[speakeasy]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...amily.html

Quote:

...as Liza Mundy describes in her new book, The Richer Sex, the dynamics of domestic life are in for a shake-up. For one thing, definitions of masculinity will have to change (an issue I’ve written about elsewhere), and, more generally, couples will have to renegotiate issues covering everything from chores to sexual attraction. As this economic power shift for women in general becomes more pronounced, it behooves all of us to remember that there are actually some women who are already well ahead of the curve.

There was a big cover story in Time magazine about this, but can't read it unless you are a subscriber which I'm not.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...40,00.html

You can read some excerpts here:

http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/15/why-men...ter-weekly

The thing is men are as much the cause of this paradigm shift as women:

Quote:

We got the first indication of a major shift back in 2001 with a study by University of Texas at Austin psychologist David Buss that showed that when men ranked traits that were important in a marital partner, there had been a striking rise in the importance they gave to women’s earnings and a sharp drop in the value they placed on domestic skills. Similarly, University of Wisconsin demographer Christine Schwartz noted in a 2010 study in the American Journal of Sociology that “men are increasingly looking for partners who will ‘pull their own weight’ economically in marriage” and are willing to compete for them.

Indeed, men may be readier to cede their role as breadwinner than they are given credit for.

Feminists are of course ecstatic about all this. But the law of unintended consequences is going to be a bitch when this comes to full fruition over the next few decades. So will American men essentially turn into neutered Scandinavian men? Or will there be a push back? I'm so glad we have this forum and there are like minds to discuss this stuff with.

[Zee]

(04-05-2012 04:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

So will American men essentially turn into neutered Scandinavian men? Or will there be a push back? I'm so glad we have this forum and there are like minds to discuss this stuff with.

I believe that it will all come down to the core of each individual man. I think it would be tempting for any average man to settle down with a woman who makes a lot of money just because they'll be able to have a higher quality of life than was ever possible before. Personally, I don't really find it that important of a trait that it should be sought after.

[speakeasy]

(04-05-2012 04:28 PM)Zee Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 04:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

So will American men essentially turn into neutered Scandinavian men? Or will there be a push back? I'm so glad we have this forum and there are like minds to discuss this stuff with.

I believe that it will all come down to the core of each individual man. I think it would be tempting for any average man to settle down with a woman who makes a lot of money just because they'll be able to have a higher quality of life than was ever possible before. Personally, I don't really find it that important of a trait that it should be sought after.

I actually know such a couple. She has quite an important job and earns good money. The guy certainly nowhere near her. She recently bought a house and he moved in with her. She loves him to death though and they seem to be making things work for them. I'd feel weird though about the woman buying the house and everything in it and "letting" me move in. This guy is kinda lucky though in that she is still really nice and a sweetheart and loves cooking and taking her care of her guy and flying them away on romantic getaways and such. But I don't think most guys will have it like that.

[Zee]

(04-05-2012 04:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 04:28 PM)Zee Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 04:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

So will American men essentially turn into neutered Scandinavian men? Or will there be a push back? I'm so glad we have this forum and there are like minds to discuss this stuff with.

I believe that it will all come down to the core of each individual man. I think it would be tempting for any average man to settle down with a woman who makes a lot of money just because they'll be able to have a higher quality of life than was ever possible before. Personally, I don't really find it that important of a trait that it should be sought after.

I actually know such a couple. She has quite an important job and earns good money. The guy certainly nowhere near her. She recently bought a house and he moved in with her. She loves him to death though and they seem to be making things work for them. I'd feel weird though about the woman buying the house and everything in it and "letting" me move in. This guy is kinda lucky though in that she is still really nice and a sweetheart and loves cooking and taking her care of her guy and flying them away on romantic getaways and such. But I don't think most guys will have it like that.

That's very interesting, I wrote my response assuming that the women made as much as the man not exorbitantly more! I wonder if in that case the man takes on more of a maternal role in the development of their family. For instance if they had a kid I wonder if he would be the primary caregiver. Regardless hes a pretty lucky guy even if that is somewhat emasculating.

[Samseau]

Having a woman pamper me is emasculating?

[oldnemesis]

(04-05-2012 04:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

So will American men essentially turn into neutered Scandinavian men? Or will there be a push back? I'm so glad we have this forum and there are like minds to discuss this stuff with.

I don't think so. More likely being "the breadwinner" would have much less value here in US comparing to what it has now (and it is not too high even now), and we will have much less sob stories of some dude "raped" by the divorce because "the bitch stole half of his earnings".

[Excelsior]

This silly article actually suggests using Black America as a role model.

Quote:

Maxwell argues that white women might want to take a lesson as our culture moves into the new economic landscape: “Black women who have been able to navigate this new frontier may be able to offer some guidance as we’ve been here first…”

Before you do this, why don't you take a quick look at the state of modern black America today. Really-just take some time and make some objective observations regarding the state of this community. Here, let me start off:

-70% illegitimacy rate (read: black babies don't know their fathers, more often than not). I'm not even going to go into all of the less-than-positive things that this state of affiars is known to correlate with (gang membership, juvenile delinquency, etc).
-Highest incarceration rate in the USA: black men.
-Highest likelihood of becoming a victim of violent crime: black men.
-Highest unemployment rate in the USA: black men.
-Lowest earning power: black men.

There's a start-many books have been written about this very topic, so I could go on for quite some time. The bottomline is this: black folks in America are really not that well off.

These folks are suggesting that others follow the black female model and get their "independence" on. I don't know about you, but from where I am standing, this strategy does not seem to be working out all that well. If anything, the growing marginalization of black men has led to quite a few serious problems within that community, and should not be celebrated. There is absolutely nothing to cheer about or try to emulate here. The proper answer is to work against male marginalization (reverse current trends), not to passively accept and encourage it.

If things go the way the author seems to think/hope they will, then this...

Quote:

For one thing, definitions of masculinity will have to change (an issue I’ve written about elsewhere), and, more generally, couples will have to renegotiate issues covering everything from chores to sexual attraction.

...will be impractical. Aside from the fact that you cannot "negotiate" sexual attraction/masculinity anymore than you can "negotiate" an nt into becoming an aardvark, there are going to be no couples in which to negotiate. The black model of the present day is not a monogamous one-you don't get to keep your malleable, beta-providers with this model, white ladies. You will lead your households alone, as black women largely do right now.

Watch the average, modern black male. Watch his general unwillingness to behave like the soft urban manginas of the "male feminist" variety (the ones you think you can "negotiate with" in the future). That is what is coming to you, ladies.

Get ready-it is going to be an interesting ride.

[oldnemesis]

Athlone, I'd rather take a look on Eastern Europe and Russia. I believe there is more relevance there. So we have pretty much no stay-at-home moms, vast majority of married chicks is either studying (a lot of people marry young there) or working. The society is definitely more feminist (I'm speaking true feminism, i.e. equal rights and all that stuff, not the "feminism" it is called here in US), and there is even no-fault divorce with pretty much no alternative at all. And despite all that locals didn't turn into "neutered Scandinavian men", who actually might have always been like that.

[Excelsior]

(04-06-2012 02:17 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Athlone, I'd rather take a look on Eastern Europe and Russia. I believe there is more relevance there. So we have pretty much no stay-at-home moms, vast majority of married chicks is either studying (a lot of people marry young there) or working. The society is definitely more feminist (I'm speaking true feminism, i.e. equal rights and all that stuff, not the "feminism" it is called here in US), and there is even no-fault divorce with pretty much no alternative at all. And despite all that locals didn't turn into "neutered Scandinavian men", who actually might have always been like that.

This is all quite fair.

I focused on the black american example because it was specifically cited by the article, and because of its closer proximity.
How things turn out is anyone's guess, but I'll enjoy the ride regardless.

[Vice]

...

[dragnet]

I read the Liza Mundy article. The book is nothing but fuzzy statistics, conjecture, feminist self-justification and solipsism---exactly the kind of feminist "scholarship" that got us into this mess. The men here need to be more skeptical.

Women will not become the primary breadwinners in this country---what you will see is the further decline of two-parent households instead. I estimate that no more than 15-20 percent of households will have women as the primary breadwinners. Anyone attempting to sell the illusion that hard-wired hypergamous instincts of women will fall the by the wayside is delusional and has not been paying attention the last 50 years.

After all if people were okay with women as primary breadwinners, you'd already see this phenomenon in the urban black community and among working- and lower-class whites. But you don't really. Sure, there are a few two-parent households where the woman works and guy stays home. But the majority of these communities have single-mom/female-headed households with men either transient or nowhere in sight.

The simple truth is that women will raise children in single mom households before they deign to marry down. Women will indeed be there primary breadwinners...because there will be no men at all in their homes. Books like the one Mundy is writing are really desperate attempts to get women (and guys) to buy into the screwed-up paradigm that a toxic combination of political feminism & technology has foisted upon society. It won't work for two reasons:

1) Women aren't attracted to men who are less successful than them and after decades of telling women that they can have anything they want and they should have the best, they aren't going to suddenly settle for "inferior" men en masse.

2) Because stay-at-home dad life isn't---and never will be---a suitable and well-regarded role for male self-acutalization and masculine identity. Especially, when there will always be some number of men who do become economically successful---the comparisons to them will not be kind.

Mundy is deluding herself and her readership. Don't believe the hype.

[Excelsior]

^I agree. Good to see you here, dragnet. I hope you'll contribute more-you've got a lot of good things to say.

[kosko]

Yes Dragnet nailed it. The Black community is essentially a mirror of this with Sweden being a mirror of the role of the state. In America Black women do not get the same prop ups and structure as women do in Sweden but in all honesty the results end up the same. You get a distant population of gone or nurtured men.

Any man whom is cool with this emerging trend might as well go jump into the slaughter barn now. The way things are going the future man will be used for physical labour in his teens and early adult ages and then exterminated. What use will they have from us in the future? Think about that for a second. A modern example which I always bring up is the commercial mass livestock industry where males have zero economic value and are quickly killed off. Sperm is simply frozen and used to artificially impregnate the female animals. In my crazy mind I fear a future like this unless Men push back. For Women they spoils will quickly turn sour as they will be given riches but will have to pay a dear price. Once impregnation is controlled by the state not evrey women will be able to have children. Thus the mosy lucrative and exploitative market system will develop will only elite women can bid to purchase the rights to acquire sperm from the state. Many might think I am nuts but it is not far off. I birth bond would easily fetch 500K at least.
I would rather have a women with keen domestic skills. Productivity produces wealth and surplus. A female whom is overvalued in work and payed in money has less value then a female whom is capable of actually producing true value in rasing children and taking care of the home.

[Excelsior]

(04-07-2012 12:55 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Any man whom is cool with this emerging trend might as well go jump into the slaughter barn now. The way things are going the future man will be used for physical labour in his teens and early adult ages and then exterminated. What use will they have from us in the future? Think about that for a second. A modern example which I always bring up is the commercial mass livestock industry where males have zero economic value and are quickly killed off. Sperm is simply frozen and used to artificially impregnate the female animals. In my crazy mind I fear a future like this unless Men push back. For Women they spoils will quickly turn sour as they will be given riches but will have to pay a dear price. Once impregnation is controlled by the state not evrey women will be able to have children. Thus the mosy lucrative and exploitative market system will develop will only elite women can bid to purchase the rights to acquire sperm from the state. Many might think I am nuts but it is not far off. I birth bond would easily fetch 500K at least.

No, they're quite right actually. You're not even close. Scenarios like these are only viable in science fiction.

The whole "girls running the world" deal (which would be necessary to produce the type of dystopian scenario you're calling for) isn't possible for a host of reasons. In the interest of shortening this post, I'll ignore the numerous biological reasons behind the impracticality of these scenarios (ex: we're not livestock), and stick to some socio-economic ones.

This dystopian vision assumes that the type of economy seen in the modern west today (female dominated, less manual labor/production, many service/sit-down jobs, not much manufacturing, etc) not only persists forever, but is able to cover the entire planet for that span of time as well. These are big assumptions.

The current western model of civilization is not going to be able to prove those assumptions correct. Fertility concerns and economic instability will (assuming they don't bring everything crashing down outright) force serious change. Even today, this model only covers a minority of Earth's populace-don't count on this changing with those who adhere to it (and propagate it the most) failing to reproduce and opposing societies remaining quite hostile, vibrant and resilient. Civilization as we know it (dominated by the west and by western ideology) will not persist for eternity because no civilization can. The Romans, British, Aztecs, Mayans, Zulu, Ottomans, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Assyrians and Mongols (among many, many others) have all learned this lesson. We will too, sooner or later.

The current western socio-economic model/ideology will likely go into decline at some point, and the female dominated "sheconomy" (which exists only because of this model's prominence in the last 40-50 years or so) will go with it, either disappearing or undergoing serious change. This alone will prohibit the coming of your vision along with about a million other factors. Women will never rule the world and successfully force males into a permanently subordinate, inferior role. They're not capable of pulling this off, and the historical, social and economic factors aren't behind them either. It just isn't going to happen.

Others reasons why none of those suggestions will come to reality are outlined quite eloquently in these two articles:

Why Women Should Rule The World, But Wont

Part 2

[Samseau]

Women might rule the world for 40-50 years. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things.

[Arado]

Important to keep in mind within marriage dynamics:

http://wonderwoman.intoday.in/story/man-...85868.html

If a woman is the main breadwinner in the family, she's more likely to cheat - it would seem that relationships where women earn more than men really are doomed - and if she depends on her male partner for money, then she is less likely to cheat.

It seems many women are forgoing marriage as opposed to being stuck with a lower status male that they'll eventually grow resentful of and cheat on.

[Cincinnatus]

(04-07-2012 08:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Women might rule the world for 40-50 years. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Unfortunately those forty or fifty years could comprise a significant portion of every forum member's lifetime.

[Gmac]

Who are you guys kidding? The men who really wield the power in this world will never relinquish it to women. Social change isn't going to do jack fucking shit.

[oldnemesis]

(04-06-2012 03:35 PM)Vice Wrote:  

Lol, are you serious? If people can get away with this:
http://www.care2.com/causes/horrific-ukr...storm.html
Then what makes you think they have to obey the lesser laws you mentioned?

Yep, some people can get away with their crimes everywhere in the world. Same way I can mention the OJ Simpson, or M. Jackson cases.
I'm in Ukraine right now btw.

Quote:

Having pro-female laws means shit if I can bribe the police and the lower courts.

I was speaking about true feminism, not the American version of it. There are no pro-female laws, there are just no gender restrictions.

But what was the point of your post? I didn't get it.

[oldnemesis]

(04-07-2012 12:55 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Any man whom is cool with this emerging trend might as well go jump into the slaughter barn now. The way things are going the future man will be used for physical labour in his teens and early adult ages and then exterminated. What use will they have from us in the future? Think about that for a second. A modern example which I always bring up is the commercial mass livestock industry where males have zero economic value and are quickly killed off. Sperm is simply frozen and used to artificially impregnate the female animals. In my crazy mind I fear a future like this unless Men push back.

Man, I want to try this kind of shit you smoked when you wrote that post!

[blurb]

The main problem with America is that it's a culture not based on nature.

Men are supposed to be masculine.

Women are supposed to be feminine.


To deny this fact is to suppress human sexuality.

Feminists are the real puritans who want to suppress sexuality and create an androgynous society.

[oldnemesis]

Blurb, this has nothing to do with sexuality. It is a cultural association which says being a breadwinner is masculine, and staying at home with kids is feminine. This association exists because it has been there for ages. However it is completely artificial, so if it is dropped it will not even change anything.

What may happen:

1. Change in relative status. Earning more money carries higher relationship value. Therefore more females would have to either "marry down" or stay single simply because there will be not enough guys of the same value available to all of them.

2. Much less sponsorship, sugar daddy or other pay-per-fuck type relationships.

3. It would be harder for older guys to get into a relationship with a much younger chick since money, which is an important factor of value now, would be much less of value. However I doubt it would be much harder as some chicks always would be lazy. As we all know, having a potential and using the full potential are two very different things.

[Kitsune]

(04-07-2012 08:09 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Women might rule the world for 40-50 years. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things.

wtf?

Women aren't ever going to rule anything. They are hardwired not to.

dragnet pulled the plug on this idea more eloquently than I could, but I'll repeat my views like I do in pretty much every thread about this: Women don't produce anything. All their jobs are basically admin positions created by men because once upon a time some idiots thought women should have something to do with the business world.