The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Women Who Make More Money Make Fewer Babies
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From a GSS question that was asked in 2002 and 2012, mean number of children among non-Hispanic white married couples between the ages of 35-60 by whether the husband or wife earns more:

The differences are fairly modest but a victory for traditionalism is a victory for traditionalism and since I ran the numbers they may as well be shared. No shelving banal or unexpected results here!

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), CHILDS, SEX, EARNSHH(1-3)(4)(5-7), AGE(35-60)

 
Hide 154 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    What seems to drive fertility is the ratio of the husband’s income to the wife’s income. The higher the husband’s income relative to the wife’s income, the higher the fertility. So there’s a correlation between household income and fertility, but only if the ratio of the husband’s income relative to the wife’s income is high.

    MIddle and upper middle class households with relatively high nominal household incomes tend to have low ratios of husband income to wife income, and low fertility rates.

  2. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    What seems to drive fertility is the ratio of the husband’s income to the wife’s income. The higher the husband’s income relative to the wife’s income, the higher the fertility. So there’s a correlation between household income and fertility, but only if the ratio of the husband’s income relative to the wife’s income is high.

    MIddle and upper middle class households with relatively high nominal household incomes tend to have low ratios of husband income to wife income, and low fertility rates.

  3. I guess women are willing to marry men who earn less than they do after all.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    There are also women willing to marry men who are murderers, criminals, psychopaths, mentally retarded, physically disabled, etc.
    , @SeaSide
    They don't, on average. Poorer men have lower marriage rate and higher divorce rate.
  4. @Rosie
    I guess women are willing to marry men who earn less than they do after all.

    There are also women willing to marry men who are murderers, criminals, psychopaths, mentally retarded, physically disabled, etc.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    There are also women willing to marry men who are murderers, criminals, psychopaths, mentally retarded, physically disabled, etc.
     
    Then you should have no trouble finding a wife.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Rosie's good comeback notwithstanding, I think you could Ten-tuple this for men though. Men are much less picky about background, and it uusally comes back to bite them in family court. Of course, women are more likely to be psychopaths than hardened criminals, but there is the occasional axe murderer:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvAd33J9-po
  5. @Anonymous
    There are also women willing to marry men who are murderers, criminals, psychopaths, mentally retarded, physically disabled, etc.

    There are also women willing to marry men who are murderers, criminals, psychopaths, mentally retarded, physically disabled, etc.

    Then you should have no trouble finding a wife.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Well I won't have trouble finding a wife because my family is well off. I don't know if I personally will ever make lots of money. I don't have much ambition or desire to do so myself. But most young guys are not in my position and don't have my advantages. They have to earn their own way in much more challenging circumstances. This has negative social implications which concern me.
  6. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    There are also women willing to marry men who are murderers, criminals, psychopaths, mentally retarded, physically disabled, etc.
     
    Then you should have no trouble finding a wife.

    Well I won’t have trouble finding a wife because my family is well off. I don’t know if I personally will ever make lots of money. I don’t have much ambition or desire to do so myself. But most young guys are not in my position and don’t have my advantages. They have to earn their own way in much more challenging circumstances. This has negative social implications which concern me.

  7. @Anonymous
    There are also women willing to marry men who are murderers, criminals, psychopaths, mentally retarded, physically disabled, etc.

    Rosie’s good comeback notwithstanding, I think you could Ten-tuple this for men though. Men are much less picky about background, and it uusally comes back to bite them in family court. Of course, women are more likely to be psychopaths than hardened criminals, but there is the occasional axe murderer:

    • Replies: @ricpic
    Yes, the man almost always has to act the clown. Then she may take pity.
  8. “Both earn the same” is kind of bogus without a tolerance band. It’s not likely the husband and wife earned the same within a dollar or even $500. I’m mentioning this because otherwise this middle number doesn’t mean much to me. It’s not like these numbers are integers so you need that range. I was thinking of which is the normal condidtion to use as a base, and I would take men earning more as the norm.

    Let me put it this way: Based on this survey, women are 16% less fertile when they make more than their husbands compared to vice versa. It’s significant but fairly modest. However, I know the GSS people didn’t want the responders to do math, but much more usable results would have been obtained if the question had 5 or 7 answers: > 100 % more, at least 50% more, between 10% and 50% more, within 10 % of each other, and then the other way.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Based on this survey, women are 16% less fertile when they make more than their husbands compared to vice versa.
     
    It seems to me there is also a definitional problem. Suppose a husband and wife both earn about the same, but after one or two children, the wife decides to stay home and have a few more kids. Are the subsequent children counted as part of the light blue bar or the dark blue bar?

    Women who have lots of children usually will have left the workforce because of childcare costs, and therefore by definition earn less than their husbands.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    It is broken down by husband/wife makes nothing/a lot less/a little less/the same/a little more/a lot more/all of it. I combined the first and last three because the question was only asked in two years so the sample is pretty small.
  9. Divorce rates are also higher when women out-earn their husbands.

  10. So where does all this whining about dysgenics come from?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "So where does all this whining about dysgenics come from?"

    By those bitter men who demand a return to the "old order", i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of "muh liberty", will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children. It's not that they have been duped by Jews and the media into thinking this way, it's just that they are exercising their freedom afforded to them in the society they reside in, similar to their ancestors who made choices different than them based on the standards of the time.

    In other words, it's normies thinking for themselves. I mean, can you imagine a normie man on a first day asking her right out of the gate, "So, how do you feel about dysgenics? What is your position on replacement level? Do you believe that we as a nation are engaging in demographic suicide?"

    For you single, Alt-Right men out there, make those three questions part of your set, along with light kino, and see if you get her amygdala tingling.

  11. @iffen
    So where does all this whining about dysgenics come from?

    “So where does all this whining about dysgenics come from?”

    By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of “muh liberty”, will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children. It’s not that they have been duped by Jews and the media into thinking this way, it’s just that they are exercising their freedom afforded to them in the society they reside in, similar to their ancestors who made choices different than them based on the standards of the time.

    In other words, it’s normies thinking for themselves. I mean, can you imagine a normie man on a first day asking her right out of the gate, “So, how do you feel about dysgenics? What is your position on replacement level? Do you believe that we as a nation are engaging in demographic suicide?”

    For you single, Alt-Right men out there, make those three questions part of your set, along with light kino, and see if you get her amygdala tingling.

    • Replies: @iffen
    By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    I thought that more capable men having more children than the less capable was the "old order."
    , @Audacious Epigone
    get her amygdala tingling

    Hah, I don't think that's the goal!
    , @jbwilson24
    "By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of “muh liberty”, will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children."

    No they won't.

    Left liberals will be outbred by competing groups who do not subscribe to the same ideas. Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc. Hindu arranged marriages have a ton of advantages, in addition to their practice of pooling money as extended families and living in multi-generational households.

    The left wing 'explore myself and the world' types will simply die out, since they won't be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman.

    In short, my argument is that this reproductive strategy is suboptimal in competition with groups that favor maximal reproductive output.

    Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance.
  12. I want to add this, A.E., that will apply to all of your posts in which you display interesting relationships from that huge amount of GSS data:

    Don’t take my criticism the wrong way. I do realize you love looking at, and getting interesting correlations out of, that GSS data. I understand that whatever questions were asked in surveys cannot be gotten into any more detail on, so you’ve just got to work with what you got from some of their badly-asked questions (along with the better ones). The graphs, and your interpretations thereof, generally make for some very interesting posts, so keep it up.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks, and I will! The GSS is fantastic for its breadth but it comes at the expense of depth. These surveys take hours to complete. There is only so much complexity that can be asked for when a respondent is being queried on 200 different things.
  13. @Rosie
    I guess women are willing to marry men who earn less than they do after all.

    They don’t, on average. Poorer men have lower marriage rate and higher divorce rate.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    They don’t, on average. Poorer men have lower marriage rate and higher divorce rate.
     
    Then we don't have to worry about the fertility rates of women who earn more than their husbands.
  14. @Corvinus
    "So where does all this whining about dysgenics come from?"

    By those bitter men who demand a return to the "old order", i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of "muh liberty", will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children. It's not that they have been duped by Jews and the media into thinking this way, it's just that they are exercising their freedom afforded to them in the society they reside in, similar to their ancestors who made choices different than them based on the standards of the time.

    In other words, it's normies thinking for themselves. I mean, can you imagine a normie man on a first day asking her right out of the gate, "So, how do you feel about dysgenics? What is your position on replacement level? Do you believe that we as a nation are engaging in demographic suicide?"

    For you single, Alt-Right men out there, make those three questions part of your set, along with light kino, and see if you get her amygdala tingling.

    By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    I thought that more capable men having more children than the less capable was the “old order.”

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Prissy, passive-aggressive cisgenders like Corvinus who equate infantile corporate sports fandom with masculinity are the new order. His ilk will be the new male standard in the coming matriarchy.
    , @Corvinus
    "I thought that more capable men having more children than the less capable was the “old order.”"

    How do YOU define this difference, under the "old order", between "capable" and "less capable"? Please be specific.
  15. On the other hand, within the field of surrogate motherhood childbirth rates among working women are through the roof!

  16. @iffen
    By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    I thought that more capable men having more children than the less capable was the "old order."

    Prissy, passive-aggressive cisgenders like Corvinus who equate infantile corporate sports fandom with masculinity are the new order. His ilk will be the new male standard in the coming matriarchy.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Prissy, passive-aggressive cisgenders like Corvinus who equate infantile corporate sports fandom with masculinity are the new order."

    As I clearly demonstrated in a previous thread, sports involvement/fandom and masculinity goes hand in hand. It's just now even more pronounced with professional leagues.

    "His ilk will be the new male standard in the coming matriarchy."

    The reality is that today's men define who they are for themselves without your virtue signaling as to what constitutes "real" masculinity. That just sticks in your crawl, doesn't it?
  17. @SeaSide
    They don't, on average. Poorer men have lower marriage rate and higher divorce rate.

    They don’t, on average. Poorer men have lower marriage rate and higher divorce rate.

    Then we don’t have to worry about the fertility rates of women who earn more than their husbands.

  18. @Achmed E. Newman
    "Both earn the same" is kind of bogus without a tolerance band. It's not likely the husband and wife earned the same within a dollar or even $500. I'm mentioning this because otherwise this middle number doesn't mean much to me. It's not like these numbers are integers so you need that range. I was thinking of which is the normal condidtion to use as a base, and I would take men earning more as the norm.

    Let me put it this way: Based on this survey, women are 16% less fertile when they make more than their husbands compared to vice versa. It's significant but fairly modest. However, I know the GSS people didn't want the responders to do math, but much more usable results would have been obtained if the question had 5 or 7 answers: > 100 % more, at least 50% more, between 10% and 50% more, within 10 % of each other, and then the other way.

    Based on this survey, women are 16% less fertile when they make more than their husbands compared to vice versa.

    It seems to me there is also a definitional problem. Suppose a husband and wife both earn about the same, but after one or two children, the wife decides to stay home and have a few more kids. Are the subsequent children counted as part of the light blue bar or the dark blue bar?

    Women who have lots of children usually will have left the workforce because of childcare costs, and therefore by definition earn less than their husbands.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Wait, the bars are blue, purple, and pink - you may have a color-vision problem, Rosie, or a really old screen! I get what you mean though.

    Anyway, that's a very good point. The data is not static, as in "are you white, hispanic, black, etc.?" I don't think you could detect this effect without more questions or types of data. Even if we knew whether the survey asked "IF you have a job, how much do you make compared to your husband?" and vice-versa, there could be an effect of scaling down to part-time due to kids. That's why stats can be made to lie about anything you want, though I think A.E. is doing the best he can with what he's got.
  19. @iffen
    By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    I thought that more capable men having more children than the less capable was the "old order."

    “I thought that more capable men having more children than the less capable was the “old order.””

    How do YOU define this difference, under the “old order”, between “capable” and “less capable”? Please be specific.

    • Replies: @iffen
    How do YOU define this difference, under the “old order”, between “capable” and “less capable”? Please be specific.

    Capable: smarts, earning power, education, wealth, moxie, social and political dominance, and a shit-load of git-er-done.

    Less capable: left side of the curve, no ambition, dependency, no earning power, no grit, no pride, nothing but a major case of whiney butt and blame everyone except myself.

    Please be specific.

    I have names, but we are not supposed to doxx.

  20. @SunBakedSuburb
    Prissy, passive-aggressive cisgenders like Corvinus who equate infantile corporate sports fandom with masculinity are the new order. His ilk will be the new male standard in the coming matriarchy.

    “Prissy, passive-aggressive cisgenders like Corvinus who equate infantile corporate sports fandom with masculinity are the new order.”

    As I clearly demonstrated in a previous thread, sports involvement/fandom and masculinity goes hand in hand. It’s just now even more pronounced with professional leagues.

    “His ilk will be the new male standard in the coming matriarchy.”

    The reality is that today’s men define who they are for themselves without your virtue signaling as to what constitutes “real” masculinity. That just sticks in your crawl, doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Masculinity can be defined in many ways. Sitting on your ass and watching corporate sports for hours on end isn't one of them. I wasn't born with a "crawl", so nothing gets stuck. And as always, thanks for your response.
  21. @Corvinus
    "I thought that more capable men having more children than the less capable was the “old order.”"

    How do YOU define this difference, under the "old order", between "capable" and "less capable"? Please be specific.

    How do YOU define this difference, under the “old order”, between “capable” and “less capable”? Please be specific.

    Capable: smarts, earning power, education, wealth, moxie, social and political dominance, and a shit-load of git-er-done.

    Less capable: left side of the curve, no ambition, dependency, no earning power, no grit, no pride, nothing but a major case of whiney butt and blame everyone except myself.

    Please be specific.

    I have names, but we are not supposed to doxx.

  22. Perhaps what we should really be focusing on, is that it is largely no longer possible to raise a family on a single salary.

    My son is a senior engineer in a large multinational corporation, his wife is a fairly high-ranking medical professional. They live in the suburbs of Seattle in a house that 50 years ago the salary of a single bus driver could pay for. They want kids, but somehow I don’t think that they will end up with four.

    We keep hearing from the Neoliberals that driving down wages and benefits is wonderful. It will free up money for investment, it will make us globally competitive with Bangladesh (oddly, not something this nation ever needed to be in the past), it will instill a sense of discipline in the working classes, it will build character – and of course, it will boost profits for the rich (you don’t say).

    Perhaps. But there are other societal costs to driving workers steadily down. The balance between the incomes of wives and husbands is surely interesting, but not as interesting as how much they are making combined, surely…

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @A.B. Prosper
    The Communist were basically correct in that the rich , capital as they call it quickly become adversaries of the working class. They always will at any opportunity as its a part of human nature when you are rich to strive for more status and wealth

    It was predicted by Marx pushing two centuries ago and we are living it.

    This doesn't mean that Communism either in its "central planning" aspect or its theoretical late stage anarchic form will work.

    What's needed probably is the elimination of scale to some degree, no corporations or large unmanageable enterprises .allowed . Individuals or a small groups are always liable

    Optionally we can try distributionism and rig the incentives to domestic wages and jobs.

    This would require a much less onerous state as its mainly a tax policy issue but either require a populous regime , probably a non Democratic one.

    What isn't working now though it ameliorates the effects of global capitalism a little is Social Democracy . Its however growing far too expensive for its effects and after 1972 or so, over the last forty years below replacement fertility has followed in its wake.

    Upside of the later I guess as eventually every single nation achieves this is that it corrects. As the population shrinks and very well may grow dumber , the technology that creates the problem may well go away

    Deindustrializing might end up for more good than bad in the long, a couple of centuries term.
    , @Anonymous

    Perhaps what we should really be focusing on, is that it is largely no longer possible to raise a family on a single salary.
     
    Public policy can no longer be designed to promote monogamous, heterosexual nuclear families because that is sexist and homophobic. It assumes that a family is monogamous and heterosexual, and discriminates against families or households that include just a single man or woman, roommates, homosexual couples, etc.

    If you design public policy towards promoting widespread, stable, monogamous heterosexual families, then you have to ensure widespread economic sexual dimorphism and pay men more so they can outbid what women can get on the market and from the state.

    Since sexism and homophobia are considered bad, we no longer have public policy privileging monogamous heterosexual families, and thus there's no reason to pay men more. A "household" with just a single man is equal to one with a married heterosexual couple, or with a gay couple, or a cat lady, or roommates, etc. You just have to pay enough so they don't starve and there aren't food riots and stuff.
  23. Great. We agree on what constitutes capable and less capable, although there is a quibble with this “left side of the curve”. But first things, first.

    Next, should there be limits on how many children the “less capable” ought to have, or even a ban on this group being allowed to sire offspring? If yes, why? If no, why?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Next, should there be limits on how many children the “less capable” ought to have, or even a ban on this group being allowed to sire offspring

    No, but in your case I am prepared to make an exception.
  24. @TG
    Perhaps what we should really be focusing on, is that it is largely no longer possible to raise a family on a single salary.

    My son is a senior engineer in a large multinational corporation, his wife is a fairly high-ranking medical professional. They live in the suburbs of Seattle in a house that 50 years ago the salary of a single bus driver could pay for. They want kids, but somehow I don't think that they will end up with four.

    We keep hearing from the Neoliberals that driving down wages and benefits is wonderful. It will free up money for investment, it will make us globally competitive with Bangladesh (oddly, not something this nation ever needed to be in the past), it will instill a sense of discipline in the working classes, it will build character - and of course, it will boost profits for the rich (you don't say).

    Perhaps. But there are other societal costs to driving workers steadily down. The balance between the incomes of wives and husbands is surely interesting, but not as interesting as how much they are making combined, surely...

    The Communist were basically correct in that the rich , capital as they call it quickly become adversaries of the working class. They always will at any opportunity as its a part of human nature when you are rich to strive for more status and wealth

    It was predicted by Marx pushing two centuries ago and we are living it.

    This doesn’t mean that Communism either in its “central planning” aspect or its theoretical late stage anarchic form will work.

    What’s needed probably is the elimination of scale to some degree, no corporations or large unmanageable enterprises .allowed . Individuals or a small groups are always liable

    Optionally we can try distributionism and rig the incentives to domestic wages and jobs.

    This would require a much less onerous state as its mainly a tax policy issue but either require a populous regime , probably a non Democratic one.

    What isn’t working now though it ameliorates the effects of global capitalism a little is Social Democracy . Its however growing far too expensive for its effects and after 1972 or so, over the last forty years below replacement fertility has followed in its wake.

    Upside of the later I guess as eventually every single nation achieves this is that it corrects. As the population shrinks and very well may grow dumber , the technology that creates the problem may well go away

    Deindustrializing might end up for more good than bad in the long, a couple of centuries term.

  25. In my community, the women are both well educated as well as being fecund (the average woman has a university degree and at least 3 – and usually 4 kids). They way it has worked out for us is that many women do the baby thing for about 10 years while either not working or working part time. Then once the kids are older, they progressively get (back) into the workforce at their own pace since the burden of raising kids has been lessened. This has worked out well for many families in our group.

    Society could do something like:
    1) Encourage women to get married early either some time after high school or junior college
    2) Allow a program for matriculation into universities when they are done with whatever child-raising they want to do (it would be a special matriculation program just for those women that opted to take that track in life)

    So, say, a woman could apply as an undergrad at Stanford or UCLA at the age of 30-35. Details could be discussed about whether old SAT scores could count, etc.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    So, say, a woman could apply as an undergrad at Stanford or UCLA at the age of 30-35. Details could be discussed about whether old SAT scores could count, etc.
     
    I would really like to see universities go back to their original purpose of liberal education rather than workforce preparation, which should be separate IMO.

    I am very grateful for my undergraduate years and I don't think I would be the mother I am today without them.

    This song always takes me back.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu6kMMh4szA
  26. @Talha
    In my community, the women are both well educated as well as being fecund (the average woman has a university degree and at least 3 - and usually 4 kids). They way it has worked out for us is that many women do the baby thing for about 10 years while either not working or working part time. Then once the kids are older, they progressively get (back) into the workforce at their own pace since the burden of raising kids has been lessened. This has worked out well for many families in our group.

    Society could do something like:
    1) Encourage women to get married early either some time after high school or junior college
    2) Allow a program for matriculation into universities when they are done with whatever child-raising they want to do (it would be a special matriculation program just for those women that opted to take that track in life)

    So, say, a woman could apply as an undergrad at Stanford or UCLA at the age of 30-35. Details could be discussed about whether old SAT scores could count, etc.

    Peace.

    So, say, a woman could apply as an undergrad at Stanford or UCLA at the age of 30-35. Details could be discussed about whether old SAT scores could count, etc.

    I would really like to see universities go back to their original purpose of liberal education rather than workforce preparation, which should be separate IMO.

    I am very grateful for my undergraduate years and I don’t think I would be the mother I am today without them.

    This song always takes me back.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I would really like to see universities go back to their original purpose of liberal education rather than workforce preparation
     
    I second this - the institutions should be separated as they were in the past. As Twinkie said; bring back the guilds.

    Peace.
    , @Anonymous

    I would really like to see universities go back to their original purpose of liberal education rather than workforce preparation, which should be separate IMO.
     
    The original purpose of universities was to train the clergy and lawyers. Later on, as their focus shifted to the pursuit of arts and sciences, they were necessary because books were relatively expensive commodities and one needed to be in a place with a centralized repository of books and knowledge, and where one could attend lectures where professors read aloud from books or their notes. This of course is no longer necessary with mass market publishing, libraries, the internet, Amazon, etc.

    More recently, we have the modern research university, whose purpose is to train specialists and conduct original research.
    , @iffen
    I thought that their purpose was to help smart women find smart mates.
  27. @Rosie

    Based on this survey, women are 16% less fertile when they make more than their husbands compared to vice versa.
     
    It seems to me there is also a definitional problem. Suppose a husband and wife both earn about the same, but after one or two children, the wife decides to stay home and have a few more kids. Are the subsequent children counted as part of the light blue bar or the dark blue bar?

    Women who have lots of children usually will have left the workforce because of childcare costs, and therefore by definition earn less than their husbands.

    Wait, the bars are blue, purple, and pink – you may have a color-vision problem, Rosie, or a really old screen! I get what you mean though.

    Anyway, that’s a very good point. The data is not static, as in “are you white, hispanic, black, etc.?” I don’t think you could detect this effect without more questions or types of data. Even if we knew whether the survey asked “IF you have a job, how much do you make compared to your husband?” and vice-versa, there could be an effect of scaling down to part-time due to kids. That’s why stats can be made to lie about anything you want, though I think A.E. is doing the best he can with what he’s got.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Standard operating procedure: I'll present the data with total fidelity (links, listed variables with filters, etc) of something or a set of things I find noteworthy and interesting. Interpret as you will.

    Then I'll offer some color commentary (less now than in the past--that's what comment sections are for!) for which mileage will vary.
  28. @Rosie

    So, say, a woman could apply as an undergrad at Stanford or UCLA at the age of 30-35. Details could be discussed about whether old SAT scores could count, etc.
     
    I would really like to see universities go back to their original purpose of liberal education rather than workforce preparation, which should be separate IMO.

    I am very grateful for my undergraduate years and I don't think I would be the mother I am today without them.

    This song always takes me back.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu6kMMh4szA

    I would really like to see universities go back to their original purpose of liberal education rather than workforce preparation

    I second this – the institutions should be separated as they were in the past. As Twinkie said; bring back the guilds.

    Peace.

  29. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    So, say, a woman could apply as an undergrad at Stanford or UCLA at the age of 30-35. Details could be discussed about whether old SAT scores could count, etc.
     
    I would really like to see universities go back to their original purpose of liberal education rather than workforce preparation, which should be separate IMO.

    I am very grateful for my undergraduate years and I don't think I would be the mother I am today without them.

    This song always takes me back.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu6kMMh4szA

    I would really like to see universities go back to their original purpose of liberal education rather than workforce preparation, which should be separate IMO.

    The original purpose of universities was to train the clergy and lawyers. Later on, as their focus shifted to the pursuit of arts and sciences, they were necessary because books were relatively expensive commodities and one needed to be in a place with a centralized repository of books and knowledge, and where one could attend lectures where professors read aloud from books or their notes. This of course is no longer necessary with mass market publishing, libraries, the internet, Amazon, etc.

    More recently, we have the modern research university, whose purpose is to train specialists and conduct original research.

  30. This of course is no longer necessary…

    But it doesn’t follow that it is no longer desirable.

  31. @Corvinus
    Great. We agree on what constitutes capable and less capable, although there is a quibble with this "left side of the curve". But first things, first.

    Next, should there be limits on how many children the "less capable" ought to have, or even a ban on this group being allowed to sire offspring? If yes, why? If no, why?

    Next, should there be limits on how many children the “less capable” ought to have, or even a ban on this group being allowed to sire offspring

    No, but in your case I am prepared to make an exception.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "No, but in your case I am prepared to make an exception."

    That sounds like you have a personal problem you need to immediately attend to.
  32. @Rosie

    So, say, a woman could apply as an undergrad at Stanford or UCLA at the age of 30-35. Details could be discussed about whether old SAT scores could count, etc.
     
    I would really like to see universities go back to their original purpose of liberal education rather than workforce preparation, which should be separate IMO.

    I am very grateful for my undergraduate years and I don't think I would be the mother I am today without them.

    This song always takes me back.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu6kMMh4szA

    I thought that their purpose was to help smart women find smart mates.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I thought that their purpose was to help smart women find smart mates.
     
    That too.
  33. @iffen
    I thought that their purpose was to help smart women find smart mates.

    I thought that their purpose was to help smart women find smart mates.

    That too.

    • Replies: @iffen
    How did you do that? I still have edit time left.
  34. @Rosie

    I thought that their purpose was to help smart women find smart mates.
     
    That too.

    How did you do that? I still have edit time left.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    I could ask the same of you.
  35. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @TG
    Perhaps what we should really be focusing on, is that it is largely no longer possible to raise a family on a single salary.

    My son is a senior engineer in a large multinational corporation, his wife is a fairly high-ranking medical professional. They live in the suburbs of Seattle in a house that 50 years ago the salary of a single bus driver could pay for. They want kids, but somehow I don't think that they will end up with four.

    We keep hearing from the Neoliberals that driving down wages and benefits is wonderful. It will free up money for investment, it will make us globally competitive with Bangladesh (oddly, not something this nation ever needed to be in the past), it will instill a sense of discipline in the working classes, it will build character - and of course, it will boost profits for the rich (you don't say).

    Perhaps. But there are other societal costs to driving workers steadily down. The balance between the incomes of wives and husbands is surely interesting, but not as interesting as how much they are making combined, surely...

    Perhaps what we should really be focusing on, is that it is largely no longer possible to raise a family on a single salary.

    Public policy can no longer be designed to promote monogamous, heterosexual nuclear families because that is sexist and homophobic. It assumes that a family is monogamous and heterosexual, and discriminates against families or households that include just a single man or woman, roommates, homosexual couples, etc.

    If you design public policy towards promoting widespread, stable, monogamous heterosexual families, then you have to ensure widespread economic sexual dimorphism and pay men more so they can outbid what women can get on the market and from the state.

    Since sexism and homophobia are considered bad, we no longer have public policy privileging monogamous heterosexual families, and thus there’s no reason to pay men more. A “household” with just a single man is equal to one with a married heterosexual couple, or with a gay couple, or a cat lady, or roommates, etc. You just have to pay enough so they don’t starve and there aren’t food riots and stuff.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If you design public policy towards promoting widespread, stable, monogamous heterosexual families, then you have to ensure widespread economic sexual dimorphism and pay men more so they can outbid what women can get on the market and from the state.
     
    No you don't. Women can hold a job and be married at the same time. A woman does not, by virtue of having a job, become ineligible for marriage. Therefore, there is no need for a bidding war.
  36. @iffen
    How did you do that? I still have edit time left.

    I could ask the same of you.

    • Replies: @iffen
    So you don't know either.
  37. Talha and Rosie need to wake up and smell the coffee. We can’t have “workforce training” and “university” because the color scheme is screwed up.

    • LOL: Talha
  38. @Rosie
    I could ask the same of you.

    So you don’t know either.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Nope.
  39. @Anonymous

    Perhaps what we should really be focusing on, is that it is largely no longer possible to raise a family on a single salary.
     
    Public policy can no longer be designed to promote monogamous, heterosexual nuclear families because that is sexist and homophobic. It assumes that a family is monogamous and heterosexual, and discriminates against families or households that include just a single man or woman, roommates, homosexual couples, etc.

    If you design public policy towards promoting widespread, stable, monogamous heterosexual families, then you have to ensure widespread economic sexual dimorphism and pay men more so they can outbid what women can get on the market and from the state.

    Since sexism and homophobia are considered bad, we no longer have public policy privileging monogamous heterosexual families, and thus there's no reason to pay men more. A "household" with just a single man is equal to one with a married heterosexual couple, or with a gay couple, or a cat lady, or roommates, etc. You just have to pay enough so they don't starve and there aren't food riots and stuff.

    If you design public policy towards promoting widespread, stable, monogamous heterosexual families, then you have to ensure widespread economic sexual dimorphism and pay men more so they can outbid what women can get on the market and from the state.

    No you don’t. Women can hold a job and be married at the same time. A woman does not, by virtue of having a job, become ineligible for marriage. Therefore, there is no need for a bidding war.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Men become less eligible for marriage by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent. Subsequently, men have to earn more to successfully outbid the market and state for women.
  40. @iffen
    So you don't know either.

    Nope.

  41. @Rosie

    If you design public policy towards promoting widespread, stable, monogamous heterosexual families, then you have to ensure widespread economic sexual dimorphism and pay men more so they can outbid what women can get on the market and from the state.
     
    No you don't. Women can hold a job and be married at the same time. A woman does not, by virtue of having a job, become ineligible for marriage. Therefore, there is no need for a bidding war.

    Men become less eligible for marriage by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent. Subsequently, men have to earn more to successfully outbid the market and state for women.

    • Replies: @iffen
    by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent.

    Why don't we just bind their feet so that they can't walk properly? That'll slow'em down.
    , @Rosie

    Men become less eligible for marriage by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent. Subsequently, men have to earn more to successfully outbid the market and state for women.

     

    If a man won't join a club that will have him as a member, that's not my problem. He needs to adjust his expectations.
  42. @Anonymous
    Men become less eligible for marriage by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent. Subsequently, men have to earn more to successfully outbid the market and state for women.

    by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent.

    Why don’t we just bind their feet so that they can’t walk properly? That’ll slow’em down.

  43. @Anonymous
    Men become less eligible for marriage by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent. Subsequently, men have to earn more to successfully outbid the market and state for women.

    Men become less eligible for marriage by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent. Subsequently, men have to earn more to successfully outbid the market and state for women.

    If a man won’t join a club that will have him as a member, that’s not my problem. He needs to adjust his expectations.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That's my point. Since the monogamous heterosexual family is no longer supposed to be the widespread standard of society, but simply one lifestyle among many and equal to all other lifestyles, men are not supposed to expect a wife and family. Because such expectations would be privileging the monogamous heterosexual family over other lifestyles such as being single, serial relationships, homosexual relationships, etc., and that would be sexist and homophobic. Men are now not supposed to expect a wife and family more than being single, serial dating, being homosexual, etc. It's America as the gay disco as described by E. Michael Jones:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbGS6jb4WfI
    , @Mr. Rational

    If a man won’t join a club that will have him as a member
     
    That's exactly it; because of EEOC regulations that club WON'T let him join.  The spots White men need are reserved for women and POC.

    He needs to adjust his expectations.
     
    Wrong.  Goverment needs to stop rigging the work and sexual markets by mandating "equal" outcomes.

    that’s not my problem.
     
    Until your husband gets laid off and can't get another job because everything is reserved for not-him, you mean.  Or you have a son.
  44. One might think if Anon was so worried about men’s well-being, he’d be calling Tom Cotton rather than stirring up resentment against women.

    Great to see friends from @immivoice. I'm proud to cosponsor the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. Skilled immigrants should be able to earn green cards in a timely manner, regardless of the country they came from—enabling them to further contribute to our communities. pic.twitter.com/enKO4HZq1j— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) January 30, 2019

    • Replies: @iffen
    Yes, very disappointing. I guess we all have flaws.
    , @Anonymous
    This is consistent with what I've said. Immigration lowers men's wages, which makes it harder for men to outbid the market and state for women.
  45. jackie gise dumped bicycle shop owner ted jorgensen and married exxon engineer miguel bezos. so there you go.

    not that this matters, but the woman having earnings options over men is a big issue with africans in the US. more women in college than men, more having regular jobs and so forth. that’s another factor driving the single mother rate to 75% among africans.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    not that this matters, but the woman having earnings options over men is a big issue with africans in the US. more women in college than men, more having regular jobs and so forth. that’s another factor driving the single mother rate to 75% among africans.
     
    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males who are not incarcerated or wanted on pending charges. As a result, men have all the bargaining power in the dating market and can easily get sex with no strings attached.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391
  46. @Rosie
    One might think if Anon was so worried about men's well-being, he'd be calling Tom Cotton rather than stirring up resentment against women.

    Great to see friends from @immivoice. I'm proud to cosponsor the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. Skilled immigrants should be able to earn green cards in a timely manner, regardless of the country they came from—enabling them to further contribute to our communities. pic.twitter.com/enKO4HZq1j— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) January 30, 2019
     

    Yes, very disappointing. I guess we all have flaws.

  47. @prime noticer
    jackie gise dumped bicycle shop owner ted jorgensen and married exxon engineer miguel bezos. so there you go.

    not that this matters, but the woman having earnings options over men is a big issue with africans in the US. more women in college than men, more having regular jobs and so forth. that's another factor driving the single mother rate to 75% among africans.

    not that this matters, but the woman having earnings options over men is a big issue with africans in the US. more women in college than men, more having regular jobs and so forth. that’s another factor driving the single mother rate to 75% among africans.

    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males who are not incarcerated or wanted on pending charges. As a result, men have all the bargaining power in the dating market and can easily get sex with no strings attached.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Women working and supporting themselves and their children and lack of paternal investment are the norm among Africans. The problem is that this behavior is spreading to the rest of society following women's lib.
    , @iffen
    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males

    So if we had many more African males our problem would be solved?
    , @Mr. Rational

    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males who are not incarcerated or wanted on pending charges.
     
    You mean "the problem is that Africans are a race of criminals."

    As a result, men have all the bargaining power in the dating market and can easily get sex with no strings attached.
     
    As long as that doesn't result in bastard children I'm okay with it.  Mandatory Norplant for Black women until marriage will do it.

    Or we can recolonize the criminals back to Africa and pay the surplus African women to follow them.  That's probably even better.
  48. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Men become less eligible for marriage by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent. Subsequently, men have to earn more to successfully outbid the market and state for women.

     

    If a man won't join a club that will have him as a member, that's not my problem. He needs to adjust his expectations.

    That’s my point. Since the monogamous heterosexual family is no longer supposed to be the widespread standard of society, but simply one lifestyle among many and equal to all other lifestyles, men are not supposed to expect a wife and family. Because such expectations would be privileging the monogamous heterosexual family over other lifestyles such as being single, serial relationships, homosexual relationships, etc., and that would be sexist and homophobic. Men are now not supposed to expect a wife and family more than being single, serial dating, being homosexual, etc. It’s America as the gay disco as described by E. Michael Jones:

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Fortunately while we may have forgotten selection, selection hasn't forgotten about us. No, in the end we're not all dead. Hell, I'm less than a year old, three years old, and five years old. Not this clowns, though.
  49. @Rosie
    One might think if Anon was so worried about men's well-being, he'd be calling Tom Cotton rather than stirring up resentment against women.

    Great to see friends from @immivoice. I'm proud to cosponsor the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. Skilled immigrants should be able to earn green cards in a timely manner, regardless of the country they came from—enabling them to further contribute to our communities. pic.twitter.com/enKO4HZq1j— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) January 30, 2019
     

    This is consistent with what I’ve said. Immigration lowers men’s wages, which makes it harder for men to outbid the market and state for women.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    This is consistent with what I’ve said. Immigration lowers men’s wages, which makes it harder for men to outbid the market and state for women.
     
    You're a filthy liar, Anon. You know perfectly well men do not have to outbid the market for women, but you go on saying so because you don't like stating forthrightly what exactly you demand:

    Economic coercion of women into marriage whether they want it or not.

    I really don't think many around here are fooled by your sophistry.
  50. @Rosie

    not that this matters, but the woman having earnings options over men is a big issue with africans in the US. more women in college than men, more having regular jobs and so forth. that’s another factor driving the single mother rate to 75% among africans.
     
    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males who are not incarcerated or wanted on pending charges. As a result, men have all the bargaining power in the dating market and can easily get sex with no strings attached.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    Women working and supporting themselves and their children and lack of paternal investment are the norm among Africans. The problem is that this behavior is spreading to the rest of society following women’s lib.

  51. @Rosie

    not that this matters, but the woman having earnings options over men is a big issue with africans in the US. more women in college than men, more having regular jobs and so forth. that’s another factor driving the single mother rate to 75% among africans.
     
    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males who are not incarcerated or wanted on pending charges. As a result, men have all the bargaining power in the dating market and can easily get sex with no strings attached.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males

    So if we had many more African males our problem would be solved?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    So if we had many more African males our problem would be solved?
     
    No, but there is an assumption around here that the breakdown of marriage is all women's fault. Even Tucker said this on national TV. He even used AA problems as evidence that greater freedom for women is causing illegitimacy. In fact, there is no more evidence for this hypothesis than the alternative, which is that men actually determine the sociosexual environment by refusing to commit when the odds are in their favor.

    Of course, I'd be delighted to quit the blame game altogether, but if that's not going to happen, I will defend women. And of course, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

  52. @Corvinus
    "Prissy, passive-aggressive cisgenders like Corvinus who equate infantile corporate sports fandom with masculinity are the new order."

    As I clearly demonstrated in a previous thread, sports involvement/fandom and masculinity goes hand in hand. It's just now even more pronounced with professional leagues.

    "His ilk will be the new male standard in the coming matriarchy."

    The reality is that today's men define who they are for themselves without your virtue signaling as to what constitutes "real" masculinity. That just sticks in your crawl, doesn't it?

    Masculinity can be defined in many ways. Sitting on your ass and watching corporate sports for hours on end isn’t one of them. I wasn’t born with a “crawl”, so nothing gets stuck. And as always, thanks for your response.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Sitting on your ass and watching corporate sports for hours on end isn’t one of them."

    It's actually watching professional sports on a weekend with buddies, along with playing in the backyard with your buddies or your kids before or after the game. You really enjoy making things not what they truly are.

    "I wasn’t born with a “crawl”, so nothing gets stuck."

    You can say that again. In one ear and out the other.
  53. @Rosie

    Men become less eligible for marriage by virtue of women having jobs and being financially independent. Subsequently, men have to earn more to successfully outbid the market and state for women.

     

    If a man won't join a club that will have him as a member, that's not my problem. He needs to adjust his expectations.

    If a man won’t join a club that will have him as a member

    That’s exactly it; because of EEOC regulations that club WON’T let him join.  The spots White men need are reserved for women and POC.

    He needs to adjust his expectations.

    Wrong.  Goverment needs to stop rigging the work and sexual markets by mandating “equal” outcomes.

    that’s not my problem.

    Until your husband gets laid off and can’t get another job because everything is reserved for not-him, you mean.  Or you have a son.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    You completely misunderstood my post.
  54. @Mr. Rational

    If a man won’t join a club that will have him as a member
     
    That's exactly it; because of EEOC regulations that club WON'T let him join.  The spots White men need are reserved for women and POC.

    He needs to adjust his expectations.
     
    Wrong.  Goverment needs to stop rigging the work and sexual markets by mandating "equal" outcomes.

    that’s not my problem.
     
    Until your husband gets laid off and can't get another job because everything is reserved for not-him, you mean.  Or you have a son.

    You completely misunderstood my post.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    So do a better job of explaining yourself next time, instead of trying to win through snark.
  55. @Rosie

    not that this matters, but the woman having earnings options over men is a big issue with africans in the US. more women in college than men, more having regular jobs and so forth. that’s another factor driving the single mother rate to 75% among africans.
     
    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males who are not incarcerated or wanted on pending charges. As a result, men have all the bargaining power in the dating market and can easily get sex with no strings attached.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males who are not incarcerated or wanted on pending charges.

    You mean “the problem is that Africans are a race of criminals.”

    As a result, men have all the bargaining power in the dating market and can easily get sex with no strings attached.

    As long as that doesn’t result in bastard children I’m okay with it.  Mandatory Norplant for Black women until marriage will do it.

    Or we can recolonize the criminals back to Africa and pay the surplus African women to follow them.  That’s probably even better.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Mandatory Norplant for Black women until marriage will do it. Or we can recolonize the criminals back to Africa and pay the surplus African women to follow them. That’s probably even better."

    Neither of your proposals would fly. And, of course, they are all anti-Christian. You really should call yourself Mr. Irrational from now on.
  56. @Rosie
    You completely misunderstood my post.

    So do a better job of explaining yourself next time, instead of trying to win through snark.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    So do a better job of explaining yourself next time, instead of trying to win through snark.
     
    One gets cranky when constantly threatened with denial of basic human rights. Deal with it.
  57. @Mr. Rational
    So do a better job of explaining yourself next time, instead of trying to win through snark.

    So do a better job of explaining yourself next time, instead of trying to win through snark.

    One gets cranky when constantly threatened with denial of basic human rights. Deal with it.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    One gets cranky when constantly threatened with denial of basic human rights.
     
    Rather recently invented "rights"; coverture was the law of the land not all that long ago.

    Deal with it.
     
    It appears to have escaped you that we have a dysfunctional sexual market and legal system which is a large part of what's driving our civilizational collapse.  Returning to the mechanisms which prevented these dysfunctions IS dealing with it.
    , @Alex S
    Poor rosie. What is this "deal with it" thing that you say, as if your opinion matters. You say that often because you really hope that your opinion should matter, which betrays your fears. The fears of the Far Right not caring about your opinion and instead implementing what they want.

    This is why you are hanging around in such right wing places. You are triggered by this and you fear it.


    Actually *you* will have to deal with "it".

    And what is the "it"?

    The vast majority of the Far Right are men, and the vast majority of them want to create some kind of patriarchal society, so they won't care about your opinions. Too bad. No amount of laughable "deal with it" comments implying that your opinion matters (this is what you desperately hope, and would like to instill, to yourself and to others) are going to change that. The Far Right does not care about the cries of cryptofeminists.

    ===============================================================


    Guys, this rosie creature is triggered by the far right/alt right intending to “restore patriarchy” so this is why it is hanging around in right wing places. I’v seen it in other places too. It hopes that if it spams lot’s of comments in right wing sites then it is going to stop something or save feminism.
    Ha ha.

    It is not that the alt right is going to care about it, lol. This thing is virtual nobody. Hence the desperation and the spam in various places.

    Newsflash – the far right/alt right is heavily male dominated, so it will push male views about society. And most of these guys don’t care about feminist desperation too much. Their hearts are cold for creatures like this.

    So just ignore it, as it is attention that it craves. What it will hate the most will be if people do not care about it and it’s pleas and simply ignore it.
  58. @Anonymous
    This is consistent with what I've said. Immigration lowers men's wages, which makes it harder for men to outbid the market and state for women.

    This is consistent with what I’ve said. Immigration lowers men’s wages, which makes it harder for men to outbid the market and state for women.

    You’re a filthy liar, Anon. You know perfectly well men do not have to outbid the market for women, but you go on saying so because you don’t like stating forthrightly what exactly you demand:

    Economic coercion of women into marriage whether they want it or not.

    I really don’t think many around here are fooled by your sophistry.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So homeless men and janitors don't need to figure out a way to make more money before they have a decent shot at landing a wife?
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Rosie, you are a smart lady, which is why I agree with you on most other topics, maybe all. However, Anon-375 here is simply right. A man is expected to be ABLE TO support a family - that is the main role expected of him. Sure, he may get married even if not - some of the goateed slackers down a the coffee shops may be married for all I know.

    The government's AA programs for women, and the quotas in academia and all over have messed up the free market in labor (of course immigration is a BIG factor, but it's not the only one, and it's not what we're discussing in this series of threads). Nearly half the formerly men-0ccupied areas of the labor force, at least jobs that are not dangerous, being taken up by women, lowers men's chances of getting a family-supporting job drastically.

    I'm not arguing for barring women from college, just against feminism, especially that imposed via rule of law by governments. You do not want to accept your role as a woman, and that makes you an unrepentant feminist. Again, there are 12-step programs for anything these days!
  59. @iffen
    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males

    So if we had many more African males our problem would be solved?

    So if we had many more African males our problem would be solved?

    No, but there is an assumption around here that the breakdown of marriage is all women’s fault. Even Tucker said this on national TV. He even used AA problems as evidence that greater freedom for women is causing illegitimacy. In fact, there is no more evidence for this hypothesis than the alternative, which is that men actually determine the sociosexual environment by refusing to commit when the odds are in their favor.

    Of course, I’d be delighted to quit the blame game altogether, but if that’s not going to happen, I will defend women. And of course, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You are taking this too personally and emotionally. This has nothing to do with whose "fault" it is. Morality has nothing to do with it. People behave in certain ways under certain conditions and incentives.

    Women have less incentive to pursue male commitment when the environment allows them and their children to survive without dutiful male providers. For black women in the US, they get welfare and government jobs at the DMV. That's why they're single mothers. This comes naturally to blacks. In Africa, there are no winters and the environment is benign enough that women do all the work and agriculture there for themselves and their children to survive.
    , @iffen

    No, but there is an assumption around here that the breakdown of marriage is all women’s fault. Even Tucker said this on national TV. He even used AA problems as evidence that greater freedom for women is causing illegitimacy. In fact, there is no more evidence for this hypothesis than the alternative, which is that men actually determine the sociosexual environment by refusing to commit when the odds are in their favor.
    Of course, I’d be delighted to quit the blame game altogether, but if that’s not going to happen, I will defend women.
     
    I think that there is enough blame to go around.

    There may be some detrimental effect on male employment from AA just like there may be some on white employment from AA for non-whites, but I don’t know how you could measure it, and I doubt that it is a huge effect. Women entering the workforce did have a detrimental effect on male employment, but that was a political and economic decision made by “everyone” so women should not take the sole blame for any bad results.

    It is not blaming women to acknowledge the fact that many women take advantage of a social welfare system that incentivizes formation of single parent families. Those laws were put in place by governmental bodies dominated by men, so we shouldn’t single out women to blame for our collective actions.

    We have failed culturally and economically. We have failed to find the right balance between individualism and communitarianism. We have been felled by rampant commercialism and consumerism, hyper-individualism and narcissism that would make Narcissus blush.
  60. @Rosie

    This is consistent with what I’ve said. Immigration lowers men’s wages, which makes it harder for men to outbid the market and state for women.
     
    You're a filthy liar, Anon. You know perfectly well men do not have to outbid the market for women, but you go on saying so because you don't like stating forthrightly what exactly you demand:

    Economic coercion of women into marriage whether they want it or not.

    I really don't think many around here are fooled by your sophistry.

    So homeless men and janitors don’t need to figure out a way to make more money before they have a decent shot at landing a wife?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    So homeless men and janitors don’t need to figure out a way to make more money before they have a decent shot at landing a wife?
     
    I would think a homeless man would want to figure out a way to make more money for reasons more immediate than finding a wife.

    As for the janitor, he can certainly get a wife, though probably not one that he wants. Again, men are just as picky as women, only in different ways. Not my problem.
  61. @Anonymous
    So homeless men and janitors don't need to figure out a way to make more money before they have a decent shot at landing a wife?

    So homeless men and janitors don’t need to figure out a way to make more money before they have a decent shot at landing a wife?

    I would think a homeless man would want to figure out a way to make more money for reasons more immediate than finding a wife.

    As for the janitor, he can certainly get a wife, though probably not one that he wants. Again, men are just as picky as women, only in different ways. Not my problem.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    As for the janitor, he can certainly get a wife, though probably not one that he wants. Again, men are just as picky as women, only in different ways. Not my problem.
     
    Wait, why can't a janitor get a wife that he wants? What's wrong with janitors? Do you have something against janitors?
  62. @iffen
    Next, should there be limits on how many children the “less capable” ought to have, or even a ban on this group being allowed to sire offspring

    No, but in your case I am prepared to make an exception.

    “No, but in your case I am prepared to make an exception.”

    That sounds like you have a personal problem you need to immediately attend to.

  63. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    So if we had many more African males our problem would be solved?
     
    No, but there is an assumption around here that the breakdown of marriage is all women's fault. Even Tucker said this on national TV. He even used AA problems as evidence that greater freedom for women is causing illegitimacy. In fact, there is no more evidence for this hypothesis than the alternative, which is that men actually determine the sociosexual environment by refusing to commit when the odds are in their favor.

    Of course, I'd be delighted to quit the blame game altogether, but if that's not going to happen, I will defend women. And of course, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

    You are taking this too personally and emotionally. This has nothing to do with whose “fault” it is. Morality has nothing to do with it. People behave in certain ways under certain conditions and incentives.

    Women have less incentive to pursue male commitment when the environment allows them and their children to survive without dutiful male providers. For black women in the US, they get welfare and government jobs at the DMV. That’s why they’re single mothers. This comes naturally to blacks. In Africa, there are no winters and the environment is benign enough that women do all the work and agriculture there for themselves and their children to survive.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    This has nothing to do with whose “fault” it is.
     
    I'm not interested in your semantics. You claim that women's behavior is the cause of all the problems, so you are effectively blaming us. What's more, you are demanding that we lose our rights as a result, so please just stop trying to play at being the dispassionate observer.

    Women have less incentive to pursue male commitment when the environment allows them and their children to survive without dutiful male providers. For black women in the US, they get welfare and government jobs at the DMV. That’s why they’re single mothers.
     
    This is why you can't be reasoned with. You expect others to accept your unsupported speculations as established fact.
  64. @Mr. Rational

    The problem with Africans is that there is a shortage of males who are not incarcerated or wanted on pending charges.
     
    You mean "the problem is that Africans are a race of criminals."

    As a result, men have all the bargaining power in the dating market and can easily get sex with no strings attached.
     
    As long as that doesn't result in bastard children I'm okay with it.  Mandatory Norplant for Black women until marriage will do it.

    Or we can recolonize the criminals back to Africa and pay the surplus African women to follow them.  That's probably even better.

    “Mandatory Norplant for Black women until marriage will do it. Or we can recolonize the criminals back to Africa and pay the surplus African women to follow them. That’s probably even better.”

    Neither of your proposals would fly. And, of course, they are all anti-Christian. You really should call yourself Mr. Irrational from now on.

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
  65. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    So homeless men and janitors don’t need to figure out a way to make more money before they have a decent shot at landing a wife?
     
    I would think a homeless man would want to figure out a way to make more money for reasons more immediate than finding a wife.

    As for the janitor, he can certainly get a wife, though probably not one that he wants. Again, men are just as picky as women, only in different ways. Not my problem.

    As for the janitor, he can certainly get a wife, though probably not one that he wants. Again, men are just as picky as women, only in different ways. Not my problem.

    Wait, why can’t a janitor get a wife that he wants? What’s wrong with janitors? Do you have something against janitors?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Wait, why can’t a janitor get a wife that he wants? What’s wrong with janitors? Do you have something against janitors?
     
    No, but I have noticed that men have something against women who don't much care for starving themselves. Since most women don't care for starving themselves, they're usually rejected as "fat" and therefore unacceptable to men.
  66. @SunBakedSuburb
    Masculinity can be defined in many ways. Sitting on your ass and watching corporate sports for hours on end isn't one of them. I wasn't born with a "crawl", so nothing gets stuck. And as always, thanks for your response.

    “Sitting on your ass and watching corporate sports for hours on end isn’t one of them.”

    It’s actually watching professional sports on a weekend with buddies, along with playing in the backyard with your buddies or your kids before or after the game. You really enjoy making things not what they truly are.

    “I wasn’t born with a “crawl”, so nothing gets stuck.”

    You can say that again. In one ear and out the other.

  67. @Anonymous

    As for the janitor, he can certainly get a wife, though probably not one that he wants. Again, men are just as picky as women, only in different ways. Not my problem.
     
    Wait, why can't a janitor get a wife that he wants? What's wrong with janitors? Do you have something against janitors?

    Wait, why can’t a janitor get a wife that he wants? What’s wrong with janitors? Do you have something against janitors?

    No, but I have noticed that men have something against women who don’t much care for starving themselves. Since most women don’t care for starving themselves, they’re usually rejected as “fat” and therefore unacceptable to men.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    All I said was "janitor" and you immediately inferred that he would not be able to get a wife that wants. Why did you immediately infer this? I said nothing else about the hypothetical man. What is it about being a janitor that, in your judgment, prevents a man from getting a wife that he wants?
  68. @Anonymous
    You are taking this too personally and emotionally. This has nothing to do with whose "fault" it is. Morality has nothing to do with it. People behave in certain ways under certain conditions and incentives.

    Women have less incentive to pursue male commitment when the environment allows them and their children to survive without dutiful male providers. For black women in the US, they get welfare and government jobs at the DMV. That's why they're single mothers. This comes naturally to blacks. In Africa, there are no winters and the environment is benign enough that women do all the work and agriculture there for themselves and their children to survive.

    This has nothing to do with whose “fault” it is.

    I’m not interested in your semantics. You claim that women’s behavior is the cause of all the problems, so you are effectively blaming us. What’s more, you are demanding that we lose our rights as a result, so please just stop trying to play at being the dispassionate observer.

    Women have less incentive to pursue male commitment when the environment allows them and their children to survive without dutiful male providers. For black women in the US, they get welfare and government jobs at the DMV. That’s why they’re single mothers.

    This is why you can’t be reasoned with. You expect others to accept your unsupported speculations as established fact.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    These are pretty well established claims from anthropology regarding Africans.
  69. @Rosie

    This has nothing to do with whose “fault” it is.
     
    I'm not interested in your semantics. You claim that women's behavior is the cause of all the problems, so you are effectively blaming us. What's more, you are demanding that we lose our rights as a result, so please just stop trying to play at being the dispassionate observer.

    Women have less incentive to pursue male commitment when the environment allows them and their children to survive without dutiful male providers. For black women in the US, they get welfare and government jobs at the DMV. That’s why they’re single mothers.
     
    This is why you can't be reasoned with. You expect others to accept your unsupported speculations as established fact.

    These are pretty well established claims from anthropology regarding Africans.

  70. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Wait, why can’t a janitor get a wife that he wants? What’s wrong with janitors? Do you have something against janitors?
     
    No, but I have noticed that men have something against women who don't much care for starving themselves. Since most women don't care for starving themselves, they're usually rejected as "fat" and therefore unacceptable to men.

    All I said was “janitor” and you immediately inferred that he would not be able to get a wife that wants. Why did you immediately infer this? I said nothing else about the hypothetical man. What is it about being a janitor that, in your judgment, prevents a man from getting a wife that he wants?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What is it about being a janitor that, in your judgment, prevents a man from getting a wife that he wants?
     
    His low status. He will have to settle for a chubby, low-class woman or do without.

    Just as unattractive women are not entitled to date the best men. As you said, it's not rocket science.
  71. @Rosie

    This is consistent with what I’ve said. Immigration lowers men’s wages, which makes it harder for men to outbid the market and state for women.
     
    You're a filthy liar, Anon. You know perfectly well men do not have to outbid the market for women, but you go on saying so because you don't like stating forthrightly what exactly you demand:

    Economic coercion of women into marriage whether they want it or not.

    I really don't think many around here are fooled by your sophistry.

    Rosie, you are a smart lady, which is why I agree with you on most other topics, maybe all. However, Anon-375 here is simply right. A man is expected to be ABLE TO support a family – that is the main role expected of him. Sure, he may get married even if not – some of the goateed slackers down a the coffee shops may be married for all I know.

    The government’s AA programs for women, and the quotas in academia and all over have messed up the free market in labor (of course immigration is a BIG factor, but it’s not the only one, and it’s not what we’re discussing in this series of threads). Nearly half the formerly men-0ccupied areas of the labor force, at least jobs that are not dangerous, being taken up by women, lowers men’s chances of getting a family-supporting job drastically.

    I’m not arguing for barring women from college, just against feminism, especially that imposed via rule of law by governments. You do not want to accept your role as a woman, and that makes you an unrepentant feminist. Again, there are 12-step programs for anything these days!

    • Replies: @Talha

    A man is expected to be ABLE TO support a family – that is the main role expected of him.
     
    Is there even a debate on this? No family I know would consider a suitor that was not capable of supporting their daughter financially in a manner that she is accustomed to. I can’t think any self-respecting man would approach a woman for marriage without this base being covered?

    Am I getting too old?

    I mean, I remember the last scene in The Graduate, but come on - that’s just a movie!

    Peace.

    , @Rosie

    You do not want to accept your role as a woman, and that makes you an unrepentant feminist.
     
    If you consider me a feminist fine.

    Nearly half the formerly men-0ccupied areas of the labor force, at least jobs that are not dangerous, being taken up by women, lowers men’s chances of getting a family-supporting job drastically.
     
    There is an argument to be made that married women who are able should leave the workforce to free up jobs for men, but not because I accept your premise that men are unmarriageable unless they can support a family, but rather because I am a socialist who is bothered by the idea of one family having two incomes while another family has none.

    But really, it is pointless to speculate about whether this is necessary. The first order of business is to stop immigration and outsourcing, then consider further measures as necessary. I have in the past suggested the use of progressive taxation to prevent dual-income couples from bidding up the price of housing. The revenues could be used to fund a program like this:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-benefit/poland-to-grant-pensions-to-stay-at-home-mums-of-four-idUSKCN1PG1RM
  72. @Achmed E. Newman
    Rosie, you are a smart lady, which is why I agree with you on most other topics, maybe all. However, Anon-375 here is simply right. A man is expected to be ABLE TO support a family - that is the main role expected of him. Sure, he may get married even if not - some of the goateed slackers down a the coffee shops may be married for all I know.

    The government's AA programs for women, and the quotas in academia and all over have messed up the free market in labor (of course immigration is a BIG factor, but it's not the only one, and it's not what we're discussing in this series of threads). Nearly half the formerly men-0ccupied areas of the labor force, at least jobs that are not dangerous, being taken up by women, lowers men's chances of getting a family-supporting job drastically.

    I'm not arguing for barring women from college, just against feminism, especially that imposed via rule of law by governments. You do not want to accept your role as a woman, and that makes you an unrepentant feminist. Again, there are 12-step programs for anything these days!

    A man is expected to be ABLE TO support a family – that is the main role expected of him.

    Is there even a debate on this? No family I know would consider a suitor that was not capable of supporting their daughter financially in a manner that she is accustomed to. I can’t think any self-respecting man would approach a woman for marriage without this base being covered?

    Am I getting too old?

    I mean, I remember the last scene in The Graduate, but come on – that’s just a movie!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Am I getting too old?
     
    Yes. My husband had nothing when we got married, but we muddled through. Now, we have everything we need and most everything we want. I married him because I loved him and valued his companionship.
  73. @Anonymous
    All I said was "janitor" and you immediately inferred that he would not be able to get a wife that wants. Why did you immediately infer this? I said nothing else about the hypothetical man. What is it about being a janitor that, in your judgment, prevents a man from getting a wife that he wants?

    What is it about being a janitor that, in your judgment, prevents a man from getting a wife that he wants?

    His low status. He will have to settle for a chubby, low-class woman or do without.

    Just as unattractive women are not entitled to date the best men. As you said, it’s not rocket science.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Ok so do you now see that men have to outbid the market for women?
  74. @Talha

    A man is expected to be ABLE TO support a family – that is the main role expected of him.
     
    Is there even a debate on this? No family I know would consider a suitor that was not capable of supporting their daughter financially in a manner that she is accustomed to. I can’t think any self-respecting man would approach a woman for marriage without this base being covered?

    Am I getting too old?

    I mean, I remember the last scene in The Graduate, but come on - that’s just a movie!

    Peace.

    Am I getting too old?

    Yes. My husband had nothing when we got married, but we muddled through. Now, we have everything we need and most everything we want. I married him because I loved him and valued his companionship.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Was your father involved in the decision? And I don’t mean “was he consulted”; did he have veto power?

    Peace.

  75. @Achmed E. Newman
    Rosie, you are a smart lady, which is why I agree with you on most other topics, maybe all. However, Anon-375 here is simply right. A man is expected to be ABLE TO support a family - that is the main role expected of him. Sure, he may get married even if not - some of the goateed slackers down a the coffee shops may be married for all I know.

    The government's AA programs for women, and the quotas in academia and all over have messed up the free market in labor (of course immigration is a BIG factor, but it's not the only one, and it's not what we're discussing in this series of threads). Nearly half the formerly men-0ccupied areas of the labor force, at least jobs that are not dangerous, being taken up by women, lowers men's chances of getting a family-supporting job drastically.

    I'm not arguing for barring women from college, just against feminism, especially that imposed via rule of law by governments. You do not want to accept your role as a woman, and that makes you an unrepentant feminist. Again, there are 12-step programs for anything these days!

    You do not want to accept your role as a woman, and that makes you an unrepentant feminist.

    If you consider me a feminist fine.

    Nearly half the formerly men-0ccupied areas of the labor force, at least jobs that are not dangerous, being taken up by women, lowers men’s chances of getting a family-supporting job drastically.

    There is an argument to be made that married women who are able should leave the workforce to free up jobs for men, but not because I accept your premise that men are unmarriageable unless they can support a family, but rather because I am a socialist who is bothered by the idea of one family having two incomes while another family has none.

    But really, it is pointless to speculate about whether this is necessary. The first order of business is to stop immigration and outsourcing, then consider further measures as necessary. I have in the past suggested the use of progressive taxation to prevent dual-income couples from bidding up the price of housing. The revenues could be used to fund a program like this:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-benefit/poland-to-grant-pensions-to-stay-at-home-mums-of-four-idUSKCN1PG1RM

  76. @Rosie

    Am I getting too old?
     
    Yes. My husband had nothing when we got married, but we muddled through. Now, we have everything we need and most everything we want. I married him because I loved him and valued his companionship.

    Was your father involved in the decision? And I don’t mean “was he consulted”; did he have veto power?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Was your father involved in the decision? And I don’t mean “was he consulted”; did he have veto power?
     
    Hell no!
  77. @Talha
    Was your father involved in the decision? And I don’t mean “was he consulted”; did he have veto power?

    Peace.

    Was your father involved in the decision? And I don’t mean “was he consulted”; did he have veto power?

    Hell no!

    • Replies: @Talha
    I rest my case. ;)

    Not that you care, but that would be an invalid marriage - from the get go - in three Sunni schools and in the one I follow (Hanafi), the father could have it annulled in court due to the concern over lack of proper maintenance and support*.

    Peace.

    *This is a serious factor in a marriage, a husband is required (by sacred law) to provide for the wife as per *her* upbringing; if she is used to a servant and not cooking - many scholars state that he is obligated to provide that for her. Thus fathers naturally look out for their daughter’s interests in this regard. Rule of thumb; don’t marry a high-maintenance wife if you can’t afford it.

  78. @Rosie

    Was your father involved in the decision? And I don’t mean “was he consulted”; did he have veto power?
     
    Hell no!

    I rest my case. 😉

    Not that you care, but that would be an invalid marriage – from the get go – in three Sunni schools and in the one I follow (Hanafi), the father could have it annulled in court due to the concern over lack of proper maintenance and support*.

    Peace.

    *This is a serious factor in a marriage, a husband is required (by sacred law) to provide for the wife as per *her* upbringing; if she is used to a servant and not cooking – many scholars state that he is obligated to provide that for her. Thus fathers naturally look out for their daughter’s interests in this regard. Rule of thumb; don’t marry a high-maintenance wife if you can’t afford it.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    Rule of thumb; don’t marry a high-maintenance wife if you can’t afford it.

    What hadith covers the situation where the husband, through devotion (or stupidity) turns the wife into a high-maintenance one, but then meets circumstances where he can't continue to meet her every wish and desire? What then?
  79. @Achmed E. Newman
    "Both earn the same" is kind of bogus without a tolerance band. It's not likely the husband and wife earned the same within a dollar or even $500. I'm mentioning this because otherwise this middle number doesn't mean much to me. It's not like these numbers are integers so you need that range. I was thinking of which is the normal condidtion to use as a base, and I would take men earning more as the norm.

    Let me put it this way: Based on this survey, women are 16% less fertile when they make more than their husbands compared to vice versa. It's significant but fairly modest. However, I know the GSS people didn't want the responders to do math, but much more usable results would have been obtained if the question had 5 or 7 answers: > 100 % more, at least 50% more, between 10% and 50% more, within 10 % of each other, and then the other way.

    It is broken down by husband/wife makes nothing/a lot less/a little less/the same/a little more/a lot more/all of it. I combined the first and last three because the question was only asked in two years so the sample is pretty small.

  80. @Corvinus
    "So where does all this whining about dysgenics come from?"

    By those bitter men who demand a return to the "old order", i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of "muh liberty", will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children. It's not that they have been duped by Jews and the media into thinking this way, it's just that they are exercising their freedom afforded to them in the society they reside in, similar to their ancestors who made choices different than them based on the standards of the time.

    In other words, it's normies thinking for themselves. I mean, can you imagine a normie man on a first day asking her right out of the gate, "So, how do you feel about dysgenics? What is your position on replacement level? Do you believe that we as a nation are engaging in demographic suicide?"

    For you single, Alt-Right men out there, make those three questions part of your set, along with light kino, and see if you get her amygdala tingling.

    get her amygdala tingling

    Hah, I don’t think that’s the goal!

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Hah, I don’t think that’s the goal!"

    Clearly you haven't been following Heartiste. That EXACTLY is the purpose. Get female amygdala overload and then (BAM) you are in like Flynn.
  81. @Achmed E. Newman
    I want to add this, A.E., that will apply to all of your posts in which you display interesting relationships from that huge amount of GSS data:

    Don't take my criticism the wrong way. I do realize you love looking at, and getting interesting correlations out of, that GSS data. I understand that whatever questions were asked in surveys cannot be gotten into any more detail on, so you've just got to work with what you got from some of their badly-asked questions (along with the better ones). The graphs, and your interpretations thereof, generally make for some very interesting posts, so keep it up.

    Thanks, and I will! The GSS is fantastic for its breadth but it comes at the expense of depth. These surveys take hours to complete. There is only so much complexity that can be asked for when a respondent is being queried on 200 different things.

  82. @Achmed E. Newman
    Wait, the bars are blue, purple, and pink - you may have a color-vision problem, Rosie, or a really old screen! I get what you mean though.

    Anyway, that's a very good point. The data is not static, as in "are you white, hispanic, black, etc.?" I don't think you could detect this effect without more questions or types of data. Even if we knew whether the survey asked "IF you have a job, how much do you make compared to your husband?" and vice-versa, there could be an effect of scaling down to part-time due to kids. That's why stats can be made to lie about anything you want, though I think A.E. is doing the best he can with what he's got.

    Standard operating procedure: I’ll present the data with total fidelity (links, listed variables with filters, etc) of something or a set of things I find noteworthy and interesting. Interpret as you will.

    Then I’ll offer some color commentary (less now than in the past–that’s what comment sections are for!) for which mileage will vary.

  83. @Anonymous
    That's my point. Since the monogamous heterosexual family is no longer supposed to be the widespread standard of society, but simply one lifestyle among many and equal to all other lifestyles, men are not supposed to expect a wife and family. Because such expectations would be privileging the monogamous heterosexual family over other lifestyles such as being single, serial relationships, homosexual relationships, etc., and that would be sexist and homophobic. Men are now not supposed to expect a wife and family more than being single, serial dating, being homosexual, etc. It's America as the gay disco as described by E. Michael Jones:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbGS6jb4WfI

    Fortunately while we may have forgotten selection, selection hasn’t forgotten about us. No, in the end we’re not all dead. Hell, I’m less than a year old, three years old, and five years old. Not this clowns, though.

  84. @Rosie

    What is it about being a janitor that, in your judgment, prevents a man from getting a wife that he wants?
     
    His low status. He will have to settle for a chubby, low-class woman or do without.

    Just as unattractive women are not entitled to date the best men. As you said, it's not rocket science.

    Ok so do you now see that men have to outbid the market for women?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Ok so do you now see that men have to outbid the market for women?
     
    No, you idiot. Women prefer higher status mates if they can get them. Otherwise less desirable women will settle for lower-status men, and be flattered and grateful for the attention.
  85. @Anonymous
    Ok so do you now see that men have to outbid the market for women?

    Ok so do you now see that men have to outbid the market for women?

    No, you idiot. Women prefer higher status mates if they can get them. Otherwise less desirable women will settle for lower-status men, and be flattered and grateful for the attention.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The market bidding against the individual man includes other men, including higher status men, as well as jobs and welfare that can support women.

    You originally said that men do not have to outbid the market for women. This is obviously not true.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "less desirable women will settle for lower-status men, and be flattered and grateful for the attention"

    Hmm. Your mileage may vary.

    "even to the point of allowing temporary “marriages” that amount to a form of halal prostitution"

    That's a Shia thing, not Sunni (they disapprove) and IIRC not by any means universal in Shiadom.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut%27ah

    Also Sunni version

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misyar_marriage

  86. @Rosie

    Ok so do you now see that men have to outbid the market for women?
     
    No, you idiot. Women prefer higher status mates if they can get them. Otherwise less desirable women will settle for lower-status men, and be flattered and grateful for the attention.

    The market bidding against the individual man includes other men, including higher status men, as well as jobs and welfare that can support women.

    You originally said that men do not have to outbid the market for women. This is obviously not true.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The market bidding against the individual man includes other men, including higher status men, as well as jobs and welfare that can support women.

    You originally said that men do not have to outbid the market for women. This is obviously not true.
     
    Note the Jewy insistence on defining all the terms and dictating the language to be used, and demanding that others acquiesce in their counterintuitive linguistic contrivances, and changing of definitions partway through a conversation.
  87. @Anonymous
    The market bidding against the individual man includes other men, including higher status men, as well as jobs and welfare that can support women.

    You originally said that men do not have to outbid the market for women. This is obviously not true.

    The market bidding against the individual man includes other men, including higher status men, as well as jobs and welfare that can support women.

    You originally said that men do not have to outbid the market for women. This is obviously not true.

    Note the Jewy insistence on defining all the terms and dictating the language to be used, and demanding that others acquiesce in their counterintuitive linguistic contrivances, and changing of definitions partway through a conversation.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Here's what you originally said:

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/women-who-make-more-money-make-fewer-babies/#comment-3030881

    You know perfectly well men do not have to outbid the market for women
     
    I disputed this statement of yours, and brought up the example of homeless men and janitors. You then conceded that homeless men and janitors would have to earn more otherwise they would not get wives or get a "chubby, low-class woman" at best. In other words, they have to earn more to outbid the market. As homeless men and janitors, they would struggle to outbid the market.
  88. @Corvinus
    "So where does all this whining about dysgenics come from?"

    By those bitter men who demand a return to the "old order", i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of "muh liberty", will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children. It's not that they have been duped by Jews and the media into thinking this way, it's just that they are exercising their freedom afforded to them in the society they reside in, similar to their ancestors who made choices different than them based on the standards of the time.

    In other words, it's normies thinking for themselves. I mean, can you imagine a normie man on a first day asking her right out of the gate, "So, how do you feel about dysgenics? What is your position on replacement level? Do you believe that we as a nation are engaging in demographic suicide?"

    For you single, Alt-Right men out there, make those three questions part of your set, along with light kino, and see if you get her amygdala tingling.

    “By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of “muh liberty”, will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children.”

    No they won’t.

    Left liberals will be outbred by competing groups who do not subscribe to the same ideas. Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc. Hindu arranged marriages have a ton of advantages, in addition to their practice of pooling money as extended families and living in multi-generational households.

    The left wing ‘explore myself and the world’ types will simply die out, since they won’t be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman.

    In short, my argument is that this reproductive strategy is suboptimal in competition with groups that favor maximal reproductive output.

    Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Left liberals will be outbred by competing groups who do not subscribe to the same ideas. Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc."

    That may be the case, but those groups who are Americanized are in all likelihood not going to be working to limit the freedom of their fellow citizens.

    "Hindu arranged marriages have a ton of advantages, in addition to their practice of pooling money as extended families and living in multi-generational households."

    Do Hindu-Americans engage in such practices? Do they insist that their fellow citizens must practice their customs?

    "The left wing ‘explore myself and the world’ types will simply die out, since they won’t be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman."

    Maybe. Then again, perhaps not.

    "Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance."

    In the States? Where is your evidence?
    , @Rosie

    The left wing ‘explore myself and the world’ types will simply die out, since they won’t be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman.
     
    Go figure. I managed to "explore myself and the world and still have six kids.

    In short, my argument is that this reproductive strategy is suboptimal in competition with groups that favor maximal reproductive output.
     
    We shouldn't be competing with them. Rather, we shouldn't be allowing them to invade our homelands and compete with us.
    , @A.B. Prosper
    Generally correct though fervent religious types have the highest reproduction rates regardless of sects. The US may well end up mainly Amish with minority Evangelical, LDS and especially FLDS and various Orthodox with a smattering of Muslims and others.

    In the bigger world many Islamic nations are starting to slide below replacement and the fastest growing strand of Islam Ahmadi are barely considered Muslim by other sects.

    Globally all TFR falls once societies become urbanized and reach a certain minimum standard of living. This even includes Africa though the demographic transition is slower there

    Humans as a species have overshot carrying capacity just a little and will end up with a stable population and eventually reduced numbers of a long time frame

    How long and who makes it is up in the air though my guess is that the groups that eschew modernity will thrive, those that embrace it will die off,
  89. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The market bidding against the individual man includes other men, including higher status men, as well as jobs and welfare that can support women.

    You originally said that men do not have to outbid the market for women. This is obviously not true.
     
    Note the Jewy insistence on defining all the terms and dictating the language to be used, and demanding that others acquiesce in their counterintuitive linguistic contrivances, and changing of definitions partway through a conversation.

    Here’s what you originally said:

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/women-who-make-more-money-make-fewer-babies/#comment-3030881

    You know perfectly well men do not have to outbid the market for women

    I disputed this statement of yours, and brought up the example of homeless men and janitors. You then conceded that homeless men and janitors would have to earn more otherwise they would not get wives or get a “chubby, low-class woman” at best. In other words, they have to earn more to outbid the market. As homeless men and janitors, they would struggle to outbid the market.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    In other words, they have to earn more to outbid the market.
     
    If an individual janitor earns more, he could get a better-looking wife. So what? The pool of available women is what it is. A certain percentage of men will have to accept the least desirable mates either way.
  90. @Talha
    I rest my case. ;)

    Not that you care, but that would be an invalid marriage - from the get go - in three Sunni schools and in the one I follow (Hanafi), the father could have it annulled in court due to the concern over lack of proper maintenance and support*.

    Peace.

    *This is a serious factor in a marriage, a husband is required (by sacred law) to provide for the wife as per *her* upbringing; if she is used to a servant and not cooking - many scholars state that he is obligated to provide that for her. Thus fathers naturally look out for their daughter’s interests in this regard. Rule of thumb; don’t marry a high-maintenance wife if you can’t afford it.

    Rule of thumb; don’t marry a high-maintenance wife if you can’t afford it.

    What hadith covers the situation where the husband, through devotion (or stupidity) turns the wife into a high-maintenance one, but then meets circumstances where he can’t continue to meet her every wish and desire? What then?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What hadith covers the situation where the husband, through devotion (or stupidity) turns the wife into a high-maintenance one, but then meets circumstances where he can’t continue to meet her every wish and desire? What then?
     
    Good question. This notion that men have to be capable of providing sole support for a family before even getting married is very strange, especially in times of economic turmoil and uncertainty such as these. Now more than ever, marriage must be "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer."
    , @Talha
    Ah, the “you broke it, you bought it scenario”...

    To be honest, I’d have to ask a scholar about the situation where some sap set himself up for a really bad domestic situation. However, when it comes to these types of disagreements, the jurists look at ‘urf (local custom) often to resolve disputes*. Often, they will look into the rest of the family; what are living accommodations of her sisters or female cousins? Is she A.A. daughter of a doctor or a mechanic; how do others’ daughters from a similar background fare and expect. Those are used to make determinations.

    The female has zero financial obligations to the family; even if she has her own cash flow from work or investments. One of the muftis I took a class with mentioned that, with the Hanafi school, even if a wife signed a prenuptial agreement to provide for the family, it is void on its face.

    Keep in mind, if the husband has made a wicked witch of the east out of her and she refuses to be understanding...there is always divorce. He is not obligated to remain married to her.

    Of course, these are all legalities - an understanding husband and wife will come to mutual arrangements based on their situation without involving the courts or scholars (they’ve got way better things to do with their time anyway). My points were that - at least in our system - the father gets involved to make sure the daughter is not getting into a situation that is a set up for failure in the first place. One of the concerns - and this may be of interest to people here - that fathers sometimes interdict marriage based on issues of possible cultural incompatibility since that may well lead to a shaky marriage. This happens quite a bit in the Muslim world; a Wolof/Balochi suitor may be turned away from a Fulani/Sindhi family or vice versa.

    Peace.

    *For instance, a woman in the West may well be entitled to being provided a reasonable washer and dryer, a woman in Sudan - not so much.
  91. @Rosie

    So if we had many more African males our problem would be solved?
     
    No, but there is an assumption around here that the breakdown of marriage is all women's fault. Even Tucker said this on national TV. He even used AA problems as evidence that greater freedom for women is causing illegitimacy. In fact, there is no more evidence for this hypothesis than the alternative, which is that men actually determine the sociosexual environment by refusing to commit when the odds are in their favor.

    Of course, I'd be delighted to quit the blame game altogether, but if that's not going to happen, I will defend women. And of course, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

    No, but there is an assumption around here that the breakdown of marriage is all women’s fault. Even Tucker said this on national TV. He even used AA problems as evidence that greater freedom for women is causing illegitimacy. In fact, there is no more evidence for this hypothesis than the alternative, which is that men actually determine the sociosexual environment by refusing to commit when the odds are in their favor.
    Of course, I’d be delighted to quit the blame game altogether, but if that’s not going to happen, I will defend women.

    I think that there is enough blame to go around.

    There may be some detrimental effect on male employment from AA just like there may be some on white employment from AA for non-whites, but I don’t know how you could measure it, and I doubt that it is a huge effect. Women entering the workforce did have a detrimental effect on male employment, but that was a political and economic decision made by “everyone” so women should not take the sole blame for any bad results.

    It is not blaming women to acknowledge the fact that many women take advantage of a social welfare system that incentivizes formation of single parent families. Those laws were put in place by governmental bodies dominated by men, so we shouldn’t single out women to blame for our collective actions.

    We have failed culturally and economically. We have failed to find the right balance between individualism and communitarianism. We have been felled by rampant commercialism and consumerism, hyper-individualism and narcissism that would make Narcissus blush.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    There may be some detrimental effect on male employment from AA just like there may be some on white employment from AA for non-whites
     
    There is a huge detrimental effect.  The deadweight cost of AA not only reduces wages, it makes it less profitable to do work in the USA.  This gives advantages to competition in other countries, either offshored or totally foreign.  Eliminating the EEOC compliance costs alone is a huge advantage, which also tilts the playing field toward megacorps and away from nimble small and mid-size firms.

    I doubt that it is a huge effect.
     
    I know that it is.  The payroll of HR and legal departments is almost all due to AA and "protected classes"; at one time the group manager would handle the resumes himself and hire or fire on his own authority.  Now all of that has to be quota-checked and reviewed for hazards, and some classes of employees are effectively un-fireable no matter how little they do or how much they mess up everyone else's work.
    , @Rosie

    There may be some detrimental effect on male employment from AA just like there may be some on white employment from AA for non-whites, but I don’t know how you could measure it, and I doubt that it is a huge effect. Women entering the workforce did have a detrimental effect on male employment, but that was a political and economic decision made by “everyone” so women should not take the sole blame for any bad results.
     
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The trouble is that when I said AA, I meant African American, not affirmative action. Like the vast majority of White women, I oppose affirmative action unequivocally.

    And I absolutely couldn't agree more with this:


    We have failed culturally and economically. We have failed to find the right balance between individualism and communitarianism. We have been felled by rampant commercialism and consumerism, hyper-individualism and narcissism that would make Narcissus blush.
     
    On point as it is, reactionaries don't like this analysis because they prefer to single out and scapegoat women for what is a broader cultural issue.
  92. @iffen

    No, but there is an assumption around here that the breakdown of marriage is all women’s fault. Even Tucker said this on national TV. He even used AA problems as evidence that greater freedom for women is causing illegitimacy. In fact, there is no more evidence for this hypothesis than the alternative, which is that men actually determine the sociosexual environment by refusing to commit when the odds are in their favor.
    Of course, I’d be delighted to quit the blame game altogether, but if that’s not going to happen, I will defend women.
     
    I think that there is enough blame to go around.

    There may be some detrimental effect on male employment from AA just like there may be some on white employment from AA for non-whites, but I don’t know how you could measure it, and I doubt that it is a huge effect. Women entering the workforce did have a detrimental effect on male employment, but that was a political and economic decision made by “everyone” so women should not take the sole blame for any bad results.

    It is not blaming women to acknowledge the fact that many women take advantage of a social welfare system that incentivizes formation of single parent families. Those laws were put in place by governmental bodies dominated by men, so we shouldn’t single out women to blame for our collective actions.

    We have failed culturally and economically. We have failed to find the right balance between individualism and communitarianism. We have been felled by rampant commercialism and consumerism, hyper-individualism and narcissism that would make Narcissus blush.

    There may be some detrimental effect on male employment from AA just like there may be some on white employment from AA for non-whites

    There is a huge detrimental effect.  The deadweight cost of AA not only reduces wages, it makes it less profitable to do work in the USA.  This gives advantages to competition in other countries, either offshored or totally foreign.  Eliminating the EEOC compliance costs alone is a huge advantage, which also tilts the playing field toward megacorps and away from nimble small and mid-size firms.

    I doubt that it is a huge effect.

    I know that it is.  The payroll of HR and legal departments is almost all due to AA and “protected classes”; at one time the group manager would handle the resumes himself and hire or fire on his own authority.  Now all of that has to be quota-checked and reviewed for hazards, and some classes of employees are effectively un-fireable no matter how little they do or how much they mess up everyone else’s work.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @iffen
    You make some good points.
  93. @Mr. Rational

    There may be some detrimental effect on male employment from AA just like there may be some on white employment from AA for non-whites
     
    There is a huge detrimental effect.  The deadweight cost of AA not only reduces wages, it makes it less profitable to do work in the USA.  This gives advantages to competition in other countries, either offshored or totally foreign.  Eliminating the EEOC compliance costs alone is a huge advantage, which also tilts the playing field toward megacorps and away from nimble small and mid-size firms.

    I doubt that it is a huge effect.
     
    I know that it is.  The payroll of HR and legal departments is almost all due to AA and "protected classes"; at one time the group manager would handle the resumes himself and hire or fire on his own authority.  Now all of that has to be quota-checked and reviewed for hazards, and some classes of employees are effectively un-fireable no matter how little they do or how much they mess up everyone else's work.

    You make some good points.

  94. @Rosie

    So do a better job of explaining yourself next time, instead of trying to win through snark.
     
    One gets cranky when constantly threatened with denial of basic human rights. Deal with it.

    One gets cranky when constantly threatened with denial of basic human rights.

    Rather recently invented “rights”; coverture was the law of the land not all that long ago.

    Deal with it.

    It appears to have escaped you that we have a dysfunctional sexual market and legal system which is a large part of what’s driving our civilizational collapse.  Returning to the mechanisms which prevented these dysfunctions IS dealing with it.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    It appears to have escaped you that we have a dysfunctional sexual market and legal system which is a large part of what’s driving our civilizational collapse.
     
    Still waiting to see proof that women are the problem.

    Rather recently invented “rights”; coverture was the law of the land not all that long ago.
     
    And coverture was abandoned for very good reasons. The trouble with you reactionaries is that you refuse to acknowledge that. You arrogantly assume you know better than our ancestors who found that system unworkable.
  95. @Anonymous
    Here's what you originally said:

    http://www.unz.com/anepigone/women-who-make-more-money-make-fewer-babies/#comment-3030881

    You know perfectly well men do not have to outbid the market for women
     
    I disputed this statement of yours, and brought up the example of homeless men and janitors. You then conceded that homeless men and janitors would have to earn more otherwise they would not get wives or get a "chubby, low-class woman" at best. In other words, they have to earn more to outbid the market. As homeless men and janitors, they would struggle to outbid the market.

    In other words, they have to earn more to outbid the market.

    If an individual janitor earns more, he could get a better-looking wife. So what? The pool of available women is what it is. A certain percentage of men will have to accept the least desirable mates either way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The point of the homeless man and janitor examples is to generalize to a broader point that concerns all men, women, and the marriage market as a whole.

    As you've conceded, homeless men and janitors have trouble acquiring mates. Why? Because they earn little and are low status. How would they improve their chances? By earning more and gaining status, thus being better positioned to outbid the market (other men, jobs, the welfare state throwing money at women) for women. From this case we can generalize to all men along the economic and status spectrum or hierarchy. And if the status of men in general relative to women shifts, this will affect the ability of men in general to acquire wives and consequently have an effect on marriage and fertility rates.
  96. @Mr. Rational

    One gets cranky when constantly threatened with denial of basic human rights.
     
    Rather recently invented "rights"; coverture was the law of the land not all that long ago.

    Deal with it.
     
    It appears to have escaped you that we have a dysfunctional sexual market and legal system which is a large part of what's driving our civilizational collapse.  Returning to the mechanisms which prevented these dysfunctions IS dealing with it.

    It appears to have escaped you that we have a dysfunctional sexual market and legal system which is a large part of what’s driving our civilizational collapse.

    Still waiting to see proof that women are the problem.

    Rather recently invented “rights”; coverture was the law of the land not all that long ago.

    And coverture was abandoned for very good reasons. The trouble with you reactionaries is that you refuse to acknowledge that. You arrogantly assume you know better than our ancestors who found that system unworkable.

  97. @iffen

    No, but there is an assumption around here that the breakdown of marriage is all women’s fault. Even Tucker said this on national TV. He even used AA problems as evidence that greater freedom for women is causing illegitimacy. In fact, there is no more evidence for this hypothesis than the alternative, which is that men actually determine the sociosexual environment by refusing to commit when the odds are in their favor.
    Of course, I’d be delighted to quit the blame game altogether, but if that’s not going to happen, I will defend women.
     
    I think that there is enough blame to go around.

    There may be some detrimental effect on male employment from AA just like there may be some on white employment from AA for non-whites, but I don’t know how you could measure it, and I doubt that it is a huge effect. Women entering the workforce did have a detrimental effect on male employment, but that was a political and economic decision made by “everyone” so women should not take the sole blame for any bad results.

    It is not blaming women to acknowledge the fact that many women take advantage of a social welfare system that incentivizes formation of single parent families. Those laws were put in place by governmental bodies dominated by men, so we shouldn’t single out women to blame for our collective actions.

    We have failed culturally and economically. We have failed to find the right balance between individualism and communitarianism. We have been felled by rampant commercialism and consumerism, hyper-individualism and narcissism that would make Narcissus blush.

    There may be some detrimental effect on male employment from AA just like there may be some on white employment from AA for non-whites, but I don’t know how you could measure it, and I doubt that it is a huge effect. Women entering the workforce did have a detrimental effect on male employment, but that was a political and economic decision made by “everyone” so women should not take the sole blame for any bad results.

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The trouble is that when I said AA, I meant African American, not affirmative action. Like the vast majority of White women, I oppose affirmative action unequivocally.

    And I absolutely couldn’t agree more with this:

    We have failed culturally and economically. We have failed to find the right balance between individualism and communitarianism. We have been felled by rampant commercialism and consumerism, hyper-individualism and narcissism that would make Narcissus blush.

    On point as it is, reactionaries don’t like this analysis because they prefer to single out and scapegoat women for what is a broader cultural issue.

  98. @iffen
    Rule of thumb; don’t marry a high-maintenance wife if you can’t afford it.

    What hadith covers the situation where the husband, through devotion (or stupidity) turns the wife into a high-maintenance one, but then meets circumstances where he can't continue to meet her every wish and desire? What then?

    What hadith covers the situation where the husband, through devotion (or stupidity) turns the wife into a high-maintenance one, but then meets circumstances where he can’t continue to meet her every wish and desire? What then?

    Good question. This notion that men have to be capable of providing sole support for a family before even getting married is very strange, especially in times of economic turmoil and uncertainty such as these. Now more than ever, marriage must be “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Now more than ever, marriage must be “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer.
     
    That would infringe on women's rights to work and support themselves rather than get married, to have no-fault divorce, etc.
  99. @Rosie

    So do a better job of explaining yourself next time, instead of trying to win through snark.
     
    One gets cranky when constantly threatened with denial of basic human rights. Deal with it.

    Poor rosie. What is this “deal with it” thing that you say, as if your opinion matters. You say that often because you really hope that your opinion should matter, which betrays your fears. The fears of the Far Right not caring about your opinion and instead implementing what they want.

    This is why you are hanging around in such right wing places. You are triggered by this and you fear it.

    Actually *you* will have to deal with “it”.

    And what is the “it”?

    The vast majority of the Far Right are men, and the vast majority of them want to create some kind of patriarchal society, so they won’t care about your opinions. Too bad. No amount of laughable “deal with it” comments implying that your opinion matters (this is what you desperately hope, and would like to instill, to yourself and to others) are going to change that. The Far Right does not care about the cries of cryptofeminists.

    ===============================================================

    Guys, this rosie creature is triggered by the far right/alt right intending to “restore patriarchy” so this is why it is hanging around in right wing places. I’v seen it in other places too. It hopes that if it spams lot’s of comments in right wing sites then it is going to stop something or save feminism.
    Ha ha.

    It is not that the alt right is going to care about it, lol. This thing is virtual nobody. Hence the desperation and the spam in various places.

    Newsflash – the far right/alt right is heavily male dominated, so it will push male views about society. And most of these guys don’t care about feminist desperation too much. Their hearts are cold for creatures like this.

    So just ignore it, as it is attention that it craves. What it will hate the most will be if people do not care about it and it’s pleas and simply ignore it.

  100. Guys, this rosie creature is triggered by the far right/alt right intending to “restore patriarchy” so this is why it is hanging around in right wing places. I’v seen it in other places too. It hopes that if it spams lot’s of comments in right wing sites then it is going to stop something or save feminism.
    Ha ha.

    It is not that the alt right is going to care about it, lol. This thing is virtual nobody. Hence the desperation and the spam in various places.

    Newsflash – the far right/alt right is heavily male dominated, so it will push male views about society. And most of these guys don’t care about feminist desperation too much. Their hearts are cold for creatures like this.

    So just ignore it, as it is attention that it craves. What it will hate the most will be if people do not care about it and it’s pleas and simply ignore it.

    ========================================================

    Poor rosie. What is this “deal with it” thing that you say, as if your opinion matters. You say that often because you really hope that your opinion should matter, which betrays your fears. The fears of the Far Right not caring about your opinion and instead implementing what they want.

    This is why you are hanging around in such right wing places. You are triggered by this and you fear it.

    Actually *you* will have to deal with “it”.

    And what is the “it”?

    The vast majority of the Far Right are men, and the vast majority of them want to create some kind of patriarchal society, so they won’t care about your opinions. Too bad. No amount of laughable “deal with it” comments implying that your opinion matters (this is what you desperately hope, and would like to instill, to yourself and to others) are going to change that. The Far Right does not care about the cries of cryptofeminists.

    • Troll: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Guys, this rosie creature is triggered by the far right/alt right intending to “restore patriarchy” so this is why it is hanging around in right wing places. I’v seen it in other places too. It hopes that if it spams lot’s of comments in right wing sites then it is going to stop something or save feminism.
     
    I will not let you permanently ghettoize and destroy the alt-Right with your extreme reactionary animus against half the White population.
  101. @iffen
    Rule of thumb; don’t marry a high-maintenance wife if you can’t afford it.

    What hadith covers the situation where the husband, through devotion (or stupidity) turns the wife into a high-maintenance one, but then meets circumstances where he can't continue to meet her every wish and desire? What then?

    Ah, the “you broke it, you bought it scenario”…

    To be honest, I’d have to ask a scholar about the situation where some sap set himself up for a really bad domestic situation. However, when it comes to these types of disagreements, the jurists look at ‘urf (local custom) often to resolve disputes*. Often, they will look into the rest of the family; what are living accommodations of her sisters or female cousins? Is she A.A. daughter of a doctor or a mechanic; how do others’ daughters from a similar background fare and expect. Those are used to make determinations.

    The female has zero financial obligations to the family; even if she has her own cash flow from work or investments. One of the muftis I took a class with mentioned that, with the Hanafi school, even if a wife signed a prenuptial agreement to provide for the family, it is void on its face.

    Keep in mind, if the husband has made a wicked witch of the east out of her and she refuses to be understanding…there is always divorce. He is not obligated to remain married to her.

    Of course, these are all legalities – an understanding husband and wife will come to mutual arrangements based on their situation without involving the courts or scholars (they’ve got way better things to do with their time anyway). My points were that – at least in our system – the father gets involved to make sure the daughter is not getting into a situation that is a set up for failure in the first place. One of the concerns – and this may be of interest to people here – that fathers sometimes interdict marriage based on issues of possible cultural incompatibility since that may well lead to a shaky marriage. This happens quite a bit in the Muslim world; a Wolof/Balochi suitor may be turned away from a Fulani/Sindhi family or vice versa.

    Peace.

    *For instance, a woman in the West may well be entitled to being provided a reasonable washer and dryer, a woman in Sudan – not so much.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    He is not obligated to remain married to her.
     
    That's a rather powerful loophole, isn't it?
  102. @Audacious Epigone
    get her amygdala tingling

    Hah, I don't think that's the goal!

    “Hah, I don’t think that’s the goal!”

    Clearly you haven’t been following Heartiste. That EXACTLY is the purpose. Get female amygdala overload and then (BAM) you are in like Flynn.

  103. @jbwilson24
    "By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of “muh liberty”, will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children."

    No they won't.

    Left liberals will be outbred by competing groups who do not subscribe to the same ideas. Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc. Hindu arranged marriages have a ton of advantages, in addition to their practice of pooling money as extended families and living in multi-generational households.

    The left wing 'explore myself and the world' types will simply die out, since they won't be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman.

    In short, my argument is that this reproductive strategy is suboptimal in competition with groups that favor maximal reproductive output.

    Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance.

    “Left liberals will be outbred by competing groups who do not subscribe to the same ideas. Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc.”

    That may be the case, but those groups who are Americanized are in all likelihood not going to be working to limit the freedom of their fellow citizens.

    “Hindu arranged marriages have a ton of advantages, in addition to their practice of pooling money as extended families and living in multi-generational households.”

    Do Hindu-Americans engage in such practices? Do they insist that their fellow citizens must practice their customs?

    “The left wing ‘explore myself and the world’ types will simply die out, since they won’t be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman.”

    Maybe. Then again, perhaps not.

    “Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance.”

    In the States? Where is your evidence?

    • Replies: @Talha

    “Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance.”
    In the States? Where is your evidence?
     
    The evidence is in its historical record, Corvinus. The question is not whether Islam establishes patriarchy (this conclusion is reflexive*), the question is only whether the US eventually becomes a majority Muslim country or not.

    The issue I tend to see is that many people seem to have a distorted view of what exactly patriarchy entails. Word derives from the Greek for "ruling father" - it is not simply male domination. A society built upon the institution of "ruling fatherhood" is often at odds with and determined to crush the ambitions and antics of stupid, hormonal males in its ranks just as much as it seeks to prevent the ubiquity of "angels of the morning". Fathers challenge or cooperate with other males in order to make sure their own daughters are taken care of. The bond between father and daughter is sacred - it is reported in multiple hadith collections that the Prophet (pbuh) would, when his daughter Fatimah (ra) visited him, rise up to honor her, kiss her, and then sit her down in his place. He had been monogamous while his first wife was alive and so he forbade Fatimah's husband from taking another wife while she was still alive.

    A patriarchy must remain sufficiently dedicated to its honor-bound purpose in providing for its women and protecting their interests. If a patriarchy becomes predatory, the women will (naturally and rightfully) push back.

    People need to get this straight - you cannot have a patriarchy where its own mothers (feeling they get less out of the system than is worth what they sacrifice in perpetuating it) are pushing against it among their own sons...given enough time, it will falter.

    Peace.

    *It not only encourages patriarchal attitudes and approach to family and society, it has it firmly established in its juristic framework upon rulings that have been set in stone by consensus among the jurists for centuries. Some rulings are flexible for sure, but some rulings will not budge.

    The only outlier I can see in certain respects are some of the Tuareg people. A fascinating, nomadic people that still base some of their norms on a long-standing matriarchal tradition. Interestingly, many Tuareg men actually cover themselves more modestly than their women:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=tuareg+men&rlz=1C1RUCY_enUS775US775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt2YuI37HgAhVQgK0KHe-XCk0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=eKArxEfKSPFdXM:

    It would be interesting to see a case study done to determine correlation between the matriarchal trends in a society consonant with how little women wear in a society vis-a-vis their men.
  104. @Rosie

    What hadith covers the situation where the husband, through devotion (or stupidity) turns the wife into a high-maintenance one, but then meets circumstances where he can’t continue to meet her every wish and desire? What then?
     
    Good question. This notion that men have to be capable of providing sole support for a family before even getting married is very strange, especially in times of economic turmoil and uncertainty such as these. Now more than ever, marriage must be "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer."

    Now more than ever, marriage must be “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer.

    That would infringe on women’s rights to work and support themselves rather than get married, to have no-fault divorce, etc.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    WTF are you talking about, Jew? That makes literally no sense.
  105. @Alex T
    Guys, this rosie creature is triggered by the far right/alt right intending to “restore patriarchy” so this is why it is hanging around in right wing places. I’v seen it in other places too. It hopes that if it spams lot’s of comments in right wing sites then it is going to stop something or save feminism.
    Ha ha.

    It is not that the alt right is going to care about it, lol. This thing is virtual nobody. Hence the desperation and the spam in various places.

    Newsflash – the far right/alt right is heavily male dominated, so it will push male views about society. And most of these guys don’t care about feminist desperation too much. Their hearts are cold for creatures like this.

    So just ignore it, as it is attention that it craves. What it will hate the most will be if people do not care about it and it’s pleas and simply ignore it.

    ========================================================

    Poor rosie. What is this "deal with it" thing that you say, as if your opinion matters. You say that often because you really hope that your opinion should matter, which betrays your fears. The fears of the Far Right not caring about your opinion and instead implementing what they want.

    This is why you are hanging around in such right wing places. You are triggered by this and you fear it.


    Actually *you* will have to deal with "it".

    And what is the "it"?

    The vast majority of the Far Right are men, and the vast majority of them want to create some kind of patriarchal society, so they won't care about your opinions. Too bad. No amount of laughable "deal with it" comments implying that your opinion matters (this is what you desperately hope, and would like to instill, to yourself and to others) are going to change that. The Far Right does not care about the cries of cryptofeminists.

    Guys, this rosie creature is triggered by the far right/alt right intending to “restore patriarchy” so this is why it is hanging around in right wing places. I’v seen it in other places too. It hopes that if it spams lot’s of comments in right wing sites then it is going to stop something or save feminism.

    I will not let you permanently ghettoize and destroy the alt-Right with your extreme reactionary animus against half the White population.

    • Replies: @Alex T

    I will not let you
     
    That's the point. You reaaaly hope that your opinions should matter, and thus "i wont let this happen" or "i won't let that happen". The wording simply betrays your desperation to be taken seriously and to matter, and how you would like to instill that to yourself and to others. Nothing more. And you are desperate to matter or to be seen as someone who matters because you are not taken seriously and have no influence. Hence, it does not matter what you would "let" or didn't "let". Ha ha.

    This is why i laugh when i occasionally see your posts. I like seeing people who hit their head over and over in the brick wall of their irrelevance. Now keep hoping that the Far Right will the renounce the Patriarchy because of your desperate "i defend Muh womyn" spam in various right wing sites and will suddently start caring about feminist's opinions. Lol
  106. @Anonymous

    Now more than ever, marriage must be “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer.
     
    That would infringe on women's rights to work and support themselves rather than get married, to have no-fault divorce, etc.

    WTF are you talking about, Jew? That makes literally no sense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're way too dumb to be Jewish. You have trouble following very simple arguments. But you are basically repeating very stale Jewish feminist talking points from half a century ago.

    "For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer" derives from traditional Catholic wedding vows from the medieval period. It derives from an understanding of marriage, society, and sexual relations that are completely antithetical to the feminism you hold dear.
  107. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    In other words, they have to earn more to outbid the market.
     
    If an individual janitor earns more, he could get a better-looking wife. So what? The pool of available women is what it is. A certain percentage of men will have to accept the least desirable mates either way.

    The point of the homeless man and janitor examples is to generalize to a broader point that concerns all men, women, and the marriage market as a whole.

    As you’ve conceded, homeless men and janitors have trouble acquiring mates. Why? Because they earn little and are low status. How would they improve their chances? By earning more and gaining status, thus being better positioned to outbid the market (other men, jobs, the welfare state throwing money at women) for women. From this case we can generalize to all men along the economic and status spectrum or hierarchy. And if the status of men in general relative to women shifts, this will affect the ability of men in general to acquire wives and consequently have an effect on marriage and fertility rates.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And if the status of men in general relative to women shifts, this will affect the ability of men in general to acquire wives and consequently have an effect on marriage and fertility rates.
     
    No it won't. You are assuming, with no evidence whatsoever, that it is low-end women who are rejecting low-end men rather than the other way around.
  108. @jbwilson24
    "By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of “muh liberty”, will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children."

    No they won't.

    Left liberals will be outbred by competing groups who do not subscribe to the same ideas. Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc. Hindu arranged marriages have a ton of advantages, in addition to their practice of pooling money as extended families and living in multi-generational households.

    The left wing 'explore myself and the world' types will simply die out, since they won't be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman.

    In short, my argument is that this reproductive strategy is suboptimal in competition with groups that favor maximal reproductive output.

    Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance.

    The left wing ‘explore myself and the world’ types will simply die out, since they won’t be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman.

    Go figure. I managed to “explore myself and the world and still have six kids.

    In short, my argument is that this reproductive strategy is suboptimal in competition with groups that favor maximal reproductive output.

    We shouldn’t be competing with them. Rather, we shouldn’t be allowing them to invade our homelands and compete with us.

  109. @Anonymous
    The point of the homeless man and janitor examples is to generalize to a broader point that concerns all men, women, and the marriage market as a whole.

    As you've conceded, homeless men and janitors have trouble acquiring mates. Why? Because they earn little and are low status. How would they improve their chances? By earning more and gaining status, thus being better positioned to outbid the market (other men, jobs, the welfare state throwing money at women) for women. From this case we can generalize to all men along the economic and status spectrum or hierarchy. And if the status of men in general relative to women shifts, this will affect the ability of men in general to acquire wives and consequently have an effect on marriage and fertility rates.

    And if the status of men in general relative to women shifts, this will affect the ability of men in general to acquire wives and consequently have an effect on marriage and fertility rates.

    No it won’t. You are assuming, with no evidence whatsoever, that it is low-end women who are rejecting low-end men rather than the other way around.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It doesn't matter what you assume. In either case, if the relative status of men declines, the pool of "low end women" available to men declines. The ratio of low end men to low end women increases.
  110. @Talha
    Ah, the “you broke it, you bought it scenario”...

    To be honest, I’d have to ask a scholar about the situation where some sap set himself up for a really bad domestic situation. However, when it comes to these types of disagreements, the jurists look at ‘urf (local custom) often to resolve disputes*. Often, they will look into the rest of the family; what are living accommodations of her sisters or female cousins? Is she A.A. daughter of a doctor or a mechanic; how do others’ daughters from a similar background fare and expect. Those are used to make determinations.

    The female has zero financial obligations to the family; even if she has her own cash flow from work or investments. One of the muftis I took a class with mentioned that, with the Hanafi school, even if a wife signed a prenuptial agreement to provide for the family, it is void on its face.

    Keep in mind, if the husband has made a wicked witch of the east out of her and she refuses to be understanding...there is always divorce. He is not obligated to remain married to her.

    Of course, these are all legalities - an understanding husband and wife will come to mutual arrangements based on their situation without involving the courts or scholars (they’ve got way better things to do with their time anyway). My points were that - at least in our system - the father gets involved to make sure the daughter is not getting into a situation that is a set up for failure in the first place. One of the concerns - and this may be of interest to people here - that fathers sometimes interdict marriage based on issues of possible cultural incompatibility since that may well lead to a shaky marriage. This happens quite a bit in the Muslim world; a Wolof/Balochi suitor may be turned away from a Fulani/Sindhi family or vice versa.

    Peace.

    *For instance, a woman in the West may well be entitled to being provided a reasonable washer and dryer, a woman in Sudan - not so much.

    He is not obligated to remain married to her.

    That’s a rather powerful loophole, isn’t it?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Neither is she obligated to remain married to him. If her maintenance drops below her status according to her family background and local custom, she has no legal obligation to remain stuck with a man that cannot provide her the lifestyle she is accustomed to; that is sufficient grounds for her to appeal to the court to void the marriage.

    Door swings both ways.

    Peace.
  111. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    WTF are you talking about, Jew? That makes literally no sense.

    You’re way too dumb to be Jewish. You have trouble following very simple arguments. But you are basically repeating very stale Jewish feminist talking points from half a century ago.

    “For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer” derives from traditional Catholic wedding vows from the medieval period. It derives from an understanding of marriage, society, and sexual relations that are completely antithetical to the feminism you hold dear.

    • LOL: Rosie
  112. @Rosie

    He is not obligated to remain married to her.
     
    That's a rather powerful loophole, isn't it?

    Neither is she obligated to remain married to him. If her maintenance drops below her status according to her family background and local custom, she has no legal obligation to remain stuck with a man that cannot provide her the lifestyle she is accustomed to; that is sufficient grounds for her to appeal to the court to void the marriage.

    Door swings both ways.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    she has no legal obligation to remain stuck with a man that cannot provide her the lifestyle she is accustomed to;
     
    In that case, what you are saying is that you don't actually believe in marriage as a permanent, binding, sacred covenant. It is, rather, a temporary arrangement that persist so long as both parties find it satisfactory.
  113. @Corvinus
    "Left liberals will be outbred by competing groups who do not subscribe to the same ideas. Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc."

    That may be the case, but those groups who are Americanized are in all likelihood not going to be working to limit the freedom of their fellow citizens.

    "Hindu arranged marriages have a ton of advantages, in addition to their practice of pooling money as extended families and living in multi-generational households."

    Do Hindu-Americans engage in such practices? Do they insist that their fellow citizens must practice their customs?

    "The left wing ‘explore myself and the world’ types will simply die out, since they won’t be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman."

    Maybe. Then again, perhaps not.

    "Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance."

    In the States? Where is your evidence?

    “Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance.”
    In the States? Where is your evidence?

    The evidence is in its historical record, Corvinus. The question is not whether Islam establishes patriarchy (this conclusion is reflexive*), the question is only whether the US eventually becomes a majority Muslim country or not.

    The issue I tend to see is that many people seem to have a distorted view of what exactly patriarchy entails. Word derives from the Greek for “ruling father” – it is not simply male domination. A society built upon the institution of “ruling fatherhood” is often at odds with and determined to crush the ambitions and antics of stupid, hormonal males in its ranks just as much as it seeks to prevent the ubiquity of “angels of the morning”. Fathers challenge or cooperate with other males in order to make sure their own daughters are taken care of. The bond between father and daughter is sacred – it is reported in multiple hadith collections that the Prophet (pbuh) would, when his daughter Fatimah (ra) visited him, rise up to honor her, kiss her, and then sit her down in his place. He had been monogamous while his first wife was alive and so he forbade Fatimah’s husband from taking another wife while she was still alive.

    A patriarchy must remain sufficiently dedicated to its honor-bound purpose in providing for its women and protecting their interests. If a patriarchy becomes predatory, the women will (naturally and rightfully) push back.

    People need to get this straight – you cannot have a patriarchy where its own mothers (feeling they get less out of the system than is worth what they sacrifice in perpetuating it) are pushing against it among their own sons…given enough time, it will falter.

    Peace.

    *It not only encourages patriarchal attitudes and approach to family and society, it has it firmly established in its juristic framework upon rulings that have been set in stone by consensus among the jurists for centuries. Some rulings are flexible for sure, but some rulings will not budge.

    The only outlier I can see in certain respects are some of the Tuareg people. A fascinating, nomadic people that still base some of their norms on a long-standing matriarchal tradition. Interestingly, many Tuareg men actually cover themselves more modestly than their women:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=tuareg+men&rlz=1C1RUCY_enUS775US775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt2YuI37HgAhVQgK0KHe-XCk0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=eKArxEfKSPFdXM:

    It would be interesting to see a case study done to determine correlation between the matriarchal trends in a society consonant with how little women wear in a society vis-a-vis their men.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The issue I tend to see is that many people seem to have a distorted view of what exactly patriarchy entails. Word derives from the Greek for “ruling father” – it is not simply male domination. A society built upon the institution of “ruling fatherhood” is often at odds with and determined to crush the ambitions and antics of stupid, hormonal males in its ranks just as much as it seeks to prevent the ubiquity of “angels of the morning”. Fathers challenge or cooperate with other males in order to make sure their own daughters are taken care of. The bond between father and daughter is sacred
     
    That's all very nice, and I say so sincerely, not sarcasticly. The problem is that you reduce "women's interests" to the material. Our interests are broader than that.
  114. @Talha
    Neither is she obligated to remain married to him. If her maintenance drops below her status according to her family background and local custom, she has no legal obligation to remain stuck with a man that cannot provide her the lifestyle she is accustomed to; that is sufficient grounds for her to appeal to the court to void the marriage.

    Door swings both ways.

    Peace.

    she has no legal obligation to remain stuck with a man that cannot provide her the lifestyle she is accustomed to;

    In that case, what you are saying is that you don’t actually believe in marriage as a permanent, binding, sacred covenant. It is, rather, a temporary arrangement that persist so long as both parties find it satisfactory.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Don't ask him what should be done if she's incapacitated and can't have sex anymore.

    Hint: He agrees with televangelist Pat Robertson.

    It is the most suprising thing that I have learned about Islam from Talha.
    , @Talha
    There are two aspects to marriage. One is a contractual bond between two spouses of roles and responsibilities. One is a bond of love, friendship and dedication. You can have one without the other.

    People can shack up and live loving, devoted lives without an official marriage contract and a couple could live together (or even apart) under a working marriage contract that gives them the arrangement they require.

    If you are smart and dedicated and graced by God, you can be fortunate enough to have the best of both aspects and a bond that lasts into the afterlife.

    Peace.
  115. @Talha

    “Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance.”
    In the States? Where is your evidence?
     
    The evidence is in its historical record, Corvinus. The question is not whether Islam establishes patriarchy (this conclusion is reflexive*), the question is only whether the US eventually becomes a majority Muslim country or not.

    The issue I tend to see is that many people seem to have a distorted view of what exactly patriarchy entails. Word derives from the Greek for "ruling father" - it is not simply male domination. A society built upon the institution of "ruling fatherhood" is often at odds with and determined to crush the ambitions and antics of stupid, hormonal males in its ranks just as much as it seeks to prevent the ubiquity of "angels of the morning". Fathers challenge or cooperate with other males in order to make sure their own daughters are taken care of. The bond between father and daughter is sacred - it is reported in multiple hadith collections that the Prophet (pbuh) would, when his daughter Fatimah (ra) visited him, rise up to honor her, kiss her, and then sit her down in his place. He had been monogamous while his first wife was alive and so he forbade Fatimah's husband from taking another wife while she was still alive.

    A patriarchy must remain sufficiently dedicated to its honor-bound purpose in providing for its women and protecting their interests. If a patriarchy becomes predatory, the women will (naturally and rightfully) push back.

    People need to get this straight - you cannot have a patriarchy where its own mothers (feeling they get less out of the system than is worth what they sacrifice in perpetuating it) are pushing against it among their own sons...given enough time, it will falter.

    Peace.

    *It not only encourages patriarchal attitudes and approach to family and society, it has it firmly established in its juristic framework upon rulings that have been set in stone by consensus among the jurists for centuries. Some rulings are flexible for sure, but some rulings will not budge.

    The only outlier I can see in certain respects are some of the Tuareg people. A fascinating, nomadic people that still base some of their norms on a long-standing matriarchal tradition. Interestingly, many Tuareg men actually cover themselves more modestly than their women:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=tuareg+men&rlz=1C1RUCY_enUS775US775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt2YuI37HgAhVQgK0KHe-XCk0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=eKArxEfKSPFdXM:

    It would be interesting to see a case study done to determine correlation between the matriarchal trends in a society consonant with how little women wear in a society vis-a-vis their men.

    The issue I tend to see is that many people seem to have a distorted view of what exactly patriarchy entails. Word derives from the Greek for “ruling father” – it is not simply male domination. A society built upon the institution of “ruling fatherhood” is often at odds with and determined to crush the ambitions and antics of stupid, hormonal males in its ranks just as much as it seeks to prevent the ubiquity of “angels of the morning”. Fathers challenge or cooperate with other males in order to make sure their own daughters are taken care of. The bond between father and daughter is sacred

    That’s all very nice, and I say so sincerely, not sarcasticly. The problem is that you reduce “women’s interests” to the material. Our interests are broader than that.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Agreed, for two reasons:
    1) Dostoevsky stated:
    “For the mystery of man’s being is not only in living, but in what one lives for. Without a firm idea of what he lives for, man will not consent to live and will sooner destroy himself than remain on earth, even if there is bread all around him.”
    2) We would be failures as fathers if we raised up girls that were nothing but gold diggers.

    Peace.
  116. @Rosie

    And if the status of men in general relative to women shifts, this will affect the ability of men in general to acquire wives and consequently have an effect on marriage and fertility rates.
     
    No it won't. You are assuming, with no evidence whatsoever, that it is low-end women who are rejecting low-end men rather than the other way around.

    It doesn’t matter what you assume. In either case, if the relative status of men declines, the pool of “low end women” available to men declines. The ratio of low end men to low end women increases.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The ratio of low end men to low end women increases.
     
    I'm sure you are aware that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Therefore, if people are not getting married, that is because either men or women are rejecting the mates that are attainable for them. With no evidence whatsoever that women are rejecting suitable mates, you demand an extreme, reactionary crackdown on women's right to earn a living so they are unable to earn their own living.

    WTF could possibly go wrong?
  117. @Anonymous
    It doesn't matter what you assume. In either case, if the relative status of men declines, the pool of "low end women" available to men declines. The ratio of low end men to low end women increases.

    The ratio of low end men to low end women increases.

    I’m sure you are aware that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Therefore, if people are not getting married, that is because either men or women are rejecting the mates that are attainable for them. With no evidence whatsoever that women are rejecting suitable mates, you demand an extreme, reactionary crackdown on women’s right to earn a living so they are unable to earn their own living.

    WTF could possibly go wrong?

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I’m sure you are aware that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Therefore, if people are not getting married, that is because either men or women are rejecting the mates that are attainable for them.
     
    No, because there is no longer social pressure or standard that upholds chastity and monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong marriage. That is just one lifestyle among many that includes serial dating, divorce, homosexuality, etc.

    With no evidence whatsoever that women are rejecting suitable mates
     
    My point is precisely the opposite. Women are not rejecting suitable mates; they are rejecting unsuitable ones. Changing the relative status of men changes the proportion of suitable mates. For example, let's say tomorrow, 90% of men were reduced to the economic and social status of slaves, while women remain in their fixed position. Those men would become unsuitable mates, and women would naturally reject them. Of course women don't want such men.
  118. @Rosie

    she has no legal obligation to remain stuck with a man that cannot provide her the lifestyle she is accustomed to;
     
    In that case, what you are saying is that you don't actually believe in marriage as a permanent, binding, sacred covenant. It is, rather, a temporary arrangement that persist so long as both parties find it satisfactory.

    Don’t ask him what should be done if she’s incapacitated and can’t have sex anymore.

    Hint: He agrees with televangelist Pat Robertson.

    It is the most suprising thing that I have learned about Islam from Talha.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Pat Robertson would suggest getting a second wife?

    Peace.
  119. @Rosie

    The issue I tend to see is that many people seem to have a distorted view of what exactly patriarchy entails. Word derives from the Greek for “ruling father” – it is not simply male domination. A society built upon the institution of “ruling fatherhood” is often at odds with and determined to crush the ambitions and antics of stupid, hormonal males in its ranks just as much as it seeks to prevent the ubiquity of “angels of the morning”. Fathers challenge or cooperate with other males in order to make sure their own daughters are taken care of. The bond between father and daughter is sacred
     
    That's all very nice, and I say so sincerely, not sarcasticly. The problem is that you reduce "women's interests" to the material. Our interests are broader than that.

    Agreed, for two reasons:
    1) Dostoevsky stated:
    “For the mystery of man’s being is not only in living, but in what one lives for. Without a firm idea of what he lives for, man will not consent to live and will sooner destroy himself than remain on earth, even if there is bread all around him.”
    2) We would be failures as fathers if we raised up girls that were nothing but gold diggers.

    Peace.

  120. @iffen
    Don't ask him what should be done if she's incapacitated and can't have sex anymore.

    Hint: He agrees with televangelist Pat Robertson.

    It is the most suprising thing that I have learned about Islam from Talha.

    Pat Robertson would suggest getting a second wife?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    More or less, he said that it was okay to take up with another woman and divorce the one that had Alzheimer's.
  121. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The ratio of low end men to low end women increases.
     
    I'm sure you are aware that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Therefore, if people are not getting married, that is because either men or women are rejecting the mates that are attainable for them. With no evidence whatsoever that women are rejecting suitable mates, you demand an extreme, reactionary crackdown on women's right to earn a living so they are unable to earn their own living.

    WTF could possibly go wrong?

    I’m sure you are aware that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Therefore, if people are not getting married, that is because either men or women are rejecting the mates that are attainable for them.

    No, because there is no longer social pressure or standard that upholds chastity and monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong marriage. That is just one lifestyle among many that includes serial dating, divorce, homosexuality, etc.

    With no evidence whatsoever that women are rejecting suitable mates

    My point is precisely the opposite. Women are not rejecting suitable mates; they are rejecting unsuitable ones. Changing the relative status of men changes the proportion of suitable mates. For example, let’s say tomorrow, 90% of men were reduced to the economic and social status of slaves, while women remain in their fixed position. Those men would become unsuitable mates, and women would naturally reject them. Of course women don’t want such men.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    For example, let’s say tomorrow, 90% of men were reduced to the economic and social status of slaves, while women remain in their fixed position. Those men would become unsuitable mates, and women would naturally reject them. Of course women don’t want such men.
     
    I reject your premise that women's socioeconomic peers are unsuitable food them as mates, and I reject your unproven assumption that they view them as such.
    , @Rosie

    No, because there is no longer social pressure or standard that upholds chastity and monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong marriage. That is just one lifestyle among many that includes serial dating, divorce, homosexuality, etc
     
    What do you propose?
  122. @Rosie

    she has no legal obligation to remain stuck with a man that cannot provide her the lifestyle she is accustomed to;
     
    In that case, what you are saying is that you don't actually believe in marriage as a permanent, binding, sacred covenant. It is, rather, a temporary arrangement that persist so long as both parties find it satisfactory.

    There are two aspects to marriage. One is a contractual bond between two spouses of roles and responsibilities. One is a bond of love, friendship and dedication. You can have one without the other.

    People can shack up and live loving, devoted lives without an official marriage contract and a couple could live together (or even apart) under a working marriage contract that gives them the arrangement they require.

    If you are smart and dedicated and graced by God, you can be fortunate enough to have the best of both aspects and a bond that lasts into the afterlife.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Your thoughtful expositions are very much appreciated. Thanks.
  123. @Anonymous

    I’m sure you are aware that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Therefore, if people are not getting married, that is because either men or women are rejecting the mates that are attainable for them.
     
    No, because there is no longer social pressure or standard that upholds chastity and monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong marriage. That is just one lifestyle among many that includes serial dating, divorce, homosexuality, etc.

    With no evidence whatsoever that women are rejecting suitable mates
     
    My point is precisely the opposite. Women are not rejecting suitable mates; they are rejecting unsuitable ones. Changing the relative status of men changes the proportion of suitable mates. For example, let's say tomorrow, 90% of men were reduced to the economic and social status of slaves, while women remain in their fixed position. Those men would become unsuitable mates, and women would naturally reject them. Of course women don't want such men.

    For example, let’s say tomorrow, 90% of men were reduced to the economic and social status of slaves, while women remain in their fixed position. Those men would become unsuitable mates, and women would naturally reject them. Of course women don’t want such men.

    I reject your premise that women’s socioeconomic peers are unsuitable food them as mates, and I reject your unproven assumption that they view them as such.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In my example, the men are reduced to slavery, while women are not and retain their current status. It's an extreme example to illustrate a rather simple point. Do you deny that current women would find slaves to be undesirable and unsuitable mates?
  124. @Anonymous

    I’m sure you are aware that boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers. Therefore, if people are not getting married, that is because either men or women are rejecting the mates that are attainable for them.
     
    No, because there is no longer social pressure or standard that upholds chastity and monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong marriage. That is just one lifestyle among many that includes serial dating, divorce, homosexuality, etc.

    With no evidence whatsoever that women are rejecting suitable mates
     
    My point is precisely the opposite. Women are not rejecting suitable mates; they are rejecting unsuitable ones. Changing the relative status of men changes the proportion of suitable mates. For example, let's say tomorrow, 90% of men were reduced to the economic and social status of slaves, while women remain in their fixed position. Those men would become unsuitable mates, and women would naturally reject them. Of course women don't want such men.

    No, because there is no longer social pressure or standard that upholds chastity and monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong marriage. That is just one lifestyle among many that includes serial dating, divorce, homosexuality, etc

    What do you propose?

  125. I am so not bothering to vote for this party (or the other party) again or to post another truly anti-Establishment comment.

  126. @Talha
    Pat Robertson would suggest getting a second wife?

    Peace.

    More or less, he said that it was okay to take up with another woman and divorce the one that had Alzheimer’s.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Well, with polygamy you don’t have to make that choice. You can keep the first and get another one...perhaps a widow that is also lonely.

    Peace.
    , @Rosie

    More or less, he said that it was okay to take up with another woman and divorce the one that hadAlzheimer’s.
     
    I can't say I'm surprised. So much for "in sickness and in health." It's really sad how few people take their marriage vows seriously anymore. Or was it always this way?
  127. @iffen
    More or less, he said that it was okay to take up with another woman and divorce the one that had Alzheimer's.

    Well, with polygamy you don’t have to make that choice. You can keep the first and get another one…perhaps a widow that is also lonely.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Well, with polygamy you don’t have to make that choice. You can keep the first and get another one…perhaps a widow that is also lonely.
     
    That is terrible, but I'll admit it's less terrible than Robertson's solution.
  128. @Rosie

    Guys, this rosie creature is triggered by the far right/alt right intending to “restore patriarchy” so this is why it is hanging around in right wing places. I’v seen it in other places too. It hopes that if it spams lot’s of comments in right wing sites then it is going to stop something or save feminism.
     
    I will not let you permanently ghettoize and destroy the alt-Right with your extreme reactionary animus against half the White population.

    I will not let you

    That’s the point. You reaaaly hope that your opinions should matter, and thus “i wont let this happen” or “i won’t let that happen”. The wording simply betrays your desperation to be taken seriously and to matter, and how you would like to instill that to yourself and to others. Nothing more. And you are desperate to matter or to be seen as someone who matters because you are not taken seriously and have no influence. Hence, it does not matter what you would “let” or didn’t “let”. Ha ha.

    This is why i laugh when i occasionally see your posts. I like seeing people who hit their head over and over in the brick wall of their irrelevance. Now keep hoping that the Far Right will the renounce the Patriarchy because of your desperate “i defend Muh womyn” spam in various right wing sites and will suddently start caring about feminist’s opinions. Lol

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And you are desperate to matter or to be seen as someone who matters because you are not taken seriously and have no influence.
     
    ROFLOL!!!

    I like seeing people who hit their head over and over in the brick wall of their irrelevance.
     
    Ridicule doesn't work on me.
  129. @Alex T

    I will not let you
     
    That's the point. You reaaaly hope that your opinions should matter, and thus "i wont let this happen" or "i won't let that happen". The wording simply betrays your desperation to be taken seriously and to matter, and how you would like to instill that to yourself and to others. Nothing more. And you are desperate to matter or to be seen as someone who matters because you are not taken seriously and have no influence. Hence, it does not matter what you would "let" or didn't "let". Ha ha.

    This is why i laugh when i occasionally see your posts. I like seeing people who hit their head over and over in the brick wall of their irrelevance. Now keep hoping that the Far Right will the renounce the Patriarchy because of your desperate "i defend Muh womyn" spam in various right wing sites and will suddently start caring about feminist's opinions. Lol

    And you are desperate to matter or to be seen as someone who matters because you are not taken seriously and have no influence.

    ROFLOL!!!

    I like seeing people who hit their head over and over in the brick wall of their irrelevance.

    Ridicule doesn’t work on me.

  130. @Talha
    Well, with polygamy you don’t have to make that choice. You can keep the first and get another one...perhaps a widow that is also lonely.

    Peace.

    Well, with polygamy you don’t have to make that choice. You can keep the first and get another one…perhaps a widow that is also lonely.

    That is terrible, but I’ll admit it’s less terrible than Robertson’s solution.

    • Replies: @Talha
    It’s a really terrible situation to find oneself in - one makes lemonade...

    The lonely widow may feel otherwise.

    Peace.

  131. @iffen
    More or less, he said that it was okay to take up with another woman and divorce the one that had Alzheimer's.

    More or less, he said that it was okay to take up with another woman and divorce the one that hadAlzheimer’s.

    I can’t say I’m surprised. So much for “in sickness and in health.” It’s really sad how few people take their marriage vows seriously anymore. Or was it always this way?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Or was it always this way?


    I think that each person will just have to make up their own mind. I don't know of any way to quantify it. Many women have suffered through some pretty terrible marriages. It really hasn't been that long since they were considered property.
  132. @Achmed E. Newman
    Rosie's good comeback notwithstanding, I think you could Ten-tuple this for men though. Men are much less picky about background, and it uusally comes back to bite them in family court. Of course, women are more likely to be psychopaths than hardened criminals, but there is the occasional axe murderer:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvAd33J9-po

    Yes, the man almost always has to act the clown. Then she may take pity.

  133. @Rosie

    Well, with polygamy you don’t have to make that choice. You can keep the first and get another one…perhaps a widow that is also lonely.
     
    That is terrible, but I'll admit it's less terrible than Robertson's solution.

    It’s a really terrible situation to find oneself in – one makes lemonade…

    The lonely widow may feel otherwise.

    Peace.

  134. @Rosie

    More or less, he said that it was okay to take up with another woman and divorce the one that hadAlzheimer’s.
     
    I can't say I'm surprised. So much for "in sickness and in health." It's really sad how few people take their marriage vows seriously anymore. Or was it always this way?

    Or was it always this way?

    I think that each person will just have to make up their own mind. I don’t know of any way to quantify it. Many women have suffered through some pretty terrible marriages. It really hasn’t been that long since they were considered property.

  135. @Talha
    There are two aspects to marriage. One is a contractual bond between two spouses of roles and responsibilities. One is a bond of love, friendship and dedication. You can have one without the other.

    People can shack up and live loving, devoted lives without an official marriage contract and a couple could live together (or even apart) under a working marriage contract that gives them the arrangement they require.

    If you are smart and dedicated and graced by God, you can be fortunate enough to have the best of both aspects and a bond that lasts into the afterlife.

    Peace.

    Your thoughtful expositions are very much appreciated. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Your thoughtful expositions are very much appreciated. Thanks.
     
    That's usually true, but I disagree in this particular case. Marriage is either a sacramental binding covenant or it is not. Talha's casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views. But then I have heard that Islam is very permissive about divorce, even to the point of allowing temporary "marriages" that amount to a form of halal prostitution. I figured it was bs, or at least nothing more than the type of hypocrisy that one can find among all sorts of people. Perhaps he can enlighten us.
    , @Talha
    Most welcome. My thanks to you for reading them.

    Your blog provides very good material; especially the stats that you bring up. I hope it helps your folks figure out how to get things back on track.

    Just this weekend, my daughter told me that her best friend (a White girl) doesn't want to get married and doesn't want any kids and fully wants to live alone with some pets (apparently she likes my name and wants to name one of these pets after me* - weird, I know). I was kind of shocked at how casual that girl's approach is. She only has one younger brother who is kind of dorky. I asked my daughter; you know, that might be the end of their bloodline, doesn't she care? To which the answer was; no, young people don't seem to care much about that these days. She also has a close Latina friend with the same attitude.

    A wake up call, to say the least.

    Also, I like how you are keeping things optimistic and hopeful. You don't know how important this to get things on track and how important it is to reject despair and despondency. People with that attitude should either be ignored or marginalized - you don't need dead weight in a struggle. Last night, at our weekly spiritual gathering, he was speaking on the subject of hope and rejecting attitudes of despair. He reminded us of this hadith:
    "If a man says the people are ruined/destroyed, then he himself is the most ruined/destroyed among them." - reported in Muslim

    Peace.

    *Hopefully it's a falcon.
  136. @Rosie

    For example, let’s say tomorrow, 90% of men were reduced to the economic and social status of slaves, while women remain in their fixed position. Those men would become unsuitable mates, and women would naturally reject them. Of course women don’t want such men.
     
    I reject your premise that women's socioeconomic peers are unsuitable food them as mates, and I reject your unproven assumption that they view them as such.

    In my example, the men are reduced to slavery, while women are not and retain their current status. It’s an extreme example to illustrate a rather simple point. Do you deny that current women would find slaves to be undesirable and unsuitable mates?

  137. @Audacious Epigone
    Your thoughtful expositions are very much appreciated. Thanks.

    Your thoughtful expositions are very much appreciated. Thanks.

    That’s usually true, but I disagree in this particular case. Marriage is either a sacramental binding covenant or it is not. Talha’s casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views. But then I have heard that Islam is very permissive about divorce, even to the point of allowing temporary “marriages” that amount to a form of halal prostitution. I figured it was bs, or at least nothing more than the type of hypocrisy that one can find among all sorts of people. Perhaps he can enlighten us.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Talha’s casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views.

    His traditional views are Islamic; some may coincide with "our" traditional views and some may not.
    , @Talha

    Talha’s casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views.
     
    There is nothing casual about my view on divorce. I've had many conversations with my own spiritual teachers who have counseled hundreds of families and they have always, always tried to keep the marriage together and avoid divorce.
    "The most detestable thing to God, among what is permitted, is divorce." - reported in Ibn Majah

    However, divorce is an option when people feel they just cannot compromise or in an untenable position.

    Given a bad situation with a host of bad options, what does one do?

    So, for instance, the woman can decide whether or not it is worth it to stick around with her husband though he lost his high paying job and now has half the salary that he used to. Should she stick it out with him? Absolutely! Must she stick it out with him? No.

    People make these decisions based on calculations of what they want and need out of life. Often a good counselor can make things work out. But some cases are not salvageable; should a woman stick around with a drunk husband that plays video games all day and doesn't care to look for a job and refuses to change because she fell in love with him too young? You tell me. Some marriages don't seem worth saving.

    Islam is very permissive about divorce
     
    It definitely doesn't encourage it (the divorce rates in the Muslim world versus other places attest to this), but it is allowed.

    temporary “marriages”
     
    You have to take it up with the Shiah (it is very real, I knew Shiah guys that would practice this with zero guilt at UCLA - but ask them if they would think it's OK for someone to ask their sister and they were ready to fight!) - no Sunni school allows this.

    Peace.
    , @Anonymous

    Marriage is either a sacramental binding covenant or it is not.
     
    That is a traditional Catholic view of marriage. Protestants don't regard marriage to be a sacrament.

    https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/10/15/martin-luther-on-divorce-for-sexual-denial/

    “Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did [Esther 1:12‑2:17]”. This was a statement by Martin Luther “Living as Husband and Wife” (1523) on the subject of sexual denial and abandonment in marriage.
     
  138. @Rosie

    Ok so do you now see that men have to outbid the market for women?
     
    No, you idiot. Women prefer higher status mates if they can get them. Otherwise less desirable women will settle for lower-status men, and be flattered and grateful for the attention.

    “less desirable women will settle for lower-status men, and be flattered and grateful for the attention

    Hmm. Your mileage may vary.

    “even to the point of allowing temporary “marriages” that amount to a form of halal prostitution”

    That’s a Shia thing, not Sunni (they disapprove) and IIRC not by any means universal in Shiadom.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut%27ah

    Also Sunni version

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misyar_marriage

  139. @Rosie

    Your thoughtful expositions are very much appreciated. Thanks.
     
    That's usually true, but I disagree in this particular case. Marriage is either a sacramental binding covenant or it is not. Talha's casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views. But then I have heard that Islam is very permissive about divorce, even to the point of allowing temporary "marriages" that amount to a form of halal prostitution. I figured it was bs, or at least nothing more than the type of hypocrisy that one can find among all sorts of people. Perhaps he can enlighten us.

    Talha’s casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views.

    His traditional views are Islamic; some may coincide with “our” traditional views and some may not.

  140. @Rosie

    Your thoughtful expositions are very much appreciated. Thanks.
     
    That's usually true, but I disagree in this particular case. Marriage is either a sacramental binding covenant or it is not. Talha's casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views. But then I have heard that Islam is very permissive about divorce, even to the point of allowing temporary "marriages" that amount to a form of halal prostitution. I figured it was bs, or at least nothing more than the type of hypocrisy that one can find among all sorts of people. Perhaps he can enlighten us.

    Talha’s casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views.

    There is nothing casual about my view on divorce. I’ve had many conversations with my own spiritual teachers who have counseled hundreds of families and they have always, always tried to keep the marriage together and avoid divorce.
    “The most detestable thing to God, among what is permitted, is divorce.” – reported in Ibn Majah

    However, divorce is an option when people feel they just cannot compromise or in an untenable position.

    Given a bad situation with a host of bad options, what does one do?

    So, for instance, the woman can decide whether or not it is worth it to stick around with her husband though he lost his high paying job and now has half the salary that he used to. Should she stick it out with him? Absolutely! Must she stick it out with him? No.

    People make these decisions based on calculations of what they want and need out of life. Often a good counselor can make things work out. But some cases are not salvageable; should a woman stick around with a drunk husband that plays video games all day and doesn’t care to look for a job and refuses to change because she fell in love with him too young? You tell me. Some marriages don’t seem worth saving.

    Islam is very permissive about divorce

    It definitely doesn’t encourage it (the divorce rates in the Muslim world versus other places attest to this), but it is allowed.

    temporary “marriages”

    You have to take it up with the Shiah (it is very real, I knew Shiah guys that would practice this with zero guilt at UCLA – but ask them if they would think it’s OK for someone to ask their sister and they were ready to fight!) – no Sunni school allows this.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Should she stick it out with him? Absolutely! Must she stick it out with him? No.
     
    Fair enough.

    But some cases are not salvageable; should a woman stick around with a drunk husband that plays video games all day and doesn’t care to look for a job and refuses to change because she fell in love with him too young? You tell me. Some marriages don’t seem worth saving.
     
    I look at like this. If a man is either abusive or so useless that he might as well not be there, then he has constructively abandoned his wife. He's still there physically, but he has abandoned his post as husband of that makes any sense. Obviously, we are seeing a lot of this nowadays with the opioid epidemic.

    You have to take it up with the Shiah (it is very real, I knew Shiah guys that would practice this with zero guilt at UCLA – but ask them if they would think it’s OK for someone to ask their sister and they were ready to fight!) – no Sunni school allows this.
     
    I see.
  141. @Audacious Epigone
    Your thoughtful expositions are very much appreciated. Thanks.

    Most welcome. My thanks to you for reading them.

    Your blog provides very good material; especially the stats that you bring up. I hope it helps your folks figure out how to get things back on track.

    Just this weekend, my daughter told me that her best friend (a White girl) doesn’t want to get married and doesn’t want any kids and fully wants to live alone with some pets (apparently she likes my name and wants to name one of these pets after me* – weird, I know). I was kind of shocked at how casual that girl’s approach is. She only has one younger brother who is kind of dorky. I asked my daughter; you know, that might be the end of their bloodline, doesn’t she care? To which the answer was; no, young people don’t seem to care much about that these days. She also has a close Latina friend with the same attitude.

    A wake up call, to say the least.

    Also, I like how you are keeping things optimistic and hopeful. You don’t know how important this to get things on track and how important it is to reject despair and despondency. People with that attitude should either be ignored or marginalized – you don’t need dead weight in a struggle. Last night, at our weekly spiritual gathering, he was speaking on the subject of hope and rejecting attitudes of despair. He reminded us of this hadith:
    “If a man says the people are ruined/destroyed, then he himself is the most ruined/destroyed among them.” – reported in Muslim

    Peace.

    *Hopefully it’s a falcon.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Those who forget about their ancestors very soon begin forgetting about their descendants.

    In similar interactions I ask that while it sounds fun at 25, what's it going to be like at 45? 55? 65? 75? That's a long time to be alone, to be invisible.
  142. @Talha

    Talha’s casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views.
     
    There is nothing casual about my view on divorce. I've had many conversations with my own spiritual teachers who have counseled hundreds of families and they have always, always tried to keep the marriage together and avoid divorce.
    "The most detestable thing to God, among what is permitted, is divorce." - reported in Ibn Majah

    However, divorce is an option when people feel they just cannot compromise or in an untenable position.

    Given a bad situation with a host of bad options, what does one do?

    So, for instance, the woman can decide whether or not it is worth it to stick around with her husband though he lost his high paying job and now has half the salary that he used to. Should she stick it out with him? Absolutely! Must she stick it out with him? No.

    People make these decisions based on calculations of what they want and need out of life. Often a good counselor can make things work out. But some cases are not salvageable; should a woman stick around with a drunk husband that plays video games all day and doesn't care to look for a job and refuses to change because she fell in love with him too young? You tell me. Some marriages don't seem worth saving.

    Islam is very permissive about divorce
     
    It definitely doesn't encourage it (the divorce rates in the Muslim world versus other places attest to this), but it is allowed.

    temporary “marriages”
     
    You have to take it up with the Shiah (it is very real, I knew Shiah guys that would practice this with zero guilt at UCLA - but ask them if they would think it's OK for someone to ask their sister and they were ready to fight!) - no Sunni school allows this.

    Peace.

    Should she stick it out with him? Absolutely! Must she stick it out with him? No.

    Fair enough.

    But some cases are not salvageable; should a woman stick around with a drunk husband that plays video games all day and doesn’t care to look for a job and refuses to change because she fell in love with him too young? You tell me. Some marriages don’t seem worth saving.

    I look at like this. If a man is either abusive or so useless that he might as well not be there, then he has constructively abandoned his wife. He’s still there physically, but he has abandoned his post as husband of that makes any sense. Obviously, we are seeing a lot of this nowadays with the opioid epidemic.

    You have to take it up with the Shiah (it is very real, I knew Shiah guys that would practice this with zero guilt at UCLA – but ask them if they would think it’s OK for someone to ask their sister and they were ready to fight!) – no Sunni school allows this.

    I see.

    • Replies: @Talha
    You have to remember, Rosie, that one of my initial points (that took us down this track) was how I felt that the involvement of the woman's father in the initial marriage process could be instrumental in making sure she is not get herself into a situation where there is potential instability in the marriage. The entire point was about removing factors that may eventually lead to divorce. Is that a silver bullet? No - obviously not, otherwise my community would have zero divorce rates - but it may help mitigate some issues.

    I remember having plenty of conversations with older men (one of the more recent ones with an older Irish neighbor of my father's) where they complain about the no-good, loser boyfriend that their daughter is currently dating (the latest in a long string).

    So I leave the question up to the men here. Sure, I know that you want to get at the girls without getting blue-balled by their father. But, one day you might have a daughter and you will be concerned who is trying to hook up with her and maybe she might be making a disastrous choice. A system that allows fathers to legally interdict the choice in partner that daughters make* is, from one perspective - going against your interests, but from another perspective - in favor of your interests. What goes around comes around...


    If a man is either abusive or so useless that he might as well not be there, then he has constructively abandoned his wife.
     
    And this is why there is no black and white answer to this whole divorce business.

    I see.
     
    Trust me, we have the same criticism of the practice; it is basically like prostitution (but with a defined time period). However, I'm not sure they'll brook criticism from a society in which hookup culture is normal.

    Peace.

    *Note that I'm not talking about forced marriage here. The daughter must also retain veto power. To strike another analogy - both father and daughter have their own set of partial launch codes and must coordinate for blast off.

  143. @Rosie

    Should she stick it out with him? Absolutely! Must she stick it out with him? No.
     
    Fair enough.

    But some cases are not salvageable; should a woman stick around with a drunk husband that plays video games all day and doesn’t care to look for a job and refuses to change because she fell in love with him too young? You tell me. Some marriages don’t seem worth saving.
     
    I look at like this. If a man is either abusive or so useless that he might as well not be there, then he has constructively abandoned his wife. He's still there physically, but he has abandoned his post as husband of that makes any sense. Obviously, we are seeing a lot of this nowadays with the opioid epidemic.

    You have to take it up with the Shiah (it is very real, I knew Shiah guys that would practice this with zero guilt at UCLA – but ask them if they would think it’s OK for someone to ask their sister and they were ready to fight!) – no Sunni school allows this.
     
    I see.

    You have to remember, Rosie, that one of my initial points (that took us down this track) was how I felt that the involvement of the woman’s father in the initial marriage process could be instrumental in making sure she is not get herself into a situation where there is potential instability in the marriage. The entire point was about removing factors that may eventually lead to divorce. Is that a silver bullet? No – obviously not, otherwise my community would have zero divorce rates – but it may help mitigate some issues.

    I remember having plenty of conversations with older men (one of the more recent ones with an older Irish neighbor of my father’s) where they complain about the no-good, loser boyfriend that their daughter is currently dating (the latest in a long string).

    So I leave the question up to the men here. Sure, I know that you want to get at the girls without getting blue-balled by their father. But, one day you might have a daughter and you will be concerned who is trying to hook up with her and maybe she might be making a disastrous choice. A system that allows fathers to legally interdict the choice in partner that daughters make* is, from one perspective – going against your interests, but from another perspective – in favor of your interests. What goes around comes around…

    If a man is either abusive or so useless that he might as well not be there, then he has constructively abandoned his wife.

    And this is why there is no black and white answer to this whole divorce business.

    I see.

    Trust me, we have the same criticism of the practice; it is basically like prostitution (but with a defined time period). However, I’m not sure they’ll brook criticism from a society in which hookup culture is normal.

    Peace.

    *Note that I’m not talking about forced marriage here. The daughter must also retain veto power. To strike another analogy – both father and daughter have their own set of partial launch codes and must coordinate for blast off.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    A system that allows fathers to legally interdict the choice in partner that daughters make* is, from one perspective – going against your interests, but from another perspective – in favor of your interests.
     
    I understand where you're coming from. I don't agree, but I trust your intentions are pure.

    Moreover, I wouldn't even necessarily object to a right of petition on a father's part to block a marriage, to be heard by a judge. That said, I wouldn't think inability to provide sole support should be a sufficient reason. My husband supports me now, but that is something we have worked towards over the years, sometimes I have made more than him, supporting him so that he could do career-enhancing work to get valuable experience.

    The problem with this notion that men must be qualified sole providers before getting married is that it is associated with all sorts of sexual immorality in practice. Young men can't marry, so they hire prostitutes. It only takes a small minority of men willing to pimp off their daughters to take advantage of this profit opportunity and create a cesspit of debauchery. You also wind up with an unfair Madonna/whore duality, where girls make a mistake or two, then they targeted for sexual use and abuse by desperate young men willing to justify their actions based on the idea that a girl is a "whore" who wanted it anyway, when really she was just desperate for intimacy.
  144. LOL! One of the Swedish convert brothers on MT (Muslim Twitter) said he was looking for a cute Swedish convert to start a brood with and one of the Algerian brothers responded with:
    “We must secure a future for white Muslim children inshaAllah”

    I need to get a shirt made with that on it and like a picture underneath it like this:

    Man – if a bunch of us Pakistanis and Arabs wore that around in public – the level of trolling on society would be at EPIC levels!!! I can only imagine how confused people would be in trying to figure out how to react.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Start with t-shirts that say "it's okay to be a white Muslim".
  145. @Talha
    You have to remember, Rosie, that one of my initial points (that took us down this track) was how I felt that the involvement of the woman's father in the initial marriage process could be instrumental in making sure she is not get herself into a situation where there is potential instability in the marriage. The entire point was about removing factors that may eventually lead to divorce. Is that a silver bullet? No - obviously not, otherwise my community would have zero divorce rates - but it may help mitigate some issues.

    I remember having plenty of conversations with older men (one of the more recent ones with an older Irish neighbor of my father's) where they complain about the no-good, loser boyfriend that their daughter is currently dating (the latest in a long string).

    So I leave the question up to the men here. Sure, I know that you want to get at the girls without getting blue-balled by their father. But, one day you might have a daughter and you will be concerned who is trying to hook up with her and maybe she might be making a disastrous choice. A system that allows fathers to legally interdict the choice in partner that daughters make* is, from one perspective - going against your interests, but from another perspective - in favor of your interests. What goes around comes around...


    If a man is either abusive or so useless that he might as well not be there, then he has constructively abandoned his wife.
     
    And this is why there is no black and white answer to this whole divorce business.

    I see.
     
    Trust me, we have the same criticism of the practice; it is basically like prostitution (but with a defined time period). However, I'm not sure they'll brook criticism from a society in which hookup culture is normal.

    Peace.

    *Note that I'm not talking about forced marriage here. The daughter must also retain veto power. To strike another analogy - both father and daughter have their own set of partial launch codes and must coordinate for blast off.

    A system that allows fathers to legally interdict the choice in partner that daughters make* is, from one perspective – going against your interests, but from another perspective – in favor of your interests.

    I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t agree, but I trust your intentions are pure.

    Moreover, I wouldn’t even necessarily object to a right of petition on a father’s part to block a marriage, to be heard by a judge. That said, I wouldn’t think inability to provide sole support should be a sufficient reason. My husband supports me now, but that is something we have worked towards over the years, sometimes I have made more than him, supporting him so that he could do career-enhancing work to get valuable experience.

    The problem with this notion that men must be qualified sole providers before getting married is that it is associated with all sorts of sexual immorality in practice. Young men can’t marry, so they hire prostitutes. It only takes a small minority of men willing to pimp off their daughters to take advantage of this profit opportunity and create a cesspit of debauchery. You also wind up with an unfair Madonna/whore duality, where girls make a mistake or two, then they targeted for sexual use and abuse by desperate young men willing to justify their actions based on the idea that a girl is a “whore” who wanted it anyway, when really she was just desperate for intimacy.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I trust your intentions are pure.
     
    I got the permission of my wife's father when I started courting her for marriage (and for the marriage itself) so I expect the same from any young man for my daughter and I expect the same behavior from my sons. As I said, what goes around, comes around.

    I wouldn’t even necessarily object to a right of petition on a father’s part to block a marriage, to be heard by a judge.
     
    I agree that some fathers can be stupid about things - judicial oversight is highly recommended to make sure rights are being balanced.

    I wouldn’t think inability to provide sole support should be a sufficient reason.
     
    This is really up to the father and daughter. It is a valid reason to block a marriage, but it does not have to be. If the daughter thinks she is fine with helping out with the finances (even though she is legally obligated to provide nothing) and her father thinks that this is sufficient and her interests are well-enough provided for (this may be the case if they come from a working-class family where her mother pitched in also), then everything is fine if he gives permission. Every penny she spends will simply be counted as charity and rewarded accordingly in the afterlife. The case only moves to court when one of the parties is not happy with the potential arrangement. Technically, a marriage will work even if the wife decides to work and foot all bills and let the husband stay home and nap all day - just because she is in a situation where she has ample reason to have the marriage annulled, it doesn't mean a thing if she doesn't want to bring it to court.

    The problem with this notion that men must be qualified sole providers before getting married is that it is associated with all sorts of sexual immorality in practice.
     
    Depends on the society really and expectations. Yes, if the expectations are too high, you will have these kinds of problems for the reasons you outlined. There are some Muslim countries where issues arise because the expected price for a wedding is so high that normal people can't afford it. But, if a society is creative, it can solve those problems too (even under the pressure of military blockades):
    "Dozens of mass weddings have been held in the Gaza Strip in recent years as a means to help young couples who are struggling financially.
    Traditional weddings are extremely costly and many couples are forced to delay getting married in order to save money for the ceremony."
    https://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=760429

    Peace.

  146. @Rosie

    A system that allows fathers to legally interdict the choice in partner that daughters make* is, from one perspective – going against your interests, but from another perspective – in favor of your interests.
     
    I understand where you're coming from. I don't agree, but I trust your intentions are pure.

    Moreover, I wouldn't even necessarily object to a right of petition on a father's part to block a marriage, to be heard by a judge. That said, I wouldn't think inability to provide sole support should be a sufficient reason. My husband supports me now, but that is something we have worked towards over the years, sometimes I have made more than him, supporting him so that he could do career-enhancing work to get valuable experience.

    The problem with this notion that men must be qualified sole providers before getting married is that it is associated with all sorts of sexual immorality in practice. Young men can't marry, so they hire prostitutes. It only takes a small minority of men willing to pimp off their daughters to take advantage of this profit opportunity and create a cesspit of debauchery. You also wind up with an unfair Madonna/whore duality, where girls make a mistake or two, then they targeted for sexual use and abuse by desperate young men willing to justify their actions based on the idea that a girl is a "whore" who wanted it anyway, when really she was just desperate for intimacy.

    I trust your intentions are pure.

    I got the permission of my wife’s father when I started courting her for marriage (and for the marriage itself) so I expect the same from any young man for my daughter and I expect the same behavior from my sons. As I said, what goes around, comes around.

    I wouldn’t even necessarily object to a right of petition on a father’s part to block a marriage, to be heard by a judge.

    I agree that some fathers can be stupid about things – judicial oversight is highly recommended to make sure rights are being balanced.

    I wouldn’t think inability to provide sole support should be a sufficient reason.

    This is really up to the father and daughter. It is a valid reason to block a marriage, but it does not have to be. If the daughter thinks she is fine with helping out with the finances (even though she is legally obligated to provide nothing) and her father thinks that this is sufficient and her interests are well-enough provided for (this may be the case if they come from a working-class family where her mother pitched in also), then everything is fine if he gives permission. Every penny she spends will simply be counted as charity and rewarded accordingly in the afterlife. The case only moves to court when one of the parties is not happy with the potential arrangement. Technically, a marriage will work even if the wife decides to work and foot all bills and let the husband stay home and nap all day – just because she is in a situation where she has ample reason to have the marriage annulled, it doesn’t mean a thing if she doesn’t want to bring it to court.

    The problem with this notion that men must be qualified sole providers before getting married is that it is associated with all sorts of sexual immorality in practice.

    Depends on the society really and expectations. Yes, if the expectations are too high, you will have these kinds of problems for the reasons you outlined. There are some Muslim countries where issues arise because the expected price for a wedding is so high that normal people can’t afford it. But, if a society is creative, it can solve those problems too (even under the pressure of military blockades):
    “Dozens of mass weddings have been held in the Gaza Strip in recent years as a means to help young couples who are struggling financially.
    Traditional weddings are extremely costly and many couples are forced to delay getting married in order to save money for the ceremony.”
    https://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=760429

    Peace.

  147. “Dozens of mass weddings have been held in the Gaza Strip in recent years as a means to help young couples who are struggling financially.

    I love that idea!

    • Replies: @Talha
    Agreed. I would imagine that would be an extremely joyous and exciting event to attend. Weddings are pretty happy occasions for all families involved - then multiply by 200!!!

    Peace.
    , @Mr. Rational
    The Moonies did mass weddings also, sometimes marrying people who had never met before the ceremony.  This sort of thing makes me look sideways at it.
  148. @Rosie

    “Dozens of mass weddings have been held in the Gaza Strip in recent years as a means to help young couples who are struggling financially.

     

    I love that idea!

    Agreed. I would imagine that would be an extremely joyous and exciting event to attend. Weddings are pretty happy occasions for all families involved – then multiply by 200!!!

    Peace.

  149. @Rosie

    “Dozens of mass weddings have been held in the Gaza Strip in recent years as a means to help young couples who are struggling financially.

     

    I love that idea!

    The Moonies did mass weddings also, sometimes marrying people who had never met before the ceremony.  This sort of thing makes me look sideways at it.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks.

    Reading this exchange between Rosie and Talha was giving me such a warm fuzzy that I could hardly breathe and you cured it.
  150. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Your thoughtful expositions are very much appreciated. Thanks.
     
    That's usually true, but I disagree in this particular case. Marriage is either a sacramental binding covenant or it is not. Talha's casual attitude towards divorce is uncharacteristic and inconsistent with his other, more traditional views. But then I have heard that Islam is very permissive about divorce, even to the point of allowing temporary "marriages" that amount to a form of halal prostitution. I figured it was bs, or at least nothing more than the type of hypocrisy that one can find among all sorts of people. Perhaps he can enlighten us.

    Marriage is either a sacramental binding covenant or it is not.

    That is a traditional Catholic view of marriage. Protestants don’t regard marriage to be a sacrament.

    https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/10/15/martin-luther-on-divorce-for-sexual-denial/

    “Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did [Esther 1:12‑2:17]”. This was a statement by Martin Luther “Living as Husband and Wife” (1523) on the subject of sexual denial and abandonment in marriage.

  151. @Mr. Rational
    The Moonies did mass weddings also, sometimes marrying people who had never met before the ceremony.  This sort of thing makes me look sideways at it.

    Thanks.

    Reading this exchange between Rosie and Talha was giving me such a warm fuzzy that I could hardly breathe and you cured it.

  152. @jbwilson24
    "By those bitter men who demand a return to the “old order”, i.e. patriarchy and no miscegenation.

    The genie is out of the bottle. Normie men and women, because of “muh liberty”, will make their own decisions who to date, who to marry, when to marry, and if and when to have children."

    No they won't.

    Left liberals will be outbred by competing groups who do not subscribe to the same ideas. Hindus, Muslims, Africans, etc. Hindu arranged marriages have a ton of advantages, in addition to their practice of pooling money as extended families and living in multi-generational households.

    The left wing 'explore myself and the world' types will simply die out, since they won't be able to compete with groups that have 4 kids per woman.

    In short, my argument is that this reproductive strategy is suboptimal in competition with groups that favor maximal reproductive output.

    Also, Islam will bring back that patriarchy with a vengeance.

    Generally correct though fervent religious types have the highest reproduction rates regardless of sects. The US may well end up mainly Amish with minority Evangelical, LDS and especially FLDS and various Orthodox with a smattering of Muslims and others.

    In the bigger world many Islamic nations are starting to slide below replacement and the fastest growing strand of Islam Ahmadi are barely considered Muslim by other sects.

    Globally all TFR falls once societies become urbanized and reach a certain minimum standard of living. This even includes Africa though the demographic transition is slower there

    Humans as a species have overshot carrying capacity just a little and will end up with a stable population and eventually reduced numbers of a long time frame

    How long and who makes it is up in the air though my guess is that the groups that eschew modernity will thrive, those that embrace it will die off,

  153. @Talha
    Most welcome. My thanks to you for reading them.

    Your blog provides very good material; especially the stats that you bring up. I hope it helps your folks figure out how to get things back on track.

    Just this weekend, my daughter told me that her best friend (a White girl) doesn't want to get married and doesn't want any kids and fully wants to live alone with some pets (apparently she likes my name and wants to name one of these pets after me* - weird, I know). I was kind of shocked at how casual that girl's approach is. She only has one younger brother who is kind of dorky. I asked my daughter; you know, that might be the end of their bloodline, doesn't she care? To which the answer was; no, young people don't seem to care much about that these days. She also has a close Latina friend with the same attitude.

    A wake up call, to say the least.

    Also, I like how you are keeping things optimistic and hopeful. You don't know how important this to get things on track and how important it is to reject despair and despondency. People with that attitude should either be ignored or marginalized - you don't need dead weight in a struggle. Last night, at our weekly spiritual gathering, he was speaking on the subject of hope and rejecting attitudes of despair. He reminded us of this hadith:
    "If a man says the people are ruined/destroyed, then he himself is the most ruined/destroyed among them." - reported in Muslim

    Peace.

    *Hopefully it's a falcon.

    Those who forget about their ancestors very soon begin forgetting about their descendants.

    In similar interactions I ask that while it sounds fun at 25, what’s it going to be like at 45? 55? 65? 75? That’s a long time to be alone, to be invisible.

  154. @Talha
    LOL! One of the Swedish convert brothers on MT (Muslim Twitter) said he was looking for a cute Swedish convert to start a brood with and one of the Algerian brothers responded with:
    "We must secure a future for white Muslim children inshaAllah"

    I need to get a shirt made with that on it and like a picture underneath it like this:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Circassian_children.jpg

    Man - if a bunch of us Pakistanis and Arabs wore that around in public - the level of trolling on society would be at EPIC levels!!! I can only imagine how confused people would be in trying to figure out how to react.

    Peace.

    Start with t-shirts that say “it’s okay to be a white Muslim”.

    • LOL: Talha

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS