Tag: women

What is the rule?

Never take a woman’s advice about women. Here is yet another example, courtesy of Jess Hart:

Spy a stunning model in a bar and thinking about trying your chances?

“Don’t,” the Sports Illustrated cover girl commands. The beautiful aren’t interested in the bold according to Hart.

“If you see me, or another model, in a bar wait until you are spoken too before you speak,” she orders.

Supermodel, super s— test. Clearing out the deltas and betas to make room for the alphas, that’s all it is. Ignore it to your benefit.

Cougar catching

I’m not sure which is more amusing, the fact that this dork finds it so easy to catch straying cougars or the way in which the female columnist is so predictably horrified… by the men who wish to verify the fact that their wives are unfaithful:

Ryan has been working as a honey trap for a top surveillance agency for two years and has caught out 145 cheating women – sleeping with 50 of them. His job is just like the female honey-trapper’s seductive services we reported on two weeks ago.

Ryan says: “Older ladies seem to find me attractive. My boyish good looks and cheeky sense of humour reel them in. Also, I have been thoroughly trained by the surveillance agency in how to be flirtatious and charming.

“My success rate is 100 per cent. I feel it’s my job to catch out cheating women for their husbands’ benefit.

In response to which, the female columnist writes: “[W]hat sort of sad, vindictive men set a trap for their wife instead of tackling the problems in the relationship, looking at why they are so bored and lonely, why all a man has to do to get them into bed is listen? These husbands seem more worried about their wallets than their love lives.”

Proving yet again that it doesn’t matter what a woman does to another woman who can imagine herself in the first woman’s shoes, it must be a man’s fault. Needless to say, the almost identical article about the female honey-trapper was accompanied by no such finger-wagging commentary. But either way, the fact that there is a honey-trap industry – not unlike the old faux adultery divorce service from days before no-fault divorce – shows how foolish it is to believe you are likely to get away with adulterous behavior now that we’re living in a technological service economy. Once your husband or wife begins to have enough doubts about you to hire a hacker to go through your hard drive, a private investigator to follow you, or a honey-trapper to tempt you, you will almost certainly be caught.

Hypergamy and marriage rates

It is not hard to explain why the highly educated are somewhat more disposed to be married than the less educated:

Adults in First Marriages. Figure 3 indicates that the percentage of moderately educated working-age adults who were in first marriages fell 28 percentage points, from 73 percent in the 1970s to 45 percent in the 2000s. This compares to a 17-point drop among highly educated adults and a 28-point drop among the least-educated adults over this same time period. What is particularly striking about Figure 3 is that moderately and highly educated Americans were both just as likely to be married in the 1970s; now, when it comes to their odds of being in an intact marriage, Middle Americans are more likely to resemble the least educated.

Here is my theory. Women are hypergamous and women of the 1990s are just as likely to have college degrees as men. Since they don’t like to marry down, highly educated women will marry highly educated men and less educated women will also marry less well educated men. Highly educated men will also marry less educated women, but highly educated women will NOT marry less educated men. Therefore, we can expect marriage rates to drop as a function of the rate at which women pursue higher education.

If this is the case, then highly educated men should have higher marriage rates than less educated men while less educated women should have higher marriage rates than highly educated women. As it happens, that’s what the statistics indicate. According to a 2003 study, the peak “ever-married” rate for women between the ages of 40 to 44 in 2000 was 90.5% at 12 years of education while for men it was 89.3% at 19 years of education. Which, you will note, indicates that men tend to prefer women with a high school education whereas women prefer men to have as much education as possible.

Rethinking feminism

“I was informed that there would be no work in this career.”

It goes without saying, although it sometimes seems we are expressly forbidden to say it, that having a rich husband would provide that option. When I go to pick up Nancy from school, there are three ­distinct camps of women at the gates: the frazzled working mums like myself, rushing up at the last minute.

Then there are the childminders of those women still at work. Then there are the stay-at-home mothers — and if you imagine the latter group to be tubby drudges in unflattering tracksuits with fuzzy, unkempt hair, think again.

Today’s breed of stay-at-home mother is impeccably turned out — after all, they’re the only ones rich enough to be able to not work. Mostly in their late 20s, they’re clad in designer gear and have the time to have their hair styled weekly at an upmarket salon.

Unsurprisingly, female envy proves convincing where logic and reason fail. Of course, it’s not that any man will do, only a rich man.

Let the women work

Calculated Risk presents a chart showing that the percentage of men aged 25-54 participating in the labor force declined to a record low of 88.8% in November.  And that was BEFORE the release of the new World of Warcraft expansion.  The chart goes back to 1948 and shows that the idea women first entered the workforce en masse after WWII or in the 1970s simply isn’t true; about one-third of women have always had to work.  The increase in the percentage of women participating in the workforce is predominantly the result of young women who previously got married and had children while being supported by a husband now working instead of or in addition to having a family.  The chart is also a little misleading in that it only measures to age 54.  One of the chief impacts of more women entering the workforce is that men over the age of 60, who had previously been much more inclined to work, exited the workforce en masse thanks to the establishment of Social Security and Medicare.

So, as I have often said, the primary benefit to society from employing young women is to pay for old men collecting retirement.  In return for which the societal costs include declining marriage rates, skyrocketing illegitimacy rates, lower average wages for both men and women, reduced productivity, and demographic decline.  This would not appear to be either a rational or sustainable policy for any nation, especially considering that the first attempted solution, importing third-world workers to replace the missing children, has not worked out well for any nation that has adopted it.  The choice is as stark as it is simple.  Either abandon the notion of sexual equality and return to the traditional model where 70% of women are occupied with raising families or experience complete societal collapse.

On a tangential note, I saw this in the comment’s at CR’s place.  I don’t see it as a positive indicator: A friend picked up a hitch-hiker in the National Park last week and gave him a ride, and it turned out he was a marine that had done 3 tours in the sandbox, but apparently our military is getting picky about who they allow to re-up, and he told my friend, “I hope something happens in Korea, so I can go back to work.”  It is a time-honored fact of history that when men cannot find jobs, the rulers of society attempt to keep them occupied killing people somewhere else.

The opportunity cost of sex

Since Spacebunny mentioned that the previous post was of the sort to cause most people to feign death rather than risk inadvertantly entering into the discussion, I thought I’d post Susan Walsh’s rather different take on the opportunity cost study. I suspect it is much more likely to prove interesting to the non-economists in our midst. Not that pedantic debates over opportunity cost versus net utility calculations aren’t stone cold sexy, you understand.

One of the most valuable key economic concepts is that of opportunity cost. It’s the cost of not choosing something, the benefits left behind on the road not taken, and it’s an important component of any choice you make. Sometimes the tradeoff is obvious – if you choose to date Brad, you’re giving up the opportunity to date Jonathan, for example. Often times, though, opportunity costs can be hidden, which can lead to making irrational decisions….

Women often figure they have nothing to lose by staying in a disappointing arrangement until something better comes along. This is a terrible strategy for three reasons:

It’s not just women who make this mistake. As I’ve told some of my male friends time and time again, women should not be confused with jobs. While the best way to find a new job is to have a job, the best way to find a wife is not to have a wife. If you want to meet women, you are much better off being out, about and unattached than caught up in a half-hearted relationship with a girl that you plan to trade in for someone better on the off-chance that you happen to meet them on one of the nights that you’re not sitting at home watching re-runs of Sex in the City with a woman you don’t even particularly like. It’s not fair to her and it’s not utility maximizing for you.

UPDATE: We’re not talking about pre-selection here. We’re talking about the sort of man who is in a “serious relationship” but doesn’t want to be and is simply waiting around for someone else to come along before he can break it off with her.

The mystery of female infidelity

The Telegraph can’t figure it out:

Why are so many married women having affairs? Gone are the days when adultery was so taboo that affairs generally happened by accident. Now increasing numbers of women set out to stray as if extramarital sex was just one more thing on their to-do list.

It’s hardly rocket science. The decline of religious faith across the West, the expansion of female employment to the middle and upper middle classes, the increase in the average amount of female sexual experience prior to marriage, and the elimination of significant divorce penalties for women have combined to create a generation of women less inclined to take their marital vows seriously than those that preceded them.

In the same way that putting a ring in a bull’s nose doesn’t make it any less a bull, putting a ring on a slut’s finger will not make her any less a slut. Once the narcissistic excitement of All-About-the-Bride Day wears off, the chances are that she’ll return to form. I don’t trust the self-reported statistics that claim 34% of married women are unfaithful, but one would expect female infidelity to exceed male infidelity so long as a) men increasingly seek to avoid marriage and b) the short-term negative post-marital consequences for men significantly exceed those for women. This is why every man contemplating marriage must be very careful to consider his prospective wife’s a) religious dedication, b) desire to work outside the home, and c) sexual history. There are no guarantees, of course, but the cold statistical reality is that some marriages possess higher probabilities of lasting success than others, so if at least two of those three factors are not in operating your favor, you’ll be better off passing and finding another woman.

UPDATE: That being said, it’s not terribly surprising to learn that the science behind the infidelity reports appears to be not so much sub-par as nonexistent. “This survey is so savagely incompetent that I am in awe at how many different media outlets covered it. . . . If a slot machine were as rigged as this survey, the gaming commission would shut down the casino.”

The number of wives and husbands who have ever been unfaithful appears to be in the 15″% to 18% range, which is less than half that commonly reported in the newspapers.

You’re not imagining it

Some women really do think men find high maintenance behavior to be attractive:

Am I alone in thinking there’s something rather magnificent about a woman who can demand (and more importantly, receive) such extravagant devotion? In this egalitarian age of dual incomes, shared bank accounts and recrimination over whose turn it is to empty the dishwasher, there’s something quaintly old-fashioned about any woman who takes such slavish adoration – and the 10-course menu degustation – for granted, with a blithe lack of concern for cost or equality.

This is an exhibit of what is all too common in women, although hardly limited to them: an inability to distinguish between cause and effect. Alpha males do not, as this woman assumes, desire women because they are high maintenance, rather, they desire the sort of women who can get away with being high maintenance because they are exceptionally attractive. And meekly accepting such behavior on the part of a woman is anything but alpha.

It’s similar to the way in which women mistakenly think that because they find social status and money to be a primary determinant in a man’s attractiveness, increasing their social status and income will make them more attractive to men. But it doesn’t work that way; most men will be much more interested in marrying a pretty demure woman who didn’t finish high school than they will to an attractive, successfu, female executive with a degree from Harvard Law and the requisite manjaw.

But give credit where credit is due as the writer gets one thing right. The one thing worse than the openly high maintenance woman is the high maintenance woman who thinks she’s low maintenance.

This is “equality”

UK family court law is making sharia look better and better by comparison:

A £56million lottery winner has been ordered to pay £2million to his ex-wife who walked out on him ten years ago. Nigel Page, 44, was sued by his former wife Wendy shortly after his massive Euromillions windfall earlier this year even though she left him for another man.

It is truly astonishing how the Western legal system has rapidly devolved into little more than a vehicle for funneling money from men with resources to women without them. Of course, it’s hard to feel much sympathy for the lottery winner who promptly turned around and married his girlfriend. I wonder what the over/under is on her departure?

A lack of consequences has consequences

A policeman observes the effects of legal inequality in the name of sexual equality:

[A]s a former criminal investigator and street officer I have observed the deadly effects of feminism on women. Many women feel that they are entitled to browbeat, berate, and abuse men without consequences. By rule of law they would be right. By law of nature they often only realize their folly too late. Again and again I have seen this. The couple that has 5 or 10 domestic disturbance calls then one final call.

These aren’t the “burning bed” women. Those women don’t call the police. When that abuse comes to light it is usually a third party that makes the call. The most common is the dysfunctional couple that argue to a fever pitch until the guy has had enough. Often he will try to leave for awhile and she tries to block his exit, as she has not felt adequately satisfied with his level of torment. He removes her from his path, and she calls when he is gone citing that he has attacked her and is out on the road. A very common occurance. On the occasions when we arrive to find both at the home the male will be relatively calm while the female is hysterical or playing hard on the victim card. With the “imminent fear” standard in place women have learned to exploit this feature of the domestic abuse law. I taught rookie officers how to properly make the woman tip her hand to see if she was really in fear. Simply enough, you casually isolate the two parties and tell her that he will not be arrested on this occasion. When they are faking it, the fear act dissolves and you see who the aggressor really is. Not only will she aggress against the male partner but also at the officers.

The present legal situation presents a vicious, downward spiral once a woman makes the unilateral decision that she is the head of the household. There is little point in lamenting the legal realities, as they are what they are and significant change is unlikely until after a) the ongoing economic contraction fundamentally alters the male-female dynamic, or b) Sharia is instituted as is now apparently on the table in places like Amsterdamistan, Londonistan and Oklahoma.

While primary blame must be attached to the woman declares herself queen, there is no shortage of it to be attached to the man who makes the decision, conscious or unconscious, to submit to her rule. Once that decision is made, the possibility of the downward spiral becomes omnipresent; while couples that involve sufficiently low-status men may never embark upon it, some form of negative outcome is nevertheless likely.

Now, it’s not necessary to overreact and decry all possibility of long-term relationships with women simply because the law is stacked in favor of them. That is the instinctive Gamma response and is no different than the way that they tend to exaggerate every Game concept to the point of parodic inutility. All that is really necessary to forestall the likelihood of this downward spiral is to make it clear that although there may be no legal or physical consequences for a woman’s abusive actions, there will be serious repercussions for the relationship. Once a man makes it clear that he would truly rather be dead or working in the bowels of a Patagonian coal mine than live his life being treated badly by the one person who is supposed to be his helpmeet, only a deeply neurotic or psychopathic woman is going to push the issue beyond a few tests to establish his credibility on the matter.

In summary, if you are a browbeaten, hen-pecked man, it is ultimately your fault because you have not only voluntarily chosen that woman, but to accept being treated that way by her as well. It’s not worth it. No real man will ever live that way, and furthermore, as the policeman suggests, you are unlikely to be doing either her or yourself a service with your silence endurance.