ETA: Ninja’d
I don’t think richest and ambitious are good proxies, neither poor and lazy.
A lot of wealthy people I know just rent out a bunch of properties that they inherited, or they inherited the money to buy the properties. Their days are mostly free. And meanwhile I know people more driven that me but who earn less than me, just by being in an industry with less demand or lower margins.
I lost you at this point. Why are the wealthy women all unmatched?
A previous thread related to this discussion.
Culturally a huge number of straight men are happy partnering with a woman of slightly lower or roughly equal status (income as a major proxy but also education level). Fewer men, especially those of lower status, as as thrilled to be the lower status member of the relationship. The converse is also true.
In America today there are more women reaching higher education and often income levels than men. Higher status. Lower status men are intimidated and these women are often less interested in them, often also are of different values and interests. So yes more unpartnered highly educated higher status women often of more liberal values, and more unpartnered less educated less well paid men often of more conservative values.
The latter group can be dangerous.
Yeah. Those do not line up like that.
And I’ve got to ask: have all these unwanted men tried doing the dishes? – that is, have they shown willing to pull their weight in other ways?
I suspect that the idea was, because they can’t find anybody sufficiently richer than themselves for them to marry.
If rich women really are left unmarried due to their wealth, which strikes me as unlikely, I suspect it’s at least as likely to be the other way around: that some men are only willing to marry women who have less money than they do.
Not really. I originally wrote that post just with poor vs rich, but that seemed simplistic and materialistic. So I threw in the lazy/ambitious dimension as an afterthought. An ill-considered afterthought.
Yes, this. When everybody wants a mate richer than them, one end of each line end up as leftovers.
@Everyone:
That was a highly simplified example meant to illuminate to @Demontree that if every woman wants a mate “better” than themselves in whatever dimension(s) they each desire, the low-status men take it in the neck.
That low-status trait could be low height, bad teeth, little education, small penis, or small wallet. Whatever the bulk of women want, the guys lacking that are gonna be left behind. And resent it.
IRL there is a lot of spread in what individual women value in a mate. And rather few men are the complete package of way above average in everything. So the result is not as stark as my simplistic thought experiment with two long lines of people. But it’s still the case that there is a rough and ready quality metric in effect.
The more agency women have of their own, and hooray for that, the more they’re going to exercise it. With predictable consequences for the less desirable men, however defined.
My point is really no deeper than that.
Or obnoxious attitude; which for quite a lot of the men complaining that women don’t want to go with them is the actual problem. (I grant that there are some exceptions.)
Both parts of the above are true.
My point was that this scenario doesn’t seem to match up well with what is actually happening, which is that college educated women are continuing to get married at similar rates, while marriage for non-college educated women is falling, same as for non-college educated men. AFAIK assortative mating is actually higher today than in the past.
Maybe @griffin1977 is right about this:
Is there any evidence that this is true and there is a smaller differential between men and women at the bottom of the income distribution? Or maybe women are going off absolute rather than relative attractiveness, and men at the lower end of the scale just aren’t appealing now those women have the option to remain single?
Certainly true of the vocal online ones. It’s hard to know whether their bad attitude led to their dating woes or is a result of it, but it for sure isn’t helping.
I would agree with that, but in 21st century america it’s toxic masculinity IMHO.
A lot of young men are under the impression that obnoxious behaviours show confidence and make them alpha. And a lot of dating profiles apparently are men flexing their muscles next to sports cars (muscles and sports cars could be attractive but the inferiority complex and implication of shallowness, probably not).
And as they crash out they lean more and more into jerkish behaviours and can wind up as incels.
TBH this was probably me, 20 years ago, I guess I’m lucky there was nothing like MAGA around and I just grew up.
Hasn’t this been an issue for Black women for many years now? I remember articles from years ago essentially saying the same thing about Black women. Compared to Black men, the women were more likely to have a college education, a higher income, and a different set of values, so these women were choosing not to marry rather than settle.
I don’t know what’s changed, but it does seem more acceptable for young men to have no ambition or even a job. My mother’s neighbor’s “kid,” he’s about 35, has never held down a real job for very long as far as I can tell. My cousin is also in his 30s and I don’t know if he’s ever had a job.
Point taken
No there is a bigger differential, not a smaller one. Women at both ends of the economy have increased their income, as they have gone from largely not working and staying home, to going out to work and having careers of their own. But in that time the income of non-college educated men has dropped by 25% while in the population as a whole it has doubled.
So even though poorer women’s income has grown far far less than rich women, the change in income between men and women is much more pronounced in the bottom end of the economic spectrum than at the top
I don’t have much actual data, but that sure sounds right to me. From some middle-aged friends who’re into the gym culture, they tell me it seems like steroid use is nigh universal in everyone who lifts.
Which sure doesn’t improve their disposition vis-a-vis women. It just further bathes their brain in artificial “alphahood”.
Agreed. A point I almost made upthread but decided to skip for brevity.
Here is a post of mine from 2020 that’s on-point:
That entire thread is about sorta the same topic as this thread: desirable women outnumbering desirable men and the concomitant problem of undesirable leftover men.
There’s something rather interesting in that statement, although I’m not sure if it was intended. That a large subset of men are feeling lonely, frustrated, and hopeless doesn’t seem to garner much sympathy. It’s only when their hopelessness leads to anti-social actions that impact others that we start to consider it a problem.
That’s a bit of an overstatement, there have been sympathetic posts here; but it is something I notice, sometimes.
My bad
Title and link
AMERICA’S ‘MARRIAGE MATERIAL’ SHORTAGE
I’d be careful with interpretation of that. Are they in long term cohabitation arrangements less too? My WAG is that there is less sense of need to marry as the form of partnership as cohabitation is more acceptable, even the norm.
I deliberately glossed over the consequences for the individual unhappy men. My take on the thread is both the triggering Atlantic article and the rather different topic we are discussing was explicitly aimed at the societal level consequences.
But your point is well taken. There is sort of an underlying assumption that men’s happiness and fulfillment is simply expendable. We as a society don’t bother to ensure it’s widely available. And don’t even much care when it isn’t.
The toxic masculinity post (with which I posted an agreement) more or less blamed the victims for their plight. Which is not very charitable or Progressive.
Meandering around metaphor space I see a landscape absolutely pockmarked by holes. And lots of undirected or poorly directed people with shovels merrily digging away. At what point do we simply give up and expect to live on an ever bumpier Moonscape versus cheerleading and working diligently towards a smooth flat graded landscape where any holes dug are done so deliberately for a good purpose?
Speaking just for me, I’m not wanting to burn the place down. But I’m increasingly skeptical. I increasingly believe that a) the collective actions of innumerable shovel wielders will burn the place down regardless of my druthers. And that b) There’s not a og-damned thing I can do to influence that trajectory. Which attitude leads me personally to ignore the individual tragedies inherent in that and focus only on the tragedy befalling civilization as a whole. Call it a variation on the old saw that “one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.” When it will be millions, no point in even thinking of any individual, much less every individual.
I agree. I’m a college educated woman with my own business. My partner has bad teeth, coke-bottle glasses, psoriasis skin, no college degree, makes $16 an hour pushing carts at a retail store and has a drinking problem. But he’s kind, gentle, non-temperamental and non-judgemental. His buddies get in to the “bro-sphere” stuff and he totally rejects it and mocks them for it. He lifts me up and thinks I’m great.
I pay for dates. I help him manage adulting when needed. I don’t mind any of it because I’d rather be with a guy like him any day than anyone who would yell or raise a hand to me, or dismiss me for any reason because I’m a woman. I think he’s great too.
You can’t even discuss anything about men or men’s problems on this board without running straight into the ban on “mens’ rights activism” as it is so broadly defined that anything falls under it.
There’s a bit in a very old LeGuin book (Rocannon’s World, which is in large part very early LeGuin which makes a lot of assumptions she wouldn’t make later) in which one character says to another (may not be exact quote) “In times like this, one man’s life doesn’t matter.”
And is answered “If it does not, then what does?”
If the individuals don’t matter, then the millions don’t, either.
However – the solution really can’t be to say that women must marry/have sexual relationships with men who are exhibiting toxic masculinity. That might make the men feel better, but it’s saying that the women don’t matter.
The question is, how to get across to such men that it is their behavior that’s the problem, not what’s in their wallets or how tall they are; and that they’re not just entitled to behave like that; and that toxic masculinity isn’t the only kind of masculinity.
I am old enough that I am out of touch with the dating scene. In my case, I attracted a smart ambitious woman who married me when my goal was to become a doctor. In stead I flunked out and went to work in the optical field which provided a living but not a middle class one. When the kids grew up I helped her join my profession and within 2 years out-earned me and her income kept rising as her employers realized her potential. WE even bought a couple new cars there for a while. My salary never did catch up to what she made.
She is retired some years now and as long as the current administration doesn’t burn down the economy I plan to retire as well. If things go South as badly as happened in 2008, well I will simply get another job. I found a woman who did not mind being married to someone who earned less than she did, and was less physically attractive than her. Luck.