The impact of democracy on the nuclear family

[Gary Childress]

I think the idea of women working is so that they are not vulnerable to men preying on their financial insecurity to trap them into relationships that the women may not be as in favor of.

If a woman does not want a man to spend on her, don't worry, because he certainly won't. He won't refuse the sex, though. So, that explains quite well the bane of the modern woman: The man will indeed have sex with her but he won't spend one dollar on her. It is not men who complain about this outcome. So, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

If women are able to work and support themselves, then they can make decisions on relationships that are optimal for themselves as much as men can. That seems fair to me.

[Gary Childress]

Unfortunately, love and relationships are often like a market where people barter for the best deal they can get, and if you leave some members of the market unable to bargain for themselves, then a subservient caste is created.

[Immanuel Can]

...men increasingly avoiding relationships because they do not want to invite the government into their bedrooms.

It has nothing to do with the government or with democracy. It has to do with prosperity. When people can be wealthy and have advanced education, they tend to have fewer than the replacement rate of children, because they marry later in the fertility cycle, abort more before that, and only have as many children -- if they do -- as they happen to want to manage. It turns out that that's, on average, fewer than two.

The reproduction rates of all societies fall as they grow in wealth, leisure and options. That's not good, but it's cross-cultural and universal.

[Immanuel Can]

Unfortunately, love and relationships are often like a market...

That's not to be regretted. It's inevitable.

The realities and needs of men and women are different. A marriage in which the man gets all he wants is a bad marriage for the woman; and a marriage where the woman gets all she wants is a bad deal for men. Children add a third axis of concern in the negotiations, for their needs are not the needs of adults. If the adults all the get things their way, the children suffer.

Trade-offs, negotiations, and less-than-one-sided outcomes are inevitable. It just so happens that in Western democracies today, women hold all the cards in the legal system, and men have options other than marriage...so negotiations are optional. And many young men are saying, "Well, the table's tilted against me if I get involved in a legal arrangement, so maybe I just won't bother, since sex is free anyway." And many young women are wasting their fertile years on achievements other than marriage, and then finding out that the most desirable men have better options than them.

So it's not working out very well for the future of the nations.

[Gary Childress]

Unfortunately, love and relationships are often like a market...

That's not to be regretted. It's inevitable.

We all want to have all the power in our own pockets, unfortunately, it is not fair to others. That is always going to be regretted by those who would benefit from having a monopoly on leverage. That's all I'm pointing out.

[Immanuel Can]

Unfortunately, love and relationships are often like a market...

That's not to be regretted. It's inevitable.

We all want to have all the power in our own pockets, unfortunately, it is not fair to others.

Sure it is. In a market, both the "buyer" and the "seller" have to agree to the "transaction." A proper negotiation gets something for the buyer, and something for the seller, and both go on happily. But nobody gets everything they want, in such a transaction. And that's just how it is.

It has nothing to do with power. Power is not the basis of any healthy relationship.

[Gary Childress]

That's not to be regretted. It's inevitable.

We all want to have all the power in our own pockets, unfortunately, it is not fair to others.

Sure it is. In a market, both the "buyer" and the "seller" have to agree to the "transaction." A proper negotiation gets something for the buyer, and something for the seller, and both go on happily. But nobody gets everything they want, in such a transaction. And that's just how it is.

It has nothing to do with power. Power is not the basis of any healthy relationship.

Would you prefer women be barefoot and pregnant at 16 also? Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm arguing that both men and women ought to have access to the means to support themselves financially. Do you disagree?

[Immanuel Can]

We all want to have all the power in our own pockets, unfortunately, it is not fair to others.

Sure it is. In a market, both the "buyer" and the "seller" have to agree to the "transaction." A proper negotiation gets something for the buyer, and something for the seller, and both go on happily. But nobody gets everything they want, in such a transaction. And that's just how it is.

It has nothing to do with power. Power is not the basis of any healthy relationship.

Would you prefer women be barefoot and pregnant at 16 also?

What part of what I said would lead you to think that? I said nothing of the kind. However, are you thinking the choice is between pregnancy at 16 and spinsterhood? I don't see why that would be the case.

I'm arguing that both men and women ought to have access to the means to support themselves financially. Do you disagree?

I don't know. I don't know which men and women you're talking about. Sometimes they should, and sometimes they shouldn't. If making money is what keeps you from being a good parent or spouse, I'd say you've got the wrong priorities...whether you're male or female. But if you're providing the necessities for your family, I think that's very admirable, so long as you don't let that career take over from family.

[Gary Childress]

Sure it is. In a market, both the "buyer" and the "seller" have to agree to the "transaction." A proper negotiation gets something for the buyer, and something for the seller, and both go on happily. But nobody gets everything they want, in such a transaction. And that's just how it is.

It has nothing to do with power. Power is not the basis of any healthy relationship.

Would you prefer women be barefoot and pregnant at 16 also?

What part of what I said would lead you to think that? I said nothing of the kind. However, are you thinking the choice is between pregnancy at 16 and spinsterhood? I don't see why that would be the case.

That is Godelian's belief, not mine.

I'm arguing that both men and women ought to have access to the means to support themselves financially. Do you disagree?

I don't know. I don't know which men and women you're talking about. Sometimes they should, and sometimes they shouldn't. If making money is what keeps you from being a good parent or spouse, I'd say you've got the wrong priorities...whether you're male or female. But if you're providing the necessities for your family, I think that's very admirable, so long as you don't let that career take over from family.

Maybe this is difficult for you to grasp, however, giving economic power only to men, which is what Godelian seems to want, is not fair to women. Otherwise, I have no idea what your point is, but I think you misunderstand mine. At least I hope...

[Immanuel Can]

Would you prefer women be barefoot and pregnant at 16 also?

What part of what I said would lead you to think that? I said nothing of the kind. However, are you thinking the choice is between pregnancy at 16 and spinsterhood? I don't see why that would be the case.

That is Godelian's belief, not mine.

Well, you were the one who suggested the idea about girls getting pregnant at 16, weren't you? I had no such idea.

Maybe this is difficult for you to grasp, however, giving economic power only to men, which is what Godelian seems to want, is not fair to women.

"Economic power." There's your favourite word again: power.

Your view of relationships is a little jaded, I must say. They're not about power.

Here's a problem. Before the age of 30 single women have faster economic advances than comparable men. They get ahead fast. On the average, more of them are in higher education. At work, they get higher wages, faster promotions, privileged access to "equity" positions, and so forth. So they do very well...up to about 30, and as long as they stay single and work as many hours as a man would.

But women are hypergamous: that is, they want to marry men who are as wealthy or wealthier than they are. If most men are already behind most women by their late 20s, then the men have to marry down: that is, they have to select from women who make less money than they do. And the women won't marry any direction but up, economically, so they won't marry those men. But a high-earning man who wants to get married can certainly do so by 30, and doesn't need a wife who's going to be reproductively geriatric within five years -- for 35 is a geriatric pregnancy in women, medically speaking.

The high-earning men marry younger, more beautiful, more fertile women. The lower-earning men marry younger women too, because the richer ones won't have them, and because younger women are in their reproductive prime and are more desirable. Younger men have decided not to marry at all, in many cases.

So if you're a 30 year old, high-achiever, high-education, high-earner woman, who do you marry? More to the point, who wants to marry you?

Solve that problem, if you can.

[godelian]

If women are able to work and support themselves, then they can make decisions on relationships that are optimal for themselves as much as men can. That seems fair to me.

Many women are actually able to work and support themselves. Many men are freed from the need to spend their money on women. Men do not take responsibility, financial or otherwise, when they don't have to.

The arrangement is clearly optimal for the man. He gets to have sex while it costs him nothing. In a traditional setting, he would have had to spend for that.

The problem is that divorce courts still try to get men to pay. They apparently did not get the memo. So, it is certainly preferable not to sign civil marriage contracts.

Furthermore, children confuse the matter. They clearly disturb the arrangement. They often make it harder to entirely cut off the woman financially.

When the relationship is no longer "optimal", it is indeed a question of simply moving on. At that point, they are both older, but that is much more a problem for the woman than for the man.

You see, for example, if she is 38 and he is 42, finding the next person is easy for him but not necessarily for her. The relationship may not have been "optimal" but her situation post-breakup probably even less so.

But then again, breaking up when things are not "optimal" is actually fine for men, if that is what she wants. Seriously, why not? She gets to optimize whatever she wants, and he gets to replace her with a younger model. So, everybody should be happy.

[Gary Childress]

What part of what I said would lead you to think that? I said nothing of the kind. However, are you thinking the choice is between pregnancy at 16 and spinsterhood? I don't see why that would be the case.

That is Godelian's belief, not mine.

Well, you were the one who suggested the idea about girls getting pregnant at 16, weren't you? I had no such idea.

Maybe this is difficult for you to grasp, however, giving economic power only to men, which is what Godelian seems to want, is not fair to women.

"Economic power." There's your favourite word again: power.

Your view of relationships is a little jaded, I must say. They're not about power.

Here's a problem. Before the age of 30 single women have faster economic advances than comparable men. They get ahead fast. On the average, more of them are in higher education. At work, they get higher wages, faster promotions, privileged access to "equity" positions, and so forth. So they do very well...up to about 30, and as long as they stay single and work as many hours as a man would.

But women are hypergamous: that is, they want to marry men who are as wealthy or wealthier than they are. If most men are already behind most women by their late 20s, then the men have to marry down: that is, they have to select from women who make less money than they do. And the women won't marry any direction but up, economically, so they won't marry those men. But a high-earning man who wants to get married can certainly do so by 30, and doesn't need a wife who's going to be reproductively geriatric within five years -- for 35 is a geriatric pregnancy in women, medically speaking.

The high-earning men marry younger, more beautiful, more fertile women. The lower-earning men marry younger women too, because the richer ones won't have them, and because younger women are in their reproductive prime and are more desirable. Younger men have decided not to marry at all, in many cases.

So if you're a 30 year old, high-achiever, high-education, high-earner woman, who do you marry? More to the point, who wants to marry you?

Solve that problem, if you can.

You religious fundies are despicable. You'd have us all return to the middle ages, your "golden age". Yuck. No thanks.

[godelian]

Unfortunately, love and relationships are often like a market where people barter for the best deal they can get, and if you leave some members of the market unable to bargain for themselves, then a subservient caste is created.

If a woman insists that she is strong and independent, it mostly means that men are entirely exempt from spending on her. It actually sounds like music in the ears of a lot of men. They get to have the sex while also getting exempted from every responsibility, financial and otherwise.

In order to avoid confusing the matter, there should be no marriage, no cohabitation, and no children.

Otherwise, you will find that these so-called strong and independent woman suddenly want your money anyway. That is actually scammer-like behavior. First, they sell the idea that they don't need a man financially, but upon breakup they suddenly show up with family court papers, demanding money anyway.

No money means no money. If you are strong and independent, don't ever claim any money, because that amounts to thievery.

Concerning the subservient caste of strong and independent women providing free sexual services to a good part of the male population, well yeah, there is definitely a real demand for cheap sex, preferably even free of charge. So, it is probably a good thing that there is also a sizeable supply. These women are definitely more subservient than prostitutes, who at least get to claim their pay-per-meet fee.

Concerning bargaining for yourself, if you start out by saying that you will supply for free, then you will obviously receive exactly what you have bargained for.

[Immanuel Can]

That is Godelian's belief, not mine.

Well, you were the one who suggested the idea about girls getting pregnant at 16, weren't you? I had no such idea.

Maybe this is difficult for you to grasp, however, giving economic power only to men, which is what Godelian seems to want, is not fair to women.

"Economic power." There's your favourite word again: power.

Your view of relationships is a little jaded, I must say. They're not about power.

Here's a problem. Before the age of 30 single women have faster economic advances than comparable men. They get ahead fast. On the average, more of them are in higher education. At work, they get higher wages, faster promotions, privileged access to "equity" positions, and so forth. So they do very well...up to about 30, and as long as they stay single and work as many hours as a man would.

But women are hypergamous: that is, they want to marry men who are as wealthy or wealthier than they are. If most men are already behind most women by their late 20s, then the men have to marry down: that is, they have to select from women who make less money than they do. And the women won't marry any direction but up, economically, so they won't marry those men. But a high-earning man who wants to get married can certainly do so by 30, and doesn't need a wife who's going to be reproductively geriatric within five years -- for 35 is a geriatric pregnancy in women, medically speaking.

The high-earning men marry younger, more beautiful, more fertile women. The lower-earning men marry younger women too, because the richer ones won't have them, and because younger women are in their reproductive prime and are more desirable. Younger men have decided not to marry at all, in many cases.

So if you're a 30 year old, high-achiever, high-education, high-earner woman, who do you marry? More to the point, who wants to marry you?

Solve that problem, if you can.

You religious fundies are despicable.

Don't be a craven, and ad hom, Gary. It doesn't make you admirable, virtuous or attractive. Nobody's impressed. You're not defending women, because I've said nothing against them, and nothing that they don't also know is true. And nothing is even critical of any choice a woman might make. It's very, very modern and secular, and is a reality for many women. However, you don't answer, because you don't have an answer. There is none. It's just a reality.

And my point is simply this: everything is a trade-off. Marriage is a trade-off, and putting career ahead of marriage is a trade-off. Demanding to marry somebody richer than you is a trade-off. Marrying somebody younger is a trade-off. It's all trade-offs. You can make this or that trade-off, but what sense does it make to whine about what you get when you chose it?

[Gary Childress]

Well, you were the one who suggested the idea about girls getting pregnant at 16, weren't you? I had no such idea.
"Economic power." There's your favourite word again: power.

Your view of relationships is a little jaded, I must say. They're not about power.

Here's a problem. Before the age of 30 single women have faster economic advances than comparable men. They get ahead fast. On the average, more of them are in higher education. At work, they get higher wages, faster promotions, privileged access to "equity" positions, and so forth. So they do very well...up to about 30, and as long as they stay single and work as many hours as a man would.

But women are hypergamous: that is, they want to marry men who are as wealthy or wealthier than they are. If most men are already behind most women by their late 20s, then the men have to marry down: that is, they have to select from women who make less money than they do. And the women won't marry any direction but up, economically, so they won't marry those men. But a high-earning man who wants to get married can certainly do so by 30, and doesn't need a wife who's going to be reproductively geriatric within five years -- for 35 is a geriatric pregnancy in women, medically speaking.

The high-earning men marry younger, more beautiful, more fertile women. The lower-earning men marry younger women too, because the richer ones won't have them, and because younger women are in their reproductive prime and are more desirable. Younger men have decided not to marry at all, in many cases.

So if you're a 30 year old, high-achiever, high-education, high-earner woman, who do you marry? More to the point, who wants to marry you?

Solve that problem, if you can.

You religious fundies are despicable.

Don't be a craven, and ad hom, Gary. It doesn't make you admirable, virtuous or attractive. Nobody's impressed. You're not defending women, because I've said nothing against them, and nothing that they don't also know is true. And nothing is even critical of any choice a woman might make. It's very, very modern and secular, and is a reality for many women. However, you don't answer, because you don't have an answer. There is none. It's just a reality.

And my point is simply this: everything is a trade-off. Marriage is a trade-off, and putting career ahead of marriage is a trade-off. Demanding to marry somebody richer than you is a trade-off. Marrying somebody younger is a trade-off. It's all trade-offs. You can make this or that trade-off, but what sense does it make to whine about what you get when you chose it?

Utterly irrelevant. If you think women should not have the same economic opportunities that men do then you're living in the Stone Age. Stop trying to turn the clock back on us. Embrace enlightenment. Stop worshiping a demon God who drowns people and tests them by demanding that they be willing to sacrifice children. The God you worship says a lot about you.