~♫~ Nancy Lorenz ~♫~

don't you just love how its always successful, professional women telling other women to go back to the kitchen and the bedroom and start making babies in between making their 'man' dinner?

strange how they never pick up on that contradiction.

and i read a great article last year about how women seeking rich mates was just Darwinism in action (partner most likely to have good traits in their sperm, like drive or strength, as well as being most likely to support said offspring), and what was more interesting was that successful women were not attracting males in a similar way - what does this mean for the future when the best female genetic/social talent is not passing it on?

From:

windtear.livejournal.com

You don't marry someone for a fucking CAREER move, you know?

Actually, up until fifty years ago, yes, you did. It was the only career women were allowed, after all. Things have changed, but not that much; I remember being in Year Nine, and hearing a girl in my class boast that she'd been engaged to a rich, titled man at the age of two by her grandfather back in Merrie Olde England. Many people do think that marrying money is a Good Thing.

The reason why men aren't marrying rich women is simple. Men are usually attracted to women they can (appear to) be superior in some way to; a beautiful, successful woman, however, is superior to them and they aren't able to handle that. To tell the truth, do we really want men like that?

From:

I say of most women in couples hat they married beneth them, which is true in too many case

but the issue with more successful women not marrying is that they spend most of their youth trying to attain a level of success that when it comes to having children, the primative instincts lead away from them because they are too old to successfully have children, and it is true, the older you get the less change you have of falling pregnant.

From:

1967 the ABC/Government stopped sacking women for marrying/falling pregnant, one of the last bastions of insanity was removed.

what I loved best about this era was that children whos parents were deemed not to be able to care for their children were taken off them (both aboriginal and white, the stolen generations). so if a husband left the family or died then the mother (who couldn't work) would lose her children. this didn't cease until the whitlam years.

but is it a mans fault that women want to nest, that woman want a man who can support a family financially when she wants to support them emotonally. is the man a whinger or just too slack to get off his arse and get a job

From:

I'm not sure that drive and strength are the "best" genetic/social talents of women in an evolutionary sense. Biologically, women are incubators, so if we subscribe to the idea that financially successful men are the natural selection ideal, then the proper companion for such a man would be a docile, domicile woman who is good at nurturing babies, not an equally strong, driven woman who will compete with her mate for dominance.

I don't think either of these types are ideal, although both have their place in society. I suspect the trend of women "marrying up", as the nauseating magazine editor on A Current Affair termed it, and seeking out relationships that are financially stable over emotionally stable ones is more complicated than Darwinism; if it is about biological "quality-seeking", it's also about ideological quality-seeking. Let's face it, our society is primarily sedentary and consumer driven, and a rich husband allows a woman to do nothing and still be able to buy all those things she needs to have a happy life.

It saddens me, but I feel sometimes that the success (not victory, because there's still some way to go, but there's definitely some success) of feminism has allowed the current generation of young women to become complacent about their position in society. Yes, our mothers and grandmothers fought to give us a choice between being kept women and being independent, and choice means that either decision should be equally acceptable. What I want is not necessarily what everyone else wants. But it still makes me sad when so many women are taking the route that, to me, looks like voluntary subjugation for financial reasons. If you want a man who can "take care of you" because you are a submissive person who likes being looked after, then...okay. That's not me, but I accept everyone is different. But surely the most important quality in a mate/husband should be somebody you love and who loves you, not somebody who can buy you diamonds and pay off your credit card debts?

From:

Hmm. The phrase "kept women" sounds a bit judgemental, on re-reading, and I don't really intend it to be. Possibly I should have said "a choice between being financially supported by a husband and being financially independent."

From:

I think that is somewhat unfair to men. I know plenty of men* who are attracted to powerful, successful and driven women, and in some cases they've had very successful and loving relationships. In other cases, the women have been too busy being driven to slow down for anybody else. And that's perfectly fine, any woman who would rather have a career than a romance should be able to do so without being scorned, but it isn't necessarily because men are horrid and selfish and don't like women who are richer and cleverer than them. There are men who are like that, certainly, but it's not all of them.

*although I'm willing to concede my personal circle of social interaction might not be the best cross-section of the Australian population!

From:

Yuck. I only saw bits of that program but it enraged me, too. It's not just that some women are doing that that upsets me, it's that current affairs programs are reporting it as if all women feel this way, and I resent that. Grrr!

From:

windtear.livejournal.com

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm getting what you're saying. I'm going to reply to what I think you're saying.

but is it a mans fault that women want to nest, that woman want a man who can support a family financially when she wants to support them emotonally.

I don't think it's a man's fault a woman wants to nest. The thing is that the men aren't in the picture. These women give the strong impression that they don't care what the man in question is like as long as he's rich. Doesn't a man have the right to have a wife who cares about him? It's a good thing if a man can support his family, but that shouldn't be the only reason a woman picks him.

is the man a whinger or just too slack to get off his arse and get a job

?? I don't understand what you're saying here.

what I loved best about this era was that children whos parents were deemed not to be able to care for their children were taken off them (both aboriginal and white, the stolen generations). so if a husband left the family or died then the mother (who couldn't work) would lose her children. this didn't cease until the whitlam years.

?? Loved? Also, I think you're mistaken. There are stories of white children being put in care but also stories of widowed mothers keeping their families together.

From:

oh, i'm not arguing that biology/evolutionary traits can or do explain the behaviour. That was just the line this article was exploring, and I thought I'd throw it up as a comparison.

Of course, why can't a man who desires that life find a female mate who is driven in complimentary ways...reminds me of a cartoon strip. "Don't mind him. He thinks gold digging should only be between a woman and a man..."

From:

windtear.livejournal.com

Nor is my circle the best cross-section, so we're both in the same boat!

I can see how my comment is a bit unfair, but it is based on my personal observations. You're lucky, meeting the guys the situation doesn't intimidate!

I suppose it comes down to personalities in the end, really.

From:

My social circle isn't the best sample either, but lets work with what we know ;) Of course, its interesting that we consider a male with a career AND a partner and/or children to be a "family man," yet a woman with the same attachments is described as "having it all."

Its not so much the work/home/nest/career thing that concerns me - its that there are two different scales of value and social recognition going on, depending on what the worker/homemaker keeps in their trousers!

From:

:) And it's an interesting line to take! I do think there's some merit in the idea, although as I said it's more complicated than that. The problem with LJ comments is that replying to something someone's posted makes it look like you're attacking them for saying the thing, rather than being thoughtful about what they said. D'oh.

Hmm. I wonder if there is a subculture of men who are trying to marry rich women so they won't have to do any work?

From:

LOL - tell me about it - I need a "thoughtful and pondering out loud" emoticon

I have strong personal opinions on this topic though - I once had a breakup where he described me as "too busy, too much thinking. Thinkingthinkingthinking...I can hear your brain whirring all the time..."

No loss to the gene pool,that one...

From:

Nice icon :)

Yes, the different evaluations of things based on what bits you have is frustrating. Consider also that a man who stays at home to look after the kids while his wife goes to work will often be applauded as a great father, whereas a woman who does that is just a normal mum; women are expected to look after the kids and the house even if they do have a full-time job, but men who do such things are going above and beyond.

From:

o_O Indeed. I cannot understand people who don't value thinking. You've got all that amazing equipment up there waiting to be used, make the most of it! I think you're well shot of that guy :-/

From:

i can't remember the details, but i (again!) read somewhere a survey where women listed they were "satisfied" with their male partners' contributions to the household if they did one hour of housework a week. If they did just 20 minutes more, they earnt a report of "exceeding expectations."

Maybe women should expect more, then they might actually get it (wow, that so sounds like an old feminist slogan!)

From:

berenicepotter.livejournal.com

UGH. Just...UGH.

From:

berenicepotter.livejournal.com

Icon love!

From:

berenicepotter.livejournal.com

Oh, and I just thought you may be interested
http://community.livejournal.com/art_100/profile

From:

boomstick.livejournal.com

Give me emotional stability and trust over a big bank account any time, baby.

From:

leopardeternal.livejournal.com

I would just like to point out that their was an article that I read a couple of years ago. And haveing been a couple of years ago I forget where I read it so I'm sorry I can't direct you to it. But the article was about a growing culture of stay home men. The women were the successful money makers and the men were the homemakers staying at home taking care of the kids and the house.

It just went to show that women and men were both equally capable of doing the others job, and equally willing. Hopefully that sets a balance to these women gold diggers. Sorry I can't remember the article.

From:

sl_walker

Word, word, WORD!

I married for love, not money. We're poor asses; we barely get by. But I'd rather be a poor ass with him than rich with anyone else.

From:

nicoli-dominn.livejournal.com

It's sickening, and I've never understood the idea of marriage for convenience's sake. It's not just the issue of independence and personal responsibility. Whatever happened to love?

From:

fyrdrakken

The thing that delights me with its rarity is when I read a piece regarding the tendency of smart and successful women not to be as likely to marry that doesn't report it as, "Ha ha, men don't like women who are smarter than/make more money than they do, so suck it up you feminist losers!" but rather as, "Women who are independently successful are more likely to figure they don't need a husband and/or refuse to settle if they don't find a man up to their high standards."

From:

fyrdrakken

I believe the phenomenon of the rich widow being pursued by male fortune hunters is well known through history, yes. (As is the traditional match seen in prior centuries of impoverished aristocracy seeking common-born heiresses with grubby mercantile fortunes.)

From:

fyrdrakken

I already posted a comment on this page regarding the way "successful women aren't as likely to marry" tends to get spun as "men don't want successful women" rather than "independent women are more likely to realize they don't need a man."

But then, this morning on my drive to work I was pondering the cultural indoctrination aimed especially at women designed to convince them that sexual or romantic relations are not to be engaged in for shallow fun (because then she's a "slut" and deserves to be treated like a disposable commodity by any man who wants to use her, runs the patriarchal subtext), but rather in a hunt for the One True Partner without whom her life would be incomplete. Note how fiction aimed at women tends to revolve around the Quest for Mr. Right, and how fictional heroines who are smart, successful and competent still are shown as feeling like failures for not also "having it all" and being shacked up with someone.

So, yeah. I went into this post and the ensuing discussion being annoyed at the marriage imperative and the ongoing effort to convince women that they really do need a man and it's a failure on their parts for not finding one to stick with. And never mind the number of relationships I've seen where the upshot was that the woman stayed with a real loser because she couldn't handle the thought of being single -- and yeah, I must note how many losers fell on the side of expecting their women to support them rather than contributing their fair share. So, yeah, money is a factor, and for some boneheads it's an excessive one (though I'm sure a lot are hoping to hit the jackpot like Anna Nicole Smith and manage to swing a shitload of money in a divorce settlement as their prize for hooking up with someone who's rolling in it for a few years, at which point they can seek True Love in comfort).

And not having seen the show in question, I can't speak for the actual tone, but it reminds me a bit of the blog post about self-reported "nice guys" who whine about women always going for assholes and who don't understand that they're in fact self-centered jerks with a major sense of over-entitlement regarding what they're "owed" by women in return for feigning sensitivity.

From:

Also, I think you're mistaken. There are stories of white children being put in care but also stories of widowed mothers keeping their families together.

I know two people who are members of the white stolen generation, my best friends mother, taken from her family in the 1950's in WA and my friend Paul taken from his family in NSW in the 1970's. In both cases they were "fostered out" to separate families to their siblings and they both only now know some of thier brothers and sisters.

is the man a whinger or just too slack to get off his arse and get a job

?? I don't understand what you're saying here.

There are two posibilities with the reporting of a current affair, one, that this guy is a resonable catch and that he is really getting gypped and he has a reasonable right to whinge, however this is a current affair so that is unlikely. whats more likely is that he is the type of guy that if you saw him walking down the street (prior to the ACA makeover) you would go past him and you would most likely walk past him at centrelink. this is not just the woman i me speaking but the wog in me... if they guy wont pull his weight financially, it is bye bye...

It's a good thing if a man can support his family, but that shouldn't be the only reason a woman picks him.

it is not the only reason, but it would definatly be a contributing reason... unless you are happy supporting a family on welfare. welfare is there as a safatynet, not as your employment.

From:

*g*

reminds me of the old quote. "The two most damaging inventions of the 17thC were romantic love and gunpowder."

From:

men after sugar mamas

From:

my best friend makes her husband do chores on the weekend before he can watch the footy etc... his chores are like working in the garden, mowing the lawn, cleaning the dog shit of the back lawn, waching the car, sweeping the floor. also when he is home he is responsility to look after the older of the two kids and put the little "angel" to bed he also baths the kids... so he does alot... a lot more than the average... but she makes sure he does...

From:

poitns to akire_yta and many others in these comments for making good points.

maybe the guy is single not because of his financial standing, but because he wont pull his weight in a relationship? I mean sure he might not have any money, but if he does all the cooking and cleaning instead and she earns the money, it is a fair and acceptable trade. if he is going to sit there stuffing around on the internet or watching tv while masturbating all day and complaining that he is single then he is worthless...

finance is a trade off for not doing other things...

and ACA never tells the whole story

From:

Stupid mates with stupid. Smart people don't mate because they don't want to bring their children up in unfortunate circumstances.

Human race degenerates. *sigh*

It's like some HG Wells scenario, really.

From:

No, not really. It makes it awfully difficult getting a man, though.. *sigh*

From:

I have no problem with women nesting. It's a natural instinct, it's normal. I have no problem with women staying at home to be mothers.

It's just the idea that they expect the man to do everything for them that shits me.

From:

Amen, darlin'.

From:

Yeah, I resent it, too.

From:

Prince Thicky-Thicko! (Sorry, I'm having a bimbo moment - I just woke up).

From:

Yeah. The government talks about rewarding new mums, but they don't reward dads that do the caring, do they? Just the women for popping them out. (It's very Nazi Germany to me - and no, it's not the end of the discussion cause I mentioned the N word!)

My Mum? She stayed at home being a mother for forty years. What's her thanks when Dad finally retires? She gets thrown onto Newstart and expected to find work - but she can't, cause she spent ALL that time raising her kids like a good mother should! :(

From:

"Expect more - you might actually get it." It's something I definitely want on a t-shirt. LOL!

From:

Well, it warms my heart to hear of that. Though I do think I'd be a better mother than a money-provider. Only because my skill set is for risky businesses, ie art and music.

From:

I'm very glad to hear this. I thought I was the only one that thought this way.

From:

LOL!

From:

No, it never ever does.

From: