HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » No Job? No Date for You!

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:15 AM

No Job? No Date for You!

Here is a good example of the invisible sexism that men have to deal with. It seems, to many women, being born with a penis means that your life must be given over to a life of labor in the pursuit of money if you are to find a mate.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/06/29/no-job-no-date-for-you/

In a new survey conducted by an online dating service, three-quarters of women said they were unlikely to date a man who is unemployed. Only one-third of the guys surveyed, by contrast, refuse to go with women who don’t have jobs.

The results of the survey, conducted by the matchmaking service It’s Just Lunch, is not necessarily representative of the population. It’s Just Lunch is a dating site that specializes mainly in setting up well-educated professionals, and the data comes from the responses of 925 single women (and an unknown number of men—the site hasn’t released that info) who responded to the site’s requests to participate in the survey.

Nonetheless, the dramatic differences in the responses of the sexes may lead some to the conclusion that, as Jezebel put it, “women are just a bunch of money-grubbing gold-diggers.”

Similarly, a previous study conducted for the real estate site Trulia shows a fairly big difference in how homeownership affects the desirability of men and women as dates. Just 19% of men said that they have a preference for dating homeowners. A much larger proportion of women (36%) prefer dates who own property.

57 replies, 9376 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply No Job? No Date for You! (Original post)
Bonobo Sep 2012 OP
caseymoz Sep 2012 #1
Bonobo Sep 2012 #2
caseymoz Sep 2012 #3
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #7
caseymoz Sep 2012 #12
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #13
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #15
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #16
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #17
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #19
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #5
Zalatix Sep 2012 #4
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #6
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #18
Zalatix Sep 2012 #21
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #22
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #8
loli phabay Sep 2012 #9
Bonobo Sep 2012 #10
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #28
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #11
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #14
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #20
Bonobo Sep 2012 #23
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #24
seabeyond Sep 2012 #25
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #27
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #29
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #30
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #31
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #36
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #37
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #38
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #41
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #42
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #35
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #43
MadrasT Sep 2012 #26
Bonobo Sep 2012 #32
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #33
opiate69 Sep 2012 #34
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #47
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #55
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #44
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #50
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #57
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #39
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #40
Shitty Mitty Sep 2012 #45
Bonobo Sep 2012 #46
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #49
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #51
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #48
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #52
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #53
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #54
Sen. Walter Sobchak Sep 2012 #56

Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:30 AM

1. In any species females tend to be like that.


Access to resources is important in mating selection. That, or good potential to get access to resources.

I tend to think qualities that date back to before the Cenozoic Era are really beyond our political system's ability to correct, at least in our lifetimes. Even if it did, how would you correct it? Demand that women date someone they're not attracted to? What about the men who said a job and money were important?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 02:01 AM

2. If you are going to go all socio-biological on me...

I will agree.

But if you go in that direction, we must also agree that the "objectification" of women and the desire to gaze at their individual body parts is also the result of millions of years of evolution.

Of course, you are correct in saying what you did. But int he current culture where women are struggling to free themselves from the shackles of their evolutionary roles, it is entirely appropriate to point out the more hidden and less discussed expectations that shackle men.

"What about the men who said a job and money were important?"

Well, if you read the article, you saw that it was a pittance compared to the women who select for those reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 03:46 AM

3. Of course I agree with that.


Except I have a problem calling that "objectification." Feminists boards are pissed at me about that. I don't think objectification correctly describes the process, nor does it encompass all the psychological processes that have been assign to it. It's a defective term.

I quibble with the notion that it's their evolutionary roles that they're demanding to be freed from. What I see is they don't acknowledge evolutionary forces because they don't trust that male interests haven't slanted the data and corrupted the results. They reject sociobiology because its purported determinism is similarly suspect. In other words, I believe the most widespread opinion in feminism is that evolution is correct, but the implications of it, explained to them by male scientists, cannot be trusted. Unfortunately, feminists have no scientific data themselves, and while they wait forever for the "real" data to come in, they inform their beliefs, or bolster them, rather, with social science. That's what I think the widest opinion about evolution might be.

It comes down to fear and paranoia, and these are never emotions conducive to clear intellect.

So where does that leave you discussing the shackles of men's evolutionary roles? It's fruitless to argue about roles in the context of evolution with feminists, because to them the information is suspect. Culture and society, for a large part, do create the environments by which genetically influenced behavior is expressed, and that is what you're talking about with gender expectations. I would try to keep discussions to things which aren't so directly related to sexual selection, especially when there's no good solution except forcing women to accept men they aren't attracted to, or vice versa. That doesn't go anywhere good because modern sexual morality is based on consent.

Sadly, I see that the two sexes have different genetic interests. These interests influence us through our unconscious minds.

It's okay in any respect to point out the absurdities in patriarchal theory and the problems with the term "objectification."

I did read the whole article and I knew that far fewer men demand that their potential partners be wealthy or make a living. I'm saying that if it's wrong at all to have that standard, then it's wrong for anyone to have that standard no matter how the gender demographics break down. There are still enough men demanding that standard that you can take gender out of it and just say "This standard is wrong."

And you'll probably be told in one way or another, "Hey, I didn't make the rules. A partner having wealth and power somehow turns me on." If they think it through rationally, it's more than likely after-the-fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:34 AM

7. To the extent that "sex object" is a valid concept, it has a bookend: "success object". n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 11:46 PM

12. lol. I don't know what to say.

Last edited Thu Sep 20, 2012, 09:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Sex is pretty basic, a key part of a personality. To say emphasizing it turns the person into an object, though, just isn't accurate. There are guys ask their favorite porn stars for their autographs. That just doesn't happen if the porn star has become an object to guys.

There are other negative effects that are worth noting, like the tendency for guys to misinterpret signals in that situation, and getting defensive about backing down. (No, her having sex with some guys doesn't imply she'll have sex with you.) There are apparently are some people, male and female, who see women who dress in suggestive manner, or go nude, as having zero social status. The experiment finding this appears to indicate the response is almost a reflex, and there's no follow up as to what it means for behavior, and whether it can be unlearned.

There's no word as to whether males of this ilk are guys who frequent porn or guys who avoid it, or whether women with this tendency become anti-sex-fems or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 08:56 AM

13. "Objectification" is just another rad-fem myth

The idea was developed by people who had zero academic or professional backgrounds in human behavior and promoted by Dworkin who was a college dropout. Even many feminists reject the idea which makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 09:24 AM

15. I could see claiming objectification when you decide

 

an entire group of people exists for one purpose.

So if you claimed women exist solely as baby-factories or blacks solely as cheap farm equipment.

That is objectification.

You are literally taking that entire group of people and turning them in to a singular object. But that is pretty extreme and rare these days.

Instead it's come to mean a man noticing that a woman has bits he doesn't and being ok with that.

So noticing that a woman on the street is attractive (just that, nothing more) is objectifying her because you didn't from your .2 seconds of visual interaction decide that you valued her thoughts, dreams, personal aspirations, etc. You just noticed how she looked.

It's a great metamorphosis of the word from the rad-fem perspective because that occurs literally everywhere and at every time. They will never "fix" human nature so it gives them stuff to complain about forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #15)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 10:00 AM

16. Even if you thought women exist solely as baby factories, it still wouldn't be "objectification"

Objects can't have babies.

The term "sex object" is an oxymoron. Objects don't have gender or coitus. So literally "objectification" makes no literal sense. Conceptually it makes even less sense. It literally assumes that men prefer to have sex with objects rather than humans and it completely denies that sexual attraction is part and parcel to humanity. It's nothing more than a meaningless word created to serve the purposes of misandry. The term "self-objectification" is actually misogynist because it portrays women who want to be desired for their appearance as somehow inferior. Many don't realize that the rad-fem agenda is actually very misogynistic. They don't do it so much anymore because so many other feminists called them out for it, but rad-fems used to demonize women who chose to be stay at home moms as tools of the patriarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 10:08 AM

17. Self objectification is a really bizarre term

 

because it implies you have free will (you had to choose to do it) and that you are an object (without free will).

It's like calling someone a voluntary slave. It doesn't make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #17)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 11:26 AM

19. It's just part of rad-fems' slut shaming

The only reason they get away with it is because for the most part, only other feminists have the cojones to call out their sex-negative agenda for what it is. Everyone else either ignores them or is too afraid of being labeled as misogynist (which is a common tactic of rad-fems here on DU as well). Rad-fems even crawled in bed with the likes of Ed Meese and the rest of the obviously misogynistic right wing to further this warped idea. It's kind of ironic when you can't call bullshit on obvious misogyny without being called a misogynist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:31 AM

5. It arguably shackles women too.

 

One wouldn't expect women in general to attain high levels of power and income if their energies are directed to finding a man who will provide a shortcut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:03 AM

4. Women demand a lot of men, why can't men make a few demands of their own?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:33 AM

6. Because we're plentiful.

 

Same reason that labor can't make demands of management. There's always someone else to do the job. Or no one, if necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 10:11 AM

18. That's changing in some demographics

 

to a minor extent because we're shifting towards more women by sex selection and higher mortality rates.

But also women are doing better (going to college more and so on) while men are doing worse (pretty much boys are expected to drop out of college and immediately report to jail or under a bridge in many communities).

Meaning that among acceptable males (those with jobs and not in prison) the selection of acceptable females is huge. Whereas for women who are doing ok their selection of acceptable males is paltry.

Either they will have to change their standards or be alone or subject themselves to random hookups with no real monogamy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 02:14 PM

21. I imagine most women faced with that would rather be alone.

 

My aunt lived out her whole life without getting married. You'd be shocked at how common this attitude is in places like Germany.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #21)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 02:18 PM

22. Possibly

 

but I don't think that's a recipe for happiness for most people.

Some men and women can be content with such a life. The majority would not be.

Which means that women, for their own selfish interests if nothing else, really ought to be pushing for reforms to help men get off the streets, stay out of jail, and get a decent education.

It seems counter-intuitive but voting to have any gender based social assistance go primarily to women is going to hurt women in the long run if it leads to a shortage of men for them or their daughters.

I wish more would think about it this way.

I realized long ago that doing anything as a society to harm women was wrong for two reasons: morally (shouldn't need to explain that one) and practically (because it drags everyone down).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:49 PM

8. Given that our schools are apparently designed to fail boys

 

and no safety net exists for those who fall through the cracks and the sections of the economy hardest hit have always been dominated by men women are going to have to adjust these standards or deal with being alone.

/just another male privilege I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 08:46 PM

9. lets be honest no one wants to date a loser, a one night stand might be okay but long term hell no

 

nothing worse than dating someone who just sponges off you and cant contribute to the relationships finances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:24 PM

10. Men do not primarily look for "earning potential" in a partner.

The burden is still on men to bring in the money.

Women still have a chance to not spend all their lives chained to a desk. Men mostly do not.

There are millions of men who are estranged from their families because they have to be away from the house for long periods of time to work. It takes a toll on their relationships with their children and that is a tragic thing if you are working for their benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:08 PM

28. Would I classify a woman as a loser if she had no job?

That's the real question.

I don't think that men in general consider women as "losers" because they have no job or a crappy, low paying one.

However, I think that women in general consider men "losers" who have no job or a crappy, low paying one. And to go a step further, I think that men, also, in general consider men losers who have no job or a crappy, low paying one.

It just seems that the idea of "financially-supported male" is a stigmatic as it has ever been, while the idea of "financially-supported female" is just as acceptable as it has ever been. So, it seems that society still views unemployment as a mating dealbreaker for men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:40 PM

11. Nevermind underemployed....

....I went through a long period where all I could find was a shitty security job. I was honest about it at first, and I found I suddenly wasn't finding dates as easily as I was when I was in a "cooler" job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 09:09 AM

14. Just another example of "female privilege"

Lose your job and you're more likely to be thrown to the curb by your wife or girlfriend. If you don't have a job, or you are underemployed, you are delegated to the dating scrap heap.

One thing the survey doesn't say is how important a prospective mate's job is for each gender. It stands to reason that the majority of men who think it's important for a prospective mate to be employed would be more likely to overlook it, while I reckon that a large percentage of women who think it's important would treat it as a disqualifying factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 01:35 PM

20. Nope, this is male privilege

 

Because, stay with me here, due to the patriarchy men don't care about how much women make. Thus they can be happier with a wider variety of potential mates. Men have more freedom to find happiness.

However due to again the patriarchy women are forced to only find employed men attractive which means they are forced to select among fewer and fewer mates and are left with less freedom and happiness.

Oh and women have to find a man that earns at least as much as she does if not more so she can compensate for the fact that she is paid 3/4s what he is for the exact same work. And even though that isn't true it is true somehow because if you argue you hate women.

So once again the patriarchy hurts women!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:37 AM

23. Interesting how this was shrugged off on HOF Group

Apparently it is okay for women to choose men based on their earning potential but NOT okay for men to choose women for their looks.

I repeat. When men have equal opportunity that women have to not work and to stay at home with their children without being EXPECTED to be the provider, then women also will find that their opportunities have increased.

But as things stand, women still are the only gender that effectively has that choice.

You can tell me it has ever been thus and I will agree as long as you are consistent and then say that women should NOT have equal pay for equal work and should be expected to have food on the table when I get home from work.

But you won't say that because equality for women is one that has gained general acceptance but quality for men (in America among other places) is scoffed at as whining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 10:48 AM

24. It is interesting

 

women are supposed to have the right to choose to stay at home or work as they please and they shouldn't be criticized for either.

A man ought to work or risk being labeled a lazy parasite.

I guess that's just another male privilege; being valued at least in part for the labor we provide rather than for being a person.

Historically people that are valued based on their labor and nothing else have been called slaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 11:02 AM

25. we are talking dating, not stay at home fathers. i am a HUGE supporter of stay at home

 

fathers. i have expressed it many times. i will continue to always support the stay at home fathers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 02:49 PM

27. Nothing to say on the gendered double standard?

 

Why do you suppose it is that so many more women do not find unemployed men attractive than vice-versa?

Let me guess, the patriarchy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:29 PM

29. Well, there really is no double standard and I think that's what's at issue...

Men select based on looks primarily and on ability to support oneself and others secondarily.
Women select based on ability to support oneself and others primarily and looks secondarily.

The only double standard I see:

"Men without jobs are losers, I know I would never date one." <- Perfectly Acceptable.

"Women who are unattractive do not interest me, I know I would never date one." <- Perfectly Abominable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElboRuum (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 03:33 PM

30. That last bit was what I was getting at

 

men are judged as shallow for wanting a pretty mate.

Women are not judged as shallow for wanting a rich mate (it's just practical!).

In both cases they're selecting based on what they deem will make them happy. And yet one is acceptable, wise even, while the other makes you a barbarian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:07 PM

31. That's what's funny...

From a biological/evolutionary standpoint BOTH are perfectly practical (and therefore I guess legitimate) selection criteria. Men find what they find attractive because they are signs of genetic robustness and procreative success. By selecting for such a mate, they are increasing the odds that their children will enjoy the same genetic robustness and procreative success. Similarly, success as a hunter/gatherer (translating to modern time as a successful earner) is indicative of survival capability, intelligence, and ability to feed and protect the family unit.

So as it turns out, in different ways, both men and women are selecting for the same thing, the survival of and procreative viability of the next generation, thereby continuing the genetic line.

So both are wise to select the mates they do. So when I hear the idea that men are somehow shallow for choosing the attractive woman over the unattractive woman, I have to roll my eyes at it knowing its precisely the opposite, actually it's quite smart and savvy from an evolutionary standpoint. I know for a fact that if a man having poor financial prospects approached a woman for a date, she'd be performing the same sorts of downrating for her own genetic interest.

Of course, this reality fails to engage and support certain comfortable narratives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElboRuum (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 10:35 PM

36. This is where the double standard comes in

Certain women view the selection of a mate on their appearance as somehow "objectifying" or devaluing women while defending their own preference which is really just as instinctual and shallow, if not more so. It feeds into their whole flawed notion that women are somehow more highly evolved because their preferences are different and it also feeds the flawed notion that sex and sexual attraction is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:06 AM

37. True, but it is interesting that you put it that way...

It is this idea that women are somehow "more evolved" than men are that is particularly ponderous. I mean, it makes no rational sense. How can one gender in a species evolve beyond the other either in an intellectual sense or in a biological sense without becoming themselves procreatively non-viable? If a child is the product of the genetic code of a male and a female, how could the "more evolved female" come to exist when clearly the "inferior genetic makeup" of the male must be devolving it on each successive generation?

Yet the implication is always there in the rhetoric. Women have more evolved sensibilities, and they choose mates for positive, non-objectifying, intellectually affirmative reasons, while men just want some objectified eye-candy that will give them the erections they need to have sex... disgusting, penetrative, invasive sex which degrades women by its very nature. The implication is that not only is attractiveness a despicable, objectifying, degrading way to choose a mate, but it the ONLY criterion with which males select, and therefore other things like intelligence, philosophy, a sense of humor, kindness, and the myriad of other positive qualities which men find pleasurable in the company of a mate never do enter into it.

It's not a double standard, it's just plain old self-gratifying bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElboRuum (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:05 PM

38. "It's not a double standard, it's just plain old self-gratifying bullshit"

 

I would say those aren't necessarily contradictory ideas.

It's a double standard that is necessary to elevate themselves and denigrate others.

I am saintly and noble despite my foibles, they are scum because of their foibles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElboRuum (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 05:17 PM

41. Only a fool would look for reason in a concept that is completely unreasonable

So I can't understand it, which apparently I am faulted for since obviously I'm a man and have a vested interest in perpetuating the "patriarchy".

They are effectively saying what they think are virtues are the ones all women should value (when clearly this is not the case) and should apply directly to men (since the only difference between the two genders is the plumbing). It also turns out that the virtues they value happen to coincide with the virtues right wingers value. And while right wingers engage in slut-shaming with the motivation of controlling women and blaming victims, some feminists engage in slut-shaming with the motivation of freeing them from the "patriarchy". So ironically their motivations are nearly exact opposites, but the effect of their actions are exactly the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #41)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 06:14 PM

42. Reminds me of the Addams Family movie...

"They say a man who represents himself has a fool for a client... as God as my witness, I AM THAT FOOL!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 09:06 PM

35. You said something about not dating a man who doesn't work

That's a fair complaint....anyone who doesn't want to work without a good reason is not desirable period.

But what about a man who cannot find work? Would you dismiss a man struggling to find a job?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #35)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 07:20 PM

43. Here's the way I see it

If someone is going to pick a mate based on employment, the size of their thumb, wealth, or whatever, fine. Just don't try to say men are shallow for picking a mate based on looks or lack of kids when the reasons women pick a mate are no less shallow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 12:25 PM

26. People of any gender can select partners based on whatever criteria they wish.

The subject of stay at home dads never came up. I think that is a great arrangement for a family if that's what works for them.

I have never wanted children so it's not on my radar as part of partner selection.

Your characterization of the tone of that thread is... interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 07:38 PM

32. The reason the subject of stay at home dads is relevant

is because it is implied by the issue of course.

If men with no jobs are less able to find a partner, naturally the implication is that men have less of a chance to be stay at home dads. I am surprised that has to be spelled out to someone as intelligent as you.

"The subject of stay at home dads never came up. I think that is a great arrangement for a family if that's what works for them. "

I find that statement a bit disingenuous. We are not talking about your opinion or seabeyond's opinion on the subject. That is nice and all but does not really address the societal problem I described about men's true lack of such options.
It would be like if I said that "in my opinion, women shouldn't be harassed on street corners and I never do it" and I expected that to have some sort of effect or impact on the issue. It doesn't but it is appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #32)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 08:02 PM

33. A certain set of people on here

 

seem to believe they speak for all women.

I'm not sure why since they typically don't even express the common opinion of most women on here. Let alone the opinion of every woman ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #33)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 08:07 PM

34. Well they seem to think they're just sooo much smarter than the average bear...

 

I'm still waiting to see evidence that that's an accurate opinion for them to hold though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #34)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 09:16 PM

47. Evidence to the contrary is already there

One way to quickly spot a pseudo-intellectual is when they start labeling their ideas as "theory" in an attempt to gain more credibility than they deserve. You see this with creationists. In the world of science a theory is a model which describes something in nature and stands up to empirical testing. The central theme of rad-fem "theory" is that the "patriarchy" contributes to "rape culture" through the sexualization of women, and what better way to sexualize women than through porn? So the Dworkites claimed, based on this "theory" that the proliferation of porn would lead to increased incidence of rape. The problem was that the exact opposite happened. Porn proliferated while rape decreased. You have some right here on DU which flatly deny that the incidence of rape has decreased, even though it flies in the face of every criminologist in America (evidently they are simply tools of the "patriarchy". But you can hardly blame them because if they admit that Dworkin and her minions were wrong, then it naturally follows that rad-fem "theory" is also fatally flawed. That's what happens when your ideology trumps basic facts and reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #34)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:36 PM

55. Its the people who think "pro choice" means they get to be in charge of everyone ELSE'S choices

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 07:23 PM

44. They don't even speak for all feminists

They just speak for a radical version of feminism which happens to be quite counterproductive to even their own stated goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:51 AM

50. That's awfully generous of you.

No, really. The other 7 Billion or so of us thank you for being so lenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:44 PM

57. Once upon a time, men decided how to protect the women. This is called patriarchy.

 

Now, women decide how men should protect the women. This is called feminism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:52 PM

39. Thought you might be interested in this article

 

it goes along with the theme: http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/

At a moment in history when the American conversation seems to be obsessed with bringing attention to women in the workplace (check out “The End of Men,” or Google “gender paygap” for a primer), it seems a remarkable chasm between what we’d like to see (more women in the corporate ranks) and what we’d like for ourselves (getting out of Dodge). But it’s true: according to our survey, 84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.

What’s more, more than one in three resent their partner for not earning enough to make that dream a reality.


I can't imagine any man who lamented his wife not earning enough so that he could not work would get much sympathy.

In fact I do believe he would receive a criticism or two for expressing such an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #39)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 02:06 PM

40. Pretty interesting article...

This part, though I found very interesting.

“What every mom wants is time with her kids, financial security and a sense of identity,” says Morgan Steiner. “When you feel like you don’t have enough of any of those things and you see a woman who has made different choices than you, it’s easy to point fingers. We’re all looking for “having it all” in our own lives and not finding it… And that’s the moment when we start thinking it’s better on the other side of the fence.”


Funny, that first sentence could have mom replaced with dad and be just as true.

I think the culture of "having it all" is the problem. We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but to aspire to that as an achievable goal and represent it in popular culture as an achievable goal is ludicrous. If one had infinite time and infinite control and infinite resources, sure, we could have it all, but we don't so we make choices and live with their consequence.

Put another way, life's hard... for everybody... except for those who read Forbes, apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 08:22 PM

45. How is an unemployed man entitled to a date?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shitty Mitty (Reply #45)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 08:56 PM

46. "Entitled"?

Strange choice of words.

Is dating a gift that women give to men?

No one said they are entitled. What this points out is that women expect men to have money -implying of course that they want their nest feathered. Sociobiologically understandable but rather obnoxious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shitty Mitty (Reply #45)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:48 AM

49. because were entitled-y titled dooodley dooodz, silly! To be a dooooodly dood is to have a dastardly

phallus-based sense of horrific ENTITLEMENT!

Haven't you been paying attention???

In fact, if I were to adopt a title, it wouldn't be "Mr." or "Dr." or "Esquire", it would be "HIS ENTITLEDNESS WARR-EN GOD-DAMN TITLED DE-ENTITLED-EMONTAGUE, M%*^RF(%^RRrr!!!"

Because I'm a dooooodely doood, see.

And, I'm entitled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shitty Mitty (Reply #45)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:55 AM

51. I didn't see the word entitled anywhere until your comment

 

That's a pretty standard buzzword among some groups.

They'll take the argument that for instance porn shouldn't be censored to mean that "men feel they are entitled to unfettered sexual access to any woman's body at any time".

Noting a double standard doesn't claim an entitlement to anything (isn't it usually republicans who are railing against entitlements?).

If women say they prefer taller men does that prove they feel they are entitled to men of any height they demand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:04 PM

48. It would be interesting to see how age plays into this equation

One thing I've noticed is that the older I get, the more I've noticed women my age are more agressive in persuing mates. Perhaps this is just due to the change in culture where it's more acceptable for the women to be agressive, but it seems as if once people have the experience of one or more very serious relationships behind them, what they value in a prospective mate changes. I know single men my age that have no problem findiing a date, regardless of their employment status or wealth. This could also be due to the phenomena of online dating, which has apparently had the effect of transforming dating into a buffet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:59 AM

52. Older women have fewer options

 

the men their age are mostly married or dating younger women.

The younger men are mostly dating younger women.

That doesn't leave a lot left for the older single women. So that puts the power to choose in to the hands of the males. Meaning that women who fall in to that category have to act like doods and be more aggressive in pushing for a date. They can't sit at the bar and wait to be picked up anymore. So it pretty much flips the entire dynamic on its head. Men sit by the bar waiting for older women to come up and buy them a drink.

It's a remarkable turnabout.

/I'm sure women having to take the same chances men usually would take in the dating pool proves that the patriarchy is conspiring against them. Somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #52)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:16 PM

53. It does seem to be a seller's market

My wife and I were talking about it the other day. I manage to get hit on as much or more than she does these days (neither of us wear wedding rings). My single friends do seem to date younger women. I'm not sure I'd want to if I were single.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #53)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:35 PM

54. A while ago my wife and I

 

and some friends went to this bar that turned out to be a hot spot for cougars. We had not idea. But it became obvious after a short while. It was a remarkable people-watching experience.

There were groups of young men (maybe 20-24, this was a college town) that had clearly put a lot of work in to their appearance. Nice clothes, jewelry, expensive hair cuts, etc. They would hang out at the bar together while these older women (also dressed up) waited around at the periphery.

Occasionally one would approach one of the males and offer to buy him a drink. Sometimes this worked and they started chatting, eventually heading off together. Sometimes she got shot down and would try again with a different male. In every case it was the men who dressed up pretty and waited to be hit on while the women had to do all the work.

It was an exact 180 of the normal situation. It was . . . very entertaining.

/I'm curious if the usual offer of "some eggs" is appropriate in the morning and if the males are supposed to sneak out before anyone wakes up to avoid the walk of shame. I'm not sure how far the parallels extended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #54)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:37 PM

56. Funny you mention that...

 

About a year ago we were in Las Vegas with another couple and in a lounge at Cosmopolitan and saw this going on. We were speculating as to whether or not the young men were prostitutes or not, my girlfriend was intrigued but not wanting to be mistaken for expressing an interest wanted to return with a listening device to tape under the bar.

Interestingly more than a couple of them left with two older women...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread