Posted on 09/08/2019 5:54:09 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Edited on 09/08/2019 6:04:34 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I knew a woman who was married to a professional man. He worked hard, long hours, was always inventive, creative. He was a dedicated father; she demanded it, for sure, but even beyond that, he was all in and was an extremely active dad. She didn’t like to cook, didn’t think it was her job, so he learned how. She didn’t like to tidy up, and he was no Mr. Clean, but he gave it a go. She wanted him to be compliant, yet resilient, and he tried to be all of the things she wanted. He even pretty well achieved it. He’d come so far that he sent us all a poem about how to appease the women in his house, who wanted him to leave the toilet seat down, he learned to pee sitting down. What a mensch! Only, in the end, she tired of his acquiescence and left him for a belligerent roofer 10 years her junior.
The New York Post took aim yesterday at a study called “Mismatches in the Marriage Market” in the Journal of Marriage and Family, that explains that women often don’t marry because there is a dearth of marriageable men. Apparently, the definition of marriageable is “makes 58% more money than any of the dudes available right now.” The “patriarchy” used to keep men and women in their places, and now that women are achieving at higher rates than men, it’s still the “patriarchy” that is keeping everyone from being happy.
In the old system, women went to college to find husbands or got jobs as receptionists at law offices to marry an esquire before quitting the job market to take on the dual roles of housewife and mother. This imbalance in earnings and status was deemed to be just no good for the female half of the species, who ended up poorly educated, often jilted in middle-age, and back in the workforce without even a pretty face to get by.
Plus, men were not great. They lacked emotion, they were too focused on careers, ambition, status, fulfilling the role of provider. The patriarchy had done these dudes a bad turn, had made them so concerned with achieving the masculine ideal that they didn’t measure up to what their women wanted or needed. And women were stuck with the status quo.
A big push was made for women to go get more from life, husbands, love, family, all that stuff paled in comparison to what was achievable if women buckled down, hit the books, and entered the capitalist machine as worker bees eager for their own honey. Great, why not? Go get it, girl.
And they did get it. Under equity feminism, more women have college degrees than ever before, more women are successful in their fields, yet more women are unable to find suitable matches because men, it turns out, just can’t measure up to women’s expectations. Again.
If you’re one of the single ladies out there, this will not be a surprise. I cannot count how many intelligent, independent, attractive, [bleep] women I know who can’t find a guy they want to spend more than one night with, and even that is a stretch.
For a while, women were complaining that guys were afraid of commitment, that women couldn’t find a man who wanted a real relationship, babies, the works. But somewhere along the line, when the college degrees were awarded in greater quantity to the fairer sex, ladies began to have a different complaint. I started to hear friends carp about guys who wanted more than a hook-up, guys who wanted their time and attention when not rolling in hay as well. Why, just last night, a good friend, independent, hot, confident, all of that, told me she had to cut a guy loose because he was texting her asking how her day went instead of simply reaching out to find a suitable time for sex.
Is it any wonder that women out there who want to get hitched can’t find anyone suitable to hitch their wagon to? Guys have been overtaken by female accomplishments (kudos, ladies), and still have no idea what women want. A hookup? A commitment? A high earner? A hard worker? A partner? A housewife?
Women didn’t like how men were, so they demanded they change. Men changed, and now that they have, women don’t like what they’ve changed into. Women want soft, emotional, high achieving, career focused tough guys who don’t get angry, remember anniversaries, bring flowers, and can splurge on expensive meals and trips, without working all weekend, and still make it to little Johnny’s ballet recitals.
Contemporary woke feminism doesn’t care about equality. It demands that men strip themselves of their toxic masculinity, their desire to compete and achieve, to become more stereotypically femme, so that women don’t have to do all the emotional heavy lifting. Okay. But on the other hand, women want men to be high-achieving, breadwinning earners, who are professionally successful, and, if Tinder is any indication, taller than them as well.
The only problem is that these toxic characteristics are essential for success in the marketplace. When men let them go, all those things that these traits facilitated fall by the wayside as well. Men are emasculated for not achieving just as they are demeaned for those attributes that enable achievement. Wtf, yo?
Why not just let men be men with all of their bumbling, masculine, competitive energy? The truth is that most women want the opposite of a woke Gillette ad. They want high-achieving, strong men to be partners with. Even if they don’t know that they want that, or don’t want to admit to it, reality reveals they sure as hell do. Otherwise, no intelligent woman who got her man to do everything she claimed she wanted, including coming up with an ingenious way to make sure the toilet seat was permanently in her preferred position, would leave him for someone who promised nothing but stereotypical masculinity.
A young girl in my town is complaining on FB right now no company will hire her due to her purple hair. Only fast food etc will hire her. She is claiming discrimination etc.
All the female posters are sticking up for her talking about puritan concepts, outdated rules made up by evil meeeeeenn.
And women wonder why men are going galt??
As another poster said on this thread wait until sex robots are perfected.
I do want to add there are plenty of nice women out there but you have to search for them. Several of my nieces are great and were just married in the last few years to equally great guys.
Hi, gaijin-!
I never watched this television series.
I first assumed it was because I was a woman and believed it to be aimed at the men, what with all the sexual content.
THEN it became obvious at work that both men and women I knew were hooked on this series.
My beloved hated the series. From his perspective it was about how slutty a female could get and how so many men would want the average American woman to be that way. Needless to say he REALLY hated the show. I couldn’t recall ever seeing him watch it and he advised me he got that opinion simply from watching the commercials and hearing all the men and women talk about it at work.
So glad I never bought into that series!
Ha! Some jokes are just truths that make you laugh.
>>Since the beginning of time there have been wealth inequities, even really crazy ones, but ALL got married; the King, the shoe-cobbler, the share-cropper.<<
In the past, a woman who wanted to survive needed somebody to take care of her, as high-paying jobs for women did not exist. So they got married to the highest-status guy who would have them.
Today, a single woman can support herself decently, and does not need to get married. Many women would rather stay single than lower themselves to marry a man who does not make her vagina tingle. A woman who marries a man who her peers are not impressed by, has lower status among her peers than one who stays single, and many women care deeply about peer-group status.
Like you, I, too, saw Sex & The City a grand total of ZERO times.
News 10 days ago was that the chief creator for that series was now SORRY, now that she is alone and has no family.
Eeewwwww...
Sex and the City was a show for women, and so had to tell women what they wanted to hear: that you can be over-the-hill and not particularly attractive, but you can still get desirable high-tier men to date you if you act slutty enough.
Head Sex & The City creator, Candace Bushnell
Candace Bushnell, head creator of Sex & The City, baaaack in the day
the dress I could do without.
In the country in Maine women built like that woman were called “rugged” Rugged women have been desirable, they are strong, they have big strong sons, and they are usually a bit bawdy and fun.
Good life partners.
My mother was one of those thin tinies that men love so much.
As they are known: Broken birds. Men love them.
They put men through hell.
“Rugged women have been desirable, they are strong, they have big strong sons, and they are usually a bit bawdy and fun.”
I’m not the biggest dude at 5’8”, 160 lbs, but damn it if I’m not attracted to what you are calling “rugged women”. I didn’t know that was a thing, that’s interesting. My momma was a pencil thin woman too. Maybe Freud was wrong after all.
wasnt there a reporter who struck this pose with her reporter mate?
LMAO.
Your wife was concerned you were around the woke men, the real men, or both?
Knowing you, I would have thought you were adept with handling both kinds of men.
Sorry, but it should be "we real women …"
“I don’t want some effeminate, skinny jeans wearing (gag) soyboy.”
Of course not. It’s damned tragic that we’ve got an entire generation of men who have been taught that this is proper. What real woman would want a man of excessive sensitivity and weakness?
Madness.
Some women want wimpy men, men they can control and intimidate, men they can belittle and who will slink around like whipped puppies. And some men are perfectly content to live in thrall to harpies like that.
Other women want to be "kept," protected, defended, and put on a pedestal. They're as confident in their femininity as they expect their men to be in their masculinity. Today, they're seen as weak and cowering, but in truth, they are just as strong as the ball-busters and soulless "career women."
Still others are content being just who they are, and don't let anyone -- conservative or liberal -- tell them how to live. They dress the way they want, they engage in whatever activities please them, they hold to values they find dear. In other words, they are SELF-actualized, SELF-defining human beings. And they have no preconceptions about the "perfect" man, or any man at all. They don't need a man to complete them, but in most cases, they see men as an ideal complement to themselves.
Those potato chips aren’t gonna eat themselves...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.