I was stunned to read this from Time Magazine: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in May that births to unmarried women have reached an astonishing 39.7%. How much does this matter? More than words can say. There is no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage. It hurts children, it reduces mothers’ financial security, and it has landed with particular devastation on those who can bear it least: the nation’s underclass.
"You must continue signaling your dominance"..."Raise your voice sternly when she steps out of line, flirt shamelessly with other women in public." I feel sorry for the poor girl you're in a relationship with (if there even is one).. what you're describing is not healthy, and that's not to say that "tip-toeing around on eggshells lest you disturb the queen bee" is healthy either. The fact of the matter is that there should be no set dominant, both parties should be equal in the relationship. Granted there will be times when one party or the other will be slightly more dominant but the balance should soon return. The type of relationship you describe sounds incredibly abusive, not physically, but mentally abusive. Its the "girls like assholes" mentality that is ruining our society. This is where it all starts. Women date men (boys) like you, get hurt, and decide to go on about their lives with the "male mentality" to prevent being hurt again; therefore hurting other men and being promiscuous, and eventually leading to the super high rate of unwed mothers in our country. The fact of the matter in all this is that the OP is half right, women do need to be reminded that men are still interested in them, just as men do. They just need it in different ways.
You must continue signaling your dominanceYou must continue signaling your dominanceYou must continue signaling your dominanceYou must continue signaling your dominance
Everyone knows that there are many unmarried mothers in this country, but 40% is shocking. It's not a surprise that Utah has the lowest percentage of children born out of wedlock, but why is D.C. the highest?
as men you should not be able to hold yourselves to a higher standard because if you were able you would be pregnant all the time because sex is all yall think about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, please. I'm using that word in the general sense. Do you honestly think that's the kind of thing I am talking about? Or are you just seizing on that word to make a cute little unthinking joke?
There is such a thing as power dynamics in relationships. The fact that bringing this up from a male perspective instantly makes people think of cracking whips and "creepiness" shows how completely unacceptable it has become for men to assert their masculinity in certain circles.
I find the complete unwillingness to engage with anything approaching intellectual honesty rather disheartening. My response would be "Some *snarky dudes* read economics blogs."
My argument is simple and actually rather tangential to Robin's point (which I make clear in the original post, if you take time to read it). It is this: Some men assume that to keep a relationship going, they must constantly tiptoe around on eggshells lest they disturb the queen bee; and that it doesn't have to be this way. And that many, many (in my experience most) women and men are far happier in relationships where the power dynamic runs the other way, at least some of the time.
But getting to this point takes many men out of their comfort zone, and so they daren't try, or they try in a very half-assed way that indeed comes across as creepy or just bizarre.
Robin's careful editing of my words (notice there are four ellipses) is done for dramatic effect, I can only assume. And he never responded to my objection above about how he totally mischaracterized my argument.
The reason that women don’t seem to have the control you think they should have is because these women are by and large competing for the top 10 to 15 percent of men when they are young and nubile, and leaving the remaining 85 percent plus of men mostly sexless
Interesting and oft-repeated point, but it begs the question: what happens to the unattractive or plain women in your equation? If indeed all or most women choose to compete for the top 10-15 percent of men, do we assume that these lucky guys dutifully have sex with all the plain ones as well as the attractive women, who are in plentiful supply and constantly available?
If not, does your argument assume that the plain or unattractive ladies remain sexless rather than copulate with the lower 85 percent of males, despite 'liberation' presumably giving them more incentives to want and enjoy sex?
"the vast majority of unmarried women having babies are undereducated and have low incomes"
Sure but is the increase in unmarried moms over previous years more undereducated low income women, or hippie couples? We're discussing the alleged "increase" in this group, not denying that unmarried women have historically been poor.
"I bet that in these low income families, the fraction of mothers who are making an enlightened choice to be in an unmarried-but-committed relationship is rather negligible."
That's not the same as saying "I bet that in these unmarried-but-committed relationships, the fraction of mothers who are low-income is negligible."
If women really wanted commitment from guys who'd make good dads, Asian nerds would not have a serious problem in the US mating market. Instead, a disproportionate fraction of the latter are utterly shafted, and I can assure you that it's not ultimately because they're too scared of rejection to ask women out much (though I won't deny that the greater average Neuroticism of Asians does exacerbate the problem).
Almost all the complaints you hear from women about commitment are specifically about sexy men. The current revealed preference of most women is: sexy is necessary, commitment is only valuable on top of that.
(Full disclosure: Yes, I'm aware that outliers exist. I'm currently looking for an available one, since I have no interest in learning PUA to pick up a woman who I'd have to put on an act for for the rest of my life to keep. I expect this search will take a long time, and may eventually lead outside this country.)
I dare say the percentage of children born in the last few years to unwed mothers would be even higher. The book "The Bell Curve" cites that percentage to be about 50% even in the mid 90s. It is this percentage that influences the direction in which the percentage of unwed mothers is going, and
'The new equilibrium we are moving toward seems a very different world. Women free to pick a dad without expecting him to stay as a long term helper probably pick sexier men. "
This analysis is probably completely and totally backwards. You assume women now collectively have stopped caring if a man actually sticks around to take care of the kids. There is no good reason to believe this. One does not see women finding an attractive man, having his children, and bidding him farewell; one sees serious female effort put towards perfecting their looks and such to attract such a man to stay with him. Attracting such a man to sleep with one is not particularly difficult. Women are (generally) trying to get men to stick around and failing, not ceasing to care about whether they stick around.
I believe what has actually happened is that men have stopped sticking around; I doubt women's preferences have changed much. This reverses pretty much all of your inferences, and it fits in much better with contemporary female behaviour and efforts at staying thin and looking pretty.
If men have more power, women will probably become more aggressive in order to net a potential mate (especially with birth control). This suggests more sex and less selection on sexual partners. People emphatically do not operate off of a conscious ev-psych motivation to make lots of babies, so competition for sex and competition for kids are largely separable, and women preferring 'better quality men' who don't stick around to raise the kids makes virtually no sense whatsoever.
"Sex-failures" are quite different from "kid-failures," and most men don't mind being the latter anywhere near as much as the former. It seems that if men have more power collectively, they get more sex collectively, so there are unlikely to be dire consequences from this. Indeed, if men are generally unwilling to commit and women want commitment, this is a massive potential gain for less desirable men, as they can now offer something that the hotties can't (or won't). If all men are generally willing to settle down, this is no longer a special bargaining chip.
It is admittedly possible that women will be unsuccessful enough at obtaining mates that they will collectively give up and stop trying, but I don't see how such collective action will come about anytime soon on a very large scale; women would still be better off if they could "catch" a man, so it seems unlikely for them to all agree that this is no longer a desirable thing.
"Master Dogen's" approach will become more viable as a result of this, but it seems unlikely to be dominant or even beneficial compared to the alternative (especially for low-status men), though which approach is better is admittedly sensitive to individual male preferences.
Also, Europe is very different because, as mentioned elsewhere here, they just don't care about being married as much as Americans do.
This post seems to assume that:1)The median woman has more sexual partners then the median man2) The median (or 25th percentile? 10th percentile? whatever) man by number of sexual encounter or sexual partner has less sex now then he would have in a society with strict standards of monogamy3) That woman are actually more picky then men when choosing partner for relationships (rather then casual sex)4) That women lower willingness to have casual sex isn't largely a result of the differences in the social consequences of having lots of sex partners has for men and women in our societ.
While I can certainly understand if different men (and women) have different ideas about what leads to the most stable relationships, I must take issue with the way you characterize my attitude, Robin.
I am advocating these measures as a manner of keeping men and women happily together, not driving them apart.
I don't have data for it, but philosophically (and at least anecdotally), I feel that a lack of understanding about what makes men and women deeply, emotionally attached to each other is what may be driving up the numbers you quote with such astonishment.
So while, again, we may disagree on method, we don't necessarily disagree on the problem at hand. Finally, I have to say that I — naturally — don't consider those kinds of behavior (gentle hair pulling, raising of ones voice, etc) to be "extreme."
the vast majority of unmarried women having babies are undereducated and have low incomes
I bet that in these low income families, the fraction of mothers who are making an enlightened choice to be in an unmarried-but-committed relationship is rather negligible. Consequently, single mothers and births to unmarried women are essentially interchangeable IMO.
"In the history of our species [apparently he means the entire history including that prior to agriculture], it seems certain that polygyny – the practice of men having more than one wife – was the predominant model prior to the institution of marriage."
This is not what I've heard elsewhere. What I've heard is that hunter-gatherer polygyny was quite light, with just an extra wife or two, for biggest big shots only. (I gather that this is a deduction from ethnography of 20th C. hunter-gatherers.)
This author, however, is suggesting that this causes the median-attractiveness female to be rather little-attracted to the median-attractiveness male. Light polygyny should not suffice to select for such a thing.
"You must continue signaling your dominance"..."Raise your voice sternly when she steps out of line, flirt shamelessly with other women in public." I feel sorry for the poor girl you're in a relationship with (if there even is one).. what you're describing is not healthy, and that's not to say that "tip-toeing around on eggshells lest you disturb the queen bee" is healthy either. The fact of the matter is that there should be no set dominant, both parties should be equal in the relationship. Granted there will be times when one party or the other will be slightly more dominant but the balance should soon return. The type of relationship you describe sounds incredibly abusive, not physically, but mentally abusive. Its the "girls like assholes" mentality that is ruining our society. This is where it all starts. Women date men (boys) like you, get hurt, and decide to go on about their lives with the "male mentality" to prevent being hurt again; therefore hurting other men and being promiscuous, and eventually leading to the super high rate of unwed mothers in our country. The fact of the matter in all this is that the OP is half right, women do need to be reminded that men are still interested in them, just as men do. They just need it in different ways.
You must continue signaling your dominanceYou must continue signaling your dominanceYou must continue signaling your dominanceYou must continue signaling your dominance
Everyone knows that there are many unmarried mothers in this country, but 40% is shocking. It's not a surprise that Utah has the lowest percentage of children born out of wedlock, but why is D.C. the highest?
as men you should not be able to hold yourselves to a higher standard because if you were able you would be pregnant all the time because sex is all yall think about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, please. I'm using that word in the general sense. Do you honestly think that's the kind of thing I am talking about? Or are you just seizing on that word to make a cute little unthinking joke?
There is such a thing as power dynamics in relationships. The fact that bringing this up from a male perspective instantly makes people think of cracking whips and "creepiness" shows how completely unacceptable it has become for men to assert their masculinity in certain circles.
I find the complete unwillingness to engage with anything approaching intellectual honesty rather disheartening. My response would be "Some *snarky dudes* read economics blogs."
My argument is simple and actually rather tangential to Robin's point (which I make clear in the original post, if you take time to read it). It is this: Some men assume that to keep a relationship going, they must constantly tiptoe around on eggshells lest they disturb the queen bee; and that it doesn't have to be this way. And that many, many (in my experience most) women and men are far happier in relationships where the power dynamic runs the other way, at least some of the time.
But getting to this point takes many men out of their comfort zone, and so they daren't try, or they try in a very half-assed way that indeed comes across as creepy or just bizarre.
Robin's careful editing of my words (notice there are four ellipses) is done for dramatic effect, I can only assume. And he never responded to my objection above about how he totally mischaracterized my argument.
.....You said it....
Some *creepy dudes* read economics blogs.
This, of course, is the constant position of a supplicant.
YOU HAVE COME TO A WORLD CALLED GOR *whipcrack*
The reason that women don’t seem to have the control you think they should have is because these women are by and large competing for the top 10 to 15 percent of men when they are young and nubile, and leaving the remaining 85 percent plus of men mostly sexless
Interesting and oft-repeated point, but it begs the question: what happens to the unattractive or plain women in your equation? If indeed all or most women choose to compete for the top 10-15 percent of men, do we assume that these lucky guys dutifully have sex with all the plain ones as well as the attractive women, who are in plentiful supply and constantly available?
If not, does your argument assume that the plain or unattractive ladies remain sexless rather than copulate with the lower 85 percent of males, despite 'liberation' presumably giving them more incentives to want and enjoy sex?
"the vast majority of unmarried women having babies are undereducated and have low incomes"
Sure but is the increase in unmarried moms over previous years more undereducated low income women, or hippie couples? We're discussing the alleged "increase" in this group, not denying that unmarried women have historically been poor.
"I bet that in these low income families, the fraction of mothers who are making an enlightened choice to be in an unmarried-but-committed relationship is rather negligible."
That's not the same as saying "I bet that in these unmarried-but-committed relationships, the fraction of mothers who are low-income is negligible."
If women really wanted commitment from guys who'd make good dads, Asian nerds would not have a serious problem in the US mating market. Instead, a disproportionate fraction of the latter are utterly shafted, and I can assure you that it's not ultimately because they're too scared of rejection to ask women out much (though I won't deny that the greater average Neuroticism of Asians does exacerbate the problem).
Almost all the complaints you hear from women about commitment are specifically about sexy men. The current revealed preference of most women is: sexy is necessary, commitment is only valuable on top of that.
(Full disclosure: Yes, I'm aware that outliers exist. I'm currently looking for an available one, since I have no interest in learning PUA to pick up a woman who I'd have to put on an act for for the rest of my life to keep. I expect this search will take a long time, and may eventually lead outside this country.)
I dare say the percentage of children born in the last few years to unwed mothers would be even higher. The book "The Bell Curve" cites that percentage to be about 50% even in the mid 90s. It is this percentage that influences the direction in which the percentage of unwed mothers is going, and
'The new equilibrium we are moving toward seems a very different world. Women free to pick a dad without expecting him to stay as a long term helper probably pick sexier men. "
This analysis is probably completely and totally backwards. You assume women now collectively have stopped caring if a man actually sticks around to take care of the kids. There is no good reason to believe this. One does not see women finding an attractive man, having his children, and bidding him farewell; one sees serious female effort put towards perfecting their looks and such to attract such a man to stay with him. Attracting such a man to sleep with one is not particularly difficult. Women are (generally) trying to get men to stick around and failing, not ceasing to care about whether they stick around.
I believe what has actually happened is that men have stopped sticking around; I doubt women's preferences have changed much. This reverses pretty much all of your inferences, and it fits in much better with contemporary female behaviour and efforts at staying thin and looking pretty.
If men have more power, women will probably become more aggressive in order to net a potential mate (especially with birth control). This suggests more sex and less selection on sexual partners. People emphatically do not operate off of a conscious ev-psych motivation to make lots of babies, so competition for sex and competition for kids are largely separable, and women preferring 'better quality men' who don't stick around to raise the kids makes virtually no sense whatsoever.
"Sex-failures" are quite different from "kid-failures," and most men don't mind being the latter anywhere near as much as the former. It seems that if men have more power collectively, they get more sex collectively, so there are unlikely to be dire consequences from this. Indeed, if men are generally unwilling to commit and women want commitment, this is a massive potential gain for less desirable men, as they can now offer something that the hotties can't (or won't). If all men are generally willing to settle down, this is no longer a special bargaining chip.
It is admittedly possible that women will be unsuccessful enough at obtaining mates that they will collectively give up and stop trying, but I don't see how such collective action will come about anytime soon on a very large scale; women would still be better off if they could "catch" a man, so it seems unlikely for them to all agree that this is no longer a desirable thing.
"Master Dogen's" approach will become more viable as a result of this, but it seems unlikely to be dominant or even beneficial compared to the alternative (especially for low-status men), though which approach is better is admittedly sensitive to individual male preferences.
Also, Europe is very different because, as mentioned elsewhere here, they just don't care about being married as much as Americans do.
This post seems to assume that:1)The median woman has more sexual partners then the median man2) The median (or 25th percentile? 10th percentile? whatever) man by number of sexual encounter or sexual partner has less sex now then he would have in a society with strict standards of monogamy3) That woman are actually more picky then men when choosing partner for relationships (rather then casual sex)4) That women lower willingness to have casual sex isn't largely a result of the differences in the social consequences of having lots of sex partners has for men and women in our societ.
Im not convinced on any of these points...
While I can certainly understand if different men (and women) have different ideas about what leads to the most stable relationships, I must take issue with the way you characterize my attitude, Robin.
I am advocating these measures as a manner of keeping men and women happily together, not driving them apart.
I don't have data for it, but philosophically (and at least anecdotally), I feel that a lack of understanding about what makes men and women deeply, emotionally attached to each other is what may be driving up the numbers you quote with such astonishment.
So while, again, we may disagree on method, we don't necessarily disagree on the problem at hand. Finally, I have to say that I — naturally — don't consider those kinds of behavior (gentle hair pulling, raising of ones voice, etc) to be "extreme."
Oh please. The article also says
the vast majority of unmarried women having babies are undereducated and have low incomes
I bet that in these low income families, the fraction of mothers who are making an enlightened choice to be in an unmarried-but-committed relationship is rather negligible. Consequently, single mothers and births to unmarried women are essentially interchangeable IMO.
"In the history of our species [apparently he means the entire history including that prior to agriculture], it seems certain that polygyny – the practice of men having more than one wife – was the predominant model prior to the institution of marriage."
This is not what I've heard elsewhere. What I've heard is that hunter-gatherer polygyny was quite light, with just an extra wife or two, for biggest big shots only. (I gather that this is a deduction from ethnography of 20th C. hunter-gatherers.)
This author, however, is suggesting that this causes the median-attractiveness female to be rather little-attracted to the median-attractiveness male. Light polygyny should not suffice to select for such a thing.
That is a thoughtful, if somewhat sloppy, essay. Worth reading.