As feminism has elevated the status of women, it has necessarily diminished the relative status of men. Fewer high-status men are available--and given the revealed male preference for sexual variety, they're likely also less willing to commit.
Feminism has diminished the romantic prospects of today's young women--and that is true even if, as McClintock suggests, socioeconomic homogamy trumps female hypergamy. As we noted last March, women graduating from American colleges increasingly outnumber men; the ratio fast approaches 3 to 2.
...
They suggest just as strongly, and to our mind more plausibly, that the traditional marital division of labor is better attuned to the biological differences between the sexes than is its reverse. If that's true, then the continuing march of feminism can be expected to leave many more unhappy women and men in its wake. Happy Valentine's Day.
33 comments
"Hypergamy" by one partner always implies "hypogamy" by the other, and if male vanity had not for years demanded that a wife be smaller, weaker, dumber, less economically potent, and more submissive than her husband, women would not have been marrying (or, more likely, being married off) "hypergamously".
As feminism has elevated the status of women, it has necessarily diminished the relative status of men.
Just like how giving the right to get married to gay people takes away the rights of straight people to get married.
Feminism has diminished the romantic prospects of today's young women
You mean that all of a sudden there are no guys out there who want to get laid?
the traditional marital division of labor is better attuned to the biological differences between the sexes
Because if you have a penis it's extremely difficult to do the dishes.
This is clearly not fundie. This is a WSJ article citing and discussing published research . Worth looking at the quality of the journals published in, but first glance doesn't look suspicious.
The author of the articles, Elizabeth McClintock, is an Assistant Professor at Notre Dame.
Her ND bio: http://sociology.nd.edu/faculty/faculty-by-alpha/elizabeth-mcclintock/
As feminism has elevated the status of women, it has necessarily diminished the relative status of men.
Free marketplace of status. If you can't compete without declaring yourself the winner by default then you don't deserve status.
As we noted last March, women graduating from American colleges increasingly outnumber men; the ratio fast approaches 3 to 2.
Again, if you can't compete without giving yourself a huge head start and even barring the competition then you don't deserve to win.
"As feminism has elevated the status of women, it has necessarily diminished the relative status of men."
As democracy has elevated the status of commoners, it has necessarily diminished the relative status of royalty.
"As feminism has elevated the status of women, it has necessarily diminished the relative status of men."
No, but thinking that lowers YOUR status.
"As feminism has elevated the status of women, it has necessarily diminished the relative status of men."
Yep... men are no longer considered better than women simply because they are men. Hasn't done a damned thing to other indicators of Status, but you don't care about that.
"Fewer high-status men are available"
Nope... just as many as before. See, your key word is "relative".
What you're complaining about is how you are no longer "above" women by virtue of gender and have to base your Statue on your merits... which you likely have none, as shown by your idiocy.
"They suggest just as strongly, and to our mind more plausibly, that the traditional marital division of labor is better attuned to the biological differences between the sexes than is its reverse."
So Jimmy, when are you and the other men in your cave forming a hunting party? Your women are looking for an opportunity to air out your bedding and knock down the flea and lice population.
@Doubting Thomas
Because if you have a penis it's extremely difficult to do the dishes.
Hey, you try loading the dishwasher around the morning wood! One wrong step and it's the soprano for you, boyo!
I'm feeling kind of circumspect. After I got over my revulsion at these words, I made a closer analysis of what was being said here. This writer is obviously intelligent and capable of expressing his thoughts clearly and succinctly.
As a result of this, I propose that fundies like this belong in a special category, and make for a good teaching tool: the failure to recognize your own biases and preconceived notions can result in some pretty bizarre conclusions. In that regard, this guy is no different from the proponents of eugenics in the first half of the 20th century, or the slavery apologists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The question then becomes: is it too late to show him his biases? Would he even be willing to receive such a demonstration?
3 sexist comments in a row? First the one by Krul, then the one by deti, and now this one?
Jesus Christ, how many of these does there need to be before we get a Sexists Say the Darndest Things section? And what's triggering so much misogny at this present time, anyway? I hate to think of what the MRA/Biblical Womanhooder reaction would be if Hillary Clinton became president...
Fine, be unhappy. I'm not obligated to make myself desirable for men. Especially when I'm dating a woman. I'll be over here, being happy with her, while you sit alone as a miserable wretch masturbating furiously to hentai and being on forums all day bitching about women.
Feminism has diminished the romantic prospects of today's young women
The young women I talk to think romance is great, but being strong and independent is better, and believe education is the key to their futures.
Is that what you're scared of, James?
Fascinating
Another thread of angry one liners and questions directed at someone who isn't a member of this site and won't read them.
Taranto's WSJ article has a comments section, why aren't you posting there?
I guess y'all shout advice at the characters on screen when you're watching a movie.
@Anonymous #1506885:
You can cite all the studies you want, but if your "analysis" is batshit crazy, it doesn't save you from the label "fundie."
In fact, if your data is right and you're still saying stuff like this, I'd say it's even crazier. Even an intelligent person will draw wrong conclusions with inaccurate data, but to take accurate data and produce drivel like Taranto does here takes a fundie's brain.
@1507031:
Who said it was sudden? MRAs have been on here for a while. If you need proof of their insanity just follow this blog .
@Professor Jimbo Spice:
Admittedly, we don't really expect any good to come of shouting at these people, most of whom never find out about FSTDT anyway. It's more of a release. Morons are in far too much political power today, especially in the US. This helps us vent our frustration. At least, that's why I do it.
Also, not all sources have comments on the sites themselves, so sometimes this is the only place to comment.
The reasoning is flawed, at best. First of all, if the first statement is right, why is it that there are so many few women in the hyerarchy of companies and CEOs?. And second, if men need women to be inferior to them in order to be happy, you know where the problem lies.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
