Thursday, December 6, 2012

Do you support women working?

Then, it logically follows that you also support more domestic violence.  It is Science:
Intimate partner violence is two times more likely to occur in two income households, compared to those where only one partner works, according to a new study.... The study found that more than 60 percent of women in two-income couples reported victimization, while only 30 percent of women reported victimization in cases when only the male partner was employed.
Why do you hate women?  Why?  Naturally, the researchers sail off into airy theories of female empowerment through work and concomitant male insecurity, but the fact of the matter is that if society wants to reduce domestic violence, female employment should be discouraged.

At this point, one has to seriously wonder about the sanity of anyone who actively supports encouraging women to pursue careers rather than family life.  In addition to being less likely to marry, breed, or be happy, a career will also cause a woman to die earlier, get divorced, get cheated on, have fatter, fewer, and less healthy children, and make her twice as likely to experience domestic violence.

I have the impression these statistics about the downside of female employment are seldom cited by high school guidance counselors.

153 comments:

Just A Girl said...

Or does a nonworking woman have more to lose because she couldn't support herself alone, and hence is less willing to report/admit she is being abused?

taterearl said...

"Or does a nonworking woman have more to lose because she couldn't support herself alone, and hence is less willing to report/admit she is being abused?"

Not in the age of no-fault divorce, government assistance, and getting half of the man's wealth. Plus she has many different avenues for support out there...especially if it is for domestic violence.

stg58 said...

My wife works her hot butt off raising my two wrecking machines. She just doesn't work outside the home.

SarahsDaughter said...

"Or does a nonworking woman have more to lose because she couldn't support herself alone, and hence is less willing to report/admit she is being abused?" - Just a Girl

How predictable was that comment?

DaveD said...

Stg hit it on the head. Every woman I know who has 2+ kids works like a machine. That was on of the most insulting moments in this last election cycle: when the "kill your baby, have a career, pay someone else to raise your kids so you can be fulfilled" harpies had the audacity to say a woman who was a SHM for 5 boys had never done "real work". Because making PowerPoints is "real work".

DD

Elena said...

Thing I'm immediately skeptical about - article about the study says 67% of 303 women said they were abused/threatened, with 60% of the two-income homes vs. 30% of the non-working women. Don't those numbers seem high to you? Perhaps I'm not in the right cultural milieu, but even among housewives, 3 out of 10 seems...excessive.

Maybe I'm just very sheltered.

SarahsDaughter said...

Elena,
Notice the article cites "psychological victimization" ie. she got her feelings hurt.

Retrenched said...

"How predictable was that comment?"

As surely as night follows day.

Elena said...

@SarahsDaughter,

Yeah, I wasn't sure. It's like those spanking studies that purport to show bad outcomes for kids who are spanked, and then when you read past the first paragraph it turns out spanking means anything from "a few slaps on a clothed bottom" to "beating my kid black and blue with a coat hanger".

Anyway, I'd want to see the numbers on a) self-reported abuse vs actual reported and verifed domestic abuse/battery to the police in this sample; b) woman-on-partner violence; and c) marriage vs. co-habitation, which they didn't mention at all, which is more than a little suspicious.

In other news - social science is Hard, guys!

Faust said...

It would be really cool if each of those things you wrote ("children are fatter", "the women are less happy") went to a link to the corresponding study.

Ashley said...



"but the fact of the matter is that if society wants to reduce domestic violence, female employment should be discouraged."

How predictable was that statement?

Anyway...

No. Violence should be discouraged. Not working women.

Besides, one income per family just doesn't cut it anymore.

Yohami said...

the study is bullshit, of course

Trust said...

Just A Girl, even if that were true in some cases, it surely couldn't account for a doubling of the likelihood.

It is very possible that women who stay home are Christian women who are less likely to define abuse as raising ones voice, or walking away while a feminist wife breaks glass screaching.

I also bet by the feminist definition of abuse, men married to feminists are twice as likely to be abused than feminist wives.

Yohami said...

"by the feminist definition of abuse, men married to feminists are twice as likely to be abused"

yes. except in feminism a woman cant ever be an abuser. even if she's the wrongdoer, she's still the true victim. give her a candy.

Anonymous said...

It is time for a real heafty dose of reality. Women can't have it All! Women should have to chose between a career or family.

By The Sword said...

Let them work. Let them fight in wars. Let them haul garbage, inhale coal dust, wrench their spines by lifting sick and injured people... Let them fret over how to pay for their own debts.

Let them rear their bastard children with their own money and let them work themselves into an early grave.

Welcome to a man's world.

Loki of Asgard said...

Violence should be discouraged.

Whatever for? Simply teach the women to do tae bo and they can fend off a dozen men larger than themselves with ease, much less one half-drunken husband.

Besides, one income per family just doesn't cut it anymore.

Absolutely. It is very expensive to support a lifestyle of convenience foods, the most costly daycares, involvement in five or six sports teams, and Mummy's office wardrobe. One simply cannot get on without the second income.

After all, if she does not have these things, then how can she spend half of her working hours complaining about her husband to her fellow office women and being informed by them that his answering back during the row she started last night was tantamount to abuse?

taterearl said...

"Absolutely. It is very expensive to support a lifestyle of convenience foods, the most costly daycares, involvement in five or six sports teams, and Mummy's office wardrobe. One simply cannot get on without the second income."

Let's not forget the housing and vehicles you can't afford, the big screen tv, the numerous gadgets you can't live without, the nice furniture, and all the knick nacks you can think of.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

No, I don't. And I don't believe they should have the vote, either.

For women there should be no "choice" between family and career. It's family--full stop, end of story.

Feh said...

I think we can safely put this in the "all social 'science' studies are politically-driven bullshit, not science" category.

Ashley said...

By The Sword, thank you. Finally, someone who gets it. ;)

Loki, all that writing but without saying a word. Well done.

Ashley Pariseau said...

"No, I don't. And I don't believe they should have the vote, either.

For women there should be no "choice" between family and career. It's family--full stop, end of story."

Hahaha dream on, son.

stg58 said...

Ashley,

Why should we encourage working women? They drive down wages for men who have families to support, simply by increasing the supply of workers thereby decreasing the value of each worker.

One income can cut it. It does in my house.

Loki of Asgard said...

By The Sword, thank you. Finally, someone who gets it. ;)

Loki, all that writing but without saying a word. Well done.


Truly, I marvel at the intellect of your mortal wenches. Their reading comprehension alone is the wonder of the Nine Realms.

taterearl said...

No to be in a man's world they also have to take responsibility. Which means no complaining about the tasks becoming too hard and asking for help from men...better keep your emotions in check.

And how about you ask me out, plan, and pay for a date...how about I reject your feeble attempts for once? I get tired of doing that all the time.

If women knew the actual task of what it takes to be a guy in this world they'd go back to running into dresses and submitting in seconds.

Ashley Pariseau said...

Truly, I marvel at the intellect of your mortal wenches. Their reading comprehension alone is the wonder of the Nine Realms.

Your ability to pick of sarcasm is even moreso.

Loki of Asgard said...

Your ability to pick of sarcasm is even moreso.

No need to go on demonstrating your superior linguistic skills, my dear. I am thoroughly, thoroughly convinced that I am dealing with an equal.

Ashley Pariseau said...

"Why should we encourage working women? They drive down wages for men who have families to support, simply by increasing the supply of workers thereby decreasing the value of each worker."

More people=more people competing for jobs. If you want to encourage family life, be ready for less job opportunities to support that family.



"One income can cut it. It does in my house."

Your house is not everyone's house.

My boy friend is physically injured for a while, if not for life. he does work some, but is limited. I work more than he does. I have to, otherwise we get kicked out of our apartment. I suppose I should just give in and pop out some kids and suck off the man's teet like most people in my community, eh?

SarahsDaughter said...

Ashley, it is normal for you to hate women, after all it's a dog eat...er, a cat fight kind of world. But to encourage them to be in situations where they're two times more likely to be abused. Well, that's just evil.

Martel said...

There's no point in arguing with Ashley. As soon as she can no longer convince herself she's winning the argument, she simply vanishes. Case in point, these comments:

http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/friends-like-these/#comments

stg58 said...

Ashley,

Yes of course. More people working equals more people competing for jobs equals lower wages for everyone. Are you related to Paul Krugman?

As far as one income not cutting it, you made a blanket statement based on your particular situation. Not everyone has an injured boyfriend.

Loki of Asgard said...

There's no point in arguing with Ashley.

Have you never heard of "entertainment"?

Martel said...

Point taken, Loki. And some of the best comments come when everybody gangs up on her after she leaves.

stg58 said...

Ashley,

Yes of course. More people working equals more people competing for jobs equals lower wages for everyone. Are you related to Paul Krugman?

As far as one income not cutting it, you made a blanket statement based on your particular situation. Not everyone has an injured boyfriend.

Martel said...

What so many feminists don't realize is that at first, women working became an "empowering" (and ultimately voluntary) experience. But as more and more women worked, it became necessary for families to earn two incomes to keep up with other two income families.

Ask the waitress working herself to the bone how empowered she feels?

Feminists might be careful about what they wish for. "Independence" isn't so bad when you're dependent on government handouts in an advanced industrial society. It's not so pretty if the government coffers run dry and the electricity stops.

Anonymous said...

I said, "Women should have to chose between a career or family."

I wonder if on a grassroots level the debate could or should change. Ashley is right and it does not help to over generalize. Just as all men are not suited or desire to be the head of a family, not all women are suited to rearing children (my own mother for example.)
A better arguement would be for Women to make a choice and own that decision. Either marry and submit to your husband or be independent and have your career but do it just like a man would without assistance or special treatment.
Men could really move this along by outright telling the women they date what they want. Yes, they will lie but it's a start, or am I hopelessly delusional?

stg58 said...

Delusional. Women are irrational creatures.

Martel said...

Anon: There are exceptions to every rule, but there are still rules.

The problem isn't so much that the rare female who obsesses over physics gets a job as a physicist. The problem is that we're teaching almost ALL of our little girls that work will be an essential part of her leading a fulfilling adult life, when that's clearly not the case.

I have no problem with the Dagny Taggarts of the world being executives or the occasional softy guy becoming a stay-at-home dad.

But these are outliers, and a society structured to make all of us into outliers will throw itself horribly out of balance.

Signe said...

The problem isn't so much that the rare female who obsesses over physics gets a job as a physicist. The problem is that we're teaching almost ALL of our little girls that work will be an essential part of her leading a fulfilling adult life, when that's clearly not the case.

The vast majority of women attempt to compete with the top 10% of males and expect to succeed. In fact, we are encouraged to do so. Feminism sets us up for failure.

...Sorry for posting, Your Lordship, but I thought I could reach you here since you're watching this site. The gila monsters just came back undeliverable, so you're still on for conquering Santa Fe as planned. Or do you want them sent to Tokyo after all?

Leap of a Beta said...

Anon,
Before the feminist movement, it was understood that some women HAD NO CHOICE but to work to support themselves. Or they were outliers and chose to be a spinster. Or they were unlucky/made bad choices and did so unwillingly.

These were possible positions to have, but shamed positions as well. They were met with pity, shame, derision. It kept the majority from making their mistakes unless they were those few outliers that actually welcomed the idea.

What we didn't do then though, was cater the workforce to women's needs. We didn't lower productivity by eschewing standards and results in favor of feelings. We didn't pull wages from working men in order to create a new department that came to be dubbed 'Human Resources.' We didn't then allow this new department create more hoops to jump through in the name of 'fairness' or 'political correctness' to lower productivity.

Sadly, all those things have happened since the feminist movement began. Which is why I'm glad I'm an independent contractor and my own boss besides my clients. Lower pay, no 'company benefits,' but lower stress.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but just think how boring life would be if we were as rational as men. ;)
I thought delusional too but was hoping... So I guess it's back to studying for exams. Because that respectable and capable guy who wants to marry me is MIA and I will need a career to be able put a roof over my head, food in my mouth and pencil skirts on my hips.

Anonymous said...

Gosh, this comment thread moves fast!
I'm in full agreement with you Martel, Signe and Leap of Beta. I just wish the message that the choice to be a full time wife an mother was as important as being a career woman is.

Loki of Asgard said...

Santa Fe. Now stop socialising and get back to work, or I'll dock your pay.

But these are outliers, and a society structured to make all of us into outliers will throw itself horribly out of balance.

And it has the added bonus of diminishing the influence and effectiveness of the true outliers, whose superior works and words have ever directed the course of society. The flock is scattered, the bellwether knows not which outlier to follow, and all are made prey for the wolves.

It is perfectly brilliant, as a strategy for overthrowing the sheep, is it not?

stg58 said...

I hope those exams Anonymous is studying for involve a STEM degree. Otherwise, the only thing going on your hips will be shapeless khaki pants at the nearest Starbucks.

Pants and the hands of the latest Alpha whose carousel you are stuck on.

stg58 said...

I hope those exams Anonymous is studying for involve a STEM degree. Otherwise, the only thing going on your hips will be shapeless khaki pants at the nearest Starbucks.

Pants and the hands of the latest Alpha whose carousel you are stuck on.

Anonymous said...

Sorry stg58, no STEM classes for me can't do the math. I am majoring Chinese and Russian, I already have two job offers once I graduate. See ya!

stg58 said...

You are majoring in Chinese? Who speaks Chinese? I didn't kmow that was an actual language.

Loki of Asgard said...

I am majoring Chinese and Russian, I already have two job offers once I graduate.

Translating menus for Oriental takeaways in Siberia counts, I suppose.

alphamission said...

What does Susan Walsh have to say about this?

Anonymous said...

Excuse me Mandarin. About 1,344,130,000 people in China. Whether we like it or not the world is becoming smaller and Interpreters are needed.

Martel said...

"Excuse me Mandarin. About 1,344,130,000 people in China. Whether we like it or not the world is becoming smaller and Interpreters are needed" at Chinese takeout joints in Vladivostok.

stg58 said...

I will accept your degree choices as legitimate. We do need interpreters. Savor the flavor, kid. It won't happen again.

papabear said...

"If you wanna be a man, gonna treat you like a man."

Anonymous said...

Ok Gentlemen,
I was just answering questions and as I said before I would perfer to marry but I understand there is a No Marriage moratorium going on with young men so I have made a back up plan. Sorry if that offends you it was not my intention, but I see where this is going. I'm not a man so I do take things personally and I feel it's getting close to viscerate the nearest female time so I will say goodbye.

BTW Harbin is where I will be waiting those tables. Everyone knows it's the perfect place to use both languages. ;)

Loki of Asgard said...

I'm not a man so I do take things personally and I feel it's getting close to viscerate the nearest female time so I will say goodbye.

If I wished to "eviscerate the nearest female", I would call my secretary. You are merely the most convenient object for my sport at the moment.

What did you expect from the God of Mischief, I ask?

Trust said...

Anonymous, if you wish to marry, two things. First you have to be good marriage material, just as you would expect a man to be. Certain internal organs do not make you.special any more than a man's external organs do.

Second, of men hesitate, thank feminism and politicians that you probably have and would vote for. Marriage is risky for men. Would you want to marry if the entire success or failure of the.marriage was based on the other person's whims? Where no matter who is at fault, he gets everything. He.cheats he gets everything. He knocks up the babysitter, surprise you get to pay half your income to him and his new honey bc of presumptive maternity. Ridiculous? No kidding.

Loki of Asgard said...

Where no matter who is at fault, he gets everything. He cheats he gets everything.

What a pitiable world in which you live, where a man is turned out onto the street, naked and penniless, simply because his wife decided she did not like his hair colour today.

Jimmy said...

Women should work, but it should be the exception. However, the exception is the norm these days. I lived with my mother who divorced my father after he deserted the family. This happened in the 1960s before the feminist uprising. I would love things to change. For my peers, they are largely married. At least 50% have stay at home wives after the children are born. Some wives went back to work after the children are old enough for grade school.

You'll find a mixed situation. Not one or the other for married couples.

Daniel said...

I have the impression these statistics about the downside of female employment are seldom cited by high school guidance counselors.

My high school guidance counselor was an unhappy battered divorced single career woman who died drunk in a car wreck.

I am not joking.

Trust said...

@ Loki of Asgard said... What a pitiable world in which you live, where a man is turned out onto the street, naked and penniless, simply because his wife decided she did not like his hair colour today.

_____

Everything is not meant to beliteral. You know that. You just.don't have a justification for what you think is fine.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Anon
"I was just answering questions and as I said before I would perfer to marry but I understand there is a No Marriage moratorium going on with young men so I have made a back up plan. Sorry if that offends you"

Back up plans are fine. The problem is that your so called 'back up plan' is the rationalization everyone has for what is really their main plan. It is shown as such because they devote far more time and energy to the so called 'back up' than to their 'main plan.'

For example - while you're going to school, spending years of time and going into vast amounts of debt for your 'back up'.... How much time and energy are you spending searching for men, staying in shape, learning how to cook nutritional meals, cultivating a feminine energy and personality, and keeping withing acceptable levels of promiscuity for whatever value of husband you hope to find?

I'd wager that if you compare the time, energy, and money spent between the two plans, it will quickly become apparent which is your 'back up' due to your actual actions, rather than any rationalizations you make otherwise.

Leap of a Beta said...

@ Anon
And, due to the very loud claims that such paths are indeed 'back ups' when that is shown to be proven false to the male perspective.... We become doubtful of those that loudly claim they're really searching for a husband, but schooling and careers are 'just in case they fail.'

Human history has shown that a woman that truly wants to find a provider, and is willing to go through the efforts to prove it, will find a provider. How do you think they found husbands before the modern era?

Trust said...

Leap of a Beta,

Great point. I think the main plan is about keeping up an imagine, and the backup plan is about making sure it goes now.they want. Which is why the backup plan is what gets the effort and what wins in the end... the.abandoned main plan, which got minimal effort, lets them say I tried but someone else failed.

Loki of Asgard said...

You just.don't have a justification for what you think is fine.

Of course I think it perfectly fine. In fact, I should like to encourage any woman, married or not, to be empowered to take anything she likes from any man, anywhere, at any time.

You've caught me out. Good show. Next, you'll be foiling my plan to deny all married men the right to access to their own newborn children until they satisfy the demands of a feminist-dominated family court.

Signe said...

We become doubtful of those that loudly claim they're really searching for a husband, but schooling and careers are 'just in case they fail.'

Well, my dad told me that "he'll turn up when you least expect him", that "if he really loves you, he'll accept you no matter how you look", and "you shouldn't just wait around for Prince Charming."

My own father told me this; was I supposed to believe someone else? Do you want to blame me for believing him, when I thought he loved me enough to tell me the truth?

Now I have a doctorate in a useless field, never had a boyfriend, and I'm working as a secretary for half of what Dad told me I'd be able to pull in.

Greg said...

re: just a girl

Your explanation makes no sense. The abuse rates were determined by telephone interviews with researchers. Cops or legal authorities were not contacted.

Why would a non-working woman be less likely to admit abuse when there is no downside? Even if the guy was within earshot, all he would hear was "yes" or "no" from his wife.

Leap of a Beta said...

Signe
I'm sorry, that really sucks that your father led you astray with his misguided views of what feminism was doing to the reality of our society.

As for where the blame falls... Right now you're trying to take away your own responsibility for your actions. While he's responsible for telling you, you're also responsible for following those and not acknowledging any of the realities or consequences of your actions the whole time. Did you never get lonely enough to question if not having a boyfriend all the way through your doctorate was 'normal?' If you did question it, why didn't you act on it? Why did you let something that you valued as so important to you be left to mere chance?

You had a shitty start with a loving, likely wonderful father giving you the worst relationship advice ever. But probably the only chance you have of finding someone now is to stop blaming him, stop blaming society, and own those choices of yours. Be honest about them to yourself and you'll likely be able to better evaluate possible romantic interests while cultivating attractive features they'd enjoy. Be honest to them about it and they'll be more likely to treat you with kindness and understanding.

Harsh truths. But they're more likely to help than continually blaming Dad or society. Again, your actions, not your words, will show the males you meet your true values and qualities.

Greg said...

@Feh

"I think we can safely put this in the "all social 'science' studies are politically-driven bullshit, not science" category."

Why? I admit the stories around the facts are politically driven, but the finding that two-income households have more domestic violence is interesting. And I don't particularly doubt it.

Loki of Asgard said...

Why would a non-working woman be less likely to admit abuse when there is no downside?

Because she does not have a gaggle of co-workers encouraging her to join in their game of "Who's the Biggest Victim", wherein any male-pattern behavior is re-construed as wrongful, an imposition, and abusive. How is she to know the magnitude of her victimisation?

Martel said...

Anybody else notice how quickly Ashley scrammed after it was pointed out that she disappears as soon as she can't convince herself she's winning the argument?

Ashley said...

Martel, it's more fun to sit back and watch. That post was so much fun.

Signe said...

Did you never get lonely enough to question if not having a boyfriend all the way through your doctorate was 'normal?' If you did question it, why didn't you act on it?

All the time, Leap, but my field was liberal-arts, so I was always surrounded by lefty guys. I came to the conclusion that it was because I wasn't prepared to put out like a three-dollar whore, so I just kind of didn't bother trying.

Why did you let something that you valued as so important to you be left to mere chance?

Because I thought that was how it worked. Young people are stupid. This manosphere is new to me.

Harsh truths. But they're more likely to help than continually blaming Dad or society. Again, your actions, not your words, will show the males you meet your true values and qualities.

I'd rather have harsh truths than pretty lies. Guess I'll take another, more dedicated shot at it, but I'm not holding my breath.

And if in the end I'm just not good enough for love, at least I have a boss who's decent to me, even if he blows up my desk sometimes and calls me a wench.

Signe said...

Oh, gosh-a-gorry, bad formatting above. Sorry, everyone.

Leap of a Beta said...

Signe
Ok. Understand a bit where you're coming from. I was told the usual blather told the males of be yourself and all that. Went through liberal arts like yourself, got a degree in Theatre. I just have a drive and skill set to be a designer, unlike most of my peers I graduated and constantly get work in my field now, with plans to be a professor later. I've dealt with many of those lefty people, men and women, so I know how it is - from the male point of view at least.

I'd guess that all isn't lost for you. Learn your short comings and work on them. I'm having to do the same thing for many of the attractive male features. Once you identify them and start working on them, it simply becomes a fact and way of life to improve yourself and work towards your goals in ways you had wrongly thrown out, but grow to love.

JCclimber said...

I'll lay this down to the following causes:
1) Working women are more tired from creating strife and discord in the daily grind of vicious office politics. This makes grumpier wives at home.
2) Working women rarely work at a productive job and therefore subconsciously realize they aren't adding any value to the world. This builds rage at the world.
3) Working women know they suck at parenting and due to solipsism will lash out at anyone and everything that questions their love of their husband and children, because the truth hurts and so any criticism will be amplified 3-fold.
4) Working women already have demonstrated that their own career and empowerment is a higher priority than the well-being of their husband and children.
5) A long-simmering rage at the system because at some level they realize they have been sold on a fraud and all their angst at giving up the benefits of being a full time wife and mother in exchange for fools gold must have a target.
6) Building contempt for their husbands for not "manning up" and making them stay home and fulfill their natural role which they would find much more satisfying.

All these and more make a ticking time bomb at home, an empowered harpy with rage against their husband and children. The solipsism ensures they will never let themselves take responsibility for their actions and decisions, so the arguments are more heated, the anger at a higher boil, and this results in a great uptick in the violence.

Combined with the contempt for their husbands for not earning enough money so they can stay at home, and for consistently failing to pass their shit-tests, and BOOM!

Ashley said...

The point is, you do not get to decide whether or not women will work. They do. You do not get to decide whether or not they are happier when they work, they do. Apparently, women having choices over their own lives and doing what they want is just too much for them to handle. It's pathetic.

I'm almost starting to wonder if this is reason for domestic violence, because men are just too damn butt hurt that their wives aren't sitting at home all day under their "rule."



VD said...

Because I thought that was how it worked. Young people are stupid.

True words. Thus speaks the voice of bitter experience.

Well, my dad told me that "he'll turn up when you least expect him", that "if he really loves you, he'll accept you no matter how you look", and "you shouldn't just wait around for Prince Charming."

Don't blame your father. He was socially programmed. Very, very few people are capable of breaking such social program. They either have to be highly narcissistic or unusually intransigent. He didn't know any better; he too believed what he was told.


I think we can safely put this in the "all social 'science' studies are politically-driven bullshit, not science" category.

If it was science, it would be called "science", not "social science". As Hayek once pointed out concerning "social justice", the adjective modifies the noun.

No. Violence should be discouraged. Not working women.

You're missing the point. Anyhow, one-third of women have always worked. What we're discussing is the one-third of women who were historically wives and mothers. What we've seen is what was once the middle class transform itself into the working class in literally every way.

Notice that only the upper middle class still lives in the manner the middle class once did. Husband works, wife stays home, more kids than the average, etc.

Martel said...

Working women also have more time to flirt with the sales manager and sneak away into the broom closet for a quickie.

VD said...

I'm almost starting to wonder if this is reason for domestic violence, because men are just too damn butt hurt that their wives aren't sitting at home all day under their "rule."

Very unlikely or the rates would be much higher. More likely is that women who work develop male confrontational habits that lead them to be treated more like men by the men in their lives.

A woman who escalates rather than submits is much more likely to get punched in the face. And, in many cases, she'll deserve it just as much as a man would.

I have zero sympathy. You want equality, you got it. Congratulations.

Ashley Pariseau said...

"Working women also have more time to flirt with the sales manager and sneak away into the broom closet for a quickie"

Ah yes. Husbands don't like the idea of not knowing exactly what their wives are doing and who they are talking to. Of they they want them home, under surveillance of course. It makes perfect sense.

Loki of Asgard said...

Husbands don't like the idea of not knowing exactly what their wives are doing and who they are talking to. Of they they want them home, under surveillance of course. It makes perfect sense.

No, naturally not. They would prefer to have their women boast publicly of the assiduous courtship directed at them by "beta orbiters". Why should anyone worry about that?

Martel said...

"Ah yes. Husbands don't like the idea of not knowing exactly what their wives are doing and who they are talking to. Of they they want them home, under surveillance of course. It makes perfect sense."


How dare a man ever suspect a woman of his might cheat! Besides, if she actually does cheat, it's his fault for not properly meeting all of her needs (and if he cheats, it's his fault for being a typical male dog).

Also, wasn't there a study recently indicating that the more a man helps around the house the more likely a divorce? I think Vox referred to it.

Ashley Pariseau said...

"I have zero sympathy. You want equality, you got it. Congratulations."

I don't disagree. I don't really condone violence, but if a woman attacks a man, I don't see why he shouldn't defend himself within reason. That is my view on men vs men as well.

David V.S. said...

This study seems like a mountain over a molehill.

How about...

(a) Married couples who communicate more and better are happier.

(b) Married couples in which both spouses work have less time to communicate, and are more likely to let their quality of communication deteriorate. (The couple sees less of each other, both spouse have work issues on the brain. etc.)

(c) In the worst cases bad communication leads to abuse.

Ashley Pariseau said...

Martel, don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I believe. Just stop.

So this is how the manospehere justifies their judgments on women, by linking to their cherry picked studies about how everything a woman does leads to divorce. Weak.

Loki of Asgard said...

The point is, you do not get to decide whether or not women will work. They do.

And their employers do not?

You do not get to decide whether or not they are happier when they work, they do.

Ah, splendid. The next time I hear a woman whinging about her difficulties at work, I shall tell her that she has no one to blame but herself for her misery.

Apparently, women...doing what they want is just too much for them to handle.

Yes, I concur. Women cannot handle doing what they want.

Martel said...

Ashley, if putting words in somebody's mouth is so awful, then why did you suggest I want to keep my (non-existent) wife "under surveillance of course"? When did I use those words? Did I even hint that it would be a good idea to have cameras hidden around the home? I was piggybacking on a previous post on reasons that there may be more tension in a household with a working wife.

Yes, we "cherry picked" this study, but feminists "cherry pick" only studies that "prove" the opposite. (This is part of why I rarely use studies when making an argument.)

However, we do observe that tons of marraiges are breaking down, and we also observe that women are playing a larger role in the workforce than ever before. It's not stupid to suspect that the two trends might be interrelated and to explore why that may be so.

Loki of Asgard said...

So this is how the manospehere justifies their judgments on women, by linking to their cherry picked studies about how everything a woman does leads to divorce.

Yes, shame on them for trying to base their position on science and fact. They ought to try to be more like women, who base their position on how they feel this week.

Pepper said...

VD made an important point when he wrote, "...encouraging women to pursue careers rather than family life". If only women would choose! I think the problem for the most part lies in the false conditioning of "have both 'career' and family". Perhaps if women were forced to choose they would stay home, rather they are conditioned to "do both". Contrary to what I believe many people believe, managing a marriage and household (correctly) is in itself a full time job. And, it's important. Our society is so quick to devalue clean homes, home cooked meals, extended family care and child care. The evidence for this lies in our willingness to outsource all of these jobs to the state or any available migrant worker. Women have been conditioned to believe that their existence means so little that they willingly allow themselves to be replaced by any illiterate, nazi or academic. Thank you Vox Day for being an untiring advocate for and defender of women. And thank you to the gentlemen who regularly post on your blogs. Any woman who questions her God given value ought to flee the liberal establishment and take refuge with conservatives. It is only these men who love and appreciate you, ladies. Mark my words. I will take them to my grave.

Martel said...

Good point, Pepper on how they're encouraged to pursue both career and family. Also, maybe women would make more responsible decisions if the government wasn't there every step of the way to hold their precious little hands. Want to boink the football team and not get pregnant? We'll pay for your birth control. Forget to take the pill and pregnant? We'll pay for your abortion if you want, but if not we'll pay for your kids' food. We'll pay for your childcare, too.

The government has replaced the provider male, so males inclined to be providers drop out. And the providers who do manage a wife have to suffer if she screws up but have no authority to keep her from screwing up.

All of the responsibility with none of the authority? No thanks.

Leap of a Beta said...

Ashley and Ashley

Women have always, ALWAYS been allowed to work. If they wanted or needed to work, they could do it if they were fit for the job. Get it out of your head that it was ever anything other than that except in very minor, select cases through out human history.

Like I said in my other comment, all that stopped them was a very real public shaming because it was (correctly) viewed that creating a family is the best thing a man and a woman can do, and that the woman is best built for creating a warming home and a man is best built for providing the provisions and protection for her to make that happen.

What Feminism did was that it made it so that women did not need to meet the same expectations that men did. It lowered the bar for women, put obstacles in men's way, and then expected men to produce as much or more in terms of furthering society.

The other element Feminism did, and is still working on, is removing anything remotely related to shaming language in regards to women working outside of gender norms. Meanwhile it doubled down on shaming language towards men that are feminine and added a few towards men that are masculine, just to thoroughly confuse us as much as possible to keep us in line as a willing mule to their plow. If you want a more in depth view of shaming language, I actually just did a post on it: http://stagedreality.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/bitch-tits/

Then feminism lied about everything and covered its tracks in the politically correct shit storm it whipped up to serve its needs and continues to feed today. Sadly, there is both a mountain of men and a growing number of women like Signe and her father are the innocent sacrifices required to keep the whole damn thing running.

Stop acting like Feminism saved the day by allowing women to put food on the table. Humanity put food on the table for thousands of years before it came around. They'll continue to do so long after Feminism leaves.

JCclimber said...

Still laughing at the assertion that working women are happier than stay at home mothers.....

Thanks, humor is always appreciated. Obviously you haven't had the opportunity to work with too many women for very long. Or women over the age of 25, with more than 4 years of experience in the working world.

Ashley Pariseau said...

Stop acting like because you guys have taken the time to do research to support your prehistoric views on gender roles that you have ALL the answers. I can dig up research to make a convincing claim that women are happier working than non working women and most of the other links you guys pass around the sphere. There are a lot of bs studies and surveys out there.

Ashley Pariseau said...

Having that said, it is good to do research and I don't think there's anything wrong with speculating possible causes for whatever issue you're looking at but it's one thing to do that and another to twist and contort the messages within the research, pick one conclusion and pretend that it's truth. Note, I'm not saying that feminism doesn't do it too.

AmorFati said...

So I have to say, I feel like all these game blogs veer towards misogyny and extremist views eventually when it comes to relationships. The question becomes, what is the end goal? If it is to bang a ton of random girls, then there is probably not even a point of having dialogue, because it's out of the pursue of long-term female interests unless we're headed back to polygamy. It seems rather unreasonable to me that we should actively discourage female employment. I work with plenty of women that I can't imagine would be as happy sitting at home raising kids full-time. In any case, people have a choice. Women choose to work, because they see it as more fulfilling than settling down at 23 to pop out kids. If the libertarian bent that I pick up on in most of these blogs holds water, then this is a choice we have to deal with. What I'm sure distresses the majority on the male side is that this reduces the number of peak marriageable women due to their self-selection out. Certainly, I would love to be able to choose from a pool of available and interested 23 year olds at 35., and maybe I will be able to, but certainly not as many as I would be were women discouraged to work. Fine, but if we accept freedom of choice in these matters, then it is up to women to say that they see the risk in waiting too long to try and settle down (which very well may happen given current demographics).
I tend to agree with much of what the game community says, certainly in terms of what women actually find attractive and what the problems are with the feminization of men, but I'm pretty sure I'd rather be a part of a two-income household despite earning a decent living, even if she were working less hours than I. Dealing with children 100% of the time sounds extremely boring. I'd resent it if I knew it was not the only option, and I've seen plenty of children turn out fantastic in two-income families.

Martel said...

Ashley (again): I reiterate, and you seem to agree, that everybody uses studies that support their general worldview and ignores those that don't. Rarely are we able to investigate any given study's methodology, so we can't tell for sure, based on an article or whatnot, if a study is valid. Fair enough.

Nevertheless, in addition to studies, we have eyeballs, brains, and other ways of taking in information. We've typically put a lot of thought into this stuff.

Most women who troll around these sites fail to realize that many of the men (and women) you're arguing with here used to agree with you.

The study we're talking about supports our conclusions, but it's not central to our worldview. Truth is truth whether or not there's been a study to support it. It's a fact that there's a lot of failed marraiges out there. It's a fact that we have far more women working than we have in the past. Nobody I know of disagrees with that.

What others have a hard time recognizing is that most of the folks here have noticed a pattern in the female mind, that pattern being that what they say they like and what actually seems to make them happy don't necessarily coincide. "Please hold my purse" often means "find a cute way to not hold my purse." "I don't want to talk about it" means "I want you to try to pry it out of me." "I like sensitive guys" means "I like bastards who every once in a while trick me into thinking they have a soft side." The list goes on forever.

So, when we hear women proclaim how much they want a "fulfilling career", we take it with a grain of salt. We know that some housewives felt stifled in the 1950's, but we also know that the hard-core consultant who wants nothing more than a promotion eventually has a baby and then gets mad about not getting the promotion because she's always off lactating somewhere after the baby's born. And then we're supposed to pretend she contributed as much to the project as the men who are always in the office.

We see a lot of unhappy women leaving their husbands, and a lot of these women have jobs they love that turn them into bitches.

I see 23 year-old females having the time of their lives and 33 year-old who are nothing but bitter, even though the 33 year-old got everything she "wanted".

Study or no study, it makes sense to consider that nearly every woman working messes with marraige, messes with men, and messes with women.

AmorFati: I recognize a woman's right to make the wrong choice, and I see 'em do it every day.

Emoore said...

I think the whole "fulfilling career" thing is bullshit, for women as well as men. "Work is work, that's why they call it work. If it wasn't work they'd call it Happy Skippy Funtime." -- Red Foreman.

AmorFati said...

So, essentially, I think the argument becomes women choosing career first becomes the female-equivalent blue pill path. Seemingly the right move but leading to an unfulfilled end result in the same way that men following social convention believe they are making all the right moves. I think there is some truth in that argument. If women are valued by men for youth and beauty and the end goal is happy families, it's not unreasonable to think that pursuing a career in your prime attraction years comes at a cost. That said, perhaps the hookup culture is more to blame than career orientation. Settling down doesnt mean popping out kids right away. If women find the free-wheeling hookup culture largely ungratifying, then perhaps more of them need to recognize that and demand more from men they provide sex to. While recognizing some of the finest game bloggers will tell you that 'waited for' sex is never worth it, the same blogs say that a higher number of previous partners and riding the proverbial carousel are both SMV-reducing characteristics. If reducing the supply of sex to those not willing to offer potential commitment is an SMV-enhancing trait (by cutting N), then wouldn't a shift away from the hookup culture create a larger pool of quality candidates? The argument is generally that a feminized society offers women all the freedom of a liberated sexual market and that, in return, men see less value in women that take advantage of the reduction of social stigma. Each woman, however, has a choice to play or not to play, and we know that this choice has an effect on her SMV. The culprit isn't necessarily the career orientation of feminism, but the idea that Taking advantage of sexual liberalization comes without a cost. You could have career oriented women in theiR mid-20s that choose not to ride the carousel, retain SMV, and demand commitment in return for sex. While not every man will bite, those looking for a still-young woman worth investing in will probably value that discipline relatively highly. Long and short, I'm not sure that work is the problem. I see it as the perception, on the side of women, that their sexual choices have no repercussions with the men they want to settle down with and their choice of when to tart looking to do so.

AmorFati said...

Emoore, if no one found work fulfilling, why would anyone wealthy enough to stop doing so continue to work? People need goals and ambitions, some more than others. Red Foreman never looked particularly happy no matter what.

AmorFati said...

Martel, the discrepancy is usually between words and actions. If this followed that line, women would say they wanted fulfilling careers but really pursue marriage at an early age instead (equivalent of say you want nice, sleep with alpha cad). The choice being made, however, is actually pursuing said career (regardless of outcome). It's not entirely the same.

Anonymous said...

This is logically the equivalent of "Black people who speak out and protest for the vote to right get beat more. Therefore, black people should not protest."
Besides, correlation not causation.

Martel said...

AmorFati: The discrepancy is between what they think they want and what they really want. Sometimes this manifests itself in how their declared traits in a mate don't correspond with their mates. Other times, they actually follow through on what they think they want when offered freedom only to find out they really hate it.

Anonymous 7:00: Phenomenal point about career being part of the female blue pill. However, I think that promiscuity is part of that same choice of pill. The female blue pill could be interpreted as something along the lines of "you can be happy by being more like men."

The "larger pool of quality candidates" to which you refer is in fact restricted by both blue pill choices (and there may be others, I haven't put any thought into it yet). Woman reduces her "quality" by being more manly by boinking as much as possible, as well as by focusing on becoming a hard-nosed businesswoman instead of a decent mother.

A woman who hasn't swallowed the blue pill focuses on marraige and family. This reduces her tendency to sleep around and put off marraige until she's "found herself" through sex and career.

I suppose there could be some "purple pill" women not unlike those you describe who avoid hookup culture but do focus on a career, or vice versa. Either would increase her SMV as compared to a total blue pill woman. Would a slut who calms down at 21 to get married be preferable to a career-driven woman who's only been with two guys? You could make a case for either, but the more important point is that either would be preferable to the vermin we've got crawling aroudn places like DC these days, but neither would be measure up to the red pill woman who avoids both traps.

For a humorous look at blue-pillers trying to interpret red pill reality, check this out:

http://www.readability.com/read?url=http%3A//www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/double-standard-persists-for-male-female-promiscuity-50053/

Leap of a Beta said...

Thats an interesting article. I just had a thought of how interesting itd be to shoe men pictures of women with made up N counts and ask three questions - 1-10 how attactive is she? Would you have No strings attached sex with her? Would you have a relationship with her?

Goal being to find out correlations between attractiveness and willingness for sex vs commitment.

Toby Temple said...

Ok Ashleys.

When was the time in human history that women were prohibited(by law/force/rule of men) to work?

Give us a history lesson, please.

~places popcorn into oven~

Toby Temple said...

Martel said...
Point taken, Loki. And some of the best comments come when everybody gangs up on her after she leaves.

Maybe, like The View(I'm not sure), we can call this verbal gang rape.

Anonymous said...

Ηi there, thiѕ weekend is nice іn supρort of me, аs this pοint in time i am reading this great іnfοrmatіve parаgraph here at mу resіdence.


Here is my wеb page ... paleo diet breakfast without eggs
Here is my webpage : paleo diet sample meal plan

redlegben said...

I think the fathers of daughters like Signe should be forced to confront their failure to lead and raise daughters appropriately. I don't think Signe should blame him for her situation, but he needs to be a voice to the younger generation about why fathering daughters matters. Blaming women and feminism will only go so far in changing our culture. Eventually, we need daddies teaching their daughters correctly. The next generation of girls is just around the corner.

Olive said...

Consider that some women don't join the workforce because they want "fulfilling careers" but because they need to pay their bills. If I don't find a job within the next two months, I'll be moving out of the apartment I share with my boyfriend, across the state, and into my parents' house, because we will no longer be able to afford rent. At the age of 24, that's not a palatable option, so employment it is.

SarahsDaughter said...

Olive, it sounds like you are begrudgingly going into the workforce. Have you ever considered that your situation may have something to do with your decision to shack up instead of marry?

The appropriate place for you is with your parents. You are showing that your decision making abilities are inferior to that which creates happiness and satisfaction.

Your shack up partner may feel some incentive to provide if you showed yourself of high enough value to provide for.

VD said...

It seems rather unreasonable to me that we should actively discourage female employment. I work with plenty of women that I can't imagine would be as happy sitting at home raising kids full-time. In any case, people have a choice.

That's a remarkably stupid perspective. Let me put it this way. Are you capable of understanding that encouraging 100% of women of child-bearing age to work instead of raising families will completely destroy civilization?

If so, then you should be capable of understanding that there is a point at which raising the percentage of women beyond it will cause civilization to collapse. This is not debatable, the only question to be discussed is what is that point.

The demographic evidence strongly suggests that it is somewhere between 33 percent and 66 percent. And that the West is presently above it.

Consider that some women don't join the workforce because they want "fulfilling careers" but because they need to pay their bills.

Lower class women have always worked. If your boyfriend can't make rent on his own, there is a reasonable chance you're from the class that always had to do so. Not necessarily, of course, as the increase in women working has lowered wages, thus making it more difficult for men to support families on their single income.

Omni said...

jesus christ, correlation, causation, ever heard of them?

Toby Temple said...

Omni said...
jesus christ, correlation, causation, ever heard of them?

Correlation was implied. Causation? Where?

Correlation is pretty suggestive of causation.

So learn to stop abusing the correlation does not imply causation crap.

Emma said...

"For women there should be no "choice" between family and career. It's family--full stop, end of story."

I'm reading western history, and I'm not finished, but my impression is that women weren't prohibited from working in the past. They could be excluded from companies or guilds, and sometimes in times of poor economy and unemployment, men tried their best to put them out of work to secure jobs for themselves. But some women always worked, and many never married. So taking away all choice is completely unnecessary.

Anonymous said...

I have read many of the comments here but not all of them so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but there is something of importance that has been overlooked.
Women have enormous power inside of men/women's relationships. Feminists argue that women need to be equal to men in power. The truth is, they always have been. their power lies within the relationships between men and women. When we gave up our power (or gave them) outside of relationships, we really screwed the pooch.

VD said...

jesus christ, correlation, causation, ever heard of them?

Of course. But it seems to have escaped you that correlation does not indicate an absence of causation either. More importantly, have you ever heard of a) a supply curve, and, b) demographics?

The causation argument doesn't rely upon the observed correlation in the slightest.

Anonymous said...

HA! I'm a ppg (purple pill girl)! Thanks Martel.

Human nature has a way of going to extreams, we can never seem to settle in the middle, or for what are absolute truths. Yes women have always worked, either in the home, along side their husbands or to support themselves if alone. Feminism bears alot of the blame for the downward spiral of western culture but so does the focus on individuality and the influence of technology which have distorted reality.

A wise woman once said to me "Sometimes you can have to many choices." We are a greedy beings by nature becoming easily bored with what we already have or always wanting more, some of us more than others. In our lust for wanting to "progress" (and I use that word lightly) our culture has forgotten a truth.

Marriage is sacred, a bond of two becoming one.

This truth smacks in the face of feminism, individuality, and technology.
As a 20yr old woman who's been reading manosphere blogs since I was 18 (came here by way of HUS.) I will tell you that the message being sent to young women and to young men is that there is no other choice for women but the career route. That being a wife and mother is for losers, the unmotivated and the lazy. You should hear the distain for some of my opinions so I keep them to myself and that makes it even harder to find others of like minds and dates! One guy I went out with when he found out that I hoped to be a wife and mother never called back because he felt a women should be contributing 50% to the household income.

You know I got a lot of advice yesterday about how to attract men. I know what to do, but what also needs to happen is that a new message needs to get out there. I can't remember where I read it, but on one of the manosphere bloggs they talked about young men getting the message. I hope so because it's lonely out here in the dark alone.

Olive said...

SarahsDaughter,
"Olive, it sounds like you are begrudgingly going into the workforce. Have you ever considered that your situation may have something to do with your decision to shack up instead of marry?"

No. Current options: 1) live with parents, 2) live with a roommate, 3) marry, 4) shack up. Options 2, 3 and 4 are not different from each other (unless you're religious, which I'm not).

"The appropriate place for you is with your parents. You are showing that your decision making abilities are inferior to that which creates happiness and satisfaction."

Because I've shacked up and it's "un-Christian" or something?

"Your shack up partner may feel some incentive to provide if you showed yourself of high enough value to provide for."

Pfftt. My "shack up partner" can't provide for me because he hasn't been able to afford to finish school, and thus works two crappy jobs (his words, not mine). It's a long, miserable story involving family abandonment, but trust me, my horrible un-Christian shacking up mistake and "poor value" have nothing to do with his lack of money.

Think of it this way: if we got married tomorrow, we'd still be in the same situation and I'd still have to get a job (and not because we'd spend thousands on a swanky wedding... I'm good with the courthouse).

Brad Andrews said...

You are much better off without that boyfriend Anon. You do have a tough challenge though.

I would like to note one thing in response to Ashley's note far up about having a disabled boyfriend. I have found that many of these disabled men can spend hours and hours on the computer (in a game, on the web, etc.). That means they could be doing some kind of a computer job if they would apply themselves. Yet it is far too easy to set at home with the excuse of being disabled.

Some end up being Mr. Mom, but they do a far poorer job, on average, than a women would do in the same situation. They would be much better off training their mind and getting their rear busy.

On the women who would be bored at home with children: I suspect we have trained that into them. It was certainly not a historical trend for most of the better off.

Olive said...

"Lower class women have always worked. If your boyfriend can't make rent on his own, there is a reasonable chance you're from the class that always had to do so."
My BF is working class, I'm middle. I just chose to date down.

VD said...

Because I've shacked up and it's "un-Christian" or something?

No, it's because shacking up doesn't tend to create the same sense of responsibility for a woman in a man that being married to her does.

This is for the obvious reason that he has no more legal responsibility for you than he does for any other woman. The law reflects the psychological reality.

VD said...

My BF is working class, I'm middle. I just chose to date down.

How very unhypergamous of you! But if that's your choice, hey, whatever works.

Athor Pel said...

"Olive said...

Consider that some women don't join the workforce because they want "fulfilling careers" but because they need to pay their bills. If I don't find a job within the next two months, I'll be moving out of the apartment I share with my boyfriend, across the state, and into my parents' house, because we will no longer be able to afford rent. At the age of 24, that's not a palatable option, so employment it is.
December 6, 2012 11:50 PM "



Because you want to keep shagging your boyfriend without your parents around to actively disapprove in person. Got it. Point made.

And you probably don't want to be married either, you just want to shag. Got it.

Which means you are using your boyfriend for sex. He's just a dick for you. He's your tool.

I'm sure he has no problem with it because his view of you is likely the same. You're his vagina. You're his tool.

Which is THE picture of modern western civilization. Congratulations, you are doing your part to hasten its destruction. You should be proud.



Snark aside, you probably have no idea how destructive your actions are to yourself and to the wider society and that's the saddest part, your ignorance of your own complicity.


stg58 said...

Lay off this poor girl! She wants what she wants! Who are you to judge her! She is a modern, smart, independent woman who can make her own choices without you oppressing her.

stg58 said...

Lay off this poor girl! She wants what she wants! Who are you to judge her! She is a modern, smart, independent woman who can make her own choices without you oppressing her.

Ashley said...

Brad, we live in a town where all you are going to get are 3 types of jobs: Food, retail, or labor. All of which require long periods of walking or standing at the very least. There isn't much opportunity here besides that, we;ve looked and yes we are trying to save to get out of this town for better opportunities.

I find it sad that you or anyone can't accept the idea that some, if even one or two men in this world may be happy staying at home with kids and some women might be happier going to work. You truly do live in lala land if you think all men are born with prime masculinity in their dna as well as women with femininity. Then you tell yourself that anyone who defy the laws of biology has had society train them to be that way or they must not actually be happy. I've never witnessed such narrow minds and ideals in my life. Not everyone is born the same.

Olive said...

VD,
My BF has a plan: work crappy jobs to pay off school debt, finish school (one semester left), take the actuarial exam, get a decent job. That's the trajectory he'll be on whether we're cohabitating or married. It's not a question of responsibility.

Athor Pel,
And you probably don't want to be married either, you just want to shag. Got it.

Which means you are using your boyfriend for sex. He's just a dick for you. He's your tool.

I'm sure he has no problem with it because his view of you is likely the same. You're his vagina. You're his tool.


I told my BF about this. He laughed and said "yeah, because it's not like we care about each other and enjoy spending time together or anything."

The no sex before marriage thing is generally ridiculous, IMO. I went to high school with a bunch of people who championed that view, and I was the last one to lose my virginity, at 22. My BF is the only person I've shagged, and the only person I plan to shag. Who cares whether or not we waited until marriage?

Back in the late '70s, my grandfather turned to my then-16-year-old cousin and said "you're what's wrong with the world today." You remind me of him.

papabear said...

"I find it sad that you or anyone can't accept the idea that some, if even one or two men in this world may be happy staying at home with kids and some women might be happier going to work. You truly do live in lala land if you think all men are born with prime masculinity in their dna as well as women with femininity."

But will that woman be happy living with that man? Don't be surprised if everyone is waiting for you to cheat.

papabear said...

Anon @ December 7, 2012 8:51 AM

Give it some time and maybe you'll be able to find an older, settled, more traditionally-minded male, through some sort of personal network.

papabear said...

"Don't be surprised if everyone is waiting for you to cheat."

To be fair, I should add, "or break up."

SarahsDaughter said...

Olive,
We read in the manosphere of all the men who have committed to refuse to get married. They don't trust women for good reason, and are choosing women who will accept their terms.

Many of we traditional women raising daughters to maintain high value, have been curious how this will work for these men. We wonder if women are really that pitiful that they'll give it all up for a man who clearly doesn't trust them and has no incentive to be responsible.

Then we hear that women like you are a dime a dozen. That the rejection of marriage will work for these men. Meanwhile I think of the man my daughter will marry. What will the response be from courters when they learn there will be no sex or play marriage without responsibility.

It will be interesting to say the least. I'd say to each there own and if it makes you happy, go for it, however I understand the long term societal consequences and you've already expressed that your situation is less than optimal.

stg58 said...

Ashley,

Your grandfather sounds like a bad ass. Your cousin was lucky. My great grandfather was a roughneck in
Venezuela in the 1920's and used to beat the shit out of hippies and fags in Austin. My grandfather was an EOD tech in the Navy during WWII and cruised around Houston on his Harley picking fights at Prince's Hamburgers. They would have just commenced to whipping your cousin's ass, mo questions asked.

Live your life however you want. Just remember that your have to pay for your choices. This country you are fortunate to live in wasn't built by people like you who shacked up with each other and never had kids and were unmarried. It was built by people like my great and grandfather, who kicked ass and married their girlfriends and had a bunch of kids.

I will give you a career option you never considered: get certified a crossfit trainer and open a gym. You can make a great living without the three options you listed. Get your boyfriend off the couch and start training.

Olive said...

SD,
I would simply suggest that marriage is not the only indicator of commitment. My BF has stuck with me through two years of long distance, a semester abroad, a huge family crisis, and my diagnosis with a serious and rare genetic condition that I may pass on to my children (50% chance). I have no doubt he trusts me completely and cares for me greatly.

We have discussed marriage dozens of times. Neither of us cares that much about the formalities, but we do intend to seal the deal, probably in the next year or two. The relationship is far more important than the piece of paper, to me.

I hardly think I'm affecting your daughter's future by choosing to live with my boyfriend before we get married.

By the way, I happen to think my situation is awesome. I have a wonderful partner and get to see him every day, and we live in a cute little apartment with a bunch of secondhand furniture we got for free. If I have to get a job to maintain that situation, I'm not complaining.

SarahsDaughter said...

What will he do should you not be able to get a job and earn enough in the next couple of months? You said you will be moving back to your parents' home. What is the long term plan after that? Will you be waiting at your parents' for him to get to a better financial situation?

If you were telling the truth, and that is your backup plan, then I would assert there is no better motivator for a man. He works hard to establish the means necessary to provide a home for the woman he loves.

As it is, the pressure is on you to get employment. This is the very stress that many of the commenters have mentioned that contributes to the circumstances of the OP.

You and your boyfriend may very well be outliers, however, statistics, studies and observable evidence suggests that the choices you are making do not work out well, don't provide for stable families, and should not be the advice given to young women. Not all boyfriends are special snowflakes - societal trends and conditions prove that to be true.

SarahsDaughter said...

Also, you are in a position that you will have to select the highest bidder for your employment. It is unlikely this job will fulfill and empower you as the feminist lie proclaims work to do for a woman. As much as you feel for your bf now, as the days drag on and you continue submission "to the man" who is gracious enough to trade your hours for dollars, you will lose respect for the situation that put you there - as per the nature of women. It's difficult for you to imagine now how that will affect the relationship you have, but the odds are not in your favor.

Olive said...

What will he do should you not be able to get a job and earn enough in the next couple of months? You said you will be moving back to your parents' home. What is the long term plan after that? Will you be waiting at your parents' for him to get to a better financial situation?

He'll move back in with his mom. Both of us will be miserable, no doubt. I'll wait for him, but I won't sit around like a leech at my parents'. I will continue to seek out employment, and I'm sure they will expect it.

then I would assert there is no better motivator for a man. He works hard to establish the means necessary to provide a home for the woman he loves.

Okay let's break it down. My BF doesn't have a degree. He will not have one until he pays back debt to his school, which he is slowly doing every month. Until then, he works two service sector jobs, one overnight. If that still doesn't spell it out for you, let me be explicit: he IS working hard. It's not the UMC version of working hard, he's not moving up the ladder, and his wages are incredibly low. But he works extremely long hours, his sleep schedule is a mess from working the night shift, and the only way he could work harder would be to take on a full-time day job and not sleep at all.

Also, you are in a position that you will have to select the highest bidder for your employment. It is unlikely this job will fulfill and empower you as the feminist lie proclaims work to do for a woman.

Oh I fully expect to work in retail. It's not a question of being fulfilled (I said this in my first comment), it's a matter of paying the bills.

As much as you feel for your bf now, as the days drag on and you continue submission "to the man" who is gracious enough to trade your hours for dollars, you will lose respect for the situation that put you there - as per the nature of women. It's difficult for you to imagine now how that will affect the relationship you have, but the odds are not in your favor.

So... I should consider a guy who makes more money, so I don't have to work? Yeah that wouldn't make me an entitled bitch or anything.

It's very possible to be satisfied in a relationship with someone who can't support you financially. There are other reasons to love someone besides money.

VD said...

He laughed and said "yeah, because it's not like we care about each other and enjoy spending time together or anything."

Oh, he cares about you. He enjoys spending time with you. BFD. I could have said the same about 100 women. The question that matters most is: how strongly is he committed to you? How great is his sense of responsibility for you?

I'm not saying it isn't strong. I know nothing about you or your relationship. But the statistical fact of the matter is that he is likely to be less committed to you, and feel less responsible for you, than if he was willing to marry you.

I hardly think I'm affecting your daughter's future by choosing to live with my boyfriend before we get married.

That's just ridiculous, Olive. Women argue that their daughter's futures are being affected when abortion is banned in Uganda. Each decision to live with a man before marriage weakens the social fabric. Yes, your individual decision is trivial in a land of 150 million women. But collectively, it is a very, very serious problem that is rapidly growing.

But he works extremely long hours, his sleep schedule is a mess from working the night shift, and the only way he could work harder would be to take on a full-time day job and not sleep at all.

This was not at all clear from your earlier comments. I was under the impression that he wasn't working at all.

However, you would both probably benefit from you moving back in with your parents until he feels ready to make the commitment to marry you. It's not the paper that matters in the slightest, it is the actual act of making the commitment. Remember that "Feelings" and expressions of them are not actions.

We are older than you. We have seen numerous people in positions more or less similar to yours. On rare occasions it works out. In most occasions, it doesn't, and then the woman is left wailing "why didn't anyone warn me."

So, we're warning you, that's all. I hope it turns out well for you, regardless of what you do. But there are some legitimate red flags there and it would serve you well to pay due attention to them.

Olive said...

VD,
Okay I hear what you're saying. Believe me, some of Susan's commenters said similar things when I arrived there last year, so it's not like this is the first time I've had people on the internet warn me about the impending doom of my relationship.

The question that matters most is: how strongly is he committed to you? How great is his sense of responsibility for you?

Consider this: back in March, I suffered through a very severe manic episode and was diagnosed with bipolar I (and disappeared from these parts for a good 5 months). My BF was there watching through the thick of it: he helped get me to the ER, he took off work and drove across the state to help my parents get me to a better hospital closer to my hometown, and he stayed up all night with me while my condition deteriorated to the point that I did not recognize him and could not remember my own name. Something tells me if he was going to bail, it would've been then. Mentally ill people... don't exactly have a good reputation in the relationship department.

Yes, your individual decision is trivial in a land of 150 million women. But collectively, it is a very, very serious problem that is rapidly growing.

In my opinion, it is the cheapening of sex that is causing so many problems in the SMP. I don't feel responsible for that particular trend, considering I've hardly slept around.

Is that not the problem you guys have with cohabitation, as demonstrated by Athor Pel's commentary? Or am I misunderstanding?

Olive said...

VD,
One more thing: at this point, the alternate to cohabitation is a long distance relationship. Cohabitation may have a bad track record, as far as successful relationships go, but isn't it also true that very few LDRs end up working out? Which is worse? The goal is to have this relationship work out, not walk on eggshells to make sure we are not destroying the moral fabric of America.

Anonymous said...

Olive and Ashley,

As a woman your age I understand wanting to do what feels right to me. All young people, men and women, are hard wired to rebel in some form.(I think its because we feel invincible or we have pleanty of time to fix mistakes.) But what happens when we throw the rules of society or nature out the window to meet our indivdual/momentary wants? Society as a whole ends up in slow decline into chaos and ironically those who wanted their freedom to do whatever eventually find their choices offensive to others. A vicious circle. When there is no standard for rule or law and ethics there is no foundation for a society to function from.

Olive, I hope it does work out for you and your BF, but I wonder about the psychlogical effect of so much negativity so early on in your relationship. Without a binding commitment to you, once things do turn around for him will he want to make a clean break leaving everything behind to make a completely fresh start? Have you also considered that your relationship may be based on mutual survival and that once you get off this island there won't be anything to keep you two together?

Yohami said...

"The goal is to have this relationship work out"

Define that. What does it mean that the relationship works out?

That you feel happy? that you can stretch the relationship for a while? that you have kids? that...

Are you talking about being forever with him, melting with him, being his wife, working for him, having him work for you, forever? commitment?

Yes, no?

It doesnt sound like commitment when you say it like relationships working out, whatever that means. It sounds like playing house.

People here are telling you that playing house doesnt usually become lifelong monogamy - commitment - marriage.

When you're committed yourself you dont talk in terms of stuff "working out". There's no exit door.

Anonymous said...

"Consider that some women don't join the workforce because they want "fulfilling careers" but because they need to pay their bills."

'Last week a Gallup survey found that two out of three mothers today would prefer to stay at home if they could afford to. New research, by Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, suggests that historically, many women would have made similar choices.

Dr Bourke analysed the attitudes of about 5,000 women from 1860 to 1930 when, for the first time in Britain, it became the norm for women to be housewives. Previously most women had worked in factories, shops and farms.

'Easily two-thirds' found working in the home fulfilling, she said. Most had chosen voluntarily to give up paid employment, with the result that nine out of ten women were housewives in 1911, compared with a quarter in 1851."


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/feminists-history-of-housewives-challenged-1534788.html

but but patriarchy!!

Olive said...

Yohami,

Are you talking about being forever with him, melting with him, being his wife, working for him, having him work for you, forever? commitment?

Yes. Marriage. Commitment for life. No going back (i.e. divorce is not an option).

When you're committed yourself you dont talk in terms of stuff "working out".

Next time I'll use better language.

Anon,

I wonder about the psychlogical effect of so much negativity so early on in your relationship. Without a binding commitment to you, once things do turn around for him will he want to make a clean break leaving everything behind to make a completely fresh start?

Without sharing his life story, or the entire history of our relationship, I have good reason to believe that he won't.

Have you also considered that your relationship may be based on mutual survival and that once you get off this island there won't be anything to keep you two together?

I suppose that's a doom and gloom way of looking at it. On the flipside, perhaps the challenges have helped us prepare for obstacles in the future.

Olive said...

Anon at 9:58,
Last week a Gallup survey found that two out of three mothers today would prefer to stay at home if they could afford to. New research, by Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, suggests that historically, many women would have made similar choices.

Chalk it up to poor reading comprehension, but I have no idea how that contradicts this statement:

Consider that some women don't join the workforce because they want "fulfilling careers" but because they need to pay their bills.

Just because I'm pointing out that not every woman can afford to be a SAHM does not mean I actively disapprove of SAHMdom. In fact I, myself, would like to be a SAHM someday, when it's financially feasbible.

Not every woman who stops by the manosphere is a radfem, you know. I don't really care about patriarchy.

Brad Andrews said...

Olive, I wouldn't expect things to end soon. I would give it about 10 years based on personal experience. I have known several long term relationships that started living together, got married and then broke up years later. Perhaps yours will be different, as others have said, but I remain quite skeptical.

Ashley, believe what you want. Your bf could still be learning all he can in every spare moment he has. Merely "saving up" will not qualify him for anything. I got the impression he wasn't working at all, so he would have no excuse to not spend a great deal of time self-training himself. Does he do that?


We ultimately make many of our own opportunities, yet many would rather blame circumstances for their fate. I still stand by my assertion that a great many men who are on disability could do something, but that they do not. I have also seen enough Mr. Moms that were no such thing. There is a reason women have raised the next generation through all but a tiny bit of recorded history. It may make you feel good to claim whatever, but reality will still come home to roost.

Brad Andrews said...

Olive, the failure of others to live up to their abstinence vows doesn't make the principle wrong. How is your relationship truly committed without committing it?

Anonymous said...

"Chalk it up to poor reading comprehension, but I have no idea how that contradicts this statement"

chalk it up to reading things in thin air, I have no idea where you got that idea. maybe from here?

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/11/alpha-mail-yeah-thats-projection.html

"Not every woman who stops by the manosphere is a radfem, you know"

but every woman who stops by the manosphere is a woman, at least one hopes so!

LP 999/Eliza said...

Well, when women spend money, add wear/tear on cars, waste money in day care, don't mind their homes, fail to tend to the cleaning, cook their best, don't care for the kids sufficiently, don't tend to wifely duties fights are bound to happen.

LP 999/Eliza said...

@ Olive, you are not a burden to your parents. I hope all goes well for you.

I am terrible with advice so I clearly don't belong in part of the thread but a few things I've observed over the years; don't waste your body or injure yourself for future child bearing on any wrong prospects. If you are religious, stay focused on Christ. Take care of yourself first and let the men care of themselves. Until he marries you, he is not yet your responsibility.

Athor Pel said...

"Olive said...
...
I told my BF about this. He laughed and said "yeah, because it's not like we care about each other and enjoy spending time together or anything."

The no sex before marriage thing is generally ridiculous, IMO. I went to high school with a bunch of people who championed that view, and I was the last one to lose my virginity, at 22. My BF is the only person I've shagged, and the only person I plan to shag. Who cares whether or not we waited until marriage?

Back in the late '70s, my grandfather turned to my then-16-year-old cousin and said "you're what's wrong with the world today." You remind me of him.
December 7, 2012 4:23 PM "




Yeah, I was cranky that day.



You're functionally married. Do you consider youselves married in the eyes of God? I don't give a crap about a marriage license from the state but you should begin referring to each other as husband and wife because that's what you are. And the sooner you do it the more likely you are to cement a relationship that will last.


Because if you don't act like you are married then funnily enough you end up thinking you aren't married and wham bam one day you wake up and you got nothin'. The partner you thought you would have for life is gone, because, wait for it, you weren't married. See the absence of strings? It's because they were never there because you didn't decide to put them there.




Olive said...

Brad,
I would give it about 10 years based on personal experience. I have known several long term relationships that started living together, got married and then broke up years later. Perhaps yours will be different, as others have said, but I remain quite skeptical.

Did those marriages end because they began with the couple cohabitating? Or were there other mitigating factors that brought about the divorce?

the failure of others to live up to their abstinence vows doesn't make the principle wrong.

Perhaps not, but I have very little patience for people who preach the no sex before marriage message, primarily because the very people who preach it usually did not or will not wait. Including my great-grandmother, by the way, who got knocked up by my great-grandfather (a conservative Mennonite) in the early '30s and married him as a result.

In addition, I don't actually believe sex before marriage is wrong. I just think it's a bad idea to sleep with multiple people, which I haven't done.

How is your relationship truly committed without committing it?

Since the only true form of commitment around here is marriage, it's not.

Eliza,
you are not a burden to your parents

No, but I'm also 24 and have zero desire to live with them.

don't waste your body or injure yourself for future child bearing on any wrong prospects.

That's not the issue. I've slept with one person, and I plan to marry him.

If you are religious

I'm not.

Until he marries you, he is not yet your responsibility.

I disagree. Just because someone hasn't married you yet doesn't mean they haven't given you a tremendous gift of love and support. I don't see it as a responsibility, but as a joy, to embark upon a journey together now, instead of waiting until marriage.

Athor Pel,
Do you consider yourselves married in the eyes of God?

Once again, I am not religious.

The partner you thought you would have for life is gone, because, wait for it, you weren't married. See the absence of strings? It's because they were never there because you didn't decide to put them there.

As I said, if my BF was going to hit the road, he would have already.

Anonymous said...

The grеen Gгeen Cοffeе Βean Extrаct
Fοr Weіght Losѕs hеlρs іn glowing οf the skin.
Afteг 3 months, particіpаnts ωith gгeen
Gгeеn Cοffеe Bеan Extract
Fοr Weight Lοss. Which makeup remover агe you using at
thе moment? Therе are some oνer-the-counter pills thаt inсludе stimulants in οrԁer to rеԁuce calorіe аbѕοrption.
Therefогe уou cаnnοt just use аny weight loss program that coulԁ be bought without producіng a doctoг's advice.

Here is my page: mygreencoffeeweightloss.net

Anonymous said...

Diet pills агe a goоd ρuгe green coffee bean
eхtract rеviews part of the culture.

I urge you to take аn appropгiate eating. Βefore you ѕtart poρpіng pills to help remove excessive weіght
and obeѕіty.

my webpage: pure green coffee extract

Anonymous said...

Safе of coffee diet comprises of diffeгеnt vitamins and аntiοхidantѕ in a well designed PAGG Staсk likе the one
develoрed аt Раreto Νutrition will not cause rapid loss of boԁy weight.
Another drug thаt hasn't been banned by the FDA, this drug has supposedly shown an effect on attaining or dropping regarding weight.

my blog - Pure Green Coffee Extract

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.