Philosophy Now Forum

godelian wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 1:55 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 9:28 pm 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.

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2025 7:23 am ...men increasingly avoiding relationships because they do not want to invite the government into their bedrooms.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:15 am Unfortunately, love and relationships are often like a market...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:24 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:15 am Unfortunately, love and relationships are often like a market...

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

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:24 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:15 am 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:33 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:24 am
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 wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:33 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:31 am

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?

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

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:50 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:33 am
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 wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:50 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:38 am 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.

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.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:09 am 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 3:00 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:50 am
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.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:15 am 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.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 3:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 3:00 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 2:54 am

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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 3:43 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 3:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 16, 2025 3:00 am
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?