It was long ago.
Young meaning in her 20s. If only a single child is wanted, waited until early 30s is probably okay. But optimally all children should be born by the time the mother is 35. Which means if even two or three children are desired, late 20s is probably the latest that she should be getting married.
I’d also add, that we’re talking about the latest these things should happen. There is significant variation in age of first marriage. If the average age of first marriage is 30, that probably means there are lots of first marriages at age 35+, since there are likely also quite a few marriages in the under 25 bracket. So if women should be aiming for having most of their children by their early 30s, they should be aiming to get married by 25 or so to allow for the fact that it might take a little longer in some cases to find the right husband.
My general point is that the reason married men are richer likely has more to do with the fact that rich men are more likely to get married than it does with the fact that being married makes a man rich.
Women having children out of wedlock are by definition not married (and the fathers of their children usually aren’t either). The choices made by women who aren’t married (and the reasons that they make those choices) are different than the choices made by women who are married. Unwed mothers perhaps don’t value the provisioning of the father. Wed mothers likely do.
Women do actually. It makes no sense to go to school, get a career and then decide at 30 you’d rather be a housewife and raise children. The security at that point and the ability to succeed a proper married life is nearly non-existent.
The lower divorce rates correlate with shockingly low marriage rates.
Because hypergamy. Women marry up, men marry down. The women who are securing the high value man is securing them early. The HVM, who has many options for mating is not going to ‘take one for the team’ and settle for a modern women when he can have a traditional woman and way few problems in life with said woman.
The problem with you relating to this is you are an anomaly. So it’s going to skew your view of things and you can’t make sense of the data because it doesn’t represent your experience. If something you should be very grateful for, most women will not be so lucky. And certainly you adjusted your expectations reasonably on your next go around, which is what you should do.
Exactly, what does this mean? Men tend to be continually ‘upping their game’ which is why older man are able to attract much younger women. Because they can.
That is pure conjecture. When did women have to do this and what was the reason?
Men get zero benefit from being agreeable. Men have become more agreeable on the whole and that’s why 30% of them are virgins at 29. Part of the problem is what women say and what they do are different. They always say the same shit, they want a ‘nice guy’. The guys that they friend-zone are nice, but she’s banging the hot, bad guy and using her orbiters as emotional crutches for when he screws her over.
I really hope you don’t tell your clients who are young men, because it can ruin their lives. And I mean it will tangibly, fiscally and emotionally trash them.
I have the perfect advice for and young man who wants to fail at dating spectacularly. Do what you just advised. And also read women’s magazines, take advice from female ‘dating coaches’ and watch your love life burn to the ground. Women on average, lie about what they really want. Anecdotally, I have seen this all my life.
The advice women typically give young men is how these women want to be approached by the guys they want but cannot have. They don’t realize that most young men are invisible to young women and being more agreeable is a sure way to turn a woman’s vagina in to a desert.
It would be nice if women would be agreeable and well groomed, instead of putting on fake eyelashes, somebody else’s hair, and massive claws that prove they are completely incapable of hard work. Women do that shit for each other. Men hate this shit. Wel laugh at it.
You selected poorly. Why did you choose him, ever consider that? Well I have some ideas… You were a stay at home mom, so he had money. So let’s ding the hypergamy bell. He was probably kind of an asshole when you first met him, but you thought you could mold him and make him better and you were wrong. You married a guy who had options and he just didn’t settle on you, he ‘exercised’ his options. Bad boy bell, ding! And he also proabably blew your back out in the sack and gave you the best orgasms of your life. And you thought you could change him and you were wrong. I do not doubt for a second this guy was an asshole and I am sorry you had to experience that. But there wasn’t one thing expressed that showed that you even bothered to consider what you did wrong here.
And by this, I don’t mean you were not a good wife or a good mother, or that you drove him in to the arms of other women. I mean, why did you pick a guy who was probably a player, never had the intention of getting serious about life and you knew it beforehand and got the outcome, that in hindsight was predictable.
Everybody makes those kinds of mistakes, sometimes less, sometimes more seriously. And there is nothing you can do about the past. And I am sure you were a fine mate, probably better than average because you knew he had a propensity to sway from the vows. But you picked a top 10% guy with lots of options (women to have sex with) who had no desire to grow up, because his options were increasing because he’s getting richer. And you want to blame the men all the time, what about the women he was nailing? Are they on your ‘team’? No blame for them?
1 Like
Duh, that is the beginning of high risk geriatric pregnancy. If you put it off to 35, it’s better not to even try.
Ding! Ding! Wealthy men pull young traditional women off the dating market quickly, en masse. Those women don’t have to work, therefore they make zero dollars and zero cents. That’s why young men are stuck with the ‘modern’ variant.
Baby mama’s are the worst kind of women to marry. I am talking about children out of wedlock not women who were married and divorced. They don’t have problems getting sex, but they most likely will not get commitment because what does a man get out of that? You get to raise some other loser’s kid, whom you cannot discipline. Everything you do is dancing around the kid(s) who are not yours. You have a permanent reminder that you were never her first choice, screw that.
The best advice to give young men is to run like hell from baby mama’s. Don’t even have sex with them, it’s not worth the hell of the baby-mama. Do not pass ‘Go’ ‘Do not collect $200’, get directly the hell out of there. There is absolutely no advantage for a man here, run like hell and don’t look back.
It does mean that when the anecdotes don’t square with most people’s reality. And I am not interested in her resume if she’s talking about replacing men with women, cause equity.
I don’t have a problem with powerful women doing powerful jobs, providing they earned it. I have a problem with the notion that it would be better to replace powerful men with powerful women just because they are not men. That sounds insane to me.
Eh? Lost me on that one
Could be.
Some men make lots of money and get themselves a trophy wife. Trophy wives are meant to impress other men, imo.
If we’re honest, big muscles are more impressive to other man than women, too. Is that the goal? I don’t think so. But it is what it is.
Which means we should stop talking about women as some homogeneous group in which they all think alike.
Or, they are a middle finger to all the women who rejected them when they were broke.
So the men who don’t marry must be pretty worthless if there is no one low enough to marry down to.
Does anyone believe pat has ever kissed a woman before? These creeps complain about women and how life isn’t fair, but when you hear what they think of women it makes sense they can’t find any.
2 Likes
I think it’s important to acknowledge consensus - even if it is rare. To get back to the original point of the topic, I also agree that every man of influence should not be replaced with a woman. I think the point is that if 1) the population is roughly evenly split between men and women, and 2) the traits we value in people of influence are normally distributed (roughly) across both sexes, then we should see a roughly 50/50 split of men and women in influential positions. The fact that we don’t would imply that we’ve historically mined one half of the population more heavily (for reasons that are largely obvious), and that we could achieve a more optimal outcome by mining more evenly across both.
1 Like
They actually aren’t distributed equally.
As I discussed before, men on average have higher spatial IQ.
Women are higher in agreeableness and empathy. Does anyone here know or think how that can be an enormous problem for seriously consequential positions of influence and policy?
How can there be parity in all fields, including powerful ones, if we are fundamentally different.
This isn’t just a matter of talent, and IQ, and task completion, although I think that’s how many want it to be or think it is.
We also have the track records of both genders in voting patterns, public policy, and political office.
3 Likes
I understand what you’re saying but I think it’s an oversimplification:
- The differences you reference are typically modest relative differences between the sexes and not capability vs. incapability, which is why I qualified it with “roughly”. When we speak of influential people we’re also talking about outliers - not averages - that ascend to these roles, and outliers are going to exhibit extraordinary characteristics so I don’t think that confining them to the mean of their sex offers any real insight.
- It ignores the myriad of other factors that determine a person’s performance in an influential role and basically boils it down to what you were born with between your legs.
- It ignores adaptation; that people are capable of development and behaving in ways that are not necessarily what they’re genetically programmed to do.
- It makes the assertion that the conventionally “woman” traits are not beneficial in such roles.
In short, you may be right about about fundamental differences between men and women (and I’ll probably agree with you on many points) but I don’t think it has applicability to original topic.
4 Likes
This is what it is: men know what qualities they want to see in leaders. Men, in fact, have defined what is good leadership. If women don’t have those qualities then men will say they therefore don’t make good leaders. Now, if we say that women have a right to be in leadership positions then why can’t it be on their terms and in the way they think good leadership should be expressed?
Men made the rules, which in turn required particular qualities, to get ahead and be successful. Should women have to follow those rules which may require qualities they lack, in order to have a seat at the table?
Can we all just agree that
- Men and women are different
- Neither are superior/inferior to each other on an absolute basis. Men are better at some things and women are better at others. Both genders have value
- having a vast majority of leadership be of one gender (male or female) is less optimal than having a balance
Just to get this off my chest:
@pat A surprising amount of what you say makes sense; however, I personally will not live up to what you seem to believe is a woman’s place.
I will not get married or have kids because society tells me to or because it’s socially optimal nor will I date anyone who does not meet my criteria. If that makes me a selfish crazy feminist, so be it.
Most of my friends are male, and I do feel inferior to them, but it’s not because I’m female. Its because they work harder than me, do better in classes than me
2 Likes
I agree with two out of the three.
Marriage and child raising isn’t for everyone. What society do you live in that is telling you to do so. If it’s the US I don’t see this society pressuring you considering the current zeitgeist is anti-natalist!
2 Likes
It IS insane. But I don’t know anyone here who’s really advocating for this. I’m not sure why you interpret simple things in such an extreme way.
It’s like you’re reading my mind in this thread lol.
2 Likes