereign affairs; and imposition of “democracy” on countries that clearly didn’t want it.

  117. Jeremy says:

    WW2 was fought over money. WW2 is a direct consequence of the crippling economic conditions imposed on Germany from the Treaty of Versailles. If Germany had been allowed the financial freedom to rebuild as the allies of WW1 were, they would not have become politically unstable enough to elect Adolf Hitler, hence, no WW2 (as we knew it anyway).

  118. I think it is worth discussing that Amal is a 36 year old career lawyer, simply because this seems to fly in the face of what many here believe will attract and elicit the commitment from a desirable man.

    Only if you assume her career was what attracted him. That would be a mistake. It’s more likely that he’s attracted to her despite her career; and as others have pointed out, if he has political aspirations, he has reasons to make a trade-off there.

    It’s also a mistake to try to disprove general truths about human beings with individual exceptions. I know a guy — not a super-alpha or anything, but an ordinary-looking guy with smarts and a good job, the kind of beta provider who’s invisible to women — who’s married to an absolute land whale and seems to honestly find her attractive. Does that falsify my contention that obesity is the most unattractive thing a woman can do to herself? No it does not.

    Also, with megastars like Clooney, we have to keep in mind that their sex lives tend to be so far outside the realm of normal human experience that it can mess them up. I think that’s why so many huge stars end up dabbling with homosexuality — they’ve had fresh pussy on tap all night, every night, for so long that they get bored with it and start looking for variety. A guy who’s had women throwing themselves at him for decades may not want a devoted wife waiting for him when he gets home every night, gazing at him like a groupie (he may think he doesn’t, anyway). He may think it’d be nice to have one who’s not dazzled by him and has her own life. If so, that has nothing to do with what normal human beings want, or what works in a normal marriage.

  119. thedeti says:

    Cail:

    Yeah, it’s probably true that George is attracted to Amal despite her career. Amal is in shape, and has kept her looks well into her 30s. And Amal resembles his first wife, Talia Balsam.

    Here’s Talia: http://www.zimbio.com/Talia+Balsam/pictures/pro?Page=3

    And here’s Amal:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=amal+alamuddin&safe=off&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=4VeQVLf4AYOXyQTR2IHACw&ved=0CAUQ_AU

  120. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    That is one interesting explanation and not perhaps without merit, (I will refrain from suggesting you always turn up late) yet I can recall for wars in the Twentieth Century, American movies about the war with Mexico (They Came to Cordura) WW1 (The Blue Max), and for WW2 in the Pacific (Tora Tora Tora and Midway), Korea (Inchon) though Vietnam, The Green Berets aside, is of course more problematic but have there not been movies about Iraq?

    Note that all of the movies you reference are from 1970 or earlier. We’ve had roughly 45 years where Americans can only be the heroes is if the villains are Nazis. The only exception I can think of is Red Dawn. I wouldn’t count the Rambo movies because the subtext was American failure even though Rambo was the hero.

    There are a number of movies which have been made about Iraq and Afghanistan, but none of them show Americans as the good guys. Courage Under Fire was about the bad, sexist US military. Three Kings was about US troops looting Iraqi treasure. Jarhead: I didn’t see it but as I recall it was left wing agitprop on bad America. Even the movie made about killing Bin Ladin (Zero Dark 30) was as I understand it laced with a sense of angst. Probably the closest would be Lone Survivor, but that is about our SEALs failing at their mission and getting all but wiped out. Aside from some Discovery Channel (Alpha Company Iraq Diary) and artsy (Restropo) type documentaries, I’m not aware of any movies showing the amazing things our forces did in Falluja, etc. I know the Brits did quite a bit of heavy lifting in the South of Iraq, but I’m not aware of any movies on that either. It isn’t for lack of suitable material. Hollywood wasn’t going to give Bush the gift of making this kind of movie, and since they didn’t make any before it all went south for Obama I doubt we will see any for at least a few more years, if ever.

    So here we are; if Hollywood wants to do a patriotic war movie, it must be from when we were fighting the Nazis side by side with Stalin.

  121. thedeti says:

    “WW2 was fought over money. WW2 is a direct consequence of the crippling economic conditions imposed on Germany from the Treaty of Versailles.”

    I know that, and you know that. Your average American lumpenprole who watches the Kardashians doesn’t know that.

    Your average 1950s-1960s era Joe Six Pack and Hazel Housewife kinda sorta knew that. But your average 1970s era Tony Manero didn’t know that. And your average 1980s era Ferris Bueller neither knew that nor gave a shit about that.

    Though WW2 was fought over money, it is routinely portrayed and depicted in US media as being fought to defeat an insane racist anti-Semite. To Hollywood, WW2 was about defeating an enemy of humanity and to promote “peace in our time”. And that has become the dominant narrative in the US’ dysfunctional view of itself and the world, and the US’ place in the world.

  122. Elspeth says:

    @ Jeremy:

    I can only speak from my own experience married to a man who is and always has been higher up than me from an SMP perspective (if you give credence to that kind of thing). Without question the fact that I was about to graduate college mattered to him. He had no interest in a dumb woman and where we hailed from, the acquisition of a degree indicated “not dumb” even though I was far from the hottest young woman he’d ever dated. He didn’t even have a degree and it mattered to him.

    I was also the first one whose father was present and accounted for.

    As I explained to LGR, in the real world stuff like that matters more than anyone here wants to admit even as all the discussions presume that everyone or at least most people are or desire to be UMC, even amongst Christians. Show me a string of accomplished educated men married to women with no credentials and I might just begin to question what I see with my lying eyes.

    I actually wanted to comment about Laura’s excellent point about marriage readiness and how many people aren’t even thought they think they are. Count me among them. I was not marriage ready. Few people are truly ready for the undertaking that marriage is. In a materialistic society the markers for “readiness” in almost every area is measured in dollars and cents.

    This is a faulty premise. The best indicators of marriage readiness are indeed quantifiable in many instances but have very little to do with money. Staying married because you have so much to lose (in terms of money and social status) are hardly indicators of a healthy attitude towards the sacred estate of marriage.

    Huh. Guess i am more of a romantic than I realized.

  123. Chris says:

    “Few people are truly ready for the undertaking that marriage is.”

    “Undertaking” in more ways than one.

    Marriage is like learning to ride a bike. You can’t really plan; you just kinda have to do it. And hope it doesn’t hurt too much when it goes awry.

  124. Elspeth says:

    Oh, forgot something:

    Your ability to make smart decisions on your own (like not get into debt), and know when to speak up intelligently (Gracefully demonstrating intelligence, do not challenge), are what you’re looking for. A woman who simply opens her mouth for the explicit purpose to demonstrate intelligence is not attractive (its not preferred between guys either). A woman who must conquer and speak of her accomplishments is a bore and simply signals to the men around her that she does not understand her value as a woman since she attempts to value herself like a man would.

    This assumes that a woman who has shown competence via the things she has accomplished necessarily speaks of them or brags and brandishes her money and degrees like a badge of honor or something of sexual value. This needn’t be the case. I would agree that most men would find it a huge turnoff because that’s not why any man picks any woman.

    The simple fact of the matter is that in the current cultural and social paradigm very few young women are afforded any opportunity to demonstrate marriageable characteristics (the ability to finish what she starts, literacy, financial savvy, etc.) outside of the educational/ career model. Your average church doesn’t even provide such opportunities for young women.

    And that’s probably why college educated women are more likely to land a husband than non educated women outside of very cloistered agrarian communities such as the Mennonites, Amish, etc.

    I place no stock in credentials as a means of identifying real value as a wife or pretty much anything else. But you need a ticket to get in the door so…

  125. Mark Minter says:

    The flip side of all this is something that has begun to dominate my thoughts.

    And that is the antipathy that almost all women have towards most men. So while this big celebration of this woman marrying Clooney is delightful, the vast majority of women despise you.

    I found this site: http://the-toast.net It seems to verbalize for me, the disgust that women feel towards men, the deep disrespect they have for both men and marriage, the deep irrational fear of Rape, but mostly of reproductive sex with any but the “Clooney”. It puts to words. the deeply deeply Misandric attitude of most women towards most men.

    The later thing has become my “thing”, this belief that this Misandry, actually this Antipathy, one that is instinctive, actually “natural”, inbreed and embedded, is so intrinsic to women that is akin, but even more so, to Racism, that it trumps Racism, and it so colors and effects both the psychology and judgment of women that it should be addressed on the same level as Civil Rights.

    Here, from the site I linked above: (I swear I copied it straight from the site)

    The Misandrist’s Prayer

    May men offer themselves to me —
    to build with and to do with as I will.
    Relieve them of the bondage of self,
    that they may better do my will.
    Take away their personalities,
    that victory over them may bear witness to men I would help
    of my power, my love, and my way of life.
    May they do my will always.

    Want more? More prayers from women?

    I am now willing that I should have all of men,
    good & bad.
    I pray that you now remove from them
    every single defect of character which stands in the way of their usefulness to me
    Grant me strength to master them,
    as they go out from here to do my bidding.

    More?

    God grant me the serenity
    To accept the things I cannot change;
    Courage to ride the men I can like a pony;
    And wisdom to know the difference.

    Ok, one more

    Our Father,
    Who art in heaven,
    Stay there.

    There’s plenty more: http://the-toast.net/2014/12/15/misandrists-prayer/

    OK, so you say “one site, some women, maybe a parody” I say it isn’t. When you start to take the body of it all into consideration, this set of observations for one men’s group, that one from another, learn the language, the ability to read “between the lines”, the “esoteric writing” of women then it continues to reinforce the idea of a deep, deep hatred of men, fear of sex with men, both of which drive a cultural ethic, even though irrational, gleefully represses and oppresses men.

    This not new. But rather it has always existed, always deep in the psyche of women. Here is artwork, all picked because of the disdain for men, all with “plucky” commentary from the “curator”, all gleefully enjoyed and commented on by the readers, other women (no nonsense WordPress login, or Facebook login here. No these are approved members, women)

    Trust me here. Click these links and you’ll see what I mean. These are not “listicles” with multiple pages but rather all the art on one page, easy viewing.

    Western Art History: 500 Years of Women Ignoring Men
    http://the-toast.net/2014/06/10/women-ignoring-men-as-art/#K0F82FfOusc3y0kp.99

    This one is of special interest to a Dalrock reader.
    Unhappy Mothers In Western Art History
    http://the-toast.net/2014/10/02/unhappy-mothers-western-art-history/

    This one you’ll love. It reeks of entitlement and makes no apologies for it.
    Unsatisfied Women In Western Art History
    http://the-toast.net/2014/09/09/unsatisfied-women-western-art-history/

    And these speak of how dismissive women are of men and of marriage
    Women Resisting Heterosexuality In Western Art History
    http://the-toast.net/2014/12/10/women-resisting-heterosexuality-western-art-history/
    Women Rejecting Marriage Proposals In Western Art History
    http://the-toast.net/2014/11/06/women-rejecting-marriage-proposals-western-art-history/

    I’ll be pounding on this concept. More later, here and other places.

  126. Fascinating. Like how lynx are trapped with a bird wing or piece of tinsel on a string. They are fascinated and walk right into the trap because they are so entirely fixated on the gewgaw. The trick is putting it just at the level where the cat isn’t really sure he can get it (not too easy) and yet not so far away that they are sure they can’t.

    Then stand back and watch all of the other trappers complain because their strings were too long, too short, or that their dazzler was too dull.

  127. thedeti says:

    Regarding marriage as for UMCs, the Mandarinate and power couples:

    Here in flyover country, you see the power couples Nova describes, but not as many of them and they aren’t nearly as prominent. You see them in the “society” pages or at the local luminary functions. They’re mostly comprised of the local physicians, prominent wealthy lawyers, academics and businesspeople.

    Most people are still getting married, but it’s later. For the middle class on down, they try marriage, but both husband and wife have to work. The couple together needs her income because they can’t make ends meet on his income alone. They don’t have a lot of kids. If they have any children at all, they usually have only one. A few have two, but no more than that. It’s a real rarity anymore to meet couples who have 3 or more kids.

    A good portion of the marriages don’t make it, for a lot of reasons. I contend it’s primarily because she’s not attracted to him – most women are marrying men who aren’t nearly as attractive as the men they used to have sex with. This by itself probably isn’t enough to break them up. But there are a lot of other factors like (1) other men expressing interest in her; (2) her ability to continue attracting men (rare); (3) financial problems and difficulties, (4) job losses and changes; and (5) isolation from external support structures like solid churches and communities, these things can often produce perfect storms that increase divorce in this set.

    Another thing that really strains marriages in this set is how easy it is to divorce and secure the husband’s income stream. Ex-wife’s life continues as before minus husband; husband is no longer a father but is instead a monthly wage deduction. Pretty easy now for a wife to check out of the marriage and cash it in. Dalrock has written at length about this, of course.

    And for anyone below middle class, marriage is difficult at best. It’s just easier and less stressful to have a couple of baby daddies. And for the few men in the lower and working-class strata who get pussy easily, marriage has lots of downsides and no upsides. And lower class women have all sorts of government assistance available to them. Marriage makes it harder for such women to get those government goodies, so they stay single.

  128. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    I actually wanted to comment about Laura’s excellent point about marriage readiness and how many people aren’t even thought they think they are. Count me among them. I was not marriage ready. Few people are truly ready for the undertaking that marriage is. In a materialistic society the markers for “readiness” in almost every area is measured in dollars and cents.

    I will agree that few people are truly ready for marriage. Let’s kick this around. What does “readiness for marriage” look like in a woman? What does it look like in a man?

    In some circles one can hear mothers going on about “how a young man treats his mother and/or sister(s) tells a lot about him, uh huh it does”. I once stopped such a conversation dead by agreeing with that, and amplifying along the lines of “how a young woman interacts with her father and her brother(s) reveals much about her, too”. I could see on one woman’s face the fact that she had never, ever thought that way.

    In older fiction, at least in Europe and America, women of 14 were considered “ready for the wedding plate” because by then they knew all the skills required to run a household once they were married to a journeyman of 16 who had similarly learned skills required to make a living. They also had a pretty good grasp of what “being married” looked like from their family and most people around them. Both negative and positive lessons were in the street or down the lane or across the field.

    Things are different now.

    There’s a lot, a whole lot, of effort put into training for work, to get money. That’s what schooling is all about for the most part. There’s no real effort at the social or cultural level put into training people on how to “be married”, for a whole lot of reasons (some cultural players don’t want anyone to be married, for a start, because oppression). So expecting young men and young women to learn “how to be married” by osmosis or from infotainment is not working.

    Teaching by example, as Elspeth and her husband do, is indispensible. But not sufficient, I fear.

    So what does someone who is “marriage ready” look like?

  129. Spacetraveller says:

    Elspeth,

    “The simple fact of the matter is that in the current cultural and social paradigm very few young women are afforded any opportunity to demonstrate marriageable characteristics (the ability to finish what she starts…”

    I agree, Elspeth. Education is one of very few proxies around, to judge the tenacity of a person. You are correct in that few other undertakings do this. Unfortunate, but there we are.
    I too am seeing more and more of pairings where both parties are similarly educated. These pairings start off in school/college, so really, the proximity helps the process along🙂
    it is for a good reason that Kate went to the same university as William. It was for the *chance* to meet him. And why not?

    About ‘finishing what she started’, I can’t tell you how true this is in my case. My husband judges me on this on a daily basis🙂
    Although I was finished with my education before I even met him, there was an additional qualification I could get just by sending in the required documents (meaning, I had already earned this qualification but I couldn’t be bothered to claim it). My husband was on my back until I had done the necessary paperwork to claim this qualification. It was so much more important to him than it was to me, simply because I, by doing this extra tedious stuff, would be ‘finishing what I started’.
    In hindsight, he is correct.
    And I think a lot of men have this attitude too. Which is good, for it is a good principle to have in life.

  130. Anonymous Reader says:

    thedeti
    A good portion of the marriages don’t make it, for a lot of reasons. I contend it’s primarily because she’s not attracted to him – most women are marrying men who aren’t nearly as attractive as the men they used to have sex with. This by itself probably isn’t enough to break them up. But there are a lot of other factors like (1) other men expressing interest in her;

    A married woman who is working for money is likely to be spending some time around men who have a higher SMV than her husband does. A legal secretary around attornies all day, who have a more commanding presence than her husband. The mid-level manager who spends some time on travel with company leaders, who are more powerful than her husband. Many examples abound.

    The mere presence of the more-Alpha men will likely affect how she views the man she married, who pales to some extent by comparison. And what is the likely result? Fitness testing, naturally; she’ll unconsciously start ftiness testing her husband in order to reassure herself that he really is at least “good enough”, if not better than. A typical betaized AFC who tends to fail fitness tests will not do well in that situation, and the spiral down likely will begin. It is not inevitable, but it surely happens.

    Note that this whole process happens in the unconscious of both parties. She’s not necessarily maliciously setting out to blow up her marriage, he’s not necessarily throwing up his hands and giving up. She dissatisfied and doesn’t really know why, he’s miserable and likewise doesn’t really know why. Each party can point a finger at the other and say “You’re not the person I married anymore”, each party can claim to be the aggrieved one. And part of the problem, if I may bang my toy drum, is the totally wrong idea that men and women are exactly the same, with the same emotional and physical needs (except women can have babies).

    I’ve pointed out here and elsewhere for a few years now that the ongoing economic crisis requires married men to learn Game or whatever you want to call it, in order to keep the relationship stable and viable. The Obama Economic Boom has pushed a lot of men out of work, and it’s surely a challenge to be the “captain” of the boat when it’s the “first officer” who is catching all the fish.

  131. Bango Tango,

    Anyone who knows anything about Hollywood and the Jewish cartel that runs it can figure out that Clooney’s future paydays depended on him getting married. If he did not play ball you can bet he would “never work in this town again”….

    They couldn’t have Clooney continuing to be a high profile example of Alpha bachelorhood because men being enslaved through State sanctioned marriage is fundamental to keeping the proles in line. I guarantee you this is why he did it.

    You guarantee that? Explain Bill Maher and his very lucrative contract with HBO to do Real Time with Bill Maher? He never has any trouble putting A-list celebrities on his show and they talk about every controversial. And yet, he’s never been married.

    I guess the Jewish Cartel doesn’t run HBO.

    Dalrock,

    WW2 is the only war Hollywood will allow Americans to feel patriotic about, since we were allied with the soviets. So if the Americans are to be portrayed as the good guys, WW2 it must be. Since the soviets didn’t join the alliance against Japan until the day before we dropped the second nuke, we are also pretty much limited to patriotic movies about fighting the Nazis. I don’t see an end to this limitation in my lifetime.

    Heartbreak Ridge? The Siege? True Lies? United 93? I felt pretty patriotic after Black Hawk Down. Captain Phillips made me feel pretty good too…

    Even the movie made about killing Bin Ladin (Zero Dark 30) was as I understand it laced with a sense of angst.

    You understood incorrectly. You need to watch it. I’ve watched Zero Dark Thirty about 5 times, and loved it. James Cameron’s ex-wife did an outstanding movie, very believable, very authentic

    The only “angst” (if there was any) was the angst the CIA was feeling about whether or not they guessed right about the location of bin laden. They ONLY had outstanding intelligence and data, no actual “proof” because bin laden was way too good at covering his tracks. There wasn’t a single moment in that movie where people were questioning whether or not they should be doing this (for political purposes.) There was instead only a feeling of dread that maybe, just maybe, we didn’t gather yet enough intelligence to advice President Obama to go after him. They were gunshy about their own intelligence, NOT gunshy about whether or not they should kill him to begin with. That’s very different Dalrock and you know it. Zero Dark Thirty was an exceptionally patriotic movie and I recommend that you and everyone in the manosphere watch it.

  132. lgrobins says:

    Since you are all talking about what makes one ready for marriage….I posted this awhile ago:

    “What do people really know about vows and commitments? What other events are there in life where you get to experience and get a taste for commitment before the serious commitment of marriage? I can’t think of any. There is nothing in childhood or young adulthood that you can’t just wiggle your way out of, jobs for example, college, buying a house, none of those are a commitment. College may appear as a 4 year commitment of time and money, but if you don’t do well or don’t like it, you can quit, society doesn’t care. A mortgage may appear as a 30 year commitment, but you can always sell or let it foreclose. Our lives are made of paper in every possible way. Coincidentally, college is the first “piece of paper” you collect in the paper trail of life. Next is the piece of paper of marriage and then you buy a house with even more pieces of paper. Eventually, your life is a house of cards with no foundation.

    Based on prior life experiences, it seems people stumble into marriage having a dictionary definition of commitment, but not a practical definition and it fails. Commitment has been taught as something more fluid, where you set out with good intentions and that is all that matters.”

  133. thedeti says:

    “On college, I think that many do think that it isn’t doing as much harm, in practical terms [for the upper middle class, at least], and also that they weren’t perfect when they were young, so … as long as they are well set up in terms of education and career it should be okay. After all, it IS working for the upper middle class, for the most part. That’s the thing. They are able to pull this off due to their overall skillsets, although it must also be said that their indulgence in various “scenes”, including the carousel, is moderate compared to other SES, again due to the same skillsets (FTO being a big one).
    “I think the issue on sons is just coming into view, and, yes, it’s going to be interesting.”

    Despite the rape hysteria some are fomenting, the odds are that your average middle class to UMC woman attending any college or university anywhere will get out of college without being raped as long as she isn’t monumentally stupid or insane. But if she’s sexually active, she likely get pumped and dumped at least a couple of times; which will be written off as “mistakes” or passed off as “date rapes”.

    As Nova says, this is just a cost of doing business. Chastity is the value that will get tossed aside, particularly if it will stand in the way of their daughters getting educated and getting jobs. What matters is that she needs to get her education now so she can get a job and take care of herself. To these parents, her virginity just won’t matter in the long run. She’ll find someone who will marry her eventually, and even if she doesn’t, she will have her degree and her job and she will be OK. And these parents are resigned to the fact that they cannot control every move their kids make. And the parents see it as not important, because they themselves did the exact same things when they were in college.

  134. thedeti says:

    And to be clear, your average college woman won’t just have pump and dumps – she’ll also have Serious Boyfriends, at least one or two. She’ll also have flings and STRs. Sex will probably be a part of all of those encounters.

  135. Bango Tango says:

    You guarantee that? Explain Bill Maher and his very lucrative contract with HBO to do Real Time with Bill Maher? He never has any trouble putting A-list celebrities on his show and they talk about every controversial. And yet, he’s never been married.

    I guess the Jewish Cartel doesn’t run HBO.

    Yes they do. Bill Maher is Jewish and not a high profile alpha like Clooney…he can do what he wants. Plus Bill Maher promotes the other end of the liberal agenda with his bullshit show. Please if you people think that is paranoid do some research on how psychological operations work. Is it an accident that top Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel is brother of political mob boss Rahm Emanuel? Yes they have an agenda and yes it is a vast conspiracy. I still might be wrong about the motives of Clooney though so you’re right, I guess I can’t say guarantee.

  136. thedeti,

    As Nova says, this is just a cost of doing business. Chastity is the value that will get tossed aside, particularly if it will stand in the way of their daughters getting educated and getting jobs. What matters is that she needs to get her education now so she can get a job and take care of herself. To these parents, her virginity just won’t matter in the long run.

    It depends on what is on a man’s subconcious “list” of things he is looking for in a wife. You have to let your concious self listen to your subconcious self or you will never be happy. I understood years ago that if I was ever to get married, I was only willing to marry a woman who was college educated with a career. I had a bachelor’s UMC lifestyle and if I were to be married, I would want to retain that lifestyle in marriage. You can find fault with me all you want, say I’m greedy, say I’m wrong, say whatever you want. I don’t care. All I know is that I refused to settle so if a woman ever wanted to be MY wife, this was one of the many things she had to be.

    Now my list is not a list that every man has. But its mine.

  137. Elspeth says:

    So what does someone who is “marriage ready” look like?

    We have three young adult daughters. The oldest I would easily describe as “marriage ready”. She understands what it means to be a submissive wife, yet a competent first officer. She’s financially responsible. 6 months away from graduating from a pretty good school -in this area- debt free. She has good savings. Can cook. Great with kids. Organized. She’s 20 and has only ever been asked out twice. By unbelieving men.

    The middle one is not what I would consider “marriage ready” in terms of skills, but she’s smart. Also malleable and eager to learn what she isn’t naturally good at. A lot like I was when I got married. Her husband will be able to mold her into the wife he needs her to be and she won’t put up much of a fight. At least not most of the time.

    The last one, despite being raised in the same house, is not marriage ready. Frankly, I think far too many people have given her a pass because she’s the prettiest. Absent the work of the Holy Spirit, her husband will have his work cut out for him. Lucky for her, men forgive and put up with a lot in exchange for beauty. And even with that, there hasn’t been any string of suitors beating down the door. Lots of timid and stealth IOI, but no boldness which will be required of any man taking on the challenging of husbanding her.

    Oh, and they are all Christians, but what does that matter anymore when it comes to being “marriage ready”, even in the church?

    So to answer your question is very complicated and depends a lot of what any individual man is looking for in a wife. Christian character, chastity, competency (in practical matters), and a teachable spirit make one marriage ready.

    What do people really know about vows and commitments? What other events are there in life where you get to experience and get a taste for commitment before the serious commitment of marriage?

    True. I think having an example of what commitment looks like is helpful. It’s not foolproof because there are those select people who diligently work to overcome the dysfunction in their families of origin.

    One thing parents can do is from a young age, make them children keep their word and commitments they make. I learned quickly that I would be held to sticking out anything I committed to. Particularly if my dad had to spend his hard earned money to purchase my participation. To this day, I use the words “I promise” so sparingly that our children know that my use of those words is an iron clad guarantee.

  138. Spacetraveller says:

    About helping the daughter keep her chastity whilst being educated, again Elspeth and husband have it spot on. As did my parents.
    Of 6 years of university, I was living at home for 5 of them. In the one year I lived on campus, I was home every weekend.
    Part of it was parental enforcement. Part of it was introversion/shyness on my part and home being a ‘comfort zone’.
    Having or making friends from a similar background to oneself also works wonders. My friends from those university days are the same people I still hang out with. Their values, like mine, haven’t changed, so we can ‘ground’ each other if necessary.
    Priceless.

  139. Baango Tango,

    Yes they do. Bill Maher is Jewish and not a high profile alpha like Clooney…he can do what he wants. Plus Bill Maher promotes the other end of the liberal agenda with his bullshit show. Please if you people think that is paranoid do some research on how psychological operations work. Is it an accident that top Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel is brother of political mob boss Rahm Emanuel? Yes they have an agenda and yes it is a vast conspiracy. I still might be wrong about the motives of Clooney though so you’re right, I guess I can’t say guarantee.

    Bill Maher is atheist. He believes NOTHING of the Torah, nothing. He’s gone on the record stipulating the talking snake is horsesh-t. If he’s “Jewish” it is only in the secular sense, a secular-Jew. He does not (nor has he ever) practiced Judaism in any sense. And if I remember correctly his was raised Roman Catholic in New Jersey.

    He is a high profile alpha. He (fully dressed) has posed with nude models in Playboy magazine. He’s been on almost every early morning talk show (got into it with George Will once and Will schooled him.) He former live-in model girlfriend sued him for palimony and failed when he traded her in for a newer and younger model. He is desired and alpha.

    George Clooney promotes the same end of the liberal agenda Maher promotes. So if Maher doesn’t have to get married because he’s helping the leftists than neither did Clooney. You are not being consistant.

  140. I understood years ago that if I was ever to get married, I was only willing to marry a woman who was college educated with a career. I had a bachelor’s UMC lifestyle and if I were to be married, I would want to retain that lifestyle in marriage. You can find fault with me all you want, say I’m greedy, say I’m wrong, say whatever you want. I don’t care. All I know is that I refused to settle so if a woman ever wanted to be MY wife, this was one of the many things she had to be.

    Now my list is not a list that every man has. But its mine.

    It sure is yours. And, as deti said, you tossed out values to gain it. So… is summary, you tossed out Chasity and virginity, proper Christian values, for wealth..

  141. lgrobins says:

    “It sure is yours. And, as deti said, you tossed out values to gain it. So… is summary, you tossed out Chasity and virginity, proper Christian values, for wealth..”

    Was just going to say that. Like isn’t an uneducated, low earning power virgin better than an educated slut?
    The manosphere loves to talk about how picky women are, but men have their own lists.

  142. armenia4ever says:

    The next time one of us nobodies marries Emma Watson, we’ll be sure to remind the world about how we actually are marrying down.

  143. Spacetraveler,

    About helping the daughter keep her chastity whilst being educated, again Elspeth and husband have it spot on. As did my parents.
    Of 6 years of university, I was living at home for 5 of them. In the one year I lived on campus, I was home every weekend.

    This is smart. It helps if you live in a metropolitian area with easy commuter access to an affordable enough state univeristy. Moreover, that same state university has to allow for commuter students. I think they probably all do but some private schools do insist that in order to attend, you have to live on campus for at least one year.

    But not all people live close enough to a major state university system such that they could keep their daughter’s home whilst being educated. It is wonderful that Elspeth’s situation (and yours growing up) affords this. Not all situations do.

    I mean best thing you can do (if you can’t keep her home) is trust your daughter to keep chastity. Raise her to be that way and believe that she will live that way at school. As the saying goes, you can’t keep ’em down on the farm. And if your daughter can’t be trusted (or she flat out doesn’t think that remaining virgin is that important and can’t WAIT to have sex), then you’ve probably got much bigger problems than worrying about where she is living so she can commute to university.

  144. Elspeth says:

    I think they probably all do but some private schools do insist that in order to attend, you have to live on campus for at least one year.

    Our oldest attends a private college and has never lived on campus.

  145. fh and lgrobbins,

    “It sure is yours. And, as deti said, you tossed out values to gain it. So… is summary, you tossed out Chasity and virginity, proper Christian values, for wealth..”

    Was just going to say that. Like isn’t an uneducated, low earning power virgin better than an educated slut?
    The manosphere loves to talk about how picky women are, but men have their own lists.

    You guys have NO IDEA what values I tossed out to get what wanted. I might not have tossed out ANY values. I only told you one thing on my list, a non-negotiable. My list was very long. I was darn picky.

    And I was perfectly content (maybe even happy) remaining a bachelor if I never met a woman that fulfilled the entire list.

  146. deti says:

    Elspeth’s list and descriptions of her daughters is the best I’ve seen of young women who are marriage ready. I’d just add to that:

    1. The attitude that marriage is for life and is indissoluble

    2. The ability to see something through to conclusion, to finish what one starts, perseverance

    3. The ability to make and keep commitments

  147. jbro1922 says:

    On education:

    Some private schools do require students to live on campus for at least a year. Private schools can also have vibrant campus lives as opposed to larger state schools that have lots of commuter students. I went to a private college that didn’t have a residency requirement, but everyone lived on campus. You missed out on a lot of activities (academic and otherwise) if you weren’t on campus.
    The comment about peer groups is important. I live on campus all four years of undergrad, but I wasn’t hanging out with the sluts. I had one friend who lost her virginity in college and got wild, sleeping with any man who would have her. We weren’t very close friends, just exchanged pleasantries. (I went to a small, predominately white institution, so as a black student, I hung out with all the other black students. There weren’t very many of us.)
    I was curious about level of education. Many people think being educated now means you gotta get at least a master’s degree. Would you keep you kids home for grad school too? What about doctoral studies? Depending on the field, you may need it to get the career you want.

  148. Jeremy says:

    @Elspeth

    Without question the fact that I was about to graduate college mattered to him. He had no interest in a dumb woman and where we hailed from, the acquisition of a degree indicated “not dumb”…

    Indeed, just an indicator light of “not dumb” is enough, as you said. You don’t have to “be smart”. In my mind, those are two different things. In my experience, people who are obsessed with “being smart” are fairly forward with their intellect, to a degree.

    The simple fact of the matter is that in the current cultural and social paradigm very few young women are afforded any opportunity to demonstrate marriageable characteristics (the ability to finish what she starts, literacy, financial savvy, etc.) outside of the educational/ career model.

    I think this sort of thinking is very limiting to women. I’m curious why you would think such things. Your demonstration criteria seem to ONLY see the standards by which men judge men.

    Your average church doesn’t even provide such opportunities for young women.

    This is an avenue of life that I do wish women took a lesson from the men… No one gives you opportunities, ladies. Opportunities are made, not granted. If women truly felt that church social life, or society in general were not meeting their demonstrate-the-self-as-worth-wife needs, well frankly, complaining to the “leadership” is essentially like whining to dad when your dress isn’t the right color. It may make you feel better in the short term, but all you’re doing is putting the onus on someone else to both understand what you’re asking, and try to create the situation that you might more easily create for yourself.

    There’s a great quote from that cheap 90’s western, “Silverado”…. “Life is what you make of it friend. If it doesn’t fit, you make alterations.”

    If women aren’t being allowed to be women, then frankly it’s on women to make the opportunities they require, not men. This is why the manosphere in general, and not the MRM specifically, is the best resource for men, because it is men making opportunities for themselves based on the environment they’ve been given, rather than simply whining to authorities.

    And that’s probably why college educated women are more likely to land a husband…

    No, college educated women are more likely to land a husband because:
    1) College has more alphas than the unemployment line.
    2) Men in college are more likely to feel worthy to marriage, more prepared to support a family, and hence make more time for women to allow that to happen.

    They don’t call it MRS degree for nothing. Most women go to college because marriageable men are there, and that’s just a fact. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, men go to dance clubs because young single women are there… yet men don’t feel shame over this behavior.

  149. thedeti says:

    The question’s asked, what makes a man “marriage ready”?

    Really, the better question is what makes a man a man. Because once he becomes a man, truly a man, then and only then will he be marriage ready.

    A man:

    1. has a well thought out worldview and life philosophy, guiding principles, First Principles, a moral code. He adheres to this rigidly and isn’t swept about by trends, fads or pastimes.

    2. Has a life purpose, a mission. He’s here for a reason and he knows what that is. (He is NOT here to be a husband to a wife or a father to children. That is and should be secondary to his life purpose, his vocation, his “calling”.)

    3. Has a plan to carry out his mission.

    4. Is accepted into a tribe, into the company of men. He is in a hierarchy and knows his place within it.

    5. Understands and has a good working knowledge of male nature and female nature; some basics of human psychology. (Game, masculinity, Godly masculinity, etc. )

  150. Elspeth says:

    You guys have NO IDEA what values I tossed out to get what wanted. I might not have tossed out ANY values.

    Perhaps not, but you have a pretty long history of comments decrying chastity prior to marriage as a deal breaker. I’m not knocking you for the mistakes you may have made. Lord knows I made a whole host on my way to the altar. But at least be honest and admit that you had screwy priorities from a Christian standpoint.

    The more important point is that you’re not alone. There are a select few men who read here for whom N=0 or bust is their standard, but most have pretty fluid standards if other criteria are met. Like I said, show me a long line of educated men (Christian or otherwise) married to women with no secondary education credentials and then we can talk about how much no man cares about that sort of thing.

    Now you could argue that this is not about the degree but about intelligence and you may be right. But it still speaks to the fact that simply being virtuous, submissive and hard working (and even attractive) aren’t enough in themselves.

  151. Elspeth says:

    I think this sort of thinking is very limiting to women. I’m curious why you would think such things. Your demonstration criteria seem to ONLY see the standards by which men judge men.

    Are you kidding me Jeremy? You don’t think a wife needs to demonstrate that she can finish what she starts, be literate, and able to handle money? Then what doesn’t the man need her for besides sex and babies and what kind of help meet and mother would she be if all she is is a walking womb?

    I’m not following your line of thought. Further, these opportunities women are supposed to make for themselves sans any parental training? Well the same could be said for the increasing numbers of low achieving men.

  152. And because most men can’t get it all, more and more men are opting out of marrying.

    Nope. Men don’t expect “it all” any more than they ever did. Men are recognizing that most attractive women under 30-35 aren’t interested in marriage, but that most of them are quite willing to have sex and even live with a man without marriage.

    1950s paradigm:

    Man: Let’s have sex.
    Woman: We’re not even engaged yet.
    Man: Okay, here’s a ring.
    Woman: Okay, a backseat quickie once or twice, but not regularly until we’re married.

    2010s paradigm:

    Man: Let’s have sex.
    Woman: Sounds good to me. Wait til you see this position my eighth boyfriend taught me!
    Man (who hasn’t recognized the new paradigm yet): Maybe we should get married?
    Woman: I’m nowhere near ready for marriage yet. I haven’t even been to Paris! Can’t we just take it slow and get to know each other?

  153. MarcusD says:

    @earl

    Yes, the cognitive dissonance (and feminism) on display at CAF is quite astounding. I’m going to have to start calling it “neo-Catholic” because it’s certainly not “Catholic.”

  154. MarcusD says:

    “WW2 was fought over money. WW2 is a direct consequence of the crippling economic conditions imposed on Germany from the Treaty of Versailles. If Germany had been allowed the financial freedom to rebuild as the allies of WW1 were, they would not have become politically unstable enough to elect Adolf Hitler, hence, no WW2 (as we knew it anyway).”

    This is why the Ruble collapsing as we speak (write) is worrisome – if Putin feels backed into a corner, he might do something rash (e.g. start WW3).

  155. MarcusD says:

    Why are people so set on “secondary education credentials”?

    Education, credentials, and intelligence are not the same thing.

  156. It seems to me that we used to have ways for men and women of equally high MMV to find each other that didn’t require years of time and piles of crushing debt. Guys at college (a serious college, like engineering or medicine) would go down the road to the nursing or hairdressing school for group dates. They didn’t have to go to the same school for several years and then pursue the same careers for several more, just to be able to meet eligible members of the opposite sex.

    If a girl wants to show me that she’s smart enough to be intellectually interesting to me, she can give me a run for my money in a game of Scrabble. That’ll be a lot more effective than waving her degree around. If submitting herself to the university system is the only way for a smart, capable girl to connect with smart, upwardly-mobile men, that’s seriously messed up. There’s no reason it has to be that hard.

  157. Bango Tango says:

    Bill Maher is atheist. He believes NOTHING of the Torah, nothing. He’s gone on the record stipulating the talking snake is horsesh-t. If he’s “Jewish” it is only in the secular sense, a secular-Jew. He does not (nor has he ever) practiced Judaism in any sense. And if I remember correctly his was raised Roman Catholic in New Jersey.

    He is a high profile alpha. He (fully dressed) has posed with nude models in Playboy magazine. He’s been on almost every early morning talk show (got into it with George Will once and Will schooled him.) He former live-in model girlfriend sued him for palimony and failed when he traded her in for a newer and younger model. He is desired and alpha.

    George Clooney promotes the same end of the liberal agenda Maher promotes. So if Maher doesn’t have to get married because he’s helping the leftists than neither did Clooney. You are not being consistant.

    Bill Maher is an active participant and he is “Jewish” as far as the group he is associated with is, if they pretend they are atheist or theist it does not matter, God is money and power period. Bill Maher knows exactly the agenda he is promoting. Clooney is an actor who goes along for the ride. Psy-ops is played by not being consistent with any ideology, they play all sides of the spectrum which is the reason people like you have a hard time understanding it.

    “No one can be told what the Matrix is…you have to see it for yourself”.

  158. Elspeth says:

    @ Marcus:

    If in 10 years it is common place for a black chick to marry well without a degree perhaps we’ll eschew it with our younger girls.

    And I seem to be misunderstood. I don’t for a minute believe that college educated necessarily equals smart. And yeah, this situation IS messed up.

  159. Escoffier says:

    Regarding war movies, contrast HBO’s Band of Brothers with The Pacific.

    The former portrays the soldiers in a consistency heroic light. To the extent that it shows flaws, they are personal failings such as Nixon’s alcoholism or Spiers’ looting. The penultimate episode, “Why We Fight,” answers the titular question with … the Holocaust, which the troops only find out about as the war is ending.

    Now, of course that was not why we fought. It was in fact quite a controversial thing, after Pearl Harbor, to prioritize the ETO over the PTO, a decision many Americans never accepted. Roosevelt et al had their reasons, many of which were no doubt very good reasons, but they had nothing or little to do with Nazi racism.

    The Pacific by contrast is basically a Vietnam movie. The war is pointless madness. Everyone, with the exception of Basilone, goes insane. The war leaves the survivors broken and demented. The campaigns were wasted fights over nothing that achieve nothing. Etc. And, of course, the Marines are all racist.

  160. Great rebuttal to IBB, Elspeth, but it would be good to remind the readers and commentariat here that IBB is most likely a shill and or “false flag” handle whose participation here is to promote a narrative contra to dalrock’s primarily Christian focus. He, she or it will post comments that 90% of the redpill Christian will agree wih, but invariably IBB always posts something so ludicrous, it’s patently obvious that IT is not here in intellectually honest capacity.

  161. Elspeth,

    The more important point is that you’re not alone. There are a select few men who read here for whom N=0 or bust is their standard, but most have pretty fluid standards if other criteria are met.

    I’d take it one step futher. I’d argue that most single men don’t even know what their standards are because they don’t listen to what their subconcsious tells them.

    Like I said, show me a long line of educated men (Christian or otherwise) married to women with no secondary education credentials and then we can talk about how much no man cares about that sort of thing.

    I don’t know of ANY. None. If it was important that she marry an educated man, then I would say in all cases, she better be educated as well.

    Now you could argue that this is not about the degree but about intelligence and you may be right. But it still speaks to the fact that simply being virtuous, submissive and hard working (and even attractive) aren’t enough in themselves.

    Well, they weren’t nearly enough for me for my wife. Of course, I’m educated.

  162. Cail

    2010s paradigm:

    Man: Let’s have sex.
    Woman: Sounds good to me. Wait til you see this position my eighth boyfriend taught me!
    Man (who hasn’t recognized the new paradigm yet): Maybe we should get married?
    Woman: I’m nowhere near ready for marriage yet. I haven’t even been to Paris! Can’t we just take it slow and get to know each other?

    No Cail. NFW. You got it halfway right, but try this….

    Man: Let’s have sex.
    Woman: Sounds good to me. Wait til you see this position my eighth boyfriend taught me!
    Man: Wow, this is GREAT!!!!!

    (3 years later)

    Woman: The lease is up on my apartment and my roommate wants to move in with her boyfriend so he can save up for a new car. So can I move in and share in your living costs?
    Man: Ummm guess so….

    (3 years later)

    Woman: So ummm, I’m 36 now. Mom wants to know if she can start planning a wedding at some point?
    Man, (getting ready to dump her): We need to talk.

  163. Bango Tango,

    Bill Maher is an active participant and he is “Jewish” as far as the group he is associated with is, if they pretend they are atheist or theist it does not matter, God is money and power period. Bill Maher knows exactly the agenda he is promoting. Clooney is an actor who goes along for the ride. Psy-ops is played by not being consistent with any ideology, they play all sides of the spectrum which is the reason people like you have a hard time understanding it.

    “No one can be told what the Matrix is…you have to see it for yourself”.

    How old are you?

    This is not Dungeons and Dragons here. Dalrock’s forum is supposed to be a serious forum where men (and some women) can gather to discuss many of the problems that men in general have with feminism. It is for a more mature audience to have more serious, meaningful discussion. I would ask that you think a little bit before posting again and spend more time reading and thinking and less time saying things that I would expect of someone from the Occupy Wall Street movement.

  164. JDG says:

    There’s a few things rather wrong shipping them off several thousand miles to slut & party it up for 4 years. There’s a big difference between the two.

    They basically amount to the same thing for most these days. If you send your kids to caesar’s camp for training, don’t be surprised if they turn out to be servants of Caesar.

    Deti’s is correct, women don’t need to be raised as boys to attract a husband.

  165. Farm Boy says:

    Deti’s is correct, women don’t need to be raised as boys to attract a husband.

    Not only “don’t need”, but it is counter productive.

    Perhaps that is the goal. The counterproductive part.

  166. Farm Boy says:

    5. Understands and has a good working knowledge of male nature and female nature; some basics of human psychology. (Game, masculinity, Godly masculinity, etc. )

    Deti,
    I might suggest that this is a modern requirement (maybe for self-defense). My Dad, grandfathers and uncles did not have it. Nor did they need it. Perhaps it takes more to be a man these days.

  167. The Brass Cat says:

    Anonymous Reader says:

    A married woman who is working for money is likely to be spending some time around men who have a higher SMV than her husband does. A legal secretary around attornies all day, who have a more commanding presence than her husband. The mid-level manager who spends some time on travel with company leaders, who are more powerful than her husband. Many examples abound.

    The mere presence of the more-Alpha men will likely affect how she views the man she married, who pales to some extent by comparison. And what is the likely result? Fitness testing, naturally; she’ll unconsciously start ftiness testing her husband in order to reassure herself that he really is at least “good enough”, if not better than. A typical betaized AFC who tends to fail fitness tests will not do well in that situation, and the spiral down likely will begin. It is not inevitable, but it surely happens.

    And one “solution” to this dilemma is to be avoided and that is working with your wife. Never under any circumstances mix business/work with marriage. They should be so separate as to be like two lives: work life and home life. To an extent each is an escape from the other. Also, you don’t want work issues trickling into your marriage. Imagine being immersed in “work stuff” all day then coming home and having more of that same “work stuff” to talk about.

    There was a time I was job hunting when my wife said I should try for a position at her place of employment because they were hiring. I flat out told her I could not work with her, even if that meant staying unemployed longer. I couldn’t satisfactorily explain this at the time, but I’m sure it was the right move in the long run.

  168. Jeremy says:

    @Elspeth

    I think this sort of thinking is very limiting to women. I’m curious why you would think such things. Your demonstration criteria seem to ONLY see the standards by which men judge men.

    Are you kidding me Jeremy? You don’t think a wife needs to demonstrate that she can finish what she starts, be literate, and able to handle money? Then what doesn’t the man need her for besides sex and babies and what kind of help meet and mother would she be if all she is is a walking womb?

    When it comes down to it, women are human factories. There’s no reason to take offense at that simplistic view, because Men are wage slaves, beasts of burden tied to civilization. So yes, I do think that your expressed criteria are too closely based on the same criteria of how men judge other men. In this way, I think your thoughts on the matter of how women might most efficiently/effectively demonstrate value to potential husbands hasn’t yet fully escaped feminist thinking.

  169. PokeSalad says:

    It’s funny to see the people who actually think (or profess to think) that George Clooney gives one rat’s arse WHAT his new wife’s career is.

  170. The Brass Cat says:

    AnonymousManospherBlogger says:

    Great rebuttal to IBB, Elspeth, but it would be good to remind the readers and commentariat here that IBB is most likely a shill and or “false flag” handle whose participation here is to promote a narrative contra to dalrock’s primarily Christian focus. He, she or it will post comments that 90% of the redpill Christian will agree wih, but invariably IBB always posts something so ludicrous, it’s patently obvious that IT is not here in intellectually honest capacity.

    IBB does indeed have ludicrous ideas interspersed with some more level-headed Red Pill theory, but as schizo as he can be I’ve also seen him throw down some Red Pill undeniable truths on a Blue Pill forum. He takes the fight to them. So I’m not so sure he’s running a false flag operation so much as he just has some cognitively dissonant ideas.

    My primary focus is not Christian either, just manosphere in general. It just so happens that most of the substantive discussion in the manosphere is happening on this one blog. Applause to Dalrock and key members of the commentariat for that.

  171. Spacetraveller says:

    Farm Boy,

    About women not needing an education in order to be married, agreed, *in theory* this is how it should be, I guess.
    But our lying eyes keep telling us otherwise, to borrow a popular phrase.
    This is what we observe, and therefore report.
    In my generation (30s) NONE of my ‘without college education’ female friends and acquaintances are married. NONE. They mostly have children, of course. But NONE have EVER married. Just ‘baby daddy relationships’…multiple times over…
    Sure, of my college educated female friends, a few remain single in their thirties.
    But the odds are hugely in favour of a college education if marriage is a desirable goal, and you can bet your bottom dollar that every woman really, really wants to get married, even if it is just for the validation.

    This observation goes ‘counter-intuitive’, but this is what I and others observe nowadays. Don’t understand it, but it worked for me in that my education did not ‘turn off’ my husband. Instead he saw it as an ‘asset’.
    My grandparents’ generation? Different story…many of the women of that generation never went to college.
    Is it perhaps a simple numbers game? In the sense that college educated women seem to get married more simply because there are more of them than ever?? This could be it, you know, a simple statistical blip…

    About Game,
    “I might suggest that this is a modern requirement (maybe for self-defense). My Dad, grandfathers and uncles did not have it. Nor did they need it. Perhaps it takes more to be a man these days.”

    I agree! This is the chief reason I am in favour of Game.
    To ‘level the playing field’ for men.
    It is a pity to see a Gameless man. It really is. Or one who is doing it so wrong that he is turning women off him, ala that Asian chap we were discussing a few posts back…

  172. Mariah8 says:

    @ Farmboy
    I don’t think men used to have to “know” it because the role/behaviors were ingrained in with socialization, just as womens correct roles would have been naturally taught. Not so much anymore, the inmates are running the asylum now.

  173. Brass Cat,

    Great rebuttal to IBB, Elspeth, but it would be good to remind the readers and commentariat here that IBB is most likely a shill and or “false flag” handle whose participation here is to promote a narrative contra to dalrock’s primarily Christian focus. He, she or it will post comments that 90% of the redpill Christian will agree wih, but invariably IBB always posts something so ludicrous, it’s patently obvious that IT is not here in intellectually honest capacity.

    IBB does indeed have ludicrous ideas interspersed with some more level-headed Red Pill theory, but as schizo as he can be I’ve also seen him throw down some Red Pill undeniable truths on a Blue Pill forum. He takes the fight to them. So I’m not so sure he’s running a false flag operation so much as he just has some cognitively dissonant ideas.

    Thanks for that. Sometimes I try and introduce red pills at blue pill areas. And I’ll link to those areas here. My willingness to venture into the 9 planes of Hell is the only way we are going expand our base and gain traction from our movement, solicit red pills by working as manosphere missionaries among the ghetto dwellers. That said, I don’t want some of these guys posting here, soliciting elsewhere. They could damage what I am trying to do. They have no…. politics about it. I have a way of talking to blue pill thinking people such that they may hate what I have to say, but they welcome (on their forum) the way I say it. They start to think that maybe I have a point. You have to present yourself in an unaccusing manner that doesn’t put an individual on the defensive. There are too many posters here at Dalrock’s who haven’t figured out how to do that yet.

    I think the 10% that some might see as ludicrous is me just trying to mainstream the red pill thinking into reality of today. I can’t turn back the clock and I can’t remake the world. We all have to live in this world no matter how disfunctional and secular it is. If you are a Christian man and you refuse to marry a woman if her hymen has been ruptured, fine. I don’t care. That is your choice. God be with you. You are also likely going to be very lonely all your life as you are likely never to find that virgin bride. I did not say that you would be unhappy, but you might be lonely. If you are okay with that (and the majority of the single men on this forum say they are) then I’m okay with it.

  174. Elspeth says:

    When it comes down to it, women are human factories. There’s no reason to take offense at that simplistic view, because Men are wage slaves, beasts of burden tied to civilization. So yes, I do think that your expressed criteria are too closely based on the same criteria of how men judge other men. In this way, I think your thoughts on the matter of how women might most efficiently/effectively demonstrate value to potential husbands hasn’t yet fully escaped feminist thinking.

    Um, no. That is patently false. Ultimately a wife is to serve as a helper suitable in whatever way her man needs. His standards. No one else’s other than God’s. My husband would never suffer a woman who can’t balance a checkbook, invoice his clients, make some money if the need calls for it, and be competent in all manner of was besides the bedroom and the birthing table. And the Old Testament backs him up on that:

    Who[a] can find a virtuous[b] wife?
    For her worth is far above rubies.
    11 The heart of her husband safely trusts her;
    So he will have no lack of gain.
    12 She does him good and not evil
    All the days of her life.
    13 She seeks wool and flax,
    And willingly works with her hands.
    14 She is like the merchant ships,
    She brings her food from afar.
    15 She also rises while it is yet night,
    And provides food for her household,
    And a portion for her maidservants.
    16 She considers a field and buys it;
    From her profits she plants a vineyard.
    17 She girds herself with strength,
    And strengthens her arms.
    18 She perceives that her merchandise is good,
    And her lamp does not go out by night.
    19 She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
    And her hand holds the spindle.
    20 She extends her hand to the poor,
    Yes, she reaches out her hands to the needy.
    21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
    For all her household is clothed with scarlet.
    22 She makes tapestry for herself;
    Her clothing is fine linen and purple.
    23 Her husband is known in the gates,
    When he sits among the elders of the land.
    24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
    And supplies sashes for the merchants.
    25 Strength and honor are her clothing;
    She shall rejoice in time to come. Proverbs 31:10-25

    Hardly a woman who is to be nothing more than a baby factory! Am I all of these things? No. But I have been some of them at one time or other and aspire to be all as much as possible with God’s help.

  175. Farm Boy says:

    In my generation (30s) NONE of my ‘without college education’ female friends and acquaintances are married. NONE. They mostly have children, of course. But NONE have EVER married. Just ‘baby daddy relationships’…multiple times over…

    That is not really a function of education. It is mostly a function of future time orientation. So as a marker for future time orientation, education works reasonably well.

    Perhaps everybody should be given the “marshmallow test” at various stages of their youth. And the results made available to all. If the test wasn’t gamed, it would make selection much easier.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

  176. Roland says:

    “A man:”
    ….
    provides for his family.

  177. The Brass Cat says:

    If a married couple wants a shot at achieving UMC status they both need a string of letters after their names. So a man with UMC ambition is going to marry a woman with education, because even if she becomes a SAHM she will always have that string of letters.

    My wife and I both have that string of letters and NOW we have UMC ambition because now it is feasible. But I didn’t marry her for that reason. Honestly I don’t care what her educational status or career are. This doesn’t mean I would have ever considered marrying a dumb woman; surely marriage to a dumb woman is its own kind of hell. My point is I didn’t marry to gain status, but if that is a side effect then fantastic. I’m sure that there are many men who do value status over marital satisfaction, but to me that prioritization is backwards.

    If she wants to argue I’ll just cite my higher GRE score (lol).

  178. The Brass Cat says:

    Elspeth says:

    My husband would never suffer a woman who can’t balance a checkbook, invoice his clients, make some money if the need calls for it, and be competent in all manner of was besides the bedroom and the birthing table.

    ^This

  179. Spacetraveller,

    About women not needing an education in order to be married, agreed, *in theory* this is how it should be, I guess.
    But our lying eyes keep telling us otherwise, to borrow a popular phrase.
    This is what we observe, and therefore report.
    In my generation (30s) NONE of my ‘without college education’ female friends and acquaintances are married. NONE. They mostly have children, of course. But NONE have EVER married. Just ‘baby daddy relationships’…multiple times over…
    Sure, of my college educated female friends, a few remain single in their thirties.
    But the odds are hugely in favour of a college education if marriage is a desirable goal, and you can bet your bottom dollar that every woman really, really wants to get married, even if it is just for the validation.

    Yes to ALL of this.

    If she wants to be married, well, pretty much has to be higher educated. Marriage is vanishing in our country. It is increasingly ONLY for the educated. Higher education is a form or marital “signalling” for lack of a better term. You don’t need to be Charles Murray to read all the tables and analyze the data. It is obvious to anyone with any set of eyes.

  180. Spacetraveller says:

    Elspeth and I must be married to brothers…
    Farm Boy: I like that marshmallow test!

  181. Farm Boy,

    I know of medical doctors who would fail the marshmallow test. I personally know one medical doctor who HAS failed the marshmallow test. The whole concept of delayed gratification is simply IMPOSSIBLE for some people. And sure enough, without a doubt this failure to delay gratification makes these people the WORST of spouses (be they men or women.)

  182. Elspeth says:

    For the record, I don’t think being educated requires a college degree. I have learned far more in the 20 years (the past 5 years in particular) since I finished college. I am self-educated with a useless liberal arts piece of paper that indicates nothing but that I was present and persistent.

    I don’t think that white collared, degree holding men are the only men worthy of marriage. My husband does not have a college degree. I have always had something of a soft spot for blue collar men. My father was a garbage man for 30 years and ran two side businesses as an entrepreneur. Yard man on the weekends, janitorial service for office buildings two nights a week.

    But for women of my ethnic group, being “uneducated” as indicated by that piece of paper really is the difference between being married or not, whether or not your husband has a degree. And you can attend college and emerge with your faith intact. College students are adults, capable of fielding differing points of view without defecting from the faith. It speaks to some piss poor parenting and discipleship if they can’t.

    This is especially true if they are coming home every night to have dinner with their families and worshiping with their families every Sunday. That is in no way at all the same thing as shipping your daughter off on her ow hundreds or thousands of miles away from home.

  183. JDG says:

    It’s funny to see the people who actually think (or profess to think) that George Clooney gives one rat’s arse WHAT his new wife’s career is.

    Yep!

    “You’re an attorney? That’s nice. Want to see my jacuzzi?”

  184. Spacetraveller says:

    IBB,
    I keep hearing that men don’t care about a woman’s education/career, I agree that it is never this that pushes him to commit. But it is becoming increasingly clear to me that her education/career prospects are becoming far more important than people realise or would admit.
    Amal Clooney is useful for George’s political aspirations BECAUSE of her high profile career. Someone mentioned the Clintons – same issue.
    George Bush Senior did NOT require such a wife.
    Different eras, different requirements for a wife.
    Women who can do both (the job that earns good money) as well as the traditional skills (the 3 course meal and the laundry) is all the rage now simply because the man can use her for whatever he needs at that time. He has a choice as to how to ‘deploy’ his wife. She offers him that choice.
    Because the economic climate is uncertain today.
    Whilst Mrs Smith in 1952 never needed to work outside the home (unthinkable!) Mrs. Brown in 2014 just might have to, from time to time if not all the time, depending on what Mr. Brown thinks is necessary for the family to make ends meet….

    If a man wants to get laid, he watches what women (gatekeepers of sex) require of men to allow men to have sex with them. And then he does that, no?
    Likewise, a woman who wants to get married must watch what men (gatekeepers of commitment) require of women when they do commit to women. And then she must do that.
    In this time (2014) committing men are marrying educated women.
    We can talk about ‘confounding variables’ all day, but it is so much simpler just to ‘observe the market’ and do what you have to do, no?
    Like I said, this new development surprises me, but hey, I can live with it…no problem…
    It sounds like your wife also has no problem with this…good for her too.

  185. Anonymous Reader says:

    “IBB”
    Dalrock’s forum is supposed to be a serious forum where men (and some women) can gather to discuss many of the problems that men in general have with feminism. It is for a more mature audience to have more serious, meaningful discussion.

    Irony.

  186. Spacetraveller,

    I keep hearing that men don’t care about a woman’s education/career, I agree that it is never this that pushes him to commit. But it is becoming increasingly clear to me that her education/career prospects are becoming far more important than people realise or would admit.

    If a man wants to get laid, he watches what women (gatekeepers of sex) require of men to allow men to have sex with them. And then he does that, no? Likewise, a woman who wants to get married must watch what men (gatekeepers of commitment) require of women when they do commit to women. And then she must do that.

    There is a lot of data out there analyzing marital trends in the United States. We pretty much know exactly who is going to get married (and why) and we are increasingly learning to know who will STAY married. They are analyzing that data now and the results aren’t pretty. Yes that marshmallow test that was cited earlier is a good test to determine who is likely to divorce or not. The marshmallow test is the perfect test because it properly measures if you think short term, or long term. Ours is becoming a Godless nation. The short term thinkers thrive at the expense of those who save, delay, and plan.

    The more secular our nation becomes, the more we turn our backs on God and His laws, reject His commandments of us, the more important it becomes to marry ONLY if it benefits you directly. Afterall, you’ll be dead in 100 years and since there is no God, you don’t have to worry about answering for your sins. There are no sins. There are only worms eating your corpse. God and His commandments are just an artificial manifestation to keep people in line, to keep them as ignorant chattel. So of course, marry only if it benefits you directly (in the short term) and divorce the INSTANT you weigh the costs of remaining married and determine that your life will be just a tiny bit easier were it not for living with that person. Everything about secular marriage is what does my spouse bring to the table to justify my spending my limited days on this planet, living with that person and NOT someone else? Will my life be happier if I didn’t have to listen to that person?

    For those without formal education, a life with pride for work in this information age is hard. It is hard and getting harder to keep that work, every day. If you have no formal education and your IQ is below 100, forget it. Work for you is extremely hard AND with lower pay. You better be an athlete in the 1% of all athletes or someone with model good looks, because getting by on your physical strength is just not going to do it. For these poor souls working to get by on the margins of society, there simply is NO marriage. Women do not want to marry them. And with all the laws stacked in HER favor, men don’t want to marry these women either.

    For those who DO have faith in an almighty God, you just know He is pretty pissed at us for destroying what he created to be so sacred, marriage. It is very rare that you find a medical doctor (of either sex) married to a frumpy simple person. It is just not going to happen. The young man is NOT going to marry the girl next door. He wants cheesecake. He’ll f-ck the girl next door but he wants to marry Katie Upton with a PhD. If he DOES get married to the girl next door he’ll still be thinking that it is ONLY until he gets his own Katie Upton with her PhD. And she is NOT going to date those marginal guys with the IQ less than 100 and no formal education. Why do that? Why waste her younger years of beauty with a marginal man, a far below average man when there are so many other men out there willing to buy her dinner and have sex with her? After all, there will be time to get married later. And even if all that is left are the marginal men, just marry government and get benefits to support your Life of Julia. And if you are a woman that DOES marry that wonderful, hunky, multi-millionaire, handyman medical doctor, and he gets cancer and loses his earning power and his prestige, just divorce him and move on to the next wonderful, hunky, multi-millionaire, handyman medical doctor. Why waste what few years you have left being miserable?

    Marginal people don’t marry. And even they do, they don’t stay married. So we “signal” that we are not “marginal” with education.

  187. Joshua says:

    Confirmation bias people, Confirmation Bias.

    Check your Bias.

  188. Exfernal says:

    @Farm Boy
    You might like this study:
    Sex differences on prefrontally-dependent cognitive tasks
    Funnily enough, it’s scheduled to be published in February 2015.

  189. MarcusD says:

    Education is not an independent variable.

  190. Anonymous Reader says:

    “IBB”
    And she is NOT going to date those marginal guys with the IQ less than 100 and no formal education. Why do that? Why waste her younger years of beauty with a marginal man, a far below average man when there are so many other men out there willing to buy her dinner and have sex with her? After all, there will be time to get married later.

    Attention newcomers and lurkers:
    There are certain themes that repeat over and over in the comments of “IBB”. Women riding the cock carousel prior to marriage is one of them. A near fanatic insistence on women obtaining the highest degree possible for them as preparation for marriage is another. Just something to bear in mind.

    It is worth pointing out that in general, things that attract men to women don’t have much to do with degrees. Degrees from college signal provision ability – that is someting women look for in men. Unfortunately because of the pernicious myth that “men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies”, it is quite common for women to project their own desires onto men. And so we see women in their 20’s who seek to become established in a career prior to seeking a man to marry; they are carrying out the male role in the expectation of attracting a man for something longer than a hookup/ STR. The androsphere is rife with descriptions of how that works out. But yet, plenty of people are very invested emotionally in this process, so we see it continue.

    More generally…
    The issue of higher education for women is one that arises on this site from time to time, with varying results. Sometimes the way we see in this thread, sometimes other ways. Anyone going to college should have a good idea why they are doing that, regardless of how it’s being paid for – return on investment (ROI) is not just an abstract idea for Wall Street bankers. Sinking tens of thousands of dollars into a degree should have some payback in 10 or fewer years.

    Elspeth, thanks for the observations on “what does marriage ready look like”. Attitude plus skill set, or if you prefer heart and head, clearly matter. That might be a topic worth expanding on, someplace or other.

  191. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    But for women of my ethnic group, being “uneducated” as indicated by that piece of paper really is the difference between being married or not, whether or not your husband has a degree.

    Yes and no. As you know far better than I do, matriculating with any disciplinary degree does indeed set your daughters apart from other women the same age. Just have a care with that hypergamy. I have known some women in your ethnic group who never married, because they did not want to marry “down” for an overly broad definition of “down”. I’m sure that you and SAM aren’t about to let that happen, but I’m making a general statement.

    And you can attend college and emerge with your faith intact. College students are adults, capable of fielding differing points of view without defecting from the faith. It speaks to some piss poor parenting and discipleship if they can’t.

    Yes, I’m sure this is possible, however women are more prone to “herd” behavior than men, and I’ve known more than one man who got stupid when off the ranch. It really does matter who they associate with if they are not living at home, both young men and young women, but IMO moreso for young women.

  192. Yoda says:

    Confirmation bias people, Confirmation Bias.

    Check your Bias.

    Please Elaborate.

  193. Novaseeker says:

    I disagree that UMC assortive marriages are happening among the prettiest women in that group.

    @TFH —

    That could be the case. I have not personally worked with any of the hypereducated 9.5/10s in my ~30 years in the workplace. The prettiest women have been high7s/low8s, and they are also rare. Most of the women are 5s and 6s, and a few low 7s, so that’s the group I’m describing, really. It could be the case that for the 9.5/10 women, things work out differently.

  194. Farm Boy says:

    I know of medical doctors who would fail the marshmallow test.

    Winston Churchill probably would have also. Nonetheless, it remains a fine predictor of future competence and success in the modern world (though maybe not in the ancient world)

  195. Bango Tango says:

    How old are you?

    This is not Dungeons and Dragons here. Dalrock’s forum is supposed to be a serious forum where men (and some women) can gather to discuss many of the problems that men in general have with feminism. It is for a more mature audience to have more serious, meaningful discussion. I would ask that you think a little bit before posting again and spend more time reading and thinking and less time saying things that I would expect of someone from the Occupy Wall Street movement.

    LOL. I’m in my 40’s and I spent the last 10 years researching this. How old are you? You obviously have no idea the world your living in and don’t know how to do critical thinking or understand probabilities. It’s a shame because I have much respect for bloggers in the manosphere who do great work on the finer points regarding subjects like feminism and the biology of female behavior/psychology and the effects it has on society but seem to not understand that it’s much more complicated then feminist ideology alone. If you want to just focus on feminism and are happy in your little echo chamber fine, but don’t think you really understand the motives behind some of the subjects you talk about because you have no clue. Especially when you are unwilling to discuss them. I’m not talking about aliens here. There is plenty of evidence backing up everything I say. You don’t have to believe it but to not even want to discuss it as a possibility means you’re really not interested in truth.

  196. JDG says:

    And you can attend college and emerge with your faith intact. College students are adults, capable of fielding differing points of view without defecting from the faith. It speaks to some piss poor parenting and discipleship if they can’t.

    Yet students from Christian families are leaving their faith in droves after they enter college.

  197. honeycomb says:

    How much of a slap in the face of the modern amerikan woman must it be for the most desired man in your country (according to th wimminz) to marry a fore-end-er (hehehehe) .. ?!?!?!?

    “Oh no he didn’t girl-friend!!!” .. lol

    pawn3d

  198. Spike says:

    Ms Mc Kinney’s spiteful verse is typical of feminists. They cannot tolerate a man being the centre of attention. That must turn the tables, using twisted logic and mental gymnastics, to make the woman in the story shine more brightly, often at the man’s expense.
    Amal in this case would not be heard of if it wasn’t for her new surname. She would be another successful but obscure English lawyer. Yet “Clooney” elevates her status to stratospheric heights. This in turn makes feminists like McKinney bitter because they have no sense of self or identity (Christians would understand this as the part of them fulfilled by a relationship with God) so they must tear down others to make themselves greater. It’s pathetic and sad really.

  199. MarcusD says:

    @Elspeth
    “If in 10 years it is common place for a black chick to marry well without a degree perhaps we’ll eschew it with our younger girls.”

    Do you have data on this? The reason I ask is because the standardised regression coefficient for the relationship between husband and wife socioeconomic indexes is smaller for blacks than it is whites (using the GSS). (There’s a close correlation between education and SEI – thus, the same difference in beta is true for education. Asians have a much higher beta for both SEI and education.)

    “And I seem to be misunderstood. I don’t for a minute believe that college educated necessarily equals smart. And yeah, this situation IS messed up.”

    That was just a general comment.

  200. Opus says:

    I was having a drink last night.

    I asked my acquaintance what he had been doing since we last met (which was the Saturday before last). He explained that he had taken his small son up to his son’s paternal grandparents where he had left him and that he had then spent three days with his wife in a dull but highly respectable seaside town – one could not call it a resort. I asked what had motivated him to be surrounded for three days by the retired Lieutenant Commanders and Wing Commanders with wives probably called Dorothy attended by Labradors who largely populate the town.

    “I was giving my wife a break” he explained “She has been working ninety hour weeks at [insert name of very large company].

    I mentally shook my head. What kind of mother is it that leaves her five year old – a trophy child it has to be said – to pursue a career and it is not as if my acquaintance, albeit that he does not work, is unable to support his family from his own resources. It is not as if she is a ball-busting bitch either for she comes across to me very much as the ‘little woman’.

  201. Elspeth says:

    LOL, Marcus. I followed your question but just barely. I was a liberal arts major and I don’t speak statistics. I also don’t ignore conventional wisdom or my lying eye. What’s more is that our girls are already being raised completely outside of the typical black experience in numerous ways. But…I do have a stat and a follow up.

    African-American women are less likely to marry than white women overall, but educated black women are considerably more likely to marry than their less-educated counterparts. As of 2008, 70 percent of African-American female college graduates had married, compared with 60 percent of high school graduates and just 53 percent of high school dropouts.

    Found here, but also in various other places.Pretty common statistic, actually.

    The situation is particularly acute if they don’t want to limit themselves solely to black men. I know that’s a loaded statement around here but it is what it is. My preference is that they find a suitable black dude and “save the black family”, but that ship may have sailed anyway. We put a premium on faith and cultural factors. I mentioned that my 20-year-old has only been asked out twice. One guy was black; the other white. Small sample size yes, but it’s still 50/50.

    I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating this topic as evidenced by the uncharacteristic number of comments. I’m not just throwing stuff out there. I’ve surveyed the landscape. I even polled some young Christian men about this. Small sample size again, only 8 but they represented 3 ethnic backgrounds. one (ONE!) told me it didn’t matter if his wife had the ability to help earn a living.

    The idea that education is only about signaling provisional ability is also not completely true, Anon. Times have changed. It’s also a proxy for intelligence. My own husband insisted I stop working almost immediately but the degree still earned me points in the hunt.

  202. jbro1922 says:

    I second Elspeth’s claims. Black women are the least likely group to be married. I believe we all know the reasons as they have been discussed here before. And college educated black women do a little better than black women without a college education. Elspeth, are you open to your daughters marrying divorced men? That tends to not be a part of most women’s narratives (most women who have never been married want to marry someone who also has never been married), but it’s a requirement I had to do away with. There aren’t as many men in college as there are women and even fewer black men. And grad school is even fewer. So one has to make a conscious effort to get outside the college educated social circles to meet eligible black men.

  203. Elspeth says:

    Oldest daughter wants a virgin groom, so a definite no for her, and she’s also the least likely to be compatible with an uneducated man.

    We hav a strong bias against divorced men in general for spiritual as well as practical reasons..

  204. jbro1922 says:

    Good luck to you and your daughters, Elspeth. I hope they find who they desire.🙂

  205. Escoffier says:

    African-American women are less likely to marry than white women overall, but educated black women are considerably more likely to marry than their less-educated counterparts.

    I don’t dispute this, Elspeth, but which is the cause and which the effect? Is it that educated black women also have X, Y and Z going for them, which combination vaults them into a higher SES, where people in that cohort of all races are more likely to get married (because marriage correlates with higher incomes, education, FTO, status, and so on)? Or is that men (black or otherwise) seeking black wives prioritize education and want to see at least one post-secondary degree?

    Regarding the coastal UMC as I have observed it, men definitely will not consider a woman without at least a BA for a wife. Never have I seen that happen among any of the people I have known. And usually they want more, but that’s the floor. The sphere meme that men care nothing about women’s education or accomplishment thus rings a bit false to me. It certainly does not describe the professional UMC.

    It is quite true, though, that men are not by and large searching for a wife according the checklist set by modern feminism. They do prioritize traits that they’d rather not talk about (beauty, sweetness, etc.) because to do so is politically incorrect. But to say that they are not concerned a whit about education or accomplishment is factually incorrect.

    There are many reasons for it. The need for two incomes in expensive metro areas is one. Status is another. Passing “good” (i.e., smart) genes to the kids is another. Plus there is a certain undercurrent of embarassment about bringing a secretary home to meet a UMC mom (or dad). The first thing parents will ask is “Where did she go to college?” and a UMC wife-hunter instinctively wants to give an “impressive” answer to that question.

  206. Kevin says:

    Several people have made comments to the effect that 1) men don’t care about accomplishments in women and 2) women with accomplishments are more likely to be married so men must care.

    I think as others have said, we can combine those two by accepting that in our current culture the basic mark of competency is rightly or wrongly that you go to college. Marriage is a behavior of successful competent people in our modern culture. So we when see mostly college degree women getting married and staying married the cause is more proximate- basic competence, FTO, etc, not that men are impressed with their worldly accomplishments.

    As for the UMC assorted mating that Novaseeker has illustrated I have definitely seen this and I am probably the last generation of non-equal mating. My wife is from a low class background with all the baggage and personal problems that entails while I was middle class heading into UMC. None of my peers has a spouse that is not on the same high powered career as they are except the really old guys. I am about a generation out of step with my peers. Divorce in my group might be attempts to right the ship and marry someone more “equal” in competence and attainment.

    As someone also said, the UMC has both spouses working (or not working because they can afford it) for social striving, but everyone lower down on the economic ladder does it often just to make ends meet. There is also a sizable portion of modern women who don’t want to be full time moms because that is a “low” job and so they take crappy jobs and put their kids in daycare so they can gossip at the office.

    The UMC and above has done the biggest disservice to our culture because they believe things that can work out for them due to enough intelligence and drive that absolutely destroy most people down the economic ladder. Even worse, the UMC tends to practice a model closer to the 1950s (one spouse makes enough other works and one can afford to stay home).

    Examples like Clooney are not illustrative of anything. If it confirms our biases we might celebrate it, if it conflicts we will ignore it. But as others said and I agree – he is so far beyond the norm that no useful data can be gathered one way or the other.

  207. Elspeth says:

    Good luck to you and your daughters, Elspeth. I hope they find who they desire.

    Thank you. We believe in the power of prayer. And they are still quite young, really by today’s standards. Anything can happen. Or there is the very real reality that no one is guaranteed everything they desire in this life. They may get who they desire, or whomever is best for them whether or not they know it at first. They may never marry, which neeedn’t be a tragedy either. Only Heaven knows for sure.

    I don’t dispute this, Elspeth, but which is the cause and which the effect?

    I don’t know that it matters, Escoffier. Does it really?

  208. Elspeth says:

    Hit publish too soon. Stupid phone.

    Is it that educated black women also have X, Y and Z going for them, which combination vaults them into a higher SES, where people in that cohort of all races are more likely to get married (because marriage correlates with higher incomes, education, FTO, status, and so on)? Or is that men (black or otherwise) seeking black wives prioritize education and want to see at least one post-secondary degree?

    I’m sure it’s more of the former than the latter. The more pertinent question to me is why it seems there is such a push to deny the reality of the thing. Innate preferences aren’t the only things that drive people when they marry. Very few people with any kind of foresight or self-control marry that way, actually. Marriage is a much a practical endeavor as much as a relational one so that only stands to reason.

  209. Escoffier says:

    I think it does matter. Because if the cause is overt and concious demand from men, that would be a reason to meet that demand. But if it’s just a correlation to overall higher SES, there’s not much “What to do” guidance one could derive from that. And, in fact, that might tell against the “everyone must go to college” meme that currently grips our elites. If college is not the cause of good outcomes but more of a result, then encouraging everyone to borrow for college may not be such a great idea.

  210. MV says:

    Gentlemen and gentlewomen,

    I don’t want to sound off-topic but I have a matter of most serious urgency! I seem to have just discovered THE biggest case of GANG RAPE in all recorded human history:

    Now, should I report it to the police or can I sell the story directly to the Rolling Stone magazine?

  211. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    The idea that education is only about signaling provisional ability is also not completely true, Anon. Times have changed. It’s also a proxy for intelligence.

    Well, yeah, degree-as-proxy-for-intelligence, sure, that’s been true ever since the 1970’s, thanks to Griggs vs. Duke Power, in the workplace context anyway. But that is breaking down thanks to decline of standards in higher education. (See: College Bubble) Some BA in English Lit signals “possible flake ” and more, for example. Degree in Social Work, Communications Studies, bachelors in Pysch? Some degrees are a proxy for “flakiness”, I’ll leave it at that. So it’s more degree dependent than 25 years ago, 20 years ago. As a proxy it is becoming less useful, but I will stop that rabbit trail here.

    Now, it’s not like the MRS degree is a new idea, either. And even with more “noise” in the signal of “college degree” there’s the assortive mating factor. Hmm. You’re closer to this in some ways than I am. I have to think about it some more.

    My own husband insisted I stop working almost immediately but the degree still earned me points in the hunt.

    Did that degree put you in a different social circle, too? Just wondering.

  212. theasdgamer says:

    Shameless self-promotion: new post “Bonding sex”

  213. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    Regarding the coastal UMC as I have observed it, men definitely will not consider a woman without at least a BA for a wife. Never have I seen that happen among any of the people I have known. And usually they want more, but that’s the floor. The sphere meme that men care nothing about women’s education or accomplishment thus rings a bit false to me. It certainly does not describe the professional UMC.

    It appears that you are confusing the SMP with the MMP. It’s testable. Consider a woman with a hip to waist ratio of -1.5 with a BA, and a woman with no degree who has a hip to waist ratio of 0.7, which one is more likely to be attractive to men at first sighting? A woman can’t get married if she can’t attract men, right?

    Also bear in mind the coastal UMC is not the total universe. People off of the coasts exist, people in the middle class exist, etc.

    What you and Elspeth are going on about is just assortive mating. In UMC circles I’ll grant that a woman has to signal some sort of intelligence “floor”, and some kind of degree is a proxy for that. But the initial attraction for men isn’t the degree, and not all degrees signal intelligence.

  214. thedeti says:

    “The sphere meme that men care nothing about women’s education or accomplishment thus rings a bit false to me.”

    AR is on the right track here. It’s not that men care nothing for female education or accomplishment. It’s just that those attributes in a woman aren’t attractive. In the SMP, youth and physical appearance are paramount, far and away the most important. But when we get to marriage, then a woman’s intelligence and levelheadedness take on more importance. But she doesn’t need a degree or have analytical genius. She just needs to have common sense and not be an idiot; she needs to be able to solve basic problems; she needs to be able to prioritize. These are skills she can learn at home from mom and dad.

    She doesn’t need to have a college degree to know that a puking kid is more important than balancing the checkbook at that particular moment. She doesn’t need to know uses for the quadratic equation to figure out that she can’t afford to buy lobster for dinner every week.

    Now, in the MMP in the middle class on down, the married couple is going to need her income. To make a marriage work, both of them will have to work. Just is so now. Most middle class men with bachelor’s degrees cannot earn enough on their own to support a wife and kids. Just cannot do it. So yes, her education will be important. But it’s not an attractant, and it will not get her a husband.

  215. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    I think it does matter. Because if the cause is overt and concious demand from men, that would be a reason to meet that demand. But if it’s just a correlation to overall higher SES, there’s not much “What to do” guidance one could derive from that.

    This is a good point. I think men have figured out that marrying outside their “class” is dangerous. If she is from a lower class her chances of divorce are much higher no matter who she marries, and plus she will have the added incentive of more to steal. If she is from a higher class her girlfriends will forever be whispering in her ear (and she will likely be whispering to herself) that she could have done better.

    Personally I didn’t think all of this through with perfect clarity when I married. It didn’t matter to me that my wife didn’t have a degree. But had she not been highly intelligent, and/or had she not been comfortable with a college crowd (seeing them as above her), I’m fairly certain those things would have bothered me.

    With this in mind, I think a young woman going to college to increase her marriage prospects isn’t a bad thing so long as she is thinking about it the right way. Getting a degree won’t make her more attractive, but it might move her out of the “would never marry her” set. This is important because most women do seem to think getting a degree will make them more attractive, and then up their expectations accordingly. This is fine of course if they are either right in their ultimate expectations, or are ok with not marrying. We should want young women to marry as well as they can, and I’ve written at length against telling women to settle. Where it could cause a problem is if the woman turns down a good marriage prospect because she doesn’t have a degree yet, or more likely isn’t open to considering finding a husband until she has her degree and therefore misses what could be her best opportunity to marry.

  216. mikediver5 says:

    I am one of those older guys that have a string of letters after his name who married a woman with no degree. That does not mean she is stupid. I once dated a straight A college student that, looking back, I would say was stupid, or at least totally ignorant. This student was a Fashion Merchandising major that had never read a book other than a required text book in her life. She knew nothing of history, geography, politics, and too many other things to list here. I will admit that I dated her because she was very attractive. I am glad I did not marry her.

    My mother had no degree, but had worked as a proofreader at a publisher before she had children. Her grammar was impeccable, and she enforced it use by us children with an iron fist. I learned little to nothing of grammar in school because all I had to do was think if a phrase sounded right, as I had heard it at home, to know the answer in school. She was a lifelong reader and learner who passed on a love of books to her children; a gift beyond rubies and pearls. I am amazed that almost everyone that comes into my home is amazed at the stacks of books all over. Their questions are along the lines of, “Have you really read all these books?” My reply is of course not; this is a small fraction of the books I have read, only those I have read multiple times and keep to read again, and excluding, of course, my professional library at work. How have we come to this age of general functional illiteracy? It is not that people can’t read it is that they don’t; which accomplishes the same thing. If all you know comes from the mainstream media, then you don’t know very much, or know anything very well.

    My father had the opportunity for a 100% scholarship to an art college back after WWII, but he didn’t take it because he had a family to support by then. He was not my mother’s intellectual equal, but he did have a huge pool of wisdom based on experience. Let me add that he was not what I would call stupid either, just less well informed. I didn’t understand this or value this practical wisdom for many years, but as I have grown older I recall more and more of the things he taught me that never came from a book.

    All of this has little to do with the discussion of the MMP of today. I will say that the man that uses a piece of paper instead of his own judgment is a fool, and therefore may need to have a replacement for his own judgment. It becomes pretty obvious within a few minutes of talking with the average woman of today whether she is intelligent or dumber than a box of rocks. Maybe it is because I have aged out of the fog of testosterone, but it seems to me that the majority are falling in the latter category these days. I have been observing my son’s interactions with young women and I have nothing but pity for the young men of today. I watched my oldest son that wanted a big family go through relationship after relationship where either the women didn’t want marriage at all, or didn’t want children. He finally married in his mid-thirties. He had to give up on the big family as his wife is also in her mid-thirties. My youngest two sons have had a string of women with whom I would not have encouraged them to pursue a long term relationship. The proportion of women with narcissistic personalities and borderline personality disorders seems to increase the younger you go. And that is not mentioning the inherent and often tacit feminist dogma in which all the young women are marinated. My advice to my youngest sons, so far, is to go foreign.

  217. honeycomb says:

    All this talk about a woman with or without a college degree .. blah blah blah.

    As a man with a BS and AS in STEM fields and a high paying STEM job (Reactor Operator) I will NEVER date or have any relationship with a college educate (even for one day) woman.

    Men have been lied to about what they should find attractive and desire in a woman.

    Men are waking the frack-up!

    I will be interested in a woman with traditional family oriented values. She will be young. She will more than likely homeschooled. She will have like faith. She will be a virgin. etc.

    I don’t need a woman with a career .. I’ve got one of those. I don’t need her to be accomplished in field of study but homemaking and family. Those are the only qualifiers that get her access to my resources.

    Men are waking up to the lie of our oily’gar’key.

  218. Gunner Q says:

    Spacetraveller @ December 16, 2014 at 5:17 pm:
    “Women who can do both (the job that earns good money) as well as the traditional skills (the 3 course meal and the laundry) is all the rage now simply because the man can use her for whatever he needs at that time. He has a choice as to how to ‘deploy’ his wife. She offers him that choice.”

    Doesn’t work that way. Jobs that pay good money are rarely part-time, while-the-kids-are-in-school jobs. Any woman with a well-paying career is signaling she doesn’t need a man. The high-powered, childfree, jet set Elites don’t feel threatened by this. Joe the Plumber does and rightly so.

    Women who use college to find a husband are aiming very high… and doing so at the cost of potential happiness with the decent, hard-working men of society. This is why education is wasted on women, because most of those female college graduates can only be happy with the top 5% of men. Most educated women will therefore fail to marry, at least until polygamy is legalized and Justin Bieber has 14,000 doctor wives.

    Men marry down. Women marry up. Women getting educated makes that hard. it’s that simple, girls.

  219. Elspeth says:

    We’re middle class and I haven’t worked in 18 years. Setting financial priorities mattrrs. I know quite a few couples (mostly Christian homeschoolers) who aren’t UMC and make it on one income. We live well, but certainly have to budget.

    @ Anonymous Reader:

    No, my degree didn’t change my social circle. My husband’s career did that. By extension it has affected our children’s social circle. They have been raised in a highere SES than their parents were.

    And for clarification, I have never asserted that a degree makes a woman more attractive. I am simply stating the facts, that women with college degree are more likely to marry, particularly among black women, which is not something we can dismiss out of hand. It would be foolish to do so.

  220. Lol, I sure hope the debt doesn’t get them too much. Lovely having to pay down the debt of your future wife whilst she was fucking all the frat boys getting her English Lit and Drama degree. I hope it’s worth it Elspeth.

    Degrees are mostly fluff now anyway, stupid Boomers still thinking they have much to do with intelligence. Dalrock has exposed all that will happen to your daughters going to university and yet you are all so convinced they must go. Once again, replacing Christian values with wealth…

  221. Opus says:

    Dalrock makes some good points. I am really quite shocked that when I was in my teens and twenties, no one, neither parents, nor teachers and certainly not peers, gave me any advice as to what not to do and although to some extent instinct guides one, I would surely have saved myself a vast amount of heartache and misery by screening out at an early stage the inappropriate – or perhaps I just have a taste for bad-women.

    We live in an age where education is now compulsory until eighteen and where about half of all people go on to further education (I guess even more in America) so that a degree is proof of very little. What matters more, I think, is a compatibility of professions and work-ethics. Clearly the case of my friendly acquaintance I referred to earlier today is so far from ideal that I do wonder how long their marriage can last; it’s not his first either. Thus (to use an example from someone we were talking about in the Dog and Duck last night), the husband is a Brain Surgeon and the Wife a Psychologist – both medical but no obvious competition with the husband being the bread-winner and the wife essentially not doing anything of an real seriousness. Fifty years ago one often got Doctors marrying Nurses, or Lawyers marrying the Shorthand/Typist – this is then just a marginally upgraded version of that.

  222. Elspeth says:

    Nope. No loans. No screwing. No frat boys. We don’t live stereotypes in this family. Sorry to bust your bubble.

  223. Novaseeker says:

    @Opus —

    Well, but we also have lawyers marrying doctors, execs marrying lawyers, professors marrying execs, etc. Not sure if that’s the situation in the UK, but it is the situation in the coastal US cities among the UMC living in them. It’s remarkably assortative on the basis of not just education level but also career advancement post-education.

  224. Opus,

    Dalrock makes some good points. I am really quite shocked that when I was in my teens and twenties, no one, neither parents, nor teachers and certainly not peers, gave me any advice as to what not to do and although to some extent instinct guides one, I would surely have saved myself a vast amount of heartache and misery by screening out at an early stage the inappropriate – or perhaps I just have a taste for bad-women.

    They didn’t know. And if some of them did know, they couldn’t help you.

    Your dad’s priorities in what he was looking for in a woman may not have been yours. I don’t know about you but I did not want to marry a woman like my mom. Your teachers are not going to advise you on these matters. They are there to educate you on readin, rite-in, and rithmatic. Not love, happiness, and marriage. And if they did give you advice, it might have been bad advice as they have a conflict of interest (your teachers were probably feminist.) I had a 50+ year old never-married ugly liberal feminist history teacher with a Master’s degree in Russian history. There is ZERO could have told me about love, marriage, and relationships, nothing of any real value anyway.

    Your peers? Ha. No help there at all, none. Your peers may be jealous of you (for whatever reason) and give you specifically wrong advice and even your best of friends might have been as misled as you are. And even if you had a peer of yours that had your best interests at heart, it is not likely that they would be able to communicate what they were thinking to you so that you would understand it in a way you understand things NOW on this forum. You might now have been emotionally mature enough yet to handle that level of brutal honesty.

    There really isn’t anyone to “teach” this stuff. Think about it for a moment, whose profession is it that instructs men on what women they should pursue to make themselves happy? I am sure there are a lot of men who think they know better but in reality, they are quite often full of sh-t. They too have a conflict of interest in this matter as their livelihoods quite often depend on never upsetting the feminist imperative. So everyone is out there scrambling around learning it on their own. And if they make a mistake, they pay for it all their life! That is a painful lesson.

    Thus (to use an example from someone we were talking about in the Dog and Duck last night), the husband is a Brain Surgeon and the Wife a Psychologist – both medical but no obvious competition with the husband being the bread-winner and the wife essentially not doing anything of an real seriousness.

    No, it is not serious. But she is billing $100/hour for her not-so-serious job. Yes that is only a fraction of what her brain surgeon husband makes, but it is still big bucks.

    Fifty years ago one often got Doctors marrying Nurses, or Lawyers marrying the Shorthand/Typist – this is then just a marginally upgraded version of that.

    Yes they have upgraded. The “signal” was sent by the “marriage market” to “upgrade.”

  225. Escoffier says:

    Well, deti, AR–

    On the principle of “watch what they do, not what they say”–the “they” in this case being UMC men–they just don’t marry completely un-credentialed women. Ever, as far as I can tell. I can see that credentials, degrees, jobs and so on are not strictly speaking attractive to men the way good looks are. And sure, a man looking only to get laid will not care about her resume.

    But even youngish men (say 25) not looking to get married right now, or even for 5 years–they might bang an un-credentialed gal, but the ones I know won’t date one for any length of time. Even for GF, they want that degree and some kind of job that signals she is the same status ballpark as he is. Perhaps the culture has brainwashed men into wanting that, and naturally men do not care. I couldn’t say for sure, though I doubt it. If you look back through the past, high status men have always wanted a high status wife. It’s just that in the past, high status for a female was not conveyed through her degree(s) and career. But today it is. So maybe not much has changed except the way we measure status.

    In any event, whether they are brainwashed into wanting this or not, it seems abundantly clear to me that UMC men do in fact insist on this. So in that sense, girls going to college and getting jobs are meeting what the market demands, if they want a husband someday.

  226. thedeti says:

    “We’re middle class and I haven’t worked in 18 years. Setting financial priorities mattrrs. I know quite a few couples (mostly Christian homeschoolers) who aren’t UMC and make it on one income. We live well, but certainly have to budget.”

    Elspeth, what I said was: “Now, in the MMP in the middle class on down, the married couple is going to need her income. To make a marriage work, both of them will have to work. Just is so now. Most middle class men with bachelor’s degrees cannot earn enough on their own to support a wife and kids. Just cannot do it.”

    That’s the general rule and the practice currently. This is how most middle class folks live, as a matter of practice and reality. Only outliers carefully budget and live middle class on one income, in a family of husband, wife and children. This just isn’t the norm anymore. Most people don’t do it because they cannot. Moreover, it’s what most college-educated women expect – to work and have their own careers while substantially contributing to the finances; while at the same time being a married mother.

  227. Novaseeker says:

    I couldn’t say for sure, though I doubt it. If you look back through the past, high status men have always wanted a high status wife. It’s just that in the past, high status for a female was not conveyed through her degree(s) and career. But today it is. So maybe not much has changed except the way we measure status.

    Yes, this is what has happened. The status markers have changed for women, and now having advanced degrees is a substantial status marker.

    That, *and* people want the extra money. The additional lifestyle boost afforded by two professional post-grad degree incomes is substantial as compared with two people trying to live (and raise kids) based on one such income. The extra money is wanted, no question.

    I do know of one of my law school buddies who married a woman with “only” her BA. But that was a special situation — highschool sweetheart, divorced the guy she married after college and wanted to marry my buddy fairly quickly, very good looking, feminine, smart *and* respectable in terms of social status marker (grew up UMC in the midwest, so can walk the walk just fine, even here in DC. I don’t know of any other cases like that one, personally — noting AR’s point, though, that in other places apart from the coastal cities, things are a bit different.

  228. Spacetraveller says:

    Gunner Q,

    “Doesn’t work that way. Jobs that pay good money are rarely part-time, while-the-kids-are-in-school jobs.”

    (Please note: I am not defending how the system is, just reporting what I know and see).
    What you say cannot be true. We have discussed this before on this blog. Many high-paying jobs are indeed ‘part-time friendly’. Law, medicine, engineering, architecture, business. (One of these is my field, and I could easily work two days a week and feed a family of four comfortably on that alone, no joke. For the record, I have never actually worked part-time).
    Once again, I am not defending the status quo here, and I can see the global effects of this kind of ‘part-time’ work. But things are as is. I am merely reporting what I see.

    “Any woman with a well-paying career is signaling she doesn’t need a man.”

    How can you make a sweeping statement like this? Haven’t you heard of ‘cognitive dissonance’?🙂
    I know… Things are REALLY messed up. We are all simply trying to make the best of a bad situation at this point…

  229. Elspeth says:

    That’s the general rule and the practice currently. This is how most middle class folks live, as a matter of practice and reality. Only outliers carefully budget and live middle class on one income, in a family of husband, wife and children. This just isn’t the norm anymore. Most people don’t do it because they cannot. Moreover, it’s what most college-educated women expect – to work and have their own careers while substantially contributing to the finances; while at the same time being a married mother.

    Once again you are making your typical mistake of dismissing large amounts of people on the basis of what perhaps 51% of the people do. Or what the UMC does when most people are not and will never be UMC. Some of us could care less about being UMC. My assertions concerning my daughters as black women aren’t based on UMC values at all, nor wealth. These girls could marry electricians, HVAC techs, plumbers, teachers, whatever and I’d be fine with it so long as the man is godly. And by the way, I’m not a “boomer” to whomever said that. I was born in the 70’s.

    I am the equivalent of today’s HS graduate amongst our homeschool group which currently represents 83 families. More than half of those mothers hold master’s degrees or higher yet chose to forgo the material provision this provides to home educate their children. Outliers? Sure, but that’s just one homeschool group in a state where homeschooling is exploding so it’s hardly statistically insignificant.

    That’s hardly counting the number of mothers I encountered before we left the public system who wished they could make the choice not to work but couldn’t. So no, most college educated women don’t expect to pursue their own careers while juggling wife and motherhood. It’s what we have been told is expected of us as fully actualized human beings, LOL.

  230. Mariah8 says:

    @ Gunner
    One of the most typically female dominated careers is both part time and decently paid(overpaid if you ask my husband and in-laws) . I work two days a week and still make a livable wage as a nurse.

  231. thedeti says:

    Elspeth, I was talking about the middle class, not the UMC. I’m familiar with both social strata. I’m also talking about life in the broad middle of the country and not the experiences on the coasts. I think coastal UMCs influence everyone else to some extent but it’s not all-encompassing.

    I would perhaps temper my prior statement as “most MC people don’t live MC on one income in a family of husband, wife and children, because they choose not to — they want the extra money. They could live on one income if they budgeted and chose to, but most don’t, because they want the money from a dual income.” And most don’t, as a matter of practice. It’s not a dismissal of large numbers of people; it’s an observation that most MC folks don’t live on one income.

  232. With this in mind, I think a young woman going to college to increase her marriage prospects isn’t a bad thing so long as she is thinking about it the right way.

    I think it’s clear that going to college raises a girl’s marriage prospects, or at least the income of her likely husband. The stats bear that out, whether the reason is that men are looking for girls with degrees or because it gets them into proximity with more eligible men.

    But then the question is: is that increase in her prospects worth the time, money, and danger to her virtue? Yes, parents can raise their children well, but none of us is immune from temptation, and college is awash with temptations of every sort. It already was a couple generations ago, and it’s far worse now. So what kind of husband could she get by getting a job right out of high school and being sociable at church and other places, versus what kind could she get by investing several years, possibly a lot of debt, and risking being pulled onto the carousel? Seems to me there would have to be a big difference in the quality of husband expected to make that worth it.

    It also raises the question: if going to college is useful in the Mrs. degree sense, in that it puts her in proximity to quality men, could there be a shortcut? With some imagination, are there things a girl could do to make herself available and attractive to those kind of men without all the time and expense and risk of college? For instance, I know a girl who became a phlebotomist — someone who draws blood samples. The training was fairly short — less than a year, I think — the pay was decent, and then the work put her in proximity to a lot of doctors. Maybe a smart girl (or parents) could find ways like that to short-circuit the system if a white-collar husband is her goal.

  233. thedeti,

    AR is on the right track here. It’s not that men care nothing for female education or accomplishment. It’s just that those attributes in a woman aren’t attractive. In the SMP, youth and physical appearance are paramount, far and away the most important. But when we get to marriage, then a woman’s intelligence and levelheadedness take on more importance. But she doesn’t need a degree or have analytical genius. She just needs to have common sense and not be an idiot; she needs to be able to solve basic problems; she needs to be able to prioritize. These are skills she can learn at home from mom and dad.

    Not really. I could write a book about how wrong this is.

    Mom and dad learned how to take out a home equity loan to go to Hawaii and get a reverse mortgage because Fonzi said it was a good idea in that commercial. Do you want your wife to learn that “skill” or would you rather she got to college and learn a little something about personal finance? Mom and dad still pay for a land line telephone while kids in college know how to use a personal computer and the internet and get land line communication virtually for free (Skype anyone? Uma?) What do mom and dad know about “the cloud” deti? Kids learn all about that in college now. Mom and dad still use a DVD player and CDs for music, an iPod would about scare them to death.

    Mom and dad still think you need a mortgage broker to get a home mortgage. Mom and dad never refinanced mortgages the instant the interest rate dropped because mom and dad still think you have to pay “points.” You want your wife to learn that? Mom and dad never tried to price around for auto insurance, you just went to your agent and trusted them. By the by, who used an auto insurance agent? Mom and dad still think ulcers are caused by stress. Mom and dad can’t tell you the difference between good cholesteral and bad cholesteral. Mom and dad still thinks its okay for their grandkids to just go outside a play because you did when they had you, but you checked the sex offender registry, they don’t even know what that is.

    Mom and dad still change the oil every 3000 miles even though the owner’s manual and the dealer waranty say 10k. You want your wife to listen to mom and dad or read the manual? Mom and dad still write personal checks and mail them. You want your wife to learn that skill or on-line banking she picked up at college? Mom and dad used to bake goods and send them into school their daughter (now your wife) for holiday parties. You think that is a good idea for your kids or will they be instantly thrown in the trash by the teacher and your wife will get a call from the principal? Or perhaps she should spend time reading the rules and protocols on teh school website? Mom and dad know what being grounded is and what a spanking is, but what exactly is “time out?” And what is this restraining order that mom and dad got from the neighbor boy’s parents for yelling at the neighbor boy who cussed out your son, you think it would be a good idea for your wife to learn that skill?

    Mom and dad used to return stuff to the store. You want your wife to pay MORE using a store or Amazon dot com? And mom and dad never had to worry about ‘restocking fees’ and I’m not even sure they know what that is. Perhaps that class in college that your wife had on ecommerce came in handy?

    I could go on and on but you get the picture. The world is ever changing and re-aranging just like the Brady Bunch song goes. And what added value back in the day no longer adds value. And no, to be a wife a woman needs so much more now that what she picked up from mom and dad.

  234. Anonymous Reader says:

    Yes, Escoffier, the SMP and the MMP are not the same, and assortive mating exists.
    So we agree, it appears, on these facts. Not quite sure what your point is.

    Novaseeker:
    . The status markers have changed for women in some parts of US culture, and now having advanced degrees is a substantial status marker.

    Edited for clarity.

    That, *and* people want the extra money. The additional lifestyle boost afforded by two professional post-grad degree incomes is substantial as compared with two people trying to live (and raise kids) based on one such income. The extra money is wanted, no question.

    There is an irony in this concept. The cost of a full time staff – cleaning, cooking, child care – can easily consume the second income. So in a dual-career family, the lower paid person if it is the wife is breaking even; working umpty dozen hours per week in order to pay someone else to clean house, cook food, and raise her children. I’ve seen this at the lower middle class level, where a married friend was a receptionist at a vet’s office, and when she quit that job the family gross income dropped but the net income was unchanged. I’ve also seen this at the middle class level, where a married bookkeeper for a construction company quit her full time job with the same result. The second couple was grossing and netting more money than the first, but guess what? They could afford better “staff” so they paid more.

    Extrapolating upward in income, it is quite possible the same would hold in the UMC.

    Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the UMC is just as steeped in feminism as any other part of society, and quite possibly more. There are multiple feminist merit badges involved: Bachelor’s degree, post graduate degree, enough carousel riding to demonstrate liberation but married before the age of 30, 1.5 children produced but spaced out such that the career can continue…

    A while back I asked what “ready for marriage” looks like, and got some answers from Elspeth, Spacetraveller, thedeti, maybe others. Rhetorical questions can be useful in thinking about fundamental topics.

    So…another rhetorical question: what’s marriage for, anyway? Is it to create a power couple that can have more toys than other power couples? Is it to birth children and have enough money to hire other people to raise them? Is it a foundation stone of a society that shapes the larger culture, for good or ill?

    Just asking, rhetorically.

  235. anonymous_ng says:

    Regarding a post further up thread regarding false rape accusations. Here is a study from 1994 that appears well formed that finds a rate closer to 50% than 8%.

    http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

    AND, to add to the mix, a little snippet from Salon.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/11/18/how_cops_respond_to_rape_a_new_study_of_officers_at_one_police_department.html?wpisrc=obinsite

    Putting these two together reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon where the pointy haired boss talks about how there will be no bonuses this year and then about how the company had record profits. In the next frame, he turns to the secretary and says that he told her to insert the United Way fund raiser in between those two items.

  236. jbro1922 says:

    “It also raises the question: if going to college is useful in the Mrs. degree sense, in that it puts her in proximity to quality men, could there be a shortcut? With some imagination, are there things a girl could do to make herself available and attractive to those kind of men without all the time and expense and risk of college? For instance, I know a girl who became a phlebotomist — someone who draws blood samples. The training was fairly short — less than a year, I think — the pay was decent, and then the work put her in proximity to a lot of doctors. Maybe a smart girl (or parents) could find ways like that to short-circuit the system if a white-collar husband is her goal.”

    I see the point here and I think it’s a good one, but I’m not sure how this would work out practically. As has been discussed here before, a lot of women tend to go into the liberal arts and/or social sciences.

    “Perhaps that class in college that your wife had on ecommerce came in handy?”

    Good point. This is provided she took the class. And actually read the assignments, did them, thought critically about the material presented and applied it or can apply it to her daily life. I work and teach on a college campus and critical thinking, reading comprehension and retention skills are low. Not to mention, if you’re in the liberal arts, many times, classes in the natural sciences, math and/or social sciences may not be required.

  237. Novaseeker says:

    But then the question is: is that increase in her prospects worth the time, money, and danger to her virtue? Yes, parents can raise their children well, but none of us is immune from temptation, and college is awash with temptations of every sort. It already was a couple generations ago, and it’s far worse now. So what kind of husband could she get by getting a job right out of high school and being sociable at church and other places, versus what kind could she get by investing several years, possibly a lot of debt, and risking being pulled onto the carousel? Seems to me there would have to be a big difference in the quality of husband expected to make that worth it.

    It very much depends on the quality of the institution, and also what happens after graduation. I mean, secretaries now have BAs, so it’s not the case that it’s a huge status marker (I wasn’t aware that being a secretary is a huge status marker, for example) in all cases. But at more select institutions, where the female grads don’t go on to become secretaries, it’s different, and it *is* a mating pool issue.

    It also raises the question: if going to college is useful in the Mrs. degree sense, in that it puts her in proximity to quality men, could there be a shortcut? With some imagination, are there things a girl could do to make herself available and attractive to those kind of men without all the time and expense and risk of college? For instance, I know a girl who became a phlebotomist — someone who draws blood samples. The training was fairly short — less than a year, I think — the pay was decent, and then the work put her in proximity to a lot of doctors. Maybe a smart girl (or parents) could find ways like that to short-circuit the system if a white-collar husband is her goal.

    The thing with that is that it isn’t common anymore for a doc to marry a nurse or similar (just using your example … paralegal-lawyer would be another one). It’s much more common now that the doc is married to another doc, or to a lawyer or an exec or a professor or what have you than that he is married to a nurse or medical tech type. I can say the same for lawyers — not married to secretaries and paralegals. People just generally don’t marry across class lines like that, even though these are all “educated people” with at least a BA.

    So…another rhetorical question: what’s marriage for, anyway? Is it to create a power couple that can have more toys than other power couples? Is it to birth children and have enough money to hire other people to raise them? Is it a foundation stone of a society that shapes the larger culture, for good or ill?

    Obviously different people think differently.

    I will say this, however. While there are, say, Christians who do approach this in a segregating way (say the way Elspeth’s family is doing), most do not. Most Christians also have other values. Just like a Christian wants a spouse who is godly *and* hot (and not just godly), some want a wife who is not just feminine and godly, but also credentialed and earning substantial cash flow, because maintaining that lifestyle is important to them. It’s no more shallow than wanting hot and chaste, but not chaste and not-hot. People may be Christian, but they still have other “wants” in life, and for people in the UMC at least, lifestyle is important as is status, and both of these are derived from credentials, achievement, advancement and earnings. All of that *plus* Christian — that’s what’s wanted by people in that group.

    As you say, that isn’t everyone. In fact, it’s a small segment. In the middle of the country, things often work out differently, because the demographics are different, which means that the “asks” are different as well.

  238. Joshua says:

    Novaseeker, what age group are you talking about? I think all of you are talking about people much older than early 20’s looking for marriage,

  239. Novaseeker says:

    Novaseeker, what age group are you talking about? I think all of you are talking about people much older than early 20’s looking for marriage,

    I’m talking about my personal observations of not only my age peers in the 40s, but also people in their 30s and 20s who are in the same general SES with whom I work or otherwise have the opportunity to closely observe over an extended period (family, church, work, neighbors).

  240. Escoffier says:

    The point is, the sphere meme that men just don’t care about women’s’ education or job or accomplishment is, at the very least, oversold. Above a certain level of SES, a man simply will not even consider a woman as a wife unless her status is roughly equivalent to his, and that absolutely includes the degree(s) and the career.

    You can say that these things are not, in themselves, “attractive” but that seems like distinction without a difference. Sure, no dude ever got hard contemplating some chick’s diploma. But in the wider sense, these things must be “attractive” because, again, professional men simply will not consider a woman who lacks them. Possibly for a ONS; though even there, I wonder, because from what I understand about the metro-mid-20s hook-up scene, even the hook-ups are assortive. It’s college grads and entry-level careerists hooking up with one another. Ivy League junior analysts are not hooking up with admins. At the bars they go to, there won’t even be any admins. All of the girls there will have comparable degrees and careers, or else careers in “softer” fields like PR, but that still signal comparable status.

    Beyond the hookup, for a girlfriend or a wife, the degree and the job and the rest are non-negotiable. She must have those, or she’s not even in the game.

  241. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    The point is, the sphere meme that men just don’t care about women’s’ education or job or accomplishment is, at the very least, oversold. Above a certain level of SES, a man simply will not even consider a woman as a wife unless her status is roughly equivalent to his, and that absolutely includes the degree(s) and the career.

    You can say that these things are not, in themselves, “attractive” but that seems like distinction without a difference.

    The distinction is subtle, but important. For women a man’s achievements make him more sexually attractive. They also matter when she is considering what kind of man would be socially acceptable to marry, as well as his ability to be a good provider. Some of this is true for a man looking for a girlfriend or wife, but not all of it, yet very few women are clear on this. Think of the iconic scene in Officer and a Gentleman where he shows up in triumph after having graduated. Officers have status, and status is sexy to women. Status isn’t sexy to men. Neither is confidence (moxie). The scene wouldn’t work for a woman graduating:

    Way to go Paul! You got an officer! Look how confident she is!”

  242. Joshua says:

    You all underestimate the rapid speed that the internet is changing things.

  243. Opus says:

    In the days when the Doctors married the Nurses and the Lawyers married the Typists there were few female Doctors and few female Lawyers (just 1 in 10 law students were female in my class). One had to cut ones coat according to the available cloth. Now, marrying the Nurse or the Typist would be carelessly going down-market. The Mother of the female Doctor or Lawyer was a Nurse or Typist and the mother of the Nurse or Typist worked as a shop assistant or the like. Mrs Middleton was a trolley-dolly, yet once, a flight attendant declaring ‘doors to manual’ and making the strange hieroglyphics with her arms was considered a highly desirable occupation for a young woman and one had to be tall and good-looking.

    To put this in context there has been a seven-fold increase in the number of lawyers in England since I was young – what they do I have no idea, but inevitably the status of being a lawyer has also declined (unless one is in the top percentile). I am out of date and out of touch and have little idea as to the gadgets IBB describes – I never even had a female teacher.

  244. Escoffier says:

    That’s true and, as I noted before, for men, it’s not seen as a positive. High-five, you got a Harvard girl. Rather, they imperative for them is to avoid the potential negative. “You really want to put a ring on that? She’s only got an AA!” He will feel this himself and fear that reaction from his family and friends.

    So, no, not necessarily sexually attractive in itself. But for some reason or other, its lack is repulsive.

    And, I do think it is telling that both in college and beyond, the boys and girls of this class are all hooking up with each other. If anyone remembers the comments of Zach, from the way he told it, neither he nor his friends every paid the least attention to any girl outside their SES circle, which definitely meant, only girls with elite degrees and prestige jobs had any shot of even getting a ONS from these guys.

    Beyond that, I do think that status is to some extent sexy to men. Not in the same way or the same degree. But I’ve seen plenty of men work themselves up extra over a girl with some career or family or money-related status (or “glamor” might be a better term here) that went beyond what they could have mustered for a similar girl without the glamor. This is all provided that she met his initial attraction floor first, but the glamour was like catnip.

    In the stereotype of the lovelorn geek infatuated with the head cheerleader—is he in love with her simply because she’s pretty? Or does her status or glamor give his infatuation a considerable boost?

    For myself, I find hot classical musicians performing in low-cut ball gowns irresistible …

  245. JDG says:

    As a man with a BS and AS in STEM fields and a high paying STEM job (Reactor Operator) I will NEVER date or have any relationship with a college educate (even for one day) woman.

    College degree in the US is a red flag, one of many.

  246. Looking Glass says:

    Most driven, college-educated Men are still a part of our “we believe in equality!” society. If you want an “equal” relationship, you’ve got to find someone that fits roughly into the role.

    Plus, if you’ve got above average intelligence as a Man, you generally don’t want to talk to a dim-bulb. Unless she’s really hot.

  247. JDG says:

    It becomes pretty obvious within a few minutes of talking with the average woman of today whether she is intelligent or dumber than a box of rocks.

    Where I looking for a wife I would most likely take the box of rocks over the “educated” woman.

  248. JDG says:

    Plus, if you’ve got above average intelligence as a Man, you generally don’t want to talk to a dim-bulb. Unless she’s really hot.

    This was true for me until I realized what intelligent US girls expected from, and were doing to, their husbands. I’ll take (not so) common sense smart over educated / worldly smart any day of the week.

  249. Dalrock,

    Some of this is true for a man looking for a girlfriend or wife, but not all of it, yet very few women are clear on this. Think of the iconic scene in Officer and a Gentleman where he shows up in triumph after having graduated. Officers have status, and status is sexy to women. Status isn’t sexy to men. Neither is confidence (moxie).

    You have misinterpretted the scene. He is not showing up in triumph after graduating OCS. His triumph was the scene before, throwing his hat in the air saying “…Foley’s Fire-eaters is finally finished!” In the scene you are showing (or I think you are showing as youtube is blocked at work) SHE (Paula/Debra Winger) is seen in triumph getting the college grad and now OCS grad to fall in love with her, show up at work, sweep her off her feet, propose marriage, and wisk her away from the f-cking dead-end papermill life she had where her mom still works because her step dad (the man who “manned up” to marry a pregnant girl carrying a baby he did NOT sire) is a grumpy uneducated loser who can’t support his family in its entirety. But the bigger issue that escapes many of the people on this blog is that this is not 1982 and the calliber men who graduate OCS today do NOT marry the local girl working in the nearby factory just because she showed up at the OCS dance wearing a dress. Paula had NO status and today (32 years after that movie was made) an OCS grad is not going to marry her. He’s pure alpha and has a line of women waiting (somewhere) when he finished up at OCS who will take their crack. Paula would just be a “pump-and-dump” for Zach Mayo.

    I have to admit though, there is much the manosphere can learn from the movie “An Officer and a Gentleman”. Case in point, there is an iconic scene in the movie, the second best fight scene in the movie where a local guy picks a fight with Zach/Richard Gere outside a bad and gets his @ss totally kicked by Zach. The fight lasted 5 seconds. 1,000,000 red pill internet points to the first person who can properly guess as to WHO exactly that guy was angry with enough to pick the fight with Zach and WHY he was so angry? Go.

  250. joshtheaspie says:

    At least some portion of this is exposure. We keep hearing “don’t dip your pen in the company well”, because of all of the problems with relationships at work (and I agree).

    But how many people actually go out to an environment that is conducive to finding a life partner? “Well there’s church” but most people go to church close to where they live, and where they live is often set by their socio-economic group.

    So most people are likely to meet people in training, at work, or going to some event among those in the same socio-economic group.

    Now, if a guy spends most of his time at work with his head down, and only really talks to people at, say, habitat for humanity builds, then perhaps he’ll wind up marrying a woman with a good work ethic from another socio-economic class… … … except that most people that work at those builds are guys, married, or have lots of free time because they have a job that affords them free time and physical work.

    So let’s presume that I want a relationship and really don’t care about someone else’s degree. I care about their physical fitness, that they won’t slack off and make me do all the work in the relationship (work ethic), I want someone of the same faith as me, and I want someone that puts that faith into practical practice, as I do, by volunteering.

    What percentage of people that I meet would you estimate are of a different socio-economic class? What about the percentage of women?

    America at least is experiencing a growing sense of isolation as what it takes to focus on a good carrier increases. This reduction in opportunities to meet others and form meaningful relationships may contribute to a number of societal results. They may include our growing sense of loneliness and isolation amongst our neighbors, the delay of marriage, and increased social stratification.

  251. JDG says:

    Men marry down. Women marry up. Women getting educated makes that hard. it’s that simple, girls.

    This bears repeating.

  252. deti says:

    Nova, Dalrock, Escoffier:

    There are specific reasons why a college educated or UMC man might want a comparable woman as a spouse, but they aren’t related to sexiness or his sexual attraction to her.

    There’s a distinction between attractiveness and desirability in how men assess women. Physical appearance and youth are sexually attractive. She has to have those things and be above his attraction floor. Fortunately that’s a low bar for most women to meet. The second part of attraction is personality. If she has a good and compatible personality then attraction is satisfied. Those are really the only things he needs for attraction and attractiveness. That’s suitable for hookups and STRs, I think.

    A man gets to “desirability” when he starts assessing women for LTRs and marriage. And here, her education, intelligence and social status markers play a key role. These things are desirable (but they’re not sexy or attractive). Hell, for marriage they might even be dealbreakers – for MARRIAGE. Because the things a man is assessing for marriage are quite different from what he’s assessing for in a hookup or STR, or even an LTR short of marriage to some extent. For marriage, he’s looking for the ability to be a helpmeet, someone who has a level head and common sense. Can she run a house? Can she do basic problem solving? Can I trust her with the money? Can she work and hold down a job and contribute to the finances? Can she meet my friends, coworkers and bosses and not embarrass me or herself? These things aren’t attractive. They’re not sexy. But they are very, very desirable, and a man wants these things very much in a wife. He doesn’t care so much about them for girlfriends or flings.

    As for hookups, I wonder if what’s being observed there is simply that men hook up with the women available to them and in close proximity to them, which tends to be women of similar SES. Birds of a feather and all that. For college men, that tends to be other college girls, because those are the women most accessible to them. Beyond college, hookups for men tend to be friends of friends, women they meet in social groups or associations, women they meet through friends, and possibly at work (rarely). So if men are hooking up, they’re usually doing so with the women they have the most access to; and that tends to be the women in their social circles. In turn, these tend to be women with similar SES backgrounds.

    So I think that for men assessing women for SES and status and education, the attraction/desirability dichotomy is useful in understanding the process men go through.

  253. deti,

    A man gets to “desirability” when he starts assessing women for LTRs and marriage. And here, her education, intelligence and social status markers play a key role. These things are desirable (but they’re not sexy or attractive). Hell, for marriage they might even be dealbreakers – for MARRIAGE. Because the things a man is assessing for marriage are quite different from what he’s assessing for in a hookup or STR, or even an LTR short of marriage to some extent. For marriage, he’s looking for the ability to be a helpmeet, someone who has a level head and common sense. Can she run a house? Can she do basic problem solving? Can I trust her with the money? Can she work and hold down a job and contribute to the finances? Can she meet my friends, coworkers and bosses and not embarrass me or herself? These things aren’t attractive. They’re not sexy. But they are very, very desirable, and a man wants these things very much in a wife. He doesn’t care so much about them for girlfriends or flings.

    Perfect.

    100,000 red pill internet points for deti for this one.

  254. JDG says:

    Nope. No loans. No screwing. No frat boys. We don’t live stereotypes in this family. Sorry to bust your bubble.

    But you are ‘red pill’ aware. Most Christians that send their kids to college have no idea what those kids are walking into. They didn’t know what to prepare them for, and they don’t know what to watch for. If the kids are living away from home they couldn’t watch anyhow.

    Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 1Cor 15:33

  255. jbro1922 says:

    @joshtheaspie

    Hence the rise of online dating. Put in your parameters, search, chat, meet (hopefully)….

  256. The status markers have changed for women, and now having advanced degrees is a substantial status marker.

    True. Since I don’t run in the UMC crowd, I tend to forget how important status is there. I tend to think that if a doctor found himself a hot little number right out of nursing school, who showed up on his arm at hospital functions looking fabulous and otherwise stayed home and made babies, all the other doctors would envy him. They probably wouldn’t say so out loud, though, and too much envy could hurt him professionally. And their wives would treat her horribly. So I suppose there are also practical reasons why a guy might not go that direction, even if he thinks of it and isn’t looking for maximum status and wealth.

    Where status is concerned, so much comes down to perceptions and herd behavior. What was normal and fine in the past can be out-of-bounds today, but might become the norm again in the future.

  257. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    For myself, I find hot classical musicians performing in low-cut ball gowns irresistible …

    I’m sure it’s the MFA that really, truly attracts you, not the contents of the low-cut gown, right?

  258. The Brass Cat says:

    TFH says:

    Brass Cat,

    There was a time I was job hunting when my wife said I should try for a position at her place of employment because they were hiring. I flat out told her I could not work with her, even if that meant staying unemployed longer.

    If the position is in her same group, yes.

    If the position is in a different group with little or minimal interaction with your wife, that is fine.

    I knew a family where a man, his wife, and his brother were all working in the same company, but in different departments (although still the same building). No direct work interaction, but they came and went in the same car. It worked fine.

    Yes, in my case it would have been the same department with direct interaction. That would be a recipe for disaster. It could create an ethical dilemma… am I more loyal to my wife or my employer? For instance, she screws up, I’m questioned about it and have to either rat on her or lie to my boss.

    Not to mention trying to maintain any sort of Alpha/headship frame while receiving marching orders from some supervisor literally right in front of my wife. And if that supervisor is a woman… that’s an extra kick in the groin.

  259. I’m sure it’s the MFA that really, truly attracts you, not the contents of the low-cut gown, right?

    As I’ve probably said before: all the women I’ve slept with (or had a crush on) seemed really smart at the time. It was only later, after they’d dumped/LJBFd me, that I gradually realized they weren’t. Probably just a coincidence.

  260. @joshtheaspie

    Hence the rise of online dating. Put in your parameters, search, chat, meet (hopefully)….

    I concur with jbro. On-line dating is fantastic. Outstanding actually. It is very efficient. I was able to whittle down to a very specific, select list with a certain set of demographics. I pretty much met them all for that one website.

  261. Jeremy says:

    @Elspeth

    Um, no. That is patently false. Ultimately a wife is to serve as a helper suitable in whatever way her man needs. His standards. No one else’s other than God’s. My husband would never suffer a woman who can’t balance a checkbook, invoice his clients, make some money if the need calls for it, and be competent in all manner of was besides the bedroom and the birthing table. And the Old Testament backs him up on that:

    You’re just moving goalposts all over the place attempting to look more righteous and ignore my original point. Your quoting of scripture backs up the fact that you’re unwilling to concede my original point and rather run to the bible to appear correct. So back to my original point, so you can see how far you’ve gone off the rails… You originally said:

    Ideally you (as a single woman) want to be both smart and accomplished and submissive and feminine.

    And I said:

    If you’re trying to snag any (alpha or not) male, your accomplishments are almost meaningless. Accomplishments are how men measure men, we would never apply that standard to women because women have a different lifecycle entirely. Your ability to make smart decisions on your own (like not get into debt), and know when to speak up intelligently (Gracefully demonstrating intelligence, do not challenge), are what you’re looking for.

    So how exactly are you not now saying almost exactly what I said before? Thank you for agreeing with me Elspeth. Are you able now to outright say that men will not judge women by their “accomplishments” or is that still too much against the herd to stomach at this point?

  262. Escoffier says:

    “I’m sure it’s the MFA that really, truly attracts you, not the contents of the low-cut gown, right?”

    I don’t care about the MFA at all, and probably a minority will even have one. But as to the rest, it’s definitely both. Same girl, same face, same gown, but one is playing Brahms and the other is flitting around a cocktail party, I’ll be more infatuated with the girl playing Brahms every time.

    I think “glamor” is a reasonable word to get at what I mean. I think it works on a lot of men. it’s why, or part of why, they get crushes on movie stars and models and the like. Not merely because those women are hot but also because of the extra cache that glamor gives them.

    Dalrock’s point is good because in his example, the hypothetical female status would be derived from a traditionally male field: military officer. Men are not going to get a charge out of this. For this “glamor” bonus to work on men, there has to be something intrinsically or at least “compatibly” feminine about it. This is part of why you get cheerleader fantasies. Or debutante fantasies. E.g., “The Geek” in Sixteen Candles is into Carolyn not just because she’s hot but because she’s the social queen bee of the school.

  263. Escoffier says:

    OK, make of this what you will.

    My wife was once a competitive figure skater. She has not competed in decades but she still skates on the regular. Mostly at rather dreary rinks just for the practice and exercise. I never go watch her on those occasions. But every once in a while, she will skate at the Rockefeller rink or the Wollman in Central Park. The former is really small and the skaters are mostly awful so she doesn’t do it very often, but the latter is quite large and they often cone off the center for people of her ability.

    Now, all dolled up in those very girly skating costumes (think Peggy Fleming, not the stuff they wear today), well, she is quite a sight on the ice. I do remember the very first time I saw her skate, before we were married, and, yeah–turn-on. Glamor? Accomplishment? Combination? Whatever it is, it’s a plus. The occasional displays in Manhattan do generate a little extra zing.

  264. Gunner Q says:

    ““Any woman with a well-paying career is signaling she doesn’t need a man.”
    How can you make a sweeping statement like this? Haven’t you heard of ‘cognitive dissonance’?”

    I can say it because a woman with a well-paying career DOESN’T need a man. Only a sperm donor and housekeeper. With modern medication, she won’t even go insane from not being a husband’s servant as God intended.

    I’m not gullible, Spacetraveller. A college woman can tell herself she’s only trying to “give her husband options” but I see the truth. She’s aiming for the top of the male pyramid. If she doesn’t land Alpha McGorgeous then she’ll eventually, reluctantly, decide to settle for a “stable provider” like me. That’s a guaranteed frivorce.

    If we replace UMC with “the top 20% of men” then the hypergamy becomes obvious. That’s the secret behind women “needing” a college degree to attract a “decent” husband.

  265. Spacetraveller says:

    I think Deti’s comment at 3:37 PM is absolutely true!
    Education/career is not the primary attractant, but it is increasingly becoming an important desirable trait when men assess women for marriage as I see it.
    Perhaps things will change again in the next few years just as we all get used to this current trend?
    I am confused enough as it is!
    I shall watch this space…

    NB: Hypergamy still reigns supreme though…
    It is a fact that my husband is more intelligent than I am even though we probably have similar years of formal education under our belts. This is never under question🙂.
    And I am sure many women in a similar position would agree…

  266. JDG says:

    “Any woman with a well-paying career is signaling she doesn’t need a man.”

    Yep! And if she doesn’t need you, where does that leave you?

  267. JDG says:

    These girls could marry electricians, HVAC techs, plumbers, teachers, whatever and I’d be fine with it so long as the man is godly.

    But would they when they have college degrees and the plumbers do not?

  268. Glamor? Accomplishment? Combination? Whatever it is, it’s a plus.

    Exactly: it’s a plus. If I’m already attracted to a woman, then seeing that she’s smart or talented will pique my interest a bit more. But if she’s not physically attractive in the first place, it can’t change that.

    To put it in harsh numerical terms: if I’m only attracted to women who are a 6 or higher, then a 7 who plays first-chair violin might be an 8 in my eyes. But a 5 who does it is still a 5; she doesn’t move up to 6 and become attractive.

  269. JDG says:

    Above a certain level of SES, a man simply will not even consider a woman as a wife unless her status is roughly equivalent to his, and that absolutely includes the degree(s) and the career.

    While I do know a lot of guys that married women with degrees, I know several that did not. For many of the guys that married college girls the degrees didn’t matter at all, and I’ve also noticed that the guys that married “educated” women tend to be more feminist and whipped (not all but most). All of these women married men they thought to be of higher status (except one, and he is very attractive to women).

    I also know a few women having trouble finding a husband because they can’t even see the multitude of guys surrounding them (due to perceived status / attractiveness), while others aren’t even considering marriage yet. They are wasting their best child rearing years in Caesar’s indoctrination centers.

  270. Spacetraveller says:

    Gunner Q,

    My quip about ‘cognitive dissonance’ was a joke admittedly.
    I could just as easily phrased it as : ‘Don’t you know that we women are illogical?’🙂
    In all seriousness, though, having an education is what automatically happens, if one has the means, the opportunity and the will. Often enforced by parents. Most girls are sent to school and college simply because it is ‘normal’ for them, their parents and society at large. You cannot conclude that these girls are all ‘we don’t need a man’ types. It is part of our culture, and remember that the girl herself may not even have a choice in the matter!
    I think it was Elspeth who described the case of a young man who was insisting that his intended go to dental schol or something, quite against her will…

    To know the individual girl or woman’s attitude to her education/career, I guess you would have to find out from her, on a personal level. You would have to probe her.
    Assumptions are catastrophic here.
    I have explained my own case. Because I am educated, the assumption could have easily been that I am a feminist. And yet that simply is not true of me, and I am glad my husband ‘got’ this about me early on in our courtship. In our first year of marriage, his mandate to me was ‘earn as much as you can’ for our future family. So I did. Because I understood that this is part of my ‘helpmate’ function for him.
    This year, our second, the mandate is, ‘stay home, be a domestic goddess, be my secretary (he runs his own comapny), have babies’. So here I am doing just that. Three course dinner on table every midday and 7pm. Just as enjoyable as when I was working outside the home. It is what he wants, I respect his wishes (and his wishes are inherently good for us as a couple/family) so I do it. I don’t feel any less important now I am at home…In fact I feel more fulfilled, as indeed I should be…
    If he changes the mandate again, I go back to work. Because I can, and because he wants. And I know he will make the right decision, as he always does, because he considers all the pros and cons very carefully. He is extremely logical, quite unlike me.

    If he had made the same assumption about me that you make about educated women in general, he would have ‘nexted’ me unnecessarily.😦
    (But I guess he wouldn’t have because I have at least been consistent in that whilst I was of course working full time when we were courting, he knew he could come over to my home at weekends and there would be a hot meal waiting. So no change there).

    “A college woman can tell herself she’s only trying to “give her husband options” but I see the truth. She’s aiming for the top of the male pyramid.”

    Agreed. How could I possibly argue with you on this point?
    In order for her to give her husband options (a good thing for a woman to do, by the way), she needs to really adore him (read: respect him). In order for her to respect him, he needs to be the very top in HER eyes (top of the pyramid). She must be maximally attracted to him, yes.

    Are you by any chance arguing that this is a BAD thing?
    If you are, this would dismay and surprise me. Deti laments often that a big reason for the high divorce rate is that some women are not attracted enough, if at all, to their husbands. Hypergamy is a necessary trait in a woman, Gunner Q. But of course I agree that there should be no ‘trading up’ after vows are taken – the hypergamy must stop there, lol. But hypergamy prior to commitment MUST be present, otherwise your next point will hold true.

    “If she doesn’t land Alpha McGorgeous then she’ll eventually, reluctantly, decide to settle for a “stable provider” like me.”

    I agree this is a bad thing, yes. This is another problem in the SMP. Women should not be doing this. It leads to pain for everyone down the road. And men should not accept ‘peanuts’ from these ‘reluctant brides’ as I call them. If she is not showing signs of being totally committed to you, don’t marry her. I think this is good advice for men in general, especially, as you put it, the ‘stable provider’ types who are getting short-changed in this present era.
    She must have hypergamy and YOU should be object of her hypergamy.
    If it is any consolidation, I am as much against this sort of thing as you are. I don’t like it, and I get angry too, when I see men being taken for suckers in this way.
    Honestly, I hate it. It is not right, and if you are a victim of this, you have my sympathy and hope things can improve/be corrected.

  271. Novaseeker says:

    If we replace UMC with “the top 20% of men” then the hypergamy becomes obvious. That’s the secret behind women “needing” a college degree to attract a “decent” husband.

    Yes, although only a very small percentage of college grads are UMCs or become UMC. In my workplace, the secretaries all have BAs. They are not UMC. There are plenty of nurses, teachers, social workers, etc, who have degrees, some of them masters degrees, and they are not UMC. So it’s a bad bet to try to land a UMC spouse unless you are also UMC or you are at an elite university, not just “in college”.

    But would they when they have college degrees and the plumbers do not?

    Sure, but as you’ve seen yourself, this is not uncommon. Nurses/tradesmen/cops/teachers, etc. The female component has a degree the male one does not — that isn’t uncommon. But it’s uncommon for the woman exec, lawyer or doc to marry that way — a very small number do, but it’s not common. Again, it isn’t about “going to college”, but where you went, what you did after, and what you are doing now.

  272. Novaseeker says:

    True. Since I don’t run in the UMC crowd, I tend to forget how important status is there. I tend to think that if a doctor found himself a hot little number right out of nursing school, who showed up on his arm at hospital functions looking fabulous and otherwise stayed home and made babies, all the other doctors would envy him. They probably wouldn’t say so out loud, though, and too much envy could hurt him professionally. And their wives would treat her horribly. So I suppose there are also practical reasons why a guy might not go that direction, even if he thinks of it and isn’t looking for maximum status and wealth.

    Where status is concerned, so much comes down to perceptions and herd behavior. What was normal and fine in the past can be out-of-bounds today, but might become the norm again in the future.

    That’s true. Today, though, the doc will bang the cute nurse, but not marry her like he may hav 40+ years ago. Today he will marry another doc, or a lawyer, or a journalist, or an exec. The nurse is now “below”. Not below for sex, but below for marriage. Same has happened with lawyers. Lawyers used to marry secretaries and paralegals. When I first became a lawyer a couple of decades ago, the older lawyers were in marriages like that — they married very pretty women in positions like that. There weren’t many female lawyers in that generation, and the ones that were there weren’t all that interesting as wives (think early generation feminists). Now it’s totally different. The younger lawyers (my generation included) never dated secretaries or paralegals (although some *did* fool around with some of them), and ended up marrying women who were very similar to them in terms of pedigree and career status. This all changed in the last 30 years, really.

    But it’s really a UMC phenomenon. In the MC, it’s different because below that UMC bar, there is more diversity in terms of job matches between spouses. Again, like nurse/policeman or contractor/teacher. Not uncommon at all. And the women have “degrees” — they just aren’t super-powered with advanced degrees and high powered careers in major metropolitan areas on the coasts. All of that last sentence matters — where did you go to school, how far did you go, what did you do afterward, what is your job, where do you live, what SES are you — all of those factors matter, which is why there is a lot of talking past each other on blogs. The circumstances in DC (which gave birth to Roissy, it must be remembered) or Manhattan or the Bay are very different than the circumstances in Pittsburgh or Cleveland or Kansas City. And even in those places, it’s different for the small amount of UMC there than it is for the MCs there, and for the UMCs there it’s quite different than it is for the large group of UMCs in DC or NY or SF Bay. All of these factors matter and create different markets and different behaviors really.

  273. Elspeth says:

    But would they when they have college degrees and the plumbers do not?

    My husband doesn’t have a degree and I am quite satisfied with him and what he has accomplished career wise. We live in a nicer MC neighborhood. I am homeschooling our kids. Our social circle is both devout and highly educated people.

    His lack of a degree hasn’t hurt us and my girls have been very well instructed on the virtues and potential of blue collar work. None of that changes the fact that black women without degrees are less likely to marry a man with or without a degree.

  274. JDG says:

    In order for her to give her husband options (a good thing for a woman to do, by the way), she needs to really adore him (read: respect him). In order for her to respect him, he needs to be the very top in HER eyes (top of the pyramid). She must be maximally attracted to him, yes.

    Are you by any chance arguing that this is a BAD thing?

    IMO this is a bad thing. She should respect him because of the position he holds, not because she has the hots for him. That’s just one more screwed up thing about our culture and female nature in general.

  275. JDG says:

    None of that changes the fact that black women without degrees are less likely to marry a man with or without a degree.

    I don’t see this automatically equating to: men won’t marry black women without a degree. There are likely other factors at play here.

  276. Gunner Q says:

    “My husband doesn’t have a degree and I am quite satisfied with him and what he has accomplished career wise.”

    He was a fighter pilot, right? Not all status is education.

    “None of that changes the fact that black women without degrees are less likely to marry a man with or without a degree.”

    Well, best of luck to your daughters. Sounds like you’re doing your homework to keep them from being ruined by the college experience; that, being debt-free, having their father present and knowing how to look feminine will give them an excellent chance of marrying well. College was probably unnecessary, given those reasons, but eh.

    I look out my window at the obese white cubicle hens with short hair, tats, piercings and a smart phone wired to their ears, and despair. College obviously didn’t teach them what was important.

  277. Spacetraveller says:

    JDG,

    “IMO this is a bad thing. She should respect him because of the position he holds, not because she has the hots for him.”

    Hmm. OK.
    Erm, how shall I put this…the former leads to the latter! I don’t see why he shouldn’t get both…
    The point I was making was, respect is key if she is to be ‘part of his team’, yes.

    But I don’t see how it is a bad thing if a wife ‘has the hots’ for the husband even if this is the *source* of her respect rather than a *consequence* of said respect. (Erm, some might say you are splitting hairs, JDG!)
    You see, this is the very issue Deti laments: that whilst the alpha widow respects her husband ‘for the position he holds’ (read: stable provider) she has ‘the hots’ for someone else (read: the true object of her sexual attraction, some alpha guy from way back when).

    I am hoping that this is your actual beef about what is wrong about female nature, in which case, yes, Sir, I agree with you there.

    But (and I hate to say it but surely you know this to be true): this ‘noble’, platonic respect you speak of, without the ‘hots’ part for the husband is tantamount to short-changing him, no?
    Is this not the root cause of the denial of sex that some married men report?

    Perhaps I read you totally wrong…explain it to me like I am a six year old, please. I am confused.😦
    (Aherm, all that education and I am still dumb, lol).

  278. embracing reality says:

    Case study, I’m in my early forties, never married no kids. My career has been entrepreneurial and combined with rabid saving and investing I’m quite comfortable. Marrying an accomplish-less young woman now, let alone start a family with her, strikes me as a very foolish idea. I’ve dated numerous women with doctorates and otherwise accomplished status who like me would have $kin in the game should we decide to marry. Women as a collective have cast aside traditional ideas and now a lot of men aren’t interested in going back in history either. Women said they can provide for themselves like men, they wanted ‘equality’, by God, lets see some!

    A man who spends a lifetime slaving his guts out to support a wife’s wish list in exchange for nothing more than an attractive, pleasant homemaker who dispenses regular sex has made a poor trade by my standards.
    A man who spends a lifetime slaving his guts out to support a wife’s wish list in exchange for nothing more than an overweight, manipulative, controlling, sexless shrew…. Well, I don’t know what to say about that guy but I sure as hell ain’t doing that.

  279. embracing reality says:

    …….”without the ‘hots’ part for the husband is tantamount to short-changing him, no?
    Is this not the root cause of the denial of sex that some married men report?”

    Not my debate but I expect that after a lifetime of entertainment media being poured into the simple minds of average western females the only men most women can have the ‘hots’ for are top tier men completely above their league. A few of these women will generously give themselves sexually to Mr. Big and become alpha widows, never to be satisfied. Others will wait until right before they hit the wall and marry a provider chump they’ll never be attracted to even though in reality he’s actually better in nearly every way.. Women who on a scale of 1 to 10 who are solid 5’s who aren’t attracted to the 6-7 they married because he’s not the 8.5 she’s sure she “deserved”. After all mommy and Daddy told her from birth she was special and entitled.

  280. John Nesteutes says:

    There was, at one time, a young black woman I was quite interested in. A virtuous woman, who somehow managed to live a victorious Christian life despite an upbringing that was dubious at best. Being an entirely self-made woman with parents either incarcerated or uncooperative, she could not use conventional financial aid to attend college until she was in her mid-20s.

    Her college attendance did nothing to increase my interest in her. She did saddle herself with an extra $25k of debt each year, and her uncertainty grew as to just what career she was preparing for. Her strongest desire was to be a wife and a mother, but she found no suitable men on the horizon (her own attractions being quite… choosy despite the fact she could best be described as “average”). I was, myself, married off to another during this time. Eventually I found myself divorced.

    Lo and behold, all a college education accomplished for her was: (1) her attraction qualifications grew even more; I spent time with her in social settings and got to meet some of the guys who were interested in her. I would say they were a good assortive match, but she was not interested at all. (2) she seemed to assume I should be interested in her when my own attraction was flagging courtesy of both age and the thought of handling all that student loan debt. (3) she went to “study abroad”, and whilst she was in a country that still takes women’s virtue seriously (Sharjah, U.A.E.), she did end up having her first (and from how she described it, quite passionate) kiss–with a man who wasn’t a Christian–oops. I completely lost all interest after that point.

    She would have been better off avoiding college and moving someplace that holds a lot of homeschool English country dances.

  281. John Nesteutes says:

    Men use career/education as a proxy to assess social class and IQ in women.

    That is all.

  282. Bruno Abzug says:

    Good article. That being said, I would have loved to see Clooney marry a 18 year old Vietnamese girl with 10 years of plow experience in a Hanoi rice field. That would have been classic.

  283. John Nesteutes says:

    @Bruno

    Upper-middle-class people marry other upper-middle-class people, usually for economic, social, and political ambitions. It has always been this way and always will be.

    (Yes, I claimed Clooney is upper middle class. His net worth is allegedly $180 million, but he probably spent a good chunk of that on the wedding. He seems like a man who is interested in things other than wealth.)

  284. JDG says:

    Spacetraveller

    But I don’t see how it is a bad thing if a wife ‘has the hots’ for the husband even if this is the *source* of her respect rather than a *consequence* of said respect.

    If attraction is the source of her respect, then what happens if she loses attraction for him? What if his job position was what had her going, and he gets demoted or fired? What if his physical fitness was her thing and he gets maimed? You get the idea.

    Ideally the respect should come from the fact that he is her husband.

    And as embracing reality points out, our society has made men less attractive to women on a grand scale. As things are, respect for the husband is all but forgotten.

  285. John Nesteutes says:

    The source of respect should be respect for God (namely “the fear of the Lord”) and respect for the institution of marriage he created.

    I have seen this kind of respect sustain a woman through a marriage to a man who goes through some very dark times, and otherwise loses all manner of respectability.

    Regarding our society making men less attractive to begin with – well, that inhibits marriages forming in the first place. Men are getting married at 29+ now, i.e., young men aren’t getting married at all.

  286. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    I don’t care about the MFA at all, and probably a minority will even have one.

    Whoosh! Right over your head.

  287. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    I do remember the very first time I saw her skate, before we were married, and, yeah–turn-on. Glamor? Accomplishment? Combination? Whatever it is, it’s a plus. The occasional displays in Manhattan do generate a little extra zing.

    Never mind all that boring stuff, tell us about her hot, sexy college degrees….

  288. Escoffier says:

    yeah, no.

    The MFA (again, if she even has one) is not the decisive point here. The decisive point is the talent or differentiator, which a lot of men will fine attractive. It’s not all about looks. Two women, same figure, same face, same dress. One shows a talent, the other does not. Your position is, it’s all based on her physicality. The talent or accomplishment means nothing to the vast majority of men. Hence they are identical. And the talent may even be a net negative for a man’s attraction cues.

    I am saying (again) that sphere meme that all female accomplishment is wasted, a sunk cost, never to be recovered in the currency of male esteem, is wrong. It may be true for you, but the insistence on universalizing that is wrong. To a non-inconsiderable subset of men, the talent counts. Maybe not for the majority, but certainly for the majority of men above a certain SES.

    The sphere generally deserves for showing how feminism’s insistence that careerism in women is supposed to be the be-all, end-all of male attraction is bunk. But so many take that to the extreme of “No man is ever attracted to a woman because of her status/education/accomplishment etc.” The truth is, those things are may not be visceral, physical attraction cues, but they are part of the whole package that men consider. The higher you go up the SES scale, the truer that is.

    Why can’t we just say, “The current culture overemphasizes X at the expense of Y, and the result is sloppy thinking and incorrect conclusions. Let’s rebalance toward the truth.” But instead we insist that “The exact 180 reverse of what radfems say is true.”

    You have acknowledged above that in fact, this alleged universal truth that men don’t care at all, ever about a woman’s accomplishments, education, talents, and so on, is not, in fact, universal, because the corrupt UMC hews to it. Fair enough. I happen to agree that they are corrupt in many ways. I also agree that arranging a whole society around UMC habits and tastes is probably a bad idea. But I see no point in lying to ourselves about what those tastes are, in order to bolster some case for a universal male wish list that transcends class and culture. Maybe there should be such a thing, but at the moment, there isn’t.

    Beyond that, I think that this upper-caste male desire for some distinction on the part of their mates is rooted in nature and can be found in every time and place. What’s relatively new for us is that female status is defined by education and career. It didn’t used to be. But such men have always sought mates who demonstrate “something extra” than just a pretty face and sweet demeanor.

  289. JDG says:

    The source of respect should be respect for God (namely “the fear of the Lord”) and respect for the institution of marriage he created.

    You are correct of course, and I was going to say that. But then I remembered that many that read here are not Christian, so I tried to use an example that could apply to even non-Christian couples.

  290. Typical modern Churchians, having to send your daughters to university, the very places that are infested with modern debauchery and corruption, because we value wealth ‘triggers’ above proper Christian values.

    A woman shows far more intelligence not going to university and marrying a real Christian man when she is young than one who gets a degree in feel good studies.

    I have now noted that IBB, Escoffier and others value a piece of paper, the time wasted on it instead of family and the massively increased risk to the utter corruption of their daughters or future wife, to be more important than a woman who chooses marriage over a degree. You chaps disgust me.

    Your future wife can have talents, education and intelligence without having to go to university..

    Learn to look beyond pieces of paper, those are worth nothing, they’re fiat corruption.

  291. Men use career/education as a proxy to assess social class and IQ in women.

    Yes. Which is remarkably wasteful these days, when a few short quizzes on a dating site could provide the same information for free.

  292. Opus says:

    As the French say, the more things change the more they stay the same. A plain or unattractive girl with one or more post-graduate degrees remains an unattractive girl, and Violinists (Cail Corishev) sit in desks not chairs (or is that a difference in musical nomenclature between England and America?).

  293. Novaseeker says:

    Yes. Which is remarkably wasteful these days, when a few short quizzes on a dating site could provide the same information for free.

    For *that* information, but not for achievement, drive, and so on, which are also post-visceral-attraction “screens” for men above a certain SES, this kind of thing isn’t going to tell them what they want to know. What is happening is that “accomplished” are marrying “accomplished”, not simply that people want an IQ screen.

  294. theasdgamer says:

    @ Opus

    As the French say, the more things change the more they stay the same.

    Plus ca change, plus le meme chose.

  295. Elspeth says:

    There seems to be another fallacy emerging here also.That a young woman can just *get married young* (young meaning before 21 I suppose?) simply because she or her parents want her to. Not so. There has to be a suitable prospect for her to marry and there aren’t a lot of marriage ready men about so far as I can see, Christan or otherwise.

    Another is the false dichotomy of college or Christianity, as if attending college is a sin regardless of whether one takes all the necessary precautions and sets up all the necessary guardrails that we have to guard our daughters and their virtue.

    Lastly, our oldest girl graduates in 6 months. She will still be 20 years old. Plenty young, and she’s more than willing to marry if a godly, compatible man showed up- degreed or not. In the meanwhile, she’s planning to teach kindergarten. She’s good with children and desires to give to them until she has her own.

    And no, she’s NOT an education major. She’s a business major (switched from Psych cause the classes made her head hurt). In FL you can be a teacher without attending a College of Education so long as you major in certain fields and pass a short course to earn a teaching certificate.

    Further, I would love for someone (anyone, please speak up!) to tell me what a young woman living in a city is supposed to be doing while she waits for her husband to show up. And yeah, I know the spiel about going out there and “getting her a man” but that’s not a discussion I am interested in having presently.

    Lastly, because I really have spent too much time here, I will tell you how we managed to get three girls through college without taking loans out this far. It also served the added perk of keeping them off the high school campus full time.They were all dually enrolled. We celebrated the oldest’s graduation from junior college a month before her high school graduation. She was accepted to the best private (small, not university) liberal arts college around here. If I was willing to divulge the place, it would be easy enough to see how good a school it is.

    We wrote a big check the first semester. Then we found out that the evening classes cost a significantly less amount of money than the conventional day classes for the younger set. She switched to evening courses, applied for every scholarship she could find and earned an academic scholarship that has covered this last year completely, except for books. B.A, debt free!

    Gotta run but no, my husband was not a fighter pilot. He repairs servers and builds networks. Didn’t need a degree to break into that field 22 years ago. He’s 41.

  296. earl says:

    ‘Men marry down. Women marry up. Women getting educated makes that hard. it’s that simple, girls.’

    What’s making it hard is that women are getting educated in the wrong things. How many high schools still teach home ec?

    Now women get a laundry list of such things like ‘practice safe sex’, ‘focus on a career’, and ‘see men as the enemy’.

  297. Opus says:

    I wonder what the end-game will be. I mean, how much education or other credentials need a female acquire to put herself in front of the competition. The longer she is at college the greater the debt and the lesser – past the age of say twenty-five – the SMV and with declining fertility. It is at that point a teenager will once again gain traction over her older uglier step-sister (all very Cinderella/Cenerentola/Cendrillon with the father playing Baron Hard-Up).

    I was reading (somewhere) that the great geniuses (on average) reach further education but pass on it before graduation – Steve Jobs, SugarHill or David Hume come to mind. Entrepreneurs do not need credentials.

  298. greyghost says:

    Two women same figure same facial attractiveness. Who ever is more pleasant to be around the best helper to the house hold gets the ring. The rest of the other shit doesn’t matter at all.

    I would (and my guess is a lot of men) rather live a life in a 45k a year household in pleasant peace than a 200k plus a year in competition and threat point. degrees and status symbols mean nothing. A woman with status and earning potential is just a work around a guy factors in to handle the financial aspects of the threat point. pure denial bullshit. To teach my daughters that shit will ensure that are only good for busting nuts in.

  299. earl says:

    You get more of an education working in the real world anyway than you ever do in a classroom.

  300. earl says:

    ‘I would (and my guess is a lot of men) rather live a life in a 45k a year household in pleasant peace than a 200k plus a year in competition and threat point. ‘

    It bears repeating.

    ‘Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.’ Proverbs 25:24

  301. greyghost says:

    Being a pleasant woman overcomes even a lack of raw physical appearance. In todays world a woman like that (unicorn) wouldn’t last long single. A PUA can spot on of those and if a beta will marry her or pass. Cock carousel riders need not apply ho’s need to do what they do, ho

  302. Keep sending women to university and there will be no candidates at all for them. The very reasons for you send your daughters to university is the reason they can’t get married or find suitable partners, they keep driving them out..

    If you want suitable men, society needs to put in the effort into creating them. Why, instead of bemoaning the lack of suitable men for your daughters, don’t you start getting them in touch with intelligent men trying to start their own lives instead of expecting men to have done it all already? Oh… what’s that you say? Too much hard work…

    Making marriageable men requires a lot of hard work, much more than marriageable women.

    You are all trying to reason your ways out of a paper bag, thinking the solution to your dilemma is higher education and later marriage, that very thinking has brought about a worse society with very little worth in it for men to strive for..

    All those high flying men, with their fancy cars and smart suits is the reason why all countries around the world are up to their highballs in debt, with useless stock market evaluations, that places more value on paper than on real, tangible moral integrity and ingenuity. That wealth means nothing, you’re chasing pictures of dead men on pieces of paper, I hope it’s worth it..

  303. Violinists sit in desks not chairs (or is that a difference in musical nomenclature between England and America?).

    Must be.

  304. A woman with status and earning potential is just a work around a guy factors in to handle the financial aspects of the threat point. pure denial bullshit. To teach my daughters that shit will ensure that are only good for busting nuts in.

    Got to hand it to you for the straight talk!

  305. Elspeth, it’s clear that your daughters’ situation is very unusual. We joke about special snowflakes here, but in comparison to their peers and the standard dating market, they really are. So when we say that any attractive, pleasant girl can get married young if her standards are reasonable, I think most of us realize there are special exceptions where unusual circumstances interfere with the normal process of invite-approach-accept.

  306. What is happening is that “accomplished” are marrying “accomplished”, not simply that people want an IQ screen.

    That’s really the question. Do “accomplished” men really want an “accomplished” woman (which society currently defines as degree and career)? Or are they using that (maybe unconsciously) as a proxy for intelligence and potential accomplishments as a wife? If it’s the former, then there’s no shortcut — a girl determined to marry a top doctor had better go to college. If it’s the latter, there might be other ways.

    In a society like that of Pride and Prejudice, the “accomplishments” a man sought in a woman were an inheritance, social standing, and (secondarily) social skills like dancing and music. So it does appear that this is fluid and can change to fit society’s pressures — unlike physical attraction, which is mostly inbuilt.

  307. greyghost says:

    feministhater
    MGTOW is the process to create marriageable men. Men that live their own life are much stronger in character than men that live up to a popular script. When men are MGTOW the spiritual void can and will be filled with Christ. With the current popularity of abusing and shitting on Christians churchianship should start to die. Real men of faith will remain. (faith is key not the righteous types) A MGTOW man goes to school to learn how to program a CNC machine tool not to get credentialed for social acceptance of people that hate him. (there’s gina tingle in that and he wasn’t even trying) men are dropping out and it is not just the low sexual value types any more. Its now the productive with incentive of family types now. the high sexual market types going into high income finance gigs will be the only ones left with any incentive of family and the cunts are actively working to reduce their numbers.
    MGTOW and MGTOW/family is the way to go. For all of you mothers are good types have faith she will show up.
    Just because a man is marriageable doesn’t mean HE is marrying or he thinks he has to. Without violating the nature of women, women they get real polite for some reason. (take the pleasant one when family law is MGTOW)

  308. Escoffier says:

    Do “accomplished” men really want an “accomplished” woman (which society currently defines as degree and career)?

    They seem to. At least, that’s the way they act. Some of that no doubt is owing to social pressure. That is, if a highly accomplished 30 y/o UMC man were to marry (say) a 22 y/0 with a degree but no experience or accomplishment (yet; and I realize that the chances of a 22 y/o woman in our time consenting to marriage are about 2 in a billion, but bear with me), his peers, parents, co-workers–especially the females–would look down on him (and on her). There were be lots of snickering along the lines not just of “cradle robbing” but also that he is somehow “threatened” by “strong women.” I have little doubt that this gets internalized.

    But does that fully explain the phenomenon? Can’t say for sure, but I doubt it.

  309. Elspeth says:

    Yes, Cail. Our situation is in many ways unique, which is why I should probably cease and desist from justifying our decision making process. While it looks like standard MC stuff when you read it, there are no small number of people (Christians, even) who think we are hindering our girls by keeping them at home, that it’s crazy that our girls aren’t making plans to live on their own etc. It’s only within the context of conversations such as this one that we are somehow typical churchian materialists.

    Even the accusation that the acquisition of a degree is about catching a high flying, already established man is patently untrue in our case. I married a 20-year-old man who had never owned a car and had only lived on his own for a couple months (with his brother as his roommate), before marrying me. He built a great life for this family from the ground up while I offered him the support he needed as he worked out his vision.

    I am a huge proponent of young women marrying smart young men who are still figuring it out and helping them build a life. I truly am at a loss as to why the hard and fast mutually exclusive point of view is so entrenched. So unless I am asked a direct question, I think I’m done here. But thanks for the dialog.

  310. greyghost says:

    Cail
    A girl must go to school to marry a doctor because that is where they are. Look at it like that. groupie chicks that want to fuck pro athletes (and possibly cash in with a relationship or pregnancy) go where the athletes are. they hang around hotels the players coming into town go and make themselves as physically attractive as possible.
    If the med student never met you he has no way of falling in love with you and projecting the wife fantasy ideal on you. That is something I tell my daughters. the real trick is will any woman gina tingle for a productive man enough to honor a marriage (the answer is no but we can always keep doing right. gotta give the girls something as we teach our sons MGTOW/family opposites do attract. And women aware of MGTOW/family may be enough to make honoring wedding vows enough of a selfish incentive to maintain the gina tingle)

  311. earl says:

    ‘When men are MGTOW the spiritual void can and will be filled with Christ.’

    If a MGTOW does that…he will be rewarded no matter what he does with his life.

    If a MGTOW fills his life with the spirit of the world…he is no different from any other guy following the popular script.

  312. thedeti says:

    I have to ask these questions. In doing so, I will avoid making this personal to anyone.

    Take a reasonably attractive 20 year old college educated black woman working as a kindergarten teacher. She is a virgin, a Christian, and wants to marry a virgin Christian man. She is skilled in the domestic arts, she’s kind and pleasant. She lives in an urban area.

    Can someone please tell me what “special exceptions” exist here to the general rule that she can get married if her standards are reasonable? What “unusual circumstances interfer[ing] with the normal process of invite-approach-accept” are present here?

    I completely fail to see why an immensely valuable woman like this cannot find anyone. OK, she’s been asked out only a couple of times by unbelievers. Can her parents help? Can her parents maybe point her in the direction of a few men they know? Can she join a club or association of like minded people who do things she enjoys? I find it simply impossible to believe there isn’t a man out there who can fit her bill. There isn’t even ONE man who can meet her requirements? Not one? Is she completely unable to show indicators of interest (“inviting”) to reasonably attractive men? Does she not know how? If she doesn’t know how, why isn’t someone teaching her? Are there NO reasonably attractive virgin Christian men who have their heads on reasonably straight and can hold down a job and a conversation? Seriously?

  313. earl says:

    Do “accomplished” men really want an “accomplished” woman (which society currently defines as degree and career)?

    That to me isn’t an accomplished woman. A degree and career are nice things to have…but does she know how to take care of a home, cook, has a nurturing instinct. Basically she has strengths that are more of my weaknesses. I don’t want someone with similar strengths and weaknesses.

  314. Escoffier says:

    Deti, speculating here but …

    If it’s a secular college she attends, and it’s generally known to the other students that she’s religious, lives at home, and eats dinner every night with the whole family, it’s plausible that guys conclude “Why bother” and don’t ask.

    That still leaves open the question of why no religious boys are interested. Are there just not any at that school?

  315. greyghost says:

    Elspeth
    You working with your husband and building a family and home with him is what it is all about. Any thing a woman or mother does from that frame to create the same for her daughters is good. You see the world we live in. And you have seen the comments men are making about women and you know the way woman and your daughters think. There is no incentive or support anywhere for your daughters or mine to live as you have. No where not even in the church. Do well for your daughters and guide them to be good wives in their being and not make them the man of your dreams so to speak.
    My only advice would be to really think about having children early and starting a career at 30 plus.(finishing education and then working) It tends to match the life cycle of the children as they hit teenage years and it enhances the team of husband and wife. As a work around for the feminist mud we live in. (This is just some ideas I have for a daughter) My main goal and hope for my daughters is not to be compitetion for her husband but someone he can love and trust as a helper that brings pleasantness and joy. (not very popular for a female to do these days) For a son I would say MGTOW, do well make a good living get some gandarusa, good game (red pill), stay single, and when you are ready for a family hire a surrogate and a house keeper. Win, win he is productive for society and has family provides for a woman and lives free of the threat point. That is just my savagery showing.

  316. greyghost says:

    Earl

    If a MGTOW fills his life with the spirit of the world…he is no different from any other guy following the popular script.

    A man goes MTOW to escape the world and it’s lies. It is amazing how “red pill” reality matches up so well with scripture. Men are special and I’m not the only one that notices that (at least I don’t think so) The current motivation is to be free and men’s natural tendency to love will be there with red pill eyes mind and spirit.

  317. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    Your position is, it’s all based on her physicality.

    Where, outside of your head, did I say that?

  318. earl says:

    ‘A man goes MTOW to escape the world and it’s lies.’

    If that were the case…I’d see more MGTOW men quoting scripture and embracing the church. Perhaps they do…but the one’s I’ve seen just whine all day about women and how great it is to be free of them. I’ve seen plenty that think (with good reason mind you) even the churches are a beacon of feminization. Many of the churches have embraced the secular world’s views…but I can say that the Catholic church still does a good job of going against the grain.

    Really there is only two ways any man can go…God’s way or the world’s way. Whichever path he chooses is the way he takes.

  319. Escoffier says:

    What else does the denial that her education/talents/accomplishments, etc. have any value for attracting a man amount to?

  320. greyghost says:

    thedeti
    Ask yourself and her where such a man would be. That man could be some guy being released from prison right now. Righteousness does not necessarily make a Christian man. (he is a man) But what man can appreciate and love with devotion a woman as you described and will she gina tingle and respect that from him. It is not the checklist but what the checklist is supposed to get you.
    I worked in high tech manufacturing and we ha machine tool et ups for product production. We set up the machine by the “numbers and got 80% yield. We set up the machine to produce 99.4% yield with out of spec numbers . Who’s wrong and who is profitable who has sustainable manufacturing over the long haul? makes life fun to live

  321. Spacetraveller says:

    JDG,

    Well, I see your point. But in my humble opinion that is far too many ‘what ifs’ for a normal life. But fair enough, who says life is normal…so your ‘what ifs’ however life-limiting, may be the self-preservation you need/one needs.

    ‘Having the hots’ for someone at the time you marry them does not mean your attraction for them vanishes if they get disbaled/disfigured.
    Having respect for someone at the time you marry them does not mean your respect should die should they do something less than respectable down the line.
    The point I made that you dispute does not include these ‘negatives’, but if you believe of any individual woman that she is prone to these ‘negatives’ then of course you already know she is unsuitable, so no need for discussing her education – ‘cos she is unmarriageable and the said education is actually irrelevant.
    And for what it’s worth, respect of this nature (that of a woman for a man) starts LONG before the altar, when the man does not YET hold the position of ‘husband’. If a man is waiting for marriage to see some respect from his intended, he should not be surprised if it never shows up. He should see evidence of it BEFORE marriage.

    But we are not on opposite sides of this discussion, I can see. You and I just have different perceptions of the same principles.

  322. MV says:

    OT

    A lady of finest reputation, going under the name “Madonna”, just reported a new strain of rape virus: “Artistic Rape”

    http://time.com/3638291/madonna-leaked-demos-iconic-artistic-rape/

    Alas, professional antirapist community on Twatter considered her definition of rape “a lil bit too broad” (heh) and is hammering her with misogynist, ageist and lookist slurs as we speak.

    Fasten your seatbelts, folks. This rape hysteria is going exponential.

  323. thedeti says:

    “If it’s a secular college she attends, and it’s generally known to the other students that she’s religious, lives at home, and eats dinner every night with the whole family, it’s plausible that guys conclude “Why bother” and don’t ask.

    “That still leaves open the question of why no religious boys are interested. Are there just not any at that school?”
    ______________
    No suitable men at church? Not a single one? Dad doesn’t know any suitable men from anywhere? Dad doesn’t know any coworkers with suitable sons? Mom doesn’t know any women with suitable sons? No mutual interest club memberships? No civic organization memberships? No association memberships? They know their lifestyle doesn’t fit the usual secular “norms”. Their daughter wants to find a man. Her mother really wants her to find a man. Are mom and dad actively helping her with this, because she’s having some difficulty doing it on her own? If not, why not? Is the daughter seeking help from anyone with this, since she isn’t meeting with a lot of success on her own? If not, why not? Is the daughter actively making it known she’s on the market and wants to meet someone? If not, why not?

    Look, I don’t mean to get personal here so I’ve been leaving names out of it. I have to believe this situation is common, and plays itself out in religious circles. If we’re actually going to get anywhere and learn anything from these situations, these (rhetorical) questions need to be asked – to spur discussion and thought; not necessarily to solve one person’s problems in particular.

  324. earl says:

    ‘Righteousness does not necessarily make a Christian man.’

    Self-righteousness is actually the opposite of a Christian….man or woman.

    What I’d like to see more of is a person who knows they are a sinner and has a contrite heart about it. That’s called honesty. The delusion of sinning and then passing the blame onto others or praising yourself above others are things that the world tells you to do.

  325. That is, if a highly accomplished 30 y/o UMC man were to marry (say) a 22 y/0 with a degree but no experience or accomplishment (yet; and I realize that the chances of a 22 y/o woman in our time consenting to marriage are about 2 in a billion, but bear with me), his peers, parents, co-workers–especially the females–would look down on him (and on her). There were be lots of snickering along the lines not just of “cradle robbing” but also that he is somehow “threatened” by “strong women.”

    My guess is that’s a lot of it. Like I said, I don’t live in the UMC, so I don’t claim to understand them well. But the stereotype is of a boy who’s told from a young age that his path in life is set: he’s going to go to Harvard, he’s going to work in a top hospital/firm, he’s going to live in a suitable neighborhood and send his kids to the right private school, etc. It makes sense that having a “suitable” wife would be part of that, and it makes sense that part of “suitable” would mean fitting in with the other wives. Unless he rebels against the whole program, he’s not going to consider marrying an uneducated girl from across the tracks, any more than he’s going to consider becoming a lumberjack. It just isn’t done.

  326. Gunner Q says:

    Cail Corishev @ 3:26 am:
    ” Men use career/education as a proxy to assess social class and IQ in women.

    Yes. Which is remarkably wasteful these days, when a few short quizzes on a dating site could provide the same information for free.”

    Quizzes? Just look at their punctuation. Why do women have trouble with capitalization these days?

    “Further, I would love for someone (anyone, please speak up!) to tell me what a young woman living in a city is supposed to be doing while she waits for her husband to show up.”

    Don’t wait. Make it her job. Since a lot of desirable men are MGTOW, officially or not, have her visit local meetings of professional associations and societies. Have her tell the guys she talks to that she’s looking for a date and is “going where the men are”.

    For a wild-card idea, have your HUSBAND put an ad up on Craigslist saying he’s looking for a decent man for his daughter. That’ll screen out the losers. Let us know how that works.

  327. jbro1922 says:

    @thedeti
    I’ll take a stab at your questions about a black, chaste, Christian woman and her dating options. “Special exceptions” are the following: there are a lot of black men in prison (I’m sure you’ve heard that stats around), there are a lot of black men on the down low (they are gay but have sex with women to cover up the fact that they are gay because being gay in the black community is typically thought of as a “white man’s problem”), there aren’t a lot of black men in college (racism, discrimination and due to the fact that many black men and women don’t apply themselves in school and make the grades necessary to go to college because being highly educated in the black community is considered “white.” I’ve gotten this many times. If you’re black and smart, you get the label of being “uppity,” or “bougie” or “you’re too good for everybody” or you’re a “sell out” or “oreo.”). Like other women, black women with college degrees probably want the same in their mate, as has been discussed already. There aren’t a lot of black men (let alone men) in churches. Especially black churches. Singles groups and/or ministries are always female heavy in my experience. So not a lot of eligible men are attending those. She may have some luck online or through friends and/or family.

    I’m sure you’ve heard Chris Rock talk about how black women should date outside their race. Others have mentioned this too. Chris Rock said black women won’t date outside their race because they are not attracted to the average white man. I think he’s right. And as Okcupid points out, black women are the least desirable among men of other races. Plus, a lot of black women don’t think men of other races really “get” them, meaning understand black culture (why we say the things we do, our inside jokes, what “good hair” means, etc.).

    “Are there NO reasonably attractive virgin Christian men who have their heads on reasonably straight and can hold down a job and a conversation? Seriously?”
    Well, you would be surprised. I’ve met a lot of attractive men who, as soon as they open their mouths, made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. I believe Mark Twain said it’s better to keep your mouth shut and make people think you’re stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Maybe that’s just the English teacher in me. You’d be surprised who can’t string together a complete sentence with subject, verb and predicate or write one.

    Parents may feel that they should not be involved in their children’s dating lives, I dunno. Maybe. My parents haven’t introduced me to any men, probably for a lot of reasons listed above. I think parents may be more inclined to help their sons as daughters seem very capable of handling this on their own. Once again, maybe. What they may not realize is daughter can talk a good game, but really just keeps running into a brick wall, getting up and running into the same brick wall again.

  328. fh,

    I have now noted that IBB, Escoffier and others value a piece of paper, the time wasted on it instead of family and the massively increased risk to the utter corruption of their daughters or future wife, to be more important than a woman who chooses marriage over a degree. You chaps disgust me.

    Your future wife can have talents, education and intelligence without having to go to university..

    Learn to look beyond pieces of paper, those are worth nothing, they’re fiat corruption.

    I disgust you. I see.

    Just curious fh, what do you do for a living?

  329. thedeti says:

    I am going to go out on a limb and throw this out there.

    Take a 20 year old woman with a college degree and a job, and lives at home. She isn’t making it known she wants to meet men. She’s turned down the men who have asked her out, or her dad has. She isnt’ really actively looking. She’s not a member of any civic organizations or common-interest groups.

    She’s not asking mom and dad for help in meeting men, and mom and dad aren’t pushing the issue. She’s not overly outwardly concerned about the lack of prospects on the horizon.

    A reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this situation is that this pretty 20 year old isn’t interested in meeting men or in getting married.

  330. Escoffier says:

    Well, I would not say that any UMC boys are told their lives are set. In fact, in our hyper-competitive, winner-take-all Tiger Mother era, they tend to be told the opposite. The work grind of a first-year analyst/associate begins around age 13 and lets up, a little, for the great rolling orgy that is college. But that’s assuming he gets in. Which now takes a minimum of a half-decade of insane overwork and overscheduling. And that figure keeps rising.

    Maybe that’s another partial explanation for the phenomenon: he wants someone who’s “been through” what he had to go through.

  331. jbro1922 says:

    Other thing that keeps women from announcing they are on the market for a man: pride. It seems desperate (or as black community calls it, thirsty. And there is a big stigma against being thirsty. No one wants anyone thirsty). Doesn’t fit the narrative of “just happening/falling into it (love, I guess). But I guess desperate times…

  332. Opus says:

    So tell me – does not accent count for anything? Usually you can more or less tell the class of someone just by looking at them but from their first word they identify, who they are and where they come from – at least that is the case round here. It is for that reason that it is so much more difficult to instantly judge immigrants, exchange students and the like. I am guessing that that may be somewhat more difficult in America.

  333. jbro,

    I’m sure you’ve heard Chris Rock talk about how black women should date outside their race. Others have mentioned this too. Chris Rock said black women won’t date outside their race because they are not attracted to the average white man. I think he’s right. And as Okcupid points out, black women are the least desirable among men of other races. Plus, a lot of black women don’t think men of other races really “get” them, meaning understand black culture (why we say the things we do, our inside jokes, what “good hair” means, etc.).

    Before I met my wife, I dated a black woman. The relationship didn’t last very long NOT because we weren’t attracted to each other. Instead, her family did not accept their daughter involved with a white man. I don’t think my folks were real happy about it either. And we were both too young and too stupid to realie that our parents don’t know everything.

  334. thedeti says:

    Jbro:

    Interesting. Good points. So it’s equally possible there’s a dearth of marriageable black men. OK.

    There are men outside her race to date. It’s said that black women don’t want to date white men or Asian men because of the cultural differences or because according to surveys, black women are the lowest SMV. Then we’re told that black women don’t want to announce they’re actively looking, because that makes them look desperate, or “thirsty”. (I’ve always viewed “thirst” as a male problem, not a female one; because from my perspective, a woman can get male attention much, much easier than a man can get female attention.)

    Fine.

    Look. At some point, it has to be said: You either want to meet someone, or you don’t. You either want to marry or you don’t. You are either serious about getting on with life with a reasonably suitable guy (of any race or cultural background), or you aren’t. There’s just no two ways about it, in my view. You’re either going to do this or you’re not. You either want this, or you don’t. You’re either willing to put in the time and effort to get what you say you want, or you aren’t. And such ladies should decide which camp they’re in. And a lot of women should be asking themselves very seriously just how badly they really want what they say they want.

  335. jbro1922 says:

    IBB,

    The elephant in the room is racism. So Elspeth’s questions is a valid one: what’s a woman to do? A black woman (or any woman) could very well do all the right things (signal interest, remain chaste, deepen her faith, even earn a degree in a “useful” field etc.) and still not land a husband. No guarantees in life.

  336. jbro1922 says:

    @thedeti,

    I’ve heard both men and women described as “thirsty.” Based on my comments, how much attention do you think black women are getting from their target, black men? I think this depends on how one defines attention and from whom and how much is considered sufficient.

    I agree that black women and others are just gonna have to bite the bullet and take a risk. I did. A lot of women don’t like to take risks and want the man to pledge his undying love to them without them having to put in the relationship work (talk about themselves, ask questions to get to know the other person, be vulnerable, etc.).

  337. greyghost says:

    Racism is not the problem per say. A pleasant woman is a pleasant women. Black woman have a lot of cultural knowns to worry about that are fairly easy to separate herself from. Type in fight Mcdonalds and click videos 9 times out of ten it is big black women in hair weaves yelling bitches and nigga and tearing up the place. say black women and that kind of stuff comes to mind. What seals the fate of undesirable is black women claim any observance and speaking of that is racism and hateful. Most of the inner city black issues are fueled by single parent black women and their bastard kids. Who do you think the cops are shooting. (there is a reason for that)
    A pleasant and attractive educated woman needs to respect men enough and recognize she wants a man in her life. and make it known and do the work. a good Christian man is not an entitlement Not being able to at least go out and admit to her self she wants a man is an entitled way about it and is unattractive regardless of race.
    Nothing beats a pleasant woman. It is so remarkable now days to meet someone like that. quit worrying about the stupid stuff and get to being a pleasant person not as a sign of gina tingle but as part of your being.

  338. Can someone please tell me what “special exceptions” exist here to the general rule that she can get married if her standards are reasonable?

    Two main things work against her:

    1. There is a shortage of marriage-worthy black men. At current rates, 29% of black American men will spend time in prison at some point. That doesn’t count those who commit petty crimes that never get them as far as prison. Now, I’m not making a value judgment here about why that’s the case, so we don’t need to have an argument about racism and root causes. But those are the numbers. Presumably, our attractive, high-quality, family-oriented girl has her standards set higher than “ex- or future convict,” and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. She should have standards higher than that.

    As a corollary to that point, that statistic extrapolates out to families as well. Maybe that guy at church has a clean record. But what about his brothers, cousins, and friends who might need a place to crash? All that factors into marriage.

    2. It’s rare for white men and black women to be attracted to each other, at least for marriage. Again, it doesn’t matter why this is, but it’s a fact. Even though there’s a surplus of available black women (see #1) and a bunch of white men who can’t get white women to notice them, they just don’t seek each other out very often.

    So, assuming she’s typical in regard to point #2 and just isn’t particularly interested in a white husband and/or white guys don’t approach her, that leaves her in a larger pool of black women pursuing a smaller pool of suitable black men because of point #1. And she’s not looking for just anyone; she’s looking for one of the best because she herself is outstanding.

    A third point could be the generally poor state of marriage and family in some communities. I’ve spent time in the low-class white community, where shacking up and illegitimacy are standard and marriage is an afterthought. A girl like the ones described here would stand out as so odd that guys wouldn’t know how to approach her, and wouldn’t understand why they should. And when sex comes so easy from the others, why make a big extra effort to get her?

    So while I agree with Deti that the girl described can marry young to a decent man if she wants to, I do think there are complications in some cases that make it much harder for her, and less likely to “just happen” the way girls are built to wait for it to happen.

  339. joshtheaspie says:

    I don’t know about the rest of the Chaste (virgin) christian men out there with good jobs, but when I was in high school I tried dating. By the time I was in college, I was too disillusioned with modern women, too busy with classes, and with my guy friends to go looking for a gal. On occasion I’d see one out of the corner of my eye that had some good qualities (such as being smart), but invariably either they were married already, engaged, sleeping around, not a Christian, etc.

    But even if I had found one of interest, I’d have tried to get to know more about her (which I did with a couple gals), and I don’t think I would have had time to even casually “go to a campus event” that was near where my classes would be anyway.

    Deti, if your daughter wants to meet Christian men who have the time to date… where is she going to meet them, and spend time in their company, so that they can assess her? Does she do volunteer work? Does she go on christian dating sites? Has she taken dance classes (which most men don’t want to take, though for some reason some do)? What?

    At this point, for a woman to even register as a possibility, she’d have to have a friend explicitly tell me not just “someone’s interested in you” but “This girl, over here, is interested with you, and is crushed that you didn’t notice her twirling her hair at you.” “Twirling her hair?” “YES! Are you blind!?!”

    And even then, I’d probably just go over and let her down easy, saying I was flattered but not interested.

    “But why?”

    1 Corinthians 7: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207

  340. Novaseeker says:

    I would (and my guess is a lot of men) rather live a life in a 45k a year household in pleasant peace than a 200k plus a year in competition and threat point.

    Actually, though, the way it works is that if she earns the same or more coin than you, she can’t take you to the cleaners in the same way if you divorce. The men who have their nuts in their wives’ hands have SAHMs as wives while they earn the entire income. Can’t do anything about child support, but you can completely avoid alimony on top of child support if your wife earns good coin.

  341. Well, I would not say that any UMC boys are told their lives are set.

    Maybe I didn’t put that very well. I didn’t mean set in the sense that it’s guaranteed. I meant that only a fairly narrow path is considered acceptable. For a kid from a blue-collar family, his parents might be thrilled if he went off to college and got a PhD, but they’d also be happy if he learned a trade and went into business for himself, or got a BA and became a teacher, or if he went into a military career. I don’t think a UMC kid typically feels like he has that many options.

    But when I think “big city doctor” I pretty much think of Joel Fleischman, the neurotic Jewish NYC doctor who got stuck in Alaska in Northern Exposure. He wasn’t even married yet, and he already knew where he would be sending his kids to school, because he had a specific image of what was the proper life of a successful, Jewish, NYC doctor, and anything else was unacceptable. I realize that was a TV caricature, but isn’t it based on some truth?

  342. thedeti says:

    Cail:

    As to 1 (shortage of marriageable black men) and 2 (white men and black women aren’t attracted to each other), we’re forgetting the Christian part of this. Our young black woman is a devoted Christian. To me, the fact that we’re even talking about race indicates to me that the “race” issue runs more deeply, and affects much more, than the “faith” issue. I think your comment points out the falsity of the claim that faith will get them past race and culture; that faith defeats cultural barriers. Love doesn’t conquer all.

    Agree as to point 3 also (decreasing importance of marriage). I’ve been there myself and what you describe is a spot on accurate depiction of what’s going on.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures. Mom and Dad need to step in. Daughter needs to accept their help. Daughter needs to get herself out there, pride and thirst be damned.

    Of course, she should do this if she really does want to marry. All in or all out. She either wants this or she doesn’t. If she wants it, she ought be willing to do whatever it takes to get it, including accepting help; including dating men outside her race; including going against the cultural tide. If she doesn’t want it, doesn’t want to do these things, then she should accept this and move on.

  343. greyghost says:

    Actually, though, the way it works is that if she earns the same or more coin than you, she can’t take you to the cleaners in the same way if you divorce. The men who have their nuts in their wives’ hands have SAHMs as wives while they earn the entire income. Can’t do anything about child support, but you can completely avoid alimony on top of child support if your wife earns good coin.

    BINGO!

  344. Novaseeker says:

    Well, I would not say that any UMC boys are told their lives are set. In fact, in our hyper-competitive, winner-take-all Tiger Mother era, they tend to be told the opposite. The work grind of a first-year analyst/associate begins around age 13 and lets up, a little, for the great rolling orgy that is college. But that’s assuming he gets in. Which now takes a minimum of a half-decade of insane overwork and overscheduling. And that figure keeps rising.

    Maybe that’s another partial explanation for the phenomenon: he wants someone who’s “been through” what he had to go through.

    I think it really is about both status marking and commonality. These guys want both in a wife. Her accomplishments add to his status — they just do. People outside the UMC may think that is silly, and that’s fine, but it is nevertheless the case that this is how it works with the UMC — you lose status if you marry outside of highly educated accomplished caste. Some people are happy to take that status hit, while others are not — it varies.

    The other thing is commonality. It’s often the case that the people who are in that set have little in common with the people who have BAs and are populating the cubicles. They are both “educated”, but they are pretty different in terms of interests, lifestyles, goals and so on. So there is the aspect of people seeking out people with whom they share more of these things in common as well.

  345. A reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this situation is that this pretty 20 year old isn’t interested in meeting men or in getting married.

    Or that she doesn’t realize that things have changed, and that boys aren’t going to come knocking at her door the way they did for her mother and grandmothers, for a variety of reasons. She may be doing the things her grandmothers did — being pretty, staying chaste, going to church, attending the occasional social gathering — and it’s just not happening like it did for them.

    I can relate. As an 18-year-old guy, I assumed I’d meet someone, we’d date for a while, get engaged, and get married. At the same time, I’d start some sort of work, we’d get a little place, and we’d struggle along as a family. I assumed that’s how it would go, because that’s how it went with my parents and grandparents and most people where I grew up. Then I spent my 20s confused, waiting for girls to show an interest in marriage or anything serious.

    Was it my fault that I didn’t figure it out sooner? I don’t know, but if I had understood what had changed, maybe I could have tracked down a like-minded girl (there were and are some, they just aren’t the default anymore). At least I wouldn’t have been confused and frustrated, wondering what was wrong with me that kept driving girls away.

    So I can understand that girl’s confusion and frustration. And even if someone explains it to her, that won’t necessarily solve her problem, because it’s not in her nature to go man-hunting, and she can’t use sex to compete with all the girls who are handing it out like candy.

  346. Tam the Bam says:

    “from their first word they identify, who they are and where they come from – at least that is the case round here.”
    Weww fankyou an’ mos’ hobliged I’m sure, Prefesser ‘Iggins.

    In Caledonia stern and wild it’s customary to have several “registers” of the demotic (think; “telephone voice” -> “drunk talk”) depending on with whom one is conversing.
    I can easily pass for an Englishman when required, even in Charlotte Square, and yet converse uninhibitedly and with increased comprehension (the important bit) in the usual Scots speech with some Buchan orraman or tractor loon, or Machars deckhand.
    Of course they’re holding their end up too, and not blasting me with the full “Hopeman Gaelic” (NB not gaelic) or Galloway farm-speak. Not languages. Or even human speech. Frankly it’s a relief to talk to ordinary Islandmen after a dose of that, what with their English being a second-ish language, and pitch-perfect.
    We’re all faking it, all the time, depending on who we’re talking to. Mainly to avoid chaos.

  347. The Brass Cat says:

    Here’s a question…

    With the extreme shortage of marriageable black men as mentioned above, if a black man has a college degree, a career, and a clean criminal record, does he do tremendously well in the marriage market? Given that he is a scare resource I would imagine upstanding black women would be lined up at his door and down the block for a chance to wear his ring.

    @thedeti,

    I agree about dating outside your race. Sometimes it is the only viable option. I’m white and all of the white women I have ever been involved with were unmarriageable. Every last one of them.

  348. To me, the fact that we’re even talking about race indicates to me that the “race” issue runs more deeply, and affects much more, than the “faith” issue.

    I’d say race falls in the attractiveness column, while faith falls in the desirability column. One is physical and visceral; the other is intellectual and emotional. Many people aren’t attracted to people outside their own race, and certain combinations are especially uncommon. That’s just how it is, and we can’t change that any more than most guys can start being attracted to fat chicks.

    Faith, on the other hand, is extremely important, and may even be a deal-breaker for many, but it has nothing to do with whether you’re attracted to someone when you see him or her across the room. No guy was ever attracted to a girl because of her faith. He’s attracted to her for her figure and her face and her hair, and then he’s thrilled to find out that her faith matches his too.

    I think you and I are agreed that it’s a bad idea to marry someone you’re not attracted to. So I certainly wouldn’t recommend that a girl marry outside her race for the sake of getting a husband of the correct faith, if she’s simply not attracted to those men. That doesn’t mean faith is less important than race; it just means they’re important in different ways.

  349. Joshua says:

    Novaseeker, you know in those cases they just make CS higher. Its not called Chilamony for nothing

  350. JDG says:

    Actually, though, the way it works is that if she earns the same or more coin than you, she can’t take you to the cleaners in the same way if you divorce.

    I wonder if this was intentionally part of the design to weaken the family or an unintended consequence of feminism.

  351. The Brass Cat says:

    Novaseeker says:

    Her accomplishments add to his status — they just do. People outside the UMC may think that is silly, and that’s fine, but it is nevertheless the case that this is how it works with the UMC — you lose status if you marry outside of highly educated accomplished caste. Some people are happy to take that status hit, while others are not — it varies.

    It indeed varies. Her status adds to his whether or not he intends it to, because social status is conferred by other people. It’s sort of like Alpha/beta in that respect. Some men (and women) prioritize status more highly. Personally, I think marrying for status is a mistake and not worth the gain in the long run. UMC couples may not get divorced as frequently but this doesn’t mean their marriages are healthy or functional.

    Cail Corishev says:

    Was it my fault that I didn’t figure it out sooner? I don’t know, but if I had understood what had changed, maybe I could have tracked down a like-minded girl (there were and are some, they just aren’t the default anymore).

    Not your fault. If you took the advise of your parents you were lead in the wrong direction. It’s not really their fault either; their rulebook is just out-of-date and that’s a hell of a hard thing to change. But now moving forward we have the new rules to bestow to our progeny. It makes one wonder, though, if these new rules will still be valid in 18 years… change is accelerating.

  352. The Brass Cat says:

    That last indented paragraph is mine. Forgot the / on blockquote.

  353. earl says:

    “At this point, for a woman to even register as a possibility, she’d have to have a friend explicitly tell me not just “someone’s interested in you”.

    That did happen to me once. Otherwise I was completely oblivious to it because I had other things on my mind like school, work, or various other tasks.

    It’s been kind of a double edged sword for me and perhaps other guys. The gals I was interested in didn’t show interest back…and the ones that were interested in me keep quiet about it for the most part. Like they were waiting for me to read their minds and get it.

    Now I have a better idea what to look for when a girl is interested…but I wish I had known back when I was younger. Today’s woman is worse than even 10 years ago.

  354. greyghost says:

    The Brass cat
    Black women in his sphere can be so immersed in liberal feminism that they can be highly undesirable. If he is looking for a woman he finds desirable race is usually not an issue for him. If he has it together for the gina tingle of todays any woman he has his pick if he is open to all comers. One of the big bugga boo’s for black women is that a man in his position will date and marry outside of his race. Also black people in general are not a homogenous group. The stereotypical black people seen aping and thugging on TV dominating what black people are culturally are is a group within black people as a whole. Most of the comments I see online about black people in general are from that image. The town I live in is almost all black and it is a nerdy middle class town. It is really noticeable after we started going to the local high schools football games. Not all “black” schools have the same character big time. .

  355. Tam the Bam says:

    MV:- ““Madonna”, just reported a new strain of rape virus: “Artistic Rape””
    Ohhhh righhhht! New album. That explains why Granny Madge has been getting ’em out for t’lads all over my mail server (obligate unsolicited “news”, mainly from Unca Rupe). Strictly supervised photography of course, hence the apparent scoffing at the law of gravity.
    Quite soured my porridge, I can tell you. Nobody wants that at the breakfast table (well, bench, in my case). She’s nearly as old as me.

  356. jbro1922 says:

    “With the extreme shortage of marriageable black men as mentioned above, if a black man has a college degree, a career, and a clean criminal record, does he do tremendously well in the marriage market? Given that he is a scare resource I would imagine upstanding black women would be lined up at his door and down the block for a chance to wear his ring.”

    Yes and no. Black men who fit that criteria know it and they can have an ego the size of the sun. They know women are going to throw themselves at them constantly so they can afford to be selective. And eligible black women may not line up at his door. They are busy getting their credential on. Plus he may not be “thug” enough for her, if she’s into that sort of thing. (You could substitute “alpha” for “thug” here. Black women want these men who are just the right, and strange, mix or “thug” and respectable. It’s odd. I’ve never liked thugs in any degree. So sometimes I get dismissed as “uppity.”). You know, too nerdy.

    And of course, like Ariel in The Little Mermaid, black women want more.
    Some consider just obeying the law to be an action that doens’t have to be rewarded. So some black women will think “ok, so you’re a decent human being…SO?! Am I supposed to be impressed?!” They want all the other stuff other women want along with degree, career, etc. See Steve Harvey’s Think Like A Man, as he makes this point–black women’s expectations are too high.

    My brother fits that criteria and he had his issues dating before he got married. He would tell me that so many women would line up with their hand out, wondering what he could do for them instead of approaching the relationship with the mindset of what they could contribute. Basically, the what’s in it for me attitude. Just like other races, women can latch onto a man they think has a lot going for him and can provide and bleed him dry.
    So the men who fit the criteria can be a bit guarded too, kinda like extremely beautiful women who get hit on all the time.
    But I’d say it’s probably a bit easier for a man like you describe. A woman fitting that criteria would have a harder time.

  357. The Brass Cat says:

    JDG says:

    Actually, though, the way it works is that if she earns the same or more coin than you, she can’t take you to the cleaners in the same way if you divorce.

    I wonder if this was intentionally part of the design to weaken the family or an unintended consequence of feminism.

    My assumption is that the laws are written in a “gender neutral” (should be called “sex neutral” but whatever) way that makes the law more likely to be passed and enacted. So they can smugly claim the law treats everyone equally.

  358. Opus says:

    @Tam the Bam

    Well its true. I occasionally listen to the Auto-cuties on YouTube clips. They look nice but then… (that Kaddy Lee for instance) and that is when they are trying to speak proper. Of course the best English is spoken by Immigrants from places; like Austria, and you know they aren’t speaking their native language as no one speaks like that. Take that Duke of Edinburgh and repeat, as he does A-rind-a-bite (A round about) you can tell he isn’t English or from anywhere near Edinburgh.

  359. Cail,

    I can relate. As an 18-year-old guy, I assumed I’d meet someone, we’d date for a while, get engaged, and get married. At the same time, I’d start some sort of work, we’d get a little place, and we’d struggle along as a family. I assumed that’s how it would go, because that’s how it went with my parents and grandparents and most people where I grew up. Then I spent my 20s confused, waiting for girls to show an interest in marriage or anything serious.

    This is probably the biggest reason why it is not always a good idea for a young man to take dating/relationship advice from his parents. Your folks are never going to understand how different the marketplace is until it is too late. And when they do find out it will just make them very sad. Nor is it a good idea to look at how things used to work and assume that their patterns will work out for you the same way.

    I pity young men today. With this bullsh-t “rape culture” (where women can basically hamsterwheel rape into anything they want it to be and turn you into a rapist even if you have never even touched her) and the super AMOGs having sex with pretty much ALL the women (and he doesn’t even have to date them, just “hook up”) its vitually impossible for normal, average, Christian beta-males who want to be married. Dalrock would suggest that they try game. I suppose that will work until women turn game into “rape culture” (I suppose that is happening already.)

    I guess the best advice I could give marriage minded Christian men who are just average (or even below average) is to look at marriage and children not as a right but as a privilege only for the few. Tell them not to get their hopes up but INSTEAD to try and develop as purposeful and as wonderful a single life as humanly possible. That is what I was doing before I married. And if these poor lonely Christian guys “burn with passion” well, I don’t know. I’ll tell you what. My sister had a friend of hers who would visit over at my parents house from time to time. On the read end of her car she had all these radical un-Christain bumperstickers. One of them said “Teach Masturbation.” My father asked that she “back in” to the driveway so people drving down the street wouldn’t see that sticker. I asked her about it and she said she totally believed in that sticker because if men were all taught just to jerk off, then all the frustrated short ugly losers would just “stay home” and not bother her, their “lust” would be gratified, there would be NO “rape” in this “rape culture”, and there would be less men in prison. Everyone wins. She was completely and totally wrong about the “rape culture” obviously but maybe she had a point and calming beta men’s sexual frustrations?

  360. greyghost says:

    jbro1922
    You have a very good understanding of the social dynamics in the black community. It would be a great evening to sit down and speak with someone like you at a dinner party. More and more black people speak as you do now.

  361. Novaseeker says:

    Novaseeker, you know in those cases they just make CS higher. Its not called Chilamony for nothing

    The calculations are different. The cs is based on a formula, so, basically you’re going to pay X% of your income as CS if you’re non-custodial. Yes, if you make more money, it’s a higher amount, but that’s independent of the alimony calculation. People call it chilimony precisely because the formula is essentially, when you break it down and look at it, a flat tax on the payor spouse’s income. You will pay that flat tax whether or not you have to pay alimony, and the lack of paying alimony actually doesn’t impact the cs formula calculation. CS is too high, but it’s better to avoid alimony, especially if you are in a state that awards *lifetime* alimony, like several do.

  362. Just curious fh, what do you do for a living?

    I run a cookery show. Where I teach people the proper way to roast puppies. It’s good work if you can get it.

  363. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier

    What else does the denial that her education/talents/accomplishments, etc. have any value for attracting a man amount to?

    This, perhaps?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

  364. Tam the Bam says:

    jbro ” black women don’t think men of other races really “get” them, meaning understand black culture (why we say the things we do, our inside jokes, what “good hair” means, etc.)”

    Ah. I see. “don’t understand” is American dialect for “do not give a flying doughnut about”.
    How far do you thing that precious parochial nonsense would go in say, Germany, Thailand, Korea or Finland? Honestly you American people. You really ought to get out a bit more. Stir-crazy the lot of yez.

    Plus who cares what women think? It’ll be completely, 180° different by the time you’ve had coffee, never mind in the morning.

  365. Tam the Bam says:

    sub. “k”, since we’re bid to be standing on our grammar-eichmann laurels today.

  366. earl says:

    ‘She was completely and totally wrong about the “rape culture” obviously but maybe she had a point and calming beta men’s sexual frustrations?’

    Nah…she just sounds bitter.

  367. Novaseeker says:

    I wonder if this was intentionally part of the design to weaken the family or an unintended consequence of feminism.

    Likely unintended. As it works now, the people in these situations have lower divorce rates than everyone else, anyway. Seems to work to lessen the incentive for the wife to divorce if she has zero chance at alimony.

  368. Novaseeker says:

    maybe she had a point and calming beta men’s sexual frustrations?

    Already happening. Look at the armies of checked out younger men who don’t bother with women and instead masturbate to internet porn daily. Is this really a solution to the problem?

  369. Tam the Bam says:

    “the proper way to roast puppies.”
    O joy o rapture! I’ve long dreamt of the CavyPupLamb, a worthy rival to the TurDuCken.
    Cut to the chase here. Stuff inmost cavity or not? If so, whole fruit or mincemeat? ‘erbs and onion? No bacon required, as lamb is basically a fat-bomb.
    “Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat …”
    It’s going all Ron Swanson here.

  370. Look at the armies of checked out younger men who don’t bother with women and instead masturbate to internet porn daily. Is this really a solution to the problem?

    The men are better off doing that than getting married. Even if they did marry, in truth, the wife ain’t really interested and there is nothing worse than being with someone who doesn’t care about you. Better to never get them interested in marriage in the first place and save them either the realisation that they will never be loved or save them from divorce or a petty, cat filled marriage.

    The solutions to these problems are often quite simple. The economy and all those UMC peeps might feel the pinch of an economic slowdown but they’re smart and will recoup.

  371. Anonymous Reader says:

    Actually, though, the way it works is that if she earns the same or more coin than you, she can’t take you to the cleaners in the same way if you divorce.

    JDG
    I wonder if this was intentionally part of the design to weaken the family or an unintended consequence of feminism.

    Most likely unintended consequence. Anti-Family court appears to have been set up on the premise of SAHM’s who must be cared for by whats-his-name no matter how she treats him. I doubt that there will be much impetus to change this, because the numbers (of equally high-earner divorces) just won’t ever be that high.

  372. Don’t worry Tam, I’ll send you a link to my Christmas Eve Cooking Special! ..where the pup, slowly boiled for 20 minutes, is rammed up a turkey’s keyster with a full compliment of roast potatoes, roast veggies and source on the side.

    You’ll love it!

  373. earl says:

    ‘I wonder if this was intentionally part of the design to weaken the family or an unintended consequence of feminism.’

    I’m more in the camp that it was intentional…based off these claims.

  374. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Already happening. Look at the armies of checked out younger men who don’t bother with women and instead masturbate to internet porn daily. Is this really a solution to the problem?

    Well, those men could get married, have sex for 3 to 5 years until a child is born and then wind up… masturbating to internet porn daily, is that a solution? If so, to what problem?

  375. Well, those men could get married, have sex for 3 to 5 years until a child is born and then wind up… masturbating to internet porn daily, is that a solution? If so, to what problem?

    I think this fits perfectly into that ideal said by some Conservative shit awhile back, that it’s better for society for a man to marry and get divorced…

    It’s better for society for betas to get married and live in sexless and loveless marriages ruled over by special degree full UMC gal. Most here would agree.

  376. BrainyOne says:

    The calculations are different. The cs is based on a formula, so, basically you’re going to pay X% of your income as CS if you’re non-custodial. Yes, if you make more money, it’s a higher amount, but that’s independent of the alimony calculation. People call it chilimony precisely because the formula is essentially, when you break it down and look at it, a flat tax on the payor spouse’s income. You will pay that flat tax whether or not you have to pay alimony, and the lack of paying alimony actually doesn’t impact the cs formula calculation. CS is too high, but it’s better to avoid alimony, especially if you are in a state that awards *lifetime* alimony, like several do.

    This is true in the minority of states which use a % of payor’s income model, but it isn’t quite true in most states which use the income shares model. The amount of CS you would pay is based on the combined income of the parents (pro-rated by each parent’s share of the income), and that % declines as the combined income rises. Hence you would typically pay less CS if the other parent’s income is the same as yours vs. if it is zero.

    Also, while alimony doesn’t affect the CS formula, it does affect the amount of income which gets entered into the formula (e.g. alimony is deducted from payor’s income and added to payee’s). Or, alternatively, alimony is deducted from income before calculation of cs.

  377. Tam the Bam says:

    ” the best English is spoken by Immigrants”
    Once again I am indebted to m’learned friend. That would explain the exquisitely precise phonology of the Teuchters, despite their initial advent being coincident with your own Saxon kind (at the other end of the island).

    The nearer the site of the Battle of Culloden, the more exact, I find.
    Inverness is the ne plus ultra, and was indeed the preferred source of those quondam Home Service and Light Programme announcers the world once admired. And emulated.

    I suppose the evo-bevo crowd would cite this as an “evolutionary development”, complete with “cline”, initiated by the then Crown Prince on the field, and subsequently among the lieges by his sturdy grenadiers and their bayonets.The Gàidhlig rarely fouls any mouths these days.

  378. Tam the Bam says:

    Oh when will I ever learn? Tagnuts. Sorry. For the umpteenth time.

  379. With the extreme shortage of marriageable black men as mentioned above, if a black man has a college degree, a career, and a clean criminal record, does he do tremendously well in the marriage market?

    Seems like they should be able to, if they want to. Of course, highly sought-after men of any race may decide to go to Clooney route, putting off marriage as long as possible. As Jbro1922 points out (and as we see with really hot chicks), being chased too much can make people vain and unwilling to settle for a mere human.

    Also, the most successful black men seem more likely than normal to marry white women (Clarence Thomas, Sidney Poitier, Quincy Jones, Tiger Woods and so many other pro athletes), skewing the availability numbers even further.

  380. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tam ye Bam

    Quite soured my porridge, I can tell you. Nobody wants that at the breakfast table (well, bench, in my case).

    Rumor, or rumour if you prefer, has it that in some new interview she pops or drops, or perhaps flops, her top. Not sure if it’s true, but have no real interest in finding out.

    She’s nearly as old as me.

    Dunno, some parts of her may be pretty new. But even if 50 is the new 30…still don’t want to know.

    The Marxists of the last couple of centuries blabbed on about the “classless society”, looks like we got that.

  381. PokeSalad says:

    RE: accomplishments, I will confess that I could not care less if a girl I date can land a probe on a comet.

  382. mikediver5 says:

    I have been patiently waiting for someone to make the obvious point; UMC men marry UMC women because if they marry too far down the woman will just clean them out in a divorce. They marry credentialed and career accomplished women because the degree of the threat point is reduced if the lower earning mate is still fairly close to the higher earning mate. If a doctor marries a 22 year old nursing assistant with no degree, she has the 1.8 kids, never works, and then divorces him; she will get it all, as she is a helpless victim. If the brain surgeon is married to a pediatrician that makes less than he does, but still a substantial income, the results of divorce will be much less painful for the brain surgeon.

  383. Anonymous Reader says:

    CC
    I’d say race falls in the attractiveness column, while faith falls in the desirability column. One is physical and visceral; the other is intellectual and emotional. Many people aren’t attracted to people outside their own race, and certain combinations are especially uncommon.

    Attractive vs. desireable, nicely summarized. Strange how some people can’t get that distinction.

    With regard to intermarriage, there’s a cultural angle as well. Different subcultures of the US look at that through different lenses. There’s variation within subcultures as well; Puerto Rican vs. Cuban vs. Mexicans seem to have differing views on racial intermarriage, but I could be basing this opinion on a too-small sample.

  384. fh,

    Send me you puppy recipie. I want to cook one. I have a craving for canine.

    I think this fits perfectly into that ideal said by some Conservative shit awhile back, that it’s better for society for a man to marry and get divorced…

    It’s better for society for betas to get married and live in sexless and loveless marriages ruled over by special degree full UMC gal. Most here would agree.

    I am a conservative, a traditional conservative. Let me let you and everyone here in on a little secret: traditional conservatives haven’t a clue about any of the relationship problems people like you and other short, ugly, below average beta males (Christian or not) in the MRM have with feminist women. They don’t. They don’t because your problems were largely NEVER their problems. So they could never understand your problems with feminism.

    You ask too much of them. They can’t think as deeply as you. You are WAY BEYOND THEM in the fullest understanding of what feminism has wrought on our society. So please, have more patience with them. Treat my fellow traditional conservative allies the way you would your grammy with full blown Ahlziemers. Take pity on them. They are old and senile. But if they got to the level of thinking that you are at, they would be your allies.

    It is not conservatives who want this sexless, loveless, marriage society of which you speak. It is liberals. Liberals want your money. They want your financial provisioning to pay for amoral women because feminism is THEIR religion, not Christianity. Women are their voting base and their base needs money. Their base can not support itself. It depends on man to make society run. So if you “opt out” and become a MGHOW by jerking off on the basement to on-line porn, you are not helping to provision for feminism women. So, liberals are forced to do to you what no conservative would, you get taxed. That is the ACA fh. That is all the Affordable Care Act is, a tax on men because not enough men are willing to “man up” and marry a single mom so you are forced to buy health insurance and get your premiums into the pool to pay for Julia’s birth control pills, her breast exams, her pap smears, and her abortions. She can’t pay for it. You have to. She just isn’t willing to f-ck you is all…. she just wants your money so she can keep f-cking all the AMOGs. If you go John Galt on her, she runs to government to bachelor tax you.

    Know your enemies. It is liberals, not conservatives. Not one Republican voted for ACA (or ANY bachelor taxes), not one. Unfortunately, with the exception of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, conservatives are largely just too stupid to know what is going on with the feminism, trust me on this.

  385. Anonymous Reader says:

    mikediver
    I have been patiently waiting for someone to make the obvious point; UMC men marry UMC women because if they marry too far down the woman will just clean them out in a divorce.

    Probably some truth to this. However it isn’t sustainable, because UMC families so far as I can tell tend to have at most 2 children and often 1 child. So each generation of UMC young people is going to be fishing for a mate in a smaller pond. The Mandarin era Chinese solved this by awarding the right to a second wife to officials above a certain level of authority. Sometimes I wonder if that won’t be the next crusade for the SJW’s once they get done ending all rape on campus.

  386. greyghost says:

    cail Corishev
    Take a look at this (nsfw due to language)

  387. mike,

    If a doctor marries a 22 year old nursing assistant with no degree, she has the 1.8 kids, never works, and then divorces him; she will get it all, as she is a helpless victim. If the brain surgeon is married to a pediatrician that makes less than he does, but still a substantial income, the results of divorce will be much less painful for the brain surgeon.

    Of course. This goes without saying. All marriage is marriage 2.0 which means the wife has FULL HEADSHIP. The moment the man says “I do” he gives his wife the power of Dalrock’s well known “Threatpoint.” To diminish her Threatpoint power, a man must marry a woman of substancial provisioning power because she reduces her alimony leverage should she ever be forced to invoke her “threat” unilaterally in a court of law. Sure she’ll get child support but alimony will be greatly reduced.

  388. jbro1922 says:

    “jbro1922
    You have a very good understanding of the social dynamics in the black community. It would be a great evening to sit down and speak with someone like you at a dinner party. More and more black people speak as you do now.”

    Thanks, greyghost!

    “Ah. I see. “don’t understand” is American dialect for “do not give a flying doughnut about”.
    How far do you thing that precious parochial nonsense would go in say, Germany, Thailand, Korea or Finland? Honestly you American people. You really ought to get out a bit more. Stir-crazy the lot of yez.
    Plus who cares what women think? It’ll be completely, 180° different by the time you’ve had coffee, never mind in the morning.”

    I can see how this would sound shallow. Usually this conversation about understanding revolves around hair, which most black women will admit to having a love/hate relationship with. You may know this, but black people’s hair is usually very tightly curled (what some would say is “nappy.”) The looser your curl, the closer your hair is to white women’s hair, the more beautiful you are (at least stereotypically, anyway, in some circles). Also the lighter your skin is, the easier it is for you to pass, the more beautiful you are classified as. A lot of black women think only black men can really understand this dynamic because they are raised with (or more commonly now only by) a black mother. And the black man may or may not have sisters or female cousins. Black women spend millions of dollars a year and countless hours on their hair. In order to be considered “professional,” black hair is often straightened using extreme amounts of heat. Especially in more conservative fields like law, etc. Not only does this standard come from white beauty standards, but it is also internalized in the black community. I grew up hearing women say “comb you hair!” or “her hair nappy!” Nappy hair is not desirable by any race, black or white.

    Now, there has been a recent rush of advice, advising black women to travel more. (“Meet black men who aren’t American!”). I guess it’s catching on in some circles, especially since most of these single women are credentialed up and have the income to travel. They would also need to learn at least one other language. So maybe we will see more black American women married to African or Caribbean men.

  389. @ Elspeth,

    Regarding “marriage ready men” I would agree with you to a point. But what is even meant by that? If you are talking about a man who has a full fledged career while 18-24 and the economic capacity to fulfill 21st Century financial expectations that number is low indeed. However, I’d rather see man and wife living in mom and dad’s basement (multigenerational homes) than two fornicators in higher education. The big deal for me is that two people be committed to the permanence of marriage which is more likely to happen when they marry young. They can get their ducks in a row later so long as they truly are committed to the permanence of their marriage.

    This needs to be looked upon as a sociological problem and not an economic problem.

  390. Escoffier says:

    Cail,

    isn’t it based on some truth?

    Absolutely. UMC parents to have a script for their kids. Within that “script” there are many electives, many branches on the tree. But simply going blue collar is not one of them. That is treated as a crisis. I suspect not least because the parents feel the status hit to themselves very keenly. When at a cocktail party where everyone is crowing about where their daughter is going to college, it’s just painful for a UMC parent to have to say “Oh, Johnny is in Alaska working on the Pipeline.” Unless it’s clear that this is some grand, “finding himself” adventure that he might get a novel out of.

    But that raises another interesting point. My sense is that “slots” in the UMC are getting scarcer even as the competition gets harder. We already have the raw numbers to show how dramatically more difficult it is to get into elite schools today than it was 20-25 years ago. Something like 50% of Harvard’s class of 1994 would not make the cut today. Would not even be admitted.

    What is harder to prove, but what I sense anecdotally, is that it’s not just the schools (undergrad and grad+professional) that have fewer slots. Actually, they have about the same number of slots, but vastly more applicants, and increasing numbers from overseas. Anyway, it’s not just the schools but the jobs, the firms, the institutions—there are fewer “life slots” that will support a UMC lifestyle, and the competition for them is also fiercer than ever. There seems to be a deliberate effort on the part of the ruling class to squeeze out of existence as many of these jobs as possible, or else to downgrade, downgrade, downgrade their pay and seniority levels.

    And, even if the “slots” are not shrinking in number in absolute terms (though I sense that they are), there is no question that the number of people seeking them is rising fast. So any individual’s chances of landing one must go down.

    Hence the UMC parents of today may well face “loss of caste” for their own children. I think many of them are going to find that shocking and take it very badly. They are totally unprepared for it, the same way that parents of go-grrrrl daughters are unprepared for the dearth of marriageable men when princess decides she’s “ready” to become a bride.

    To those who really hate the UMC, stay tuned. You may yet live to see them receive some comeuppance.

  391. embracing reality says:

    Elspeth says: “Further, I would love for someone (anyone, please speak up!) to tell me what a young woman living in a city is supposed to be doing while she waits for her husband to show up.”

    Personally I concur completely with the plan your husband and you have prescribed for your daughters as you’ve described it here. What is the alternative indeed? Become Amish? Where are the communities that provide any kind of infrastructure at all to support, facilitate these traditional lifestyles that the idealists here propose? The churches who teach women or men traditionalism? Feminism changed women, women changed society, changed social attitudes, changed the laws and we’re not going back.

  392. Escoffier,

    But that raises another interesting point. My sense is that “slots” in the UMC are getting scarcer even as the competition gets harder. We already have the raw numbers to show how dramatically more difficult it is to get into elite schools today than it was 20-25 years ago. Something like 50% of Harvard’s class of 1994 would not make the cut today. Would not even be admitted.

    What is harder to prove, but what I sense anecdotally, is that it’s not just the schools (undergrad and grad+professional) that have fewer slots. Actually, they have about the same number of slots, but vastly more applicants, and increasing numbers from overseas. Anyway, it’s not just the schools but the jobs, the firms, the institutions—there are fewer “life slots” that will support a UMC lifestyle, and the competition for them is also fiercer than ever.

    This is all corrected by Dowry and Irrevokable Trust funds. You can create an UMC “slot” for your child through inheritance resources. Think about it, if your son wants to work that Alaksan pipeline/Bakkan Oil Fields because that is all his 90 IQ grants him from a work standpoint (his maximum earnings annually in this lifetime is say $60K and not $260K because he can never pass Calculus) then buy him a 4 bedroom McMansion but never give it to him. Put it in a trust in your name. Now, you have just given your son a $3000/month raise for the rest of his life by him NOT having to make a McMansion mortgage payment. That $3000K he saves a month is work $60K a year in extra earnings he will never have to earn to have that lifestyle. He is now artifically lifted into UMC. But never, ever, under any circumstances, give him the house. Ever. You keep it. He (and his wife and children) live in it rent free forever. That way his daughter has less “threatpoint” leverage in the marriage since she can’t frivorce him and keep the house. He doesn’t have the house. You do. So sure, she can divorce him, but she has to leave. The family court judge can’t take from your son what he doesn’t own.

    UMC “slots” are limitless in a capitalist society. But they are only limitless in the sense that inheritance lives past your lifespan. So long as you can give Dowry to your son or daughter (and protect that Dowry in someway from the clutches of a nasty BPD spouse that your child should be unforuntate enough to marry, a BPD spouse that knows family law) then that slot will remain theirs and only theirs. But you have to protect them from their own ignorance. Be proactive, save, and structure around your child’s incompetance.

  393. @ Embracing Reality,

    How about a rejection of societal values. It’s okay to live in the basement. It’s okay to have multigenerational families (it’s how the Amish do it). The way the traditional family supported new families was by extending the family and one of the ways they’ve been destroyed is this notion that everyone has to “launch”.

  394. Escoffier says:

    IBB, that post was a joke, right?

  395. JDG says:

    …it’s better for society for a man to marry and get divorced…

    It’s better for society for betas to get married and live in sexless and loveless marriages ruled over by special degree full UMC gal. Most here would agree.

    I’m not sure a society like this can be saved.

    I’m not sure a society like this should be saved.

    I am certain a society like this does not deserve to be saved.

  396. Elspeth says:

    Regarding “marriage ready men” I would agree with you to a point. But what is even meant by that?

    I mean devout, employed, committed to the permanence of marriage, and on his way to being able to support a family.

    If you are talking about a man who has a full fledged career while 18-24 and the economic capacity to fulfill 21st Century financial expectations that number is low indeed.

    You surely missed or skimmed over the description of my husband’s status when I married him if you think that’s what I meant.

    This needs to be looked upon as a sociological problem and not an economic problem.

    I mostly agree with you but I think it’s both.

    @ jbro1922:

    I appreciated your hair comments. As far as I can tell, my curly girl hasn’t really run into any real issues with her hair. That’s her in the link, and a white young man asked her to her senior prom even though her hair’s not straight.

    The problem is that so many of us have been conditioned to see our natural hair as a negative, and those of us who don’t have been having our hair straightened since we were so young we have no idea what our natural hair texture would look and feel like nor how to properly handle it. Added hair insecurity in a world where straight hair is considered the epitome of beauty. Heck, even white and Latina women with curly hair get up every morning and blow theirs out straight!

  397. JDG says:

    I will confess that I could not care less if a girl I date can land a probe on a comet.

    For me, when a woman has accomplishments that would normally belong to a man, it’s another red flag.

  398. Escoffier says:

    What do you think?

    That I had to ask speaks volumes. And, to be honest, I still don’t know the answer.

  399. Joshua says:

    Elspeth, did you miss all of detis questions?

  400. greyghost says:

    Hint to black women. Natural hair on a black woman is attractive

  401. Escoffier,

    That I had to ask speaks volumes.

    No, not really. The fact that you don’t know that my post was one in agreement with you (and what can be done to defend against this nightmare you’ve correctly defined), is what speaks volumes. I’m your ally. You just need to take the next step and think outside the box to attain the goal. Your position was incomplete.

    ….it’s not just the schools but the jobs, the firms, the institutions—there are fewer “life slots” that will support a UMC lifestyle

    The most important word you typed with regards to UMC is a noun, that noun of course being “lifestyle.” You want your children to have an upper middle class “lifestyle.” That is the ultimate “goal.” How can a parent accomplish this goal with fewer and fewer “life slots” available (life slots = your words) due to automation, competition, and industrialization, while at the same time, understanding that your child is limited and can make terrible life altering mistakes? You do that with trust funds and inheritance.

    You want your children to have that UMC lifestyle. How do you do that? You do that the same way FDR did that for Winston Churchill and the United Kingdom in WWII before the United States officially entered the war. You take the dollar sign out of the equation with a sort of “lend-lease” policy with your children and your own personal assets. Put them in “trust.” Loan them to your kids free of charge. Now, they have the “lifestyle” provided by you no matter who horrible circumstances await them regarding their own limited earning power.

    You and I can’t define exactly how much earning power our children are destined to receive through a lifetime of hard work. It is the free market that determines just how valuable our children are to society from an economic standpoint. So our job as parents is to give our own kids a “leg up” into the UMC if they can’t get there on their own. I have given one example of how to do this with a house (you keep it, they live in it rent free, lend-lease.) You can do that with any number of items that your children can get full use of without having to purchase them. This is what artifically creates the UMC “lifestyle.”

    Why is the “trust” so important? Why don’t you just give it to them, transfer ownership, a true inheritance? Well because your children are immature and make mistakes. They might sell the asset and squander it, thus depleting their “lifestyle.” They might take a loan against it for which they have no intention of repaying, thus consuming their “lifestyle.” More likely, they might marry a destroyer who uses the laws of our corrupt feminized government to sieze that asset that your child now owns. A “trust” protects against their own incompetence.

    You want your kids to live better that you. That is one of the root building blocks associated with the Protestant Work Ethic tied in to the American Dream. The desire for your kids to have a better “lifestyle” is foundation layer level for conservatism. Its possibly even Biblical and thus, something a true liberal could never understand.

  402. Escoffier says:

    First of all, you are reading much into what “I want.” I haven’t said what I want. I have described what I perceive to be the general wants of my “caste” so to speak.

    Now, a little math. Let’s take the Obama Admin’s definition of what constitutes UMC: $250,000 per year for a family of four. That’s the floor on the coasts but let’s just stipulate it for convenience. At least 40% of that will be taken away via taxes (state, fed, FICA, property, and so on). So, of that $250K, a family can–assuming a very good accountant and various deductions and so on–spend $150,000 per year.

    The rate of return on capital varies widely. Over the very long term, it averages as much as 10% annually, depending on how invested. But for those who intend to live off capital and not draw down principle, most advisors would say you should expect to spend the equivalent of 3% per year, or 4% at most. Any more, and you will erode the principle. And, we’re not looking to make this pile grow like crazy either. Mostly the upside we’re looking for is to protect its earning power against inflation.

    Also, keep in mind that I am otherwise extracting away inflation in this discussion because to factor it in would be too complicated. We are just assuming that, for the foreseeable future, spending $150,000 per year for a family of four will maintain them in the upper middle class. Even though the cost of a UMC standard of living continues to rocket upward.

    All right. It takes $5,000,000 to generate $150,000 in interest and dividend and cap gains income per year. Five million dollars. And, while that $150K won’t be taxed at 40%, it will be taxed on cap gains and so forth, plus of course estate taxes, so our $5mm figure needs to be higher, more like $6 million.

    But even if we leave it at 5, the absurdity is still obvious. Most UMC couples have an extremely difficult time generating this much wealth, over two working lives, to support their own retirement. To now have to do so for each child is plainly impossible.

    The whole lend-lease thing is a canard. Where does the capital to buy that extra house come from? Or the income to pay another mortgage? To say nothing of gift taxes. Each parent is limited to $14,000 per child. Anything more is taxed, and the tax is paid by the giver, not the recipient. So, two parents, two kids, that’s $56,000 per year. I personally don’t know a lot of UMC families who have that kind of excess liquidity to spare.

    28,000 for one child is around $2,300 per month. Let’s assume we are not giving cash but the house idea of yours. It’s dollar value is still taxable. $2,300 is often well short of what it costs to maintain a UMC domicile in the blue areas. So if the purpose of this “lend-lease” is not merely to let them live somewhere rent free, but maintain UMC status, it falls short, meanwhile bankrupting mom and dad.

    And then, of course, once we have robbed Peter to pay Paul, what happens to the beneficiary generation? How do they pass this generosity on to their own progeny? They can’t, obviously.

    I may be wrong about the coming constriction of the UMC. But you are surely out of your mind in intending that as a serious solution.

  403. I may be wrong about the coming constriction of the UMC. But you are surely out of your mind in intending that as a serious solution.

    (shrugs shoulders)

    I know people who are doing it. When mom and dad lend-lease you a house, a car, and the timeshare, you would be amazed how far that $50,000 a year that you are already earning can go (for vacations, retirement, 529s for their kids, just eating out, everything.) I’d say they live very wealthy on limited income simply because they don’t have to spend on so many other things.

    And for the record, stop worrying about what President Obama thinks is UMC.

  404. Escoffier,

    The whole lend-lease thing is a canard. Where does the capital to buy that extra house come from? Or the income to pay another mortgage? To say nothing of gift taxes. Each parent is limited to $14,000 per child. Anything more is taxed, and the tax is paid by the giver, not the recipient. So, two parents, two kids, that’s $56,000 per year. I personally don’t know a lot of UMC families who have that kind of excess liquidity to spare.

    You missed it entirely. You are not actually GIVING your children ANYTHING. There are NO gift taxes. This is lend-lease and it is NOT a canard. You are “lending” them a house (that they live in) that you (at age 50 or whatever) probably already own free-and-clear so that they don’t have to spend $3000 a month on a mortgage for a house of their own. You continue to own it, they just use it. That instantly elevates thier “lifestyle.” That is really what you are talking about here, not interest on money in teh bank or what President Obama thinks is UMC.

  405. Escoffier says:

    You have addressed nothing of what I said, except a non-sequitur about my non-existent “worrying.”

    if you know lots of people who earn enough to make ongoing wealth transfers to adult children … well, I’m not calling you a liar, but … for most people that’s not a practical plan.

    Nor is it in any way a solution to the hollowing out of the old middle class and to the coming hollowing out of the existing UMC. The wealth that you advocate being transferred has to be earned from UMC occupations–the very occupations that, I posit, are diminishing in both number and remuneration.

    This is just magical thinking. Totally unserious.

  406. Escoffier says:

    My God, you are a fool.

    That second house has to be paid for. By whom and with what? This is laughable: “probably already own free-and-clear.” Why do mom & dad “probably already own” a second home free and clear when they are 50? Do you really know a lot of couples who own not one but two homes free and clear at age 50? Because mom & dad still have to live somewhere. Or is the missing element in your plan their suicide in favor of the kids?

    Even if they have two homes, which is uncommon, the second is likely to be a cheapish vacation hone somewhere without a lot of UMC industry nearby–i.e., not an ideal place for these subsidized adult children to actually hold down whatever UMC jobs they may still be able to get. And neither is likely to be owned free and clear. One hallmark of UMC life is that people tend to buy homes late because it’s so expensive in the blue metros to buy. 6 figure down payments and so on. Let’s say that can be achieved at age 30. Rare, but not impossible. You still won’t be “free and clear” until you’re 60. And even then, there’s property taxes (ruinous in the good school districts) and insurance. That’s assuming no re-fis, ever, because re-fis re-set the 30-year clock.

    Ah, but just get a 15! But the monthly payment is much higher, which further pinches M&Ds ability to float that subsidy.

    Why don’t we just skip to the end and start posting about HB10 supermodels riding in on unicorns to sex up thirsty omegas.

  407. hoellenhund2 says:

    What is harder to prove, but what I sense anecdotally, is that it’s not just the schools (undergrad and grad+professional) that have fewer slots. Actually, they have about the same number of slots, but vastly more applicants, and increasing numbers from overseas. Anyway, it’s not just the schools but the jobs, the firms, the institutions—there are fewer “life slots” that will support a UMC lifestyle, and the competition for them is also fiercer than ever.

    I agree. Apparently this is something that seems to be on the minds of many people – namely the realization that the age of perpetual economic growth has ended in the West, for good. There’s a prolonger economic stagnation, and there’s no end to it in sight. I’d argue, though, that this is something that hits the middle class in the first place, not the upper class.

    It’s a simple process. For reasons that need not be repeated here, Western countries have squandered all their opportunities for prolonged economic growth. Their rate of wealth creation is dropping. It’s something that common people are realizing as well. One sign of this is the increasing media attention focused on the masses of unproductive, slacking men. It’s already happening. People are realizing that men generally aren’t working as hard as they could, and it traps society in stagnation.

    What usually happens in such situations is that the ruling oligarchy monopolizes all sources of wealth. All other classes are shut out. It’s a vicious circle. Stagnation deepens as this process goes on, which gives even more reason to the oligarchy to monopolize.

  408. Stop errecting strawmen.

    You were the one commenting on the hollowing out of the UMC. I have showed you how the UMC (and even the wealth) allow their incompetent children to continue living an UMC lifestyle. I used to live in the bluest of blue states. This “mom and dad own the house, we just live here while they roam Florida in the RV” is pretty common among married couples with young kids. Lo and behold, they have a great lifestyle on so-so income.

    Calling me a fool will get you nowhere. I’m so sorry if you might be rooting the for the demise of the UMC with comments like this…

    Hence the UMC parents of today may well face “loss of caste” for their own children. I think many of them are going to find that shocking and take it very badly. They are totally unprepared for it, the same way that parents of go-grrrrl daughters are unprepared for the dearth of marriageable men when princess decides she’s “ready” to become a bride.

    To those who really hate the UMC, stay tuned. You may yet live to see them receive some comeuppance.

    …but they are not getting any comeuppance just because their kids can’t make the magical $250K that President Obama says they must in order to be UMC.

    I identified what must be done. You threw a bit if a hissy fit explaining to me how much money one must earn to be UMC and how so few people own their homes free and clear. It might interest you to know that almost 40% of all residential real estate in the United States is owned free-and-clear (no mortgage, no home equity loans.) Of course you might not run in the same circles as these people as most of them keep a pretty low profile. But they KNOW that they are UMC. They don’t need validation from you or the president to get them there.

  409. Escoffier says:

    I’d argue, though, that this is something that hits the middle class in the first place, not the upper class.

    This is widely acknowledged, though. Nothing is done about it because all of the ways that might work to help the middle class (and below) would eat into the ever-increasing share taken by the overclass, and that is not to be allowed. Hand-wringing and crocodile tears expressions of sympathy are the substitutes for effective action.

    What is not anticipated is that the rot might travel upward and start hollowing out the UMC. The UMC still feels very smug in this country. The one thing that plagues them seriously is the horrible cut-throat competition to get their kids into good schools. But other than that, from what they can see, life is still very good.

    I speculate that said horrible cut-throat competition is a precursor of worse and related things to come. They are going to be quite shocked and unhappy.

  410. Escoffier says:

    IBB, all you have said is “be rich and give money to your kids.” That’s the SES equivalent of “Be handsome, be attractive, don’t be unattractive.” Except SNL meant it as a joke, You mean it seriously. That’s why you are a fool.

  411. Mariah8 says:

    Having spent a lot of time in nursing homes/assisted living/etc, some very very UMC or above, I have to agree with GIL. I am going to see if one of my kids wants the homeplace in exchange for tacking a nice little dawdy house out back. You think your lives suck now, wait til you end up in a state run nursing home.

  412. enrique432 says:

    Hypergamy at it’s best! Look at the pics, LOL. You think Boyfriend stands a chance? Woman petitions for, gets, free trip with man who sought a woman with the same name as his ex (in order to be able to use the tickets), for a free round trip world tour, etc.

    ‘It definitely did seem a little bit creepy at the beginning but now that I talked to him it’s less creepy and more awesome,’ she said.

    Apparently it wasn’t “creepy” enough to keep her from throwing her name in the hat. Love her comment here…a bit of “coverage” to make it sound like she had some initial doubt. Kinda like a fake sales pitch, “At first, even I was a bit skeptical…but then when I saw selling soap in action”

    She then says, speaking of her beta boyfriend (too rich, check out his pick versus this strangers)

    ‘He understands that I’ve always wanted to travel so while he’s not happy I’m taking off for nearly a month at Christmas with a random guy he’s smiling through it,’ Gallagher said of her boyfriend, who she plans to purchase a home with.

    Gallagher says she initially thought the trip was ‘crazy’ but was put at ease after spending hours talking to Axani over the phone.

    Axani says the trip will be ‘strictly platonic’ and he’s looking forward to jetting out of New York on December 21.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2877856/He-Elizabeth-Gallagher-Man-offered-free-trip-world-trip-woman-ex-girlfriend-bought-tickets-finds-taker-boyfriend-isn-t-happy.html#ixzz3MIo2bD3W
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  413. Novaseeker says:

    Oh that story. Yep, that woman is going to be sleeping with that Axani guy within 24 hours of leaving Canada. That’s obvious. The “boyfriend” back in Nova Scotia is a clueless fool, really.

  414. Escoffier,

    IBB, all you have said is “be rich and give money to your kids.” That’s the SES equivalent of “Be handsome, be attractive, don’t be unattractive.” Except SNL meant it as a joke, You mean it seriously. That’s why you are a fool.

    A fool? Really?

    I’m not the one who is foolishly rooting for the demise of the Upper Middle Class.

    What is not anticipated is that the rot might travel upward and start hollowing out the UMC. The UMC still feels very smug in this country. The one thing that plagues them seriously is the horrible cut-throat competition to get their kids into good schools. But other than that, from what they can see, life is still very good.

    I speculate that said horrible cut-throat competition is a precursor of worse and related things to come. They are going to be quite shocked and unhappy.

    I think you HOPE they will be quite shocked and unhappy.

    You know what, you might be right. I guess I’d rather be a fool than needlessly envious of others.

  415. Boxer says:

    ‘He understands that I’ve always wanted to travel so while he’s not happy I’m taking off for nearly a month at Christmas with a random guy he’s smiling through it,’ Gallagher said of her boyfriend, who she plans to purchase a home with.

    Oh hell no, my brother. Just don’t do that shit.

  416. embracing reality says:

    God is laughing says: “How about a rejection of societal values. It’s okay to live in the basement. It’s okay to have multigenerational families (it’s how the Amish do it). The way the traditional family supported new families was by extending the family and one of the ways they’ve been destroyed is this notion that everyone has to “launch”

    Yes and it was also quite common at one time for people in the US to go without shoes. Why is the past better? I never dated a girl as a young man who’s parent’s I would have been willing to live with just to marry her and before I’d have continued to live with my parents, wife or not, I would sooner have set myself on fire. I know a young hispanic married couple both born in mexico, now married in the US. They waited until they could live on their own before even considering trying you’re traditions. They’ve seen it done, that was all it took. Regardless this does nothing for the biggest problem by far, the nuclear option of ‘threat point’ women have in the west to destroy a husband. The traditions of her family can’t stop her if she’s determined, churches are on her side no matter what, the family courts are only too happy to oblige her.

    Traditionalism from a cultural, social and especially legal standpoint is all but dead but from my perspective thats not all bad. It was a sorry raw deal for men anyway and has been since after the second world war. Why should a man spend his whole life working into an early grave so his wife can sit home turning dials on modern appliances in between soap operas pretending to do “the hardest job in the world” being a fatmom while her kids are in school 7 hours a day? Screw that! I don’t want that dead chicken tied around my neck. I know the saps who have it and they’re not recommending it. After the kids are in school women need to work, earn, produce if the family needs money. Home school is fine but two successful breadwinners can afford decent private ED for a couple of kids and a good lifestyle. It’s a new world, dreaming of the ‘fabulous 50’s’ is a waste of time. Gone forever and I’m glad.

  417. embracing reality says:

    As I see it two things would be required to move back in the direction of traditionalism.

    2) Back to fault based divorce or something more like actual gender equality after divorce. Presumed 50/50 child physical custody, no child support. END ALIMONY except in cases of adultery or abandonment by the higher earner. Assets split more realistically based on who earned them during the marriage. Lot’s of luck with any of the above btw.

    1) End the sexual revolution. (yes’ I’m laughing right now). All you would have to do is convince a generation of women to keep their knees together when they’re young and single, to marry, then to be frequently sexually available to their husbands only. In the old testament this was maintained by stoning women to death who were found not to be complying.

    Not going to happen.

  418. ER, this society ain’t goanna change, agreed. But that has never stopped God.
    Never,
    He changes society: he lifts up empires and he destroys them. And, if God is just (and he is) then the current situation is going to lead to a huge heap of hurt for the West.

    If and when things collapse, then you watch. Elspeth will have lots of women trying to work out how she raised her kids, and her husband will be able to play hardball with their daughter’s suitors.

    But at present, those who are faithful are seen as foolish. For we must all destroy our lives and salvation together: if Clooney and Amal are the best we can find this year we are truly damned.

  419. John Nesteutes says:

    I think it’s worth noting that, for the upper middle class, even divorce (when it does happen, which is rare) is not nearly the life-ending situation it is for the unwashed masses. My own divorce was easy and painless–no lawyers were needed; we came to a joint agreement; pressure from family prevented her from letting things get acrimonious. The last night together whilst the marriage was still legally valid was celebrated with some sex, much like a reverse wedding night. Friends were divvied up by mutual agreement. We still stay in touch (although I’m not sure how / why the new guy tolerates that).

    Simply put, the UMC doesn’t like destroying things of value that it creates. And I’d note that remarriage (at least for men) for the UMC is not really that popular of a thing. A common life path for an upper middle class divorced gentleman is to simply resume the life of a bachelor. In my case, I’ve still retained plenty of cachet as a married man because I’d at least tried and I’d done my time for a decade; many other UMC guys I worked with were in a similar boat.

    The UMC doesn’t treat marriage like a registered boyfriend/girlfriend situation imbued with romance; it is much closer to a pure economic arrangement between families.

    (Incidentally, I exited UMC culture and everything it represents, and it’s one of the best decisions I ever made. Living out Christianity is a lot better than mindless self indulgence: luxury vacations, nice cars, “stressful” jobs as if sitting around in air conditioned office could really be that stressful, workplace social gatherings with free craft beers, pretending to tolerate friends’ high-IQ-but-utterly-weirdo children. Y’all can keep the whole lot of it.)

  420. Escoffier says:

    Are you such a fool that you can’t see the difference between analysis and hope? Apparently …

  421. John Nesteutes says:

    @Elspeth

    But it still speaks to the fact that simply being virtuous, submissive and hard working (and even attractive) aren’t enough in themselves.

    Indeed, amongst the community of conservative home educated women, I know plenty who are virtuous, submissive, hard working, attractive, and are Asian or white, and yet that’s still not enough. A few that come to mind are hitting 29, 30, 34. (They could marry a man they aren’t attracted to, but that’s literally the only option they’ve got on the marriage market.) Despite being extremely traditional, the conservative home educated community has no marriage marketplace worth noting; it just has a lot of frustrated single people.

    I would estimate these women are a low divorce risk.

    It’s not the women who are the problem, and it’s not the young men either. The men are making a valid decision that even a “low” divorce risk is still too high, and that the rewards are not significant enough. We have a market-clearing problem here: in essence, the transaction cost of marriage (with the cost being the cost of divorce times the probability of a divorce) is too high when compared to the benefit of marriage.

    I think it’s worth looking at my community (plain Mennonite) which has a well functioning marriage marketplace. There are a few large cities (Toronto, New York City, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Tampa, FL) which are close enough to a viable Anabaptist community to accommodate a lifestyle besides the agrarian lifestyle stereotype; I certainly don’t live one, although I could if I wanted to.

    Whilst I strongly believe in what we believe, it still baffles me that our theological distinctives have left us the only traditional culture with functional marriage left standing. Why can’t anyone else copy what we do?

  422. John Nesteutes says:

    @embracing reality

    I have a better alternative: persuade people to become followers of Christ, and allow the fear of the Lord to prevent them from seeking sinful behaviour such as adultery or divorce. The legal situation simply reflects the cultural climate.

    I’m able to persuade caddish young men to stop fornicating with their girlfriends solely through preaching the gospel. My compatriots have persuaded men and women in adulterous remarriages to cease such abominable unions and instead seek reconciliation with their proper spouse. (No theological arguments, please: let’s all just agree that if a woman dumps husband #2 and seeks reconciliation with her first husband–which, when the truth comes out, she stopped sleeping with and goaded into divorcing her–the world becomes a bit less safe for feminism and a bit more safe for traditional marriage and family.)

    The message of the gospel is simple: whosoever marries a divorced woman, commits adultery with her. If women believed their frivolous divorces-followed-by-remarriage qualified them as adulteresses, and if women believed God’s not planning to fill up heaven with unrepentant adulteresses, they would be less quick to pursue a lifestyle of sin.

    Instead we have your average brand of Christianity encouraging women to pursue sin, unrepentance, and ultimately endanger their very salvation.

    It’s time for something to change at a very fundamental level.

  423. earl says:

    ‘Feminism changed women, women changed society, changed social attitudes, changed the laws and we’re not going back.’

    Feminism is just like every other thing built on a lie…it will collapse and fold and we will go back. It won’t be tomorrow but it’s not going to last forever.

  424. Elspeth says:

    Elspeth, did you miss all of detis questions?

    No, I saw them but they weren’t asked of me directly. He specifically said so. But for the record, I’ll throw this out.

    My husband at this point isn’t overly concerned about marrying his girls off immediately-right-now-in-a-hurry. If a worthy suitor emerges, he will be happy to marry them off, but he doesn’t see it as something they need to be focused on at the exclusion of all else. And frankly, we truly don’t know any young men who seem even remotely ready to marry anyone, least of all our girls. And yes, I know how that sounded but whatever.

    Our younger girls will be better suited because we are building good friendships with other homeschooling families. Easier to be proactive when there’s a pool to fish from. Our older daughters are in a much more precarious marriage market, but we do have faith, and we are not convinced that the world will implode if they marry at 25 rather than 22.

  425. Escoffier says:

    By the way, IBB, this:

    “You are not actually GIVING your children ANYTHING. There are NO gift taxes.”

    is false. Letting someone live rent free at a property you own is considered a taxable gift.

    You probably should look a little more carefully into the details of your “plan.”

  426. Elspeth says:

    For clarity: We are PRO young marriage. Very PR young marriage. My husband does not think they are too young to marry, or that they simply must finish school first , or any of that. Not in the slightest. Our experience with marrying very young (by today’s standards) have convinced us that it is a valid and even preferable life choice. You need a little bit of naivete and a lot less life experience to be able to take the leap and approach marriage idealistically. Better to do it young.

    So please do not interpret my preceding comment as saying that my husband wants his girls to follow the feminist life script. Nothing could be further from the truth. There seems to be an issue in these discussions with people thinking that if you don’t want you girl running around desperately looking for someone, anyone, to marry her then you’re encouraging her in the other direction. Not so.

  427. Gallagher said of her boyfriend, who she plans to purchase a home with.

    Oh hell no, my brother. Just don’t do that shit.

    Yeah, I hate it when people get who/whom mixed up.

    Oh, you mean the other thing. Yeah, I thought I screwed up when I bought a stereo “together” with a girlfriend one time and never saw it again. But a home?

  428. It’s not the women who are the problem, and it’s not the young men either.

    Great point. There’s a huge third party in the dating market, called “society’s mores and laws.” If marriage-minded young men and women can’t connect, it’s not necessarily the fault of either one. There’s a whole lot of garbage getting in their way.

  429. They cited statistics showing that men 25-34 are six times less likely to be married than the same age group was in 1970. They also found that divorce rates are twice what they were in 1950.

    Money quote… or is that money shot?!

  430. The Brass Cat says:

    Thus, the results in this paper suggest that technological proliferation and access to pornography specifically can be a causative factor that underlies these rapid demographic changes that occur concurrent to economic growth,” said the report.

    They clearly do not understand the situation men are in.

    Pornography is not a root cause, it is a symptom of the lack of desirable, marriage-minded women.

  431. The Brass Cat says:

    ^And a symptom of the horrors of Marriage 2.0.

  432. thedeti says:

    Just so we’re all clear here:

    I’m not in any way suggesting that a girl who wants to get married should run around desperately seeking someone, anyone, to marry her.

    Nor should any woman marry a man she’s not attracted to. (As I keep saying, and as is continually being proven, the single greatest problem in marriages today is women marrying men to whom they’re not as attracted as the men they used to date/sleep with. This is an enormous problem, caused primarily by women sleeping around before they marry. The only marriages today that seem to succeed are the ones in which there is strong sexual attraction from wife to husband.)

    Nor should any woman marry for the sake of getting married. Nor should she marry merely to check off the “marriage” box, or because it’s “time to get married”, or because she wants children, or because of The Wall, or because she’s getting older, or because other people expect it. She should marry for one reason, and one reason only: Because she loves the guy and wants to spend the rest of her life with him.

    What I am suggesting, though, is that a woman who DOES want to get married should actively seek marriage. She should be making clear she is in this to find a husband and make a life. She is not in this to “date around” or “play the field” or “have fun” or “gain life experience” or “grow and mature”, all of which are euphemisms.

    She should be making a concerted effort to seek marriageable men, meet them, get to know them, and give them unmistakable indicators of interest. (This can be done without being overtly forward or looking like a slut. Come on, now.) She should be getting help from parents and church. If she doesn’t know how to do any of this, she should be asking for help. If she is having trouble meeting such men, she needs to get Dad’s help in identifying them and meeting them.

    We live in an age now where women who want to marry will have to do a good part of the work in making marriage happen. She can’t just “hang back and let it happen”. She has to be proactive, not reactive. She has to actually do things to make it happen.

  433. The Brass Cat says:

    Cail Corishev says:

    Gallagher said of her boyfriend, who she plans to purchase a home with.

    Oh hell no, my brother. Just don’t do that shit.

    Yeah, I hate it when people get who/whom mixed up.

    Oh, you mean the other thing. Yeah, I thought I screwed up when I bought a stereo “together” with a girlfriend one time and never saw it again. But a home?

    Someone needs to slap that guy in the face before he buys a home with his cheating girlfriend.

    Making a big, life-altering purchase with a girlfriend is a horrible move for so many reasons. What happens when they inevitably break up in about a year and are stuck with a mortgage for 15-30 years? They’re stuck there living in an awkward roommate situation until they can sell the house. Just imagine the scene when they bring over the new boyfriend/girlfriend.

  434. MV says:

    OT

    Jonathan Capeheart of WaPo teaches men not to rape… by mocking the concept of “gentlemanhood”.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/12/19/gentlemanly-nonsense-from-frat-at-center-of-uva-sexual-assault-controversy/

  435. Boxer says:

    What happens when they inevitably break up in about a year and are stuck with a mortgage for 15-30 years? They’re stuck there living in an awkward roommate situation until they can sell the house. Just imagine the scene when they bring over the new boyfriend/girlfriend.

    In Canada (except perhaps the Catholic provinces of Québec and perhaps New Brunswick) the M.O. is a breakup, followed by princess going down to the courts and getting an order of support, that typically lasts years or decades. Marriage certificate and kids are not required for such a free ride in Canada, only proof that the couple lived together for a “significant” period of time. A joint tenancy is the perfect document.

    Significant in some places (British Columbia cough) can be at the crown’s discretion, and is often as little as 6-9 months…

  436. Boxer says:

    Jonathan Capeheart of WaPo teaches men not to rape… by mocking the concept of “gentlemanhood”.

    I left a comment suggesting that the author (Capehart) was projecting his own desires to rape women onto innocent people, and advocating a boycott of WaPo advertisers in response to this weird rape-porn they’re publishing. It naturally disappeared within a couple of minutes.

    You have been trolled by Herbie Marcuse. Have a nice day. LOL!

  437. Gunner Q says:

    John Nesteutes @ 6:58 am:
    “I have a better alternative: persuade people to become followers of Christ, and allow the fear of the Lord to prevent them from seeking sinful behavior such as adultery or divorce.”

    I have an even better alternative than sitting and waiting for people to be supernaturally encouraged to do good: let’s punish people for doing evil. Our leaders won’t have any problem with this unless they’re lying, adulterous thieves themselves.

    Everything we need to know about “fear of the Lord” as a restraint on human behavior was taught when Solomon turn his back on God to chase women.

  438. MV says:

    @Boxer

    No, no, no! According to Ederlyist school of journalist writing you should have written:

    “Your virginal comment zone has just been scandalously ravished by the notorious Herbie Marcuse in an act of ribaldry most virile. Enjoy your afternoon cinnamon latte,. The pleasure is all mine.”

    Go back and do it right this time!🙂

  439. Elspeth,

    My husband at this point isn’t overly concerned about marrying his girls off immediately-right-now-in-a-hurry. If a worthy suitor emerges, he will be happy to marry them off, but he doesn’t see it as something they need to be focused on at the exclusion of all else. And frankly, we truly don’t know any young men who seem even remotely ready to marry anyone, least of all our girls. And yes, I know how that sounded but whatever.

    That’s good. IMHO, I would say you guys have your priorities straight.

    There are only a few things that we have complete control over in our lives. Going out and finding a spouse really isn’t one of them. You have some control by sending signals that you are at least approachable, but beyond that, it either happens or it doesn’t. And you go from there.

    I am glad to hear your daughters are marriage minded at age 20. I wasn’t marriage minded until I was 30. That was all on me really, my not knowing what I wanted. I am glad your family knows what it wants.

  440. jbro1922 says:

    @Elspeth

    “You need a little bit of naivete and a lot less life experience to be able to take the leap and approach marriage idealistically. Better to do it young.”

    This is interesting. Perhaps that’s mine, and a lot of other people’s, problems. Makes me nervous just reading it. I’d want to know everything I could, and I mean EVERYTHING, before making such a big commitment.

  441. earl says:

    ‘The only marriages today that seem to succeed are the ones in which there is strong sexual attraction from wife to husband.’

    The only marriage today that succeed are the ones that have God as a part of it.

  442. Anonymous Reader says:

    jbro1922 says
    Makes me nervous just reading it. I’d want to know everything I could, and I mean EVERYTHING, before making such a big commitment.

    Two points:

    1. It is possible to attempt to overanalyze a situation endlessly, to the point that no decision can be reached without just one more fact or data point. It’s called “analysis paralysis” for a reason. It’s not possible to know all the facts. At some point either it’s “close enough” or not.

    2. People who are serious about their religion have better chances in marriage. Not talking my opinion, there’s solid data to support this, Dalrock’s posted on that topic a couple of times. I’ll leave the discussion of what “serious” means in this context to others, you might want to talk with Elspeth offline just for a start.

  443. Elspeth says:

    Makes me nervous just reading it. I’d want to know everything I could, and I mean EVERYTHING, before making such a big commitment.

    Not knowing even half of what I thought I knew and none of what most people think they need to know was the best thing that ever happened to me. The idea that one can “know everything” is just giving into a false sense that we have far more control in life than we really do.

    I’ll leave the discussion of what “serious” means in this context to others, you might want to talk with Elspeth offline just for a start.

    There’s an email address on my about page. But “nobody leaves- ever” is good place to start.

  444. embracing reality says:

    John Nesteutes says: “I have a better alternative: persuade people to become followers of Christ, and allow the fear of the Lord to prevent them from seeking sinful behaviour such as adultery or divorce. The legal situation simply reflects the cultural climate.”

    Okay, but as you know what we call “the church” has supposedly been trying to do that for 2000 years now and as you also know in the last few decades “the church” has been failing miserably at their task. I live in a town full of mega churches who have largely filled their massive auditoriums with those trying’ to enter the kingdom by the wide gate. Yes I know their are exceptions out their in the haystack but after a couple of decades of dating churchian princesses who expect the world in exchange for virtue they’ve already given away I personally almost don’t care at all anymore. I can imaging many sincere Christian single young men coming up now are going to have similar experiences and conclude marriage is hardly worth the bother.

  445. embracing reality says:

    Incidentally I’m well aware that the abomination we presently see in the west won’t last. I don’t however expect our society will get fixed by God but rather destroyed by him.

  446. MarcusD says:

    LOL, Marcus. I followed your question but just barely. I was a liberal arts major and I don’t speak statistics. I also don’t ignore conventional wisdom or my lying eye. What’s more is that our girls are already being raised completely outside of the typical black experience in numerous ways. But…I do have a stat and a follow up.

    Well, one of the reasons I generally lean towards statistics (but not necessarily studies) is because they account for the limits of my observation (that is, I can’t observe all situations – statistics, properly gathered, can provide good insight). Everyone’s personal experiences (generally speaking) are anecdotal, so we need representative data from the whole population to make a decision. Anyhow, that’s just my take on why I generally don’t trust my own experiences.

    Also, I’m not an American, so I don’t really know what the “typical black experience” is.

    African-American women are less likely to marry than white women overall, but educated black women are considerably more likely to marry than their less-educated counterparts. As of 2008, 70 percent of African-American female college graduates had married, compared with 60 percent of high school graduates and just 53 percent of high school dropouts.

    But, why is that? Is it just going on to higher education that makes people more likely to marry? Is it just the parchment that signals future time orientation (FTO) or stability (etc)? Or, is it the type of people who are more likely to marry who are also more likely to pursue post-secondary education?

    The research done suggests that it’s personality features, particularly low levels of “novelty-seeking,” that contribute to marriage and to greater educational pursuits. Low novelty-seeking is basically the mild-mannered worker trait.

    I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating this topic as evidenced by the uncharacteristic number of comments. I’m not just throwing stuff out there. I’ve surveyed the landscape. I even polled some young Christian men about this. Small sample size again, only 8 but they represented 3 ethnic backgrounds. one (ONE!) told me it didn’t matter if his wife had the ability to help earn a living.

    I think the marriage landscape is changing quite rapidly – the men who are still interested in marrying want more, particularly in earning-potential, from their wives (part of that may just be due to the alimony they want to avoid paying). Education just signals that potential (but it’s still a proxy for other things – like facial symmetry as a proxy for genetic quality, etc). The GSS states that 26% of men aged 18-28 in 2008 believed that the wife should stay home and the husband should work. 56% opposed such a view. That said, though, the OkCupid survey found that the vast majority of women wanted a husband who was employed, but men apparently couldn’t care less as to whether their wife was employed or not.

  447. bios says:

    In my experience, people mate assortatively based more on looks and education than wealth. It’s difficult to get a totally ‘equal’ relationship across the board. A good friend of mine makes over 350,000 a year in his mid 30’s, and he mostly dates women who make between 80-120k a year because the ones who make the same money as him are quite unattractive physically.

    Feminists insist on assortative mating when it comes to looks and education. Wealth only becomes an issue when the woman herself has got money, but even then I suspect most ‘career’ women making 150,000 a year believes her equal match is a good looking man who makes 300+.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s