4 ms·

> “Women don’t want to take a risk on somebody who’s not going to be able to provide anything,” That's such a fucked up sexist thought. It says woman are in c

> “Women don’t want to take a risk on somebody who’s not going to be able to provide anything,” That's such a fucked up sexist thought. It says woman are in control of marriage, what men want is irrelevant. And that the role of men is provider. Men belong at work and women belong in the kitchen, is that it?

aetherson 9y ago
If both parties' consent is necessary to get married (which, you know, I hope it is), then either can veto it. If both parties need to provide in order to maintain a decent standard of living (which is the reality of America today), then either party can look at the other and say, "This person is not providing anything" and exercise their right to veto. If women are more stably employed than men, on average, which is again the reality of lower-income areas, then it is women who will be dominantly in the part of the person judging and vetoing, without any sexism (except, I suppose, possibly on the part of the employers who make lower-income men less stably employed, though I don't think that sexism is the causal factor there).
tomp 9y ago
> Men belong at work and women belong in the kitchen, is that it? No, it's just describing the reality that it matters to women how much a man earns. See the last graph in the second section of this article: https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-big-lies-people-tell-in-online-dating-a9e3990d6ae2 https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-big-lies-people-tell-in-onli...
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Yup. There are definite physical[1] and psychological[2] differences between the sexes that lead to different mating strategies[3]. We can bemoan the inequalities that exist with that structure, but it doesn't change the fact that men and women are different in many ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mating_strategies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mating_strategies
ashark 9y ago
Article's full of that. Mostly it's about how all these now-unemployed and uneducated men aren't worth marrying. Which makes all the posts in this thread about how it's caused by men not wanting to marry women because it's too risky kinda funny. Article's all about too few men being marriage material. They end on a hilariously useless and misguided piece of advice that wouldn't be out of place in The Onion's version of this article: > Mr. Wilcox suggests a bigger emphasis in high schools and pop culture on what’s known as the success sequence: degree, job, marriage, baby. “The idea is that if people follow that sequence, their odds of landing in poverty are much lower,” he said.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > The idea is that if people follow that sequence, their odds of landing in poverty are much lower. Half of all babies are accidental, regardless of marital status. If sex is in the equation before "degree" (it is), then the whole sequence is flawed.
  - ashark 9y ago
    I like that the advice is nearly indistinguishable from "be born into a family where you'll be socialized to follow this pattern and provided resources to help follow it and to help get you back on track if things go awry, and golly, you probably won't be poor!"
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      He's not actually wrong. I just think leaving the word "sex" out of the description misstates the actual problem. One could start following that pattern, get pregnant in college, drop out, and be slightly better off than having a baby in high school (since you check the "some college" option on the application instead of "some high school"). If the problem is education and socialization, shouldn't the philanthropic classes be educating teens more about the statistics involved in getting pregnant and poverty rates? It seems like we're too busy not judging (which is an admirable instinct) to be explicit in our culture about the relationship between sexual activity, poverty, family structure, and pregnancy. We spend tons of energy on all sorts of techniques to level playing fields and give kids a leg up, but fail to broach this subject. If we think kids are mature enough to decide to be sexually active, we should make sure they're educated enough as well.
jmull 9y ago
> It says woman are in control of marriage, what men want is irrelevant. They aren't saying that. You wouldn't suggest that a man be able to force an uninterested woman to marry him, would you? Surely we want both women and men (or whatever the genders) to have complete veto power in this, right? (Not that you can't argue that it's a sexist reason not to want to marry someone. I don't think it is but I can see how it's debatable.)
3minus1 9y ago
It's not a sexist thought. It's an explanation for why marriage rates are lower among poor adults. Do you have a better explanation?

aetherson 9y ago

If both parties' consent is necessary to get married (which, you know, I hope it is), then either can veto it. If both parties need to provide in order to maintain a decent standard of living (which is the reality of America today), then either party can look at the other and say, "This person is not providing anything" and exercise their right to veto. If women are more stably employed than men, on average, which is again the reality of lower-income areas, then it is women who will be dominantly in the part of the person judging and vetoing, without any sexism (except, I suppose, possibly on the part of the employers who make lower-income men less stably employed, though I don't think that sexism is the causal factor there).

tomp 9y ago

> Men belong at work and women belong in the kitchen, is that it? No, it's just describing the reality that it matters to women how much a man earns. See the last graph in the second section of this article: https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-big-lies-people-tell-in-online-dating-a9e3990d6ae2 https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-big-lies-people-tell-in-onli...

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Yup. There are definite physical[1] and psychological[2] differences between the sexes that lead to different mating strategies[3]. We can bemoan the inequalities that exist with that structure, but it doesn't change the fact that men and women are different in many ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mating_strategies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mating_strategies

ashark 9y ago

Article's full of that. Mostly it's about how all these now-unemployed and uneducated men aren't worth marrying. Which makes all the posts in this thread about how it's caused by men not wanting to marry women because it's too risky kinda funny. Article's all about too few men being marriage material. They end on a hilariously useless and misguided piece of advice that wouldn't be out of place in The Onion's version of this article: > Mr. Wilcox suggests a bigger emphasis in high schools and pop culture on what’s known as the success sequence: degree, job, marriage, baby. “The idea is that if people follow that sequence, their odds of landing in poverty are much lower,” he said.

humanrebar 9y ago
> The idea is that if people follow that sequence, their odds of landing in poverty are much lower. Half of all babies are accidental, regardless of marital status. If sex is in the equation before "degree" (it is), then the whole sequence is flawed.
- ashark 9y ago
  I like that the advice is nearly indistinguishable from "be born into a family where you'll be socialized to follow this pattern and provided resources to help follow it and to help get you back on track if things go awry, and golly, you probably won't be poor!"
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    He's not actually wrong. I just think leaving the word "sex" out of the description misstates the actual problem. One could start following that pattern, get pregnant in college, drop out, and be slightly better off than having a baby in high school (since you check the "some college" option on the application instead of "some high school"). If the problem is education and socialization, shouldn't the philanthropic classes be educating teens more about the statistics involved in getting pregnant and poverty rates? It seems like we're too busy not judging (which is an admirable instinct) to be explicit in our culture about the relationship between sexual activity, poverty, family structure, and pregnancy. We spend tons of energy on all sorts of techniques to level playing fields and give kids a leg up, but fail to broach this subject. If we think kids are mature enough to decide to be sexually active, we should make sure they're educated enough as well.

jmull 9y ago

> It says woman are in control of marriage, what men want is irrelevant. They aren't saying that. You wouldn't suggest that a man be able to force an uninterested woman to marry him, would you? Surely we want both women and men (or whatever the genders) to have complete veto power in this, right? (Not that you can't argue that it's a sexist reason not to want to marry someone. I don't think it is but I can see how it's debatable.)

3minus1 9y ago

It's not a sexist thought. It's an explanation for why marriage rates are lower among poor adults. Do you have a better explanation?